Friday, October 24, 2014

A day in the life of Michael Brown

Amerika (Brett Stevens) considers.

So Mike Brown comes staggering out of the convenience store in a state of utter confusion. He got high, got confused, panicked and did something dumb, and now he is totally unsure of himself. Worse, he is now in the badlands territory of the enemy. He knows he is high and thus vulnerable because stoned people are sort of like large children. He is paranoid from the effects of the drug. He is also afraid because of years of racial divide, racial myth and racial enmity, and he believes that white cops are out to get the black kids. What else explains the ghetto? He doesn’t know and no one he knows knows either, so it’s assumed to be the pigs and the racists in government. Now we have a paranoid young man who is barely in control of his large body, and he is in a stage of utter mental disorder. Then the worst possible thing happens: he is hailed by authority, but even worse, one of them. The white cops who want to jail him for their racist plans are trying to talk to him, trying to get him on something. He panics again and we all know how it shakes out.

Over time I have come to the regretful conclusion that most human activity consists of denial so that we can hold on to whatever social positions we have as individuals. People do not like to look at the core issue but instead take sides that represent their interests. In the case of Mike Brown, two sides pop up immediately: those who want to pity him and use him to argue for more equality and less authority, and those who see him as a threat and want to use him to argue for less criminal activity. Both have truth to their statements, but they miss the real issue here.

The real issue here is that diversity does not work for anyone. By work, I mean function as a system of social order. Diversity makes us distrust each other. It strips away our identity, so we are always paranoid. We will never trust the cop of a different race because we perceive that he has an agenda against us. We will never feel good about living in a country where our people are not the dominant authority. This is not just hard-wired into our gut instinct, but it is also pure logic. People divide on differences, and wishing that away by saying “we are all one” has never worked. We need communities of our own. Diversity puts us into conflict and creates situations like the one that got Mike Brown killed. There may be no fully good guys, and no fully bad guys in this one, just another broken human system that betrays us for the convenience of those who want not to rock the boat.

Mike Brown wasn't inferior, just different. In other settings, aggressive men who outweigh most of us by over 100 pounds do quite well for themselves. In an integral community for Michael Brown, old bulls with similar time preference and T-levels are on hand to channel aggression into socially redemptive pursuits. (Black America has been decimated of its older, steadier males thanks to welfare enabling women to sleep with attractive lotharios, and criminal laws drafted by and for white communities with higher levels of organizational complexity.) Instead, he's in a dysfunctional, matriarchal stew ruled by vestigial public sector whites hanging on to their vested pensions and seniority, even as their private sector peers slip away to the next county.

Going up some levels above Mike Brown's world, African Big Men like Robert Mugabe are not actually cynical. Robert Mugabe is as sincere in his policy preferences as Ron Paul is in his: you reward your friends and punish your enemies; you get while the gettin's good; you spread the green around and buy status for you and yours. The Non-Aggression Principle? Nigga pleaz. This is the problem with good-hearted whites: they think inside everybody is just another classical liberal or social democrat trying to get out.

As a commenter at the OP notes, liberalism is cruelty.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

John Zmirak lets fly

Via Rorate Caeli
... The men who are leading the Synod do not need theology lessons from me. If only because enough good men remain among them and tell the truth, these saboteurs know exactly what they are doing.

And like the Pharisees, they already have their reward — their attaboys from the New York Times and their Methodist and Unitarian golfing pals. The Synod leaders have neutralized the nastiest attacks from homosexual activists, and bought peace with the secular state for the next ten years or so. Like Henry VIII’s compliant bishops, they will be “safe.” For a decade at least, they will keep the hundreds of millions of dollars gathered in Germany from the “church tax,” and in the U.S. from federal contracts to agencies that are Catholic in name only, such as Catholic Charities and diocesan immigrant offices. Bishops will get to pretend that they preside over powerful, consequential institutions, and the world will pretend to believe them. For now. Until the hatred of Christianity ratchets up another notch, and demands an even more craven surrender.

Bishops who are so inclined — including the Bishop of Rome — can continue to garner headlines for their attacks on a mythical “unregulated capitalism,” their demands for radical redistribution of the wealth and the dismantling of borders. They can praise the mass influx of Muslims into Europe, and cash a check every time an illegal immigrant arrives in America. As men without children, they don’t need to worry about their descendants. They are confident of eternity, since they don’t believe in hell.

Let me give these men something to worry about. These men who are fracking the Church to produce the current “earthquake of mercy” are hungry for recognition and legitimacy. They want to be seen as leaders — which is why they dash out in front of every crowd, wherever it’s headed. But legitimacy is precisely what the bishops and even the pope will sacrifice if the Synod ends up approving the radical proposals that are before it ...

Much more at the link. Zmirak is one angry Catholic.

You don't need to be a seminarian or even a professing Christian to spot the flaws in +Francis's sloppy theology.
As he beatified Pope Paul VI who implemented the Second Vatican Council’s vast changes, Pope Francis said ‘God is not afraid of new things’.

Traditionalists, the Pope said, risk a temptation of ‘hostile inflexibility’...

Remarks that follow are premised on the article cited above being genuine and not an Onion-style fake news satire. I will hope to be informed this assumption is incorrect.

So the fundamentals of this pope’s position:

* The church offers no timeless message of Christ, but should instead merely reflect the whimsy of societal fashion.

* Traditionalists (and presumably the static bible they read) are at “risk” of “inflexibility.” One must be flexible in adhering to God’s designs.

* The most amazing statement of all: “God is not afraid of new things.” What would qualify as a “new thing” to the omniscient creator of the Earth and heavens? Is it possible that such a being had never considered the virtues of male buggery until a U.S. judge found them hiding under a penumbra? Is Francis implying that God toddles along behind the will and impulsion of man, rather than the opposite?
I'll venture a prediction that the most insidious part of this synod was the beatification of +Paul VI.

At some point, I imagine the Roman Rite will split along its traditionalist and modernist fault lines. Who seizes the Vatican, in a future Europe wracked by sectarian conflict and resurgent nationalism? I am being completely serious. People have washed themselves in their countrymen's blood over less. Change a few extant circumstances--weaker government, lower population density, younger median age--and dust-ups like the current US Episcopal lawsuits get settled in the streets. And there are a lot more people, properties and status at stake in the Catholic conflict.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014


I have been doing what I do to earn my keep for the past 23 years. Before that, since age 14, I went to school and did labor-intensive jobs. This blog is my personal bitching-post about the macro, and the tone is perforce negative. Personally however, I still manage to string some victories together, like those few shots out of 18 holes that keep you coming back to golf. That's life.

Thanks be to God, I have a comfortable existence, good health and the love of good people. I also have appalling stress levels and can only watch numbly as the world marches from idiocy to idiocy. (Exhibit A.) I cannot believe, at the tender age of 50, how much error and shortsightedness is mechanically repeated, over and over. My esteemed father, age 70, assures me that nothing changes in two decades' lead time.

There are a lot of us of my ideological stripe and time in life from the tail end of the Boom, and I hope we all hang on for the next few decades. I have been at several funerals of those who did not. Anyway, al-hamdal'Allah, I have managed to carve out a position a little above the fray of naïve youngsters brought in and told to work harder for that brass ring which is kept perennially dangling out there, and devil take the hindmost.

Obviously, a business can't carry sloth, and God has commanded His creatures to work. (Note that this is not part of the Woman's curse.) This implies a duty on employers to make that work dignified and remunerative. Otherwise, it is probably not work that a human being should be doing.

Resources should instead flow toward more capital-intensive models.

To put it another way, if the marginal product is so low that the producer can't pay more than the cost to keep somebody alive, with the difference to be made up by the taxpayers, then the employer needs to change his business model, or go out of business.

Of course, if I'm so smart, I should be implementing these models and raking it in.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Good intentions

It's the thought that counts.
As global civilization stumbles along to a collapse from multiple elements which represent the fruition of our various equality policies, we must reconsider what future we want: do we wish to descend with the rest of the world to third-world status, or rise above and be an example of what steps a civilization must take to evolve? The popular answer will always be to flatter the human individual by declaring that diversity, equality and human rights must take precedence before all else. This however is preference and not reality. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and “wishing does not make it so,” and if our well-meaning help destroys the chances of many for a good life, it is not mercy but cruelty.

We have gone far enough along this road to see what happens with these policies. Equality leads to a rabid mob out of control, drunk on the power of the vote, which spends money it does not have and destroys the value of its own currency. Diversity leads to ethnic groups in constant enmity with each sure it is being victimized any time it encounters an official of another race. Human rights lead to people behaving irrationally and passing the cost on to society at large, turning social order into a circus and leaving no standard of behavior for future generations. We are creating an apocalypse within our society with these policies.

If we care about future generations and the legacy we leave behind, it is incumbent upon us to recognize that we must know when to fish and cut bait — and that it is time to cut bait and move on from these centuries-old policies which have failed time and again. Two centuries of equality and 150 years of diversity have left us with alienated, ruined societies and internal paranoia while the criminal get rich and exploit the middle classes. And for what? We have not built Utopia. We have regressed to the conditions our ancestors struggled to escape, and in the name of good intentions, we have imposed those same conditions upon our grandchildren.

There's apparently a song by a woman named Joanna Newsom called Good Intentions Paving Company. (There's an official music video somewhere). It seems apt, but I never know if artists are self-consciously making traditionalist expressions. Maybe, like my observation on white withdrawal, it's instinctive. Maybe we yearn for heritage and posterity whether consciously or not. As committed as Ms. Newsom may be to the secular liberal ideal on the conscious level, at another level there's a yearning for something deeper, and the suspicion that the current proposition is rather contrived and ephemeral.

More on the ultimate conservative position

Come on folks. We can take care of a lot of things just by not subsidizing self-abuse and bastardy. But we've got to protect our poor from competition from the global poor for wages, and our middle class from competition from the global rich for housing. "Inefficient!," "Sub-optimal!," scream the economists, but it is no more inefficient or sub-optimal than the unfolding social and demographic disaster known as the welfare state.

In sum, we need a society where people can find their own level, because hierarchy is natural. And, yes, we've plowed this ground before, when I attempted to coin the phrase "small pond strategy."

Tuesday, October 7, 2014



We sway in the starlight of your eyes.

The ultimate conservative position

That is, the position I think conservatives are going to arrive at, ultimately. (The Republican Party, having ceased conserving anything for some time now, will not.)

The perennial political question is what to do with the left side IQ/time-preference distribution. After all, we don't need to bother with what to do about people on the right side distribution. They don't need government; they fund government. They police themselves. As Sheriff Bell puts it in No Country For Old Men,
It takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people cant be governed at all. Or if they could I never heard of it.
Cormac McCarthy has read Plato.

The debate continues to this day. It's practically all that's debated in domestic politics, anywhere, anytime.

The welfare state solves nothing. We have tried it in enough iterations to arrive at the conclusion: taxing K-selected producers to support r-selected consumers results in less of the former and more of the latter. The welfare state ends in universal impoverishment as the K-selected withdraw or shut down. The left-side tail is literally devolving thanks to welfare.

Free trade was supposed to equalize global living standards, but the Western prole class is getting absolutely creamed, and the Third World remains corrupt and violent.

Vox Popoli has posted again on free trade, reiterating his view that there's no such thing. I'm coming to the same conclusion.

So what is to be done with the left-side tail? I'd say abolish welfare, abolish the minimum wage, abolish the income tax, and protect the employment prospects and cost of living of our less endowed citizens with immigration restrictions and tariffs. Romaine lettuce will cost more, there will be some sclerotic industries, but you are going to pay at the cash register or you are going to pay welfare bureaucrats and their constituencies. One of these two is less dystopic and dysgenic.

Anybody got any better ideas?