Live we but where motley is worn?
Live we but where motley is worn?
Geez, two months? I have been busy a lot, but hopefully will find more time.
“What is the alt-right?” people are asking, including the alt-right themselves. Other say it’s a stupid question, or there is no qualification, or the only litmus test is being pro-white. I have another idea.
“No enemies to the left, no friends to the right” is a basic rule of leftism. And it’s a basic rule of Buckley conservatism, or neoconservatism, or cuck conservatism. All these movements police to the right.
Even alt-righters do it, sometimes by policing anti-semites, but usually by policing Nazis. Milo did this in his Breitbart essay, if only by dismissing them as mischievous young people looking to get a rise. RamZPaul does this more forcefully, and some others. I don’t keep track of all these people, there are too many.
I don’t have any enemies to the right. I don’t know who is to the right of me, really, but let’s say Nazis are. (Another way of dismissing Nazis is saying they are really leftists, which both Jonah Goldberg and Jim Donald do.)
I’m not a Nazi, and I don’t think German National Socialism is a good model for ethno-nationalism now. I don’t know if it was a good idea then, but hindsight is 20/20. I don’t think killing a bunch of people is optimal, but contrary to what parents and teachers say, “They started it!” is a perfectly valid argument.
However, if you are a Nazi, I don’t hold it against you. We can have a beer and talk about it.
I believe 9/11 was an Al Qaeda operation, not an Israeli one where explosives were planted. But if you do, I respect your take on things. I can’t say I know everything or have all the answers. I generally hold to the Puritan hypothesis. Jews aren’t the problem, but they are enthusiastic participants in the problem. But if you are hardline on the JQ, I don’t condemn you. I don’t believe violence is the answer, I believe that the system is prepared to deal with violence best of all, and poorly equipped to deal with principled resistance. But there are people who believe in violence, and I don’t condemn them.
The left got the right, and the center, to police themselves, which is much more effective than the left doing it. They have all kinds of rules which are flexibly defined as they see fit.
This is part of the problem, that started with Buckley, but also the “conservative” movement is just a big scam, and always has been. Some guy wrote on Politico how the Tea Party got hijacked by scam PACs that kept all the money. But ever since direct mail solicitation started in the 70’s, taking money from old people has been the main business of conservatives. Since talk radio got started in the 90’s, selling crap to Limbaugh and Levin listeners has been a big business. At least when Grandpa watches Fox, he gets to see some hot ass, and Grandma can’t get offended.
The alt-right is an attitude more than a philosophy or an ideology, and that attitude is “go f*** yourself, cuck-boy.”
Commentary has gotten so, I hate to say it, boring.
All the usual idiots talk about what’s going on, and offer their sage opinions and wise moral judgments, but they don’t really know anything, and they don’t understand what’s going on.
Trump is evil. And his followers are evil, or maybe they are just poor deluded hicks, in the most charitable reading. All the nice people agree on this. Hillary Clinton is the last hope of civilization, but don’t worry, she will crush Donald Drumpf with her historic accomplishment. All the nice people agree on this too.
The progressive left and the mainstream right work pretty well together. The progressive left makes progress; then the mainstream right “conserves”, which is to say doesn’t do anything to move things back. Nothing new happens under conservative rule- nothing progressive of regressive. And so the cucks and the progressives just trade places, and the ratchet ratchets.
So all these losers can agree on Trump. They don’t understand anything, but they don’t have to understand anything, and they don’t want to understand anything.
They assume resistance will be crushed, as it always is, and things will go back to normal. And it may be, or it may not. I think being willfully stupid is supposed to be a status marker- only worker bees need to be actually able to do things, and predict if their work will be successful.
White people aren’t having a lot of kids these days. If you’ve had a kid, maybe you know why.
I can see why rich English people hand their children over to nannies and ship them off to boarding school as soon as possible. Kids are cute and fun, but they’re also frequently a giant pain in the ass. I spend a lot of time on the road, and I can lay on the bed in the hotel, and it’s so, so quiet. The kid isn’t screaming, or crawling as fast as he can towards the most dangerous object in the room. My wife can bug me about stuff, but only on WhatsApp and Skype, which provides me with a filter.
OK, I realize part of the problem is I’m a pussy. Nick B. Steves has eight kids and a lot more time on his hands than I do. I’m guessing his wife knows not to bug him when he’s saving the world by blogging. But since the average white guy is a lot closer to me than him, my experience is probably more reflective.
I wrote before about our experience with progressive baby care. The current way of caring for children is extremely time-consuming. My wife does not have a job and yet has her hands completely full with one baby. People in the old days had a lot more kids, without as much trouble it seems. What is the difference?
I think kids just didn’t get as much care. They didn’t get as much attention, or as much sympathy. Kids had to survive partly on their own. Pre antibiotics, a lot didn’t. Bruce Charlton writes often on the “mouse utopia” experiment, and compares modern society to the mouse utopia. Sometimes I would wonder about my son’s will to live. Getting him to eat was a great struggle. Acid reflux medication helped a great deal, but that’s a very recent innovation. Some days he will eat solid foods, some days he refuses. I don’t think cave parents spent an hour coaxing the cave baby to eat, while he screamed and threw most of it on the floor. Until recently, I think, the kid ate, or didn’t, mom was busy with other stuff, not to mention dad.
At least we have a kid. A lot of my wife’s friends have fertility problems. Our child is healthy and normal, but we hear a lot more about autism and other developmental problems these days.
That comes largely from trying to have kids when you’re older, I guess. Having fewer children at an older age reflected resources available to the couple, from the historical record in England, according to Greg Cochran. Having just fewer children, for whom you can then each give a bigger share of your resources is a reproductive strategy originating in France in the late 18th century, according to Sarah Perry, which then spread to England.
You could have three sons, one who gets the farm, one who apprentices to a blacksmith, and one who joins the army. Or you could have one son, who you could send to school and who then be a clerk. If you were a little better positioned you might send him to public school where he would be sodomized by an older boy. If the older boy later gets him a 1000 pound a year position with the civil service, you have hit the jackpot, his sore bunghole notwithstanding.
The sore bunghole may be metaphorical rather than actual, but it is real in any case. People wanting security as functionaries of the elite must submit to their value system. The child will be stripped of his identity, but he and his descendants will live higher up the food chain, and there will be fewer of them but they will have a better chance of survival over generations, at least you hope.
If you have more children, they will have to compete harder- against each other for family resources, and then having less family resources, harder against others in their age cohort for community resources.
This has always been the case for the upper classes, who have mostly always used a small family strategy. Not having access to elite resources in any case, most lower classes have gone with the large family strategy. Those close to but not in the upper classes had a choice, and as a global economy and government and corporate bureaucracies emerged, moved to the small family strategy.
Another option was available to the middle classes for a short period of time in a limited geographical area, large family and large community resources allowing for both a large family and upward mobility. This was the golden age of the US middle class, generously estimated from 1950 to 1985. Houses in white neighborhoods were cheap, K-12 education was good and free, and state university was good and cheap. People assumed this was normal and thought it would last forever, and only now, a generation later, it is dawning on people that it was a short-lived anomaly.
But I’m getting off my point. Declining living standards are an old story. And poor, stupid people often have a lot of kids, so it can’t be that hard.
I think having kids has to be a value, and being committed to it people invent a way to make it work. Somebody heard me complaining about my kid’s sleeping habits and strongly recommended something called “Baby Wise” which seems to be you put the kid on a schedule and stick with it. I looked into it, mainly out of curiosity and it’s described as borderline abusive by some. But this must have been how people did it in the old days.
My wife likes books by an English nurse named Tracy Hogg. It’s attachment parenting but with tricks that make it more workable. Still, you’re on your own. The boy refused to eat in the high chair, and we were going crazy. The other day I’m putting him in and he starts to yell as I put on the straps. So I leave them off. My wife is putting the bib on, and he starts to yell, so I tell her leave that off. And he’s happy as a clam and eats like a horse. But I figured it out only by accident.
I don’t think that having and raising kids is something that middle-class white people have a good grip on. People would have more kids if there was a better system, but one isn’t readily available.
“I’m Kind of a Big Deal” is a slogan you see sometimes on baby T-shirts. And babies are indeed kind of a big deal these days.
I was born at the very end of the Baby Boom, but my life experience matches Generation X more. I was growing up in southern California, and things hit there first. By the time I came along I think my parents were tired of kids, and America was tired of kids. By the time I was no longer cute the adults were pretty much checked out. The people who spent the 50’s and early 60’s having kids and the mid to late 60’s taking care of them were a little pissed they missed out on all the fun. Some decided they were going to catch up, and they got divorced and started screwing around and using drugs, or they just started screwing around and using drugs.
Babies these days are quite rare. Getting in position where you can have one is pretty difficult. I live near Los Angeles now, and the cost of living and the lifestyle seem to make children an option people don’t even think about much.
In the US, roughly people went from four child families to two or one child families, and often none. Family life is rough sometimes, and in the city there are more fun things to do. I can see why the Romans had trouble reproducing- they didn’t even have electricity but there were still lots of diversions in the city.
But new life is something people crave, even when the child is not a direct descendant. One of the best things about our baby is he makes people so happy. They of course only experience the cute fun part, not the incredible pain in the ass part, but still it’s wonderful to see.
As long as we survive, the battle continues. We don’t survive in the long run, of course, but our descendants do. Having kids is the most important thing we can do.
Reblogged from my religion site-
In this sad, ugly world we should stop and appreciate the beauty that people create. Poetry is a mostly unappreciated art form these days, and yet we can enjoy it and learn from it, even if most people fucking hate it.
Painting is another art form people don’t really appreciate much. People go to museums because they think they should, or it’s something to do with visiting relatives, or it’s on the tourist itinerary. But you can just look at and enjoy paintings, and while most aren’t great, you will find a few gems you can enjoy the beauty and expression of.
“Las Meninas” (“The Ladies-in-Waiting”) was painted by Diego Velazquez in 1656. It’s a scene from the royal household of King Philip IV of Spain. The king liked dwarves, and invited dwarves from all over Europe to come live with him, and two are seen at the right side of the painting. This particular painting has been written about exhaustively by art scholars, but a few of my own unlettered observations follow.
It’s 350 years old, and yet it’s somehow modern- a painting of a painter painting a painting. Self-reference is not new. One thing I just thought of was its humorous aspect- it’s a pretty wacky bunch. The dwarf on the right is bugging the dog, who wants to sleep but is too tired to get up and move. The ladies-in-waiting have the harried, distracted look of those busy sucking up to rich people. The little princess is little-princessing serenely in the center of it all. The painter looks at us, and the subjects of his painting, the king and queen. (The painting that he is painting himself painting, not the painting he is painting.) Everybody is busy doing something or being something. The only person who seems to be in the here and now is the dwarf woman, second from the right, who is fully engaged with the painter.
Velazquez made a number of paintings of the dwarves in the king’s household, and these reflect a deep humanity. I think Velazquez had a special connection with these people, that allowed him to show them intimately as individuals.
Beauty is truth- people like that one- and truth is beauty- people hate that one like a demon hates holy water. Enjoy beauty where you find it, it’s a unique gift of being human.