Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Religious Dick

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36
1
3DHS / The un-Americans
« on: February 01, 2018, 10:28:57 PM »
The un-Americans

One of the things that has always been true about America is that you never question someone?s patriotism unless you have very strong evidence. Part of this is due to the immigrant back story of most Americans, but a bigger part is the fragmented nature of the country. Patriotism is the glue that holds the American Nations together. Different groups from different regions stick together because of a common national creed. This also works across class lines. The rich, the middle and the poor are equally patriotic.

One result of this has been a desire by leaders to not look like fops. Politicians, business men, even generals, have always done the every-man act in order to seem like one of the folks.We don?t have a hereditary class, but we do have rich people. Rather than a rigid class system, the rich make sure to let the lower classes know they have the same duty to the country as everyone else. This soul and soil nationalism, rather than blood and soil, is what binds the social classes and the regional cultures together. At least it used too.

That?s certainly not the way things are now. Our cultural and political leaders go out of their way to signal their hostility to the lower classes. In fact, it has become so common for our betters to sneer at us, they are competing with one another to prove just how much they hate Americans. Of course, they mean white Americans. The swarthy recent imports are the best, but the old stock, well, they are the worst, according to the people claiming to represent us. It really is remarkable just how much they detest us.

A commenter on Steve Sailer?s blog asked, in response to this David Brooks column, ?Has there ever been another time in American history when American elites felt this comfortable expressing such open contempt and hatred for their fellow citizens?? It is a good question. Certainly elites from some sections have hated the people of other sections. Virginia gentry, prior to the Civil War, thought the goobers from West Virginia were worst than Indians. New Englanders hate the South. Everyone hates Cleveland.

What we?re seeing today is different. It is a public hatred directed at the fundamental nature of America, and by extension, Americans. Here?s an example from Bill Kristol in response to an immigration segment on Fox News. What Kristol is arguing is that Americans, as in current citizens, have no right to discuss immigration policy. It is immoral for us to say anything about it. On the other hand, non-Americans, people not currently citizens, have a moral duty to cross the border and settle in your neighborhood.

Kristol is hardly alone. It is not strictly a Jewish thing either. Lyndsey Graham is not Jewish, as far as anyone knows. He no longer thinks America should exist. He denies that the current citizens have any right to exist whatsoever. Granted, he is a shrieking hysteric, prone to hyperbole, but there?s only one way to interpret what he is saying. Being an American is no longer permissible. In fact, the underlying rationale of the open borders side is that the current Americans are just no good and need to be replaced.

Now, this turn in elite opinion has been a long time coming. In the Clinton years, suddenly comfortable Boomers started buying McMansions and pretending they were too good for the hoi polloi in flyover country. Progressive politics moved away from the bread and butter economic issues and onto esoteric identity politics. This snottiness was most apparent when the Left went to war on WalMart. Once Progressives stopped pretending to like normal Americans, the so-called Conservatives joined them.

Elites have always had a disdain for the lower classes. This has been true at all times and all places. Elites have also always had a duty to look out for the interests of the lower classes. The ruling class may not have liked the people over whom they ruled, but they were duty bound to look out for them and keep their opinions to themselves. What?s happening in modern America is the ruling class is rejecting their duty to their fellow citizen, because they have contempt for the very notion that we are their fellow citizens.

There really is no example from history where the ruling class revolted and declared war on its subjects. That?s where we are today in America. When Trump gave his State of the Union, most of the people in the building hated him because he holds onto the old fashioned belief that the American government should serve the American people. As far as they are concerned, he?s not just a class traitor, he is insane. After all, why would anyone think the people in charge have any responsibility to the rabble?

It used to be that ?un-American? meant counter to the American system and the American creed.The people charged with policing that were the people in charge. Today, being un-American is a badge of honor for the people in charge. A US Congressman actually fled the building when the crowd started in with a patriotic chant during Trump?s address to Congress. You can be sure he was the toast of the city, a hero to his coevals in the political class. Bizarre as it sounds, America is a country now ruled by un-Americans.

http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=12704

4
3DHS / Trump's Warsaw Uprising
« on: July 16, 2017, 03:23:59 PM »
For supporters and detractors alike, U.S. President Donald J. Trump's July 6 speech in Warsaw was immediately recognized as the most important of his presidency to date. Since so much was crystallized by it - or perhaps brought to a head - it is impossible to begin making sense of this event without some preliminary broad-brush outline of its context.

The new dominant ideological polarity, on both sides of the Atlantic, exhibits remarkably similar characteristics.  Perhaps most strikingly, it displays the culmination of an ideological-class inversion, decades in coming, which has aligned the masses ? and in particular the native working class ? with the right, and social elites with the left. In consequence, populism has been firmly locked into place as a phenomenon of the right. Even those classical liberal stances most tightly bound to the advancement of commercial liberty, and thus most firmly associated with the conservative right, have not escaped radical scrambling, whether through re-assessment, marginalization, or complete inversion.

In this new and disconcerting epoch, business interest has ceased to be any kind of index for right affiliation, and popular opposition to free-trade no longer defines a substantial bloc on the left. If anything, the opposite is now true. Those on the left or right (including this author) who stubbornly maintain that ideological orientation to capitalism is the fundamental determinant of meaningful political polarity find themselves cast into a position of unplugged anachronism. The stunning magnitude of this transition should not be underestimated.

This is not, of course, a development without alarming precedent. From at least one perspective - which is by no means necessarily hysterical - the boundary between right-wing populism and fascism can be difficult to discern. Insofar as the affective context to Trump?s speech is concerned, this is without serious question the most important element.

Many books could be devoted to the new terms of political controversy, and almost certainly will be. Each of the still-unstable new camps is highly heterogeneous, and cross-cut with a variety of complex strategic interests regarding the way the great rift between them is described, so every attempt at articulation will be contested, often fiercely. Yet even amid the present shock and confusion, some basic structure is discernible. Beside the political opposition between left and right - in its present, re-adjusted, sense - it is not hard to recognize a corresponding globalist and nationalist emphasis, pitting universalists against particularists: defenders of the contemporary world?s institutional order against its opponents, or partisans of cosmopolitan openness against parochial localists, according to taste. Because, concretely, the insurgency marks a crisis of international social management, and of confidence in established, credentialized elites, to describe it as a struggle between technocrats and populists is roughly as neutral as we can get. Such terms are employed here as mere labels, rather than as judgments, or explanations. No extravagant disparagement is directed at either, relative to the other. The constituencies they name have substantial depths, exceeding any facile definition. They are obscure social masses in conflict, rather than competing ideas.

With Trump's arrival in Warsaw, two pairs of profoundly antagonistic political constituencies - one American, the other European - were mapped across each other, resonantly. Populist Red America had found its local champion in Warsaw, versus that of technocratic Blue America, in Berlin. These alignments were not seriously questioned, from any side. That the open-door policy of Angela Merkel's Germany, exemplifying its defense of EU institutions and traditional policy stances in general, were in fundamental affinity with the ideological intuitions of Blue America, were self-evident to all parties. Reciprocally, the identification of Trumpian Red America with the Polish stance of EU dissidence - on the immigration issue most pointedly - was taken as self-evident. Even before the visit, to those paying attention, the Polish regime had become an icon of ethno-nationalist popular revolt against technocratic transnational government, evangelical secularism, and mass migration. Everything clicked.

It is difficult to be confident about how much lucid strategy under-pinned the event. In all matters Trump, the default assumption tends to be not very much. Given Trump's characteristic bluster, and unusual comfort with low demagoguery, such dismissal is to be expected. This is not at all to suggest it is acute. If political instincts tuned almost to perfection played no part, then divine intervention - or some blessing of fortune functionally indistinguishable from it - is the next most plausible hypothesis.

The speech itself was rhetorically pedestrian, and even clumsy. It is hard to imagine any single sentence being remembered from it, unless for purposes of dry historical illustration. The language was tailored entirely to its immediate audience - both local and international - rather than to the delectation of future generations. The speech was, in this respect among others, a thing of the social media age, tuned to instantaneous feedback. It manifestly schmoozed, even by the dismal standards of such orations. The rapport it struck with its local listeners tipped into collective self-congratulation. Wow, we really are great seems to have been the consensus, among all directly involved. To those disinclined to identify with the speaker and throng in question, this can only have been annoying. Enemy rallies generally are, as conservatives learnt during the Obama years. The untroubled self-love of one?s foes, exuberantly manifested, is a truly horrible thing to see. Naturally enough, Trump has been no more distressed by this fact than his predecessor.

There is one further, and indispensable contextual element that needs to be raised before proceeding to the media reaction - which was, of course, the deepest level of the event - and that is the 'Jew Thing.' Everyone knows, at some level, we have to start talking about that, in some way, even those who - entirely understandably - really don't want to. Ignoring the topic is a disappearing option, because there's no reason, at all, to think it's going away. Perhaps it was mere coincidence that Trump's visit took him deep into holocaust territory, which, again, nobody really seems to want to mention, even though it was an explicit thread within his speech. It was, however, structurally essential to everything that followed. Unmistakably, even as it went unacknowledged, the Jewish dimension added greatly to the feverish intensity of the response.

The extreme sensitivity to Jewish socio-political anxieties that has prevailed in the postwar West is notably losing its edge, in a way that doesn?t seem plausibly reversible. At least in part, this is a consequence of the generalization of identity politics, predominantly under leftist direction, which has the peculiar cultural effect - in its late stages - that special cases are becoming increasingly difficult to make. Victimological status bursts its banks, among conditions of unbounded, and symmetrical, ethnic paranoia. Lurid grievance anecdotes - tailored to every imaginable social niche - are always in abundance, fed by Internet supply-lines. Persecution narratives explode from all sides. Demands to 'check one's privilege' have proven awkwardly mobile, and reversible, as they have been increasingly normalized, even to the point - in this particular example - of overt, caustic antisemitism.

The result is nothing less than a crisis of the diasporic Jewish left, whose argumentative edge has been blunted by decades of exceptional immunity to unflinching criticism. Defensive cultural strategies that have, for half a century, been accepted, unquestioned as a special ethno-historical privilege have quite suddenly become subjected to irreverent public inspection. Everyone wants a piece of ethnic survivalism now.

This is the key to what happened in Warsaw. It is evoked as the subtext to Peter Beinart's wail of distress, when exposed to Trump's line: "The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive." Beinart was quite correct in recognizing - horrified - the resonance of this sentence with the most extreme elements of the present transition, but that was no help to him. He had been ambushed.

Trump made his speech explicitly about ethnic survival, disarmingly aligned with WWII Jewish victimage, with heroic Polish resistance to foreign military occupation, and finally - most provocatively - with the contemporary situation of the West. It naturally helped him, overwhelmingly, that the Warsaw Uprising was an insurrection against actual Nazis. This provided a vaccination against the normal workings of Godwin's Law. You know who else wanted ethnic survival? Adolf Hitler!  - We have reached the core of the event now. There was simply no way this response, which was the only one that mattered to Trump?s enemies on the left, could conceivably be made to operate on this occasion. What was being celebrated was the Poles surviving Nazism, then communism, and now - infinitely awkwardly - again the Germans, this time cast in the role of principal executors for a transnational political order promoting mandatory multiculturalism, secular technocracy,  and the culture of Western historical self-flagellation. The result, almost inevitably, was a rout.

It took no great flights of oratorical bedazzlement to triumph on this battlefield. The situation did almost everything. Trump?s maddened enemies blundered into the trap, and were shattered. The left, for whom of course the West has no right to survive, found itself ideologically isolated to a degree that was unprecedented under the present administration. Their tactical allies in the 'Never-Trump' conservative establishment evaporated. Hardened Trump skeptics, such as Rod Dreher, David French, and Jonah Goldberg contributed their talents to hunting down the fleeing leftist remnants. David Frum only held his ground in opposition by arguing that Trump was personally unworthy of his own speech.

Beinart came out of the trauma worst. He will forever be haunted by his own definition of the matter at stake, which was immediately judged from all sides to be an unforced production of Alt-Right propaganda: "The West is a racial and religious term. To be considered Western, a country must be largely Christian (preferably Protestant or Catholic) and largely white." Across social media, much nodding ensued, from constituencies whose approval he would surely least appreciate.

Jonah Goldberg refused explicitly to follow what was now so vividly exhibited as the road of obligate European ethnomasochism and civilizational self-hatred: "What's ironic is that Peter's desk-pounding outrage about Trump's talk of the West is oh-so Western. The West's tolerance for anti-Western philosophies is a fairly unique feature of the West itself. We love to beat ourselves up." Defense of the West, therefore, is taken up as a cause inclusive even of its critics.

It is Rod Dreher, however, who best captures what Trump consolidated in Warsaw, perhaps for the first time. He says, comparing Trump to his leftist critics:

As is often the case with conservatives and Trump, no matter how much you may despise him and his pomps and works, in the end, you know that he doesn't hate your beliefs, and that he and his government aren't going to use the power of the State to suppress you as a threat to public order and all things good and holy. [...] That's not nothing.

However much Trump fosters aversion among many conservatives, he also provokes events that remind conservatives why they hate liberals (using these terms in their degenerate contemporary American sense). Plenty of conservatives hate Trump, and will continue to hate him, probably until the end of his second term in office, if not longer. But the way liberals hate him poses an obvious existential threat to all forms of conservative life. As Martin Niemoller never quite said, first they came for Trump and it was pretty damn obvious I was next in the queue.

Nick Land is an independent writer living in Shanghai.

https://jacobitemag.com/2017/07/12/trumps-warsaw-uprising/

5
3DHS / 白左
« on: May 13, 2017, 11:55:09 PM »
The curious rise of the 'white left' as a Chinese internet insult

Meet the Chinese netizens who combine a hatred for the 'white left with a love of US president Donald Trump.

If you look at any thread about Trump, Islam or immigration on a Chinese social media platform these days, it's impossible to avoid encountering the term baizuo, or literally, the 'white left'. It first emerged about two years ago, and yet has quickly become one of the most popular derogatory descriptions for Chinese netizens to discredit their opponents in online debates.

So what does 'white left' mean in the Chinese context, and what's behind the rise of its (negative) popularity' It might not be an easy task to define the term, for as a social media buzzword and very often an instrument for ad hominem attack, it could mean different things for different people. A thread on 'why well-educated elites in the west are seen as na've 'white left' in China' on Zhihu, a question-and-answer website said to have a high percentage of active users who are professionals and intellectuals, might serve as a starting point.

The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the 'white left'. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who 'only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment' and 'have no sense of real problems in the real world'; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to 'satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority'; they are 'obsessed with political correctness' to the extent that they 'tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism'; they believe in the welfare state that 'benefits only the idle and the free riders'; they are the 'ignorant and arrogant westerners' who 'pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours'.     

Apart from some anti-hegemonic sentiments, the connotations of 'white left' in the Chinese context clearly resemble terms such as 'regressive liberals' or 'libtards' in the United States. In a way the demonization of the 'white left' in Chinese social media may also reflect the resurgence of right-wing populism globally.   

However, Chinese netizens' fierce attacks against the 'white left' seem curiously devoid of experiential motivation, since all these problems that conservatives in the west are concerned about ' immigration, multiculturalism, minority rights, and affirmative actions ' are largely unknown to Chinese society. This is not to say that discrimination against women and ethnic, religious and sexual minorities do not exist in China. They are no less serious or structural here than in any other societies. But cultural and identity politics has never gained much salience as political issues under an authoritarian regime, although feminist activists have received increased attention recently. Overall, there has been 'too little', rather than 'too much' political correctness as perceived by conservatives in the west.   

Chinese netizens' fierce attacks against the 'white left' seem curiously devoid of experiential motivation.

In fact, heated discussions about baizuo on Chinese social media websites rarely make reference to domestic issues, except for occasionally and unsurprisingly insulting Chinese Muslims for being 'unintegrated' or 'complicit in the spread of Islam extremism'. The stigmatization of the 'white left' is driven first and foremost by Chinese netizens' understanding of 'western' problems. It is a symptom and weakness of the Other.

The term first became influential amidst the European refugee crisis, and Angela Merkel was the first western politician to be labelled as a baizuo for her open-door refugee policy. Hungary, on the other hand, was praised by Chinese netizens for its hard line on refugees, if not for its authoritarian leader. Around the same time another derogatory name that was often used alongside baizuo was shengmu ' literally the 'holy mother' ' which according to its users refers to those who are 'overemotional', 'hypocritical' and 'have too much empathy'. The criticisms of baizuo and shengmu soon became an online smear campaign targeted at not only public figures such as J. K. Rowling and Emma Watson, but also volunteers, social workers and all other ordinary citizens, whether in Europe or China, who express any sympathy with international refugees.

In May 2016, Amnesty International published their survey results indicating that the most welcoming country for refugees was China. Leaving the reliability of its sample and methodology aside, this finding was not at all taken as a compliment in the Chinese media. Global Times conducted their own online survey in response to Amnesty's claim, and the results were quite the opposite: 90.3% said 'no' to the question 'would you accept refugees in your own household'' and 79.6% said 'no' to the question 'would you accept refugees in your city, or would you like to be neighbours with refugees''. Ironically, Amnesty's portrayal of China as a welcoming country for displaced people was even read by some netizens as part of a foreign conspiracy, intended to pressure the Chinese government to accept more refugees. A senior researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences commented that this survey was 'weird' and seemed to 'incite citizens against the government'.   

The anti-baizuo discourse in Chinese social media gained stronger momentum during the US presidential election campaign. If criticisms of the 'white left' in the context of the refugee crisis were mainly about disapproval of 'moralist humanitarianism' mixed with Islamophobia, they became politically more elaborate as Chinese critics of the 'white left' discovered Donald J. Trump, whom they both identify with and take inspirations from. Following the debates in the US, a number of other issues such as welfare reforms, affirmative action and minority rights were introduced into online discussions on the 'white left'. Baizuo critics now began to identify Obama and Clinton as the new epitome of the 'white left', despite the fact that they were neither particularly humanitarian nor particularly kind to migrants. Trump was taken as the champion of everything the 'white left' were against, and baizuo critics naturally became his enthusiastic supporters. 

To be sure, and fortunately, not all in Chinese cyberspace talk about the 'white left' in a derogatory way, just as not all appreciate the views and style of Trump. Rao Yi, a renowned neurobiologist and public intellectual, was one of the few to publically criticize the demonization of baizuo and Chinese netizens' support for Trump on television. His statement stirred up a great deal of controversy online. An overwhelming majority of Zhihu users thought that Rao had only proved that he was typical of the 'white left': biased, elitist, ignorant of social reality and constantly applying double standards. 

What are the possible explanations of the prevailing hostility to the 'white left' in Chinese social media' Only a fraction of the arguments can be considered interests-based, and they are made by established and newly arrived overseas Chinese in Europe and North America. Many students and job-seekers in Europe, for example, argue that it is simply unfair that they 'have to work so hard to stay, whereas these refugees can simply come and claim asylum'. More or less established Chinese immigrants in the United States often make the case that affirmative action policies put Chinese-Americans in a disadvantageous position, and 'Chinese should not pay the price for the wrongs white Americans have done'. It isn't the place to analyse the pitfalls of these claims here; my focus is rather on why mainland Chinese people adopt such a strong and emotionally charged view on issues they do not have direct experience with. The following ideological, instead of interest-based factors might be at play in both domestic and international contexts.       

From a domestic perspective, the proliferation of anti-baizuo sentiment is clearly in line with the dominance of a kind of brutal, demoralized pragmatism in post-socialist China. Many of the attacks on the welfare state and the idea that states have obligations towards international refugees appeal to the same social Darwinist logic of 'survival of the fittest'. It is assumed that individuals should take responsibility for their own misery, whether it is war or poverty, and should not be helped by others. The rationale goes hand in hand with the view that inequality is inevitable in a market-economy-cum-Hobbesian-society. Although economic disparity in China has been worsening in recent years, sociologist Yu Xie found that most Chinese people regard it as an inevitable consequence of economic growth, and that inequality is unlikely to give rise to political or social unrest.

Pragmatism with an emphasis on self-responsibility seems to be the ideology of our post-ideological times. It is, in UK prime minister Theresa May's words, 'living within our means'. This is combined with a general indifference towards race issues, or even worth, with certain social Darwinist beliefs that some races are superior to others, leading many mainland Chinese netizens to dismiss struggles against structural discriminations as na've, pretentious or demanding undeserved privileges.

Seen from the perspective of international relations, the anti-baizuo discourse can be understood as part of what William A. Callahan calls 'negative soft power', that is, constructing the Chinese self through 'the deliberate creation and then exclusion' of Others as 'barbarians' or otherwise inferior. Criticisms of the 'white left' against the background of the European refugee crisis fit especially well with the 'rising China' versus 'Europe in decline' narrative. According to Baidu Trends, one of the most related keywords to baizuo was huimie: 'to destroy'. Articles with titles such as 'the white left are destroying Europe' were widely circulated.

In an academic-style essay that was retweeted more than 7000 times on Weibo, a user named 'fantasy lover Mr. Liu' 'reviewed' European philosophy from Voltaire and Marx to Adorno and Foucault, concluding that the 'white left' as a 'spiritual epidemic' is on its way to self-destruction. He then stated that Trump's win was only 'a small victory over this spiritual epidemic of humankind', but 'western civilization is still far from its self-redemption'. However ridiculous it may appear, the post is illustrative of how a demonized Other is projected onto seemingly objective or academic criticisms of the 'white left'. Ultimately, the more the 'white left' ' whatever it means ' represent the fatal weakness of democracy, the more institutional and normative security the Chinese regime enjoys. The grassroots campaign against the 'white left' thus echoes the officially-sanctioned campaign against 'universal values', providing a negative evidence for the superiority of the Chinese self.

Finally, it should to be noted that the internet in China is subject to strict censorship. The Chinese government has been known to hire a large number of 'internet commentators' to fabricate social media posts. According to recent research conducted by scholars at Harvard University, 29% of such posts they investigated fell into the category of 'taunting of foreign countries'. It is nonetheless impossible to know whether these accused posts are indeed written by government employees. Similarly, it is hard to tell whether some of the criticisms of baizuo are coming from fabricated commentators-for-hire. However, given the strict censorship regime, criticizing democratic values such as pluralism, tolerance, and solidarity is certainly one of the safest 'critical' opinions ordinary citizens can express online. 


https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/chenchen-zhang/curious-rise-of-white-left-as-chinese-internet-insult

6
3DHS / Make Parasitism Unprofitable Through Punishment
« on: May 06, 2017, 01:53:56 AM »
MAKE PARASITISM UNPROFITABLE THROUGH PUNISHMENT

1) You don?t argue with ?liberals?, ?progressives?, socialists, and feminists.

2) You prosecute them. You point out that they?re liars, parasites, thieves.

3) Then you beat them, deprive them of property, enslave them if you must, and kill them if necessary.

When parasitism is unprofitable it will stop.

As long as parasitism is profitable it will continue.

So:
Hit, hurt, beat, deprive, enslave, kill. We are men. We defend capital. We defend capital against all enemies familial, domestic, and foreign.

Every man militia, every man a sheriff, every man a judge, every man a hangman.

There is only one source of truth, prosperity, sovereignty, and the conditions of liberty and freedom and subsidy:

The reciprocal insurance of natural law by ENOUGH men willing and able, to make alternatives too costly to pursue.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute

https://propertarianism.com/2017/05/05/make-parasitism-unprofitable-through-punishment/

7
3DHS / Behind the Internet's Anti-Democracy Movement
« on: February 11, 2017, 08:34:22 PM »
Behind the Internet's Anti-Democracy Movement

White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is reportedly a reader of neoreactionary political theory. A tour through the pro-authoritarian philosophy gaining visibility on the right.

Rosie GrayFeb 10, 2017
White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has been in contact via intermediaries with Curtis Yarvin, Politico Magazine reported this week. Yarvin, a software engineer and blogger, writes under the name Mencius Moldbug. His anti-egalitarian arguments have formed the basis for a movement called ?neoreaction.?

The main thrust of Yarvin?s thinking is that democracy is a bust; rule by the people doesn?t work, and doesn?t lead to good governance. He has described it as an ?ineffective and destructive? form of government, which he associates with ?war, tyranny, destruction and poverty.? Yarvin?s ideas, along with those of the English philosopher Nick Land, have provided a structure of political theory for parts of the white-nationalist movement calling itself the alt-right. The alt-right can be seen as a political movement; neoreaction, which adherents refer to as NRx, is a philosophy. At the core of that philosophy is a rejection of democracy and an embrace of autocratic rule.

The fact that Bannon reportedly reads and has been in contact with Yarvin is another sign of the extent to which the Trump era has brought previously fringe right-wing ideologies into the spotlight. It has brought new energy into a right that is questioning and actively trying to dismantle existing orthodoxies?even ones as foundational as democracy. The alt-right, at this point, is well-known, while NRx has remained obscure. But with one of the top people in the White House paying attention, it seems unlikely to remain obscure for long.

Yarvin?s posts on history, race, and governance are written in a style that is detached and edgy, to say the least. ?What's so bad about the Nazis?? he asked in a blog post in 2008, writing, ?we are taught that the Nazis were bad because they committed mass murder, to wit, the Holocaust. On the other hand... (a): none of the parties fighting against the Nazis, including us, seems to have given much of a damn about the Jews or the Holocaust. (b): one of the parties on our side was the Soviet Union, whose record of mass murder was known at the time and was at least as awful as the Nazis'.?

?It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff,? Yarvin wrote in 2007. In a 2009 post about the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle?s defense of slavery, he argued that some races are more suited to slavery than others.

Yarvin?s blog has been mostly inactive since 2014. He now is focusing on a startup, Urbit, whose investors reportedly include Paypal co-founder and Trump backer Peter Thiel. (Thiel has himself questioned some of the fundamentals of American politics, writing in 2009, ?I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.?) 

For a group of people whose writings tend towards the verbose, neoreactionaries don?t show much interest in talking to reporters. Yarvin declined to cooperate when I reached out to ask about his alleged contact with Bannon, instead choosing to try to troll me into believing a Twitter user called @BronzeAgePerv is his contact with the White House.

?Think you should speak directly to my WH cutout / cell leader,? Yarvin said in an email. ?I've never met him and don't know his identity, we just DM on Twitter.  He's said to be ?very close? to Bannon. There are several levels, but most people just start out with his public persona.? @BronzeAgePerv?s avatar is of a muscular, shirtless man and his account?s biography reads: ?Steppe barbarian. Nationalist, Fascist, Nudist Bodybuilder! Purification of world. Revolt of the damned. Destruction of the cities!?

?I know nothing about BAP personally, except that he lifts.  DM him. He may not give you any info but he always responds,? Yarvin said. ?Apparently there's a big underground movement of right-wing bodybuilders -- thousands.  Their plan is to surface spectacularly this April, in a choreographed flash demo on the Mall.  They'll be totally nude, but wearing MAGA hats.  Goal is to intimidate Congress with pure masculine show of youth, energy.  Trump is said to know, will coordinate with powerful EOs?? Yarvin denied to Vox that he has been in any contact with Bannon.

?Appreciate the message,? came the response from the Hestia Society, which is one of the newer NRx hubs. ?Unfortunately, we prefer not to do interviews. Neoreaction.net might have more of what you're looking for.?

?Thanks for the email,? wrote Hadley Bishop, the editor of Social Matter, another node of NRx online thinking. ?Social Matter does not give interviews. We?ve said everything we would like to say at neoreaction.net.?

?No,? said Nick Steves, the pseudonym used by one NRxer well-known within the movement. ?It will only lend false credence to the misleading facts and outright errors you will inevitably print irrespective of my involvement.?

Asked what he thought I would print, Steves explained that ?115 IQ people are not generally well equipped to summarize 160 IQ people? and that only one journalist, Vox?s Dylan Matthews, had ?come close to permitting NRx to speak for itself.?

?You DO understand that, by the NRx view, journos occupy a major seat of power, viz. manufacturers of consent, in the current structure,? Steves said. ?Thus you see why you are the enemy. No hard feelings of course. I'm sure you're a very nice person. But politics is war by other means, and war is, by definition, existential.? (Steves has written a ?code of conduct? for neoreactionaries that includes the rule, ?Don?t talk to the press about Neoreaction.?)

So, on to neoreaction.net, which states up front that ?Neoreaction is a political worldview and intellectual movement based largely on the ideas of Mencius Moldbug.?

The worldview espouses an explicitly authoritarian idea, a rejection of the post-Enlightenment vision of a world that is continually improving as it becomes more democratic. Per the website?s authors:

The core of our problem is that there is no one with the secure authority to fix things. The core of our solution is to find a man, and put him in charge, with a real chain of command, and a clear ownership structure.

Real leadership would undertake a proper corporate restructuring of USG: Pardon and retire all employees of the old regime; formalize obligations as simple financial instruments; nationalize and restructure the banks, media, and universities; and begin the long slow process of organic cultural recovery from centuries of dysfunction.

Who will be the leaders? Well:

The only viable path to restoration of competent government is the simple and hard way:

Become worthy.

Accept power.

Rule.

Neoreaction?s touchstones include the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle, a key progenitor of the ?Great Man? theory of history; the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, a central influence on the American libertarian movement; and Bertrand de Jouvenel, a 1930s-era French political theorist.

Neoreaction is an ideology obsessed with both the mechanics of power and autocratic governance, and with aesthetics. Some neoreactionaries have a Tumblr devoted to their aesthetic vision, called Post-Anathema. The images tend to be futurist and hyper-masculine; soldiers with guns, tanks, spaceships, Greek gods. Cathedrals, too, a seeming reference to the Catholic traditionalist strain of the movement (?CRx?) and which, intentionally or not, calls to mind Moldbug?s use of ?the Cathedral? to denote the elite academic and media establishment.

If it?s a little in the weeds compared to the by-now-familiar alt-right aesthetic?Pepe the frog, fashy haircuts, and the like?that?s on purpose. Neoreaction is explicitly and purposefully opaque, and has no interest in appealing to a wider audience. This puts it at odds with some of the alt-right or ?new right? leaders who seek to take their ideas mainstream.

?NRx was a prophetic warning about the rise of the Alt-Right,? said Nick Land, the English philosopher whose Dark Enlightenment series is considered a foundational neoreactionary text. ?As a populist, and in significant ways anti-capitalist movement, the Alt-Right is a very different beast to NRx.?

?The Alt-Right, I guess, is a 'movement'??NRx isn't,? Land said in an email when asked about how influential NRx is at this point. ?As far as influence is concerned, it's still probably a little early to tell. I think it's fair to say that early signs are surprisingly NRx-positive. That's to say, the libertarian themes of the administration (de-regulation, appointments that "question the very existence of their own departments ...) are far stronger than might have been expected from the Trump election platform. Also, Steven [sic] Bannon is looking far less of an Alt-Right sympathizer than had been suggested (?Judeao-Christian? is a term that gives them the hives, even if his defense of Capitalism is far more hedged than NRx ex-libertarian types would see as ideal).?

Land says Bannon has never reached out to him. ?I have no reason to think he is familiar with my work.?

Bannon, the former chairman of Breitbart News, a site which under his tenure wrote indignantly about Yarvin being barred from a programming conference, didn?t respond to requests for comment. Of course, his reported contact with Moldbug isn?t the only sign of his radical vision; in public statements over the years, he has described a view of a world undergoing nothing less than a clash of civilizations, featuring a struggle between globalism and a downtrodden working class as well as between the Islamic and Western worlds.

The hiring of Michael Anton, a former George W. Bush speechwriter, to serve on the National Security Council staff is another indicator of this White House?s openness to decidedly non-traditional ideas on the right. Anton was recently revealed by The Weekly Standard as the writer behind Publius Decius Mus, the pseudonym Anton used for a widely circulated essay in September titled ?The Flight 93 Election.?

In ?The Flight 93 Election,? Anton compared the American voter?s choice in November 2016 to that of the passengers on Flight 93 on September 11. ?2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die,? Anton began. ?You may die anyway. You?or the leader of your party?may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.? The essay is a bracing middle finger to conservatism, written with verve, and it inspired a critique on the NRx site Social Matter by the pseudonymous writer PT Carlo, who liked the essay except for one thing. ?The only problem with Decius? radical and brilliant analysis isn?t that its assessment of the situation is incorrect, but that its prescriptions aren?t nearly radical enough,? Carlo wrote. (The reaction among movement conservatives was much less enthusiastic. ?Grotesquely irresponsible,? wrote National Review?s Jonah Goldberg. ?A shoddy straw man,? offered Ben Shapiro.)

Anton, before his unmasking, was identified by The New Yorker as one of the intellectual architects of Trumpism; The Huffington Post on Wednesday highlighted some of his more controversial writings, such as a defense of Charles Lindbergh?s America First Committee as ?unfairly maligned? and an assertion that ?Islam and the modern West are incompatible.? Anton has also argued that diversity is ?a source of weakness, tension and disunion.?

In a way, it is Moldbug who presaged Trump more than anyone else, in his writings defining his ?neo-cameralist? philosophy based on Frederick the Great of Prussia?s ?cameralist? administrative model. In 2007, Moldbug outlined a kind of corporation-state being run as a business: ?To a neocameralist, a state is a business which owns a country. A state should be managed, like any other large business, by dividing logical ownership into negotiable shares, each of which yields a precise fraction of the state's profit. (A well-run state is very profitable.) Each share has one vote, and the shareholders elect a board, which hires and fires managers.? Moldbug even envisioned a kind of CEO at the top: ?The personality cult of dictatorship is quite misleading - a totalitarian dictator has little in common with a neocameralist CEO, or even a cameralist monarch.?

In Moldbug?s absence, new NRx nodes have sprung up: Hestia, Social Matter, and Thermidor. The post-Moldbug neoreactionaries still draw on his foundational writings, but the movement is morphing and splintering, and characterized by a conflict between nationalists and ?techno-commercialists.? There is, as well, a history of mutual distrust between some alt-right and NRx figures.

?NRx doesn't think the Alt-Right (in America) is very serious. It's an essentially Anti-Anglo-American philosophy, in its (Duginist) core, which puts a firm ceiling on its potential,? Land said. ?But then, the NRx analysis is that the age of the masses is virtually over. Riled-up populist movements are part of what is passing, rather than of what is slouching toward Bethlehem to be born.? (By ?Duginist,? Land was referring to the ideas of the controversial Russian political scientist Aleksandr Dugin.)

Through a friend, I connected with @kantbot2000, a NRx-connected tweeter who was willing to talk over Twitter direct message. (Kant as in Immanuel.)

Kantbot complained that NRx is dead. ?Visit the social matter forums, its an inactive scene,? he said.

?The European New Right stuff that [Alt-Right leader Richard] Spencer peddles is secondary to the impulse given to the altright by Moldbug and the other [techno-commercialists],? Kantbot wrote. ?That impulse stresses good governance over ideological consideration. Good governance perhaps consisting of the dismantling of progressive institutions.?

?Moldbug is still very active,? Kantbot said. ?More so than he lets on.? Kantbot said Moldbug is ?reading comments, lurking.?

Under his real name, Yarvin did a Reddit AMA last year about his start-up Urbit, and addressed his Moldbug writings.

?It's actually quite possible to recognize that human population genetics has a lot of impact on politics and history, and also recognize that human population genetics has nothing at all to do with your individual, personal and professional human relationships. Nor does politics,? Yarvin wrote. He added that he has lots of progressive friends.

?Would anyone care about the 2016 election if Trump weren't running?? Yarvin wrote. ?And Trump is a throwback from the past, not an omen of the future. The future is grey anonymous bureaucrats, more Brezhnev every year.?

Kantbot began as an atheist Democrat, he said, but grew disillusioned.

?The only thing outside of that space is conservatism and right-wing movements,? he said. ?People like moldbug are going beyond that though, opening up possibilities of new cultural spaces that break out of that stagnant pattern, that can synthesize both progressive and conservative views in new ways.?

Kantbot warned that I might also be tempted by ?the forbidden fruit? of these ideas. ?Be careful or you too may be tempted to walk down the dark path of the altright,? he wrote. ?This is what thousands of people are taking to the streets to protest. This is the dark intellectual center.?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/behind-the-internets-dark-anti-democracy-movement/516243/

10
3DHS / What America Lost as Women Entered the Workforce
« on: September 19, 2016, 10:38:08 PM »
What America Lost as Women Entered the Workforce

It?s a shame that Phyllis Schlafly had a corner on skepticism about women?s liberation. ?Why should we trade in our special privileges and honored status for the alleged advantage of working in an office or assembly line?? the conservative crusader, perhaps best known for her successful campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment, asked in 1972. ?Most women would rather cuddle a baby than a typewriter or a factory machine.?

Schlafly masterfully sold the narrative that women?s rights, including those which would enable their greater participation in the workforce, would hurt women. In the process, she polarized the debate, making conservatives loath to recognize women?s gains, and liberals equally reluctant to acknowledge that progress might entail trade-offs. As more women have joined the workforce and become leaders in traditionally male spheres, gender roles have shifted, and women have lost their exclusive hold over traditionally female spheres. One of these is the home, as Schlafly argued. But women?s dominion over another part of public life has also declined: civil society.

 'Who Run The World'

Triumphs and trials of women in leadership
Read more
Women have long formed collective organizations intended to improve American society. They volunteered their time, waged political campaigns, and advocated for the poor and elderly. They organized voters, patronized the arts, and protested the government. In the years since women?s liberation, this kind of civic engagement has dropped precipitously. The kind of community involvement that has replaced it, where it has been replaced at all, is a weak substitute: When women advocate, it?s often on behalf of their own kids or families. And when they get involved in causes, they tend to cut checks rather than gather in protest. The most vulnerable members of society have lost their best allies?women?partly because those women are too busy working.

That?s not to indulge in nostalgia for a period of American history when women primarily led clubs rather than companies. Women frequently organized to fight for rights they had been denied by men, and they often aspired to lead charitable organizations because they were prevented from pursuing other paths. But ironically, in winning fuller equality with men, some women lost a share of the meaning and purpose that comes from life outside of productive labor. This is not a story about women?s failures, or a polemic against their advancement. It?s a cautionary tale for men and women alike. The corner office isn?t always the pinnacle of leadership. Often, the most important leadership happens in local communities.

* * *

Women?s groups haven?t just existed since America?s founding?they were instrumental in creating the nation. In her book, Natural Allies: Women?s Associations in American History, Anne Firor Scott writes that during the Revolutionary War, women ?banded together to raise money, provide amenities to the soldiers, and support the movement for independence.? During the Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century, ?voluntary associations of all kinds proliferated, to supplement the old institutional structures of family, church, and local government.? Women often took up the causes of the ?worthy? poor, especially women and children, forming organizations with elaborate names like the Female Association for Relief of the Sick Poor, and for the Education of Such Female Children as Do Not Belong To, or Are Not Provided for, by Any Religious Society.

Men formed associations, too, but they were different from those led by women. Men often did good works individually, rather than as groups, Scott wrote, and when they gave money, ?they tended to make large gifts to institutions, particularly those that might bear their names.? Most of all, their civic activity was largely a form of self-advancement, Scott argued: ?Benevolence figured in the building of a man?s career, both as a means of forming associations with other men and as a means of promoting a favorable public image.? But for women, participating in these organizations was their career??an accepted extension of their defined roles as wives and mothers.?

Most importantly, these associations helped women develop a nascent sense of class and political consciousness, Scott argued. Charitable work exposed well-off white women to people of lesser means, and it offered women the chance to see themselves as independent of their husbands. As time went on, these organizations took up political causes such as suffrage, citizenship rights, and, later, equal-pay legislation, wrote the Duke University professor Kristin Goss.

As empowering as civil society was for American women, it was also constraining. ?For centuries ? we had this very distinct public and private realm in America,? said Melissa Deckman, a professor at Washington College. ?Women were not allowed to participate in business or industry or politics. So women who had skills and time on their hands went into more civic activity.? Although groups such as the gender-integrated Independent Order of St. Luke were founded and sometimes led by black women, many of these organizations were led by white women, and ?volunteering used to be in the arena of women with wealthy husbands,? said Thomas Rotolo, a professor at Washington State University. While men went off to be captains of industry, ?women would stay home to deal with philanthropic activities.?

As women?s organizations got more politically oriented, they also started proliferating. In the second half of the 20th century, a number of new women?s rights groups formed, like the National Organization for Women, in 1966, and the Women?s Equity Action League, in 1968. But elsewhere in America, a shift was happening in traditional associational life.

In 1955, at least two dozen ?membership? groups?made up of local chapters that held national meetings?could claim at least 1 percent of American adults on their rolls, according to the Harvard sociologist Theda Skocpol. These were not just groups for women; they included mixed-gender organizations like the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, along with single-gender groups such as the Women?s International Bowling Congress. These kinds of organizations enjoyed success into the mid-1960s, Skocpol wrote. But as national-level, advocacy-oriented groups proliferated?almost all of them in New York City or Washington, D.C.?local, membership-oriented groups started seeing major declines. By the end of the 20th century, Skocpol wrote, this had led to a ?top-down civic world?: When Americans get involved in public life, it?s usually to ?send checks to a dizzying plethora of public affairs and social-service groups run by professionals.?

There are a number of pitfalls to outsourced communal involvement. The focus on national-level advocacy takes away from local groups; the vibrancy of grassroots-driven community organizations can?t be recreated by staffers in offices hundreds of miles away. People also lose the chance to mix with people outside of their wealth and class context: ?Pre-1960s membership associations were much more likely to involve less privileged participants along with the privileged,? Skocpol wrote. ?Privileged men and women who climbed the ladders of vast membership associations had to interact in the process with citizens of humble or middling means and prospects.?

?The moms do everything for the kids, and it spills over into school.?

In many communities, associational life is still going strong, but it can come with struggles. At the fall kick-off meeting of the Parent Teacher Organization at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School in Washington, D.C., three women greeted newcomers and ushered parents toward trays of tube-shaped pasta and salad. Mia Pettus, one of the co-presidents who has a junior at the school, said ?it mostly is moms? who do the volunteer work for the group, even though nearly ?all of us are working parents ? [with] full-time jobs.? Another woman, Rhonda Davis Smith, said dads often get more involved with PTO at the high-school level, when they can coach or lead other activities for their adolescent kids. Over the course of an hour, roughly 40 parents showed up?three times as many women as men.

?The moms do everything for the kids, and it spills over into school,? said Angela Anderson, another of the co-presidents, whose daughter is also a junior at Banneker. Anderson is one of the few parents at Banneker who doesn?t work outside the home, at least while each of her four children has been young; but her husband jokes that she?s ?the only stay-at-home mom with 10 jobs,? she said. Besides volunteering in her kids? schools, she has been a Girl Scout leader for a decade and serves on nursing boards that lobby on Capitol Hill; she?s trained as an RN. But ?I?m very sympathetic to other moms,? she said. ?A lot of moms are obligated to work and don?t have the opportunity to stay at home with their children or go on field trips.?

In general, parenthood is a huge determinant of how women volunteer. In one study, researchers found that childless women are less likely to volunteer than their peers who are moms, although working mothers of young kids also had a hard time volunteering. Having a kid in school, however, makes women more likely to volunteer. ?School-age children link their mothers to their community, often through the medium of social institutions organized around children?s needs, such as schools, churches, sports teams, [and] youth-development organizations,? the authors wrote. ?[Far] from being an impediment to volunteering, children turn into an incentive; they become a strong tie to the community. Volunteer work becomes an extension of the mother role.?

American society desperately needs volunteers in order to function. For many families, kids make this need most clear: As the scholars Heather E. Price and Patricia Herzog Snell, the authors of American Generosity, wrote in an email, ?Schools, activity clubs, carpools, and parent organizations commonly rely on volunteers to do work that has no budget, but needs to be performed to provide the children with a quality education, sports training, club interactions, schedule coordinating, and parent leadership.? Overwhelmingly, said Price and Herzog Snell, the people who do this work are stay-at-home moms. As Anderson put it at Banneker, ?What we want to do is fill those gaps that the administration is not providing.?

Banneker is a magnet, and one of the academically strongest high schools in the District. It makes sense that parents would be so involved, but even at a such a great school, the principal said, ?Sometimes we?ll have a meeting and there are five of us here.? Not all communities have parents who are able to spend time volunteering to support their kids? education. And in those communities where parents can provide support, there can be an element of tribalism to the way people spend their time and resources. Christine Woyshner, a professor of education at Temple University, called it ?amoral familialism.?

In the world of schools, this has been underscored by the rapidly declining membership in the once-powerful National Parent Teacher Association. Banneker is just one of the many schools whose parents have recently decided to form a PTO?a parent-teacher organization that isn?t affiliated with any national policy or advocacy group. The Banneker parents largely did it for the dues money; having to pay fees to the state and national PTA was effectively ?a tax on parents,? Anderson said. Other parents at different schools have complained that PTA dues go toward lobbying for causes they don?t agree with.

The result can be that volunteer efforts, and money, often stay concentrated in the schools of kids from well-off families. Even at a place like Banneker, which is a Title I school, the involved moms who led the PTO were eager to eliminate as many fees as possible to get more parents to participate; membership has been low in the past due to costs, Anderson said. While local involvement is no doubt good for some kids and helps build the leadership skills of moms and dads alike, it can also exacerbate inequality among children in different areas.

By far, the people who have lost the most from the decline of local associations are those who are least educated and wealthy. College-educated Americans have always been more likely to participate in civic organizations than their less educated peers; according to a 2010 study by the University of Virginia?s National Marriage Project, 77 percent of this group was part of a non-religious community group in the 2000s, compared to 86 percent in the 1970s. But the change has been much more significant for high-school drop-outs: While 51 percent of these Americans were involved in a non-religious community organization in the 1970s, only 22 percent were members in the 2000s. Another study found that highly educated Americans are roughly twice as likely to volunteer compared to those without much education. Evidence also suggests that low-income Americans are the least likely to volunteer their time, while middle-class Americans are the most likely.

?I work,? she said. ?I just don?t have that kind of time.?

Although women?s workforce participation is one potential explanation for their lower levels of communal involvement, it?s not a complete one. Robert Putnam argued in his book Bowling Alone that these changes only account for part of the overall decline of American civil society. One of his key pieces of evidence is men: They, too, have largely quit their social clubs and civic groups.

Women have arguably lost more from the change, though. For uneducated women in particular, lower levels of participation in civil society means they have fewer chances to build leadership skills. A generation ago, the Boston College professor Kay Schlozman and her co-authors found that women state legislators tended to have a background in volunteer work, rather than careers in insurance or law like their male peers. Serving on a community-service steering committee or being responsible for kids on a field trip are ways of building communication and organizational skills, she said. ?The domain of adult life in which that happens most frequently is work,? she added in an interview. ?But one of the things about work is that it?s very stratified in terms of social class, so people who work with their hands get none of these opportunities.?

In terms of skill-building, working can be great for women?s leadership, especially in politics, Schlozman said. ?Working women are more politically active than women who are out of the workforce. Even if women have traded volunteerism for jobs, that would enhance, not deter, them from political roles.? Yet, in the two decades since the mid-90s, when there was a major bump in the number of women elected to hold political office, those numbers have stagnated. In her research on young, female law-school and public-policy graduate students, Shauna Shames, an assistant professor at Rutgers University-Camden, found that these elite, Millennial women aren?t highly motivated to seek political leadership roles. They don?t think they can ?make a difference? with careers in politics.

Some of the community work women once did now happens at non-profit organizations, where women actually get paid for the labor they previously volunteered. But non-profits aren?t exactly a bastion of women?s equality and empowerment. A strong majority of non-profit workers are women, and yet they only make up 43 percent of non-profit boards?and a third of boards for organizations with large operating budgets. Labor conditions at non-profits often mean women are taking pay and benefit cuts to work on behalf of causes.

Meanwhile, working in general can crowd out women?s volunteer work. One study found that the percent of women doing weekly volunteer work decreased from 16.4 percent in 1965 to 9.3 percent in 1993, a period during which women?s participation in the labor force went up significantly. The simplest explanation is that there just aren?t enough hours in the day; even Deckman, the Washington College professor, sighed a little when she mentioned being asked to bake for her kids? school events. ?I work,? she said. ?I just don?t have that kind of time.?

It?s not that cultural infrastructure has changed so that women?s volunteer time is no longer needed.

It?s not that cultural infrastructure has changed so that women?s volunteer time is no longer needed. It?s that the infrastructure has selectively crumbled. Women with the time, education, and resources to support their communities do so, and other communities struggle. While the government can?t provide a sense of community connection, it could provide women and families more support so that they can lead their communities, including with policies that support mandatory overtime, for example.

Not all civic organizations are on an equal path of decline. A spokeswoman for the Daughters of the American Revolution, for example, reported that the organization?s membership has grown every year since 2007. With 183,000 members nationwide, the group is working to make itself more appealing to younger generations and put a greater emphasis on service work over high society. Some African American women?s organizations have also seen renewed interest, like the Links or Jack and Jill.

But in general, the organizations that were once the hallmarks of women?s leadership have much smaller memberships and less influence than they once did. While the United Methodist Women, the Woman?s Missionary Union, and the General Federation of Women?s Clubs each boasted more than 1 percent of American women as their members 70 years ago, for example, these organizations had lost 70 percent, 53 percent, and 83 percent of their memberships by 1995, respectively, according to Skocpal.

While this decline has affected the structure of society, it has also had cultural consequences. Women don?t just have more access to career opportunities?their lives are simply more. As Shames, the Rutgers professor, put it, ?I sometimes think our own success in feminism ? has done us in.? If feminism is a belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes, perhaps this is an area where both women and men should strive to change the standard to which they?re aspiring: Everyone in the United States could benefit from more communal involvement, whether that means advocating for causes, volunteering with a charitable organization, joining a church, or just showing up to that Thursday night parent-teacher-group meeting.

As women have taken greater positions of leadership in the United States, they have also left a leadership vacuum behind them. In middle-class, highly educated communities, women may be busier and more tired than their mothers and grandmothers once were, but they mostly figure out ways to advocate for their kids at school-board meetings or volunteer to chaperone a class trip to the zoo. The people who have suffered most aren?t white and well-off; they?re lower income, poorly educated, and largely disconnected from the rich network of membership-based associations that used to provide both a local sense of community and a national voice in politics. Women in these positions have lost access to one of their only means of gaining leadership skills. And while many of their educated, wealthier peers now have alternatives to the suffocating housewife?s life that so enraged Betty Friedan seven decades ago, some experience it as an opposite kind of suffocation: a never-ending, ladder-climbing work life, the height of which is making money for someone else rather than building a world in which they?re invested.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/what-women-lost/500537/#article-comments

11
3DHS / How do you not love this guy?
« on: September 17, 2016, 09:07:49 PM »
Donald Trump's surreal Friday, from press row

By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Updated 12:47 PM ET, Sat September 17, 2016

Trump finally ends birther lie
Miami (CNN)A manufactured storyline. A promise of a "major statement." And an ulterior motive.

Donald Trump on Friday pulled off his latest media stunt, scoring more than 20 minutes of free live TV time to tout the endorsement of more than a dozen veterans and to talk up his new hotel in Washington after he and his campaign had promised he would address his longstanding, controversial "birther" position.

Then, he made a 67-word statement stating that he now believes President Barack Obama was born in the US, and quickly abandoned the podium -- leaving reporters bellowing questions into the ether.

None of us were surprised.

After all, Friday's circus was nothing short of standard operating procedure for the real estate mogul and his media-bashing campaign -- and just the latest example of how Trump fueled his political rise through his unparalleled mastery of the media.

Why Democrats are anxious
But this time, there weren't just a few shouted questions from reporters. Instead, Trump stepped away from the mic amid a cacophony of cheering supporters -- more than 100 of whom separated Trump from the press -- and reporters, some standing on chairs, shouting dozens of questions at the top of our lungs.

"When did you change your mind about Obama being born in the US?" I shouted.

"What took you so long to make this decision?" shouted another reporter.

"Why won't you answer our questions?"

And then, he's gone. Trump had just changed a signature position he's held for years with a few dozen words and no explanation of why he had suddenly changed his mind. And he also notched 51 days since his last news conference.

The moment was emblematic of Trump's treatment of the press throughout the campaign -- particularly in the last 24 hours.

Reporters covering this campaign -- as I have for the last 15 months -- have long grown used to Trump lobbing insults our way, shouts of "scum," "dishonest" and "disgusting" reverberating as thousands of his supporters, many of them snickering at the spectacle, turn toward the press pen, booing. Some of us have even come to expect a call from the would-be-president every so often to hear the candidate gripe about a particular article and shame us as "dishonest."

But on Thursday night, Trump took his mistreatment of the press to new lows, taking the stage at a rally in New Hampshire moments before the traveling press corps' plane touched down in the state, and proceeding to mock us.

"I have really good news for you. I just heard that the press is stuck on their airplane. They can't get there. I love it," Trump said, to his supporters' glee.

We arrived for the last three minutes of his speech -- a circumstance caused by Trump's refusal to travel on the same plane as reporters covering his campaign, defying decades of precedent in the coverage of Democratic and Republican nominees.

Having promised a "major statement," via Twitter, Trump talked up his hotel -- "under budget and ahead of schedule" -- and invited a parade of military veterans to come to the podium and tell the world why they were supporting Trump's presidential bid. The event was no longer about a Republican presidential nominee reversing his position on an issue supported by a fringe slice of America. It was about brave military men embracing this controversial figure, flaws and all.


All the while, the cameras continued to roll, the remarks carried live on cable news in anticipation that Trump would clarify his position on birtherism as he had promised that morning.

It's the kind of free, unfiltered media coverage that every politician dreams of, but few will ever grasp.

Finally, after 28 minutes, Trump lifted the suspense and got to the point. He falsely claimed that his opponent Hillary Clinton "started the birther controversy" in 2008 and stated, matter-of-factly, that "President Barack Obama was born in the United States" -- something Obama proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in 2011 when he released his long-form birth certificate.

He spent more time talking about his hotel than explaining how he was changing his position on the issue that skyrocketed him to national political prominence and earned him his earliest notes of support from the far-right.


Trump laid his media trap the night before when his campaign put out a statement hours after a Washington Post interview published in which Trump declined to disavow his birther views. The interview took place a day earlier, but the campaign waited another day, until 12 hours before the event in Washington, to blast out a statement.
It remains to be seen whether Trump's move helped him. CNN and Fox News cut away at points in the presentation. Networks spent the day talking about Trump's history as a birther.

The Trump campaign had also previously billed a March campaign event as a possible news conference, only for the candidate to not take any questions. The event, which had been scheduled earlier, came just days after his campaign manager was accused of grabbing a reporter.

Before Friday, the campaign's most recent deception came Wednesday when campaign advisers told reporters that Trump would not be releasing results of his latest medical exam on the "Dr. Oz" program. And then Trump did just that, with a reality show-style surprise.

As we filed into the event hall for his rally Friday night, we were still nowhere closer to understanding why Trump had suddenly flip-flopped on birtherism. The campaign had ignored all our requests for comment. We hadn't had an opportunity to prod Trump on the when and why of his sudden change of heart, especially when he had declined to disavow the position just days earlier.

But as we awaited the familiar sound of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA," a more ominous tune played instead.

It was a song from Broadway's "Les Mis?rables," the words "Les Deplorables" flashing on the screen above the stage, harkening to Clinton's comment about his supporters from earlier this month.

I flicked at my iPhone, and powered on the video recorder.

But moments later, Trump wondered aloud what would happen if Clinton's Secret Service detail were disarmed. And that was the news.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/17/politics/donald-trump-surreal-friday-press-row/index.html

12
3DHS / The Doomed Mouse Utopia That Inspired the 'Rats of NIMH'
« on: September 15, 2016, 09:40:37 PM »
The Doomed Mouse Utopia That Inspired the 'Rats of NIMH'

Dr. John Bumpass Calhoun spent the '60s and '70s playing god to thousands of rodents.

By Cara Giaimo SEPTEMBER 14, 2016

On July 9th, 1968, eight white mice were placed into a strange box at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Maybe "box" isn't the right word for it; the space was more like a room, known as Universe 25, about the size of a small storage unit. The mice themselves were bright and healthy, hand-picked from the institute's breeding stock. They were given the run of the place, which had everything they might need: food, water, climate control, hundreds of nesting boxes to choose from, and a lush floor of shredded paper and ground corn cob.

This is a far cry from a wild mouse's life?no cats, no traps, no long winters. It's even better than your average lab mouse's, which is constantly interrupted by white-coated humans with scalpels or syringes. The residents of Universe 25 were mostly left alone, save for one man who would peer at them from above, and his team of similarly interested assistants. They must have thought they were the luckiest mice in the world. They couldn't have known the truth: that within a few years, they and their descendants would all be dead.

The man who played mouse-God and came up with this doomed universe was named John Bumpass Calhoun. As Edmund Ramsden and Jon Adams detail in a paper, "Escaping the Laboratory: The Rodent Experiments of John B. Calhoun & Their Cultural Influence," Calhoun spent his childhood traipsing around Tennessee, chasing toads, collecting turtles, and banding birds. These adventures eventually led him to a doctorate in biology, and then a job in Baltimore, where he was tasked with studying the habits of Norway rats, one of the city's chief pests.

In 1947, to keep a close eye on his charges, Calhoun constructed a quarter-acre "rat city" behind his house, and filled it with breeding pairs. He expected to be able to house 5,000 rats there but over the two years he observed the city, the population never exceeded 150. At that point, the rats became too stressed to reproduce. They started acting weirdly, rolling dirt into balls rather than digging normal tunnels. They hissed and fought.

This fascinated Calhoun?if the rats had everything they needed, what was keeping them from overrunning his little city, just as they had all of Baltimore?

Intrigued, Calhoun built another, slightly bigger rat metropolis?this time in a barn, with ramps connecting several different rooms. Then he built another and another, hopping between patrons that supported his research, and framing his work in terms of population: How many individuals could a rodent city hold without losing its collective mind? By 1954, he was working under the auspices of the National Institute of Mental Health, which gave him whole rooms to build his mousetopias. Like a rodent real estate developer, he incorporated ever-better amenities: climbable walls, food hoppers that could serve two dozen mice at once, lodging he described as "walk-up one-room apartments." Video records of his experiments show Calhoun with a pleased smile and a pipe in his mouth, color-coded mice scurrying over his boots.

Still, at a certain point, each of these paradises collapsed. "There could be no escape from the behavioral consequences of rising population density," Calhoun wrote in an early paper. Even Universe 25?the biggest, best mousetopia of all, built after a quarter century of research?failed to break this pattern. In late October, the first litter of mouse pups was born. After that, the population doubled every two months?20 mice, then 40, then 80. The babies grew up and had babies of their own. Families became dynasties, carving out and holding down the best in-cage real estate. By August of 1969, the population numbered 620.

Then, as always, things took a turn. Such rapid growth put too much pressure on the mouse way of life. As new generations reached adulthood, many couldn't find mates, or places in the social order?the mouse equivalent of a spouse and a job. Spinster females retreated to high-up nesting boxes, where they lived alone, far from the family neighborhoods. Washed-up males gathered in the center of the Universe, near the food, where they fretted, languished, and attacked each other. Meanwhile, overextended mouse moms and dads began moving nests constantly to avoid their unsavory neighbors. They also took their stress out on their babies, kicking them out of the nest too early, or even losing them during moves.

Population growth slowed way down again. Most of the adolescent mice retreated even further from societal expectations, spending all their time eating, drinking, sleeping and grooming, and refusing to fight or to even attempt to mate. (These individuals were forever changed?when Calhoun's colleague attempted to transplant some of them to more normal situations, they didn't remember how to do anything.) In May of 1970, just under 2 years into the study, the last baby was born, and the population entered a swan dive of perpetual senescence. It's unclear exactly when the last resident of Universe 25 perished, but it was probably sometime in 1973.

Paradise couldn't even last half a decade.

In 1973, Calhoun published his Universe 25 research as "Death Squared: The Explosive Growth and Demise of a Mouse Population." It is, to put it lightly, an intense academic reading experience. He quotes liberally from the Book of Revelations, italicizing certain words for emphasis (e.g. "to kill with the sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts"). He gave his claimed discoveries catchy names?the mice who forgot how to mate were "the beautiful ones"' rats who crowded around water bottles were "social drinkers"; the overall societal breakdown was the "behavioral sink." In other words, it was exactly the kind of diction you'd expect from someone who spent his entire life perfecting the art of the mouse dystopia.

Most frightening are the parallels he draws between rodent and human society. "I shall largely speak of mice," he begins, "but my thoughts are on man." Both species, he explains, are vulnerable to two types of death?that of the spirit and that of the body. Even though he had removed physical threats, doing so had forced the residents of Universe 25 into a spiritually unhealthy situation, full of crowding, overstimulation, and contact with various mouse strangers. To a society experiencing the rapid growth of cities?and reacting, in various ways, quite poorly?this story seemed familiar. Senators brought it up in meetings. It showed up in science fiction and comic books. Even Tom Wolfe, never lost for description, used Calhounian terms to describe New York City, calling all of Gotham a "behavioral sink."

Convinced that he had found a real problem, Calhoun quickly began using his mouse models to try and fix it. If mice and humans weren't afforded enough physical space, he thought, perhaps they could make up for it with conceptual space?creativity, artistry, and the type of community not built around social hierarchies. His later Universes were designed to be spiritually as well as physically utopic, with rodent interactions carefully controlled to maximize happiness (he was particularly fascinated by some early rats who had created an innovative form of tunneling, where they rolled dirt into balls). He extrapolated this, too, to human concerns, becoming an early supporter of environmental design and H.G. Wells's hypothetical "World Brain," an international information network that was a clear precursor to the internet.

But the public held on hard to his earlier work?as Ramsden and Adams put it, "everyone want[ed] to hear the diagnosis, no one want[ed] to hear the cure." Gradually, Calhoun lost attention, standing, and funding. In 1986, he was forced to retired from the National Institute of Mental Health. Nine years later, he died.

But there was one person who paid attention to his more optimistic experiments, a writer named Robert C. O'Brien. In the late '60s, O'Brien allegedly visited Calhoun's lab, met the man trying to build a true and creative rat paradise, and took note of the Frisbee on the door, the scientists' own attempt "to help when things got too stressful," as Calhoun put it. Soon after, O'Brien wrote Ms. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH?a story about rats who, having escaped from a lab full of blundering humans, attempt to build their own utopia. Next time, maybe we should put the rats in charge.

Naturecultures is a weekly column that explores the changing relationships between humanity and wilder things. Have something you want covered (or uncovered)? Send tips to cara@atlasobscura.com.

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-doomed-mouse-utopia-that-inspired-the-rats-of-nimh?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=atlas-page

13
3DHS / Hillary declares war on Pepe the Frog
« on: September 13, 2016, 09:20:53 PM »
Embattled candidate calls cartoon frog "sinister"

Hillary Declares War on Pepe the Frog
Hillary Clinton has officially declared war on Pepe the Frog, a popular Internet meme.

The embattled candidate has dedicated an entire page on her campaign site about the cartoon frog she believes is ?racist.?

?That cartoon frog is more sinister than you might realize,? declared HillaryClinton.com. ?Pepe is a cartoon frog who began his internet life as an innocent meme enjoyed by teenagers and pop stars alike.?

?But in recent months, Pepe?s been almost entirely co-opted by the white supremacists who call themselves the ?alt-right.??

Additionally, the Hillary campaign linked Alex Jones and Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos to Pepe the Frog, implying they are also ?white supremacists.?

Yiannopoulos in particular is a predominant commentator on the alt-right who?s often mislabeled as its leader.

?The press seems determined to label the alt-right this misogynist, hateful, racist, homophobic, anti-semitic movement, and yet at the same time tries to crown a gay jew who never shuts up about his black boyfriend as the leader of it ? something isn?t quite right here,? he once said.

Here?s the reality: the alt-right isn?t a clearly defined movement, and it?s certainly not controlled by white nationalists.

If anything, the alt-right is a decentralized, spontaneous reaction against political correctness, social justice warriors, uncontrolled immigration, limitless government and third-wave feminism.

But it?s also the resulting backlash against traditional ?cuckservatives? like the Bush family who?ve dominated GOP politics for the past several decades ? until now.

Coming into prominence in 2015, the alt-right grew out of the youth-dominated underground of the Internet, such as 4chan where Internet memes such as Pepe the Frog are routinely used to troll the identity politics of the ?divide and conquer? power elite.

But does that mean that skinhead racists ? commonly referred to as 1488ers on 4chan ? can?t hijack Pepe for their own anti-semite memes? Of course not, but that doesn?t mean they own Pepe just like I don?t own Mickey Mouse by drawing a cartoon of him doing hard drugs.

In response to Hillary?s attack on Pepe, reddit users pointed out her campaign logo looks like the Twin Towers getting hit by a plane on 9/11.

Ever notice Hillary's logo looks like 9/11 instruction manual? #HillaryClinton pic.twitter.com/r67AMzZPRp

? Woll Street (@paulwoll) September 13, 2016

?In 72 hours Hillary has called 50% of Trump supporters ?deplorables,? had a f*cking seizure in public, announced she has pneumonia and attacked Pepe the Frog officially on her website,? reddit user Skippyilove pointed out. ?This can?t be real life.?

But Pepe may finally stop Hillary?s political ambitions.

?Attacking a cartoon frog makes her look seriously delusional,? another reddit user sven855 said. ?Worse still, she has openly proclaimed that she got trolled by the Internet.?

?A presidential candidate is getting trolled. Let that sink in.?

http://www.infowars.com/hillary-declares-war-on-pepe-the-frog/

14
3DHS / The Flight 93 Election
« on: September 08, 2016, 02:12:46 AM »
The Flight 93 Election
By: Publius Decius Mus
September 5, 2016

2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You?or the leader of your party?may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.

Except one: if you don?t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.

To ordinary conservative ears, this sounds histrionic. The stakes can?t be that high because they are never that high?except perhaps in the pages of Gibbon. Conservative intellectuals will insist that there has been no ?end of history? and that all human outcomes are still possible. They will even?as Charles Kesler does?admit that America is in ?crisis.? But how great is the crisis? Can things really be so bad if eight years of Obama can be followed by eight more of Hillary, and yet Constitutionalist conservatives can still reasonably hope for a restoration of our cherished ideals? Cruz in 2024!

Not to pick (too much) on Kesler, who is less unwarrantedly optimistic than most conservatives. And who, at least, poses the right question: Trump or Hillary? Though his answer??even if [Trump] had chosen his policies at random, they would be sounder than Hillary?s??is unwarrantedly ungenerous. The truth is that Trump articulated, if incompletely and inconsistently, the right stances on the right issues?immigration, trade, and war?right from the beginning.

But let us back up. One of the paradoxes?there are so many?of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don?t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can?t (or won?t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I?ll stipulate it.

Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted?tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?

If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed ?family values?; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere?if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe?mustn?t they??that we are headed off a cliff.

But it?s quite obvious that conservatives don?t believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff. A recent article by Matthew Continetti may be taken as representative?indeed, almost written for the purpose of illustrating the point. Continetti inquires into the ?condition of America? and finds it wanting. What does Continetti propose to do about it? The usual litany of ?conservative? ?solutions,? with the obligatory references to decentralization, federalization, ?civic renewal,? and?of course!?Burke. Which is to say, conservatism?s typical combination of the useless and inapt with the utopian and unrealizable. Decentralization and federalism are all well and good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation. But how are they going to save, or even meaningfully improve, the America that Continetti describes? What can they do against a tidal wave of dysfunction, immorality, and corruption? ?Civic renewal? would do a lot of course, but that?s like saying health will save a cancer patient. A step has been skipped in there somewhere. How are we going to achieve ?civic renewal?? Wishing for a tautology to enact itself is not a strategy.

Continetti trips over a more promising approach when he writes of ?stress[ing] the ?national interest abroad and national solidarity at home? through foreign-policy retrenchment, ?support to workers buffeted by globalization,? and setting ?tax rates and immigration levels? to foster social cohesion." That sounds a lot like Trumpism. But the phrases that Continetti quotes are taken from Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, both of whom, like Continetti, are vociferously?one might even say fanatically?anti-Trump. At least they, unlike Kesler, give Trump credit for having identified the right stance on today?s most salient issues. Yet, paradoxically, they won?t vote for Trump whereas Kesler hints that he will. It?s reasonable, then, to read into Kesler?s esoteric endorsement of Trump an implicit acknowledgment that the crisis is, indeed, pretty dire. I expect a Claremont scholar to be wiser than most other conservative intellectuals, and I am relieved not to be disappointed in this instance.

Yet we may also reasonably ask: What explains the Pollyanna-ish declinism of so many others? That is, the stance that Things-Are-Really-Bad?But-Not-So-Bad-that-We-Have-to-Consider-Anything-Really-Different! The obvious answer is that they don?t really believe the first half of that formulation. If so, like Chicken Little, they should stick a sock in it. Pecuniary reasons also suggest themselves, but let us foreswear recourse to this explanation until we have disproved all the others.

Whatever the reason for the contradiction, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction. To simultaneously hold conservative cultural, economic, and political beliefs?to insist that our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature and must undermine society?and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible.

Let?s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.

If your answer?Continetti?s, Douthat?s, Salam?s, and so many others??is for conservatism to keep doing what it?s been doing?another policy journal, another article about welfare reform, another half-day seminar on limited government, another tax credit proposal?even though we?ve been losing ground for at least a century, then you?ve implicitly accepted that your supposed political philosophy doesn?t matter and that civilization will carry on just fine under leftist tenets. Indeed, that leftism is truer than conservatism and superior to it.

They will say, in words reminiscent of dorm-room Marxism?but our proposals have not been tried! Here our ideas sit, waiting to be implemented! To which I reply: eh, not really. Many conservative solutions?above all welfare reform and crime control?have been tried, and proved effective, but have nonetheless failed to stem the tide. Crime, for instance, is down from its mid-?70s and early ?90s peak?but way, way up from the historic American norm that ended when liberals took over criminal justice in the mid-?60s. And it?s rising fast today, in the teeth of ineffectual conservative complaints. And what has this temporary crime (or welfare, for that matter) decline done to stem the greater tide? The tsunami of leftism that still engulfs our every?literal and figurative?shore has receded not a bit but indeed has grown. All your (our) victories are short-lived.

More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer?which appears to be ?nothing??might seem to lend credence to the plea that ?our ideas haven?t been tried.? Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas ?haven?t been tried,? who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising ?entrepreneurs? and ?creative destruction.? Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit?

Only three questions matter. First, how bad are things really? Second, what do we do right now? Third, what should we do for the long term?

Conservatism, Inc.?s, ?answer? to the first may, at this point, simply be dismissed. If the conservatives wish to have a serious debate, I for one am game?more than game; eager. The problem of ?subjective certainty? can only be overcome by going into the agora. But my attempt to do so?the blog that Kesler mentions?was met largely with incredulity. How can they say that?! How can anyone apparently of our caste (conservative intellectuals) not merely support Trump (however lukewarmly) but offer reasons for doing do?

One of the Journal of American Greatness?s deeper arguments was that only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise. It is therefore puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying. That possibility, apparently, seems to them so preposterous that no refutation is necessary.

As does, presumably, the argument that the stakes in 2016 are?everything. I should here note that I am a good deal gloomier than my (former) JAG colleagues, and that while we frequently used the royal ?we? when discussing things on which we all agreed, I here speak only for myself.

How have the last two decades worked out for you, personally? If you?re a member or fellow-traveler of the Davos class, chances are: pretty well. If you?re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you?ve accepted?perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably?your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it?s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.

All of Trump?s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same?as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their ?opposition? may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don?t dream up inanities like 32 ?genders,? elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, ?Islamophobia,? and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them.

A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most ?advanced? Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie?s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns?operated through the former and aided by the latter?of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama?s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.

It?s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow?would do anything other than massively intensify?in a Hillary administration. It?s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem to merit?and even relish?the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called ?racist,? so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi?that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don?t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.

So what do we have to lose by fighting back? Only our Washington Generals jerseys?and paychecks. But those are going away anyway. Among the many things the ?Right? still doesn?t understand is that the Left has concluded that this particular show need no longer go on. They don?t think they need a foil anymore and would rather dispense with the whole bother of staging these phony contests in which each side ostensibly has a shot.

If you haven?t noticed, our side has been losing consistently since 1988. We can win midterms, but we do nothing with them. Call ours Hannibalic victories. After the Carthaginian?s famous slaughter of a Roman army at Cannae, he failed to march on an undefended Rome, prompting his cavalry commander to complain: ?you know how to win a victory, but not how to use one.? And, aside from 2004?s lackluster 50.7%, we can?t win the big ones at all.

Because the deck is stacked overwhelmingly against us. I will mention but three ways. First, the opinion-making elements?the universities and the media above all?are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on ?cis-genderism??formerly known as ?nature??and on the supposed ?white privilege? of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn?t been abundantly clear for the last 50 years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia?including all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda?is overwhelmingly partisan and biased. Against this onslaught, ?conservative? media is a nullity, barely a whisper. It cannot be heard above the blaring of what has been aptly called ?The Megaphone.?

Second, our Washington Generals self-handicap and self-censor to an absurd degree. Lenin is supposed to have said that ?the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.? But with an opposition like ours, why bother? Our ?leaders? and ?dissenters? bend over backward to play by the self-sabotaging rules the Left sets for them. Fearful, beaten dogs have more thymos.

Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.

It?s also why they treat open borders as the ?absolute value,? the one ?principle? that?when their ?principles? collide?they prioritize above all the others. If that fact is insufficiently clear, consider this. Trump is the most liberal Republican nominee since Thomas Dewey. He departs from conservative orthodoxy in so many ways that National Review still hasn?t stopped counting. But let?s stick to just the core issues animating his campaign. On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent. And yet the Left and the junta are at one with the house-broken conservatives in their determination?desperation?not merely to defeat Trump but to destroy him. What gives?

Oh, right?there?s that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America?s ruling and intellectual classes. Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America?s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater ?diversity.? The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the ?conservatives?? Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of ?racism.? For the latter, this at least makes some sense. No Washington General can take the court?much less cash his check?with that epithet dancing over his head like some Satanic Spirit. But for the former, this priestly grace comes at the direct expense of their worldly interests. Do they honestly believe that the right enterprise zone or charter school policy will arouse 50.01% of our newer voters to finally reveal their ?natural conservatism? at the ballot box? It hasn?t happened anywhere yet and shows no signs that it ever will. But that doesn?t stop the Republican refrain: more, more, more! No matter how many elections they lose, how many districts tip forever blue, how rarely (if ever) their immigrant vote cracks 40%, the answer is always the same. Just like Angela Merkel after yet another rape, shooting, bombing, or machete attack. More, more, more!

This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.

Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time?or, more importantly, to connect them. Since Pat Buchanan?s three failures, occasionally a candidate arose who saw one piece: Dick Gephardt on trade, Ron Paul on war, Tom Tancredo on immigration. Yet, among recent political figures?great statesmen, dangerous demagogues, and mewling gnats alike?only Trump-the-alleged-buffoon not merely saw all three and their essential connectivity, but was able to win on them. The alleged buffoon is thus more prudent?more practically wise?than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris.

Which they self-laud as ?consistency??adherence to ?conservative principle,? defined by the 1980 campaign and the household gods of reigning conservative think-tanks. A higher consistency in the service of the national interest apparently eludes them. When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry, high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.) It hasn?t made sense since World War I. Free trade was unquestionably a great boon to the American worker in the decades after World War II. We long ago passed the point of diminishing returns. The Gulf War of 1991 was a strategic victory for American interests. No conflict since then has been. Conservatives either can?t see this?or, worse, those who can nonetheless treat the only political leader to mount a serious challenge to the status quo (more immigration, more trade, more war) as a unique evil.

Trump?s vulgarity is in fact a godsend to the conservatives. It allows them to hang their public opposition on his obvious shortcomings and to ignore or downplay his far greater strengths, which should be even more obvious but in corrupt times can be deliberately obscured by constant references to his faults. That the Left would make the campaign all about the latter is to be expected. Why would the Right? Some?a few?are no doubt sincere in their belief that the man is simply unfit for high office. David Frum, who has always been an immigration skeptic and is a convert to the less-war position, is sincere when he says that, even though he agrees with much of Trump?s agenda, he cannot stomach Trump. But for most of the other #NeverTrumpers, is it just a coincidence that they also happen to favor Invade the World, Invite the World?

Another question JAG raised without provoking any serious attempt at refutation was whether, in corrupt times, it took a ? let?s say ... ?loudmouth? to rise above the din of The Megaphone. We, or I, speculated: ?yes.? Suppose there had arisen some statesman of high character?dignified, articulate, experienced, knowledgeable?the exact opposite of everything the conservatives claim to hate about Trump. Could this hypothetical paragon have won on Trump?s same issues? Would the conservatives have supported him? I would have?even had he been a Democrat.

Back on planet earth, that flight of fancy at least addresses what to do now. The answer to the subsidiary question?will it work??is much less clear. By ?it? I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy. We Americans have chosen, in our foolishness, to disunite the country through stupid immigration, economic, and foreign policies. The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored.

But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left?s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that?s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes?and don?t invest time and resources unrealistically.

By contrast, simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working, lower middle, and middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow? Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice?only to ensure that it and eight of the other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families.

Will this work? Ask a pessimist, get a pessimistic answer. So don?t ask. Ask instead: is it worth trying? Is it better than the alternative? If you can?t say, forthrightly, ?yes,? you are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual.

And if it doesn?t work, what then? We?ve established that most ?conservative? anti-Trumpites are in the Orwellian sense objectively pro-Hillary. What about the rest of you? If you recognize the threat she poses, but somehow can?t stomach him, have you thought about the longer term? The possibilities would seem to be: Caesarism, secession/crack-up, collapse, or managerial Davoisie liberalism as far as the eye can see ? which, since nothing human lasts forever, at some point will give way to one of the other three. Oh, and, I suppose, for those who like to pour a tall one and dream big, a second American Revolution that restores Constitutionalism, limited government, and a 28% top marginal rate.

But for those of you who are sober: can you sketch a more plausible long-term future than the prior four following a Trump defeat? I can?t either.

The election of 2016 is a test?in my view, the final test?of whether there is any virt? left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.

http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/

15
3DHS / The Tyranny of Suffrage
« on: January 30, 2016, 12:55:07 AM »
?The worst form of inequality

is the attempt to make unequal things equal.?

? Aristotle.

I visit cemeteries when I travel. The old monuments are important for understanding a place. Who visits Egypt without going to the Great Pyramids? It?s a tomb. It says a hell of a story. So do the mounds in Ireland. Fewer people will visit the boneyards of abandoned prisons or war cemeteries in Spain or Virginia. They can tell as immense a story if you look deeply. I?ve been to graveyards all over the world, big and small. Archeologically they?re important. They?re also the best way to see past the superficiality of a city by getting a glimpse of its heritage outside a curated museum or official cultural show. They?re usually raw?unfiltered.

There is a gravesite nearby my residence with a stone unlike any I?ve seen. For some reason, ? I try to understand why, ? it is more important to me. I don?t know who it is.

It?s a tiny worn tombstone in an old rural cemetery. The leaves around it were soggy from melting ice when I first saw it. It was among the older markers in this western yard, crumbling and blue with lichens. Its few legible words read:

?Our Boy

1898-1918

THE WAR?

I don?t know if it was the desolate simplicity of it, or the thought of the people who had placed it there, whose sadness seemed to hover, but it said so much with a rock.

?Our Boy? is their only boy? ?Our Boy? was their gift to the national effort. ?Our Boy,? a sacrifice to the war-god of democracy. And they paid taxes for the rest of their lives.

?Our Boy? was not a ?privileged? male. He was a poor boy, as his gravestone proves, ? a site that?s nearly gravel. The stone may have been provided by the church, or chiseled by his weeping family. It sits out there in the ice now.

What great honor does this man deserve? Perhaps he was a fool. Maybe he was fleeing some twisted crime and joined the army. I don?t know. All I know is that he died at battle, and that he was one of the men who roamed this territory before me. So I see something in those words. I can see the highest rank of honor a man can achieve. Not for the war. Not dying for the politicians and bankers who caused it. But I can see the selflessness and courage in all men, which is beautiful, yet endlessly tragic when misguided.

Men will die for their communities. Men will sacrifice their youth, their adulthood, their entire lives, slaving to earn for their families, to bring them a better life. Men are expected to walk through the gates of death for women and children, and they do constantly all the time, and have for so many generations. Yet I live in these strange days, when men are self-destructing, self-hating, blaming themselves, or all men collectively, for any fault in the World. If there is any injustice, we are told it was likely due to a man or their patriarchy.

Two years after Our Boy was put in the ground, women obtained the ?right to vote? in the States. Many believed America would enter a new era of world peace and superabundance. They believed the feminine would end many social divisions, bringing a time of harmonious understanding.

But then came Prohibition, the early police-state, the Great Depression, and the Second World War. The influence of women grew with the dearth of men, due to war casualties and inheritances from all classes shifting to the purse of domestic females. The most bold and nationalist were the first to die, leaving less assertive men who, it seems, were more likely to capitulate to feminism.

The flappers of the roaring 20s were dancing on tabletops gilded by working men, indulging in wealth hard-fought in trenches. The towers climbing higher every year were engineered and forced upwards by men. The automobiles and telephones were all the work of men. The appliances that would relieve women of their daily work were designed and built by men. The birth control that allowed women to cancel out the consequences of their sexual behavior: invented by men. The entire male half of the race had facilitated female ascendance upon masculinity, a piggyback game that would soon overburden men in ways undreamed of.

The ?struggle for rights? became an endless celebration of cushy office-jobs and cosmopolitan lifestyles from ?Mary Tyler Moore? to ?Sex in the City? and now ?Girls.? The wild party of ?liberation? began: an epoch of female luxury marked by consumer excess, advertising, consequence-free sexual recklessness, and preferential legal treatment, which, as we will see, extends far beyond divorce proceedings or discrimination lawsuits. Having warped every aspect of American life starting in the polling station and the home, the feminist putsch would play the largest role in the malignant growth of the American police state.

The modern white female lifestyle is cushy as anyone can possibly imagine. There is no demographic more pampered than the Western woman, yet this subject is most likely to complain about oppression, undermine her own male relations, and decry the circumstances of her civilization. The feminist has since devolved to a horrific slore who is never content or polite, who reneges on holy oaths, finding an offense in whatever remains ? nearly always an offense of male origin.

Anything that is masculine must be emasculated. Anything that is sacred and virginal must be desecrated. This process is undertaken for ?the good of women,? or for ?equal rights.?

Our Boy knows about this high-and-mighty talk of ?equality.? But in one long breath of nothingness, the men sacrificed for liberal ideals in the World Wars would be forgotten, treated like flies in vinegar, for the mighty desires of loose women bent on their narcissistic fantasy of empowerment.

Men are ?evil,? but the feminist wants to do what men do. The male workplace is ?misogynistic? but they want in it. The products of men?s work are ?bigoted? or ?unjust,? but they want credit for the same.

The Cultural Revolution was the Armageddon of the battle of the sexes. It was the patriarchal apocalypse, a dramatic collapse that unfolded in less than ten years and sealed the fate of generations of unwitting men who only meant the best, but had been so woefully misguided. From the start it was men who had imagined a female power that would benefit them. In the sixties this was reduced to easy sex and cheap ideas like ?free love? that would produce a culturally homeless generation of ?X,? soon to be a nation fraught with mass fatherlessness, ? functions of the home outsourced to the expanding government.

How did the simple idea of ?women?s suffrage? culminate in butt-naked acid-heads screwing in the street and ?Lady Gaga? parading in front of children wearing a strap-on dildo? Largely via voting.

Wyoming was the only US state to grant suffrage before Utah, but Utah?s women lost their vote shortly after because they didn?t ballot like obedient liberals. They were obedient Christians, to the surprise of urban politicos. Suffragettes were counting on Mormon girls to betray their patriarchal faith. They believed they could undermine Mormon traditions using their voting girls as a fifth column. But they proved loyal and had their ?right to vote? confiscated after a Republican Congress (then the liberal party) declared it illegal, 16 years after Mormon women had obtained it.

The strict Mormon housewife wasn?t destined to be pioneer of American feminism. As Thaddeus Russell discusses in A Renegade History of the United States, the trailblazers of feminism were, appropriately, prostitutes. These women had composed the only exception to strict codes of conduct ? being legally permitted to commit adultery, use birth control, and wear scandalous clothing. Many of the madams of western expansion had accumulated fortunes that would make them multi-millionaires in today?s currency, which they used to influence public opinion, buy politicians, defend their whores in court, and acquire choice pieces of property in wealthy boomtowns. In Helena, the capital of Montana, nearly half of all property transactions were made by women in the late 1800s. They were mostly whores. This was unheard of in more developed eastern cities. Liberal politicians were more than happy to welcome these rich, manipulative liberals into their ranks of donors and influencers.

Many of the policies argued by suffragettes half a century later found their origin in American whorehouses, where lonely working boys squandered their pay. Many behaviors of modern women would be unthinkable in the pre-suffrage era outside a ?house of ill repute.?

Similar to the United States, the first regions of the British Empire to grant suffrage were its frontier territories, such as South Australia. But these tendencies managed to permeate the Anglosphere, as industrialization weakened the household while millions of men were systematically annihilated on the battlefield.

Well over a half million Britons died in World War I. They were almost entirely men (over 99%). Because the British military is traditionally conservative, we can assume a large bloc of right voters were sacrificed in the war. The Liberal parliament opened the gateway to female suffrage in 1918, at the end of this hellish conflict, as the corpses of young men were still being shipped home by the boatload.

At first it was only women above the age of thirty (who had college degrees) who could ballot in the UK. Prior to this, English suffragettes (and they were almost entirely English, not Irish, Scots, or Welsh) had been some of the most bitchy and rancorous activists in Britain. Today, we would call them ?terrorists? as they engaged in sabotage, fire-bombings, and smear campaigns. Hundreds were jailed. But the wartime Liberal administration granted them amnesty. Never-mind what the boys may have wanted, ? they were busy not voting in trenches, hospital beds, and graveyards.

The American suffragettes were less terroristic and found themselves in an advantageous environment as new western states needed more official citizens in order to be incorporated and industrialists believed suffrage would grow demand and profits, which it did. Just as in Britain, the liberal bloc in America saw women as a tremendous reservoir of votes that could be unleashed to permanently alter the political spectrum. Feminist hysteria was fostered as a political weapon.

The deep impact of introducing so many millions of females to voting rolls across the world can?t be underestimated. Today in the US, women vote in far higher numbers than men. In some states, there are nearly 20% more female voters, awhile taxpayers nationwide remain predominantly male. Subtracting the female voters from the equation would result in an unrecognizable political landscape.

Volumes ought to be written on the economics of who votes and who benefits. But the unjust nature of women?s suffrage should have been clear from the very first elections.

During WW1, a 20 year-old American soldier who lost his legs fighting on the front line did not yet have the ?right to vote? awhile a 21 year-old female who had no high-school diploma, no property, and had never left the house, could herself vote. And they voted in massive swaths. They voted prodigiously. They voted liberal.

And what?s the result? Laws. ? Broken families and new laws. Feminists love laws.

By disbanding traditional marriage, fatherlessness has skyrocketed. In an attempt to justify the abomination of ?single parent homes? feminists have been forced to glorify the ?heroic single mothers.? Never-mind the children, who will be cursed to a life of confusion and anguish. It is much more important that these ?independent? and ?empowered? women have the opportunity to hunt down ?careers? where they can power-test others and squander their youth in offices, or fiend for random men for sex.

Astonishingly, blacks were more likely to be married than whites until the 1960s. Marriage was their social security, their division of labor, which conserved scarce community resources. During the 60s feminist mobilization, which yielded such abominations as widespread abortion, ?no-fault divorce,? alimony, and child-support, black families were utterly annihilated. About 20 years later, as the results of all these broken homes and fatherless children came of age, the black incarceration rate quintupled. The black family, hostage to liberal ideology, had succumbed to feminism. Doom enveloped black communities.

Mass fatherlessness ensued. Defendants are fatherless. Feminism can?t stop the crime-wave. They need more laws. Controls. Police. Prisons. Women have to be safe at night when they?re walking home with skanky clothes because they?re divorced and the babysitter is only good till midnight. But the deluge of feminist laws obviously isn?t limited to safeguarding recklessly slutty activity, or protecting life and property from the broken men of broken homes. The laws have to swing-low into every aspect of male life in order to justify the radical reorganization underway. All variety of male activity was criminalized. When they could vote a wish into existence, they did.

Even the punishment of children has gradually become illegal. Use of recreational drugs had to be policed, along with new regulations on drinking. Men are imprisoned for failure to pay alimony, failure to pay child support?even yelling at one?s wife/girlfriend can result in arrest. Assumption of guilt became protocol as prisons swelled, and community order, which radiates from the family, was overshadowed by shattered homes. Lists of new laws were legislated by moral do-gooders and pushy radicals alike. The voters of PTA meetings, MADD groups, and ?women?s rights advocates? could conjure up a seemingly limitless number of statutes.

Mass imprisonment became the solution for an entire galaxy of offenses that were once the domain of family government and church regulation. As per the 13th Amendment, convicts are still technically ?slaves.? This means that more slaves exist today in the United States than during the peak years of Southern plantation society.

I have never met a Libertarian woman. Apparently they do exist, because recent surveys claim about a third of self-identified Libertarians are self-identified women, which I find surprising. Yet conservatism, and the belief in limited government, seems to be increasingly an ?almost entirely white male phenomenon.?

We have to embrace that feminism itself was imposed by force. It is not merely a spreading meme, an ideological or religious craze; it?s a legal regimen backed by state violence. It was imposed in phases of increasing brutality, culminating in the modern American prison-industrial-complex, which is disproportionately packed with fatherless men. I call them ?children of the revolution.? Many of the other convicts (slaves) were caught in the frenzy of lawmaking applied by moral busybodies, a dragnet of male behaviors only threatening to women living in a post-patriarchal system.

Of course, many of these laws did not even exist 60 years ago. How did this happen? Did we have no use for these laws back then? Did millions of men just become shameless criminals without reason? Or was there a cause?

Supposedly, laws are made by legislators, who are elected by the voters. The voters are predominantly women. If women are not actually designing the outcomes, they are at the least, a significant resource for the justification of government intrusion. So who is the female voter? Who is this voter that dominates our ballots outvoting men? Lets examine women?s ?suffrage? more.

What do women do when they vote? Do women vote with their motherly instincts? Do they think like dating bachelorettes at the polls, seeking affirmation from their peer group?

Women are more likely to be old (because men die several years younger on average). Women are more likely to be on welfare. And women are more likely to make judgments on emotional ? rather than rational arguments. But most curiously, women are more likely to conform to a group consensus, meaning, women are more susceptible to peer-pressure than men.

Men tend to define themselves more by their own personal achievements. Women define themselves by their connections, their network.

Women are far more likely to vote conservative if they?re married with family. But are they just defending their household, being ?motherly,? when they vote for the candidate they perceive as ?lower tax? or ?strong on values?? Could the defensive posture of a voting mother ? as opposed to a single voter ? be related to hormonal conditions? There may be a more significant sexual and biological drive to female politics than anyone wants to openly consider. And it turns out that women?s voting habits change when they are in estrus.

This should be no surprise. A woman?s mood can change dramatically over the course of her cycle?so will her eating habits, sleeping patterns, and sociability.

Free will is a subject of constant fascination to me, admitting I am incapable of understanding it entirely, I like to explore its most obvious boundaries, where it disappears into biology or the subconscious. Women seem to have less of it in the voting booth. As numerous studies conclude, men are far more likely to switch candidates based on their opinion of the platforms, or evolving political conditions. Women (overall), on the other hand, tend to stick with one party regardless of anything. You can guess which party that tends to be.

Technically, the USA does not have ?universal suffrage? because felons and the criminally insane are not allowed to vote. It is fairly obvious, even to the liberal mind, that not all people should be permitted to ballot. When it comes to mentality, what are the proscribed limits?

One quarter of all American women are on psychiatric medications for depression, anxiety, hysteria, bipolar disorder, and psychotic conditions. These women are, presumably, voting.

These hatefacts beckon a reassessment of the conditions under which women were first granted the vote. To say they are ?equal? is quite vague, incompatible with every measurable statistic. We end up in a circus of rationalizations which serves only to weasel women into positions of political authority.

This can be summarized strictly: calling men and women ?equal? is libel. We could say it?s ?like comparing apples and oranges,? which would be necessary, because if both men and women were ?apples? then female apples would consistently be lagging behind men in nearly every form of mental and physical assessment invented. Male college athletes routinely beat female world records. The fact a woman may be involved in the periphery of major study or scientific project makes the news.

So why would such dramatic efforts be made to place men and women on the same political plane?

?That all men are equal is a proposition which at ordinary times no sane individual has ever given his assent.? ?Aldous Huxley

Let?s be liberal for a microsecond and edit Huxley?s assertion by replacing ?men? with ?people.? The devastating circumstances of the World Wars were no ?ordinary times.? So it appears that the WWI situation of the suffragettes and WWII situation of ?Rosie the Riveter? were not ordinary. They were horrific, unspeakable. This was an era where millions of (primarily) European men had been blotted out on the field of battle, the carnage of genocidal trenches and fire-squads of the first nuclear war (WW2). Far from normalcy.

So, this extraordinary phenomenon of female equality and suffrage was born from the most lopsided and twisted of human conditions. This is beyond any comparison to horror films or serial killer fiction. This is a real, collective hell. It was the ticket for the mad act that would follow.

In the grave of ?Our Boy? and millions of other men across the western world is the patriarchy we were denied. It is upon those graves that modern feminists dance. But ?Our Boy? is still whispering from his cold rock.

There is a solution to the overwhelming tyranny of female political primacy. It is exhilarating to examine, but even more exciting to engage. This message is hidden in the aphorisms of traditionalism, known in the deep memory of all men, riding the savage of the subconscious.

It is patriarchy. And it?s inevitable.

- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/03/05/tyranny-suffrage/#sthash.Trq4RjMP.dpuf

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36