Murtha's dead.

Contra the neoconservative utopians, Van Creveld, John Robb, Misha Glenny, and many others have posited that the nation-state is weakening globally and giving way to a dangerous new order. Several solutions are proposed, including forming "resilient communities," networks and tribes to provide stability during these soon-to-be turbulent times.

My initial enthusiasm for sites promoting these alternative ways has run aground on the knowledge that these sites and the people running them are hopelessly SWPL. Many of the proposals found on sites like Global Guerrillas, for instance, demonstrate a lack of basic economic sense. For example, man ditched the barter system for currency very early on because having a medium of exchange facilitates easier - and thus, more - economic activity and productivity. But Robb et al are promoting barter as a viable, "resilient" form of currency. Other suggestions are LARPer aspie nerdgasms, pure and simple:

If I asked you: what is the best way to incentivize work and innovation in a large economic system? You would immediately respond: financial reward. However, that assumption might not be correct. Here's why.

As a serial entrepreneur, I'm constantly thinking about building new businesses. One of my long standing dreams has been to start a real world company that operates like a massively multiplayer online (MMO) game. One reason I believe that this type of venture would work (and that my dream wasn't purely a fantasy) is this simple insight: MMOs with persistent environments (aka "worlds") have proven an ability to incentivize tens of millions of players to do billions of hours of work.

I'm talking about real, active work and not merely mindless, passive entertainment. Everything from drudge work to extremely complex analysis to the coordination of large groups in the pursuit of solving complex problems. All of this work was accomplished without a real world economic incentive. Instead the pay-off was (tested over billions of hours of play):

* Improvement in status (level).
* Gain new capabilities (new tools) and skills.
* Earn in-game faux money (to purchase new tools and status enhancing items).

In each case, the incentives offered are virtual, digital creations that don't exist outside the gaming "world."

This is laughable. People who play MMOs, like WoW, are the least resilient people I know and the ones most likely to be killed first in a dangerous new world order. The guy who got my into lifting is a personal trainer. He has a friend who was trying to get in shape to pass the air force physical fitness assessment to get into the air force, as gaming had left him with no work experience and even fewer options. He was so scoliotic and out-of-shape when working with my friend to get in shape that he started whining after about his 10th push-up. The subsequent month of training didn't produce better results. My brother-in-law could tell a similar story of his physical condition when he was playing WoW. Finally, he sold his account (for real USD, not WoW money,) lost weight, and started playing the guitar.

Another idea touted as something of a panacea is the idea of local production (ie, in-home fabrication) and new localism. Production scaled up greatly to the factory level during the Industrial Revolution because economies of scale can produce far cheaper goods of higher quality than individual craftsmen working on their own. If you have a hard time believing this, just consider whether you'd spend more money buying a car built from the ground up by a mechanic of after-market parts or straight off the lot from a dealership. You will definitely pay a lot more going the former route than the latter, and people will usually choose the cheaper good if quality is comparable.

Also proposed is the idea of a return to tribalism, which is hilarious given that virtually all existing tribes are organized along ethnic lines and all SWPLs are terrified of appearing racist when they aren't accusing others of it. The only way tribalism succeeds in modern times is through the use of daughters and first-cousin marriage to re-inforce the kinship bonds that create the tribe itself. The extant tribal areas on earth, such as AfPak, sub-saharan Africa, and the Arab countries, are not places where SWPL yuppies are clamoring to live. Tribalized societies are essentially zero-sum, malthusian, and revenge-based. Sons are used for fighting and daughters are used for trade.

What's much more likely to occur as the nation-state continues to weaken through misguided immigration policies is a return to feudalism, where the sheeple agree to live under the rule of the most ruthless guy around along with his merry band of thugs in order to have some degree of safety. Ex-military guys and gangsters know how to be ruthless, but our military is full of basically decent people who wouldn't be prone to being the local warlord, so we can expect people from organizations like "La Eme" (The Mexican Mafia) to take over like they have in East Los Angeles. In parts outside of Los Angeles county, the biker gangs typically fill this roll. The Hell's Angels have a big presence in the Ventura storefronts, for example. In short, SWPL yuppies will not be filling the role of Benevolent Local Feudal Chieftain.

There aren't many ways of forming cohesive networks, either, other than your group being oppressed by Them Over There. This is why ethnic groups - the most obvious resilient network - came into being in the first place. An ethnic group is a partially inbred extended family, to use Steve Sailer's definition. Your extended family is your natural network and kinship bonds are much more durable than most others around and lead to a sense of common identity. I seriously doubt that a bunch of SWPL software nerds will be able to produce the same thing in virtual reality or real reality. If the dangerous, post-nation-state reality ever emerges in force, it will be dominated by people who haven't forgotten the utility of ethnic and family bonds. SWPLs hate their parents (further evidence of their psychosis), and love diversity (on paper, at least), so they will have a lot of catching-up to do with other groups like Mexicans to survive the New World Order. Also, SWPLs (and whites, generally) don't compose a significant percentage of any of the destabilizing gangs and mafias flooding stable Western countries, leaving them exposed to plenty of ethnic cleansing if the dominant races in these gangs decide to act on their racist impulses.

As an aside, I've noticed that an ideological purge is probably about to take place in the RC discussion community. I don't think it'll be the SWPLs getting purged, Bill Lind's status on the blog notwithstanding. The dominant personalities emerging on the blog are of the Bay Area liberal type, praising diversity and all of the other sacred cows while ranting on about Republicans.

I seriously doubt there will be Christian religion on the continent of North America in 100 years. As it stands right now, there are under a million NAPARC members, and the NAPARC churches are the only ones I know that are getting the gospel right on a consistent basis, aside from some of the LCMS churches and more conservative Baptist ones. The NAPARC churches have no small set of problems either, and conservative churches tend to last under 100 years before some new schism is necessary to preserve the preaching of the gospel and proper administration of the sacraments.

That said, the past 30 years have seen a movement called "The New Perspective on Paul," which has sprung out of a misunderstanding of the Reformed use of the Law and has synergized with the Federal Vision found in conservative presbyterian churches (the OPC and PCA) and has since spread to the liberal CRC with the forced exit of Norman Shepherd from both Westminster Seminary east and the PCA. For a brief history on the FV/NPP, see this.

Unsurprisingly, Tom Wright is very popular amongst Emergents as well, who think they've discovered a novel understanding of New Testament Scriptures in light of a new understanding of 1st century 2nd temple Judaism. The real danger here is that popular writers like Rob Bellhave incorporated NPP teachings into their sermons, videos, and books and then it will seep into the Evangelical conventional wisdom. Once there, it will be impossible to remove since the conventional wisdom is the only wisdom people are willing to entertain nowadays. It looks like this is now taking place. Bell, Brian MacLaren, and other Emergents have the same basic view of NT Scriptures as NT Wright and Norman Shepherd, to wit, that they must be understood in light of this new view of 1st century 2nd temple Judaism. Bell also thinks that Christianity bust be rediscovered as an Eastern religion based on some extremely shoddy exegesis of the Greek word pneuma and that we must all start living like Jesus for Christianity to be relevant. (This time, we'll do it!).

Wright, Bell, and company believe that no one has responded to their arguments or they simply don't care. I believe it's the latter. For those that want to read the rebuttals, here is a short list. There are several books on that list that can be purchased and read at leisure.

I've concluded that the real problem with guys like Wright and Bell is not so much their sloppy scholarship, but that they've either heard the gospel and rejected it or have never heard it before. They need to be saved and born again before they can begin to undo what they've done. The even bigger problem is the number of people they lead astray to be lost for eternity barring some supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

After much careful reasoning, I've decided that the most I can offer towards the Jews in this country in terms of my own attitude is apathy. I wish them well as they attempt to deal with all of the antisemites they've helped bring into the country over the past decades, esp. the Muslims. I think they'll find that their courtship of the Mexicans in the form of helping them get amnesty will backfire on them as it did with the blacks (who are unabashedly antisemitic) in the post-civil rights era.

Guy White recently posted some half-baked explanation of how Jews are able to fend off antisemitism while whites are unable to fend off discrimination because "whites accept abuse," implying that Jews don't. Well, we'd accept a lot less abuse if we didn't have Jewish Frankfurt Schoolers (no longer even necessary, actually) injection our education system with Multikult, and if the ADL and Jewish-funded ACLU weren't constantly screaming, "Racist!" at every display of white solidarity.

I think the American public opinion will tip decidedly against the Jews in the coming decade, for several reasons. Non-Jewish liberals will hide their antisemitism under the guise of solidarity with the "Palestinians." Blacks and Hispanics (Amerikkka's fastest-growing demographic!) will be much more open about it. Evangelical (30 million people or so) support for Israel (and thus, the Jews) will die with the Baby Boomers as evangelicalism is a Baby Boomer phenomenon and the children of Baby Boomers are generally leaving evangelicalism. If liberal Jewish punditry and Hollywood continue their attack on Palin (and Red-staters generally), they'll provoke a whole new demographic as well (the Tea Partiers, though there is much overlap with the Tea Partiers and Evangelicals).

Some posit that - per stated Jewish agenda - the Jews will flourish in this glorious rainbow (double entendre) utopia they've helped create in Amerikkka. I doubt that very much given the "universal" nature of the Soviet Union and the fact that they were purged from it as well as several other places throughout history. Also, the fact that ethnic groups will be squabbling over an ever-shrinking American economic pie does not mean that they can't unite against Jews who, after all, have enormous wealth and influence.

The decline of the United States will be a decidedly bad thing for Israel, as much of their military technology is stolen or purchased from us, presumably with the billions in aid we give them. It will be difficult for them to maintain a broad military-industrial base for manufacturing planes, artillery, radars, and missiles in a country no bigger than Rhode Island. Perhaps they should seek out more Eastern help in the future, though I'm sure they'll find the Indians, Russians, and Chinese far more resilient to their mandarin intrigues and manipulations.

My participation in counterjihad activities with Jews has convinced me that most these causes (for example, ACT! for America) end up getting co-opted for exclusively Jewish or Zionist (same thing) interests. This is particularly galling when you take into account the fact that run-of-the-mill white Americans like myself don't have the equivalent of an Israel to make aliyah to when America goes under for us.

That said, I do wish fair-minded Jews (a small minority) like David Kelsey and Andrew Bostom well. They do an excellent job speaking out against the madness they see around them, especially from their own kinsmen. For the majority - the hostile, domineering, paranoiacs, teh Huffposters (redundant), the Friedmans, the Brookses, the Foxmans - my attitude can best be described as, "Let's you and him fight." The "him" grows in numbers daily thanks to your help.

When you read through any site where a large number of Jews gather, such as Jewcy.com, HuffPo, the Kvetcher, Global Guerrillas (more recently), any discussion of Christianity or Islam inevitably results in Jews connecting Christianity back to the Holocaust, Hitler, the Inquisition, etc. The record of last century, of course, shows that Jews have given at least as good as they've gotten considering their participation in Soviet Communist genocides, but that doesn't seem to register on their collective conscience.

Given enough time and interaction with Jews, you'll notice their swarm attacks any time there is a mention of Christianity. Much of the criticism of Sarah Palin, for instance, has to do with the fact that Jewish media personalities don't like the thought of a Christian Evangelical running for the presidency. Christian "fundamentalists" (they never distinguish between "fundamentalist" Christians and not, either), are likely to launch a pogrom an confiscate Jewish life and property, you see.

Of course, 139/400 of the Forbes list of most wealthy Americans are Jewish, Jews run Hollywood, they are also overrepresented in government, and a thuggish Jew who served in the IDF is now White House chief of staff, so Jews don't lack for power and influence to protect themselves, despite being only 6% of the population. In fact, you might even say Jewish power and influence has reached a new high-water mark in the United States, given the overrepresentation of Jews in positions of power and their control over our foreign policy.

Why the Jewish paranoia regarding Christians? After all, it hasn't been us doing this, this, this, or this. It's not us out there protesting every time Israel goes to war with Hizballah. In fact, Evangelicals are almost fanatical in their support of Israel. Our prophet, priest and Jewish king (Jesus) did not say this.

So why the Jewish hatred of Christians? Is it just projected guilt over their financial success? Is it some Talmud-inspired hatred of the goy? Is it a survival strategy, as MacDonald posits?

We're discussing it over on MPC.com in the context of the whithering of the white middle class in the United States.

Standby for a thread on Jewish paranoia, perhaps cross-posted here.

Swift Meat Packing, now JBS, has been bringing immigrants into this country for quite awhile. Look at the results.

Is this America?

Much reasonable criticism of Jews tends toward the "Gee, I don't want to be a raving antisemite, but there sure are a lot of Jews supporting destructive cultural endeavors" line of thought:

One of my commenters recently pointed me at the work of Kevin McDonald, and academic who has studied the adaptive strategies of diaspora Jewry in great historical depth, largely drawing from Jewish historians as his sources.

I have yet to read his actual books, but I’ve found a great deal of review and discussion and analysis of them on the Web, and he makes some interesting cases. Through reading about his work, I’ve found a possible answer to a historical question that has troubled me for a couple of decades. That answer implies a terrible, bloody irony near the heart of the last few centuries of Jewish history.

The question is this: why have Jewish intellectuals invested so heavily in socialism and communism, a movement that has repaid that investment with oppression and massacre of Jews on a huge scale?

I noticed and wrote, years ago, that Jewish thinkers from Spinoza onward have been attracted to a style of political and philosophical analysis that could be described as messianic secular rationalism. That is: if you look at reform movements that are anti-religious or a-religious in character, but that are organized around some notion of justice founded in abstractions that are supposed to be universal to all cultures, you’ll usually find Jews heavily represented among their foundational thinkers. This pattern is part of what’s behind the trope common in anti-semitic literature that the Jews are “rootless cosmopolitans”.

As a relatively minor but interesting case historically close to me, consider Richard M. Stallman’s free-software movement. RMS is a secular Jew; I’ve noted before that Stallman’s thinking reads like a sort of Jewish meliorism crossed with New England transcendentalism a la Thoreau. RMS’s insistence on an absolute standard of morality completely and aggressively decoupled from any religious ideas is diagnostic of the sort of thing I mean.

As a contrasting example, consider the “classical liberal” secular reformism of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution. That tradition is simultaneously less interested in completely divorcing itself from religious ideas and less interested in questions of absolute morality. The emphasis is not on “how should we live?” but “how can we coexist despite having different agendas?”

Some of the key differences between RMS’s thinking and mine — thus, some of the differences between “free software” and “open source” tendencies in the reform movement we have both shaped — trace directly to the fact that Gentile classical liberalism is my background tradition in much the same way that Jewish secular messianic rationalism is his.

As a much more important recent case, Jews have played a central role in the socialist left ever since Marx, who was himself Jewish by genetic and intellectual heritage even though his parents converted to Lutheranism as an assimilation move. Ever since, secularized Ashkenazic Jews have provided the left with most of its intellectual firepower and a disproportionately large share of its footsoldiers.

And I have long wondered why this is. I used to think the main reason was simply that Jews are on average brighter than gentiles; thus, we can expect to find them disproproportionately represented in the leadership of any reform movement that doesn’t actively exclude them. But I was never completely satisfied with that explanation; it seemed true but insufficient.

Kevin McDonald agrees with that explanation, but proposes another one as well. He thinks that the behavior of diaspora Jewry expresses an evolutionary strategy in which it competes collectively as a largely endogamous ethno-tribal group against other ethno-tribal groups. McDonald believes that one of the tactics proceeding from this strategy is to sell Gentiles ideas that weaken the cohesion of their ethno-tribal and nation-state groupings.

That is, the best outcome for the Jews as a cluster of related genetic lines is that Jews maintain ethno-tribal identity, but everyone else loses theirs. Thus, I think McDonald would interpret Jewish intellectuals’ tendency to promote what I have called “messianic secular rationalism” as a move in reproductive competition!

It’s an audacious idea. The only fault I can find in it is that, if true, it’s not clear how Jews learn and transmit this tactic. Neither McDonald nor I believe there’s some cabal of Elders of Zion orchestrating the behavior, so how is it maintained without anyone consciously intending it? I have some ideas about this, centered around the observed fact that cultures often learn useful adaptations without any understanding why they’re adaptive; Jews not eating pork is a relevant example. But pursuing that inquiry would wander away from my main point, to which I shall now return.

First, I think McDonald’s proposal does in fact answer the question I opened this essay with. That is: Jewish intellectuals invested heavily in socialism precisely because it is a universalizing theory that actively aims to disrupt, deprecate, and destroy ethno-tribal bonds. This was good for the Jews as long as the Jews themselves remained a mainly exclusive, endogamous ethno-tribal group.

Second: the tragedy. If you’re part of a stubbornly exclusive/endogamous ethno-tribal group, and you successfully invent and sell the world a universalist ideology that considers ethno-tribal loyalties regressive and dangerous, sooner or later that “success” is going to come back around and bite you hard.

This is what happened to the Jews in the 20th century. Their most successful, infectious form of messianic social rationalism (e.g. Communism) massacred them in ton lots, then mutated into an irrationalist ethno-tribalism (Naziism) that massacred them in more ton lots, then Communism took a third whack at them after WWII under Stalin and made the survivors’ lives so miserable that most of them decamped to ethno-tribal Israel.

There are a few obvious lessons here. One: Some tactics don’t scale well. Another: Be careful what you wish others to believe, because you might succeed.

People have objected to idea of "evolutionary strategy," but there is really no grounds for an objection. Strategies do not have to be conscious or planned. They can be as simple as "Me and my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, and my cousin and I against the stranger." Group cohesion and strategy begets group selection, meaning that some groups are wiped out over time and some aren't. History is replete with examples. Anyone who knows any Jews knows that they are rabidly ethnocentric and cohesive, and least when it comes to things that really matter like jobs.

Still, though, there is obviously a conscious Jewish hivemind of some type or Israel wouldn't have been founded after 2000 years of non-existence. Jewish leaders do get together and plan things. This article, for example, looks like something Kevin MacDonald planted to make his case for him:

The following disparity tells us more about human nature than about the future of the Jewish world: The executive branch - the heads of the large Jewish organizations, on the whole - are optimistic and believe Judaism has a glowing future, while the intellectuals and thinkers are much more pessimistic and insist on mentioning the pitfalls and obstacles the coming years hold in store. Those who are entrusted with carrying out affairs must be convinced there is a point to what they do - and what is the point if there is no future? The fear expressed that "a real decline of the West, particularly the United States, would have dramatic consequences for the Jewish people," also led to controversy. Brandeis University president Jehuda Reinharz agreed that this type of decline can be expected "in the coming two decades" - but Stuart Eisenstadt was less emphatic about it. He believes the United States will remain the leading power. In all events, it was agreed the Jews "should strengthen cultural links with non-Western civilizations, particularly China and also India," powers that are on the ascent. This is not a question of preference or closeness; it is a question of survival, of readiness for the future. How should this be done? That will have to be the topic of discussion in the next gatherings already being planned.

I have to wonder if this is some sort of sick joke. Aren't they participating heavily in the very "decline of the West" they're so afraid of? Will they sweep their destructive actions now under the rug just like they did with their participation in Bolshevism? Of course.

Gentiles in the US are left with the choice of believing guys like MacDonald - because so much of what he says can be seen with one's own lying eyes - or being a dumb rube.

Some economists are introspecting after realizing that economics failed us utterly last decade. Still, they're again coming to the wrong conclusions. Keynesianism is a failed idea that leads to runaway inflation.

For my part, I like quite a bit about the Austrian school of economics

The theory views business cycles (or, as some Austrians prefer, "credit cycles") as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth in bank credit, exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies, which cause interest rates to remain too low for too long, resulting in excessive credit creation, speculative economic bubbles and lowered savings.¹

Isn't this exactly what happened last decade? We gave out mortgages to blacks and hispanics hoping to boost their home ownership rates despite their lack of creditworthiness. Banks securitized these loans and sold them overseas. Lots of whites got in on the act on both ends. The Fed amplified the whole deal by keeping interest rates low to make credit more available when it should have been doing the exact opposite. A crash happened when everyone recovered from their stupor and realized that - yes! - those ARMs eventually would reset and wages haven't risen in 30 years for us to sustain the values of houses where they were at before the credit spree, let alone after it.

The recovery: it ain't happening in housing or in jobs. Plan accordingly:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rosenberg-heres-ten-trends-for-2010-2010-1#real-gdp-growth-is-stalled-1
http://www.businessinsider.com/scary-shadow-inventory-numbers-2010-1
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/01/scary-shadow-inventory-numbers.html#comment-75515
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/01/scary-shadow-inventory-numbers.html#comment-75537
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/01/scary-shadow-inventory-numbers.html#comment-75540
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/01/scary-shadow-inventory-numbers.html#comment-75556
http://truthingold.blogspot.com/search?q=shadow+inventory
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/business/economy/03coral.html
http://www.financialarmageddon.com/2009/12/whats-really-happening-in-real-estate.html?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126263231055415303.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bank-CEOs-We-underestimated-apf-1737740919.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Homes-About-to-get-much-cnnm-699910894.html?x=0&mod=real-estate
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Record-year-for-foreclosures-apf-1026585456.html?x=0

Many jobs are gone for good, and you are disposable.

The US sovereign debt: plan accordingly. I suspect that social security will get axed and 401(k)s will be nationalized like in Argentina. A VAT will be put in place, driving many of us to Mexico or Canada for goods. Develop a personal supply of gold and cash for emergencies and learn how to trade currencies on the FOREX. Get a safe.

Because too much cognitive dissonance has been accumulating for me recently.

Here's Jewcy.com asking if MacDonald is right. They never get around to answering the question. In the comments below, hysterical shrieks of "Antisemite!" abound, but no rebuttals. Actually, that's not quite true. Someone posted a rebuttal from the SPLC. I don't trust anything out of the "Poverty Palace." The Derb has a good rebuttal here with some fair points, but quite lacking overall. He never explains why Jews are such a monolithic voting block for the Dems, or why they are so rabid in their beliefs and so intolerant of others' beliefs. One also can't help but notice their contempt for Christianity. Perhaps familiarity breeds contempt. After all, they have been living in Christian societies for quite some time. Still, though, they don't appear to have learned a single thing about it in the past 2,000 years. Moreover, while they always find time to critique (there's that word again - I crack myself up!) Christianity, they never seem to get the Islam problem. They are quite willfully blind when it comes to Islam, suggesting that the next decade will see quite a few more events like the Seattle Jewish center shooting as the Muslim population grows rapidly against the Jewish population.

In general, I agree with Derb's point that if the rest of us go along with a hostile minority to our own detriment, it's our own fault. However, that in no way negates the fact that this minority is hostile. History is replete with examples of determined minorities accomplishing big things. Most people, when push comes to shove, will simply follow consensus. Hitler's Nazi party started off as a very small - but very determined - minority.

I've been mulling over a mega-post for this weekend pertaining to the economy and housing market, as usual.

This story appeared courtesy of John Robb and is fodder for one of my favorite memes: joining the military or allowing your children to do the same as the USA of old fades into distant memory. Michael Yon, a war correspondent who pays for his travels with a lot of his own money, is getting treated the way obvious criminal aliens ought to be treated but aren't. For example, the 9/11 bombers were unmolested as they perpetrated their heinous acts out of fear of violating PC thought codes, amongst other reasons (like our love affair of Saudi oil money). Considering the myriad of jihadists and other thugs whom we allow to move hear and become citizens, it's obvious that our government is just out to persecute and harass middle class white folks like Yon with the TSA, FBI, and other Fedgoons. After all, there really can't be an honest purpose for organizations like the TSA, DHS, or the BATFE, for that matter. Yon, of course, spent a ton of time serving in Army special forces for country and kin.

Since safety is clearly not the goal of our brave government, one has to sometimes don a little tinfoil and ask what their real motivations are. I mean, a Nigerian just got on a plane to Michigan with a bomb, evidently unchecked by our new airport security. Now, we're bombing Yemen? This is sort of like 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers being from Saudi Arabia and us bombing...Afghanistan. What's funnier still is that Obama used essentially the same language in justifying the Yemen attacks that Bush used during his tenure discussing his various foreign interventions.

Don't get me wrong: there are a lot of jihadists in Yemen worth killing. But, like in Afghanistan, we'll have to kill a good million or so of them to really make an impression on their Muslim thinking. We're better off - you know - discriminating against certain people seeking entrance into our country.

The forum for Udolpho.com - very good writing, like-minded people, minimal trolls.

Sorry I haven't updated this blog in awhile. Things politically seem to be on a relatively stable trajectory at this point and will likely remain so for quite some time given harsh economic realities at home, the indefinite commitments abroad, and the reigning ideology of neoconservatism at work in this presidency.

Lately, I've been reading and watching a lot of Bill Lind in an effort to understand traditional conservatism and rehabilitate myself from the last vestiges of neoconservatism, which is another form of Soviet Marxism. Though I disagree with the Lew Rockwellites' thesis "they hate us because of us," Lind's criticism can be illuminating:

These foreign policy failures and military defeats – or even more embarrassing "victories" – become just two of a larger series of crises, including the economic crisis (depression followed by runaway inflation), foreign exchange crisis (collapse of the dollar), political crisis (no one in the Establishment knows what to do, but the Establishment offers the voters no alternative to itself), energy crisis, etc. Together, these discrete crises snowball into a systemic crisis, which is what happens when the outside world demands greater change than the political system permits. At that point, the political system collapses and is replaced by something else. In the old days, it meant a change of dynasty. What might it mean today? My guess is a radical devolution, at the conclusion of which life is once again local.

The US, at home and abroad, suffers from a crisis of legitimacy. Abroad, our efforts in the Muslim territorial slums lack legitimacy because they do not move these territories towards a world in submission to Allah. We're just seen as kuffar deserving of jihad.

At home, the federal government is seen as an extension of Wall Street banksters at war with Main Streeters. One gets a blank check whenever they screw up, the other gets taxed and left holding the bag. Of course, we Main Streeters all had a hand in our economic plight. We played our part in the Minority Mortgage Meltdown thinking we'd get rich quick. But our 'intelligensia' in Washington is supposed to look out for us and provide us with fair and equitable laws that don't seek equal outcomes according to race, but equal opportunity regardless of race (and I don't use the word "opportunity" in the Leftist sense of the word, or "quota").

Right now, Washington operates under the illusion that we will continue our proletarian existences in their service through both taxation and military enlistments to fight in foreign wars to "shrink the gap" or "bring freedom" or whatever crap reason du jure is given. The reality is that middle class whites especially are waking up to the fact that they have no party to vote for and that we send our kids to fight and die in wars (or at least sacrifice the better part of their 20s) for unclear goals all-the-while neglecting our southern borders and allowing Muslims to move here. We're waking up to the fact that we've been sold an enormous bill of goods. In fact, we may already be aware of this, but can't articulate it. Once this happens en masse, we will find another primary loyalty. "Country" will be out. "Something else" will be in. What will that "something else" be? I don't know for sure, but history can be a guide.

Anyways, any government that lacks legitimacy (as ours does), is susceptible to a 4th-generation movement of some type. 4th generation movements capitalize on population discontents and utilize alternative primary loyalties as their marrow. Might our population be discontent? Might it be likely to remain so for some time?

"O=W" is apparently an emerging bumper sticker amongst the prius-set who see Obama as identical to the last president. Bill Lind writes,

For eight years, conservatives endured the agony of watching President George W. Bush attach the label “conservative” to a host of policies that were anti-conservative: Wilsonian wars, American empire, vast budget and trade deficits, increased entitlements, and the subordination of America’s interests to those of foreign powers. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and liberals are bidden to hold their tongues as President Obama makes Bush’s wars his own. The usual Washington sell-out is in gear. It should not come as a surprise. America is now a one-party state. The one party is the Establishment party, which is also the war party. Unless you are willing to cheer permanent war for permanent peace, you cannot be a member of the Establishment.

I'd like to take this opportunity to electronically laugh in the face of anyone who believed the "Hopenchange" slogan of the Obama campaign.

Having done that, let me add that Obama hasn't changed a dot - not an iota - of the "Imperialism/Immigration/Insolvency" policy our government has pursued since the Republicans balanced the budget back in 1994. Bush has been the most egregious offender in this regard, but it appears Obama is aiming to outdo him. As points of data, I offer the hockey-stick of an unemployment rate since Obama took over. In addition to escalating in Afghanistan and failing to pull out of Iraq as promised, he's also building a "Gitmo North". The libs are really unhappy about that one because Obama promised to close it. For the record, I would have gotten out the backhoe, dug a big ditch, lined all the terrorists at Gitmo up in front of it, and shot them, so I don't particularly care - I just think it's funny.

Lastly, Obama is practically giving away the government to the banksters under the guise of another "bailout." Didn't Goldman Sachs post solid profits last quarter? Why do they need another bailout? Haven't they already paid Uncle Sam back for the first one? Obama is truly outdoing Bush in this area.

One more thing: Obama is readying another amnesty for the millions of Mexicans doing the jobs Americans won't do in our climate of 20% unemployment. As GWB would say, "Heckuva job!"

"Imperialism, immigration, insolvency:" they're all represented quite handily in Obama's first nine months. Where can I buy an "O=W" sticker?

I did some googling, recently: "Thomas PM Barnett" +idiot, "Thomas PM Barnett," "Thomas PM Barnett" +neocon.

The latter produced the results I was looking for.

I am getting sick and tired of Establishment apologists like Friedman and Barnett getting their idiocies into the conventional wisdom unchecked. As Terry McDermott observed in his recent evisceration of Malcolm Gladwell,

ladwell in many ways is the social science equivalent of the New York Times foreign affairs columnist Tom Friedman, another favorite target of critics whose books sell huge numbers. Both are popularizers, in some sense hucksters, adept at phrase-making and simplifying (and often over-simplifying) complex subjects. A key difference, however, is that when Friedman is wrong, he helps start wars. When Gladwell makes a mistake, he dilutes public understanding of science – not a good thing, surely, but he’s a feature writer; that’s what they do.

The same is true of Barnett that is true of Friedman.

Barnett never saw a war he didn't like, as long as it's us waging it.

I'm really trying to understand this phenomenon from a balanced perspective. I've begun to notice a certain pattern that I find extremely disturbing.

Nina Gershon recently ruled that defunding ACORN was unconstitutional. Her religion: Jewish. My congressman, Brad Sherman, voted against defunding ACORN in the first place. His religion: Jewish. Diane Feinstein appeared supportive of ACORN despite her rhetoric. L'Affaire Polanski was one of prominent Show Business Jews rushing to his public defense. Polanski, of course, is Jewish himself. McMafia describes the extent of sexual slavery of young girls in Israel as well by Russian Jewish mobsters.

Sorry, I'm noticing a pattern here. Isn't it a bit absurd for liberal Jews to pretend to be the conscience of everyone else when they support one of the most vile crimes against humanity?

Sorry I haven't posted anything lately. I finally got a job working for NAVAIR, which has been interesting to say the least. All the cliches of Federal employment are true. What's even more interesting is the number of engineering refugees fleeing the private sector for more stable ground. One guy I talked to had been through 3 jobs in as many years. Another guy had been out of work 17 months. About 5 of the new-hires I've talked to were from the private sector.

I guess we're all sort of planning on climbing up this mast until the whole thing goes down in about 10 years when we (the US) default on our public debt.

Anyways, I'm once again dealing with real estate people as I'm looking for a place to rent. This is unpleasant because they are all mostly liars who made poor financial decisions that they are now expecting me, the renter, to fund with high rent. I gave on lady a lesson today in California economics that she didn't like as a consequence of her asking $1800/month for rent in a poorly-maintained blue-collar area where the mean income was likely no greater than $50k/year for a family of 4. "Who do you think will live here?" I asked her. "The neighborhood is obviously not good. Do you think a young professional like me is going to pay $1800 a month to live in a bad area? Do you think a blue-collar guy or an enlisted guy (it is right near the naval base) has $1800 a month to shell out for such a place?"

"Enlisted guys take home $900 a month in basic housing allowance," she replied.

"Exactly," I said, "And you're asking double that. And what business is it of yours what enlisted housing allowances are?"

That ended the conversation. I don't mind their stupidity as much as I mind their breathtaking arrogance. To be stupid or uniformed is forgivable. To flaunt your stupidity and expect others to co-operate is unforgivable.

Another lady I dealt with was friendly. We got along well and the place she owned was nice. "When did you buy this?" I asked. "2005," She replied. "Yikes," I responded. She wanted roughly $1950 for a 3 br, 1 ba, 900 square-foot place. I'm sorry she bought at TDC of the market, but it's not my job to fund her errors.

"I'm really only looking to pay no more than $1800 for a place this size," I explained.

"Oh, well my husband and I have decided we can't take any less for it. We're thinking of renting it to some people from Riverside county with bad credit because we need to have renters," she said.

"They sound like a foreclosure family. Riverside county is foreclosureville."

She agreed. I looked today and the place is still on the market.

She was nice, but I don't want to hear that she "couldn't take any less" for the property when a) she pulled up in a $50k Mercedes and b) she looses at least $1800 for every month it's un-rented.

Anyways, educating the uneducable about finances is a Sisyphean task, but uneducable people are the reason California is defaulting into the Pacific. I try what I can when I can, but most realtors are incorrigibly stupid and arrogant.

Dr. Housing Bubble delves a bit into the "hows" and "whys" of our housing market debacle out here. (AAE, you'll want to read this, but not from work).

See, we're heading towards structurally high unemployment for at least a decade. It's worse here where the housing collapse is the worse. What's going to keep housing prices and rents afloat? Magic?

With nearly 20% of the population unable to find proper work, there is a different sort of workforce. The vast majority of job creation in the US during the past two generations came from small businesses, which display only vaguely on the radar of government agencies as well as the bigger private surveys. The financial crisis killed small entrepreneurs as surely as Joseph Stalin killed the kulaks, and the roots of the economy are dead and dry.

That's right: our engine for job creation is dead. If only realtors could grasp this. Of course, they're living (somewhat) in reality also, so eventually they will.

The wipeout at 5:05 is beyond gnarly. Kudos to the guy for going. More kudos for surviving. Same to the guy caught inside at 1:50 (yikes).

The pros even find Mavericks scary. I heard the wave is as steep as shorebreak (evidenced by all of the near air-drops in the vid) and extremely fast and hard to get into (evidenced by all of the near air-drops).

Did I mention cold, heavy water and massive bolders in front of the impact zone?

You won't catch me out there. LOL.

I started playing judo about a month ago at the local Nissei center so that I could learn how to fall. My friend wants me to go snowboarding with him this winter, and since he rides at about an expert level, I figured I'd head off any injuries beforehand. When I watched ne-waza for the first time in class, I realized that "Brazilian" jiu-jitsu was just ripped-off judo. Actually, I've seen more submissions that work gi or no-gi in judo class than I've seen in MMA recently. No wonder all the Armenians training in North Hollywood and all of the Iranians entering MMA competitions are doing so well: they're training judo.

Anyways, the quickest way to make money nowadays is to steal someone else's idea, repackage it, and pass it off as your own. Oh, and profit!