Thursday, August 14, 2014

Here are the websites you can go to

Here is the question I posed:

"what are the websites I can start looking at with regularity so that I can broadend my horizon and stop going to just the same 10 websites every day?  Where can I go for news besides Drudge?"

Here is the start of a list in no particular order:

Boing Boing (misc)

Slate (for many things not including politics)

Grantland (in-depth sports writing)

Fansided (sports)

Entertainment Weekly

Kirkus review of books

Panda's Thumb (science)

First Things

Badass Digest

Thought Catalog


S.F. Gate

National Geographic

Stack Exchange (multiple topics)

DIY network


Sotheby's real estate

Thursday, April 3, 2014

MSM Whitewash

Note how the Lame-stream media are conspicuously silent about what kind of fluid it is.  Oh, you know, fluid.  Fluid is fluid.

Like when you pull into a gas station and say "fill it up with fluid," and they say "do you want me to fill it with gasoline, or orange juice, or blood?" and you answer, "what difference does it make, fluid is fluid right?"

Or when you sit down at a diner and the waitress comes over and pours you a big tall glass of liquid mercury, and looks at you funny when you complain, because after all, fluid is fluid right?

When is the media going to give up on their attempts to keep the public in the dark though their cowardly and deceptive reliance on euphemisms?

Ceci n'est-ce pas une Dwite Howard.  When I googled for an image to include with this essay, seeking as always to give my wankership a diverse reading experience with excellent communication skills and teamwork, there along with all the pictures of the lanky good-time Charlie who is the indirect subject of this think-piece I found this one, which I liked way better than the rest.  I don't know who this lady is, maybe it's his girlfriend or something.  Doesn't matter, I can't waste all my free time finding out every little detail about every single girl I post pictures of on every single blog I write 24 hours a day.  I have bigger fish to fry, Jackson!

Sunday, March 16, 2014

explain to me slowly again why exactly Russia is "our" enemy

The Muslim Turks who live in Crimea support the EU/US backed attempt to thwart the will of the majority Russian region and keep Crimea joined to a European-oriented Ukraine.

And it looks like the US is back to not only pre-911 thinking, but a pre-1991 approach where the US feels comfortable using jihadis as proxies to fight its wars -- Islamism and the spread of sharia warrants a shrug and a "meh," and while not necessarily embraced is clearly not as big a deal as whatever the bigger world political issue happens to be (in this case, the fight against "our" enemy, who embrace nationalism, oppose multiculturalism, oppose the EU, oppress the freedom fighting Chechnyans, and most importantly, squash the rights of Pussy Riot to conduct lesbian street theater inside orthodox cathedrals).

I guess McCain, Rubio, Obama, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else who considers Russia "our" enemy (and, I assume, supports the EU's massive historical project of undoing that little thing of European nationality, which while I guess gave the world some nice art and stuff also gave rise to Hitler, worst guy ever) have to explain to me slowly again why exactly Russia is "our" enemy.  I know they were the enemy back pre-1991 when the US was in the mid-to-late stages of sloughing off its character as a Judeo-Christian constitutional republic based on individual freedom and civic responsibility and consisting of people from the historic American nation, descended from Europeans and revitalizing itself periodically with new injections from that ancient continent, and when the USSR was a communist country which advanced trans-nationalism, opposed free enterprise and private property, and allied itself with Muslim countries against US allies like Israel.  Even I guy I normally like such as Krauthammer, while offering what is predictably quite sound and well-considered advice on how "we" can deal with the actions of "our" opponent Russia, does not address the bottom line question: why should an American citizen support the US/EU against Russia at this moment of history?  Why should we want to "stop" Putin?  I want European nationalism to advance, and the HIV of multiculturalism and the caposi sarcoma of Islamism to be halted.  Pat Buchannan does ask the right questions.  

Today, roles have pretty much reversed from the middle of the 20th century, and today the US is a country that disdains its historical people and holds to multiculturalism as a religious article of faith not to be opposed by anyone anywhere on the political spectrum, that advances transnationalism, a country where private property rights are whithered away, the constitution is deemed an impractical relic to be gotten around by shysters and sophists, so that whatever the new agenda is can drive on unobstructed by the will of the people.  Russia is now a European power with its historic grandeur firmly in memory, devoted to avoiding demographic collapse of its historic people, preserving the Church and traditional values, and opposing the EU project of destroying the European nations.  So tell me again, why are they "our" enemy?  Apparently it has nothing to do with democracy, because in Ukraine the democratically-elected leader was deposed by a mob of his opponents, and now the people of Crimea are being allowed to decide for themselves in a referendum.  Is it because I live in, say, Seattle, so that when Alex Rodriguez is traded from the Mariners to the Rangers he goes from being "our" guy to "them"?  So it's like you cheer for whatever sports jersey people wear in your town, regardless of who is wearing it?  I happen to live in the US, therefore whatever policy the US is currently pursuing is my policy, as evidenced by the fact that "my" countrymen (never mind what numbers of these have been imported from third world countries specifically for the purpose of undercutting the will of those already here and shifting elections) elect a guy who pursues what are now "my" agendas?  No, it's over.  It's been over, Obama did not do this, Obama is merely an indicator.  An Obama can come to power here, that's it.  Of course he did not do this, because he's never done anything besides create that idiotic website that costs trillions of dollars and doesn't work, his only "accomplishments" in life are being advanced by adoring adults from one position to the next and told how clever he is.  So no, Obama is a symptom, not a cause.  We have to go deeper, and that is the project of the neoreactionaries, and of Diana West (whose book "Betrayal" should have been listed among the events of the year in Neoreactionism).

Fuck you Hillary, fuck you Rubio, fuck you Lena Dunham, fuck you Shiela Jackson Lee, fuck you Jon Stewart

Friday, February 14, 2014

OK, here we go

I'm apparently arriving somewhat late to the party.  While I've been busy withdrawing in disgust (not the same as apathy), for a few years and accelerating in November of 2012, an ideology has been taking shape in the interwebs that pretty much nails it for me.  As it turns out, I am a Neoreactionary.

There are tons of ways into this topic.  I'm not going to attempt a large overview of the topic of the Dark Enlightenment, or my place in it, at least not yet.  For right now, I'm just going to start with a few posts on individual ways into the topic.

Here is Michael Anissimov laying out his 6 principles of Neoreactionary thought.  They are:

1.  People are not equal. They never will be. We reject equality in all its forms. 
2.  Right is right and left is wrong.
3.  Hierarchy is basically a good idea.
4.  Traditional sex roles are basically a good idea. 
5.  Libertarianism is retarded.
6.  Democracy is irredeemably flawed and we need to do away with it.

There is a lot to say on all of these principles.  I'm pretty much on board with all of them, with various caveats.  Suffice to say, I am on board with the traditional organizing principles of European Judeo Christian society, which more or less emerged organically through generations of trial and error, and emerged thus for a reason, with massively beautiful and successful results.  I firmly oppose the notion that traditions of millenia should all be put on the table and, if found wanting by the smart set of the previous 5 minutes, discarded.  What colossal arrogance.  So I'm against gay "marriage," I'm for the Catholic church (at least as it existed until the 1960s or so).

Libertarianism, I have always been suspicious of.  I have never been fond of Ayn Rand, because when you pick up one of her novels in a bookstore sometimes a blow-in drops out advertising the "Objectivist society."  I never liked that.  What kind of philosophy requires a club?  Answer, the same kind that, in my experience, appeals to young people who are kind of smart but also have a nasty streak, and who lean leftist even though they're reading Ayn Rand -- i.e., they hate Christianity which they see as weak, they value power, they probably smirked on 9/11, they think abortion is funny.  (More down the road re: whether the basic neoreactionary principles speak equally well to people who currently find themselves approaching neoreaction from the left, as opposed to from the right such as myself -- to include reflections on modern liberalism's monarchical, anti-democratic, and racist impulses.  Are we, modern left and right, really that different after all, or is it just a matter of which illusions fall away in which order?  Is it possible that they've been ahead of me all along?).  Ok, libertarianism.  I've never liked Ron Paul's appeal to 9/11 truthers and anti-semites (I am pro-European, pro-Israel, pro-war, and anti-Islam, and that aspect of my political awakening has been unchanged over the last decade including since the rise of Obama; if anything, what is revealed is the impassable distance between my ideal world and the world as it currently exists -- thus, disengagement).  For now, suffice to say that libertarianism doesn't work for me because it isn't a system that exists, or could exist for long, in the real world. 

Equality: I'm thoroughly on board with pretty much everything John Derbyshire has ever said on this topic.  This includes, it bears noting, that

"[t]he default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen. That is basic good manners and good citizenship

This is the main caveat I would advance in this regard, and it seems like Derbyshire enunciates a principle that is at odds with Anissimov's rejection of equality "in all its forms," since I do think you should be basically equally nice to everybody unless there's a reason to do otherwise.  I'm not sure I'm ready to reject the fundamental modern conservative principle of equality under the law either.  Other than that, yeah, obviously human populations are not equal, any way you look at it.  By the way, that's a good thing, because I actually value diversity and want different countries to have their own cultures and traditions, unlike everyone in the world who says that they value diversity (to borrow from Mark Steyn and Tyler Durden, the modern leftist bromides about valuing diversity are pure crap, meant to absolve the good liberal from any curiosity at all about the noble, hard working, brown people of wherever).  So what I would do is start out with an ethnically homogeonous society, which it seems to me is, in any case, a prerequisite for a state that is sustainable over the long term (and, importantly, in which freedom can actually be maximized).  Starting with a populace who are of one general ethnic group such that civil war is not inevitable and a unique culture may be preserved, I'd then grant rights of citizenship based on one's stake in the society -- e.g., the US founding fathers providing for the vote to property owners; and my own notion (shared by at least some neoreactionaries) that anyone on the dole should not get to vote.  I expand "dole" to include anyone who works for the government.  

At this point I have come round to another discussion I must promise for down the road, and that is the question of whether democracy is inherently fatally flawed, or whether, to paraphrase our friends on the left, it just hasn't been done properly yet.  If I find that the founding fathers basically had the right idea, but it was not properly implemented, that they got some details wrong, or that it did work out for a while (say, up until Andrew Jackson), can I still be a member of your dark enlightenment?  There is a lot to say about this question.  For example, it seems like in George Washington's ideal republic, there would not only be a homogenous population sharing a single culture, but also the world of things which are open to political resolution would be so narrow (as modern conservatives say, the government which governs least) that the evil is so minimized that a republic of like-minded property owning men could make a go of it.  The problems we see now, exemplified most dramatically by the Obama Problem (democracy leads ultimately to a scramble for the carcass, rapidly accelerating once you pass the tipping point of where more than half the people depend on government theft from the suckers who still work for their living), are perhaps not problems inherent in democracy, but just problems with implementation, problems with not foreseeing dangers down the road -- e.g., what happened to the "property owning" requirement for voting?  Did a majority of property owners vote that away?  Hard to imagine that happened.  In brief, could not George Washington's ideal republic not be just as good as life under an englightened monarch?  Hard to say.  What's so good about voting?  The problem today is so much is at stake in political life, the scramble is total, everything can be voted on, no rights are respected.  If government truly governed least, and we had a society which shared the basic values which were set out in the constitution, elections would not matter nearly so much.  Jefferson, or Adams?  You know, I'm basically pretty good either way.  Did democracy itself undo the conditions precedent that allowed for a George Washington style constitutional republic, while it lasted?  I don't know, and that's interesting, but kind of academic as far as I'm concerned.  There is ultimately no political solution, because the problems are at root civilizational.  Anyway, yes, I am in the dark enlightenment, regardless of whether democracy is ultimately complete crap or, alternatively, not total crap but only so long as it exists within an ethnically and culturally homogenous society and is severely limited in the range of matters to be decided, because I'm interested in peeling way, way, way back, not just to the questions that are weighed on Politico and NRO, and what Mitt Romney could have done better, but where we went wrong centuries ago (and because, as you see, I am long winded, and I love thinking about the Hapsburgs, Schopenhauer, De Maistre, all kinds of great stuff that helps me forget I'm living in the Age of Obama.  Hey, for some it's Lord of the Rings, I'll daydream about the 1890s and what could have been).  Romney losing was not a loss, it was the revelation of a loss that had already happened.  Was Obama's rise in 2008 a big mistake?  Were people simply swept up in euphoria and not paying attention?  No, as it turns out, it wasn't a mistake. It is actually indicative of where the country is.  In other words, America ended long ago.  Do I want whichever republican emerges next to defeat Hillary in 2016?  Sure why not, but as the lady herself might say, what difference does it make?  In the last decade, I thought there was urgent action to be taken in the field of politics.  I was wrong.  In fact, we have been on a dramatically wrong course for a long, long time, and I simply can no longer get myself worked up about any issue upon which I might conceivably have the opportunity to vote, as if my vote would mean anything anyway.  What remains is what ultimately remained for Voltaire -- keeping one's own garden, etc.  I'll try to make myself comfortable and hope Obama, his successors, and my fellow "Americans" mostly ignore me until I die of cancer or, more likely, am murdered by a gang of children at some point.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Cuisine of Granada

Looks good.


With good gumbo, ingredients that go well together are cooked together, not to the point that the ingredients become indistinct like tomato soup, but so you still have chunks of the chicken, sausage, shrimp, okra, whatever, but it all works together.  Not all physical objects are equally promising gumbo ingredients, and once the workable ingredients are in the gumbo, it cooks together for a while to produce one whole.

The other day Pastorius and I were walking in an olive grove overlooking the Agora.  I don't recall how this discussion started, but here are the main points I advanced.

Pastorius asserted that America is a nation based in a set of ideas.  As such, if I am representing his views correctly, it follows that any human being who is capable of assimilating mentally and spiritually to those ideas could potentially become an American -- i.e., it has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture and ideology.  Not all cultures are equally promising in their ability to produce people who are likely candidates for becoming American.  Britain or Italy probably produce people who are very good candidates, while Islamic countries in particular are not so promising.  The reason is Islam, an ideology which is antithetical to the American ideals.

I agree with the point about Islam.  There are notable exceptions such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Salman Rushdie -- I'm fairly certain Rushdie has not become American, and I don't know if Ali has, but this is just by way of example of the type of thinking people who share American values, and thus are potential Americans.  Notably, these two reject Islam.  I will allow that it's possible that a Muslim could take a scalpel to the Koran, TJ style, and chop out vast swaths of it, including some of its central tenets, and as a result believe in a religion that was not antithetical to the American ideals of freedom of conscience, industry, innovation, tolerance, etc.  Would his new religion still be "Islam"?  He could call it such, but it would be very different from Islam as set out in the Koran, and as practiced currently and throughout history.

Beyond that, I disagree with Pasto that race and ethnicity has nothing to do with being American.  This is a position I've come to only lately, within the last 4 or 5 years certainly.  Before 1965, pretty much only Europeans got in, and once they got here, the idea was that they severed the link to the old country, which was separated by a long ocean journey, and assimilated culturally, intellectually, and linguistically.  Today everything about that process is regarded with horror.

There have been two important steps in the evolution from the "melting pot" idea to todays multiculturalism.  At around 1965 we decided (against all evidence from history) that anyone whatsoever with human DNA can and will assimilate to the American way of life, and tossed out racial/national origin criteria for immigration.  This was an error, in my opinion, but I don't believe Pastorius shares this view.

The next big step happened in the 80s or 90s, when the idea of assimilation itself was rejected in favor of "multiculturalism."  Since then, we have became a land that's home to numerous separate groups that don't encounter one another or share basic values, much less the values of the founding generation, which were passed down until the 60s but are now almost entirely disregarded, even among children of legacy Americans.  This was another error, and I think Pastorius agrees with me that rejection of the assimilation ideal in favor of multiculturalism was an error.  Indeed, it's based on zero evidence, pure faith and happy face kumbaya garbage (and I suspect its proponents aren't stupid enough to actually believe in it, and in fact simply want to bring about the downfall of the US, while spouting hippy trippy BS for the consumption of the kiddies and marginalization of their political opponents). 

But, the first step, rejection of the blood principle, was also a hell of an experiment.  I would submit that, up until conservatives in the US have been forced, by the advent of multiculturalism in the 80s and 90s, to defend the idea of assimilation to an American ideal, nobody has ever found it necessary to take the position that membership in a nation is in fact based on an idea rather than on national/racial/ethnic identity.  Conservatives take that novel position now because the alternative sounds like racism, which is now the big sin that gets you excused from the table.  That's a new position, not one that the founders would have had the need to adopt, because they still held to the more fundamental blood principle before even getting to what our national ideals were to be.  Both steps in this process violate the rule that you don't tear down a fence before you understand why it was there in the first place.  Today, an intelligent discussion about why only Europeans were admitted as immigrants during America's rise to greatness is impossible.

Throughout human history, people have organized themselves into racial/national/ethnic groups: the "blood principle".  One such group, the Americans of the 13 colonies, formed a government.  In doing so, they crafted a Constitution based in certain ideals.  This was a descriptive act, almost like how the Koran describes the ideals prevalent in the Arabian peninsula of the 7th century.  To most colonists, that is, the Constitutional ideals were not foreign.  To be sure, the Constitutional ideals would be normative, and should be understood to have informed Americans of what their ideals should be.  But, most fundamentally, the Constitution was normative of how the government of the new country would function.  In none of these ways did the founding fathers reject the blood principle in the first instance.  The blood principle was a prerequisite to there being a society there in the first place.  Once it was there, its members came together and set up a government.  The founding fathers would not only be horrified at the current idea of "multiculturalism," but they would have rejected as folly the 1965 idea that all human beings on the planet are equally promising candidates to assimilate into our nation.

This is not to say any particular races should be barred.  To be sure, if a family from Thailand moved to America in 1925, the country would not fall apart.  And, as long as they were willing to assimilate and were welcomed and encouraged in this, the family would likely assimilate perfectly well.  But, the melting pot model becomes unworkable once you have a critical mass of people who will not or cannot assimilate. Mexicans can assimilate, and did so successfully up until the last few decades.  Now, we see large areas within cities, whole cities themselves, and whole areas within states that are full of Mexicans who will not assimilate, who send money back to Mexico and don't learn English or have any need to do so.  With this situation there comes separatist movements like Azatlan and La Raza.  The same is true with American blacks, even though they've been here from the get go.  If you have one black kid in class, like Franklin from Peanuts, he will assimilate quite well, likely do well in school and not be antisocial.  If half the class is black, you will start to see self-segregation, and division of people on cultural/racial lines.  This is not caused by racism, it's caused by a fundamental comfort level people have with their own kind.  America should aspire to be of one "kind."  If you have a huge melting pot full of gumbo, you can throw in stuff that's already there -- chili powder, shrimp, celery, whatever -- and it will still be gumbo.  You could throw in something that's not in it yet, like a pork chop, and the pork chop would eventually boil down and you would still have gumbo.  You could even throw in a teaspoon of gasoline, and it would still be gumbo, probably perfectly edible still.  But if you dump 30 gallons of gasoline into the gumbo, it's not gumbo anymore, and has to be tossed out. 

Although no particular races should be barred from American citizenship (so long as it's not enough to upset whatever balance of ethnic background is desired, whether that means the previous balance is maintained, as was the case up until 1965 or, to correct the damage done since then, whether the new ideal should be to restore the balance as it existed at some ideal point in time, such as 1925); but, some ideologies should be banned outright.  Yes, I'm talking to you, Islam.  The best way to do this is to ban immigration from Muslim countries altogether, with exception for special circumstances, like if Rushdie or Ali wished to become citizens, or exceptions for Lebanese or Coptic Christians, for example.

Until fifteen minutes ago, the USA only let in Europeans.  Then we were told, without voting on it, that we must all believe that one of the fundamental organizing principles of all societies through history is now forbidden and evil and must not be discussed.  I submit that rejection of the blood principle led in a predictable way to multiculturalism.  To accept the former step in that progress while struggling against the latter is a fool's errand, because it ignores all historical evidence including the actual facts of this country's founding, seeking to introduce a founding principle that is actually only a recent invention of necessity. 

Fuck you, Islam!

Fuck you too, Ted Kennedy, I hope Robert Bork managed to pass through hell for just long enough to kick your flabby, treasonous, lying ass.