Culturalism · Federal Government

In The Name of The King

A recent inductee to my reading convent was Prussianism and Socialism by Oswald Spengler. The German philosopher is often cited by modern conservatives decrying the West’s decline, particularly in the face of radical Islam, yet they conveniently leave another part out: his harsh criticism of liberalism and a full-throated advocacy for the monarchical system. Given my own skepticism of kingship, I was pleased to read his compelling argument in favor such a model. According to Spengler:

“The leadership of such a system cannot be ‘republican’ Putting aside all illusions, ‘republic’ means today the corruptibility if executive power by private capital. A prince will obey the tradition of his house and the philosophy of his calling. No matter what our opinion of this may be, it removes him from the special political interest of parties as we have them now. He acts as their arbitrator. And, if in a socialistically structured state, membership of the professional councils including the State Council itself is determined in view of practical talents, the prince can narrow the selection by use of ethical and moral criteria. A president, prime minister, or popular representative is the pawn of a party, and a party is in turn a pawn of those who pay for it. The prince is today a government’s only protection against big business. The power of private capital is forcing a unification of socialist and monarchist principles. The individualistic ideal of private property means subjugation of the state by free economic powers, i.e., democracy, i.e., corruptibility of the government by private wealth. In a modem democracy the leaders of the masses find themselves in opposition, not to the capitalists but to money and the anonymous power it exerts. The question is how many of these leaders can resist such power.”

This perspective undoubtedly holds currency among American thinkers today. No matter how hard the grassroots activists work to express their varied aspirations for change, the political tide of complacency remains, driven eternally by money, and the elections dependent upon it. The dynamic helps us understand why Trump’s agenda was largely untouched by the Senate majority, and Bernie fans saw the party shift safely back into the corporate column on both sides of the ticket. The peso wins again.

Spengler’s idea is of course not new. Plato specifically designed his Republic in response to the shortcomings of Greek democracy, creating three classes to administer various aspects of society. At the top were the Guardians, who placed the highest value on knowledge and truth, including the famed “philosopher king.” The state system was protected by the Auxiliaries class, or warriors and soldiers devoted to courage, honor, and homeland (nation). Finally, there stood the Producers, a business classes devoted to the fruit of their labors and material gain.

The model of Plato works to ensure those who love money are deprived from holding the reins of power due to their underlying nature. While the private sector may excel at creating products and generating wealth, it rarely observes standards of virtue, and certainly does not respect the ethical role of the state. Corporations frequently pollute, attempt to diminish worker rights, and undermine the national identity through policies of free movement. They care little of traditions or family, because items can be marketed to anyone with money to pay and a heart to lust.

What remains to be seen is how long the tender auspices of liberal democracy will be enough to keep the populace content. Regardless of which outcome flies this November, it is likely that the multinational establishment will continue scoring wins at the expense of both the people and the integrity of the federal system.  And obviously any checks on this slide require employment of the popular election model, which freely cooperates with private sector money. The cycle continues.

 That is, unless a coronation occurs.

Culturalism · Federal Government · investing · Personal Finance

Corporations Don’t Want To Compete

The common line in conservative and libertarian circles is that corporations are suffering. All they truly want is to operate in the free market without government intrusion, but the State is a harsh mistress. So they are left to solemnly trudge on, tears at the corners of their eyes, wishing and wondering if someday a change might materialize.

While this remains a touching and heart-plucking image, it simply fails to measure up in the real world. Despite the protests of economic liberals, very few firms (at least the larger ones) actually desire substantial market competition, which can easily cut into their profits and require continuous innovation. They find it far easier to establish a dominant position from where effective opposition can be limited, if not entirely stomped out.

In case skeptical souls raise complaints, let us go directly to the source. Peter Thiel, the brilliant co-founder of PayPal, flat out admitted in his excellent book Zero To One that creating monopolies is the way to get rich. Corporations follow his lead quite dutifully, buying up smaller competitors before things get too large, and lobbying for regulations to help protect themselves against new blood. After all, the more market share one firm controls, the less ability tiny rivals have to threaten margins by offering cheaper products.

With this in mind, the primary beneficiaries of free market economics would be startups and small companies, not the towering juggernauts operating today. Of course the problem does not end there. So long as we operate within the bounds of a system where power can be influenced by corporate money through the Legislative and Executive branches, the lobbying for price controls and regulations shall continue. Thus even a genuinely “lolbertarian” system exalting no regulations would eventually be subverted if the reins of power were democratic (or the national leadership could somehow be groomed by big money).

Indeed, were we to establish a system like the aforementioned one, officials would still have to contend with the question of mergers and acquisitions, moves which themselves can diminish market freedom. The debate would then rise as to whether antitrust laws are an acceptable form of regulation to preserve a less-regulated model. Yet does such a position invalidate the purity of the free market model?

The jury is out with their competing opinions, but Corporate America knows exactly where it wants to be.

Uncategorized

Dear Anonymous Commenter

Go spilt your venom
to all who see
ravaged silence
or bended knees

That once prayed
by mantis ring
where savior souls
aloft did sing

A beauty muttered
voices exchange
but endless bitter
thine odor rains.

To target one
vile twice
whose hearts did naught
but anguish splice.

What lone is bare
past reply sheer
solemn joy
or smoking tear?

Far regale
the mists so strife,
still time on time
why waste your life?  

Culturalism

Are Gay Men Braver Than Straights?

Throughout modern history, gay men have been stereotyped as weak, effeminate, emotional, and inferior to their straight equivalents. The terms “Nancy boy” or “flamboyant” give currency to this image, with gay fellows viewed as essentially male versions of women who over-dramatize things for the sake of attention.  They are abject “queens,” filling a role in society but never quite measuring up to the level of masculinity reserved for the primary orientation, especially those versions who are conservative in nature.

Strangely enough though, reality beckons in a different direction. Across the globe, gay or bisexual men have emerged as a visible challenge to social decline and demographic threats, even as their straight (and usually Christian) equivalents stand idly by. This post is not designed to oversimplify, but at least as far as the political classes are concerned, straight men continue to let down the cause of cultural warfare in favor of big financial interests.

We can commence in Europe and highlight the question of Islam. In Holland, where Islamic migration has created a significant problem for the native population, it was Pim Fortuyn who led the political front in opposition, while straight conservative men played the milquetoast, “promote economic growth” card. Fortuyn, himself a Catholic yet also openly gay, would pay the ultimate price when he was assassinated before elections in 2002.

Moving southeast a bit, we encounter the legacy of Jorge Haider, a bisexual nationalist who led the Freedom Party of Austria and the later Alliance for Austria to great political acclaim, only to be (I suspect targeted) for a premature end in 2008. His most visible successor is “HC” Stratche, an absolute disaster (and possible plant) who destroyed the best chance of the FPO at enacting federal migration policies in years with his petty corruption. The consequence is a coalition government including the Green Party, and overall watered down internal security policy.

Our friends in Japan had their own version of a gay icon in the form of Yukio Mishima, who famously attempted to restore the Imperial Japanese system and died in the process, leaving a beautiful literary legacy behind along with several children. In contrast, the present Japanese nationalist scene is dominated by Shinzo Abe, a neoliberal activist who has never sired a single child. Abe is not all-bad, to be sure, but the stark  separation in approaches is telling.

America’s national scene demonstrates a markedly similar conflict. Those termed as “strong conservatives” include the likes of James Lankford and Mike Lee, both dedicated sell-outs to multinational corporations who care nothing about the nation’s long-term destiny.  Religion and traditional values are at best sleeve badges to attain votes, and little else. In contrast, openly gay journalists like Milo Yiannopoulos have made fools of progressives, while officials such as Richard Grenell do what their straight predecessors were too timid to accomplish, domestically and on the international stage.

Perhaps it comes as a function of the social isolation experienced by gay males steeling their resolve against the world, but the phenomenon is nonetheless intriguing. Married straight men with wives and children frequently prove themselves to be dithering weaklings who will accede to protest groups in a heartbeat simply to appear “tolerant,” even while the same respect is not afforded to individuals who back them. Is this effort due to a feeling that they must “keep the peace,” both economically and on the home front?

I believe so, and the implications are dreadful. It is time for us as straight men to seriously consider which aspect matters more: money, or our national future?

Relations and Dating · Self-Improvement

We Occupy Different Worlds

There is an awful lot of emphasis on “coming together” and “being one tribe” in today’s world, both before and after the death of Coors Light. Companies can’t stop preaching the virtues, politicians are ever-willing to trot out their statements of welcome, and educational leaders do much the same. We are all one, they seem to mutter, and you best believe it.

The only problem is, reality tells a starkly different story. Depending on who we are and where we come from, our perceptions and experiences stand to be radically disparate in nature, regardless of how much propaganda can be hoisted to block out those facts. No serious person is going to argue that the 6’4’’ white man has any realistic identification or solidarity with a 5’2’’ Hispanic guy. Perhaps if they work in the same economic field we might witness some closeness, but each will be reacted to as though they are two entirely separate creatures, based on skin tone and height. Only an exasperated fool would attempt to join them.   

In the field of dating, those differences matter, as we well know. The same could be true of a fit and lipped Latina versus a 250lb “Baby blue eyes” blonde. Is anyone willing to argue that somehow they are on even terms? (This excluding the Alt-Right and minority men who worship skin color). Differences matter, and no one actually believes the aforementioned claptrap unless they have to.

Now some empowered soul will stand and declare, “You’re wrong! It’s a about equality under the law.” Please humor me more. Is a working class person without financial resources liable to be treated the same as a rich fellow who can pay for the fancier esquire? The answer is not in doubt, but citizens are expected to cover their eyes and ears.

Even in the economic realm, disparities translate into divided universes. The college kid whose parents are loaded has far more freedom in terms of extracurricular activities and graduate schools than another specimen forced to pay their own way. I am reminded of the self-righteous classmate who mocked me for having a summer job in university while he took a stipend from the parents for an unpaid internship with the high and mighty. Means lead to starkly opposite ends, at least in the medium term.

As time goes on, this prevailing truth continues to manifest itself in the public square. There is no debate that BMM supporters view the world differently than “Defend the Police” adherents. Certainly Democrats and Republicans have separate views of legitimacy, which raises the deafening cry of what will happen in November 2020, regardless of the outcome.

Will everyone unite, because “We’re all Americans after all”?

Personal Finance · Self-Improvement

Restoring Goldberg Manor: Part III

So it has been a while, but certainly not for reasons of inaction or work shyness. A number of significant reforms have already occurred, and two major projects (roof and windows) are in progress. I thought I would give everyone an update here for good measure.

Re-Screening of Porch Door

Before:

Notice the large hole…bad news when the mosquito Staceys come calling.

After:

Installation of New Bedroom Lock

Before:

After:

The holes would later get puttied in, and will be painted at some point.

New Screws for GEM Pump

Before:

After:

I am not happy with the Rustoleum paint’s efficacy. This was after all the metal parts got a week-long coke bath.
I have ordered a chain plus buckets, so my next move is to replace the rotting base wood.

Dryer and Washer Install

Before:

After:

I will be having this drywall worked on soon, but the shifted location for the washer is far more convenient.
Don’t have a before pic on this exact spot, but you get the idea.

Federal Government · investing · Personal Finance

The Terrifying Future For Stocks

No, this article falls outside the category expected. It is not destined to be some foreboding warning about the threats of excessive fiat printing, or monopoly money stock buybacks. Nor are bonds the subject to be promoted as a safe alternative. Those are all great angles, but they fail to seize the goose.

What we’re concerned with is a little different. Over the last several days it dawned on me that stocks might be unsafe from the standpoint of maintaining legal ownership. Forget about the respective firm going bankrupt, or a market downturn burning the green. Might corporations or states one day simply require shareholders to surrender their stake, or, in the former’s case, revoke your assembled stocks completely? 

The idea is not as far-fetched as gullible GOPers probably believe. The State could certainly nationalize retirement and investment accounts to generate more revenue, or perhaps jack up tax rates on any sales/withdrawals. The easiest justification for an act is embodied in Social Security’s fractious position, and the move would be advertised as a question of patriotism.

Corporations on the other hand merely have to follow current social trends. They have already bent over backwards to appease the street-based terrorist group known as BMM, firing people for dissenting opinions and donating millions to “civil rights” despite their property being destroyed. How long until they bow to communist pressure and dilute or withdraw shares held by individuals who do not tow the party line?

But that’s impossible, you will say. Really? The present Supreme Court just barred churches from holding large religious services, and endorsed the undemocratic immigration power grab by an esteemed progressive. If little people stand to lose their financial holdings, would the Supreme Corporate actually care?

Not to interject with a Godwin’s Law moment, but our friend Joseph Goebbels had some great insight on this issue. Writing after his boss moved to snatch up the estates of a less-than-cooperative German monarchy, Joey said: “Real estate is the foundation of economic independence, and economic independence always furnishes a basis for political influence.”

Absolutely, and stocks are similar in nature. Will the likely Biden presidency, free of all legitimate DOJ scrutiny, defend the economic rights of the Right?

The answer, my friends, is blowing in the NASDAQ.

Federal Government · Personal Finance

The War On Cash

I seldom pay with cash. Nothing against Lil George or DJ Franklin, but it is rare for me to have any need, and paying with a credit card actually earns some cash back (mainly in the denomination of Abraham the Creator). Nevertheless, I have a burner phone that is refilled with smacker payments for the purposes of privacy. As I went about completing the transaction today, I snatched a prepaid card, marched to the Wal-Mart self-checkout, and saw the following sign:

Really. Not only the poor spelling, but each register strictly refused to accept cash, leaving me to drop the card by the register shelves and break the rules by exiting through a one-way entrance. For this I received a stern finger-wagging from the staff, who were terrified that I might spread coronavirus to other shoppers. Strangely enough, the store had closed down an entire entrance, as though having everyone enter and exit through the same spot is a clever way to promote public health.

Regardless, the coin question struck me as grimly predictable. The empowered news media is claiming the culprit to be a disruption of supply due to less circulation. I would argue there is a far more to the story. Many of us have been warning about the danger inherent to a cashless society, even as the authorities that preside continue zealously pursuing it. The boldest step in this direction recently came in the form of Flimsy Andrew, whose campaign centered around direct payments from the Fed to Americans, and elimination of the penny. In fairness to Yang, your money would be worth about the same if his policies went into effect, but that is besides the point.

Why do they hate cash so much? Because it is difficult to control. Someone on Craigslist can offer up a service for a flat rate fee, and pocket the cash upon completion, simplifying the process and eliminating the government’s ability to tax. Transactions are very difficult to keep track of without card payments, whether because the State wishes to monitor a person or some corporation wants to use your buying habits for marketing purposes. The only identifying factor on a cash payment receipt would be the time and whatever video footage is available in-store. Nothing else.

So naturally the pandemic is a great excuse to further diminish the freedom of citizens and consumers in everyday life. It is likely that stores will attempt to maintain these policies in the future, and perhaps prohibit cash payments altogether, unless of course they get accused of waycism for the practice. We can only speculate and see.

Actually, there are more concrete actions which can be taken. Consider starting (or building on) a stash of precious metals. I would stay away from the SLV and GLD trusts, which have unclear guidelines as to the physical ownership of the metal. APMEX is a reasonable option, and there is of course Bezosmart. Be careful with pawn shops or gold stores, as they tend to jack up prices compared to online.

Some things just glitter and shine.

Personal Finance · Self-Improvement

How To Make Clothes Last

Clothing is THE critical issue. Around the nation, it drives people to their weekend or mid-week shopping sprees, greased so often by the need to appear “hip” or “sexy” on the Instagram dot com. Coming off as poorly-dressed is often associated with less respect, diminished romantic prospects, and even difficulty making money.  To show how serious the question is, reports indicate that the average American expels around $150 per month for clothing and related services – no small joke when the average income is under 64k before taxes. The sweatshop stitching intensifies.

Although less common as a financial topic, preservation of clothes is a fantastic way to break from the norm and spare a crying wallet more pain. What’s more, it need not fly at the expense of style or comfort, assuming certain steps are followed. The key aspect is to understand garments for what they are, obtain enough of them, and treat each one with the utmost respect.

Socks

Probably the last thing folks think about, even though they serve such a glorious purpose by keeping feet healthy and comfortable. Everyone knows socks wear out, but far less consider how this can be mitigated effectively. For one, purchase enough pairs so you have two for every day of the week. This allows for swapping at midday, which improves circulation to the toes and avoids too much strain being placed on the fabric. Consider a pair of slippers for the house, and avoid walking in socks on the driveway, where rough splotches can tear at the threads.

Also be sure to invest in a quality darning egg and stitching kit. When the heel or toes begin to show off more skin than a tradcon would approve of, you can fix them up lickety-split. Through this strategy I have been able to maintain pairs of Dickies going back 5 years, which beats purchasing a new pack every few months.

T-Shirts

Here again, quantity helps with longevity. Another useful approach is to buy more synthetic and polyester materials than cotton. Sure, they might feel tacky, but the quick-drying and sweat-wicking fabrics just feel nice, and seem to last longer, even without a Nugenix pill. I’ve had a surprisingly good experience with Wal-Mart’s Dri-Star materials, and you can go premium if that brings more satisfaction. Regardless, make sure to turn them inside out when washing, as this both cleans the fabric better and limits wear on the front. This is doubly true for any shirt (such as a uniform) that has velcro pockets.

Shorts/Briefs

Try to hand-wash these guys, including the sporty versions, as a means of increasing shelf life. I have seen some absolute tragedies coming out of the washing machine and dryer due to the underlying design. Adidas and Nike for example tend to leave the interior stitches exposed, and those threads will wear out rapidly when being tossed around.  If exercise shorts must go in a washer, remember to lace the drawstring up a couple times; doing so prevents it from getting dragged into the waistband by your machine’s impeller.

Pants

While it is fine to throw some pairs in the washer, they should be handled with care and turned inside out. Do not let them sit in the machine after it finishes. Instead, shake them out and place in the dryer for 10-15 minutes before hanging up to air-dry. Placing slacks or jeans in the dryer for long periods of time can result in damage to the buttons and belt loops, or even shrinkage. Get a decent iron and smooth out the wrinkles when they are dry before either folding them for a drawer or hanging the rascals up.

Washing In General

If it is not already a primary theme, limiting the use of washing machines and dryers is important (if not always practical) as we seek to preserve clothing. The reason why I emphasize synthetics is because they require less time in the dryer and can return to wearable status faster on even a lukewarm day than a piece of cotton will. Unless you are big into those fancy Gain or Downy scent pods, just consider a nice environmental detergent and be done with it. The especially brave might even try out a wash rack, but that is only for the muscled arms among you.

Finally, when a piece of cloth must be retired, keep to mind that it might be compostable, or even made into a cleaning cloth. This will not function as well for synthetics, but cotton socks can serve as excellent shoeshine pieces, and t-shirts past their prime become excellent rags or mopping heads. Alternatively, trim them up and add to a compost pile. Nothing wrong with that.

Culturalism · Uncategorized

Democracy’s Free Pass

Historical myopia is incredible. After reading through countless books on the early 20th Century nationalist movements, I have determined there is no Western scholar incapable of twisting events into an indictment of particular figures, strictly on the basis of them not being popularly elected. Wherever and however, they stretch the truth so as to hold anti-democratic regimes accountable for standards far beyond the reach of liberal opponents, even when the evidence is glaring.

Case in point: Benito Mussolini. Most writers will concede that his rule was relatively benign, with the harshest punishment for enemies usually entailing imprisonment on islands or in small villages, not the dreadful conditions of some concentration camp. Nevertheless, they persist, scraping at any random example to find fault. For Mussolini, this is the claim that he killed countless Ethiopians with poison gas, because he wanted their land. The less-examined record of course reveals that the weapon was used sparingly at specific infrastructure sites, and as a response to the African nation’s longtime atrocities, including the use of exploding bullets on Italian soldiers. None of that is relevant though, because he was a fascist, and that makes him a war criminal.  

Now suppose we examine for a second the legacy of Barack Obama, our former commander-in-chief. As president, he authorized the killing of over 3,700 people using drone strikes, with over 300 of those being civilians. More than this, he went so far as to brag about his ability to end the lives of the targets, most of whom were brown Middle Eastern people:

“Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”

His crowning achievement in this regard was the shelling of Libya, which culminated in an attack on the convoy carrying Muammar Gaddafi. The Libyan leader reportedly asked his attackers “What did I do to you?” as he was sodomized with a bayonet , beaten, and shot to death. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (another empowered product of democracy) cackled about the killing, saying “We came, we saw, he died.”

Just like that. Pure sadism and mass murder, yet how many scholars have written (or will write) books describing Obama as a war criminal? Will Hillary sit awkwardly in a Nuremberg defense box, awaiting the ultimate penalty? Might children grow up absorbing histories about the cruelty and vicious nature of these figures, and how justice was done?

Of course not. They were democratically elected, and therefore all actions taken, whether for “national security” or “the promotion of human rights,” stand to be moderately brushed away as acceptable. Sure, one or two historians will bring up the drone issue, but only as a minor footnote on the page of “controversy,” a term which alone nullifies all seriousness. Chances are, such creatures will end up being celebrated by children for their bravery, tenacity, and progressiveness.

Cast a few votes, and suddenly the rules don’t apply.