No Country for Moderate Men

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

In a time predicated upon falsehood, in a culture drifting towards dissolution and oblivion, there can be no center. Centrism is a luxury of civilized times: it is a state of affairs made possible by an order built upon principles of law, rationality, and tradition. This anarchic, irrational, and progressive epoch obliterates the possibility of committed moderation. This is neither a normative statement nor a feasibility assessment; it is simply to say that in times such as these, one may be moderate only to his peril. The moderate will watch as the world he blithely assumes to be indestructible collapses and as the radical inheritors of the fallen world crush him in their fervor.

As the global establishment peddles greater and greater lies, the Aware make their calculations are are lead to one of two conclusions: (1) understand the nature of the lies, engage with the lies, and become a merchant in the Marketplace of Untruths in the hopes of having a seat at the table of the New World Order or (2) understand the nature of the lies, disengage from the lies, and launch an all out offensive in reaction to the untruths in the hopes of restoring the world to its former state, before the septic rot of delusion sets in permanently. The Aware become cynical collaborators on the Left, and firebrand reactionaries on the Right, as according to their personalities and idiosyncrasies. This state of affairs creates an antagonistic polarity that by its very operation, denies ground to the more milquetoast and tepid amongst us. The further the Western elites proceed with the propagation of their degenerate agenda items:

  • God’s death (hostility towards faith)
  • Cultural equality
  • Cultural relativism
  • Destruction of the family
  • Normalization and mainstreaming of various paraphilia
  • Economic pillaging
  • Rejection of logic and reality
  • Identity politics
  • State dependency
  • Thought policing
  • Denigration of the West
  • Globalism
  • Cultural uglification
  • Radical ecology (with an end goal of global depopulation)
  • Transhumanism  

The less relevant the man who says “I just think that we need to enact the kind of sensible policies that will get us back on track.” There is no “track” to get back on. That track was torn up years before and the metal sold off for scrap. Useless is the man who declares himself agnostic in all matters while the elites espouse their orthodoxy of oppression. In the age of the ideologue, the moderate is a deluded loser ripe for extermination, respected by neither side and looked upon with disgust by all. One either believes in self preservation and clings to the poles or he believes in his own extinction as he meanders in the middle. There is no appropriately centrist response to those who plan for your debasement, enslavement, and ultimate destruction. The Radicals understand this and respond with fundamentalist belligerence.

The center cannot hold, as salvo after salvo is launched at it. The battle lines have already been drawn and the world itself, so hell bent on lulling the acquiescent masses into the gulag through the adoption of pretty lies, has become a radicalizing agent. ISIS and the neo-Marxists have come to identical realizations. They differ only in their conclusions. As civilization continues its death march towards its inevitable implosion, the radicals on the Left and the Right sharpen their swords, determined to cut down the moribund entity that is the progenitor of the cultural rot plaguing the world. They long to refashion it according to their respective visions. There will be no tolerance for the conscientious abstainer, only the heel of a boot.

In a radicalized world, moderation is maladaptive. It is self annihilation.

The Doom Trifecta

The last few days has brought us a trio of terrible Supreme Court decisions: King v. Burwell, Texas Dep’t of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Each of these decisions puts yet another hole in an already enervated Constitution. Burwell demonstrates that the Supreme Court has assumed the power to redraft legislation from the bench and to arbitrarily ascribe any meaning to any word and any concept. The Texas decision reinforces the foolish “disparate impact” standard concocted in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. extending its application to the Fair Housing Act, effectively assuming the power to determine how and where individuals live, and the racial composition of neighborhoods. Obergefell constitutes the effective federalization of marriage, a power traditionally within the purview of the states. The federal government-with the help of its judicial handmaiden-is becoming a juggernaut that is flattening individual rights and state sovereignty. The totalitarian future draws nigh.

I laugh at those who celebrate these decisions as heralding a new era of tolerance, as these decisions are nothing of the sort. What these decisions signify is the official beginning of the decline. They usher in a new era of federal overreach. They are portents of a future that will be less free, less promising, and more degenerate than useful idiots could ever imagine.

Juridical Newspeak

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
State is Federal

Yesterday’s King v. Burwell decision should disabuse everyone of the notion that this nation is still a Constitutional Republic. It should put to rest any illusions that the Supreme Court exists as a co-equal check upon the powers of the legislative and executive branches, designed to safeguard the liberties of the body politic. It is a diseased, politicized, subservient, and subordinate branch, determined to effectuate its agenda through judicial fiat. Certain justices have no concern for determining the constitutionality of questions before the Court; rather, they are determined to circumvent the democratic process and think nothing of imposing their will autocratically.

The constitutional question placed before the Court was this:

Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

For those unfamiliar, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare if you’re nasty) is a health care mandate requiring that all Americans obtain health insurance of some form or another, or be slapped with a penalty for failure to comply. The statute was hurriedly and clandestinely drafted, then forced through the legislature with most of its provisions kept secret. It was also poorly drafted, which opened the statute up to several constitutional challenges. It was challenged five years ago on the grounds that the penalty provision of the statute was unconstitutional as Congress could not use its power to penalize Americans for failure to purchase a good, and that statute constituted a misapplication of the Congress’ Commerce power.

The Supreme Court saved the statute from itself 5-4 in 2012, ruling that the penalty provision was indeed a tax and thus constitutional (even though Obama and many others associated with the administration regularly and explicitly denied that the provision constituted a “tax”). The Court however abjured that Congress’ Commerce powers had any application to the constitutionality of the mandate.

King v. Burwell presented a different objection to the mandate, namely that health insurance purchased through the federal exchanges set up once state governments refused to set up parallel exchanges were ineligible for tax credits because they were not established in exchanges “established by the State,” as per the legislation. The petitioners were correct, as the plain meaning of the statute, on its face, is that the states would be responsible for establishing health insurance exchanges and the IRS would then provide tax credits. There was no provision in the statute permitting credits to be issued for federally purchased plans. This was by design: Congress intended for the states to be equal partners in the scheme. A plain meaning interpretation of the statute would have invalidated the statute and sent it back to Congress for reconsideration and redrafting. This is as it should be, in a functional, tripartite government in which the constituent parts act as checks upon each others’ powers.

But we do not have a functional, tripartite, coequal government structure any longer. Realistically speaking, we have not had one since the New Deal. So now we have three branches effectively functioning as one, colluding to baptize each other’s worst and most unconstitutional actions for the sake of expediency. We have an executive that assumes the power of the legislature, a legislature that relies on the judiciary to save it from its own incompetence, and a judiciary that is more than willing to abrogate the Constitution to bring to life its big government, federalized vision of America through the extraconstitutional recognition of unconstitutional acts.

The most remarkable aspect of the Burwell case is the Court’s willingness to ignore the complete lack of ambiguity in the statute’s language. “Exchanges established by the State” means precisely what it says: health insurance exchanges set up and managed by the states, at the state level. There is no need to look any further than at the words in the sentence. Rather, the majority in the decision offers up a tortured rationale about contextual meaning and Congressional intent, completely ignoring the fact that the first rule of statutory interpretation is that the Court must give effect to the “plain meaning of a statute.” If the statute says “state exchange purchases receive tax credits,” but federal exchange purchases are being granted tax credits, then the tax credit program should fail, be struck down as unconstitutional, and the law redrafted, as the statute makes no provision for credits to be granted to federal exchange purchases. However, the Court would like us to believe that “state” can mean “federal”…if it thinks that’s generally what Congress meant and if it’s a convenient way to save the law. Notwithstanding the fact that the meaning of “state” is clear to everyone who’s willing to be intellectually honest. Words mean what those in power say they mean. Where have we seen this theme before?

This decision means that the Court thinks words can mean whatever it wants it to mean in the moment. It also means that the Court sees no meaningful distinction between the state and the federal. I’m not sure which bodes worse.

So we must ask ourselves: what are the Court’s limiting principles? If unambiguous words can be taken to mean the opposite of their plain meaning, what is to stop the Court from interpreting any statute litigated before it in any way it likes? The Court has liberated itself from textual limits, so what exists to keep it honest? What will stop the justices from determining issues along blatantly partisan lines, looking over and under the basic words of statutes to justify their fugazi adjudications? This clearly telegraphs the Orwellian reality of our times: the government can ascribe any meaning to any concept and any word that it deems acceptable and/or necessary, logic and truth be damned. It also telegraphs that we can’t rely on law to save us from tyranny. The Supreme Court is no bulwark against government overreach, it is an accomplice in the government’s crimes. It aids and abets at every opportunity.

When meaning becomes malleable, protections become meaningless.

Welcome to the United States of Oceania. These are doubleplusgood times.

Conservatism

Conservatism is easy, which is precisely what makes it so hard for so many. It doesn’t profess to have the wherewithal to create a “New Man,” it doesn’t ask anyone to ignore reality, and it doesn’t demand that abortive attempts be made to achieve nebulous goals like “helping people,” “social justice,” or “equality.” Conservatism is simplicity, but it is not simplistic. It recognizes that family, faith, and duty are the cornerstones of a functional & healthy civilization. It recognizes that humans are fallible but that this fallibility can be overcome (to a certain degree) through the implementation of functional institutions, formal and informal. Conservatism takes people as they are while trying to provide guidelines and context for navigating through a lawless and befuddling existence. Conservatism seeks out the lean and elegant solution rather than the byzantine and grotesque one. I believe that this outlook is what makes conservatism hard to accept for many. Most people have been conditioned to believe that utopia can be engineered and that man can be reconstituted as something other than man. The conservative has no such illusions. Fundamentally, conservatism is the logical conclusion rather than the suspension of disbelief.

 

Reflections

Prolification of the Judiciary

Justice Kagan really wants to show that she’s a woman of the people. Desperately.

There was a time when elites sought to set an example for the hoi polloi, abstaining from common behavior. Now, they happily adopt lowbrow, prole communication styles and references. We once had jurists like Mansfield and Blackstone. Now we have twits like Kagan who quote Stan Lee like Kierkegaard in their legal decisions.


Elusiveness of the “Bigger Picture”

For the majority of people, it’s a simpler matter to view the components of a problem as discrete ones, examining each issue in isolation without considering how each piece is interrelated. The average person is likelier to see a problem and latch onto it, believing that they’ve grasped the whole thing. Usually the issue is much more extensive than they could ever comprehend.

This article is a prime example. It’s a good article, and worth the read. The author correctly identifies the logical inconsistency between the Left’s canonization of Caitlyn Jenner and its denigration of Rachel Dolezal. However, his first error is accepting the premise that such attributes as sex and race are learned or constructed rather than inherent:

But gender is no less culturally constructed than race. If Talusan were a little more curious anthropologically than precocious, she might have noticed that the relation between sex type and gender roles has varied wildly over the history and range of our species.

Nothing could be more false. Sex roles are remarkably similar across cultures. There is a biological component to race. The acceptance of the false premise that “gender is no less culturally constructed than race” serves to handicap his entire argument from the outset because it renders him incapable of rendering a full throated rejection of the “trans” issue. The author also successfully identifies identity politics as a problem, but he fails to identify the way in which it is all linked and to what end.

[R]ace politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature. An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do.

Again, false. The preservation of “capitalist class power” is not the end to which divisive identity politics is applied. The elites intend to use identity politics (or identitarianism, as he terms it) not to preserve the current capitalist (the corporatist/fascist, really) system. What they want is to create an oligarchical collectivist system that is totalitarian in nature but that enshrines and perpetuates their control over the masses. In the author’s rush to defend socialism however, he misapprehends this. He also misses that the entire complex is corrupt. Every facet of the current dispensation is beyond redemption. Transgenderism & identity politics is just the tip of the iceberg. The social, political, medical, scientific, journalistic, and artistic realms are all in cahoots with each other, collaborating to lull the public into complacency with propaganda and narrative.


When Life Imitates Art, Art Becomes Redundant

The other day, I found myself wondering what had become of Lady Gaga. I looked at a few of her videos from the middle of her career, and marveled at how successful she’d become by peddling her unique brand of demonic arthouse degeneracy.

Then it struck me: Lady Gaga isn’t on the scene now because she’s irrelevant now. When she first arrived on the scene, her grotesque aesthetic was mystifying artistic in its bizarre way. Now, the quotidian is far more bizarre than anything Gaga could have cooked up even in the depths of a cocaine fueled stupor. In 2009, her crazy mind was the limit. In 2015, she now has to compete with a reality that has more shock value than her zaniest set.

What Has Been Will Be Again

Accurate.

Accurate.

“Women Who Cover Up (Because They Are Incorrigible Conformists) (Even as the Temperatures Climb).” 

It’s hard to understand why anyone took women seriously when they started clamoring for “liberation.” Firstly, there was nothing for women to be liberated from but lives of ease and privilege. Secondly, even if women suffered oppression, submission seems to be the natural state of woman. When women have no established limits, they will always resort to self imposed strictures. If left unchecked, and in extreme cases, they will seek to impose draconian limitations on the whole of society. Prohibition represents a time worn example of this impulse at work. Women do not truly value freedom. They retreat into the warm bosom of the safe, familiar, and conventional when confronted with unbridled liberty.

Examine the article and the photo. Each of the women pictured fancy themselves feminists. How do they announce their feminist bona fides?  How do they celebrate their hard-won liberation? By adopting neo-Victorian modesty codes and wearing woolens in June. Naturally. Lo, the sartorial splendor of the latter day feminist:

Young women are opting for socks (black ones), suede pants (in June!), turtlenecks, children’s denim jackets, tights, long rayon skirts, and chunky flatforms.

Intriguing. Freedom through infantilization. What’s up with that?

Many women today choose not to dress for a man’s gaze, even when the weather seems to dictate the baring of skin. The appeal of thrifting, a 90’s comeback (1890’s, I’m sure), the end of workplace dress codes, the rising tide of fourth wave feminism (whatever that is), a newfound combativeness towards street harassment, the current fluidity of gender-or some combination.

A hodgepodge of conformist reasons for adopting modified burkas. Das cool. But King Solomon was right when he said that there’s nothing new under the sun.

The irony here is that women could have kept modesty codes all along, had they simply kept patriarchy in place. The purpose of modesty codes was to preserve female virtue and prevent the “male gaze.” Instead, they upended everything only to cycle right back to where things were at the outset of the Women’s Lib Movement. Civilization had to be razed, so that women could rediscover what every simpleton from antiquity to modernity has always known about male desire and intersexual relations.

This is neither to imply opposition to a return to modesty for women, nor to suggest that women shouldn’t be permitted to dress as they please. This is simply to underscore the faddish, inarticulate nature of a feminism that has won all of its battles and is now wandering in an ideological desert, praying for manna to fall from heaven to sustain its dying cause. Feminism will always be regressive because its core demographic can’t comprehend or appreciate liberty and is not designed for its undertaking. Feminism 3.0 will continue its devolution into a retread of Feminism 1.0 because it has nothing left to achieve, and puritanical sensibilities are rushing in to fill the vacuum.

The Roof Manifesto

Roof Manifesto Excerpt

The more I analyze the Dylann Roof situation, the more convinced I become that Dylann Roof does not exist as such. Certainly, he exists in the way that all things “exist.” He is a corporeal being, flesh and blood. I believe that he did the things that he is accused of doing, and these accusations can easily be proven. When I say “Dylann Roof does not exist,” I mean that he does not exist as an autonomous, independent actor with a coherent philosophy or a vision that he was truly driven to bring to fruition. I mean that he exists purely as a bugaboo, a spectre created and commissioned by elites to serve a specific purpose: namely to ignite a race war through the manipulation of a credulous and histrionic populace, ending with government seizure of more power than previously could have been imagined.

The obviousness of Dylann Roof has been a niggling thought in the back of my head ever since the horrific events that took place in Charleston. He is the perfect, white trash, Confederate flag waving, homicidal, trailer dwelling, Southern racist. Perfectly dysfunctional, perfectly low-IQ. Too perfect to be true. He fits too flawlessly within the narrative of the Left, that the U.S. is an intractably racist country, so evil that it incubates people just like Dylann Roof; so evil that it must be fundamentally transformed. When I heard that he’d penned a “manifesto,” my doubts were confirmed. As I read the manifesto, it struck me: Dylann Roof is Emmanuel Goldstein. His “manifesto” is the latter day Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism. Roof is who we are supposed to direct our invective towards during this current media cycle, this Two Minutes Hate brought to life. He exists to strike terror into the hearts of simpletons and to put the awakened, the Remnants, on notice. Dylann Roof is essentially a figment, his manifesto a contrivance disseminated by the powers that be to both convince and obscure. To convince the idiocracy of impending doom and to obscure the true agenda of the elites.

For starters, the manifesto is an unexpectedly decent read. Some typos, but I suspect that’s just for the sake of authenticity. From what we’re told about Roof, he is a drug addled, spottily educated, high school dropout. From what we can see, he clearly isn’t too bright. Yet, the document is incredibly coherent.

I was not raised in a racist home or environment. Living in the South, almost every White person has a small amount of racial awareness, simply beause [sic] of the numbers of negroes [sic] in this part of the country. But it is a superficial awareness. Growing up, in school, the White and black kids would make racial jokes toward each other, but all they were were jokes. Me and White friends would sometimes would watch things that would make us think that “blacks were the real racists” and other elementary thoughts like this, but there was no real understanding behind it.

He continues:

The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?  [Emphasis added]

So he types in “black on white crime” into Google and the first site he comes to coincidentally is the Council of Conservative Citizens, and not Wikipedia or a government website featuring crime statistics? Interesting.

The manifesto reads like pieces of it was lifted from every alternative right, human biodiversity, and white nationalist site on the internet. Dylann Roof is very aware, and his references are quite interdisciplinary. We have HBD:

Negroes have lower Iqs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior. If a scientist publishes a paper on the differences between the races in Western Europe or Americans, he can expect to lose his job. There are personality traits within human families, and within different breeds of cats or dogs, so why not within the races?

And a socio-historical perspective:

In a modern history class it is always emphasized that, when talking about “bad” things Whites have done in history, they were White. But when we lern [sic] about the numerous, almost countless wonderful things Whites have done, it is never pointed out that these people were White. Yet when we learn about anything important done by a black person in history, it is always pointed out repeatedly that they were black. For example when we learn about how George Washington carver was the first nigger smart enough to open a peanut.

Again, too agitprop. Too perfectly narrative. A designer crisis, with each piece perfectly fitted to its purpose. Partially to discredit the right, partially to support the “white people are racist” narrative, partially to foment racial unrest, completely to allow government to tighten its already viselike grip over the nation. This we can already see. Of course, the President’s claims are patently and provably false, but that is no matter. Truth is not the purpose behind any of this. As the feeble minded and unaware everywhere are fixated on this tragedy, the elites continue to make moves, and continue to assail our liberties.