Sunday, March 11, 2018

Equality Turns Into Identity

If someone has a voice, but nothing intelligent to say, identity becomes their argument. Equality plus democracy leads to identity politics because mean IQ. Every argument they have is wrong, but you can't say they're not a worker, black, female, homosexual or white. Identity is the last refuge of the idiot. Most people are idiots.

When everyone plays identity politics, it is not democracy. It is international relations.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Round and Round We Go

Steve Sailer shows a couple of quotes from Commentary magazine's Noah Rothman: Commentary Magazine: Invade the World, Invite the World, Defeat the Americans
We often hear about how globalism's losers and malcontents need to be understood and mollified, but they are vastly numerically inferior and lack the firepower their opponents possess. Why don't we just defeat them?
Steve asks what's the plan. The response:
I thought I was quite explicit in recommending that the nationalist populist program, where it conflicts with classical liberalism, must be aggressively defined, confronted, and discredited.
The bold portion is the key flaw in his thinking because it assumes the Alt-Right aren't/weren't classical liberals.

There are many paths to the Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction and the broader Alt-Right. One of the most important Red Pill cocktails is rejecting the blank slate, universalism and recognizing a cultural/genetic component to political values. Some significant portion of the broadly defined Alt-Right are former conservatives and libertarians who took these red pills. They believe that mass immigration will destroy (has already destroyed) classical liberalism. The weak view of the genetic/cultural component, which trends towards civic nationalism, says some degree of assimilation is possible. The strong view says that even if America had a King or theocrat, it could maintain most traits we would classify as classical liberalism if the population was traditional American. The techno-commercialist wing of Neoreaction leans in this direction.

Rothman has weight of responsibility reversed. It is his side that has been defined, confronted and discredited. Nationalist populism is a waypoint rather than a long-term solution. It is relatively easy to discredit portions of it because it isn't a coherent plan, but a response to the collapse of classical liberalism. If someone defeats nationalist populism, it's likely to be an Alt-Righter who proposes something better or Progressive socialists who finally complete their revolution.

It is widely accepted on the Alt-Right that immigration should be halted and demographic trends reversed. Classical liberals should start there and explain why that would produce a society that is less classically liberal. Most, if not all of the Alt-Right, would argue immigration moratorium and reversal of demographic trends would create a more classically liberal society. It would only be less classically liberal in that the people in it would not believe in the blank slate. "Classical liberals" argue that a classical liberal society becomes more liberal by adding anti-liberals, while the Alt-Right says it gets more liberal when you remove anti-liberals. They needs to show how removing anti-liberals turns liberals into anti-liberals. There's no evidence that this is the case. And if they argue that removing anti-liberals turns liberals into anti-liberals, they have to explain why they would want to add anti-liberals in the first place since the outcome is the same. Import anti-liberals, destroy classical liberalism. Remove anti-liberals, destroy classical liberalism. Classical liberalism cannot survive.

Alt-Right radicals who want a major change in American society might get nervous about an immigration moratorium and demographic reversal. The appeal of a white ethnostate would collapse. Assimilation would increase. The Asian and Hispanic population would decline through intermarriage. The black population would rise, but lighten. Assuming immigration and demographic policies were locked in place, civic nationalism would rise.

Classical liberals have to show how America would have less rule of law, less property rights, less support for the first and second amendments if demographics reversed. There are copious arguments and data all over the Internet, there are arguments from the right and left showing how demographics turned California (next Texas and then America) blue and anti-liberal. Classical liberals who are afraid of being called racist, but agree with the demographic argument, would quietly support the Alt-Right. If those making noise don't believe it, they should make their case. The only ones that come close (that I have seen) are from some left-leaning political analysts who believe assimilation will occur, Hispanics and Asians will shift into the white category and/or vote with whites. That doesn't refute the immigration moratorium argument though, and it confirms the main thrust of the demographic argument.

Friday, March 09, 2018

Tariffs Much Bigger Than the Economy

All the focus on tariffs is on the economic argument.

Little focus is on the national security implications.

There is only one aluminum plant left in the USA that makes metal for fighter jets, a Century Aluminum (CENX) plant in Kentucky. This plant says it will hire invest with Trump's tariffs in place.

It goes well beyond the need for critical materials though. The mainstream economist/free trade ideology says GDP today is the be all and end all. They do not care about sovereignty, borders, culture, customs, tradition, rights, liberty, religion, or even long-term GDP. How to maximize GDP in the year 2100? I doubt it includes flooding a country with Third World immigrants today. Many economists who hate Trump and populism also treat the victory of populists as an independent event and not a consequence of the secondary and tertiary effects of free trade policy. They are focused solely on GDP and consider the entire globe as one economy. Globalists dominate economic debates.

The template for a nationalist economic policy is the Cold War. The Soviet Union traded with communist countries and some neutral, almost entirely Third World, countries. The United States and Western Europe traded with the capitalist nations. We probably would have avoided a war or two if we fully understood how the communist system was doomed without Western capital and expertise.

China was opened up as part of a strategy to defeat the Soviets. It worked, but now China is the greater threat. The West transferred expertise and capital to China, turning it into a modern economy. There are parts of China that are first-world and those parts have populations as large as some European countries. Even though some parts of China are wealthy, it is still a centrally planned economy. The main goal of the government is to maintain power. The communist party prints money, funnels it through communist party banks and into communist parties companies. Central planning is difficult in many industries, but easier in industries such as steel. China produces a lot of steel and dumps it on the world market. It also builds a lot of homes and offices because concrete buildings are a concrete form of GDP. Cities are built with no residents because throwing up a skyscraper uses a lot of cement, steel, copper and construction labor.

We don't know how China will behave in response to a new Cold War, but a reasonable assumption is that if China didn't open up the economy in response to a trade war, the economy would slowly bleed capital and efficiency over time. As it is, their current strategy for growth (One Belt One Road) looks much more like the old Soviet strategy than the Marshall Plan it is sometimes compared to. As in the Cold War, China is betting its future on Third World nations, with the assumption that it will be selling into Western economies. If the West isn't there to buy, China is stuck developing Third World shitholes with no future.