Anecdotal Evidence Is Still Evidence; Or, She Didn’t Blind Me With Science

John Derbyshire recently reiterated his belief that global warming is indeed occurring. Derbyshire is more than a curmudgeon, he’s sort of a contrarian. One of his great joys is throwing cold water on conservatives, or what passes for conservatives, as of course the title of his book “We Are Doomed” tells you.

The real thing about Derbyshire though is that he replaces his lost faith in God with a pretty strong faith in science. He writes a lot about math, is quite intelligent, and yet needing to believe in something, as people do, he needs to believe in science a little too much.

Well, you say, we know the soft sciences, the social sciences, are unreliable, but the hard sciences- physics, chemistry, and in this case meteorology, which is simply physics applied to the gases of the atmosphere, are all pretty solid right? Physics as typically understood is solid, but the theoretical and experimental physics that excites journalists like Derbyshire is mostly just that, theoretical and experimental. They need theories to explain the theories, and theories to explain the results of the experiments, then more theories and more experiments, apparently without end. Physics has been working on a unified theory of things for about a hundred years, and they are still working on it.

Still that’s better than the statistical base of meteorology. Statistics in meteorology are no safer from corruption than statistics in sociology. The “credentialed experts” of which Derbyshire speaks want to keep their jobs and not get their tires slashed, so they will subconsciously or consciously come up with the right answer.

Notice how a few years ago they switched the terminology from “global warming” to “climate change”. People began noticing severe winter storms, which didn’t seem to match with the global warming hysteria. The explanation became that global warming caused changed in the weather so that the climate was more severe, so that the fact it was colder was proof, solid scientific proof, that it was getting warmer, and if you didn’t believe that it was just proof you are a COMPLETE MORON.

Last winter in the upper Midwest was bad, and this one is brutal. The one before that was fairly warm, so the obvious trend for anybody actually observing is that it is getting colder. No statistics from a leftist source can be trusted- in fact they must assumed to be false- so I have more faith in my own personal observations than what Michael Mann is saying. Even when caught lying, he tells you to shut up, which is the true sign of a bully and a Stalinist scumbag.

If you are a modestly intelligent person and your personal observations contradict what “science” tells you, you can safely assume the science to be contrived.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Steve (Heart) Nationalism

Steve Sailer has found a soft spot in his heart for nationalism, in contemplating the troubles in Ukraine. Steve’s thing has always been “citizenism”, basing political thinking around identity as an American citizen, loyalty to the American nation and one’s fellow American citizens, rather than a racial group, or, as I believe he implies although he doesn’t explicitly state, rigid adherence to political or economic ideologies.

As an aside, I don’t know what to make about Ukraine. Usually nationalists like Putin, but Putin has his own version of nationalism which includes oppressing Russian nationalists who object to Moslems harassing Russians in Moscow. To me this makes Putin a Russian imperialist rather than a Russian nationalist, but as Sailer has pointed out Russia has historically based its security on creating a multinational empire, which doesn’t necessarily mean having non-Russians making a mess in Russia, but as a practical matter does. I can’t object to Ukrainians not wanting to be a part of this, or hating Russians for communist oppression, even if they ally themselves with such dubious outfits as the EU or the State Department.

Getting back to the original subject, I was at Disneyland recently and it occurred to me the whole place is a monument to a cultural philosophy long out of date but once very powerful, and still pretty strong in the imagination of Americans. It never really had a name, but I think it can safely be called Americanism. It comes from the old anti-ethnic European idea of the “melting pot” and the New Deal unification of various white factions.

I read a quote somewhere of a politician saying in the late 40′s or 50′s, “There’s no Democrats or Republicans any more, just Americans versus socialists.” I worked with an older guy years ago who said as a high school student in Florida, they had a course called “Americanism versus communism”.

The philosophy was people needed to set aside their differences, which weren’t all that important anyway, to respond to external and internal threats. The “Americans” would then enjoy the warm feeling of unity in common heritage as well as safety. The need for Americanism became apparent to the elites in World War I, as maybe the harsh suppression of dissent and German culture in the US didn’t seem like a long-term solution. So the elite put Americans on a pro-democracy crusade- which was really an anti-German crusade- which was so effective it became not just a pro-democracy but an anti-racist crusade in World War II. The rubes became so enamored of fighting for democracy they wanted to keep doing even after the Germans had been crushed- Americanism had become a very powerful thing.

The elite wanted to contain communism, so a pumped-up Americanist population was OK to an extent, but Americanism after World War II had served its purpose of creating an Anglospheric hegemony over the most important parts of the world so it was time to wind it down. The New Deal coalition was slowly disbanded and the new coalition of progressive elites and minorities began to form.

Steve’s money quote is here- “Europe between Warsaw and Moscow lagged behind Western Europe in developing effective nationalism, and continues to pay the price for its nationalism-deficit in looting by elites.” Nationalism- a self-conscious understanding that people need to put some of their personal interests aside, in the interests of unity and strength, which leads to better outcomes for every party- is poison to any parasitic or exploitive unit, be it non-elite such as a parasitic minority like Gypsies or blacks, or elite such as the English commercial class. Still, nationalism the elites can manipulate for their own purposes- typically for a war, or maybe for stuffing some onerous social policy on a reluctant people, such as was done in the 1960′s with civil rights in the name of the national good- is of some use to hostile elites, so they have mostly been reluctant to eliminate it completely, except until recently.

Does Steve see the end of citizenism, or Americanism, in the US? I think his newfound interest in nationalism suggests he does, but we will have to see what more he has to say about it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Bruce Charlton and Fascism, Pete Seeger and Communism

Bruce Charlton got to discussing fascism recently, in the context of “neo-fascism” and the Dark Enlightenment, and he appended some previously published thoughts to the effect that any secular right movement would be called fascist by the left and this would be essentially true.

Charlton frames it as “common sense” versus “political correctness”. Bourgeois liberals- liberals in the sense of libertarian conservatives, or liberal in the sense of being what is called liberal but pro-business, try to carve out a space between these things in what is called mainstream conservatism- ecumenically religious, interventionist socially in education but not in terms of legal privilege for blacks, and placing confidence in a strong market economy to smooth over social frictions. And yet the relentless logic of these two things- PC in the familiar contraction, and CS as Charlton uses to designate its opponent- grind away endlessly at each other, making the idiot fiction of bourgeois liberalism almost as hard to maintain and the idiot fiction of leftism.

PC, Western progressivism or leftism shouldn’t be confused with communism. Communism was or is indeed a communal ideology, and the ideal of complete personal liberation, particularly of women and particularly sexual was never a part of it. If Pete Seeger was ever going to have a real break from communism, it might have been over Castro quarantining- or less politely jailing- HIV patients.

The relentless grinding is mostly one way, and yet Pete Seeger did make a partial and grudging retreat from his pro-communism. Was he ever really a communist? I think not, because of what and who he really was. He was a Western progressive, and as such deep down he thought communism was great for benighted Catholic and Orthodox countries but a little simplistic for imposition under the English empire. So pro-communist is probably a better description.

As much as the Western elite loves communism, it had to go from being pro-communist in the 1940′s to anti-anti-communist in the 1950′s, due to the disgust and revulsion the common European has for communism. The European is by nature a nationalist, a fascist. Managing fascism has been the basic problem of the elite since it came into existence, but sometimes when managing a troublesome force you need to pick your battles.

The position then changed from communism as a positive good, to communism as a possibly less than optimal response to real and legitimate social ills. Opposition to communism could possibly be in response to its suboptimality, but was more likely to be inspired by racism and classism, things which communism rightly opposed.

The danger the elite told us was excess- excessive zeal against communism, which could easily, and most probably would, spiral out of control. The old right refused this argument- as Barry Goldwater famously said, “Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.” Traditional Republicans of the Bush type- not liberals in the progressive sense, but what Moldbug would call Whigs- accepted this, as they always found the non-elite revulsion to communism itself repulsive.

A certain segment of conservatives split the difference, emphasizing the practical failures of socialist policies without taking too much moral question with it. Reagan and Thatcher represented people who were comfortable with a certain amount of socialism to smooth out the rough edges of life- the “safety net” of Peggy Noonan’s coining, if I remember correctly- but didn’t want bums and freeloaders taking a ride. But this compromise is dead. It accomplished certain relatively significant things, but having accomplished them, is irrelevant. And the left has pretty much abandoned economic issues anyway, in favor of sexual ones.

There has been a long splitting of the difference on sexual issues- women who didn’t want to be subservient to a man could be nuns, maiden teachers, nurses or have other female professions. Men who wanted to have sex with other men could do so discreetly, and no one cared. The left has now decided to refuse to accept any difference-splitting, correctly realizing that this is what led to their partial setbacks from the 1960′s to the 1980′s.

The relentless press of the left on sexual, or “family” issues leaves the traditionalists with no room. For Charlton Christianity is the answer, but Christianity is on the verge of being illegal in any orthodox form, and most people aren’t willing to do something overtly illegal.

PC can’t be killed, as far as I can tell, so it will have to be a victim of its own success. A completely PC society can’t function, so the best we can do is withdraw our support for it and hope it will die a little quicker.

Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments

Pete Seeger, BIH

Communist folkie Pete Seeger is dead. He was, like most of his contemporaries such as Woody Guthrie, and enthusiastic Stalinist. As Hunter Wallace has mentioned, he was from an old Calvinist Yankee background.

Seeger will now answer for the evil he promoted. He said there was no individual soul, but I think he will find differently.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Why I Hate Liberals, Part 9,943………

From Andrew Sullivan, he put up a story from a woman about how her father was a lousy bum and a pothead. Then he puts up this response-

“It really aggravates me when people who are obviously mentally/psychologically disabled become “pot-heads” instead of what they are: mentally/psychologically disabled and also doing that thing you don’t like and you must now blame. My father has smoked weed for as long as I can remember, and he’s your typical pot-head in my experience: president of a small business (25 employees); former president of our youth sports park; coach of every sons’ (four of us) baseball and football team; named our community’s ‘citizen of the year’; an avid swimmer and runner; and his mind is sharp and quick. I struggle everyday to be as good a father and citizen and businessman as he is. He is always there emotionally or financially for anybody and everybody.

“We never smoked together until I was well into my 30s, and even then, he had to be coerced. But I am also a typical pothead: a successful attorney, father of three, community volunteer, and pretty good at all of it. (Wish I could come out of the cannabis closet.)

“In conclusion, to Leah Allen: I am truly sorry that your dad is so obviously mentally disabled (abandoning your children is not something I have ever known anyone do, much less a paranoid pothead) but you’re looking in the wrong place for the answers.”

You’re a “successful attorney”! Your father is a “successful businessman”! Whoop-de-f***ing do! That gives you the right to slag on a poor, unfortunate woman who’s dysfunctional family and childhood was made worse by her father’s irresponsible drug use!

Dude, you may be a successful attorney, whatever exactly that means, but you’re an asshole. Assholes are never successful, no matter how much money and social status they may have, or how much love and respect they get from the kind of people who love and respect assholes.

But he’s a very typical liberal. No conservative, as lame as those people are, would use their social status to justify attacking someone far lower on the social scale. Liberals on the other hand, while claiming to be egalitarian, use their social status all the time to justify their right to look down on and humiliate people. It’s a Puritan thing- because I have money and power, derived from my role in the system, I must be a good person.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

It’s OK For Mexicans to Kill White People

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments



H/t Denise. Good advice, is good advice.

Originally posted on murderbymedia:

We have Viking to thank for this informative post:

The text below was published in Tel Aviv in 1958, but was not published in the official press in Russia. The text consists of advice to Jews on how to behave in the former USSR in order to achieve Zionist goals. However, this text, with a few minor modifications depending on the particular country, could serve as advice to Zionists on how to behave towards Gentiles in any Gentile country in which Zionists are living. Thus the word “Russians”, referring to non-Jewish Russians, in the text below, can be replaced by “English people” (referring to non-Jewish English people) in England, by “French people” (referring to non-Jewish French people) in France, and so on in every country where there is a substantial Jewish presence. Any Gentile who has Jewish acquaintances will find them adopting many of the methods described below as…

View original 4,644 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments