Even if you’re from central Virginia, you don’t visit the city of Petersburg. There’s very little reason to do so, unless you want to see first hand the results of black blight and a ruined city. If someone says they’re from Petersburg, its usually met with a wary glance in response. And for good reason.
It’s obvious to anyone with eyes to see that the contemporary Left is spectacularly alienating its own natural constituency with its increasingly unfocused and incoherent forms of protest. Certainly, they are vocal in denouncing Trump as a fascist, and Brexit as some sort of ur-nationalism, but what are they actually seeking to offer as an alternative? Anyone who considers this question soon comes up against the realization that they don’t really offer serious answers. Their childish adherence to every form of identity fluidity is an intellectual embarrassment that degrades and hampers the very programs that they wish to progress. But behind all of the violence and dressing up, there is a much more fundamental problem that the Left is failing to face up to, and that revolves around their understanding of the nature of capital.
At the end of the nineteenth century a fatuous humanitarianism prevailed and immigrants of all kinds were welcomed to “The Refuge of the Oppressed,” regardless of whether they were needed in our industrial development or whether they tended to debase our racial unity. The “Myth of the Melting Pot” was, at that time, deemed by the unthinking to be a part of our national creed.
– Madison Grant, Conquest of a Continent
“A change of a fundamental kind has taken place in the economic structure of Europe whereby the old basis had ceased to be wealth and had become debt. In the old Europe wealth had been measured in lands, crops, herds and minerals; but a new standard had now been introduced, namely, a form of money to which the title ‘credit’ had been given.” (Napoleon Bonaparte)
Did the Christian doctrine of original sin create the guilt cultures of Northwest Europe? Or did the arrow of causality run the other way?
By definition, gene-culture co-evolution is reciprocal. Genes and culture are both in the driver’s seat. This point is crucial because there is a tendency to overreact to cultural determinism and to forget that culture does matter, even to the point of influencing the makeup of our gene pool. Through culture, humans have directed their own evolution.
For a long time, the place where the double standards of feminism – and even, to some extent, those of mainstream society — were most clearly visible with regard to men has been on the subject of reproductive rights. The double standards are clearest here because, unlike other topics that require extensive research, this particular one is a built-in part of almost everyone’s everyday experience. Anyone who has ever had sex, been in a relationship, or contemplated having children will have experienced this double standard to some degree.
When a man has sex with a woman, he is under the absolute control of his partner. First of all, when a man consents to have sex with a woman, this is also taken to imply consent to father a child. Even if the man withdraws his “ongoing consent” and explicitly states that he does not want children, if the woman becomes pregnant and decides to keep the child, she is then entitled to receive nearly two decades of forced labor from him in compensation.
We like to think that all people feel empathy to the same degree. In reality, it varies a lot from one person to the next, like most mental traits. We are half-aware of this when we distinguish between “normal people” and “psychopaths,” the latter having an abnormally low capacity for empathy. The distinction is arbitrary, like the one between “tall” and “short.” As with stature, empathy varies continuously among the individuals of a population, with psychopaths being the ones we find beyond an arbitrary cut-off point and who probably have many other things wrong with them. By focusing on the normal/abnormal dichotomy, we lose sight of the variation that occurs among so-called normal individuals. We probably meet people every day who have a low capacity for empathy and who nonetheless look and act normal. Because they seem normal, we assume they are as empathetic as we are. They aren’t.
Every year thousands board rickety boats, hide in the backs of trucks, planes, and container ships, cross miles of barren desert on foot… All to get themselves to a land where they can be ruled by a racial group far distant from their own.
“I think you’re anthropomorphizing,” said the vet. I had brought the cat in for a routine checkup and was describing something cute she had done. I don’t remember what it was (this was some years ago). But it wasn’t the first time he had said this to me, and I had heard the same tiresome charge from others.
The context was usually when I was speaking about what I took to be emotional displays on the cat’s part, as well as displays of affection. And I carried on “anthropomorphizing” after the cat died and I lived for a couple of years with a roommate who had a dog – a dog to whom I became (predictably) very, very attached. I have been owned by two cats in my life and three dogs, if you count the one I “roomed” with. I have shared so much of my life with animals it seems strange now not to have one around (I am hesitant to get another pet, as I want to do some travelling).
Two things have mystified the Francis Fukuyamas of the world about non-Western peoples and their way of ‘adopting democracy.’ One is these peoples’ annoying propensity to produce rulers who stuff urns, crack heads, and throw opponents in prison. The other is that even when such peoples do manage to squeeze out a ‘fair’ election, 50+% of them vote for some brutal lunkhead completely unpalatable to Right-Thinking Westerners:
In 1985, a 19-year-old black woman named Donna participated along with six other perpetrators – three of them women – in the abduction, gruesome torture, and murder of a 60-year-old real estate broker, Thomas Vigliarolo. After gaining access to Vigliarolo by claiming to be prostitutes, the perpetrators drove him to a Harlem apartment, stripped him naked, tied him to a bed, and tortured him to death for over two weeks while demanding a ransom of $430,000.
One of the women explained why she shoved a yard-long metal rod up Vigliarolo’s rectum: “He was a homo anyway . . . When I stuck [it in] he wiggled.”
We knew it was going to be this way: liberals are going to get indignant and obstructionist about any policy that President Trump tries to enact over the next four years, no matter how reasonable or unremarkable it may be in actuality. It will be a continual source of amusement to see what new alleged slights to human decency liberals will discover to get angry about in the years to come.
(Please note that I use the term “liberal” deliberately rather than Leftist, considering that liberalism encompasses not only the Left but much of the Right as well in American politics as it stands.)
President Trump is adding further venom to the raging sectarian hatreds tearing apart Iraq and Syria by his latest ill-judged tweets. These have far greater explosive potential than his better known clashes with countries like Australia and Mexico, because in the Middle East he is dealing with matters of war and peace. In this complex region, the US will have to pay a high price for switching to a vaguely belligerent policy which pays so little regard to the real situation on the ground.
What is the difference between a “people’s uprising” and “dangerous populism”?
As far as I can tell from trawling the media’s usage of these terms, a “people’s uprising” is often violent, but it never seems to worry the media nor the powers that be.
“Populism,” on the other hand, is framed as a dangerous metastasizing of a rancid, stupid peasantry’s baser instincts. These rubes are so dumb, they are easily manipulated by oligarchs that are only lying to them and don’t really care about them at all. Although it hardly ever manifests in violence, well, you know, many considered Hitler to be a populist, and we all know how that ended, right?
an idea that [as far as] public feelings of security and trust in the judicial system, southern and northern Italy should be treated as two separate countries.
the sense of necessity in terms of obeying the rules and moral condemnation of corruptive conduct in authoritative organs is much higher than in the South.”
In my earlier entry, we saw that the thing that made the difference between WEIRD Northwestern Europeans and their more clannish neighbors was the selective pressures that each underwent during their histories – particularly since the fall of Rome until the present. This era in time established the conditions in which different sorts of individuals survived and reproduced, eventually leading to the modern world as we know it.
As before, it is to be understood that these differences have a genetic basis. That is, they are heritable. This means that genetic differences between different peoples lead to differences in their behavioral traits, which, collectively, manifests as cultural differences. We should be clear that all human behavioral traits are heritable, with “nurture” (as it’s commonly thought of) playing a minimal to nonexistent role in each. As John Derbyshire put it, “if dimensions of the individual human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of a lot of individual personalities.” The rest of this entry proceeds assuming an understanding of this reality.
To recap, in Northwestern Europe it was bipartite manorialism that selected for a certain type of people not seen elsewhere in the world.
The most compelling alternative to ethnic nationalism is what we might call “meritocrat” or “individualist” nationalism. This is a system in which people are allowed to migrate to a country on a meritocratic basis. In other words, whether a person is allowed to come into a country is solely determined by whether they are, in some respect, good enough. In the real world, these meritocratic criteria usually have to do with occupational status, health, and income. In theoretical discussions, the idea of only letting immigrants in who have a certain IQ score is also often brought up.
This proposal has many attractive qualities. The most often cited problems with immigration, welfare abuse, crime, political ideology, etc., could seemingly be avoided by only allowing certain kinds of immigrants in. Why, then, should we care about what ethnic or racial group an immigrant belongs to?
Anti-globalization in the 1990s and early 2000s was overwhelmingly a phenomenon of the Left. But now that the mantle of anti-globalization has been taken up by the Right, it will be interesting to see how many on the Left do an about-face, and also to see if the Right can succeed where the Left has consistently failed.
Many people have been taken aback by the seemingly endless amounts of ”Executive Orders” and major new policies being implemented by Donald Trump in such a short period of time. No sooner has one order been given than another appears, and then another. Discussion of one policy, for example the wall, begins to hit the headlines and social media, only hours later, or perhaps a day later, to be succeeded by something else, for example the ”Muslim Ban” or a 5 year ban on lobbying. It’s all rather bewildering, even to people who’re delighted by what Trump is doing.