Monthly Archives: December 2016

Meine Heimat is poised to implement the most draconian climate change measures ever enacted in the United States. Two Senate Bills require the state to cut various emissions to below their 1990 levels. A skeptical L.A. Times writes:

Californians are likely to pay more for gasoline, electricity, food and new homes — and to feel their lives jolted in myriad other ways — because their state broadly expanded its war on climate change this summer.

The ambitious new goals will require complex regulations on an unprecedented scale, but were approved in Sacramento without a study of possible economic repercussions.

Nor, apparently, were the regulations approved in consultation with the industries they will affect most. The agriculture sector is already fleeing the state, and with ideas like this, more of that industry will continue to flee:

At a heated meeting in June, dairy officials pleaded with the Air Resources Board that they already reduced methane emissions. Air board scientist Ryan McCarthy suggested that new technology could help, and the discussion turned to an experimental system from Argentina that would capture gas in a backpack on each cow through a hose inserted into their digestive system.

“All of our jaws hit the floor,” recalled Raudabaugh. “It is an outlandish scheme.”

Of course, neither the L.A. times nor anyone in Sacramento has named the most obvious source of increasing emissions in the Golden State: people. California’s population has skyrocketed from 10 million in 1950 to almost 40 million today. Growth has “slowed” but is still on an upward trajectory, with CA adding several million people every few years. The majority of these California Dreamers come from places (third world shit holes or rural Midwestern shit holes) that had previously limited their capacity to do what they plan to do as new Californians: drive, consume, drive some more, then consume some more.

CA’s emissions will not be cut to 1990s levels without draconian restrictions on industry or draconian restrictions on migration and fertility. Draconian restrictions on the California lifestyle will not be tolerated by Californians, especially not the new ones (note that the skeptical Times article was written by an Armenian), and although I suspect Governor Moonbeam secretly would like to implement some anti-dysgenic population control measures, that aint happening this side of the zombie apocalypse. So that leaves draconian restrictions on industry in a state famous for draconian restrictions on industry.

How many regulations will it take to break the back of the golden bear?


Shadi Hamid argues that the “deplorable” rhetoric against white Trump voters is counterproductive and perhaps dangerous. Progressives fail to comprehend his ecumenical streak, but it’s easy to explain: being a Sunni Muslim, he knows what a majority backlash can look like when a vengeful minority is on the ascendant.

Sunnis comprise 80% of the world’s Muslims, and they are the majority in much of the Middle East. Only Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite. The West’s strategy has long been to neutralize sect supremacy by putting the minority sect in charge of Muslim nations: Sunnis or Kurds in Iraq, Alawites in Syria, and so on. (It’s curious that the Left doesn’t champion Assad’s regime, since it’s the perfect example of a Secular Minority Government.)

Sunnis are the minority in Iraq, but they’re not the minority in the region and certainly not globally. So one can see how Sunnis being ruled by non-Sunnis in Iraq is a shitty situation for them. Nationally, Iraqi Sunnis are a dominated minority. From a regional or global perspective, however, they’re also a dominated majority. Being both a dominated majority and a dominated minority can’t be good for the psyche.

In Syria, Sunnis comprise 75% of the population and are ruled by secularizing Alawites, who comprise 13% of the population. Here, Sunnis are clearly a dominated majority.

Sunni jihadism and ISIS can thus be understood, to some extent, as a majority backlash against minority ascendancy and rule. The backlash was always bubbling beneath the surface in Syria, but it began in earnest with the placement of non-Sunnis into power in post-invasion Iraq. King Adbdullah II of Jordan understood this from the very beginning. Here’s his infamous “Shia crescent” interview from 2004:

If pro-Iran parties or politicians dominate the new Iraqi government, he said, a new “crescent” of dominant Shiite movements or governments stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon could emerge, alter the traditional balance of power between the two main Islamic sects and pose new challenges to U.S. interests and allies.

Abdullah, a prominent Sunni leader, said the creation of a new Shiite crescent would particularly destabilize Gulf countries with Shiite populations. “Even Saudi Arabia is not immune from this. It would be a major problem. And then that would propel the possibility of a Shiite-Sunni conflict even more, as you’re taking it out of the borders of Iraq,” the king said.

The Middle East is often discussed, as King Abdullah discusses it above, in terms of Sunni versus Shiite Muslims, with syncretic sects caught in the crossfire. However, Sunnis far outnumber Shiites, so the recent Middle East conflagration is better understood as a case of majority backlash. Sunnis were sick and tired of being told what to do by minorities who continued to concentrate their power.

Shadi Hamid recognizes the American parallel. Rightly, he recognizes the potential hornet’s nest the Left is stirring every time it gleefully sounds the death-knell of the white Christian American. In all likelihood, they won’t go quietly into that good night if the Left continues to treat domestic politics as a zero-sum game between Whites and Everyone Else. Majorities aren’t generally fans of minority rule, as the Middle East has violently proven.

Immigration generates a variety of negative and positive effects, many of which are negative or positive depending on one’s position as host nation or migrant.

In my view, one of the most negative effects of immigration is the tendency of immigrants to bring with them to the new world the political strife of the old world.


Here is Shadi Hamid, a Sunni, retweeting a Taiwanese American on her “mixed emotions” regarding Trump’s apparent recognition of Taiwanese sovereignty. This is a good illustration of the problem.

For those who don’t know, Hamid’s position is that America should exert her military power in the Middle East to benefit Sunni Islam. This explains his sympathy for the Taiwanese girl who would like to see America doing more to exert her power to benefit Taiwan. Both, I’m assuming, are first or second generation immigrants who want their new host nation to get involved in old world shit—shit that concerns neither the native American stock nor immigrants from places like Mexico or Nigeria. Imagine that an eighteen year old moves out of his parents’ house because they are constantly fighting and getting violent with each other, and the first thing he does upon taking up residence at a friend’s house is to cajole his friend to intervene in his parents’ fights, even though the friend doesn’t know his parents and has no idea why they fight or whose side to be on. Not cool.

On one hand, I don’t begrudge Hamid’s or the Taiwanese girl’s desire to defend their people (indeed, I agree with a lot of what Hamid writes regarding secular liberalism and Islam). Tribalism is a natural human instinct, and only progressive urban whites seem inclined to disavow their own kind.

On the other hand, I do begrudge Hamid’s and the Taiwanese girl’s desire to hijack their new country’s systems to address their old countries’ problems. For them, America is a tool, and they don’t seem particularly interested in what’s good for America or Americans in their decision to wield that tool for their own tribal ends. Staking a position in the Chinese/Taiwanese fight is certainly not in America’s interest. Nor is meddling in the Sunni/Shia vortex, but of course, that ship has already sailed. But as an American, Hamid shouldn’t be exacerbating the problem by cajoling his new countrymen into joining his side in a fight that does not or should not involve us.

As David Goldman has long pointed out, the traditional bargain for immigrants to America was that they gained liberal access to all the benefits of American society on condition that they gave up their old world identities and stopped being involved in old world bullshit. Of course, different ethnic groups honored this bargain on different time frames (the Fenians were futzing about as late as 1880). By and large, however, the bargain was honored—by the Italians, the Germans, the Greeks, the Slavs. It was even honored by the first wave of Mexicans in the middle of the twentieth century (my grandparents made sure their kids grew up speaking English and dating gringos). America is indeed an immigrant nation, but historically, it has been a nation of immigrants willing to give up their immigrant identity and to forge a new American one grounded in commerce, a Protestant work ethic, and Anglo political structures.

The trend lately is just the opposite: more and more immigrants refuse to give up their old world identities. They adopt an American identity, to be sure, but it is the quintessential hyphenated American identity bemoaned by the Bull Moose. Dual identity is the emerging norm. Immigrants’ children learn English (although that may begin to change in California); they dress like Americans; they consume American media. However, thanks to new technologies, they also keep a foot in the old world, which means we now have a growing immigrant population that is bringing more and more old world shit to the United States—like Hamid and the Taiwanese girl.

(Let me admit that, unfortunately, America’s political elite has, if not created, at least made worse a lot of the old world shit that immigrants are fleeing. America is not as innocently isolationist and non-imperialist as it was before the World Wars. As always, the exploits of the Washington establishment have consequences for everyone but themselves.)