Randoms

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.

Advertisements

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.”


Randoms

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.