Randoms

– An attempt to briefly summarize Moldbuggery (HT: moldbuggery).

– A prayer for Lawrence Auster.

Thoughts on The Bow of Ulysses.

Thoughts on The Education of Lev Navrozov:

There are indeed “plenty of problems with our government”, and likely a downhill trajectory. If at crunch time, the only people with a plan are megacriminals and losers like Ulyanov-Lenin, shall we not have failed to learn from history?

– Tom Wolfe on the neutering of Sherman McCoy: “It was all up to us and our nerves and our willingness to hang it over the edge of the Halusian Gulp and take the big risks—now! on the spot!—we, our very selves!—and not hand our masculinity over to robo-monsters dueling over electrical impulses so fast, we haven’t a clue as to what they’re doing, let alone how they’re doing.”

– Progessive policies require more progressivism, for example:

Average academic achievement has not changed much over the years. We have good, representative national results for the last 40 years (NAEP); not much change. We have some regional results (Iowa, mainly) that go back further: not much change.

Within every ethnic group, there has been some improvement, but nationally, that has been canceled out by increases in the fraction of students from low-scoring groups. This is unevenly distributed. For example, in California: scores are a lot lower than they were in 1965 because the kids are demographically quite different – i.e. dumber.

In other words, immigration makes the population dumber and this is argument for giving more money to schools.

– How many people really work for the private sector?

Super formal Fridays.

– On extraverts:

Once a highly extraverted friend of mine was trying to get me involved in some project and said, cheerily, “You’ll get to meet lots of new people!” I turned to him and replied, “You realize, don’t you, that you’ve just ensured my refusal to participate?”

– On Dreher on A Derb-ish topic.

– New York’s stop and frisk declared illegal.

Advertisements

23 Responses to Randoms

  1. spandrell says:

    Drones and robot mean that soon introverts will able to have a country of their own, without having to depend on a massive human army and the socialisation and politics it entails.

  2. Handle says:

    A clarification: Ligon is just the issuance of a preliminary injunction put in place pending full consideration and determination of the issue in court. It is not at all a conclusive declaration that NYC’s stop and frisk program is unconstitutional – only that enough preliminary evidence was presented to meet the minimum threshold to entitle the plaintiff to a hearing instead of a summary judgment dismissal in favor of the defendant.

  3. Federico says:

    Thanks for the link.

    Tom Wolfe’s piece is some real journalism.

  4. Bill says:

    On stop and frisk:

    The decision . . . focused on police stops conducted in front of several thousand private residential buildings in the Bronx enrolled in the Trespass Affidavit Program.

    Are these buildings typically. like, dumps? I’m curious because a standard bit of right wing cynicism is that stop and frisk is allowed in NYC because our evil elite live there. Could it be that it is only going to be curtailed in the wrong parts of the city?

  5. Bill says:

    These are really interesting links, thanks for them.

  6. Matt says:

    Casual Fridays as a concept are embraced by corporate feminism as a means to escape the oppression of female formal office wear. Heels, nylons, make-up, and all the other feminine accouterments expected of a woman dressed for a professional setting

    Where are these people working? Where I work, women rarely wear nylons or anything that could be described as “formal office wear”. Dressing is pretty casual, albeit there is still a casual friday where everyone is casual. For that matter, they always wear makeup even on casual friday.

    Wherever Casual friday came from, I don’t think it was or is a feminist plot.

  7. Handle says:

    Here’s a connection within these links. The Moldbuggery summary is an accurate summary of Moldbug’s thesis that the Progressive attack on the military is mostly through the “Rules of Engagement,” but true as that may have been in the past (or continues to be true when attacking hated foreign militaries they never want to let win – like the Israelis), it’s not really accurate anymore.

    There are three reasons:

    1. Restricting ROE turns out to be unpopular these days and easy for the right to exploit politically. “They won’t let our boys defend themselves.” A generational shift in the national mood against thinking of its own soldiers as evil baby-killers makes this a loser for the left, and clever and flexible gamblers that they are, they know when to fold ’em.

    2. The military has adapted (more or less) to the post WWII rules (military activity in WWII is best characterized as having few modern rules at all) in a way that helps to mitigate their intended effect. This is a lot like the way the police and the law enforcement system in general have responded and gradually overcome the Warren Court.

    3. Also like law enforcement – the Progressives don’t actually dislike the military or want to weaken it. They are just as aggressively enthusiastic, perhaps more so, about deploying massive violence in favor of their causes or when they are in power. In those cases, they don’t want a weak, ineffectual military, just like they don’t want (or care about) a legally hamstrung department of justice – when it’s their enemies being prosecuted. Call it “Opportunistic Constitutionalism” – which is the real law of the USG. “What we want is mandatory and what we don’t is forbidden.”

    A lot of people on the right get this particular fact very wrong about the left. They take all those anti-war, anti-police-state protest seriously, as if they represent a genuine adherence to politics-trumping principles. And they these same people turn around and complain that the left is being “hypocritical” in in charging the right with heinous acts it ignores when its own people are in charge. “What if Bush did it?” they ask. Moldbug explained this well in The Lightworker wants to touch your junk.

    • Handle says:

      Whoops – forgot the “connection”

      The way the Progressives really undermine the military these days is through the “Progressivism requires more Progressivism” phenomenon. The Progressives want an official national-scale violent arm of the Cathedral, but they want it to resemble, to look and work and think like the rest of the Cathedral too. Naturally, they do not see the fundamental incompatibility of these two features and how the latter desire undermines the former.

      Of course this works through relentlessly insisting on introducing increasing amounts of gender integration. There are ethnic matters too, but the male-female split is the bigger issue by far.

      P: We want you to give women more positions in the military. Treat them equally!
      M: When we give them physical tests that treat men and women equally, many more women fail those tests. The same goes for a variety of standard physical tasks.
      P: So change the tests and make sure the percentage passage rate is the same for men and women.
      M: Ok, but then men working with them will think that their female buddies can’t pull them to safety if they get wounded, that will undermine trust and cohesion.
      P: Then brainwash train and lead those male soldiers in the values of respect and dignity.
      M: Ok, but also, the natural way that men interact in a team cooperative environment is based an origin which is deeply primal in human nature – where friends and colleagues are gradually come to be seen as “kin” and men really do become like “a band of brothers”, and common sense, thousands of years of thought and tradition, and every modern scientific research study shows, that the introduction of females to that mix undermines that social dynamic.
      P: Then brainwash train and lead those male soldiers in the values of respect and dignity. Also, maybe we’ll let you get just men in the “combat arms” branches, at least, for now, until we say otherwise, which we definitely will eventually.
      M: Ok, but also, putting 19-year-old high school graduate single men and women together in close proximity and with plenty of drinking is, let’s face it, going to lead to a lot of sexual desire, tension, frustration, pursuit, and actual intercourse. Take a look at US colleges! Loot at a regular US workplace that tend to hire young people! And just like in those colleges, there is going to be a lot of things going on like petty jealousies and frictions “fights over girls” and inability of a man to look at the woman next to him “merely” as just another soldier or student instead of a potential sexual relationship. And just like in those colleges, there will be lots of sexual misconduct which spans the spectrum from fraternization to adultery to drunken one-night-stands where no one can remember what happened, to sexual assaults, and even rapes. This is going to create a predictable giant burden and headache and suck up scarce time from commanders and generate a constant distraction they just don’t need. Maybe we should ask individuals to sacrifice their own ambitions for the sake of the greater collective good – which is, by the way, a martial virtue.
      P: Then brainwash train and lead those male soldiers in the values of respect and dignity. Also require, as part of their training, that they all watch utterly untruthful anti-military propaganda movies that show how evil the system is.
      M: {sighs} Roger…

  8. Anonymous says:

    “The Progressives want an official national-scale violent arm of the Cathedral, but they want it to resemble, to look and work and think like the rest of the Cathedral too.”

    Shown clearly in “Zero Dark Thirty”– A boston-accented phd conducts the torture which feeds information to a good-looking but masculine girl who combines that info with her goddesslike ability to understand the terrists culture to save the day… by ordering a group of extremely competent killers to go kill somebody (after insulting them).

    • Handle says:

      You’re more right than you know. Sailer has his take on the prevalence of ridiculously absurd “butt-kicking babes” in movies (think Resident Evil, etc.) – the nerdy guys who like to imagine chicks who dig the same things they’re into theory – but he overdiscounts the ideological attraction of progressive types for the inversion of stereotype roles.

      • Federico says:

        Resident Evil is an especially good example, because butt-kicking babe Alice is an imposition on the Resi universe. Fans of the games are generally bemused by the addition of Alice, given the large cast of male and female player-characters in the games.

        The video games are survival horror, not action, so the female PCs are designed to increase the player’s sense of vulnerability, just as in similar games like Clock Tower. Survival horror games, which are less ideological than cinema, inherited the genteel heroines from older films like Night of the Living Dead and Phenomena.

        Alice was added because of the outcry if gun-wielding but clearly feminine characters like Jill and Claire had been transformed into action women.

        Another example is Kill Bill, in comparison to The Bride Wore Black or indeed to Kate Bush’s song The Wedding List.

        The change in female sexual morality can also be tracked through films. In Hitchcock’s Notorious, Cary Grant reduces Ingrid Bergman to tears by impugning her chastity. In giallo films of the 70s, women are more likely to be exploited as sex objects. The casual treatment of “sexual harassment” (and racism and ephebophilia) in low-brow, but mainstream cinema like Torso, The Case of the Bloody Iris and What Have They Done to Your Daughters? is astonishing. And now, women are not expected to be remotely chaste, but nor can they be exploited. Sexual encounters happen strictly on their terms.

      • Handle says:

        Another example of a parallel inversion genre could be Clint Eastwood’s, “Million Dollar Baby.”

      • josh says:

        Hillary Swank is not a babe.

  9. SOBL1 says:

    I am very interested to see how stop and frisk ends up changing Manhattan if at all. Have the elites of NYC cleaned out Manhattan enough and raised the cost of living in Manhattan enough to keep it a playground for the elite? Looking at the median income and NY Times 2010 census maps split by race, I’d say they did a great job of it. Ending this policy might hurt the more diverse boroughs (good luck gentrifying Brooklyn more), but the elite will be protected on their blessed isle.

  10. Jehu says:

    I’m really curious as to what another city would have to do or threaten to get the NYC exemption. IE, allowed to practice 70s policing, allowed to use tests with massive ‘disparate impact’ for admission into public schools like Stuy, and allowed what amounts to restrictive covenants in coops in drag. Say Portland or LA wanted that. Would they have to threaten to destroy the country’s economy if they didn’t get it? NYC clearly has crazy privilege by comparison—I’m curious as to how it is intermediated. Do they have minions to intimidate the ACLU/NAACP/etc if they get too froggy?

  11. PA says:

    Re. Moldbuggery – he has a new post today, good as usual. But he’s revisiting his core theme of anti-progressive resistance of any kind being futile. I’m starting to think he’s overstating it and also overestimating the power of the Cathedral.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: