Friday, November 29, 2013

The Cathedral notices Neo-Reaction

And predictably, does not like what it sees.

Tech Crunch noticed (via Ad Orientem). One of the High Priests, David Brin, has been moved to repeat the canon for the faithful.

Mencius Moldbug has contributed in his inimitable fashion. I follow with my own standard-deviation-lower effort.

From the comments at TechCrunch and from David Brin, you see the straw men getting deployed early on. Without democracy, Kim Jong Un, nay, Hitler! Never mind that the Kim family is exactly the product of the socialist Revolution, and Hitler was a perfectly legitimate democrat. In any event, the democrats can probably put away the smelling salts. Monarchy (which, as we've all been drilled from birth, is the most horrible form of government ever devised) will probably not be coming back. Only a tremendous reset along the lines of nuclear war or plague, cataclysms large enough to eliminate all public claims to territory, would clear the decks sufficiently for a monarch to emerge. Not impossible, but not at all probable.

One thing can be predicted with certainty, and that is democracy will end. Democracy may shamble on in some pretentious form. Legislators will vote on 1,000 page laws they don't read which are drafted entirely by lobbyists; the People will participate in multi-billion dollar electoral beauty pageants and irrelevant referenda while the real sovereigns exercise power. (Is this sounding familiar yet?) The democratic show may sputter on for quite some time, but democratic rule will end.

The democrats, Progressivists like David Brin, are in that part of the cycle known as Hubris. They literally believe such things like A can economically spend B's money on C, and that this process can go on forever. They have lots of reasons to think this way, being products of a K-selected society with vast amounts of capital built up over generations. This immense surplus has been deployed for the past half-century to democratic ends, including the subsidy of r-selected population groups. The lofty ideals of K-selected individuals are about to run up hard against the reality of r-selected majorities.

I don't think the elite will allow things to get that far. Unlike the lifestyles for which they demand tolerance by you, the elites generally do what's necessary to remain elite: be connected, get married, have kids and stay married to other elites. They have future time orientation even if their customers don't. And if there's one thing upper crust parents know how to do, it's do whatever's legal to assure as best they can that their children maintain the same living standards. I don't think Idiocracy will be allowed to happen.

The future will not be the democratic Arab Spring, currently playing out in Iraq, Libya and Syria but fortunately crushed under tank treads in Egypt. Christians will not be gunned down inside their burning churches for now. Future trends are all pointing in the other direction, toward authoritarian, mercantilist rule, as in places like Dubai and Singapore. Representative democracies like Australia, Norway and Switzerland are already seeing the writing on the wall and pulling up the ladders ahead of the mass, r-selected immigrant flood. By contrast, consumptive societies that no longer believe in themselves are doubling down on democracy, even as their elites withdraw to their own tastefully preserved, downright traditional enclaves. Educated schleps like me will aspire to jobs there.

As democracy runs its course to socialism and chaos, commercial enterprises will evolve to purchase sovereign powers from desperate, bankrupt governments, or they will be given them by desperate, impoverished citizens. Over time, these enterprises will acquire a hereditary character.

The Neo-reactionaries are ahead of the curve. The democrats are still stuck in Year Zero.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Three things wrong with this picture

Supreme Court to rule on birth control mandate (Via Ad Orientem)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has agreed to referee another dispute over President Barack Obama’s health care law, whether businesses can use religious objections to escape a requirement to cover birth control for employees.

The justices said Tuesday they will take up an issue that has divided the lower courts in the face of roughly 40 lawsuits from for-profit companies asking to be spared from having to cover some or all forms of contraception.
1. Insurance is the pooling of risk of unanticipated casualties. Outside the rare event of rape, coitus is entirely voluntary. Thus, there is no way to "insure" birth control. The mandate is equivalent to requiring your homeowner's insurer to cover your gambling losses in Vegas. The only way to avoid moral hazard would be to charge you for the entire amount of your own money you're prepared to risk. So, premiums must rise to cover the cost of these purely voluntary outlays, er, expenses.

2. Sexual intercourse between two adults is not generally a public matter as would not be, likewise, a person's choice to use or not use birth control. The idea of a legislature passing laws on matters of personal choice which do not otherwise intrude on the preferences of others is absurd. Incidentally, if we're going to socialize the cost of birth control, thereby deeming sex a public good, then it's an easy argument from there that receipt of net benefits from government should be conditioned on sterilization.

Irony of ironies, we had positive fertility rates back when people had to pay the full freight for their own babymaking.

3. Related to 2, if the judiciary is having to pass constitutional muster on such narrow, arcane items, then rational public policy debate is not happening, and the people are effectively conceding their incapacity for self-governance.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Young, beautiful, auburn-haired engineers with green eyes and nice smiles

Via iSteve.

Sailer posts on the extremely attractive Debbie Sterling, CEO of GoldieBlox, which the NY Times says sells toys to encourage your little princess to become a mechanical engineer.

Of course, as a commenter notes, GoldieBlox is ultimately far more concerned with selling toys to make money. As Steve observes,
Have you ever noticed that basically everything you are supposed to believe in these days -- feminism, diversity, etc. -- turns out in practice to just be another way for hot babes, rich guys, super salesmen, cunning financiers, telegenic self-promoters, and charismatic politicians to get even more money and power?
That's a good macro observation, and I submit something is operating on the micro level as well. So many things high-profile women do strike me as just elaborate personal ads. Debbie Sterling is spending a Standford engineering education and some high-end fashion dollars demonstrating what a hot wife and fantastic mother she is. (She is apparently married, by the way.) Not that there's anything wrong with that. Practically all civilization is the result of men advertising what good provider-protectors they are.

Isn't the bottom line effect of feminism just to push women into the same zero-sum-oriented competitions that send men to earlier graves? Most girls won't grow up to be Debbie Sterling, just like most boys won't grow up to be Frank Lloyd Wright. In fact, most men would do great just settling for an ironworker's job on a Frank Lloyd Wright project. How many women are clamoring for that?

Feminism is really only oriented to women in the upper tiers of intelligence and attractiveness. Feminists don't mention, for example, that the realistic job option for most women is customer service for Team Sterling, or stuffing mail order boxes for Team Sterling. (Women hate working for women, by the way.) In another setting, what has feminism done for women's athletics? Now we've got rhythmic gymnastics, an entire "sport" for women to advertise their potential for elaborate lovemaking to Russian oligarchs.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Post-racial America sure is racial

Via Byzantine, Texas.
Albanian Diocese launches Hispanic outreach in NJ
I'm reposting this article after it was brought to my attention that this effort is one sponsored by the Albanian Diocese and not by the Greek Archdiocese. My sincere hope is that the currently somewhat patchwork-heavy effort in Spanish-language resources divided amongst the OCA, Antiochians, and now the Albanians will grow increasingly well coordinated and comprehensive. Apologies to Father Rafael Melendez on the diocesan misattribution.
First, I didn't realize there was an "Albanian archdiocese" in the US. But of course there is.

I guess the next step is the Spanish Diocese of the Albanian Archdiocese of the OCA Metropolitanate.

Serious question, at what point does this 'nation of immigrants' become a nation of natives whose people have a motherland in their own right? I thought this significant national question was settled a long time ago.

My advice to SCOBA at this point is to put American Orthodox unity on hold until we see which nations are left standing after the current one dissolves.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Fat old lesbian worries she might have to live in North America

Wendy McElroy, via Conservative Blog for Peace.
Whether you want to leave or to enter America, gridlock and technicalities will not preserve those options forever. Senator Jack Reed, a co-sponsor of Ex-PATRIOT, has asserted, "American citizenship is a privilege.” It is a privilege that he and his ilk want to grant at their discretion. It is one of the surest indications of a police state: the inability to cross a border.
There's an invisible line around this purely artificial construct known as "my property" that it's a privilege to cross as well. And porn-obsessed freaks like Wendy might not be welcome. Sorry, Wendy.

Has this woman ever been in a Walmart? How does she think all those cheap first order goods got there? A million people cross the US border a year--am I supposed to be upset it's not more? Foreign capital pours into the US in the trillions of dollars for UST's and private securities. Where's Wendy's money headed--Mexico? Does she know why Microsoft has "offices" in Puerto Rico?

Like I say, libertarians are putting themselves on the margins of a lot of important debates.

UPDATE: I commented on Wendy's ignorance of the transnational movement of capital and labor at the OP but my comment got deleted. Apparently the Dollar Vigilante site doesn't extend the concept of "open borders" to the exchange of ideas.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Endless Afghanistan

Via Ad Orientem.
The 25-page “Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement Between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan” is a sweeping document, vague in places, highly specific in others, defining everything from the types of future missions U.S. troops would be allowed to conduct in Afghanistan, to the use of radios and the taxation of American soldiers and contractors...
Afghan officials tell NBC NEWS the agreement is critical to Afghanistan’s future stability. Without ongoing military assistance, training and funding, those officials say the government could collapse and Afghanistan would enter a civil war. If the agreement passes, the draft says Washington would commit to a long -term, indefinite military involvement in this land-locked Asian nation.
Pardon my Anglo-Saxon but, what the f***ing f***.

Further to my comment on the Phillipines, why are we propping up this pseudo-country? Why isn't Afghanistan a US colony governed by an American Raj and selling us opium and goat meat at a discount in exchange for their improving mortality rates. Why isn't the place opened up to American settlers who can go native or not as they damn well please? If the Afghans can't exercise sovereignty over their own territory, they are fair game for those who can.

Otherwise, leave and tell the Afghans the survival of their State is not the concern of the American taxpayer. And by the way, any extra-territorial trouble from them and we turn the place into a glass sheet.

I am really getting tired of this s***.

Karen De Coster is looking for an intern

Some basic data entry for a non-profit based in Detroit.

I mention this because Karen's also a big cheerleader for Detroit, and how this wonderful blank canvas of a city is just ripe for the lifegiving rain of anarcho-capitalism. I commented on her blog once that Detroit's problem is the people who live there, and that problem will be solved once different people live there, but my comment didn't make it through moderation.

Detroit has a reported unemployment rate of almost 20%, so I assume you could just stick your head outside your office and offer the 1 out of 5 Detroiters you meet a leg up on this "nice resume-building material" and "great references and networking opportunities."

I still link to Lew Rockwell and and read them every day, but their authors do a lot of backflips around some very important issues. Here, for example, is a Mises scholar trying to explain what causes crime.

The obsessive focus on State bureaucracy by these sites is really getting problematic. They are going to end up on the margins of a lot of debates. The State is scaling up into unsustainable complexity. Really, the State is more a clumsy, stupid giant where libertarians imagine a coordinated group of evil geniuses. All the ultra vires bureaucracies and their awful abuses are certainly noteworthy, but there's a far bigger conflict brewing which is the one between K-selected producers and r-selected consumers. (The democratic State favors the latter, by the way.) When the State loses control, there is no more bureaucratic overreach or police brutality. They all leave to protect their families.

Libertarians can travel to Libya and Syria to observe for themselves how the central State ultimately becomes the least of everybody's problems. Or they can go to the Saudi peninsula and see anarcho-capitalism immanentized: the society and its geographic redoubt as the literal property of the elite leadership. Same with Singapore, which still prescribes corporal punishment. Or Bhutan and Brunei.

Monday, November 18, 2013

Darwin's Fly

Fred Reed has some questions about evolution.

One of them:
The Bot fly is a squat, ugly, hairy fly that catches a mosquito, lays its eggs on said mosquito after positioning it correctly, and attaches them with a kind of glue. It releases the mosquito. When the little feathery syringe lands on, say, a human, the eggs drop off, hatch, and burrow into the host. These make nasty raised lumps with something wiggling inside them. Later they exit, fall to the ground, and pupate.

How did this evolve? Did a grab-a-mosquito gene occur as a random mutation (assuming that a single mutation could cause such complex behavior)? It would have to be a grab-a-mosquito-but-don´t-cripple-it gene. That is an awful lot of precise behavior for one mutation. At this point the bot fly would have a mosquito but no idea what to do with it. It would need simultaneously to have a stick-eggs-on-mosquito mutation. This would seem to require another rather ambitious gene.

Catching the mosquito without laying the eggs, or squashing the mosquito in the process, or laying eggs in mid air without having caught the mosquito, would seem a losing proposition. Yet further, the glue mechanism for making the eggs drop off onto the host instead of before or not at all, would also have to be present, caused by yet another complex simultaneous mutation. None of these awfully-lucky mutations would be of use without the others. How do you evolve this elaborate dance by gradual steps?

My preferred example along these lines is Darwin's orchid, a flower with a spur that measures 10 to 15 inches in depth. It generates a pungent perfume, but only at night, and exudes a nectar which fills the bottom quarter of the spur. Well, Mr. Charles Darwin surmised, the orchid must be pollinated by a moth with a proboscosis around 12 inches long, and so it is. How would this happen? Why would this happen? Like Fred says, it's beyond dispute that evolution occurs, but Something Else is definitely going on. Nobody knows what else, and that's where the handwaving starts.

I've come across these same questions from agnostic and atheist individuals (like Fred) who've contemplated Fermi's paradox. Why is sentient life such a rare phenomenon in the observed universe? Interstellar travel must be extremely problematic, or the parameters for the spontaneous generation (and maintenance) of sentient life have to be very, very narrow, but that just begs more questions. Interstellar travel is that problematic even for evolving civilizations? The universe is that hostile to sentient life? WTF--we're all alone on this speck of iron ore? The storyline for a thousand potential Hollywood screenplays and sci-fi novels now untenable. How? Why?

Friday, November 15, 2013

Perspective on the Phillipines

David Yeagley comments on the disaster of the Phillipines (and that typhoon).
Many nations are sending mega-tons of supplies to the ravaged people, nations like the United States, Israel, and this does not include the military aid sent by Britain, Australia, the U.S. and others, to control the uncontrolled “human” disasters on the islands (including those caused by Muslims there). Chaos rules now, indeed. One wonders how a nations of over 105 million people could remain so weak, disorganized, chaotic, divided, and completely dependent for so long? It seems a permanent condition.

Ask any servicemen (particularly in the U.S. Navy) about the culture. Ask anyone who has been to the Philippines, lived there, and knows anything about the society. It is quite tribal, for starters. It also tends to be without morals, and without the most basic concepts of family discipline. The children are not “raised,” but raise themselves. They are often abandoned, as “street children.” (But the style of child care in an actual “family” is often similar to abandonment. There is little or no discipline practiced. It’s simply not in the culture.) It’s all about gangs. Hordes of child gangs, youth gangs, child trafficking sex gangs, and more recently jihadist gangs, all seek order and power. There is no real central command. Never has been. (Much of the gang activity has spread to the U.S., of course.) A godless dictator shows up now and then, like Ferdinand Marcos, or his wife, but even they have never succeeded in unifying the Philippine people, or establishing any reliable order...

Assessing the Philippine society, one has to wander how much different the aftermath of Haiyan is from the normal life on innumerable hordes of homeless who live off city garbage dumps anyway. This is an outrage. The Philippines is an outrage. Pouring in multimillion dollar aid packages has to be some sort of staged act, some kind of world theatrics. Who is trying to impress whom? and why? None of this has any effect on the nature and condition of Philippine society. We should start with building codes, perhaps. Mass destruction and loss of life usually happen to areas of highly concentrated population in profoundly substandard living conditions. Yet no one seems to learn any lessons, no matter how many times repeated in the world.
Mr. Yeagley raises a most inconvenient truth. There are a number of these post-Colonial, pseudo-nations out there that are perennially in the thrall of some disaster, requiring endless public and private aid. Why do we keep shoveling aid into these countries for absolutely no positive effect? Why should they even have independent governments? It's frankly criminal to tax such impoverished people to support whatever group of bandits call themselves their government at a given time. Anybody with enough intelligence and foresight that we'd actually want in charge is doubtless spending his time and energies trying to get the hell out.

Haiti, the Phillipines, numerous other countries are all r-selected social and cultural disasters that are barely capable of self-governance and unable to sustain a decent life for their citizens. They should frankly be re-colonized, and they probably will be.

One place bucking this awful trend appears to be Rwanda, under the intelligent, forward-thinking and occasionally ruthless hand of Paul Kagame.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Democratic politicians

James Miller at Taki's wishes more politicians were like fat, gluttonous Toronto mayor Rob Ford.
The world would simply be better off with more openly drugged-up politicians. I don’t want the heads of the state to appear as squeaky-clean genteel men of good taste and adept intellect. They should look on the outside as they are on the inside: morally rotten. Most of the time, the alleged night watchmen of society are high off of their own narcissism and self-worth anyway. Might as well have them doing a few lines in between writing laws that put cash in the pockets of their buddies while leaving the rest of us high and dry. That way, there is no question of the ethical tomfoolery afoot. The pigsty remains a pigsty.
On the other hand, isn't it natural to expect my betters to be, well, better? Wouldn't we expect a general to be an exemplar of discipline and courage to his troops? Isn't a husband and father expected to be the oak tree who does not waver in a crisis and safeguards the family's honor? Isn't the head of a company a reliable producer, charismatic and hardworking? Why do democratic politicians get a pass?

If we are to have government, then I want my governors to be smart, disciplined men with a moral center. That's how things are supposed to work in the real world, after all.

Rob Ford better be careful. He's liable to be raped and gutted like a pig if he keeps hanging around with Somalian gang members.

By the way, if we are not going to have government, then we will have patriarchy. That's the default condition of Stateless society. The men who rise to the top in patriarchy aren't going to be fat slobs with no judgment like Rob Ford. When libertarians make jokes about wanting their leaders to be debauched, reckless individuals, it indicates to me they haven't really thought through the implications of Stateless society.

In case you were still wondering

"Open borders" really only benefit the immigrants and their patrons. The overwhelming effects are to aggrandize the State, drive up the costs for a middle-class lifestyle, erode trust and social capital, burden the infrastructure, reduce wages, and crowd out greenspace.

Any naive fools still out there yammering about freedom and trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk, you didn't get the memo from Tom Friedman and Tyler Cowen. (Via iSteve.)

Thursday, November 7, 2013

It's not often the national media vindicates me

So I am sure as hell going to post on it.

The Martin/Incognito affair has officially jumped the Narrative:
First, Martin was a victim and Incognito was a bully. Now, teammates say they were best friends. Incognito is a respected teammate and Martin is portrayed as a head case and an outcast who's turned on his team.

At the onset, Incognito was an insensitive racist. But not only are teammates now denying that description, they're saying Incognito is more black than Martin, according to The Miami Herald.

In fact, he's apparently considered an honorary black man in the locker room.

"Richie is honorary," one player who left the Dolphins this offseason told the Herald's Armando Salguero. "I don't expect you to understand because you're not black. But being a black guy, being a brother is more than just about skin color. It's about how you carry yourself. How you play. Where you come from. What you've experienced. A lot of things."

Martin, who's biracial, attended Stanford and is the son of two lawyers. FOX Sports' Coy Wire, who also played at Stanford, wrote this week of the challenges "smart guys" can face in the NFL culture.

“There is a culture in the NFL that is hard to break into. If you don’t fit into the mold, and the culture in the locker room, you won’t last," another former NFL player who went to Stanford told Wire. "You do get a lot of respect [being from Stanford] because of your perceived intelligence, but you have to overcome a stigma that you may not be tough enough. Sometimes, in a gladiator sport like football, intelligence can be perceived as being soft.”

Fox Sports

Yet again, we see how political correctness makes people stupid. Incognito is the established NFL vet, on the team's leadership council, warrior "sleeves", well-paid and respected by his peers in a very physical and "black" environment. Martin is a rookie, upper-middle class, from Stanford, no tats, cherubic face--wait a minute, you mean I'm not describing a white guy?

What do sportswriters think goes on with these teams--Incognito was up there in the owner's suite, secretly being instructed by Da Man to keep a smart brutha down?

They could have just asked me, or they could have just watched Oliver Stone's Any Given Sunday.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Post-election day special: In which I briefly consider the 2016 Presidential race

Cum grano salis, because I haven't voted since 1991.

Via New Rebellion University

We’ve been here before: Hillary Rodham Clinton lands in a major U.S. city for a speech. Her team bars the media from the speech. Local media documents the firm stiff-arm from Clinton Inc.

Happened in Miami. Happened in Atlanta. Now the San Francisco Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci reports it’s about to happen in San Francisco.

The former secretary of state will be speaking at a mammoth Saturday event for the National Association of Realtors at San Francisco’s Moscone Center. And later that day, she’s scheduled to appear at a “Millennial Network” event to benefit the Clinton foundation, at San Francisco’s Regency Ballroom, Marinucci reports.

Both events will be closed to the press. [Washington Post]

There has been a minor drumbeat for some time about Hillary Clinton running for President in 2016, when she will be 69. I think there's probably a pragmatic explanation for keeping her speeches closed to the press. At age 66 and having probably had at least one mini-stroke, I’m guessing her verbal acuity is compromised. I remember her statements after Benghazi and thinking she sounded like a daft old woman. A fortiori, they don’t want any difficult questions about the numerous foreign policy debacles during her tenure shouted at her while she's just trying to earn an honest speaking fee.

Her value as a speaker stays up if it’s still an open question whether she’ll run for President.

Hillary Clinton is no Ronald Reagan, and there are plenty of people who will tell you Reagan showed signs of geriatric cognitive impairment from day one. It would take an awful lot of Botox and B12 shots to get her through a Democratic primary and Presidential campaign. Same for Kerry or Biden. I would be astonished if she runs for President in 2016. If she does, pass the popcorn.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Shocked, appalled

Large, aggressive man calls teammate "half-n****r," threatens to "s***" in his mouth.

So there.

That's apparently the worst that Miami Dolphins' rookie tackle Jonathan Martin got told by veteran guard Richie Incognito, along with other indignities.

Welcome to the NFL, home to an active roster of 1,440 of the biggest, strongest, most physically aggressive men on the planet. Sports talk-radio in my town was reeling over this story today, but the listeners who called in seemed a little more relaxed about it.

This is Jonathan Martin, number 71:

Martin's a big, strong guy who could kill me barehanded if he was so inclined, but I live in a comfortable, white-collar world and he lives in the NFL. Martin has a soft visage for a man who lives among predators. Martin went to Stanford as well. Logical-mathematical intelligence is not necessary for success in professional athletics. It's actually a handicap.

Up there next to Martin is Richie Incognito, number 68. Here's Richie, handling things:

Richie is no outlier. He's a solid member of the Dolphins football squad. He's on the team's leadership council, an alpha of the alphas. Martin, by contrast, is a geek; a big, strong geek but still a geek. The rest of the offensive line didn't think Martin fit in the fraternity either. The final straw for Martin was when the offensive line all got up and walked away when he tried to join them for lunch.

That's the big, tough world among big, tough men. Geeks in that world, like the Manning brothers, learn to sublimate their geekiness and get all their big, tough teammates to focus their aggression on blocking for them. Warriors, like Richie Incognito and Harvey Dahl, learn to sublimate (barely) their berserker tendencies to make plays happen.

Speaking of Harvey Dahl, he was cut by the Atlanta Falcons because urbane, dilettantish men like Thomas Dimitroff and Arthur Blank make the personnel decisions for the team. Consequently, the Atlanta Falcons will never control the line of scrimmage.

The culture that a cloistered group of high-T, physical men are going to generate is going to be frankly uncivil. Of course, they live in the middle of civilization so they have to keep their uncivil rituals to themselves. Incognito's transgression was not calling a teammate a half-n****r and threatening to s*** in his mouth, Incognito's transgression was breaching his fraternity's omerta, allowing the hazing ritual to be seen. I can assure you all that and worse gets said among members of the Special Forces, national rugby sides, Korean riot police locker rooms and any other physical, all-male environment. NFL culture is gladiator culture a/k/a prison culture, and in more ways than people like to think about.

Aaron Hernandez is a warrior, and he really does belong in prison. He definitely has a predatory look. I'm surprised he wasn't a linebacker instead of a tight end.

Here's Hernandez's girlfriend. She looks even more predatory than he does.

Violence is innate to humans. Fight-or-flight is still in the basal brain, where it's managed by our big cerebrums which allow us empathy and foresight. Sociopaths lack empathy and foresight. They function on instincts like fight-or-flight. Sociopaths don't respond to reason. The fight-or-flight instinct doesn't understand reason, it only understands threats.

Feminized society, which is gnostic society, is horrified by such biological realities so when something like this little tiff between Martin and Incognito comes up, they cluck and scold and demand rules to legislate reality out of existence. When something really serious happens, like when a 14-year old being raised in a nice neighborhood going to a nice school slashes his teacher's throat and dumps her body in the woods, feminized society can't deal with it at all. National media doesn't report it, people don't talk about it. Feminized society's pop culture doesn't even like to depict real villians any more; they're all space aliens or zombies.

That's how I know feminized society is eventually going to end. It gets all worked up over things like Martin and Incognito, but has no way to deal with actual, existential threats. When a genuine threat arises (and it always does), like an epidemic or foreign conquest or domestic warfare, feminized society will get rubbed out or pushed aside.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Whither Christendom

Who needs it, asks Dennis Mangan.

The question arises in response to Catholic Marxist Mark Shea's hissy fit over the "white supremacist filth" he sees lurking in conservatism. (I suppose I should thank God I'm not a conservative.) Mangan's question, coming as it does from one of the more trenchant thinkers in the Reaction, is a good one. If Mark Shea represents the weight of Catholic thought, then the Cathedral really is becoming "the Cathedral."

ObviouslyI don't agree with Mangan's reactionary secularism. Religious ceremony provides the last remaining link to the metaphysical in modernity. Secular ceremony can never muster the gravitas of the religious because everybody knows it's only temporal. This is why secular remembrances so often include the honoree's tales of woe as a single mom, sexual deviant, poor-body-image-sufferer, chemo patient, etc. Emotion and sentiment substitute for spirituality. The removal of the Eternal from the world leaves an awfully arid husk. Nobody outside the purely decadent and a few genius/near-genius individuals really wants to live in such a world. Most atheists, to my observation, end up embracing some neo-pagan or animist ritual. As a practical matter, religious ceremony is vital if not a sine qua non for sustainable society.

Reactionary Christians are advised to heed Mangan's objections. The traditional (and traditionally Catholic) conceptions of nationhood, the civil order and private and public morality which have enabled the West's level of knowledge and living standards are under severe attack. The Christian sects, from the Catholics themselves to the Evangelicals, are in the enthusiastic vanguard. If Christians are no longer interested in defending Christendom, then Western champions like Mangan will look beyond Christianity.

In all fairness though, Mangan fails to mention the numerous Catholic writers out there who take their inspiration from Charles the Hammer rather than +Francis of Lampedusa.

On the other hand, I think traditionalist Catholics may be in for a very rough ride.

Back when Europe ruled all the world worth ruling, Catholic universalism meant Western Civilization, and Rome was the West’s premier institution. This cannot be stressed enough: Rome was in all and above all. Over time though, Britain, Germany, and the Nordic nations went into schism, Europe embraced secularism, exhausted herself in two world wars and now faces severe, possibly irreversible demographic decline. You don’t become the Catholic Church by siding with the losers and Europe, and other bequests of the ancien regime, is losing badly. Rome appears quite pleased with her transition to champion of secular democracy and the Global South and its r-selected societies. Western society is highly K-selected and perforce, Rome will be not just pro-Third World, but positively and militantly anti-Western. (K-selected and r-selected societies are immiscible; the former must wall itself off from the latter, or the latter swamps the former.)

There are lots more properties and peoples and histories involved, so this will be way uglier than the Episcopal shipwreck.

Mangan actually appears to have considered Orthodox Christian and High Church submissions and still finds them wanting:
Writers who call for a return to Christianity always seem to mean some sort of specific, minor, and eccentric form of the religion that very few people actually adhere to. I'd say that the above writer is actually in the mainstream, and organized Christianity is actively promoting the downfall of the West.
He is probably right.

Friday, November 1, 2013

No Country For Old Men

This novel says a lot beyond its immediate theme of growing old in an increasingly pathological society.
It's a odd thing when you come to think about it. The opportunities for abuse are just about everywhere. There's no requirements in the Texas State Constitution for bein a sheriff. Not a one. There is no such thing as a county law. You think about a job where you have pretty much the same authority as God and there is no requirements put upon you and you are charged with preserving nonexistent laws and you tell me if that's peculiar or not. Because I say that it is. Does it work? Yes. Ninety percent of the time. It takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people can't be governed at all. Or if they could I never heard of it.

-- Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men (Cormac McCarthy).
Joel and Ethan Coen made this novel into a film which is faithful to the book, for a change. (Another favorite novel of mine, The Paperboy, was apparently slaughtered for film by its own author, Pete Dexter). I remember when No Country came out in 2007 and several reviewers were horrified, because Cormac McCarthy's work says some very uncomfortable things. There was a similar reaction to Mel Gibson's Apocalypto. Reviewers couldn't deny the history of the Mayan empire and the realities of hunter-gatherer existence, so they attacked Gibson personally. Basically, it's the adult equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming the Pledge Of Allegiance. Here, for example, is Christian cultural Marxist Mark Shea putting his fingers in his ears and screaming the Pledge Of Allegiance. (Via Occam's Razor.)

People really do not like being reminded about what's left once we get outside the protective and entirely artificial cocoon of civilization and technology. The four million Syrians capable of civilized existence are finding this out. McCarthy apparently thinks we'll find this out too.

No Country was published in 2005 about events in Texas in the early 1980's. The cartels haven't taken over any local governments yet, but apparently a lot of national parks are turning into marijuana farms, there are fairly routine kidnappings in Phoenix and renegade Mexican military occasionally fire shots across the border. So far though, no heads are being dumped in town squares nor bodies being hung over highway overpasses like in Mexico so this can all work out, right?

I wonder if McCarthy thinks about his novel as just anecdotal or if he really does think it's prophetic. If he said in public appearances what his protagonists say in his novels, the Left would go absolutely crazy. I'm surprised a film like No Country even got made.

A lot of the country used to be like rural Texas,, so people trying to understand America should read McCarthy's novels. For much of America's existence, government was pretty remote and people had to figure out how to manage for themselves. Big, complicated schemes like Obamacare, No Child Left Behind, the Ownership Society, the Great Society, really do not fit the American psyche. George W. Bush and Lyndon B. Johnson were from Texas, so they should have known better when they were hatching all their crazy schemes. Barack Obama (How the eff could we ever have a President by that name?) is a rootless, urban dilettante, so I can understand why he fancies the US as a European social democracy. Of course, this makes the fact that the Obamas are provincial buffoons even funnier.

Another theme from No Country is how Mammon makes people do stupid things, leaving them vulnerable to monsters like Anton Chigurh, who aren't motivated by money.