Cue Potato Famine 2.0

Free speech advocates celebrate! The Irish can now blaspheme freely!

Ireland has voted to remove a reference to blasphemy as a punishable offense from the country’s constitution, paving the way for repeal of a law that criminalizes public utterances judged offensive to religious sensibilities.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the true battle is neither Left vs Right nor even Globalist vs Nationalist, but rather Christianity vs Satanism in all its many guises.

The logic of revolution

Peter Grant directs us to an interesting essay on the logic of revolutions, and how it applies to the current US situation, by Angelo Codevilla:

The primary objective of any people who find themselves in the throes of a revolution is to find ways of diverting its logic from its worst conclusions.

Prior to the 2016 election I explained how America had already “stepped over the threshold of a revolution,” that it was “difficult to imagine how we might step back, and futile to speculate how it might end.” Regardless of who won the election, its sentiments’ growing “volume and intensity” would empower politicians on all sides sure to make us nostalgic for Donald Trump’s and Hilary Clinton’s moderation. Having begun, this revolution would follow its own logic.

What follows dissects that logic. It has unfolded faster than foreseen. Its sentiments’ spiraling volume and intensity have eliminated any possibility of “stepping back.”

The Democratic Party and the millions it represents having refused to accept 2016’s results; having used their positions of power in government and society to prevent the winners from exercising the powers earned by election; declaring in vehement words and violent deeds the illegitimacy, morbidity, even criminality, of persons and ideas contrary to themselves; bet that this “resistance” would so energize their constituencies, and so depress their opponents’, that subsequent elections would prove 2016 to have been an anomaly and further confirm their primacy in America. The 2018 Congressional elections are that strategy’s first major test.

Regardless of these elections’ outcome, however, this “resistance” has strengthened and accelerated the existing revolutionary spiral. We begin with a primer on such spirals, on the logic of mutual hate that drives them, and on their consequences; move to a general description of our evolution’s driving logic, describe the 2016 elections as the revolutionary spiral’s first turn and the “resistance” thereto as the second. Then we examine how the “resistance” affects the other side, and how this logic might drive our revolution’s subsequent turns.

Codevilla turns back to Thucydides, naturally, in explicating the revolutionary pattern, then rather convincingly points to the 2008 financial crisis as the point at which the US political system was broken and the logic of revolution began to take hold:

The 2008 financial crisis sparked an incipient revolution. Previously, Americans dissatisfied with their Progressive rulers had imagined that voting for Republicans might counter them. But then, as three-fourths of Americans opposed bailing out big banks with nearly a trillion dollars, the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates joined; most Republican legislators joined all Democrats; The Wall Street Journal joined The New York Times, and National Review joined The Nation; in telling Americans that doing this was essential, and that their disapproval counted for nothing. And then, just as high-handedly, all these bipartisan rulers dropped that bailout scheme, and adopted another—just as unaccountably. They showed “government by the people, for the people” to be a fable.

This forced the recognition that there exists a remarkably uniform, bipartisan, Progressive ruling class; that it includes, most of the bureaucracies of federal and state governments, the judiciary, the educational establishment, the media, as well as major corporate officials; that it had separated itself socially, morally, and politically from the rest of society, whose commanding heights it monopolized; above all that it has contempt for the rest of America, and that ordinary Americans have no means of persuading this class of anything, because they don’t count.

As the majority of Americans have become conscious of the differences between this class and themselves they have sought ever more passionately to shake it off. That is the ground of our revolution.

While most observers, including me, were primarily focused on the economic aspects of the situation, Codevilla is correct to point out that the more significant element was the bipartisan response of the elite to completely ignore the clearly expressed will of the electorate. Essentially, what they accomplished in ramming through their rescue of the financial elite was to break the faith of the American and the Fake American peoples in democracy in general and the US political system in particular.

There is no fixing this, any more than one can fix a Christian by repeatedly telling him that God does not exist and Jesus Christ did not die on a cross. One either possesses faith or one does not, and the greater part of the US electorate no longer believes in the political charade performed by both political parties. Therefore, the system will fail and something else, the precise nature of which we do not, and cannot, know, will take its place.

The end of empire

More and more people are beginning to be able to see the endgame is in sight:

We’re getting close to the end now. Can you feel it?  I do.  It’s in the news, on the streets, and in your face every day. You can’t tune it out anymore, even if you wanted to.

Where once there was civil debate in the court of public opinion, we now have censorship, monopoly, screaming, insults, demonization, and, finally, the use of force to silence the opposition. There is no turning back now. The political extremes are going to war, and you will be dragged into it even if you consider yourself apolitical.

There are great pivot points in history, and we’ve arrived at one. The United States, ruptured by a thousand grievance groups, torn by shadowy agencies drunk on a gross excess of power, robbed blind by oligarchs and their treasonous henchmen and decimated by frivolous wars of choice, has finally come to a point where the end begins in earnest. The center isn’t holding… indeed, finding a center is no longer even conceivable. We are the schizophrenic nation, bound by no societal norms, constrained by no religion, with no shared sense of history, myth, language, art, philosophy, music, or culture, rushing toward an uncertain future fueled by nothing more than easy money, hubris, and sheer momentum.

The tragedy is that it was always unnecessary. All Americans had to do was keep doing what they had been doing for decades. But instead, they listened to the whisperings of evil-minded foreigners in their ears, and decided to destroy their nation.

Fake families are dyscivilizational

The family is the building block of civilization, particularly the Western form of civilization. That is why the increasing percentage of illegitimate births across the West is such a devastating indicator of civilizational decline.

An increasing number of births happen outside of marriage, signaling cultural and economic shifts that are here to stay, according to a new report from the United Nations.

Forty percent of all births in the U.S. now occur outside of wedlock, up from 10 percent in 1970, according to an annual report released on Wednesday by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the largest international provider of sexual and reproductive health services. That number is even higher in the European Union, where 60 percent of births occur outside of marriage.

The EU likely sees more births out of wedlock because many member countries have welfare systems that support gender-balanced child care, said Michael Hermann, UNFPA’s senior adviser on economics and demography, in an interview. Public health care systems, paid paternal leave, early education programs and tax incentives give unwed parents support beyond what a partner can provide.

The data show such births in the U.S. and EU are predominantly to unmarried couples living together rather than to single mothers, the report says. The data suggest that societal and religious norms about marriage, childbearing and women in the workforce have changed, said Kelly Jones, the director for the Center on the Economics of Reproductive Health at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Jones also noted that the rise in births outside of marriage is closely correlated to delays in childbearing. “Women are claiming their ground professionally,” she said. “Delaying motherhood is a rational decision when you consider the impact it can have on your career, and that’s contributing to this trend.”

The average age an American woman has her first child is now 27, up from 22 in 1970. As the marriage rate has fallen in the U.S.—and those who do tie the knot do so later in life—the number of adults in cohabiting relationships has steadily risen. This shift is most evident among those under age 35, who represent half of all cohabiting couples.

The traditional progression of Western life “has been reversed,” said John Santelli, a professor in population, family health and pediatrics at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health. “Cohabiting partners are having children before getting married. That’s a long-term trend across developing nations.”

This is a direct consequence of the de-Christianization of the West over the last 120 years. As I have repeatedly pointed out, you cannot remove ANY of the three pillars of Western civilization from your society and expect it to survive intact. It will not.

A letter to the civic nationalists

Inspired by the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the Z-man addresses the civic nationalists who have been distressed by this glimpse into the manners and customs of Post-America.

Think about all that has been said and written in favor of civil nationalism, yet, here we are anyway…. Look at the fruits of civic nationalism. The champions of the constitutional order and rule of law are all sitting on the Republican side, getting rolled by the non-white rage heads responsible for this circus. The professional civic nationalists have built out a well-financed system to promote your cause. Yet here they are getting clobbered again. If they can’t win this fight, what can they win?

Look. I get it. In your heart you know our side is right about “the race stuff.”. It’s why you moved to a neighborhood with good schools and a bad basketball team. It’s why you support Israel and oppose Islam. You know that only in a society run by white men can there be anything resembling civil order. You hate yourself for it so you have created all sorts of ways to show you’re not an anti-Semite or conceal your real feelings toward blacks. It’s hard to put down that steamer trunk of guilt you have been taught to carry.

I get it. All of us on this side of the great divide get it. All of us have made the journey you will have to make. It’s not easy to accept that all the stuff you have been taught about the constitution and patriotism was just a way to blind you to the approaching darkness. Now you have a chance to open your eyes and see what comes next if you don’t begin your journey to this side. That circus on your television is not going to just fade away. it is a glimpse into the future, of your children’s future and your grandchildren’s future.

Many civic nationalists can’t bear to face the truth about the transformation of the USA into Post-America due to their own identity complications. I understand that challenge very well, being identity-complicated myself.

But if you are willing to sell out your entire nation, your entire civilization, for the sake of your Chinese wife, your adopted black son, or your very nice, hard-working neighbor from Venezuela who loves football and just wants a better life for his extended family, then how are you any different than the businessman who was willing to sell the Soviets the rope with which they intended to hang him? How are you not a traitor to your family, your people, and your country, even by your own lofty principles?

If your definition of “America” requires denying the very existence of America as an actual, material, historical nation, if you deny that Americans are one united people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, and very similar in their manners and customs, then how can you possibly consider yourself to be a patriot or a loyal American at all?

And, regardless of your heritage, your ideological self-identification, or your position on optimal tax rates, how can you possibly consider yourself to be anything but a de facto member of the anti-American globalist Left?

Converging physics

Science is now sexist. Even physics:

The European nuclear research center known as CERN has banned Professor Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University after he gave a slide presentation at a conference that discussed male/female differences in career outcomes in the field of physics. Professor Strumia’s presentation — which is archived here — was removed from CERN’s website, and the center issued a statement calling it “highly offensive” and “unacceptable.”

Professor Strumia had been invited to speak at the conference last week, which focused on “issues of gender and equal opportunities in the field” of “theoretical high energy physics and cosmology.”

“[E]ach day talks and panel discussions will be dedicated to research on gender in academia, with an aim to further the development and implementation of action plans to support women and other minorities in physics,” CERN said in announcing the conference. “Since any positive change needs the support of the whole community we encourage everyone, men and women, junior and senior scientists, to participate in this workshop.” Professor Strumia’s presentation, however, was apparently not what CERN officials had expected when they invited him.

Professor Strumia criticized the “mainstream” theory — i.e., that the lack of equality (“symmetry”) between men and women in the field of physics is due to sexist bias — calling it “cultural Marxism.” He cited evidence that, in attempting to create greater opportunities for women, the field has in recent years begun discriminating against male scientists. He cited research showing that apparently natural differences between men and women’s interests “play a critical role in gendered occupational choices and gender disparity in the STEM fields.”

The more that feminists and SJWs argue that more women need to be involved in STEM, the more obvious it becomes that science, technology, and civilization are not going to survive without the return of some form of patriarchy.

There is nothing, literally nothing, that some women and their male enablers will not blithely set about destroying because they find the idea of their intrinsic inferiority at it to be infuriating.

Existential threat or ineluctable reality

Peter Grant addresses identity politics in the USA:

I’ve been watching the growing rift in American society for years.  It’s particularly evident in larger cities, but it’s also happening in smaller towns and rural areas.  It’s a growing intolerance with those who hold different views, a refusal to admit that the “other side” might be right at least sometimes, a dogmatic insistence that it’s “our way or the highway” when it comes to politics, law enforcement, immigration, economics, whatever.  There’s less and less willingness to compromise.  Many commentators have begun to speak openly of the possibility of a new civil war….

The biggest problem I see is that very few of those on either side of our societal divide have any conception of just how bitter, vitriolic and savage internecine conflict can become.  I have all too much personal experience of it in Africa.  Don’t think that things will be better here.  They won’t.  It’s part of the human condition, and race has nothing to do with it.  It’s all about one’s “tribe” – and that can be cultural, or social, or whatever, but it’s the primary group to which (or to whom) one owes allegiance.  It’s those for whom one is willing to kill, and those for whom one is willing to die.

The modern name for tribalism is “identity politics”.  Beware anyone trying to make you think, and act, and live in terms of “identity politics”.  They’re trying to get you to be tribal, rather than national, in your outlook.  They’re trying to divide and rule.  Division is their strength.  By exploiting divisions between groups, they come to power – and then they rule until someone else does a better job of identity politics, and takes over from them.

Tribe can drive good things – unity, working together, a sense of community.  But there are also negatives.  Tribe drives hatred.  Tribe drives war.  Tribe drives atrocity.  It’s been that way since the dawn of the human race, and it’s unlikely to change.

Peter and I have talked about this, and here is where we tend to disagree, to the extent that we do.  The core problem, as I see it, is that when Peter says to beware of those “trying to get you to be tribal, rather than national, in your outlook”, he contradicts his statement that one’s tribe is “the primary group to which (or to whom) one owes allegiance.”

By his own definition, and by the very etymology of the word, the nation is the tribe. The problem is not sub-national identity politics, but rather, the conflict that is structurally intrinsic to multinational political entities that masquerade as “nations”. The USA functioned very well when it was a loose confederation of different nations rather confusingly called “Sovereign States”, it no longer functions at all well as a pseudo-democratic centralized imperial financial satrapy ruling over a multitude of nations wearing the skinsuit of the former political entity.

What was the American Revolution if not the division of one English tribe into two? To claim that America is a superset that includes the Anglo-American nation rather than a subset of the English nation simply doesn’t withstand historical scrutiny.

All “identity politics” means is “inter-tribal competition for power”. The African-Americans are not going to stop putting their own self-perceived interests first. The Jews certainly are not. The Hispanics are not; neither are the newly self-discovered trans-Asian alliance. All of these identity groups and more are consciously working together in opposition to white American and heritage Anglo-American interests, so white Americans can either embrace identity politics and pursue their own interests or they can reject identity politics, and in doing so, submit to the various groups willing to do so.

Those are the only two options. The option to not play the identity politics game was made when the 1965 Naturalization Act passed Congress and was signed into law by the President. Identity politics are an existential threat to the USA, but they are also an unavoidable reality.

Peter rightly warns of the perils of a post-Apartheid multinational society, but in my opinion, that form of breakdown is to be vastly preferred to the perils of a post-Tito multinational society. As a general rule, the more interwoven and integrated the various nations are, the uglier the inevitable transition to homogeneous nation-states will necessarily be.

The laments of the elders

Fred Reed has finally accepted the bitter reality that the USA is no longer a nation:

I am not sure why people write columns. Partly from boredom, I suppose, or lack of anything better to do. Partly from exasperation. Yet partly from the hope that if enough people collectively become aware of problems, they might, just maybe, do something about them. I can’t believe this any longer. Today’s crimes, lunacies, and decays are too many, profitable, and intractable. We are racing out of control toward some as yet dimly limned catastrophe. Hang on and take the ride.

To begin with, America is no longer a country. It is a set of special interests occupying the same place: Corporations, races, ethnicities, faiths, ideologies, foreign agents pretending to be Americans, all at each other’s throats. No cure is possible.

Racial relations are a disaster. Blacks, fourteen percent of the country, are congenitally furious at whites. They neither assimilate nor want to. Whether they should doesn’t matter since it will not happen.

They give their children strange names to differentiate them from whites, maintain a separate language sometimes called Ebonics–blacks in other countries learn to speak normally–and concentrate in huge all-black Sowetos: Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Newark, Trenton, Camden, Atlanta, Milwaukee, East St. Louis, New Orleans. And many others. Horrific crime and horrific schools produce each year a large cohort who, barely literate, will for fifty years be unable to fit into the economy or into white (or Hispanic) society. This will not change. If it were going to, it would have.

Hispanics, seventeen percent of the population, have a much higher likelihood of assimilating, and are doing so, but it will not happen overnight and will never be complete. They face intense hostility from much of the white population. Add Somalis, North Africans, Jews, Asians, and various Muslims and you have more than a third of the country. Their interests are their own interests. This cannot be changed.

Americans no longer have a shared identity, a common culture to hold them together. In 1950 America was overwhelmingly white, European, and Christian. How deeply one believed was not the point. Christianity was a matrix binding all, as Catholicism is in Latin America. Today Christianity is like marijuana–tolerated, barely legal, but better not to get caught. Whites are reviled by those of lesser capacity and, weirdly, by themselves. What do we now have in common? Almost nothing. This will not change before some strange looming denouement befalls us.

There is nothing strange about it what lies ahead for the planet. Diversity+Proximity=War. The Riders are already saddling up their Red and White horses; it will not be long before they begin to ride again. As Jerry Pournelle predicted so prophetically, there will be war.

The equalitarians of every stripe were, and are, wrong. The globalists of every faction were, and are, wrong. Throughout the 20th century, culminating in the 1965 Naturalization Act, the Great Society, and the Vietnam War, the people of the United States collectively chose to believe falsehoods instead of the truth. And even the most powerful nation on Earth cannot survive an existential war on reality for long.

I shut down my WND column when I realized that I had completely failed to even make the smallest change in direction, that events were going to take their course and the great historical patterns were going to play out regardless of what I did, wrote, or said. It will be interesting to see if Fred does the same.

Democrats hate Americans

A third-generation immigrant demonstrates why no descendant of immigrants should be permitted to hold office for at least five generations.

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo claimed on Wednesday evening that it is “offensive” for President Donald Trump to mention that Mollie Tibbetts has been “permanently separated” from her family after an illegal alien murdered her. Referring to Trump’s White House video about Tibbetts, Cuomo wondered whether “these sympathizers would be as full throated about these tragedies if the killers were white citizens, if the victims were not young white women.”

In the White House video, Trump says: “Mollie Tibbetts, an incredible young woman, is now permanently separated from her family. A person came in from Mexico, illegally, and killed her. We need the wall. We need our immigration laws changed. We need our border laws changed. We need Republicans to do it because Democrats aren’t going to do it. This is one instance of many. We have tremendous crime coming trying to come through the borders. We have the worst laws anywhere in the world. Nobody has laws like the United States. They are strictly pathetic. We need new immigration laws. We need new border laws. The Democrats will never give them… So, to the family of Mollie Tibbetts–all I can say is God bless you, God bless you.”

All I can say is that it won’t surprise me if American families began hunting down immigrants in retribution for the murder of their children. And pro-immigration politicians.

DARKSTREAM: Pedantry and intelligence

From the transcript of the Darkstream:

At some point in time, and I’m not sure exactly when, but some at some point in time after the early 1990s, and I don’t know exactly when it started, at some point in time, people began to act as if failing to understand the obvious was somehow a indicator of intelligence. And we see this all the time. I see it a lot myself on on the blog and so forth. I find it befuddling, you know, I don’t understand what the reasoning is. As far as I can tell, it seems to be striking a superior pose and implying that the other person cannot effectively communicate what they’re saying. I can’t really find an explanation for it that isn’t just based on pointless attention-seeking, or frankly,  an obnoxious sort of implied insult.

I find it very frustrating to deal with this sort of thing over and over and over, every time you say anything. Now I can go ahead and get as pedantic as you like, yeah, if you want to go deeply down and get very, very specific and that sort of thing, I can do that, but I don’t want to. And I especially don’t want to do it every single time I open my mouth. So there seems to be this belief that if you can somehow come up with some possible interpretation that allows you to pretend to be confused as to what the person says, this is somehow a sign of your intelligence.

It’s not. It’s a sign that you’re a jackass. It’s actually a sign that you’re not very intelligent because clearly you’re not able to understand the context. Now, I’m not saying that if you are genuinely confused that you shouldn’t ask, obviously, but the correct question is, the correct way to pose such a question is, to assume the obvious then ask to confirm that. That’s the way you do it. That’s the way intelligent people do it. I mean one of the signs of intelligence is to understand things when you’re only given partial clues. One of the reasons why C. Auguste Dupin, one of the reasons why Sherlock Holmes,  were considered to be highly intelligent detectives is because they were able to ascertain the truth from incomplete information in a way that most people couldn’t. So, if you want to demonstrate your intelligence, don’t pretend not to understand what the person is almost certainly talking about.