A truly quality piece. There is really nothing left to salvage of the current order. The elites, who are two sides of the same coin are now openly scornful of non-elites and use votes to create the appearance of legitimacy while advancing an agenda designed to render large swathes of the population superfluous. And on it goes.

More Crows than Eagles

I remember AIDS. I’m older than you probably think I am, and I remember what AIDS in America meant in the eighties, when William F. Buckley suggested all “carriers” be tattooed, and the Wizard of Id got in trouble in Canada (fr) for a joke in which Robbing Hood’s “Merry Men” were rounded up into quarantine camps. Mostly what I remember is the darkness- the world seemed apocalyptic. Everyone, at least in the gay men’s community, seemed to be sick, or dying, or taking care of someone else who was sick or dying, or else hurling themselves headlong into increasingly desperate and dramatic activism the like of which has hardly been seen since. I was actually watching the MacNeil/Lehrer news hour when ACT-UP broke in and nearly handcuffed Robert MacNeil to his desk. The tenor is just unreproducible; you get a taste of it in some of Sarah Schulman’s…

View original post 3,661 more words


The Future’s So Bright

I read this article a few days ago:

Wendy’s (WEN) said that self-service ordering kiosks will be made available across its 6,000-plus restaurants in the second half of the year as minimum wage hikes and a tight labor market push up wages.

Of course, this very outcome was predicted quite a while back. Furthermore, anyone with an even rudimentary grasp of economics understands that when the price of a good or service becomes prohibitively high, substitutions will be sought. Nevertheless, the path to hell is paved with good intentions and progressivism is, fundamentally, the belief that good intentions obviate the need for good outcomes. Is this pretextual? Perhaps. But that it is happening is more important than why it is happening. It is incontrovertible that automation is here to stay and its adoption will likely only accelerate over the next few years as the cost of even low quality human labor increases while the cost of mechanization simultaneously decreases. A world of no strikes, no sick leave, no work breaks, no lateness, and no salaries. A big biz wet dream. I’m sure many a tycoon has soiled himself at the prospect. So much talk about walling off the southern border when the biggest threat to the nation lies within. A resentful, destructive, noxious, high-time preference fifth column incapable of understanding the long term implications of their actions.

All this talk about walling off the southern border-we’ll be trapped in a nation ruled by Skynet and robot overlords while having to fend off teeming hordes of utterly superfluous and largely low IQ people whose labor will have zero value to the market struggling to acquire life’s necessities.

The only thing that Fight for $15 has been successful in accomplishing is bringing the obsolescence of human labor one step closer to reality.

The Normie Question


Extended social interactions with normies are torturous. Normalfaggotry-as-virtue is a concept so deeply embedded in the collective psyche of the average Westerner that it has de facto become the sole acceptable ideological orientation. Normies are disinclined to think critically about anything, preferring instead to substitute prepackaged slogans for independent thought. Undesirous of having your sleepy rural town culturally enriched by an influx of Syrians fleeing the war in Somalia? You racist! cries the normie. #Trump2016? Hie thee from here is the concise normie position on this. Unfortunately, the seeds of normalfaggotry were planted long before us: its roots run deep. The Poz wasn’t built in a day; it will take years to cure the cultural sepsis resultant from a 50-year steep in the waters of prog ideology. Herein lies the (normie) question: how to reclaim cogs inculcated with the pseudo principles of a pozzed culture? How will the culture ever be moved rightwards when the critical mass of unrepentant normalfags is content to drift further leftwards right along with Cthulhu? Secondarily, should the culture move rightwards over the clearly expressed preferences of the normie hivemind, how does the culture remain right short of gulags and liquidations?

Super Tuesday Celebrations

Super Tuesday Results.png

Super Tuesday has come and gone, leaving little question as to the parties’ presidential nominees. To the felicity of fashy goys and the consternation of shitlibs, the Trump juggernaut continues to roll along and roll over its insipid & limp-dicked opponents.  The Left is clearly beginning to feel the Bern burn and bracing for impact, as their best argument against the inevitable Trumpenreich is #makeDonaldDrumpfAgain and their finest candidate is a Machiavellian corporate shill, a ghoulish crone with a track record of failure.

Though schadenfreude is divine, the pragmatic implications of Super Tuesday are even more delectable. Trump’s unexpectedly successful bid for the presidency has created something of a win-win situation.  The Republican Establishment is mortified by the possibility of  Trump presidency, scandalized at the prospect of not having a candidate that they will be able to control body and soul.  The Republican Party is also a worthless and moribund institution that must die, as its prime directives for the last 20 years have been concession and conciliation rather than the conservation of even the least of conservative values.  If Trump secures the nomination (as he rightfully should) and is not cucked by the Establishment, he has essentially won the presidency.  If he wins the presidency and remains faithful to even 50% of his campaign platform, that would likely be sufficient to retard the decline, expel obstructionist Party malcontents, and perhaps even salvage the nation.

If instead-and I believe this to be the likelier scenario-due to some back room Establishment chicanery Trump fails to secure the nomination and Cruzio is pushed through over the unequivocally expressed preferences of the people (thus ensuring a Shillary win), the system’s fraudulence and the Republican Party’s fecklessness will be revealed.  The result will be twofold: (1) a Party schism sounding the death knell of the Republican Party in its present incarnation (2) the generation of a crisis of faith across the American political system that will spur Americans out of their passivity and into thinking critically about implications, next steps, and active measures.

Perhaps I’m being too sanguine.  But it’s still a great time to be alive.

Fisher v. Texas Redux

Fisher v. University of Texas is in the news again. The case is before the Supreme Court again after having been vacated and remanded to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration over two and a half years ago. The case is the latest in a series of decisions dating back over 35 years grappling with the (dubious) constitutionality of affirmative action-or as it is now euphemistically termed “race conscious admissions”-in public institutions of higher education. Since the Bakke decision in 1978, the Court has consistently held classroom diversity to be a “compelling state interest” and thus on par with such other compelling interests as national security and the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizenry.

Consider that. Diversity is considered to be as important an interest as protecting the nation from the machinations of foreign marauders intending to do it and its people ill.


There are two aspects of this case that I find particularly interesting, specifically the public vilification of the plaintiff as a bad plaintiff who wouldn’t have qualified for admission at UT anyway based on her SAT performance and her high school GPA, and the vitriol unleashed against Justice Scalia for some hatefacts observations he made during oral arguments. The criticism launched against Fisher has been nothing less than a magnificent display of doublethink. Fisher’s detractors have criticized her for bringing the case, arguing that she wouldn’t have qualified for admission to an elite school like UT anyway given her underwhelming SAT scores and high school performance. These are the very same critics who approve of affirmative action, which is nothing more than programmatic justification for the admission of URM candidates who wouldn’t have otherwise qualified for admission to elite schools- due to their generally underwhelming SAT scores and high school performance.

Of course, her critics fail to grasp her argument. The argument was never that she was a stellar test taker and a superstar high school student who should have been granted admission as a matter of course. Her argument is simply that based on her test scores, had she been black or Latino, she would have more than likely been granted admission to UT as affirmative action initiatives make it permissible to accept URM candidates with less impressive academic profiles than would be acceptable for white (and marginally Asian) candidates. Her argument is that it is unconstitutional, indeed, unjust for the government to employ different standards for different groups of ostensibly equal citizens, especially when the application of these differing standards serves to disadvantage one group of citizens relative to other groups.

Naturally, this demonstrates the indisputable veracity of the “liberals think that only whites have agency” meme that has been swirling around the alternetz for awhile now. Fisher is ridiculed for being “too dumb” to have secured admission to A Good School. Presumably, her critics would have told her that she should have been better: she should have studied harder to improve her scores so as to ensure admission to the choicest of schools. The onus is completely upon her as a white person to succeed & her failure to do so is met with scorn and derision. When it comes to URMs however, they are viewed as being utterly incapable of performing to standards and of ever bringing themselves up to standards; it’s ridiculous to even suggest that they should try. So it stands to reason that the standards must be brought down to suit them.

Scalia, Scourge of the Left had this to say on the issue:

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”
“I’m just not impressed by the fact the University of Texas may have fewer [blacks]. Maybe it ought to have fewer. I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.”



He’s been blasted for these comments, but he’s absolutely correct. Excellent point poorly made, I’d say. But the data bear out his poorly articulated observations. The attrition rates for black public college attendees is astronomical for black students, and the remainder struggle to finish a four-year course of study. . .in six years.  Considering that for 2007-2008, the school year during which Fisher sat for her SATs the black mean stood at 1280/2400 as compared to the overall mean of 1511/2400, this should come as no surprise. Compare both means to the UT mean of 1901/2400, and the nature of the problem becomes even clearer.

URM students who are admitted to elite public colleges are by and large unable to compete with the rest of the student body and would be better off attending schools where the academic aptitudes of the student body are more in line with their own. Instead, they are pushed into and through colleges where they either fail out or flounder even after selecting economically useless social justice courses of subjective study guaranteed to saddle them with mountains of debt, chips on their shoulders, and no useful skills.

Of course, none of this means anything. The Court has recently become populated by affirmative action nominees willing to contort the Constitution any which to justify their prefab conclusion that the Equal Protection clause exists in order to ensure that some Americans are more equally protected than others.  The underachievers of today must ensure that the pathways to power remain available to the underachievers of tomorrow so that they too may succeed in spite of their mediocrity. As a result of Kagan’s recusal, the outcome will likely be a 4-4 decision – a worthless outcome, as it will create no binding precedent.

So why write about it? Simply because this case is a reminder. As we’ve always maintained here, diversity is not a value. It is an anti-value. It obliterates values. It is antithetical to values and principles, and it forces everything to genuflect before it. It perpetuates a culture of falsehood, failure, and lowered expectations that will ultimately level and destroy everything of worth within a civilization.







The Dissolution of Norms

In an increasingly interconnected and digital world, recognition of and adherence to unified norms of cyber governance are of paramount importance if order and security are to be maintained. Simply put, nations, and to a lesser degree – individuals – must agree to guard the digital commons and to refrain from engaging in nefarious acts of cyber hostility against each other in order to preserve the peace and to ensure the Web’s continued utility. All of this is quite obvious and intuitive, and requires little further exposition.

The problem with the bulk of the theoretical frameworks designed to deal with these concerns is that they have been fashioned upon precedent frameworks, frameworks that are profoundly dated, pre-digital, and predominantly Western. They are anachronisms repurposed for postmodernity. These models presumed that the West would always be ascendant, that warfare would always occur in real-time, and presumed the continuing primacy of the Western rationalist approach to global governance. Specifically, these models presume the universality of rationalism. The presumption is that every nation is largely the same, with largely consonant goals, and have a similar willingness to place economic concerns ahead of various other passion projects.

The assumption was that every nation, particularly the powerful ones would submit to rules of warfare because they collectively understood the dangers of not doing so: mutually assured destruction, increased and unsustainable costs, instability, insecurity, etc. It was taken for granted that the weaker (non-Western) nations would take the lead from the advanced (Western) nations in this regard and that this state of affairs, this world order would be accepted by all as being prima facie beneficial for all.

Man makes plans, and God laughs. 

The West fell. The BRICs rose. Rather than the homogeneity, hegemony, order and unification of norms pledged to the world by the West, we instead have the diversity, multipolarity, chaos, and competing norms proffered by the Rest. And what norms those are: China reneging on accords, China pilfering data, Iran doing…whatever the hell it is that Iran does, Russia maliciously accessing government intelligence, and the list goes on.

The failure of norms. The failure of Western norms as non-Western players come to the fore.

Nothing demonstrates the failure of universalism and to a certain extent, diversity better than this current state of affairs. Though this particular breakdown is occurring on the macro level, there is a clear parallel on the micro level. Fundamentally, the macro problem and the micro problem are the same:

(1) Equality does not exist and different people are incapable of adhering to the same standards. Therefore, differing standards must be adopted for differing peoples, increasing costs for everyone

(2) Differences made to coexist in close proximity eventually lead to destruction.

Digital interconnectivity creates a historically unprecedented  degree of global proximity, but not all nations and peoples are inclined to engage with this Brave New World in a civilized, orderly fashion. The norms set forth to govern this world are seen by many not as norms, but rather as illegitimate, arbitrary rules that may be flouted if and when beneficial to the flouter.

“The norm” is the standard. There can be but one standard, one “right way” of doing things. There may be deviations to the right or to the left, but the standard remains: immutable, the lodestar. The creation of norms arise from common culture, a common understanding of the world, a common value system. The former Western powers had (and still have) much in common. These commonalities provided the basis for their post-1945 conduct towards each other. Trust based societies with respect for the rule of law and for national sovereignty; equals. These characteristics make them predictable, orderly, and highly unlikely to engage in cyber hostilities against each other of their own accord. The operation of internalized norms, one might say.

The problem is that now, culturally alien unequals have a seat at the table. Entities with no respect or use for the rule of law are expected to abide by law and keep lawlessness at bay. Entities with radically divergent interests and objectives and with radically divergent outlooks are expected to converge (or at least set aside differences) for the greater good. This is an impossibility. Order must necessarily break down under this strain, making the world a profoundly less secure place for all. If order is to be maintained, parallel systems of governance must be created to apply to different peoples, at once repudiating equality and destroying the very concept of norms.

There can be no security without norms, and there can be no norms without homogeneity, hegemony, and common culture. Diversity precludes security. You may have one or the other, but never both.

Online Education & The USG-Higher Ed Complex

I sat in on a pitch for a new and improved Executive MBA program that my employer is currently in the process of launching. Every aspect of the program will be streamlined and electronic, designed to deliver the product cost effectively and conveniently to busy executive level students and anyone else with an interest in obtaining the e-degree. In order to remain competitive on price and to attract talent from across the developing world, the program also adopts a Khan Academy-esque model, where American universities contribute copyrighted course material to a database that universities located across various Third World backwaters may access for a fee, then use for instructional purposes.   The presentation was delivered by an Indian fellow who extolled the virtues of the program, as it would increase access to higher education for folks in developing nations. There was especial emphasis on the value of this program to. . .India (naturally). The genius of the model is that it allows the universities to reduce costs while increasing enrollment (and thus income) through volume sales while also generating income through the bifurcation of content generation and content delivery, allowing a sell-off to the Third World.

There was much oohing and aahing, and audible self-congratulatory back patting. We are quite a clever institution! This will be remarkable!

Indubitably, online education is the future of education as it is more nimble, cost-effective, and adaptable and will only become more attractive, as traditional higher ed models become obsolete. Nevertheless, the inexorable corollary to this is the complete devaluation of the degree at every level. Once credentials become ubiquitous, they become worthless. But, in the absence of alternative approaches to gauging workplace fitness, there will necessarily be a constant upping of the credential ante to maintain the competitive edge: more education must be obtained, more bunk credentials/courses must be created for consumption.  Americans will spend more time getting an education only to have fewer options open upon graduation, as they find themselves competing against Third Worlders eagerly snapping up discount education made possible by material largely purchased from American universities.

This is the future. 

Realistically, that’s all this is about. Of course these programs are looking to hawk their wares in various global asscracks. This is all a part of the plan. It creates the perfect pretext to hire more of these folks who will be willing to work for less who are “just as qualified as Americans,” and have “comparable credentials,” and are ready and willing to “do the work that Americans won’t do.” This will only accelerate a process already underway. Educational disparity will no longer be a valid concern and American workers will find themselves vastly outcompeted. Ultimately, online education will benefit no one but the institutions pushing these courses, the open borders/free trade crowd, and the 3rd Worlders they import to replace (displace) Americans.

My gripe isn’t with online education per se. It’s with how it is likely to be weaponized and used against the average citizen. It is certainly valuable, but there are elements determined to use innovation in this regard to the detriment of Americans as a whole. They are determined to use it to create ersatz, temporary value for the global 1% at the expense of creating genuine, long-term value that would benefit the global 99%. Far from heralding the enlightened democratization of education, this push will only serve to diminish opportunity for Americans while concentrating power in the hands of a plutocratic elite.