Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Donald Trump Proves He Is No Conservative

Donald Trump has finally crossed the line with his call to halt Muslim immigration.  That’s not who the GOP is as a party, and that’s not Conservatism. 

If you want to know what’s truly Conservative, all you need to do ask people like Jeb Bush, Bill Kristol, Paul Ryan, and Lindsey Graham.  They’ve Conservatively denounced The Donald as an “unhinged” “racist” “bigot” who is “soiling the robe of conservatism” and should “go to hell.”

Of course, it was Conservatives like Bush, Kristol, Ryan, and Graham who drove the country into the most expensive and longest wars in the nation’s history in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It was demagogues like Trump who opposed our massive sacrifice of treasure and blood in the Conservative Iraq war.  Trump warned that toppling Saddam Hussein and other secular leaders in the Middle East would destabilize the region and create power vacuums for radical Islamists to fill.  What a reckless lack of judgment on Trump’s part.

Trump has also failed to embrace the Conservative policy of arming Islamic rebels in Syria in the hope of overthrowing the secular Assad government.  What could possibly go wrong?  I mean, the hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrian refugees, and the millions of people posing as them, are natural Conservatives.  Just invite them in all in.  Invade the Muslim world and invite the Muslim world.  That’s the Conservative thing to do.  Invade and invite.

Don’t forget to also stir up hostilities with the one country that has enough nuclear weapons to wipe our largest cities off the map.  If Trump were a Conservative, then he would be calling for punitive new economic sanctions on Russia.  He would be demonizing Vladimir Putin incessantly, never forgetting to compare him to Hitler.  Anything that provokes an escalation of tensions with Russia is obviously Conservative.  But Trump has said he wants to get along with Putin.  If that doesn’t demonstrate just how dangerous a Trump presidency would be, I don’t know what will. 

Trump can’t be trusted.  He exaggerates.  A true Conservative like Dick Cheney doesn’t exaggerate.  He flat out lies when it’s necessary to get us into a war against a country that never attacked us.  Dick Cheney spearheaded a war in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and the persecution and forced displacement of virtually all Iraqi Christians. 

So Dick Cheney is the ideal person to be lecturing Donald Trump about religious freedom.  After Trump proposed a moratorium on Islamic immigration, Cheney chimed in and said, no, that “goes against everything we stand for,” especially “religious freedom.” 

Because, of course, when the Founding Fathers wrote religious freedom into the Bill of Rights, they wanted Muslims born in Syria, Pakistan, and Somalia to be able to use their religion as an excuse to sidestep any scrutiny over the heightened real-world risk their demographic represents to our freedoms.  Religious freedom means Muslims born abroad have the right to come here to try to establish Sharia zones in our cities or Sharia law through the voting booth in areas where immigration has given them demographic strength.  As far as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were concerned, the Koran was just as good a basis for a government of a free society as the Magna Carta. 

That’s what a Conservative believes.  The great Compassionate Conservative George W. Bush told us that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that what Muslims really want is to have democratic pluralistic societies just like ours. 

Conservatives can disregard centuries of divergent history, can disregard cultural incompatibilities, can disregard genetic incompatibilities, and can disregard statistical probabilities.  In any conflict between reality and Conservative principles, the Conservative puts his full faith in his principles.  If they happen to reinforce the policy prescriptions of the left, so be it.  A Conservative would rather support government programs to resettle welfare-dependent Muslims from war-torn hell holes into our cities than have his principles called into question by someone on the left.  You’ll know a Conservative who stands on principle by the fact that he carefully avoids taking any position that could be construed by the New York Times editorial page as Racist, Xenophobic, or Islamophobic. 

When a Conservative advocates spending a trillion dollars on a foreign war that wreaks havoc, he might be called misguided.  But he’s misguided in the name of global egalitarian ideals.  He’s operating within the window of allowable opinion.  On the other hand, to suggest that immigration policy not be concerned at all with serving the world, to demand that it serve national self-interests, to propose that it discriminate – discriminate! – on the basis of cultural compatibility and population risk characteristics is to commit an intolerable ideological transgression.

That’s why the entire GOP establishment is lining up to denounce Trump.  He crossed a line.  And in doing so he could move the window of political viability so far from the Conservatism of Jeb, Dick, and Lindsey as to render their wing of the Republican party electorally impotent.

Monday, November 30, 2015

Hungary for a Real Leader

“I feel that we have to seize every opportunity to finally talk about demographics openly, free from political taboos, and, if possible, among the widest possible circles.” 

These words are from a recent speech given by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.  He is the rare European leader who grasps what’s now at stake for European civilization.  If the current policies of the European Union stand, Europeans will be demographically swamped in their own countries by Third World transients.  Europe as we have known it will cease to exist.

From Viktor Orbán’s speech to the Budapest Demographic Forum:
The situation is that in Europe today it is not PC to talk about demographic issues. I am personally faced almost daily with the fact that there are certain topics which nowadays are not considered suitable subjects for discussion in the European public sphere. There are words which simply cannot be uttered – not for aesthetic reasons, but for political reasons.  
The Europe of which we were once proud – because this was the world of freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion – is today in such an intellectual state, has manoeuvred itself into such a spiritual state, that certain words, questions and political concepts cannot even be uttered….  
I sincerely hope that we who have gathered here today want a Europe which is based on families rather than on immigration… 
There are times when demographers must have their voices heard. We are now living in such times. The survival of our civilisation and culture is at stake. In the history of the world, not a single culture which was unable to populate the land in which it lived was able to survive…

This is the kind of talk we need to hear from heads of state in all Western countries, because all Western countries now face the prospect of demographic decline and population replacement.  More than talk, we need action.  To its credit, Hungary’s government has resisted mandatory EU refugee quotas.  It has erected a border fence to stem the flow of handout-seeking invaders. 

But last year it shut down a conference made up of people who gathered from around the world to discuss the very issues Orbán says we must speak openly about.  Conference organizer Richard Spencer was jailed by Hungarian authorities for thought crimes. 

Maybe it took this year’s unprecedented flood of uninvited migrants to wake up Hungarian officials from their EU-induced Politically Correct stupor.

When I visited Budapest in 2010, there were no visible signs of any refugee invasion.  But I knew it was only a matter of time before population replacement programs hit Hungary.  Here is the video footage and commentary I recorded while on the ground in Budapest:

I couldn’t have conceived of just how big a demographic tsunami would strike Budapest five years later.  This is how the Gatestone Institute described the disaster:
The realities on the ground at Hungary's international railway terminus had to be seen to be believed. Hungarians were easily outnumbered 200 to 1 by predominantly young Muslim males. These newcomers engaged in sporadic violence; rioted at the sight of passing camera crews, and left the station littered with human excrement.

A country’s main railway station literally gone to shit.  That’s what happens when a country’s will -- to defend itself and its borders -- goes to shit.  That’s what PC culture does to a country.
  European Union migration policy represents a demographic death pact for EU member countries.  Hungary’s defiance represents the possibility that some countries in Europe will act to ensure that their European character lives for future generations.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Objectivism and Immigration

How does a philosophy that champions meritocracy end up with spokespeople who sneer at the idea of a meritocratic immigration system?  How does a philosophy that champions Western ideals end up with spokespeople who demand that the West open itself up to its demographic destruction?  How does a philosophy that champions the principle of rational self-interest end up with spokespeople who insist that immigration policy altruistically serve the interests of foreign-born Muslims, Marxists, and moochers? 

Why do open borders Objectivists undercut their own philosophy?  Let’s find out…

Self-described Objectivist Harry Binswanger goes so far as to demand that our government issue a collective apology to illegal aliens:  “Amnesty ForIllegal Immigrants Is Not Enough, They Deserve An Apology”.

John Galt would be shrugging in his fictional grave.  The strikers in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged who established Galt’s Gulch unapologetically rejected the notion of a positive right for outsiders to move into their utopia uninvited.  Harry Binswanger apparently believes that everyone would have a positive right to crash the border of a real-world Galt’s Gulch and take up residence there uninvited.  That’s the implication of the global right to migrate he asserts. 

But Galt’s Gulch was a private community, not a sovereign state.

Well, what possible moral objection could an Objectivist raise to a fully independent and sovereign Galt’s Gulch?  A real-life Midas Mulligan could conceivably buy up vast contiguous parcels of land, develop a private community there – membership by invitation only, and eventually build it into a self-governing, self-sufficient micro-nation that peacefully secedes and becomes the sovereign state of Galtlandia.  On the day Galtlandia becomes independent, does the rest of the world suddenly acquire a positive right to take up residence there?  A right that nobody had the day before, when Galtlandia was a private restrictive community? 

That would mean that Galtlandia’s declaration of independence achieves the opposite of independence.  Galtlandian independence ends Galtlandia as a community by and for lovers of liberty.  It turns Galtlandia into a cog in the global community that is duty-bound to take in anyone from anywhere in the world, including the very sorts of people Galtlandians sought to get away from.  Before, Galtlandia could ensure that it would be composed of a high-quality population by setting high standards for admission.  Now that it’s an independent sovereign jurisdiction, it must throw away its founding principles, and its demographic future, in the name of Binswanger’s egalitarian altruism.

Binswanger masquerades as a defender of freedom.  But opening up immigration to both friends and enemies of freedom equally isn’t how a free nation defends its freedom.  It’s how a nation sacrifices its freedom.  All in the name of freedom for them – the others.  It is through hijacking freedom movements and the language of freedom that egalitarians advance their leftist political aims.  Behind Binswanger’s superficial appeals to freedom, he reveals his egalitarian moral core.

Binswanger regards a meritocratic immigration selection process as unfair to immigrants who don’t merit selection.  He laments that they would be treated as “undesirables.”  He places “undesirables” in mocking quotation marks to express his egalitarian revulsion at the very idea of judging some immigrant populations as more desirable than others.

For the egalitarian, being non-judgmental is the highest virtue.  For the egalitarian, all immigrants have the same fixed inherent worth.  If you judge immigrants based on your own values, you might as well be a Nazi.  Either you’re an egalitarian or you’re a Nazi at heart – that’s the false dichotomy the egalitarian pushes.  But if you value the preservation of your liberty, then you oppose both Nazism and open immigration stampedes that threaten your life, liberty, and property.

Foreign-born populations that commit violent crimes at 10 times the rate of the native born or terrorism at 100 times the rate of native-born citizens are undesirable from the standpoint of any citizen who desires liberty.  Immigrants who enter illegally are undesirable in a free society that grounds itself in the rule of law and should therefore be deported.  What’s the alternative?  Amnesty, plus citizenship, plus voting rights for all past, present, and future border crossers?  An open-ended power for the government to dilute the liberty vote and transform the electorate in the image of the Third World?

Deportation is a much more circumscribed power.  The costs to taxpayers of deportation are far lower than the costs of building more prisons to warehouse foreign-born criminals.  It’s far cheaper to close the door on open Muslim immigration than it is to wage war against Muslim countries because Muslim immigrants commit acts of terrorism.  The long-term economic and political costs of lowering the national IQ average due to low-IQ immigration and dysgenic immigrant fertility are difficult to calculate.  But immigration-driven IQ degeneration is nearly impossible to reverse without making immigration more selective on the basis of IQ.  This is because IQ is a highly heritable trait that is distributed unequally both within and between populations. 

Meanwhile, the world's most religious people and the world's poorest, most dependent people are having the most children.  Through lopsided birth rates and through migration, they will genetically swamp those of us who claim to value reason and liberty.  If we do actually value reason and liberty, then we must stop sacrificing our actual values to the phony universal ones egalitarians bait us with.  That’s how they turn us into practicing pathological altruists who work on behalf of our own demise. 

They get liberty advocates to embrace immigration policies that lead in practice to the demographic degradation of the libertarian electorate.  They get Objectivists who champion the Western-derived values of reason and individualism to promote immigration policies that replace Westerners with Third World Muslims and other cultural primitives whose congenitally low IQs predispose them against adopting a rational philosophy. 

Ayn Rand believed that the Europeans who discovered America were right to claim the land for Western civilization.  They were right because their values were superior to those of the American Indians, and so was their capacity for achievement.  Individual liberty, electricity, automobiles, skyscrapers, space flight, computer technology – none of these things would have been achieved by more primitive societies left to their own devices.

If it was right to establish Western civilization in lands ruled by savages, then it is wrong to allow Western civilization to be invaded by savages. 

Some Objectivists get it, at least in part.  Leonard Peikoff represents the doctrinaire strain of Objectivism, but to his credit he takes a contextual, non-dogmatic approach to immigration policy.  He doesn’t prescribe open immigration for all countries regardless of the detrimental consequences to those countries. 

David Kelley represents the open-tent version of Objectivism.  I asked him a few questions about his approach to immigration policy from his booth at FreedomFest.

It’s hard to tell whether Kelley is a categorically committed immigration egalitarian like Binswanger or whether he’d be morally amenable to an immigration system that filtered out high-risk culturally hostile populations.  But clearly, any self-described Objectivist who champions “open borders” as an ideal has consciously rejected the “selective borders” model of Galt’s Gulch.  And such a rejection is almost certainly the result of latent egalitarian premises that Objectivism has failed to fully expunge from its adherents.

If you claim to value the West but not the preservation of its people, you’re attempting to divorce mind from body.  A nation isn’t a mere set of abstract principles.  It’s an integrated sociobiological construct. 

If I were to say to the Japanese that I respect their culture but don’t care if their people get completely overrun and replaced by Congolese refugees because I believe in open borders, what kind of backhanded compliment would that be?  It wouldn’t be a compliment at all.  It would be a lie.  Because if I truly respected Japanese culture, I would recognize that the Japanese people are a crucial part of its identity and maintenance.

If we in the West are to stop our decline and enter into a new ascendancy, we need an ascendant demography.  We aren’t going to apologize our way to an ascendant society.  If our government did owe anyone a collective apology for its immigration policies, it would be only to the citizens it exists to serve.  If the government deprives us of bright, freedom-loving immigrants of good moral character who would have been model citizens, then it is in the name of our interests that the government should change its immigration policies.  Not in the name of an egalitarian positive right of each of the world’s 7 billion people to immigrate regardless of their cultural compatibility with our Western values.  But the core problem with our immigration policy is that it is not selective enough. 

Why was this unassimilable Haitian savage allowed into the country?  Why wasn’t he deported before he savagely murdered Casey Chadwick?  Why isn’t the government apologizing to the victim’s family for failing at its most basic duty of keeping out and physically removing foreign threats?

Open immigration proponents argue that immigrants who are peaceful, intelligent, productive, and freedom-loving add value to a country.  But that is no argument for open immigration.  It is instead an implicit argument against letting in immigrants who exude the opposite characteristics.   I am here making that argument explicit.

And open-borders proponent Don Boudreaux made explicit the fact that open borders ideology is in principle (if not in particular cases) suicidal.  Boudreaux expressed concern about the negative political consequences of unfettered immigration from people hostile to liberty.  But, he said, "I still support open immigration.  I cannot bring myself to abandon support of my foundational principles just because following those principles might prove fatal." 

That level of pathological altruism is implicit in all arguments for open immigration.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

The Flag Must Fall

We the People have a gaping racial wound.  It won’t heal as long as a particular problematic flag continues to fly.

Recent tragic events demonstrate one thing about the flag above all else: it inflames racial resentments.  While the flag is still regarded by some as a legitimate symbol of cultural heritage, it is seen by many others as a symbol of hate.  Regardless of its historical origins, the fact remains that the flag has been co-opted by bigots.  They wrap themselves in the flag’s colors in order to promote racial violence and even racial genocide. 

The flag should have no place in any public space in the year 2015. 

I am therefore calling on Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to support the immediate and permanent removal of the Black Nationalist flag that currently flies on the campus of Malcolm X College.   This flag often appears at rallies held by black supremacists such as the New Black Panthers.  The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, describes the New Black Panther Party as a “virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers.”

When I visited Chicago last year and took the “L” to the South Side, I made my way to Malcolm X College.  There I saw, alongside the flags of the United States and the City of Chicago, the Black Panther flag. 

The flag casts a dark shadow on the Windy City.  As a white person, I did not feel welcome in that part of town.   I did not feel safe walking the streets as a member of a race that is disproportionately victimized by interracial violence.

This blood-stained flag of black militancy has no place on the grounds of an institution that is supported by taxpayer dollars.  The flag must come down

I urge the president of Malcolm X College, Anthony E. Munroe, to do the right thing.  Take down the flag. 

If the leadership of Malcolm X won’t take it down, then Chicago’s mayor must end his silent endorsement of this racially divisive symbol in his city’s midst.  Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, and Chicago’s own in the Oval Office, Barack Obama, each have an opportunity and an obligation to speak up on this issue – and help our nation rise above.

We will take a major step toward rising above the racial violence of our past when Chicago’s still-flying flag of racial hostility finally falls.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

That's Why I Offend You

"The sentimental philosophy starts from the first principle that nothing is true which is disagreeable, and that we must not believe anything which is 'shocking' no matter what the evidence may be." 
William Graham Sumner

Sentimental philosophy, or emotionalism, dominates contemporary political discourse.  It is the view that feelings are the arbiters of what is right and wrong.

Ironically, emotionalism now emanates in its most extreme and repressive forms from institutions that were originally founded on reason and free inquiry: the universities.   At the universities, holders of certain sets of feelings are privileged with veto power over the dissemination of facts.  Feminist feelings and feelings of color can be deployed to defeat a proposition or prevent it from being heard. 

From speech codes that prohibit offensive utterances, to mandatory Diversity and Sensitivity training for thought offenders, to mandatory Trigger Warnings on classic literature, to guilt-inducement sessions for unconscious emitters of micro-invalidations, to the erection of Safe Spaces where psychologically fragile members of politically protected groups can be mollycoddled...emotionalism drives the new Orwellian order.  Big Brother has been replaced by Big Mother.  And hordes of infantilized mental children, most of whom inhabit adult bodies, come crying to her like tattle-tales whenever they are emotionally triggered by a joke, opinion, or fact.  They want Big Mother to punish naughty-think.

Meanwhile, the self-appointed lieutenants of Big Mother’s thought police have decreed that the Western intellectual tradition in the sciences, which proceeds based on axiomatic rules of logic and  adherence to empirical evidence, is Sexist and Racist.  Alternative forms of logic (polylogism) and non-objective ways of knowing are just as valid, they say.  To these post-modernists, what matters is not what is true or false objectively but what is right or wrong subjectively, as dictated by their feelings.

For example, a positive, empirically testable claim about how innate sex differences or innate race differences influence social outcomes is automatically wrong.  It doesn’t matter what the evidence is.  To even consider evidence for biologically driven group variations is deemed illegitimate.  Protected groups with hypersensitivities are entitled to feel equal – the scientific method be damned. 

Innate equality must be accepted a priori as an article of faith.  Question it and you can be rendered an Unperson

That is the social status of the unreformed realist.  He is the Unperson who refuses to surrender his cognitive objectivity.  He is the Unperson who refuses to feign deference to the feigned emotional distress displayed by political jackals.  He is the uncompromising defender of objective truth – not merely as a legitimate competing value in the balkanized post-modern intellectual landscape, but a defender of objective truth as a superior value. 

When it comes to understanding nature, including human nature and its variations, objectivity is superior to subjectively self-centered blackness, subjectively self-centered femininity, and the entire socially subjective Social Justice framework within which institutionally privileged identity groups emote and agitate.

In contrast to the sentimental philosophy of Social Justice, realist philosophy start from the first principle that nothing can be agreeable which is false.  In other words, false premises, even if saturated in feel-good platitudes, must be discarded. 

The most heavily sentimentalized false premise of our time is that of innate human equality.  Like a beneficent deity, equality is something that’s widely believed in but never seen.  Equality is never seen because humans aren’t a homogenous species.   

Anyone who looks cursorily at humanity without wearing egalitarian blinders can’t help but to notice biological differences.  Whatever similarities we may share, humans are obviously a polytypic species.  We differ as individuals.  We also differ as descendants of geographically isolated breeding populations that evolved out of the Stone Age in different parts of the world. 
The racial variations that are observable today in the United States, for example, can be traced back to the variations in climate that existed from sub-Saharan Africa to Northeast Asia to Western Europe tens of thousands of years ago.  The ancient ancestors of modern white Americans had to adapt to a cold climate.  Surviving the cold winters of Scandinavia required a different set of physical and cognitive traits than surviving the tropical jungles of Central Africa.  Today, Nordics and Congoids can both survive the comforts of an American city.  Yet even in the same modern environment, their respective ancestrally inscribed racial characteristics express themselves in highly predictable ways.

Almost all traits pertaining to physical appearance and cognitive functioning are highly heritable; and almost all such traits show recognizable patterns of variation that just so happen to correspond with the purported arbitrary social constructs of race and gender.  If race and gender are social constructs, then DNA gave us the blueprints.

No, white males aren’t hard-wired to come out on top in all measures of human ability.  And yes, for a great many traits there is more variation within groups than between them.  The ethnocentric racial sentimentalist who idealizes a particular ethnicity’s phenotype set, and imagines that its members are each endowed with categorically superior traits, is no more objective than the anti-Racist egalitarian.  But whereas white racialists are now socially marginalized, anti-white Diversifiers control the zeitgeist. 

The race and gender tribalists who claim to be fighting for equality use institutional power to privilege their own offendedness and get their adversaries banned, fined, fired, or jailed over intellectual disagreements.  The people you cannot offend profess a creed of equality that cannot be criticized.  Equality is, in the Western world, the only remaining sacralized notion which cannot be opposed – at least not on a fundamental, biological basis. 

In the Muslim world, the prophet Muhammed cannot be opposed.  He cannot even be depicted visually.  The political cartoonist Bosch Fawstin powerfully confronted the totalitarian core of Islam in his sketch of a cartoonist’s hand drawing Muhammad.  “You can’t draw me!” decrees Muhammad.  “That’s why I draw you,” replies the cartoonist.

When an egalitarian prophet of revealed opinion on racial differences and sexual dimorphism decrees, “You can’t offend me!”…the realist retorts, “That’s why I offend you.”

Monday, April 6, 2015

Genetic Infrastructure

The people of a nation make up what may be called its genetic infrastructure. The genetic infrastructure of a nation is its most valuable material asset – more valuable than its roads and bridges, more valuable even than all the land contained within its borders.

A nation’s gross domestic product is driven by the productivity of its people. Sub-Saharan African countries are rich in natural resources but poor in terms of per capita GDP. Singapore, on the other hand, possesses virtually no natural resources yet exhibits very high standards of living. Haiti is situated on land suitable for a tropical paradise. But it is instead a land of abject poverty.

From the slums of Haiti to the ghettos of Detroit, from the favelas of Brazil to the townships of South Africa, people of sub-Saharan African descent express their genotype through the communities they create. The same can be said of people of European descent. From the frigid climes of Iceland to the Land Down Under, from the productive Boer farms of South Africa to the expat communities of Mexico, from the Whitopias of Montana to the Gates of Vienna, European people grow societies with European characteristics wherever they plant their genetic seeds.

Wealth doesn’t exist in the ground; it is created by minds that transform raw materials into useful products, and that transform useful products into more complex and more advanced products. Underlying all great inventions and innovations, from Johann Gutenberg’s printing press to Elon Musk’s spaceflight enterprise, are great minds. And underlying great minds is a material asset whose necessity in intellectual capital formation most economists either don’t grasp or dare not mention. That material asset is the deoxyribonucleic acid that exists within our cells. DNA is destiny – it determines whether a person will be male or female, have light skin or dark, be tall or short, posses the cognitive capacity needed to attain genius-level IQ or be afflicted with mental retardation.

DNA shapes who we are as individuals. And our aggregated genetic qualities make up our nation’s genetic infrastructure. When a nation’s genetic infrastructure is strong and well-maintained, all citizens derive benefits. Not only does a high-quality gene pool produce great thinkers and innovators on the right tail of the IQ bell curve. It also gives us ordinary folks in the middle of the IQ bell curve who are capable of being self-reliant. It gives us well-functioning communities where people can safely walk the streets at night and keep their doors unlocked during the day.

A person’s genetic hard wiring is like a computer’s processor. The more powerful the processor, the more tasks a computer can perform. The more genetically gifted a person is for a particular trait, the more he or she can achieve. The more a nation’s gene pool improves, the more its economy and overall quality of life can advance. That is not to say that genes directly transmit the values and principles that are necessary for the creation of a free, prosperous, and glorious society. Just as software determines how a computer’s processing capacity is utilized, ideas determine how a person’s cognitive capacity is directed -- whether for constructive or destructive ends.

Unfortunately, the minds of most of the people who occupy positions of power and influence are filled with destructive ideas. As a consequence, the governments of all Western nations are dedicatedly pursuing destructive policies. Western countries are bent on are destroying their own genetic infrastructure – the one material asset that is indispensable to national identity and without whose preservation Western nations will cease to exist except as arbitrarily demarcated zones of dirt on a global map.

Instead of carrying out policies that would strengthen or at the very least preserve the existing genetic infrastructure, government officials are acting as vandals. They are using taxpayer money to vandalize the West’s genetic heritage. They are subsidizing fertility among the dimmest segments of society through various social welfare programs. They are discouraging fertility among the brightest through feminist indoctrinations at universities. At great cost, they are importing then housing, feeding, clothing, and schooling non-Western refugees who hail from backward war-torn countries. Commonly, these refugees are culturally hostile Muslims who derive from gene pools have been degraded by generations of inbreeding. These populations also have significantly higher birth rates than native Westerners.

Through refugee resettlement and other dysgenic social engineering programs, culturally Marxist governments are bureaucratically breaking down the West’s genetic infrastructure. They aim ultimately to replace the genetic infrastructure native to the West with an imported mish-mash of weaker components that don’t fit and never will.

These criminal governments are working to secure a dysgenic future for men and women of the West. That is their ideological commitment. It need not be our destiny.

Monday, March 23, 2015

Libertarian Bionationalism: An Ideology for a New Ascendancy

A free, prosperous, and glorious country that reverses dysgenic demographic decline and enters into demographic ascent could be ours.  If you’d like to be able one day to call such a place home, then I invite you to become a fellow soldier in the ideological battle for a new ascendancy.  There is an ideology that extols freedom, prosperity, and glory – and nourishes the genetic roots that grow the values it champions.  This ideology deserves a proper name. 

It is not conservatism.  Conservatism implies a backward-looking revival of former traditions.  As it’s practiced in America, political conservatism is little more than progressivism on a lag.  An American conservative today embraces most of what Progressives championed in the recent past – Social Security, Medicare, Voting Rights, Civil Rights, Disabled Rights, Gay Wedding Cake Rights, and other invented rights that require legions of federal bureaucrats to enforce.  Only a small segment of conservatives, who might be called paleo-conservatives, reject the progressive’s panoply of positive rights and favor returning government to its constitutional functions. 

Those who identify as reactionary or neo-reactionary might reject the entire Enlightenment worldview that informed America’s Founders.  Some neo-reactionaries favor returning to monarchy; others to some form of feudalism.  Some NRXers seek to install a social order underpinned by Orthodox Christianity.  Others look back even further, to pre-Christian paganism. 

How far back in history do you look for ideological inspiration?  How much of a reaction against modernity do you desire?  These are questions that presuppose conservatism as the operating paradigm.  But in my view, conservatism in all its subdivisions and degrees – from neo to paleo – is failed and flawed. 

An ideology of ascent should be forward-looking, not reactive – defined not based on what it opposes but what it seeks to achieve.  That doesn’t necessarily entail the rejection of traditions that have heretofore shaped our cultural and political institutions.  But it does entail the rejection of traditionalism as a primary ideological orientation.  We seek to chart a path to a future that is superior to both the present and the past.  We yearn to live in a nation of rising freedom, rising IQs, and rising standards of well-being. 

Computer technology and biotechnology will make such a glorious future possible.  But it won’t be realized without the ascension of a new kind of nationalism.  A nationalism that eschews authoritarian impulses and suffuses itself instead to the principles of liberty.  An enlightened nationalism that is validated in reason, guided by science, and informed by the biological realities of human nature and its racial variations.

Such an ideology deserves a proper name.  Unfortunately, there’s no ready-made, widely accepted term for it.  Rather than try to coin a neologism that lacks common currency, I’ll employ a compound noun that names the three most essential components: libertarian bio-nationalism (LBN).  The term libertarian bio-nationalism has the advantage of being precise (unlike vague left/right labels) without being tied to a particular time, place, or person.  Any country – from the United States to Sweden to Japan – can adapt LBN to its own particular bionational identity. 

I grant that the label “libertarian” is imperfect.  “Libertarian” has acquired some unfortunate connotations due its appropriation by left-libertarians, anarchists, and methodological individualists who dogmatically cling to a biophobic blank-slate conception of human nature. 

I believe that “libertarian,” which shares the same etymological roots as “liberty,” is worth reclaiming from the mis-appropriators.  A political libertarian seeks self-determination within a particular geographic area.  A nationalist seeks self-determination for a particular geographic area.  Thus, libertarian nationalism is a logical union.  I’d argue that libertarianism and nationalism are not only compatible, but mutually reinforcing and mutually necessary. 

Libertarians need nations.  No amount of theorizing about imaginary anarcho-capitalist legal agencies has ever brought down a government.  Nobody in power fears being overthrown by anarcho-capitalists.  But nationalists have overthrown governments.  Nationalists do strike fear into the hearts of the ruling elites of many countries.  Nationalism is powerful because it is more than a set of abstract ideas.  Nationalism harnesses the power of a population’s identity and concrete interests.    

Libertarian nationalism is freedom through power.  Without nationalism, libertarianism is little more than the weak pleadings of inefficacious idealists.  With nationalism, libertarianism becomes an ideological force with the tangible capability of sustaining itself. 

Libertarians need nationalism.  Nationalists need libertarianism.  And libertarian nationalism needs a biocentric metaphysic.  A nationalism based solely on faith or tradition or language or historical borders gives leftists the ability to posture as the champions of science, progress, and a better future.  In reality, so-called progressives are the arch enemies of a free and open society.  When it comes to the heritability of IQ differences among different sociobiological populations, progressives deny science and seek to ban its dissemination.  In the name of equality, they demand that Western nations genetically and culturally retrogress into Third World nations.   The ideology of human progression is libertarian bionationalism. 
I grant that a government constrained by libertarian chains would have less capacity to effectuate demographic improvement than an unchained authoritarian government.  A fascist dictatorship could institute coercive eugenics programs that would, in theory, raise the national IQ faster and more dramatically than any set of voluntary incentivizes.  But a government that treats its own people like domesticated livestock inverts the very concept of human ascendancy.  We don’t exist for the purpose of improving the gene pool.  We seek to improve the gene pool because it will make our lives better.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Schiff Predictions and Bitcoin Bubble Revisited

Peter Schiff had predicted that in 2014 the Fed would stop tapering and reverse course, launching additional QE.  At the time he was making these predictions, I called him out. I suggested he'd likely be proven wrong.  He was proven wrong.

Do I think he owes me an apology?  (He stated that I owe him a legitimate apology!)  No.  A vow to stop making rash predictions would suffice.

A few years ago, I made some rash predictions about the silver market that were proven wrong.  I learned my lesson.  Has Schiff learned his?

On Feb. 8, 2014, Schiff put out a video (featuring his CNBC interview on Feb. 4) titled Market Headed Lower Until Taper Reversed.  That was right near the lows for the year in U.S. stock indexes.  The market headed higher, and the taper wasn't reversed.

On Dec. 28, 2013, I uploaded a video called Bitcoin: A Mania in Nothing.  That was right near the top in Bitcoin, which I warned was in a mania that would end badly.  Did I accurately call the top and predict Bitcoin's subsequent fall by more than 70%?  In all honesty, no. The neat timing of my video's release at the top was as much luck as skill.

That's how it is with "successful" prognosticators.  Sometimes good luck  makes them look smart.  But no one can outsmart the market consistently.  Peter Schiff demonstrates the validity of this generalization via his track record as a contrarian forecaster.