Sunday, November 19, 2017

- Let's Talk About Actual Nazi's

I just got done reading this Atlantic Piece on the Daily Stormer's Andrew Anglin, which I got from a Zman link. I had heard the name before but didn't know the first thing about the kid until this morning. It's a long meandering piece that may or may not paint an accurate picture of Anglin and his motivations. But Fiction vs. Nonfiction issues aside, it's a very interesting read, and I have a few observations to share.

My first thought was that you can't say that the kid isn't committed. He lived in a Philippine Jungle for months? He hides out well enough to avoid SPLC process servers? You can't be particularly connected to the world if you're on the SPLC 'enemies list' and they're willing to spend money to get to you. And in the process of going 'underground' he also seems to have adopted the most reprehensible but effective tactics of the far, far, left. Truth and lies mean nothing. All that means anything is winning the argument. It's all straight from the Rules For Radicals playbook.

To my knowledge I've never read even a single word of something that Anglin has touched, so going off just an Atlantic profile, I'm probably not being completely fair to him. But with that said, it's illustrative of how detached from reality the leftist worldview is that someone like Andrew Anglin can be thought of as having some common ground with a man like Jared Taylor, or in even greater error, someone like The Derb. Anglin, it seems to me, lives on a completely different planet. The most vociferous things the Derb has ever said don't even come close to the kinds of things that Anglin is accused of doing and saying in the Atlantic piece.

But on College Campuses today, Ben Shapiro is considered a 'Nazi'. Apart from the obvious silliness of calling an orthodox Jew a Nazi, it says something about the left that they have just a single label for everyone from Jordan Peterson to Andrew Anglin. What a deeply dangerous over simplification that is. And it's one that the media in their panic, seems perfectly happy to share as the correct categorization for all kinds of people. Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are both described as being pro Nazi. Charles Murray is chased through the campus by angry mobs. That is an awfully, AWFULLY broad brush.

But with that said, Anglin seems to be at least trying to be the real deal. He's the kind of kid that is driven by passion far more than reason. And if the piece can be believed, has been trying to find something to latch onto for meaning his entire life. He dedicated himself to the 'how the world should be' ideals of the left utterly and completely until they blew up in his face one by one. And as they did, he moved on to others.

These days he seems to be on a 'racial purity' kick with a totalitarian leftist's typical zeal, and like everything else, he's going at it 110%. From that perspective what he's doing makes sense internally at least. He knows that his message is one reviled by every single institution of any influence in the country, and that spreading his message is going to make him powerful enemies. He's acting accordingly.

I still don't think I know anything about him or his ideas really. I know that Vox Day calls him a part of the 'fake right' and has tried to debate him. I like Vox's take for the largest part, so I come at Anglin with suspicion. And based on the accuracy of that Atlantic piece, I assume that he's a creature of passion and commitment which makes me very suspicious of him and his contribution to our political discourse in the public square.

If the Atlantic really can be believed and he really is 'a Nazi', then I don't have any use for him. I know how that story ends. But it does raise the question of whether or not the Alt-Light thinkers really are just a more realistic and combative version of the 'preemptive surrender' conservatives. No amount of careful reasoning will persuade someone in an emotional panic. And an 'emotional panic' is certainly the best term to describe the state of the American left today.

I may not find Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin persuasive or even particularly thoughtful or intelligent. But if their presence is enough to snap the smartest portions of the left and 'soft right' out of their delusional pathology, then maybe they're worth putting up with. Maybe the thought of Jared Taylor debating Charles Murray is made more palatable when the other option is coping with Andrew Anglin and his team squaring off against Antifa in the parking lot outside.

We can either talk, or not talk. Those are the choices. And if the left were to legitimize the reasonable and thoughtful parts of the alt-right like Taylor, Derbyshire, and Brimelow, even if they find them distasteful, they take the teeth out of the Anglin's and Spencer's of the world. Their desperate dedication to holding the Overton window frozen in place, is only empowering the worst actors of the far right. In the end, it's either talk, or don't talk. I hope the left comes to realize this sooner rather than later, and chooses talk.

Friday, November 17, 2017

- The Liberal Purge

Chris Degroot has written another great piece about how in order to stay true to the ideals of identity politics, the left is purging all it's 'leadership':

It has been found, as far back as there are national statistics for crime, that blacks have committed crimes at higher rates than whites. In the welfare state, the rates have soared, since the 1960s in particular. The welfare state, along with the decline in Christianity and the sexual revolution, has found a staggering number of black women effectively married to the state. The illegitimacy rate among blacks is a depressing 74%. Without fathers to teach them how to live and show them proper outlets for their masculine energy, many young black men turn to gangs and crime.

For that way of life does at least provide a sense of masculine value, the young belonging with other men. Like soldiers in war, they live against the (law-abiding) grain. Although progressives, driven by anxious resentment, believe men and women are interchangeable, both the teaching and the enforcement of moral conduct require male leadership. Morality derives historically from religion—a distinctly male affair. You men reading this will remember being young and ignoring what mom told you to do—until dad, that bigger, fearsome fellow, came along. That is the natural order of the family. Once its government became dominated by women, Sweden soon became the rape capital of the Western world. That is the collective folly, the herd sentimentalism of female leadership. When it comes to obedience, men are by no means inclined to submit to women, nor, as a general rule, to anyone who does not cause them to feel fear, something that usually only other men can do. Accordingly, proper authority has always been and must continue to be a masculine business.

Steve Sailer comes at the same issue through a different window. And since the actual content comes from the comments section of his blog at Unz, I suggest you read this very short post, and this one.

I'm told that Steve is notoriously bad at responding to emails, but reads his comment section religiously. If you've spent any time perusing it you'd know why. There is a high degree of information content there relative to places like Twitter, and Steve has picked out two examples that perfectly illustrate the prevailing cultural tone.

And it's interesting (to me anyway) that this shows you one of my own individual cognitive weaknesses as well. Blacks attack whites and I feel the urge to defend whites who are clearly being treated unfairly by them. Women attack 'men' and I do the same. My confrontational nature and my complete lack of desire for public approbation make me miss the entire political point.

What identity politics liberals are now doing isn't attacking me or men like me, they're attacking themselves. They aren't attacking smart whites or strong (or attractive) men, they're attacking the thoughtless reactionary guilty liberals that treat black people like pets, and the weak Gamma boys who could never get an attractive woman through normal means, and instead exploit their power to do so.

What attracts a man to liberalism is his need for ego support. Insecurity and the opportunity to gain virtue on the cheap isn't about the virtue, it's about 'the cheap'. A liberal man is attracted to Liberalism because it lets him be seen as a good man without having to actually be a good man. And rather than attacking Feminists and racial grievance mongers, at this point the right move for someone like me is to step back and let the worst actors of the left beat on the only people who will still listen to them... themselves. We on the right should step away and let the snake eat its tail without pause, all the way up to the back of it's jawbone. It's the intellectual equivalent of letting Antifa, BLM, and La Raza duke it out with clubs and knives over which chant to follow.

We conservatives should simply sit back clinging to our deplorable guns and bibles, and let the bonfires rage. We should hand them our cigars to let the hysterical mobs set the next batch of kindling alight. Because all the witches they're burning now are their own leadership.

I was listening to a female comedian on Netflix the other day named Iliza Shlesinger. She's a little hottie and had one or two pretty good jokes. But one bit she did was calling attention to how if it's an ugly sewer dwelling goblin that checking her out in the bar it's 'sexual harassment' but if the guy is cute enough 'it's just hot'. This is the truth in post Feminist America which is why it was funny.

But who in their right mind would have ever predicted that it would be this little patch of liberal hypocrisy that would bring the whole house of cards down? Certainly not me.

And as an addendum, this would probably be a good time to remind the Liberal 'purification committee' that Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry and the cast at National Review are most certainly not Nazis or Klan members. They have been as steadfast in their support of Anti-Racism and Feminism as anyone on the 'right'. To my eyes that means that they 'should be' your allies. I leave it to you to decide if you think they've been responsive enough to your priorities.

If you decide need it, I'm sure the 4chan boys can find a little more kindling around here someplace.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

- A Peterson Video I'm Not Thrilled With

I like the work Jon Haidt does and the goals he's trying to achieve, but I probably don't like Jon Haidt. I respect him sure. But there is somehting about the way he comes across as if he's talking to a rube in the form of Peterson that rubs me the wrong way. HE may even have the better point and the more effective solutions. But it still chafes a little for me.

With that said, this kind of conversation is probably as good as it can get, and I respect that two. Two different intelligent guys with different perspectives, who can talk cordially and respectfully about the various expertise and the science that support it. that's OK.

Still, there is a friction here, that you can see in the body language.

- Skynet Lives

Arnold Schwarzenegger, please call your office.

- Et Tu Stuart Smalley

Well at least we know Al Franken is a heterosexual after all:

A radio news anchor on Thursday accused Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., of forcibly kissing and groping her a decade ago when they were overseas entertaining U.S. troops.

Leeann Tweeden, a radio news anchor with KABC in Los Angeles, said she met Franken in December 2006, before he became a lawmaker, at a USO show for service members that included a skit he wrote that featured a kiss between the two.She said Franken, a former "Saturday Night Live" cast member, insisted on rehearsing the scene backstage.

Can we simply move onto the stage when all 161.55 Million American men are charged with 'Sexual Assault' by someone or other? For my part I'd be happy to endure the public condemnation, because there is no way I'd want to be seen as less masculine that Al Franken.

Drudge has a headline up right now that Franken is also calling for an investigation of himself. what a man.

- Just Keep Cleaning Up

I was skimming the comment section of this piece where Vox (who I generally like) is taking some exception to Kurt Schichler (who I generally like). OK. Fair enough. A difference of perspective and a difference of goals. The way I read it, that's Vox criticizing Kurt's 20-20 hindsight. Fine. Good talk.

While we were all focusing on getting ahead, we didn't see the way that Academia had already gone off the rails. Or rather, we knew about it. We had been talking about how the 60's radicals were taking over Academia for decades, we just didn't see which direction they would run with their psychosis. In the rearview mirror, we all now know. They weren't blowing up recruiting stations and post offices, they were blowing up the minds of a generation.

Me, I'm a little more hopeful. My experience with my daughter and her friends, the oldest of which are College Freshmen this year, is that they all know EXACTLY how stupid political correctness, Social Justice and Postmodernism are. It's not universal, nothing ever is. But the idea that one of these kids would go off on a rant like that girl at Yale last year is preposterous to me. I just can't see it.

Now I'll grant you, she and her friends are exceptional. They are far above average in intelligence, and were educated in a school in one of NJ's most conservative districts. There are a lot of Israelis in the school district and that has offered an effective counterpoint to the typical American-Jewish influence in the curriculum. Instead of veering far left and calling everyone to the right of Jane Fonda a 'Nazi' like they do in much of NJ's other districts, these kids have learned that there are good and bad actors on all sides.

She's a bit quicker to call out bad actors on the right than the left, but she's a 17 year old girl. None of us are done with forming our opinions by then so if she's to the left of me I have no beef with that. I'm convinced that she knows 'how to think', places a value on empiricism, and will know utter BS when she hears it. Most of all, she knows that public policy has 'intended consequences' and 'unintended consequences' and it takes more than good intentions to cure the world. That I think will lead her to the truth of things eventually.

Most of all she has a healthy suspicion of authority, and is a good judge of character. She knows that when someone's words and someone's actions seem to deviate, she should believe their behavior. Many of her friends are similarly educated. She thinks for herself, and to the degree that she has acquired wisdom in her short life, she uses it to frame her worldview. Who could ask for more? It's good fun to trash millennials, especially the males. They're all so weak and soft. But I'm less convinced than Kurt seems to be, that future generations are part of a suicide cult. I more strongly agree with Vox that the boomers are a mess. They are America's most self involved generation, even in comparison to today's soy laden kids. Like Kurt, I'm part of that 'in between' group who are either the last of the boomers or the first of the X generation. I've spent my whole life missing the party and showing up just in time for the hangover. We've spent our whole lives cleaning up the messes of those who came before us to the degree we could. But the boomer parties have been so raucous that the joint we're leaving behind is hardly spotless.

All in though, I don't think the generational blame game buys us much. Sure, the boomers were irresponsible on every level and in every direction. But we all cope with the world we have. All we can do is keep cleaning.

- Deeply Rooted Problems

This raises an interesting question. Bryan Cranston, speaking about Kevin Spacey and Harvey Wienstien said:

Cranston said that anyone found guilty of such abuses would have to acknowledge that "they have a deeply rooted psychological and emotional problem that takes years to mend" and would have to be willing to "put the work in" in order to see their career rehabilitated.

I think that's true as far as it goes. The question for me is, is it the same "deeply rooted psychological and emotional problem(s)" that cause a person to become a radical liberal, or a male feminist?

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

- Can My Kids Be Friends With Black People

... or something like that.

This is the kind of piece that I think Sargon takes apart particularly well. I'll link his video below. But after skimming around the various comments sections that have reported on this piece, I think I see what's going on here. This guy who wrote the NYTimes piece is just another liberal adding fuel to the fire of unintended consequences. By trying to wrap liberal whites a little more tightly around his finger he increases the animosity toward white in the black community, making a race war more likely.

A race war will for the most part be stupid blacks against stupid whites as two opposing informally organized paramilitary forces. Al Sharpton's guys against Richard Spencer's guys. But to the degree that blacks achieve success in those conflicts and are emboldened by it, it will also be against the police and at the largest scales, the US military. There is simply no way for blacks to come out of that better off than they are now, so this guy is making a bigger mistake than it seems.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

- Hooray Liberalism

This is an interesting perspective.

From here, it looks like Feminism as a political movement has been nothing more than a cover given to predatory men for the exploitation and rape of women, going back decades. That may not have been what the shriveled harpies who promoted it intended, but it's what it turned out to be. Like so many liberal initiative that have come before it, the unintended consequences turned out to be much greater than those that were intended.

Anti-Racism, the second initiative of the unholy trinity of liberalism, likewise has turned out to be overtly and shamelessly racist. And looks like it's about to become the acorn that grows into the oak tree of out and out race war.

And finally, uncontrolled immigration, either legal or illegal (known as the 'zero-th amendment' because it supersedes all other constitutional amendments in the minds of liberals) if allowed to continue will become the final nail in the coffin of what was once America. And when combined with a generous welfare state, will be both the financial undoing of the nation, and it's greatest source of civic stress by importing a population with IQ's too low on average to continue to be effective and productive citizens for more than a few more years.

When the philosophical cornerstones of your political movement are envy, resentment, emotional projection, and a shunning of all personal responsibility, things don't seem to work out so well. Our nation designed by geniuses to be run by idiots, has found a group of individuals so corrupt, callous, and cynical that even they couldn't do it.