Hedonism Is Horror; Part I of a series on horror

What has pleasure to do with pain? I had a long post on the phenomenon of horror that disappeared in a WordPress crash, but I feel compelled to get back to it, if not in quite the same way.

I have previously wrote on the limitations of pleasure here, but the matter is more profound.

David Goldman/Spengler pointed out that Al Qaeda had succeeded in horrifying us. Terror, he says, is always intended to horrify, that is to create a combination of fear, hopelessness, and despair, and horror is the weapon.

This is true as far as it goes, but it’s just a simple existential question. You are a fragile bag of meat, blood, bone and pus. You can easily be hurt or destroyed, or hurt in a way that makes you wish you had been destroyed. You will die someday, and you may be lucky and die quickly but probably it will take some time and be very unpleasant. No matter how much power you have this is true, and if you do have power, nothing you can do to another human can’t also be done to you.

Most people deal with this by ignoring it. This works pretty well and is usually a sign of mental health. But really most people live in a space where things aren’t so bad they can’t tolerate it- they aren’t seriously ill, they have their basic needs met- but things could be a whole lot better. Extreme stress is a rough place, where for me at least strange things happen. Most people have some experience of this, but few experience the other extreme.

The other extreme is where you have all the good things you could want, and more. All the material possessions, all the personal pleasures, and all the social approval. This is where the very top of the population, the 0.0001 per cent live.

Here’s the thing- from my partial, distant observance of this, I think it can be extremely unpleasant. The body becomes accustomed to the inputs it receives. Whatever it has been exposed to for some time seems normal and right. People in circumstances that would seem unbearable for even a few minutes to you or me, like being homeless in Chicago in the winter, or being in a third world prison, are lived with equanimity by countless people. It’s the deviations from this that people notice. So somebody gives the homeless guy a couple dollars and he’s very happy for awhile, or somebody steals his blanket and he’s very sad for awhile. But day to day, he’s not happy, but he’s not freaking out.

The trouble with having everything a person could possibly want is you get used to it. Things can’t get any better, but they can get worse. What was once wonderfully pleasurable has become routine, maybe boring, but to lose it, any of it, would be a calamity. Again- I think most people in this situation deal with it by ignoring it. But on some level they are aware of this, and it is very disconcerting to them.

Maybe I can best illustrate this with a story. I used to do some work for a financial company with offices all over the world. One of the principals was an English guy, from a middle class background, who became very rich. I got to talking with a lady in the office who sometimes acted as a flight attendant on his Gulfstream V. One time he was flying from London to his primary residence, in a Caribbean tax haven. He requested some red wine. She showed him three different kinds- all the best, I’m sure- but they did not have the kind he wanted. And, she told me, he was very disappointed.

He was living as well as a human being can live, and yet it still wasn’t enough for him. Wealth and plenty had ruined his ability to experience pleasure. So he was worse off than most of the human population. Unless you have terminal cancer with serious pain, there are things you can enjoy.

I think our elite lives in a state of frustration and disappointment that shades, from time to time, into actual horror. They are epicurean or hedonist, or shades between, but even with constant refinement find pleasure fleeting. They hold their position on supposed moral superiority, but are running out of ways to show how much more enlightened and tolerant they are. Tense and uncomfortable, they have to lash out, and we are the dog that gets kicked.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

The Trumpening and Mainstream Conservatism- The Short View

We saw that modern, or mainstream conservatism is a movement that has passed through its life cycle and is spent, like a salmon dying after struggling hundreds of miles upstream. The more urgent causes of its demise are more recent, and associated most closely with George W. Bush.

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is an institution that has served as a vehicle for different interests at different times in its history. The Democratic Party started as the voice of the white common man; The Republican Party for those against slavery for either pragmatic self-interest (free soil) or idealism (abolition). In the early 19th century, the Republican Party served as the counterweight of Northeastern and Midwestern businessmen and the small town middle-class against big-city Democratic machines.

This Republican Party was genteel, liberal in the sense of being open-minded and fair, and opposed to the heated rhetoric of populism. It was pro-business, but did not view business as a glorious pursuit not to be bound by any rules.

As the Democratic Party came to be controlled by progressive social radicals, traditionalists and libertarians gravitated to the Republicans. These people worshipped business much more, were much more individualist and and repelled by non-conformity of the bohemian kind. Goldwater and Reagan represented this tendency; Goldwater lost big, after being explicitly rejected by the establishment (including Mitt Romney’s father). Reagan was also regarded as a threat, and lost the nomination in 1976. But he won in 1980, and after HW attacked his “voodoo economics” (that is tax cuts for economic growth, the one defining policy of Republicans since then) made a deal and served as Reagan’s VP. Reagan’s popularity and the weakness of Dukakis made him president in 1988.

HW was not grateful. No, not at all. Not at all grateful to the libertarian conservatives and Reagan who had brought him from a staff man to the most powerful position in the world. He thought it was time to put things right, talked about a “kinder, gentler nation” and agreed to a tax increase. He did not win reelection.

The Bushes blamed this on the rubes not being loyal and grateful enough to them, and put more family members up to lead the great unwashed. Jeb got elected governor of Florida, W of Texas. The pitch to the conservative base in 2000 was this- you’ve had eight years of Clinton, and his liberal shenanigans. A strong conservative won’t get elected. You have to lay off your mean-spirited libertarianism and take a compromise.

The conservative base has long been very obedient, and they bought this. The fundamental incompatibility of the various Republican factions- libertarians, social conservatives, hawks, big business, and the old WASP elite- were just beginning to feel friction.

Then came 9/11. In recent historical terms, this started the destruction of the modern conservative movement and the modern Republican Party.

The 9/11 hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, and fundamentalist Moslems. Pretty obviously we had an enemy in Saudi Arabia and fundamentalist Moslems, but W was committed to both, via his family business. W promoted the idea that Islam was a “religion of peace”- that Islam means “peace”- and our enemy in the Middle East was not fundamentalist Moslems and the terrorism they support, but secular, Arab nationalist dictators like Saddam Hussein. We would them and secure our safety by overthrowing them and establishing democracy.

People bought it. I know I did. They were ugly times, and we were given the choice to fight the wrong people or fight nobody, apologize for existing, cower, and beg for mercy. Had leftists had a better response things would have been a lot different, but we were told to ask “why do they hate us?”

So we got the wars, and all the terrible things that happened. People have come to understand in the fifteen years since that Islam is our enemy, it is not a religion of peace, Islam is by its fundamental nature terroristic and oppressive, and Moslems hate us and want to kill us, except for the women they want to rape and keep as sex slaves. Moslems in other words are just like blacks.

W deployed the language of political correctness to suppress this, that being truthful about Islam was racist and bigoted. People didn’t like this but Iraq was going to be a democracy any day now, and W would be proven right. Of course it didn’t work out that way, and people remember, although they dare not say.

The next big thing was the attempted amnesty of 2005. (W tried to privatize Social Security in the spring of that year, and this was rejected, and people remember this too, but it didn’t enrage people.) The people reacted negatively, and W pretty much came out and said if you were against amnesty you were a filthy racist. It still didn’t pass- congressmen like to keep their jobs- but it was understood the filthy racist blue-collar rednecks would be cowed into submission eventually.

The financial crisis and the idea of turning Hispanics into Republican voters with no questions asked mortgages was another fiasco, and then Obama. Mitt Romney didn’t get rich firing people- he was plenty rich already- but trashing companies with leveraged buyouts by Bain Capital was supposed to make people who had recently been laid off eager to vote for him.

Mitt was at least able to pretend, sort of. McCain absolutely could not. His open contempt for the voters was too much. “Just build the damn wall” was followed by some pro forma promises, quickly forgotten.

The “Reagan Coalition” as it is called worked because elite Republicans like the Bushes were able to hold their noses and work with blue collar, ethnic Northern and Southern whites, people they viscerally loathed at worst and were mildly contemptuous of at best. The Bushes ruined the thing because they were just too arrogant.

The “pundits” of National Review and Red State, the consultants and the think tank people are socially retarded, like most of the elite these days. If you have been a spoiled brat all your life going to elite schools, getting elite internships and working elite jobs in elite institutions you may not understand that insulting people is actually dangerous in many places, and considered bad manners most other places. I get the feeling that among the modern elite, insulting people and acting like a jerk is considered cool and status-enhancing.

Backing down is something you do when things are a little hotter than you can handle, you made a misjudgment and went a little too far, and now you need to keep from getting your ass kicked. People at the lower level of society have to understand how and when to back down. I get the impression that the elites don’t know how, never having been in a situation where they could get hurt or lose their job, or just don’t think they should ever have to.

It’s this crudeness and arrogance that enrages people. They call Trump rude and arrogant, and vulgar, but he is far from it. He knows what he can say and what he can get away with. He never insults anyone who doesn’t have it coming.

If you are really good friends with a person, maybe they can say something nasty to you and you will let it go. Generally however openly insulting someone means not only are you no longer friends, you are now enemies.

The Republican Party will survive in some different form. The mainstream conservative movement is dead. Its spokesmen, pundits, commentators, authors, talk show hosts, radio show hosts, and consultants will be hard pressed for work. Nobody is going to spend tens of millions for an obviously empty suit like Rubio again. The market for books by Mark Levin and Glenn Beck has certainly shrank a great deal.

Marie Antoinette is rumored to have said, if peasants didn’t have bread, they could eat cake. At least she wasn’t saying they should f*** off and die, like National Review. The NR staff will all keep their heads, and even their titanic egos won’t suffer much, although they lost their credibility and their dignity long ago.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

The Trumpening and Mainstream Conservatism- The Long View

The complete inability of mainstream conservatives to understand what has happened is maddening, and while I continue to maintain official politics is of little to no interest to nationalists, I feel I must explain.

I’m not a historian or a scholar, so I may be wrong in details, but I think I can explain- to people who are willing to listen- the broad historical arc of it.

Mainstream conservatism is an idea that dates approximately to the mid-1950’s. People often don’t appreciate how left-wing the US had been up to then. The US was formally allied with the Soviet Union, a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship, to win WWII, and had established a government starting the 1930’s that controlled almost all of society. Communists participated openly in the US government, and why wouldn’t they? Communism was progressive ideology doing great good in the world, and while communism as a whole was not useful in the US, communist ideas certainly were.

The aftermath of WWII in eastern Europe soured a lot of people though. The defeat of Hitler was supposed to mean elections, but the Red Army was having none of that. It was explained to the rubes that elections were not necessary, but they weren’t buying it, and many of the rubes had roots there and did not want to see their religion and culture destroyed in their homelands. (Religion and culture were of course being restored in the Jewish “homeland”).

How the US would respond to Russian imperialism was the question. The progressive left was all in favor of it. The militant right wanted war, but people were tired of that. The compromise was not to interfere with the Soviets but not to let them go further. Countries in the US sphere of influence would develop as social democracies.

It was assumed China would stay in the Western sphere, but Mao won. How and why this happened was a burning issue at the time. “Who lost China?” was a conservative battle cry. The answer was that communist sympathizers in the State Department helped this happen, and the presence of communists, former communists, and almost communists (called “pinkos” because they weren’t quite red) became an issue.

The House Un-American Activities Commission had been around for a long time, looking into undesirable foreign activities like organized crime by Jews and Italians, anarchism and associated forms of violent, terroristic leftism not directly controlled by the CPSU, and communism. Senator Joseph McCarthy began hearings into communist influence in the US government, the State Department but also the Army.

The left gained a massive media victory here, managing to equate inquiring into anyone’s left wing political background with cruel harrassment of idealistic, well-intentioned people. The Venona transcripts showed that McCarthy was unsurprisingly, correct- probably every single person he accused of anything was guilty as hell of that and a lot more.

But the left had portrayed anti-communism as the worst possible thing in English-speaking society, a matter of bad taste, and with this no respectable person could announce conservative political views in public.

Manhattan socialite William F. Buckley decided a new conservatism was needed, a socially acceptable if not fashionable one. Aiding him was the fact a lot of people found communism pretty disgusting. As cosmopolitan as many communists were, it was basically Slavic peasants lining up for bread rations, and while that might be fine for Slavic peasants, no nice person wanted anything like that. Militant, Promethean libertarianism best promoted by Ayn Rand was in backlash against the tiresome alphabet soup of government control. Actual conservatism was still pretty hick, but you could break off anti-communist liberals, and call them conservatives.

That’s all modern conservatives are. Anti-communist liberals. The old American form of conservatism- isolationist, traditionalist, rural and small town whether North or South- never really went away, but it kept its mouth shut and went with the anti-communist liberals to have some support.

This project had some big successes, and some failures. Its resistance to the Soviet Union ended communism in its classic form. At home it kept taxes under control. It did not repeal the New Deal. It did not prevent or significantly restrain the Great Society. It established a strong criminal regime, after the US had gone from a not very strong one based on Protestant reform to a totally Gramscian one.

In the end it was a victim of its own success, or more exactly that liberals saw money was good, and adopted the aspects of it that suited them. In the old days the private sector was not that lucrative, and being a corporate executive wasn’t that much better than being a government employee. With the globalization and financialization of the world economy, that changed, and with Clinton liberals went strong into business and finance.

With the defeat of communism, the victory of globalism and free-market capitalism and its adoption by progressives, modern conservatism had little reason to exist. It had won what it could, and could win nothing else. But conservatives in the 1990’s, like liberals in the 1950’s, thought they were just getting started with their economic program. (Social issues are another matter.) They wanted to reduce government spending and the size of government. But Clinton and the establishment prevented this.

The other source of the weakening and collapse came from within. The old school, liberal Republicans of the Bush family were enraged at the takeover of “their” party by Western libertarians. HW promoted a “kinder, gentler nation”. W promoted “compassionate conservatism”. The rubes were told they had gone too far and needed to back off, and the rubes mostly obeyed.

If everybody is a free-market globalist, a free market globalist party is not needed. If everyone is, or is supposed to be, “socially liberal” then a socially conservative party is a threat to society. The is no need for the Republican Party to exist, and it is in fact a threat to the social order. This is the dilemma the Republican establishment finds itself in, but it does not understand history and could not adapt if it could.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

The Trumpening

The Trumpening cometh. There is, has been, and will be, much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but still it comes.

I have been meaning to post something in defense of ethno-nationalism, but I lost my train of thought on that post. Things are happening, things are changing, and I don’t think anybody knows or appreciates what or how much.

Donald Trump is not the savior of white people, and not the savior of America. It’s possible nothing at all will change in the conduct of governance if he takes office. The usual neoconservative and neoliberal suspects are chimping out over him. It’s possible every single bad thing they say is true. The one voice that actually gives me a little pause is Hipster Racist, who says Trump is completely Israeli controlled. But I have to answer that the same as all the other criticism- so what? If he is, all the others are also. Things can’t be worse, they won’t necessarily get better, but possibly Trump will shift the direction somewhat.

The Trumpening is a social and political phenomenon that nobody saw coming, and yet was somehow at the same time inevitable. The quality of people involved in politics steadily declines, and the horror show of billionaire-controlled neocon white Hispanics is only matched by the spectacle of billionaire mob boss Big Hill. The show is supposed to maintain some level of decorum and plausibility, but that is gone.

As a “conservative” of some sort, if I thought it made any difference, I would rather see Jeff Sessions running for president with Donald Trump’s support rather than the other way around. But no tribal billionaire will finance Sessions, so that can’t happen.

Anglophone society maintains control primarily through social pressure, in defining what is respectable to think and say and what is not. As long as the taboo holds, this works much better than putting people in camps. This is why everyone is describing Trump as “crude”, “vulgar”, and other words that only judge social acceptance, not actual truth or merit. None scream louder than the NR neocons, but people have stopped listening.

Lower-class whites are surrendering hopes of social acceptance and respectability by supporting Trump. People know they can’t say the truth, but they know it is possible for someone to say the truth.

Things are getting ugly and will get uglier. But ugly is good these days, pretty is now just makeup caked on a syphilitic whore.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

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 | 27 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 | 29 Comments