November 28, 2012

– “Urban Future somehow missed the excited side-track discussion that bolted to the conclusion: America voted in November 2012 to spare itself from Social Darwinism. Yet, sadly belated as it may be, our rejoinder is unchanged: nothing ever gets spared from Darwinism. That’s what Darwinism is.”

Reframing politics.

– Arnold Kling is blogging again.

– Rod Dreher on “normal.”

– I, for one, welcome liberals (like Krugman) to the domain of race realists.

– I’ve blogged quite a bit about DC’s changing demographics. If you’re interested in this topic, here’s more on the murder rate and the school system.

– Following the US election, it’s increasingly likely that marijuana and gay marriage will be legal in the US. This blog’s position on the former is that drug laws were the mechanism by which the Warren Court’s protections of criminals were undone, thereby making it possible to actually arrest and convict criminals. It’s therefore worth noting that the states that “legalized” marijuana were the relatively low crime states of Washington and Colorado.

With respect to the latter, it’s fun to think about what other fundamental rights will be discovered in the coming years. I have friends that are gay, and none of them can explain why they need the state to recognize their relationships. The best they can come up with is that if their “marriages” are legal they’ll be able to visit each other in the hospital if one of them is sick, however none of them know anyone that’s actually been denied this particular privilege.

Totalitarian democracy: “Each one of these telltale signs is amply observable in today’s Britain and most other so-called democratic states.”

– Some economists have been criticizing manufacturing fetishism, for example. I’ve defended “manufacturing fetishists,” so I’d note that most of them don’t fetishize manufacturing so much as they fetishize a working class that actually works.

– What do men want?

– At least he’s honest.

– Sailer has been touting the marriage gap, but it’s nothing compared to the Cathedral gap.


Volunteer thought police

November 28, 2012

I’m endlessly fascinated by the fact that the American Progressive regime has a volunteer thought police.

Most regimes have had to pay or threaten citizens into acting as thought police. However, many American Progressives take to the internet every day looking (far and wide, it would seem) for things to be offended by. What motivates these people?

For example, a bunch of thought police were recently offended by the fact that men in business school are attracted to attractive women. Awareness must be raised!

Really, these people are just offended by reality.

What motivates someone to spend hours looking for stuff that offends them?

Moldbug vs Auster

November 28, 2012

In light of some recent posts from Lawrence Auster, you may find it worthwhile to revisit his old debates with Mencius Moldbug.

Demographobia goes viral

November 27, 2012

It’s been fun, post election, to watch mainstream commentators discover demographics. It’s been especially fun to watch mainstream conservatives discover that the demographic shifts that they’ve encouraged (cheap chalupas!) have pushed the US electorate leftwards on virtually every issue.

In this post, I’d like to highlight the best analysis of demographics and the election. I’d also like to add my own thoughts.

First, it’s necessary to establish the demographic trends that we’re actually seeing. In a development that will surprise nobody that’s been paying attention, nobody does this better than Steve Sailer.

Happily for this blogger – who considers himself an HBDer and a denizen of the manosphere – the Democratic Party’s coalition is one of NAMs (and Asians) and loose women (I feel a Waylon Jennings song coming on, but maybe that’s just the booze talking). Someone can probably come up with a good name for this coalition, but in the meantime, I’ll lamely propose: The Coalition of Third-Worldism and Civilizational Decay. Or perhaps “Idiocracy in Action” is more catchy. If I were polite (and non-anonymous), I would have put this point this way.

Next, it’s worth ruminating on the fact that the perpetual expansion of the electorate is one of the reasons why Western societies constantly move leftwards. Nobody made this point better than Audacious Epigone, who shows electoral college outcomes under various suffrage scenarios. He notes:

Romney wins the electoral college among white men 490-41 (7 undecided). . . .

If the US looked like Nebraska, it wouldn’t necessarily follow that we’d have a two-party system consisting of a perpetual majority and an ever-defeated opposition. Instead, general election campaigns would be as competitive as they are today. Gauging public sentiment has come a long, long way from Dewey beats Truman, and campaigns on both sides are able to calibrate the message precisely enough to reliably get, at a minimum, say 45% of the vote. The difference would be that general elections would look like Republican primaries do now, and the typical Republican primary would resemble a debate between Sailer, Auster, Buchanan, Barone, Raimondo, and Reynolds.

I confess, dear reader, that I would probably lower myself to commit the prole act of actually voting in such a primary.

Anyway, Jim adds some more thoughts. The point is that we continue to march ever leftwards.

Finally, we must note that the Republican Party (though not actual men of the right) will react accordingly. Few other commenters have suggested how the Republican Party will react, so I will (ever humbly) take it upon myself to speculate.

Before speculating, I must note that the following thoughts are my suggestions for what will happen, not what should happen.

The greatest statesman of the 20th Century wrote a memoir that is essentially a warning against universal suffrage in diverse societies. To put the point bluntly and concisely, good government is incompatible with universal suffrage and diversity.

The Democratic Party has been successful because it has been able to portray the Republican Party as the party of the white guy. If history is any guide, the Republican Party will respond by isolating the group within the Democratic Party that is the least popular and portraying the Democratic Party as the party of that group. (I warned you that universal suffrage and diversity are not a pretty combination – we’ll get what we’ve been asking for, good and hard).

It seems to me that the likeliest candidate for this group is blacks. First, they vote Democratic in absurd levels. When Soviet leaders used to fake elections, they would fake the results at something like 92-8. Blacks vote Democratic in similar, but often more extreme, proportions (which always strikes me as embarrassing, but which everyone else seems to consider totally reasonable).

Second, while many people hope that blacks will succeed, very few people actually want to do things like live near them, for example. Have you ever seen Hispanics, homos, Asians, etc. actually interacting with blacks? The Democratic coalition is a lot of things, but stable is not one of them.

To bolster my point, whites that live near blacks (outside of DC) tended to vote Republican. If the Republican Party can paint the Democratic Party as the black party, it seems likely that many tribes will abandon the Democrats.

Indeed, it’s worth going further and considering whether or not the Democrats could win without nominating someone that isn’t black and whether they’ll ever be able to nominate another black person that is like Obama.

Yglesias notes (though he doesn’t explicitly say so) that in order to win Ohio, the Democrats had to nominate a black guy. It’ll be hard for the Democrats to nominate another black guy that doesn’t basically paint them as the black party. Dudes that appeal to all races – white, black, Muslim dad, raised partly in Asian countries, etc. – aren’t easy to come by.

Another possibility is that the Republicans will focus on another unpopular group within the Democratic coalition – sluts. Sandra Fluke spoke at the Democratic convention. Her accomplishments include (and are limited to) being rich and demanding free birth control after choosing to attend a Catholic institution of higher education.

Approximately 2% of the population believes that rich chicks with boyfriends who are likely shooting blanks anyway (have you seen pictures of the guy? . . . or her?) should receive free birth control after choosing to attend a Catholic educational institution. It remains a fact that sluts don’t aspire to be sluts – even the Republican Party should be able to figure this out.

Many commentators have expressed their beliefs that in the results of this election, we have seen our future. This is a future in which the Republicans are doomed to irrelevance thanks to demographic trends.

I agree that we’ve seen a glimpse of our future. However, I believe this future is one in which voting becomes increasingly tribal. The results will not be pretty – they never have been in such cases. In the meantime though, the chalupas are cheap and we get feel really good about our own senses of open-mindedness, so enjoy.

Immigration arguments

November 27, 2012

David Friedman is an interesting guy and always worth reading. However, something about the immigration issue destroys everyone’s (even Friedman’s!) ability to think logically.

Friedman, for example, thinks he has a good argument when he notes that immigration restrictions were minimal in in the latter half of the 1800s.

I read a lot of anti-immigration writing. I support many immigrant positions. However, I’m not sure that I’ve read (or written) anything that would suggest that if all conditions in the US were to return their state exactly as they were in 1875, that anyone would oppose immigration.

To name just a few salient points, if most immigrants were from European countries, if jobs for unskilled laborers were plentiful, if there was no welfare state or income tax, if discrimination was legal, if voting was limited, etc. I think most modern “immigration restrictionist” would be cool with immigration.

Am I missing something insightful about this argument or is it as retarded as it seems?

Friedman also seems to think that if a bunch of people from place A move to place B, it’s most likely that they’ll act like citizens from place B. For example, if a bunch of Nigerians move to Norway, Friedman seems to think that the Nigerians will act like Norwegians. What is it about immigration that makes otherwise (in this case) brilliant people say retarded shit? (If I’m just interpreting this argument wrong, I’m not the only one.

Even though, as I’ve written, Singapore heavily restricts immigration and designs policies (i.e. restricts freedoms) specifically to mitigate the consequences of having a diverse population, Scott Sumner and Bryan Caplan seem to like it.

I find this really frustrating, since Caplan (in particular) endlessly blogs about the virtues of open borders while loving on Singapore. I’m not holding my breath for a post from Steve Sailer praising the policies of the Balkans.

As it turns out, the answer to the question, “other than that Mrs. Lincoln did you like the play,” is apparently, “yes.”


November 17, 2012

– “I would rather be caught in a gay brothel dealing in underage boys than in a voting booth. The two are equally degrading, but voting carries the further implication of low intelligence.” Fred Reed

– The Paleo Retiree has a three part series on the financial crisis: here, here and here.

– I’ve made fun of “happiness” studies before and this study nicely sums up my objection to them. In sum, “happiness” equals short-term, costless comfort.

Democracy and total war.

– Heartiste on truth.

– Freedom means nothing if it doesn’t mean allowing illegals to practice law.

Pearls of wisdom (thanks to dearieme in the comments).

Sex at Yale.

– More from Kalb on the ’60s.

Mangan on porn.

Passing thought

November 17, 2012

Fighting an incredibly bloody war to save a union of states is like raping your wife (and, for that matter, killing your father-in-law) to save your marriage.

Review of “Back to Blood” by Tom Wolfe

November 14, 2012

“Miami is the only city in the world, as far as I can tell—in the world—whose population is more than fifty percent recent immigrants… recent immigrants, immigrants from over the past fifty years… and that’s a hell of a thing, when you think about it. So what does that give you? It gives you—I was talking to a woman about this the other day, a Haitian lady, and she says to me, ‘Dio, if you really want to understand Miami, you got to realize one thing first of all. In Miami, everybody hates everybody.'”

. . .

try mixing the white, the black, the brown, and the yellow in a place like this! It wouldn’t last one hour! It would explode! Nothing left but blood and sexual debris—

. . .

“You will have a picture of mankind with all the rules removed. You will see Man’s behavior at the level of bonobos and baboons. And that’s where Man is headed! You will see the future out here in the middle of nowhere! You will have an extraordinary preview of the looming un-human, thoroughly animal, fate of Man!”

The main character in the novel is Nestor Camacho, the son of Cuban immigrants and a police man. As with other Wolfe books, the location (in this case Miami) is arguably the main character.

There are four important events in the book, all of which involve Nestor. In all of the events, Nestor does the right thing, but is punished because his actions run afoul of the unwritten race-based rules that govern the city. The first event deals with Cubans, the next two deal with blacks and the last one deals with whites.

After I recap these events, I’ll discuss the main characters: Nestor Camacho, the white hispanic (Wolfe doesn’t use this term, but it perfectly encapsulates what he’s getting at with Nestor – for a lot of reasons, it’s too bad the Trayvon Martin affair happened just before the book was published instead of just afterwards); Magdalena, the sexual marketplace in action; Ghislaine Lantier, the white black; and John Smith, “how much more americano [i.e. white] could you get.”

The book opens as Nestor and several other cops are called to a boat in the bay. Apparently, a (Cuban) man climbed out of the water onto the boat.

After some feats of strength, Nestor manages to save the man from harm, but in the process, the man is apprehended by the police before he sets foot on American soil. Thanks to American immigration policy for Cubans (which several characters in the book refer to as America’s “most-favored migration” policy), this means that the man must be returned to Cuba.

The Cubans in Miami are, of course, furious about this. The Cubans claim that this particular man is the leader of some anti-Castro group, but the government can’t find any references to this group or this man anywhere.

Thanks to some reporting from the Miami Herald Nestor is considered a hero by many people in the community. Unfortunately, the Cubans (including his own family), despise him for his “betrayal” of his countryman.

The second main event happens when Nestor is sent into a housing project to bust a cocaine dealer (black). This particular dealer is a very large, strong man. In a fit of rage, the dealer tries to strangle Nestor’s boss (Cuban). Nestor manages to subdue the guy without killing him.

Again, Nestor is initially a hero. However, when things settled down, Nestor’s boss said something politically incorrect about the guy who had recently tried to kill him and some bystander in the crack house in the projects filmed the end of the incident with his cell phone and put the video on youtube. The crack dealer is let go, because – of course – you can’t arrest someone for dealing crack when the arresting cops are racist.

When it’s discovered that one of the cops said something racist, both cops immediately become “white” in all the press reports and polite conversations, even though they’re both Cuban.

The third event takes place at a largely-black high school. The cops are called in to arrest a (Hispanic) teacher. Supposedly this teacher has attacked a (black) student. The cops have to move through something just sort of riot to get the teacher out and arrest him.

Nestor (with help from Ghislaine) discovers that the student who was attacked by the teacher made up the story. The teacher never attacked the student – the student was the leader of a gang and he made other students support his story.

The fourth event is about art. Miami is, after all, home to one of the most important contemporary art events in the world. Wolfe is never one to pass up making fun of contemporary art and those who seem to actually like it.

An art institute in Miami is named after a wealthy Russian immigrant who donated important works of art to the museum. Apparently, these works were fakes.

John Smith and Nestor (Smith wrote about Nestor in some of previous events and they decided to work on this issue together) uncover the forgeries and find the forger. The forger is killed, but the plot is eventually revealed. Again, they’re heroes, but the reader suspects that there may be a price to pay for making the Miami elite (whites) look like fools for loving the forgeries and naming the museum after the a swindler.

Nestor Camacho

Nestor is probably supposed to be the quintessential Miami resident. He’s Cuban, but he feels American – he can barely speak Spanish. As his actions in and his confusion about the reaction of the Cuban community to the first event demonstrate, he doesn’t feel particularly loyal to Cuba.

Nestor is also the character that let’s Wolfe explain how the Hispanic community in Miami works.

Wolfe notes that, “latino and latina were spanish words that existed only in America.” Cubans consider themselves Cuban, etc.

It would be an overstatement to say that Cuban’s control Miami, but they do control it politically. (Do take a minute to check out the city’s demographics).

Nestor’s family lives in Hialeah. Once, the areas was beautiful. Now, everyone goes outside to water their pavement – they’ve paved over their yards, apparently. As Wolfe can’t help but note at one point, “why didn’t everybody get together and water just one tree?”

When we’re introduced to the people that run the newspaper, we’re assured that paper will celebrate diversity, but we’re also assured that good reporters know “who hated whom and why.” Nestor’s fundamental problem throughout the novel is that he doesn’t understand who hates whom and why.

Nestor never does anything wrong – far from it, he commits one heroic act after another. In the first event, he probably saved a guy’s life. In the second he saved at least one, if not two lives. In the third he saved a guy from jail. In the fourth he discovered a massive fraud.

However, in the first event, he didn’t help a Cuban get onto US soil (though it wasn’t clear how he could have done so had he wanted to). In the second event he was standing pretty close to a guy who said something moderately racist. In the third event, he may have come out ok. However, a reader can’t help but suspect that the public may not look kindly on someone who proves a stereotype correct after the black community had gotten all excited about this particular event going against the stereotypical grain. In the last even, as I said, Nestor made a lot of wealthy people look like assholes.


While American universities may be the best place to explore the “lurid carnival” that is the modern sexual marketplace, but Miami is probably a close second.

Magdalena (hispanic) is the character with which Wolfe explores this topic some more. As the book opens, she’s dating Nestor and working in a psychiatrist’s office.

We quickly come to find out that she’s dating both Nestor and the psychiatrist. She quickly settles on the psychiatrist. Nestor is a strong, physically fit guy, but the doctor is a doctor and he’s about to appear on 60 Minutes! He’ll be talking about his speciality, pornography addiction.

Before long, Magdalena meets the Russian collector (the one that forged the paintings) and trades up immediately from the doctor the Russian. He’s rich!

It’s important – before we get to the rest of the dynamics of the sexual marketplace – to point out that Magdalena acts exactly as game would predict. It’s important because through dating the doctor, Magdalena gets a first hand glimpse into the life of the wealthy (white) in Miami. And she’s appalled by what she sees. Ironically, they’re basically all porn addicts.

The doctor treats patients for pornography addiction. “Treats” is a strong word, since it’s pretty clear that the doctor has little intention of actually helping his patients, particularly one who is very rich (and has a Jewish name, though Wolfe doesn’t mention the religion in this book) and very happy to take the doctor and Magdalena to all sorts of wealthy-only parties.

Wolfe is more than happy to criticize whites as well those of other races. He apparently sees the whites (largely the wealthy) as obsessed with sex, getting absurdly drunk, crappy art, and very weak coffee.

The doctor demands a blowjob from Magdalena while the crew from 60 Minutes waits outside his office door. He takes to a “regatta” off a very exclusive island south of Miami. The regatta is really just an orgy. The contemporary art fair is indistinguishable from a pornography exhibition.

In the end, Magdalena gets used up by the modern sexual marketplace and – one suspects – wishes she’d stayed with Nestor, which brings us to . . .

The Lantiers

Ghislaine is the main character among this group, but I can’t resist adding a few words about the family (black).

The family is from Haiti. Like most countries (other than the US), Haiti has always recognized degrees of blackness.

Ghislaine’s father is a professor, and in one of his inner monologues he notes that, “back in Haiti, no family like his, the Lantiers, even looked at really black Haitians.”

Indeed, but they’re not in Haiti. They’re in American, so they’re black.

(As an aside, there’s generally one character in Wolfe’s novels that recognizes obscure architectural details, disdains other characters wearing jeans below their waists, and notices the prominence of certain obscure muscle groups on certain characters – the Tom Wolfe character in the Tom Wolfe novel, perhaps. In this book, the professor is that character).

To add further insult to the professor’s injury, although he’s a professor of French, he has to teach Creole. His thoughts on this fact are that:

For any university to teach this stupid language was either what Veblen called “conspicuous waste” or one of the endless travesties created by the doctrine of political correctness. It was like instituting courses and hiring faculty to teach the mongrel form of the Mayan language that people up in the mountains of Guatemala spoke—

While his daughter Ghislaine can pass (as white), his son can’t. The professor fell in love with an original art deco house and has poured all his money into it. Unfortunately for him, it’s in a neighborhood with – ahem – bad schools (particularly, the high school mentioned above, which his son attends).

Much to the professor’s chagrin, his son has embraced his blackness. Haitian boys attending school in the US quickly find out that they have no other option if they don’t want to be perpetually beat up. While his father wants his son to speak French,

Antoine [the son] always tried to be cool and speak in perfect Black English, every illiterate, seventy-five-IQ syllable and sound of it. When that was too difficult a linguistic leap, he reverted to Creole. Antoine was one of those black-as-midnight Haitians—

Generally, the blacks in Miami seem to resent the presence of the Cubans. It so happens, in Miami, that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime and that a majority of the policemen are Cubans. These leads to some . . . tension. As Wolfe puts it, “the American blacks resent the Cuban cops, who might as well have dropped from the sky, they had materialized so suddenly, for [it seems to this character] the sole purpose of pushing black people around.”

John Smith

Smith isn’t really a main character. At this point, one could write about the editor of the paper or the Russians who play an odd role in the book. I can’t resist writing about Smith though.

In Bonfire of the Vanities Wolfe portrayed the press negatively. In Charlotte Simmons, the student that wrote for the college newspaper broke a big story, but he was such a beta that you couldn’t really like the guy. John Smith, then, is the only reporter in a Wolfe novel (that I can think of) that the reader actually likes.

His boss comes in for plenty of criticism – for being elitist, uninterested in events that are actually newsworthy, and unwilling to cross PC boundaries. Smith is basically a good guy who does the right thing. Wolfe repeatedly reminds the reader that Smith is white (John Smith!) and a Yale graduate.

Some of Wolfe’s other novels have bad endings. This one ends with Nestor feeling triumphant for busting the Russian and free the teacher who has been wrongly accused. In his moment of triumph, he calls Ghislaine (not Magdalena, as the reader was suspecting). The book then ends abruptly. Does the sort-of-Cuban-American hit it off with the sort-of-black-American? Does Nestor pay a price for ruining the reputations of everyone with money in Miami? We’re left wondering, if perhaps not optimistic.

Finally, if you’ve read this far, you can see that this book is seemingly designed to beg for bad reviews from most publications. I looked around for other reviews and I can’t find any remotely decent ones. Most places have ignored it, or given it very cursory reviews in which they didn’t really describe the events or the themes. Perhaps, we’re reaching a point where, regardless of how well something is written, it can be ignored if it’s sufficiently un-politically correct.

Reactionary election link roundup

November 8, 2012


Deogolwulf and another one.

Moldbug agrees: “Dear conservatives! Eat the pain! There are two kinds of Americans celebrating tonight – true believers, and right-wing extremists.”

I must say, I didn’t celebrate. I discovered who won on my way to the office when I caught a glimpse of the front page of the newspaper. It doesn’t really matter that much anyway.

– Speaking of “The Machine,” if we take DC voters as a proxy for the The Machine, then it voted for Obama by a margin on 91-7.

– Nydwracu on the election results in Maryland.

A vignette of democracy

Another one.

– Mangan’s analysis is more Heartiste than Sailer. More along those lines here.

Here’s Heartiste’s to round it out.

Well played

November 8, 2012

How did some reactionary deviant manage to take over Yglesias’ blog and write this racist post and take over Caplan’s blog to post this absurd parody of a pro-immigration argument?

Well played, who ever you are, well played.