Archive for February, 2011

The decline of civilization reflected in fantasy novels

Friday, February 25th, 2011

Black gate observes the replacement of heroes by anti heroes, and the replacement of morality by anti morality:

Thus we can be confident that the murderous, blaspheming anti-hero who rapes and tortures children will never utter a racist thought, be disgusted by homosexuality, or express skepticism about any religious stand-in for Judaism or Islam.

Abercrombie and others cannot rightly be accused of amorality nor can they correctly be portrayed as bold skewerers of sacred cows. They’re simply skewering someone else’s cows while respecting their own.

The commenters reactions reveal just how sacred these cows are.  One of the commenters replies:  “at that point you stood exposed”.  Exposed!   Exposed!  Oh the horror, the horror!

Another of the commenters pretends to sophistication, rather than advocacy of a different morality:

I don’t see this as any kind of moral statement. Modern audiences are just more interested in complex characters, and that’s reflected in their book choices.

It seems that torturing children makes a hero complex, but prejudging people according to their race or species, as Tolkien’s characters were apt to do, does not.

$1,200 billion increase cut by $60 billion

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011

The “right” triumphantly announces that it has cut spending by 60 billion

Before these mighty cuts, the projected 2011 deficit was $1,645 billion, an increase in spending, and an increase in the deficit, of 1,200 billion as compared to our last comparatively normal year, 2005.

After these mighty cuts, the projected deficit is, I suppose, reduced to a mere 1,585 billion, though of course chances are that somehow, by the end of the year, it will turn out to have actually been something south of $1,700 billion.

And, of course, this does not count a trillion or so of off budget expenditures, among them being that the federal reserve has purchased a large number of worthless mortgage backed securities and suchlike, and will not tell anyone how much.

So both parties, democrats and republicans alike, have moved far, far to the left, the extreme right of this year being far to the left of the extreme left of a few years back.  Indeed, the same is true of the entire society.    The government, all schools, all universities, all churches, and all institutions, are moving to the left with explosive speed.  Big businesses are appointing CEOs by ideology and affirmative action – which strategy is in fact successful since success is by government favor, not competence, and ideology and affirmative action wins government favor. To appoint a CEO on the basis of competence, ability to make business turn a profit, you would have to be crazy.

Today’s Christian right believes that marriage and family law should treat husbands and spouses as if men and women were the same in mean and distribution, and played the same roles in sex and reproduction, and had the same desires and intentions with regard to sex and reproduction, and find the horribly sexist words of Jesus on divorce and suchlike far too embarrassing to mention.   If family law should treat men and woman as interchangeable, why object to gay marriage?  To make a principled opposition to gay marriage, the Christian right would have to make a principled opposition to the family law that treats husbands and wives as alike and interchangeable, that assumes there are no significant differences between the nature of men and women, which position would be horribly sexist, hence the Christian right would never dream of taking such a stand, a stand that in 1950, no one would have ever dreamed of doubting, nor would today’s Christian right ever dream of mentioning certain parts of the Bible that until recent decades were familiar to everyone.  Just as not one nominated political candidate would today dream of suggesting measures that might significantly reduce the deficit, not one Christian preacher would today mention bits of the Bible that support patriarchy.

In the recent elections, the only candidate who was proposing significant cuts was Christine O’Donnel, widely derided as a lunatic extremist, and a witch.  And she only proposed significant cuts during the primaries.  As soon as she got the republican nomination, as soon as she faced the main election, and had to get votes from the mainstream, she immediately threw that policy overboard, and headed back to the “center” – headed back to what is now the center, but a few years back would have been the crazed lunatic left.

And indeed, Christine O’Donnel was crazy (though probably not a witch) because if you want to be taken seriously as a political candidate, you have to go along with policies that will destroy our society in the very near future.  We are all in a bus, the bus is heading for a cliff at seventy miles an hour and the pedal is flat to the floorboards. If you are serious candidate, you discuss whether the pedal should be flat to the floorboards, or almost flat to the floorboards.  Releasing the pedal, let alone applying the brakes, is not something any serious, responsible, sane, normal candidate would mention.  You would have to be crazy – a lot crazier than Christine O’Donnel – to propose such a thing. You would have to be almost as crazy as a corporate board who appointed a CEO on the basis of his ability to turn a profit, rather than for his ideology, race, and gender.

I am reminded of the last days of the Roman empire in the west.  In AD406, it was completely crazy, ludicrous, and absurd, to suggest that the barbarians could possibly threaten Rome.  In AD410, the goths looted Rome, and raped every Roman woman.  In AD412, it was still completely crazy, ludicrous, and absurd, to suggest that the barbarians could possibly threaten Rome, which bizarre response strikingly resembles the British failure to notice their humiliating defeats in Basra and the Persian Gulf.  Rome failed to pull itself together in the way it had after past defeats, because it denied that it had been defeated, denied that the Roman empire in the west had ceased to be.

Total government debt was nine trillion, though this depends on how you count it – the nine trillion does not count the governments rapidly soaring pension commitments, nor the alarming multitude of promises it has made to backstop gambles made by bankers.

In the US there are about ninety million people who file tax returns and pay income tax (another forty million file tax returns, but pay no income tax).  So if you are one of those ninety million tax paying households, your household’s share of the debt is about one hundred thousand dollars, and this year it will grow by about eighteen thousand dollars.  It is not impossible that such a debt will be paid – it is physically possible to pay it.  Whether it is politically possible to get people to pay it is another question.  If you are a hundred thousand dollars in debt, and you ran up the debt in a big one off expenditure, like buying a house, you can probably pay it back.  If you are a hundred thousand dollars in debt and  you ran it up going to fancy restaraunts, going on trips, and buying friends, and you are still going to fancy restaurants and buying expensive friends, and next year you are going to be one hundred and twenty thousand dollars in debt, no way are you ever going to pay the money back.

So what happened:  Why is everyone moving left, even the Christian right, even libertarians, even white nationalists and suchlike?

One factor is that western governments around the world have decided to elect a new people, through mass migration from the third world, on a scale that significantly, substantially, and rapidly alters the political balance.

Another factor is that in a program akin to the Soviet program to create New Soviet Man, the government is attempting to transform the people, through a highly politicized education system, an education system whose political intensity is rapidly increasing.

But why, you may ask? “Communist plot, Jooish plot, Islamist plot, Harvard plot?”

No, its a government plot, though to call it a Harvard plot is not far wrong. There are more conspiracies, committees, and special interest groups than you can shake a stick at, and all of them want to suck at the tit of the state.  It is the nature of government to grow, and liberty to shrink.  Government is a metastatic cancer.  Each cancerous node spawns a dozen more.  There are half dozen communist conspiracies each trying to smash each of the others, despite the expiration of their foreign sponsors, at least two Gaean conspiracies, one big tranzi conspiracy with extensive links to the two main Muslim conspiracies, ivy league academia is a seething mass of conspiracies that no one can possibly keep track of, and there are many more, not that one can draw any sharp distinction between a conspiracy and a special interest group.

Growth of government is not driven by ideology, or even political institutions, rather  ideology is driven by the government’s need to justify the growth of  government.

Government originates in a stationary bandit, a bandit king, a bandit so  successful he deters or exterminates all competition.  The government at  first consists of little more than the bandit himself.  Taxation  consists of him suggesting that the eminent give him and his boys land  and money, thus taxes, though capricious and erratic, are quite low.  Laws are few, verging on nonexistent, but enforced with brutal  efficiency, the main law being that no one else does any banditry.

All organizations tend to fall apart.  It is simply difficult to have a  large bunch of people efficiently coordinated. Organizations that are  actually effective originate in intense competition, and sooner or later  are apt to decay – the Peter Principle, Parkinson’s Law, etc.

Absent intense competition, they decay very badly indeed.

Over time bureaucrats, laws, taxes, quasi governmental organizations,  and regulations multiply like vermin.   Eventually, laws, taxes and  meddling bureaucrats become a serious burden, and the bureaucrats face  the need to persuade everyone that a horde of bureaucrats is a good thing.

The left (both Democrats and Republicans near equally) is the bureaucracy’s PR apparatus – a collection of government  sock puppets, astroturf. Its mission is to persuade us that six hundred pounds of  fat is a healthy and handsome physique, and that government has never  been better, that more laws are good for you, the government is here to  help you, and more government will help you more. Thus from time to  time the story about what government is good for changes, yet the  central theme, that government is good for you, never changes.

Ever since the original bandit chieftain, government has moved ever further leftwards, and will always move ever further leftwards until checked by crisis and collapse, or reformed by internal totalitarian terror, “left” being  whatever rationalization justifies more government today, which rationalization is apt to change from time to time.

You cannot fix the problem by excluding the Joos, or getting rid of the commies in the state department, or even by excluding Harvard old boys (though excluding Harvard old boys would help quite a bit).  The whole damn thing, including the patent office and the post office, has got to go.

Thus we see numerous supposedly anti government people telling us that the fact that government does X and proposes to do Y is itself proof that X is necessary and good, and Y would be even better.

The deficit is out of control because the government is trying to buy support, and buy internal cohesion.  If it cuts some elements of itself off from the the trough, there will be internal warfare between different elements of the government.  The government unions will physically attack legislators as they have in Wisconsin, the Pentagon will bomb the state department, as it has already bombed state department proxies, and the police will raid the DEA for drugs and the NEA for loose cash.   If, on the other hand, it cannot get a coalition that supposedly represents fifty one percent of the voters to bless its budget, the budget will not be reduced.  Instead there will be external warfare between the government and the people.  The militias will shoot IRS reveneurs.  Hence the import of cheap voters from overseas.

When the Soviet Union was about to fall, one of the symptoms that I noticed, yet was not widely reported, was warfare between the army and GOSPLAN.  The army would randomly stop trucks, and if the trucks contained food, seize the food to feed the troops.  The Soviet army would seize what it, or its suppliers needed, as if it was living off the land in a hostile occupied country, as, of course, it was.

Transnationalism is just an effort to obtain legitimacy from “world opinion”, when legitimacy can no longer be obtained from local voters – to obtain legitimacy from all those poor third worlders without the inconvenience and potential for civil war of allowing them to enter the advanced countries.  The European Union is undemocratic because each European government wants to be able to have Brussels “force” it to do what it knows perfectly well it is going to wind up doing anyway.

From the fact that the deficit is $1,600 billion, and that the “right” triumphantly announces that it has cut spending by 60 billion, which “cut” will somehow fail to prevent the deficit from growing rapidly, I predict collapse in a decade or two – armed conflict between elements of the government, or between the government and the people, or, very likely, both.  I have been making a similar prediction, for the same decade, since 1994, and events seem to be proceeding on schedule.  The near civil war in France, and the violence by state unions in Wisconsin, are the beginning.

Lara Logan and the media rules

Sunday, February 20th, 2011

Caroline Glick analyzes the coverage:

Identity politics revolve around the narrative of victimization. For adherents to identity politics, the victim is not a person, but a member of a privileged victim group. That is, the status of victimhood is not determined by facts, but by membership in an identity group. Stories about victims are not dictated by facts. Victim stories are tailored to fit the victim. Facts, values and individual responsibility are all irrelevant.

In light of this, a person’s membership in specific victim groups is far more important than his behavior. And there is a clear pecking order of victimhood in identity politics.

Anti-American Third World national, religious and ethnic groups are at the top of the victim food chain. They out-victim everyone else.

After them come the Western victims: Racial minorities, women, homosexuals, children and animals.

Israelis, Jews, Americans, white males and rich people are the predetermined perpetrators. No matter how badly they are victimized, brave reporters will go to heroic lengths to ignore, underplay or explain away their suffering.

In cases when victim groups are attacked by victim groups – for instance when Iraqis were attacked by Saddam, or Palestinians are attacked by the PA, the media tend to ignore the story.

When members of Western victim groups are attacked by Third World victims, the story can be reported, but with as little mention of the identity of the victim-perpetrators as possible. So it was with coverage of Logan and the rest of the foreign reporters assaulted in Egypt. They were attacked by invisible attackers with no identities, no barbaric values, no moral responsibility, and no criminal culpability.

No friends to the right

Thursday, February 17th, 2011

No enemies to the left, no friends to the right

Left wing journalist Nir Rosen ridicules Lara Logan’s rape.  Seems that because Nir Rosen is even further left than she is, the stupid slut deserved to get raped.

“Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson. Where was her buddy McCrystal.”

That she is supposedly a buddy of the insufficiently left wing McCrystal is a suggestion that she is insufficiently left wing.

Democracy in action

Thursday, February 17th, 2011

Lara Logan, CBS chief foreign correspondent

Lara Logan

Lara Logan, about to be gang raped

was beaten and gang raped by a mob of 200 enthusiastic pro democracy protestors chanting “Jew, Jew”

There is an effort to blame Mubarak for this, but if the goons of a US ally had done this, if the goons of a man who accepted peace with the west had done this, the mainstream media would be covering this with headlines the size of tombstones, instead of piously sweeping it under the carpet.

No one is going to be punished for this, and the good progressives really do not want anyone to be punished, since whites and Americans are always in the wrong, and the enemies of civilization always in the right.  I doubt that even Lara Logan wants anyone punished for this, for she is surely a true believing progressive.  Only a true believing progressive would have wandered into a mob of savages without adequate backup, preferably backup from such evil white capitalist imperialists as the men of Blackwater or Executive Outcomes.

This incident reminds me of that Yellowstone park incident where a woman who had seen too many Disney movies poured honey on the hands of her little girl, and asked the girl to feed the bear.  The bear, of course, ate the girl, starting with her hands.

Like the commenters at Atlas shrugged, I can’t wait to hear her report after her recovery calling for understanding of her rapists and how it’s all Bush’s fault.

Democracy in Tunisia

Wednesday, February 16th, 2011

The promised democracy in Egypt is an infection from an outbreak of democracy in Tunisia.

Yet strangely, Tunisia has fallen off the headlines.  How is democracy working out in Tunisia, you might ask?

Wonder no longer!

Thousands of Tunisians have also arrived by boat to the Italian island of Lampedusa prompted Italy to declare a humanitarian state of emergency and ask the European Union for 100 million euros in aid to bring the situation under control.

The Wallison dissent

Wednesday, February 16th, 2011

Steve Sailor, is as always great reading, and he issues some comments that on the Wallison dissent that everyone who wants to understand the financial crisis should pay attention to.

Peter Wallison tells us

Profit had nothing to do with the motivations of these firms; they were responding to government direction.

Rather than direction, they were responding to government pressure and persuasion.  Basel gave government not so much the power and authority to dispense off budget funds to friends and voter blocks, but rather to heavily influence and pressure banks to dispense off budget funds to friends and voter blocks.  Since government, or those authorized by government, decide what is risky and what is not, rather than those actually making the loans, any loan that is politically correct is unlikely to be deemed risky.

Steve Sailer tells us:

Among profit-seeking lenders there will always be optimists and pessimists about the ability of marginal borrowers to pay back their home loans. Government policy from 1991 onward was heavily biased toward being nice to optimist lenders and not nice to pessimists lenders This nurtured a climate in which the businesses of the optimists grew and people in the middle shifted toward optimism, while pessimists moved toward other lines of work.

Consider Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide, who on January 13, 2005 catastrophically pledged $1,000,000,000,000.00 in mortgages by 2010 to minority and lower income borrowers. The government can’t force anybody to lend a trillion bucks to bad risks. A billion dollars, sure. But a trillion? The lender has to want to do it.

That doesn’t mean that politicians weren’t intimately involved in cultivating Mozilo’s delusional state of mind where he thought he was doing well by doing good and vice-versa.

There’s no question that Mozilo was first prodded down this path by the hoopla over the stupid early 1990s Boston Fed “study” of discrimination in mortgage lending. Crucially, the Clinton Administration’s threat in 1994 to extend the Community Reinvestment Act paperwork requirements to nonbanks like Countrywide led Mozilo to sign a treaty with Clinton’s HUD secretary Henry Cisneros promising to lend like Countrywide was covered by the CRA.

But, Mozilo became infatuated with Cisneros’s “vision” and put Cisneros on Countrywide’s board. They both became convinced that lending vastly more to Hispanics was a great business idea.

If you didn’t believe that, well, you’d better keep your mouth shut because you could be sued for discrimination, and regulators could make your life hell. So, the government helped change the culture of mortgage lending in part by selecting more credulous people like Mozilo for favorable attention and giving more skeptical people a hard time.

Another example is Kerry Killinger of Washington Mutual. He survived 29 Community Reinvestment Act reviews as he bought up other lenders by making huge pledges of minority and lower income lending , up to $375,000,000,000 for the acquisition of Dime Bank. So, there is a selection effect. The government gave the thumbs up to optimists expanding and the thumbs down to pessimists. So, the culture of lending shifted toward credulity.

On Steve Sailer’s blog you can find much useful research you cannot find anywhere else, because it is just too horribly politically incorrect, but he does suffer from the fallacy of seeing jooz everywhere, and therefore believing the market is rigged by jooz against people like Steve Sailer. I hope some day to debate him on this topic – I argue that Jews are converts to progressivism, rather than progressivism being a sect of Judaism, (the Mencius Moldbug theory that progressivism is crypto calvinism) and that progressives were ruling the system and stealing all the money back when progressives were still nominally Christians, and did not allow any Jews to get in on the vig.

The new Egypt

Tuesday, February 15th, 2011

Earlier I argued that no Muslims should be allowed to vote anywhere in the world, least of all in Muslim majority countries.

Brutally honest has some interesting survey results on what the Egyptian majority will vote for:

• 84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim faith.

Now 84% is an interesting number, considering that something like ten or fifteen percent of Egyptians are Christians (the number is rapidly diminishing due to rape, murder, and flight). So, supposing that no Christians support the death penalty for those that leave the Muslim faith, looks mighty close to 100% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for those that leave the Muslim faith.

The survey neglected to ask how many supported Egypt going to war with the nearest infidels, but since 54% favor suicide bombings of civilian targets, chances are a considerable majority favor war.

The origins of multicultural rule

Sunday, February 13th, 2011

Hbd Chick has been discussing the origins of multicultural rule.

I have been reading old books.  The ideology that races, ethnicities, and genders, are the same in mean and distribution, and if they are not it is because of oppression and someone must be punished, is several hundred years old.  It first exercised sufficient power to intimidate its enemies and reward its friends in Britain in 1890, as illustrated by the pressure applied to James Anthony Froude, and by the elevation to the heights of the none too bright John Jacob Thomas.

Affirmative action for women had the whip hand in Europe in 1910 – consider for example Marie Curie getting not one but two Nobel prizes for work that was entirely routine when men did it.  Can you remember anyone who discovered any of the other hundred odd elements?  You cannot, because all the other elements were discovered by men.  She got Nobel prizes not for doing exceptional science, but for doing science that was exceptional for a woman, just as when people praise Obama’s speaking skills, which are far inferior to Sarah Palin’s, they mean he speaks well for a black man.

As early as 1904, academics are tiptoeing around the fact that the great Zimbabwe in Africa was built by Hebrews, and that as these Hebrew settlers interbred with local blacks, their workmanship deteriorated.  (The tribe that claim to have built it recall that they are Hebrew descended, recall their journey from the middle east, have a religion that much resembles Judaism, look significantly less black than their neighbors, and were, in the twenty first century, gene tested revealing substantial Hebrew blood)  The fact that the builders were of a visibly different race to their neighbors and claimed to have immigrated from the middle east is only mentioned by the indelicate, even in 1906.  It was not something a proper academic would mention, since it might suggest that black people just cannot build or maintain cities.

From about 1880 to 1940, the ideology is clearly and overwhelmingly Christian, in particular Protestant Christian socialist, though these Christians were somewhat embarrassed by the bible, due to its reactionary views on family, marriage, women, divorce, adultery, homosexuality, and so forth, and were in the process of discarding it.

From 1920 to 1940, we see the center of power in this ideology, the holy church of multiculturalism and environment, shifting from Europe to the US.  After World War II, the US was wholly dominant, and Harvard the high Cathedral of the religion.  Since the holy doctrine must be taught in government schools, what little Christianity remained in the doctrine was ruthlessly suppressed, in order to superficially appear to comply with the first amendment, though arguably the doctrine was being taught in government schools with a more explicitly Christian tinge before the war.  Jews only show up in the multicultural ruling elite after the remnants of Christianity are purged from the doctrine – fifty or sixty years after it first exercised theocratic power.

Mainstream media backs Romneycare for GOP presidential candidate

Saturday, February 12th, 2011

Supposedly Romney, the creator of Romneycare, the medical system that inspired Obamacare, is the GOP’s best hope for defeating Obama.  So the mainstream media unanimously tells us.

Probably true, but there seems little point to such a “victory”.

At CPAC, Presidential Candidate Romneycare upbraids Obama for high unemployment, and all the press, the same press that worships Obama, the same press that goes weak at the knees at the sight of the great Obamessiah, cheers Presidential Candidate Romneycare to an echo.  Suddenly the press, who whom any truth about the great Obamessiah used to be the most vicious and depraved racism, thinks it is wonderfully inspiring for Presidential Candidate Romneycare to blame the great Obamessiah for unemployment.

So what would Presidential Candidate Romneycare have done about unemployment that differs from what Obama did?  Somehow he neglects to tell us.

You can tell who has the real power by whose job is permanent, and who can lose his job.  The public servants cannot lose their jobs.  Politicians are competing to be the Public Relations department of the permanent government.  This was most evident in the pitch made to CPAC by would-be Presidential Candidate Grinch: Gingrich calls for eliminating EPA, expanding domestic energy production

But, of course, he does not propose to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency.  He proposes to convert it into an agency that focuses on “science, technology, markets and incentives.”

Not that there is any danger of a presidential candidate Grinch.  The Republican Party hates him for endorsing Scozzafava, from which act of treachery he can never recover, and the permanent government fears he is not sufficiently enthusiastic in his support for the permanent government.  Of the available enemies of the Republican Party, the permanent government has clearly and unambiguously decided it wants Presidential Candidate Romneycare, the Republican President that could best defend the most recent big expansion of government, Obamacare.

But suppose the universally despised Grinch, hated by both left and right, somehow got to implement his plan:  Trouble is that the Environmental Protection Agency  is composed entirely of anti capitalism environmentalist activists who think factories are simply sinful in themselves, that destroying jobs, any jobs, is an act of Godliness.  The Environmental Protection Agency is jobs for the lefty boys. Leftist activists got rewarded with permanent government jobs. You cannot remake it into a pro market organization. You have to shut down lefty government organizations, and if righty government organizations are to be created, they have to be created from scratch with  jobs for the rightists.    The fact that Grinch proposes conversion, rather than abolition, tells us that a President Grinch would be handing out even more jobs for the left wing boys, not jobs for the right wing boys, more rewards for left wing activists in the revolving door between government and activism.

If the president was the boss, or the president and congress was the boss, he could lay off agencies that were not performing, or were not going along with his agenda, the way  Chief Executive Officer, or Chief Executive Officer and the Board of a company can, and frequently does, lay off divisions that are not performing, or are merely not part of the Chief Executive Officer’s vision of what the company should be doing.

That this never happens, cannot happen, is just unthinkable, no matter how dreadfully an agency screws up, tells us who has the real power.

What would happen if the public elected officials that actually tried to exercise power?

President Reagan is often praised for overthrowing the Soviet Union, or contributing substantially to the overthrow of the Soviet Union, but most of what he did to overthrow the Soviet Union was moral pressure, threats, and inspiration, and much of what he actually did militarily to bleed the Soviet Union, to tie it down in more wars than it could afford, thereby depriving it of the power to intimidate its subjects, was illegal, and very nearly got him impeached, even though foreign policy is generally regarded as the one area where a president is actually allowed to do stuff.  His efforts to change things internally, to put an end to unpopular and expensive federal bureaucracies , simply had no effect, and if there was any danger of them having effect, then, since he was damn near impeached for attempting to implement the policy he was elected on against the Soviet Union, he surely would have been impeached had he implemented the internal policy he was elected on, of cutting unpopular government expenditures.