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 ... 37
3DHS / Dissident Thanksgiving
« on: November 25, 2020, 11:27:07 AM »
Thanksgiving is considered the most American of holidays, as it is nothing like the typical holiday celebrated in the West. It has rather specific origins located in the founding of the country. Those origins are complete nonsense, of course, but that?s often the case with cultural traditions. Even so, since Lincoln imposed the holiday on the conquered nations of America, Thanksgiving has been the quintessential American holiday and probably most people?s favorite time of year.

The origins of the holiday may be nonsense and the reason we have it may be less than noble, but a time to count your blessings is a good thing. It is made more important in an age in which the ruling class is trying hard to destroy the social capital that is an essential part of human society. When everything is transactional and artificial, having a few days in which you are supposed to think the exact opposite looks a lot like leaving the back door of the Death Star open.

That may be especially true this year. According to current polling, more than half of American adults think the recent election was rigged. No one has asked, but there is a good bet that most of those people think the mass media, Wall Street and Silicon Valley were in on the caper. In other words, most adults right now have lost trust in the controlling institutions of our society. A holiday in which we are encouraged to think about what really matters could not come at a better time.

Of course, this year has seen our rulers go mad with power and inflict all sorts of indignities upon us. There are the absurd lock downs and costume requirements related to the Covid panic. In the states where the tyrants have arbitrarily banned the sale of alcohol and installed snitch lines for people to rat out their neighbors for enjoying themselves, this will be a special time of year. A few days to think about all of this is just what the doctor ordered.

For those in areas where the Left?s street thugs have been running wild for most of the year, something similar is at work. The point of civilized society is to provide leisure time, when you can enjoy the simple pleasures with those you love. That is a sharp contrast to what the wreckers who bankroll the street mobs think. Over turkey tomorrow, a lot of people are going to think about what those oligarchs are really trying to take from us with their street thugs and gangsters.

Most important, of course, those engaged in the fight against the gathering darkness will be fortified by a few days of good food, good friends and time with family. While the forces of darkness are driven by avatars of the promised land and envy at what they can never attain, the dissident it driven by the thoughts of home, community and the daily struggle to make those things possible. For the dissident right, this is the best holiday of the year, even more so in the current crisis.

The challenge, of course, will be the spiteful mutants who will try to wreck the good times with their politics. The wine aunt who wants to gloat about the election, the unstable uncle who thinks Hitler is hiding under his bed and the young person whose mind has been poisoned by the system will all think this is their time to be the wrecker they imagine themselves to be. Dissidents everywhere will have to find a way to deal with these people, but this is the nature of the struggle.

Probably the most important thing to take away from this year, the thing to contemplate over the next few days, is the fact that we are on the cusp of a new age. Those promises from the ruling class puppets, like the Pretender Biden, to ?build back better? should not worry anyone, as these people are parasites. They are wreckers, unwittingly clearing a path for what comes next. Someone will build back better, but it comes after the reckoning that awaits every radical wrecker.

It may feel like a small consolation, but Thanksgiving has always been about looking forward, as much as looking back. You take the time to count your blessings and enjoy what you have, family, friends, your health and so on, but it is also about giving thanks for being in the great struggle of life. Whether it is carving a new society out of the wilderness or preserving the seeds of civilization in the great storms of the present, Thanksgiving is mostly about the promise of better days.

That is the thing that should keep the dissident going. The rage the other side has for what is good in life is rooted, to a great degree, in their fear of tomorrow. They know they are ?always exposed to sudden unexpected destruction. As he that walks in slippery places is every moment liable to fall, he cannot foresee one moment whether he shall stand or fall the next.? This is the source of their rage. They know they stand upon the slippery stones of radicalism, while we stand on the firm ground of truth.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

3DHS / Sunset In Kansas
« on: August 05, 2020, 10:53:58 AM »
It?s easy to forget, with all that is happening, but the racket known as democracy is the one thing not being forced to close by the local tyrants. The state of Kansas had its primary yesterday. The race of interest to white people was the Republican primary for the senate. Far left Rep. Roger Marshall faced off against the moderate former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. Marshall, of course, had the support of both parties, as Kobach favors some minor limits on immigration.

Marshall won with the support of the usual GOP suspects. He got the endorsement of the U.S Chamber of Commerce, the Kansas Farm Bureau, the National Right to Life Committee. If he wins in the fall, the tech monopolies and agribusiness will get a much-needed voice in Washington, but the people of Kansas will remain unrepresented in both houses. Of course, President Trump did nothing to support Kobach. Instead he spent his time tweeting about something.

It used to be that the three ?I?s? controlled American politics. That was Israel, Ireland and Indiana. The money men, working class whites and heritage whites controlled the political process. It?s still the three ?I?s? today, but they stand for Israel, India and the investor class. Politics is now controlled by the Israel lobby, open borders fanatics and the financial class. Even the very mild skepticism for open borders by someone like Kobach is completely out of bounds.

This race was interesting for another reason. Mitch McConnell organized a $15 million ad campaign against Kobach. The ads claimed he was a white nationalist who employed invisible Nazis on his staff. It is a great example of how today?s heated rhetoric from the Left becomes conservative dogma tomorrow. No one should be surprised if the GOP slips in some language into their platform condemning your ancestors and supporting the black lives matter nonsense.

The other interesting McConnell angle is that he now runs the GOP. Trump is not even a figure head at this point. He is a non-factor. Both parties are now preparing for the Biden presidency and will make sure a guy like Trump is never allowed to step foot in Washington ever again. They said Nixon ushered in the imperial presidency. McConnell is now ushering in the legislative supremacy. Both parties have locked shields to impose their will on the executive branch.

That really is the story of the last four years. Disaffected whites rallied to put Trump in the White House to send a message to both parties. It was not that people were charmed by Trump or thought he was a great man. White people backed the pompous and crass Trump as a rejection of official politics. A good chunk of whites were sick of the wars, the open borders, the corporate piracy. Voting for Trump was a rejection of the status quo in an effort to wake up the political class.

The political class responded by making sure this never happens again. Look around at Republican races since 2016 and you see a maximum effort to eliminate anyone that supports populist policies. The Democrats, of course, have spent the last four years turning Washington into a circus of conspiracy theories. Instead of cutting a deal with Trump, which would be easy, they are working with their friends in the GOP to undermine Trump at every turn.

In the fullness of time, the 2016 election will be viewed as the last legitimate presidential election in America. Using the excuse of the pandemic, states are ushering in vote by mail schemes. As Gandhi once said, ?It?s not the people who vote that count, it?s the people who count the votes.? What that will mean moving forward is the wrong votes will be shredded by the party men counting the votes. There will be no way to audit this process, so voting will become ceremonial.

Then there is the fact that the vote counters will be the wokest of the woke. If you vote the wrong way, your name will be leaked to the right people and before long you will be facing the mob. The point of the secret ballot is so people feel free to be honest in their choices. The point of the mail in vote is to make sure you know someone will be looking over your shoulder as you fill in the ballot. Feel free to vote your conscience, but they will feel free to make you suffer for it.

One other thing from the Kansas race worth noting. The party man got the support of the National Right To Life Committee. There is no better example of the corruption inherent in democracy than the anti-abortion movement. For generations they have been hoovering up millions and have nothing to show for it. A candidate opposing abortion may as well claim he opposes leprechauns riding unicorns. It is the most meaningless position in politics.

In the end, it is another reminder that there is no voting your way out from under a corrupt ruling class. The only solution for that is the hangman. If the interests of white people were represented in the ruling class, then they would be represented in the House and Senate. The ruling class of America no longer has any connection to the average white American, so the interests of white people are ignored. There is no solution to that problem at the ballot box.

3DHS / The Left Won?t Stop At Alex Jones
« on: August 25, 2018, 02:43:58 PM »
The Left Won?t Stop At Alex Jones. The Slippery Slope Is Real, And We?re On It
They do not want to compete in a marketplace of ideas. Their goal is to silence dissenting voices.

Jesse Kelly
Ever watch ?The Dick Van Dyke Show?? My folks used to put it on the TV for me when I was a kid. It was good comedy and harmless fun. What you may not have noticed about the show was the two main characters (a married couple) slept in SEPARATE beds in the same room. Obviously not an accurate portrayal of most marriages, the exception being Anthony Weiner?s, but in the early 1960s anything more than that would have been deemed inappropriate for public consumption. When public views on morality started shifting later that decade and television shows started getting a little more risqu?, there were immediate cries that this would be a slippery slope. There were concerns that allowing even the slightest moral degradation of Hollywood would inevitably end in Caligula-style debauchery.

The people who warned of this slippery slope were laughed off. But today, ?Sex and the City plays on regular cable with brief interruptions so Cialis can run commercials. So, about that slippery slope ?

Sorry to disappoint you modern day Puritans, but this is not an article about the Sodom and Gomorrah Sunday night TV lineup and your potential for turning into a pillar of salt. It is about the tendency of some men to deny the existence of a ravenous left and their insistence that the slippery slope is something of a myth. It is anything but a myth. The slippery slope is how the left imprints their agenda into our culture. They know many on the right have little stomach for a fight about the ridiculousness of separate marriage beds. They know once they get momentum you?ll one day have to explain to your six-year-old what ?dominatrix? means.

The federal income tax was established in 1913. (The government has not always stolen a cut of your paycheck before you get it.) There were warnings then about where that kind of sticky-fingers governing would end. The rates were 1 percent. Today the rates are almost 40 percent. In the 1930s, President Roosevelt was pushing for Social Security and folks on the right were warning of socialism. Social Security was then intended to be a temporary relief program. Today it?s a permanent retirement program for many and it?s also 14 percent of our $21,000,000,000,000 debt. Yesterday conservatives were warning about the left?s takeover of public schools and where it would lead. Today students are taught the evil of Trump?s immigration policies and football coaches lose their jobs if they pray on the field with their teams.

Many on the left and the right gave a loud cheer last week when Alex Jones was banished from Facebook. Twitter later suspended him. While it is not surprising to see the jackals on the left cheer at the burning of books, one would hope folks on the right would look in the mirror and realize their time is coming soon. The leftists will not stop (and did not stop) at nutty Alex Jones, because they do not think you are much different from him. You rightly think your belief in immigration enforcement is much different than his disgusting conspiracy theory about Sandy Hook. But you must understand the left thinks you are both equally vile. They just knew Jones was the weak member of the herd. They could pick him off as a test run. Next they?re coming for you.

But we didn?t get a unified message of support from the pinky-out people on the right. We were scolded for defending Jones. They sang so sweetly into the left?s ears: ?Alex Jones is icky. And there is no slippery slope. And you should frankly be censored anyway, if you don?t at least have a Master?s degree.?

The same people who ceded control of public education, the federal bureaucracy, the media, movies, and music to the left have once again found another hill not worth dying on. ?It?s only social media,? they say. Yeah, fear not. Around 2.5 billion people use Facebook and Twitter. What?s the worst that can happen if we just let the left have them?

While this denial of the slippery slope is frustrating, it is also understandable if you understand the nature of man. Very few people in this world actually enjoy fighting. It is much easier on the mind to just avoid a fight. That is why so many on the right ignore the obvious truths staring them in the face. ?It?s only Alex Jones? is not necessarily something they believe to be true.

?It?s only Alex Jones? is a comforting blanket. It?s the child who closes his eyes and covers his ears in the na?ve hope that the monster disappears if you can?t see or hear him. But the monster does NOT disappear. And it is most definitely NOT just Jones. Yesterday it was Jones. Today, YouTube censored human vanilla Dennis Prager. Tomorrow, there may be a knock on YOUR door.

Freedom is not something you acquire by practicing it. You don?t one day wake up and decide you are free. Freedom is something tangible and it requires the cooperation of others. If others will not give you that cooperation, you have to take it from them. We need to stop whistling past the graveyard and realize the left is seeking total victory. They do not want to compete in a marketplace of ideas. Their goal is to silence dissenting voices.

Look down at where you?re standing at this very moment. That is where you draw your line in the sand. Do not give them another inch.

3DHS / A World Without Consequences
« on: August 25, 2018, 02:37:42 PM »
When I was a kid, serendipity landed me in a very nice prep school for boys. The student body was mostly drawn from the upper middle class. There were a few genuinely middle class kids and a few kids from very wealthy homes. The handful of poor kids, who got there on their wits and dumb luck, naturally stood out from the crowd. At that age, kids are keenly aware of differences in class. That?s because the awareness of group status is strongest at that age. As a result it was rough going for the poor kids initially.

My first taste of it was in the locker-room for gym class. A snotty little rich kid started giving me the business. He was smaller and weaker than me and it was obvious, at least to me, that he would not fare well in a fight with me or with anyone probably. He was not tough. He persisted and when he put his finger in my chest, I put his face into a locker a few times. The one thing poor guys know is that soft men do not react well to the sight of their own blood. My nemesis started to cry and then ran for a teacher.

His friends volunteered to tell the head master that I was the villain, so I was hauled away for interrogation. That was when I discovered that there was such a thing as bourgeois values. Poor kids never rat and they never run to the authorities. In the upper middle class, it is exactly the opposite. The winner is the guy who runs to the authorities with the most convincing tale of woe. It?s just assumed that some authority with the power to pass judgement will adjudicate matters, based on a set of unwritten rules I?d never unriddle.

Lucky for me, the school was not unfamiliar with this phenomenon. My adviser was a man who had come up from the lower classes, so he understood what it was like for us. This was why, most likely, he was assigned the poor kids. This was not obvious to me at the time. He just seemed to know what was in our heads, like he was magic. That made him extremely effective at convincing all of us that we had to adapt and learn how to outwit our enemies. By resorting to violence, I had given the others a reason to dismiss me.

The lesson we were supposed to learn is that in a civilized society, verbal and cognitive skill counts for more than physical skill. The lesson I learned is that the people populating the ruling classes of American society had decided violence was no longer a concern for them. They were never going to face a physical challenge. Instead, theirs would be a life of verbal jousting, while someone else guarded the walls. Later, I came to understand that they did not even think much about the walls or the people guarding them.

This is what I suspect is at the core of the problems vexing America. The Progressive ruling class lives in a world in which real risk, physical risk, is so alien that it may as well not exist. In fact, for them, it does not exist. The worst thing they can face is ostracism, which is why they obsess about the prevailing morality. That?s not a real concern, as long as they are aware of the boundaries. For most of the people in the elite, they have plenty of money, so losing a job is not a threat in the same way it is for the Dirt People.

Nicholas Taleb would say they lack skin in the game, but I don?t think that?s right. These people are not playing a meaningless game. It is very serious to them and they are ruthless in their execution.Those status points they hope to cash in at Davos or Jackson Hole mean everything to them. When Tim Cook walks into the bathhouse in Davos, he wants everyone to know that he is the guy leading the charge to purge dissidents from the internet. It?s important to him that he be seen as the most pious of the pious.

In a world where physical violence is a real possibility, the hierarchy of concern starts at the most personal and works outward to things like financial and reputation risk. In a prior age, the King had to worry about being killed or having his heirs killed. That was a sobering thought that led to a natural conservatism. In the current age, the rulers have no fear of physical violence and little fear of losing their stuff. That leaves them playing a game of school yard politics, in which status is set by words and signalling.

This seems to be the issue with the rising tide of censorship. They keep following a pattern. One platform bans a heretic and then it is a race for all of the others to do the same. Despite the overwhelming support for gun ownership, for example, the ruling class is racing to de-platform anything gun related. It?s monkey see, monkey do, as the Judeo-Puritan ruling class signals to one another their piety and then reacts to those signals with their own acts of piety. They are like lightning bugs on a summer evening.

What never crosses their mind is what could happen if they terrorize the wrong person and he decides to take action. They never think about what could happen if the public begins to turn on them in large numbers. No one in the ruling class thinks about the mob showing up with torches and rope. They don?t even think the mob will show up at the voting booth and cast a protest vote. Instead, they assume bad election results are the doings of gremlins and magic fairies with sinister names like Boris and Natasha.

The world they have created for themselves is one  that is surrounded by high walls and armed men that are invisible to the people inside. It is just assumed that the walls will hold and the guards will never turn their guns on the people inside. It?s never considered because they never think about it. It?s why the silly airheads on Progressive media sites can viciously attack people they claim are Nazis. They never think about the possibility of the person they ruined showing up outside their door looking settle things old school.

This is why they will keep pushing with the censorship. In fact, it is accelerating, as they furiously try to out signal one another in what has become a piety festival among our ruling classes. Some of the girls at Progressive sites, with heads full of rape fantasies, dream of provoking a response, but most simply don?t think a response is possible. They no longer see any humanity in the Dirt People. We?re just here as props in their endless morality plays they stage for one another in the land of the Cloud People.

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.

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.

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.

3DHS / Make Parasitism Unprofitable Through Punishment
« on: May 06, 2017, 01:53:56 AM »

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.

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

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. 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

?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, 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.


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.?

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.

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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37