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 4 ... 36
3DHS / The Flight 93 Election
« on: September 08, 2016, 02:12:46 AM »
The Flight 93 Election
By: Publius Decius Mus
September 5, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is the attempt to make unequal things equal.?

? Aristotle.

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

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

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

?Our Boy



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is patriarchy. And it?s inevitable.

- See more at:

3DHS / Sore Losers
« on: January 30, 2016, 12:39:38 AM »


Sam Francis called the American conservative movement a collection of ?beautiful losers.? To look at them now, a more apt descriptor would be ?sore losers.? The meltdown of the mandarins of Conservatism, Inc. over at National Review about Donald Trump can only be seen as the last gasp of an increasingly irrelevant ?movement.?

The heirs of Buckley would love nothing more than to exercise his inquisitorial powers over Donald Trump and the growing ?alt-right? movement. Over twenty ?movement Conservatives? penned diatribes against the Donald in the latest issue of National Review. For the most part, these barely rise above the level of ?democrats r real racists guyz!? to denunciations of ?nativism? and faux patrician concerns about ?vulgarity? as defined by Leo Strauss (I?m looking at you, Kristol). What we are seeing is no more than the death throes of Conservatism, Inc. in a wild temper tantrum.

Events have accelerated quickly. First there was GOP ?cucksultant? Rick Wilson?s pathetic whining on MSNBC about Donald Trump and the alt-right, to Rush Limbaugh?s acknowledgement that nationalism and populism had overtaken conservatism. The lame conservative movement is on life support.

The dispossession of the Beltway Right is a moment that should be celebrated and seized. Sam Francis once denounced ?the managerial verbalist class? which includes the oh so precious contributors to National Review. The controlled grammatical tyranny they have exercised over the thought of the Right is nearing its end. Instead of writing their obituaries with a period, let?s do it with an exclamation mark!

The truth is, publications like National Review and the entire ?conservative? movement are nothing more than sinecures for a b-squad managerial elite on the Potomac. Like the collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of Conservatism, Inc. has been swift and unexpected (at least, to them). They?ve even lost the RNC (Ha!) But with the destruction of this false opposition to our reigning liberal hegemony, a new opposition can take hold.

That?s where we come in. Donald Trump has been a great beginning towards restructuring politics in the United States. In the last year we have seen moves towards nationalism, and even a nascent whiff of a white ?identity politics.? Seizing the mantle of opposition brings new possibilities and new dangers. Of course, this is the only way forward.

Francis said the choice:

Between the present elite and its challengers is not merely between one power and another. It is a choice between degeneration and rebirth, between death and survival, for survival is not a right or a gift freely granted by the powers that be. Survival, in the jungle or in political society, is a hard-won prize that depends ultimately on power itself. In this world, wrote Goethe, one must be the hammer or the anvil.The essence of the message from MARs [Middle American Revolutionaries] is that the messengers want to work the forge.
We have to be the hammer! The death of Conservatism, Inc. is going to leave an ideological void on the right. One that we should be eager to fill. Where they offered platitudes, we will offer identity.

One of the main currents that run through all of those pathetic squawkers in National Review?s ?symposium? (we get it! You?ve read Plato) is a loyalty to abstractions. They rant and rave about ?liberty,? ?the Constitution,? ?muh rights,? etc. But the truth is, none of those things matter much outside of the particular people that gave birth to them. Our people. Who are being hammered by the pincers of mass immigration and cultural marxism being pushed by our managerial elite.

National Review likes to claim that they have been ?standing athwart history yelling, ?Stop!?? In reality, they have done nothing more than stand behind history yelling ?me too! me too!? while chasing off its best minds and adopting yesterday?s liberalism. With this latest stunt, they fall further into irrelevancy.

The ?beautiful losers? of yesterday?s conservatism have morphed into today?s sore losers. We're going to wipe the floor with them.

3DHS / National Review disses Trump
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:06:08 PM »

3DHS / The National Review
« on: September 20, 2015, 10:39:00 PM »

3DHS / Does Silicon Valley?s reign herald the end of social democracy?
« on: September 20, 2015, 10:25:31 AM »
Silicon Valley might have the world?s biggest reserves of chutzpah and arrogance, but could it also be laying the foundations of the new economic order? This seems to be the growing consensus among both its critics and cheerleaders; the disagreement is over what kind of order this will prove to be.

Paul Mason?s new book about ?post-capitalism? straddles both ends of this debate. It?s the latest contribution to the always-green genre pioneered by Daniel Bell and Peter Drucker decades ago. As everything becomes networked and digital, argues Mason, even our new corporate overlords will be having a hard time containing the radical potential ? for new forms of dissent and social organisation ? that lies within.

But what if Mason is only half-right? While it?s perfectly possible that, with Silicon Valley at the helm, we will be moving towards one of those ?post-? eras, why assume that it would be capitalism and not, say, the idea of social democracy that would be left behind? Today such a scenario seems far more likely. From its inception, social democracy was a compromise affair. Different countries saw it arrive at different historical moments, but its essence remained the same: big business and big government eventually came to a mutually beneficial arrangement, whereby governments would not challenge the primacy of the market as the main vehicle of economic development, while companies would acquiesce to considerable regulatory oversight.

This was the famous social democratic compromise that made Europe such a comfortable place to live. It gave grounds for moderate optimism, at least to the burgeoning social democratic parties, that progress was ubiquitous and eternal: the economies were growing; workers were well protected and enjoyed superb health benefits; consumers could be confident that their rights wouldn?t be abused by the firms they transacted with. This system seemed to work splendidly, at least for a while, but its fragile inner workings were not obvious to everybody. First, it presupposed that the economies would be growing almost indefinitely, allowing the state to pick up the bill for generous welfare transfers.

Second, ensuring the dignity of work presupposed occasional tactical interventions by the state into particular industries and sectors; however, those of them that were privatised, liberalised, or never properly regulated ? the technology sector, in its most expansive definition, is a combination of all three ? left governments little space for manoeuvre. Third, the spirit of social democracy dictated that citizens themselves prize lofty values like solidarity and justice ? an attitude that was also encoded into specific regulations.

All three of these foundations are now crumbling ? under the ferocious assault of both neoliberalism and Silicon Valley, the latter being all too happy to exploit the numerous inconsistencies, ambiguities and rhetorical weaknesses of the social democratic ideal.

Uber?s approach is particularly telling. So what if some cities require taxi drivers to take training courses on, for example, how to handle blind or disabled passengers? For Uber, all its passengers are created equal and there?s no point in incurring such extra expenses: its balance sheets recognise no disability.

A few decades ago, when the rash of consumerism hadn?t yet degraded our ability to reason collectively, we might have found such an attitude abhorrent. Today, however, things are not so clear-cut: why, some might reason, should my taxi ride subsidise the rides of blind and disabled people?

Uber the company, likewise, wants to be left alone, claiming that this will yield more satisfaction to its customers ? and of course it will, as long as the only yardstick for measuring satisfaction is the price paid by the consumer. Ironically, it?s precisely by touting the uniqueness of information and digital technology ? the hallmarks of ?post-capitalism? as Mason sees it ? that Uber justifies its draconian employment practices, far more typical of capitalism before the onset of social democracy. They are merely a ?technology company?, they claim. It doesn?t matter that Uber drivers are extensively monitored and aggressively nudged ? for example, to keep their ratings or ride acceptance ratio high enough ? much more so than workers in a typical Taylorist factory of the 1920s.

Despite the immense control that Uber exercises over them, these drivers are not even formally employed, a point on which the company is being challenged even in US courts, with their patchy record of employment protection. One might take solace in the employment flexibility offered by Uber, but even that is just a function of the overall precarity of the working population: with so many people out of work and struggling to get by, Uber can be assured that there will always be somebody, somewhere, willing to drive, if only for a few hours. Work in the future doesn?t have to be truly nasty, brutish, and short ? unless you happen to drive for Uber.

A quick survey of other dimensions of what used to pass for ?social democracy? looks as grim; its foundations are crumbling. There are few health systems in Europe, for example, that would survive the growing challenges of ageing, obesity and ever-shrinking budgets to tackle such problems. This explains why there?s so much irrational exuberance about the potential of wearable devices, smart sensors and their various combinations that promise to shift the current model to preventive care. The days when it was possible not to think too much or too often about our health are gone. The health apps are unending sources of anxiety ? and it was precisely in reducing the latter that the social democratic project actually worked.

A similar assault is taking place on another bulwark of social democracy: the idea of consumer protection. It?s simply being undone by the digital market itself. As advertising and data collection take on more prominent roles in the digital economy, we end up with algorithmically determined prices that are highly personalised and often set to make us pay the highest price we are prepared to pay. Uber?s surge-pricing mechanism is just one of many examples; likewise, most of us already have a hard time explaining why our plane ticket bought online costs exactly what it does. For all the apps telling us about calorie counts and the countries of origins of the products we buy, consumers are also entering the new dark ages: we have no idea why we are paying what we are paying for the products we have been subliminally nudged to buy.

Silicon Valley is mounting an attack on the very philosophy behind social democracy ? that market-bending rules and regulations can be set by governments and city councils. Silicon Valley believes otherwise: the only proper constraint on the excesses of the market is the market itself. Thus, it?s up to consumers to punish ? through bad ratings, for example ? bad drivers or unreliable hosts; governments should stay out. Does any of this add up to ?post-capitalism?? Well, maybe ? but only if we are prepared to acknowledge that capitalism, for the past century at least, has been made stable by the social democratic compromise, which is now being made obsolete. Inasmuch as ?post-capitalism? emerges out of weakened social protections and industry regulations, we might as well be precise in our definitions: if Silicon Valley represents a shift to anything, it?s probably to ?pre-capitalism?.

3DHS / #Cuckservative
« on: July 26, 2015, 01:42:31 AM »
The Daily Caller has picked up a new term, ?cuckservative,? which ironically describes that publication. One of their writers found it on Radix, although it has been known around the alt-right for a while and was likely first used by someone from, or maybe, or this Twitter account. Sorry if I?m wrong but no one is really certain since it?s a meme. The point is, we all use it and we get a kick out of it and now the people we set out to ridicule know about it and are upset and spreading the word. Delicious. I myself have written on the issue of conservatives cucking as well, a few weeks back during the Charleston flagfest. Here?s what The Daily Cucker had to say:

So what does this have to do with conservatism or politics? By supporting immigration reform, criminal justice reform, etc., a white conservative is therefore surrendering his honor and masculinity (and it won?t be long before his women folk are compromised, as well!). A cuckservative is, therefore, a race traitor.

The suggestion is that whites should only support policies that help whites. The goal is to stir up fear among whites ? and to encourage more tribalism and polarization.

I bring this up because I suppose it?s possible that some conservatives might embrace this term without fully understanding the racial and sexual implications. To some, it might be seen as an innocent jab ? like calling someone a ?squish? or a ?RINO.? But as Erickson correctly observes, ?Remember, if you hear the term ?cuckservative,? it is a slur against Christian voters coined by white-supremacists.?

Do you know what encourages tribalism and polarization?

- Everyone else doing it. Every non-white country on earth doing it. Israel, China, Japan, India, South Africa, etc.
- And speaking of Israel, conservatives (and some liberals) cuck extremely hard for that little country. It?s like a socially acceptable and surrogate form of nationalism. Israel can be a Jewish state with a Jewish majority but the United States belongs to everyone right? Even non-citizens. We should just be an entrepot for third world migrant labor right?
- The mass importation of non-white people into the United States since 1965. and the subsequent decline of the Anglo-American White population from almost 90% of the population to 62%.
- The forecast that by the 2040s Whites will lose majority status and become a plurality, the largest minority. As we are constantly reminded, minorities are oppressed. We should avoid becoming one, like Whites were in colonial Haiti and Rhodesia.
- The rise of black and Hispanic identity politics, and to a much lesser extent Asian and LGBT
- The intensity of the white guilt narrative, whether in the form of white privilege or the old-fashioned blaming Whites for everything.
- Politicians kowtowing to political correctness and media and social media enforcing it upon thought heretics.
- The rise of men like Donald Trump who are willing to hold shamelessly pro-American policies without apologizing to the left to make their ideas more appealing to non-Republican voters like blacks, Latinos and feminists.

Here?s some more food for thought:

- ?White supremacist? is a slur used against pro-White advocacy and any White person who uses it is inherently a cuck.
- Republicans who try to appeal to demographics they cannot win without adopting Democrat policies?black and Hispanics?are selling out their White majority base for twenty units of fiat money; They are C U C K S.
- Republicans who support Immigration Reform? and more cultural enrichment?rather than defending the border and repealing Hart-Celler?are cucks. That?s literally making the United States non-white and the people who voted for you are White.
- Republicans who aggressively serve multinational corporate donors or the Israeli lobby, neither of which have the best interests of Anglo-America in mind, are cucks.
- Finally, if you?re just a liberal who?s ten years behind, cuck.

TRS?s Mike Enoch left a pretty clear definition on Daily Caller itself for their audience to ponder.

Look, you guys have lost, even on the issues important to you as Christians because of your cuckholdry on the race issue. You?re not doing anything to preserve the white majority, but you?re not winning on your issues either. Gay marriage is a done deal. Abortion is here to stay, particularly as more broken nonwhite families enter the social services system and are encouraged by bureaucrats to abort. You lost, you lost, you lost.

With a white majority these issues were winnable, because whites vote conservative in the majority. But by being cowards on the issue of immigration and bending over for the left?s quite open plan of demographic replacement of whites in order to secure a permanent nonwhite left wing majority you lost. In 8 years it may be demographically impossible for the GOP to win a national election ever again. Even your precious Christian issues are done. Even your cucking for Israel is under threat. Do you think a nonwhite majority in the US is going to be keen to support your favorite ethnostate? They side with the Palestinians!

You lost everything, and all because you were afraid a group of communists, atheists and homosexuals would call you racist.

I couldn?t agree more. Gas the cucks, waifu war now.

Culture Vultures / Odds and Ends
« on: July 09, 2015, 10:50:22 PM »

3DHS / Fernandez: Who?s In Charge of the Oncoming Train?
« on: July 03, 2015, 10:54:58 AM »
Who?s In Charge of the Oncoming Train

A sense of palpable depression came over conservative America after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare subsidies and decided that gay marriage was a constitutional right.  Many felt as if the America they knew and loved had been abducted by space aliens and replaced with something new and hostile.  In contrast to this emotional devastation the left seemed buoyed by euphoria.

?Look ma, I?m on top of the world!? Yet over the same period the liberal landscape fell apart even faster.The last decade has witnessed a vertiginous decline in Washington?s economic, political and military power.  The economic engine of liberalism was dying under them, sustained only by the vapors of deficit spending and illusionism.

Its political dominance was being challenged by totalitarian regimes in China and Russia.   Even the triumphant tide of liberal values was being offset by the rise of neo-Nazi parties in Europe and the spread of Islamic ideas throughout the world. Justice Kennedy?s decision was answered in the real world by the Turkish police breaking up the Gay Pride parade in Istanbul.  Elsewhere its adherents were experiencing rapid descents from multistory buildings in without the benefit of an elevator at the hands of ISIS executioners.

If the world that conservative Americans once cherished has diminished; it has not been as rapid as the shrinkage of the liberal universe.  Both aspects of old world are dying  never to come back.  The post World War 2 era of Franklin Roosevelt has nearly run its course.  The difference is that the conservatives are more aware of its passing and may become more active in building what replaces it.

A miniature representation of the crisis is being acted out in Greece where the left is embarked on a Battle Royale against reality. With reference to reality ?we refuse to accept it,? says the Greek government, vowing to block expulsion from the Euro. There are no reasons, no math, no proofs that 1+1 <> 2. Just refusals. Insistence has taken the place of facts, and is uttered in the confidence that Someone will provide it.  Yanis Varoufakis, the finance minister said:

?We are taking advice and will certainly consider an injunction at the European Court of Justice,? he told The Daily Telegraph.

?The EU treaties make no provision for euro exit and we refuse to accept it. Our membership is not negotiable.?

The defiant stand came as Europe?s major powers warned in the bluntest terms that Greece will be forced out of monetary union if voters reject austerity and reform demands in a shock referendum on Sunday.

Not that lawyers can restock the ATMs, the supermarkets or the gas stations. All they can produce is paper, of the kind the Supreme Court decisions are written on. But paper has its limitations ? once past the world of paper  Greece is being ripped apart as a sacrifice to the European fantasy. It seems like Greece must die so the narrative may continue live as explained by Ivo Daalder, president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, in an NPR interview. Obama was working to keep Greece in the EU because it is part of the Plan.

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Washington wants Europe to work out a deal that keeps Greece in the eurozone that is using the common currency. President Obama has called German Chancellor Merkel. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has spoken with Greek Prime Minister Tsipras. Why are the highest-ranking figures in Washington working the phones so ardently? What?s in it for the U.S.? ? Why is it so important for the U.S. to avoid a so-called Grexit ? a Greek exit from the eurozone?

DAALDER: Well, Greece ? been a member of NATO since 1952 ? and if the Greeks were to leave the European Union, or even the eurozone, there is a fear in Washington ? particularly at a time when we see a growing confrontation with Russia, that Washington is saying this is probably not the time to shake up the system ? Potentially you can see the Orthodox getting together and saying these are the kind of traditional values that ? you hear that already from Russians and from President Putin ? that need to be strengthened against the immoral values that are coming from the West ? it?s that kind of thinking that I think we need to prevent from happening by not pushing Greece in the direction that it?s moving.

The Plan must be saved. The EU project and ?progressive values? are a project that is too big to fail. Therefore it will be saved. Yevgeniy Feyman described how deceptive paper victories can be. He writes, ?King v. Burwell is in the history books. Subsidies on federal exchanges will continue to flow and supporters of the ACA will (correctly) see this as a big win for the president. But to pretend that this means smooth sailing for Obamacare from here on out would be disingenuous at best.?

Federal backstops for insurers (risk corridors and reinsurance) will disappear after 2016, likely resulting in significantly higher premiums on the exchanges. Additional changes to how subsidies for premiums are calculated in beginning in 2019 also threaten to push more premium costs onto consumers. The exchanges have also largely failed to attract younger enrollees, and middle-class enrollees have been frozen out by (unsubsidized) Obamacare-sticker shock.

The Supreme Court just upheld a program that will bankrupt the treasury and send the health insurance industry into a death spiral. ?Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.?  That?s what Greece is learning now, after the ?victory? of entering Europe.

Saving these sacred cows will come at the cost at a high cost. George Selgin at Cato writes ?if you think that the Fed isn?t involved in the Greek mess, you may want to think again. Paul-Martin Foss, our good friend at the Carl Menger Center, wrote a very nice post a few days ago concerning how the Fed may be getting itself tangled-up in an impending Greek default, through its swap lines with the ECB.?

According to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, those swap lines were first established in December 2007 ?to improve liquidity conditions in U.S. and foreign financial markets by providing foreign central banks with the capacity to deliver U.S. dollar funding to institutions in their jurisdictions during times of market stress.? ? but then, in October 2013 ? what do you know! ? they were made permanent. ? What has all this got to do with Greece? Here is Paul-Martin: ?If you want to get a sense of the Fed?s involvement in Europe, watch the swap lines. ? even if the Fed doesn?t say anything about Greece, its money-printing to pump up the swap lines will do plenty of talking.?

Greece illustrates how incredibly fragile the liberal world order has become.  That one small, almost insignificant European country has the potential to wreak major damage on the entire world economic system is terribly frightening and gives lie to all the bombastic claims about claims to being the wave of the future.

Conservatives shouldn?t feel too bad about the Supreme Court?s decisions. It?s the liberals who are living a house of cards.  If liberals were rational they would making alliances with conservative Christians, Third World Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians and that favorite sector, the moderate Muslims to fight godless Communism and radical Islam.  To paraphrase Casablanca, ?I wouldn?t bring up transgendersism and gay marriage in Tunisia, where hotel workers tried to defend their guests with ashtrays and bottles against the ISIS gunman, if I were you.  It?s poor salesmanship.?

But they don?t care, they?ll do it even though it costs them. Do it because there was always someone to pay for things; someone to fix what they broke. Therfore they will destroy Greece in order to save it as they will ruin Puerto Rico in order to prop up Democratic economic policies. Max Ehrenfreund at the Washington Post explains:

Alejandro Garc?a Padilla, the governor of Puerto Rico, is expected to say publicly Monday afternoon that the government of the island territory cannot pay its debts. The consequences could be serious both for the island and the rest of the United States. ?

Puerto Rico has been doing worse than the rest of the country for the past 15 years. The economy began to contract in 2007, a couple of years before the economy collapsed on the mainland.

It?s no surprise that people have been leaving Puerto Rico if they can. The population is declining at an alarming rate of 1 percent per year. ?

The report cites one surprising problem: the federal minimum wage, which is at the same level in Puerto Rico as in the rest of the country, even though the economy there is so much weaker. There are probably some people who would like to work, but because of the sickly economy, businesses can?t afford to pay them the minimum wage.

Someone working full time for the minimum wage earns $15,080 a year, which isn?t that much less than the median income in Puerto Rico of $19,624.

The report also cites regulations and restrictions that make it difficult to set up new businesses and hire workers, although it?s difficult to know just how large an effect these rules might or might not have on the labor market.

A report by the New York Fed also suggests that Puerto Rico has a relatively large underground economy employing a big part of the population. These workers aren?t taxed or counted in formal employment numbers.

In any case, it?s relatively expensive to hire and pay workers in Puerto Rico, which along with the high cost of transportation, energy and other goods, means that fewer tourists are planning trips to Puerto Rico than they were a decade ago and the number of hotel beds is the same as it was four decades ago, according to Krueger and her colleagues.

PR has a Caribbean level of productivity and a Washington DC level of bureaucracy, a grotesque combination rivaled only, with the possible exception of Chicago, by something like Greece with its pastoral body upon which the Brussels regulatory machinery has been grafted. Both are struggling in their mutant state but in any such clash of interests it?s the island which must die so that the greater bureaucracy can survive.

Their sacrifice will not be enough to save the post-war world, however. If conservatives are disturbed by the changes shaking their universe, their vision is at least unobstructed by the Narrative, which is blocking the sight of a freight train bearing down the Western liberal elite. When it hits, boy will lots of people be surprised.

The more perceptive individuals are already beginning to feel the rails vibrate beneath their feat and are inquiring into the cause. Paul Krugman wrote a few days ago that ?it has been obvious for some time that the creation of the euro was a terrible mistake. Europe never had the preconditions for a successful single currency ? above all, the kind of fiscal and banking union that, for example, ensures that when a housing bubble in Florida bursts, Washington automatically protects seniors against any threat to their medical care or their bank deposits.?

Maybe Krugman can tell Obama about the ?obvious? Euro mistake.  Perhaps he thinks the freight train crushing Greece will pass the other set of rails. Wait till he realizes there?s only one set of tracks in the globalized world they?ve made.

3DHS / We Support Diversity and Equality
« on: July 03, 2015, 10:42:10 AM »

3DHS / A Yankee Loses His Shit
« on: June 24, 2015, 09:37:49 PM »
A Yankee Loses His Shit

Hateful Heretic ?   Published June 23, 2015 ?  171 comments
The blatant status signaling over the Confederate flag in the last few days has me about ready to cash it in. I get it. You're a really good person. Southern whites who keep that rebel flag around are really bad people, and so is anyone who defends them. Thank God that he sent that young man to kill nine people so that you'd have an opportunity to show everyone else what a good person you are, how much better-bred you are than Southern white trash.

God, it feels so good to collectively blame this crime on people we hate, doesn't it? Can't blame terrorism on Muslims. Can't blame a disastrously high black murder rate on black people. Can't blame single motherhood or child murder on women. Can't blame a degenerate entertainment industry on Jews. But by golly, those toothless hicks down in Dixie with those rebel flags and their there's a real out-group we can all be united against. Can't have an in-group without an out-group to posture against in order to maintain status. Sorry, Southern whites, you're it, and dead black people are just another way for us to gain advantage against you.

You all disgust me. You're disgusting people. Nine innocent people are dead, and all you can think about is writing some self-important pseudophilosophical blather about how much Southerners suck and how they all need to feel real bad and to some degree personally guilty about this.

I'm not a Southerner at all. I like to imagine heaven as one endless March to the Sea under the blessed visage of William T Sherman. But if we Yankees don't have to feel real bad about the wreckage of Detroit, about the depredations of the financial industry, about the degradation of all that is good and right spewing out of New York TV studios, and about everything else that goes wrong up here, then you can go right straight to hell if you want me to join you in your preening little parade over how much better we are than them.

Four white people tied up, murdered, and burned in DC? No big deal. Talking about black-on-white crime gets you disapproval from the people you want to impress. It's probably racist of me to even know that happened. Five people shot in church in Baton Rouge? Who cares! Killer was black! Eight dead in Tyrone, Missouri? Gross, they were all small-town whites. There's no angle for me to work there, no way to let everyone know just how righteous I really I am.

Don't act like your blog posts and Facebook statuses are about racism, or about blacks, or about the killing. They're about you. I see it right through it, and you disgust me. You are disgusting, loathsome people, and there is no depth to which you will not stoop to morally posture.

>PRWEB.COM Newswire(PRWEB) July 28, 2014
For the last few months a new book published by Federalist Publications has been percolating beneath the surface of the conservative political movement. Titled The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics, it explains scientifically the biological reasons that humans evolved political ideologies. Recently, well known conservative figures have begun to come out publicly in hopes of promoting the work's premise. National Review Online Contributor and Conservative Icon Bill Whittle, recently said, "That book opened my eyes in a way that nothing I've ever read, ever has... that must have been what Darwin's Theory of Evolution must have been for biologists, or what Newton's insights, or especially Einstein's insights were for physicists... the most eye-opening theory about politics I have ever read... This book is mindbogglingly brilliant..." Reactionary icon Matt Forney called it, "Shocking, Revolutionary." All agree, on finishing the book, that there is no intellectual analysis of the political world, or the biological origins of the political ideologies of conservatism and liberalism, that is even vaguely similar, anywhere in the field. Given the radical nature of its premise, The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics could alter the nation's political battles forever, once it hits the mainstream of the political debate.

The premise of the book is that according to the study of reproductive strategies, and specifically what is called r/K Selection Theory in Evolutionary Biology, there exist only two significant types of environments in nature - either an environment with plentiful resources, or an environment where there are not enough resources for everyone. These two environments each mold the personalities of the animals that inhabit them, by selecting for those whose psychologies and instincts are best suited to each environment. This imbues these animals with two personalities, each designed to see the world, and confront it, in very different ways. Under the premise of this work, political ideologies are just intellectual manifestations of these two deeply imbued instinctual natures, which were burned into human brains through intermittent exposure to each environment during the past. Today, they are designed to emerge in response to changes in resource availability.

As an example, rabbits are more docile, more promiscuous, and less emotionally committed (ie.loyal) to peers and young. They have one of the above described personalities, called an r-selected psychology, or r-selected reproductive strategy, and it is identical to that of the modern liberal's psychology in both perceptions and desires. The r-selected psychology is designed to confront a world with a plethora of resources, such as fields of grass that rabbits can never strip bare. r-strategists such as rabbits are designed simply, to turn that plentiful grass into more rabbits, as fast as they can. Since food is everywhere competition is a dangerous and unnecessary risk, and fitness and adaptability to a harsh world is not a concern - or even on their mental radar. Since competition does not occur, r-strategists don't need to carefully seek out the fittest mate and monopolize that fit mate with monogamy, to produce the genetically fittest offspring possible. Since almost all offspring, no matter how unfit, can get food, all they need to do is produce sheer numbers of offspring with as many mates as possible, regardless of quality, by mating as much and as fast as they can, with whomever they can. r-strategists will also have minimal desire to spend intensive effort rearing their young, or to protect the young unquestioningly (imagine liberals supporting abortion, rabbit-esque single parenting, and other aberrant "family" structures that are hurtful to children). Nor do r-strategists join loyal groups to compete, or become concerned with the idea of in-group vs out-group competition. Just as the liberal is programmed to think that there are unlimited government resources to expend, rabbits are programmed to behave as if resources will always be limitless. From docility and competition aversion, to sexual "openness," to single-parenting, to lack of a desire to form loyal packs, both liberals and rabbits are designed as psychological r-strategists. The evidence cited in The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics clearly indicates that the r-selected reproductive strategy is the biological origin of the entirety of modern liberalism's intellectual foundation.

Conversely, wolves are aggressive/competitive/protective, sexually selective, family/pack oriented, and emotionally devoted and loyal to their pack and their young. They have a different psychological nature, called a K-selected psychology or a K-selected reproductive strategy. This psychology is designed to confront a scarcity of resources which they must compete for, if they are to acquire them. Since their world is dangerous and competitive (and they will starve if they don't fight for a share of the limited food), they form competitive packs of loyal peers, and seek to make their offspring genetically fitter than everyone else's through careful mate selection and mate-monopolization/monogamy. They rear offspring very intensively within a strong family, with lots of protection and care. Having labored to produce a highly fit offspring, they want to protect it, and need it to succeed in competition itself, so they raise it very carefully. Like conservatives, every element of their psychology presupposes that their world is one of danger, competition, and limited resources. It presupposes that those resources are not plentiful enough to provision everyone, so danger is ever-present, competition is inevitable, victory is essential, and adaptability to a harsh world is imperative. The book makes an incredibly strong case that this K-selected reproductive strategy is the biological force underlying the conservative ideology.

According to the book, as a result of this evolutionary phenomenon of r/K selection strategies manifesting in humans, human beings have two political ideologies ? one is r-selected, and one is K-selected. The r-strategists instinctually want a world around them where everyone is provisioned fully and equally and there is no competition - so no one can exert themselves to acquire more than another, and fitness and ability have no bearing on success. The K-strategists expect a world which is competitive - where people seek greatness in competition, and the inherently limited resources are apportioned based upon ability, effort, and determination. One theory of political ideology, which explains everything, from why leftists will tend to support promiscuity, single parenting, birth control, and abortion, to why individuals on the right support gun-ownership, oppose welfare and one-world government, all while insisting on family values and monogamy.

The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics then examines human evolution, showing how different populations of humans were exposed to these two environments in our past. It goes on to examine how as a result, humans evolved both rabbit-like and wolf-like personalities that are designed to emerge in populations to confront changes in resource availability. It demonstrates how it is these underlying personalities which form the emotional foundations of political ideologies, and it is the environment's level of resource availability which elicits the formation of these personalities.

From the crop surpluses of the Medieval Warming Period producing the Dark Ages, to foreign booty and slave labor fueling the Roman Empire's degeneracy and collapse, flood a nation with success, free resources, safety, and ease, and the liberal rabbits will flow from the earth, overwhelm a society, and enlarge its government with an eye to making a world where free stuff is available to everyone, everyone mates freely with each other, and low-investment parenting is the norm. Eventually, the rabbits collapse the whole governmental structure, by fostering a society which actively rewards the quick reproduction of a high quantity of unmotivated and incapable imbeciles. As that society collapses, resource availability will be cut back, (such as during the Carter years, the pre-WWII years ? or what is rapidly approaching today as governments head toward bankruptcy). Suddenly, people will begin to form into packs of more loyal, in-grouping, conservative wolves, and liberal rabbits will be thrust out into the cold, out of necessity. As this occurs, conflict and competition will rise, further punishing and culling the inability to compete. Eventually as things sort themselves out, all of the fit, competitive people who remain will come together to produce a civilization that is optimally efficient and designed for a competitive world. Greatness once again emerges from their aggressive, competitive drive, it produces copious resources, the rabbits re-emerge, and the cycle begins anew. Nowhere has a credible theory for the "cycles of civilizations" ever been proposed, and yet in light of r/K Selection Theory, it suddenly becomes not only easily explainable, but entirely predictable.

The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics fashions an amazing argument based upon peer reviewed scientific sources. From an examination of the genetics of politics and how that mechanism will interact with the neurochemical milieu produced by resource availability, to examinations of the differing brain structures ideologues exhibit and how they relate to harshness or ease, to historical examinations of resource availability's effects on the emergence of ideological movements, to the neurochemical foundations of ideologies, the book makes a fascinating case. It actually takes conservatives into the minds of liberals, examining what data their liberal brains prioritize, what data they lack the cognitive hardware to process, why not having developed that hardware is beneficial to their reproductive strategy, and how all of that produces the liberal ideology on open display today. Suddenly, political ideologies are clearly revealed as merely intellectual outgrowths of deeper underlying Darwinian reproductive strategies, designed to exploit resource blooms, or survive resource shortages. Even the very biochemical and neurological mechanisms which are responsible for triggering all of these behaviors are laid bare in simple, layman's terms.

With hundreds of footnotes citing peer-reviewed scientific studies, The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics is not just easily readable by laymen. It also highly substantiated scientifically. The only question that remains is what effect it will have on today's political debates when grassroots conservatives begin discussing it amongst themselves, and liberals are forced to confront it. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of the reviews on have given it a perfect five star rating. As author and social commentator Matt Forney said, "This book in one word ? Revolutionary... Evolutionary Psychology is a must-read for the simple fact that there's nothing out there quite like it... The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics" is one of the most important books of our time, and one you absolutely must buy."

Whether it will alter the political debate forever depends only upon whether readers embrace it, and promote it among friends, with the same fervor that the leaders of the Conservative movement have exhibited as they have promoted it.

Editor's note : The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics is now made free in Kindle format roughly once per month, in an effort to advance the intellectual support for the conservative cause. According to the author's website, the only condition of accepting the book free, is that one helps to spread it's ideas through the conservative grassroots, if the opportunity arises. To be notified of a free release date, visit

Read the full story at

Read more:

3DHS / The American Rebellion
« on: February 17, 2013, 01:36:59 AM »
We have swallowed the red pill, which now makes its way to the stomach. The coating dissolves. The rotor spins up and the device begins to operate. Inside, the sodium-metal core remains intact.

And we begin the treatment. Again, our goal is to detach you - by "you," of course, I mean only the endogenous neural tissue - from the annelid parasite which now occupies a significant percentage of your cranium, and of course is fully integrated with your soul.

This worm goes by many a name, but today we'll just call it democracy. Once we've severed its paradendritic hyphae, you can remove your little guest safely in your own bathroom - all you need is a Dremel tool, a Flowbee and a big plastic bag. Pack the cavity with Bondo, wear a wig for a few weeks, and no one will suspect you've become a reactionary imperialist.

Of course, you came to us. So the worm must be a little loose already, or otherwise unwell. Which is great - but doesn't really assist us in the procedure. UR is a scientific operation. Everyone gets the same cuts on the same dots. So for the purposes of our red pill, we'll assume you remain an orthodox, NPR-loving progressive. Continue reading at your own risk.

We'll start by detaching you from the party line, your parasite, democracy, on exactly one point. You'll feel a kind of faint plucking sensation behind your right ear. It might hurt a little. It is not the sodium core. We are certainly not solving the problem here and now. Yet our point is a substantial one, and detaching it should give us plenty of slack to pull on.

What we're going to do is to replace your perspective of a major historical event, one which you have never considered controversial, but one which is vital to your understanding of the world you live in. And how will we accomplish this? By the most orthodox of scholarly methods. The only tools in our little black bag are (a) primary sources, (b) forgotten works by reputable historians of the present, and (c) modern works by respected academics.

When all I knew of surfing was surf videos, I used to wonder how surfers swim through all those big broken waves out to where it's glassy. When I learned to surf (I am a terrible surfer), I learned the answer: there's no trick. At least, not one that works. You just have to paddle out faster than the crazy, roaring mess can push you in. (Okay, if you're a shortboarder, you can duck-dive. But shortboards are for teenagers.)

Similarly, there is no magic key to history. If you want to make up your own mind about the past, you cannot do so by going there. So you have to find sources you trust. The Sith Library makes this about as easy as it's going to get, but it will always be work.

Anyway. Our point is the conflict you call the American Revolution. For a quick self-test, ask yourself how close you are to agreeing with the following statement. (You're not expected to take this on faith - we will demonstrate it quite thoroughly.)
Everything I know about the American Revolution is bullshit.
Orwellian antihistory, at least high-quality antihistory (and remember, kids, democracy is anything but mildly evolved), tends to fit Professor Frankfurt's handy definition: bullshit is neither truth nor fiction. It is bullshit. If it uses any factual misstatements, it uses them very sparsely. If it has any resemblance to reality, the match is a coincidence.

The typical structure of antihistorical bullshit is an aggregate of small, accurate and unimportant facts, set in a filler of nonsense and/or active misinterpretation. This mix hardens quickly, can support tremendous architectural loads, and looks like marble from a distance.

Especially if you've never seen actual marble. When I find out, or at least flatter myself that I have found out, the actual picture behind my 10th-grade matte-painting view of some event, I am always reminded of something that happened to me in 10th grade. I was listening to a shitty '80s Top 40 station - in the actual '80s. Presumably in a desperate attempt to familiarize myself with actual American culture. When, as some kind of game or promotion, they played a Stones song - Paint It Black, I think. And that was basically it for Cyndi Lauper. This is the difference between real history and antihistory: the difference between Mick Jagger and Cyndi Lauper.

Of course, unlike Cyndi Lauper, antihistorical bullshit has an adaptive function. It exists to fill the hole in your head where the actual story should be. Duh. If everything you know about the American Revolution is bullshit, you know nothing about the American Revolution. This is the basic technique of misdirection, popular with magicians everywhere since time immemorial. You can't see the rabbit going into the hat if you're not looking at the hat.

So: let's put it as bluntly as possible. At present you believe that, in the American Revolution, good triumphed over evil. This is the aforementioned aggregate. We're going to just scoop that right out with the #6 brain spoon. As we operate, we'll replace it with the actual story of the American Rebellion - in which evil triumphed over good.

Yup. We're really going to do this. You're on the table. It's the real thing. In the terms of the time, at present you are a Patriot and (pejoratively) a Whig. After this initial subprocedure you will be a Loyalist and (pejoratively) a Tory. Obviously, a challenging surgical outcome. But hey, it's the 21st century. If not now, when?

Some would just try to split the difference, and convince you that it wasn't black and white - that the "King's friends" had a point, too. Your modern academic historian (as opposed to his more numerous colleague, the modern academic antihistorian) is terribly good at this trick of dousing inconvenient truths in a freezing, antiseptic bucket of professional neutrality.

This is pretty much why you can't just walk into your friendly local bookstore and buy a red pill. It was black and white. It was just black and white in the other direction.

How on earth can we possibly convince you of this? We'll read an old book or two, that's all. No actual incision is needed. The metaphor is just a metaphor. Relax and breathe into the mask.

Let's call our first witness. His name is Thomas Hutchinson, and he is the outstanding Loyalist figure of the prerevolutionary era. His Strictures upon the Declaration of the Congress at Philadelphia is here. It is not long. Please do him the courtesy of reading it in full, then continue below.

Now: what do you notice about Hutchinson's Strictures? Well, the first thing you notice is: before today, you had never read it. Or even heard of it. Or probably even its author. What is the ratio of the number of people who have read the Declaration to the number who have read the Strictures? 10^5? 10^6? Something like that. Isn't that just slightly creepy?

The second thing we notice about the Strictures is its tone - very different from the Declaration. The Declaration shouts at us. The Strictures talk to us. Hutchinson speaks quietly, with just the occasional touch of snark. He adopts the general manner of a sober adult trapped in an elevator with a drunk, knife-wielding teenager.

Of course, as Patriots (we are still Patriots, aren't we? Sorry - just checking), we would expect some cleverness from the Devil. Everyone knows this is the way you win an argument, right or wrong. Pay no attention to Darth Hutchinson's little Sith mind tricks. But still - why would Congress make it so easy? Why are we getting stomped like this? Because ouch, man, that was painful.

The third thing we notice is that Hutchinson actually explains the Declaration. As he begins:
The last time I had the honour of being in your Lordship's company, you observed that you were utterly at a loss as to what facts many parts of the Declaration of Independence published by the Philadelphia Congress referred...
In other words: these Congress people are so whack-a-doodle-doo, half the time your Lordship can't even tell what they're talking about. Presumably "your Lordship" is Lord Germain. Dear reader, how does your own knowledge of the Declaration compare to Lord Germain's? Weren't you amused, for instance, to learn that
I know of no new offices erected in America in the present reign, except those of the Commissioners of the Customs and their dependents. Five Commissioners were appointed, and four Surveyors General dismissed; perhaps fifteen to twenty clerks and under officers were necessary for this board more than the Surveyors had occasion for before: Land and tide waiters, weighers, &c. were known officers before; the Surveyors used to encrease or lessen the number as the King?s service required, and the Commissioners have done no more. Thirty or forty additional officers in the whole Continent, are the Swarms which eat out the substance of the boasted number of three millions of people.
or, most intriguingly, that
The first in order, He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good; is of so general a nature, that it is not possible to conjecture to what laws or to what Colonies it refers. I remember no laws which any Colony has been restrained from passing, so as to cause any complaint of grievance, except those for issuing a fraudulent paper currency, and making it a legal tender; but this is a restraint which for many years past has been laid on Assemblies by an act of Parliament, since which such laws cannot have been offered to the King for his allowance. I therefore believe this to be a general charge, without any particulars to support it; fit enough to be placed at the head of a list of imaginary grievances.
What is this fraudulent paper currency? Hutchinson is referring to this episode. The experienced UR reader may well ask: what is it with America and paper money? We'll definitely have to revisit the question.

But suffice it to say that you, personally, do not have the knowledge to produce any kind of coherent response to Hutchinson's brutal fisking of our sacred founding document. You can't say: "actually, Governor Hutchinson, I was in Boston in 1768, and I can tell you exactly why the Assembly was moved to Cambridge. What really happened is that..." For all you or I know about Boston in 1768, of course, Hutchinson could just as easily be the one yanking our chains. But why, then, are we so sure he's wrong?

Of course, you don't really think of the Declaration as a list of factual particulars. You think of it as a deep moral statement, about humanity, or something. Nonetheless, it does contain a list of particulars. Isn't it odd that it strikes us as odd to see these particulars closely examined? One simply doesn't expect to see the Declaration argued with in this way. And, reading the Strictures, one gets the impression that the authors of the Declaration didn't, either.

Which should not surprise us. What we learn from the Strictures is that, as in the rest of American history, there is absolutely no guarantee that a detailed and rational argument about a substantive factual question will prevail, whether through means military, political, or educational, over a meretricious tissue of lies. So why bother - especially if you're the one peddling the lies? Perhaps Hutchinson is yanking our chain, and King George really did dispatch hordes of ravenous bureaucrats to America, etc, etc. But one would expect to have seen the point at least disputed.

But, okay. Whatever. We are still Patriots. So let's advance to the second primary: Peter Oliver's Origin & Progress of the American Rebellion.

Peter Oliver was Chief Justice of Massachusetts and Hutchinson's brother-in-law. His brother Andrew was Hutchinson's lieutenant governor. Like Hutchinson, the Olivers spent most of the '60s and '70s trying to survive the Boston mob, by whom Andrew Oliver was more or less hounded to death. Hutchinson and Peter Oliver died in exile.

The Origin & Progress was written in 1781, but not published properly until 1961 (with an excellent introduction by the historian Douglass Adair). The copy on is a bank error in your favor, as Adair's edits should still be under copyright. I recommend downloading the PDF. If Hutchinson has already sold you on Toryism, great. Otherwise, please read the whole book, then Adair's introduction.

If you are feeling especially impatient, and/or confident in your knowledge of 18th-century political theory and the history of early New England, I suppose you can skip Oliver's "procathartick Porch" and go straight to chapter II (page 57), where the story starts to really motor. But I don't recommend it. As Oliver writes:
Methinks Sir! I hear you ask me, why all this Introduction? Why so long a Porch before the Building is reached? Let me answer You by saying, that you desired me to give You the History of the american Rebellion, because You thought that I was intimately acquainted with the Rise & Progress of it; having lived there for so many Years, & been concerned in the publick Transactions of Government before the Rebellion burst its Crater. I was very willing to answer your Request. I, on my Part, must ask you to oblige me, by permitting me, in the epistolary Walks, to indulge my Fancy in the Choice of my Path. Besides, you may perhaps, in the Sequel, find some Analogy between the Porch & the Building, & that they are not two detached Structures; altho' a good Architect might have produced a better Effect, by making either or both of them a little more tasty. However, if you will excuse the Hibernicism, you need not enter the House by its Porch, but open the Door of the main Building which hangs at the End of the Porch, & adjoins to it.

Before I introduce you to the House, let me remind you, that I shall confine myself, chiefly, to the Transactions of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, as it was this Province where I resided, & was most intimate to the Transactions of; & as it was the Volcano from whence issued all the Smoak, Flame & Lava which hath since enveloped the whole British american Continent, for the Length of above 1700 Miles. If I deviate into other Colonies, my Excursions will be few & short. I promise You that I will adhere most sacredly to Truth, & endeavor to steer as clear as possible from Exaggeration; although many Facts may appear to be exaggerated, to a candid Mind, which is always fond of viewing human Nature on the brightest Side of its Orb.
The Origin & Progress is obviously a very different animal from the Strictures.

What's so neat about Peter Oliver's little book is that, besides being a primary source of considerable historical value, it is also an artistic work of considerable literary merit. The tone, as we see, is almost postmodern. Oliver has a voice, and even here in the benighted 21st century (where we think "candid" means "honest," rather than "naive"), we can hear it. This is a man you could have a beer with. Even from the strongest revolutionary characters, TJ and John Adams, it is hard to get such a three-dimensional presence.

The past, as they say, is a foreign country. Imagine you were a hippie backpacker visiting, say, Armenia, having read a few newspaper stories about how the Armenian Democratic Front is struggling nobly against the iron oppression of the Armenian People's Party - this being roughly comparable to the average American's knowledge of prerevolutionary Massachusetts politics. But leaving the airport in Yerevan, you meet Vartan ("call me Varty!"), a die-hard APP man, and wind up drinking with him and his boho friends until four in the morning. Of course, you'll leave Armenia a dedicated supporter of the APP. This is roughly how we intend to convert you into a Loyalist. You can't actually have a beer with Peter Oliver, but you can read his book.

Speaking of John Adams, there's actually another point of contact: you can rent the first disc of the HBO miniseries by that name. I gave up after an episode and a half - I have put a little work into my picture of the 1770s, and I don't want it contaminated with Hollywood's. But I will say this: HBO's Samuel Adams, as a sort of 18th-century Al Sharpton, is dead on. As Oliver puts it:
I shall next give you a Sketch of some of Mr. Samuel Adams' Features; & I do not know how to delineate them stronger, than by the Observation made by a celebrated Painter in America, vizt. "That if he wished to draw the Picture of the Devil, that he would get Sam Adams to sit for him:" & indeed, a very ordinary Physiognomist would, at a transient View of his Countenance, develope the Malignity of his Heart. He was a Person of Understanding, but it was discoverable rather by a Shrewdness than Solidity of Judgment; & he understood human Nature, in low life, so well, that he could turn the Minds of the great Vulgar as well as the small into any Course that he might chuse; perhaps he was a singular Instance in this Kind; & he never failed of employing his Abilities to the vilest Purposes.
His beer sucks, too. And few will forget this portrait of John Hancock, as the dim young Trustafarian, and general Wallet of what Oliver calls "the Faction":
Here I am almost necessarily led into a Digression upon Mr. Hancock's Character, who was as closely attached to the hindermost part of Mr. Adams as the Rattles are affixed to the Tail of the Rattle Snake. Mr. Hancock was the Son of a dissenting Clergyman, whose Circumstances in Life were not above Mediocrity, but he had a rich Uncle. He was educated at Harvard College, was introduced into his uncles Warehouse as a Merchant, & upon his Death was the residuary Legatee of 60,000 pounds Sterling. His understanding was of the Dwarf Size; but his Ambition, upon the Accession to so great an Estate, was upon the Gigantick. He was free from Immoralities, & Objects of Charity often felt the Effects of his Riches. His Mind was a meer Tabula Rasa, & had he met with a good Artist he would have enstamped upon it such Character as would have made him a most usefull Member of Society. But Mr. Adams who was restless in endeavors to disturb ye Peace of Society, & who was ever going about seeking whom he might devour, seized upon him as his Prey, & stamped such Lessons upon his Mind, as have not as yet been erased. Sometimes, indeed, by certain Efforts of Nature, when he was insensible of the Causes of his self, he would almost disengage himself from his Assailant; but Adams, like the Cuddlefish, would discharge his muddy Liquid, & darken the Water to such a Hue, that the other was lost to his Way, & by his Tergiversations in the Cloudy Vortex would again be seized, & at last secured.
Put your John Hancock on that! Of course, dissenting doesn't mean Mr. Hancock's father was an open-minded dissident, like me. It means he was a Dissenter - ie, a Puritan, and thus a member of what Mr. Otis called his black Regiment. (The Olivers and Hutchinsons were Anglicans.) Don't miss Peter Oliver's discussion of the role of the Puritan clergy in the disturbances, which will not be even slightly surprising to the experienced UR reader.

And yes, the Origin & Progress really is pretty much all this good. Read the whole thing. Consider it a small revenge on your 10th-grade history teacher. And chuckle along with Peter Oliver, when he writes:
I have done Sir! for the present, with my Portraits. If you like them, & think them ornamental for your Parlour, pray hang them up in it; for I assure You, that most of them justly demerit a Suspension.
Black humor - cheap black humor - from the 18th century. And there is more to Oliver than his Portraits. If you want action, skip to the Stamp Act (chapter III, p. 76):
In this Year 1765, began the violent Outrages in Boston: and now the Effusions of Rancour from Mr. Otis's Heart were brought into Action. It hath been said, that he had secured the Smugglers & their Connections, as his Clients. An Opportunity now offered for them to convince Government of their Influence: as Seizure had been made by breaking open a Store, agreeable to act of Parliament; it was contested in the supreme Court, where Mr. Hutchinson praesided. The Seizure was adjudged legal by the whole Court.

This raised Resentment against the Judges. Mr. Hutchinson was the only Judge who resided in Boston, & he only, of the Judges, was the Victim; for in a short Time after, the Mob of Otis & his clients plundered Mr. Hutchinsons House of its full Contents, destroyed his Papers, unroofed his House, & sought his & his Children's Lives, which were saved by Flight. One of the Riotors declared, the next morning, that the first Places which they looked into were the Beds, in Order to murder the Children. All this was Joy to Mr. Otis, as also to some of the considerable Merchants who were smugglers, & personally active in the diabolical Scene. But a grave old Gentleman thought it more than diabolical; for upon viewing the Ruins, on the next Day, he made this Remark, vizt. "that if the Devil had been here the last Night, he would have gone back to his own Regions, ashamed of being outdone, & never more have set Foot upon the Earth." If so, what Pity that he did not take an Evening Walk, at that unhappy Crisis; for he hath often since seen himself outdone at his own outdoings.
You see what I mean by "evil." You probably also remember, dimly, your 10th-grade history teacher plying you with propaganda that glorified this kind of spontaneous popular action. If you want to know how decent people can support evil, find a mirror.

Enough of Peter Oliver. Perhaps he is just not your style, and you remain a Patriot. In that case, there is no further escape. You will have to cope with the long S, and read Charles Stedman's History of the Origin, Progress, and Termination of the American War (vol. 1, vol.2), our third primary source.

I regret to report that there is no such thing as a neutral primary source. Charles Stedman, though, is Colonel Stedman to you. Call him Chuck, and you're shit out of luck. Not only was he a Colonel in the British Army, he was born in Philadelphia - and commanded a Loyalist corps against the rebel forces. Moreover, he is a trained lawyer and clearly has read his Thucydides, of whom his tone and content are quite reminiscent.

Colonel Stedman's history is accurate, clear, and not at all dry. Like Governor Hutchinson, he lets only a few cold digs slip through. The following is a fair sample:
When the assembly of this province [Massachusetts, of course] met in the month of January [1773], the governor [Hutchinson] probably intending to give them an opportunity, if they were so disposed, of doing away the evil impressions which might have been made by the unqualified resolutions of the town meeting at Boston, took occasion in his speech to insist on the supreme legislative authority of the king and parliament.

But if he hoped to benefit government by bringing on this discussion, he was entirely disappointed. The assembly, instead of endeavouring to moderate and qualify the doctrines contained in the resolutions of the town meeting, seized the opportunity of the address which was to be presented, to fix them more firmly and in their utmost extent. They openly denied the authority of parliament, not only to impose taxes, but to legislate for them in any respect whatsoever; adding, "that if there had been in any late instances a submission to acts of parliament, it was more from want of consideration or a reluctance to contend with the parent state, than a conviction of the supreme legislative authority of parliament."

This address also recapitulated a number of new grievances which had not heretofore been complained of. And such was its improper tendency, even in the opinion of the Assembly, upon cooler reflection, that six months after, in a letter to the earl of Dartmouth, Secretary of State for American affairs, they thought it necessary to apologize for it, imputing the blame of their intemperate proceedings to their governor, who had unnecessarily brought the subject of parliamentary authority under their consideration.

In this letter they say, "that their answers to the governor's speech were the effect of necessity, and that this necessity occasioned great grief to the two houses;" and then, in a style truly characteristic of puritanical duplicity, they exclaim, "For, my lord, the people of this province are true and faithful subjects of his Majesty, and think themselves happy in their connection with Great Britain."
Trust me: if you have actually read all three of these selections, you will be under no illusion whatsoever as to what style is, or is not, truly characteristic of puritanical duplicity.

If not, please do so. Feel free to stop reading Colonel Stedman as soon as you are sold, or if you get to the point where the war has actually started and you still are not sold. In that case, we move on to the secondary sources: W.E.H. Lecky's American Revolution (Britain, 1898), Sydney Fisher's True History of the American Revolution (1902, US). And if you are still a Patriot after that, we have to get into the tertiary sources. (Anything post 1950 deserves the "tertiary" warning label, I feel.) Read Bernard Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967).

If you actually read all this, yet remain a damn'd Whig - congratulations Sir! You are poffeffed of an unusually thick Skull - not unlike yr. ancestor, the Pithecanthropus. Indeed Samuel Johnson put it best: the Devil was the first Whig. And to him with you Sir! For the Remedy hath failed.

Otherwise, congratulations on completing the first step of the procedure. Don't worry - the worst is still to come. Also, we need to quickly install your new Tory history.

The outcome of our little reading list is that, if even a tenth of what Hutchinson, Oliver and Stedman say is true, your desire to remain a Whig is now somewhere between your desire to join the Crips and your desire to volunteer for the Waffen SS. Whereas you formerly thought of the values of the American Revolution as liberty, truth and justice, you now see the hallmarks of the American Rebellion as thuggery, treason, and - above all - hypocrisy.

Therefore, since you can no longer be a Whig, you have no option but to become a Tory. The conflict was, after all, a war. No one was neutral. There is no third side.

But what - since we are now Tories - actually happened? What truth are we to install in the freshly-scraped neural cavity?

What happened is that the executive cohesion of Great Britain had weakened considerably since the golden age of Pitt. For most of the 18th century, there was no such thing as a Tory in British politics. The country was a one-party Whig state. As Colonel Stedman puts it: "... that party distinction of Whig and Tory, which had been dormant since the reign of Queen Anne." It may (or may not) surprise you to know that this was considered a bad thing.

The event that triggered the Rebellion was an attempt by certain elements of the British leadership, a group not at that time distinguished by any great talent, to restore full lawful authority to the American colonies. Especially in New England, smuggling was rife, and it was not at all clear how far the king's writ ran.

Moreover, Massachusetts in particular was swarming with unreconstructed Puritans, who had never been properly disciplined for the failure of the previous republican revolution. In contrast to the home country, which had enjoyed 28 years of restored Stuart rule, the attempted New England restoration of the Andros period had lasted only three years, at which point it was terminated by the treasonous Whig coup of 1688.

British politics in the 1760s was coming out of its one-party phase and had stretched out a good bit, developing Whig radicals on the left and proto-Tory "King's friends" on the right. Naturally, the former tended to be low-church and Dissenter/Nonconformist, the latter tended to be high-church and Anglican. George III never pretended to anything like Stuart authority, but he was making the last ever attempt to render the British monarchy a serious arm of politics.

Therefore, everyone had a reason to do what they did. The King and his friends had a reason to try to reassert authority over the colonies. The colonies had a reason to try for independence. Note, however, that the law was entirely on the side of the former. This gave the rebellion the generally mendacious and criminal quality described above, which is why we are Tories. The rebels could rebel or they could think, speak and write honestly, but not both.

Humans being what they are, it is not terribly surprising that quite a few took the former path. Fortunately, this included many individuals of genuine character and substance, such as George Washington and John Adams, who may have been deluded by ideology but were not seduced by cupidity. The rebellion could easily have ended up where France's did, and its failure to do so is more than anything due to the High Federalists, who once they saw what republicanism meant in practice ended up with very similar attitudes toward mob politics that we see in Hutchinson and Oliver - twenty years before the Thermidorean reaction that created the Constitution. Most of history consists of going around in circles, learning nothing.

As Colonel Stedman says, the rebels could and should have been crushed easily. In a fair fight, their real chances against the British military were slim to none. As the Union later found, suppressing guerrilla warfare, even in the wilds of North America, is not difficult given sufficient energy. Britain failed because it lacked that crucial ingredient in every war: the will to win.

Britain in the Revolution was politically divided. Large numbers of mainstream political figures - most famously, both Pitt and Burke - sympathized with the Americans. Moreover, although the tea outrage finally created a nominal consensus for a military response, and finally made it imprudent for a British politician to openly urge surrender, a new lobby developed which urged conciliation, conciliation, and more conciliation.

What we see, in other words, is the familiar pattern of two conflicting prescriptions for maintaining the integrity of the state. The Whig prescription says: conciliate the truculent, assuage their grievances whether real or feigned, loosen the ropes at every complaint. The Tory prescription says: enforce the law, and do not bend an inch in response to violence or any other extralegal pressure. As Oliver puts it (p. 125):
Timidity, in Suppression of Rebellion, will ever retard the Subdual of it.
With our corrected Tory vision, we see the answer clearly. In every case, concessions made to dispel conspiracy theories, reassure the Americans of Britain's fundamental benevolence, and in general appease a fit of calculated insanity, have the obvious effect of displaying Timidity and encouraging further demands. First internal taxation is a violation of American rights, then all taxation, then all parliamentary legislation. The only actual principle that can be discerned is one of unremitting chutzpah and hypocrisy.

The relationship between Britain and Massachusetts, in particular, was much like that between a parent and a teenager. Independence or loyalty: it could go either way, at least for the moment. Scenario: your teenager starts cutting class. So you take her car keys away. So she throws your widescreen TV out the window. So you give her car keys back. Is this pattern of behavior more likely to result in independence, or loyalty?

But this is basically the American policy that the Whigs prescribed. And with the repeal of the Stamp Act, thanks to Burke (who at least later learned better) and the Rockingham Whigs, it's the policy they enacted. And even when the left Whigs were not, precisely, in the driver's seat, they were in the passenger seat, yelling. While sold as a policy for the reconciliation of Britain and America, Burke's policy could hardly have been a better design for the encouragement of an American rebellion and the prospects of its success - which was, of course, achieved.

For example, General Howe among other British military figures is known to have had strong Whig sympathies. His role in America was also twofold: he was there to either defeat the rebels, or make peace with them. Obviously, the latter would have been greatly to his political advantage. Whether his failures in the war were the result of this conflict of interest, or of simple incompetence, can never be known. But the former is surely a reasonable suspicion.

Colonel Stedman, in his dedication, sums it up both well and not impolitically:
The pain of recording that spirit of faction, indecision, indolence, luxury, and corruption, which disgraced our public conduct during the course of the American war...
What, from the historiographic perspective, is particularly galling, is that the explanation that was generally accepted, even in Britain, for most of the 19th century is the Whig one. The rebellion succeeded not because it was not dealt with quickly and decisively, but because the Americans were not conciliated enough. (Alternatively, it succeeded because the Americans were militarily invincible - another common Whig trope.)

This is the secret of puritanical duplicity: no shame, none whatsoever. Every quack who hopes to outlast chance must learn the trick. If you bleed the patient and he dies, obviously you didn't draw enough blood. Never concede error. Counter every criticism with a barrage of even more gloriously inflated claims. You can see why the likes of Hutchinson and Oliver had no chance at all against the black Regiment.

Evil is typically more powerful than good. Bad men delight in weapons that good men spurn. Success in past conflicts, political or military, is not Bayesian evidence of moral superiority. It is just the opposite. Which is why it's a problem that the winners write the history books.

So: we've completed the operation, at least as far as the American Rebellion is concerned. We've created a clean separation between the parasite, democracy, and your understanding of the 18th century, and we've replaced the infected Whig mass with a small dose of healthy Tory history. Presumably the counter-democratic nature of the latter is obvious, if not definitive.

In retrospect, your former support for the Whig cause was a classic received opinion, installed without any sort of thought on your part. In other words, it is not something you were reasoned into. It is to your credit as a thinker that you've let yourself be reasoned out of it. If you think of Patriot v. Loyalist as a lawsuit and yourself as a juror, not only had you never heard a single word from the defense, you hadn't even really heard a proper prosecution. There was never any need. The annelid just raised your hand to convict. Megaloponera foetens, thy name is you.

Note, from an almost military perspective, the curious weakness of your convictions in this regard. What made the "Revolution" an easy target is that you had no particular emotional attachment to it - at least, not compared to some other wars we could mention. Your attachment to the Patriot cause seemed rock-solid. But it disintegrated on contact with the enemy. It was all hat and no cattle.

But our red pill is most certainly not an information-warfare device - at least, not a democratic one. It is a tool for your personal enlightenment only. As we can see easily from this first target. If UR were, say, a political party, would the first plank in our platform be repudiation of the American Revolution? This should attract about twelve supporters, all of whom are homeless schizophrenics. It will repel many more, of course.

Of course, this only makes it easier for you to swallow the red pill. The parasite has strong defenses against most attacks of this kind - certainly all which are of democratic relevance. This position is intellectually significant, yet undefended because of its negative political value. Turning you into a Loyalist does not solve the whole problem by any means, but it's a foothold, and we can use it to excavate other annelid coprolites in more delicate areas of your brain.

Reversing this one point is not sufficient to replace your entire picture of American history. In fact, it's entirely possible that, if you stop reading UR immediately, you'll eventually relapse and become a Patriot again. (Some may prefer this outcome.)

What we've done, however, is to establish a second narrative. You now have two realities in your head. You have the reality in which there was an American Revolution, which was a triumph for liberty, truth and justice. You may no longer believe in this reality, but you have no way to forget it. And you have the reality in which there was an American Rebellion, which was a triumph for thuggery, treason, and hypocrisy.

So, for example, we can now then ask the question: in the second narrative, the one in which the American Rebellion was a disaster, what is happening in 2009? Whatever the answer is, the two seem quite unlikely to have converged.

But surely we've done enough for this week. I'm afraid the series will require a third.

3DHS / Who Were the Geniuses Who Came Up With That One?
« on: February 13, 2013, 09:45:28 PM »
Monday, February 04, 2013
Who Were the Geniuses Who Came Up With That One?

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 23 Comments

There was a time in the 80s when standup comedians were required by law to wear loud blazers and louder ties and to demand answers to life's unanswerable questions about senseless products, airline regulations and the other inconveniences of modern life. "Who were the geniuses who came up with that one?" was their demand.

The Republican Party, which has been a joke for almost as long as it has been a party, is in the hands of those same geniuses. Fresh off two defeats in presidential elections, they have come up with the plan of all plans to get back on top.

First, they will nuke their own grassroots by raising money to attack deviant Tea Party candidates and protect true conservatives who support amnesty, tax shelters and tax hikes. Considering that the Tea Party was responsible for the first Republican victories since 2004, spending money going after it is bound to attract voters and improve prospects for more victories in 2014.

Second, they will add 11 million Democratic voters to the rolls through amnesty for illegal aliens as part of a brilliant plan to stop being a national party and settle down to fighting pitched battles for local council seats. Even the geniuses behind the election polling and ORCA should be able to win a few those. And if they can't, then it'll be time to raise more money to keep down some of those pesky Tea Party types trying to run for school boards while saying politically incorrect things.

Fortunately there is a clear path to victory. All we have to do is convince the Party of Consultants that all is lost and that they should come out as Democrats now. If they do that, then the Democratic Party will be a useless ruin within a decade. If they don't do that, the Republican Party will have the same policies as the Democratic Party, except for the part where it wins elections.

The establishment wanted Romney in '12. And they got him. They assured us that he was the only electable candidate. And when he lost, they told us that he didn't fail, the country failed him. And if a campaign built on Staples couldn't catch fire, it must have been due to the descent of the country into a nation of takers.

And they have a plan for '16. They'll run an immigration friendly candidate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio to win the Latino vote. Sure, Rubio lost the non-Cuban Latino vote in Florida, and unless the entire population of Cuba gets imported to the United States and legalized between now and '16, he'll only win, at best, as much of the Latino vote as Bush did, or as Rick Perry did, which isn't enough to win an election, especially once you've legalized the 10 percent of Mexico that lives north of the Rio Grande. But after they blow that one, the geniuses will step up to the plate and blame the Tea Party for a loss by another of their perfect candidates because during the primaries Rubio or Bush was forced to disavow Amnesty II or Amnesty III.

The Republican Party of '12 looks a lot like the Democratic Party of '88. It's outdated and running on fumes. All its slogans are tired and its leaders seem completely out of touch. Even the most unfair attacks stick to it, because it has no momentum. It isn't going anywhere because it's enclosed in a shell of outdated ideas and tired figures from its past who prevent anyone from coming to the fore. That same state of affairs led to the unlikely candidacy of Bill Clinton among the Democrats, but assuming that an obscure southern governor will battle his way through the Republican primaries to reveal a talent for national politics may be hoping for too much. And if he did, the establishment would spend their cash reserves to crush him in favor of a reliable choice like Paul Tsongas.

It didn't have to be this way. The Tea Party gave the GOP a shot in the arm. Suddenly it was acting and thinking like a revolutionary party. There were ideas in the air, energy on the ground and anger coalescing into action. And then it all got shut down for four months of infomercials about Staples because the establishment had gotten what it wanted and decided to play it safe before the big game.

The Republican Party has no ideas. Its only ideas involve deciding which liberal platform to "evolve" its way up to and how to sell that "evolution" to the base. And a lack of ideas comes from a lack of beliefs.

There comes a time in every struggle when a man wonders why he's doing this. And if the only answer is to win, then he isn't really fighting for anything. He's being competitive. Or he's fighting to make money. Or because it's all he knows. All three attributes describe the Republican Party now. Its leadership does not believe in anything. It believes in winning in that abstract corporate competitive way. It doesn't really know why it's fighting though, except that the other guys will make a mess.

A party without ideas borrows them from its enemies. The big idea that the Republican establishment has is to be more like the Democrats. They just can't decide which area they want to imitate them in the most. But the one thing they do know is that they need to get those annoying conservative ideas off the stage first.

Going after the Tea Party is sound strategy for the establishment, not from the standpoint of winning elections, but of keeping their jobs. If you lose, then you need someone to blame. The establishment is protecting its scalps by claiming the scalps of the reformers who might give them the boot. That's one way of winning a circular firing squad. And of losing all the elections that follow.

Without ideas or beliefs, the Republican Party stands for very little except being the Party of Staples, and while Staples seems like a very nice store, it's not really enough to base a whole country on. If the United States is to be reduced to a superstore full of office supplies, then America is no more exceptional than a stack of writing paper, four rulers and some office furniture shoddily made in a factory in some polluted Chinese megalopolis.

As the Staples Party, the Republicans are interested in importing more cheap labor into the country. It may not be good for the country, but it is good for the people who sign their checks and that's good enough. And if Amnesty destroys the Republican Party, then they'll find someone else to make their checks out to. Influence can always be bought, even in totalitarian countries, ethics and ideas cannot.

The Republican Party is an organization at war with its base. The Republican leadership and its backers think big. Their base thinks small. That inability to think small, to echo the concerns of ordinary people lost two elections. Reagan and Bush won, in no small part, because they appeared to be part of the small world of ordinary people. They shared their culture and concerns. They gave signs of being able to think small, and though the media ridiculed them for it as buffoons and dopes, Bonzo and the Bushisms had the last laugh. But that sensibility never sank into the leadership.

The establishment has failed to come to terms with the fact that the GOP cannot be a party of urban liberals and has been the exact opposite of that for some time. It can't even be the party of wealthy people who live in liberal areas and agree with liberals on many things, except national defense and excessive regulation. The Republican Party can either become one with its base, or it can either try beating it off with a stick some more while waiting around for Meghan McCain to deliver the new hip conservative movement.

The Democratic Party knows who its base is. Its goal in office is to expand that base while shrinking its opposition. That is why it wants Amnesty. If the average illegal alien was likely to turn into a Republican voter, the entire Mexican border would have been irradiated and pop stars would be recording videos urging their fans to turn in any illegal aliens on their block. And that is because the Democrats may be evil, they may even be incompetent outside their conspiracy and campaign zones, but they aren't stupid.

The Republican Party has no interest in doing things like that. The very accusation will lead to a dozen rebuttals in the form of editorials, radio commentaries and skywriting efforts. Instead they will get behind Amnesty to show just how uncommitted it is to any base, except the Democratic base in the world's most elaborate suicide attempt.

A sane party would draw up a strategy by asking who its base is, what they need and how it can maximize their turnout. A party run by people who give lunatics a bad name, asks who the other party's base is and begins planning to win them over by drastically increasing their numbers while disenfranchising and disgusting its own base. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the Republican Party is animated by a fever dream of returning to the scene of its triumphs in the first half of the twentieth century when no one could be paid to vote for it twice.

What the GOP leadership fails to understand that a party without a base is a big empty hall. You can get the checks that will allow you to rent the space, you can order up a band and ask them to play a song, but if no one shows up, then you don't have a concert or a dance. All you have is an empty hall.

The Republican Party has spent so much time trying to win over swing voters that it has lost sight of the fact that it is presiding over an empty hall, a vast echoing space in which nothing is happening. The Tea Party may be the last hope of the GOP, its final chance to connect with a base, gain some fresh energy and ideas, and emerge in fighting shape in '14 and '16. And if it can't do that, then there's always room on the standup comedy circuit of the big empty hall.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 36