Friday, December 24, 2010

Too Many Cookies

I ate too many cookies today.  I am miserable.  It is all my fault.

This isn't some kind of "poke fun at your own decadence" thing where you're supposed to laugh that you'll pay for it next time you step on a scale.  I am physically very uncomfortable, because my blood sugar has almost certainly plunged, but I ate enough decent food in addition to my cookie overload that there is simply no room in my stomach for anything decent.  I am thirsty, I have a very strange headache which I cannot locate except to say it seems to be "following my brain around", I can't find a comfortable position to sit in, and I desire to simultaneously have much less and much more in my stomach.

Anyway, the silver lining is that this is all caused by my flirtation with paleo-paleo living.  I'm not as serious about paleolithic eating as OneSTDV, but I've kept in mind his advice to eliminate grains and sugars in mind when planning meals.  Accordingly I've reduced pastas, white breads (but not pumpernickel, which I love even though it's not all that much better than white breads), certain legumes (soy and peanuts), and especially sugar.

I've felt a lot better over the last couple of months but apparently I've lost my tolerance for ordinary Christmas eating.  That's the awful truth: eating 20 or 30 cookies over two days wasn't out of the ordinary for most of my past holiday seasons.  Having repeated this behavior without the associated tolerance I can feel how bad it really is for human physiology.  Nature is finally giving me the punch in the chops it has owed me for years.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

B Lode Drops the Masque

My southern hemisphere friends over at M4 Monologue asked me where my odd pseudonym comes from. If you're curious, you can hunt around over there for the true answer, which I assure you is quite mundane.  For a far more interesting, if less factual, answer, I give the following:

I am the Baron Lyaksandro Olave d'Estienne, the great Ukrainian-Manx-French nobleman who has been in hiding since 1963, hunted mercilessly by the combined forces of the Rosicrucians, the Shriners, and the DGFI.  Should they ever learn my whereabouts I am certain my life would be forfeit.

Thankfully, Blogger has allowed me to conceal my whereabouts even as I reveal my identity, hitherto suppressed.  I can only reveal that my small cottage at the sea, though spartan, is surrounded by the most beautiful sights and sounds a fugitive like myself could hope for.

As to my family, well, the exploits of my paternal grandfather, Victor Bruno, Baron d'Estienne, are well-enough known that to rehash them here would make me quite the braggart.  I'll only recommend that curious readers, if they desire, read up on the Ukrainian and Manx branches of my family tree as well.

Suffice to say that I am happy in my current life, a grizzled old man with only a loyal mastiff and a bushbaby for company, hoping to contribute my two rupees to the right half of the blogosphere.  Admirers and detractors need not type out my full name, of course; it would be more parsimonious to simply abbreviate my moniker to B LOdE, or, if camel case seems too awkward, B Lode.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Anti-White Bigotry: I don't think this one is a joke

Technically, this should be called "anti-non-Hispanic bigotry" but that is too cumbersome.

Around 84 million Mexicans may qualify as "trusted travelers", allowing them to bypass certain checkpoint procedures if they go through a rigorous background check.  They will be able to use machine-readable cards at kiosks, in order to speed up their passage through.

Read it, write about it, pass it on to your friends.  We should remember when and how this happened.

Monday, December 13, 2010

I Identify with the Horse (My Strangest Post Yet)

To people who know me, it goes without saying that the repetitious nature of supermarket / shopping mall Christmas music makes it harder to enjoy the season.  I've heard those songs every year for going on four decades now; they've lost their novelty.

And most are novelty songs.  Those are bad enough, but when I'm standing in line at the market is the time I'm least likely to be moved by the other kind of Christmas songs ... religious songs.  I'm just not in the mood to fall on my knees and hear the angel voices - not when I'm stuck in the tabloid aisle trying to escape with my groceries.  (I used to love Nat King Cole's version of "O Holy Night", only long after dark when I'd be with my folks, after we had run out of talk and were just enjoying our tree.)

But this year it hit me why I can't stand "Jingle Bell Rock" - I identify with the long-suffering horse!  Not kidding.  That horse appears in several songs, always pulling a sleigh all by himself.  (Songwriters are always specific on the latter point.)  In the original version of "Jingle Bells", he even goes astray and crashes; it's not clear if the animal is injured.  Perhaps he was moving too fast?

In "Jingle Bell Rock", he's told to move faster and pick up his feet.  This time, it seems he's moving too slow.  Clearly the creature is overworked, lonely, and unappreciated.  And lest you think he's contributing to some economically or medically vital process, oh no!  It's clear that the only goal of these icy excursions is to entertain people.  Talk about human arrogance!

Long story short, as a working guy I wish the songwriter would lay off his loyal beast, at least until December 26.

As a matter of complete coincidence, a video I posted to a much more serious, but tangentially related thread (on duty, masculinity, and gelding) features a one-horse open-sleigh.  Here's another song from the same album (same artwork):

Thursday, December 2, 2010

What is the other axis?

We are told, on the one hand, that the world is divided politically into Left and Right.  Some say Left and Right are totally obsolete as concepts and should be discarded.  Others say that while they have some validity, they leave out another axis.

I tend to agree with the latter group, but only recently have I come to a conclusion about what the second axis.  While I am certain that is very from time to time and from place to place, I am convinced that in the West, at this time, the second axis is attitudes toward Jews and Israel.  Nowhere is this more clear than in a recent post at Age of Treason, where TANSTAAFL makes a Sobranish point about Murdoch, Phillips, and Auster.  That is, a very critical stance that someone like Joe Sobran or Pat Buchanan might take.

Since my mantra is "Unite the Right!" these sorts of disputes always make me a little sad, though not surprised.  If rightists are united against the socialization and Islamification of the West, there should be little else to debate.  In the previous sentence, "should" is of course an even flimsier word than it usually is. There is oodles and oodles to debate between the Zionist Right and the Anti-Zionist Right.  The latter tends to sympathize profusely with Palestinians and loathe Winston Churchill, for example, which creates some friction with other rightists.

The left is really no different.  The Anti-Zionist Left (think Vanessa Redgrave and Lyndon LaRouche) can't stand the Zionist Left.  This is why the axes seem to be completely orthogonal, and well they should be.  Whether Jews have a right to run Israel as an ethnostate is irrelevant to whether socialism (forced sharing) is a good idea.

My position on the respective axes can be summed up best as Neutrality and Rightism, but there is more to it than that.  I could be described as a pro-white ethnopluralist.  I technically belong to the Zionist Right because I think Jews do have a right to run Israel as an ethnostate, but I am also Jew-critical because the globalizing influence of American Jews is somewhat distinct from the anti-white influence of leftists.  Think of me as a multi-Zionist counterpoint to multiculturalism.

I regard these positions as a potential crystal on which to build ideological discipline.  To me, ideological discipline doesn't mean professing what you don't believe or condoning what you see as wicked.  It means refining your positions in ways you are wholly comfortable with in order to become more in line with your true allies.

In other words, when I ask for discipline on the right I'm not asking for the anti-Zionists to praise Israel or for the Zionists to abandon it.  I'm asking for someone who might criticize Israel on "sauce for the goose!" grounds to put that in neutral for a while and - and simply demand Zionist rights for gentiles.  (To maintain that the Jews deserve as much of the damage from immigration and multicult as they have buffaloed Europe, Oceania, and North America into accepting is asserting an eye-for-an-eye sort of justice that I think we should move beyond.)  I'm asking for someone who might assert that is Israel is the America's most important ally to reconsider whether a tiny stretch of the Mediterranean coast can be more important to the US than, say, Canada.  And it goes without saying that any rightist should oppose foreign aid.

Ideological discipline need not be created with doublethink or by going against you're ethical impulses.  If you're more pro- or anti-Israel (or pro- or anti-Jewish) than you are rightist, you may not be a lowlife dirtbag, but you're not my ally.  If you can turn down the salience dial a little bit on your opinions about this little spot in Asia (half as many inhabitants as the Netherlands), you may find you can be a more effective rightist.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010


Since everyone else has posted on nerd, I'll follow suit as usual.

When I first started seeing the best conservative bloggers writing about nerds, the topic seemed innovative and unpretentious.  Take seriously an adolescent term for a moment, consider the group it applies to, and philosophize about their roles and the implications of their existence.  So far, so good.

Then I noticed that, as with terms like "alpha" and "beta", "nerd" seems to mean whatever it mean at the writer's junior high school.  Some say nerds are near-autistic or aspergian, always saying exactly what is on their minds and damn the consequences.  Some say nerds are pandering, cowardly hypocrites who engage in nothing but groupthink.  Some say they are womanish; some say they are hypermale.  Some say they should be shamed into becoming hermits or completely altering their personae; some say they should be encouraged to come out of the shadows and fulfill their potential as real (conservative) men.

This isn't a debate.  It is quibbling about semantics, and that is inevitable as long as the discussion has its roots in a schoolyard put-down.  "Nerd" is an interesting term because it has a slightly more precise definition that "butthead" or "asshat".  Over time I am learning how limited "nerd" is as a term - ultra-serious systems administrators who tend to step on the toes of the less-technically savvy are a distinct group.  Girlish emokids who play lots of computer games and watch anime have little in common with this group beyond a college course or two.  And of course hackers are their own deal.

The upshot: I want the sysadmins and a few of the hackers at least on my team.  The PC emo crowd I can do without, tech skills or not.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Tories are Okay Too

Hats off to Dave Cameron.

Recall that this measure is coming from a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.  This doesn't prove the doomsayers are wrong but it is a hopeful sign.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

My Pledge to the GOP

Oddly enough, I am a Republican.  I say "oddly enough" because I've never really felt like I belong with them.  They care about things like abortion and capital gains taxes which I know a little about but don't have strong feelings on.  (Is there a reason to treat capital gains as different from ordinary income?  If so, what is it?)  In contrast, I care mainly about the National Question, a sheaf of questions most Republicans don't think much about, and a term most Republicans haven't even heard of.

Recently I became a Republican anyway.  It amuses me to hear people patting the Tea Party on the head and telling them it's way past their bedtime, as if anyone has done more to shake up the leftist establishment in as little time as the Tea Party has been around.  But anyway, I acknowledge that the Tea Party may get nothing done, in which case the zero dollars and ten minutes I have invested in their movement will all go to waste. 

I make the following offer to the Tea-flavored Republican Party to which I currently belong:

I will continue to be a Republican through the end of 2011.  If the Republicans have met my conditions at that time, I will give them another year.  Since most of what the Republicans can do can be vetoed by President Obama, my requirements are only for serious attempts to do the right thing, defined as two thirds of Republicans in each house voting my way (whether or not their attempts succeed).  They must vote:
  • For a complete pullout of all US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, to begin when the law is passed and be complete, under several estimates, no more than 12 months after that time
  • For construction of a real (non-virtual), San Diego-to-Brownsville border fence, and sufficient funding for it
  • For all statutory provisions underlying affirmative action to be repealed (this is admittedly vague; most of the pillars underlying affirmative action were put their either by executive fiat or judicial fiat;  another Riggs Amendment would suffice)
  • To repeal the Patriot Act
Action to roll back gun control, secure prisons, or officialize English would help but is not required.  Note that I am not demanding that the Republicans privatize Social Security, abolish the income tax, or anything radical (and economic).  The Tea is not yet strong enough for that.

The criteria under which I will judge the Grand Old Party at the end of 2012 will be determined in a year's time.

I encourage other Republicans to publish similar pledges.  Let's get the show on the road.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Republicans are Better than Democrats on Immigration After All

It is often said that the Republican Party is far too riddled with PC multicultural RINOs to put up a decent stand against the elites who support mass immigration.  I have no problem with right-wing doomsayers; John Derbyshire, for instance, is a great writer and speaker.  On the other hand, by temperament I tend to be quite skeptical with pessimism, mainly on the grounds that the sky has yet to fall despite the predictions of so many of the Cassandras of the past.  Furthermore, I believe too many people are copying-and-pasting the views of elitist neocons like McCain and Bush down onto the rest of the party.  Republicans can certainly be accused of excessively loyalty to the men who betrayed them, but that doesn't mean they necessarily vote like the RINOs.

So I decided to get to the bottom of the matter with a little number crunching.  Using the trusty Numbers USA site, I decided to convert the US report card-style grades into numbers, and calculate party-wide averages.  (For this post I am using arithmetic means; I may add an update using medians later.)  The grades run from A+ to F- with no F+; I assigned A+ a score of 13, F- a 0.  The data I use apply to this Congress and the last (2007-2010).  

Some caveats:  First, no one is obligated to trust that Numbers USA rates the candidates accurately or even picks the right issues.  I personally do trust them; VDare may be more ideologically exciting but Numbers has the numbers.  Second, only legislative candidates are included (executives aren't usually rated likes this).  Third, the past is only a loose guide to the future.

Just to make it exciting, when I was at M4 Monologue I decided to phrase my moderately warm feelings toward the post-Bush GOP as a testable hypothesis.

Null hypothesis: Like the gloomiest hard rightists say, the Republicans’ voting records on immigration are about as bad as the Democrats, defined as being within one letter grade. (I.e., if the Democrats average a C-, the Republicans won’t beat a B-.)  This translates to 3 points, using the scale I created.
Alternate hypothesis: The gloomiest hard rightists may be right about other things, but Republicans of the current Congress are significantly better on immigration than the Democrats – more than a whole letter, or dropping fractions, at least 4 points.
Here is what I found - first, some tidbits:

A total of two Democrat received grades above B+; none received an A+.
One hundred and six Republicans scored in this range; 37 got A+s.

One hundred and sixty Donkeys got scores below D-; the corresponding Elephant herd numbered five (3 of whom are from Florida).  

Democrats average 2.86 points on a 13-point scale - between a D and a D-.  
Republicans average 7.60 points - between a B- and a C+.  (To put this in perspective, John McCain, widely excoriated on the right for being a softie on immigration, got a C-.  He is not near the middle of either party on this matter, but he is near the middle of the Congress as a whole.)

The alternate hypothesis is sustained - the Republicans of 2007-2010 are significantly better than the Democrats on immigration.

Based on this, I believe the doomsayers have a little retracting, or a least a little explaining, to do.  They are not necessarily wrong; who am I to say that the new Republicans will be as restrictionist as their predecessors?  Or even to say that a B will be enough to stop the tide, or that Obama won't outmaneuver the GOP with some elitist media trick?  

I do regard these numbers as a hopeful sign, because I highly doubt that the Republicans are becoming more in favor of mass immigration, with their voters hopping mad and unemployment showing no signs of alleviating.  A few RINOs notwithstanding (notably recently defeated Meg Whitman of California), the Republicans as a group are far different than the Karl Rove-style suckers' gamers of the bad old days.

Recent Addendum:

In answer to Steve Sailer's question, ALIPAC has a complete list of wins and losses for its endorsed candidates.  It endorsed candidates in a little under half the races, with 137 wins, 66 losses, and 2 races still up in the air.

Two to one victories aren't bad, but in more than half the races, ALIPAC thought no one was worth endorsing.


1. Because of a spreadsheet error, the above numbers for Republicans had to be corrected, sustaining the alternate hypothesis a little less comfortably.  (My original numbers had them at a B+.)

2. Medians make the difference look a little bigger.  The median Democrat was just below a D-; the median Republican was just below an A-.

3. I'm not finding sub-issues all that interesting as a way of comparing the parties, since many seem to cover very few votes or maybe only one.  In one respect they are interesting:  They show the uniqueness of Texas Rep. Ron Paul; he got A+s on "Reduce Amnesty Enticements" and "Reduce Illegal Immigration Rewards", a D on "Reduce Illegal Immigration at the Border", and a D+ on "Reduce Illegal Jobs and Presence".  This goes to show that a libertarian is going to vote differently from a cultural conservative; that will only come out when you look at the sub-issues (on the whole, Paul is a moderate on immigration, because opposing immigration is a combination of limiting government enticements and erecting government barriers).  I respect Rep. Paul, but as immigration grows more salient, I cheer for less and less for his philosophy.

Compare this to Sen. Olympia Snowe, who is rated similarly overall but whose votes on the sub-issues are almost Paul's opposite.  Her votes reflect a strong anti-illegal / pro-legal stance similar to McCain's, which seek to stop immigration at the border and in the workplace, while continuing to reward and facilitate it with visas, amnesties, chain migration, etc.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

A Pointed Reply to Countless Lousy History Teachers

In the 1790s, African American males who owned property could vote in New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Maryland.

So you guys were lying to me the whole time about the "racist" nature of the franchise in the 18th Century.  It wasn't racist at all - it was classist.  This is a mistake that is tantamount to saying that whites dominate the National Basketball Association because the players make such great salaries.

But you guys were sort of big on mistakes, weren't you?  One of you told me that most Jews who escaped the Holocaust in Europe escaped through Switzerland.  Sort of geographically illiterate, isn't it?  But what you were trying to do was cover up the fact that the European ruler who saved the greatest number of Jews was a conservative Catholic - a man you like to call a fascist.  This mistake is tantamount to getting Savonarola mixed up with Mussolini.  

What else were you lying about?  

Oh, everything that makes your ideology look good, and that could make America look bad.  In other words, pretty much everything.

A Pointed Question for White Males

I wrote this angry rant about two years ago.  I figured publishing it now would be a good way to post something without having to type too much.

My question for the white male is ... what am I to you?  Am I just a political football for you to play your suckers’ game with?  Because if you’re waiting to stab me in the back as a fancied way of escaping membership in the “oppressor class”, you truly are a sucker.  The Oppressor Caste is not a “class” at all.  If you are born a white male, that is all you will be, for the rest of your life.  You can never be anything else.  

Either you got my back or you don’t.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Reflections on Family Life in the Workplace

OneSTDV has recently had a great post about women and men.  Also I've been in a gender-oriented thread with Cassandra of A Letter to the Times, so I was inspired to make a short (and largely unrelated) one of my own.

One of my coworkers at work rarely talks about her children.  She occasionally talks about an ex-boyfriend of hers who was a hockey player, but mostly, when she deigns to talk about men, she talks about Edward the vampire.  She has an enormous poster of him gracing her desk (she is in her thirties), and she brings up him up whenever she can fit him in.

Today I found out she has a husband.  Is still married to him.  They met in high school.  I saw their picture - they looked like typical fresh-faced high school sweethearts.  She mentioned that she wished he still "looked like that".

An outgoing married woman at an institution populated by grownups, and she talks about a vampire from a fantasy movie easily twenty times more often than she talks about her family.  I figured she was divorced or widowed, or maybe just never married (never loved?) the man who fathered her children.  It turns out that, if she is divorced, it is only in a metaphorical sense.

I think that attitude towards the family is becoming more common.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

B Lode Goes Emo

Since I have broken my pledge not to spend any time typing that isn't absolutely necessary to pay bills, etc., I guess I'll "go for broke".

I want the troops home safe now.

I want it so badly it is distracting and depressing.  I alternately avoid and devour news of the Afghan and Iraq wars; I never get used to the pictures of the carnage.

My countrymen are over there and they are hurting and I can't figure out what I can do to get them out.  This is a more emotional issue for me than immigration (though I don't believe any issue is more important than immigration), and until now I have said little about it online because I have so little to offer.

I want an American pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan to begin this very minute, and taking only enough time to get out all of our people and equipment.  I know it will take a long time ... all the more reason to not delay.

There.  That is enough online emoting, and wrist-straining, for one night.

... An Ethnic Slur

Hat tip: Moonbattery

In the mouth of Rob Reiner, "Hitler" has a new meaning: it is an ethnic slur against goyim.  Having kicked off his career by collaborating with a co-ethnic on a TV show designed specifically to degrade and insult gentiles, Reiner has followed up by insulting a movement aimed at limiting government and increasing personal freedom.  In fact, the Tea Party and the NSDAP have nothing whatsoever in common, other than that both parties were made up mostly of gentiles opposed to the sort of left-wing globalism that Reiner loves.  The fact that one was composed of Jew-hating, Slav-hating socialist murderers intent on stretching government involvement into every sphere of society, and the other is made up of assorted Americans opposed to income taxes and socialized medicine... doesn't really matter.

Any mostly-gentile organization not taking orders from Reiner's Hollywood establishment is evil?  Reiner is a loxist bigot who hates the majority of America's population.

Addendum (10/28):
Not everyone is cheering Reiner's slur.  Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League has condemned Meathead's comments:
Such comparisons only serve to trivialize the Holocaust and are deeply offensive to Jews and other survivors, as well as those Americans who fought valiantly against the Nazis in World War II.

I may not like Foxman's politics, but he is enough of a straight shooter to object to this kind of slander.  Also, I added the italics in there to point out that Foxman is also acknowledging that not all of Hitler's civilian victims were Jewish.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Skeptical Conservatives!

Hat tip to David Hume (either Razib Khan or John Derbyshire, never remember which) of Secular Right.

I'm about an inch from signing up!

Friday, October 15, 2010


I've had a weird tingling in the index and middle fingers of my right hand.  My wife says it's carpal tunnel.  I'm not going to blog much for a while.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Popular vs. Unpopular School Subjects

Lately I've been thinking about why exactly the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) subjects are unpopular.  The usual explanation is that they're harder than other fields.  Undoubtedly this is true, but it doesn't get at exactly why they are considered so hard, and why other fields haven't simply been concentrated so much that they equal STEM in difficulty.  It is conceivable, though not likely, that a sociology course could be graded as harshly as a STEM class.  Something else must also be a factor.

The next thought was: NUMBERS.  All the STEM fields are full of them.  Numbers are dry and not particularly laden with sex, violence, or emotion.  Fairly easy fields, like accounting, are full of numbers and they aren't very popular either.

Thinking back to college, I thought of another very unpopular field: logic.  Logic, in a way, is like math without the numbers.  So perhaps the logical thinking that is the underlying basis of math, engineering, symbolic logic, accounting, and many sciences is what causes people to dislike these fields.

Then I thought back to a demand that students always made in junior high and high school: that social studies and history teachers assure us we would never have to "memorize" dates.  Numbers again, but not really logic.  Something about learning dates would have sucked out all the (very limited) pleasure history could give the ordinary student.  One teachers assured us that we wouldn't have to learn dates, only to keep events in their proper sequence.  If you think the Thirty Years' War happened before Luther nailed his demands to the door of the church, you're simply wrong.

Then it hit me: any field in which you can be simply wrong is unpopular.  The reason social sciences are graded so much less harshly than STEM is that it is much easier for lazy and uncurious students to answer every question in generalities of marginally-acceptable grammar and thereby squeak by.  The notion that, while books may teach a certain answer to a history / social studies question, you can come up with the "real" answer on your own, gives license to every sophomore to give a postmodern (easy) answer to every question and expect praise in return.  (This is undoubtedly why so many young people have told me with a proud grin that "Hitler wasn't really a socialist" - they liked socialists and disliked Hitler, so they were "really" opposites.)

STEM fields could have been dumbed down to equal the social sciences, but they weren't, because even the squishiest hippy could stick by simply wrong in the face of the outraged reaction of a meta-hippy student (as lampooned wonderfully by Trudeau in cartoon recalled on p. 6 of this newsletter).  Eventually the students who were most allergic to right-and-wrong answer fields learned to avoid STEM entirely, and noted that they became cooler by doing so.  Then America became deindustrialized, the trade deficit ballooned, etc.

ADDENDUM: Ilkka has an article at The Fourth Checkraise on a similar subject.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

I'm a Liberal Today (obligatory post on Geert Wilders)

Being a minarcho-populist ethnopluralist of the far right, I don't commonly identify with living liberals.  Geert Wilders is an exception.  He is on trial for his conscientious and principled stand against the Islamification of his country.  He is also, as many on the alternative right have mentioned, a modern liberal, more or less.  
According to some, his flatfooted support of Israel makes him too pro-semitic, his loyalties too divided.  I don't actually know if he supports monetary and/or military aid for Israel.  If not - if he stops at moral support - then I am right with him.  Israel - founded on "stolen land" like any country, with a government often said to be laden with power-hungry bastards like any country, whose military upsets pacifists like any country - has a right to exist like any country.  I'm not the slightest bit shy about declaring that.  (I certainly do stop short of material support for Israel; I am against all foreign aid.)
He is a proponent and defender of gay rights, women's right, and the Netherlands' welfare state.  According to some, this makes him too much of a squishy leftist to deserve our support.
I say nonsense.  The bodies politic of the West are easily broad enough to accommodate honest liberals as well as a variety of rightists.  I say "honest liberal" because that's what Wilders is - he is straightforward about his belief that encroaching Islam and Third World birthrates threaten a very Dutch conception of freedom.  That this conception doesn't equate one-to-one with a Anglo-Saxon minarchist conception is of little matter.  Gays and women are among the broad variety of people who would suffer under Islam; Wilders chooses to protect them for the same reason he chooses to fight Islam in the first place - his conscience.  
Only a very dishonest liberal (or more accurately, a multiculturalist and probably an extreme leftist) would say Islamification is compatible with liberal (or conservative) Western values.  If by considering Wilders my ally, I am a liberal by association, so be it.  
Today I am a pro-Western, anti-PC, blood-and-soil liberal.  
Several other writers have written on the subject as well:
Dennis Mangan (interesting discussion of Rousseau-style enlightenment liberalism versus Burke-style enlightenment liberalism versus modern "liberalism" in the comments thread)
And the gent who started it all, Randall Parker of ParaPundit, has written on the subject again.

Sunday, October 3, 2010


Because they have never ever had one of their candidates win in a general election!  


What's that?  You mean that they haven't been around for a whole election cycle, and thus haven't had the chance to prove themselves, so it's unfair to judge them so early?


Come on now folks, seriously, you can't use the extreme length of the American election season as an argument that the Tea Party is a failure.

Reasons to forget about the Tea Party - they're such big budget cutters that they will never get any votes, and they're not really big budget cutters so hardcore minarchists should ignore them.


People are just tired of hearing of the Tea Party because they've been around so long (about a hundredth as long as the major parties!) so they are thinking of reasons to put them down.  That is my theory.  Otherwise I could never explain how people are so certain that a brand-new party is going exactly nowhere.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

As promised ...

Allow me to put some preliminary thoughts together on men's clubs.

In no particular order:

The clubs should be explicitly political, but not primarily political.  They must be explicitly right-wing or they will become left-wing over time, but they should not be narrowly ideological.  They should appeal broadly, to conservatives, libertarians, and patriots.  

The clubs should focus primarily on creating groups of friends and allies who feel trust each other, developing a information exchange network outside the leftist media, and building important low-tech skills.  Secondarily, the groups should focus on creating a subtle civic presence, developing healthy lifestyle, and an array of community activities.

"The information network outside the leftist media means", in short, people talking about iSteve, Adventures in Reaction, Mansized Target, Hesperado, etc.  (It might also mean people lending each other rightist novels that go for $40 on Amazon.)  Less web-savvy rightists should be interested in this stuff, and they're not going to get it from Fox.  Another aspect relevant to this is home-schooling - fathers may need to talk to other fathers about support in their unpaid role as teachers - this should not be left all to the wives and mothers.

"Important low-tech skills" means horticulture, local flora and fauna, carpentry and home repair, wilderness survival, even first aid and CPR.  Hunting and fishing, while appropriate for many reasons (especially considering my ideas about healthy lifestyle, below) already tend to be a common male-bonding activity and may not need to be pushed as hard as other skills.  Martial arts and self-defense are another interesting angle but I'm not sure how to work them in.  A club is not a dojo.

"Subtle civic presence" partly means fashion.  Bring back the fedora and the flat cap, the hunting coat, tweed.  Serious haircuts for grown men.  Resurrect some of the many types of boot not favored by motorcycle clubs and punk rockers.  Etc.  Members should cut a profoundly unusual figure at first, but definitely not want calculated to be threatening or cool (is there even a difference any more?)  Eventually the public will start to associated well-dressed retro-males with good manners and reliability.

"Healthy lifestyle" is of course open to interpretation.  I think these clubs should hitch their wagon to paleolithic eating and a variety of athletic activities other than ball sports and jogging.  Beyond that, though, the club should encourage, nay, inspire members to get rid of their televisions and stop imbibing James Cameron.

"Array of community activities" will mean different things from area to area.  It could mean anything from a blood drive, to supporting other guys' kids' extracurricular activities, especially if they are the sort of "whitebread" cultural activities that run the risk of seeming uncool to young people.  Picture a bunch of kids at a clogging recital - now picture a half a dozen guys dressed like Wooster & Jeeves watching casually.  That's what I'm talking about.

The clubs should consider making recognizable logos without any specific familiar icon.  No crosses or stars that could be easily copied.  Better, an outline of cheerful handsome guy in a flat cap or something.

The clubs should be as serious as possible without becoming boring.  That means, no leaving the game on TV at a low volume while discussing the future of the West.  No drinking beer while sharing your skillset with the men in your community.  Men already spend enough leisure time, half-drunk, with other men, and it hasn't protected civilization from feminism, mass immigration, or any of that.  This guideline doesn't mean no laughing, relaxing, or befriending other guys.  Friendship is half the point.

The clubs should not have a religious aspect.  The explicitly right-wing provision will keep out certain members of certain religions bent on the destruction of European civilization (e.g., the ones whose holy book reads in part: "You shall fight back against those who do not believe in Allah, until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.")  Beyond that, all religious and non-religious beliefs should be welcome.

There should equivalent women's-only clubs.  I won't write much about these, since they should be organized and guided by women, and crafted to appeal to women.  (As to younger males, this group is enough like the Eagle Scouts that there is a natural partnership there.  However, I know little about Boy Scouts of America.)

There should be a nationwide network of clubs.  It would serve to agree on nationwide symbols and logos, and have certain nationwide policies (more on what behavior is acceptable, less on what activities are best).

That is all for now.  If I develop any of these idea in future posts I'll drop links to those right here.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Tribe of Ice

Tribe of Ice seems to be gone.  I was one of only a few people who regularly commented on her posts.  Maybe she got tired of laboring in obscurity; the WordPress page says the blog was deleted by "its authors" rather than by WordPress.

If you're out there, Tribe of Ice, let me know how you're doing, I'm just curious.  Anyone who knows, feel free to chime in.

Thursday, September 16, 2010


A decent ruler, Wilhelm I, got Prussia into a war it could win, with France.  His less-talented grandson, Wilhelm II, got Germany into a two-front war it couldn't win, with both a western front and a Eurasian front.

George H.W. Bush gets the US into a war with Iraq that we can win; his son gets us into two wars in Asia we may not win.

Germany's eastern enemy was defeated at great cost, but holding the territory also proved quite costly in sheer manpower.  As it became obvious the war could not be won on the remaining fronts, the Kaiser abdicated.  The Kaiser having never had good democratic credentials, war-mongering became linked in the public's mind with undemocratic government.  Promising peace, the Social Democrats gained power and found they could not solve the problem of ending the war while saving face.

George W. Bush is elected twice with questions about whether the system is giving the promised democratic result.  (Others question whether democracy was a sensible goal in the first place.)  In any case, his designated successor hangs his own chances for election by promising not to leave the fronts without achieving victory.  The Democrats gain power promising peace.  By 2010, they still have not ended the war on either front, probably due to the glib assertions along the lines of "We can't just walk away."

The early government of the Weimar Republic created hyperinflation due to a combination of debts, reparations, and the destruction left over from the two-front war.  Nevertheless, permissive morality and globalist cultural ferment made Germany in the interwar period very productive in terms of art, science, and architecture.

Despite the multicultural vibrance of America, it is not clear to many economists if our current debt crisis can be resolved without large increases in the money supply.

Hitler took power capitalizing on German fears of foreign enemies, cultural decadence, and a state riddled with leftists.  Legitimate though some of the fears may have been, Hitler was in power a scant six years before plunging Europe once again into chaos.  Notwithstanding his facile reputation of being right-wing, pro-white, and Catholic, he proceeded to destroy conservative Catholic regimes in Austria and Poland, slaughter millions of Slavs and Ashkenazim, and align himself with the most advanced non-white nation of his time (Japan).  From there he moved on to an unwinnable two-front war.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Howl Back


I saw the best minds of my generation enslaved by madness, starving
hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through the first-class-citizen streets at noon
looking for a fuzzy fix,

headless hipsters burning for some some any way to match your
generation for its power, its majesty, its Trotskyite glory glowing on
their album covers,

who were nauseated by their manhoods and who fed their womanhoods to monsters,

who thought America a burden and whose skinny teenage ribs were
crushed by the burden,

whom were thought burdens for the costs of the tuitions for the
schools that would take their money and that of the Truly Special and
whose degrees were risible and Common,

who spun clockwise always clockwise looking for That Which Had Not
Yet Been Done Before Better.


You saw the popular kids from your generation destroy themselves to
impress everyone,

and indeed you were impressed,

and in turn you impressed us.

I wonder now,

How's that working out for you

... being impressive?

Roissy II

In my previous post, I grumbled a little because Roissy comes off as such a complainer.  Looking back to my closest experiences with aggressive/apathetic (those words, like "alpha", start with the letter A) males, in high school, I remember distinctly being impressed with how the A/A males could complain consistently, Monday to Friday, without anyway conceiving of them as complainers.  They were always "making good points."  I have no doubt that this odd perception fooled the A/A males themselves.

In other words, I'm not sure it's entirely Roissy's fault that he comes across as negative and resentful and doesn't even know it.  He had years of training in institutional schools being taught that, as long he didn't care about anything but hurling put-downs, he could say pretty much what he wanted.  Childish insults, or "negs" as he calls them (a jargon for everything!) became a way of life for him - that is the seductive and subversive power institutional schools have over impressionable young personalities.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010


Everyone else has written about him, so I will to.

Some interesting things I've noted about Roissy:

  • He benefits from feminism.
  • He has an unusually good understanding of how women think.
  • He has crafted his personality to appeal to women.
  • He has apparently fathered no children.
  • He works (or worked) a cushy office job.
  • His writing comes off as judgemental, gossipy, and bitchy.

To me, that list doesn't exactly add up to "masculine".  I'm not trying to suggest that Roissy is gay, or even metrosexual (whatever that means), but in some sense, the man is undeniably womanish.  There's nothing wrong with that.  I am womanish too, albeit in different ways (I love cuddling small animals, talking about relationships, etc.)

I do pause a little when I see lots of young man stampeding off to his blog for advice.  Do what you want, but realize you're stampeding in the opposite direction from, say, The Art of Manliness.  Roissy will not teach you to be autonomous, not help you build a household, not keep from you being dependent on others for your emotional or physical well-being.  Getting by on your good looks and your silver tongue is callow and short-sighted gambit.

Thursday, September 2, 2010


Note: Generally I avoid using profanity in my writing, since I consider it something of a crutch.  In this post, it is not possible to avoid profanity.

It is anyone's guess how feminists could have ever been convinced that promiscuous sex was not psychologically damaging to women, especially when it happens on the terms of the "pickup artists" (cads) who dominate the nightlife in the big cities of the Occident.  Modern cads use a combination of studied insouciance, minor insults, and calculated body language to entice women to their bedrooms, where they specialize in quick, dirty sex which they can brag about.

Whether the women enjoy the physical act or not is little discussed.  What is clear is that the women are treated as toys to manipulated into sharing their bodies with aggressive strangers.  If this were a business transaction it would be considered a "rip-off".  The odd thing is, there is a more general term for what is happening to the women:

They are getting fucked.

The strange thing is, that's figuratively and literally exactly what is happening!  Seems like kind of an obvious warning, right?  This is not a mystery to either the pickup artists, or the guys who can't stand this behavior, or most women for that matter either.

The only people to whom this is a mystery seem to be the feminists, or at least the third-wave feminists, for whom "fuck" was usually a noun ("He and I had a fuck" or better yet "He and I had a zipless fuck") or perhaps an intransitive verb ("He and I fucked [ziplessly]"), but hardly ever a transitive verb ("He fucked me").  Of course, the etymology of the word (from a Germanic verb meaning "to penetrate") doesn't allow nominal or intransitive uses, and doesn't really allow the female to be anything but the object.

In other word, the English language itself is telling you:
Ladies, if you're not making love, you're getting fucked.

The language's opinion is of course just a construct I've thrown together for this post, and it wouldn't matter if social psychology didn't agree.  Social psychology does agree.  Women most certainly do get the sweetness and femininity fucked out of them when they behave promiscuously.  Sexual bonding with their future mates is reduced, which means their inclination to build up their vulnerable menfolk is lacking.

While feminists rail about women being demeaned by being "expected to do menial chores" and "used as sex toys", many women seem to eschew cooking and meal-planning a lot more than they eschew acting like sex objects.  The fact that men's day jobs are often plenty demeaning never really comes up.  If a man comes home from cleaning out deep-fat fryers all day wearing a plastic apron to a woman who tells him too "cook his own supper for a change", he may well have trouble remembering what exactly the benefit of being married and having a job was supposed to be.

It doesn't help that more and more men are opting out of the job market in favor of becoming girlfriend parasites, but it's interesting to study exactly which men can get away with this.  In my experience, it's generally the apathetic-and-hostile crowd - the same men who get away with pretty much everything else.  Since these men stand out much more, socially, than the faceless drudges and nerds who work for a living, male parasites cast a pall of ignorance on their sex.

Which bolsters the notion that now it's men who are only good for one thing ... as long as it's zipless.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Rape and War, 2006

Before I proceed, let me say that I believe the human cost of the war in Afghanistan, to all sides, is too great to justify continued US involvement in the region.  Our initial reason to attack was better than our reason to attack Iraq, but we have worn out our welcome in any case, and I urge President Obama to return the troops to the continental United States as soon as possible.

Next let me assert that I do not consider rapes and battlefield deaths to be strictly fungible, only approximately equivalent.  Soldiers do not volunteer to be killed; rape victims do not even volunteer for hazardous duty.*  On the other hand, with love and support, rape victims can recover while KIAs (and many WIAs) cannot.  (I count myself lucky; none of the young men I've known who've been to Iraq and Afghanistan were killed or injured.  Welcome back, men.)

Finally, I'll grant that the race of a rapist does not really matter, in the sense that the crime is not legally mitigated or aggravated by race.  We have been told, however, that "hate crimes" are by definition more severe than other crimes.  I maintain that, without telepathy, hate crimes are indistinguishable from noneconomic interracial crime.  Same-race rape, though obviously hateful in some sense, cannot be considered a hate crime as the term is generally used.

On to the data.

32,000 whites were raped by black men in 2006.**  (This varies a little from year to year.)

We had 20,297 troops in Afghanistan in February 2006.***  (It increased somewhat by March of the next year.)

If we lost one soldier in Afghanistan for every white person raped by a black man, we would have lost all US forces in Afghanistan in under eight months.

* They can certainly take measures to protect themselves, but this is an active rather than a passive choice.

** The white-on-white rape count for the same year was a little over 98,000.  Since we are told "predators like to hunt within their ethnic group", this figure is depressing rather than surprising.  (White men rape far fewer than 100 blacks in a given year.)

*** The President, having been elected on a platform of change, with strong support from the anti-war movement, has changed our troop levels in that country to 94,000.  (Here is Chris Roach on the subject.)  If the black-on-white rape rate stays stable, the figure quotes above would rise from eight months to about three years.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

On the Fed

Lately I've noticed the competing critiques of the Federal Reserve, and how they do and don't match up.  Almost everyone agrees that the Fed is not politically (or democratically) controlled to the correct degree, though there is no consensus as to whether there is too much politics or too little democracy.

One of the oddities of the Fed is that the term "the Fed" doesn't always seem to mean the same thing.  Sometimes it means the Federal Reserve System, sometimes it means the Board of Governors, and I've often suspected that sometimes it means the Open Market Committee.

This of course provides fertile soil for confusion, and confusion in turn is fertile soil for conspiracy theories.  Righty critics who loathe inflation can point out that "the Fed" consists entirely of political appointees.  Lefty critics who hate interest can point out that "the Fed" is mostly private moneyed interests.  "Private moneyed interests" is the lefty term for what the rightys call the free market; "political appointees" is the righty term for what the leftys call democracy.

Both sides are correct in pointing out that the public is largely ignorant of the important matters of monetary policy.  From that it does not follow the critics are not themselves ignorant, or guilty of causing ignorance.
Here is a multipage article on the Federal Reserve which does not mention the Board of Governors a single time.  Sort of like listing all the important people on a baseball time without mentioning the manager, or even noting that the job of manager exists.

Is that a surprise?  It was to me, because I'm used to reading Austrian-school (anti-politics, anti-inflation) critiques of the monetary status quo.  The linked article is quite the opposite - it is an anti-interest critique, and it wouldn't grind the proper axe to point out that the President's political appointees can effectively raise taxes at any time simply by expanding the money supply.  The article also laments the lack of Congressional control, without noting of course that when the Presidential appointees forming a majority on the Open Market Committee vote to expand the money supply, it is Congress whose spending power increases.

What the article is essentially saying is that it would be better to have a system in which the entity that controls the money supply also benefits directly if the money supply expands drastically.  While I hope it's clear that I don't agree, I am not sure that the entire slate of reforms the Austrian school proposes is necessary.  I'm not sure why it is necessary to abolish the Fed entirely, instead of simply repealing the legal tender laws and banning government seizures of precious metals.  It seems like that would provide quite enough "free banking" without eliminating the important networks maintained by the Federal Reserve System.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The Legacy of Hypersectarianism

Meet Rachel.  She is 15-year-old girl who wears heavy black eye makeup, slogan-spangled t-shirts, and skinny jeans.  She has a 13-year-old punk boyfriend whom she snuggles mutely on the couch at family gatherings.  She hardly ever addresses adults, although she is not unpleasant.

There is no singing or music at any family gathering if it happens on a Saturday, because the strictures of Rachel's sect forbid music on the Sabbath.

Or consider Krista.  She is the youngest person in the office, and the older ladies are all keenly interested in her romantic exploits.  However, they cannot talk about this when a certain other coworker is around - that coworker and Krista belong to the same church, which does not allow dating outsiders.  Krista wants to keep belonging to the sect, and to keep dating outsiders.

We're all worried our teenage children are going to opt out of decorum, study, and community involvement in favor of being cool, with all of the hazards that entails.  Religion used to be a safeguard against the tragedy of eternal adolescence.  It wasn't just the rules that were important but also religious passion and spirit, and the tendency to get communities "all on the same page", behavior-wise.

When I first heard Dr. Laura railing against interfaith marriages, I didn't really get it.  I didn't (and still don't) belong to a church so I couldn't really tell why it was a big deal.  Now it seems obvious that mixing up different moral codes into the nuclear-family melting pot yields, not a random mix of religious codes so much as the most permissive mix possible.  Similarly, mixed neighborhoods, schools, and institutions all put pressures on the individual to fit in, morally and otherwise.

The rituals to be observed are the ones that are the most fun.  The rules to be obeyed are the ones that are the least inconvenient.  It's not too bad to avoid eating poultry on Tuesday, but if I can't date all the Cathars, Copts, Sikhs, Scientologists, and Jeffersonian deists that I want, I'm leaving the church!  It's been long noted that it is hard for church leaders to shepherd their flocks with so many distractions.  It's only getting harder.

Yet few people are willing to resettle and form single-sect communities, and Communities are more complex than they've ever been - can a small sect guarantee that its town will include the requisite number of policemen, bookkeepers, dishwasher repairmen, and dogcatchers?  What if the sect attracts mainly artists and philosophers?  Are they going to contract out to non-members for vital services?  If so, they are not a town at all, but a mere bedroom community.  There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but your kids will still grow up hearing songs about suicide, group sex, and mass murder.

Moreoever, with no constitutional guarantee for freedom of association, single-sect businesses are probably illegal, and run into the same problems with today's complex workforce that the single-sect towns would.  The problem of desiccating morals and civic life may not be solvable through religion - not in as thoroughly splintered an environment as the United States.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Revolt Against the Teenage World

Proclaim your immunity all you want, but this is not a consultation and I am not spitting on you.  You change your world whether you want to or not; trying is irrelevant.  But youdo need to grow up and you do need to grow out of it.  That you protest these truths in heavy rotation makes you look good only to the foolish and the puerile.
P.S.  The concept of “tracing time” is nonsensical.

Open Thread: Survival on the Cheap

This is a thread where we are discussing how a highly cash-strapped and none-too-knowledgeable individual can plan to keep the wolves at bay should the Keynesians turn out to be wrong about the economy.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Equality and Autonomy

Conservatives have longed decried the corruption of the word "equality".  "It used to mean equality of opportunity", they say, "and now it means equality of result."  I would add to that.  It used to mean equality of opportunity, equality of responsibility, procedural equality, an equal right to plead one's case.  It meant an equal right to ask for things, not an absolute right to get them.  It did not mean equality of result or equality of starting conditions.

It's hard to say where a longing for equality came from.  What I sense, when I look at a psychological need for old-fashioned equality, is a profound resemblance to the longing for autonomy.  A community of completely autonomous individuals would be hard or impossible to create, but it's easy to conceive.

What jumps out at us when we visualize a community of completely autonomous people?  Total equality, in the old-fashioned sense.  If you're annoyed by your neighbors, chafing under the serfdom imposed by feudal overlord, burdened by taxes, whatever, you feel the root of that desire for autonomy.  Then reality returns and you see that a person who needs firewood, food, shoes, and health care cannot live on his own because no one can create the skills and capital need to simultaneously be a lumberjack, farmer, baker, butcher, shoemaker, and physician.  Whether or not it is The Way the World Should Be, absolute autonomy is only a dream.

Yet as with any dream we carry something with us back into the waking world.  Perhaps the classical liberal's idea of equality is a nod to the dream.

Thus, I believe there is even more separating the old-fashioned idea of equality from the corrupted leftist idea.  They don't have the same psychological root.  Classical liberals wanted autonomy and settled for equality.  Leftist resentment is close to the opposite of autonomy.  Leftists want to punish those more diligent, responsible, and talented than themselves.  They stole the term "equality" to use as a weapon against their betters.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Why Passwords Don't Work

... or at least, why I can't imagine how they could work.  I'm talking about passwords in the workplace, as used by the typical American technoprole.  You have half a dozen different things to log into, minimum.  They all require different password formats, and they make you change your password on different cycles. So don't even think about happening upon some total abstraction that you can reliably memorize - it'll change soon enough and not be applicable to more than one ap over the long term.  You'll have to make up passwords on a pattern.  And don't even think about using similar passwords to meet different needs - does the payroll software require numbers (so I should use password123)?  Or does it require "special" (shift-number) characters (so I should use password!@#)?  By the time you figure it out you'll be locked out of the ap, on phone with tech support in a different city, watching your company's productivity bleed out.

It goes without saying that it is harder for an individual to remember password!@#1 than it is to remember Jenny57EvergreenPlaceSpringfieldIL.  But let's imagine the latter doesn't refer to the user's current home address, but rather, their ex-girlfriend's address from 1997.

Hard for the hacker to guess, right?  Yes, much harder than password!@#1, but that would be allowed anywhere.  A name-and-address would be rejected due to its lack of shift-number characters.  Putting an ampersand in there would make it harder to remember - best to just write the password down somewhere.

That's right, we have a system which makes your password invisible when you enter it, to protect it from being seen by a coworker watching over your shoulder when you enter it.  Writing it down, which the system encourages even though it may be banned, allows your password to be stolen by a coworker looking over your shoulder at any time, or visiting your desk when you're not there.

Computer security - starting with case-sensitive passwords - is ultimately self-defeating.  The key would have been to make up a single all-ap regimen for passwords: case-insensitive, with at least two numbers and a non-word alpha string of at least three characters.  Require everyone to change all passwords once a month on their hire date.  Allow no software to depart from this protocol, and punish an employee for writing down their password.

Monday, August 2, 2010

The Problem with the Right Half of the Blogosphere

The blogosphere gives conservatives an unprecedented way to communicate on the issues, but it's not perfect.  The central problem out here on the right can be summed up in two truisms:
  1. Birds of a feather flock together.
  2. You tend to argue with the people who are around you.
Since people get bored with "preaching to the choir", and not many bloggers share my focus of creating heavily detailed, exhaustive constitutional reform proposals, arguments tend to crop up on the issues rightists disagree with one another one - not necessarily the most important issues.  

Hence the inordinate focus on Israel, anti-semitism, World War II, monetary policy, and, to a lesser degree, abortion and the south-Asian wars.  These are the wedge issues that threaten the right the most, yet we don't need leftists to put a floodlight on them.  We seem quite willing to do it ourselves.  

My fervent hope is that, at least in the few months leading up to the election, rightists will uncircle the firing squad and start putting the floodlight on leftists who threaten to keep delaying the border fence, protect affirmative action, and generally keep rocking the foundations of European civilization in America.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Reaction to the Susan Bolton Decision

US Judge Susan Bolton has banned Arizona from enforcing Federal immigration law, and in doing so, has abrogated the general police power of the state.  More importantly, she has chosen to use the status of legal aliens as the anvil on which to smash Arizona's initiative:
Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked.
I am sorry she had to do that.  Until now, I had been opposed to the early cancellation of any person's visa being part of a policy to reduce immigration.  As of now, I support immediate cancellation of all immigrant visas for citizens of any country whose leaders have spoken against US immigration statute or the enforcement thereof.

Friday, July 23, 2010

We Had a Ball

Following the tradition of obscure righty bloggers posting on music, started by Tribe of Ice and Flyover Libertarian, I have my own two bits to toss in, specifically on the topic of dance.  I dimly recollected the comment thread on Steve Sailer's review of Hairpsray, and it got me to thinking about concerts and dance clubs I've been to, and the complete impossibility of conversation in them.  This is not necessarily a bad thing - conversation isn't appropriate at the movies or the theater.

The difference is, you're not supposed to meet people at the movies or the theater.  Today's dance clubs, with their overpowering volumes, are still theoretically social venues.  Compare this to the 18th Century social dance - also music-oriented, also social, frequented by people of the same age groups.  The most important similarity is that both dance venues are particularly interesting to single people who want to meet other people - yet with no conversation, you can't learn anything about your partner(s) except stamina and body type.

That is rather the point, of course.  Toleration and encouragement of promiscuity lead to a different style of dance.  Rock, hip-hop, and techno invite us to judge dancers on the body they were born into and/or how often they work out.  Add in freaking, and dancers can be judged on their willingness to act out specific, unmetaphorical sex acts in public.  To "hip" (sex-crazed) young people, completely uninterested in starting either platonic friendships or stable families, old-fashioned balls seem laughably stodgy and prudish.  

Of course, they were anything but.  Anyone doubting this should watch a decent Jane Austen adaptation.  (I'm thinking in particular of the BBC's Pride and Prejudice, with Colin Firth and the unforgettable Jennifer Ehle.)  Wit flowed freely; a distaste for boring conversation is surely as old as speech itself.  What I think might be easy to overlook is how important the structure of the dances was.  A couple could converse, but would never be completely out of earshot.  Tawdry or profane conversation would bring a swift reaction from any number of scandalized gentry, but with sufficient subtlety, almost any idea could be put across to one's partner, because the couple would not be in hearing distance of any single person for long.

In other words, the ball was an explicitly social gathering in which young women would be completely secure against the advances of rakish young men, yet also have the opportunity to evaluate their prospective husbands on several extremely important criteria.  By observing a young man's adherence to the dance steps, she could evaluate if he had the ability and inclination to follow rules.  By listening to him converse, she could tell if he was an absolutist about rules and propriety (i.e., a complete bore), or if he was willing to liven things up by cleverly tweaking the nose of authority from time to time - a moderately brave act with several sets of parents, maiden aunts, dowagers, and grouchy grandfathers watching.  

A man who could dance a long time showed that he had stamina.  A man with strong hands and a brutish habit of shoving his partner would be as disfavored as a man with no strength.  A budding alcoholic who reeked of drink and staggered across the floor would mortify his partner - better to dance with someone who drank in moderation.  

Naturally,  young man would be evaluating his prospective wives as well.  We are continuously told that men are shallow, evaluating women as if they were various cuts of meat.  Yet at our 18th Century social dance, evaluating a woman on her looks alone was an obvious recipe for unhappiness.  Premarital sex carried the risk of social stigma and, in some periods, death on the sword of angry father or brother.  Moreover, divorce was generally unacceptable, so marrying a shrew was basically a life sentence of marital strife.  These facts were clear to young people of all but the lowest social classes.

The important thing, though, is that a meat-market gaze would tell you very little about the women at an 18th Century dance.  A woman's face would be visible, and her upper chest in some fashions, but the laundry list of details harped on by contemporary women's magazines would be largely invisible.  Toned abs!  Pish posh.  Cellulite!  What's that?  The twin fears that drive so many of our young women to despondence - that a young man will value her for sex and nothing more, or conversely, that young men will sum up her flaws and find her "not hot enough" - were completely absent from the 18th Century dance.  

A girl's chances of marriage would ride partly on the prettiness of her face.  This is the sort of superficial yet intractable feature which makes life seem so heartbreakingly unfair to teenagers.  In every other way, though, the 18th Century dance seems tremendously fair.  A morbidly obese woman would be harshly judged, but in a way that is fair because obese women have trouble carrying pregnancies to term. A man was respected, not considered "egotistical", for wanting children, and his desire for a wife that could bear children was honored.  Similarly, it would be hard to disguise a disfiguring disease of the sort that would render a woman barren or a man unfit to provide for his children.  Minor blemishes, on the other hand, would be gracefully hidden by the dim candlelight.  

Anyone who set their mind to it could learn enough grace and manners to be a passable dance partner and guest.  It is inconceivable that someone be excluded from one of these gatherings because of being a "dork" or not being "cool".  What could not be faked, at least not for an extended period, was wit, charm, and attentiveness - the raw materials of compatibility, and eventually love.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Immigration Politics: Handling the Details

Immigration is the single biggest issue facing the US right now.  Reducing immigration needs to become the top priority of everyone not mentally wedded to the left.  Increasing numbers of moderates, reactionaries, and conservatives agree on this point.  Beyond that, many things are still in question.  Do we seek a reduction in immigration in general, or just better enforcement to reduce illegal immigration?

Assuming (hopefully) that it is the former, are we shooting for a measured reduction in immigration, or a total moratorium?  

When talking about reducing legal immigration, are we talking merely about reducing or abolishing immigrant visa programs (i.e., reducing future legal immigration) or are we talking about canceling term-limited visas early (i.e., sending resident aliens home)?  (I'm leaving non-immigrant visas out of this as non-germane; it is legitimate, though off-topic, for conservatives to want to reduce the numbers of tourists, foreign students, etc.)

We don't all need to agree on these questions.  In fact, it may be better if we don't (assuming we won't spend too much energy excoriating each other or, worse yet, "reading each other out").  The reason is, if a small group, vocally but politely, advocates the cancel-visas-and-send-them-home position, everyone who wants to honor those visas until the end of their lives, while reducing or stopping new visas, looks moderate by comparison.  (Incidentally, that is my position:  Honor all extant visas unless they would be canceled under old policies, e.g. for criminal activity.  Abolish or suspend all programs issuing new visas.)

Once we have charted a broad course for reduction of immigration, we can argue about the details.  Don't ask your conservative friends if they want to reduce immigration.  Give them more credit than that!  Instead ask them if they prefer a reduction or a moratorium.  Ask them if there are any visa programs they would continue, or if perhaps there are any types of visas they would pull retroactively.

Cooperating with other conservatives goes way beyond basic respect for your neighbors.  I respect every Jewish, Christian, and polytheist religionist.  They may have deep religious reasons to tolerate or even advocate open borders.  I advise you to respect that, but don't mistake anyone who is happy with mass immigration for a conservative.  

Bottom Line:  Legitimize and normalize restrictionism, with everything you say and write.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Fractured Gentlemen

I was thinking about Roissy in DC and Agnostic Gloam the other day.  I haven't been to their blogs in a while, because reading pickup artist stuff always makes me uncomfortable.  When rightists defend the PUAs I think they generally do a better job than the PUAs do defending themselves.  Roissy's conviction that he is going to copulate feminism out of existence seems arrogant and implausible.  In contrast, the various reactionaries, paleocons, immigration restrictionists who say he's onto something may be onto something.

Not onto something about chasing women, so much as ... onto something about what ingredients there are in the pickup artist's approach to life that are valid.  (I'm not going to call PUAs "alphas".  I don't endorse Roissy's peculiar use of "alpha" and "beta".  An alpha is a male who has lots of children.  As far as we know, Roissy has none.)  I'll refer to that mass of lonely, usually awkward males as "the downtrodden".

A gentleman laughs off the "negs" (unprovoked put-downs) thrown by women.  It would not be gentle to respond in kind, nor would it be manly to allow one's feathers to be ruffled.  The downtrodden carry the reminders of every glove that lays them down (with apologies to Simon & Garfunkel).  The PUAs win this round; they discipline themselves to roll with the punches (as well as honing their own razor tongues).

A gentleman respects the feelings of his friends.  (The word for someone who does not is "cad', and it is a grave insult.)  Still, the gentleman coddles no one over the age of five and has little patience with weaklings.  This round is clearly a draw.  Downtrodden men tiptoe around everyone, while PUAs enjoy running roughshod.

A gentleman enjoys the company of women.  This of course is facilitated by the lighthearted spirit of play that pervades his social encounters with the opposite sex.  The irony is that of the two modern archetypes, the downtrodden has every reason to eschew the company of women, since it can be so painful to his delicate feelings.  His opposite, on the other hand, should have every reason to enjoy coed socializing - yet he seems to see it mainly as a means to arrange those encounters where there is little talking and (at least traditionally) only one woman.  So in spite of their feelings, on the question of actually seeking female friendship, the downtrodden win the round.

A gentleman doesn't shrink from a fight.  Likewise, Roissy gives "market value" points to any man who has been so angry that he fought and wanted to kill someone (unless it is a woman; on that Roissy and the gentleman of yesteryear are in perfect agreement).  The downtrodden, by definition, avoid conflict and run for cover.  Sorry guys, the more you shrink and try to be invisible, the more noticeable it is.

A gentleman has a healthy interest in gentlemanly pursuits.  This is a tautology, but I include it because it is important to list and categorize these pursuits.  Gentlemanly interests include "mechanicals" (we'll update that to science, guns, and automobiles), "the arts" (meaning approximately what they do today, with more emphasis on poetry and literature), "sport" (basically hunting, fishing, and ball sports), the "good life" (tasty food and drink, among others), and "civic life" (everything not government, military, or religious is civic, but the gentleman was a real joiner, as well as a talker and a listener).  Family, religion, and work round out the list.  

The PUAs and the downtrodden divide up this list.  The PUAs are more interested in cars, sports, and social drinking.  The downtrodden are more interested in science, weaponry (though not hunting, which is a rural everyman's pursuit), various nerdy clubs, religion, and their jobs.  Both groups like movies and food in about equal measure; while poetry and family seem to have gone out of style for everyone.  One the balance, I'd say the downtrodden win the purse here, if only because they have a greater variety of interests and are more likely to seem truly interested in their interests, while PUAs reek faintly of treating everything as a vehicle in which to chase skirts.  

What it all adds up to, for me, is the unmistakable impression that the ideal gentleman has cracked in the middle and split clean in half.  I'll grant that this is based on my experience alone.  (If you haven't spent hours in basements with nerds talking alternately about guided missiles and how hard it is to meet interesting women, my combination may seem implausible.)  If a Victorian gentleman fell out of a timewarp, I can't help thinking he'd despise all of the nerds he met, thoroughly enjoy discoursing with nerds in writing (at least if they didn't write about computers), and have a fine time clubbing with Roissy until he was forced to knock the latter's block off on the grounds of incorrigible rakishness.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Against Misogyny

Andrew Yeoman wrote a pessimistic but thought-provoking article for Alternative Right that's been much linked to.  (Hat tip to Tribe of Ice, who has linked not just to Yeoman but to three more upbeat posts on his blog.)

His sixth of eight points on Why We Will Lose reads:
Kryptonite to Women -- Okay, maybe what we're doing isn't kryptonite to all women, but many women won't associate with our ideas. Why is this important?  Because it leaves half our people out of the struggle. The women that do stick around have to deal with a constant litany of abuse and frequent courtship invitations from unwanted suitors.  Beyond the often-restated tropes about crime against woman, nothing says "you are not important to us" than sexualizing women in the movement. Don't tell me that's not an issue.  I've seen it happen in all kinds of radical circles, and ours is the worst for it. With our woman folk that contribute to the cause, be encouraging and helpful and not discouraging and unhelpful.  We need women's help, now more than ever.
This is a very good point.  It is one that has been burning in the back of my mind for a while.  There needs to be outreach to women by the pro-white conservative and reactionary movement.  For now we are mostly male.

In a way this makes sense.  White and Asian males are victims of affirmative action; females of these groups can either be beneficiaries or victims.  So there is one less grievance spurring females to action.  On the other hand, some of the worst interracial atrocities hit white women (and presumably Asian women, though I haven't seen direct evidence of this) in the form of over 10,000 rapes per year, as well as assorted beatings (hat tip: Dennis Mangan).

Women need to know that there are white men still alive who want to protect them, not through either "knight errantry" of either the martyr or vigilante variety, but through disciplined political action.  Crime is of paramount importance, of course, but cultural decay, enforced multilingualism, falling educational standards, and emergency rooms crowded with non-contributors are also important issues.

Some of alt-rightists rail against woman suffrage.  I am very skeptical of claims by some that the downfall of limited government and traditional republicanism can be blamed on female voters.  I am not a feminist, unless you can be an ultraconservative neo-McCarthyist feminist, which I highly doubt.  Contra the critics of woman suffrage, it is clear that the central problem of political rights is not the removal of gender qualification in 1920, but the removal of property qualifications in the early 19th Century.

I don't activate a return to the era in which owning real property was a qualification for voting.  What matters is that only net taxpayers be allowed to vote.  Owning land is a sign that someone is paying taxes, but not necessarily net taxes; furthermore, there are many taxes other than property taxes.  Incidentally, my proposal would also satisfy John Derbyshire's call to Disenfranchise the Public Sector, as well as disenfranchising welfare recipients and military contractors (though not actual military personnel, who contribute enough by putting their lives on the line).

Difficult as this would be to put into a constitutional amendment, it would be considerably easier than disenfranchising women, which I consider nigh impossible.  But beyond that, I ask you conservatives and reactionaries: Who would you rather disenfranchise - your mother and the love of your life, or a homeless man and a Federal bureaucrat?