"The gods in Ithavoll meet together, of the terrible girdler of earth they talk, and the mighty past they call to mind, and the ancient runes of the Ruler of Gods."

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

On Collapse

The nature of sudden collapse is that it is always preceded by gradual decay that few notice because they have nothing against which to compare the present conditions of life. This is why the young are particularly susceptible to status quo bias. As someone from an older generation, who's witnessed the sweep of events during a pivotal period, I believe decline can be limned. But circumspection is required.

Collapse doesn't happen, and doesn't happen, and doesn't happen... until it does. This is how it often goes. Vesuvius was quiescent long enough for Pompeii to have have been built in its shadow, the illusion of its benignity.

The forces behind our malaise are certainly vested in their own survival and enrichment. Some see decay as the advance of the new. For those who worship novelty, this looks like "progress." The fragility of the extant anti-culture is often overestimated by sanguine counter-revolutionaries. Scale and inertia matter.


Yet one thing is certain: God will not be mocked. We can see our cities succumbing one by one, where the conditions for the preservation of advanced technological civilization are not met. This phenomenon will spread and accelerate, as foreign replacements of the Settler and Builder Nation-who didn't create the civilization they now presume to dominate and rule- prove incapable, and, finally, undesirous of sustaining it. This effect exemplifies the magical thinking of migrants, whose common perspective can be contrasted with that of Settlers and Builders. He who acquires is not necessarily the equal of he who builds.

The presumption of racial equality spins illusions that ensnare the narcissistic and the foolhardy. Those illusions have very real repercussions in the long term, where the ability to not merely maintain, as in dead ritual, the achievements of a foreign civilization, but to also advance them, is taken for granted. I'm reminded of the imperial atomic priesthood in Issac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. Through exacting ritual they were able to maintain the giant reactors on which civilization depended, while they had long since forgotten the principles that enabled men to build them. The ability to engage in abstract thinking is much the same. It is not equally distributed among nations, but it is absolutely essential to the formation, maintenance, and advancement of technological societies.


Mexico city is not like New Delhi because of the unavailability of concrete or electricity. It resembles that distant human slag heap because Mexicans have a national soul that is closer to the Dravidian than the Anglo-Saxon. The slow motion process of decay I'm describing, punctuated by sudden shifts of balance, terminates with the greening and shrinkage of major urban areas, accompanied by the inability of the political and economic centers of the Situs State to hold, to continue to maintain the superficial illusion of  wealth and control. First moral authority is lost. Then, finally, mere power itself is lost, which cannot be exercised, ultimately, absent authority. Civilizations rot from the inside out. Foreign invasion (demographic or otherwise) is little more than a coup de grace. The old monarch drops the scepter before the rude barbarian sweeps it up.

A collapse that requires 200 years to reach terminal inertia is still a collapse, from the perspective of the sweep of history. But human life is short and such processes consume generations. They rely on the incremental nature of deep change to remain undetected until the damage is irremediable. Our great-grandchildren will be within sight of the end of the U.S. as we've come to know it.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Google Expropriates Shakespeare


Why, Shakespeare could have come from any nationality, you see. It's only appropriate we depict him with a golden tan. If you think about it, he merely happened to be an Englishman. We can't treat accidents as essentials. What matters is Shakespeare's "universal spirit."

In fact, since Shakespeare belongs to the world, it's actually racist to try to nationally appropriate him. He's as much the property of China or Zimbabwe as he is of Britain. More so, given the historic wrongs of the white race, which can only be compensated for by a re-appropriation of the stolen literary and artistic gifts of the developing world, which were unfairly distributed in the first place. To deny them their Shakespeare is the sort of cultural colonization we're fighting, and that every supporter of equality should loudly condemn.

Q: What about Gabriel Garcia Marquez?

A: An immortal representative of the Columbian genius, of course.

Friday, April 22, 2016

The Late, Great Wage Economy

Robotics and AI are eliminating lower wage jobs, and will continue to do so. No economist of any standing disputes this claim any longer. Instead, the rear guard of the status quo has changed its tactic from denial outright to that of the lullaby. Sure, the precipitous drop in the cost of automation is affecting employment, but it’s all going to be ok. Trust us. We’re the experts. Thus goes the tune. Bedside, liberal academics offer charming fairy tales such as “re-skilling” and “up-skilling” -all based on a presumption of IQ equality, or at least its mutability. But the former doesn’t exist and the latter is highly limited. By contrast, professional pols on the left are afflicted by a malady one might call Panglossism. More specifically, that there is nothing whatever wrong with the U.S. economy apart from the bugaboos of income inequality and intractable privilege, which we might expect to be remedied in the next pogrom against microaggressors. Thus academia is beginning to admit what politicians yet dare not. But this is political survivalism, and serious people don’t take it seriously. Yet the growing split between population geneticists and ever-optimistic policy makers is becoming a gulf. And the cost of capitulation by pols is ruinously high. After all, progressives have over a century (and trillions of dollars) invested in the theory of human plasticity -that is, in social determinism. It goes something like this: humans are like a batch of pancake batter. Homogeneous. If we simply fry it right, it makes perfect little cakes and everyone is happy, and I receive academic or political immortality for being correct. But reality is a harsh scullery wench. Humans are less like pancake batter and more like 4 different kinds of cookie dough. No matter how well or badly you cook that dough, it will always be peanut butter, or chocolate chip. No variables of time or temperature will make one the other. And if people are different, then they will behave differently.

I’ve mentioned elsewhere my belief that denial of reality is the defining characteristic of liberalism, and that it’s a bad thing. Worse is that most of the liberal elite are well aware of IQ realities and other biology-based limits on human potential, but pretend otherwise. Ordinarily we call pathological denial of reality a psychosis. So, let’s apply economic psychosis to our example of “up-skilling” and “re-skilling.” A world full of genetic designers and AI engineers is impossible. The idea that government can bring about this state through gyrations of policy is a special kind of lunacy. Even were some inventive soul able to “up-brain” the majority of the human population (the ones that fit within the 1st standard deviation of the mean population IQ), some of those populations would be starting from a base too low to matter. The others—well there’s only so much demand for anything that humans can produce, and a world full of genetic designers and AI engineers is one in which no employer profits enough from robotics and AI to employ millions to do it. This is the classic Catch-22 of liberal economics: the more we attempt to move the mean rightward in denial of biological inequality, the more the 2nd and 3rd standard deviations on the right of the Bell Curve elude us, because moving the mean doesn’t eliminate IQ gaps. They will always exist since their cause is located in the biological hardware, not the social software, of humans. The problem of income inequality can’t be fixed because IQ inequality can’t be fixed. What’s more, income inequality isn’t a real problem. It’s only a problem from the perspective of a fantastical ideology. But what if the goal isn’t to move the mean to alleviate the effects of productivity gains, but something else entirely? What if the goal isn’t to fix the issue, but instead to make it worse? You run across the term dysgenic sometimes in right wing literature on population genetics. Roughly, it refers to something that causes the quality of genetic information to become degraded. What if the goal of leftist economic and social policy was intentionally dysgenic. Pause for a moment to contemplate that. In any event, the effects of productivity will affect everyone in the world, but it will affect some populations more than others. The day is approaching where nothing will be able to be done about it. It’s humorous to see the “party of science” guilty of flat-earthism where population genetics and their effect on economics is concerned. We must force public schools to teach neo-Darwinism, and then deny its impact on economics. We might think it a lark if they weren’t so dreadfully serious.

Recent research indicates that as much as 75% of intelligence in Caucasians is heritable, meaning IQ is mostly fixed. Certainly environment is a factor, and no important population geneticist denies this. Just as certainly, there are various intellectual gifts, such as verbal adroitness, that are not always reflected precisely in IQ testing. But as a general indicator of fitness for an advanced technological economy, mean population IQ is a good indicator. Consequently, because they deny this finding of science, liberals (and by liberal I’m referring also to Austrian and Neo-liberal economists, not merely to academic Keynesians and socialists) have all the wrong answers. That’s why they never seem to quite fix anything. On the rare occasion they are correct in their diagnoses, they are accidentally so, as when you “Christmas-tree” a standardized test, and receive a score of 40 instead of a zero. They’ve failed the only test that matters in their profession, of course -that of predicting the outcome of policy changes. Yet somehow they still retain their prestigious titles and tony addresses because efficacy is inversely proportional to success in the guild of economic Magi -that is, the worse your performance, the more successful you are. The point is this: demographics is destiny. If you lower the mean IQ of a country through dysgenic immigration policy, you will cease to be competitive in a technological world economy. But there’s more bad news. Even eugenic immigration and family policy are not enough to keep pace with technological change. Failing to keep pace will have very noticeable effects in the near future.

According to the most prevalent hypothesis, as technological change makes obsolete the skills of lower wage workers, they will retrain and acquire the knowledge to compete in emergent industries. The reality is that the uptake of new skills is more often too slow, and many who’ve been displaced by innovation simply do not have the intelligence to acquire more challenging skills. The result is that increasing numbers of people who were marginally employable are now left out of the economy altogether. This is complicated by the disappearance of domestic industries, such as garment production, when a foreign workforce can do it a little cheaper. Again, the hypothesis predicts that new industries will emerge. Sometimes they do. But what is the consequence when they don’t do so rapidly enough, or the workforce is ill-equipped to gain employment in them, or can’t afford to? What is our answer when emerging industries are immediately overtaken by foreign competition, as in electronics manufacture? It is well and good to claim that there is no strategic value to any of these industries, therefore we may as well import such goods and services. After all, the Austrian School economist will simply claim that there is nothing to protect, that the nation-state is simply a vestige of bad economics. In a world of free and open competition, there is no need any longer for the things we call “nations,” which merely impede the free migration of goods, jobs, and capital. I’m sure this is a familiar tune. Is there any remnant of social stability that does not have to be sacrificed in this scheme? One can envision a population of nomads, peopling international auctions of temporary engineering and scientific labor. The most likely scenario is that the remainder will be on the “compassionate” dole. Employment is not the only measure of economic success, nor is it even the most important. Quality of life, measured in real wages, is declining across the West, and we are told that our expectations are too high and that it’s only fair that the world get a slice of our pie.

New industries don’t emerge rapidly enough for those displaced by predatory labor markets, as is ceaselessly claimed by the Austrian School theorists who lard the political right. Instead, they flow into the burgeoning ranks of the “service economy,” later to be eliminated by “efficiency” (the lowering of service standards), replaced by a robot (automation) or a cheaper offshore resource (e.g. the migration of call centers), or they drop from the workforce altogether and become economic public wards. But the laissez faire economists are not alone in error. Like trained gorillas, the Keynesians impatiently mash the big red stimulus button, but the reward pellets tumble down the chute into the waiting mouths of banksters. The Trickle-downers are presenting with symptoms of enlarged prostate, as corporate profits soar (from productivity increases due to automation and native worker replacement) and real wages fall. As the labor participation rate tumbles to historic lows, the Fabians are running out of productive subjects from whom they can expropriate the funds to prevent a restive entitlement class from burning cities to ash, and looting what’s left standing.

That’s in the U.S. In France and Germany, New Year’s Eve festivities are illuminated by burning cars, as an imported proletariat revels in the certainty that enervated European governments lack the will to stop them. The hard news is that there will be no jobs for an already impatient and violent underclass, as fewer are needed to do the same work, and familiar classes of employment disappear. This phenomenon is often attributed to below-replacement level reproduction by native Europeans, but this is more falsehood. The advanced European economies all suffer from structural unemployment caused by productivity increases, and manufacturing outflows, while immigration boosterism likely has a cultural-demographic rather than an economic explanation. Technological pessimism is not a new genre of social critique for either the right or the left, but in the era of the Late, Great Wage Economy, where only two-thirds of the U.S. population is both able to work, and can find employment, the genie of productivity demands a closer interrogation in the context of now-structural unemployment and the facts of population genetics.

Domestically, the left and the ersatz right proffer immigration as a solution to a fictional brain drain caused by infertility, with the typical admixture of naivete and sanctimony: not only is the world brimming with oppressed engineers every bit as good as native-born American ones, but they have a God-given right to sell their labor in the U.S. market. Again, sleight-of-hand. Karen Zielger and Steven Camarota of the Center For Immigration Studies produced a study refuting the oft-repeated claim that the U.S. has a shortage of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) graduates, and demonstrating that their wages are stagnant, indicating an oversupply of workers with these skills. Howling commenced from all the expected quarters. One reason why STEM wages are stagnant is the flood of H-1B tech workers recruited from overseas, with whom U.S. companies are replacing native-born employees, at a significant discount. This is a trend nearly all current U.S. Presidential candidates agree is a good thing. It seems that foreign workers have more right to employment than American workers, millions of whom have simply ceased looking for work, as the economy has found ways to function without them.

Yet the importation of foreign STEM workers, by all appearances, is a solution in search of a problem -which means its proponents are very likely to have ulterior motives. It’s probably an ill portent when the left and the right reach consensus on anything of importance, as in the case of the economic need for massive 3rd world immigration. The explanation for this incongruity is simply a variation on a theme found in all pro-immigration talking points: these are jobs that “Americans won’t do.” In actuality, however, they’re merely jobs Americans won’t do at 3rd world wages. In a low tech era, the camp of Adam Smith idolaters are probably right. In a high tech era, hyper-specialization, multiplied against automation, is devastating labor markets, not merely here at home, or in Europe, but across the globe. Runaway productivity is a world-wide issue. Combine this phenomenon with the variable fortunes of international competition and you have the ingredients of disaster for wage earners, at which both economists left and right simply shrug their shoulders, saying, “Those are the breaks.” So reliant on unfailing corporate ingenuity, and so committed to economic internationalism are they that native feeling and loyalty to countrymen are tertiary concerns. If one’s country is gobbled up in the increase of unrestrained productivity, or in economic combat with state-sponsored predatory corporatism, so be it. The stuff we consume will be cheap. But, as evidenced in the onset of a new economic slowdown on the heels of the Great Recession, the absence of good jobs means no one can buy anything, no matter how cheap. Economists forget that Schumpeter’s Unternehmergeist tend to hire people like themselves, and are often lacking in the fellow-feeling that might temper their most destructive policies.

Eventually the low-wage labor mercantile system runs out of human raw material, as we are seeing in China, where (practically) indentured factory workers are losing their slave-wage jobs to robots, or to more miserable and abject slaves elsewhere. Ah, the wonders of globalism! One task these cheap foreign brains we’re discussing have ostensibly not been put to is answering the question of employment in a world of soaring productivity and automation, and why more foreign workers is going to solve the problem of too few good jobs. The revolutionary insights are head-scratchingly elusive. The immigration solution, as with all others that rely solely on supposedly autonomous (there’s that word again) markets or some combination of markets and liberal economic policy, is either delusional or it is predatory. And the prey is the white male American worker, of all economic strata. Even the coveted “white collar” jobs are proving less immune to rises in productivity than anticipated -those that haven’t already been outsourced to China, such as Boeing’s 737 engineering jobs. Automation and AI in software development threaten millions of high-paying jobs once thought almost invulnerable.

Denial of reality produces ludicrous policy prescriptions, and, what’s more, the feverish perseveration to follow them until they destroy a civilization. We could attribute this to sentimentality, and there is something to be said for this in a civilization that is now dominated by feminism, which is a kind of weaponized sentimentality concerning the nature and capacities of women, combined with inverted Electra, where the Father-tyrant is a competitor with the child for the affections of the idolized mother-goddess-victim. But the sad truth is that many liberal elites understand quite well the empirical facts, yet prescribe disastrous policy anyway, doing so from a deep animus toward the civilization in which they were nurtured. Beyond this, some, perhaps many, social elites are simply sociopaths, possessing no scruples that deter them from chasing pleasure and power in the demise of traditional white Western culture, which they view as, at best, an inconvenience to be swept aside. In either case, the “party of science” is no such thing, and its continued denial of empirical evidence must be viewed as either foolhardy or malevolent.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Progressivism as Fashion

The progressive complaint against reaction is its impertinence. In presenting yesterday's "outmoded" thinking  as consisting in permanent values, it fails the fashion test, having the temerity not to know it is vanquished, like spats, or collar bars.

Ultimately, progressivism is a disordered aesthetic that assigns merit based on three criteria: 1) currency 2) purity of its hatred for unapproved forms, and 3) transgression of traditional canons.

In practical terms, it amounts to a celebration -no, an imposition- of ugliness across the spectrum of human activity. If beauty is what succors the human within us, then ugliness is whatever creates a hospitable environment for that which is post-human, or infra-human.

[Insert Modifier Here] Justice

Any word placed in front of the term "justice" as a modifier indicates the perversion of the latter. Special forms of justice seem to always take the form of a material discount. It is not a great mystery, then, that Cultural Marxism in all its forms and disguises has economics at its center.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/20/harvard-law-activists-demand-free-tuition-as-a-mat/

Feminism and R/K Selection

Nature abhors a reproductive vacuum. Where one exists, much that appears to be mere politics arises to fill it. But it may be that instinct (and its perversion) are at work in thought. Perhaps underneath all ideology are necessities only dimly glimpsed. Such may be the case with immigration. But here the law of unintended consequences cannot be suspended as easily as border enforcement. The law of unintended consequences states that the result of any action (thus any public policy) to achieve a given end will be consequences that are unintended. This is something to do with incomplete information, a human absolute. An unintended consequence of feminism is that it's Newtonian--its appearance generates an equal and opposite reaction.  Feminism is in essence anti-reproductive, and nature has a way of destroying what opposes her. Deflation is one of her weapons.
If you end or significantly pause immigration, deflation will--eventually--fix the psycho-social pathogen of feminism. It is no coincidence that feminism arose concurrently with liberalization of immigration policy. Pro-immigrationism is an antibody produced by feminism. It imports inconsequential people to do things we're told are inconsequential, or "Jobs Americans won't do." This enables women to worship at the Temples of Diana and Venus, where the augurs all look like Chris Hemsworth. As long as there is a steady supply of human grist, this system works. Cut off the supply and bad things happen.  Nature (and by implication nature's God) will not be mocked. Societies that do not reproduce, and are not highly K-selected, do not have impressive longevity, and they take their anti-human ideologies with them. We're not amiss in describing feminism as anti-human, since it redirects the energies nature would deploy toward maintenance of the species (and group) into maximizing self-gratification.
There is no contradiction here. The same forces that diminish K-selection can also diminish R-selection in human populations, i.e. the 60 hour work week leaves little time for high reproduction or for rearing children. Thus children become accessory, become kitsch. This is not to say that motherly love doesn't exist in such scenarios, but it clings at the margins, where self and offspring compete in a limited resource world (time and location). Wherever modern finance capitalism has taken root, native populations are declining. This is not merely correlation. It is only in socialistic societies that the consequences of this mechanism can be temporarily suspended by burden shifting. More and more, one of the inconsequential things that immigrants do is watch, teach, and rear our children. If the standard one attains to in child-rearing is parental resemblance, then nothing will seem out of place when single-parenthood becomes a permanent fixture of society.
The schedules of most professional women barely accommodate their nascent alcoholism, much less high-investment parenting. Between gymnastic self-flagellation and roving in female wolf-packs, there's so little time to be auditioned by an unattainable Alpha-male at whose hands one may revel in delicious abuse, all whilst rebuffing a legion of good-but-attainable men. Ah, the wages of hypergamy-cum-polygamy. It produces ad hoc harems alongside millions of unmarried men. Still, enough martinis and a willing donor is ready-to-hand, to facilitate acquisition of the lifestyle accoutrement de rigueur for social climbing women -the latchkey kid. Should the latter option fail to satisfy the hunger for feminist virtue signalling, dusky orphans are simply dropping from the eaves. All this to say social theory that opposes quality of child rearing to quantity of children is based on an axiom of modernity: the presumption of 2 working parents. This is a vicious circle created by treating economics as if it were gravity, or the strong nuclear force, and not merely a flexible accommodation among men for the production and distribution of material goods, subject to the variables human psychology. "Libertarians" have been flogging away at the naturalistic fallacy for the better part of a century, but they still can't stop trying to derive their ought from their is, because they treat the latter as given.
It is not mysterious why birth rates are higher in so-called developing nations. High time-preference coupled with the ample leisure provided by "alternative economic understandings" produce opportunity for -um, reproduction. The latter is not lightly dismissed. Pieper, et al., have pointed to the necessity of leisure to attain high culture. Thus it is understandable why the U.S. has none. These same economic factors (high time preference + leisure) also produce low K-selection, which is why  such areas (i.e. the "Global South") are perpetually developing, yet never quite developed.  High R can be produced in feminist societies; high K cannot. Complementarity of High R and High K is an atavism so rare as to be nearly unexampled in contemporary life. Evolution did not generate the reproductive strategies. They are the result of the presence or absence of sin in society. Where sin flourishes, the complementarity of R/K is undermined--i.e. one will rise without the other. But the two reproductive strategies are not inherently mutually exclusive; they are only made so by sinful economics. In one scenario, high reproduction without high investment produces societies where human life is cheap. In the opposite scenario communities wither by the hand of narcissism.
I enjoyed the following response to a comment on an article in the Spectator UK warning of the excesses of feminism:
"Having children DOES cause difficulties as work has put itself in opposition to family life relationships and parenting." 
Yes, that's how reality is meant to work. You cannot be in two places at once, correct. This however is not like the patriarchy decided, hey lets design reality so women can only be in one place at a time, because oppression: Literally every person who has ever or will ever exist is likewise effected by only being able to be in once place at a time.
Just so. But feminism, among its other wondrous benefits, proposes to bend the laws of space-time, creating alternate universes in which female directors of HR or marketing also have 2nd and 3rd children, teach them to read, bake cookies, and attend soccer practice. House husbands are a sign that men are adapting to feminism's stratagem of reality-inversion. Yes, deflation might fix feminism, for it is then that the grim forces of mere existence begin to teach hard lessons to the native stock. But for it to do so, a nation must stare into the abyss. If you want to see what happens to a non-immigrating country that has not come to grips with the poison of modernity, you have only to look at Japan. In fact, modern Japan may be a perfect exemplar of gnostic NRx in action.

If you want some stimulating bloggage on R/K Selection from a Christian perspective, I highly recommend the blog Koanic Soul. It's Cheateau Heartiste meets J. Philippe Rushton, meets G.K. Chesterton.

Where is Ithavoll?


In the Völuspá of the Poetic Edda, Ithavoll is the mythological location of the plain where a remnant of the gods meet following the events of Ragnarök, to begin again the work of city building, the first being Gimli -said to be the most beautiful place in the world:
At Ithavoll met the mighty gods;Shrines and temples they timbered high;Forges they set, and they smithied ore,Tongs they wrought, and tools they fashioned.
A second time Ithavoll is mentioned, where the past is recalled to those present, perhaps as a warning:

The gods in Ithavoll meet together,
Of the terrible girdler of earth they talk,
And the mighty past they call to mind,
And the ancient runes of the Ruler of Gods.

Who are "the gods" but us? Homo Europaeus. Those who carry with grace the burden of order and reason for all the world, a charge from God. Ithavoll is the place where we begin again, as in the Palingenesis of Christ, where we regain humanity from the loss of the fall. For the latter we must wait. Ithavoll, however, is patterned after its type and is situated in the temporal world. It is where the immemorial schema are re-established, and the kernel of eternity (The Gospel) is hidden as the world descends into the baptism of chaos that precedes renewal.

Picture credit: CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=354100

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Home Sweet Home

It will be bitter comedy, but a joke I'll secretly relish, when weepy sentimentalists and immigrants succeed in making Europe and America exactly like the dung heaps they fled. But then perhaps vast empty tracts of Africa will be ready for the plow of reason and order.