A Compromise on Refugees

The left want to bring third-world refugees to first-world countries so they can show compassion. The right wants to keep them out so their daughters don’t get raped. so why not a compromise? Why don’t we create a sponsorship program?

In the sponsorship program a particular citizen can sponsor a refugee (or a legal immigrant, we can apply this to all immigration). The sponsor then becomes legally responsible for the new immigrant. When the immigrant/refugee first enters the country, the sponsor is responsible for providing housing, food, clothing, and other such necessities to their sponsored immigrant until the immigrant is able to do so themselves.

Once the immigrant is established, he can never access any public service during his life time; if the immigrant ever requires welfare, subsidized housing, health care, public schooling, etc., the sponsor is responsible for providing such services for the immigrant. If the immigrant ever does access a public service, the sponsor is shall owe the state for the cost of the service.

If the immigrant ever commits a crime, the immigrant will be immediately deported, while the sponsor receives any punishment (including jail time and/or the death penalty) that the immigrant would have received in the immigrant’s place.

I think this is a fair compromise.The left is allowed to display their compassion for the world to see, and the right doesn’t have to worry about immigrants being parasites on taxpayer dollar or leftists importing criminal immigrants who will rape their daughters. I’m sure the left will gladly open their own homes and wallets to help these poor refugees, and I’m sure being responsible for the immigrant’s criminal activities will never inconvenience the leftist as all these refugees are peaceful and law-abiding.

Swimming Right

Last week, we found that politics is moving left, a conclusion which should be obvious just from government spending numbers. So why do leftists think that politics is somehow moving rightward? I have a guess.

When we say politics are moving left we look at real, existing political laws, outputs, and outcomes. We see that laws for higher spending have been put in place, that government spending has increased, and that government spending as a percentage of GDP has increased. We see that gay “marriage” has been enforced by courts, that gays are “marrying”, and that Christians are losing their businesses anti-Christian laws.

When the left say politics is moving right, they look at only at actual outcomes as compared to intended outcomes. They look at what they expect should happen if politics moves left, see that that is not occurring and declare politics are moving right, whatever the actual laws and outputs may be.

For example, the leftist believes all men are equal and have equal abilities, if they do show these, then (right-wing) discrimination must be holding people back, so if proper left-wing policies are put in place people would demonstrate equal abilities. So, if education policy were moving left, the achievement gap would be disappearing and all students would be moving towards equally high performance. The achievement gap is not disappearing. Because of this, the leftist thinks education policy is not moving left, so, it must be moving right.

The leftist ignores that he is getting the actual laws and political outputs he wants; public education spending has been ballooning and the the staff:student ratio has been increasing. He ignores the fact that actual public policy is increasingly left because he’s only looking at outcomes and he’s not getting the outcomes he thinks should happen.

The leftist is religiously egalitarian and blank-slatist, so if government programs are not producing the desired outcomes, they must not be the desired programs, hence if the outcomes are not the expected left-wing outcomes, the programs and policies must not be left wing. He can not countenance that the achievement gap is probably genetic in origin, so failures to achieve his expected outcomes must be due to the wrong (ie: right-wing) policies being implemented.

We can see this elsewhere as well. The leftist believes that left-wing policies will reduce poverty and reduce income inequality. He looks at the charts and it’s obvious that for the last half-century poverty rates have stayed level and income inequality has risen. Therefore, policies must not be left-wing, and therefore must be right-wing.

Never mind that most of the federal budget goes to income transfer/poverty alleviation programs, never mind that spending on poverty-alleviation has been increasing at a rapid rate, never mind that we spend enough on poverty alleviation programs to simply pay every person enough to not be poor, never mind graduated tax rates, the spending and laws don’t matter. It can not be that poor people are poor because they are the kind of people whose choices, abilities, and (lack of) virtues lead to being poor, because all people are equal. Therefore, the policies must be right-wing because left-wing policies would result in equality. (In reality though, left-wing schemes usually backfire).

The reason the leftist think politics is moving rightward, is because the leftist is utopian and egalitarian. He believes that left-wing policies will necessarily bring about left-wing utopian goals. When the expected egalitarian utopia does not arrive, the leftist can not believe that this is due to the impossibility of an egalitarian utopia or because left-wing policies don’t work, so he believes the absence of utopia must be because politics is moving right-ward.

Lightning Round – 2015/09/15

Thinking generationally.
Related: Wealth in 1500 AD is largely predictive of national wealth today.

Daily Kaos notices NRx.

Nick rounds up on William Bradford. A formerly hidden reactionary in West Point.

Lies and reaction.

A review of left singularities.
Related: Where does #BlackLivesMatter go?

Two equilibria.

Rule by protocol.

Ironies of democratic alienation.

On the mouse utopia experiment.

Zippy doesn’t see the current system falling any time soon.

Popular government is active government.

New Blog: The Grey Enlightenment. About.
Related: The Soviet Men: Ban recess.

Ban white men from college.
Related: Surviving academia. Part II.

Weaponized codes of conduct.
Related: Social justice contradictions.

The holy insanity of the immigrant invasion.
Related: Rotherham: The real migrant crisis.
Related: Britain’s Islamic future.
Related: Rent-seekers not refugees.
Related: The evil of encouraging refugees.
Related: The EU reveals its priorities.
Related: Refugees in the Roman era.
Related: Revenge of the rest against the west.
Related: Immigration and absolution.
Related: Maybe diversity ain’t so great for Jews.
Related: 6 ways to stop the migrant jihad.
Related: Orban’s defiance.

Diversity means defection.
Related: Liberty and ethnicity.
Related: 640 million adults want to migrate to first world.

White privilege: Cops and courts.

Order Force.


Entryists in neoreaction.

The decline of Darwin.

Why do aboriginals have so much Neanderthal DNA?
Related: The great Bantu migration.

Are liberals more competent than conservatives?

The proper role of moderates.

A lost military technology.

Reproducibility crisis  is a crisis of progressivism.
Related: Cancer research irreproducibility.

The tyranny of preferences.

On universals.

The Spartan empire.
Related: The fall of Sparta.

Some amusing videos.

The purpose of doxing.

Vox interviewed by Counter-Currents.

To the manosphere: a Christianity you can respect.

Rotten to the common core.

Divorce risks.

DS on his experiences meeting his gal’s father.

Both men and women are to blame for our ills.

New campaign in the UK to ban sex robots.

Capital campaigns do little to improve student achievement. Surprising.
Related: The Kansas City educational experiment.

Something not horrible from Vox on post-secondary education.

Books on how to fight.

Integrated task force experiment.

The Sad Puppies 4 website is live.
Related: An estimate of Puppy numbers.
Related: Winning against Tor.

AIPAC is losing its power.
Related: The NYT’s Jew tracker.

Sodomy is not diverse enough.

Scott Alexander reviews Manufacturing Consent.

Rhetoric in action.

Father of drowned child was a human trafficker.

Mexican government arrests vigilante who defeats mob bosses.

People respond to incentives: Chinese driver edition.


Swimming Left

Forgot to post on Friday. I’m sure you all were heartbroken.

Scott had a piece on Trump where he said:

Everyone knows that America is getting more ideologically polarized these days. The right is getting rightier. The left is getting leftier.

I responded on Twitter:

It is fairly obvious we have been moving left. I then finished the piece and looked through the comments. Many of the people there seemed to think the US is actually moving right. Are they insane?

In the US you can now lose your job or your business for having the same opinion on gay marriage that almost everyone 15 years ago would have had. This is leftward shift happening in real time with no ambiguity to it.

But maybe on other issues this is not the case, so I’m going to look at the top 10 most important political issues to Americans to see how they’ve moved. (Oddly, despite the huge amount of attention placed on it, the number of people who think gay “rights” is the most important issue ranges from “*”, almost non-existent, to 1%). I’ll ignore two of the top three as they are non-partisan issues with no discernible left or right positions: dissatisfaction with government and unemployment. Everybody hates unemployment and dissatisfaction is non-partisan. This leaves 8 issues that 4% or more of Americans thought are the most important issues.

1) Economy in General – Generally, the left is for more state economic intervention, the right for less. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is a decent proxy for state intervention. Other than a temporary dip in the late 90’s, government spending has been consistently rising. On the economy the government is moving left.

2) Immigration – The left is generally pro-immigration, the right generally anti. The proportion of immigrants has been increasing since the 1950’s, although, this mirrors a decrease in the first half of the 20th century. As well, due to the removal of country of origin laws by the left, immigration has become increasingly “diverse”. Immigration has become more left.

3) Race Relations – The president is black. 50 years ago the US legalized racial marriage and public opinion has been growing consistently in favour of it. Jim Crow laws have disappeared. The last lynching was in 1964, while today, black mobs burn down black-run Baltimore and injure over 100 cops with the establishment’s approval because a black man was killed while being arrested for possessing an illegal weapon (a crime that is only a crime because of the left). Society has moved left on racial relations.

4) Healthcare – Obamacare was just passed a few years ago. The Bush public drug plan was introduced a decade before that. Moving left.

5) Education – Public education spending, staffing levels, and funding per student have all been increasing at a rapid pace. Moving left.


6) Debt/Deficit – The right is generally anti-deficit, while the left is generally in favour of Keynesian deficit spending. The debt has been consistently increasing, barring a decline following WW2 and a temporary drop in the lates 90’s. We’ll say it’s been moving left.

7) Terrorism – The War on Terror continues and was right-wing in origin, although the left has instigated the Libya and Syria theatres of the war. But we’ll say the (mainstream) right won this one, now that the left is playing the game.

8) Foreign policy/foreign aid/focus overseas – I’m not actually sure how to look at this one. Foreign aid is declining, a right-wing win, but I highly doubt it is the main component driving the importance of this issue. There’s more hate against Russia and ISIS more nowadays, but those aren’t particularly partisan issues. The opening of Cuba and the Iran deal are vaguely left. The Cold War is over; NATO’s still around. Free trade agreements are increasing, but that issue is largely non-partisan: the elites vs everyone else. I don’t think this one is able to be judged along a left/right axis, so I’m not going to assign anything to it.

The following three I looked at as well, because at first I accidentally was reading the May column, not the August Column, but they’ve been written so I’ll include them:

9) National Security – See terrorism. Us defence spending as a percentage of GDP has been on a fairly steady decline since the 50’s, with a leveling-out/small rise since the mid-90’s. The number of defence personnel follows a similar trend (in absolute numbers, so, percentage wise it has been decreasing even more so). The trend has been moving left.

10) Gap between rich and poor –  The Gini coefficient has been rising since the 70’s, but that was following  a fall in the first half of the century. The left is opposed to the gap; the right is neutral on it. While the right isn’t in favour of a gap, they aren’t really opposed, and the left are very opposed, so we’ll say this has been moving right.

11) Ethics/Moral/Religious decline – See gay marriage above. The number of religious people has been declining and church attendance has plummeted. Marriage rates have declined. Divorce rates have increased. Fertility rates have plunged. Bastardry has increased. Female-headed households have increased. Things are moving left here.


So, on a total of the 13 of the most important issues to Americans, I didn’t rate 3 of them. Of the remaining 10, 8 have been moving left and 2 has been moving right.

On the majority of the issues that matter most to Americans the left has been winning. The US is moving left.

I realized after writing this that the question I ended up answering has changed slightly from the initial question, which was where the party’s are moving, not where the country is moving.


Lightning Round – 2015/09/09

A review and critique of SJW’s Always Lie.
Related: Reviews from a leftist and Counter-Currents of SJW’s Always Lie.
Related: A couple of reviews of SJW’s Always Lie.
Related: A review of SJW’s Always Lie.
Related: SJW’s wrote 2 parodies of Vox; the VFM wrote a parody of Scalzi in response.

Standing up to SJW’s.

Jobs the educated won’t do.

The American flag is not your symbol.

Ambijectivity, quality, and morality.

The need to replace Wikipedia.

Related: Club for Growth blackmails Trump.
Related: Trump and Corbyn.

Scott Adams has been running a number of interesting articles on Trump. You should read them. More.

A tale of two suburbs.
Related: 40 years to destroy Compton.

Genes, race, and IQ.

Solution to the migrant crisis.
Related: Mass immigration is more than just Mexican illegals.
Related: Why ISIS is winning.
Related: Send the “refugees” to Israel and Qatar.
Related: Why we should let Syrians in.
Related: More than half of immigrants on welfare.
Related: Family of women murdered by illegal sues sanctuary city.
Related: The Hispanicness of Jeb Bush.

The nation-state undermines itself.

Conor Friedersdorf (remember him?) writes about what I wrote about 3 years ago concerning white privilege and identity, in the Atlantic. It’s almost like this guy almost understands but just can’t go against his liberal programming.
Related: Henry finds a fairly even-handed article on white identity from Slate. They’re beginning to see.
Related: White privilege myths.
Related: Jesse Benn: Breeder of fascists.
Related: A tale of a “Chinese” poet. Heh.

The scale of WW1.

Provoking a war with #BlackLivesMatter.
Related: Indicting BLM.
Related: #BlackLivesMatter activist Shaun King isn’t black.

The dangerous faith.

An exegesis of the Bible on divorce.

DS runs the stats: they are pretty dark for finding an attractive Christian virgin.

Advice for Christian women on getting a spouse.

Serial monogamy is not any more moral than hit it & quit it.

Masculinity is not a social construct.

Marriage markets and demographics.

Anti-depressants: the other birth control.

The branding of sex slaves.

Related: A couple more books.

A basic FAQ on the Hugo controversy.
Related: Calculated insults at the Hugos.
Related: A leftist writes on how to stop Vox Day? Parts 2, 3, & 4. It’s solid, reasonable advice that theoretically would work, but won’t give holiness points, therefore, no anti-puppies will follow it.
Related: Hugo’s: What will Vox do?
Related: Proving Larry right.
Related: Two interviews.
Related: George RR Martin lies. More.
Related: On Patrick Nielson Hayden.

Anti-GamerGate is pro-pedophile.

Social scientists are discrediting themselves.

Why do they hate science so much?

Woman jailed for over 10 years for silent protest of abortion.

If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment, go ahead and do so.


Cosmo et al

I mentioned before, I got linked to by Cosmo. The link in the article  traced back to my odds of divorce post. This same article has since been posted in Elle, Good Housekeeping, Marie Claire, and Harper’s Bazaar, virtually a who’s who of the women’s magazine world. The writer, Asher Fogle, seems to be a somewhat influential woman in this world, judging by her LinkedIn, which lists her as an editor at multiple high profile magazines.

This has led me to multiple observations:

First, do these people have not have editors. I have nothing against Asher, she didn’t slander me or anything, but I am unsure what she was thinking. I know nothing of her, but I am almost entirely sure she would, at the very least, disagree with almost everything I write. In addition, I write primarily badthink and none of these magazines seem the type to court badthink. Linking to me runs a risk of drawing the Eye of Soros. It doesn’t look like the author or any editors actually reviewed my site or the link beyond the data. This is interesting.

Second, I am almost surprised by the incestuousness of the women’s magazine sphere. The exact same article was posted on 5 different major magazine sites (that I know of). Did she get paid 5 different times for the article? After looking into it, it turns out all five magazines are owned by the same company, so probably not. A search also turned up that MSN had the same article, although, AFAIK, they have no ties to that company, so maybe she got paid twice.

Finally, the major one is how little traffic these sites sent me. Cosmo gave me a grand total of 42 hits, Good Housekeeping, Elle, and Marie Claire  gave me 4 each, and Harper’s gave me 6, for a grand total of 60 hits. MSN gave me none. As a comparison, 2015/08/08 Lightning Round sent anywhere from 30-200 hits per a link, in a single day (some sites with multiple links can receive up to 300-500 hits) . Over the last quarter a buried link from TRP over a similar time period sent me 70 hits, a Chaos Patch from Land can send over 60 hits, , a Free Republic link sent 130 hits, and a RooshV thread sent me 60 hits.

None of the other links are abnormally high: my aggregator, Reaction Times sends me 50-150 hits a post, a link from Viva la Manosphere nets 100-300 hits, some TRP links have sent thousands of hits, one link from Scott Alexander got me over 2000 hits. I could go on but you get the point.

Why are major, international, professional magazines with paid writers, editors, advertisers, web designers, etc. getting so outclassed in this area? I run a poorly edited blog consisting mainly of long-winded posts laced with grammatical mistakes and typos on arcane socio-political theory on the fringes of the already fringe edgysphere in my free time, yet a single link from me sends multiple times more traffic than five major corporate magazines combined.

Their Alexa ranks destroy mine (although, being in the top 260,000 sites in the world for the kind of blog I run is still pretty decent, I think), so it’s probably not due to traffic.

Is it because the women who read 15-point clickbait lists aren’t the type to click-through to the source? Do they read nothing but the headlines? I was in one of the later points, maybe they can’t read more than a couple hundred words at a time? Was it the article itself? Is divorce risk simply not interesting to women?

I’m not sure what the reason is, but I found this discrepancy rather odd. When I saw Cosmo pop up in my referrers, I thought I’d get a deluge of visitors and was worried a minor internet outrage storm might engulf me. But instead, I got less hits than I do from a buried link on a random TRP thread.

The Norman Hypothesis

The Puritan hypothesis is a main plank of neoreaction, but the English Civil War itself didn’t arise out of the vacuum.

I came across this article:

Indeed, such attempts to root Northerners, particularly those from the Northeast, and Southerners in antagonistic bloodlines went back at least as far as 1837, when another anonymous writer in The Messenger wrote, “We, too, of the South, and especially we of Virginia, are descendants, for the most part, of the old cavaliers — the enemies and persecutors of those old puritans — and entertain, perhaps, unwittingly something of an hereditary and historical antipathy against the children, for the fathers’ sake.”

It seems many southerners (and northerners) prior to the civil war believed themselves to be the descendents of the Normans (and Anglo-Saxons, respectively). Here’s an 1846 journal article from a J. Quitman Moore in DeBow’s Review arguing the Norman heritage of Dixie.

I can’t find anything on how factual this myth of Norman heritage is, but according to Jayman the Cavaliers believed themselves to be descended from the Normans. But if it is genetic fact it is interesting.

The Normans were Catholic Vikings who had settled Northern France, while the Anglo-Saxons were Germanics who displaced the original Celtic Britons. Interestingly, given the later alliance of the Cavaliers and Scots-Irish in both the English and American civil wars, the Irish and Scots were also invaded and ruled by the Normans who became “more Irish than the Irish themselves” and were eventually integrated. The Norman’s were, being vikings, a rather violent people.

It is possible the roots of modern political differences are genetic in origin, extending past the American civil war, before the Glorious revolution, and back the conflict between the Norse Normans and the Teutonic Anglo-Saxons. Even more speculatively, could this go deeper to a genetic legacy from the split of the Germanic peoples or even the corded ware/battle axe culture era.

Now, I’m no expert in this area and from my understanding, nobody really knows for sure, this is all speculative but the possibility is interesting to think about. Maybe someone like HBD Chick could give this a closer look.