FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

The Cryptocurrency Explosion

I do not know that much about cryptocurrency yet but I will take a stab at discussing it as even some “official” sources seem wrapped up in one hysteria or another.  The people who write for zerohedge, for example, live and breathe investing but always seem to write about how the world is ending.  I guess perpetual clickbait is a good business model for them.

Even tech-savvy people are calling cryptocurrency a “bubble” but I don’t think that’s the right way to think of it.  There’s a clear demand and niche for the value it provides.  These currencies are just now reaching a point that normal people can use them easily and a critical mass of businesses and organizations are adopting them. 

So the huge explosion of cryptocurrency over the last year is not so much a bubble as it is the Atlantic spilling past the Pillars of Hercules and filling up the basin of the Mediterranean.

The question is not when it will burst but when it finds its natural level and reaches a steady equilibrium.  How much water does the Mediterranean hold?  I’m very far from being expert in anything financial but I casually notice world bond markets hold 10s of trillions of dollars and precious metals contain well over 10 trillion dollars worth of value.  World-wide derivatives are somewhere in the hundreds of trillions.  The market cap for all cryptocurrencies combined only approached 500 billion dollars in the last day or so.  I could imagine that as a mature sector, cryptocurrency ought to hold at least a few trillion. 
That said, even as the Mediterannean sea fills up, I can anticipate there will be plenty of volatility between cryptocurrencies.  Right now, I suspect bitcoin is golden because everyone is using it.  It might be the microsoft windows of cryptocurrency, for a little while.

Unlike operating systems, cryptocurrencies don’t have as much of a moat.  There’s little to stop a business from accepting multiple crypto-currencies.  Also, bitcoin is way too slow and it already has many alternatives, even bitcoin cash, a more scalable hard fork of itself out there. Bitcoin alone is worth more than all the other cryptos combined which is pretty impressive, but that’s still a lot of market share out there it doesn’t control which has also been growing.

The real killer about bitcoin’s slow transaction speed is miners will be able to blow up fees for priority customers to get to the front of the line until bitcoin becomes the San Francisco, Manhattan, or Arlington of cryptocurrencies.  As wait time and fees mount, the pressure rises to spread ballast to other crypto-currencies, especially those that have been specifically engineered for better scalability.

So the real question regarding bitcoin is how strong the network effect is before it starts to settle into equlibrium with other cryptocurrencies.

Sexual Harassment Hysteria Seriously Undermines the Establishment

Since the beginning, feminism has been a sort of alliance between women and powerful men against the average Joe.  Even in first wave feminism, the leaders were the wives of upper and upper middle class men who supported their political activity.  Since the second wave sexual revolution that began in the 60s, this alliance has secured powerful men soft harems while giving the average woman maximum personal freedom to compete for exclusive spots in those harems.

Lately, there has been a fervent moral hysteria with mass sexual harassment accusations of powerful men.  For decades, ordinary men have had to live in deadly fear of post-feminist accusations while powerful men have been secure in their ability to ignore those rules to some considerable degree.

The larger significance of this development is that it represents a critical rupture in the alliance that has created and sustained feminism as a cultural force since the late 19th century.  Women have grown so accustomed to the easy exercise of power in society that they have forgotten that they are helpless without the backing of powerful male sponsors.

Feminism has freed women from the clutches of drab provider males for a few generations now and so the memory of where they came from has faded.  They now think when the bill comes due, they can free themselves from their more undesirable sponsors as well and perhaps even seize control themselves.  Alas, they will discover to their dismay that is not how the world works.

If women do not make it worth the while of the men with money and who tell the men with guns what to do, their inflated status begins to mysteriously erode even as they shriek and flail in helpless rage.

Meanwhile, this furor is incredibly damaging to the legitimacy of the Gods of culture.  When a star and senator like Al Franken is punished like a common office worker for presuming to enjoy the natural rewards of his station, his prestige and the prestige of all those on his tier of societal heaven suffers immensely.

People participate in a society and its hierarchy because they can look up to those at the top.  When we look up to the stars we feel a sense of awe precisely because they are so far removed from us.  That sense of awe legitimizes a social hierarchy and when it is violated the power of the culture to inspire and command obedience and unity is greatly diminished.

When a hierarchy loses its prestige people cease to dream of rising in it themselves.  This implicitly opens the way for the growth of parallel, competing hierarchies, or even for Hell to triumph over Heaven.  Now that the social contract has been soured for men at every level of society, the incentive to rise, strive, and back the status quo for all men has been damaged more than we can realize now.

I have been immensely pleased to watch the growing conflagration as the secular state religion overreacts time after time since the accession of Trump to Heaven.  When they use the word “normalize” they refer to their terror that Satan could become the new God people look up to.  This craze of accusations and rapid firings has only been the latest delight, and possibly the most significant we’ve seen so far.

The 21st Century Leans Toward Aristocracy

It has now been nearly 20 years since George W. Bush, the son of a president, inherited the grandest ship of state in history and splendidly wrecked it.  He could have passed into history as just one bad president but as the people desperately cried out for the ship to steer, it stayed the course no matter who the pilot was.  What little remaining illusion that the masses can meaningfully participate in the exercise of power peels quickly away.  Even Trump, the avatar of American popular discontent, finds himself powerless to bring decisive change and is only half-ironically called an emperor, as if in hopes he might somehow take up a more authoritarian mantle.

Counter-intuitively in this time of populism, we see conditions arranging themselves in favor of aristocracy and the ebb of the 20th century high tide of the masses.  The official state politics playing out before us is just one area where a few become increasingly dominant over the many.

Mass politics ascended toward its peak when firearms combined with industrialized logistics.  We may not appreciate now how revolutionary it was to have an army of hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers in the field at once in the Napoleonic Wars for prolonged periods, millions by the mid 19th century, and tens of millions in the 20th century.  Mass production, pasteurization, railroads, the telegraph made possible a condition of total war that was new to agrarian peoples.

Political power is ultimately backed by the potential for violence and since the inception of settled agriculture, only a few people could have the equipment and leisure to be skilled soldiers on the backs of massed peasant labor.  Among settled peoples war had always been aristocratic by nature.  Though there have always been levies, mercenaries, and conscripts, they were support for a backbone of warrior elite whose investment in the system gave strong incentive for loyalty and whose training gave them tight discipline in combat.

Even Roman legions that made heavy use of commoners promoted soldiers on retirement to citizen status for them and their posterity.  In our time, any warm body under a state is a “citizen” but for most of history that distinction has meant entry into the petty aristocracy.
Warriors not only need to fight well against others, they also need good reason not to overthrow the government and install one of their own.  So it follows warriors are by definition invested in politics.  Anyone who is relied on to fight for the state, gets a share in state power sooner or later.  Even if kept as slaves, the warriors just make themselves into kings, as the Mamluks did in Egypt.

As more of the population was potentially needed for state violence in the 19th century, suffrage became universal to every male and there the bloat exploded out of control to its conclusion with everyone but children and teenagers allowed to vote.  This craze has left us with an enormous political power bubble.  If elected leaders simply ignore a bunch of powerless peasants, what do they do about it?  “Oh yeah? How are you gonna make me?” applies to state power as much as it does on the grade school playground.  If there is no solid backing to claims of power, the illusion fades and reality begins to re-assert itself.  Just as the Mamluk warrior slaves could not be shut out of power, the helpless cannot long hold onto it.

Some suppose a coalition of single women, gays, and impoverished races holds the key to political power in the future because their helplessness makes them dependent and therefore fanatically loyal.  Yet once reality inevitably returns, a furious trans-genderist in a dress can shriek at the top of his lungs all he likes only to be sent tumbling into the mud with a saber slash to the face from a smug, mounted noble wearing a powdered wig.  A coalition of the weakest is by nature opportunistic and requires the support of the strong to hold power at all.  At best, they are tools who are ultimately discarded the moment they cease to be sufficiently useful as a legitimizing priesthood.  That moment always comes sooner than ascended undesirables think because a successful religion helps pacify the masses, save the ruler energy, and keeps the army inspired and loyal—a church of obnoxious political commisars inflames and sabotages things instead.

It was the possibility of mass conscription that ensured the common man the vote but since the atomic bomb wars of mass conscription have gradually all but disappeared and with it, the impetus for mass political power.  The battlefield has returned to being a realm only a small minority participate in directly and consistently.  Modern technology and the precise nature of objectives in 21st century war make it so that unskilled, inexperienced, unmotivated conscripts just get in the way and cause trouble. 
The US military has relied on volunteers for decades now and over time an increasingly small number of those are relevant to combat.  Now, even the tiny front-line military shares even this diminished role with mercenaries who answer directly to factions of elites.

Public opinion no longer supports the reckless wars of a discredited elite, but simultaneously, rulers that no longer rely so strongly on a loyal public to fight wars does not need their consent so much as before.  They do not need to fear their subversion either so long as most people are prosperous enough to stay in an apolitical torpor.

In the culture we see the same principle of a warrior elite applies.  In an emerging neo-tribal age ISIS forces that may have numbered a mere 10,000 men fought multiple national armies to a standstill for years.  Similarly the altright and antifa each likely have no more than 10,000 operatives active in the field.  Yet when 300 alt-rightists have an event, their signal is amplified across the world by behaving strategically as a culturally disruptive vanguard.  Those 300 have more impact than the next 30 million who cast ballots from time to time and look on in disappointment as nothing happens.  In the mercantile modern world, tight group loyalties are far scarcer than money, enabling even a handful who can actually work together to run roughshod over millions of atomized serfs who just want that next paycheck.

In Silicon Valley a handful of people at a few companies hold a few billion consumers in the palm of their hands.   A few small cadres at national banks can influence the trajectory of all the wealth in the world.  A few incestuous social circles in a few big cities tell everyone what to think, tell all their stories for them, and make all their music and dance.  Even those active in the emerging counter-cultures are vanishingly small as a percentage of the population yet their impact is wildly disproportionate.

Meanwhile, the average worker scurrying to and fro from a job has almost no impact or influence on the culture, the politics, on finance, or anything that matters, even if they are among the dwindling number who live comfortably above subsistence.  Actually, comfort makes them that much more inert, their only attribute of significance an implacable dead weight for forces of change to push aside. 

It becomes increasingly explicit that nobody cares what ordinary people living their lives on facebook and netflix think.  Almost every meaningful interaction we see is propelled by just a few and when this is the reality, it is only a matter of time until there is aristocracy.

The Augustus Principle

A dry history text book lulls us into the complacent idea that one time always splits neatly into the next on a precise date.  This way of thinking leads us to misinterpret our own time.
There is nothing quite like the look on someone’s face when I explain that Julius Caesar wasn’t an emperor and didn’t intend to end the Roman Republic forever.  It moves into an even stranger dimension when I explain that Augustus, who came after Caesar, had to pretend for a long time that he was not the real, autocratic power and the senate was still there for hundreds of years after it became a ceremonial institution within an empire.  There never was a precise moment Augustus(played by Brian Blessed) came out on stage and said “Ho, ho I’m the emperor of the Roman Empire!”

But surely, people back then had some idea when Julius Caesar took over that some new and drastic change was taking place even if they didn’t know what it was?  Then I mention Caesar wasn’t even the first guy to march on Rome.  A guy called Sulla had already been the first to do that.  He used it as a way to destroy his political opponents and reshuffle the deck of the senate in his favor.  People expected more of the same from Caesar and for the republican system to go on as it had for hundreds of years.

If I want to keep shaking up the prim and tidy version of history I can mention that the military reforms of a guy called Marius re-aligned incentives so that troops first owed their pay and pensions to their general, not to the government, making the emergence of miltary strongmen like Sulla and Caesar possible and inevitable.  At the time he did it, Marius was just trying to increase his own power and prestige in Rome and the senate went along with it so he could deal with the immediate crises presented by armies of Germanic barbarians.

As the republican system proved too inflexible to deal with crises, precedents and rules were worn down one at a time until the old system gradually became something else we now call an empire.

This fluid version of history makes people uncomfortable because it makes them start to think about their own time in a new way.  When history is a mesh of gradualisms rather than clean breaks on memorized dates a smug sense of security evaporates.  Anyone might reflect “The ancient Romans thought the Roman empire would never end in its heyday.”  This feels comfortable enough because it fits well with the tidy history of discrete periods.  The Romans had their time in the sun.  So did the dinosaurs.
It feels far less safe to think: “The ancient Romans did not even realize their government had ended as it was happening!  Nobody even really intended for it to end up that way!”

In reality, once Marius smashed term limits for consulship and made his military reforms, the Roman Republic was effectively over in a practical sense.  The control of the government over the military had been compromised and all government requires monopoly over the legitimate use of force.  Once one learns to think in terms of the fluid version of history, it becomes possible to see where crucial pivot points lay that went without recognition or fanfare when they happened.  Furthermore, there is an interplay of multiple pivot points.

The rogue generals unleashed by Marius’ personal ambition might not have been able to overturn the republic had the popular opinion been overwhelmingly in favor of the system.

The Roman Republic had a long tradition going back to its origins as a small city state of cooperation and compromise between the classes.  Periodically, the proles had revolted and gotten concessions giving them limited representation in government and some safety nets.  Perhaps the greatest concession the plebs ever got was a special political office created just for them, the tribune of the plebs.  To compensate for their votes being counted less, they got two tribunes who had veto powers.

As Rome grew richer and more powerful, this last obstacle to the elites became intolerable.  As Roman territory became concentrated in the hands of just a few wealthy families, pleb revolt in favor of land reform was taken up by a tribune named Gracchus.  Gracchus came from a wealthy family and was viewed as a class traitor(kind of how Trump is now.)  This threat to the mega-estates of the ultra-rich resulted in Gracchus actually getting beaten to death by the senate.  

As if this wasn’t enough, Gracchus’ brother tried to step in and carry on the cause.  He ended up committing to suicide to avoid also being beaten to death by the senators.  For some reason reform attempts were never quite the same after that and the social tensions rather than being resolved just simmered as the elite tried to sit on the pot lid.  With this tension and disenchantment already well established, it’s unsurprising in retrospect that rogue generals could count on considerable popular support. 

It seems a rule across time and place that any elite class tries to eliminate all obstacles to the exercise of power and cut any bothersome obligations or responsibilities to a larger society.  In a smaller-scale society like a city state, there is a limit to how far the elite can separate from the obligations of societal leadership.  However, when there is a huge increase in wealth and territory, the elites try to use this rocket fuel to break free of the gravitational pull of the lower classes so they can rule the world below as they will from their untouchable elysium in outer space.

If we apply the more fluid way of history to our own time, we realize the neo-liberal cultural revolution that took hold in the 1960s effectively ended forever in 2016 and we have entered a new historical period.  Even those who desperately want to restore the old social order do so with a tribal sort of viciousness in stark contrast to the harmonious star trek utopia they had envisioned for mankind barely one year ago.  Even as they yearn to go back, they are unable to appreciate the irony of how their fanaticism only fuels the formation of faultlines that will define a new age. 

Once we learn to ignore the dull farting tuba noise that is textbook history, we can see how Trump is a transitional figure and a pivot point.  Those who believe in the system of periodic shoeboxes might say “He is trying to be a Caesar!” of course without understanding what that really means. 

Trump is more like a Gracchus, a Marius, or even a Clodius Pulcher that aligns forces in a new direction.  Like transitional figures in the Roman republic, he will know not what he does as he helps begin the 21st century in earnest.

Lebanon Predicts the Future USA

It will prove difficult for the US to Balkanize, even if it wanted to because every group is represented in every city and state.  Furthermore, the typical suburban American moves every 5 years or so to wherever their next job is.

If we want to simulate a mercantile society where many disparate groups are crammed together in the same territory some of which might be semi-nomadic, we need only look to the Levant where tribes have competed for a very long time over a narrow neck of valuable sea-side real estate with a Mediterannean climate that lies on top of a natural chokepoint of world trade routes.

In recent history, Lebanon provides us with the best example because it experienced a bloody civil war in that confined space after a multi-cultural democracy broke down over the issue of mass immigration.

We can roughly divide Lebanon into 3 major factions, Christians, Sunnis, and Shi’ites.  When Sunni Palestinian refugees flooded into the country after Israeli independence guess which faction started lobbying to make sure Palestinians stayed?  Then are any of us surprised that once the Palestinian camps were effectively permanent one of those 3 factions tried to count them towards a majority of seats in parliament?  No doubt they also wanted them on a “path to citizenship.”

Of course we are not surprised that the Sunnis conspired to upset the balance of power in their favor by “electing a new people.” A fatal flaw of mass suffrage democracy where any warm body can vote or be counted towards seats in the assembly is that the temptation for factions to bring in more warm bodies always becomes irresistible.

At the time the Christians were the ones with the most power so they were the ones to beat.  The Shi’ites and Druze were tempted to join the Sunnis and dogpile the Christians.  A fatal flaw of multi-cultural democracy is it always becomes a game of king of the hill.  In Lebanon, when one faction has an advantage the others are sure to join against them and so it repeats endlessly.

Most recently, the Christians and Shi’ites were aligned against the Sunnis because both feared the growth of ISIS in Syria.  Now that the threat of ISIS has dwindled, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was yet another re-alignment as the balance of power is re-assessed.
Right now, the Shi’ites led by Hezbollah are the most powerful, so perhaps the other two will join up to take them down a peg.  I’m sure Washington, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv would send them billions of dollars to make sure it’s worth their while.

Hezbollah gives us a model of what the neo-tribal state might look like as the power of nation-states recedes.  They are the de facto government in southern Lebanon while seemingly content to operate within the framework of a formally recognized nation-state.  They get to have their own territory while still participating in a larger economic zone.  They effectively carry out their own foreign policy as they maintain their special relationship with Iran while still participating in the national politics.  Hezbollah gets to enjoy all the privileges of being a nation without the strategic liabilities of nationhood.  They get the best of all worlds.

I noticed this same impulse for political arbitrage in the renewed flareups of European separatist movements.  The Catalonian government wanted regional autonomy under the protection of the larger EU economic zone, cutting out the annoying middleman so they could enjoy the best of all worlds.

I anticipate a similar sort of dissolution might happen in the United States.  The government in Washington might well still be there as the reality on the ground quietly changes.  De facto territories emerge but no one wants to disrupt commerce in a way that impoverishes everyone.  When Lebanon was embroiled in its civil war each militia had checkpoints at its borders to “tax” anyone passing through.  No one in present day Lebanon wants this.  I would figure even the most diehard Hezbollah member enjoys being able to drive into Beirut.

But what what about direct state coercion?  One lesson of Lebanon is multi-cultural national militaries only exist on paper once tensions are high.  I was shocked as I read there was still a national military in Lebanon amidst 20 years of civil war.  Once members of every group serve in the military, commanders know better than to order them into actions that will cause mass mutiny and infighting.
To the average soldier, the military is just a paycheck and that’s true for the United States as well where all the effusive praise and near-worship just papers over the fact that it’s a government jobs and training program for millions of Americans who would otherwise be barely employable with their high school diplomas.  The military is welfare for the working class.

Just as no one in Lebanon wants to charge territorial border tax anymore, the different ethnic groups in the military can all agree to sit on the easy paycheck even once bullets are flying and simply revolt or desert if someone tries to actually send them into battle.
Those soldiers who want to actually fight leave the military and join their group’s militia.
We can look at the Mexican military as a supporting example.  They go through the motions of following their orders for the most part but they have little appetite for challenging the power of emergent narco-states anymore than they need to.

The defensive power of neo-tribal militaries isn’t necessarily being able to defeat national militaries outright.  Like a sea urchin or a cactus pad, they need only represent a net energetic loss for large predators.

Another lesson we can take away from Lebanon is that coalitions are always shifting in the game of identity politics.  Euro-Americans are perceived as the strongest, most vulnerable faction right now, so all the other groups can agree to target them.  As this position is weakend, it will become progressively easier to peel factions away from the coalition of the fringes.  The same applies if the strongest faction seems to be winning.  Then the least loyal members of the coalition of the weaker start jumping ship.

It would do well to always watch for opportunities to re-align and ultimately divide and conquer.
In these kinds of struggles it’s smaller factions caught in the middle of the struggle that switch sides first so they will end up on the winning side.  In Lebanon this is how the Druze, a group that’s about 5% of the population, plays their hand.

If we think of Whites as Christians, Sunnis as Mestizos and Indios, Shi’ites as Blacks, and Palestinians as Illegal Immigrants, the Druze in our situation might be Asian Americans who are ambivalent about either side and shift their allegiance wherever they feel benefits them most.  Right now, they fall behind the establishment even though the other members of the coalition of the fringes envy their wealth and power.  When the American Druze begin to waver, the Christians know there has been a change in the balance of power.

Scarcity of Social Capital Sustains Institutions

For almost twenty years it has been pointed out countless times how all the knowledge we get from universities is online for free.  Time after time people have predicted the collapse of universities or that for-profit colleges will take over.  Not only has the institution of the University not collapsed, tuitions are higher than ever and the for-profit colleges are the ones that have seen their business model collapse. At first, this seems counter-intuitive as the corrosion of the establishment’s credibility accelerates.

Though colleges are no longer sacrosanct as they once were they can keep hiking tuition to the pace of loans because there are no viable alternatives.  Red-pill dissidents have spent years bashing the college degree as a “piece of paper” while missing the point.

College offers access to reliable high-status social capital in a modern society where any sort of non-adversarial, high-trust social interaction is extremely scarce.  For most people entering adult life with even slightly above average IQ, campus is the funnel they must squeeze through to avoid the wasteland of service jobs where they’ll live without prospects surrounded for the rest of their lives by people they cannot really connect with. 

Also, there are far more people scrambling to take respectable white collar “real jobs” that require degrees than there are slots available.  This pressure means those who make it have to know someone on the inside.  To establish rapport with someone on the inside they need to have experienced the unique culture of life on campus.  People reach out and help those they feel are like them and with whom they have shared culture and experiences.  To get that gen X manager to reminisce about college days over lunch while you’re there as an unpaid intern can easily be the difference between having a career and being a barista. 

For those who do not go to university the military is one of the last sure reservoirs of reliable social capital.  The most cynical blue collar people you’ll ever meet will curse about the polticians, the government, the country but still glow with almost religious reverence if you mention the military and thank you profusely “for your service” if you were ever in it.  For average people who did not grow up with deep, high quality roots to see them through life, that’s pretty much the last social ladder available to them.

Then there is of course the public education system.   The crowning genius of the 19th century-style nation-state may well be the ability of compulsory mass education to standardize culture.  People instinctively understand that even if someone learns better through home-schooling, they are at a disadvantage by not having the standard life experiences in the standard environment installed in their meatware.  Someone who strays away from the insitutional status ladder finds themselves standing just outside the tribal circle as they interview for jobs, vie for promotions, try to make friends, and go out on dates.

The backbone of a society is not jobs, an economy, or even armed men.  The central structures of society are ladders and funnels leading to high quality social capital like lifelong friends, stable social roles, family, marriage, or even just the bare minimum status to be seen as eligible in one’s dating pool.  In a hunter gatherer band or a traditional agrarian village there are rites of initiation to test for eligibility and connect cooperators with the social capital they need to flourish.
The nation-state institutionalized these networks on a mass scale of millions.  The industrial revolution did not just lead to the mass production of goods, but also of culture and social status.

This assembly line of souls is still very crude compared to the simple organization of a village.  With such a large system, a glitch can send 10 million souls tumbling into the abyss where they have no role and no one cares if they live or die.  Overwhelming numbers made these casualties sustainable.

When everyone has been to the same sort of schools since they could walk, then go to the same boot camps, you can crank out 100 divisions of soldiers who can all understand each other and work together.  The 21st century however has heralded the shift away from mass culture and the return to inequality, caste, tribe, and natural aristocracy.

Neo-tribal groups are sprouting through the drab concrete slabs of the establishment but they will only be able to displace institutions when they can bust the monopoly of social capital and offer better prospects of meaningful belonging.

The Class Divide in the Alt Right

As the alt-right matures it can now be divided into working class and middle class wings.  Most of the arguments about strategy, methods, and optics since Charlottesville have at their root been different parts of society talking past each other.  The alt-right likes to talk about race, but too many of them seem to neglect class, which in some circumstances is even more important than race in a highly stratified America.  

The pre-existing White Nationalism 1.0 was a working class movement by its nature.  They were notorious for being abrasive purity-spirallers who don’t work well with others but those who made the transition to 2.0 have brought with them established organizational structures and are willing to show up in the real world.
At this point, when people are taking huge risks just stepping out into public, just showing up is the decisive factor, not wardrobe choice.  As a mercantile culture, we are still grappling with the new reality that action, revealed preference, and loyalty means more than words, presentation, or “brands.” 

From what I have seen, the most aggressively anti-social purity spirallers are already getting pushed out.  Over time I am seeing progressively fewer Nazi costumes.  As far as I can tell from pictures of Shelbyville, a few last people wearing nazi helmets are all that remains to be dealt with.  Counter-intuitively, complaints from the middle class wing of the alt-right actually grew louder after this event.  They were just as upset by a procession of people who looked like bikers and hunters dressed in black.  The reality is that working class groups won’t look nice and fuzzy, especially since the people who will actually show up tend to be the most angry and disaffected.  People who look determined and intimidating are not necessarily a bad thing.

The white polo shirt strategy has proven to be a stroke of genius that has created an image of the alt-right in the public consciousness.  More specifically, this has become the uniform of the middle class and SWPL alt-rightists.  They are trying to reach an audience where it pays best to be approachable, clean-cut, and well spoken.  While the black-clad bikers are gathering in rural white America, the polo preppy alt-right are targeting universities and urban areas.  

Rather than one conquering the other, these factions will end up pursuing their strategies in parallel.

I have seen a lot of criticism over the people showing up being “defective” but I think a lot of the armchair generals forget these are bands of dissidents.  The people who are comfortable and happy with their lives stay home, have other stuff to do, and have way too much to lose.  

The critics expect that the leaders of these groups can micromanage everyone like they are playing a real time strategy game and freak out about every negative thing the press seizes on.  In real life, these leaders are pirate captains elected into their roles by a motley crew of mutineers.

It takes a lot of guts and a disagreeable nature for anyone to actively go against what the rest of society is telling them to do, to reject false received wisdom, and seek out truth.  When you get a bunch of people like this in a room, you can’t expect any organization they form to run like a corporate department.  It’s only natural that it’s a bumpy ride and knees will get scraped. 

There has been a lot of public arguments between the leaders of these groups as they jockey for position and influence.  These are not crises but part of the natural process through which every organization is formed.  The clash of personalities has been a positive thing as the most able rise to the top and the worst narcissists, anti-social types, and the outright insane get weeded out.  

Every time there is a setback, loyalty gets tested and those who counter-signal too hard in the wrong way or against the wrong people fall by the wayside.  In these struggles, the class divide has been especially obvious. 

One leader screams at another about being a nazi larper only to be derided as an effete metrosexual in return.  One thing I have noticed though is over time certain rules of engagement have solidified and there are lines the leaders left standing no longer cross.  Now, even when disagreeing on tactics, there is almost always a disclaimer, of “I am glad this guy’s on our side but…”  

With pirate brawls now staying within this etiquette, the hierarchy steadily figures itself out.  Since the alt-right is the executive wing of the dissident sphere, those who come out on top will be those who can most effectively lead people to accomplish strategic goals in the field.

One of the biggest misunderstandings I see about the alt-right is from those who want it to become a mainstream political movement.  For some time yet, the niche of the alt-right is to be a minority of radicals who push the envelope and goad their enemies into over-extending.  By challenging the boundaries a few hundred alt-rightists can clear cultural space for millions more to drift slightly further towards them.

The alt-right is succeeding not by persuading everyone at once to their views but by changing the collective mood enough that alt-lite marketers are being forced to adapt or perish. 

Barely a year ago, a group with mostly gay men and women rose to become the alt-lite because their diversity points helped them get away with pushing ideas that no white straight guy could have presented to a large audience.  Someone like Milo was necessary and even his presence was enough to trigger a riot at Berkeley that was a huge turning point in exposing the establishment’s willingness to shut down free speech with violent thugs.

This excess lead directly to Antifa defeats at the battles of Huntington Beach and Berkeley forcing them to change their tactics ever since.  Few seem to reflect on the strategic significance of the fact that antifa has never again been able to attack independently, relying completely on sympathetic authorities to take their side. 

Now, it’s no longer necessary to be flamingly gay to popularize edgy political ideas.  Alt-lite figures like Milo are failing to make the transition and ex campus conservative types like James Allsup and Nick Fuentes are taking their place with far more discussion of ideas and less mindless sensationalism.  As the alt-right continues to keep on the pressure, it will change the culture—and the conventional politics lies downstream of culture.  

Unraveling Civil War Moral Hysteria

The public discourse has sunk to a new low.  Even John Kelly, an uptight pentagon general has triggered his very own mass moral hysteria by simply saying General Lee was “honorable” and wishing the US Civil War could have been prevented by compromise.
The result of these boring, mild statements was a firestorm of pundit-powered opprobrium.  Ordinarily, I ignore these stupid hand-wringing scares as there are several of them a day, but this one in particular catches my interest because it marks another step in a progression of rising frenzy since we started to see the destruction of confederate statues.

The important thing to notice is they are trying to use fake moral outrage as a political weapon to rewrite history.  The legions of political correctness are trying to march across the landscape of the past until even the US founders are dismissed as villains who were “on the wrong side of history.”

I could ignore the pundits easily enough but what got my attention was actual historians like Ken Burns seeming to support this Maoist hysteria when he undoubtedly knows better. 

He doesn’t say that much here, but it is clear from context he was joining in the mass chastisement of General Kelly.  Indeed, his rebuke went viral. 

Burns is the creator of an entire documentary television series on the Civil War that has been considered for years to be a classic of its genre.  He is known to have a bias as all people do, but in any serious treatment of a historical subject, one expects the investigator to at least try to understand the motivations of the people he’s studying without just venturing to vilify and crucify them.

Burns was trying to treat Kelly’s statements as though he was pushing the old Lost Cause argument that the war was really about States’ Rights.  Kelly did not try to do this and it’s dishonest that Burns framed it this way for the benefit of a howling, angry mob.

The “Slavery caused the Civil War. Period.” refrain has become an ingrained establishment reaction to anyone who would suggest that there’s anything more to the Civil War than diversity injustice.  Their favorite evidence is the declarations of secession that unanimously mention slavery as their main motive for seceding from the Union.  Case closed, right?
The problem with their case is they interpret this to mean there was a seamlessly ongoing moral crusade for Black rights and freedoms from John Brown to Martin Luther King.  The problem with their virtuous narrative is that slavery causing the war didn’t mean anyone actually cared about Blacks.  The truth is, nobody really did except for a tiny handful of abolitionists who nobody liked.  Slavery causing the war doesn’t mean what they think it means.

The more important thing to understand about slavery is that it was an incompatible economic system with the wage-driven industrializing North.  I suspect the moment Lincoln was forever set against slavery is when the institution arrived in Kentucky and depressed the local economy, playing a role in his family moving to Illinois.  To really understand what slavery meant to average white people back then, you need only reflect on how average workers feel now about the onslaught of tens of millions of 3rd world immigrants.  

Slavery was incompatible because free labor was toxic to the wage economy.  If anything, many people who opposed slavery would have despised the Black slaves, a seeming contradiction to revisionist moralizers.
Any historian who tries to portray the US Civil War primarily as moral conflict should be banned from the profession. In reality, people were back then as they are now.  The vast majority of people just cared about making a living.  No one except a few fanatics wanted to go to war over moralistic crises.

No one seems to impress on us now that the core founders of the United States were members of the Southern plantation culture.  When we reflect on that, we much more easily realize why they saw themselves as the legitimate ruling class of America.  Many of the Southern elite were the actual relatives of people who had signed the Declaration, fought in the Revolution, and helped draft the Constitution.  The Virginia planters had been at the forefront of power, prestige, and cultural influence for decades by the time tensions began to escalate out of control and one of the rules of history is no elite class ever willingly steps down and allows itself to be replaced.  Humans, whether elementary school janitors or Kings, tend to defend their accustomed social status at any cost.

The industrial revolution disrupted the accustomed hierarchy in America by placing the Northeast industrialists and merchants decisively ahead of the Planters and this gap only widened over time.  To make things, worse, the Northern aristocracy flooded their cities and the Midwest frontier with millions of immigrants who tended to be sympathetic to their agenda.  The flood of immigrants was as big an affront to the Southerners as the democrats trying to flood the country with 3rd world foreigners is now. 

If there’s one phrase that seems to reliably cause moral panic complete with crazily rolling eyes like a spooked horse it’s “Three-fifths.”  All anyone can ever seem to talk about is how everyone ran around telling Black slaves they were three-fifths of a man.  In their hysteria they utterly miss the point.

The Southerners were calling out the Northern elites for importing millions of people who would eventually be able to drown out the South entirely in Congress.  As you might imagine, this proposition was unacceptable to them.  The real point of the three fifths compromise is it was an attempt to buoy up the fading political influence of the South by counting each slave enough to preserve their power in the House.  Until people can calm down and soberly evaluate events it’s impossible to understand the important thing was a political arms race that was taking place between two competing groups of elites.  This same force was behind most of the other compromises, as well as the urge for territorial expansion of the US.

The first American revolution was a revolt of local elites against the control of elites who were far away.  The Southern elite saw secession as another iteration and continuation of what their parents and grandparents had started barely 70 years before.  We have to understand that they saw themselves with some justification as the real United States that wanted to split off from New England as they had from England.

The Southern leaders were arrogant, stupid, and decadent, though.  They ultimately demolished their credibility by using heavy handed methods to try to keep rigging the whole system in their favor indefinitely, just like the present-day elites.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act led directly to the birth of a Republican party singularly dedicated to opposing them and the final demise of their power over the system.  The ridiculous Dredd Scott case(that a president did actually collude with) followed by the Fugitive Slave Act destroyed any remaining hope for coexistence.  This duplicitous sleight of hand through control of the judiciary resembles the machinations of the present elite classes.

The present rulers imagine themselves as Lincoln and Martin Luther King when in fact they are actually closer to Roger Taney and Jefferson Davis greedily clutching to the tatters of their power and trying with all their might to move back the inexorable hands of the clock.  The present elites’ sanctimonious self-image very closely aligns with how secessionist planters saw themselves.

The stupid mistake of the Southern leaders is they tried to lead the entire country as long as they could and only lobbied for secession when all hope of their dominance was lost and the best part of their bargaining power was gone.  Instead of trying to rule by deceit through weak presidents like Pierce and Buchanan, they needed to go their own way, or negotiate their role as a member of a looser confederation with a revised constitution when it might have been possible.  By the time Lincoln actually came to power, it was far too late for them to preserve their top positions in the hierarchy.

Even then some kind of partition or understanding may have been possible.  But stubborn to the end, Jeff Davis saw that enthusiasm for a partition was not as widespread as he liked, especially in border states outside the main plantation zones.  The new order of power was swiftly becoming “normalized” and for Davis, this was unacceptable.  All bets were off the moment he gave the order to Beauregard to fire on Fort Sumter.  To Davis, this was the publicity stunt he needed to polarize public opinion and ultimately a final monument to the stupidity of the entrenched elites who went down kicking and screaming in rivers of blood.

No class of elites ever goes down willingly so the important lesson normal people can take away from the American Civil War isn’t some sappy story with spiritual hymn music in the background.  They need to realize that these present moral hysterias are the attempt of a declining elite to manipulate millions of ordinary people into scrambling to grab their chestnuts out of the fire.  If people fall for it, they will find themselves shocked one day when they end up on the wrong side of history.

And what about the Black slaves?  African Colonial slavery largely disappeared worldwide by the 1880s to the 1890s even from places like Brazil where slavery had existed on a hugely greater scale.  The importation of slaves had already been banned decades before the Civil War in the United States.  In reality, slavery would have ceased altogether in the US within 20-30 years like it did everywhere else.  The industrial revolution and the economy of cheap wage labor made slavery obsolete. 
Historians with a narrative to push never talk about this though because it conflicts with their interpretation of the Civil War as a war of liberation and the triumph of good over evil.  History, however, rarely ever plays out like a story from a safe space coloring book.

General Kelly was right to wish that a compromise had been possible because like many wars, the Civil War was ultimately a pointless slaughter.  It was effectively a gangland war between the Crips and the Bloods that millions of ordinary people got sucked into and it did not affect the overall direction the winds of history were blowing in.  The founders’ republic would have become a 19th century industrial nation-state in the mold of Germany, Italy, France, or Japan in that same period of history.  Slavery would have died in the South on its own without 600,000 people killed in battle.
Of course, the moralistic interpreters of the Civil War see those 600,000 lives as a necessary sacrifice for politically correct justice.  Once we understand their love of pious bloodshed, we begin to realize why no one liked the extreme 19th century abolitionists.  In their secret hearts, no doubt, all those dead Euro-Americans are probably just a nice bonus.

I am no fan of Kelly who I see as a handler sent by the pentagon to make sure Trump sticks to their neo-con agenda and to cockblock their political enemies from having easy access to the president.  Ironically, though, this first hand experience of being targeted by the shrieking masses will drive him closer than before to the Trumpian orbit.  By all means, they should keep burning down Kelly’s establishment cred until he must side with the very forces he was sent to keep under control.

The Scarcity of Social Capital in Western Societies

In most of the world and through most of history, social capital has been far more important for most people than money won by participation in the market.  The 1st world has become a dramatic reversal in how human society works with jobs rendering people’s wellbeing far more than friends, family, or community.  The beginning of our lives we spend with parents or caretakers is now a passing larval stage, our adulthood spent fluttering aloft on market forces.

The strange inversion of commerce and social life means there are millions of strangers paying monthly bills with few connections between them all.  The irony of a mass commercial society is its scarcity of social capital on all levels of human relations.
After we leave school, we spend most our time at work and that’s where we tend to form our social circles.  But these are circles of convenience, the tacit understanding that these associations are temporary and subordinate to paycheck or promotion.  We watch what we say with friends at work, never knowing if we could be talking to our future supervisor or if we could be turned in by informants for our irreverent gossip.

In the hours of the day we have left, we go to bars and meetup events but there everyone has their guard up because the baseline of social trust and commonality is far too low in a milling stew of millions.
Even mating is stymied by a multitude of social and sexual harassment tripwires.  Meeting the future wife at the company christmas party becomes a quaint artifact of 80s romantic comedies.  So now, when someone finds a rare non-adversarial scene to interact with the opposite sex, it’s a secret to be closely held like that sweet spot for fishing or mushroom hunting.

In this anonymous mass, filters of pre-selection are essential.  This is in fact how humans have always been, but modernity forces us to struggle to create from scratch the kind of communal structures that were already well-established for our ancestors.

Any kind of social filter is useful as long as it is hard to fake or at least sufficiently uncomfortable.  There must be sacrifice.  In Islam, we have to give up alcohol, fast for a whole month, kneel like fools on prayer rugs.  In Mormonism we have to say we believe in disappearing golden tablets, give up all drugs, and pay up 10% of our income.  The humiliation and monotony if kept up is rewarded with a social network and a family.

Even these traditional networks are not as useful as they used to be in an open society.  It is far more difficult to insure against defection when one can periodically disappear into the the crowd and do whatever they want.  The modern 1st world society naturally sees the decline of traditional doctrines wherever it is not held together by other factors such as ethnicity or relative isolation in the countryside.  For most, different sorts of networks are required.

The most basic and common social filter in a commercial society is money.  Have an auction whether for houses or groceries to price out as many people as possible and when you get down to a manageable number, try to interact sincerely with whoever is left standing.  The result is a society of snobbery where the worthiness of others is synonymous with the accumulation of capital.  This influence shapes the entire world view of those who can afford their McMansion and 2 new cars in a nice neighborhood.  It allows them to cocoon there in willful ignorance and contempt even as the society as a whole starts to fall apart and revolt against them.

We are all infused with the habits and attitudes of the class we were born into.  People assort based on these affinities even though many cannot even understand what they do.  We simply associate with those who we simply like on a gut level.  If we doubt the strength of these subtle signs, we need only look at the visceral revulsion the polite middle classes feel towards Trump with his crass working class mannerisms made infinitely more egregious in their eyes by his high station.

Finally, as 1st world affluence becomes concentrated into a smaller number of hands and the youth culture becomes ever more relatively impoverished we see the emergence of more primitive types of sacrifice signalling.  Many dissidents have commented on the enormous popularity of tattoos and stretched ear-lobe holes from mid-millennials onward.  Without money, status, or meaning, people revert to ritual disfigurement, a signal of group allegiance that comes naturally to hunter-gatherers.

An easy tribal initiation is to ask someone to have their face scarred up with a knife.  It’s a simple, effective ritual popular from the Amazon to Papua New Guinea.  It has a universal appeal because it’s an all-in-one package that requires someone to voluntarily undergo significant pain, adopt a signal of allegiance that can’t be taken back, and is impossible to fake. A tattoo on a hipster or bro-ey pothead comes from that same impulse.  When allegiance and affinity are scarce, its most ostentatious advertisements proliferate.

But what if one has no affinity for religious abasement, has little money or care for wealth signals, and has no connection with the outgoing people with tattoos?  There are plenty that fall between these cracks who struggle to find a place in the milling horde of humanity.  This is especially true of outliers of any kind.

Under these pressures we can easily understand the appeal of the dissident right, antifas, or hard-core SJWs.  People who are unusual in some way in the general population try to find ways congregate where their essential nature is distilled.  This is the impetus behind the formation of the first neo-tribes.

Like someone covered in tattoos, the multi-colored hair, pasty acne speckled skin inflicted by vegan diets, and ugly attire of SJWs penalizes them in the normal society while simultaneously giving them a status boost in their community.  Likewise young men who wear crisp white polo shirts to openly protest against Jews are risking everything in the normal society for a spot in a new society where membership actually means something.

The more we are expected to exist as atomized individuals the more powerfully we grasp for compatible chemical bonds that by their sealing, release enormous energy.  The group that best masters these forces becomes the new dominant tribe.

See Also: How the Middle Class Used to Be Affordable

“Average Is Over” Is A Destructive Mindset

Every year the sort of inspirational speakers who appeal to drab office schlubs come up with flashy new slogans to say the same things.  For some time the theme they’ve had to address is how the marketplace has grown more competitive as the pond of opportunity shrinks for most people.  They can’t say it like that of course because that would be “negative thinking.”  You can’t make a living giving seminars at business hotels unless you make your clients feel good about themselves.  So this year the fad phrase to say while wagging your finger in admonishment with a smug, fake smile is “Average is overrr!”

All this means is the job market and society itself continues to become more scalable.  Instead of having musicians in every town, you have 1 musician who plays for 300 million.  So it goes for increasingly more fields.  You get your very best talent recorded to internet video or on a website and the guys 99.99% as good are out of business. 

 “Average is over” is an attitude of acceptance that only extreme excellence is of any worth from now on, the rest of us consigned to the dumpster.  And so we must go out and strive to beat the lottery.  If we make it then we are quadruply entitled to adopt sanctimonious airs and wag the finger at those below on “the ladder to success.”
This may well be the final form of that American strain of Puritanism before it finally implodes under the dire pressures it glorifies.

Hyper-individualist Americans love to hear stories about the very best meeting with stratospheric success.  Striving to do one’s best is admirable, but this attitude is not compatible with successfully running a massive empire of 330 million souls who all get hungry and sick whether or not they are particularly useful to anyone.

Furthermore, as only a few can be successful in the scalable world, we ironically see a regression to mass mediocrity in everything from culture to services.  This is because the best possible performers do not come from a vacuum but are incubated by thriving local subcultures filled with other competent enthusiasts.  If only a few can succeed at something, the subculture that cultivated geniuses withers and ironically, the baseline for the elite performers declines.

The subculture of a field that contains relatively average people also supports the sort of refinement that can beget works of genius that stand the test of time.  The very best talent has colleagues as a preliminary audience through whom the works of genius filter down to the populace.  When we have a culture that worships “average is over” the elite .001% answer directly to the perfect democracy of the masses.  The natural output is endless remakes and prequels calculated to reap x millions of dollars with y minimal % of risk.  We are left with precisely calculated drivel churned out as if by a data-mining algorithm.  This is the apotheosis of a market culture that tries to maximize popularity while eliminating all concept of selectiveness and loyalty.

One of the challenges a new society must overcome in the post-industrial age is to figure out how to cultivate subcultures, and eventually actual castes that concentrate human potential in self-reinforcing ways.  The pathological individualism of “average is over” is ultimately the delusional idea that you can have a rose without the bush.  A post-Western caste system asks: “what kind of bush might produce the best rose.”

This is achieved by thinking of culture or any other kind of excellence as we might think of politics and government.  We can’t get the best performance or the best talent without having the right filters.  Even the decadent United States governs through representatives rather than direct mob rule and retains certain filters of the unadulterated popular will such as two senators for every state, the electoral college, or the absence of voting rights for children.

The important concept is no human endeavor can be successful without selecting and filtering specialized groups within society.  This is like the difference between a multicellular creature with organs and an undifferentiated primordial soup.  Every one of the organs within the social body has its own bell curve of performance and in any healthy living thing, the average is not over, it is the backbone.

Catalonia and Sovereignty

I have been aware of separatist movements in Europe for some years and I saw them as a weathervane indicating the general direction of politics and culture.  Brexit made me hold back on this thesis for awhile, but the tepid progress towards actually leaving the EU and now the resurgent talk of Catalonian independence confirms my initial intuitions.

Nations are made up of regions that in a perfect peaceful world would each be independent, their governments fully representing the wills of the locals.  As the aftermath of the Versailles treaty demonstrated, regions must combine into a tolerable nation for the sake of common security.
Once combined, the central government cannot easily allow regions to secede or it loses its legitimacy and a precedent is set for its complete disassembly.  Thus I understand the position of Lincoln in 1861 or of the Spanish government now.

However, the overall trend is nation-states are becoming far less relevant in the 21st century as most of the world is organized into interlinked economic zones.  The nations are still there with their armies, territories, legal systems and leaders but the reality is power is no longer neatly circumscribed by the borders of discrete sovereign entities drawn on maps in different colors.

For the purposes of international commerce separate political units are a nuisance.  We can imagine what it would be like going through customs every few miles or paying a fee to change currency to be able to buy anything.  There is little incentive for globalist rulers anymore to pay much attention to borders, except as it inconveniences the stupid local serfs who are still tied to the land.

To understand Catalonian “independence” we must understand they are not trying to gain sovereignty but only to change patrons.  With no threat of invasion, they are a relatively rich region with no need for a national government that funnels away their taxes into poorer regions.  They have every interest to signal they’d rather have direct allegiance to Brussels rather than Madrid.  They are like a toddler running to Daddy for protection, only to have him back up Mommy’s verdict.

The European movements for regional separation are mostly an attempt of regions to align with the larger economic zone instead of outdated nations whose protection is no longer needed.  None of these movements are succeeding though.  The regionalists are blocked by an intractable problem of modernity.  No region is really regional anymore.  For some time people from all over Spain and the world have congregated in Catalonia until the core going back centuries can no longer unite as a political whole.  Furthermore, a Spaniard in Barcelona probably has more in common with a resident of any worldwide city than an inhabitant of the Catalonian countryside.

As the experiment of regionalism falls flat as a political movement, people will begin to realize the key to modernity is a sort of techno-tribalism that unites by IQ, class, neurotype, and relatedness rather than some dumb flag people pretend to care about with tremendous heart-slapping sentimentality.  One of the most common sentiments I see online: “I have more in common with this alt-right guy far away from me than these assholes who live right next to me with their loud music.”  This is the future.

Fourth Generation Sovereignty

Why doesn’t the US take over Canada?  It doesn’t need to.  Both are seamlessly plugged into the same mass economy and international Western political and cultural system.  On maps, there is an independent, internationally recognized nation known as Canada but taking that too seriously is to misunderstand how the system works.

Before the Western powers twice committed mass suicide, power relationships were more explicit and required more direct maintenance.  Canada was little different back then except it was aligned with Britain instead of the US.  Instead of pretending to be a truly independent entity it openly called itself an affiliate of the British Empire.  Back then, as now, they sent their young men on command to fight pointless wars for their hegemon.  To suppose such a political unit is really sovereign when it does not even have its own foreign policy is, of course, a joke.

Most non-Western political units in the world were explicit territories of colonial overlords run at least at the topmost levels by imperial administrators.
Then, after WW2, we are told, all these subservient satrapies suddenly found their independence and the world lived happily ever after.

The former colonies established their own political systems but the new empire was founded on economics rather than politics.  The colonial administrators went home because they were no longer necessary.

The major powers needed only to entice the new local leaders into loan agreements with puppet strings attached.  If the new nominal countries had strategic resources, they often had no local infrastructure to exploit them.  Then they became dependent on international corporations to do the drilling and mining in hope of getting some crumbs.  The local leaders then owed their power to the resource extractors with their expensive equipment and engineers more than to their own people.

The old colonialism collapsed because it had become a bulky ideological affair and a big money loser.  Keeping colonies became an ostentatious display of national prestige instead of a profitable venture like it used to be.  The depletion of wealth after the World Wars and a worldwide depression in between them finally made this arrangement untenable.  Minimizing overhead, and maximizing profit was in again.  Allowing subject peoples nominal independence imposed all the costs and dangers of keeping order onto the local figureheads while they got to passively reap the benefits as absentee owners.

 Since the end of WW2 the state of affairs has more in common with the heyday of the British and Dutch East India Companies or the United Fruit Company with foreign affairs carried out primarily by economic actors working in conjunction with great powers.
In the earlier eras of economic imperialism the great powers supporting international extractive commerce were obviously sovereign entities acting with their own benefit in mind.

What makes our own age different is that the great powers are no longer clearly connected to anything we would consider a nation-state or even a well-defined empire with concrete borders.  The whole planet is fair game.  It is appropriate that those affiliated with this system of power are now often referred to as “globalists.”

I have stated before the thesis that in our age of fracture, political organization is both smaller and larger than the centralized bureaucratic nation-states we’ve taken for granted since the 1860s.  On the large scale we have vast economic zones that swallow up mere nations.  On the smaller scale we see actual sovereignty re-emerging in the form of tribes.  I call them “tribes” to contrast with 18th to 19th century ideas of ethnic groups or cultural groups monolithically united within the borders of one nation-state’s territory.

So far I’ve seen the term “fourth generation” used to refer to decentralized, non-state warfare.  I think this concept will apply to everything, not just warfare.  I see ISIS trying to found an Islamic state, a bunch of Kurdish enclaves across several different countries declaring themselves Kurdistan, growing separatist movements within the European Union, or now the emergence of the alt-right as signs of where we’re heading.

In the 21st century, having a nation-state is a strategic liability and an easy target.  A nation intrinsically defined by an unchanging territory and population can be isolated, blockaded, bombarded, or invaded.  A bunch of soldiers who put on official uniforms can’t act without making their permanent territorial unit a target for retaliation.  Even when they attack much smaller and weaker groups, they open the whole of their much larger group to counter-attack.  Soon there are many small, cohesive organizations that begin to overwhelm a mega nation that fewer care to be associated with anymore until it finally only exists on paper. 

If 1 US soldier charges across the Russian border screaming with bayonet fixed and randomly spraying on full auto, Russia technically could reasonably contemplate attacking New York City as a legitimate reaction. That soldier, if acting on orders, is a representative of all 330 million Americans.  In stark contrast, if one jihadi suicide bomber blows up some US soldiers there may be no clear idea of who to counter-attack or how to find them.

ISIS could set up in Nebraska and call it the Islamic State.  The Kurds could have Kurdistan in Oklahoma if they wanted to.  The Federation of Occupy could just have some moving tent towns.  Any of these polities would have far more real control over their affairs than Canada does.

The emerging neo-tribal, techno-tribal state exists firstly as its people, not as a territory its people are tied to.  They can choose to conceal their presence, influence the politics or not, stand and fight or try to set up elsewhere, they can be urban or rural as they please, gather all together or distribute far and wide across national borders and economic zones alike and still be united. 

The new tribes even if their members few in number and poor have a wealth of strategic options nation-states simply do not have access to.  They trade brute strength for maneuverability and flexibility, advantages that have been super-augmented by the information age.  Making this tradeoff is a winning strategy when nuclear weapons make massed brute force much less decisive than it used to be. 

It should have been immediately clear the old ways were over when US forces could not reconquer all of Korea after they decisively defeated the Chinese in combat or why the US could not simply crush North Vietnam or even shut down the Ho Chi Minh Trail supply lines that crossed international boundaries without serious political consequences.

Since then, organizations that have adapted to the post-nuclear, post-agriculturalist, post-colonial rules have met with astonishing success despite their relatively small sizes and limited resources.  Meanwhile, the nation-states have grown ever more sclerotic and impotent even as they dump infinite wealth into weapons systems that just sit there as their roads, hospitals, and power grids crumble.

The old nations are now easily outmaneuvered by both the globalists who manage the economic zones and by the techno-tribalists.  It is now a question of who ends up with the upper hand in a 4th generation age.  The new tribes began their rise as a counter to nation-states hobbled by the threat of nuclear weapons.  Now their fluid nature makes them suited to challenge an economic colonialism that is also nebulous by design.

The Problems of Secession and Dissolution

Frustrated dissidents often speak in favor of some kind of secession.  Sometimes they wish California seceded, other times they wish there was a new Southern Confederacy or just some kind of “White ethnostate” carved off from the rest of the country.  They also like to call for a dissolution of the United States.  They are tired of being stuck in a cosmopolitan declining empire.  Escape starts to seem like the best, easiest, most equitable solution.  The truth is there’s no easy way out.

Firstly, allowing the secession of California would be idiotic and disastrous.  The nation would be letting go of its best seaports, best farmland, best tourism, best economic productivity, its greatest cultural output and for what in return?
The peoples who took over California would be lavishly rewarded for their subterfuge and treason.  Such an easy victory for them would not mean peace in our time.  It would only embolden their advances into a crumbling empire that has signaled a pathetic unwillingness to defend itself.  If people think the US border is bad now, imagine if the whole length and width of California were added to it.

Independent California would be a hostile enemy nation constantly conspiring against the USA.  If we cynically suggest that’s no different than now, let’s consider this Californian state would be free to make its own foreign policy.  They would be natural allies of China.

Even if we imagine only limited city states ended up seceding instead of the entire state, they’d all have Chinese military bases on them in no time to guarantee their security.  And in a little time more, they’d magically end up with nukes so they could be North Koreas in America extorting the rest of the country for electricity and water.  The USA would never again have a whole continent to itself unchallenged by any other major power.  Any sort of Californian independence would go down as one of the greatest geo-political blunders in history.

The idea of secession from the USA is little better.  Cynics like to say we are oppressed and abused by the government now.  Imagine what level of abuse becomes possible if the dissidents are all in a new country the US doesn’t even have to pretend to rule.  They could impose sanctions, foment regime changes, send drone strikes while chuckling to themselves at how their opponents were kind enough to be easy targets in a perfect kill-zone.  Volunteering to be a smaller, weaker, nation right by a greater and more powerful one is dumb and disastrous.  

The secessionists would be deluded if they thought they’d be part of the legitimate world order just like Canada.  They’d be shocked how quick there would be UN resolutions declaring their new country a “rogue state.”  Aid from the “international community” would not be forthcoming.  Perhaps other “rogue states” around the world would send money and weapons but the result would just be a prolonged, bloody, pointless guerilla conflict for an increasingly isolated and impoverished territory.

Some might propose the peaceful separation of the United States into its consituent parts.  They’d be foolish though to think this arrangement would stay peaceful.  We can look at the dissolution of the Soviet Union as a good example.  Some parts of the old empire are bound to be more powerful than others if they are not divided up with the balance of power in mind.  Then the greatest remaining state constantly conspires against the weaker states surrounding it. 

We must also consider how alliances would fall into place.  Perhaps a New Confederacy and Midwest Republic would get along but would find themselves trapped in the pincer of hostile coastal states where more wealth is concentrated.  Canada would align with the remnants of the establishment powers while Mexico and the Narco-States would be opportunistic.

Of course, powers from other continents would have their proxy machinations in the divided states of America.  They would more likely support the Coastal Nations since so many of their investments are located in the major cities and because many are already members of the globalist empire.  Futhermore, just as in the US Civil War, the establishment alliance would likely end up with most of the naval power and be able to deny the Red America alliance access to its own international allies. 

The Red federation might even be allowed to exist so long as it dutifully sent its raw commodities to the coasts but it would never be allowed to grow too high or have the wrong sorts of leaders without being deftly pruned back.  In the end, flyover country would still be flyover country and the coastal cosmopolites wouldn’t even have to waste any time governing it anymore.  It would be like a very large Panama.

Thus even the dissolution of America would be another failed attempt to keep postponing problems that must be confronted and solved.  One empire and way of life must achieve total victory.  If the power of the Imperial Capital were completely broken, its international empire would unravel soon after.  If only weakened, the combined weight of the world’s liberal democratic, blank slatist regimes would reinforce it and slowly strangle all opposition once and for all.

One of the most common things right wing people say is “We just want to be left alone.”  There’s no such thing as being left alone.  A polity either has enough power to defend itself or it is subjugated by a stronger power.  Only on a North American continent where opposition was relatively weak after the early 19th century could such a notion be seriously thought of. Just imagine how expecting to be left alone would sound to Polish or Ukrainians?
The trucon cuckservative fantasy of noble retreat into wilderness fallout shelters must be tossed in the trash once and for all.  It is a pathetic, self-pitying, cowardly, failed idea.  Any successful group must completely focus on objectives that lead to decisive victory.

For the dissidents this lies in adopting the 4th generation mentality in every way.  The 19th century nation-state is a strategic liability in the 21st.  Worse, it is an obsolete political unit outside of a few major centers of power.  The US does not invade Canada, for example, because it has no need to.  Canada is already an integrated department of the economic empire.  It is better to forget about the hollow formality of lines on a map and instead operate within established cultural, legal, and political structures—and as in jiu jitsu—use the opponent’s own limbs and leverage against him while offering no easy way to hit back. 

The default ultimate goal should be to retain the entire territory of the US. Entertaining the idea of secession or dissolution is the reverse of how we should be thinking.

It should be incumbent on hostile and invasive groups to leave if they are displeased, not us.  Those allowed to stay would understand they live here at the good will of their generous hosts with no ability to participate in politics, finance, or any part of the state.  They would from then on be 2nd in line after core tribal members.

Worshiping White Women Is A Losing Strategy For the Dissident Right

One of the most frequent topics I see in the manosphere and alt-right is paeans to the superior desirability White women.  Alongside the writing are those same pictures of Baltic women in ethnic costumes no one wears for real anymore.  Then in the same breath I see rants about how these same women have terrible princess attitudes and are totally unsuitable for long term relationships or motherhood.  Then the next article on x site is always outrage that Blacks or Muslims are abusing White women.  What are they trying to accomplish by this?  Do they think their precious White women are going to come rushing back into their patriarchal arms in response to this rhetoric?  Do they think this will inspire other men?

These guys are prostrating themselves for the privilege of defending women who are not theirs.  They are trying to raise the status of women who are already looking down their noses from a mile-high pedestal.  This kind of foolishness played a significant role in making White Nationalism 1.0 a laughingstock.  There are millions of White men out there who have been frivorced, pounded down by the HR ladies at work, or just want a nice girlfriend.  Trying to talk to them about protecting the poor beautiful White wimminz is astonishingly tone deaf.  What the dissidents should be talking about is how they will help raise the artificially low status of ordinary White men.

On a primal level, any movement is successful because enough people are convinced they will get higher status.
The alt-right has been successful so far because it is the first group in decades to dare promote a positive self-image for Euro-Americans.  A people who have lived all their lives in a prison of collective guilt are amazed when sunlight they forgot even existed starts pouring in through a crack in the cold, damp rock walls.  It is a mistake though, to think heaping yet more praise on the women is part of the process of revival.

Women by their very natures are not truly members of any people.  They are heavily selected by nature to smoothly transition from one tribe to another whether by marriage or warfare.  White knighting is such a destructive force for nations because women have no nation.  They do not care where the high status men come from and they happily absorb the language and customs of wherever they happen to end up.   That blond-haired, blue eyed goddess who can do no wrong orgasms just as hard with the swarthy Mongol who burnt her village and slew all her Darwininan loser brothers.

The cuckish impulse to perpetually build up and defend feral White women

-Raises their value even higher, ensuring their fertility plummets even lower.
-Pushes away millions of White men who would otherwise be receptive.  Any idea that proposes sexual limitations on men who already have collective blue-balls and no hope of marriage or family is stone cold dead on arrival.
-Fosters a “one drop rule” that helps push even 3/4 white people into the coalition of the fringes, where they become a natural leadership class—making minority organizations far more dangerous than they otherwise would be.

Worship and protectiveness towards White women not only fails to win them back, this beta orbiter behavior only earns their contempt.  If the dissidents offer status to the men and engage in the conquest of hostile tribes, the woman problem solves itself.  In turn, men who sense they will get more sex and power are willing to pursue victory to the ends of the earth.

In this process, the bizarre Anglo-Saxon imposition of feminine race chastity onto men has to be discarded.  As long as humans have existed, the conquerers mate with the defeated people’s women.  Successful tribes want to control their pool of women but also let their Y chromosomes drift far and wide like dandelion seeds, if for no other reason as a pressure valve for internal tensions.  Then the mixed people who result all but beg to be janissaries and spies for the ruling tribe rather than defacto retainers of sacred minorities.  Then, over time, every generation is less “ethnic” than the last as the highest status group biologically wins each round.

In any case, we will know the alt-right has won when White male cuck porn is a popular genre and everyone tries to identify as Euro-American if they are 1/4 Euro and the Euros have stopped boasting about being 1/32nd Indian.

Podcast with Rob Stark: Status Mechanics and Alt-Right Aesthetics

http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=5701

Rob Stark deserves substantial credit in recent series of posts I have written on the sexual market and status as key forces in societies.  He likes to make suggestions and we’ll bounce some ideas off each other.  The result has often been ideas I deem worth developing in a post and which Rob sees sufficiently of interest for the next podcast.  I was actually reluctant at first to write on the sexual market again since that is a subject that has been well-covered in the dissident sphere many times over by people far better qualified to comment than I am.  But I came to realize discussing the matter with Rob that almost all treatments of the subject takes place on the individual level, rather than the macro-societal level.  Or, rather if the larger scale is mentioned, it’s to suggest how the individual could do better(i.e. expating to Eastern Europe.)  So then I agreed with him it was an area worth working on.
With the status and high school article, Rob shared useful sources on the subject such as Vincent Law’s article criticizing Chad Nationalism(linked to in high school article).  High school hadn’t been the first example of status systems on my mind so I credit both Rob Stark and Ulric Kerensky in helping to inspire that focus.  The subject kept coming up with them and around the web until I realized something about it was at the very heart of American culture.
Writing is a solitary endeavor requiring hours alone and self-motivation but I have found in recent months that discussion and collaboration are enjoyable parts of the creative process.

Sexual Markets:
The Macro-Sexenomics of Female Beauty
Macro-Sexenomics: Female Beauty Dysgenics in Modern Society

Status:
The Mechanics of Status
High School and Status in America

Aesthetics:
The Social Cosmology
The Alt-Sphere Should Embrace Culture and Aesthetics

All Focus on 2018 Midterms

There will be periodic excitement and panic but that should not distract from the next strategic bottleneck: the 2018 midterms.  Pretty much everything going on in politics should be seen in the context of the upcoming elections.  Last year, I predicted the next major step after Trump’s victory would be to somehow bring populist candidates into congress against establishment resistance.  To my relief, we are already seeing the first challengers step up and so far the support they need seems to be there.

It is tempting to fixate on the president, but he has been mostly neutralized until he has more support from within the system.  I will assume for now he’s not going to commit obvious political suicide by signing an illegal immigrant amnesty and what we’re seeing is more showmanship to get people angry and energized.  This posturing is hurting him, but with no good moves available, he may be gambling it will hurt congress more and keep things in turmoil for everyone.

Since Trump has little actual power in the government, the most meaningful litmus test is whether he acts to increase his power.  We will know he is still serious if he fully backs GOP challengers leading up to midterms.  Failing that, we can conclude with a high degree of confidence that he has resigned himself to spending his retirement as a ceremonial figurehead.

So far, it is promising that he has steadily distanced himself from Ryan, McConnell, and the GOPe since they humiliated him on the senate floor by getting his hopes up and then immediately sinking the healthcare debate.  I have also noticed Trump has spent far less time in a White House controlled by the permanent bureaucracy and the pentagon.  It is encouraging that the frequency of leaks has dwindled ever since he started shifting his base of operations.  Now, in the coming months, he needs to endorse candidates like Kid Rock.

As the mood gets doomier and gloomier I hear more people say “we can’t vote our way out of this.”  They are right that the underlying problems are systemic but if we are persistent we will find the political process is still useful enough.  In any case, there is no reason to allow the establishment free control over any battlefield.

People tend to forget what everybody accepted as common sense just a few months ago.  This human cognitive weakness makes it easy for us to forget the strategic value of gaining every political advantage only to have nothing happen.  In less than a year, the public attitude toward government has shifted from cautious, fading reverence to outright cynicism and disgust.  Even “normies” are starting to discuss whether this democracy is still viable.  The importance of this shift should not be underestimated.  From the perspective of a dissident, discrediting the edifice of hostile rulers is nearly as good as taking over the system.

So if we are patient and can ignore distractions and drama, we keep pressing until either the populists finally gain political traction or the entire system is shown to be a sham.  Either of those outcomes is a big loss for the ruling establishment.

Update 9/17/17: I hardly wrote about Trump needing to help friendly populist candidates only to discover he’s actually attacking them by campaigning for Luther Strange in Alabama!  If this nonsense persists, it will sink him as surely as an amnesty deal.
Acting directly against his own self-interest means that Trump is, for now, effectively a puppet.
Update: 9/26/17: Trump’s backing of Strange came across as rather half-hearted and he also said good things about Moore.  It looks like Trump is powerless for now but thankfully his cooperation in this seems by no wish of his own.  Bereft of any ability to affect the politics, he is now attacking the culture, which is upstream of politics, with devastating effect.  The NFL will never be the same after this.

Alt-Lite and the Weakening of the Merchant Caste

Since Charlottesville, most of the alt-lite has fallen into line and is back to to selling merchandise and maxing out their follower counts.  Nevertheless, a significant segment still seem to be flailing about in fury and confusion.  As I noted in my article about dissident factions, those making money from the spread of ideas tend to be unhappy when the fault lines shift.  The alt-lite’s business lies in being just edgy enough so whenever the edge moves they have to pick up and move their market stalls.  It’s especially annoying when they’ve written a book or a blog only to find it’s suddenly irrelevant.

I knew they would be indignant and that a great deal of this indignation comes from their self-image as the leaders.  But there has been more of a reaction than I was expecting, because like the establishment, they misunderstand their position in a changing ecosystem.  Furious that the core alt-right has asserted control over the rules of engagement there has actually been a foolhardy attempt at a takeover.  Needless to say, this attempt and its aftermath has been one of the most hilarious things I’ve seen on the internet in some time.

A faction best known for selling e-books, t-shirts, and supplement pills actually thought they had the social and political capital to co-opt a movement from those who have real organizations, go out in the streets, and take physical risks.  How is this?  This depth of childish miscalculation just doesn’t make sense until we examine on a cultural level.

Such delusional thinking is more understandable when we realize the mercantile caste of society has been ascendant since at least the French Revolution.  The obsession with equality that we take for granted is connected to the bourgeois attitude that the customer is always right and two men with the same amount of money in their outstretched palms are effectively the same, to be treated the same.  This attitude informs the obsession of the modern world with being popular and inoffensive above all else.  This attitude is so ingrained we run even our personal relationships like businesses.

Concepts like honor and loyalty seem like anachronistic ideas from old stories of knights and samurais, or even the creed of alien species like Klingons.  It has been so long since any other world view held sway, we have have forgotten any other way is possible.

We see a great example when alt-lite personalities discuss the alt-right as a “brand.”  They cannot yet understand anything other than the mass market.  Why would they?  The business of America is business.  The attitudes of the marketplace have dominated the culture of the USA and the entire West for centuries.
When we realize they are going by the rules that have worked for generations which we are all taught our whole lives, it is easier to understand why they are unable to adjust to a changing reality.

The enlightenment itself was a new value system for a rising merchant caste.  It is no coincidence that secularism’s original and eternal enemies are the aristocracy and the priesthood who stood in the way of advancement.  With widespread literacy and the dawn of an industrial revolution the old order of landed nobles backed by priests was obsolete.  Wherever the forces of modernity came into play, the merchants became the new ruling class.  Even Japan which was far away, culturally distant, and not exposed to modernity until much later went through the same developments as everywhere else.
A nobility and bureaucracy dominated by a hereditary warrior caste steadily fell from grace as wealth and influence went to the new captains of industry and commerce.

History has its longer cycles that are greater than the parochial span of a human life.  We reach a point where all the easy gains from colonies and industry have been taken.  In a mature, saturated world, the winnings go to the strongest.  In this kind of a world, warriors and barbarians bound by clans and honor re-emerge with a vengeance.

In our present transactional utopia we think money is the source of power.  The truth is money is a manifestation of power as light and heat comes from the sun.  The light is soon extinguished without its source.  The established merchant princes thought money alone could defeat an unusual challenger in the 2016 election and to their complete astonishment they failed miserably.  Likewise, a faction of the alt-lite thought wealth and popularity alone would be enough to take over an organically-formed group with ardent devotion to a clear mission.  These foolish modern magnates are not unusual in the course of history.
If you read Spandrell’s brilliant series of essays on the Song dynasty, you will learn how a mere 1,000 horse archers was enough to conquer the wealthiest nation on earth—a huge empire of millions.  We can also consider the Italian city states, which relied heavily on mercenary armies.  They were able to fight each other to a draw but when faced with real armies from real countries they never stood a chance.

The fundamental limitation of money is that all the money in the world is worthless to a dead man.  The currency of successful organizational violence is men who are willing to risk their lives.  This is a law of the universe so primal and obvious that the wealthy and the educated are bound to forget it.  As cultures of honor and prestige again take root, the cosmopolitan bourgeois will have to accept that they are no longer the natural ruling class of society just as the lords and the samurai once had to make way for them.  Like their predecessors, they can either accept their proper place in the hierarchy from where they can contribute, or they can go down fighting against the universe itself and maybe leave behind some tragic legends if they’re lucky.

The Alt-Sphere Should Embrace Culture and Aesthetics

“STEM! Trades! Moar STEM!” sums up most of what I see in dissident sphere discussions about what endeavors are worthwhile. This bias reflects the practical sensibilities of the upper working class core with its skilled tradesmen and small business owners.
The engineers and computer programmers of the dark enlightenment suffer from the same conceit, heartily recommending more of what they already do as the highest virtue.
Then in the same breath I see ranting and raging about how Jews make all the movies.  They recognize a weakness in themselves but they willfully get their priorities wrong. So long as they do that, nothing changes.

To be fair, I see commendable support for revival of the classics of the Greco-Roman world but this is part of a larger conservative trend to focus on the old without making anything new.
I also wholeheartedly agree with the reaction to degenerate modern art but a return to monolithic marble columns, sterile white statues, stuffy baroque decor, the 10^19th painting of St. Sebastian looking rather bored as he gets shot full of arrows, or heroic St. George spearing a pitiful, dog-sized dragon just brings us back to the origins of modern problems.

One of the obvious growth areas for alt-dissidents is culture and aesthetics, which are too often dismissed contemptuously as the province of soy-addled literature majors.  In reality, conceding this battlefield to the enemy is a grave strategic error that stems from wounded pride and class resentment.  

 No one is inspired by the artistic output of no-frills proles with greasy hands.  Even positive portrayals of the white working class such as biscuit and gravy Terran marines flying Confederate flags are created by SWPLs and Jews in the gaming industry.  Look at any actual worker’s revolution and we see the art is always grandiosely uninspired.  At their best, the common people can sustain a steady folk-culture.

Good aesthetics come from creative, high IQ people with high openness to novelty.  We can take a quick look at something as mundane as beer.  Proles drink watery lager and tend to stick to the same brand.  Meanwhile craft beer comes in dozens of different varieties and there’s always new ones to try.  IPAs in particular have distinct aromas from different blends of hops.  
As infuriating as the SWPL culture can be, it blows the combined might of the red states out of the water.  That’s part of the deceptively great power of culture—a small number of creative people easily overpowers and reprograms masses who are lesser in beauty and ideas.

In the current order, many creative people end up as hardcore social justice warriors.  The rulers only need to inundate those of heightened sensitivity with injustice porn and beautiful rainforests getting cut down from an early age to command their allegiance for life.  The creative people won’t listen to the arguments of the other side because the other side is ugly.  Until the emergence of internet countercultures, this kneejerk assumption was rarely challenged.

The rigid right-wing personality type, on the other hand, tends to unimaginatively double down on the enlightenment error of ignoring culture. Rightist rulers such as Franco, Salazar, or Pinochet successfully crushed open opposition as they blissfully let their opponents take over the universities.  Sepsis eventually spread to the officer corps and once that happens a right-wing ruler’s days are numbered.  

Even in the best case with Franco dying of old age after being in power for decades, the cultural and aesthetic reality of Spain had already aligned with the rest of the “international community.”  Now it’s just another Euro country with massive youth unemployment, waves of migrants, and abysmal fertility rates.

Fortunately, the mainstream culture now grows weaker and more insipid by the day as censorship and conformity stifles even the best creative types.  It’s become a meme to point out how even educated adults draw heavily on Harry Potter, a series of books written for kids, to make cultural references and analogies.
Hollywood movies have sunk into embarassing mediocrity with a lineup dominated by remakes of remakes and x superhero of the week.  Musically, there hasn’t been much memorable or distinct since the 1980s.
Strangely, television shows, which were largely mid-tier schlock as recently as the 90s are the last medium with any sort of vitality, and much of that is borrowed from dissident ideologies which as of yet can only be hinted at.  

There’s nothing to stop a burst of real creativity from challenging and displacing the established aesthetic.
Dissident dominance over the generation of memes and the realm of uncensored ideas already demonstrates just how sickly the mass culture really is.
A next step might be as simple as an alt-sphere literary magazine like many ordinary high schools have—or even a neighborhood band with an alt-right theme.  The important thing is ridicule and destruction only goes so far.  It should be clearly understood the birth of a new dominant aesthetic and culture is the larger strategic goal.

See Also:  The Aesthetics of Dominance

The Social Cosmology

Even as a kid, I noticed that the hierarchy of heaven suspiciously resembled the social organization of humans here on earth.  As an adult it is clear that the heavenly order is a metaphor for idealized human society.  Atheists might say religion is stupid and false.  Religion is true, though, in the language of symbols.  Symbols are very powerful because they are rooted in the collective consciousness—everyone intuitively understands them, even if they don’t know it.  Literal-minded modernists think themselves logical and above-it-all but in their pride they have deafened themselves to the deeper dialogue.  From politics to policies their initiatives backfire because they engineer structures without understanding the less tangible natural forces.

If heaven is the ideal social order of the rulers, hell is the concept of the ultimate counterculture.  In between lies earth where ordinary people are subjected to the ebb and rise of the great forces fighting for their souls.  In the social cosmology, the highest status people live in heaven and their most dangerous enemies are from hell.  As the ruler represents the state itself, there can be gods of other abstractions such as love, wisdom, or war.

About a decade ago I started intuitively thinking of cultural conflicts by this model of Zoroastrian/Christian dualism.  I realized that in a society of hundreds of millions of strangers, those known to all are best thought of as gods who are not people but divine representations of concepts and ideals.

Humans can only process around 150 personal relationships, the Dunbar number.  The demands of mass society are so astronomically beyond those limits, we need to repurpose our mental constructs to process our environment.

The memetic spaces that used to be occupied by polytheistic deities and animistic spirits are now used to comprehend entities whose every word is heard by millions.  This was how I came to understand people’s reverent attitudes to celebrities, athletes, or royal families who will never personally know or care about them.

Even where the stars are selfish and dysfunctional, it is little different than reading about Zeus’ serial infidelity and Hera’s spiteful revenge or Apollo getting his sister’s best friend killed out of jealousy and then punished for it with exile to the mortal world.

The reality show dynamic has an unmistakably mythological feel to it.  People are hard-wired to be receptive to archetypal human narratives about the interaction of abstract concepts because it has been a reliable means of transmitting complex ideas to simple, illiterate people since prehistory.

Cain and Abel have sibling rivalry fueled by jealousy that any of us can understand.  Through this conflict that culminates in the first murder, we understand the depth of the ancient rivalry between farmers and herders.  Trying to explain things logically is by comparison a very feeble way to communicate, especially back before everyone had modern levels of information exposure.

In modern times people still understand the world through these primal archetypes.  If you try to talk to the average person about the strengths and weaknesses of Trump’s policies, the conversation does not typically go far.  Trump is one of the great lords of hell since he has opposed the established order and acts contrary to the supposedly genteel manners of the ruling class.  If I try to explain Trump’s reasoning to someone aligned with the status quo, I may as well be trying to persuade a Christian that Lucifer had good reasons to rebel against God.

I have found this heuristic to be a very useful way of analyzing and predicting how a group will perceive the world.  Sure enough, those who see Trump as the devil have raised great idols to him that would not seem amiss in a traditional Balinese procession of demons.

Likewise, I thought of Hillary Clinton as a high goddess of the establishment and it proved to be an excellent way to model the social reality.  When she fell, it was clear from the reactions of overwhelming despair, even from people who reluctantly voted for her, that greater forces were at work.  They had witnessed nothing less than the fall of a goddess from the top of their pantheon and the ascent of a victorious devil.  Viewed in this context, the magnitude of their hysteria and the violent methods they are now willing to employ make a lot more sense.

From watching the cultural unraveling of 2016, the hierarchy more clearly revealed itself.  As far as I could figure it looked something like this:

Olympians:  Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, MLK, Harry Potter, Gandhi, John Lennon, Lincoln, Mandela, Dalai Lama, Mickey Mouse, Coca Cola, Apple
2nd Tier Gods: A list celebrities, Nancy Pelosi, Che Guevara, Noam Chomsky, Frida Kahlo, Zuckerberg, Daenarys from GoT
Angels/Mythic Heroes/Paladins of the Light: Actors, Musicians, Athletes, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, George Washington Carver, Susan B. Anthony, Betty Friedhan, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Steven Hawking, Jackson Pollock
Saints/Martyrs:  Malala, Emmet Till, Matthew Shephard, Anne Frank, Tibetans, Trayvon, Galileo

How they perceive hell:

Greater Evils: Trump, Hitler, Voldemort, Holocaust, KKK, Nazis, Putin, Russia
Lesser Evils: Bannon, Timothy McVeigh, Saddam Hussein, Columbine shooters, Goebbels, Himmler, Goering
Greater Demons/Dark Angels: Alt-Bloggers, podcasters, youtubers, twitter accounts who get millions of visits.  Alex Jones, John Wilkes Booth, David Duke, Dylan Roof
Demonic Centurions: Less popular internet personalities with a steady following, “neo-nazis”

I hesitate to try my hand at defining a dissident cosmology yet because it is still settling into place and none of the factions would agree.  Figures like Trump, Bannon, or Spencer play prominent roles in that hierarchy, but at the moment it’s hard to know if that will be true even next year.  Nevertheless I can guess at some of the divine archetypes.

The Holy: 40k’s God Emperor of Mankind, Kek/Pepe, Gnon, Dune universe, Men of Gondor and Rohan, Starship Troopers(Heinlein book), Space Marines, The Joker, Bane, Harrison Bergeron, Marcus Aurelius, Pinochet, the red pill

The Underworld:  Sauron, Uruk-Hai/Orcs, the Zerg swarm, Nurse Ratched, Grendel’s Mother, the Borg collective, Big Brother, Diana Moon Glampers, Trotsky, Lenin, Alinsky, the blue pill, Le Happy Merchant

That’s all of that I will do for now.  I feel like I’ve gotten the idea across.  Feel free to expand on it, critique or make your own in the comments.

See Also: Election 2016: The War In Heaven

High School And Status in America

Conventional wisdom tells us that we leave behind high school for adult life, a moral impressed on us with the bittersweet ending of every teen movie.  If we observe the real-life American culture it’s obvious that high school informs our attitudes about status for the rest of our lives.

After Charlottesville, one mainstream news article I read surmised “angry white boys…had no prom queen waiting at home.”  On the dissident side we see the meme of the Chad nationalist contrasted with the hapless virgin or the general idea of the teacher’s pet “shitlib” getting shoved into lockers by cool bullies and still being bitter about it as a hot-chocolate-sipping, pajama-wearing adult.  No matter what people believe, we always see references to the jailhouse hierarchy of high school.

There is a reason high school ridicule is as reliable a default as “small penis,” “can’t get a gf,” “lives in mother’s basement” is for angry women.  These insults endure because they are intended to hit people where it hurts most.  There are millions of men to whom the feminist stock insults at least partially apply in the most humiliating way.  High school is the same.  It speaks for itself that the most tender possible spot for many people is to even suggest that they were bottom-tier punks in kid prison.

Coming of age in high school teaches us at a critical formative time that the most athletic and outgoing people are the natural aristocracy of humanity, literally crowned as monarchs in school assemblies held in their honor.  The whole point is the elites are not particularly useful, specializing in showmanship and sales.  The golden people perform on the field while the subordinate bug people line up to adore them in a synchronized marching band.
Status competition in a royal court is all about currying favor while those merely useful are but tools in the games of those who matter.

This sets up the narrative that defines the rest of our lives.  We must accept our places as cogs in a machine to uplift widely smiling “personalities” secure in their status while we must push hard against the gears around us to stay where we’re at.

The football players get to enjoy sultry virgins as callow teens while those who go sexless spend the rest of their lives striving for the left-overs as cubicle-farm underlings.  While the golden ones start out with society’s highest rewards, the rest must prove themselves worthy of diminished value through a years-long slog.

Resentment of the jocks plays no small role in kneejerk upper middle class resentment of Donald Trump.  He reminds them of crass school bullies who scored with their first crushes—a source of panic and pain their cultural enemies love rubbing their faces in to pay them back richly for their airs of studied contempt.

We should understand though, SWPL posturing is so persistent and insufferable because of status anxiety.  As the urban upper middle class, they far outrank the working classes yet they still stew in rankling jealousy.  Rather than take up the mantle of noblesse oblige as a secure lesser aristocracy might, they never miss a chance to dump their chamber pots on their low-ranked brethren.

High school inflicts Americans with a bizarre status schizophrenia.  On one hand, the culture feeds us a silly myth that the quarterback ends up bagging groceries while the unpopular kids become Silicon Valley billionaires.  Of course, this is an attempt to assuage the losers, much like religions telling the poor they’ll finally win after they’re dead.  In real life even highly paid STEM professionals can end up getting ordered around by Biff Tannen who got into the right fraternity and got connected with type A alums.  While SWPL America is relatively high status, they are smug and callous about it because they sense somewhere deep in their marrow that all is not as it appears.

Another status conflict can be seen in hostile alt-lite reactions to alt-right activism.  The most popular elements of the counter-culture see popularity itself as proof of their worthiness just as they would have back in high school.  We will never fail to see grand boasts of how many copies of x book have been sold or how many views they get or what publications they’ve been mentioned in.  The culture of high school is akin to culture of marketing and this is no mistake.

High school reflects the values of the merchant and managerial classes who have ruled since they beheaded, deposed, and out-earned the hereditary aristocracy.
This makes it hard for most to even grasp the concept of groups founded on principle and loyalty.  After all, standing on principle against popular sentiment in prison only gets met with a beatdown in the shower room.  It’s not much different at school or on the job.

This mindset is now being challenged by an incipient warrior class supported by an aspiring priesthood.  Dissident merchants are doing their part but they don’t yet understand they can no longer lead the hierarchy.  This is causing them cognitive dissonance every step of the way as the nature of the movement grows more clear.  Marketers who can attract millions of views have great strategic strength but their weakness is that of all those millions, hardly any would risk their lives or reputations.  At some point, meaningful action requires serious personal risk and sacrifice.

It is past time to abandon the dysfunctional zero sum non-culture high school initiates us into for a real society capable of giving the best rewards to the best and able to recognize virtues besides marketplace self-interest.  If Euro-descended peoples ultimately fail to face this challenge, they will have justly earned a cozy spot on the trash heap of history.

See Also:
Vincent Law: Chad Nationalism Is A Bad Idea
Robert Stark Interviews Vincent Law
Ulric Kerensky: The Judgment of High School
Abolishing Compulsory Schooling
Referred to National Review Story, Angry White Boys, don’t want to link to them.

 

The Mechanics of Status

Social status is a force enlightenment thinking fails to incorporate into its model of reality, like anything else that is not readily empirically validated.

Yet nothing humans do can be understood without understanding status.  Humans are very much like other social creatures.  Monkeys and dogs have status hierarchies similar to what people have, but we can never look at this objectively because the enlightenment religion insists humans are blank-slate rational agents separate from the rest of nature.

Status does 2 main things for people:

-Enables reproduction with desirable mates.

-Increases odds of survival.  When a famine hits, social status decides who dies first once there’s no longer enough food for everyone.

Penguins have a behavior in Antarctic winter storms where they cluster tightly and inividuals rotate from the center of the group to the edges and then back again when they get cold.

Humans are like penguins except we typically stay near wherever in the group we’re at.  The elite stay insulated in the center at all times while the losers live their whole lives on the fringe taking the full brunt of the Antarctic blizzard.  They are always one small emergency away from death and when some of them fall by the wayside, no one cares.

When we understand this core fact about the human condition.  All the fashions, class anxiety, shameless imitation, and sucking up is suddenly decoded.  We’re all descended from people who could beg the last crumbs off the bread merchant while the other poor loser with less appeal went hungry and died.

This is like the pressures exerted on domesticated dogs.  Every last one has the ability to look sad and shamelessly beg for scraps seared into its genetic code with a white-hot blowtorch.

We need only see how people move in herds when it comes to clothing, opinions, jobs, politics to understand how the group life has selected for human behavior.  Otherwise, no one would be willing to work 40+ hours a week wasting their lives on things they hate so they can have the house, car, and new clothing required for basic respectablity.

One of the most extraordinary things about human nature is a typical person who would be happy to just eat doritos and watch TV can easily be made to labor 12 hours a day if they think they can get social status that will keep them safe, make people like them, and get them laid.  Humans, like all living things, are lazy by nature but when they feel they must they toil like worker bees.

An instinctive need for status powerful enough to turn a couch potato into a workaholic is an obvious, low-effort lever of mass control that only secular societies are stupid enough to ignore.  As a result, parasites are free to hack the status system with no fear of punishment, ultimately bringing the whole structure down in flames once degenerate psychopaths crowd the top of the pyramid.

A functional society guards the avenues to status as jealously as the state guards its monopoly over violence.  High status people are models everyone else follows, especially in a modern society where the most famous people are known to everyone and god-like in their social influence.

Manipulating the status system is more effective and far less energetically expensive than direct coercion.  Most people do not have the level of abstraction to understand this form of control let alone begin to resist it.  Thus as the state is downstream of society, status shaming is upstream of state violence.

The successful ruler relies on shaming and social demotion 90% of the time with state coercion and books of laws only resolving outliers.  The silly secular society tries to reverse this ratio, with predictable results.  The establishment now tries to shame people back into obedience but that doesn’t work as well as it used to when most people are rootless individuals just living for a paycheck.

Recently, an angel was cast down from the upper middle class layer of Heaven called Silicon Valley.  Instead of transforming into a vile demon doomed to live in hell, James Damore found instead that he was rewarded with far more status and fame than Heaven ever offered him.

Many have pointed out that Damore will probably take a huge hit to his usual 300k-a-year salary, but money is valuable in relation to social status.
An upper middle class programmer makes more money than an upper prole policeman but is lower status in much of society, especially in the eyes of women.
Programmers are stereotyped as wimpy, socially awkward dweebs.  However they may be paid, they are hirelings with no power to speak of.  Although cops are disliked by many, they enjoy a certain prestige because of their power to administer controlled violence.

Status is linked to power and money alone is just one form of power that generally has to be used with other forms of influence.  As the election of Trump demonstrates, money is not enough when the status game has been lost.  Someone like Damore who has lost money but gained status, will probably be able to translate his influence into riches anyway.  Money is a proxy for resources, high-status people get first dibs on resources and mates in every society from hunter-gatherer bands to massive nation-states.

Observations Leading Up To Bannon Resignation

I will break with my usual habit of waiting for things to settle down a bit and indulge in some speculation.  At this point, things may not settle down for quite awhile.

Over the last few weeks I have observed that Trump has been spending progressively more time away from DC operating out of Bedminster and Trump Tower instead.

My suspicion is this behavior is entirely intentional, especially since it seems to have increased the moment General Kelly was moved to the White House.  I also noticed the media is attacking Trump over the length of his absences.  Trump has pointed to convenient renovations going on in the White House as justification, assuring the public that affairs of state are proceeding as usual.

Now, this behavior pattern has continued for weeks and could become the new normal.  Once one 17 day “work vacation” ends we shouldn’t be too surprised as another excuse is contrived with Trump only commuting to DC for several hours at a time as needed.  Meanwhile, it seems as though the leaks have abruptly stopped.

With this development, it is far less surprising to me that Bannon is leaving a White House that is no longer Trump’s center of operations.  Both men have found the DC swamp to be intractable and are now trying to gain leverage from outside it.

As far as I can tell, Trump tried his utmost to work with the Republican party establishment, backing their legislative initiatives to the hilt so they could accumulate some political capital for midterms.  Over time the tone of Trump’s tweets shifted from praising Paul Ryan’s leadership to criticizing Congress for not keeping promises they had made for years.

The final break happened when McCain cast the vote to get Obamacare repeal to the debate stage in the senate.  McCain then cast the vote to kill the debate as if to say “Just kidding!”  This public humiliation on the senate floor was finally too much.  The GOPe had openly admitted they would drag their feet indefinitely in order to wreck the president.  With midterms just over a year away, there was no more time to waste.

Trump brought in an outside consultant to sack his ambassador to the GOP starting a crazy chain of events that continues to cascade.
Furious that Trump was going off script even with McMaster there to “guide” him the beltway generals made sure Kelly got moved to chief of staff for good measure so the “pentagon boarding party” could keep the White House under lock and key.

Trump reacted by starting to contrive excuses to be away most of the time where he is likely establishing his own control structures with people he trusts. 

This time, when the president broke free of the generals to make an independent statement on Charlottesville, they had no immediate way of shutting him down.  Kelly was there, but as his despondent reaction revealed, he was powerless to intervene when unmoored from his place of power. 

With the GOPe’s strong condemnation of Trump’s statements and apparent support for tearing down historical monuments, all pretense of civility has been dropped.  They have hugely overextended with their unpopular positions and have created an opening for Trump to start displacing them in the upcoming midterms.

I am seriously wondering if I now see what may effectively be the emergence of two rival executive branches.  One run by the Pentagon, political establishment, and corporations in DC and another run from New York.  Perhaps we will get to see which is Rome and which is Avignon.

On Alt-Sphere Reactions to Charlottesville

I previously wrote about the elements of the alt-sphere and their natural roles.  In the aftermath of Charlottesville the reactions I’ve seen are somewhat unsurprising.  Fish in a coral reef do not understand how they fill a niche in a larger ecosystem.

Most prominently the alt-lite and much of the manosphere went into complete freakout mode as soon as the news emerged.  The airwaves were full of screeching about how “bad optics” and “naivety” have forever tarnished a new conservative civic-nationalist movement.

It made me smile when I found largely supportive reactions on sites like Breitbart and the_donald where lots of red-state normies hang out.  Fox news was blaring on about “white supremacists” but from what I was hearing, the commentariat wasn’t buying it.  The alt-lite was far less supportive than plenty of people who would never associate with alt-anything.

The alt-lite meltdown makes sense when we remember they are the dissident marketing and PR department.  Their mentality is all about building a brand and getting as large an audience as possible.  Their way of thinking is consistent with commercially-oriented American culture so they do not easily understand the mindset or objectives of the other dissidents.

Because alt-lightists have by far the largest mainstream exposure they see themselves as the true alt-movement and any other factions as lesser hangers-on.  The impact of Charlottesville infuriates them because it challenges their notion of being CEOs and shoves the truth in their face that they are in fact the far less glorious marketing department.  In truth, it is the soldier class of the alt-right that have the power of executive action and this is too much for them to bear right now.

The marketers will always be upset when there is a major change.  They like a predictable steady environment to build their followings and sell supplement pills.  Whenever the gravy train hits a bumpy section of track, they will be very unhappy about it.  But there’s nothing they can do either because their role is inherently passive.  The way to deal with the alt-lite is not to get mad or try to disavow them.  Just let them blow off their steam for a few days as they adjust their brands to market changes.

A civic nationalist on twitter with hundreds of thousands of followers might scream about how nazis have killed the movement in all caps but it’s the nature of who they are to walk back their heated statements just hours later as they sense a sea change rolling in.  3 days and 300 tweets later, nobody even remembers their initial rage.  They are best left on their own to do their job.  The alt-right soldiers through their actions have shown they effectively control the terms of engagement for the alt-lite.

The NRx reaction to Charlottesville has been a bit more complex.  I’ve gotten an overall sense of disapproval from them.  I think the class divide is very important here.  The stereotypical neo-reactionary in my mind’s eye is a gen-x computer programmer, IT guy, or engineer with a hint of baldness and 1-2 kids at home.  They are patient and cautious types who are reluctant to take bold risks.  They also have a tendency to look down on and counter-signal anything that seems remotely working class which many of the alt-right soldiers certainly are.  NRxers are typically comfortable financially and socially so they tend not to understand the urgency and anger felt by the other dissidents—or at least they don’t share it on a gut level.

A common NRx criticism I’ve seen of Charlottesville is that it has distracted from Damore’s firing from google over his politically incorrect memo.  They are correct to identify this event as being hugely important.  The first cracks are showing at the top tiers of the upper middle classes.  The NRx critics betray their SWPL affinities when they insist Damore “did it the right way” by being mild-mannered and going through the right channels to get his message out.

Faux-polite office politics only applies to the middle classes and above.  I see the google memo as one prong of a double-sided attack in the last week, one for each half of the social spectrum.  Therefore, I think it is to misunderstand the social situation to insist that Charlottesville and Googlememo compete with each other when they are in fact synergistic forces.

Even NRxers sometimes mock each other over “passivism” the idea that a group can come to power by becoming worthy to rule.  I think it’s a very legitimate concept in the right context.  History is full of revolutions that just made things even worse.  It’s hard to build something worthwhile and easy to complain and wreck things.  The neoreactionaries are on the right track in thinking about how to build a new social order as the present society crumbles.  They have their own important role—there’s no need for them to compete with the front line soldiers.

As for red-pilled progressives, I am not sure if we can continue to call them alt-leftists.  That namespace seems to have been appropriated by President Trump to refer to antifa gangsters.  Whatever we may call alt-leftists, the forces unleashed by Charlottesville and googlememo ensure that more SWPL men will be disillusioned and forced to choose sides as they realize the politically correct society will have no mercy on them no matter how they signal even as they continue to struggle with college debt and see their wages driven down by endless waves of H-1B Indians and Chinese.

Charlottesville Will Help Alt-Dissidents

Right now the dust is still settling and people are still wrought up and that is a good thing. There are lots of objections and black pills.  I will address some:

They had bad optics!
Nothing they could have done would have assuaged their opponents in the least.  This has been proven ad nauseum.  Internally discourage the worst excesses like Nazi flags, Wehrmacht helmets, or anything KKK, but otherwise let it go.  Charlottesville should be enough to bury thoughts of appeasement for good.

But they did x thing wrong!
In making a move from the internet into meatspace lots of stuff is going to go wrong.  Real life is sloppy.  Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.  Remember how many panicked said it was the end of the world when Spencer said “Hail victory, hail Trump?”  That was a mistake, but everyone learned from it quickly and used the real-life feedback to adjust their strategy.
The important fact of Charlottesville is we saw an internet-based movement make a major transition into physical space.  That’s all that will matter.  Armchair generals gonna armchair.  They will always handwring over what could have been better while others go out and do things.

Trump Didn’t Help!
Mainstream political figures can’t overtly sympathize with those on extreme ends of the spectrum.  Do we ever see someone like Hillary Clinton praising the antifas?  Of course not!
Politicians deal with extremists in their coalition by pretending they don’t exist.  Trump refused to explicitly condemn the alt-rightists and that’s all that is needed, or can be reasonably expected from him.  Just imagine what the situation would be if Hillary Clinton were in power instead?  I don’t think the public emergence of the alt-right would have been politically possible.  Had it even been attempted, the leaders would have ended up in jail.  We’d have been busy fighting to prevent Chinese-style internet censorship and thereby losing even the ethereal platform we have.
A favorable leader gives the extremists a tacit nod that they will be unopposed as long as they don’t cross certain lines.   Then it’s up to the fringe political operators to achieve their objectives with the slack they’re given.

They Were Naive! What did they think would happen!
The whole point has been to play by the letter of the rules, one rule at a time so eventually an approach of moderation and appeasement becomes totally indefensible.  In this respect, Charlottesville is a brilliant success.  No one can ever again seriously argue that being more conciliatory is a reasonable approach.  This will ultimately force many fence-sitters squarely into the radical camp.

Now the Normies Hate Us! 
The vast majority of people go along to get along so long as their bread and butter isn’t immediately threatened.  They’d rather watch netflix, have a normal social life, and feed their families.  They can be thought of as neutrons.  Maybe they collectively have a weak gravitational pull but are otherwise inert.  The interaction of the charged particles is what matters.  As the course of the mainstream changes, those who go with the flow change with it.  So long as there is at least one significant demographic that is somewhat sympathetic towards the radicals, they’ll be fine.  Comments on Breitbart and the_donald suggest to me the necessary support is there.

This Proves the Institutions Are All Against Us!
This only disillusions people even more. Charlottesville even redpills people regarding the cops.  Until now it’s been a common sentiment on the right that law-enforcement will be on their side.  This expectation has now been proven horribly wrong.  At first, many may react with despair as each established institution lets its mask slip when pressured.  In the long run, it helps destroy the legitimacy of the system as its true nature is methodically exposed in all its facets.  The vast majority will just keep going to their day jobs no matter what happens but there is a proper audience that sees what’s happening and cares.  Even if they do nothing, it is essential to have a base of sympathizers. Even making ordinary, contented people feel the system is no longer infallible or the best possible way of life is enough.

The Deaths Will Drown Out The Message!
The people who got ran over make sure the story is on the front page of every publication and everyone’s heard of it.  Hillary Clinton’s alt-right speech made normal middle class people aware of an alt-right consisting of civic-nationalist infowars and breitbart.  Now the public has been introduced to the ethnic-identitarian alt-right as a movement.  Simply entering into the mainstream consciousness is a major milestone and implicitly expands the window of political views.  Breitbart is not longer the farthest, scariest edge before you reach the KKK.
That the accident took place as someone panicked while under attack means the alt-right can’t really be blamed for it.  A deliberate attack by an alt-rightist would have been a genuine disaster and of course that’s what they were hoping for, but they didn’t get it.
They can spin it so many people, who are implacably unfavorable anyway, think nazis are out to run people over, but they can’t actually do anything to perpetuate it more than a couple news cycles or get the leverage to force Trump to denounce the alt-rightists.

Overall:
Charlottesville was a significant strategic victory for the dissidents even if some might see it as a tactical defeat.
They conclusively proved for anyone who was receptive that the established order cannot be reasoned with.  At the same time, the core groups are energized by the official beginning of white civil rights.
For everyone else, they only need to be known.  Being a household name will be all that matters in getting them future international attention and recognition.

Update 8/16/2017: Every time before the antifas have engaged in a strategic action and then immediately melted away.  This kept it so most Americans hadn’t really heard of them.   The C’ville protest has triggered them into staying out in plain sight where they are massively overextending by lashing out with no long term strategy.  This has against my wildest expectations allowed the president to publicly denounce them.  This is  a huge victory for alt-dissidents!  The establishment has either lost control of their thugs or they have been baited into revealing their true nature in front of millions.  Humiliated in 2016, they are further exposed as both weak and incompetent.

Macro-Sexenomics: Female Beauty Dysgenics In Modern Society

When the most beautiful women tend to go to the universities and the cities to chase the most successful men, their fertility is necessarily delayed.  They are then lulled into complacency by an endless stream of adoration and awards even as their best days evaporate.

Meanwhile, a plain girl with no equivalent cascade of brain-hacking reward signals sooner cashes in her more clearly finite pile of chips and has a family.  For some reason those girls who got pregnant in high school always seemed to be the chubby, ugly ones.  With no line of admirers awaiting them, there was no reason to delay past the first male willing to rut with them.  Their homeliness turned out to be the greatest fitness advantage in this upside-down modernity in perfect inverse to our primal desires.

Cities have always been gene-shredders, only made possible by the abundant fecundity of the countryside. When the prettiest women are carted en masse into these kill zones the society sacrifices them so they can grace the harems of the mandarin classes in sterile splendor for a short while.
For a woman who lives by her beauty, pregnancy is just an obstacle to her aims of securing adulation, power, and money from men. The game itself becomes untied from its biological objective of children.

How many jaw-dropping starlets have we seen end up barren because their very job is the appearance of eternal availability as a mate?  The moment, she sports a baby bump, she’s never lusted after the same, that irresistible power over powerful men, that unrelenting dopamine surge never to return.

Actresses and entertainers are outliers, but there are millions of pretty young women who have much to gain by staying barren in the short term.  Then some short terms later, their term is up, all the prizes they thought they had won but a vapor at midnight when the spell is broken.  Then their bloodlines are lost to us forever, or at best below replacement as those species with unassuming dun-colored plumage endure.

Never do we seem to consider that beautiful women are some of the most valuable social capital of all.  Just by existing, the group’s men are motivated to the heights of achievement and the best men from other tribes want to join in. 

As with superiority in painting or sculpture, the prettiest women help establish legitimate rule over lesser peoples through dominant aesthetics. 

Female beauty is not just ornamental but an inspiring force that backs the power of money to drive the massive gears of the economy as much as gold ever did. 

Any serious society sees it worthwhile to select for female beauty, in sharp contrast to the present dysfunctional order that aggressively purges the prettiest from the gene pool.

Somehow, modern societies must actively perpetuate and grow their socio-sexual wealth.  
Furthermore, society’s greatest rewards must be funneled to the most valuable men.  A smart tribe in modern times makes sure to hook up successful inventors with supermodels and intuitively cockblocks charismatic charlatans.

The obvious methods of implementation rely on outright coercion but as I’ve pointed out, patriarchy is hard to restore in post-scarcity, post-agrarian, high-information conditions.  Women are better at cooperation than men.  From the telegraph onwards, instant communications meant male political hegemony was dead. 

Many have noted the single great weakness of women, though, is their susceptibility to public opinion and custom.  If the status system can be rigged, the sharia police can be saved a lot of effort. 

The female imperative has some sense of indignation when it is being strategically diverted, as the feminist allegory, The Stepford Wives demonstrates, but against the right suggestive pressures they are as powerless to stop it as men are powerless to stop their own lust and sexual jealousy from being used against them.

Reclaiming male selection for female beauty relies on males’ ability to capitalize in turn on the foibles of the opposite sex in the information age while preferably limiting coercive strategies only to where they are most effective and necessary.

Failing that, humans will perhaps start to revert to a tournament species where a dozen dashing males fight for the attention of one drab female until the edifice of enabling technology finally collapses.

%d bloggers like this: