Tuesday, June 02, 2020

Feelz Before Realz

Monday, June 01, 2020

The Consequences of San Antonio Turning Blue

A reader writes to Rod Dreher: Riots & the Invisible American

The Public Good and All That



I do think the states need to stand up for their people in that regard, even if they are part of the political problem.

More Displays from the Uhmerican Church

Go Cry Now



Liberal democracy, just like civic nationalism, was always a sham foistered on the "public" by the elites.

Waiting for the Episcopalians to Go the Way of the Dodo



Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde
Washington Post

staff

Carlson Stirring up (R) Voters



The Napoleonic Wars

AmConMag: Why You Don’t See Napoleon’s Wars Taught Like This Anymore by Paul du Quenoy
A new examination of the global Coalition Wars flies in the face of the academy's current ahistorical orthodoxies.



OUP: The Napoleonic Wars: A Global History by Alexander Mikaberidze

Another nuAmerican Talking about America as a Failed State

Unherd: Covid has exposed America as a failed state by Aris Roussinos
It's hard to view the US at this point as anything other than a cautionary tale



Second essay about "America" being a failed state I've looked at in the last 30 days. Budding intellectuals need to get out of their heads more. The author himself recognizes that it is not dogmatic "liberals" who are responsible, but the oligarchs.

And Hazony probably has reasons to blame "liberalism" or "liberals" rather than the oligarchs.

The Elites

What evidence is there that for those who are responsible for 1-4, or involved in maintaining 1-4, fall under 5? Maybe a few naive minor members would be puzzled, but the elites are not utopian liberal idealists.

Not a Boomer

First Things: A Call To Conversion by Dale M. Coulter

Maybe this professor can show evidence that he lives up to the ideals of co-existence with which he is determined to browbeat others.

Just as the passing of the cohort of Boomer bishops in the Latin churches doesn't mean that liberalism will just disappear from the Latin churches, so the indoctrination of liberalism, in the name of equality and civil rights, and so on, has been successful with the following generations.

A Failure in Parenting?

Who's Running the White House Right Now?

What Is Marriage?



A new edition with a new foreword... Socons don't realize that they've lost this battle of the culture war?

Naive

Explains Much

But Not All Conflict Is Acceptable Right?

Only conflict in the name of social justice and initiated or conducted by the left... nuAmerican hubris.

Under Cupich's Nose

A Project of Nationalist Pride

The Uhmerican Church

As I've said before, LCs and ex-LCs generally don't uphold any standards for liturgy.



Deneen v. Douthat



Judeo-Christianity...

Should a Christian trust a Talmudic Jew to explain Christ to them?

Bruderhof Selling the Nationalist Myth

Maritain seems to have bought into it as well.





As Anabaptists, shouldn't they know better? Or are they Anabaptist SJWs?

A Ranger Armory

SFAB > SF?

Pretending to Be a Yankee

And the More They Are Afraid of Offending Their Neighbors, Too

Who wants to be doxxed or cancelled by someone alleging crime-think or -ism?

Antifa's Handbook

Welcome to Peak Oil Speculation

Cheap Feelz

Why do people feel obligated to make statements? Do they think they are such powerful influencers?

Jackie Chan, Beijing Toadie Again





"Priorities"

No Mention of Identity Politics

Too afraid to talk about the "benefits of diversity"?

The Dying Irish Churches

More Supplication



I Didn't Know He Was Working in the D.A's Office Now

Tony Blauer









Podcast: How to Run a Business Like Bruce Lee with Tony Blauer

LAV Does Sicario

Sunday, May 31, 2020

中環「無懼國安法200萬人和你lunch」

Also Today



Who's Funding This?



The Lincoln Project

More Supplication to the Protestors

On orders of command? Or a spontaneous decision by the officers?

Where is the Donald?

A lot of conservatives and alt-lite people, and even a few to their right, are asking about the president's seeming inaction and lack of leadership over the weekend.

Is "federalism" a sufficient excuse? The governors themselves can mobilize the state/national guard in an emergency. Is Trump just revealing the incompetence of the (D) governors and mayors?

There is the claim that he can do something under the Insurrection Act. Is it true that Ivanka and Jared are asking him to hold back in order to protect his chances of re-election?

Female Sergeant in the Back?

Her Decision May Have Been Correct

Is she second-guessing herself because of criticism? And admitting that her motivation was fear, and not reason...

Some are not suited for the burden of leadership.

Any Future for Conservatism?

Can they see the riots from outer space?

YT Paternalism is Racist



LEOs Can't Even Protect Their Own Property

Principled Cucking

Ed Monaghan



Jim West on The Team House



Leadership?

Or doing what is necessary to de-escalate?



Taleb Speaking the Truth



Find your tribe.

Trailer for Jack Carr's Latest

Just $249.

Patagonia Macro Puff Quilt


GearJunkie
GearPatrol
HiConsumption
Clad

Saturday, May 30, 2020

Slouching Towards Statism

Sincere Latin do-gooders believe racism is a sin. And yes, there is a sin of hatred that can be named racism. But racism is a word to delegitimize many other attitudes or beliefs which may be erroneous but not necessarily sinful.

Still, many "respectable" Latins have the Yankee activist mindset that characterized the Civil Rights Movement and also of SJWs, though SJWs have taken that mindset further in seeking not only "justice" or "equality" but greater sanctions against those who disagree.

Perhaps these Latins are just naive pawns who do not understand that they are providing excuses for the state to have greater power to eradicate wrong-think and freedom, even if that freedom is exercised in a way with which these moralists disapprove. Don't be a dupe for mass politics or mass movements, even if they claim to be promoting principles with which you agree, whether it be "equality," or "the common good." First determine whether you actually embody these principles in your own lives and in your relations with others, and if you don't, figure out whether you are a hypocrite or whether you have a good reason for not doing so.

Is this just the beginning of more orchestrated violence for the summer? I don't know, but statements such as the USCCB's will not do anything to fix the problem, not when many of the bishops perhaps caved too quickly to the civil authorities in closing their churches. Without liturgical services and the meeting of their community, what sort of basic witness can they provide to their non-Catholic neighbors as an "institution"? How many of these peacemakers would be willing to go out to take a stand against antifa and the destruction of property?



CWR/CNA: ‘Racism is not a thing of the past’ – US bishops respond to George Floyd killing



Here's the press statement: Statement of U.S. Bishop Chairmen in Wake of Death of George Floyd and National Protests



Had Rarely Seen This Greeting IRL

and some might even consider it an urban legend. But here is an example of "fellow white people"...

From HK to Canada

Glory Days No More

Just one of the last gasps of a dying civilization living in denial.


Lot of SJW considerations driving how this is being presented, so I am surprised that the two astronauts are older white men.





Bloomberg QuickTake
Bloomberg
CNBC
CBS
The Sun
PBS
TIME
CNET
The Independent











The Telegraph
Stuffbox









NASA Livestream
Watch a SpaceX rocket blow up during abort test

Self-Aggrandizing

Another nuAmerican at Work

Uhmerica Everywhere

Alt-Lite Turning...?



Smith & Wesson Thowing Axes



webpage

Throwing knives too...

Rab Phantom Pull-On



webpage



Backpacker Editor's Choice 2020

Friday, May 29, 2020

Ellen McCormack

She ran for president but wasn't feminist. Hm.

Henry George Reviews The Strange Death of Europe

Neo-Ottomanism

A Member of the Silent Generation Speaks

Paul Craig Roberts: Where Did My World Go?

One Narrative

Possibly incomplete.

From 2016:
The Atlantic: How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul by Matt Stoller
In the 1970s, a new wave of post-Watergate liberals stopped fighting monopoly power. The result is an increasingly dangerous political system.



Russians Singing Appalachian Style "Christ is Risen"



A Fix for the Symptom, Not the Disease

The disease which is the state and its mass population centers, with the cult of multiculturalism and diversity...

Hastening Rather Than Delaying?

Will COVID-19 Delay Peak Oil? by Alice Friedemann (Resilience)

DHI Win

How Many Will Be Able to Leave?

And will the CCP move in quickly to prevent people from leaving?











Time
CNBC

Hard Times Create Strong Men



Real Estate coach, now men's coach -- two hustles, not just one...



And he was a speaker for the nu21c:


Is his book worth reading? I'll check out the videos at least, since they're free.

How Seriously Does Taiwan Take Such Threats?

ZeroHedge: Top China General Says Attack On Taiwan An Option If No Other Way To Stop Independence

Casca

Celebrating the Displacement of Men

USAF Extends Uniform Deadline



Too Old to Be THOTS

They may have some sensible things to say... but it's just another hustle in the hustle economy. It would be better to do something constructive with respect to their actual life goals, family, community, whatever.

Who's Going to Control It? Not You or Other Latin Integralists.

Fantastical.

Interview with Jeff Sessions



AmConMag: Right Now Interview: Jeff Sessions on Trump, Tuberville, and Free Trade ‘Religion’ by Arthur Bloom

The Fall of Constantinople



But Franks are gonna be Franks and promote their fiction...


This one was better:

"Noncitizen"

"Because everyone should belong!"

Mass population centers lead to their own downfall, and SJWs just accelerate this. Don't count on others to rescue you from the mess that you mishandled.

More Hustling in the Hustle Economy

When the collapse accelerates, learning to code won't be an option.



The Libtard Solution



The solution is to permit the rise of organic communities which will police themselves through a common culture, standards of behavior, and virtues. That won't solve the crime problem, but it will allow communities to separate themselves from the mess that the state has created.

Educing Ivan Illich: Reform, Contingency and Disestablishment by John Baldacchino

Peter Lang


President Tsai in Causeaway Bay Bookstore in Taipei





Greek Traditional Lamentation for the Fall of Constantinople

Summerland... How many checkboxes?

Anti-Christian, interracial lesbian romance, "educating" the youth...

Armor and Plate Carriers





2019

許靖韻 x 林奕匡 - 別為我好(你未夠好版)Studio version

An Interview with the Provincial Superior of ICKSP

Crisis: ‘The Love of Tradition Brings People Together’ by Francis Lee



YT Channel

Thursday, May 28, 2020

The Mayor of Toronto

Putting Women at the Center of Attention



Another Cantowitch in Uniform

On the Anti-Racism Bandwagon

Rhodesian SAS

Not the Right Sort of Humanitarian Aid

While it is good for the UK to be doing something about members of their former colony, refuge with limited rights would have been preferable to a pathway to citizenship. I am concerned that HKers moving to the UK will be exploited by the revolutionaries to further undermine the UK.

Uhmerica!



Civic nationalism is a fantasy and a tool for oppression. Just because Uncle Sam's jackboot is on both of our necks doesn't mean I have anything else in common with you...

Originalism: Webster Over Calhoun?

Law & Liberty: The Legal U-Turn by Ilan Wurman

What’s more, I would say that on the rare occasion when the public meaning diverges from the legal meaning, the public meaning probably ought to prevail. Consider the following example. In 1840, Congress debated whether its power to make uniform bankruptcy laws included the power to provide for debtor relief. The problem was that in England, bankruptcy and insolvency were legal terms of art—and the former referred only to the body of law existing for the protection of creditors, the latter to the body of law existing for the relief of debtors. The U.S. Constitution, of course, confers power on Congress only over bankruptcy and not insolvency. Thus Senators John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and Richard Henry Bayard of Delaware argued that federal lawmakers did not have the power to enact debtor relief because the sense of the term “bankruptcy” was to be taken from its legal history.

Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts disagreed. The ordinary public understanding is what counts. The term in question is, said Webster, to be taken in its “common and popular sense—in that sense in which the people may be supposed to have understood it when they ratified the Constitution.”[5] Congress agreed and enacted the insolvency provisions. Although the statute was soon repealed, when Congress subsequently enacted bankruptcy laws, its power over insolvency was never again questioned.

Webster’s point makes intuitive sense, and is in line with what several Framers thought when it came to interpreting the Constitution. As James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson: “The legitimate meaning of the [Constitution] must be derived from the text itself,” and external evidence “must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned and proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it received all the authority which it possesses.”[6]

Wurman is just advancing a POV that has been held by other "scholars" of the Constitution: Webster over Calhoun. But was Webster  a better "originalist"?

To be fair: was the division between the legal meaning and public meaning of bankruptcy already evident during the drafting of the Constitution? We're not talking about what was understood in 1840, we're talking about what was understood in 1787 to 1790. What historical or linguistic evidence did Webster have to make that claim? 

Not About Steve Bannon

As it gives insight into the author instead.

AmConMag: The Mystical Steve Bannon by Rod Dreher

Benjamin R. Teitelbaum: War For Eternity: Inside Bannon’s Far-Right Circle of Global Power Brokers





RD: In the Traditionalist framework, at least as interpreted by Bannon and Olavo, virtue resides in the ordinary people, those shut out from elite circles and institutions. They are supposed to be the repository of true spiritual values. How realistic is this, though, even in Traditionalist terms? In the US, the working class is less religiously observant than the middle class. I understand the trad-populist criticism of the spiritual corruption of the elites, and share a lot of it, but I can’t see solid ground for this valorization of the People. It sounds to me more like an ideological abstraction, the way the Bolsheviks instrumentalized the “Masses,” and the Nazis used “das Volk.”

BT: Yes, in those latter cases you see either a descriptive or a prescriptive vision for treating one part of a population as definitive of the whole. These populations have typically been abstractions and imaginations—the accusation against romantic nationalists, to say nothing of the Nazis, was that they had invented the integral “folk” of the countryside that populated their stories and paintings and songs, just as Marxists had marched off to find a proletariat when such a neatly defined population seldom existed. Most original Traditionalists saw instead the priestly elite as being the “culture makers” of society, the ones who ought shape the masses according to their own ideals.

In Bannon’s and Olavo’s upended version we see something that looks more like standard romantic nationalism à la Herder, where a sector of society deemed most insulated from the corruption of modernity (often rural, less formal education, stationary) was viewed as a vessel for timeless values and identity. And the question to those romantics would be the same to Bannon, and it’s the question you pose: on what grounds do you speak of those people as a whole, and how are you sure they possess the qualities you think they do?

Does Bannon know more about red America than Teitelbaum?

RD: I happened to be reading your book at the same time as Modris Eksteins’ 1986 history of modernism, Rites of Spring. Eksteins says that just prior to World War I, Germany thought of itself as the champion of true spiritual values, and Britain (as well as France) as exponents of a civilization that placed primacy on money-making and materialism. We know too what the Nazis did with the same general concept. There really are solid historical grounds to worry about a recrudescence. That said, the critique Team Bannon makes of the emptiness of commercial society, and modernity’s capacity to dissolve national and cultural particularity, is both solid and appealing. Can you imagine a way in which political actors could advance the best part of Traditionalism — defending local and national cultures from absorption into the globalist mass — without succumbing to the wicked parts?

BT: Here you are asking me to speak for myself rather than for the people I studied, but I’ll try to work with the question: I think people stand the best chance of deriving something good from Traditionalism when they treat it, not as a guide for action, but instead as a narrative to inspire new analyses of society, which thereafter might function as a basis for action.

In particular I wonder whether there isn’t a place for pondering a chain of correspondences the school proposes, namely, that the most meaningful commonality held by the modern political left and right is their peculiar focus on economics; that the relative disinterest in immaterial aspects of social life might be at the root of our tacit aversion to allowing people and communities to be meaningfully different from one another; that the insistence on building community based on visions of a shared future rather than a shared past—which has so many obvious virtues and which is a near necessity in countries like the United States—underestimates the importance that narratives of a common history play in forging social solidarity.

I think the “wickedness” of Traditionalism comes, not only from the content of the hierarchies it sometimes proposes (race, gender, etc.), and not only from the way it could encourage us to ignore or relish contemporary hardship, but also because of what it doesn’t say—the fact that its grand narrative of human history and the battle of good and bad leaves so much unspecified. Those empty spaces can and have been filled with demagoguery. One way to avoid this is to not subscribe to Traditionalism as religion, of course, but to allow its occasional, qualified insights to live in a wider complex of values and agendas—including those it maligns.

"Liberalism is a big tent that can tolerate many different views, so long as they don't step over the lines the state makes at our behest."

Why does Teitelbaum have the need to portray himself as a defender of liberalism?
RD: I’ve been corresponding with a national journalist who is trying to understand why some American conservatives (like me) are drawn to Hungary’s Viktor Orban. This journalist is a liberal, and can only see Orban as a villain. I’ve tried to explain that people like me certainly don’t endorse everything Orban does, but we see in him a figure of resistance to George Soros and what Soros stands for. That is, Soros is the epitome of a wealthy, influential globalist who believes localist and nationalist institutions and narratives are problems to be solved. I wouldn’t expect a Western liberal to support a politician like Orban, but tell me, why is it so difficult for Western liberals to grasp that politicians like Orban appeal to deep longings in people — for, as you put it, “community, diversity, [and] sovereignty,” that cannot be reduced to “racism”?

BT: I think it is common to fear complex portrayals of people who threaten you, and the liberal left is certainly afraid of Orban (as am I to an extent, I must admit): his transformation of election processes, his treatment of the media, and his self-proclaimed opposition to liberal democracy, etc. I’m not telling you or your readers anything new in noting how that last piece in particular—Orban’s opposition to liberal democracy—is disqualifying to many Western commentators.

But the added feature here is that he personifies a cause that can appear ascendant in global politics. That prompts some commentators to move from mere criticism to war, and thereby to the realm of us-versus-them thinking, of black and white, of telling people that they are either part of the solution or part of the problem. Muddy those waters with talk of qualifications, contingencies, and parallel interpretations, and—the reasoning seems to go—you can as well be an apologist for the enemy. And when confronted with an unexpected or strange account of someone like Orban—one, say, framing him as a right-wing force for localism and community rather than libertarian individualism—and you’d be lucky to be called “politically incoherent” as Thomas Chatterton Williams recently put it. More likely the instinct will be to accuse you of fashioning a façade to obscure what, allegedly, matters most.

Part of me gets this as a political strategy. I understand theoretically why someone would say that the political stakes are so high these days that a line-in-the-sand tactic might be needed to mobilize. What I want at a minimum, however, is for people to be honest with themselves if they choose this path. I want them to recognize that dividing the world in all-or-nothing terms, adopting and strenuously maintaining uniform definitions of each other and cultivating fear and contempt for inconsistency and the unorthodox constitutes self-imposed ignorance; a subordination of inquiry and knowledge for the sake of political expediency.
"Creating opposition is bad! Unity!" We can also throw in, "Identity politics for me, but not for thee!" Who is dividing the world in "all-or-nothing" terms? This is not about "definitions," this is about group identities. Teitelbaum is merely posing as a defender of liberal rationalism, while he distorts those whom he claims to be portraying "honestly" as a "researcher."

One can see why liberalism and civic nationalism are platforms for non-natives to rally behind to weaken and subvert the majority.

Teitelbaum is a half-Pharisee who is interested in "far right" and "ethnonationalist" movements? Such fringe movements are psychological maladies to be diagnosed?

Check out this review of his Lions of the North: Sounds of the New Nordic Radical Nationalism by Cathrine Thorleifsson