Civil War 2.0 Will Be Livestreamed

My latest for The Mitrailleuse:

The events of this summer are a taste of what’s to come in the fall, and even more so, November 9, 2016.

Someone is going to win the Presidential election, and regardless of whether it’s Trump or Clinton, the loser’s supporters are going to feel existential angst about America, and their place in it, far beyond the usual.

More

Advertisements

Kim Philby, Matthew Crawford and Other Sundries

I don’t usually do posts that consist of a series of quick thoughts and short points. It seems time. Things have been accumulating in the mental queue and I need to get them out while they’re still useful. I call them “sundries,” from the root “sunder”: distinct, separate. There was the old phrase “torn asunder” which I’ve always rather liked, as long as it was applied to the right person or thing. When I was a child “sundries” were the little items one got at the “drug” store. The word is little used at present. So much the worse for the present.

My last post about writer/philosopher Matthew Crawford drew some interest, but Nick Land expressed healthy skepticism on Twitter:

@Nick_B_Steves I’m normally a huge @neovictorian23 fan, but this looks like a stretch.

— Outsideness(@Outsideness) February 22, 2016

I deeply appreciate the first part, and I think I understand the second. I called Crawford “Philosopher for the Dark Enlightenment” and I meant “A Philosopher…” One letter can make all the difference. Crawford has some insights that can add value to the conversation. He probably doesn’t consider himself “Darkly Enlightened” but his placement of our entire lives, and our most basic perceptions, within our relation to other humans is a bracing antidote to the Cogito ergo sum of Descartes and the Sum ergo cogito of Ayn Rand. He’s certainly no “collectivist” but his critique of the libertarian fiction of the Sovereign Consumer making rational choices while swimming in a sea of corporate persuasion is devastating. Neoreaction needs to pursue this line more thoroughly.

Kult__philpby1

Kim Philby, Commie Rat Bastard but helluva spy.

 

I’ve been reading an old book about (perhaps) the biggest spy scandal of the 20th century: THE PHILBY CONSPIRACY: Three (and more) of Britain’s Best and Brightest, graduates of the Finest Schools and so on, whose treason devastated British (and for that matter, CIA) intelligence efforts in the 1940s and 50s (La Wik’s summary is decent). Beyond the particulars of the weakness of the British intelligence community, the lesson here is just how foolish it is for an organization, or a society, to rely on credentials as proof of loyalty. Jonathan Pollard was, of course, hired by US Naval Intelligence despite his massive drug use, loyalty to Israel and propensity to lie about almost everything. But all of those problems have been fixed now…

Oh, yeah, Snowden.

It’s easy to buy into the myth of the hyper-competent “intelligence” services, British, Russian, Israeli, American or other; television shows, movies and novels all paint a picture that has seeped into the social fabric. The reality is that they fuck up almost as often as other government agencies. Everyone who works at them has a degree from university though. I hope you find that reassuring.

Most humans (and some bots, I suspect) feel the need to write about the how and why of Donald Trump’s success (so far) in the US presidential primaries. At the moment, I’m more intrigued by the failures of the many, many “experts” who began proclaiming that Trump had no chance about five minutes after his announcement. One who has got it right (so far) is Scott Adams, best known for his Dilbert comic. You can read the chronological sequence starting with his posts all the way back in August 2015 here. One of the things I was intrigued by in Adams’s book was his laconic description of how, back in the 90s, he was twice told by his corporate bosses that his climb up the ladder was going nowhere fast because “we’re not promoting white males.” He doesn’t seem bitter–in fact it got him directed toward other things like becoming a multi-millionaire writer and artist. Keep your eye on Adams, and definitely seek to learn from his persuasion reading list.

As for the crowd who kept repeating for months and months that Trump would fall any second now…why are they getting paid to predict and write? Yeah, I’m looking at you Nate Silver. But there are a hell of a lot of others, and a hell of a lot of Republican “consultants” who should never, ever find work again.

Finally, one more book of interest; at the office they were passing around The Anatomy of Peace so I went ahead and read it too. This isn’t your usual #NRx fare (heh) but some of that New Age-Feel Good-Hippie-Dippy-Bologna…except, okay, it was good for me to read it. I tend to think of a lot of people not as people, but as obstacles. Objects. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill effing Clinton, hell, all so-called Progs, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, hell all so-called SJWs, rappers and other strutting Blacks, every whining “minority” on television whining about every fucking thing that ever happened for the last 2,000 years, feminists inventing bullshit rape statistics and calling for my balls to be cut off, environmentalist billionaires flying on private jets to Paris and telling me to quit using fucking paper towels…etc., etc. How long could the list be, if I really tried?

And yet–they’re, all of ’em, human beings, not just objects and obstacles. They have what the book calls ” a heart for war” and there’s a reason for that, because they’re resentful and afraid. Afraid of their weakness, their thin and cracking façade, the raw primeval truth that if white men quit turning the cranks of technological civilization they would die.

We need to have our hearts for peace, which doesn’t mean doing anything different, exactly, in speaking out against the things that we see as destructive of order and civilization. Indeed, I think I’m more effective at fighting when my heart is at peace and I see things as they really are, the sad humans on the other side, not objects but sadly misled, incorrect human beings.

Only by knowing our opposition, empathizing with and understanding them, knowing how to see the world as they see it, will we be able to overcome. They’ll never be able to empathize and understand us. That’s our edge.

Matthew Crawford, Philosopher for the Dark Enlightenment

I’ve been reading Matthew Crawford’s book The World Beyond Your Head and am stunned by the relevance and application of his insights to Neoreaction, or, more specifically, the “Dark Enlightenment.”

Crawford is a kind of Mike Rowe with a Ph.D., mca guy who left a think tank to restore and repair motorcycles. I had enjoyed his previous book Shop Class as Soulcraft and several times reading it thought “that point is positively reactionary.” But in World Beyond Your Head he has expanded his net to embrace the whole picture of modern Western WoMan and what ails Hir, and his most withering fire is focused on the “Enlightenment” ideas of radical autonomy and individuality that have produced the atomized consumption culture that the NRx critiques. Crawford is not just pointing out the symptoms here, he eruditely traces the root causes of our ailments back to their intellectual sources; not surprisingly, these sources include some named by Moldbug and Carlyle.

I haven’t even finished the book yet, but it got me excited enough to post this, hoping some of you will want to read the book and discuss it, or promote it to the DE community. Crawford gave an excellent interview last year about his ideas, with a plethora of quotables that will give you a flavor:

INTERVIEWER: Tracing the philosophical roots of our fractured mental lives to the Enlightenment and the modern liberal project, Crawford suggests that our very ability to become individuals is under threat — and likewise the possibility for genuine human flourishing. The World Beyond Your Head is a work of philosophy, and of urgency. Pay attention.
(…)
This comes down to a question of how useful the history of philosophy is for understanding the present. It is generally thought to be in bad taste — too idealistic — to assert anything like a necessary connection between the history of ideas and cultural developments. And indeed there are so many determinants of culture that pure intellectual history misses: natural resources, demographics, sheer dumb accident, etc. But I think it is fair to ask how the fate of Enlightenment ideas in the wider society, where they have trickled down and become cultural reflexes, reflects back on the moment of their original articulation. Viewing the Enlightenment retrospectively in this way, we can discern the seeds of who we have become. We may then develop a fresh take on those thinkers, and new reasons to quarrel with them, ultimately for the sake of self-criticism.
My critique of the anthropology we have inherited from early modern thought has a couple of dimensions. The first is sociological, simply noticing how autonomy-talk is pretty much the only idiom that is available to us for articulating our self-understanding, and how inadequate it is for capturing lived experience. It is the idiom of commencement speeches, of daytime talk shows, and also of marketing: You’re In Charge, as the message on the handrail of the escalator at O’Hare puts it. Living in a culture saturated with vulgar freedomism, you may develop a jaundiced view of the whole project of liberation inaugurated by Descartes and Locke. If you then revisit those thinkers, I think your irritation prepares you to see things you would otherwise miss. You are bringing a prejudice with you, but sometimes a prejudice sharpens your vision. Sensitivity to the present, and giving credit to your own human reactions to it, can bring a new urgency to the history of philosophy. What stands out for me, and for other writers I have learned from, is that the assertions those enlighteners make about how the mind works, and about the nature of the human being, are intimately tied to their political project to liberate us from the authority of kings and priests. In other words, it is epistemology with an axe to grind, polemical at its very root. Yet this original argumentative setting has been forgotten.

This is important, because Enlightenment anthropology continues to inform wide swaths of the human sciences, including cognitive science, despite that discipline’s ritualized, superficial ridicule of Descartes. We need to be more self-aware about the polemical origins of the human sciences, because those old battles bear little resemblance to the ones we need to fight. In particular, it is very difficult to make sense of the experience of attending to something in the world when everything located beyond the boundary of your skull is regarded as a potential source of unfreedom. This is, precisely, the premise behind Kant’s ideal of autonomy: The will must not be “conditioned” by anything external to it. Today we get our Kant from children’s television, and from the corporate messaging of Silicon Valley. Certain features of our contemporary landscape make more sense when you find their antecedents in serious thought, because the tacit assumptions that underlie them were originally explicit assertions.

According to the prevailing notion, freedom manifests as “preference-satisfying behavior.” About the preferences themselves we are to maintain a principled silence, out of deference to the autonomy of the individual. They are said to express the authentic core of the self, and are for that reason unavailable for rational scrutiny. But this logic would seem to break down when our preferences are the object of massive social engineering, conducted not by government “nudgers” but by those who want to monetize our attention. My point in that passage is that liberal/libertarian agnosticism about the human good disarms the critical faculties we need even just to see certain developments in the culture and economy. Any substantive notion of what a good life requires will be contestable. But such a contest is ruled out if we dogmatically insist that even to raise questions about the good life is to identify oneself as a would-be theocrat. To Capital, our democratic squeamishness – our egalitarian pride in being “nonjudgmental” — smells like opportunity.

And this gets back to what I was saying earlier, about how our thinking is captured by obsolete polemics from hundreds of years ago. Subjectivism — the idea that what makes something good is how I feel about it — was pushed most aggressively by Thomas Hobbes, as a remedy for civil and religious war: Everyone should chill the hell out. Live and let live. It made sense at the time. This required discrediting all those who claim to know what is best. But Hobbes went further, denying the very possibility of having a better or worse understanding of such things as virtue and vice. In our time, this same posture of value skepticism lays the public square bare to a culture industry that is not at all shy about sculpting souls – through manufactured experiences, engineered to appeal to our most reliable impulses.

th

Philosophical facilitator of “Black Lives Matter”

The ongoing “creative destruction” of capitalism celebrated on the Right clears away settled forms of social life. Cultural progressives find their work made easier by this; they get to re-engineer the human landscape with less interference. They do this by moving the threshold of offense ever lower, creating new sensitivities and then policing them. The institutions of civil society (universities, corporations, etc.) then scramble to catch up with the new dispensation and demonstrate their allegiance to it — by expanding their administrative reach into ever more intimate corners of the psyche. This dynamic has given us a stunning expansion of coercive power over the individual, but it has nothing to with “the government.”
That should be enough to whet your appetite for the whole meal. I think Crawford deserves much more attention from the whole spectrum of Dark Enlightenment thinkers, and this post is my bid for him to begin to get it.

Hiatus

I haven’t posted anything here for over two months and am distancing myself from most of the hoopla on the web for now.

First there was Bruce Charlton’s Addicted to Distraction. Then, the other day there was Tony Schwartz’s Addicted to Distraction. That was the final nail in something I’ve been thinking about for awhile. Not disconnecting, but at least disengaging. From the so-called news, from my hourly perusal of Drudge, from obsessively tweeting out links to stuff I thought important. Really, it wasn’t.

Yesterday I was checking out some personnel files where I work and I had a chance to read my own hiring file, the one they put together on me after interviews. Three of my former superiors gave my overall performance, out of 10: 10, 9.5, 9/10. Which is nice, except for the last 10 years I’ve spent like four fucking hours a day on the web reading “news” and making blog posts and so on.

I’ve been coasting on my IQ and natural ability to read, evaluate and brief information very quickly for my whole life. I mean, since kindergarten. I haven’t really applied myself to shit, and here I am at 55 making a solid upper-middle-class salary and living large.

I sure as hell don’t want to die in 15 or 20 or 30 years and think, as the lights go out, “I sure did keep up on useless internet shit.” It’s not all useless, of course, but the trick is knowing the difference…

I’m writing a book about “Sanity.” If I ever complete it I’ll get back here and flog it.

Meantime, you might want to check out Tony Schwartz and Jim Loehr’s book The Power of Full Engagement. One of the authors of the book on full engagement found it nearly impossible to quit his internet addiction.

“Full engagement” is what’s needed, all right. But not on fighting with SJWs, winning internet threads or discussing “news.”

I still might read and comment on your blog, occasionally, so don’t go soft, my niggas.

The Failure of the “Social Sciences” is the Failure of Progressivism

There has been no dearth of commentary in the last two weeks on the now-infamous “Reproducibility Crisis.” The original in Science was about psychological studies, but no one with half a brain doubts that reproducibility (and fraud) problems extend to sociology, criminology, Gender and Ethnic “Studies,” and even nutrition and health.

Among the more intelligent looks, Scott Alexander thoroughly explains yes, it’s a crisis in response to this head fake in the NYT by some psych prof with her fingers in her ears. Steve Sailer, a former market researcher, wonders if psychology is more like astronomy, or marketing research? The latter only wants results now; psychology(in a pretend quest to be physics) seeks Permanent Laws of the Entire Universe.

Sailer does point out that not all areas of psych seem to have a replication crisis (TRIGGER WARNING – CRIMETHINK AHEAD!):

By the way, some fields in psychology, most notably psychometrics, don’t seem to have a replication crisis. Their PR problem is the opposite one: they keep making the same old predictions, which keep coming true, and everybody who is anybody therefore hates them for it, kill-the-messenger style. For example, around the turn of the century, Ian Deary’s team tracked down a large number of elderly individuals who had taken the IQ test given to every 11-year-old in Scotland in 1932 to see how their lives had turned out. They found that their 1932 IQ score was a fairly good predictor. Similarly, much of The Bell Curve was based on the lives of the huge National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979 sample up through 1990. We now have another quarter a century of data with which to prove that The Bell Curve doesn’t replicate. And we even have data on thousands of the children of women in the original Bell Curve sample. This trove of data is fairly freely available to academic researchers, but you don’t hear much about findings in The Bell Curve failing to replicate.

And there you are friends: It’s not exactly a reproducibility crisis, it’s a crisis of Progressivism. The entire Prog edifice, that’s supposed to be based on a concrete foundation of Science, is tottering quite badly, because social science is full of big cracks that are widening daily.

DSM_Building_Collapse_2013

This reminded me of something I wrote over four years ago, from a different angle, while ruminating on some of Robert Heinlein’s predictions, in both non-fiction articles and in his science fiction books and stories. I’m an unabashed Heinlein fan, but that has little to do with the piece, which is reproduced (slightly edited) below. It’s not about problems with methodology or even fraud in the social sciences. It’s about their abject failure to deliver what they promised–which is still true as of noon today:

(Original written in May 2012)

The Failure (So Far) of Heinlein’s Vision of “Social Science”

I recently read an article at The Weekly Standard by Andrew Ferguson, “The New Phrenology.” Subtitled “How liberal psychopundits understand the conservative brain,” the piece goes into some detail about the numerous news stories most of us have probably seen lately, with titles like that of Chris Mooney’s book The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality.

With that background, I want to make explicit that this is not a political post, nor is it an analysis of the psychology of any particular group. The meta point of “The New Phrenology” has been made powerfully by a number of others–the current state of the “social sciences” is barely scientific, after 100 years or more of effort. The mere gloss of scientism is now provided by colored pictures of brain images, publication in peer reviewed journals and the use, and misuse, of statistics.

One hundred years ago Robert A. Heinlein was about to turn five and people of a wide variety of political and philosophical views, from Freud to H. G. Wells to Woodrow Wilson, believed that economics, psychology and sociology were taking their first firm steps toward becoming true sciences, where national and world economies would be managed in steady prosperity without booms and busts, criminals and the mentally ill would be reformed or healed through drugs and therapy, and populations would be managed toward happiness through education, advertising and techniques like mass hypnosis and official propaganda. Eventually, all of these efforts would be put on a firm base of physics and neuroscience and mathematical statistics, with formulas fed into computing devices and the right answers for societal management coming out.

These ideas can be seen clearly in many of Heinlein’s early works. Indeed, the Future History takes place against a background where this social management is often simply assumed and only mentioned en passim when necessary. In other instances, it is made explicit as an important part of the story, as with the extensive explanation of economic management and Monroe Alpha Cliff’s work near the beginning of Beyond This Horizon or the debate about using mass hypnosis to recondition the populace toward freedom at the end of “If This Goes On–“. In Methuselah’s Children there is mention of statistically rating the impact of words, and the strategic planting of useful rumors based on mathematical formulae. For a good short explication of this idea under the general heading of “social engineering” see the “Logos” section of this article on “If This Goes On–“ by Bill Patterson.

Here in 2012 I would argue that these fields have made very limited progress toward being “science.” In economics, the worldwide Big Bust of the last four years provides compelling evidence that legions of Ph.D. economists are subject to forces far beyond their control, their manipulations of money and interest too much, too soon or too little, too late. Criminals are still with us, in plenty, and while the soma of a wide variety of “anti-depressants” masks the symptoms of perhaps 20% of the American populace, all the billions and indeed, trillions of dollars expended on “scientific research” into education, reform of prisoners and the proper raising of children seems to have merely, mostly maintained the status quo ante in these areas.

But back to “The New Phrenology.” Mostly believing that the mind is just a useful, or useless fiction, the reductionists have deployed the truly wonderful tools of modern medical imaging in the study of the brain and declared the colored pictures taken therefrom the answer to a broad number of questions. Why do people do what they do? Hook them to a forest of electrodes and ask them question or show them some naughty pictures, see what lights up, gather some stats and you’ve got yourself a peer reviewed journal article that will help further your career path in the Academe!

I do not claim that this kind of study is necessarily useless, biased, wasteful or harmful. It may be that discoveries from these techniques really will result in a better life for us and our children.

So far though, what we’ve got is that drug users’ pleasure centers light up when they use, that brain scan color pictures prove that there is no free will, and that political” conservatives” are a fearful, authoritarian bunch. I don’t claim to know the entire field–I just read the newspapers, and that’s what I’m seeing.

It’s a long, long way from the vision of Heinlein and others, during those early, heady days, that all of this research would eventually give us scientific solutions to social problems.

Another side of Heinlein, the rugged proponent of individualism, liberty and the generally untamable nature of Man, would probably be delighted at these developments. So far, that’s the side that seems to be winning in the real world.

To sum up: Those of us who have studied Progressivism in its evolution from “Enlightenment” through Marx through Liberal Democracy through Woodrow Wilson, FDR, the Great Society, Feminism and LGBTIQ understand that it always claimed Science! as its support, as its very foundation. Its opponents were always “theocrats”, “ignorant, uneducated louts”, “behind the times”, and, as above, “Republican science-deniers.”
The Reproducibility Crisis is not just a “problem” in psychology, it is an existential threat to the Progressive worldview. Without the club of “science” and actual results backing their conceits up, Progs have nothing real to support their right to rule.
Of course they are doing, and will do, their best to explain away, confound, obfuscate and deny the problems exposed recently in the “social sciences.” With the help of Cathedral media and universities they’ll partially succeed. These recent developments are not a killing blow to progressivism, but a cut with a few drops of blood oozing out.
The effect of a thousand such cuts is left as an exercise for the reader.

Me and My Ball are Going Home

ADDED:

A Happy Vicar I Might Have Been

A happy vicar I might have been
Two hundred years ago
To preach upon eternal doom
And watch my walnuts grow;

But born, alas, in an evil time,
I missed that pleasant haven,
For the hair has grown on my upper lip
And the clergy are all clean-shaven.

And later still the times were good,
We were so easy to please,
We rocked our troubled thoughts to sleep
On the bosoms of the trees.

All ignorant we dared to own
The joys we now dissemble;
The greenfinch on the apple bough
Could make my enemies tremble.

But girl’s bellies and apricots,
Roach in a shaded stream,
Horses, ducks in flight at dawn,
All these are a dream.

It is forbidden to dream again;
We maim our joys or hide them:
Horses are made of chromium steel
And little fat men shall ride them.

I am the worm who never turned,
The eunuch without a harem;
Between the priest and the commissar
I walk like Eugene Aram;

And the commissar is telling my fortune
While the radio plays,
But the priest has promised an Austin Seven,
For Duggie always pays.

I dreamt I dwelt in marble halls,
And woke to find it true;
I wasn’t born for an age like this;
Was Smith? Was Jones? Were you?

(George Orwell ,1935)

Megan McArdle is very sharp and eminently reasonable. I’ve been reading her since the “Jane Galt” days of a dozen years ago. The second half of her piece yesterday on the Scotus “Obamacare” decision is a call for sweet reasonableness:

But I’ll pause to point out a cultural and political implication of this ruling and the drama leading up to it. Some supporters of the law declared that they were going to take their ball and go home if the Supreme Court didn’t agree with their interpretation of the statute. These people wasted their time: With a 6-3 ruling, the call was not so close that the posturing pushed it over. But these people did have one effect. They eroded something in civic life that we can’t afford to lose. By pretending that the Supreme Court and the rule of law were at risk in this ruling, they strained the already frayed fabric of civil society. Obviously, there are places and times when a nation’s political institutions are so corrupt and compromised that a patriotic citizen is duty bound to try to destroy them rather than let them continue to operate as they are. But that place is not the America of 2015, and the time is not “when I am afraid that the court will disagree with me about one clause of a program I think is really important.” Your country needs a functioning Supreme Court, and the civic support that legitimizes it, more than it needs any government program, including Obamacare. This is something that liberals will become well aware of tomorrow or Monday, when the court is expected to rule in favor of a broad constitutional right to marriage, including for same-sex couples. I’m a libertarian, so as you’d expect, I find that agreeable. On the other hand, as a matter of constitutional theory, I expect the ruling to be a weak outgrowth of the absurd “emanations and penumbras” seeping out of all the sexual liberty cases of the 1960s, for which I can find little actual basis in either the text or intent of the constitution. In other words, I think it will probably be a bad ruling for a good cause, which is why conservatives who sincerely believe this to be a bad cause will have a right to be mad. What they should not do is to go into the sort of shameful tantrum we’ve seen from liberals on the subject of King, where they declare that a ruling against them would be a naked abuse of partisan political power by which the court has thoroughly invalidated any claim it ever had to political legitimacy. The losing side will always be displeased, but let’s keep some perspective: Bush v. Gore should not cost the court its standing. Neither should Citizens United. A case like King v. Burwell should certainly not. We are politically fragile right now, and yet neither side is going away. As we discovered in 1861, at the national scale, there’s no such thing as a tidy no-fault divorce. That’s why the more divided we get, the more vitally important it is to have common institutions that both sides agree to abide with, however much it may chafe at certain moments. Yet instead of recognizing that, we are increasingly trying to destroy those institutions whenever it seems to offer temporary political advantage. However much you dislike the behavior of Congress, or the Supreme Court, or the president, you would like it even less if they really did lose political legitimacy. Because it wouldn’t just be you who threw off the shackles of custom and civic restraint and disregarded rulings you disliked. Those villains on the other side would do the same. I’m perfectly satisfied with the ruling the court got, and how they arrived at it. The court is doing fine. But the last six months have certainly cast doubt on the political legitimacy of our public debate.

And now today comes the “bad ruling for a good cause” and yes, it was entirely expected by me and most people on both sides of the issue. But that doesn’t keep one’s stomach from turning as the catamites and fags and paedophiles scream in our faces their triumph and how just wait, they will find us h8aters and hound us out of our professions and civil life. Justice Kennedy’s bullshit about how “free speech” isn’t affected by the blessing by the government of sodomy will soon be seen for what it’s worth–“a warm bucket of spit.” You’re “free” to say anything you like, as long as the government doesn’t put you in jail for it. Losing everything else is just “private” responses in our “free, democratic” society. McArdle is a smart woman, and I’m sure she didn’t raise the spectre of “1861” lightly. I can only hope that the gloves do come off, and sooner rather than later. One of the things I learned from John Keegan’s Civil War volume was just how many Americans on both sides were spoiling to go to actual, bloody destructive war and finally settle the question that had festered like a pus-filled wound for decades in the country. With each new blow to sanity, sense and “the will of the people” through the vote that’s overturned by the courts, along with each “unconstitutional” Executive Order that goes unchallenged and each Act of Congress that that’s popular only with the billionaires, we move a step closer to some kind of settling of the question: How much will people take? I’m sorry, but there is no “political legitimacy of our public debate” anymore, Miss McArdle. There is only “who/whom” and some proportion of us won’t just stand still and take it in the anus. When all the traffic is one way, and the best “conservatism” can offer is to stand athwart history and yell “Stop” the time for debate has long passed. I finally, truly dropped out of “politics” after the 2012 elections, though I’d been reading Moldbug for several years prior. Being the old war horse I was, it was hard not to answer to sound of the bugles, and I’ll guiltily admit I was anticipating some schadenfreude in November 2012 about the deposing of the Half-Blood Prince. The joke was, of course, on me. Anyway, to bring this rather disjointed screed to a close, I’m done, finished, spent, outta here. Exitus. I sincerely hope all the married homos enjoy their homosex more now that it’s within “marriage.” I hope Megan McArdle enjoys a little more “civil discourse” before she steps over a constantly shifting line and gets fired. I hope President Hillary gives the country the leadership it deserves, good and hard. I hope I pass of natural causes before Scotus finds a “right to die” and some doctor drips poison into my veins to end my suffering as I feebly claw at the needle. I don’t hope to persuade anyone of anything, anymore. There are some private forums now where the like-minded of us can plan and work to save what’s worth saving. The rest of the world is free to enjoy the wages of its actions. sorry__we__re_closed_by_canadashorty-d4t3vyk

UPDATED: Christians in the Closet (?)

We-Will-Bury-You

UPDATE April 6, 2015:

Kurt Schlichter makes a similar point, well said:

I’m not advocating violence – I am warning liberals that they are setting the conditions for violence.

And that better worry them, for the coastal elites are uniquely unsuited to a world where force rules instead of law. The Serbs were, at least, a warrior people. The soft boys and girls who brought us helicopter parenting, “trigger warnings” and coffee cups with diversity slogans are not.

I know the endgame of discarding the rule of law for short-term advantage because I stood in its ruins. Liberals think this free society just sort of happened, that they can poke and tear at its fabric and things will just go on as before. But they won’t. So at the end of the day, if you want a society governed by the rule of force, you better pray that you’re on the side with the guns and those who know how to use them.

###

The men who lie with men, the women who lie with women, the men who think they’re women, the ones who want to sodomize animals and children, and their elite enablers: Are threats of boycotts and Twitter hate campaigns and not getting hired at UCLA really going to cause American Christians to pretend to approve of this? To turn their faces away and pretend not to notice?

Read the rest of my latest at The Mitrailleuse.