Tuesday, August 30, 2016

The Alt Right Manifesto

The Alt Right Manifesto

Vox Day has published an Alt-Right Manifesto on his Vox Popoli blog.
  1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
  2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russell Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
  3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
  4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.
  5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
  6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
  7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
  8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
  9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
  10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
  11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
  12. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
  13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
  14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
  15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
  16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
Over the next few weeks, we will take each one of these in turn and examine in more detail.

I think this is an excellent start for a ideological manifesto. Of course, I would expect nothing less from the superior intellect of Vox Day. It has already become controversial, with the usual suspects coming unglued. Curiously, the most vehement vituperation has come from the so-called conservatives, which many of the alt-right would call "cuckservatives".

Even the concept of an alt-right has people worried (and it should). Hillary called out the alt-right in a speech.  The neocons are blowing their stacks. Racist organizations such as the NAACP and SPLC are calling the kettle black.

Even more interesting, and the aspect of the alt-right that no one in the mainstream is taking into account is that (a) the alt-right has no hierarchical organization; it is a true grass-roots movement, (b) the alt-right is extremely social media savvy, and (c) the alt-right understands and uses 4GW tactics. These factors will make the alt right more powerful than their numbers would indicate.

From an intellectual perspective, the alt-right pushes several culture hot buttons. The intellectually honest will ask themselves questions about preconceptions, 
  • Is the concept of tribalism morally wrong?
  • Are PC concepts, such as diversity, contrary to human nature?
  • Has PC corrupted science? What else has it corrupted?
  • Is free trade a mechanism that works to shift wealth from the middle class to the oligarchs?
  • What has Conservatism really conserved?
The people that are not asking these questions are the problem that the alt right is attempting to address.

Sunday, January 11, 2015

What is 'Terrorism'?

I hate the term terrorist or terrorism. Basically, it has become the broad brush to paint anyone whose goals and aims do not align with that of any particular set of ruling authorities.

Most Westerners, particularly Americans, have this idea that certain behaviors in conflict are acceptable and other behaviors are not. They get this from being conditioned from the time they are toddlers, as they are taught the 'rules' of conflict.

On the national scale, these rules date back to the Treaty of Westphalia, which, in essence, divided the parties affected by conflict into three groups: sovereign governments, military forces under the control of sovereign governments, and the general population. In Western thought, the first two are responsible for managing and engaging in conflict, and the latter has the responsibility to stay out of it.

This is an artificial construct. First, even though the West has been the dominant political force in the world for the last 400 years, not all nations and cultures subscribe to Western values, particularly regarding conflict and war. Second, while Western rules regarding war and conflict seem logical to most Westerners, they are an anathema to a large part of the world. Finally, Western rules around war and conflict require forethought and planning to implement, and are never implemented well, as so many 'war crimes' trials indicate.

What does this mean to us today in the current wave of “terrorism”? If we define terrorism as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims, then the list of terrorist organizations becomes very long, and includes most of the governments of the world as well as organizations that are not recognized as governments. However, most people today think of Mohammedan radicals when they hear the word terrorism. This is not an unreasonable reaction.

Most people today do not understand what is going on in what we call terrorism. The New York Times is calling for 'reform' from inside the Mohammedan religions. They, and most like them, do not see that the Mohammedan radicals are the reformers. They do not see that what is happening now is the third historical Mohammedan Expansion.

What we are witnessing is not terrorism, but war. It is a war that we do not recognize as such because of our conditioning around what war is supposed to look like. Our vision is clouded by the fog of multiculturalism, which further handicaps our perceptions. If Western civilization is going to survive, we need to turn this around and get on a war footing. We will not be able to fight this war like we have fought wars since the Treaty of Westphalia; we must instead change our policies, tactics, and strategy. Otherwise, Western civilization will be swept under the rug of history.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Effects of Unrestricted Immigration

We Americans tend to be focused on what is happening in our own backyard, and there is nothing wrong with that.  But, sometimes, we miss the larger picture when we are consumed with our own problems.  Immigration and illegal migration is an issue which concerns many Americans, but it turns out that is an issue of concern in other parts of the world as well.
The Obama administration has taken an official stance of almost unrestricted immigration from countries in the Western Hemisphere, and if people can get to the United States without coming through an airport or a seaport, they fall under the same policy.

Why would a presidential administration have such a policy?  The prevailing theory is that it boils down to politics.  The Obama administration, being a decidedly leftist-collectivist Democrat administration, assumes that new immigrants, legal or illegal, benefitting from this policy, will become Democrat voters.

Such a policy has the appearance of near universal acceptance among leftist-collectivist political parties.  Consider Sweden for a moment.  The Swedes have engaged in contemplative navel gazing for about two generations now.  Their great socialist experiment has enabled a standard of living to be envied.  The problem is that their birth rate has fallen dramatically (1.6 births per native Swedish woman) while their median age has crept up to 41.2. (source: CIA World Fact Book). Overall, the Swedish birth rate is 1.9 (2.1 is the replacement rate for a stable population), so the difference is made up by immigrants. With a declining native population, the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the predominant political party, has consciously increases immigration from other parts of the world, particularly the Middle East, in order to provide taxpayers who, theoretically, will sustain the social programs that Sweden is so famous for.  The same motivation for sympathetic voters provides the impetus for the Social Democrats in Sweden as it does for Democrats in the United States.

But, what are the unintended consequences in Sweden? They are similar to those which US citizens are aware. Stress on social services and social infrastructure. Declining labor wages, and internal security concerns.  The latter is something that took most Swedes by surprise, and that the Social Democrats choose to ignore.

Recently, the Swedish Police issued a report concerning their coverage of police services in Sweden. They have identified 55 zones within metropolitan areas of Sweden where they will no longer enforce the laws of the nation.  Here is the map from the report:

What started out with minor attacks on government service functionaries has turned into a resistance movement where the police are resisted whenever they attempt to intervene.
These no-go zones are primarily so-called “exclusion areas” which is the politically correct term for the 186 ghettos that have sprung up around Sweden in the past two decades. These areas are predominantly populated by immigrants from muslim countries with low education and even lower employment rates. The exception being the enthusiastic entrepreneurs in the fields of drug dealing, protection rackets and robberies.
Since the real law doesn’t apply, the function of justice has largely been taken over by the gangs themselves, not unlike how the mafia is seen as the go-to place in rural Italy when the local police is too corrupt to serve its purpose. Unofficial courts are held and punishments are meted out based on the cultural norms of the dominant gangs. Some no-go areas even have vehicle checkpoints at the border. Not police checkpoints, but the gangs protecting their turf from law enforcement and rival gangs.
The Social Democrats sticking their collective head in the sand. They are aiding and abetting such behavior by actually increasing the immigration quota.

Like the Obama administration’s policy, this is not a sustainable immigration policy for Sweden.  In fact, it looks more like a fifth column invasion, where the goal is to destabilize Sweden’s society in preparation for more ominous events.

Will the Swedes accept this over the long haul? Time will tell. If they do, then the long term prospects for native Swedes is extinction. The likely alternative, I fear is a violent backlash that may enshrine the attitudes of Ander Breivik. 

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Fed Fraud Coming to Light

David Stockman lauds the end of Quantitative Easing (QE), and identifies it as the fraud it really is.
QE has finally come to an end, but public comprehension of the immense fraud it embodied has not even started. In round terms, this official counterfeiting spree amounted to $3.5 trillion— reflecting the difference between the Fed’s approximate $900 billion balance sheet when its “extraordinary policies” incepted at the time of the Lehman crisis and its $4.4 trillion of footings today. That’s a lot of something for nothing. It’s a grotesque amount of fraud
The scam embedded in this monumental balance sheet expansion involved nothing so arcane as the circuitous manner by which new central bank reserves supplied to the banking system impact the private credit creation process. As is now evident, new credits issued by the Fed can result in the expansion of private credit to the extent that the money multiplier is operating or simply generate excess reserves which cycle back to the New York Fed if, as in the present instance, it is not. 
But the fact that the new reserves generated during QE have cycled back to the Fed does not mitigate the fraud. The latter consists of the very act of buying these trillions of treasuries and GSE securities in the first place with fiat credits manufactured by the central bank. When the Fed does QE, its open market desk buys treasury notes and, in exchange, it simply deposits in dealer bank accounts new credits made out of thin air. As it happened, about $3.5 trillion of such fiat credits were conjured from nothing during the last 72 months.
All of these bonds had permitted Washington to command the use of real economic resources. That is, to consume goods and services it obtained directly in the form of payrolls, contractor services, military tanks and ammo etc; and, indirectly, in the form of the basket of goods and services typically acquired by recipients of government transfer payments. Stated differently, the goods and services purchased via monetizing $3.5 trillion of government debt embodied a prior act of production and supply. But the central bank exchanged them for an act of nothing. 
What is the effect today? 

So much for recovery.  We will continue to monitor the situation.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Mohammedan Terror in the Great White North

Canadians, who often criticize US foreign policy, calling it responsible for the incidents of terror that have stricken the US, are now the recipients of terror attacks themselves.

First, a soldier is killed in Quebec by a radicalized Mohammedan convert on the 20th, and then, this morning, it appears that multiple shooters attacked the Canadian War Memorial and Parliament at nearly the same time.

The danger from radical Mohammedans is not a surprise to Canadian authorities.  In fact, law enforcement personnel met with the killer in Monday's attack less than two weeks before the incident. 

These attacks will be called "crime" by the authorities in North America.  But, they are not crimes; they are acts of war.  Westerners have a distorted view of what war is.  Since the Peace of Westphalia in the mid-17th century, and clarified by Carl von Clausewitz in his seminal writings, the West has thought of civilization and the conduct of war as three parts: the government, the armed forces, and the civilian population.  In the Clausewitzian world, governments and armed forces conduct war, and the civilian population stays out of the conflict. This construct, in which armed forces maneuver in areas where the population is absent, is often called "third generations warfare" (3GW).  When civilians engage in destructive activities against their nation's enemies, they are thought of as criminals, since, in 3GW, there is no place for civilians.  If captured or confronted, these civilians are treated as criminals and not as soldiers.

Unfortunately for the West, the rest of the world is not hampered by such artificial rules.  In most of the rest of the world, people have a tribal mentality. They fight to protect their families, then their communities, then their tribes, and then whatever greater group is of interest, in this case, religion.  This is the way the world has worked in all recorded history up until the 19th century.  Because the non-Western world recognizes that governments and armies cannot exist without support of people, they see the civilian population as a legitimate target, or an opposing tribe, if you will.

Now, getting back to Canada, and by extension, every other Western nation, if you want to prevent domestic terrorism, you do it the same way as you handle Ebola.  First, you do not let it into the country.  Both Canada and the U.S.A. have abysmal, idiotic immigration policies.  Those policies need to be fixed.  If it pops up inside the country, you quarantine it with extreme prejudice.  You can doctor it if you want to, but unlike Ebola, there is probably not much of a therapy or regimen that will give you a 50% success factor.

Sound like discrimination?  You betcha! And with no apologies.  It is war of the cultures, boys and girls, and the other side is not taking prisoners, except to be used for beheadings on Youtube.  If Western civilization is going to survive, it will have to do the things that are necessary to survive.  This will not be popular among most Canadians today, but as these acts of war/terror become more prevalent, one hopes that the Canadians will wake up and repent of their misguided suppositions.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

The Amazon Chronicles

If you have not been following trends in the publishing industry, you are missing out on a terrific drama.  Online retailer Amazon has kicked sand in the face of the Big 5 publishing houses, and one in particular, Hachette, has taken particular offense.

The net of the spat is that Amazon understands the economics for fiction sales, especially e-books, which are highly elastic (for those of you in Boston, that means the lower the price, the more units you sell).  Hachette, on the other hand, sets prices artificially high and "discounts" them heavily based on volume orders.  In order to preserve the sales of hardbound books, Hachette prices the e-book versions higher than the paperback version that come out after hardbound sales taper off.  Amazon thinks that is stupid and has built a pricing model to reflect the same.  This is a great boon to the consumer.

Because Hachette doesn't like giving up control, they have dug their heels in.  Amazon's response was to take Hachette at its word, and charge the artificially high prices that were Hachette's MSRP.  Furthermore, Amazon would not pre-order Hachette books or keep them in stock.

Authors and pundits have taken sides and the ensuing kerfluffle has been most entertaining.  Me? I am on the side of the consumer, therefore, I support Amazon.  Here is a little piece I wrote in another venue back in the spring when this cranked up:
Amazon, whose position as a literature retailer was solidified after the Apple and large publishing houses were sued under federal antitrust laws for an attempt to fix the prices of e-books, is now at it again, going head-to-head with French publishing house, Hachette
For those of you not in tune with the publishing industry, what Amazon is doing is to refuse to continue the extreme discounting of artificially high retail prices assigned by the publishing houses, particularly for e-books. As a mass market retailer, Amazon can only sell books with a profit margin up to a certain price, depending upon the medium, length, and popularity of the author. Because of the way the publishing distribution discount system works, books which have a higher retail price require a higher distribution price. This means Amazon makes about half the margin on a more expensive, but steeply discounted book from the major publishers.
Hachette's first complaint was rooted in the fact that Amazon is now selling its books for the price that Hachette itself suggests. Now, Amazon is not pre-ordering potential blockbusters, like J. K. Rowlings' new book, SILKWORM, or building inventory for other popular books from Hachette. Because of Amazon's customer loyalty and purchasing power, this has the effect of slowing down Hachette's sales, and deflating best-seller status of Hachette's offerings.
Hachette needs to understand the new economic realities, or the market will leave them behind. The future is e-books. Clearly, e-books do not cost near as much to produce as hardcopy books, since there is no printing, binding, etc. The large publishing houses need to pass that savings on to the consumer, instead of conspiring to prop up artificial prices. One would think that the big publishing houses could have read the writing on the wall after the antitrust suit.
The sad part is that Hachette's authors are the ones that are suffering. The authors' royalty per unit would be the same or maybe slightly lower with Amazon's model, but with the lower retail price, they would sell many more copies, putting more money into the authors' pockets.
The fight isn't over and both sides are still heaving salvos at each other.  Recently, Rob Spillman, part of the establishment publishing industry, wrote a piece for Salon about why he thinks Amazon needs to be curtailed.  Unfortunately for Mr. Spillman, he did not have many facts in his op-ed, and he didn't use much logic.  This set him up for one of the best and most thorough fiskings that I have ever read in my life over on JA Konrath's blog.

The traditional publishing model is a dinosaur going head-to-head with 21st century technology.  I suspect in 50 years, young economics students will see traditional publishing replace the "buggy whip" symbology that was used on us when referring to technological obsolescence. 

While most of the press around the Amazon-Hachette dispute revolves around economics, the more important point is ignored. That is, the political aspect.  The gatekeepers can no longer control the narrative.  Everyman can publish now, and they may have thoughts and opinions which are not sympathetic to the progressive-collectivist worldview.  I suspect this is the real reason so many are taking sides with Hachette when there is no logical reason to do so.


I often wonder why more people do not use Linux on their home computers.  After all, there are several distributions that are free, and many come with a library of free applications.

I have been running Ubuntu on an old Toshiba Centrino laptop for about 3 years now. It comes with Libre Office, which, as near as I can tell, is 98.44% compatible with Windows Office 2007.  For a browser, I use Chromium, also free (I quit using Mozilla after the SJWs demanded Brendan Eich's resignation).  This machine is about 8 years old, and the operations I run on it are as fast as my new company Lenovo laptop with Windows 8.  Chromium on Ubuntu is much, much faster than even the 64-bit Explorer browser.

Ubuntu is easy to install; it practically installs itself.  The only issues I have run into is that there are some apps you have to install from a command line interface with a keyed-in "apt-get" command.  Unix/Linux commands seem to be obtuse, and the the propeller heads seem to take great joy in making commands obtuse.  Who would ever think of naming a string search command "grep", after all?  And, once in a while, I have to look pretty hard for a device driver.

Overall however, I have enjoyed the speed at which Ubuntu operates and the fact that I can leave my laptop up and running for months without rebooting (try that with Windows).  Ubuntu is as intuitive as the Mac OS and faster than either Mac or Windows.  There is a great deal of support on the interwebz too.