They Don’t Want Us Cowed, They Want Us Dead

Well, duh, many of you are saying. But the desire of the left to destroy us has become pretty open recently.

Jim Goad said “If I don’t work I’ll starve. If I don’t write I’ll die.” It’s Saturday and not being one of the smart set I have a lot of work to do, but some things can’t wait.

I have seen comment threads on the Atlantic quickly go to “conservatives are scum and will die off soon” answered by “violent revolution may occur” answered by “good you rednecks think you are tough but we have a lot more guns and are looking forward to the opportunity to wipe you out.”

So leftists are quite confident a general collapse would just mean they can mobilize their loyal intelligence, police and probably military assets to wipe out their enemies for good. Commenter JMS at Rod Dreher’s blog says he would prefer to avoid this, and sees Dreher’s “Benedict Option” as a way for non-elite whites not useful to the system to quietly die off.

JMS sees everything happening under the sponsorship of the system as good and anyone opposed to any of it as evil and deserving of death. I read this to include gay rights and all kinds of sexual liberation, all kinds of civil rights and feminism, but more importantly all kinds of globalization and capitalism.

This is the first time I have seen anyone so explicitly link capitalism to other forms of progressivism, and so explicitly wish for the death and destruction of non-elite whites. I’m sure many or most of you aren’t surprised, and I guess I shouldn’t be, but there’s some little bit of nice Vatican II Catholic boy in me that wants to believe people are good, especially progressives.

We are supposed to think that progressives just want things nice, however destructive they are, and that rightists are looking for a fight. I think the opposite is true. Chaos and destruction almost always help leftists, so that’s what they deliberately produce, in total opposition to what they say they want.

Leftists have produced a society that produces hate rather than love, war rather than peace, despair rather than contentment, and want rather than plenty. A big part of what we have to do involves creating the opposite.

I think leftists are more prepared for collapse than we think. I’ve said before I think rich people have lots of weapons, supplies and possibly informal plans for defending their neighborhoods. Preparing for collapse, if you can afford it, is a good idea. Being prepared for violence, if it comes to that, is a good idea. If collapse happens, all bets are off. If martial law is declared, all bets are off.

Barring that violence plays into their hands and should be avoided. The system is strong, but it is also weak, and we can take advantage of that.

Paul often opened with a benediction, but I will close with one. To the people, my people- I love you. Don’t despair. Our ancestors went through much worse and survived, which is why we are here. Avoid and eliminate vices, and make yourself strong. Help each other. The battle was won long ago, with God victorious, and the devil defeated, and yet we still need to fight. The evil ones lost long ago, and yet they will still fight. Be brave.

Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments

The Map Is Not the Territory; Or, The Strange World of Reality

I took a number of math classes and two physics classes in college. The two physics professors were a strong contrast. The first always wore an untucked shirt, had messy hair, and joked a lot. The second always wore a suit and tie and had a rather formal method of presentation. But they were both lucid, engaged people. The math professors on the other hand ranged from kind of weird to complete space cadets.

Why the difference? I think because physics is about constructing an abstraction that explains and predicts the real world, where math is just a logical abstraction that may or may not be useful in the real world. An idea can be logically consistent but not match with or map reality.

Nick Steves objected to my objection to Mark Christensen. He says I respond to my impression of what he said, not what he actually said. I will respond then to certain specific statements.

Christensen quotes Evola at length, concluding with Evola’s statement that the mob rejects any leader not subordinate to it. He continues in his own words “In other words, nationalism becomes an enemy of civilization when it believes that Shakespeare is great because he was English, rather than that England is great because it produced Shakespeare.”

It’s a difficult distinction to make because the two are deeply intertwined. However, Shakespeare is not a defense of England. England needs no defense. Would England be great without Shakespeare, or other distinguished artists? Maybe, maybe not, but that is not the point. Nationhood is not a competition, it’s a matter of natural law. Furthermore England exists without Shakespeare; but Shakespeare does not exist without England.

Later Christensen says, “If nationalist and humanist forms of regressive egalitarianism are equally false,…” creating an abstraction that is not only meaningless but false and dangerous. Globalism states that all non-elites everywhere are equal, except for some that are bad, and all elites everywhere are equal, and should rule the good non-elites benevolently and the bad non-elites harshly.

Nationalism isn’t “regressive”, unless you can prove to me otherwise, and it isn’t “egalitarian”. Nations exist, and nationalism tries to recognize this reality and improve on it. It sees that nations are coherent communities of people who are not equal as this term is used in revolutionary politics but are interdependent. Nationalism is hierarchical in a way neither communism nor capitalism is, but that’s a subject for a different day.

He continues with “then the allies of civilization must start our work from the bottom up.” His following list then details how nationalism may be harmful, but can also be harnessed to support “civilization”, which is the project of him and people like him.

I am just pleased as punch that my people, my community, my kin might be of some use to Mr. Christensen in his lofty endeavors. With Point 5 he tells us “Those who care about advancing and improving the state of their ethnocultural kin must accept 1. Nationalism or identitarianism which free-rides on the achievements of a few to excuse the failures of many will ultimately destroy the group.”

Here Christensen adopts- whether he realizes it or not- the German Romantic, or Nietzchean concept of the superman, who rises above the common by his dedication to truth and excellence. But nationalism and identitarianism don’t “free ride” on the achievements of the few, they make the achievements of the few possible.

The soil doesn’t “free ride” off the roots, nor the roots off the trunk and branches. The soils exists without the tree, but not vice versa. Bruce Charlton writes sometimes about how geniuses are produced, and treats it as a matter of group selection. Geniuses themselves often have poor survival- Newton was a never-married virgin- but they help the survival of their group, if it can produce them. Charlton thinks England was at one time capable of producing geniuses, but no longer.

Geniuses, like all other kinds of civilization, grow in some soil. Leftists believe this soil to be their governance. The desire of leftists to move Third World peoples to the West and North is not so much belief in “magic dirt” as Steve Sailer phrases it, but in “magic government”. Mainstream conservatives believe in something the call “culture”, which can also produce civilization simply by exposure.

Civilization however seems to me to be something substantially biological. If was a matter of wealth, well, lots of societies have been wealthy and not produced much in the way of civilization. If it was a matter of stable, enlightened governance, well, many societies have been stably and enlightenedly governed and not produced much in the way of civilization.

Governance- in the widest sense of government, but also encouraged tradition and encouraged religion- can produce optimum results from a nation, and since the quality of governance will vary over time, we will see from a nation with a long history what the biology can produce. The results are- China, impressive (excepting current manufactured goods), Japan, excellent to outstanding, the rest of Asia, nothing much, the Americas, nothing not European, Africa, nothing, Europe, the peak of human accomplishment.

Christensen concludes with-“The ethnoculture does not make our heroes great; our heroes make our ethnoculture great. Anything which improves its ability to shape better people should be embraced. The day it stops doing so is the day it deserves its place in the graveyard of history.”

Again, the ethnoculture does not make its heroes great, it makes them possible. Heroes don’t, and can’t possibly, make an ethnoculture great because you can’t make something great on which your existence is predicated. You do not grace or bless it, it graces and blesses you. Nor does it shape them, it produces them. “Shape” implies the molding of something preexisting.

Christensen makes the existence of my ethnoculture contingent on producing something he approves of. William Munny said “Deserves gots nothin’ to do with it” but in any case I deny any judgment on whether my ethnoculture deserves to die or should be destroyed.

Putting “civilization” ahead of the people is putting the cart before the horse, except the people aren’t a horse.

Posted in Uncategorized | 16 Comments

Neo-reactionaries “Signal”- Jim Comes Out Against “Fashism”

One of the things you read about all the time on neo-reactionary blogs is “signaling”- how progressives don’t really believe the stuff they say, as much as say it to show they are they good people, the cool people, not like those dirty scum.

But neo-reactionaries do it too- often but not always invoking Hitler.

This thing has been common among conservatives for along time. (I will stop using the term “mainstream conservative” which is a little awkward, and just use “conservative”, which means almost the same thing. I will use “paleo-conservative” if necessary but they are such limp-wristed pansies as to be hardly worth mentioning. Strangely, paleo-conservatives are even more strident signalers than conservatives.) They like to say, liberals are the real racists! Liberals are the real fascists!

Neo-reactionaries do this by reminding us, not infrequently, that they are against fascism because fascism is just another form of socialism. “Jim Donald” does this, and goes a little farther, with his attack on the Trumpening. 

This goes directly to my post on reification. Nice, upper middle-class and upper-class neo-reactionaries, like nice, upper middle-class and upper-class progressives, want to live in a nice world surrounded by other nice, upper middle-class and upper-class people- not all white! by no means all white! We want a meritocracy here!- with whatever vast army of servants there are mostly out of sight and out of mind, as much as possible anyway. One can’t avoid the servants altogether, they come into view once in a while, like the little indio woman who cleans the bathrooms at the office who you don’t say hello to.

The point of my reification post was that the abstracts that neo-reactionaries love so much- science, art, engineering, craftmanship, etc.- all proceed directly from white people. They are willing to admit this, a little, but not that this classification includes more than a few white people.

Let’s take the Sistine Chapel. When people say “Sistine Chapel” they almost always mean the magnificent paintings Michelangelo made inside, particularly the ceiling. But there are no paintings unless there is a building. The paintings only last as long as the building lasts, so someone has to build a building that will last for hundreds of years.

Who? Working-class white people, that’s who! These guys are long forgotten. But the Rome of marble of Caesar, and the Rome of marble of the Church, was built by them. They probably had IQs of no more than 110 or 115- certainly not Ivy League material!- and they may have been illiterate, but the building they built stands, in good condition, and the paintings were painted, and stand, in good condition.

Jim is apparently a Silicon Valley guy, and looks at technology as something very smart whites and Asians do in the first world, then send drawings to China where peasants just off the rice paddies make it. Computer technology does not seem to need any competent technicians at all. When something breaks you just throw it away.

There are a couple of problems with this. Most of the stuff made in China is junk. It is thrown away because it is disposable. But more fundamentally, the functioning of the modern world depends on infrastructure that depends on white people to maintain it.

Have electricity in your house? An illegal alien may have done the framing, but probably not the wiring. Were you able to flush your toilet and send that big, smelly dump far away? Lots of complicated infrastructure for that, again built and maintained by working-class white people.

Jim will protest they have electricity and plumbing in China and Brazil, and they do, but it is not nearly as nice. Things in general there are not nearly as nice, even for rich people. Rich people in these places still want to go to white countries, because in white countries stuff is nicer, because of the white people.

I have said before “techno-capitalism” is barely different than the current system. Jim is roughly a techno-capitalist, but wants more than anything (I think) the end of female equality.

But given the end of political correctness, and the return of the family wage, the “hobbits” (as Nick Steves once endearingly referred to us) can structure their family lives quite well on their own.

Capitalism is a 18th or 19th century idea. Communism is a 19th century idea. Fascism is a 20th century idea- dating to the 1930’s!, as Jim reminds us, and not all that modern, but still more modern than the other two.

I’m guessing whatever it is that Jim does involves a lot of sophisticated scientific theory, but in its implementation comes down frequently to “what works”. What works is whatever allows a thriving, healthy European society.

Posted in Uncategorized | 28 Comments

Reification and Neo-Reaction or Conservatism

“Reification” is a five-dollar philosophical word usually associated with Marxism, but it simply means thinking of a something as a thing that is not a thing.

This occurred to me with this Social Matter post. The author talks about the importance of white identity, ethnoculture and nationalism. Then he starts on the neoreactionary idea that nationalism is just socialism, and we can’t have any of that, can we!

He then starts on the idea that “Western civilization” has produced “science” and “capitalism”, “personal liberty”, “cooperation” and “philosophy”. He emits “art”, “engineering” and a few others, but you get the idea.

Why the quotes? Progressives and mainstream conservatives- who are really just another kind of progressive- love to use abstractions to communicate their idea of the good. Progressives are rather dishonest about it- their idea of the good is really just killing you and taking your stuff, but conservatives really mean it.

Conservatives and neoreactionaries really believe there is a thing called “science” that exists independently of human’s biological existence. But “science” is something that happens when white men think about how the world works. Having done this, other peoples and races can do this, but it proceeds only from white men. “Philosophy” is something that happens when white men think about the nature of knowledge. Having done that, other races can do it, a little, but it starts with white men.

Other races have art and literature, and some have craftsmanship, but again in the context of our civilization these proceed from the actual biology of white people. To have any of these things, you need white people.

What is good for white people is good for science, art, philosophy, and engineering. No abstract system produces these, and so no abstract system can take the precedence over the well-being of white people.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

“The Hateful Eight” and the Racial Ideology of Quentin Tarantino

I went and saw “The Hateful Eight” in 7o millimeter. I don’t really like Quentin Tarantino, but when I was a kid a movie in 70mm was an event, and I suppose that’s why he made it in this format. In the old days it was the cool thing, even though there is no pressing reason to have filmed it this way. There are a few snowy vistas, but mostly like other QT movies it’s people talking and shooting each other at close range.

Spoiler warning- I will tell you all the surprises. Should you wait and see this movie? Probably not, it’s not really good, just interesting. If you plan to see it, stop here.

The setup is a bounty hunter bringing a fugitive in to be hanged. A snow storm forces them and some others to stop at a way station until it subsides. He fears someone may interfere with his mission, and paranoia abounds. Eventually numerous people die in a gory fashion.

But you knew that already, because that’s QT. Now the spoilers- the bounty hunter was paranoid, but not paranoid enough. The fugitive is the sister of a gang leader, and his gang are out to rescue her. The people at the way station are all members of the gang, except for one hostage. Eventually they make their move, and we see in a flashback how it all happened.

Most of the characters are strongly symbolic, so rather than running through all that happens it is easier to explain by detailing each one, in the order they appear.

We first meet Major Marquis Warren, a former black Union cavalry officer played by Samuel L. Jackson. He is a bounty hunter who stops the stage on the road to ask for a ride.

Warren represents black power. He is not a civil rights advocate, he kills white people as he needs to achieve his ends. We learn he is responsible for the deaths of many Union and Confederate soldiers when he started a fire to escape from a Confederate prison. He has killed many white men who attempted to kill him to collect a bounty placed on his head by the Confederacy.

More importantly, though, is that he lies and manipulates. Few people seem to understand the BS quotient of black behavior, not even me until I saw this. Warren carries a letter with him that is supposed to be from Lincoln to him, but he later admits is fake, and he only uses it to impress white people.

Later, he tells a long story about torturing and humiliating a man who came to kill him, to provoke the man’s father into drawing so he can kill him. Is this story true? You are led to believe it is, but a similar story is told in “Reservoir Dogs” and is not true. In much the same way, Mr. Pink relates the story of almost getting caught with a package of marijuana by a cop with a drug dog. But the story is fake, made up so he can infiltrate the robbery gang. For this reason I believe Warren’s story is fake.

Tarantino’s insight is that a great deal of what blacks say is lies intended to manipulate white people in one way or another. He can say this of course because he approves of it. Nonetheless, it has been said.

Warren dominates the story, but when the gang makes its move he has his testicles shot off. QT seems to show dominant black men being humiliated- like the sodomy in “Pulp Fiction”- as a way of sugar-coating the situation.

We next meet John Ruth, a bounty hunter played by Kurt Russell called the Hangman, because as Warren explains he never kills the fugitive, but always brings him into the authorities alive. Ruth seems to be a dominant figure, but is shown to be a fool. Ruth represents white liberals and neoconservatives. Ruth is taken in by Warren’s fake Lincoln letter. Ruth fails to realize the danger his prisoner represents. His belief in formal justice is echoed by one of the gang members at the way station who is posing as a hangman, and exposed to be doubly foolish.

Ruth represents all-American values, and is played by an all-American actor. But Ruth is a square, he’s not hip, he doesn’t really know what’s up.

Ruth’s prisoner is a woman wanted for murder, Daisy Domergue, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh. Daisy takes a tremendous amount of physical and verbal abuse from Ruth and Warren, partly because she is a prisoner and partly because she uses the “n” word. She takes all this with surprising good humor, apparently because she is portrayed as basically sub-human. We later learn that her gang is coming to rescue her, and they kill Ruth and possibly Warren, so probably her anticipation of revenge makes it easier to endure. (Warren is seriously and possibly mortally wounded, but he doesn’t die before the end and it’s not clear he will die.)

Daisy represents white trash, or poor white people, or white people either below the level of political concern or regarded as actively hostile to the system. Tarantino has a little different view of these people. Daisy is represented as almost retarded, but at the way station she picks up a guitar and plays and sings a folk song about transportation to Australia. She adds a verse about escaping to Mexico, but Ruth doesn’t pick up on that. Later she is revealed to be a member of a fearsome gang led by her brother, and when he is killed, she takes over as leader.

The typical view of lower-class whites is that they are bad, and annoying, but too stupid and docile to be a threat. Ruth, the white liberal, takes this view and pays for it with his life. Tarantino seems to regard lower-class whites as potentially very dangerous- like the gun nuts with the Confederate flag in “Pulp Fiction” who butt rape the black guy.

The stagecoach continues on its way, and comes across another traveler stranded in the snow, who identifies himself as Chris Mannix, played by Walton Goggins, traveling to the town to become the new sheriff. Mannix was part of a southern renegade group after the war and killed many blacks. Warren and Mannix are very hostile to each other, but after some trash talk and threats from Warren, Mannix makes some face-saving statements and announces he will sleep the rest of the trip.

These are all the really important characters, although you don’t see how it works out until later. The stagecoach arrives at the way station just as the storm hits. They are greeted not by the proprietor, Minnie, but by a Mexican, Bob,  who tells them he is taking care of the place while Minnie and her husband, Sweet Dave, visit her mother. Wesson is very suspicious and questions Bob closely, but doesn’t press the issue. Later we learn that Minnie hates Mexicans and would never have one in her place. Bob turns out to be one of the gang, who killed Minnie and everyone at the way station but one to set up their ruse to rescue Daisy.

Bob isn’t an important character other than that he is Mexican, and one of the white trash gang. Liberals don’t like or trust Hispanics. An example is “Family Guy” where the Hispanic cleaning lady is a recurring character shown in a negative way. Hispanics are a big part of what goes on racially in the US, but Tarantino pays them little mind other than to put them in the “dumb, potentially dangerous” category.

Already at the way station are a cowboy- one of the gang, an English hangman- one of the gang, and a former Confederate general, Smithers, played by Bruce Dern, who was left alive and kept as a hostage to support the ruse. Smithers faces off angrily against Warren, having killed black Union prisoners at a battle Warren was in. Smithers though only serves as a foil for Warren, who eventually provokes him with a story of torturing, humiliating and killing his son into picking up a gun so he can kill him.

The hipster audience cheered. What were they cheering? The killing of an old racist white man? The gruesome killing of his son? The triumph of black power? I didn’t see one black person there. Probably all of the above.The film stops here for the intermission, and when it resumes things get really crazy.

The second part starts with a Tarantino voice over. Things get complicated, and I guess he feels the need to explain. We see Daisy watching someone poison the coffee, but we don’t see who it is and she doesn’t say anything.

Here we see the one big character reveal in the movie. Isn’t that part of drama? The protagonist experiences some challenge and changes? In “The Hateful Eight” everybody behaves as you would expect from beginning to end, they are not exactly cardboard cutouts, and they are not exactly stock characters, but they always to what you think they would do, with the exception of Daisy.

When Daisy plays the guitar, sings, and even adds a verse to the song, it is shown that there is more there maybe than meets the eye, but it doesn’t register any more on the audience than it does on Ruth.

Ruth and the stagecoach driver get some coffee. After a minute Mannix decides he would like some coffee, but just before he drinks it Ruth and the driver become violently ill. As Ruth vomits blood, Daisy says to him, with a sadistic leer- “John- when you get to hell- tell ’em Daisy sent you.” Daisy thus morphs from a virtually retarded punching bag into a cruel, sinister killer.

But who’s the sadist here? Who is the killer? Ruth has heaped violence on her- quite unrealistically portrayed, because her nose should be broken and her face destroyed from so many strikes with fists and rifle butts- and Warren too, all of course in the name of justice.

Such violence against anyone else would be shocking and outrageous, but here it’s practically comic relief. Daisy uses the “n” word early on, so she is marked as someone not deserving of any protection.

Ruth is dead; Warren now knows someone is trying to help Daisy escape, but he doesn’t know if it’s Bob the Mexican, the hangman, or the cowboy. Of course it’s all three, and more. A standoff begins, and as shots start to fire we see there is someone in the basement, below Warren, who shoots him from below with a shotgun. This turns out to be the gang leader, Daisy’s brother, played by Channing Tatum, who doesn’t look like he belongs in a western.

But Warren is not dead, and another standoff ensues. Some of the other gang members are dead, some a seriously wounded. Warren has a gun on Daisy, so her brother tries to come out with his hands up to make a deal. Of course Warren shoots him. Tarantino repeatedly shows that any concept of honesty, fairness, empathy, morality, justice, or any other related idea is subordinate to black supremacy.

Daisy claims leadership of the gang, and the others quickly assent. The only undecided character left is Mannix. Daisy repeatedly implores him to “kill the nagger” and he can claim the bounties on the dead gang members while the rest escape.

This is the pivot point of the whole story. What is the middle-class or lower middle-class white going to side with? Black supremacy, or his own race?

Mannix reflects that he almost drank the coffee, and doesn’t believe Daisy’s threats of more gang members coming to the rescue. So he sides with Warren and they kill Daisy and the surviving gang members. In memory of Ruth, they hang her.

In simple terms Tarantino is a wigger, a white person who idolizes black culture and adopts black behavior and preferences. But Tarantino is also a member of the elite, which makes him quite unusual.

Mannix represents a class of whites- not part of the elite, but on its payroll- who are generally assumed to be obedient to the dictates of the system, especially enforcing sanctions against dissident whites. They include policemen, soldiers, low-level managers of all kinds, and teachers.

Tarantino’s racial ideology is different from the official racial ideology in three key aspects. First, it puts above all black power or black supremacy. Second, it regards lower-class whites as much more dangerous. Three, it regards the loyalty of lower middle-class to middle class whites as much more weak.

The system does not recognize black power. It condones it, pays lip service to it even, but does not recognize it. The racial ideology of the system is civil rights and diversity, in which blacks help support the system but do not act on their own.

Tarantino comes from a lower class background than most elites, so he has seen things from the perspective of lower-class blacks, who embrace black power, and lower-class whites, who hate black power and the system and would overthrow it if they could. Tarantino isn’t wrong about this, but his questioning of the loyalty of middle-class whites is off the mark. America is deeply influenced by the English class system, in which loyalty to class far exceeds any other loyalty. Other white countries don’t have this, at least not to the same extent, so white Americans of other than English descent may be inclined to racial loyalty, but English culture so thoroughly dominates the US that this is unlikely.

Tarantino’s world is a pretty ridiculous one. In the flashback we see a racially harmonious world at Minnie’s where blacks are friendly small business owners and skinny white women are stagecoach drivers. Black women have layabout men, but they are white. To protect this world from white trash, of course any kind of violence at all is justified.

It’s a ridiculous world, but a world a lot of whites think is real. A lot of whites accept black power, and a lot of whites will do anything at all to other whites to protect the system, and protect their own position and status.

It isn’t a nice world, though, this liberal or progressive place. It’s dominated by greedy, cruel, violent scum like Warren and Ruth who kill and imprison people for money and are loyal to no one but themselves. Aiding them are opportunistic scum like Mannix. The only people who have any loyalty or connection to others are the gang.

Ruth dies puking his guts out. Warren dies, probably, with his nuts shot off. At least the movie shows, however accidentally, the results these kinds of values lead to. All the gang members die too, but they die for loyalty and not for money or sadism.

Loyalty may cost you everything but it’s the only thing that’s worth anything. Be loyal.


Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments

Happy New Year!!!

Happy New Year!!! to all my readers, however few you may be.

The European year is cyclical, and we have passed through an annual period of rest and wonder. We have seen for a time God and God’s Nature, His Creation, are bigger than us and after our long summer and fall of work, we need to rest a little.

But now the Solstice has passed. The air is cold, the snow is deep, but the light is coming back, and there is work to be done. Let us dedicate ourselves again to our cause, the pursuit of the right and the true.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

More Western Tropes In ISIS Propaganda

The Atlantic notices this girl, among others, singing the praises of ISIS, and notices as well the Western tropes therein.

Progressives can see the things they look askance at- the romanticization of violence, the prominent place of consumer goods- but somehow are blind to things they like, such as multi-racialism and leftist revolutionary ideology.

This girl isn’t really Islamic- if she was she would be doing the Moslem equivalent of baking cookies instead of bloviating pseudo-intellectually on WordPress- but for someone who even strongly identifies with Islam it is surprising how Western her thinking is.

First, none of this attraction to ISIS is at all surprising, it’s just Bin Laden’s strong horse. People love a winner, to paraphrase George Patton, and will not tolerate a loser. So of course Moslems in the West will like ISIS, even if they are not very observant.

I don’t know if this has a basis in biology, but parasitic systems have a symbiotic relationship with each other. Islam is a parasitic system of a simple sort, a horse-mounted raider society. Communism is also simple, a slave-revolt society. Progressive capitalism is parasitic in a more complicated way, because while it makes stuff, it insists on cheap resources. Progressive capitalism was parasitic on slavery, then land appropriation, then cheap labor from displaced peasants and freed slaves, then cheap oil, then cheap labor from immigrants who were frequently displaced peasants.

I have written how capitalism used communism to destroy societies to free up resources. In “Animal Farm” Orwell described the communists collaborating with the capitalists, but successful communist revolution requires a lot of capitalist financial and logistical support. ISIS is an indigenous movement with strategic outside support, like a communist revolution, but it’s a little more complicated.

ISIS is just Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Israel, and the US against Syria and to a lesser extent Iran and Russia. Iran is to be contained, not destroyed. Propaganda excites young people and gets them to go fight- which is to say get killed and maimed, many of them.

World War II was supported by the best propaganda Hollywood and the New York media could put out. Even today we see lots of pictures of handsome young men in dashing uniforms, posing with cool-looking hardware, but especially with airplanes with naked ladies painted on them. We have heard a lot about the carnage experienced by Marines in WWII, but the casualty rate of bomber crews was actually worse, and the Merchant Marines suffered worse still. “Catch-22” is about a terrified bomber crewman trying to get out of flying more missions. Joseph Heller flew sixty missions and statistically should have been dead several times over. (For a Jew, Heller showed very little enthusiasm for fighting Hitler, but that doesn’t mean you gentiles should have any reservations! Go get ’em!)

ISIS isn’t the rebirth of the Caliphate, because while Moslems conquered very quickly, it was still a matter of decades. They took something over, established a regime where they could extract resources, then attacked more territory. ISIS can sell oil, but they don’t have the easy pickings that the original Moslems had.

The most leftist thing maybe that the girl takes is the idea of demographic revolution. We hear a lot that all the old evil Republicans are dying off, to be replaced by a rainbow coalition of progressive young people. Nationalists warn against the Islamicization of Europe, progressives dismiss the idea, but the girl regards it as inevitable, one of jihad’s greatest weapons.

But parasitism has to be balanced. The parasite can’t kill the host. That’s what communism did. Capitalism manages streams of resources and when one peters out, it has others. Cheap oil is the one it may not be able to replace, and cheap money always blows up eventually, but it has lasted a long time.

Islam as a whole was very successful because after peaking in territory, the Middle East controlled trade between Europe and Asia, so it could impose a tax on both. After Vasco de Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope and established ocean trade, it was seriously weakened. They have oil now, but that doesn’t really support their population.

Moslems invading Europe now are just showing up for the free stuff. But there is free stuff and nice places to live only because there are sufficient white people. Once the white proportion drops below maybe 80%, things seriously deteriorate. As it is Moslems in Europe mostly live in slums with other Moslems, and while they don’t have to work, the existence is miserable.

Blacks took over Detroit, and destroyed it. Life in Detroit is only above the Mad Max level because white resources from the rest of the country keep it going. If blacks or Moslems take over an entire country, it is just destroyed and they are worse off than if they had stayed home.

The girl mirrors Anonymous Conservative in describing Moslems as a weaponized population. But they are just scavengers, taking free stuff where the natives are too weak to resist. If they kill off all the natives, there is nothing more to take.

But as lily-livered as progressive capitalism seems to be, it does set boundaries, and limits, as a kindergarten teacher would say. ISIS isn’t coming into Europe, or Turkey. Welfare recipients are enthusiastically welcome, they can even pretend to be jihadists at protests in the park, but actual jihadists are not. Raping poor white girls is fine, challenging the system and taking anything over are not. They are certainly not going into Israel, a place about which they are strangely silent.

But the kids will have fun, buy cool stuff, and have their self-esteem raised. Revolution has been the hottest-selling consumer product of the last century. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some Jerry Heller behind all this, laughing all the way to the bank……..

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments