Randoms

– Behold the logic of mainstream economists and despair!

– LMFAO: in related news, I’m pretty sure I can think of something else the South and big cities have in common.

– Moldbug:

In an oligarchical regime, public opinion is always an effect rather than a cause. It still matters, but only in the sense that some effects cannot be caused. But the power of the machine is always increasing. Few in the Reagan era could have imagined that in the lives of their grown children, most Americans would come to regard gay marriage as an essential civil right. Why did this happen? Because the ruling class is sovereign not just politically, but also intellectually. What it believes, everyone comes to believe – and is horrified that previous generations somehow failed to believe. . . .

If the Constitution declares that the fickle shall rule, too bad for the Constitution. By contradicting Nature, the Constitution has contradicted itself. And it shall not rule. And that, dear Americans, is when you finally settled in under your new communist oligarchy. Whether you knew it or not. Not, mostly – but that’s what it is to be a chump. . . .

And you’re worried that someone is grepping your emails? . . .

My son actually thinks he has human rights. It’s because he’s 2. This morning he asserted his right not to take his amoxicillin – with some success, but not much. I expect the critics of the NSA to have about the same luck. When I became a man, I put aside childish things.

For a man or for a community of men, the right to rule is a function of the might to rule. If the sound competent Midwest can get itself euchred out of its democratic right to rule by a bunch of slick Harvard men, the sound competent Midwest cannot maintain its authority and will get euchred by someone someday. If it’s not Harvard today it’ll be Yale tomorrow.

– The Atlantic on the Civil War. It’s worth noting that this idea isn’t new, and that if it’s true, it’s in no small part, The Atlantic’s fault.

– On hate: “There probably isn’t anyone in my life who’s important to me that I haven’t cursed, and I expect no less from them during those times I overstep the mark.”

– Interesting thoughts from Sam Harris.

– Reactionary books.

– Speaking of books, I hope to reviews of this, this and this up soon. This one is definitely on the list though. Maybe someone should write one about Gary, Indiana next.

– Derb: “The booze-fuddled hacks I used to hang out with in the Kowloon bars back in the day had a better chance of finding out what Mao Tse-tung had for breakfast than I have of getting interracial sexual-assault stats for the U.S. Navy.”

– Megan McArdle on the dire problem.

– It appears trans-genderism (sigh, I was born much too late) is the new gay marriage. I’m confused. If gender is a social construct, how can it be mixed up?

Advertisement

Randoms

– DC continues getting whiter (also note the inclusion of Hispanics in the “black or African-American” category).

– We’ll all have our 15 minutes of being racist

– The unimportance of policy

– Nydwracu on what is to be done and again.

– Review of John Gray’s latest book.

– Chuck: “I have in mind a documentary titled “Punching Matt Yglesias” in which dippy liberal types who tend to get targeted in these types of attacks are followed up with and asked about their experiences and afterthoughts.” Put it on kickstarter, I’d contribute to that.

– Rule by illiterates.

– Isegoria on the warning of the Nazis.

– The effects of the red pill.

– Happy (belated) Father’s Day: “By the end of his or her childhood, a British boy or girl is much more likely to have a TV set in the bedroom than a father at home.”

Why haven’t you moved to Detroit?

One frustrating feature of modern society is that it values talk above action.

Do you verbally claim to support immigration while living as far away from immigrants as possible? If so, you’re clearly a supporter of immigration and a right-thinking person.

Do you complain about paying taxes but still live in a state that requires you to pay them? Then you’re worse than the guy who has fled to tax freedom but keeps his mouth shut.

Etc.

Obviously, this is precisely backwards. Actions should speak louder than words.

A wonderful example of this is Detroit. It seems to me that if you believe absolute human equality, you would immediately move to Detroit. You can basically live for free in a city that’s – surely – about to become a thriving metropolis again. It must just be having a 50+ year unlucky streak.

And yet, I can’t think of anyone that’s moved to Detroit. I wonder why?

Real government links

Here are a few interesting stories and some brief commentary:

1) The non-partisan bureaucracy.

2) On briefings:

Former U.S. Representative Jane Harman, a Democrat who served on every major House security committee before resigning from Congress in 2011, said getting the right briefer can make a big difference in how much lawmakers learn.

“Sometimes these briefings are a game of 20 questions. If you don’t ask exactly the right question, you don’t get the answer,” said Harman.

Note that it may be worth considering the combined implications of 1) and 2), given that briefings often come from bureaucrats.

3) “On occasion, the most striking evidence of power and influence is the invisibility of its source.” From Sailer.

4) Also from Sailer, a couple posts suggesting who is actually writing (at least large parts of) the immigration bill.

The Tea Party gets pwned

The “crown prince of the Tea Party” is about to accomplish something great . . . comprehensive immigration reform.

So much for the idea that people can rise up and change anything (of course, they can always make things more progressive, but that’s not what the Tea Party had in mind).

A movement that started with the goals of reducing the size of government and restoring Constitutional order has been co-opted into importing an underclass that will shift the governing paradigm significantly leftwards and create even more ethnic strife. Congratulations Tea Party!

It’s rather astonishing to reflect upon how quickly the movement was turned into something to further progressive ends. Most of those in the movement still seem to have no clue.

If you still think that progressive forms or protest and organization can work against progressivism, you’re hopeless.

Now that we’ve had yet another demonstration of the complete failure of this strategy, perhaps we can move on.

Start by reading Nick Land and Nick B. Steves:

A gentler introduction is the Reactionary Methadone Clinic:

* First and foremost, foreswear politics… it is the very poison to which we were all born addicted.

* Foreswear activism… it is the occult power upon which the Cathedral’s engines run.

* Foreswear voice in all matters of not immediate objective concern to you or your family.

* Become worthy… live the best life you can for you and your family. Stop being a busybody. Be as wise as serpents, but innocent as doves.

* Love your own particularity… If you don’t have one? Find one! You’ll quickly see how toxic the Cathedral’s many potions are.

* Foreswear trying to force facts into preconceived ideological boxes—odds are that it is the boxes that are the problem. Love the truth where it may be found, whatever it may be.

*Read and listen to the Resartus when it comes.

Randoms of the day

– iNotRacist (HT: asdf in the comments)

– Alfredwclark wants your help compiling The Laws of the Cathedral.

– Since it looks like immigration reform will pass, perhaps we should get to know Mexicans.  On the bright side, it’ll probably be awesome for you if you’re rich – so that’s cool.

– Outside in: “It took over seven decades for Soviet communism to implode.”

– Science

– LMFAO: “The main pushback I’ve gotten is that the article seems written with a relatively educated relatively affluent audience in mind.”

– Gay

– Bruce Charlton on leftist family life.

– lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl

Moral progress

At Cheap Chalupas, one can read the following:

That said, most of the world is not regressing morally and arguably can be seen as advancing morally, at least on the fronts of general tolerance, democracy, and the moral virtues which are encouraged by prosperity and market exchange.

And then (hopefully) to parody modern economic thought, the author adds:

Is it possible there is more moral regression in the world today than say five years ago? Does moral regression have a unit root? Serial autocorrelation? Do we understand the causes of moral regression better as time passes? I don’t see that.

Ignoring the latter quote which I add only because it’s ridiculous, I’d like to discuss the idea of “moral progress.”

The idea that our ancestors were immoral is pervasive, wrong, and destructive to any reasonable understanding of history.

The entire notion is plagued by bias. Of course we more moral today when we judge morality by today’s prevailing standards. I would wager that 100% of people who have ever believed that “tolerance” and “democracy” are cornerstones of morality are currently alive.

The best recent book on the subject of moral advancement and decay is, of course, Charles Murray’s. Instead of hand-waving, Murray actually states what he considers to be moral values: industriousness, honesty, marriage, and religiosity. It’s much harder to find anyone that disagrees with that list at any time (if I had to toss in another one, I’d throw in scientific advancement, but that’s no better).

(The worst recent book on this subject was Pinker’s).

Imagine reincarnating someone who was alive a hundred years ago and telling him that most children are born out of wedlock, they increasingly don’t go to church, and huge numbers of them are on some form of state assistance. Would our reincarnated friend be less shocked because the children get a say in who governs the country? (Would he not be more appalled?)

Far from progress, Murray finds moral decay to be pervasive in our society – the exception being among the elite who do seem to be experiencing some moral progress.

The sad fact is that people work less (if at all), commit petty crimes at increasingly high rates, don’t form families and aren’t religious. This is hardly a recipe for a society at the apex of morality. Surely this should be obvious, even for someone as far removed from the decline as he can get.

Randoms

– Reactionary academics.

– GBFM’s dating profile.

– In our increasingly diverse society, we can look forward to more spying and jury trials in which we know the outcome beforehand. Yea!

– Athol: “If there is a patron saint of hamster, it’s Sir Humphrey…”

– Francis St. Pol on the antiversity, Michael Animissov on natural order, Nick B. Steves on slavery, Nydwracu on the elites, and Alfredwclark on identitarian religion.

– Manosphere posters.

– The latest podcast from the Pritzker Military Library (podcasts here) is on this book and may be worth your time.

Review of “Blood Meridian” by Cormac McCarthy

There’s nothing more difficult than reviewing really great books. At times, it’s difficult even to recognize them.

I think this is one of them.

The book is incredibly violent. It’s not violent in a Tarantino-esque way – in that it doesn’t celebrate and glorify violence. The violence in this book just is. It’s part of the despair.

The book follows a group of people who are hunting Indians in the old Southwest, but it’s really about one particular character, the Judge (who may be the devil, or not). By the end, his character seems to rise off every page in a fascinating and scary way.

(I can see how some sort tenured English professor could interpret this book to be about the oppression of the Indians. That’s certainly what I’d write about it, if I was still in school. I don’t think it’s about that, it’s much more interesting.)

The best way to review books this good is to quote a bit from them, so here goes (this is a mostly a long quote from the Judge):

It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.

. . .

All other trades are contained in that of war.

Is that why war endures?

No. It endures because young men love it and old men love it in them. Those that fought, those that did not.

That’s your notion.

The judge smiled. Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard. Games of chance require a wager to have meaning at all. Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them. But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all.

Suppose two men at cards with nothing to wager save their lives. Who has not heard such a tale? A turn of the card. The whole universe for such a player has labored clanking to this moment which will tell if he is to die at that man’s hand or that man at his.

What more certain validation of a man’s worth could there be? This enhancement of the game to its ultimate state admits no argument concerning the notion of fate. The selection of one man over another is a preference absolute and irrevocable and it is a dull man indeed who could reckon so profound a decision without agency or significance either one. In such games as have for their stake the annihilation of the defeated the decisions are quite clear. This man holding this particular arrangement of cards in his hand is thereby removed from existence. This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game and the authority and the justification. Seen so, war is the truest form of divination. It is the testing of one’s will and the will of another within that larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god.

Brown studied the judge. You’re crazy Holden. Crazy at last.

The judge smiled.

Might does not make right, said living. The man that wins in some combat is not vindicated morally.

Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test. A man falling dead in a duel is not thought thereby to be proven in error as to his views.

His very involvement in such a trial gives evidence of a new and broader view. The willingness of the principals to forgo further argument as the triviality which it in fact is and to petition directly the chambers of the historical absolute clearly indicates of how little moment are the opinions and of what great moment the divergences thereof. For the argument is indeed trivial, but not so the separate wills thereby made manifest. Man’s vanity may well approach the infinite in capacity but his knowledge remains imperfect and however much he comes to value his judgements ultimately he must submit them before a higher court. Here there can be no special pleading. Here are considerations of equity and rectitude and moral right rendered void and without warrant and here are the views of the litigants despised. Decisions of life and death, of what shall be and what shall not, beggar all question of right. In elections of these magnitudes are all lesser ones subsumed, moral, spiritual, natural.

Randoms

– Hate, hate, hate, hate

– Hate, hate, hate, hate

– Totally unrelated:

I refuse to be subjected to “intellectual pacification” that discourages me from publicly discussing and considering facts about human nature, however uncomfortable they may be. I refuse to sacrifice the “entire moral courage of the human mind,” which I consider essential to intellectual thought, especially among scientifically oriented people. Progressivism wishes to destroy those aspects of human behavioral science that might offend people. Since this is practically everything in the field, they wish to destroy an entire scientific field.

– Or maybe it’s best to employ a professional. (Did Heartiste just identify as a neoreactionary?)

– Ian Ironwood’s new book.

– AnomalyUK on clubs.

– New reactionary blog that links here, you know I’m linking to it.

– Libertarianism and immigration.

– The Kill Whitey experiment.