Control the food, and you control the people – but control the sex, and you destroy European culture

the arguments advanced to justify an explicit U.S. policy now of encouraging a specific universal limit on family size (as distinguished from proposals aimed selectively at welfare recipients and racial groups) center mainly on two propositions:

1) That continued U.S. population growth will inevitably cause a deterioration in the quality of life of this and future generations; this can be described as the ecological position.*

2) That an explicit U.S. policy to encourage or compel smaller family size in the U.S. is necessary to enable our government effectively to encourage or compel developing nations to move in similar directions; this may be termed the international public relations position.

Continue reading

Posted in political economy | 7 Comments

Whose Property Would Jesus Destroy? Whose Property Would Jesus Confiscate?

Ethical philosophies (as far as I can tell) are just rationalizations. First we decide what we’re going to do, and then we rationalize why it’s the right thing to do, and then we go out and do it. Frequently what we’ve decided to do involves violence of some kind, so practical ethics usually boils down to rationalizations for the use of violence.

Ex-Army has thrown down the ethical gauntlet by posting a lengthy, rather complicated ethical treatise from none other than Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

I truly don’t understand the treatise. Nor do I understand why Ex-Army endorses it. From what I can tell, Ex-Army likes girls who shoot guns, and that’s about it. Surely Ex-Army should endorse a philosophy of Gunpowder Girl-Power. There’s probably an explanation for why Ex-Army endorses Hoppe, but I can’t focus my brain on it. Hoppe is not a girl, and he’s not posing with a gun. The cognitive dissonance might force me to pass out in front of some anime.
Continue reading

Posted in political economy | Leave a comment

If you want an unapologetically masculine story … I recommend Terra Formars

Men, especially young men, have a great deal of raw rage that does not fit into modern civilized capitalist society.

The class divide is harsh, and getting harsher.

No one has any use for men with raw rage.

Men have few (if any) trusted friends.

Men are trapped in dead-end “careers” which often amount to starvation.

Western sci-fi generally ignores male frustration and sells girl power.

But if you happen to watch anime, check out Terra Formars.

I have no idea whether the story is going to be worthwhile, but it’s definitely the manliest anime I’ve seen in a long, long time.

What I like about it is that it avoids the mistake made by Space Brothers, which presented an alienated genius trying to prove himself worthy of the society that rejected him.

Terra Formars takes a very different tack. It says, “Don’t bother fitting in with civilized society – try to survive on a dangerous frontier! Strive to exterminate huge, deadly beasts that are more vicious than wolverines. They will try to exterminate the human species; humans must exterminate them or perish.”







Posted in aesthetics | Leave a comment

Kunstlerkampf (both emotional and financial)

Somebody needs to tell Kunstler that the Manosphere is already having the conversation that he wants to hear.

Kunstler wrote:

The young men are out there somewhere in the country towns, but this society increasingly has no use or no place for them, except in the army. There is absolutely no public conversation about the near total devaluation of young men in the economic and social life of the USA, though there is near-hysterical triumphalism about the success of young women in every realm from sports to politics to business, and to go with that an equal amount of valorization for people who develop an ambiguous sexual identity.

There really is no local forum for public discussion in the flyover regions of the USA. The few remaining local newspapers are parodies of what newspapers once were, and the schools maintain a fog of sanctimony that penalizes thinking outside the bright-side box. Television and its step-child, the internet, offer only the worst temptations of hyper-sexual stimulation, artificial violence, and grandiose wealth-and-power fantasies.

Kunstler needs to be advised that the Internet includes the manosphere, and the manosphere is alive and kicking.

In fact, the manosphere is so vibrant and dynamic that while I was composing this post, Anti-Gnostic beat me to the punch:

Kunstler is mostly talking about the emotional exclusion of men, but there is also the financial oppression of men to consider.

Read ‘em and weep:

… some say that the minute money is the reason for being a Soldier, it’s time to leave. Not sure I agree, but I understand the point.

At this point, the military is taking more from me than I feel I’m getting. I need for freedom and flexibility, not only more money. At the 8 week school from which I just returned, I needed to do “risk assessment” paperwork and send it up through the chain of command, just so I could go hiking on the mountain trails a few miles away from my barracks. Supervisors everywhere in the Army need to inspect Soldiers’ cars before every long weekend, filling out paperwork to document the inspection. I need to doing online training and fill out paperwork just to drive beyond a certain distance from my post. That’s not freedom to me.

Military discipline is enforced first and foremost by the employment of fear. This, too, takes a toll. One grows weary of worrying about walking on the grass, having his hair touching his ears, or being one minute late to a formation. And in the Army, these things take precedence over many important skills that a Soldier may have.

Incompetent, alienated bureaucracies use fear, misinformation, and injustice to trample the man in the street. The backlash may be a long time coming, but it does come.

As Texas Arcane recently wrote:

The people who run the world ultimately are not as interested in money as they are in causing misery. If they had to forfeit a lot of money just to insure a lot more misery they’d take the loss.

In a less decadent system, soldiers are forced to obey stupid, meaningless orders for years, in order to select the soldiers who are willing to obey no matter what. But once such a system decays, soldiers are made miserable simply because the people in charge are decadent madmen.

Posted in battle of the sexes | Leave a comment

Homage for Carmen Segarra

The reporter, Jake Bernstein, has obtained 46 hours of tape recordings, made secretly by a Federal Reserve employee, of conversations within the Fed, and between the Fed and Goldman Sachs. The Ray Rice video for the financial sector has arrived.

First, a bit of background — which you might get equally well from today’s broadcast as well as from this article by ProPublica. After the 2008 financial crisis, the New York Fed, now the chief U.S. bank regulator, commissioned a study of itself. This study, which the Fed also intended to keep to itself, set out to understand why the Fed hadn’t spotted the insane and destructive behavior inside the big banks, and stopped it before it got out of control. The “discussion draft” of the Fed’s internal study, led by a Columbia Business School professor and former banker named David Beim, was sent to the Fed on Aug. 18, 2009.

It’s an extraordinary document. There is not space here to do it justice, but the gist is this: The Fed failed to regulate the banks because it did not encourage its employees to ask questions, to speak their minds or to point out problems.

Just the opposite: The Fed encourages its employees to keep their heads down, to obey their managers and to appease the banks. That is, bank regulators failed to do their jobs properly not because they lacked the tools but because they were discouraged from using them.

The report quotes Fed employees saying things like, “until I know what my boss thinks I don’t want to tell you,” and “no one feels individually accountable for financial crisis mistakes because management is through consensus.” Beim was himself surprised that what he thought was going to be an investigation of financial failure was actually a story of cultural failure.

Any Fed manager who read the Beim report, and who wanted to fix his institution, or merely cover his ass, would instantly have set out to hire strong-willed, independent-minded people who were willing to speak their minds, and set them loose on our financial sector. The Fed does not appear to have done this, at least not intentionally. But in late 2011, as those managers staffed up to take on the greater bank regulatory role given to them by the Dodd-Frank legislation, they hired a bunch of new people and one of them was a strong-willed, independent-minded woman named Carmen Segarra.

I’ve never met Segarra, but she comes across on the broadcast as a likable combination of good-humored and principled. “This American Life” also interviewed people who had worked with her, before she arrived at the Fed, who describe her as smart and occasionally blunt, but never unprofessional. She is obviously bright and inquisitive: speaks four languages, holds degrees from Harvard, Cornell and Columbia. She is also obviously knowledgeable: Before going to work at the Fed, she worked directly, and successfully, for the legal and compliance departments of big banks. She went to work for the Fed after the financial crisis, she says, only because she thought she had the ability to help the Fed to fix the system.

In early 2012, Segarra was assigned to regulate Goldman Sachs, and so was installed inside Goldman. (The people who regulate banks for the Fed are physically stationed inside the banks.)

The job right from the start seems to have been different from what she had imagined: In meetings, Fed employees would defer to the Goldman people; if one of the Goldman people said something revealing or even alarming, the other Fed employees in the meeting would either ignore or downplay it. For instance, in one meeting a Goldman employee expressed the view that “once clients are wealthy enough certain consumer laws don’t apply to them.” After that meeting, Segarra turned to a fellow Fed regulator and said how surprised she was by that statement — to which the regulator replied, “You didn’t hear that.”

This sort of thing occurred often enough — Fed regulators denying what had been said in meetings, Fed managers asking her to alter minutes of meetings after the fact — that Segarra decided she needed to record what actually had been said. So she went to the Spy Store and bought a tiny tape recorder, then began to record her meetings at Goldman Sachs, until she was fired.

(How Segarra got herself fired by the Fed is interesting. In 2012, Goldman was rebuked by a Delaware judge for its behavior during a corporate acquisition. Goldman had advised one energy company, El Paso Corp., as it sold itself to another energy company, Kinder Morgan, in which Goldman actually owned a $4 billion stake, and a Goldman banker had a big personal investment. The incident forced the Fed to ask Goldman to see its conflict of interest policy. It turned out that Goldman had no conflict of interest policy — but when Segarra insisted on saying as much in her report, her bosses tried to get her to change her report. Under pressure, she finally agreed to change the language in her report, but she couldn’t resist telling her boss that she wouldn’t be changing her mind. Shortly after that encounter, she was fired.)

David Stockman has written:

So now comes the Goldman tapes—-46 hours of recordings by an embedded New York Fed regulator at Goldman Sachs who got fired for attempting to, well, regulate. Would that the Carmen Segarra affair generates a Nixonian result—-that is, exposure that “regulatory capture” is an endemic, potent and inextricable evil that can’t be remediated in situ….

Actually, what the tapes really show is that the Fed’s latest policy contraption—-macro-prudential regulation through a financial stability committee—-is just a useless exercise in CYA. Apparently, even the colony of the bubble blind which inhabits the Eccles Building has started to get nervous about financial bubbles and instability in recent months.

Posted in political economy | Tagged | Leave a comment

The doom of centralized economies, and the coming era of decentralized populism

Legionnaire has written:

Governments are, for all intents and purpose, a sedentary gang that controls a large area. King. President. Warlord. Chieftain. The difference is one of semantics, not particularly of kind.

The difference in power is what renders this conflict asymmetric. Gangs are not usually strong enough to take on the might of the government. …

The past 200 years have seen organized gangs survive by stealth in the face of the Leviathan.

Gangs, which waned in power with the rise of the powerful, centralized nation-state, are ideal units for the coming age of conflict, and will return in prominence as the future plays out.

This will become especially true the more Orwellian western countries become. As more and more people pull away from viewing the state as their benevolent protector, alternative options are going to become increasingly more attractive. People in danger of “vibrant enrichment” will perhaps be the first to band together, but thoughtcriminals and those increasingly unable to make ends meet will also feel the tug of the männerbund as a means to achieve their ends. A dramatic collapse of some sort would certainly expedite this process, but a slow decay over time would also produce much the same results in the end.

Regarding the nature of the modern centralized state, particularly in the USA, Zerohedge wrote:

Within his 1848 Communist Manifesto, Marx outlined a list of ten short-term demands. These, he thought, would be the precursor to the ideal stateless, classless communist society.

Ironically in today’s world, Marx’s demands look pretty much mainstream.

That is because nearly every single item on the list has been implemented to varying degrees in the United States.

Think that couldn’t be possible in the Land of the Free? Just take a look.

1. Topping Marx’s list is the abolition of private property.

True, private property exists, but only until the state wants to take it. With its powers of eminent domain, the government can and does confiscate people’s property when it wants for public use.

Your property isn’t unconditionally yours. Just think of property taxes, for example.

If it’s actually YOUR private property, then why would you need to pay tax on it? And why do they have the authority to take it from you if you don’t pay?

2. Likewise, while we haven’t seen the complete abolition of inheritance (another Marx demand), the government can take up to 40% of your estate when you die.

So ultimately your estate is not your own. You don’t get to control what happens to your wealth and possessions when you die. It’s just a matter of proportion.

3. and 4. Marx also demanded the centralization of transportation and communication. Check, and check.

Try broadcasting over the airwaves in the Land of the Free without a license and special permission.

Practically the entire electromagnetic spectrum is tightly controlled by the state, centralized by a handful of government agencies.

Same with the network of roads and highways. Because, after all, without government, who would build the roads…

5. Another point of Marx is state-guided agricultural production and combination of agriculture and manufacturing.

And the Land of the Free does not disappoint. Though its activities may not be as prominent in the news, the US Department of Agriculture is easily one of the busiest government departments.

With a budget of $146 billion a year, and much more for subsidies, USDA tirelessly works to dictate every major and miniscule activity in the sector.

6. Next on the list, is equal liability of all to labor. If you have at any point wondered, as I have, why politicians are always pushing jobs for the sake of jobs, rather than value and wealth creation—now you know why.

Between minimum wage laws and the constant stream of legislation that promises jobs for all, it is clear that politicians have wholly internalized this Marxian ideal.

Now, you might think that this is just a fluke, just a coincidence that some US policies resemble what’s on Marx’s list of demands.

But then you see these demands, which have not only been fully implemented in the US already, but are thoroughly entrenched in the national psyche:

7. First, there’s free education for all children, to enable the uniformity of thought. Check.

8. Then there’s a heavy progressive income tax. Yep, I’m pretty sure you’re familiar with this one, which has actually become so mainstream, that to have any system other than this would be considered revolutionary. Check.

9. Third, is the confiscation of the property of emigrants (expatriates) and rebels.

Between the IRS bullying of political opposition groups and the imposition of exit taxes for those that renounce their citizenship, the United States is firmly set up to discourage dissent and escape. Check.

10. And last but not least, the centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank. Check.

Remember, Karl Marx thought central banking was a great idea—the same guy who thought that individual success and private property were evil.

Note that the trend of 21st century technology is to decentralize, but Marxist governments desire centralization.

Peer-to-peer Bluetooth communications are already important for democracy

From the WSJ:

A new mobile messaging app that enables users to communicate in the absence of cellular or Internet connections is seeing a surge in downloads among Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protesters.

The free FireChat app, which launched in March, was downloaded 100,000 times in Hong Kong between Sunday morning and Monday morning, said Micha Benoliel, co-founder and chief executive of San Francisco-based Open Garden, which developed the app.

Two of the three founders seem to be heavily involved in BitTorrent:

Ron Paul has written:

Devolving government into smaller units promotes economic growth. The smaller the size of government, the less power it has to hobble free enterprise with taxes and regulations.

Centralization is very expensive, as Noland has written (mostly quoting Gross):

From Gross: “A credit-based financial economy (as opposed to pure cash) depends on an ever-expanding outstanding level of credit for its survival. Without additional credit, interest on previously issued liabilities cannot be paid absent the sale of existing assets, which in turn would lead to a vicious cycle of debt deflation, recession and ultimately depression. It is this expansion of private and public market credit which the Fed and the BOE have successfully engineered over the past five years, while their contemporaries (the ECB and BOJ) have until now failed, at least in terms of stimulating economic growth. The unmodeled (for lack of historical example) experiment that all major central banks are now engaged in is to ask and then answer: What growth rate of credit is enough to pay prior bills, and what policy rate/amount of Quantitative Easing (QE) is necessary to generate that growth rate? Assuming that the interest rate on outstanding debt in the U.S. is approximately 4.5% (admittedly a slight stab in the dark because of shadow debt obligations), a Fed governor using this template would want credit to expand by at least 4.5% per year in order to prevent the necessary sale of existing assets (debt and equity) to cover annual interest costs… if credit needs to expand at 4.5% per year, then the private and public sectors in combination must create approximately $2.5 trillion of additional debt per year to pay for outstanding interesting.”

Bill Gross’ number is “approximately $2.5 trillion” to ensure sufficient new system Credit to service existing system debt. I’ve posited the U.S. system needs in the neighborhood of $2.0 TN of annual non-financial debt growth.

In addition to ruining the monetary economy, centralized power degrades and dehumanizes its human “capital”:

You read about the horrible workhouses of the 18th century where people worked off their “debts” until the day they died and wonder how on earth the government could allow the banks to turn their citizens lives into a living hell in which the only thing they had to look forward to was the release of the grave.

The Old Testaments advice for a jubilee every 49 years was the least mercy you would expect in this world from anybody who was a child of God.

I swear if I were in charge I’d have a jubilee every 12 years, around the length of a long term bond. …

The people who run the world ultimately are not as interested in money as they are in causing misery. If they had to forfeit a lot of money just to insure a lot more misery they’d take the loss.

Usurers wreck nations. Jubilees liberate men from usury and recharge their batteries full of hope. Mankind needs hope like a fish needs water. Without a teleology of the future, men despair and waste away. Most people don’t realize it but survivalists are people with a teleology that tries to charge them with hope where other men just get drunk from sheer pain, frustration and hopelessness. The survivalist would have to be considered a kind of man or woman who does not give up as easily as others do.

However, bear in mind that most “survivalists” might bear little resemblance to Texas Arcane. Perhaps many of them will resemble Mark Vaughan:


To summarize:

A – Gangs are a fundamental expression of human tendencies toward tribalism; the world is becoming a place in which gangs flourish.
B – The modern West is centralized in a manner foretold by Karl Marx.
C – Populist movements are already using peer-to-peer technologies to avoid centralized censorship.
D – Centralized economic planning has been pushing the limits of exponential growth for years.
E – The modern “utopia of the usurers” will lead to a backlash of “survivalists” who have a different idea of money and debt.

My conclusion is that the USA’s highly centralized economic system must encounter some kind of crisis in the near future.

Incidentally, I disagree with Legionnaire’s interpretation of 4GW and 5GW, but that is a topic for another post.

Posted in political economy | Leave a comment