Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama
by Ann Coulter
336 pages, Sentinel, $16
For many years, the subject of race has been so carefully tinged with the trauma of the past that we did not even pretend we could discuss it. Most generation X+ citizens grew up under a regimen of teachers, politicians, media and entertainers telling us the one right way to think on this issue.
Recently this taboo has fragmented in light of the shocking polarization of American voters. 60% of white people vote Republican; everyone else votes Democratic. The white people who vote Democratic tend to be the lost: single mothers, scared post-collegiate children, the neurotic and the miserable. This tells us that among the healthy, representation is exclusively a racial question. Whites vote Republican, and everyone else votes against them.
Ann Coulter takes on this challenging topic in her latest book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. As a writer and a product, Coulter has a foot in both worlds, embracing a witty mainstream conservatism but also exhibiting a challenging realism that might even be called Nietzschean, or Machiavellian. Coulter may write for the mainstream middle class audience, but she is aware of the dark underworld of realpolitik that manifests itself in all that we do. For most of her career, this duality has created ambiguity about what she actually believes. Her books often come on strong, make some really good points, and then spent the next 200 pages creating a fog of non-disclosure so she doesn’t get too close to the really dangerous parts of reality and politics.
With this current book, Coulter resolves the duality by keeping her points clinical. She doesn’t read into her own thesis beyond the provable and documented, but she lets us draw our own conclusions with ample amounts of accurate but hyperbolic liberal-bashing. In this book, her goal is to explore the use of race by liberal parties as a kind of “get out of jail free card” and a limitless credit card on which to charge their own wealth redistribution agenda. On top of that, she explores the history of racial denial in the American media and then seeks to prove how no one, black or white, is benefiting from this situation. As Coulter might say, the only people profiteering from this situation are liberals and their media lapdogs:
It produced a destructive welfare state that was untouchable for decades. It got us anxiety, anger, fear and a major political party incapable of making an argument more sophisticated than: “You racist!”
And then it got us the most left-wing president America has ever seen.
When there were so few cases of white-on-black hate crimes that liberals had to start making them up, wasn’t that a clue that the Klan wasn’t preventing black progress anymore? If white people could be shorn of all racism overnight, it’s not clear how that would improve the black condition. (261)
The way this book approaches race is reminiscent of Colin Flaherty’s White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Race Riots to America, a book which similar takes a non-judgmental view of the failure of American racial policy as a policy and not as an indictment of any ethnic group. Coulter goes out of her way, as Flaherty did before her, to make it clear that her book is not about black people. It’s about white liberals and the racial policies they advocate and the consequent failure of those. Much of this book, like Flaherty’s, involves research into historical events and current news items in which there is a disconnect between reality and the way the liberal media and liberal politicians have chosen to explain the situation. Coulter’s greatest vitriol seems to be reserved for WASPy journalists, politicos and public figures who keep beating the tin drum of “racism” while ignoring the fact that liberal racial policies do not work for anyone, black, white or other.
The thrust of the book is on white-black relations, not the broader question of race as a whole and the Democratic intent to replace the white majority with a third-world majority and thus secure a permanent demographic majority for Democrats. As said above, Coulter stays within the immediate and clearly linked because this book is like all of her books an introduction both to a mainstream conservative position, and the underlying reason behind it which may be more complex than most people are willing to undertake.
Among the first hundred pages, Coulter repeats a disingenuous argument about how Republicans fostered racial equality through rule of law, while Democrats opposed it. This is a complex area involving the flip-flop of both parties from previous positions, moving Republicans from the left-ward position toward a right-wing one. She does better when she focuses on the difference between liberal views and rational views of the situation, instead of trying to rally the troops toward loyalty to a party name. It is this type of mainstream argument that loses Coulter readers among the quiet educated and thoughtful types who would like solid logical reasoning behind their positions. They are a minority with a huge trickle-down effect on those who recognize their wisdom, so they are important in the long-term but less important to product success.
Like Flaherty, Coulter approaches the African-American crime statistics with fairness. She points out numerous times that most victims of black crime are black, and that the permissive “rehabilitation” policies of liberals are to blame, in that they not only fail to discourage crime but effectively incentivize it.
Based on their having no understanding of human nature, the smart set turned American cities into petri dishes for crime and degenerate behavior without punishment. Thousands of Americans died, were raped and disfigured in criminal acts made possible by the Warren court, the ACLU, liberal professors and activists, whose single-minded policy objective was to return criminals to the street. (94)
For any faults she has, including the aforementioned prole drift of one of her arguments in the first part of this book, Coulter breaks new ground by opening up the issue that we’re afraid to look at here in the West. Both the USA and Europe are awash in internal division, complexity and cost from their policies of diversity. While Coulter does not argue against diversity itself, she shifts the argument away from racism toward criticism of liberal pluralism and its effects in the context of diversity. This is a huge first step toward having an issue we can discuss sensibly again, and leaving behind the Soviet lock-step with liberal ideas that has prevented that discussion until now.
“Acceptance is half the battle,” they will tell you at therapy or addiction treatment. Once you accept, the theory goes, you can start to change.
Unfortunately the reality is that most people view acceptance as a kind of determinism: Oh. I’m a drug addict. Well, nothing to do but get right back to it. Are you using that spoon and needle?
Acceptance has a double edge to it. We remember the Greek tale of Cassandra like we remember most great literature and poetry, which is not because our teachers told us to, but because it’s just as relevant today as it was back then. These tales are eternal because they reveal something of the human condition, not the trends of the day or the condition unique to a single person.
Cassandra was a prophet who, thanks to the curse of a vengeful god, was doomed to have her prophecies be ignored by everyone around her. While some might blame the gods, in our modern analogue the fact is that no one wants to believe Cassandra because it’s more convenient for them personally to go into denial, say everything’s OK, and carry on with their individualist pursuits, which don’t require reality outside of commercial and social spheres.
In Cassandra’s case, as in our own, acceptance can take many forms. We can accept and ignore, accept and pretend we like it, or accept and recognize a need to turn our ship around and get on a better course. Not surprisingly, most are going to choose acceptance and inaction, because it allows them to continue being individualistic, even if they must adopt a self-pitying tone in order to justify it:
Looking down Central Park West, I’m thrilled by the necklace of green-and-red traffic lights extending toward Columbus Circle and the glittering tower of One57, that vertical paradise for billionaires. And as I walk past the splashing fountain in front of the museum’s south entrance on West 77th Street, I recall a sentence from Edward Gibbon’s ode to evanescence, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” in which “the learned Poggius” gazes down at the remains of the city from the Capitoline hill: “The public and private edifices, that were founded for eternity, lie prostrate, naked, and broken, like the limbs of a mighty giant; and the ruin is the more visible, from the stupendous relics that have survived the injuries of time and fortune.”
This is our fate. All the more reason to appreciate what we have while we have it. – “Is This the End?” by James Atlas, The New York Times
The tone of this writing reminds us of innumerable NPR broadcasts. Essentially: once things were good, now they are failing. But how fascinating they are! How exciting it is to live now! And how fundamentally depressed we are: we never expected anything different. Thus the end is to us comforting. It means that our own deaths do not go unavenged. Everything is doomed, so celebrate these brief moments, and leave nothing but ruins for eternity.
This is a sickness of the soul and a blasphemy against life itself. It reeks of cowardice and self-serving fatalism born of self-pity. In this person’s eyes, the work of centuries should be undone because his personal “world” (judgements, feelings, desires) does not feel like getting itself up off the sofa and fixing a few problems.
What we are facing here is not the hand of Odin or Zeus smiting us. It is the consequences of our own decisions. Like all choices we make, we choose based on past results as compared to what we want to occur. Like all complex choices, when we make a bad choice and go down a path that is getting increasingly worse, we can re-trace our footsteps to where we went wrong and go down a different path. All of this is within our ability to choose.
The strangest part of this futurechildrensensation is that if one said it openly even just a few short years ago, it may have seemed irrational and alarmist; now, with empirical observations and the grim predictions of most credible scientists firmly in hand, it seems more irrational not to hold the view that the paradigm in which we’ve been living is rapidly approaching its prophesied closure point.
This does not, of course, relieve us of the obligation to get up every day and keep trying to promote the values of peace and justice in our lives, communities, bioregions, and the larger world. The apocalypse is perhaps the ultimate “off day,” but that doesn’t mean it’s also a day off. Whatever the ineluctable combination of fate and free will has in store for us mere mortals, it remains incumbent upon us to roll up our sleeves and work to avert the self-inflicted cataclysm we’ve been relentlessly courting. Or, at the least, we might strive to appreciate the blessings we’ve enjoyed and pass through the eye with love in our hearts and a song in our souls. – “Giving Back to the Future” by Randall Amster, CommonDreams.org
The worst part is that those who are speaking about collapse are wrong on two counts. First, the method by which they see it arriving is wrong; second, the results they foresee are wrong.
Collapse happens from within. Even if global warming is as terrible as the worst case scenario pundits think, it is survivable. We will adapt and move on. Even if the financial crisis is totally apocalyptic, it too is survivable. Countries survive worse every generation.
However, these are surrogates for the true problem of our collapse. The roots of collapse are not the economy, the climate or military. The source of our collapse is that we no longer share values, which is what happens when you let liberalism turn your society into a pluralistic, relativistic and individualistic ideological state. There is no longer any real bond between the people, only political, social and commercial ones.
That’s where we went wrong.
Collapse is not a sudden event. Once prosperous first-world countries become a Brazil- or Iraq-like third world country where lack of shared values means a giant open-air bazaar policed by warlords, where hygiene, rule of law, learning and abilities are low. This doesn’t happen because they import third-world people (although that is symptom of their decline). It happens because they no longer have anything in common. Things just fall apart when there’s no actual bonds to hold them together.
We don’t need to secede. We don’t need to lament. What we need to do is as the second article suggests: hit reverse, go back to the last turn, and get on a saner path, and then start cleaning up the mess so future generations have something to look forward to.
In earlier years, I was influenced by my peers (who repeated what they saw on TV, in rockstar/moviestar interviews, and heard from their teachers) to think that all conservatives were evil or at least a secular equivalent of it, greedy, selfish and cruel.
With that as our perceptual filter, it was easy to see people like Ann Coulter as not only somewhat vile, but also as pandering to the dumbest and lowest instincts of humanity. To be seen reading Ann Coulter was like admitting that you weren’t sure what letter comes after “R” in the alphabet.
With more experience of the world, I see Ms. Coulter as straddling several worlds: she wants to be a foremost conservative thinker, but wants to be a popular one, so she preaches a simplified version of reality with abundant humor and vitriol in order to engage the herd.
This makes her like many of us a person with two masters, reality and popularity. Our entire society is based on this concept and it does us no favors, yet we cling to it because we fear that turning against it will make us social pariahs. And then where do we find clients, lovers, friends, favors and bowling buddies?
I take the social risk of reading Ms. Coulter because unlike many conservative commentators, she advocates for conservatism as a practical idea and is not afraid to point out the insanity of liberalism. Perhaps she seems more than our academics who focus on details. Sometimes the truth is crude, vitriolic and funny.
That being said, I have to take her to task for her most recent column, which is so correct that it misses the bigger point:
This is not to diminish Reagan. It is to say that Romney wasn’t the problem.
To the extent Republicans have a problem with their candidates, it’s not that they’re not conservative enough. Where are today’s Nelson Rockefellers, Arlen Specters or George H.W. Bushes? Happily, they have gone the way of leprosy.
Having vanquished liberal Republicans, the party’s problem now runs more along the lines of moron showoffs, trying to impress tea partiers like Jenny Beth Martin by taking insane positions on rape exceptions for abortion — as 2 million babies are killed every year from pregnancies having nothing to do with rape. – “Romney was not the problem,” by Ann Coulter, November 21, 2012
She is absolutely correct in that there was nothing wrong with Mitt Romney and in fact, he represents the greatest of conservative attributes and a new plan for conservatives, which was to try being actual conservatives instead of neoconservatives/neoliberals/RINOs (these terms all mean the same thing).
However, she missed the bigger point: this is a culture war, and it’s not being fought for culture itself.
It’s a struggle by individuals to appear better than others.
In that sentence is revealed not only American politics, and European politics, but all politics in egalitarian regimes. When we’re all the same, we have to differentiate ourselves.
How do we do that? By having better opinions than those of others. By being more altruistic, more egalitarian and more compassionate in appearance than others.
We’re not being altruistic, egalitarian and compassionate for those we claim to help. No — this is pure show business. We are trying to appear better than others so we can be more popular and succeed more.
It’s what celebrities do. If you’re a celebrity, you don’t go down the street to help Mrs. Smith whose husband just died and left her with three starving kids. You go to the darkest corner of the earth, find an orphan with war wounds and hopefully AIDS, and try to “help” that poor soul in front of the cameras. The show must go on.
Democrats have won over a huge portion of our population because our society is unstable and thus, people live in fear. They don’t have any power. They perceive that they can have power by joining the Democrat gang by having the right opinions.
It lets them look down their nose at someone who is socially acceptable to mock, namely Christians, whites, rednecks, poor people, the “uneducated” (which they mistake to mean “the dumb”) and so on.
Republicans are losing because they have not found a social higher ground that makes Republicans appear more educated, intelligent, powerful and ultimately compassionate, although they are.
The election of 2012 was lost in the media, in academia and in popular culture. (This side-steps the issue of Romney’s 47%, who are still bad news, but a result of the phenomenon of white liberal altruism, not a cause of it.)
Democrats have successfully portrayed Republicans as the party of greed, stupidity, poverty, ignorance and cruelty. A compliant media, desperate to do whatever’s popular, and a lost population who just want some political power of their own, have been complicit.
The result is a whole country brainwashing itself about Democratic ideas — which provably do not work — and varnishing itself with self-praise about how enlightened it is.
That’s the next crusade we must undertake: deflating the Democratic self-image, and replacing it with an image of the conservative as the only option for thoughtful and realistic people.
Imagine a giant field of piles made of sand. We have a finite amount of sand, and a finite amount of space, so the only question is how much to dump on each pile.
Water runs between these piles of sand. There is a finite amount of water, say enough for a depth of two inches, and it surrounds every pile and covers the finite space.
The decision facing us now is one of distribution. Our minds, which are wired to eliminate threats, would immediately suggest that we make a whole bunch of identical piles of sand.
This is what most adults by instinct do. On the other hand, a child or wild mountain man may make uneven mounds, perhaps creating a topography or some other whimsical difference.
Instinctively some part of us realizes that even mounds are a dead end. At that point, a peaceful uniformity (why not call equality by its real name?) will prevail.
However, at that point two problems emerge. First, there is no real possibility of change except to the unequal. Second, all mounds will be close to the water line, and thus unstable. Thus being equal may seem to be better on paper, in reality it offers an experience of lesser value.
The distribution of income is analogous to our piles of sand metaphor.
Our instinct is to want no one to be poor, and thus to want to even up all the little piles so that everyone has the same amount.
However, this doesn’t work for the two reasons mentioned above.
There is no real possibility of change except to the unequal. Your society will be entirely stagnant and will dis-incentivize people to improve themselves. The reward comes before the performance, so the performance becomes optional.
All mounds will be close to the water line, and thus unstable. You will have devalued money by reducing its ability to move us away from things that pain us in life. We will all be equally close to troubles, which makes us feel helpless.
There’s two another points that are harder to visualize but just as important:
We send a moral signal against adaptation to reality and self-improvement. Inequality provides an upward function by allowing society to separate good behavior from bad, and give incentive to the former while making the latter sting. This sends a clear message: this is our society, these are our values; if you act to further these values, you will be rewarded.
We eliminate selection on the basis of ability and replace it with popularity. Perhaps the most damaging consequence of equality is that we stop selecting for people who are more effective and efficient. This puts power in the hands of those who are less competent, not more. People who make more money (Kardashians aside) are generally more effective. Those are the people we want using our money so that they can keep it in motion and set up industries to create more wealth.
I’m no big fan of jobs. They are boring, mandatory, confining, pointless, boring, ugly and very political. However, the problem with jobs is that we’ve tried too hard to include everyone, which means that (a) we dumb down the job and (b) we make our currency less valuable, so we need to spend more time competing for it.
I’ve learned in this life through painful experience how in most cases, our problems are the result of us avoiding reality and not the result of some external force doing bad things to us. It’s the same way with the economy: our unrealistic instinct is to make the piles equal, which then paralyzes the economy, makes currency less valuable, and forces us to do more of what is unpleasant just to keep ourselves above water.
This metaphor is not simple. It reflects the highest level of abstraction with which we can view this issue. As a result, it always applies. It shows us the two choices we face.
We can either have inequality with higher value of our currency and less work for everyone, or equality with lower value of our currency and more work for everyone. Which future do you want?
If the only prayer you ever said in your life was ‘thank you,’ that would suffice. – Meister Eckhart
Thanksgiving is not a holiday; it’s a ritual.
Rituals exist like a kind of existential “to do” list, reminding us when to stop and focus on certain bigger-picture issues, so that when we return to our regular daily function, we have greater clarity.
As a harvest festival, Thanksgiving is a time when we look over the year and tilt the balance sheet to the positive. After all, we’re still alive. The harvest is done, and it may not be perfect, but it’s time to consider all that could have been, and know how good it is to have what we have.
This year, I’m thankful for many things, including survival. I’m thankful for another year in what I consider an optimal existence, not on a personal level, but derived from the cosmos (you can read “God” if you wish) itself. Life is designed to be beautiful and it is. All of its disadvantages and evils have a purpose. I can’t change the parts that are awful, but I can live in awe of the greatness of it all, which is made possible in part and necessarily by its awful parts.
I’m thankful for the community that has rallied behind this blog with intelligent comments, articles, help with technical and hosting, public mention, citing us in your blog posts and even talking about us with your friends. Thank you all. It’s a cliche to say I couldn’t do it without you, and it’s true: this blog is not and has never been a one-person effort. It’s more important to note that I do it because of you. When I look over our readers and see intelligent and aware people, it makes me want to not only keep going, but be better than I ever have before.
I’m thankful for the winds of history, which are changing and slowly (but less slowly than two decades ago) but surely blowing behind us instead of in our faces.
I’m looking forward to more chances to serve the order of the cosmos, which is beauty, and to beat back its necessary opposite, which is disorganization.
Thank you all for this opportunity.
This country is obsessed by homosexuality. Whichever side of the debate on which you may fall, it cannot be denied that being fabulous dominates much of our discourse. Are homosexuals born that way or is it a choice? Is homosexuality a sin or not? Should homosexuals be allowed in the military? Can they marry each other?
Many a comment section of an Amerika.org article has turned into a debate of homosexuality and gay marriage even though the article did not mention homosexuality or gay marriage. I wrote an article that got ninety-five comments. Half of them were about gay marriage; the article had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. Ironically enough, a few weeks ago there was an article that was actually about gay marriage and the comments section turned into a discussion of conservative strategy.
Stop and think for a second about what the “hot button issues” of the day are: abortion, free birth control, rape, incest, gay marriage, pedophilia, sexual harassment, Octo-Moms and My Two Dads. Much of the discourse in this country seems to revolve around bodily functions.
AIDS is another interesting case study. I believe it’s fair to say that AIDS is not the scare that it used to be. AIDS used to be really popular. When I was a kid, AIDS was everywhere. The trend peaked on the MTV show The Real World. As you may know, Pedro from The Real World was the first man with AIDS on TV. It became a national talking point; it was a serious moment and people needed to be made more “aware” of AIDS.
What does it mean to be “aware” of AIDS anyway? There’s this disease called AIDS – if you get it, you will die. Am I aware of AIDS now? No, you must talk about AIDS, you must watch TV programs about AIDS, and you must read books about AIDS. Now you are even more aware of AIDS. We all know that being more aware is better than being less aware. So if merely knowing that AIDS is a disease that you don’t want to catch is being only slightly aware of AIDS, and reading a book about AIDS will make you moderately more aware of AIDS, then reading two books about AIDS will make you even more aware of AIDS and so on.
Do you see where this is headed? The only way to become completely and intimately aware of AIDS is to actually catch AIDS yourself. Then you will have perfect enlightenment of AIDS. And don’t forget about the “myths” of AIDS – we must not only learn what AIDS is, we must also learn what AIDS is not. The entire country spends an inordinate amount of time thinking and talking about such things as AIDS, sexuality, and rape. There must be some underlying issue to all of this, since we’re converging on topics of sexual morality, health and sexual orientation at the same time, again and again.
Plato suggested that the soul was composed of three parts: the appetitive, the rational and the spirited. In his view, those three types corresponded to the classes of people in a healthy society, with reason (aided by spirit) ruling over the appetitive impulses. Appetitive in this case refers to what Immanuel Kant might have called incontinence, or the inability to defer feelings, sensations, judgments and bodily desires in order to make the right decision.
All of these intertwined topics push the buttons of the appetitive part of the soul. It’s no wonder it is nearly impossible to avoid leaping into the discussion. This partially explains a recent favorite pastime of vaguely psychoanalyzing people from afar. Supposedly every philosopher, writer, thinker, leader, musician, and artist was likely a homosexual. Several of them probably even had AIDS. All poetry is merely homosexual innuendo, as is painting.
Discourse of this nature gains its strength through sheer, simple repetition. It has little to do with what side will “win” or the energy created between the two opposing sides. It is akin to brainwashing or incantation. It feeds off itself and obscures other, more important topics. In Plato’s Republic discourse revolves around the quest for and definition of Justice. Today our discourse revolves around what does or does not constitute rape. Let’s raise the level of discourse in this country by ignoring these fake debates. Maybe the pacifists had a point with regard to non-engagement. Stop talking so much about our bodies and start talking more about our minds and our Souls.
Our discourse reflects where our minds are. You have heard people say “healthy body, healthy mind.” Let me reverse that and take it a step further: healthy soul, healthy mind, healthy body. If you take care of your soul first and foremost, your mind and body will follow suit. If you want a healthy mind, worry less about your body and more about the discourse that is filling your mind. If you want to be high-minded, talk about high-minded things. Otherwise we begin to resemble the topics that overwhelm our debate.
Unions get a lot of breaks. We let them destroy our labor pool because like anything else related to the individual in this society, we’re afraid to say no. When everyone is equal, every way of living should be legitimate and socialized, the Amerikans reason. It’s very hard to push back against that pseudo-cultural mandate.
The problem with subsidism is that rise in surface tension. Each detail costs more, and everyone is paid less, and we all pay more in taxes, except the people who own the businesses. The more we tax and regulate, the more we concentrate wealth among those who own the means of production. The worker is supported by the state, and bought off, but ultimately has far less purchasing power and owns nothing.
A century ago, people could be dirt-poor and still own houses. Now, they are dirt-poor and live off government checks, and they rent. They will be wards of the state until they die.
Subsidism specializes in creating these permanent Soviet zombie voters:
Mitt Romney on Wednesday attributed his defeat in part to what he called big policy “gifts” that the president had bestowed on loyal Democratic constituencies, including young voters, African-Americans and Hispanics.
In a conference call with fund-raisers and donors to his campaign, Mr. Romney said Wednesday afternoon that the president had followed the “old playbook” of using targeted initiatives to woo specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”
Unions and other subsidists cluster together and create a lot of noise. They form an angry mob. They threaten those who have wealth with the possibility of riot, revolution and strike. They then get what they want, which turns out make them poorer in the long-term but richer in the short term (much like revolutions and riots tend to). Because they must confront reality sometimes, and it leaves in them a lingering fear that their ideas are all illusions, they depend on a massive cultural groundswell and media blitz to constantly reinforce their unstable ideas.
This was the drumbeat of the Obama campaign. To women they said: Republicans are waging a “war on women,” trying to outlaw abortion and contraception and would take them back to their rights in the 1950s. To minorities they said: Republicans are anti-government services, cold-blooded individualists, and cannot represent minority communities. To middle and low income Americans they said: Republicans are the party of the rich, who will slash taxes for only the richest Americans and cut social safety nets for the poor.
Rather than offer a broad sweeping vision for the country, Democrats played identity politics. Republicans were the culprits, and women, young adults, black, Latinos, etc… were the victims. And voters believed it. Why? For the same reason this litany — gender, race, ethnicity, class — sound so familiar.
The subsidists are but one of many faces of what we call Crowdism around here. They are those who want not quality, but quantity. They fear some rising above the rest, so they force all to a lowest common denominator. They act like a biological parasite or cancer, sacrificing the health of the whole for their own short-term desires, feelings and judgments.
Since the 1960s the subsidists have embarked on a new crusade: replace the majority with subsidists. The best way to do that is to both import people who fear the majority, and create more unstable neurotic people who then cling to the authority of social judgment, or what’s “popular” to think is true.
Those who fear the majority are easy to find because anyone who is not ethnically and culturally of that majority will vote against it in fear that the majority will beat down non-majority interests. The solution for subsidists is to import third-world people, create birth control, encourage drug use, work against fathers, etc. anything that will shatter the majority at its lowest level, families and individuals, and replace them with new people.
As others are noting, demography is destiny. Immigration is not a platform, or a right, but a genocide. When the majority fights back, there’s no shortage of people to tell them they’re wrong and they should just be more like liberals.
In the meantime, the majority is speaking albeit in a slow and disorganized way. They want a more conservative option, not a lesser one. They won’t give up issues like abortion, gun freedom, traditional marriage, etc. although they don’t like fanatics who insist on applying these rules too rigidly and forbidding raped women from aborting, for example. But they want a strong conservative base, and to reverse the demographic destruction of the majority.
After all, if they don’t get it right soon, they’re going to be replaced. Europe is waking up to a similar realization. Socialism, unions and immigration are not just political talking points. They are weapons aimed at eradication of the majority. First it’s jobs going to China and later it’s total collapse of the nation. We either fight it, or it destroys us.
Part II of II.
What defines evolutionary success?
It is spreading your seed, or watching those seeds mature into healthy, intelligent and thoughtful future generations?
The conventional mythos is that men are seed-sprayers and women are child-raisers. In this narrative, men want as many sexual partners as possible and women want as few as possible, because they have different strategies for reproduction.
It turns out that the division between strategies is not one of gender, but of intelligence:
All of the research that we have show that it’s only a minority of guys who have multiple partners per year, and I typically talk about this as three partners a year because that’s the Casanova average. It’s actually a minority of guys who want multiple short-term partners — that even comes up in the evolutionary research. The evolutionary argument basically goes that guys have the ability, theoretically, to produce hundreds of children per year, and they can never quite be 100 percent sure that any child is theirs, so they should spread their seed widely. But what gets left out of that is the fact that if you want your genes to go beyond that next generation — beyond your children to your grandchildren, then your odds are better if you actually stick around and help raise that kid until that kid is old enough to pass on his or her genes. – “Expert: Guys don’t want casual sex!”, Salon, November 17, 2012
In other words, the popular myth that we’re wired as seed-sprayers and nothing more is wrong, because it’s mathematically wrong.
Nature rewards not the casual sprayer, who basically dooms his seed to poverty and dysfunction, but the committed raiser.
This means that those who want their seed to persist, whether male or female, are going to choose the “raising” strategy. It’s not just for women; it’s for anyone who wants to succeed at what they do.
This is borne out in some controversial but enduring research:
The symbols r and K originate in the mathematics of population biology and refer to 2 ends of a continuum in which a compensatory exchange occurs between gamete production (the r-strategy) and longevity (the K-strategy). Both across and within species, r and K strategists differ in a suite of correlated characteristics. Humans are the most K of all. K’s supposedly have a longer gestation period, a higher birthweight, a more delayed sexual maturation, a lower sex drive, and a longer life. Studies providing evidence for the expected covariation among K attributes are presented. Additional evidence for r/K theory comes from the comparison of human population known to differ in gamete production. – “Do r/K reproductive strategies apply to human differences?”, J.P. Rushton, Society for the Study of Social Biology, Fall/Winter 1988
r-strategy and K-strategy are opposite ends of the reproductive spectrum.
r-strategy is semen spraying. Get it into as many wombs as possible.
K-strategy is raising. Get semen into the right womb, which involves natural selection style choosing of a mate, and then raise the kid well so it in turn can prosper.
Across the board and worldwide, r-strategies lead to impoverishment and low intelligence, where K-strategies lead to higher levels of intelligence, health, wealth and beauty.
All men are wired for what again? The error is in the all men. Men are varied.
Good men — men with belief in life, in themselves and in doing right as a form of achieving good results — tend to use the K-strategy and aim toward marriage.
Broken men — raped men, beaten children, or just bad examples of humanity — tend to swing toward that r-strategy and justify it with some hollow self-serving logic about sexual freedom.
The same is true of women. Smart women pick partners carefully, and keep the value of their sexuality high by making it elite. They hand it out to no one except someone worthy of reproducing with. This is a zero-error strategy.
Dumb and broken women pop open the pouch for any Tom, Dick and/or Harry (sometimes simultaneously) and then try to compensate for lack of quality with quantity. They keep popping them out, and demand the rest of us treat their little idiot offspring as “equal” because that way these broken people don’t have to face their own errors.
Which kind of person are you? Basement-dweller, or future superman? Your sexual history reveals your quality. Your sexual choices reveal how much you think of yourself.
You can’t escape it.
An American icon has fallen.
Although repellent as a food item, the Twinkie did exemplify America of the old days. In that time, there is no nanny state. If you want to eat a sugar-filled inflated cake, it’s not our job to stop you.
That kind of system works only where each person is responsible for the consequences of their own actions. The instant we start paying for their retirement, health care or other issues, we the collective have an interest in what they do.
America of the old days would scare many kids today. There were not many warning labels. Firecrackers came in sizes big enough to actually blow your hand off. You were expected to know that things like live wires, chainsaws, snakes, bats, explosives and drugs could kill you.
This kind of America is great for those who have a purpose in life. There are few restrictions and thanks to the low overhead and socialized cost, you can do what you need to in a short period of time with low cost. There’s not much surface tension.
Amerika on the other hand is designed around the idea that we take care of everyone. This means warning tags, many rules and regulations, a safety net and subsidized services.
For the last 220 years our intellectuals have been enamored of this model. Why? Because it is a bribe. It’s a bribe to the great unwashed, the workers, the angry mob, or whomever, that we pay them to be (minimally) fat and happy in exchange for no riots or revolutions.
The problem with this model is that there’s huge surface tension. Getting anything off the ground takes more effort, and everything costs more, because instead of support two waitresses, a cook and a restaurant owner when you buy a sandwich, you’re supporting those people, a legion of bureaucrats and dependents, and the government required to enforce it. Society becomes stable to a point of fault.
You can get away with these changes for some time, like you can get away with anything for some time. European and American history is like a heroin addict winning the lottery. The lottery we won was based on the strength of our people and our technology, which enabled us to cruise by under bad government because we were naturally going to be prosperous with our above-average intelligence, health, strength and abilities.
We can call this surface tension socialism, which is somewhat true, or just cut to the root of both socialism and other forms of this idea: it’s a universal subsidy. To make people equal, you need to stop enforcing quality and start forcing acceptance. That means you subsidize, whether by knocking down the mighty or sending monthly checks to the lowly.
One form of this subsidy is the union. Unions, long linked in American lore to organized crime and corrupt political machines like the one that dominates Chicago, Illinois, are collective bargaining agreements by workers. More accurately, they represent the threat of workers walking off the job and stalling the company. These events, called “strikes,” are massively destructive to industry.
Unions know this and they keep the strike in hand as a nuclear option of sorts. Like most subsidists, they are liberals, and support liberal candidates exclusively. Protected by laws made by left-wing presidents, and generally defended by the political machine in their hometowns, they can strike with impunity. And like most leftists, they win — in the short term.
The example of Hostess and its disgusting little yellow cakes provides us with yet another instance of unions destroying the power of American labor. Most of these instances go unseen. For example, in the 1990s, many firms moved labor offshore or moved some production to lower-cost nations. What helped encourage them to do this? The instability of American labor scared them, as did the high costs created by subsidist regulation.
That’s not to say that American workers will not always be more expensive than third world workers. For now, we are a first world country. We will always cost more to some degree as a result. However, setting up in the third world has other costs that we do not in the first world. Private security is a big one, as is reproduction of the infrastructure we have here in places without consistent electricity, water, transportation, etc. But the subsidists crank this up to a whole new level.
“We deeply regret the necessity of today’s decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike,” said CEO Gregory Rayburn in a statement.
Businesses respond differently to challenges than private individuals. If something is unstable and too expensive, like the internet, you route around it. You don’t fight it, or take your case to court or Congress, unless you really just have too much money sitting around. Instead, when the union comes, you open that new plant …in China. You delay that expansion. You hire a call center in India, replace workers with robots and machines, perhaps even hire illegals. You work around the problem.
Part I of II.
Back to Blood
by Tom Wolfe
704 pages, Little, Brown, and Company, $17
Schopenhauer says there are three types of writers. The first write for money; the second think so that they may write; the third type write because they have thought of something that needs saying.
For five decades now Tom Wolfe has been that writer who brings up what we need to think about, but would rather push to the back of the queue so we can get on with life. He takes our sublimated doubts and fears and, like a like a man finding a loose rope emerging from the edge of a circus tent, he gives a hearty yank to see what collapses.
Among his themes are three important ones for a modern era: first, how underneath a surface of normalcy there are many outsiders; second, how people rank themselves through status and identity; and finally, above all else, how people can become instant exiles through faddish shifts in fashion or trend.
The two men locked eyes for what seemed like an eternity…Triceratops and allosaurus confronted each other on a cliff overlooking the Halusian Gulf… until the big americano looked down at his wristwatch and said, “Yeah, and I gotta be outta here and bock on the site in ten minutes. You got a problem with that?
Nestor nearly burst out laughing. “Not at all!” he said, chuckling. “Not at all!” The contest was over the minute the americano averted his eyes, supposedly to look down at his watch. The rest of it was double-talk…trying to save face. (649)
In these lines of pursuit, Wolfe’s books are equal parts sociology and morality play. One of his first epics, The Pump-House Gang, provided an archetype for outsider literature to follow, besting the Chuck Palahuniaks and S.E. Hintons of the world with a story of a dissident group of outsiders and what that revealed about those who stayed inside. His most famous work, The Bonfire of the Vanities, showed Wolfe exploring how attitudes toward popular notions of egalitarianism determined rank in the new social hierarchy.
In many if not all of his fiction works, a protagonist or other is forced into an outsider role by something he or she did that offended the mob of others waiting in equality for a chance to pounce and thus, perhaps raise their own equality level a bit. Back to Blood is no different.The theme of this book is the clash of cultures, and how no matter what your background, you’re faced with a difficult choice between assimilation and identity.
While most reviewers praise Wolfe’s somewhat dramatic, beat-influenced experimental and bombastic writing style, this reviewer is glad that Wolfe has reined it in. Instead of focusing on the wordplay, he’s written some great scenes that would be equally at home in the theater or on the screen. These characters struggle with the concept of identity, and from that, a sense of the what-should-I-be-doing-with-my-life morality that common sense needs. He shows people in progress toward something they don’t understand, when they really want to figure out how to be themselves.
Naturally, this touches on some difficult areas and Wolfe does not spare us. His writing would seem polemic if it were not for the well-researched, diligently observed construction of an arabesque of details, and the accuracy of his many insights. Another recurring Wolfe theme, which is the failure of modern art to be anything but a theoretical object because it is devoid of meaning, features heavily in the plot but is done adroitly with characters offhandedly observing how strange and worthless it all is, at least once in gets in their way.
Wolfe is careful to spare no one. White Anglo-Saxons get a fair treatment in this, down to the ugly roots of a culture in freefall in which sex, drugs and megalomania have replaced any kind of actual goal. The ugliness of politics, the viciousness of cities, and the immensely fickle nature of people also get center stage. He has toned down his tendency to wallow in these situations, and instead lets them pass like pictures at an exhibition, leaving a lingering impression that our brains chew over for the next week or so.
A phrase pops into his head from out of nowhere. “Everybody…all of them… it’s back to blood! Religion is dying…but everybody still has to believe in something. It would be intolerable — you couldn’t stand it — to finally have to say to yourself, ‘Why keep pretending? I’m nothing but a random atom inside a supercollider known as the universe.’ But believing in by definition means blindly, irrationally, doesn’t it. So my people, that leaves only our blood, the bloodlines that course through our very bodies, to unite us. ‘La Raza‘ as the Puerto Ricans cry out. ‘The Race‘ cries the whole world. All people, all people everywhere, have but one last thing on their minds — Back to blood!” All people, everywhere, you have no choice but — Back to blood! (22)
What will make Back to Blood controversial is its theme: people are giving up on the politics of a hopelessly confused society, and reverting to their ancestral cultures. Borrowing a little bit from Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, but setting it within the collapsing American nation-state, Wolfe also infuses his fiction with an almost Biblical sense of identity as the root of morality. His characters cast about looking for not just a role model but an actual culture, and this makes all of us unsteady as this book challenges our notions of what the future will look like.