Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Monthly Archives: March 2016


Dozens of killed in multiple terrorist bombings in Brussels. Under the very nose of the EU headquarters.

The common response of European politicians has been that they are “united”, in “solidarity” with Belgium, and “defending the values of democracy and freedom”.

Think about it. What does “united” mean here? Who is united, and for what purpose? What about this solidarity? And what does democracy and freedom have to do with Muslim terrorism?

Was there a danger of European nations not being united and in solidarity with each other? How would it look like if they weren’t? Could, Italy, say, or Poland, claim solidarity with the terrorists and say Belgium deserve it? That they’re happy Brussels got bombed? That’s absurd. It’s just not in the realm of possibility. European nations of course dislike Muslim terrorism and everybody feels sympathy with Belgians.

The only way that those statements by European politicians is to understand them in political partisan terms. European politicians aren’t speaking for their countries. They are speaking for themselves, and their parties. “United” means that they, as politicians, stay united with their friends in Brussels, their fellow politicians and bureaucrats. They stand united with their friends against their enemies, the far-right. “Solidarity” means they feel bad about their fellow Belgian politicians, and will keep on fighting the far-right so that the far-right can’t take advantage of their reasonable proposals against immigration and take power from their Belgian bureaucrat friends. “Defending our values of democracy and freedom” is not meant in contrast with Muslim terrorists, it is meant in contrast to the far right, who don’t share “our” (i.e. the EU elite’s) values.

So what is happening right now is that Muslims have killed dozens of people in Brussels, and politicians across the country are going on TV and print media to declare that whatever happens they will never agree with the far-right, and keep on enforcing the present leftist consensus. They came out to proclaim that they have no interest in solving the issue and prevent more terrorism; they have an interest in staying in power and keep the opposition, their competitors, out of power. The Muslims are not a threat to the EU. They can put a bomb now and then, kill more or less commoners, but they don’t have the capability of threatening the EU institutions, or any individual country.

The far-right, though, is a real and growing threat to the EU. They are aiming for the throat. A EU politician interested in keeping his job has a much bigger incentive for cracking down on the far-right, than he has for cracking down on Muslim terrorists. That’s why politicians across the EU now are “united in solidarity with our Belgian friends”. That’s not a figure of speech. They mean it literally. They are united in solidarity with their actual pals in Brussels, and will keep supporting their policies against the proposals of the far-right, whatever the actual results of those policies. Even if the present policies enable more terrorism. And obviously bringing 1 million Muslim immigrants per year doesn’t help.

That’s what it all means.

See more here:

Great Minds Think Alike

This book is written for those who are in sympathy with the spirit in which it is written. This is not, I believe, the spirit of the main current of European and American civilization. The spirit of this civilization makes itself manifest in the industry, architecture and music of our time, in its fascism and socialism, and it is alien and uncongenial to the author. This is not a value judgment. It is not, it is true, as though he accepted what nowadays passes for architecture as architecture or did not approach what is called modern music with the greatest suspicion (though without under standing its language), but still, the disappearance of the arts does not justify judging disparagingly the human beings who make up this civilization.

For in times like these, genuine strong characters simply leave the arts aside and turn to other things and somehow the worth of the individual man finds expression. Not, to be sure, in the way it would at a time of high culture. A culture is like a big organization which assigns each of its members a place where he can work in the spirit of the whole; and it is per fectly fair for his power to be measured by the contribution he succeeds in making to the whole enterprise. In an age without culture on the other hand forces become fragmented and the power of an individual man is used up in overcoming opposing forces and frictional resistances; it does not show in the distance he travels but perhaps only in the heat he generates in overcoming friction. But energy is still energy and even if the spectacle which our age affords us is not the formation of a great cultural work, with the best men contributing to the same great end, so much as the unimpressive spectacle of a crowd whose best members work for purely private ends, still we must not forget that the spectacle is not what matters.

I realize then that the disappearance of a culture does not signify the disappearance of human value, but simply of certain means of expressing this value, yet the fact remains that I have no sympathy for the current of European civilization and do not understand its goals, if it has any. So I am really writing for friends who are scattered throughout the comers of the globe.
It is all one to me whether or not the typical western scientist understands or appreciates my work, since he will not in any case understand the spirit in which I write. Our civilization is characterized by the word ‘progress’. Progress is its form rather than making progress being one of its features. Typically it constructs. It is occupied with building an ever more complicated structure. And even clarity is sought only as a means to this end, not as an end in itself. For me on the contrary clarity, perspicuity are valuable in themselves.

I am not interested in constructing a building, so much as in having a perspicuous view of the foundations of possible buildings. So, I am not aiming at the same target as the scientists and my way of thinking is different from theirs.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Early draft of the Foreword to Philosophical Remarks, 1930

My bolding and underlining. Replace “book” with “blog” and these are my thoughts exactly.

Baby socialism





Inquisition, for the most part. The corporate PR racket sells that diversity is a strength because having different people in your organization gets you different points of view, and that results in better input for discussions and thus better decision-taking. Which is exactly how it doesn’t work in practice. Racial diversity is welcome so long as everyone is strictly progressive, and USG has been busy promoting ideological uniformity across its whole empire. In recent years who basically can’t get a job if you are caught dissenting with the most trivial progressive dogma. As Trotsky had it, in capitalism those who don’t work shan’t eat; under communism those who don’t obey shan’t eat.

The argument itself is true, though. Actual diversity does bring different points of view, which can often be interesting. But that requires actual ideological independence. The ideological landscape in the West is completely owned by USG, and one can hardly found any original ideas that differ even slightly from the progressive platform. But far away in East Asia, people can afford to think for themselves. And they do, for the most part, producing actually interesting ideas. If there’s an argument for learning exotic languages, this is it. This blog is proof of that.

The talk of the street these weeks in Japan is a proposal for reforming pre-primary school, and making not only kindergarten (3 to 6 year olds) but even nurseries (0 to 3 year olds) part of mandatory schooling. This might sound similar to the recent “universal pre-K” idea in the US, but the argument here is not about the cognitive benefits of early schooling. The point is purely monetary: if woman are to join the workforce, as Japan’s Abe government has publicly proclaimed they must, well somebody should take care of the babies then. Nurseries as of today are regulated by the Ministry of Welfare, which has a bunch of agencies skimming the budget, so that nurseries are underbuilt and baby nurses has laughably low salaries. Corruption is rampant, and the law isn’t working, as there’s a severe shortage of available nurseries. The idea is to change the law to make nurseries depend on the Ministry of Education, and be run as normal schools. There’s no shortage of schools.

Interestingly enough, a similar debate has been going on in China for a while. While the countries are close by geographically, of course China is very different Japan in many ways. China is a communist one-party state, and it has no big issues with their workforce. What China and Japan do have in common is a dire demographic problem. Low fertility.

A while ago there was a post by some man called Ma Qianzu 馬前卒, writing about demographic policy. As many of you will know, China has had a One Child Policy for decades, which this year has been finally modified to allow 2 children per couple. The revision of the law of course caused a very big reaction in China, and people have been debating the issue for years. This Ma Qianzu guy is apparently an official intellectual, party member, who basically provides the smart version of government propaganda. He’s a smart commie. And there aren’t many of those, so people listen to this guy, even if they don’t agree with them (public opinion in China, at least among the young, is rabidly anti-government).

While Japan can often produce interesting policy ideas, in the end Japan is still a USG vassal, with tens of thousands of American troops watching over the country. China on contrast is an actually independent country, so they have much more freedom to think about policy in their own way. This article by Ma Qianzu was a good proof of that. It’s very first paragraph was such a good example of clear, frank thinking that one could never see in any Western publication. I couldn’t believe my own eyes. It made so much sense I got tears in my eyes. It said:


As long as the fear of downward mobility remains, opening up the One Child Policy won’t change anything. My peers reacted to the new law with derision, not because they can’t afford more children, but because a second child would impact their living standards, make the middle-class lifestyle they desire become unachievable.

The original wording is somewhat more dramatic. Downward mobility is stated as “falling from their class”. And ‘class’ is a very charged word in Communist China. Class struggle is still a mainstream concept over there. The guy is an official intellectual of the Communist Party: class struggle is what he writes about. Demographic policy in China is a function of Class Struggle. In this case, the white-collar middle class is refusing to breed because they fear the cost will make them drop out into the proletariat. And they aren’t having that.

The writer goes on describing why exactly having a second child would make people think that they would have to abandon middle-class living standards. He aptly says that the whole idea of “not being able to afford more children” makes no sense. Our parents, he says, were much poorer than we are (back in the Mao days), yet they all had plenty of children. Of course, children cost less back then; they played out in the street, went to free state schools, healthcare was unavailable so children would die every now and then, which if sad, was still accepted as something that happened. It was no big deal.

Today, though, people have much higher incomes. But that surplus income, and then some, has been taken over by skyrocketing school fees. “Malicious capitalists”, as he aptly puts it, are taking advantage of the status anxiety of people, and charging exorbitant fees for children books, cram-schools, and other assorted services for middle-class children. Competition to get into top colleges in China is fierce, so people spend every single dime they have to make sure their children have a chance. And then they complain they can’t afford more children.

Part of the issue, Mr. Ma says, is that schools close down too soon. Parents work late, until 8 PM on average, and children leave school at 5 PM. Kids have 3 hours without supervision, so the parents take them to cram schools if only to have them go to some place until they can leave work. Once you get them into cram school, though, the signaling spiral starts. Nobody wants to be that parent who takes his kid to the bad cram school. You want the good one, and the good one is worth money. So cram schools end up charging exorbitant tuition for lousy cram schools, and parents have their small precious discretionary income gone down the drain into education fees.

Well, the author rightly points out, as a Communist Country, we must not allow evil capitalists from taking advantage of the insecurity of our people and make rich from a signaling spiral. China should forbid private ownership of education facilities, cram schools included. Actually, cram schools should be forbidden, period. If children have to spend more time in school, then so be it. Have schools open until late, at least until their parents finish work. If kids are to study, let it be at good Communist schools, and not perfidious capitalist cram schools.

A problem with keeping kids at school until 10 PM is that… the schools don’t want the kids around. Parents today are increasingly litigious, and when a kid gets hurt at school parents waste no time suing schools for damages. Under firm Communist principles, that doesn’t do. Parents should be stripped of the right to sue schools for what happens to their children inside them. Children spent most of their waking time in schools, not at home. Schools have as much a right to custody over children than their parents do. Sure, people will complain that this goes against natural rights, the sacred property rights of parents over their children. But that, you’ll notice, is bad feudal Confucianism. And we are now a Communist country. So no more of that absolute parental rights nonsense. Kids aren’t their parents’. You didn’t build that.

At this point I started to get uneasy. Hey, hey. There’s a reason kids are regarded as being the property of their parents. Parents (generally) have an interest in their children’s welfare. Schools don’t. A school teacher can be an evil asshole and beat your kid for fun. Or ignore it while other kids bully him into suicide. Overly litigious parents are certainly a drag on the system, but to fix that you don’t need to change the whole legal idea of custody.

I got even more uneasy, outright anxious, when the author mentioned how in recent years we see more out-of-wedlock births, with women having children without husbands, and that is a good thing because it shows how old feudal family values are disappearing and moral progress is obviously good. The path to Communism! I didn’t see that coming. Don’t be fooled by the guy’s progressive nonsense; single-motherhood in China is, while certainly increasing, still extremely rare. And for good reason; there is no welfare. Chinese women don’t want to have children with their husbands as it costs too much; why would they be willing to have children on their own? That some skank gets knocked up once in a while is obviously just a proof of lack of foresight, not the vanguard of future Communist birth ethics.

Now the whole idea of socializing children in China, or mandatory universal pre-K for 1 year olds in Japan has the common idea that child-rearing is a cost, in both labor and money, and that if the state took care of that cost, people would have more children. And yes, sure, up to a point, child rearing costs money, and it can be a hassle. Some people enjoy taking care of babies, but some people sure don’t. I know of plenty of women in Japan who went to work because they found their cubicle jobs easier than their annoying babies. For these people, subsidized daycare would be a godsend.

But there’s another side to that equation. If you reduce the costs, you make it easier to consume. But what’s the incentive for having kids anyway? If your children are going to be closed up in some government facility for 12 hours a day since age 1 until they leave to college and never come back; what’s the point of having children at all if you don’t get to see them?

Let’s face it, the demand for children in developed countries today is effectively indistinguishable from the demand of pets. People have children because they are adorable, small and cuddly, and many people enjoy having some small cutesy thing to care of.

In the old days, people didn’t have pets. They had livestock, they had animals to use them. You had a dog to hunt, or watch the house, you kept a cat so he would eat mice and other vermin. You had cows to milk, pigs to eat, chicken to give you eggs. You didn’t take care of animals, take pictures of them, find them cute, watch them or buy them clothes. You had them outside, treated them like shit, and efficiently exploit them as an economic resource. You had as much livestock as you could afford, as they were supposed to be a profitable resource.

Not today though. People don’t have animals, because it’s cheaper to buy animal products in the supermarket. People who have animals today have them as pets; as small cutesy things to make them company. You pet them, cuddle them, take pictures, watch their every reaction with amusement.

In the same way, in the old days people had children as a resource. Kids weren’t found to be cute (the word itself didn’t exist until the 19th century); they were annoying brats to be trained into farm hands or money earners for the family. People sent their children away as soon as 8 years old, and had no emotional hangups about it whatsoever. People had a lot of children because they were profitable, or at least there was a gambling chance of getting  an awesome kid who raised the whole family out of poverty.

Today though, kids today are a cost, not a profitable resource. And so people have don’t have large families the same way they don’t have livestock anymore. They have kids like they have pets, as small cutesy things that give them company. Things to watch and enjoy. People actually use the same vocabulary to refer to both children and pets the same way. Some people actually call their pets “children”!

The children market, such as it is, is determined by the demand of pets. Having the government socialize the costs of childrearing might help a bit on the margin, but it won’t shift the fundamentals of the market. The fundamental issue is that children aren’t profitable, and there’s no market incentive for having large families.

Social Matter had a characteristically childish post where they made a more or less accurate assessment about why present policies are wrong, but remained completely clueless about what could possibly fix the issue. “It’s not about money”. Indeed it’s not about the money. Children don’t make money and people have internalized that over the last 100 years. And that’s why people don’t have more than 1 or 2 children; the same way people don’t generally have more than 1 or 2 cats. To create incentives for people to have large families there’s only one way to do it.

Make it again about money. Change tax incentives so that childless people get their tax burden tripled, while large families are tax free. Make it profitable. Bureaucrats, East and West, are obsessed with socializing anything. But we have decades of experience with market incentives. People like money more than they like kids. At some point somebody is going to have to say it.

Artificial Intelligence

So some group owned by Google has beaten the world champion at Go.

The singularity is nigh, or something.

Before Skynet lords over all of us, may I suggest that they try to build a semi-functional AI at playing Civilization. Or Europa Universalis IV. That would have more of an effect on actual humans than an actual Skynet.


Sailer quoted Disraeli  (d’Israeli, originally) saying “all is race”. I got curious and Googled the guy, and damn.

I don’t know if England has lost 15 IQ point on average since that time, as Charlton says. But Parliament speeches have lost even more than that.

Some samples from

The noble lord in this case, as in so many others, first destroys his opponent, and then destroys his own position afterwards. The noble lord is the Prince Rupert of parliamentary discussion: his charge is resistless, but when he returns from the pursuit he always finds his camp in the possession of the enemy.
Speech in the House of Commons (24 April 1844), referring to Lord Stanley; compare: “The brilliant chief, irregularly great, / Frank, haughty, rash,—the Rupert of debate!”, Edward Bulwer-Lytton, The New Timon (1846), Part i.

Heh. Prince Rupert being famous for being the best general to lose the English Civil War.

London owes everything to its press: it owes as much to its press as it does to its being the seat of government and the law.

Probably true. Not a good thing though.

Sir, it is very easy to complain of party Government, and there may be persons capable of forming an opinion on this subject who may entertain a deep objection to that Government, and know to what that objection leads. But there are others who shrug their shoulders, and talk in a slipshod style on this head, who, perhaps, are not exactly aware of what the objections lead to. These persons should understand, that if they object to party Government, they do, in fact, object to nothing more nor less than Parliamentary Government. A popular assembly without parties–500 isolated individuals–cannot stand five years against a Minister with an organized Government without becoming a servile Senate.

It did eventually become that anyway, though.

First, without reference to England, looking at all countries, I say that it is the first duty of the Minister, and the first interest of the State, to maintain a balance between the two great branches of national industry; that is a principle which has been recognised by all great Ministers for the last two hundred years…Why we should maintain that balance between the two great branches of national industry, involves political considerations—social considerations, affecting the happiness, prosperity, and morality of the people, as well as the stability of the State. But I go further; I say that in England we are bound to do more—I repeat what I have repeated before, that in this country there are special reasons why we should not only maintain the balance between the two branches of our national industry, but why we should give a preponderance….to the agricultural branch; and the reason is, because in England we have a territorial Constitution. We have thrown upon the land the revenues of the Church, the administration of justice, and the estate of the poor; and this has been done, not to gratify the pride, or pamper the luxury of the proprietors of the land, but because, in a territorial Constitution, you, and those whom you have succeeded, have found the only security for self-government—the only barrier against that centralising system which has taken root in other countries.

Again, it only took a couple of wars to centralize power anyway.

I say, then, assuming, as I have given you reason to assume, that the price of wheat, when this system is established, ranges in England at 35s. per quarter, and other grain in proportion, this is not a question of rent, but it is a question of displacing the labour of England that produces corn, in order, on an extensive and even universal scale, to permit the entrance into this country of foreign corn produced by foreign labour. Will that displaced labour find new employment? … But what are the resources of this kind of industry to employ and support the people, supposing the great depression in agricultural produce occur which is feared—that this great revolution, as it has appropriately been called, takes place—that we cease to be an agricultural people—what are the resources that would furnish employment to two-thirds of the subverted agricultural population—in fact, from 3,500,000 to 4,000,000 of people? Assume that the workshop of the world principle is carried into effect—assume that the attempt is made to maintain your system, both financial and domestic, on the resources of the cotton trade—assume that, in spite of hostile tariffs, that already gigantic industry is doubled…you would only find increased employment for 300,000 of your population…What must be the consequence? I think we have pretty good grounds for anticipating social misery and political disaster.

Talk about modern relevance.

But this principle of race is unfortunately one of the reasons why I fear war may always exist; because race implies difference, difference implies superiority, and superiority leads to predominance.

Yes, yes, yes.

The movement of the middle classes for the abolition of slavery was virtuous, but it was not wise. It was an ignorant movement. It showed a want of knowledge both of the laws of commerce and the stipulations of treaties; and it has alike ruined the colonies and aggravated the slave trade…The history of the abolition of slavery by the English and its consequences, would be a narrative of ignorance, injustice, blundering, waste, and havoc, not easily paralleled in the history of mankind.

It took a Jew to say that.

All is race — there is no other truth.


The Jews represent the Semitic principle; all that is spiritual in our nature. They are the trustees of tradition, and the conservators of the religious element. They are a living and the most striking evidence of the falsity of that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the natural equality of man. The political equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal arrangement and depends entirely on political considerations and circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequence on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled and who would then be their superiors.

Tears in my eyes. The last 170 years have been completely lost.

The characteristic of the present age is craving credulity.

It got worse, my lord. Much worse.

In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines.

He could’ve given a bit more punch to that. Change it to “in deference to the traditions of a people, or in deference to obscure, unfalsifiable and preposterous abstract claims made by idle people to signal their empty virtue.

King Louis Philippe once said to me that he attributed the great success of the British nation in political life to their talking politics after dinner.

As opposed to before?

Muh Faith, 2

Let me first say that my previous post wasn’t about shitting on Mormonism or on Mormons as a whole. I have many Mormon readers, and they have been kind to me. I’m a great fan of Mormons and I wish more people were like them.

That said, I think Mitt Romney is an evil profiteer and a dishonest hack, “weeping” when his church finally kneeled to Leftist pressure and accepted blacks in their church. Aren’t you supposed to follow your church leadership, whatever they say? Why do you weep when they say something which just happens to be good for you? You’ll note that Mitt Romney’s father was the man who presided over the Detroit riots, and made a career of his “moderate” conservatism, i.e. swimming left and dragging his church with him.

Rumor has it the GOP establishment wants to nominate Romney again. Which again shows they don’t really want to win. If all they want is to lose, they could nominate Cruz and lose even worse. But what they want is to send a message about what is tolerated. People like Trump will be crushed; people like Cruz aren’t tolerated either. People who weep when freedom of association is abolished in favor of blacks are to be favored and lionized.

A common theme of this blog is that people using religion for their personal benefit is not only possible; it’s to be expected. People tend to take religion seriously only to the extent that interests them. See an even more jarring example.

The Pope, Francis I, had this to say in a recent meeting with a group of “French Social Christians”. I take it there are other French Christians which aren’t social. There he said (Google Translate works well with Italian):

“Emmanuel Levinas bases its philosophy on the meeting with the other,” sums up Francis. “The other has a face. We must go out of ourselves to contemplate. “The adventure of the caravels would therefore something metaphysical? “From Magellan onwards, he has learned to look at the world from the south. That’s why the world is best seen from the periphery to the center and I understand better my faith from the periphery, but the periphery can be human, linked to poverty, health, or a feeling of existential periphery “. We understand well the importance of this issue has taken on in the preaching of Francis.

Emmanuel Levinas being some Jewish philosopher bullshit artist who made a killing in France, the mecca of all bullshit artists. Apparently the Pope takes his insight from Jewish philosophers, instead of the Catholic catechism.

“There’s something that bothers me,” the Pope said. “Of course, globalization unites us and thus has positive aspects. But I think there are good and less good globalization. The less good can be represented by a sphere: every person is equal distance from the center. This first scheme separates man from himself, uniformizes him and eventually prevents him to express himself freely. The best globalization would be quite a polyhedron. All are united, but every people, every nation, retains its identity, its culture, its wealth. The stakes for me is this good globalization, which allows us to keep what defines us. This second vision of globalization allows to unite people while preserving their uniqueness, which favors dialogue, mutual understanding. So that there is dialogue, there is a condition sine qua non : starting with his own identity. If they are not clear with myself, if I know my religious, cultural, philosophical, I can not turn to another. There is no membership dialogue “.

Got it? Me neither. That’s the crap the Catholic Church is selling these days. The global polyhedron.

“The only continent that can bring some unity to the world is Europe,” the Pope added. “China has perhaps a more ancient culture, more profound. But only Europe has a vocation of universality and service. ” Francis returns then on the theme of his speech in Strasbourg, on 25 November 2014, when he compared Europe to a grandmother a little ‘tired. “But here is the mother became a grandmother” sorridecon a hint of irony. I think of the biblical stories, the old Sarah who laughs when he learns that gets pregnant. The question may seem strange, but I can not not do it. It’s too late? Grandma can once again become a young mother? “A head of state I have already asked this question,” replies the Pope. “Yes, it can. But under certain conditions. Spain and Italy have a birth rate close to zero. France gets along better because he built a family policy that encourages the birth. Being a mother means having children. “But the renewal is not only quantitative. “If Europe wants to rejuvenate, he must rediscover their cultural roots. Of all the Western countries, Europe has the stronger and deeper roots. Through colonization, these roots have even reached the new world. But forgetting its own history, Europe weakens. It is then that risks becoming an empty place. “

Don’t get it? It doesn’t make a lot of sense. Europe having “a vocation of service”. The grandmother becoming a young mother. Rejuvenating by rediscovering cultural roots. Come on Francis, what are you talking about? Spell it out.

We can speak today of Arab invasion. It is a social fact, “he says with detachment, as if observed that the weather is cold. But he immediately added – and theorists of the “Great Replacement”, dear to the far right, would remain disappointed – “how many invasions has experienced Europe in the course of its history! But he has always been able to overcome herself, go ahead then they find themselves as increased by the exchange between cultures.

Now I get it. He finally said it, Francis. We are under an Arab invasion. That is a fact. But it’s no big deal! We have been invaded before, amirite? And we’re still around, amirite? What, untold numbers of people were killed, mamed, raped and kidnapped during those past invasions? The Arab invasions of the past were only repelled by physically expelling the Arabs after centuries of fighting? Details, details. The Pope doesn’t bother himself with details. He has more important things to care about. The Big Picture. The Polyhedron. The Other.

A while ago I quoted Scott Atran on religion being a coordination mechanism based on preposterous assertions (as I had put it previously, unfalsifiable crap), which are useful to check out who is loyal and who isn’t. Turns out it doesn’t really need to be preposterous or unfalsifiable. You can say obviously false things and still get away with it as long as your frame is strong enough. Or as long as you have power.

Muh Faith

MR. RUSSERT:  You, you raise the issue of color of skin.  In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court, Brown vs.  Board of Education, desegregated all our public schools.  In 1964 civil rights laws giving full equality to black Americans. And yet it wasn’t till 1978 that the Mormon church decided to allow blacks to participate fully.  Here was the headlines in the papers in June of ’78. “Mormon Church Dissolves Black Bias.  Citing new revelation from God, the president of the Mormon Church decreed for the first time black males could fully participate in church rites.” You were 31 years old, and your church was excluding blacks from full participation.  Didn’t you think, “What am I doing part of an organization that is viewed by many as a racist organization?”

GOV. ROMNEY:  I’m very proud of my faith, and it’s the faith of my fathers, and I certainly believe that it is a, a faith–well, it’s true and I love my faith.  And I’m not going to distance myself in any way from my faith.  But you can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at, at our lives.  My dad marched with Martin Luther King.  My mm was a tireless crusader for civil rights.  You may recall that my dad walked out of the Republican convention in 1964 in San Francisco in part because Barry Goldwater, in his speech, gave my dad the impression that he was someone who was going to be weak on civil rights.  So my dad’s reputation, my mom’s and my own has always been one of reaching out to people and not discriminating based upon race or anything else.  And so those are my fundamental core beliefs, and I was anxious to see a change in, in my church.

I can remember when, when I heard about the change being made.  I was driving home from, I think, it was law school, but I was driving home, going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  I heard it on the radio, and I pulled over and, and literally wept.  Even at this day it’s emotional, and so it’s very deep and fundamental in my, in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God.  My faith has always told me that.  My faith has also always told me that, in the eyes of God, every individual was, was merited the, the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter, and I, and I had no question in my mind that African-Americans and, and blacks generally, would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had and that God is no respecter of persons.




The Limits to Evil

With all the recent talk of Facebook’s Zuckerberg and that fag who runs Twitter about ramping up censorship against dissenters from Leftist orthodoxy; Twitter running an Inquisition Council and shadowbanning people, and Zuckerberg promising Merkel to delete posts against the Arab invasion of Germany; I gotta admit I was very worried. I believe everyone would be better off leaving social media; but such naked shows of force by the Left against the common people does make one feel very vulnerable.

You can’t beat the government; and you shouldn’t try. But there are limits to what a bureaucracy can do. At the most basic level, there’s administrative hurdles of just how much work a bureaucracy can pull off. Facebook is supposed to silence all voices opposing the Arab invasion of Germany. But Facebook is having a lot of trouble shutting up Trump supporters completely trashing all voices of the Establishment.

Screen Shot 2016-03-04 at 01.04.06Screen Shot 2016-03-04 at 01.04.33Screen Shot 2016-03-04 at 01.04.47Screen Shot 2016-03-04 at 01.04.21

I don’t know if Facebook is unable, just doesn’t have the personnel to delete every single Trump-ist, or if American law forbids them from deleting stuff. Twitter bans and deletes with abandon, so it shouldn’t be legal stuff. And I feel Zuckerberg would rather like to ban every single Trump supporter. Surely Romney would like to have a friendly comment on his Facebook page, at least one single comment who doesn’t tell him he is a disgusting slime. Alas.

Maybe we just have to overwhelm the censors.

Trump and the GOP

A short reminder that the GOP would obviously prefer to lose the election rather than have Trump win. It’s an obvious principal-agent problem.

By “GOP” I mean the GOP Establishment, Conservatism Inc., the pundit and election consultant industry, etc. All those people have cushy jobs, good incomes, fancy lifestyles and some degree of mainstream respect (or at least, toleration) from the Left.

Trump winning the election will give them absolutely no personal benefit. The politicians would have to deal with a brash and aggressive outsider, which is annoying. But think of the pundits and consultants. They are livid, and for good reason. Trump is obliterating their business model. He’s winning the primary without spending a dime on them, and saying exactly the opposite of what they get paid for saying. Jeb Bush spent 150 million dollars on them, and he went to hell. Now think about that for a minute. 150 million dollars. That’s a lot of money. That money went somewhere. It paid for lots of houses, cars, clothes, school tuition, restaurant fees, etc. Thousands upon thousands of people live off that sort of money.

Trump may be nominally part of the same thing, i.e. the “Republican Party”, but what’s in a name? Trump is a direct threat to all these people, and a not trivial threat to politicians who have made a career of being the tolerated opposition of the Progressive Soviet. If Hillary wins the election, these people will suffer nothing. Well, some of their donors may find it harder to get things done, and their donations may decrease a little. But probably not by much. Trump, on the other hand, is aiming for their throat. If Trump wins these people will suffer very real damage. Their family’s lifestyle will be in jeopardy. So of course they’ll sabotage anything Trump does.

Either Trump runs divide and conquer and plays one against the other, or he brute-forces his way to power by bringing enough new votes to compensate the loss of the upper-middle class vote. Average turnout in American elections is low enough for the latter to be possible, but it won’t be easy.


A good example is better than the best explanation. See how the NYT describes their new strategy against Trump:

In Minnesota, a Muslim Immigrant Explains Why She Is Supporting Trump

RICHFIELD, Minn. — When Fadumo Yusuf showed up at a Donald J. Trump rally here wearing a gold hijab, she was practically mobbed by campaign volunteers.

A Trump sticker made its way onto her hijab, and she was handed a large Trump sign and directed to the front of the group, so she could be interviewed by a local news station.

Ms. Yusuf, 34, a Muslim immigrant from Ethiopia who lives in Minneapolis, and her husband appeared to be the only nonwhites among roughly 300 people who gathered Sunday at the American Legion in this Minneapolis suburb.

One volunteer begged her to do an on-camera interview. “You are a brave, beautiful woman, and I’m proud of you,” the volunteer told Ms. Yusuf, who obliged. Chris Hupke, a Trump adviser, posed for a picture beside Ms. Yusuf, flashing a thumbs-up and then asking for her name. (Her husband was largely overlooked.)

“From the minute I came inside, everybody welcomed me,” Ms. Yusuf said. “It showed me a different thing — not hate but love.”

Ms. Yusuf is well aware that her decision to caucus tonight for Mr. Trump will surprise many people — and that the sight of a hijab-wearing Muslim holding a Trump sign can cause people to do a double take.

She does not pretend to agree with Mr. Trump’s proposal to bar Muslim immigrants from entering the country. “That was hurtful,” Ms. Yusuf said.

But she does not consider Mr. Trump a bad person, just ill-informed.

“I believe he has a heart, so I will overlook that,” she said. “He doesn’t know a lot about the Muslim community. I want to give him a chance to see who we are. We are not terrorists. We are great Muslim Americans. We are his people.”

It’s clear Ms. Yusuf has mixed emotions about Mr. Trump’s stance on immigration. As an immigrant, she empathizes with the plight of Mexicans pursuing a better life in the United States. “We need the wall,” she said, “but I’m concerned also about their lives, because they are seeking help.”

And she hasn’t read up on his proposal to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, which gives her pause. “When he says illegal immigrants,” she asked, “what does he mean by that?”

What does propel her is the belief that Mr. Trump can be, as he has boasted, “the greatest jobs president that God ever created.”

Since earning an accounting degree from a community college in St. Paul in 2010, she said she had applied for more than 20 accounting positions and had not received a single offer. In her view, she has done her part to achieve the American dream, but America hasn’t upheld its end of the bargain.

“I feel cheated,” Ms. Yusuf said.

Instead, she’s working two part-time jobs — earning $11 an hour as a physical therapist assistant and $9 an hour working in child care — and pouring all of her income into rent. To cover other expenses, like diapers and wipes for her 15-month-old son, she’s borrowing on her mother’s credit card.

“It feels to me like: ‘You should be better than this. You shouldn’t be using your mom,’” she said.

Yet Ms. Yusuf is optimistic about the future. She said she trusted that Mr. Trump could create more good-paying jobs, bring some back from overseas and lower taxes so small-business owners could make additional hires. Then everything will start adding up again, she said, and life will be easier for her and her five children.

“We need to support Trump for a great America,” she said.

They’re not trying very hard to hide it, are they? “I believe he has a heart, so I will overlook that,” she said. “He doesn’t know a lot about the Muslim community. I want to give him a chance to see who we are. We are not terrorists. We are great Muslim Americans. We are his people.”

Yeah, right.