Andrew Jackson and the anti-Cathedral Part II


Honor was banished from America in large part coincidentally with the banishment of The Jacksonian from social and intellectual respectability. This was in no manner accidental. It was studied. To understand what is missing when honor is banished, we first need to examine what honor actually means. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary is a reasonably unbiased data source for estimating the current meaning of a word. Here goes:

Full Definition of honor
1 a : good name or public esteem : reputation
b : a showing of usually merited respect : recognition 2 : privilege
3 : a person of superior standing —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office
4 : one whose worth brings respect or fame : credit
5 : the center point of the upper half of an armorial escutcheon

We simplify this down to reputation, recognition, privilege, an order of earned merit, and credit. (We’ll ignore armorial escutcheons because they sound too much like some medical condition.) As we examine the definition above, we see a list of words that would be an anathema to SJWs. Honor reveals itself to be a system allowing us to operate outside the demesne of an overdeterming state. Honor, I conclude, is OS Freedom.

We go through this exercise to set up a discussion that I left hanging in a blog post last week. I was discussing how the banishment of the Jacksonian quadrant of America’s founding ideology had left our national commonweal dangled above the ditch. I remarked the following.

…it’s not too abusive a stretch to map Wilsonians to Progressives, Jacksonians to Classical Liberals, Hamiltonians to Authoritarians and Jeffersonians to Civil Libertarians. Banish one of these four vectors to the outer darkness and you get a disturbance in the force…In recent years The Jacksonian portion of this Tao has been banished to the trailer parks of Appalachian Hollows. This has led to the death of honor* and traditional culture in Elite American Society.

This death of honor is no mean observation and deserves further deliberation. Taking the Jacksonian Quadrant out of America while leaving the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians remaining in proper apposition, leaves Cthulhu but one direction to swim… Yet this is just a facile discussion of a more complex Free Body Diagram. Saying two forces work to cancel each other gives us a layman’s perspective. To evolve towards journeyman status, we need to examine the mechanism driving the force. Jacksonianism thwarts Wilsonianism. The questions previously begged was just “how?”

The answer, quite simply, is honor. Honor allows a society to function without constant micro-management. Middle management meatballs are what you get for killing honor. They are who drives the managerial state. Without these meddlesome, maundering morons to populate its armies with SJWs; Progressivism wouldn’t make any progress. Honor provides a mechanism to get your own defecation in sequence without the aid of some middle management meatball.

So how does honor thwart the Left? It makes them utterly unnecessary. An independent man with a 30.06 doesn’t need a freaking dog-catcher. The Wilsonian gains control when you make that independent man pay taxes for a dog catcher. The Wilsonian will then lobby the legislature to confiscate the 30.06 because the dog catcher conveniently renders it unnecessary.

Cthulhu you say? Aren’t we just comparing courses of action for ridding the streets of mangy rabid curs? Isn’t government supposed to do that? I mean, why have it if it doesn’t? So let me ask you one silly, little old question. Does any Progressive really care about mangy rabid curs? If you guessed no, the next question to address is then “why do they bother?” It doesn’t require a PhD in anything to realize the entire discussion was a way to take away each independent man’s 30.06. Yet that doesn’t get us all the way home to The Big Why.

We also haven’t addressed a couple of other points an SJW would walk you right passed before you could ask the inconvenient forbidden questions that lead the rational mind towards the satanic graveyard of undead hate truths. Isn’t government supposed to do that? Um, not if Mr. Remington does it faster, cheaper and better. But doesn’t that involve risk? Doesn’t the dog catcher not bothering and you having no recourse when he doesn’t also involve risk? The Progressive insidiously assumes that you can’t do this yourself in a responsible fashion while the government will never fail. Which government minister in Venezuela was in charge of grocery stores again?

Now, that second nagging question. Why have government if it doesn’t do things? The Wilsonian, Progressive, Socialistic, SJW is just about cracking up right now. The entire argument that government exists to do things is a dishonest lie. I’m going to have to pick a bone with a former US President here. Ronald Wilson Reagan once remarked the following. “The words ‘I’m with the government and I’m here to help you’ are the ten most frightening words in the English Language.” I think he should have said that they were the ten most untrue.

The government, and all the apparatchik shrubs that constantly want more of it, are not here to help you. They are here to help themselves. They are here to help themselves to you and all the stuff that is currently yours. The only alternative to the managerial state that allows the progressives to use your butt as an ATM to pay for their perpetual Visigoth Holiday is an emergent concept of honor. The concept that was most fully embodied in Jacksonian America.

The current Progressive government that has replaced and overwhelmed the once-great American Republic has so succeeded because it has banished the entire concept of honor. It fears the return of honor the way a parasitic Nosferatu fears the crucifix. The Good Progressive derides the man of honor as a bitter clinger hanging on to his Bible and, not coincidentally, his 30.06.

The paradox of liberalism


For years, I listened to people telling me “complex” Leftist theory is. After a brief bit of analysis — coming on the heels of having read the classics of Western philosophy — I found myself laughing at their statements. Liberalism is no more complex than a vending machine, but it contains a twist that baffles 98% of humanity.

Recently an article in the Boston Globe discovered this glitch and opined about it in the usual neurotic muddle of liberals that tries to incorporate many details of the current time to “hide the ball” about the actual simplicity of liberalism:

In liberalism’s race to get ahead, Hartz said, the insecurity of those who win provokes their escalating displays of wealth, but the anxieties and pain of those who fall behind cut deeper scars. Liberalism offers no remedies for these scars because it only defends purely individual rights. Deep divisions might undermine the unwritten social solidarity that is the essential foundation of liberalism itself.

Let me translate this: liberalism says we are all equal, and yet results in reality say otherwise. How do we resolve this paradox? The answer is that we do not, and so we become neurotic in our attempts to do so. Even in the most idealized of liberal societies, some have risen above others. Even the most Communist society must have some leaders, and they will have dachas in the countryside.

The author of that piece cannot face this paradox. His solution? More liberalism:

Donald Trump is an old standby of unconscious liberalism, but Bernie Sanders just might be a real democratic socialist. His campaign focuses on rectifying income inequality, a product of liberalism that liberalism cannot address because it only speaks of individual rights.

Someone will be hired to administer equal income. This person will have more-equal income than the less-equal people to whom he distributes. In every area of life, someone will be better at running the show than others. This person will either receive more income, more power, or both through rewards like dachas which technically are not income but would be purchased with income.

It’s time to point out that liberalism/Leftism is entirely nonsense. People are not equal in ability, therefore they are not equal; some rise above others because of their greater ability, which is an observation straight out of the pages of Charles Darwin’s books. What the American founding fathers meant by “equal” is that people deserve the right to pursue their destinies independent of a government shaping them toward ideological ends. It was actually a statement against liberalism, but to the Boston Globe author, it might as well have been written in Greek.

We have had over two centuries of theory trying to explain around the basic paradox of Leftism. These liberal ideas “sound good” but do not work in reality. This spurs a need for people to invent more of them, since people like the idea of liberalism because it sounds socially acceptable. That is, in sum, what you need to know about liberalism.

An experienced and more cynical American consumer might identify more of what liberalism actually is: advertising. It is promises that sound good, made to the consumer so that they buy the product. The product in this case is rule by liberals, who promptly vote themselves big fat salaries and government regulations that benefit their industries while destroying every other competing force. This ultimately dooms the society.

Looking back through history, we can see the Magna Carta as a formalization of liberalism. A group of merchants wanted to have greater power so that they could make greater profits and so they induced change in the political system to favor them. Being smart, but not quite as smart as their leaders, their first move was to find a way to depose those leaders, and they found they could do it through this universally-popular advertising.

The Americans tried to limit this impulse with a Constitution that in their view would protect citizens against government so that commercial interests would not run roughshod over the needs of ordinary people. It took only a few decades for people to hack around those limits and, with the rise of Lincoln, America became exactly what its founders did not want: an ideologically-driven state imprinting on its citizens that ideology.

While liberals generate mountains of words to try to hide their fundamentally simplistic view behind surface complexity, it wreaks great destruction upon us. We are chasing ghosts and illusions and in consequence, ignoring the actual problem of civilization, which is how — in the absence of regulation by nature — to keep citizenship open only to the useful people and avoid diluting ourselves into mediocrity, then facing the inevitable wrath of entropy.

All of this for a little twist, which is the idea that we are all equal except for liberals who are more-equal intellectually, and therefore we must serve them in order to gain… equality. Imagine if we had skipped this silly episode in our history and simply stuck to reality instead. How much farther along would we be?

Conversations about Dark Organizations


Books have tackled the topic of “dark organizations” and lately academic rigor was attempted by Linstead et al. (including Garance Marechal at Manchester University). Initially it was thought that it was a psychological topic, then a sociological topic, so it came as no surprise that these academics concluded a multi-disciplinary domain as suitable for conversations around “dark organizations.”

So instead of diving into the detail of dark organizational case studies, it may be possible to simply discuss the issue in a random sort of way. For example a physicist mentioned entropy the other day saying that “if all roads leads to Rome and you are on a road, then it would be safe to say that you will end up in Rome!”

The conversation will then tend to move towards “where are you now?” and that is where the fun starts. How to answer that becomes more important because – will you be honest, or will you attempt to put things “into perspective” with a metaphor, or will you lie?

Typically a manager would repeat the rhyme currently pushed by the company:

  • Vision
  • Mission
  • Structure
  • Objective
  • Metrics
  • Performance
  • Change

Clearly he won’t say anything about himself, or his own career path, or his own frustrations. Does that mean he was being dark? Not at all. Withholding information is not a crime unless it aids and abets a crime. In the case of dark organizations there is no crime, however, worker unions have a wonderful term called “go slow” as an activity they propose as an alternative to “strike action.” Going slow may look like a dark organization because performance drops substantially, but it is not, because they are honest about it. They will look you in the eye, lying about their activities (assuming therefore that you know about the “go-slow”) requiring you to infer the reality of how a go-slow can be fixed.

So, if you are on the road where you are withholding information (or pretending), and additionally not being honest or following a “dishonest” process, then you generate a picture that is untrue and will end up not making sense to the audience. Darkness is, if you are on the road to no-where, you will most surely end up there. The result of ending up no-where, is that you will become mad, literally. Somebody estimated that 25% of people are mentally unstable. I am sure that is over-stated, but how would one know? DNA genetics statistics suggested the other day that psychological traits can be inherited. This seems plausible only if you include un-certifiable mental illnesses. If you can’t certify it, you cannot make laws on it meaning going dark is not a crime, it’s a condition(trait) that causes your company to go slow permanently.

It is quite limiting for managers to know they can’t prohibit dark behavior in employment letters, or punish it with a disciplinary policy. However, it is also comforting for them to know that they have this avenue should things go south. And things can get bad, as described by psychiatrist Howard Stein, so bad in fact that an employee can become traumatized and erratic while suffering limited memory loss (permanently). I know a mathematician that had to develop traffic light algorithms in a short time span, losing it, was “let go” and ended up divorced and living in a caravan/camping site. If this particular intelligent person had followed the dark road, he would not have gone mad (so quickly) but his boss may have lost it. Funny enough, as it turned out eventually, the company dropped the entire $6m product drive and the executive in charge had to leave himself, unable to explain what went wrong. (There were more trauma cases in case you were wondering.).

At this point the conversationalists becomes a little wary because they realize it can happen to them too. So the questions then attempt to determine the extent of darkness in society.

Re-direct to the American management topic of “hire and fire”. It is normal to say in a “capitalist” society we are proud to embrace the policy of “hire and fire” and that it’s normal to have “two” jobs. Meaning that when I talk to a bank employee, I should know that he won’t be there next time I visit. This makes it difficult for me (the client). And here I thought the customer is “king.” Not in America.

However, the push-back against hire and fire can be seen since it is quite visible. The auto workers union succeeded in bringing the American automotive industry to its knees. They are represented at Board level and can virtually veto any management decision. I am sure there are more qualified people able to describe this situation but I am also sure Daimler and Obama can tell dark stories about this.

Re-direct (again) to the American(ised) topic of “industrialization.” It is not a new concept since the “Industrial Age” however, industry bodies attempt to “industrialize” the industry (such as the automotive industry permeating every nook and cranny of society worldwide), not to forget about pharmaceuticals, or the oil and fracking industries affecting geo-politics through a plethora of lobbyists, but the latest and not least -– the election industry where “strategists” are now circling countries, let alone political parties. The point of any “industry” is to maximize its impact on society, in order to perpetuate the salaries and pensions of those working there. In other words –- it has nothing to do with clients or even voters. The next upcoming “industry” is the geographic information systems industry.

This motivates how the American middle-class is being marginalized, because they have become the target. This is serious stuff but the conversationalist feels better because he/she is not in focus here, the elite is, and it is easy to shift focus and blame to an amorphous entity that everybody will agree with.

So now that we are comfortable the question is –- “yes but, to what extent is this going on in business” (getting closer to conditions that may affect his salary and bonus). Unfortunately the author Jim Collins wrote a book tiled How the Mighty Fall which is about listed companies evaluated over a period of 10 years. Of those approximately 20, 000 companies only 11 passed the test to be called “Great” while the “rest” are clearly not. This requires further clarification however: a company performing at 20% of its potential is assumed to have failed and ignored. However, many of those continue to exist and do not always go bankrupt. I would suggest that a simple life-long multi-year revenue chart may actually be better to expose a dark organization.

The rising concern in dark organizations is multi-nationals able to pick the low fruit of tax havens en production facilities in the “world” and then to enforce their “policies” directly on local executives at will. Not to improve the local organization, but to improve the “salary silo” at headquarters (where-ever that may be).
At this point the conversationalist starts to see the bigger picture and the question (of a more concerning nature) becomes: “Yes, but where do all this come from?”

To answer that one has to investigate humans. How did humans evolve? What makes us do things? The answer is difficult but some light was shed by Dr. Victoria Horner with her research on differences between human and gorilla children’s learning abilities. The difference is that humans over-imitate while gorillas just imitate while learning. Both species imitate their parents in order to develop survival skills, but humans do it (slightly) differently.

It is possible to deduce that humans use tools and that by imitating the use of “tools” rather than “purpose” (food) that gorillas are interested in, humans developed a force multiplier projecting them to the civilization we have today. However, we have never learnt to “limit” tools because we have until now assumed that we will always go “forward” being optimistic and all, you know.

The gorilla learning needs understanding as well because some humans do that rather than learning tools (because tools are difficult). The gorilla is “aware” of the “purpose” of the actions he wants to imitate. In other words, the end-goal of the actions undertaken is what the gorilla learn(food), not the unnecessary technique. Some humans (a lot), whom in modern times could be described as SJWs, do that too. In other words, if you talk to them, they would focus on what your purpose(intention) is, rather than the detail of what you discuss. Their actions then will be determined by what they think your goal is, while they will NEVER inform you of their own goal/purpose. This is of course darkness personified.

The conversationalist now realize how fragile humans are. So the question becomes more security oriented, “yes, but how do we protect ourselves.” This is a very important question and most people think about the short term, but it’s actually the long term we should be concerned about. The crux of security is also in our early education between parent and child. According to Dr. Barbara Holtman researching a solution to South African crime, she (finally) suggested that children not be jailed and that alternative remediating education be implemented for them – to reduce crime that affects 25% to 50% of the population (2 million serious crimes per year). In other words, what she is saying is that we should raise our kids properly. As Donald Trump might say: this is yuge.

For a change, the Right should demote loudmouths


The Roosh V drama brought to light a troubling aspect of the Right, which is that we tend to give credence to angry, simplistic voices demanding ideological when we should look toward more realistic solution. These “loudmouths” infest every right-wing movement and inevitably drive away good people because they are fanatical without reason.

Against Roosh they raised, repetitively, two basic points: he is not white, and he writes about casual sex. The first point is non-serious, since anyone who is saying anything that supports our viewpoint is an ally and keeping them out because they are not of Us is the most reductionist form of nationalism. We should accept truths found anywhere and make them work for us. The second is something I find troubling as well, but when I see a voice that is partially broken and partially fixed, especially if it has gone from broken to mostly fixed, I see an ally who is only improving in clarity. We all have our mistakes to regret.

More importantly, however, the loudmouths clarified their role as destroyers. Simplistic approaches to our task result in “policing” of membership as a means of selecting only those with strong simple statements of ideology, which produces fanatics who cannot consider any of the subtleties of applying their beliefs — and are thus likely to engage in the thuggery, sneering superiority complexes and other behavior which will drive normal, well-adjusted people away. Loudmouths destroy the right by sacrificing its future audience for its present clubhouse mentality.

Strong statements appeal to the right because we face a mental virus, liberalism, which succeeds because it is simple. Liberalism boils down to a single idea: individualism, or the notion that the individual should not be accountable to social standards or results. Phrased as “equality,” this belief polarizes people because it appeals to their fear of being insufficient or wrong and demands they be included and tolerated despite mistakes. Conservatives have always thirsted for a similar statement that in its simplicity conveys strength.

At this blog, it has been suggested for many years that conservatism is not actually that much more complex. We have two basic beliefs, realism and transcendentalism. Realism means we take the world as it is and act on it according to its order, not our desires for what “should be”; transcendentalism means that while doing so, we steer ourselves always to what is best and not merely utilitarian or adequate. We have the simple, clear path we need.

However, as any realist will remind you, people are unequal — and minds are unequal. Each person understands what he can comprehend and those at the lower end of the curve will over-simplify to their level of understanding. In human groups, the tendency is to go after emotional statements or ideologically extreme simplistic ones because those are easily understood.

For this reason, the Right must police itself, but not in the simple “blue team vs. red team” way that the loudmouths desire. We need a hierarchy where the more accurate voices come out on top, not the clearer (i.e. simpler, louder, angrier) ones. We do not need to replicate Fox News in the alternative Right, new right, underground right, etc. We need to return to the days of statesmen and orators where the whole truth was heard.

We can see the loudmouth travesty play out wherever conservatism appeals because liberalism has failed. A normal person goes seeking answers, and gets back a rant on God, guns and the flag (plus “working hard” at do-nothing, pointless jobs). Someone goes to a white nationalist and instead of finding a working solution, encounters angry people who are more concerned with harming other races than promoting their own. Naturally, people of sound mind flee from these crazies, which gives the crazies the clubhouse they want: everyone inside must bow to their authority now, or be driven out and called nasty names.

In my experience, most of these loudmouths are only partially extracted from liberalism. They are still seeking the great simple ideological imperative through some kind of victimhood status. If given power, they will degenerate conservatism into a right-flavored form of liberalism as a result. Our hierarchy needs to push the loudmouths down to the bottom where they can stop driving away everyone who does not share their simplistic perspective.

As conservatives, we are grim realists who can understand that diversity, democracy, pluralism and equality are illusions which will never work. We can see that our society is in full decline and must be arrested by radical action. But we are not radicals for radicalism’s sake, which is what the loudmouths are, nor are we acting out emotional fantasies as they are. It is time to recapture our initiative from these people who will destroy it.

2016: Why capitalism is in the crosshairs


As an old almost forgotten adage goes, “The truth hides in plain sight.” This means that most human activities are dedicated to hiding truth because it offends us personally, at an emotional level, and since it is in plain sight that common sense must be obscured. We must become magicians and snake oil salesman, distracting the audience with the waving of the hand while the other hand slyly hides the prize.

So it is in politics where in 2016, it is suddenly popular to bash capitalism again. This, as the world’s leading socialist state in Venezuela implodes, socialist Europe goes broke and cannot lead itself, and even our socialist-style social programs here in America have driven us to a $19 trillion debt. Of all the things to blame, it would seem that capitalism would come dead last!

And yet, that is why it is blamed: the crowd needs a scapegoat. It cannot admit to itself that not only are its social programs mere gimmes disguised as altruism, but that they have failed to do anything of real impact except make the problem worse. Our social programs take most of our taxes, and most of that is taken from the middle class, which is why the middle class is eroding while the underclass grows.

That shows us the intersection between typical human political thinking and typical human individualism. Individualism says that the world is there for the individual, and implies that nothing changes since the time the individual first encountered it. Try this with older generations: you will note they are stranded in 1965 in their minds because that is when they came into the world. Typical human political thinking is that since “everyone must get along,” you can use those who are succeeding to bolster those who are not, and then — problem solved! Except, of course, that viewpoint looks at the wrong problem.

The real problem is not that some are starving; it is that their society does not provide wealth that they could take advantage of. Robin Hood programs take income from where it generates more income and distribute it to where it goes to dead-end uses because its spending is exclusively at the consumer level, and the lowest level of consumer activity at that. The reason nature concentrates resources is so that they can have more effect; dispersing them lessens that effect. This is why socialism and welfare states are paths to death.

And yet these programs are popular. Why? Me, me, me: people think in terms of themselves and they like the safety implied by welfare and socialism. “I cannot fail, because I will be subsidized,” the thinking goes. Even more, they delight in the thought of taking from the people who did make it big and giving to the rest. Punish those bastards for making us all look bad. They forget that in the meantime they set up giant bureaucracies and dump money onto clueless people who spend it badly, enriching all the wrong people in the process.

Capitalism on the other hand does not deserve an -ism at all because it is business, pure and simple. The only difference between capitalism and communism is accountability. Under capitalism, the individual makes financial decisions and reaps reward or failure. Under socialism, the group absorbs both loss and gain. It is like decision insurance and as in insurance, only the owl-eyed bureaucrat makes out like a bandit. Then because the entire system is risk-averse, no one makes decisive actions, and so entropy takes it to the cleaners.

Our current fad for blaming capitalism — popular among both inveterate leftist Boomers like Jerry Garcia Bernie Sanders and clueless products of public television Millennials — is to avoid blaming what we should blame. Yes, we should blame our socialist drift which has driven the West into debt and trashed its public institutions. But even more, as a society we are unable to make any good decisions. We are risk-averse there too. And what kind of insurance do we have there? Oh yes: democracy, or the system where no one person is accountable.

The leader is elected, but he is held in check by laws and the representatives. They can in turn blame the opposition party. And the voters can blame each other. The problem is that decisions are not made, but assessed. If enough people vote for something, it is adopted and everyone can blame everyone else. The scapegoat mania spreads. And so in the West, we have a rotting infrastructure: it is unpopular to demand spending on anything but bennies. Both USA and EU are awash in third-world refugees who secretly (or in some cases, not so secretly) resent us and want to destroy us: it is unpopular to cut anyone out, to violate any individual’s human/civil rights. And so it is that the same risk aversion that destroyed the Soviet Union has taken hold here.

The real culprit in 2016 is democracy, or emocracy as we might call it because it consists of people making decisions with their emotions instead of reality-based thinking, and yet we cannot blame it because it is popular because it hands out the bennies. So what can we blame that has a small audience of supporters, so as to remain popular? Why, capitalism of course; in theory only the rich support it, and they are few. See, Romans, the day is saved; we have found the witch and we can burn it. Nonetheless doubts remain.

I first encountered these doubts when I saw the results of first British socialism and next Euro-socialism. In the UK, people talked about how they had adopted the new ways, which seemed suspiciously like a productized form of what their Communism enemies were doing. At first, this hybrid between the socialist welfare state and union dominance of production seemed pleasant. Then I saw the expensive rotting council slums, the industry which could not make a working car, the massive bureaucratic shutdowns. When I went to mainland Europe, I was at first pleased with how the state supported students, the elderly and the poor until I saw the cost. Everything was expensive and any change was nearly impossible because of red tape. No, I thought, I prefer the frontier mentality of America where we expect next to nothing from government and pay accordingly. That has its own problems, but the solution is not to go toward this European socialist model.

Humanity is its own worse enemy. The perpetually popular ideas are risk-averse ones that spread that risk to the group and in the process, remove accountability from the decision makers. Trade unions, welfare states, socialism itself and mandatory insurance all fall into this area. The perpetually unpopular ideas are the ones which place the burden on the individual and favor the individuals who do right, because these make people aware of their risk of failure. The fear spreads like a plague. Once it has taken over, people will do anything but blame the cause.

As a result, humanity has come down to a vital decision point in the West. Do we stop the risk-averse madness and start taking responsibility, or do we continue beating the dead horse of these failed policies in the hope that someday they will magically start working? Common sense says one thing, and mass popularity — democracy — says another. One comfort is that either way, these may be our last elections and so the problem will solve itself, one way or another.

In defense of Roosh V


Roosh V, popular blogger at Return of Kings, is currently under assault from left and right, especially after this Daily Mail article about his response to threats made by SJW Leftists against his person.

In my view, Roosh is one of the good guys. He wanted to talk about how modern values are terrible and so he found a way to reveal their failings, namely the pickup artist agenda, which shows how vapid casual sex really is — and attracts the kind of audience that can fund a blogger. He then went on with Return of Kings to write about how a restoration of classical society might be possible. That is a mighty achievement, and Roosh has introduced more people to traditionalism, rightism, realism and family-oriented thinking than just about any other source.

Yes, they come tainted, but this time is tainted, and all things are gross, so all of us reach a point of decision with a weight of past failures and illusions. We are all trying to purge the ghost of Leftist thinking from our minds, which is a mighty task since we have been inculcated since birth in constant Leftist propaganda, from our televisions, corporate advertising, “scientists,” even parents and friends. We are awash in lies and finding a way out is hard.

I dislike casual sex and by extension, I dislike pickup artist (PUA) behavior. At the same time, I admire it, because it demystifies casual sex. Casual sex happens when two or more people are looking for someone else to use as a masturbation aid. I say masturbation aid because these people do not want lovemaking, or the emotional/physical bonding of people, but to experience orgasm in the least involved way possible. Casual sex is a step removed from using a fleshlight or raping a goat, but only a short step. PUAs called that bluff and revealed the psychology behind casual sex, then mostly migrated toward being Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) who demand more out of life than willing vapid sex partners.

As it stands, it is unclear whether Roosh has participated in any of this stuff beyond through a very vivid imagination and more engaging retelling of the literature in the field, which peaked in the 1970s and has not really added anything new since. Perhaps he has always been blogging from the basement with PUA/MRA as his canvas, but his real objective indicated by the name of his website, Return of Kings. Or maybe it is all farce. Either way, Roosh has enraged the usual Leftist suspects and turned on many people to rightist theory, and for that alone he deserves defense.

Why I am a conservative


In the current day and age, claiming to be conservative evokes disbelief. Not only is conservatism the banished enemy of our dominant liberal ideology, but “conservatives” — these days — seem to be people without a plan. Many people have gone looking for another alternative to being the captive opposition.

However, questions of philosophy do not reduce to who claims to hold a view, but what that view is. Over the years, every view becomes adulterated to fit to its audience instead of its audience fitting into it, and so periodic renewals occur when someone points out that the original idea has decayed. A view that is correct will always be so, and if it has been misinterpreted, needs correction not abandonment.

Another way of viewing this is that someone who possesses a conservative philosophy will manifest it no matter what name they call it. Philosophies generally have two major prongs: how to know what is true, and how to know what to do about it. In liberalism, this could be summarized as:

  • True: Whatever is new — not the existing order — is true.
  • Do  : If it makes people feel happy to think it is true, do it.

In this we can see the utilitarian nature of liberalism: whatever most people think will make them happy is right. Also revealed is its nature as a rebellious philosophy, namely that it assumes whatever has existed in the past is a nightmare and any replacement is an improvement.

We can imagine situations where this approach would seem right. If someone is emerging from a truly abusive situation, such as a bad family dynamic, the best thing to do is discard all that they have known as normal and to select new methods. Without further data, they pick whatever the group thinks will be good.

Naturally, this leaves us with half of a philosophy. How do we verify what of our preferred methods turned out well and therefore should be kept? Liberalism assumes this will be handled by the preference of the group, but that assumes that people remember what has gone before and what the options are.

Conservatism updates this with a philosophy that more resembles the scientific method, but with an artistic twist. Here is the conservative outline:

  • True: Whatever works according to results in reality, is true.
  • Do  : If what works leads toward transcendental goals, do it.

The scientific basis the reality test: does this produce the results it claims to, when actually tested in the real world? If not, it may be “real” as a thought can seem to be, but not accurate and therefore not true. The artistic twist comes from the transcendental goals, which are absolutes which can never be fully realized: excellence, beauty, goodness and truthfulness.

Unlike most philosophies, conservatism does not try to translate reality into symbols. Terms like “true” and “good” are left as an exercise to the reader, with the knowledge that the smarter and more honest/noble among them will figure it out while the other 98.6% (approximately) will do what Simians always do, which is do whatever their egos want to do anyway and rationalize it as good or true after the fact. (Some see liberalism as being of this nature, since it requires only intent and feelings and has no reality-based test).

As a guiding force for actual living people, conservatism works under any circumstance. It encourages us to know our world, and then to act for the best results. This does not mean that we can deny how the world works and conjure up an image of how we wish it would work, and then enforce that on others with the consensus of the group. At its heart, conservatism opposes group consensus because that consensus is a lesser method than truth.

The term “conservative” comes from the idea of conservation itself, which means saving good and functional methods under the constant onslaught of human desires to do anything but those. When we look at humanity, we see a species capable of remarkable self-delusion and a tendency to indulge in wishful thinking which it mistakes for realism. Against this flood of chaotic nonsense conservatives attempt to hold on to what actually works, fully realizing they are the smallest minority in their society because everyone else wants the opposite.

Trying to divorce the idea of “conserve” from the notion of conserving what is good has cost modern conservatives plenty. I fully acknowledge that these people are misguided, but I see them more as a consumerist production version of a good thing, like soda replacing sassafras, McDonald’s replacing food, light cigarettes replacing cigars, and Budweiser replacing beer. There is always a market for a dumbed-down version of any idea because this flatters the egoism of those who partake in it. They no longer need to know quality from junk, but can indulge in something conveniently sugared and salty and cheap and pretend they have the real thing.

Conservatism took me to some surprising places. In contrast to mainstream conservatives, I see the importance of conservation in both nature and human beings. This means setting aside giant chunks of land for its natural purpose, and liberating people from pointless activities including make-work jobs and bureaucracy. It also showed me the importance of keeping the law away so people can enjoy pleasurable activities like drinking at the pub, smoking a cigar with friends, or even the “reckless” fun things the Nanny State tries to keep away from us.

Not many anti-work and pro-conservation conservatives exist anymore, but we used to be at the forefront of both of these movements, resisting “Progress” back when progress meant industry at any cost. Conservatives have always defended the quiet life and the wild life so long as it brings actual pleasure, and not merely grim conformity like drug use and promiscuity seem to. We conserve life itself, holding back the flood surge of illusions dreamed up by lonely people in their unrealistic minds.

As new movements — inevitably based on liberal ideas infused with some conservative leanings — come and go, conservatism remains a bulwark because it is not a policy, but a way of thinking. It encourages us to recognize life for what it is and make the best of it. It forms the starting point of our thought and a workable basis for discovering where we should go. Since most of human thought is entirely irrelevant, it stands out as the one right answer in a sea of distractions.

Iowa proves that democrats do not believe in democracy


Do you know who totally avoids suffering from the fallacy of Democracy Fetishism? The people who do political fixing in democracy’s vile viscera. We saw how little the actual democrat worker-bees belief in the system that pays their bills in Iowa. We saw how perverse incentives are leading them to do things that frustrate the philosophical intent of the very system they claim to believe in and represent. When demotism replaces democracy, democracy became nothing more than a machine to produce power, the demotist scumbags then cheat to make “democracy” say what they want it to. To paraphrase Good, Old Iosif (Joseph) Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili; democracy empowers whoever is counting the votes.

The best analogy describing how democracy got practiced in Monday’s Iowa Caucuses comes from abroad. Turkish Demotic Thug, Pratip Erdogan tells us the following: “Democracy is like a street car; you ride it as far as you need, and then you get off”. When the votes started getting counted in Iowa, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz decided that it was time to get off. Of the three, Rubio was clearly the smartest, but all three still benefited from practices that call the quality and genuineness of the democracy practiced in Iowa into serious question.

Pace the Stalin quote mentioned in the first paragraph, the people counting the votes in Iowa for both parties used an app designed by Microsoft. Microsoft strongly agrees with both Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio on issues involving immigration reform. So strongly did the Microsoft Corporation want to see looser immigration standards in America that they funded 42 out of the 457 organized lobbying attempts on behalf of these issues cataloged by Open They are more open borders than even Walt Disney. The most open borders company in Amerika counted the votes. The most open borders Democrat won the caucus. The most open borders Republican to be seriously competitive significantly over-performed his polling average heading into the event. Will of the people my arse!

Then there was the amazing “luck” enjoyed by the Clinton Campaign during the process of awarding caucus points that lead to nominating delegates. Six of the caucus meetings on the Democratic side ended up in a deadlock. The Iowa Democratic Party breaks unresolved ties using a coin flip. Can you guess who just happened to win all six of them? Why it was Hillary Rodham Clinton, that same amazing lady who just happened to make $2million in the cattle futures market the first time she ever tried. If you don’t believe in serendipity, that sort of thing occurs with an unbiased likelihood of (1/2^6). That would be almost, but not quite a 2% – if you are The Foolish Bayesian and base your assumption on the presence of a fair coin. Again, will of the people my arse!

Finally, we get to the reprehensible Mr. Cruz. What he did wasn’t illegal. Front-running certain trades on Wall Street via superior information technology isn’t illegal either. Senator Cruz started a rumor that a competitor of his, Dr. Ben Carson, was dropping out of the race. He so endeavored based on data mining that told him that he was the 2nd choice of a lot of people intending to vote Ben Carson. This perhaps switched a nice, useful pile of votes over to him at the last minute. He went on to defeat Donald Trump by a nice, small margin. Being the slick attorney in tousled loafers, he apologized to Dr. Carson for the “misunderstanding.” Will of the people? You guessed it….my arse!

It was interesting to hear multi-billionaire political neophyte Donald Trump talk about buying a farm in Iowa sometime in the future. If he doesn’t get over any illusions he has about democracy having any inherent morality, he’ll definitely buy the farm. He’ll buy it right after Rubio, Cruz and the GOP-e gang of midgets get done giving him the ever-loving business. The Iowa Caucasus were a cesspool of vile corruption. That’s the rot you smell when a when-designed Democratic-Republic has undergone entropic decomposition into a demotic tyranny.

The Philadelphia 76ers suck because socialism does too


The once-proud, once-noble Philadelphia 76ers are now the Washington Generals to the rest of the NBA’s Harlem Globetrotters. If NBA teams got to have Homecoming Week, they’d have the 76ers over to the gym on Friday Night to stoke the home team’s delusions of adequacy. The 76ers are at the halfway point of another lost season. They are at 4 wins and 37 losses with a lower winning percentage than the actual Washington Generals would post against a similar NBA schedule. They have been impossibly bad for 2½ seasons now. That’s a stretch spanning 205 games in which they’ve only won 41. That’s 20% since 2013.

It’s very hard for anyone to be this bad or incompetent at random. In most functions of society, you won’t get paid to spend 2½ years of your life like that. Even rodeo clowns and comedic straight-men are quite literally just kidding. How likely could the 76ers have done this by mistake?

Since they moved to Philadelphia from Syracuse to start the 1963 season, the 76ers have played 4,268 regular season games. They’ve won 2,146 for a franchise winning percentage 0f 50.28%. Doing some elementary stats*, if you knew nothing else about basketball except what I’ve told you in this paragraph, ceteris parabis the Philadelphia 76ers are 95% likely to win between (38 and 43 games in a given year). Over a typical 205 game stretch, they should successfully win between (96 and 110 games). The likelihood of accidentally only winning 41 games** over this stretch can be calculated if you like nanoscale numbers. It’s -8.66 standard deviations away from what you’d typically expect of them. That makes it less than 0.0002 (2/100ths of 1 percent) likely to occur through happenstance.

Applying Occam ’s razor here tells us something. You can’t suck this badly by accident even after several bong hits. You can’t do it unless you try! This is studied and deliberate malfeasance. This would even get a Civil Servant fired. So how come nobody just got a shiny, new EBT Card in the mail? The 76ers want to suck this badly because they get rewarded. They are incentivized to deliberately throw a season’s worth of games.

They are incentivized by the socialistic NBA draft lottery system. The NBA inducts most of its new players before a season begins via a 2 round draft. Teams so bereft of competence that they can’t make a play-off that includes almost 60% of the league, get to draw in a lottery to see who gets first choice of the best new talent. The worse a team has performed, the more likely they are to choose first.

So this leads to the phenomenon known as tanking. A team that is indifferent to being able to win about 40 games and get eliminated early from the playoffs wonders what its roster would look like with the next Michael Jordan or Dr. J. They see some kid in Euro-ball or the NCAA destroying all competitors. They then ask themselves what gives us the better long term payoff. Do we want to win 40 games this year and maybe pick 6th or 7th at best, or do we want to deliberately race to the bottom and enhance our odds of going 1st in the draft and picking The Terminator?

Philadelphia has spent the better part of 3 NBA seasons deliberately in the tank. I hope they sufficiently decompress if they are down there breathing Nitrox. And what of everyone else? Do other teams tank as well so they can compete against Philadelphia for lottery draft picks? How about other teams who have their placement effected when the 69ers deliberately lose to their divisional rivals?

We sure are lucky this is just Sportsball instead of stuff that matters. It could be your local school system if you live in Detroit, Chicago, or Birmingham. It could be your housing authority if you live in San Francisco or Alexandria, VA. It is all of these things. What sports does here, in the case of the Philadelphia 76ers, is give us an obvious, irrefutable example of what happens when you design a system based on perverse incentives.
People do what they get paid to do. If that doesn’t match the job description or the expectation at hand, you have a problem.

By designing a socialistic draft lottery system, the NBA has just effectively paid a franchise to do its utmost to lose until they stockpile enough top draft picks to draft an All-Star Team. It’s been almost 3 years now and we haven’t seen any All-Stars. Let’s hope they don’t wind up like the Socialists in Venezuela and run out toilet paper.

*-2-Tailed 95% Confidence Interval for a Binomial Distribution with a Win being “Heads” and a Loss being “Tails”.
**-Use the normal approximation to the binomial distribution to calculate this stat.

Modern life induces stress that destroys us


What is going on across the West? People are not having babies, they are withdrawing from society, and most of all, they are miserable. We can tell their misery by their daily behavior and their long-term plans. People are not having families and babies and working toward anything larger than jobs and hobbies. They are retreating into themselves.

The biggest reason for this is that they have been made to work for others who contribute nothing. The average person works 50% of his time to pay for the welfare state, and then adds more hours to compete in a society hell-bent on replacing him. This puts him in a position of constantly being stressed, exhausted and frustrated while slaving away for a future he cannot turn his brain off enough to believe in.

Evidence is increasingly leaking out that stress destroys us at a biological level:

A major review of published research suggests that chronic stress and anxiety can damage areas of the brain involved in emotional responses, thinking and memory, leading to depression and even Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr Linda Mah, the lead author of the review carried out at a research institute affiliated to the University of Toronto, said: “Pathological anxiety and chronic stress are associated with structural degeneration and impaired functioning of the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex, which may account for the increased risk of developing neuropsychiatric disorders, including depression and dementia.”

These studies are new because, in the society created by a workers’ revolt, the only thing sacred is that we all go to work every day and slave away to pay for the rest of them. That includes the welfare state, a multitude of diversity payments, and benefits and salaries to the legion of bureaucrats who claim to be implementing those. In reality, the entire payment goes to parasites and drains us.

Stress is caused by worry, frustration and relentless activity that does not have immediate feedback of success. We wonder if we are doing the right thing, we puzzle over the future and our existential happiness, and we push back nagging doubts as we grind on. Slowly it kills us, both from within and without, but worse, it destroys our chance of happiness.

The only health ideal for a society is independence from guilt for the condition of anyone else. If they are dying, we cannot look at the correlation and declare it as causation. We must look to the cause, or just not worry about it. Most of humanity has always been dysfunctional and this is why societies choke on their own masses. Their dysfunction should not concern the functional, who should be able to rise — and then rule over the dysfunctional.

Guilt is a backward-looking emotion. It has no hope for a better future, and so looks to try to divide up the spoils of the past so that people now “feel better.” In the process, it eats away the good people from within, and with their loss, the hope for the civilization — which benefits good and bad alike — also vanishes.