Culturalism · Personal Finance · Relations and Dating

The Worst Shall Yet Come

As many of you know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away sometime Friday evening at the age of 87, after a long battle with multiple forms of cancer. Though this post has other motivations than pure commemoration, I will pause to take note for a moment. During my days as a young and empowered conservative, I often had a distant (and negative) view of RBG, largely because of her politics. It was only after watching her eulogy for Antonin Scalia that I developed a different appreciation, one surrounding her humanity. A critical issue with modern politics is the conspiracy to invalidate people on the basis of opinions, often whilst claiming to speak for the entire human race. This is a sickening trend with poor tidings for the time ahead.

What RBG’s death will do is tear down the curtains of fragile respectability, or at least the parts still remaining. I would not put her timely passing beyond the wildest machinations of the Democratic Machine, which above all else desires the supremacy of power. Such an event steels the most dejected into action, and increases the chances of any outcome being viewed as illegitimate. The perfect gale has arrived.

Consequently, we can expect to see the level of rioting and pillaging increased to dramatic levels, both before and after this election. The desperation of leftists towards triumph may even cause them to target elected senators in states where the Democratic governor has power to appoint a replacement. Nothing will be off the table for these souls, who now cry out to the internet in anguish, as if they are cut off from the divine culture. Vile dismissals of violence directed against their opponents will become the canon norm, and the timid dweebs arguing about “the intolerance of the liberal left” shall face an epic usurpation of their credibility, while Christians wonder if the end times are nigh.

The remaining lot – us who see past the empty diversions of the political game – are bound to be caught in the crossing fire, despite our attempts at avoiding Armageddon. We are to be the voices that were never listened to, at last set alight at a time when being “right” matters not, for everyone has become wrong. Hence there is no treasure for the rewarding, only a brittle grudge, the child of hearts cast to infinite scorn.

Little as we can do to prevent this calamity, there are measures to take for personal safety:

  • Review your investments, and determine if some should be trimmed or divested (but do not panic sell).
  • Be careful about open displays of political affiliation. Free speech is a virtue, but not respected by all.
  • Take care of your elders, and the young. Weaker targets are perfect prey for the radicalized and unshakeable.
  • Go about with confidence and caution. Being lost in a phone while in public is a great target made.
  • If the mob comes for you, fight as if the world is collapsing. You may be right, and no police or allies are guaranteed to come.
  • Should you follow God or gods, find peace with them now, and pray.

Perhaps these assessments are too harsh, or overblown by the limited scope of one man’s existence. Still, few people ever understand the gravity of their times, or the flimsy nature of the order around them. Be true to heart by knowing what is to come, so your life is not wasted in speculation of when that spiritual chapter may emerge.

Culturalism · Self-Improvement

Your Opinions Are Not Your Own

The clear and present normal to see on the Twitter pages of the young and upcoming is a statement reading something like “My opinions are my own.” Try as I rack the brain, it is difficult to comprehend the logic behind such a statement. Sure, the world is fond of disclaimers, a dynamic which probably helps account for the lawyer-loving culture we live in, and the lawsuits that go in unison. But does it really matter?

Suppose the empowered tweeter does feature said tagline, and puts out a joke that sounded good in his head, along with everyone else’s not sworn to petty drama. Will this really protect him from consequences? Perhaps the company he works for is off the hook, but should something come to the level of defamation, good luck with that. The banhammer is coming for job, reputation, and dating patterns, determined to drive that poor soul into the grounds of repentance—although don’t expect mea culpas to change anything.

Saying your opinions are your own is like cushioning unpleasant crime statistics by noting “I’m not a racist.” Even issuing such words is enough to indict, “facts and logic” aside. The very lifeblood of modern drama culture is oriented around picking out some semantic weak point or bad take and attempting to ruin the person’s life over it. Accuracy and disclaimers be cursed, so let them pay reparations and shut up.

The result is that such folks end up muzzling themselves to degrees not previously believable. It is hardly enough to tow moderate individual opinions; now you are expected to ferociously endorse the party line, regardless of how hypocritical and corrupt it happens to be. The religion of the stato-multinational establishment demands nothing less, and traitors pay the hearty price. One cannot merely be a passive associate; they must embrace the cause of passionate cultist and acolyte.

It would seem as though a simpler solution can be had: speak your mind, but under a different name. Few things enrage the village idiot cancelist more than not being able to perform a quick Google search which brings up name, rank, and serial number. No open Facebook page or LinkedIn profile offering information on where, who, and what salary materializes gets their bones cooking, while also staving off the less zealous investigators. You might just keep that paycheck and apartment a little bit longer, providing of course there’s no camera in the details.

Or you can be a politely disclaimed free speech “hero,” and hope for blueberry pancakes with a chance of employment.

Book Reviews · Culturalism · Self-Improvement · Uncategorized

Why Publishing Failed

Before her death in 2016, the legendary Ursula Le Guin gave a short acceptance speech at the National Book Awards in which she outlined the problems with modern publishing. At that stage of her career, she could safely issue the criticisms without fear of financial repercussion, but the observations were nevertheless poignant. They rest firmly on the role which capitalism can play in diminishing the value of literary art by commoditizing various genres for mass market efficiency. Some particularly biting lines are as follows:

“Hard times are coming, when we’ll be wanting the voices of writers who can see alternatives to how we live now, can see through our fear-stricken society and its obsessive technologies to other ways of being, and even imagine real grounds for hope. We’ll need writers who can remember freedom – poets, visionaries – realists of a larger reality.

Right now, we need writers who know the difference between production of a market commodity and the practice of an art. Developing written material to suit sales strategies in order to maximize corporate profit and advertising revenue is not the same thing as responsible book publishing or authorship.”

One cannot deny the truth in those words. The more that technology advances, the less substance matters, and this can be witnessed across various mediums. A person with great content on YouTube will swiftly get buried by the excess of “corporate friendly” channels letting our dopamine-hungry brains feast on countless jump edits and sound effects. Movies with independent or unique origins are disregarded, while studio money pours into toxic remakes, and the coarse boredom of social justice slinks into genres where it was always present, albeit with class and subtlety.

Books are no exception to this rule. As others have observed, the idealized vehicle for publishing success has become a pantomime of the same writing style and setting, regardless if it lacks originality. Even the famous fantasy series popularized by an unknown homeschooler relied on heavy borrowing from the Star Wars movies, to a degree that is almost comical. But it still sold, because publishers are more interested in what fits the market than anything resembling genuine art. It’s not a stretch to say that Paolini would have been laughed out of the room had his book done something truly beyond the bounds of “comfortable” prose.

Le Guin went on:

Yet I see sales departments given control over editorial. I see my own publishers, in a silly panic of ignorance and greed, charging public libraries for an e-book six or seven times more than they charge customers. We just saw a profiteer try to punish a publisher for disobedience, and writers threatened by corporate fatwa. And I see a lot of us, the producers, who write the books and make the books, accepting this – letting commodity profiteers sell us like deodorant, and tell us what to publish, what to write.

Books aren’t just commodities; the profit motive is often in conflict with the aims of art. We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art. Very often in our art, the art of words.

I believe in this case Le Guin was referring to Amazon, and rightly so. The compounding growth of Bezos’ bright-eyed promotion of publishing hides a more sinister reality: Amazon’s attempt to form an effective sales monopoly and reduce current royalty rates. Part of the approach involves encouraging authors to publish with Kindle Create, a clunky and unhelpful software designed to coral authors into the Bezos marketplace indefinitely:

Ultimately, it is hard to say what the future will hold. Perhaps Le Guin is right, and change will arise. For myself, I know that my hesitation in publishing fiction as opposed to non-fiction (and especially self-help), stems from a recognition that the themes depicted in my stories would be swiftly dismissed, if not entirely deleted, from the Amazon platform. But that is the tragedy of being a writer: you can’t help but write, even if the outcome is a pittance. It is an extension of the soul, and not doing so feels tantamount to betrayal of the spirit.   

Culturalism

They Have Always Been This Way

Conservative circles have been hooting and hollering for months now about leftist attempts to exaggerate coronavirus deaths and prolong the visibility of the scamdemic for political purposes. Some go so far as to believe the virus would magically vanish in seriousness if Joe Biden happens to win the election in November. That is, assuming he gets a chance to be inaugurated before Kamala takes the reins.

Neither suggestion is beyond the realm of possibility, but these tactics are by no means new. Since the beginning, actors on the Left have made concerted efforts to manipulate and twist information towards political ends, with little regard for what damage could be done to the lives of individuals affected. This is because at heart they lack all belief in the metaphysical, and thus perceive the world using a purely materialistic stride allied to the attainment of resources and power.

A perfect example lies in the case of the Marzabotto Massacre in September 1944. Popular opinion holds that the commanding German major, Walter Reder, allowed for wanton civilian targeting and destruction in the village while his units closed in on the Red Star Brigade, a notorious partisan group led by Mario Musolei, better known as “Major Lupo.” These perceptions are based upon the testimony of a certain Alsatian collaborator from Reder’s ranks, Julien Legoli, who deserted to the Allies after the event and used the claims to bolster his own position, this despite the fact that no fighting took place in the town when the Red Star Brigade was destroyed.

Thanks to Legoli’s treachery, Reder was arrested in September of 1945 by American forces, who could not substantiate the claims, and thus released him to the British, who were also unsuccessful in determining grounds for war crimes prosecution. Reder was next passed on to Italian authorities, who placed him on trial in the fall of 1951. He would later be convicted and sentenced to life in prison, largely due to fear of communist reprisals if dismissal was reached.

In the words of the British lawyer F.J.P. Veale, who investigated the event, the Marzabotto Massacre amounted to “[…] noting but a Communist fairy tale.” But the Left would not be deterred, and they proceeded to have a mausoleum constructed in the town depicting the names of Reder’s supposed victims, even though this list included everyone who had perished from that region during the war, regardless of location and circumstance.

Reder would sit in an Italian prison until 1985, when he was finally paroled, only to die six years later. His saga serves as a prime example of how the Plural Left has no qualms about manipulating people and data to attain some elusive moral or financial victory. It should be a lesson to all those alive today: those actors on the street and in the media offices are not concerned with truth, or at least not the variety championed by their opponents. What they follow is raw ideology and the grinding need to assume political power, for everything else is death.

Do you still believe they desire tolerance and civil debate?

Culturalism · Federal Government

Of Mods and Generals

Some months back I noted that the generals who conservatives exalt are usually the biggest defenders of the political status quo. This explains why most nationalist coups in recent history have been led by colonels and below; those who have served long enough (and secured fat pensions) are less incentivized to pursue significant changes which might risk their own plot. Conversely, anti-reform coups such as in Thailand are pushed by generals who wish to protect personal interests against movements threatening the establishment. Rarely do we witness divergence from this general (haha) routine.

The events of this past week are no exception. When James Mattis was chosen by Trump as his Defense secretary in 2017, I had strong personal reservations, despite conservative gushing over the “Mad Dog.” Of special concern was his affiliation with Theranos, the scam-worthy company promoted to inflate the net worth of a certain pseudo-Steve Jobs, who now awaits trial on fraud charges. More information on that subject can be had in this book.

I also held reservations about someone with so many years in the military establishment now leading the Department of Defense, because fixtures are rarely reformers, and the DoD badly needs some changes. It was also painfully evident that few generals in recent memory have been particularly upright characters, with the possible exception of Peter Pace, who was quickly silenced for his opinions. Other characters include Stanley “He CARES” McChrystal, David “Double D Declassified” Petraeus, John “La Resistance” Hyten, and of course James “The OG” Crapper. None of these characters inspire confidence or leadership like Patton or Ike, but we’re supposed to honor them because muh uniform.

Thus it came as no surprise to hear of Mattis’ recently-reported folly. According to Bob Woodward, the retired Marine Corps general advised former DNI director Dan Coats that “there may come a time when we have to take collective action” against the president, who he described as “dangerous” and “unfit,” with “no moral compass.” In a surprise to no one, certain people are very thrilled by this story:

While it is true that previous suggestions were made for a coup against Barack Obama, these came from random opinion pieces, and not the mouth of a four-star general and secretary of defense. The concurrence of Dan Coats in part with Mattis’ comments makes it all the more disconcerting. Let us not forget too what Rod Squirrelstein had suggested about the 25th Amendment, along with prominent celebrities. The facts are on the wall, and somehow the tolerant liberal press is not cranking out foreboding warnings of a military junta taking over.

If this seems crazy, bear in mind what Trump just said at a recent press conference:

In our system of government, so brazenly calling out the powers that be can lead to disastrous consequences. Should something drastic occur before the election (or after), the media can be expected to cover it up by blaming some extremist, yet the average American will know what has occurred. We can only pray they do not become so emboldened as to lash out in that manner, for it would mean the charade of the Republic falls, and the mystique of democracy is lain aside.

Culturalism

Did Georges Sorel Predict 2020?

Georges Sorel was a French civil servant who produced political content in the late 1800s and early 1900s. While not renowned today, he expressed a remarkable prescience about what the Western world has devolved into, particularly during the last several years. The following are some truly savage quotes from Reflections On Violence, his most famous work:

Commentary Applicable to Social Media Influencers:

“These are opinions which scarcely touch me, since I have never paid attention to the views of people who think vulgar stupidity the height of wisdom and who admire, above all, men who speak and write without thinking.”

On the Weakness of Government and Police:

“[…]most decisive factor in social politics is the cowardice of government.”

“One of the things which appears to me to have most astonished the workers during the last five years has been the timidity of the forces of law and order in the presence of a riot: the magistrates who have the right to demand services of soldiers dare not use their power to the utmost, whilst officers allow themselves to be abused and struck with a patience hitherto unknown in them.”

On Cowardice Preceding Destruction:

“Capitalist society is so rich, and the future appears to it in such optimistic colours, that it endures the most frightful burdens without complaining overmuch: in America politicians waste large amounts of taxation shamelessly; in Europe military preparation consumes sums that increase every year, social peace might very well be bought by a few additional sacrifices. Experience shows that the bourgeoisie allows itself to be plundered quite easily, provided that a little pressure is brought to bear and that they are intimidated by the fear of revolution.”

“A social policy based on bourgeois cowardice, which consists in always surrendering before the threat of violence, cannot fail to engender the idea that the bourgeoisie is condemned to death and that its disappearance is only a matter of time.”

Culturalism · Personal Finance · Self-Improvement

You’re Already An Individual

The internet seems profoundly obsessed with individualism. People harp on it to no endless degree, promising the wonderful gifts of “financial independence,” self-determination, and purposeful existence. Others present rather basic ideas as miraculous truths, developing followers who aggressively preach the merits of self, while suspiciously eyeing “collectivism” and its assorted malevolence. If cooperation is so much as suggested, these creatures leap to the defensive plane, accusing their opponents of endorsing socialism, or subverting the dignity of liberty. They rush to protect the individualism tribe, and gain immense satisfaction from such fulfilled duty.

A most apt question here would be: why? Once we peel back the outraged drama and look at actual human behavior, the stark individualism of people is manifested in an exaggerated manner which rises to frustrate the suggestion of our aforementioned friends. If anything, society is far more dedicated to the illustrious self than the promoter wishes to imagine.

Suppose for example one is going to purchase a car. Perhaps they will buy something to impress people in close communion with them, or even take friendly advice on the matter. More often than not however, the decision is driven by personal (read: individual) qualities. It could be a beater model, chosen because that chap can’t afford something on the pricier side, or possibly a vehicle which “matches my personality.” Never mind how those folks typically say they are focused and reliable whilst buying a Chrysler; the point remains as an individualistic contention.

Colleges and living spaces are similarly outlined. If it is financially viable, or happily debt-fueled, highschoolers will typically choose an institution with the appropriate program to match their personal interests, preferably in a state or country with enjoyable backdrops. Sure, the skeptic could argue that most college institutions have a Marxist hive mind, but at least in theory the students are exercising a degree of independence and personal choice. Once they graduate, certain cities might hold appeal for the diversity and nightlife, while others retreat to the country roads. Are these normal patterns of human behavior all reflections of some collectivist conspiracy?

Even the push for FIRE lifestyles on the internet dot com invariably leads to more self-centeredness and LESS focus on the community. The act of budgeting away little things like the morning coffee or diner breakfast to save money diminishes the chances of interacting with others and supporting a local (or chain) business. Another clear and present theme in the financial-digital realm is the emphasis on not having kids in order to retire early. As far as the checkbook side of things is concerned, this makes perfect sense; why would anyone reproduce if the cost of raising one child can be as much as $233,000, not counting college? Yet somehow we are not individualistic enough.

Perhaps the real issue is more complicated. We already are highly individualistic, and well-adapted for a consumer capitalist society, but this is not adequate. Instead of people finding meaning in family and community, which have been stained by the collectivist shackles, they turn to some higher level of individualism for salvation. Just a little more self-improvement, positive mindset-building, and financial freedom. Then I’ll be a REAL individual. So Able Earnest proclaims, as his life becomes emptier by the waking second.

This concept collides with Emile Durkheim’s idea of the anomie, or disconnection of individuals from social standards and economic systems commonplace in advanced societies. It develops as a “malady of the infinite,” where the person in question constantly desires more, but cannot be satisfied in the confines of his social system, leading to derangement or possibly suicide. Likewise, modern neoliberal cultures fixate on meritocracy and individualism, while suppressing the value inherent to Bilbo’s “home above gold” or group solidarity versus individualism.

But I’m just a jealous collectivist, so pay no mind.  

Culturalism · Federal Government

Left In Disbelief

Much has been made of the COVID-19 panic over the last few months. An otherwise decent economy was put into the ditch by concerned governors, people got reported for not being zealous enough at their distancing measures, and epic debates were held over belief in the virus’ seriousness, or even more than that, its very existence. On the latter point, progressives made stark contrasts between the anti-scientific mutterings of Donald Trump, and the calm, collected rationalism of Fauci the Entertainer, whose belief in science appeared unshakeable, giving  the liberal order a worshipful altar.

Yet the stage only reveals a great tragedy: that leftists believe in nothing, and thus stand for nothing. Their entire existence revolves around a petty and materialistic lust for the immediate moment, for the fleeting blink and thirty-second spell, before a refresh and new paths. Completely incapable of looking past the foggy future, and desperately loathing the crumpled past, they latch onto brief flair, oftentimes without verifying the truth or consistency of prior advocacy. A couple glimpses and the scene changes, having learned little, and contemplated less.

Consider their broader obsession with shutting down and locking up all free actors during the pandemic. Because leftists tend to be irreligious, they naturally view the possibility of sickness (or death) with caterwauling terror. For them there is no afterlife, hence every minute on earth holds value in gold—even if they do spend it locked in a house to discharge tweets of rage against a national leader. The mask, itself a highly dubious  method to prevent transmission, serves as their symbol of collective mortality, and thus billowing ferocity. Any person not observing the guidelines is threatening them, while also showcasing how empty their lives happen to be.

Historically, leftism has not been any different. Mazzini famously criticized the early socialists for predicating their entire movement on material interests, such as pay and working conditions, safely ignoring factors of faith or dedication to community and nation.  Today they screech about healthcare and taxes, both means to allow the bitter souls within a spigot’s burst reason to survive, so again they live in shallow proof.  

If we look to their ultimate principle, that vision enshrining diversity, again the justification is devoid of meaning. Diversity trumpets as a mere check on the opposing side’s power, not for any rational reason apart. Hence the appeals to different cuisines and “global culture,” the latter topic one of little interest to the progressive outside his strictly political realm. For this same reason leftists do not comprehend good comedy: they cannot process any joy outside the fleeting material aspects of party politics, or financial security for themselves. Everything must be in service to goals of self-preservation, no matter contradictions or folly.

The question is imperative because limited faith does not imply affordance of respect for life to others. Progressives have no issue with slaying babies in the womb (or outside), and will make quick work of those who do not fight back. Such behavior is entirely rational, for if they fear death with the terror of a caught fly, inflicting the same on opponents is a natural route to feeling powerful, the unsated lust of every creature unsure of what control they possess when the heart ceases to tick.

And that makes their faith so dangerous.

Culturalism · Federal Government

Those Permissible Lies

The problem with paying attention to the media is that you start to see through their illusions. The “facts,” or “reliable sources,” quickly unravel when more than a casual look is granted, and often the transformation is so rapid as to make it feel intentional.  Almost as if they want the plebe to find out, but expect him to have no curiosity.

In point, I recently got a letter from The Center For Voter Information, an activist group purporting to support more engagement by the electorate in state and federal elections. The included paperwork listed my voting score, something I had never heard of, and a rather unnerving idea at that. Luckily I was better than average, so perhaps Mama Kamala will grant me a prize for this achievement. Also included was an application pre-populated with my personal information for a mail-in ballot, a pleasant advantage for those terrified for the Corona.

Since the sender seemed rather official, I did a Google search and discovered it exists as the sister organization to the Voter Participation Center, with both being billed under the joyous and comfortable descriptor of non-partisan. Hearing those words excited my idealistic side. Could it be that a group was simply acting in the public interest, and not shilling for any specific political entity? What a breath of fresh air!

Feeling greatly empowered, I checked the “About Us” page, and read with interest into the biography blurbs. Who could these wonderful folks be, taking time out of their ideological lives to support the common good without a hint of bias? Well, their names are Page Gardner and Tom Lopach, the latter of whom could probably sub for Pete Buttigieg if he desired. Their smiles felt endearing and true, so I decided to perform a bit of a Google search on both.

The results were interesting, to say the least. As it turns out, Page Gardner is actually a long-time Democratic operative with close ties to the Clinton Organized Crime Family and Media Matters. One of her related groups, Women’s Voices Women Vote, even got started using the influence of John Podesta, the former Clinton chief of staff. But don’t worry, because she’s running a “non-partisan” group to promote democracy.

Lopach is not much better. His LinkedIn profile reveals recent jobs promoting Steve Bullock for president, along with earlier roles working for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Committee for a Democratic Majority. Maybe he is unbiased though, just like Snopes claims to be.  One just has to believe.

Groups such as the CFVI are a great example of the tolerated lies in our society. Just like how wearing a white coat makes the speaker legitimate, or holding a PhD is supposed to arrest all doubts. We are trained to focus on the trigger word or image, not what who else (or how much money) might lie behind it. This implied ignorance works because large swaths of the public simply are not curious enough to question what they see, and merely act on the superficial qualities.

Considering how crucial a national election is for the purposes of appointment powers and control of the Justice Department, that obliviousness matters.

Culturalism · Federal Government

On Calls For An Ebony Republic

It has come to my attention that members of the protest collective are now calling for the establishment of their own nation within the existing territory of the continental United States. They appear to want either Texas, or the creation of a new state somewhere in the African continent. While this proposal is hardly novel in nature, it seems like a worthy topic of discussion due to the tide of current affairs.

At the heart of the concept is an obsession with justice. Since blacks were enslaved by various African empires in their home countries and then sold to Europeans wishing to cultivate the New World, they have borne the weight of that legacy for years, and even after the abolishment of slavery through laws such as Jim Crow. Black Nationalists seem to believe the possibility of reform is either unlikely or insufficient, thus separation has become the most viable solution in their eyes; only by ruling an independent country can the past truly be brushed aside so progress rises.

In all honesty, I am not diametrically opposed to the idea for those who want it. The suggestion of Texas seems out of step with history and remains a political non-starter, but perhaps an area of the coastal South could work admirably towards the goal. Having access to the ocean would be important for trade and economic development, as well as travel purposes. It also melds with African-American history, so the foundational possibilities are vivid.

Obviously the obstacles to such a proposal are numerous. To start, the government would have to figure out how to compensate those being forced from their homes or properties, assuming they are not allowed to remain under the new state. Similar questions might abound in terms of federal welfare programs and educational funding—would the existing federal authorities transmit payments for years to the new country, and what might become of American citizenship for those in the new state? The status of security forces in such a regime would be similarly questionable, as National Guardsmen are ultimately dependent on federal money.

 At the same time, benefits might materialize with black Americans being able to command their own destiny politically and economically. Though it is guaranteed that whites would still be blamed for any possible woes of the Ebony Republic, the level of social tension over the question might be exceptionally diminished, perhaps preventing violence or misunderstandings, at least assuming that a large portion of the population would join the country. Over time, one can merely speculate as to the new national outcomes.

So while I’m hardly an advocate of separatism or Black Power, the notion is interesting.