Skytrain to Nowhere is an imagination driven and esoteric volume of free-form poetry. The book documents the author’s experiences, thoughts and observations while riding the skytrain at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport over the period of several weeks. Since the skytrain is only designed to transport travelers between various terminals and parking facilities at the airport, someone spending nearly 50 hours riding it purely for recreation and artistic inspirational purposes is highly unusual (to put it mildly.) Aside from occasional quirky anecdotes about various passengers, the poems mostly deal with themes of motion, the passage of time, and nostalgia. The author grapples with these issues from a retro-futurist perspective. Skytrain to Nowhere celebrates the realization that our vitality hinges on our ability to always keep moving, while recognizing we are unwilling or unable to leave some things behind on the journey.
“The fruits of neo-imperialism may just be neo-isolationism,” Pat Buchanan once facetiously suggested in a 2003 column titled “Are Bush and Rumsfeld Closet Populists?” The crux of his argument was that the Bush administration’s neoconservative foreign policy and defiant embrace of global military interventionism was so at odds with the rest of the world that it might result in the United States being alienated from the international community altogether and forced to reluctantly adopt the kind of isolationist nationalism Buchanan prefers.
The neocons have been mostly discredited and rejected by the American people since then, yet their ideology and its zealots have wormed their way so deep into the US political and media establishment, that neoconservative influence on US foreign policy remains dominant to this day. What brought Buchanan’s obscure column to mind though is the latest ideological craze, “democratic socialism.” It’s been on the rise for quite a while now, as evident by Bernie Sanders’ near win in the 2016 presidential primary. The ascent has continued with the growing popularity of podcasts like Chapo Trap House, as well as the media’s recent gush fest over political newcomers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and (former Sex and the City actress) Cynthia Nixon. The problem with democratic socialism (in the form it’s currently being presented by enthusiasts,) is that the solutions it purports to offer can’t withstand the weight of their own contradictions. Trying to be too many things to too many people in ways which inherently conflict, may put you on the fast track for electoral success and generate a lot of fawning media coverage, but then what? Where will the people that didn’t read the fine print turn when the built-in failure mechanisms are discovered during the activation process?
How can you have a federal job guarantee *and* support practically unlimited immigration from impoverished countries? And what good does it do to implement strict emission controls if you’re going to import so many people that the result will be a net increase in pollution anyway? In contemplating questions like this, one might begin to wonder (but not really) if these DSA types are “closet neoreactionaries,” in the sense that they advocate for “socialist” policies only within contexts which would guarantee said policies’ ineffectiveness (thus subsequently driving people to reluctantly embrace neo-monarchic, corporate fiefdoms.) “Free health care and college education!” but it’s going to be available to every one of the billions of humans on the planet that can manage to simply show up here in our “borderless,” undefined country that exists in name only. Oh, and we’re not allowed to significantly limit immigration from the third world in any substantial way. No physical borders, border patrol, or substantively sovereign nation states, but presumably there will be a distinguishable collective people whom we’re assured these programs are supposed to viably and sustainably benefit.
Today’s social democracy falls apart on the contradiction between advocating nearly unlimited government largess and nearly unlimited immigration. “Abolish ICE” is a proper rallying cry for hard-core libertarians and Davos globalists, not democratic socialists or social democrats. A federal job guarantee is an intriguing idea — assuming the jobs are for some defined “us” that doesn’t include every immigrant, asylum-seeker or undocumented worker.
Trump gets this, as does the far right in Europe, which is why they attract such powerful working-class support. Want to preserve the welfare state? Build a wall — or, in Europe’s case, reinstate border controls. Want more immigrants and amnesty? Lower the minimum wage and abolish the closed shop.
But please choose. It’s one or the other.
“Socialist” ideologies which aim for the dissolution of borders and the elimination of national sovereignty in actuality weaken the federal government’s ability to administer social programs effectively. If there is no authority to differentiate between who is or isn’t a citizen (of where?) and no tangible separation of territory, just whom or what exactly is the federal government presiding over? Is it simply “residents?” One can already envision the financial insolvency and administrative nightmare of this kind of “international airport socialism,” where going to the hospital is like making a trip to a crowded, third world DMV. Such a system would be impossible to manage efficiently, due to the intrinsic lack of organization and ill-defined parameters, rendering a theoretically empowered federal government hapless and functionally impotent. Very few aspiring employees can take advantage of a $15 minimum wage if you cram so many people into a city that there are not enough jobs to go around, and the accompanying demand for housing becomes so high that skyrocketing real estate prices negate any benefits for those lucky enough to land a “living” minimum wage job. Socialists and social democrats like Bernie Sanders used to be fully aware of all this, but they are so averse to being perceived as xenophobic or anti-immigrant, that their stated positions on these issues include a lot of muddled, self-contradictory language and conflicting statements…ultimately revealing themselves to be the product of doublethink.
In such a scenario, multinational corporations become strengthened, because people will feel they have no other alternative but to sign their lives away to Yelp or Amazon or some other corporate cult, which will present as comparably functional institutions. In exchange for being granted the closest thing to stability available, they’ll be inclined to just accept shitty, high deductible health plans that can change on a whim, conditional company housing, and draconian “code of conduct” rules which dictate what employees can do, wear and say on their own time, etc.
That’s the political choice we’re essentially being presented with: overpopulated, third world international airport socialism vs. multinational corporate feudalism. It is probably already too late for any other alternatives you might have in mind. It certainly seems too late for any kind of populist nationalism or to limit mass immigration in any meaningful way at the national level, though I guess pan secessionism and balkanization are distant possibilities (perhaps even inevitabilities.)
Are “democratic socialists” closet neoreactionaries? No, of course not. Are they the useful idiots of neoreaction? That sounds a bit too harsh. One could just as easily argue that many big companies are so greedy that they are actually helping to facilitate the rise of democratic socialism. The way most multinational corporations shamelessly manipulate and exploit their employees, while simultaneously displaying outright contempt for consumers…they certainly aren’t doing themselves any PR favors. Multinational corporations are portable though, and since they have no allegiance to any particular place or country, they are highly adaptable and can remain as elusive as the Black Fortress in Krull.
Ultimately, I think democratic socialists simply represent one half in the next phase of Americans having to hold their noses and choose between systems that don’t represent their interests and which promise things they can’t deliver.
Greetings. So, admittedly I haven’t been writing as many articles lately, and there are good reasons…The most important being that I’m working on yet another book, one that is sure to be perceived as the most bizarre, inaccessible and random writing project I’ve ever completed (which is really saying something if you’ve been following me since my days of writing Garbage Pail Kids fanfiction in the 80s.) The deep meditative state required for me to write this new book doesn’t leave time for a lot of abrasive political writing. I wish I had a healthy backbench of stable writers on this site, but the few contributors this site has are saddled their own lively limitations, so this is pretty much the pulse of the party. People contribute when they can, and that’s better than nothing. Sometimes new people want to write for the site, but they are so fuckin crazy that I just have to ignore them
The other reason is that I’ve been doing a lot more paid writing jobs lately. In the interest of my immediate survival, paid writing gigs must take precedence over confrontational political writing that serves only to make me more unliked than I already am. I do however have a couple of articles which are about 3/4 completed, but I have been too lazy to finish them. I also have endless ideas for new political articles, which I would love to start, but there is just never enough time! I need to hire someone to ghost write them for me. There is never enough time……
Unpopular Opinion: Burger King is superior to In-N-Out Burger. In-N-Out’s Double double pales in comparison to a flame broiled Whopper. I only wish that BK would bring back the original Chicken Tenders formula from the 80s. Anyway, enjoy this retro Burger King location, which appears to be relatively unmolested by time. The clueless “updater” busybodies and ruinous remake enthusiasts haven’t got their grubby little paws on it…yet.
I almost didn’t post this, cause I’m mostly bored of talking about these kinds of subjects. It seems like kind of a waste of energy. I’d much rather focus on things I’m actually interested in, like building a futuristic mall city, or self-contained gated suburb on an island, with Chuck E Cheese tokens being the official currency. The most pressing issue for me right now is finishing projects I’m working on, which have nothing to do with politics.
Anyway, for those of you still ideologically invested in this other crap, the podcast can be found here:
It features a bunch of other people and I pontificating on various things that will be of great interest to a small number of people. This is Part 2 of a previous episode. I didn’t post part one, because it wasn’t very good or structured well, and a water heater was being installed in my apartment so I had to do the entire podcast from the roof of the Fashion Square Mall parking garage. It was hotter than shitballs outside (over 110 degrees) and loud as fuck. Part II was okay though.
Robert Stark, Brandon Adamson, Ashley Messinger, and Constantin von Hoffmeister continue the discussion on the political scene known as the Alt Left, Left Wing of the Alt Right, or Alt Center.
More on how the scene evolved, the implosion of the Alt-Right, and the need to create your own space
How the election of Trump caused friction between Robert Lindsay’s Alt-Left and the Left Wing of the Alt Right
How SJW’s have completely hijacked what remains of an Alt-Left scene
Fundamental differences between the Alt-Right and European Identitarianism
The pros and cons of America’s lack of European cultural identities
European Identitarian movements that are economically leftist but traditionalist on culture and aesthetics
The concept of degenerate art and the failure of the right to differentiate
If the Alt-Right got their hypothetical nation, would it be just another boring Red State suburb?
Reasons for right wing hostility to urbanism and modern architecture
How to create self contained city states
The proposed Crystal Island in Moscow and the Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid in Tokyo
The importance of having shared aesthetic and cultural values rather than complete homogeneity
The compatibility of futurism and tradition in Russia (archeofuturism)
Russia To Welcome 15,000 South African Refugees
Having people that benefit a society is more important than their political orientations
Obsession with provisioning and protecting children is a trend in the norms of WEIRD societies. In a certain type of person this often leads to an array of strange, inconsistent beliefs. Some complain non-stop about the adult abdication of grown-up responsibilities and simultaneously claim that a 16-year-old engaged in active sexual pursuit of an adult is by definition a victim of child molestation. Others bleat on about the dangers of what they call helicopter parenting while asserting that a mother’s decision to leave her child in a daycare for 8 hours of the 24 in a day is tantamount to a form of child abuse. One may see the concrescence of these stupidities in a recent New York Times article about the harassment of so-called neglectful mothers by public busybodies.
Kidnapping and child molestation are and always have been rare, so this obsession is new albeit no one knows when it began exactly. Likewise, genetics has long since set the record straight on the relevance of parenting to adult behaviour: it barely leaves a dent except in cases of extreme abuse or neglect. Dote on your children or not; they are who they are. Thus, the discourse on how to treat children ought not to focus on how it affects them, but rather what we know to be pragmatic and efficient for both parents and children.
Bryan Caplan argues that education is primarily about job-market signalling, hence the phenomenon of credential inflation and repeated efforts to pour more money into teaching even though it is well known to have weak long-term effects. This means that almost no one remembers much of what they are allegedly learning, and what they do remember is of little use to them in their work lives. Formal education is in actual fact useless to anyone but the mid-witted. Geniuses tend to be self-taught and already know a thousand times more than their classmates by the time they get to school, meanwhile the borderline intellectual functioning struggle through it all and come out at the end with very little signalling currency (i.e. grades).
Formal education before the age of 10 need not exist. It is glorified babysitting. I do not recall learning anything substantive in school for that period of my life, and I know no one who reports otherwise. Child care need not even exist unless the child is very young. Why not just let the kids run free? If this sounds alien and horrifying to you, please note that there are already places on this planet where children as young as 7 may perform most of the functions of daily life with no adult supervision and commute around gigantic megalopolises either alone or in troupes with other children. It requires an intelligent, high-social-capital society where crime is freakishly rare, which can be facilitated by homogeneity, embryonic selection for IQ (since IQ is linked to all things good), and deliciously brutal punishments for the disruption of public order and safety.
Another reason for the alleged necessity of early education is that a child must be socialised, which is to say interact with other children, and this speaks to the age-segregation trend of the First World. It hits high-IQ children the hardest: “He needs to learn to be with people his own age!” No one ever asks why, because no one actually knows why. Children who are adept at talking to adults are probably doing so out of frustration or boredom with other children, especially if they are bright, and it is not as if this “skill” is something they will carry with them for long – once they become adults, they (especially males) will be forbidden from socialising with children lest they be accused of child molestation.
In the days before institutional education was widespread, children socialised with other children, and adults, in their locale with no school, state, or bureaucracy sticking its nose in. Given the aforesaid prerequisites of high social capital, this is achievable to an even greater degree today. Smartphone addiction in children ought to be encouraged; it is the way of the True Aristocrat. Especially, encourage them to use it to get in touch with other children near them, on the same street or what have you, and then get on with their fun and games – no adult oversight needed. A nursery or daycare where I am from is often no more than a repurposed house in a residential area, much less fun than the setup I have described. This will make for less miserable childhoods and fewer put-upon and harassed parents, which, I think we should all agree, are good things.
“Sarah Jeong is good, her haters are bad (terrible, even). It’s not difficult. I support whatever women need to do – including snarky tweets – to negotiate this racist, sexist website.”
So there you have it. Sarah Jeong is one of the good guys, and her haters (aka white people who responded harshly to her openly hostile tweets about them) are the bad guys.
Nevermind the fact that Twitter is an incredibly easy website to navigate and millions of people manage to do so without constantly expressing their hatred for white men and women. Valenti sneakily attempts to make this a “women being harassed online by men” issue when it isn’t. White women are also increasingly the target of unprovoked vitriol from the likes of intersectional identitarians like Jeong.
For her part, Jeong also misrepresented the situation in that she claimed her anti-white tweets were “counter trolling” in response to harassment she was receiving. However, she conveniently left out the fact that the “harassment” itself was in response to similar inflammatory tweets she made toward the same groups. It’s not like these trolls just randomly appeared in her mentions for no reason, simply to attack her because she’s a woman of color (barf.)
I don’t really have a problem with my co-ethnic, Jessica Valenti (a fellow Italian.) She’s one of my favorite feminists, and as the intersectional community becomes increasingly dominated by hostile non-whites, she’ll eventually find herself cast out, perceived as just another Becky the way Rose McGowan was. A temporary useful ally, soon to be pushed aside. For now though, Valenti still sees herself as one of the good guys…and so do I. After all, both sides are the same.
Anyway, if I’m being totally honest, this whole article was mostly just an excuse to post the theme song from Any Which Way You Can, which struck me as oddly relevant.