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.

Messages - Religious Dick

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 77
3DHS / Hillary declares war on Pepe the Frog
« on: September 13, 2016, 09:20:53 PM »
Embattled candidate calls cartoon frog "sinister"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ever notice Hillary's logo looks like 9/11 instruction manual? #HillaryClinton

? Woll Street (@paulwoll) September 13, 2016

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

But Pepe may finally stop Hillary?s political ambitions.

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

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

« on: September 11, 2016, 06:20:19 PM »

« on: September 11, 2016, 06:15:50 PM »

3DHS / Re: Power abused
« on: September 11, 2016, 11:41:30 AM »
Legalize rape

When rape first became a crime, we lived in a different world. Among the middle and upper echelons of society, women expected to be virgins at marriage and to be respectable in public thereafter.

These expectations arose from common knowledge which has been forgotten. Without the bonding that sexual inexperience provided, couples lacked the trust that came with shared exclusive experience. Their marriages also became unions of convenience, not based on the sacred but in business-like negotiations for mutual satisfaction on a day-to-day basis.

Not surprisingly when we abandoned this outlook our fortunes fell as far as marriage is concerned. First infidelity swept through marriages, then divorce became common, and now people simply avoid marriage in the first place to avoid being penalized to subsidize someone else after the inevitable divorce. Marriage is like extended dating at this point.

In saner times, rape ruined a woman. If it occurred before marriage, it made her unlikely to become married; if it happened afterwards, people saw her as being ejected from the throes of marital contentment. (This was for decent people in the upper echelons: peasants, criminals and gypsies rutted like pigs and still do, which creates their ever-expanding numbers and ever-decreasing fortune.)

In our new age however rape no longer carries this weight. No woman is ruined by having sex with one more man, since they commonly have sex with six of them on average that they will admit, but we know that people lie on surveys and the actual number may be ten times higher, some without even knowing his name or spending more than a dozen minutes in his company. At this point, it is farce and injustice to keep rape classified as a crime of violence.

Rather, we should view rape as a form of theft. We know that the woman intended to have sex with someone because she does it on a regular basis; what happened instead was that she had sex with the wrong man. It occurred not by force, since we no longer require that to prosecute a man for rape, but by mistake. She said no and he heard yes, or she said yes and meant no, or (as is most common) both had to get so drunk to engage in the animalistic act that neither knew what the other said and in the haze of regret the next day, she decided it was rape.

But no matter: In all of these cases, the only crime was theft of sexual services. She could have sold that sexual encounter for anywhere from a few dollars to a few thousand. Perhaps it was wrong that he took her as he did, but we have worse physical affronts in car crashes and when people crash their shopping carts into us at Wal-mart. As with an auto accident, we could write him a ticket and slap a heft fine on him, then move on.

It is not as if anything permanent were taken from that woman. She is already accustomed to having sex with strangers. She does not expect to be virginal for marriage, but fears being virginal past age thirteen, as socially that means failure. The only real crime here is that the wrong man ended up having sex with her, or that he did not pay. Our legal system offers many ways to rectify this. If he is ticketed, she can sue in small claims court much as she would if he took her paid parking space for a month.

But what we must not do is use the old punishment and the new crime in the same action. Rape is no longer a violent crime, but a case of mistaken consent, like parking in spot 81 when you rented spot 82. We should not punish it like grand larceny, assault and murder. As the feminists tell us, most rapes are acquaintance rape. And for that, a quick ticket and a sharp fine should do the trick, and we can stop ruining the lives of men for regrets in a sexual marketplace of the lowest common denominator.

3DHS / Re: It is a four way race.
« on: September 11, 2016, 11:25:11 AM »

Johnson is not a purely pure Libertarian, ......

 Oh well , who is?

I gave up on the libertarians when I realized that as much as they claim to hate the state, they don't hate it nearly as much as they hate the nation.

Open borders, indeed!

3DHS / Re: Deploreable Everyday Common Man
« on: September 11, 2016, 11:17:43 AM »
Perhaps T-shirts could be printed up: "I'm Deplorable and I'm Proud!". Then we could have Deplorable Pride marches and demonstrations.

Hey, it works for everyone else!

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 / Re: National Review disses Trump
« on: January 30, 2016, 12:31:47 AM »
Trump has simply grown a constituency out of racists, and dummies who think that anyone has managed to get very rich must also be very smart.

Racists and dummies are entitled to their opinion just like anyone else, and apparently there are plenty of them. They also get to vote just like anyone else. Deal.

I notice Nationalist parties in Europe like the Front Nationale, Vlaams Belaang, Jobbik and UKIP are doing pretty good these days, too. Apparently peasants all over the West have a few things to tell The Enlightened? these days.

3DHS / Re: Trump takes his baseball and goes home
« on: January 30, 2016, 12:22:15 AM »
Minus all the standard leftist insults, I have to agree with a point, C.  Now, granted, I'm up front in saying, he's not my 1st choice.....or my 3rd....or my 5th.  Point being, that it doesn't appear presidential or one of leadership, especially before a state's caucus/primary, to skip out on a debate, because he feels like he's getting picked on.  Everyone is asked tough questions, and it comes across as a little thin skinned, when he has a mini tantrum because one particular moderator is on, who asked a very pointed question.  He's on record as showering Megyn Kelly with praise for her journalistic and moderator ability, not more than a few years ago.

He could have managed this much better, and not used our wounded veterens like a chess piece in his tiff with Megyn Kelly & Fox

But let me also was pretty bone headed for Fox News to put out that less than humerous memo regarding Trump & Putin.  A little classless, IMHO.  Although that never would have come out had Trump not publically declared his intentions to skip the debate

I disagree. He's letting the media know they aren't going to tell him which debates he's going to show up for, he's going to tell *them* which debates he'll show up for, and where they can put their hat if they don't like it.

Since when do politicians take orders from the media, anyway? Fox News needs Trump. Trump doesn't need 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?.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 77