Will it really be a party if the GOP wins in 2016?


So Josh Kraushaar of National Journal offers us a doom and gloom scenario for the Democratic Party which should only leave me wondering which sort of alcoholic beverage I should choose when I take to the streets and celebrate. He points out the following in claiming that the GOP could reenact Desert Storm against a culturally and socially deracinated Progressive Democrat rump.

Most pundits are expecting a very close presidential election. I’m not so sure. With terrorism on the march, rising fear of crime at home, growing racial polarization, pervasive economic anxiety, and a president detached from it all, the pieces are in play for a GOP land­slide.

Then I take a step back and examine that analogy. Two reasons for further ratiocination come to mind before I load up on the party juice. One, the bad side of Desert Storm was the totally bungled aftermath that pretty much frog-marched us into Iraqi Freedom. Two, a Democratic Party loss is the assumption of power by the other side. In this case, we are discussing the GOP. Is that a positive bargain for America? Let us examine.

For starters, there are only two men left in the GOP Primary Race that could potentially leave America less like Amerika than they found it. The Donald and The Theodore (Ted Cruz) are about it as far as positives.* The rest of this noxious gallimaufry are not worthy of further mention and may well convince me to swear off voting in the Presidential Election of 2016 if they show up on the GOP ticket in either slot.

The Theodore appears the closest thing left in the current filed to a Constitutionalist. He’s read the founding documents and studied them in law school. Unlike most Harvard grads he left the Pretention Palace on the River Charles with a certain level of respect for where America came from. It would be nice if we had a CEO that attempted to run America the way people far smarter and more grounded in reality designed it to actually work.
The Donald, the Donald is the closest thing to an affirmative traditional populist that we have in either party. If you want it to get blown up, you want the man who knows how to throw a blow-out. Trump is a hammer treating the issues of the day as if they were nails. Let’s examine just how he’d drop the hammer.

  • On ISIS: “I’ll bomb the (#$%^) out of them!”
  • On Immigrants: “I’ll toss ‘em out.”
  • On Border Security: “I’ll build a big wall and make Mexico pay for it.”
  • On Healthcare: “I’ll just make the Congress pay for all of it.”
  • On Crazy Foreigners: “Screw ‘em in every hole you can reach.”

Graph it on a 2X2 grid using the definitions popular in poli-sci and Trump’s ideological meanderings make no sense whatsoever. Based on that, it’s easy to write him off as a Rightist Huey “The Kingfish” Long.

Rate them on a 2X2 scale where the X-Axis runs Easy to Complex. Add a Y-Axis of Populist to Elitist. If we went through about 25 different Trump proposals to fix some aspect of America you would get a big cluster of dots that map to the quadrant of Easy, Populist. That’s a new and coherent ideology. Call it Simplificationism. He proposes to make America great again by rendering it more comprehensible to the citizen of average abilities and standard means and less of an elitist reunion of The Harvard Club.

It’s proper to caveat this because anyone’s simplification would create negative externalities and probably not solve all the stuff it was aimed at. So what? As opposed to what? Obamacare? The Gang of Eight immigration plan? Our current Global Disagreement with Terror? The advantage Simplificationism has on all of it is that at least we’d understand what was messed up. At least we’d have a guy in their trying to fix it instead of just making another buck off a once great nation driving drunk into the high-crime drainage ditch.

But all of this desire to restore Constitutional Primacy and simplify a fractal-complex world would run into a potential buzz saw of concealed iniquity: the “established” and “respectable” GOP. The “established” GOP would seek to kill the Populist aspect of Donald’s Agenda and much of The Constitutionalism of a President Cruz in order to allow their donor class to better rake in the rewards for “loyalty”.

The “respectable” GOP wants to promote civility with The Left. It preaches cooperation and accommodation with all forms of diversity and perversity. This would make it utterly impossible to govern the way either Cruz or Trump would want to if the wrong GOP factions were winning big down ticket from either man’s hypothetical victory. So stay frosty my NRXers, even a GOP victory in no way guarantees a necessary hard right turn in Amerika towards the direction of America.

*-I could see Rubio breaking even on the America/Amerika DSM Axis, but only if Congress or the USC stones him on his immigration agenda.

Why Western liberals should embrace ISIS


Do you believe that everyone is equal and that there is no difference between the races? Do you think that national borders and races need to be abolished? Do you want everyone to be equal in the eyes of a strong individualistic moral order? If so, let me introduce to you an organization you may be interested in joining:

You may have seen videos like this before. In this one, you’re enticed to recruit into a new group in order to fight for what they view as moral progress. No more must human labor under the threats the video mentions — nationalism, corporations, rich people, fornicators and the military-industrial complex — but we can live in a new better future if we just adopt the ideology of the group and overthrow everyone else.

The promise of this video is equality for those who join the crusade. “We are the soldiers who stomp the idols of nationalism,” it says, adding that “the difference between an Arab and a non-Arab, or a black man and a white man” is non-existent. All are united and equal in following this order, which is based not on real-world concerns but a morality of how we treat others. If you are willing to make others your equals and devote your life to establishing this new moral world order, you will be protected as one of the tribe.

Have we heard anything like this before? Strip back the exotic covering and we could be looking at the Democratic debates. Their goal is to make everyone equal — everyone, that is, who accepts the Democrat new moral world order of equality and permissiveness. They, too, want to abolish national borders and make the races equal. They want to unite the Arab, the black man and the white man, and they want all of us to agree on this type of ideology — which resembles a religion more and more every day — to take over the world.

When we look under the skin like that, we see what ISIS really is: an Islamic version of the Western liberals we interact with daily. Beneath all the shocking tactics and religious zeal we find egalitarianism with an oppressed underdog complex that remains regardless of power acquired, because when everyone is equal, one needs to invent a justification that allows for the destruction of everything that stands in the way of the totalitarian ideology. Perceiving and advertising oneself as disadvantaged provides this justification. They even mention how they counter our $250,000 AGM-65K missiles with the lowly $0.50 rifle round. Take that, elitists!

It will be interesting to see what happens when this realization seeps through the thick skulls of useful idiot leftists. As enemies of Western civilization themselves, their hearts may warm, and they may become even more defensive and protective of ISIS than they already are. How could a good leftist stay mad at a group that eagerly demolishes its history to pave the way for egalitarian utopia? And then replaces that ancient, nationalistic and elitist history with a new era where it doesn’t matter what race you are, how much money you earn, or even if you’re good at anything, because if you join the crusade, you’re brothers in Allah.

This message must be appealing to liberals especially when broadcast in HD with high production quality inherited from liberals’ favorite Hollywood films. We can see shades of Forrest Gump, Good Will Hunting and Napoleon Dynamite in this ISIS video. There are also overtones from the Freedom Riders refusing to sit at the back of the bus, Harvey Milk winning his first election and suffragettes pushing down the doors of city hall. This could be a trailer for a film about the Civil Rights Movement directed by Michael Bay. ISIS may be a strange foreign entity with seemingly barbaric practices, but at their heart, they are just like us… or at least, like liberals.

Why the USA should accept white South African refugees


During the 1898 – 1901 Anglo-Boer War in South Africa, thousands of Americans participated as volunteers on both sides. The US government was apparently indecisive because the policies it subsequently followed in South Africa were radically different from what it implemented just prior in the Philippines.

Political decisions create an inertia which limits leaders to kicking the can further down the road. This little war however, caused a lot of difficulty for the British Empire, with some opining that it was the straw that broke the camel’s back and initiated the 20th century British de-colonization policy, in part because (based on informal information) it took the Treasury a century to pay back the expenses incurred. However, in today’s world, the United States is the Empire required to address the world’s little conflicts, those low-probability but high severity risks some people refer to as “black swan events”.

Today South Africa has changed roles from the “Empire’s” black swan to its “canary in the coalmine.” It’s the “S” in the BRICS organization that supports transition from the dollar as the world’s reference currency, it is the Gate to Africa and a future influencer of world affairs (on the Security Council) if one considers Mandela’s doctrine of demography i.e. (majority) rule. African demographic growth is staggering international commentators with migrants (already) streaming into the West. If these migrants were of above average IQ, the situation would not be dire, but unfortunately their IQ is below average while their inherent culture is incompatible with the West (proven by the refusal of Eastern countries to accept them).

The situation the West finds itself in –- having been exporting “human rights” is in fact a paradox since it does not really want to “import” human rights — consists of telling the third world that the West will give them human rights in exchange for money (not other human rights). This is another form of “what’s good for thee is not good for me.” Africa doesn’t care about all of that. The African proposal is simply: “If you don’t give us money, you must take our people. But after you paid, you will have to take them anyway.” This sentiment was expressed by the “big” men in Africa i.e. Ghaddafi, Mugabe and Mandela.

Time has moved on and the next “big man” on the rise in South Africa is Julius Malema with the updated (African) proposal of “look after your employees, and they will buy your products.”

The environment in which this proposal is expressed relates to the “modern” Africa, where cell phone towers preceded transport infrastructure because cellular service allows migrants to transfer monies abroad. Africa itself is full of migrants since borders are not that important and migrants do not wish to walk all the way. For example, an African migrant can cross America in six months on foot.

Meanwhile in South Africa the political environment is one of continuous covert revolution. Sometimes they call it “Transition” where we are now active in the “Second Transition”, sometimes called the “revolutionary morality.” South Africa employs a dual cultural approach where they would do things at the political level to suit international observers while doing another thing locally. For example, they exclaim that “jobs are our highest priority” while at the same time making deals with crime bosses in order to expand their electorate, bringing in income for the political party.

So what Julius Malema is saying is that he expects a leaderless revolution where police will fire on their officers rather than criminals. He bases his observation on the black student revolts in local universities (not conservative, mostly white students) where they demanded change in University leadership in order to get lower tuition fees. In order to prevent the student revolt to roll-over into industry, employers should make haste in getting their employees “on their side.” Companies can get their employees “on their side” by giving them 51% of the shares. He adds one further tidbit of advice which is that should businesses have their “employees on their side” production will improve. Economically it can be deduced that he proposes disqualification of affirmative action, then to take the money that businesses already lose on AA, and re-route it to normal employee benefits (shares excluded in this part). The employees therefore benefit in the short and long term and will “rescue” all businesses as a result.

So, the situation in South Africa shows that a revolution is on hands either covertly or overtly, and it’s up to Western man to decide which he prefers. The old Boers from the Anglo-Boer War has since also moved on too, and have closer ties with European descendants than Africans, in part because they have been exposed to these revolutions already.

Thus spoke the Canary.

How to end terrorism


After an attack, our politicians and media like to slam the barn door really hard to show that escaped horse that it was wrong. Many people have made many statements about how to stop terrorism, and almost all of them are unrealistic and wrong.

Terrorism arose from guerrilla warfare and succeeds the same way guerrilla warfare does: by convincing the people making the decisions that there are too many costs of doing business to make it worth continuing to participate. In the American revolution, the guerrillas made a king back down after heavy losses; in the Vietnam war, the guerrillas learned a new weapon: the television. If they could get a whole lot of voters, who we all know are useful idiots, to panic and emote over what they see on the teevee screen, then the guerrillas win because the politicians will retreat.

And that’s exactly what happened.

Much of the techniques of those Viet Cong guerrillas involved terrorism, both active and passive. Active terrorism means going into a village that has supported your opposition and maiming, killing and otherwise terrorizing the population so the voters back at home squeal and cry and demand a withdrawal. Passive terrorism means giving 8-year-old hand grenades to throw at Americans, knowing that at some point a My Lai will result. The Afghans did the same thing during the Russian occupation and ensured that the Russians had two types of soldiers: one, killers who wanted every duhkh dead, and two, hesistant killers who shortly would be dead from an inability to comprehend how profoundly they were hated.

Terrorism relies on two things: (1) opportunity and (2) audience. Opportunity means that it is generally far easier to stage a terrorist strike than, say, an invasion or commando raid. It requires lower skills, less equipment, and generally just a nasty will to kill and maim, which conveniently attracts sociopaths that you want out of your society anyway. Audience means a whole bunch of people watching television and poised over computer keyboards, so that when they see the horror you can count on them to flatter themselves as empathetic geniuses by engaging in public displays of weeping, mourning, why-can’t-we-all-get-along and think-of-the-children style behavior.

I suggest applying Occam’s razor and realizing that we can end all terrorism very quickly.

First, we deny opportunity. This action involves two parts:

  1. Anyone who is not of the indigenous populations to Western civilization — national groups in Europe and mixed Western Europeans in America — needs to get a welfare check and a plane ticket sending them back to their continent of origin. Asians to Asia, Africans to Africa, lawyers to Antarctica, and mixed-race/culture people to north Africa.
  2. Destroy the welfare state. A cynic sees humanity correctly: people who act in self-interest, especially by denying the interests of others. Each group wants to prevail. If you let them in, and you are wealthier than they, they will both show up en masse and try to exterminate you because the sight of you succeeding offends their self-image. If we remove our welfare, benefits, free stuff, etc. that politicians use to attract voters, we will stop inviting people in by conspicuously waving our wealth in their faces.

Then, we deny audience. I do not suggest government make any laws or take any action here; laws and government are the most impotent form of action. Instead, our smartest people should begin spreading the word that the correct response to a terrorist attack is to ignore it, and put our support behind those rounding up and beheading the perpetrators. Stop the public heaps of flowers, the endless mourning, the switching of your masturbatory Facebook profile selfie to a French flag. All of that is personal drama in which people engage to make themselves look more compassionate, wealthy and important. (If anything, we should send those people to north Africa, too.).

We do not need laws and restrictions on media. If our smart people hammer out this message, those that admire them will also emulate it, on down to the least thoughtful among us. This changes demand for the product in media, and means that media will stop following the Jane Fonda route as useful idiots for guerrillas and terrorists.

These ideas may be a bit ahead of their time, and are certainly less exciting than the other stuff the talking heads and blog zombies are raving about, but unlike those, they have at least a chance of success.

Collectivism versus Capitalism


As you sit down to your Thanksgiving dinner, you will be full of thoughts of what you are thankful for. The most important ones you will not mention because they are invisible to you. You cannot see them because you enjoy them every day.

First on this list might be stability of your civilization, unlike every other human civilization which like Italian cars and German soap operas seem to be non-stop screw-ups from the start. Most people live in disorder, filth, corruption and incompetence. We here in the West do not, although the gap has narrowed over the past few decades, and not by the acts of others.

What got us this way are two things generally considered opposites: capitalism and collectivism. Both have been replaced by modern, inferior variants that are useful to our society only because they do not offend our leftist ideology.

Capitalism in its raw form is the idea that economic decisions should be made by those who will face the consequences for them. In other words, a bakery must make the choices that determine if it lives or dies, and citizens must make their own spending choices and thrive or flail accordingly. Keep in mind that despite those radical opposites, most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

Collectivism, in its original form, meant that we understood ourselves as a society and kept its interests front and center. That meant that we took care of people who helped that society, in accord with Plato’s “good to the good, bad to the bad”: people who do good should be rewarded, and people who do bad should be driven away. It is natural selection in its social form.

These two offended leftists, naturally, because leftism is based on a single idea: “I deserve to be included for society no matter how little I contribute or how delusional I am.” It is freedom not to be accountable to reality. That is why it is eternally popular; accountability to reality determines who thrives and flails, and so it is not a popular reminder among humans. Using social control, which is peer pressure plus the assumption of goodness, they can banish reality and replace it with equality.

(That summarizes leftism from nose to nethers as far as its essential ideas; it is subsequently draped in layers of theory, studies, facts/interpretations, emotions, etc. that are mostly gibberish and always taken out of context. If you see a leftist, watch their hands instead of listening to them speak. They are most likely lifting your wallet.).

Both capitalism and collectivism have now come to mean something else through the transformative powers of leftist ideology. If our society has one disease, it is the use of a broad and simple idea to replace all other ideas, and in this case, liberal egalitarianism has replaced the original meaning of these terms.

Traditional society liked capitalism because it was efficient. Capitalism has never existed without restrictions because, before modernity replaced the idea of having a goal as a civilization with the notion that civilization existed solely as a means of empowering the individual to be a precious snowflake, capitalism was always subordinate to goals, values, social standards and practical demands. There were also legal restrictions placed on it, usually to protect the consumer but just as often, to prevent the boom/bust cycle where something makes a lot of money so everyone does it, neglects everything else and in the process bankrupts themselves. Crazes, trends and fads are as destruction in markets as they are in society itself, and just as vapid.

But the traditionalists had a different approach to regulating it. Instead of writing a million laws, they allowed organic forces — culture, religion, superior individuals, and social standards — to regulate demand instead of supply. Where moderns tell businesses what they can manufacture, the traditionalists tuned in their people to certain ideas of what is good, and regulated products through that. As a result, things were built to last, more elegant and often far more effective than their modern variants.

In the same way, collectivism has been spoofed. Once it meant that we were all in it together working for the same goal, so anyone who was trying to do that was welcome. This offends the leftist idea of universal inclusion, which has its roots in individualism: the individual wants to always be included, so he desires the removal of any restrictions on who is included so that he always makes the list. After leftism, collectivism means that we all work and throw money into the pot to support everyone else, no matter how useless they are — or how much we dislike them.

A healthy society needs both of these forces. A civilization cannot exist by economics alone, and by making the choice to use solely an economic system — capitalism or socialism — the society signals to its people that it will not have a values system, competent leadership or purpose, which turns people into miserable drips who feel correctly that their lives are without meaning. A society cannot exist without some sense of guidance, direction, and purpose, which is why traditional collectivism is needed and not its modern variety, which obliterates all of those with a single guilt-ridden imperative to be uncritical, non-discriminatory and in other words oblivious in choice of the people surrounding you.

While I admire the French New Right, I find their continued embrace of socialism to be problematic. Once you create benefits, you create an all-powerful state to enforce them, and you destroy the idea of regulating inclusion by who is useful. No society with standards that low can exist, and it imposes on people an immoral duty to spend their time, which translates into money, supporting those who they would not otherwise support. For this reason, socialism is the great evil that destroys societies and rightists should never support it. Under socialism your entire society becomes contorted to fund the bennies and justify them, even at the expense of society itself.

By the same token, I find the reliance on absolute capitalism as a motivator to be unworkable, which is why I am not a libertarian. Libertarianism always shifts leftward because it is based in the egalitarian idea of “Everyone do what they want, and the best will magically rise to the top.” This is far from true, as any look at the most popular movies, music, art and novels will show us. Instead, pure capitalist societies are a race to the lowest common denominator and, like socialism, they replace the idea of a purpose to the civilization with the idea of it facilitating individuals. This is also bad.

I have said in the past that if people were to look more deeply into mainstream conservatism, they would find a way of life more radical than their ideologies and economic systems could ever be. That is because the roots of mainstream conservatism — now buried under layers of lies by 75% leftist “neoconservatives” and “libertarians” — are extremely radical. In that view, most people are scatty little monkeys who will if the whip is not cracked simply engage in every venal behavior possible. No matter what economic or political system we use, the truth of humanity remains and never changes, so we must first look toward producing healthy individuals. That requires the opposite direction from egalitarianism and infuriates liberals, but it explains why conservatism is less formalized.

The idea from which conservatism arises is traditionalism, which has been around in many forms over the ages. It is basically thus: over the centuries, we have found some things that work and some that do not. These do not take the form of ideology, but of knowing our world and its logic, so instead of being individualists, we submit to natural order and find our place in that. Then we are known by how well we rise to that challenge and what it reveals of our moral character, which is the most important part of an individual. By applying this rigorously, we can breed ourselves into a better class of people and make a civilization as great as that of the ancients at their height.

Naturally, this is not a popular message. 5% of the population can understand it, so to the rest it sounds like gibberish and they hate it for making them feel dumb when they desire the pretense of intelligence (they do not understand the Dunning-Kruger effect either). Even among those 5%, traditionalism is controversial because it places limits on the individual, and they have been raised in a civilization that thinks the ultimate good is liberating the individual from limits, even — especially — reasonable ones. This is why people always look for an ideological solution, and choose variants of capitalism and collectivism as the answer when they need a more nuanced approach.

The importance of a nuanced approach is that it avoids collapse. Rigid, sharp-corners thinking like leftism and libertarianism will run a society into collapse as paradoxes emerge based on the attempt to impose a square form over an organic topography. This will force people to deny reality so they can keep ideology intact, and will then cause massive internal friction. On the other end of the pendulum’s swing, however, it is important to remember that both collectivism and capitalism — in their original forms — are vital, and trying to stop the decay brought on by liberalism by limiting them will also lead to failure.

Inflation as a control measure


¡TRIGGER ALERT! This post contains what may resemble a math-like substance. Should this induce anxiety, breathe deeply into a fast food bag that smells like French fry grease. You can then once more relax.

So let’s say you miss the good old days when a king was a king and peasants knew they’d better kowtow properly lest they be shortened by a head, I’ve got nothing but good news. We’ve got a way to keep those little people exactly in the muddy ditch where they belong. You keep their wages essentially stagnant and you make it very expensive for them to improve themselves or put a roof over their heads. What Charles Hugh Smith sees as a problem, I see as a mechanism. One that our betters seem to find very useful.

It starts by undercutting the value of an hour’s hard work. If I build up the cardio-respiratory endurance to withstand the work-a-day treadmill, I could get uppity and develop some serious delusions of adequacy. What you need is a nice effective algorithm to slap these suck-weasels down hard before they get all full of themselves. According to the Economic Policy Institute, we’ve got just the weapon. The table below shows the changes in income by level of education between 2007 and 2014. It assumes a standard wage of $100, develops an exponential function based on the wage change and then projects what that $100 would be worth if earned twenty years hence.


What jumps out immediately is that somebody that straps on the student loan debt to matriculate at Old Ivy and then fails to get the sheepskin is worse off in terms of wage value over time than people I knew who were already cannabis-baked by the 7th grade. How’s that for some Dark Enlightenment?

Then you can press down on them further by steepening the cost of educational credentials so that villains remain villains and the elitists at Yale will never suffer breathing the same air. Here’s what has happened to the cost of college in the last 15 years. The cost of tuition in 2035 will be 7.5 times as much as it was 2000. Ask yourself whether our overlords are going to be 7.5 times as wise and perspicacious.


If people manage to squirrel away money and don’t blow it on the college experience, you can make it impossible to keep a sound, dry roof over your head. Ceteris paribus, the monthly rent will be 2.82 times as much as it was back in Y2K. Will the apartment be 2.82 times as spacious and luxurious?


So if the people get too uppity, we can thank our stellar economic overlords for knowing how to put up-jumped upstarts back in their places. You can’t have these types thinking they can bend the blades of grass on Mark Zuckerberg’s elegant lawn. This is why our current Federal Reserve policies are truly brilliant and those cracker-jack geniuses we keep sending to Washington, DC have our economy humming along on 200 cylinders. Keeping people poor, miserable and locked out of any hope of ever advancing prevents them from worrying their pretty little heads over the direction that their society and culture are heading in. Especially if these elites know good and bloody well that it is ultimately a highway to hell.

The tyranny of democracy


I would like to introduce you to a talented writer who, unlike most of his peers, correctly perceived and communicated the issues on a topic. In doing so, however, he was misled from the truth he should have been looking at.

This man is Michael Cardo, and he writes about the problem of “identity politics.” He understands this phenomenon well and describes it perfectly, but that requires accepting the idea that our purpose should be the sub-issue that identity politics types want to replace the bigger issue.

For the entrepreneurs of racial identity politics, identity is a fixed, ascriptive, collectivist way of being that determines what it means to be a “good” black or a “bad” white, and vice versa.

Here he correctly describes the control method of racial identity politics: it specifies what you must do to be considered good in your tribe, and this allows punishment of those who deviate.

The unasked question is “Why is group identity so important?”

A good white, on the other hand, is one who engages the world through a haze of guilt, regret and shame for the sins of her forefathers.

According to Samantha Vice – a critical race theorist who, astonishingly, claims to be a philosopher – whites in South Africa “ought to see themselves as a problem.”

He’s right, but so wrong. The problem with “good whites” is that they are liberals indoctrinated in liberalism. Liberalism, leftism, Communism, Socialism and collectivist anarchy are all different variations of the same idea, which is that of creating a State to support individuals instead of having us all work together toward an actual goal.

Listen to liberals: they will tell you that for them, racial politics are a subset of class politics. Class warfare is how they take over nations with revolutions, kill off the smart people and install a permanent moron majority that will keep voting leftist up until the day the vodka stops coming.

There is no point projecting the problem of white self-destruction into racial politics; it is part of liberal politics and explains why democracy becomes tyranny.

To justify democracy, we must believe that everyone is equal enough that they can make good decisions about our political future through voting. Daily we see massive evidence to the contrary. At that point, we are in “reality optional” world. Votes are a product. This product is produced through illusions. When most people prefer an illusion, who are we to tell them no? They’re equal, which means that they get included in society no matter how crazy their ideas are or how little they contribute, so that we can support our pretense of being moral altruists.

This egalitarian impulse makes our government seem like an ultimate moral good through its method of wealth redistribution, which means that those who do not support it become social outsiders. This is how democracies become tyrannies: the pretense of “good” + the need to censor, manipulate and hide the grim reality that is constantly clashing with the illusions that most people prefer.

Liberals therefore support anything which weakens society and strengthens government, which means destruction of culture, heritage, values, religion and even the sexes. All must be faceless equals who blindly carry out the ideology of absolute good, equality.

For this reason, every natural thing in our lives is replaced with an ideological substitute. Normally, we have self-esteem from our own acts and deeds; under democracy, we get self-esteem from having the right ideology. For whites and blacks alike, this means hating whites and supporting every minority group whose present helps destroy white society. This is the liberal way, and it is the root of the “identity politics” Cardo describes.

These Social Justice Warriors can barely complete a sentence without crowbarring “whiteness” and “white privilege” into it. Rampant, too, are the “microagressions”, “cultural appropriations” and “trigger warnings” that their counterparts on US campuses have popularised with such discourse-deadening success.

All of these terms are what the historian Robert Conquest would have called “brain blindfolds”, “mind blockers” and “thought extinguishers”. They obstruct understanding and stifle debate.

This means there is absolutely zero difference between them and every other leftist revolution in history. The point of ideology is to stop thinking. You find one concept that seems to explain everything else, and rally people behind it because it flatters them. Equality flatters us because it makes us sound like “good guys” to the chanting mob, so we all want to be egalitarians. Every good business is in favor of equality so it can flatter the pretense of its customers, much like they often give small amounts of money to charities so that people read the story and think, “That XYZ brain mulching business sure is run by a lot of nice guys! I’ll buy my brain mulching videos from them!”

Worse still, the identitarians have, as their articles of faith, a disregard for the Constitution, a contempt for non-racialism, and a vaguely articulated socialism that identifies “neoliberalism” (whatever that may be) as the root of all evil.

Ideology consumes all else. It is the absolute good, remember. Everything else can be sacrificed to it, including fellow leftists. They have no problem throwing each other under the bus if it tightens the Overton Window or radicalizes the base (the majority of people who support them). It is mass hypnosis.

Cardo’s article is brilliant. He writes better than I do — not that this is all that difficult! — and clearly articulates the problem in a way that all can understand. But in doing so, he becomes the bull rushing after the cape, and that cape is designed to lead him away from the obvious: all that we see now is part of the plan that always happens under leftism.

Diversity is part of the leftist agenda because it is (a) class warfare and (b) destroys society so it can be replaced with government. Leftists do not care if that group is black, Asian or mixed; they just want a group to use to fragment society, and they will invent whatever backstory of victimhood, oppression, cruelty, poverty and sadness needed to support that. As in courtrooms and divorces, there are never 100% innocent and 100% guilty parties.

Read between the lines, and you’ll see a simple message. Liberalism created identity politics to destroy us by replacing sane and natural ideas of heritage, culture, and self-esteem through upholding a values system or social standard. Liberalism is here to destroy those things and leave us with only totalitarian government.

We need to turn back now before we all become zombies rushing blindly to our fate.

Awakening from the nightmare of democracy


Across America and Europe, people are slowly awakening from the mental haze of illusions, propaganda and false promises offered to them by democracy. They are re-learning the lesson of ancient Athens, which is that once you go democratic, you get rich but your society self-destructs.

People are beginning to see the split between what they are told is true, and what is actually true. This is leading them to see how they are sold on certain “wants” as “needs,” and this has caused them to spend recklessly on the non-essential while neglecting the essential, which is the condition of our civilization and its future.

For years democracy trapped them in the dream. Follow us, and be Enlightened™. On this new path, you will be more moral than the kings, more powerful than the lords, and the master of your own future, beholden to none! While some glimpsed the demonic nature of this promised control, few had the bravery to confront the massively popular illusions with hard truths that were difficult to explain and understood by only a few.

Thanks to the relentless incompetence, greed and gift-giving of our rulers, we have learned that all the free stuff and good feelings came at a price. Namely, our societies do not feel healthy as they one did, but stand revealed as moribund dystopian wastelands waiting for the final fall into permanent third-world, mixed-race, cultureless and brainless status.

Imagine Idiocracy meets Blade Runner: a devastated landscape of heavy industry, ruling over a population from the low-IQ lands of the third world, mixed into a featureless grey mass that wants nothing except more food, drugs, porn, alcohol and gadgets to distract itself with. Surrounded by an environment that was ruined as it was displaced by the growing society, it is a perpetual future of existential misery but infinite ways of concealing the problem.

Their first taste came this week through a survey which revealed that most Americans feel like “strangers in their own country,” and see a bleak downward ramp for our future:

According to the Reuters survey, 58 percent Americans say they “don’t identify with what America has become.” While Republicans and Independents are the most likely to agree with this statement, even 45 percent of Democrats share this feeling.

More than half of Americans, 53 percent, say they “feel like a stranger” in their own country. A minority of Americans feel “comfortable as myself” in the country.

You can see the cogitation as it happens. “But… we voted for tolerance and peace, not violence and war!” It does not occur to them — yet — that by backing down from strong signals of identity and a unique place in the world, our society invited us to become the world’s punching bag. Or that diversity naturally creates conflict as it puts opposing cultures and groups with different abilities and inclinations in the same face and makes them compete for a share of resources shrinking with each person added.

As mentioned here before, we once thought the future would be glorious, but now we see it as a dark place like a technological Brazil with more uncertainty. As we go, we realize, the rest of the world will collapse inward as our dollars disappear (or are devalued) and a vast rush will appear among us looking for the scraps.

Where once people assumed that the triad of diversity, democracy and pluralism would save us from all ills, the problems with each have come out of the closet. Diversity and pluralism, or the idea that radically different groups who envy and hate each other for unequal abilities can co-exist in the same society, has fallen as we fight over what our standards, customs and values will be. Increasingly it becomes clear that under diversity and pluralism, we can have none of the above, and will instead get a lowest common denominator dictated to us by a government that will find endless reasons to increase its power.

Now that the chaos brought on by multiculturalism is out of the closet, more white Americans are feeling oppressed and alienated now that they are experiencing what it is like to be a minority in a country with an abusive mixed-race third world soon-to-be majority. This is not the future they were sold, they say, in which America would stay the same but other people could come here and participate in our wealth. But they are slowly realizing that the dream and the nightmare are the same, and that they were simply not told about the bad consequences, and with their voting, led themselves into the trap.

A majority (53%) of Americans say that American culture and way of life has mostly changed for the worse since the 1950s, compared to 46% who say it has changed for the better.

…More than four in ten (43%) Americans say that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while 55% disagree. Opinions about ‘reverse discrimination’ have remained fairly constant over the past few years. Half (50%) of white Americans—including 60% of white working-class Americans—agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while fewer than three in ten Hispanic (29%) and black Americans (25%) agree.

Notice the racial split: people with third world origins generally think things are going just fine, while white people are noticing what it is to be marginalized. They are also noticing that third-world groups are more straightforward about their self-interest, while whites are deferential and altruistic. Third-world groups come here as reverse colonizers, conquerors and slavemasters, not as friends. The few who realize this is a bad idea are marginalized in their own communities.

As part of our descent into permanent Brazil with Wal-Mart and Hollywood, we are seeing that third-world behaviors — including corruption, crime, lack of hygiene, dishonesty, laziness and deceptiveness — have taken root in our own communities as third-world people have arrived in significant numbers. It did not occur to the voters that people in the third world live the way they do because the majority of their people behave in such a way, or that there may be a biological condition — such as the few smart ones being killed as witch doctors — corresponding to the low average IQs of their societies and translating into their third-world conditions. The voters bought the line that the third world were equal to us in every way, and simply victims of misfortunes and oppression, when in fact colonialism often improved standards of living in the third world.

In fact, wherever liberal policies have been most successful, white people are most marginalized and conditions are at their worst, causing voters to regret the decisions they made. At the time, those decisions flattered them and made them feel like kings, tossing out gold to those peasants who looked on them with admiring gazes. Now they realize that instead they were waving a red flag in front of a bull, and now it is charging, and its demands will only increase — even as our society bankrupts itself and must sacrifice its essential functions to keep paying those benefits.

Just 28 percent of white New Yorkers approve of the Democratic mayor’s performance, and 59 percent now disapprove, up sharply from the start of his term, according to a citywide poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College. …

Mr. de Blasio’s support among white residents has descended to a level so dismal that it has challenged a core assumption of his political strategy: that in a diversifying city, moderate white voters had lost much of their electoral influence, and that the mayor’s path to re-election runs through nonwhite communities.

The only problem here is that the voters exist in a permanent state of disconnect. In the next election, they might try to roll back… until the opposition candidate says something that offends their pretense as cosmopolitan, intellectual, educated and empathetic voters. Then they will run right back into the arms of the people creating the disaster now. As polls consistently reveal, there is a disconnect in the minds of voters between what they voted for and the results achieved. They do not understand the cause and effect relationship, or how their own pretentious and emotional decisions in the voting booth created the disaster before us now.

According to Rasmussen’s presidential approval rating poll of November 10th, 48% of “likely voters” approved of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, while 51% disapproved. On the same day, however, Rasmussen Reports published results of a poll conducted November 1st-5th showing that only 27% of “likely voters” opined that America was headed in the right direction, while 66% believed the country was on the wrong track.

…Recent polls by Rasmussen Reports show both that approval of Obama as president norms roughly 50%, while about a quarter of “likely voters” have believed America is going in the right direction. (Every poll has sampling error, of course, but most of these percentages won’t vary by more than plus-or-minus 3-5 percentage points if every adult American were interviewed.)

…The Gallup Organization, for example, reported that Obama’s approval ratings for November 1st-3rd, 2015 were 49% approved vs. 47% disapproved. Just a few days earlier (10/25-29/15), a poll conducted for NBC News/The Wall Street Journal found that 27% of the public opined that the U.S. was headed in the right direction, while 64% believed it was on the wrong track.

…a McClatchy-Marist poll (10/29-11/4/15) has data on assessments of Obama’s job performance and opinions about the country’s direction. In this poll, Obama’s job approval-disapproval split is 48% vs. 48%. The same poll, however, shows that 60% of the public think the country is going in the wrong direction, while 35% opine that it’s on the right track.

How could so many people be so wrong? We could point to the average IQ of 98 in America and say that only about 15% of the population possesses the congenital intelligence to understand the consequences of political actions, and that most of those are busy with jobs, football and shopping. But even more, there is a disconnect in democracy. It relies on making decisions based on trust in the candidates, and that these salespeople will tell us the true results of their policies, instead of erecting them and then skipping out at the end of their terms, enriched by their power at the expense of the rest of us. Even more, people are oblivious to the fact that governments justify their power with every group of suffering people they can “help,” and that politicians — like salespeople — are never held accountable for their promises or their actions.

What the voters do not realize — and will never realize — is that not only are the nightmare and the dream the same, but democracy and demagoguery, or the art of manipulating people through image and emotion, are one and the same.

In democracy, the vote decides the rule and after that, the voters (“we the people”) lick their wounds and accept what has come. Before the vote, they see contrasting promises based on theories untested in reality. Whichever one flatters the voters the most, wins. Voters love to be told how smart they are, and how free things are coming their way, and how it’s that other group — the team in red and not blue — who is stupid, ignorant and inbred. This makes them feel better about themselves. So like Pavlovian hamsters they keep pulling the lever, but then, since they have done their civic duty, they forget about all of it until something upsets them. When it does, they react emotionally, and then the other team picks up the ball and as the crowd cheers, runs down the field. Only later do they realize that both teams are fixed and playing for votes to get power to get money, and that they have zero interest in doing anything right for the citizens.

In their view, the voters are pig idiots who pull a con job on themselves from their own greed, and deserve to be manipulated and destroyed for their stupidity. Watching the voters get it wrong yet again, one has to conclude that there is legitimacy to this outlook. In particular, voters love any emotion that makes them feel like heroes, so they go in for altruism and gift-giving. This is the root of a toxic philosophy that separates cause from effect.

According Progressives, there is no original sin. All men can be improved by Darwinian evolution, social evolution, education and the compassionate leadership of the moral elite until they reach perfection. Perfection can be achieved rapidly, provided the enlightened leadership is obeyed in all matters down to the smallest detail of your life, your words, your deeds and your thoughts. Nothing is neutral, nothing is too small to be beyond the need for your betters to place it under their control. Nothing is apolitical.

Because there is no original sin in the Progressive system, all suffering must arise from the institutions of civilization. To be specific, in a semiliterate misunderstanding of Darwin, human societies are said to ‘evolve’ that is to say, to move by trial and error in the general direction of inferior to superior, drive by mystical forces of history. The flaws in human institutions hence are caused by an insufficiency of evolutionary pressure, that is, a lack of the wars and internal social breakdowns that drive social evolution to ever higher and more enlightened forms. This theory makes so little sense one is tempted to conclude it is not meant to. One assumes it is meant only to sound impressive and justify violence.

We all know what the future is: more of the same. They will borrow more money and keep the sad farce alive. Good people will be forced to work even more hours at even more boring jobs to pay for the rest, who will grow in number and in demands. If their demands are not met, they will start race riots or terror attacks, which they will do anyway because everyone knows only one group can be on top and every group wants to be it. Trust will decline, order will erode, and yet, you will be able to buy your way out of it if you sign on with a super-larger corporation. Then you will owe your life to that corporation, and in the few hours a week of free time that you do get, you will be too tired, distracted, and depressed to do anything but nod and maybe even vote. This is the future you chose; you did not vote for it directly, but for the type of delusional policies that have been proven by history to create it. That is the basis of the whole system: the disconnect between an image and what is required to create it, and the revelation that what promises to create it will make something far different indeed.

Let us look at the true root of this problem. It makes no sense to blame the third-world groups; we invited them here (or kidnapped them and sold them for our own profit). It makes even less sense to blame the politicians, because when you see a group of people behaving like idiots, the only thing to do is take advantage of them as any wealth they have they obviously do not merit. The rich? They are people like you and me, trying to escape this world of horror by buying their way out of it. It makes no sense to blame corporations, because they are only trying to survive in an increasingly corrupt and criminal world. Who to blame?

I suggest we look at the people making the decisions: the voters.

As Walt Kelley famously said, “I have met the enemy — and he is us.” Voters want to be flattered, and they support any policy that gives them more freedom — or more license — to behave as amorally as possible. They hate rules and they hate standards, including values and social order, so they vote to dismantle those at every turn. Even when they vote “conservative,” they vote for pseudo-conservatives who let the sick show keep on going on refrain from telling us that, as individuals, we need to grow up and get our act together so we have a brighter future. Voters especially love destroying other groups. They vote for things which will beat down their competition, destroy their neighbors and sabotage anyone who can tell the difference between truth and lie. They use “the poor” and “the minorities” to justify these passive-aggressive acts, but the real target is each other. They each think they’ll win the lottery and climb to the top of the heap by shoving others down.

In short, voters are morons. Most of them are biologically incapable of making sane political decisions, and all but a few of the rest are clearly emotionally and morally incapable of doing the same. The voters are the problem. They are the enemy here, and the only solution is to disenfranchise them by ending democracy. There is a reason democracy destroys every society that adopts it, and that is that most people behave like pigs, and in groups behave like insane pigs, and that voting causes them to switch off their minds and stop monitoring what their leaders are doing except once every four years for two weeks, leaving politics unmonitored and reckless. That is the heart of our problem, not any scapegoats we find.

Switching from democracy is so easy that even democracy can do it. We need to find a place where we can vote to end democracy, or seize power through money or the military or revolution. Then we need to delegate to the best among us the choice, and they will pick others who are also good, and make them our new aristocracy. These people do not get a day off and they are held accountable because they are in office for life. They fix the problem or it destroys them. The voters can go back to making bad decisions in their own lives and, without a power-hungry government to bail them out and control them, will be accountable for the first time. It will be a time of learning, a new golden age for humankind, but it only begins when we remove democracy to solve the problem of our terminal decline.

How well does welfare work?


If I were Joe Cocaine and needed the nose-candy to even bother getting out of bed to use the can rather than idly soiling my bedsheets, my government could help me. They could help me avoid bankruptcy. They could help me avoid the abject humiliation of pooping where I go nite-nite. All they’d have to do is buy me enough free cocaine to get me through the trials of the day ahead. Wouldn’t you just love to see those tax dollars you spend every year hard at work? Oh come on, guys! Have a heart.

So the conundrum of the hypothetical cocaine kobold and his crippling need for Bolivian Marching Powder described above raises a couple of socially vital questions. We’ll start with the mechanical one. Could Uncle Sugar Daddy fix this problem and turn Old Unatoker into a better member of society? A group of people in Oregon actually had the guts to ask such a valid question in a complicated social research study that attempted to quantify how much recipients gained from Medicaid per dollar expended. The results are not heartwarming for the poor family member still washing Joe’s sheets as he turns 42 this April.*

Megan McArdle tells us how little government can help even a well-intentioned but unfortunate tosser who won’t help himself.

Here’s what they came up with: “Our baseline estimates of the welfare benefit to recipients from Medicaid per dollar of government spending range from about $0.2 to $0.4, depending on the framework, with a relatively robust lower bound of about $0.15.” You read that right: 15 cents of value for every dollar spent.

QED. You perhaps can’t save those who can’t or won’t save themselves. This could very well have nothing to do with either you or with them. Medicaid is probably one of the most ethical and genuinely altruistic welfare programs going and its effectiveness is probably less than 1/3 of every dollar going towards the fight of making the poor more healthy. Perhaps even the mythical moral and decent welfare state is attempting to do the impossible. A nastier and harder question then becomes, would you want a welfare state to save these people if it absolutely could while doing nothing to improve either their behavior or ratiocination?

Thus maybe, if you misinterpret probability for fun and personal edification, you can theoretically save 15 to 40 out of an arbitrary sample of 100. The old joke then becomes “What do you do with them? Collect them and trade them with your friends?” I shouldn’t laugh. They elect people in Chicago that way. Herbert Spencer famously answered that to shield man from his folly was to populate the world with fools. I’m sure Martha Stewart would tell us that this is not a good thing.

This is not a good thing for several reasons. What does the world do to people who are “saved” via this method? Historical accounts of life in workers’ paradises such as Maoist China and Stalinist Russia don’t bode well. At some point you just have too many being supported by too little. At that point, someone has to get voted off the survivor island.

And that fundamental paradox of the welfare state is why so many look for the safe space. It is why they don’t want to be the ones excluded. The zebras stay close to the rest of the herd. As the resources are expended and are never replenished. As only $0.30 of risk is assuaged for every dollar set on fire and burned by the welfare state mystic spirit guides. There eventually comes the day when there isn’t enough to go around. It’s at this point we learn the true reason for the safe space. Everybody not therein has lost life’s most cutthroat game of musical chairs.

*-OK, so I’m taking literary license while I make this stuff up.

Safe spaces must be destroyed


Our coddled First World Problems students at the universities, like all leftists, are children of privilege.

We did not have leftists in the West until the French made life so much better for the poor that those r-strategists outbred their superiors so greatly that revolution was sure to follow as soon as a crisis occurred that could be blamed on leadership and not merely overpopulation. Leftists follow this model: superior forces create and stabilize, leftists breed like yeast, then blame their superiors and take over. Classic rebellious child with too much free time scenario.

Humans do not like to face reality. That is in fact the primary challenge of life itself: learn reality. Deal with what is actually there, instead of your thoughts about it, your interpretive dance, your blogs or excuses. Politics falls mostly into the latter camp of “excuses.” Excuses for the lower echelons of society and their low performance. Excuses for those who act in criminal ways. This disguises the fundamental psychology of the leftist, which is excuses for himself.

Leftism demands equality but what it actually wants is state-sponsored individualism. Or: I don’t have to discipline my inner monkey. I can be as useless as I want to be, so long as I tip-toe around the rules and don’t get caught, but I do not have to participate in any kind of plan, social standards or even measures of competence. I am perfect, just the way I am, and no one can tell me “no” — in fact, the rest of you should get out of my way because I am the original Precious Snowflake.

If you want to know why Leftism is eternally popular, it is this attitude. Like Mr. Rogers, it tells people they are OK just as they are. There is no need to discipline themselves to stop their inner monkey from raging, or to shape their minds to understand reality outside of them, or even to worry about the consequences of their actions and be accountable through them, which occurs before those actions through a mental process we call “morality.” They just need to be. They’re beautiful just for being humans and doing the monkeyshines that humans all can do because they’re lowest common denominator: dancing, making “art,” copulating, chatting, getting drunk, eating and posting to Tumblr.

This is what conservatism is up against: inertia. Liberalism validates human behaviors that are useless by declaring them “equal” — just as important as — heroic acts, essential acts and exceptional acts. Liberalism is the anti-Darwin. It argues that people do not need to improve themselves at all, but most be easy on themselves. It is anaesthesia for a dying species. It says don’t worry about the obvious failure that we are undergoing, just bend over and think of England.

The conservative impulse toward religiosity comes from this realization. We see life as a moral battle for mental clarity. We recognize that most people are still monkeys, and by most we mean 98.6% or so. They live through their impulses, are in denial about realities, and their agenda is wholly based in a fascination with their own appetites, lusts, shopping and desires. As a result, they have abdicated the higher mental functions that allow planning and creation, including of civilization itself.

Zen Buddhism bases much of its approach on the same idea. To a Zen Buddhist, the problem of life is that most people are mentally undisciplined monkeys who are destructive by the very nature of their careless, solipsistic, self-obsessed and oblivious behavior. This is the essence of the Zen master slap: “Wake up! Reality is out here, not in there, inside your head! Your life is illusion and you have no idea what you’re doing!”

In the West we refer to this tradition as esotericism. An initiate, usually a teenage boy, is put to a quest as part of his study. On that quest, he has to snap out of the umbilical sac of solipsism and start looking at life not just as real, but through a critical eye. What are the actual motivations of others, despite what they say? What are the strategic positions people take and what are they protecting? What does this tell us about them? You may notice that the same questions arise in the analysis of religious texts, or in a good literature degree, which you can still get in some rare places. They call it critical thinking there.

The point of this is that the appeal of liberalism is entirely a lie. It justifies ignoring the essential task of life and replacing it with an easier task. This appeals to idiots, lower castes, and neurotics, and these types will never stop pushing this agenda. In sensible societies, those in power are aware of this and constantly exile such people. You cannot do that with the rule of law; you need the rule of exceptional and far-sighted men. If you stop, the insane people build up and then they overthrow you with superior numbers, since oblivious people think they are immortal — after all, they’re solipsists — anyway and so are prone to attack in thoughtless groups.

With this in mind, the last thing we want on a college campus or anywhere else is a “safe space.” Safe spaces are solipsism bubble zones where people can go if they fear someone might mention reality. In safe spaces, people can bloviate on about their ideological ideas without being contradicted by someone who has noticed flaws in their narrative, i.e. reality peeking through the carefully-constructed artifice. Safe spaces are designed to blot our reality and replace it with a giant neurotic and morally flatulent human mind. They are the triumph of narcissism, fear and intolerance (of reality!) over common sense, logic and survival. They are suicide cults.

Bashing college kids for this is like swatting a piñata or shooting fish in a barrel. We all know they are delusional; they’re kids with no experience of the world. They are simply acting out the stuff their professors taught them, and in this case, their professors are neurotic Generation X-ers re-enacting what their neurotic Me Generation parents taught them happened in 1968. But looking past this easy game, we should think about safe spaces in general, and the tendency of societies to make them.

The first people to found a society are conquerors, which means both warriors and nerds. The warriors clear away the other monkeys who will steal, sabotage and subvert — they call this genocide sometimes, but it’s the same reason that American settlers killed Indians and Israelis blew away Palestinians — and the nerds start putting together irrigation, sanitation, libraries and other essential things for civilization. At some point they both look at each other and shrug. The basics are done. Now all that is left is to improve what is there. And here is where the problem enters.

When a society is first minted, it has a goal: push back against that which holds it back, including nature and ignorance. This is a forward moving task. After it loses that simplicity, it needs a new task. The most obvious is to try to protect its people from the dangers of life. This is a backward moving mentality, and it always takes the form of looking at who is hurt or gets hurt and trying to “fix” situations that are the consequence of these people’s inabilities or solipsism. This is the start of the idea of safe spaces; society itself is the safe space.

I say we undo all of it. Abolish the FDA; take whatever drugs you want and if you die, we throw you in a ditch. Remove the warning tags from mattresses. Get rid of speed limits, DUI laws, handicapped parking, movie ratings, the lot of it. Those things create a mentality that destroys civilizations because they create an intermediary in place of reality. People no longer worry about the consequences of their actions, but whether those actions are legal. Get rid of all of it. 99% of our laws need to go into the dumpster with the rest of the “think of the children!”-style neurotic rule-making.

We need a society where for every action, the person making it is thinking, “What will happen when I do this?” Not lost in a fog of assurances about how the government would ban it if it weren’t safe, or how he has guaranteed health care, or how his friends think and that might make him a YouTube star. Have him thinking solely about the results of his actions. Don’t give him a forest of laws and nagging nanny moral codes so he can attempt to justify what he is doing. Measure it all by the outcome. If you try to shoot Hitler and you blow a hole in an orphan instead, it really is not different from killing that orphan any other way. Reality matters. Consequences matter. And in the end, you either helped a situation or hurt it — but helping can be hurting, if it enables weakness, stupidity and solipsism to thrive.

I remember the rise of the administrative state back in the 1980s. Suddenly there were warning labels on everything. As a result, people stopped thinking about the consequences of their activities. They just looked for the warning label and, if they didn’t see one, went ahead. If things went wrong, they blamed the government: “There should have been a warning label!” Government gladly paid the fines from these lawsuits because it saw an unstoppable, infinite way to justify increases in its power. All they had to do was find some poor idiot who couldn’t figure out that pulling the pin on a hand grenade and inserting it in his rectum was a bad idea, and boom! another 400 bureaucrats and cops were hired, another 10,000 lines of regulations and twenty federal laws were added, and the great leech-off-society parasitic jobs program called Government could continue.

What encouraged them further was the fact that people — who are basically monkeys — liked this condition. It meant there was always someone else to blame for their own stupid acts, and they could “save face” by blaming the government or some poor manufacturer for whatever stupid thing they did with a product. If the mattress does not tell you not to light it on fire and ride it into a pool of gasoline, your life-changing injuries are certainly not your fault, Mr. Plaintiff!

I’m sure the original intent behind these laws was to protect the poor and stupid from destroying their lives, but like any true evil, the laws took on a life of their own (like a cancer, come to think of it). The dumbing-down of our society really began at that moment. No one was any longer accountable for understanding reality and making the moral decision to ensure their actions did not end in bad results. Nope: there was a warning to read, and someone to blame if it went badly, and because Government was now running the show, there was always some kind of benefit to apply for when you maimed yourself and could no longer work.

No consequences for anyone. That’s what a safe space is, and that’s why all of them should be abolished.