Amerika | New Right and Neoreaction

Kill the Boomers

Never forget the original name for the generation we now call “Baby Boomers”: the Me generation.

This group, born in the last days and aftermath of World War II, appeared in the United States and England, bringing a message of peace, racial brotherhood, love, happiness, drugs, casual sex and equality. In short, they combined the Bohemian philosophies of the previous century with the wartime ideology of the West, which in opposing forces that were both anti-democratic and nationalistic, championed their opposites in egalitarianism and multiculturalism.

It is significant that they emerged from the victorious powers of the Second World War. Generally when a child grows up with no consequences for his action and yet a sense of great entitlement, we call him a brat. The term “brats” is not often enough applied to the prolonged tantrum that was the 1960s, in which the children of the war revenged themselves on their parents by taking the philosophies those parents claimed to uphold and throwing them back at them.

You stand for equality? Dad, but what about the African-Americans? You stand for freedom? Mom, what about the homosexuals? You believe in peace? Why are we fighting for peace in Vietnam, then?

Gotcha!

The entire Baby Boomer mentality is one of finding exceptions and, using those to claim the invalidity of the philosophy that opposes whatever the Boomers desire, creating a justification that allows them to seize power. If you do not support freedom for everyone (it helps to slowly enunciate each syllable in this word to emphasize its importance) then you are bad, and the new generation should take over.

They seized power in the 1960s with the methods of terrorists, by using the media to scare, embarrass and eventually shame their host nations. As a result, the conservative “Establishment” — otherwise known as those holding on to the idea of social order — caved before them just like it did their ideological forebears in the French Revolution of 1789, which forgot the cynicism about mob rule that the Americans recognized. The crowd threw off the old rules, replaced them with anti-rules which stated negative freedoms aimed at removing all social standards entirely, and relished in its liberation as individuals who now could indulge whatever desires, fetishes and appetites they could conceive of and depend on the group to back them up. More like a street gang or a witch-hunt than a political movement, by 1968 the Boomers had upended social order in the West.

We all now live in the society they created, first in 1968 and next in 1992 when they formally seized power as “responsible adults.” In the USA we got Bill Clinton, the president who preyed on vulnerable clueless over-weight interns for his sexual pleasure after a long history of using his authority to convince (or coerce, depending on who you believe) women into having intimate relations with him. Even more, the Boomers took over culture, with the banal droning rock of the 1960s assuming front and center in commercials, radio play and even museums. Generation X grew up thinking that the best thing they could do was to recapitulate the hippie era by acting out the ritual: drugs, sex, rebellion and then — just as the hippies did — cutting the hair, getting jobs and retreating to the suburbs from the broken-down society the hippie ideals had created.

Our current social situation reflects the ideals of 1968: tolerance for every individual behavior, enforced by the herd, and no place must be left standing where people choose to live by pre-1968 rules. Anything that stands in the way of more freedom, diversity and tolerance must be destroyed. These ideals however exist not in themselves, which is what fooled the Establishment, but as justifications as mentioned above. Any person who wants more power has to simply adapt his argument to one of these justifications and then use it to pry open the door for entrance to power, money and social prestige. This is why we have no shortage of district attorneys willing to champion drug-addled strippers accusing wealthy white field hockey teams of impropriety, or people standing up for drug-addled criminals shot by police while escaping from their first felony assault of the day, or even people willing to cash in on the recent mania for transgender, gay and other non-standard sexual behavior being not just tolerated but mainstreamed. With liberal ideologues like the 68ers in control, the only way to power is to find a new way to apply the dominant ideology. The Establishment was not an establishment, but the post-1968 regime certainly is.

In addition to wanting complete personal liberation, which was a fit of pique at their parents, the Me generation formulated one other agenda. They wanted to close the door to all who followed. Like most radical individualists, they engaged in a combination of narcissism and solipsism which actively denied the world outside themselves except as it could be used for the benefit of themselves. Society existed to be the canvas upon which they painted their bright and beautiful existence. Like every depressed person who speaks frequently about how they are an artist, this too was a power grab using the social prestige conferred on art to convey importance to the individual life. Each of these individualists wanted to be the new Jesus Christ, Albert Einstein and The Beatles rolled into one, a character of vast profundity which conveniently justified their egomania, selfishness and power-hungry greed.

As parents, the Me generation provided a paint-by-numbers example of how to utterly fail. Most divorced, and left their kids wondering if their own conception had not been a mistake; those who did not manipulated their children relentlessly, setting them up to fail and then using that failure as a justification to re-program their lives toward Baby Boomer objectives, which as always are to use ideology as a shield for the personal quest for power. They were narcissistic parents who hid their child abuse behind so many labyrinthine passages of logic that Generation X grew up baffled, belittled and most of all accustomed to instability. If Generation X has a symbol, it is the child’s bedroom with a door that locks; after the terror of the Boomers, they wanted nothing more than to retreat and have a space of their own to be inconsequential, mainly because their damaged brains and psyches needed time to figure themselves out.

They would not receive this time. The Baby Boomers slammed the door. Pathologically they pursued policies that would make society insufferable for those who followed. Reams of regulations, laws protecting people in inferior positions (who were frequently parasitic or criminal) and a complete collapse of social order ensured that Generation X and subsequent generations had nothing more to look forward to than Office Space-style make-work jobs designed to showcase obedience more than competence, a psychotic ideology in the grips of society, rotten cities and expensive suburbs to which to escape, faithless sexual partners become deceptive and manipulative spouses concerned only with self-interest, and children who would grow up without a culture except media entertainment and what the Government presented through education and published “science” reflecting its ideological objectives.

Baby Boomers created hell in their wake. Narcissistic individuals tend to shut the door this way because to them, everyone but the self, and those who provide that canvas to make the self seem to be an angel of enlightenment, is an ideological enemy. To the Boomers, their children were the enemy. What if those children found enlightenment the Boomers did not? What if they did not agree with the 1968 agenda? Those were the worst children of all, and the best way to punish them was to create a trap, much as Baby Boomers were accustomed to setting up their children to fail and then seizing power when the children failed, much as the Boomers seized power when the Establishment had no answer to its new calls for peace, equality and freedom. All of these were justifications; the real goal was revenge, in destroying the world of their parents and those who followed after them. In short, to obliterate, erase, eradicate, pollute, corrupt, sabotage and vitiate everything but the Self. Baby Boomers saw themselves alone and for this reason they ran to ideas which “seemed” to be the opposite, such as egalitarianism, and used them as weapons.

As a wise philosopher once said, “Ontology recapitulates pathology.” Baby Boomers created a worldview to reflect their selfishness and narcissistic desire to exclude everyone else but those who slavishly agreed with them. They ruined social order, knowing that they would be vested in the ideological and commercial hierarchy, and could simply buy their way out of the endless problems created by the collapse of social hierarchy and purpose. Their children would inherit nothing because in the Baby Boomer view, all went to the Baby Boomers as individuals. They are not called the “Me generation” for nothing.

There is no solution to the Baby Boomers. We can fix our society by reversing every change made since 1950, but we cannot fix them as people. Some have repented and joined the Tea Party, but the rest continue to sit around reading The New York Times and commenting sagely on how the world would be better off if it simply followed the Baby Boomer ideological agenda. They refuse to recognize how much it follows that agenda because to do so is to admit the failure of their ideology and by doing that, admit the falseness of their justifications. That in turn would invalidate their power. As a result, the only thing we can do is apply to the Baby Boomers their primal philosophy — revenge — and use it for positive ends, namely a symbol to the world that 1968 was a toxic failure and that those who embrace it are liars using it as a justification for their witch-hunt against all that is good, functional, innocent and kind so that they may replace it with an empire of the Ego.

Line them up. Give them a choice: accept the Tea Party or face the consequences. Take those who will not swear an oath of loyalty (on a Bible or Bhagavad-Gita) to the Tea Party and take them out to a field and kill them. Shoot them in the face with rusty Revolutionary war muskets, guillotine them with replica Robespierre guillotines made by stoned lazy millennials for the Renaissance Faire, or best of all, smash their windpipes with the master tapes for Are You Experienced?. We still have time before they are too old to execute. They are now in their late 60s and 70s and can still own the consequences of their actions. They lived only for themselves, and now they can die for the same.

By doing so, we would erect a giant memorial to all history: we despise the bratty attitude these people had toward our future, and we reclaimed that future by murdering them and letting this unspeakable crime stand as a warning to future generations. If you behave like selfish children having a tantrum, and use that narcissistic jive to destroy our society, we will make mulch of you. And we will do so with the cruelty you veiled in your indirect manipulations and corrupt ideas and show it to you in its raw form so that you finally recognize, as the light flickers from your eyes, what you have done. Then we will bury you in mass graves to emphasize the insignificance of you as individuals and the meaninglessness of the Ego in a world of endless time.

And then, hearts rent at the tragedy of history, we will begin the real work that Baby Boomers dodged: getting over ourselves, transcending our ego and its social counterpart, and rebuilding a society to standards that would have been considered ideal before the French Revolution. Then we will go further, and like athletes or philosophers, push ourselves to actually improve. To get better at being what we are, not try to change what we are every day of the week to appear as unique, new and different. We will get over our fear of death instead of making it into a quest to deny death through worship of ourselves. And on top of those mass graves, we will heap your boring music and your fickle books and set those ablaze, then plant rose gardens in the ashes and dirt so that future generations may remember that even after the greatest storm, flowers boom. The future is there for us all.

Democracy in recession as its true face is revealed

If you listen to the usual voices for (leftist-slanted) news, you will hear the beginnings of a disturbing refrain: democracy is in decline. Those voices are arguing this so that they may claim to be the underdog, because victimhood is the only justification for power recognized by liberalism, and so can return to the argument that worked for them so well from 1861-1969 which was that they were bringing democracy, freedom and equality to a world under the control of evil blue meanies who opposed such things from fear, hatred and other surrogates for inherent evil.

When we look past the inherent evil argument and deconstruct it, it falls apart rather quickly if we are able to consider how different regions demand different solutions because the people there are different. Not good/bad different, but different in the sense of having non-identical needs and responsibilities. Liberals pushed back against that idea hard and in order to prevent it from taking root, demonized any mention of innate differences as “racism.” That left no obstacles to the global application of liberalism, which would be the biggest power seizure in the history of humanity, dwarfing even Genghis Khan and Alexander, but somehow the narrative has cracked and buckled. As broken clock Thomas Friedman notes, democracy is in decline worldwide:

As the Stanford University democracy expert Larry Diamond argues in an essay entitled “Facing Up to the Democratic Recession” in the latest issue of the Journal of Democracy: “Around 2006, the expansion of freedom and democracy in the world came to a prolonged halt. Since 2006, there has been no net expansion in the number of electoral democracies, which has oscillated between 114 and 119 (about 60 percent of the world’s states). … The number of both electoral and liberal democracies began to decline after 2006 and then flattened out. Since 2006 the average level of freedom in the world has also deteriorated slightly.”

Since 2000, added Diamond, “I count 25 breakdowns of democracy in the world — not only through blatant military or executive coups, but also through subtle and incremental degradations of democratic rights and procedure. … Some of these breakdowns occurred in quite low-quality democracies; yet in each case, a system of reasonably free and fair multiparty electoral competition was either displaced or degraded to a point well below the minimal standards of democracy.”

Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Erdogan’s Turkey are the poster children for this trend, along with Venezuela, Thailand, Botswana, Bangladesh and Kenya.

One should be suspicious of studies for no reason other than that the left adores them, but the basic argument against them is this: they measure a single factor out of many and draw broad conclusions based ont heir results. In this case, 25 nations have either limited or abolished democracy. By itself this is not all that unusual. In context, it looks like a world less dedicated to freedom and all that jazz, and this concerns liberals as it might interrupt their seizure of power.

More likely what is happening is that the democracy brand — once assumed to be the reason for Europe’s success — has fallen prey to a bit of experience. People in third world nations are realizing that if you install democracy there, people vote for third world ideas. As scientists will tell you, every effect has a single cause, and there is some reason why third world nations are at third-world levels. Generally the reason is the same actual reason why people are poor: they have made poor decisions. They demand rule by a theocracy or dictator because the people around them are unhygenic, criminal, corrupt, disorganized and unable to make long-term plans, which is exactly why these nations ended up third-world and why people end up poor. That truth has been made taboo and yet it peeks out from behind the curtain at every chance since it is so consistent in its truthfulness.

Democracy resembles a product sold in the big box stores. At first, we all must have the iPad. The obedient press trots out the wild speculation disguised as fact: it will replace desktops! Everyone will have one! They do stuff ordinary machines cannot! At first, the rich buy. It takes a few years to figure out what you think of a gadget, so that starts their clocks ticking. A year and a half later, the gadget makes it to middle-class price levels, and so all of them buy it. A year and a half after that, it gets cheap enough for everyone. Was this deliberate? New audiences appear just as the old ones are discarding the new toy, having learned that while it is neato, it does not do what the press promised.

The same is true of democracy. The West adopted it in 1789 and promptly embarked upon an orgy of self-murder for two centuries, culminating in the fall of the last extreme leftist regime. This enabled the marketers to norm democracy and sell it to the world. It will renovate those starving people, restore those fallen cities, and make everything new again! Also, fresh breath. But while it did many of those things, the cost became apparent: democracy was the advance troop for globalism, itself a form of colonialism by which third-world labor is sold cheaply and then, as the third-world nation comes up in the world, it becomes an “emerging market” and gets sold the same products that the first world got a decade ago, made by people even poorer than its own citizens. The Ponzi scam unraveled.

Even more, democracy failed to deliver on its promises. It did not make the world into the strength of Europe; it made Europe weak and the rest of the world unstable. Liberals have worn themselves tired making excuses for every time “the voters” have chosen jihadi theocrats or blood-drenched dictators of their own free accord. What democracy does is standardize things by making choice difficult, since only pluralities can rule and they always rule in favor of fewer rules, which is good for business but externalizes its costs through the destruction of social order. As Europe falls into ruins, and the face of the disease becomes visible elsewhere as well, people are rethinking democracy, as well they should. Mob rule with a fancy name is still mob rule.

Persuasion, by Jane Austen

Jane Austen specialized in writing books that on the surface were the type of social chatter one might find in a tabloid for Oxford-educated upper middle class people, but underneath the skin, argued a philosophy of human excellence which unites morality and natural selection in a harsh judgment of humanity akin to Nietzsche’s analysis of man as a bridge to the superman.

In Persuasion, Austen revisits a timeworn tale: boy and girl fall in love but have no immediate future together, so being sensible people, they avoid a Romeo and Juliet and avoid marriage. Boy then ventures out into the world and makes his fortune. When he returns, girl wonders if boy still cares. Both are now caught in a high society version of the prisoner’s dilemma: the first person to offer himself or herself puts that person at great risk of being denied and crushed, but if both somehow meet in the middle they can begin the happily ever after.

Unlike earlier books from this author, Persuasion features fewer scenes of people interacting through dialogue, and instead describes these through an omniscient narrator closer to what Laurence Sterne used in A Sentimental Journey or Celine’s nearly omniscient narrator-protagonist in Journey to the End of the Night. This is a story told, not “shown” as every idiot creative writing instructor demands, which enables it to move quickly, make more pointed comments on the nature of the people involved, and save conversational points for — in what is almost a return to her earlier drafts of epistolary novels — lengthier communications where characters address points of interest in long soliloquoys. If you ever wondered what Ayn Rand would look like in the hands of an actual master, it is Austen’s dense but informative prose that shows a clearly female voice in its use of multiple dependent clauses in long sentences which elaborate on inter-related concepts. The writing has more in common with Kant than stereotypically “female” voices in modern literature, but preserves a female perspective by approaching from context and slowly getting to the point, in contrast to male characters who are very objective-driven.

Austen elaborates on her perspective of gender differences throughout the novel, culminating in an analysis of the reasons for the differences between the sexes:

I should deserve utter contempt if I dared to suppose that true attachment and constancy were only known by woman. No, I believe you capable of everything great and good in your married lives. I believe you equal to every important exertion, and to every domestic forebearance, so long as — if I may be allowed the expression, so long as you have an object. I mean, while the woman you love lives, and lives for you. All the privilege I claim for my own sex (it is not a very enviable one, you need not covet it) is that of loving longest, when existence or when hope is gone. (233)

This follows up on an earlier soliloquoy where Anne expresses the idea that men are based in conquest of objective, where women seek to frame themselves in a context and make that balance. Through this continuing analysis, she opines on the differences between men and women and which roles befit both as a result; this complex analysis sprawls in dialogue throughout the novel. A more interesting line of inquiry arises from Austen’s analysis of good versus great in terms of people, picking up on another thread in the novel which is the crisis within the “First Families” (titled aristocracy) over their own quality control, a line of thought which in Austen’s view is tied closely to the question of who marries and what children result, and whether people should be accepted merely for social position or for something more. She does not attack the aristocracy, but calls for filtering within it to keep picking the best, in a method of eugenics which emphasizes the positive aspects of promoting the best more than a desire to smite the worst:

Lady Russell confessed that she had expected something better; but yet ‘it was an acquaintance worth having,’ and when Anne ventured to speak her opinion of them to Mr. Elliot, he agreed to their being nothing in themselves, but still maintained that as a family connexion, as good company, as those who would collect good company around them, they had their value. Anne smiled and said,

‘My idea, Mr. Elliot, is the company of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation; that is what I call good company.’ (147)

Much of the language has been altered since the writing of this book by our egalitarian times. In Austen’s parlance, clever means intelligence instead of merely shrewd; well-informed means an ability to analyze and retain information; great deal of conversation refers to a constant intellectual activity and ability to creatively analyze situations and people. Society has since dumbed down these terms to mean entertaining, memorization and chatter, but in the context of this book their meaning is unmistakable and is elucidated in earlier dialogues.

Persuasion will confuse any reader who thought The Lovely Bones or Flight Behavior were profound books, and baffle Randian readers who like one-dimensional characters and scenes where only one idea is transacted at a time. But in this elegant and engrossing novel ideas more akin to what Plato or Nietzsche might discuss emerge from the everyday of society both high and low, and for this reason Persuasion lives on among those who wonder if, after all, there is a solution to the human problem.

“Issues”

People fail by attempting to reduce conservatism to issues. “Issues” form the basis for conversation about politics, talking points that show concrete examples of how ideals would be applied. But in doing so, the conversation moves from causes to effects, and soon people are fighting over details of appearance and not root cause.

Conservatism is more than liberalism a philosophy; liberalism is a method called egalitarianism which is designed to compensate for a loss of stability in civilization. Conservatism focuses on the health of a civilization as if it were an ecosystem, and recognizing that humans are until they discipline their minds basically inconsistent and animalistic in their pursuit of desire, looks toward end results in reality instead of what people think about those results. Liberalism takes the opposite view, which is that we must talk about how things “should” be and their impact on the individual without considering the broader context in which the individual operates.

A larger ideal underscores the conservative mentality: how to make a civilization which is not just doing okay, but rising and beating the constant tide of entropy which sweeps almost everything into the dustbin of history. We exist on a globe where most civilizations have failed and left little behind; it seems they die at the peak of their powers, as if giving one last heave before collapsing. Until we reverse the decline of our society, we head toward the same fate, and most conservatives are in denial of this fact.

Modern life is boring and pointless. We have entered the age of tyranny of method, following our adoption of egalitarianism, to try to convince ourselves that with the right 300,000 pages of regulations, laws, procedures, policies and position statements we can transform the half-chimpanzee human being into a perfected Utopian man. We cannot. Instead, we have dedicated our time to the tedious, frustrating, detail-obsessed and mindless and as a result, people are miserable. One in ten million can articulate why this is so or even that it is so; the rest blame themselves, or blame others, but fail to blame the design/structure of their civilization. Like a car whose designers were incompetent, modern society can be fixed and will spend most of its life in the shop, but will never run well. In the same way all the best cinematography and acting cannot make a badly-written movie into a good one, no amount of “trying harder” will make this society better.

And so, at the end of the day, there is a single issue: are we acting so that our civilization will end up healthier, or not? Like all tasks, this one distills to a binary. We are either doing what we need to in order to accomplish the task, or we are doing something else and, by the constant currents toward decay which run throughout existence, stagnating into decay. Almost all of our political discourse exists for the singular function of hiding this decay and convincing us that by fighting twice as dogmatically over “issues,” everything will turn out all right. In this sense, liberals have at a subconscious level grasped more of the situation than conservatives, in that their goal is to remake society and they pick up on the urgency and need for this to be a powerful and wide-ranging remaking.

On the other hand, conservatives understand what liberals do not, which is that no amount of methods can fix this. We cannot make society better by writing new laws, funding institutions or fighting wars. We can only fix it by changing its design, which requires a cultural shift, and then a seizure of power back from the crazies. For the last two centuries, conservatives have been in retreat, trying to hold back the insanity while “working hard” and prospering on their own, which results in their families being devastated by their absence at stressful jobs and resulting near-psychosis from those horrible conditions. We are at war with modernity itself and the society created by egalitarianism, and we want to bring actual civilization back. Any stepping away from that viewpoint is defeat and will result in us bickering over issues on the foredeck as the ship slowly slips beneath the waves.

Early days of Venezuela lite

I hear they are rationing toilet paper in Venezuela. Military units have moved in to the grocery stores to ensure people do not take more than their share. Wealth has been confiscated from the rich and the poor are promised subsidies. In a nation holding a giant pile of potential wealth through its oil reserves, such scenes seem unusual. And yet these scenes are typical of any country going from a greater degree of organization to a lesser one, in what we recognize as a descent into a third-world state.

Our tendency in the West is to see Venezuela as a state which made “different” choices than us and ended up socialist by virtue of looking for another path. If we hit the “zoom out” button to a historical level however we see Venezuela in a different light: a decaying nation-state compensating for its decline with colorful promises and rhetoric. What is socialism but a promise to create justice? And what is totalitarianism but a response to the instability of the state and its people?

The default condition of humanity is poverty, filth and failure. Without organization to make the operation of a group of people united toward a common purpose and efficient through study of its past mistakes, humans exist as ragged mobs of subsidence farmers, scavengers or hunters who fall prey to disease, crime and warfare on a frequent basis. Humans create civilization for a reason: formalizing activity forces there to be reasons for any activity, and for all of those to conform to a standard of behavior. This avoids the worst of the chaos and facilitates learning, culture, art and architecture.

When this path breaks, civilization loses its inherent purpose, which is the furtherance of social order to the end of having those things. People become geared toward scavenging from civilization which they see as a dying beast. Into this void of order comes compulsion, usually in the form of a strong state that specializes in shooting people for minor offenses and ignoring greater ones. This is the condition that Venezuela currently finds itself in.

In the United States and Europe, we have not yet fallen to Venezuela levels, but we are on a path to that state. We have lost a sense of purpose and a belief that we can improve; we have replaced the idea of having social order, and the underlying identity as a people that makes it possible, with a political identity based on our obedience to methods such as democracy, pacifism, transparency, and the root of them all, egalitarianism. Our belief in these things is tautological, since our proof for their goodness is our assumption of their goodness to the point that we ignore their consequences.

We are the addicts of an illusion who refuse to see that the way out is to set down the needle one last time and forever. When our egalitarian ideas fail, we assume that some mystic force akin to Satan has subverted them. Perhaps it was the rich or the right-wing — they mean about the same thing, don’t they, comrade? — but we assume that our programs failed because they were subverted by an invisible enemy, instead of the plain truth… that they failed because they are illogical, paradoxical, unrealistic, badly-designed or any other synonyms for the same idea. Their failure is innate because their concept is inconsistent with the world as we know it, and even more, with the underlying mathematical order of existence itself. We cannot enforce equality; that is not how logic works. And yet we insist we must, so like the First World War, we charge into the breach yet again for something we not only do not believe in but do not believe can prevail.

The point here is that we have not found a purpose. This leads to Venezuela. There are numerous purposes we could discover, but we need to pick one. Failing to pick one leads to Venezuela or its ultimate destination, Brazil, where teeming hordes of impoverished, ignorant and larcenous proles threaten a few wealthy who isolate themselves behind high fences and armed private security. If it were not for Western investment, these states would already have failed further and returned to their pre-civilization origins. Collapse is not a yes/no, or even a series of discrete states, but like a ramp a gradual process of ascent or descent with gravity constantly working against rising.

The problem with choosing a purpose is that as stated above, people are not equal. Purpose cuts some of them out of the equation at least as they think they should be (and we should not assume that their vision is correct, since most of them lead disorganized lives marked by a lack of direction anyway). We are all afraid of being that person cut out and, looking for a reason why we should not be told what to do, settle on self-pity and victimhood, which leads us to assume we would be that person. As a result, large portions of our society resist the idea of purpose itself, even though not to have it is by definition insanity.

Decision time awaits us. Do we go back up the ramp toward classical Europe, Greece and Rome, or do we walk back down the ladder toward becoming primitive tribes living in kleptocracies under warlords and surrounded by low-IQ people as we see in Russia, Venezuela, Brazil and Arkansas? All of our “altruistic” ideas, like our egalitarian “ideas,” boil down to a lack of purpose. This decision is a binary: do we rise or continue to fall? We know what falling looks like; the only question is whether we have the will to resist it.

Legalize drugs

To be a successful liberal, a person must constantly generate drama. This is because liberals are social, because they are based in the individual, where conservatives are results-oriented and based in the ideal of social order. The last drama was gay and transgender marriage and recognition; a potential contender for the next big drama will be the legalization of drugs.

As with all liberal projects, this follows the “ripping silk” model: a hole is made in the silk, then pressure applied from many directions, causing the silk to tear. Liberals specialize in destruction hidden behind the mask of concern for “your best interests,” starting with equality and extending to the idea that every behavior short of murder should be legalized or at least approved of. The hole in the silk will be legal marijuana, probably for a procession of doomed people with horrible illnesses who just want to choke down their nutraloaf without pain, man. This will then be expanded by a desire to legalize all manner of drugs as victimless crimes and personal choices, ignoring the vast damage this does to social order.

Strange that liberals will not speak up for legalizing regulated substances like explosives, various medical compounds and steroids. These do not lead to liberal style happy times, which consist of removing the odious consciousness which periodically reminds them that liberalism conflicts with reality and therefore is most likely insanity. Stop, stop the bad thoughts! Legalize everything you can and maybe it will help. Their victimless doubleplusgood drugs include only those that intoxicate the mind and transport it to a fantasy land where functional liberalism and unicorns frolic together in the golden fields.

And yet, the issue runs deeper than liberals would like to acknowledge. A government that regulates any substance is in effect saying that every other substance is harmless and approved. This approach creates problems in that no substance known to humankind is completely harmless, but rather has certain effects at certain dosages. At one dose, it might be a medicine; at another, a poison; at a third, ineffective for either. This does not mean that all substances are medicines or that marijuana is a harmless medicine that performs works for which we do not have other drugs, but rather that dosage is as important as the name of the substance itself in assessing harm. We have salt on every table, but if you ate three ounces of it you might be in a bit of trouble.

The quandary created by regulation of substances puts society in a difficult position. We either criminalize some, and indicate approval of the rest by the converse, or we legalize all and indicate approval of none. Conservatives should force this issue by demanding legalization of all. Put legal heroin on the streets for ten percent above cost, and do the same with every other drug. Then let people have any medicines, chemicals or steroids they want without a prescription from a doctor. Let us have access to all the dangerous chemicals that you fear we will use to manufacture binary explosives. End the black market in everything by making it all legal.

This forces the issue by making people confront what legalization means. It is all or nothing; no matter what we do, society is stating a position on substances. To legalize marijuana is to approve of it and encourage its use. The only end run around this is to legalize everything, and state clearly our approval of none by stamping USE AT YOUR OWN RISK on every chemical sold. Force the mentally obese consumer-voters to actually know what they are doing with a chemical, or potentially maim, retard or kill themselves. We will lose some, and we will have more terrorist incidents. However, we will have staved off what liberals actually want, which is to force society to approve of their drug habits.

In fifty years, liberals will be screaming for drug criminalization. Their voter base is the one that will snuff itself out, because anyone with the brains to avoid drugs will become focused on learning about how things work and what consequences will be in reality, and hence will have no use for a snake oil magic philosophy like liberalism. Let the bodies hit the floor! For too long, conservatives have tried to save voters from themselves, and the result is a fat lot of spoiled brats who want both their cake and to eat it too. They want civilization with no rules — a condition that does not exist in reality — as a means of indulging their mindless fantasies at the expense of the rest of us. The bill has come due. Let the anarchy commence and we will see who is actually on the “right side of history” by who survives.

Freedom is not free if you let liberals touch it

People love generic answers. The broader, the better. That way you can retaliate with the answer whenever a difficult question comes up, knowing that the generic nature of the answer means that it will include the issue being talked about. Something in it will address it, even if vague. Such is the case with our modern platitudes: freedom, democracy, equality, brotherhood, peace and justice. We use them as excuses not to think, and they camouflage our lack of actual goal.

“Freedom” ranks most highly as it is used by both left and right. When Islamic wackoes behead goats and rape journalists (I might have that backwards) we say they hate our freedom. When the KKK stages a rally to protest ongoing diversity crime, or a devout Christian baker refuses to decorate a cake with two men having anal sex for a gay wedding, our pundits talk about the “freedom” they are protecting by silencing these dissidents. Freedom belongs to all, you see, and so if anyone is excluded, none of us are free. It’s like being in a gang but with bigger words.

What troubles people about freedom is that it is a concept without an object. It is entirely a negative idea, which is the absence of something. Of what? Restraints, of any kind, with all of us inserting an asterisk automatically to exclude widespread taboos like child molestation, murder, rape, arson and theft. Some of freedom’s most ardent advocates find this lack of direction troubling, and try to give it a slant to the left, as mouthbreathing turnip-picking prole Kevin Carson does in an article bemoaning the lack of leftist ideological foundation to freedom:

A libertarian movement with this demographic as its core base is doomed to extinction. The reason is that these people, for the most part, aren’t interested in winning hearts and minds among the general public. They’re not interested in recognizing the concerns of poor and working people, women, LGBT people or people of color as legitimate, and showing ways that an ideology of human freedom can address those concerns in a meaningful way. They’re interested in being superior, in being the last tiny remnant of rational people who’ve not bowed their knees to the collectivist Baal.

No, pal, you don’t understand your own badly-articulated and philosophically-incoherent concept: freedom means independence from the needs of others and their ideological crusades, in addition to the choice to take up those crusades. When you defend freedom, you are defending those who will set up small towns and by mutual assent exclude any number of groups. Exclusion is one of the fundamental properties of freedom, as it is with other rights, which generally are based upon property rights (you might consider social order instead, in which every rank has a purpose and a duty to the commons in a collaboration/cooperation model). They can exclude other races, other religions, other sexualities… you name it. Welcome to freedom.

If you want to know why libertarianism is both taking off and collapsing, it is this: many of us do not want to follow the ship down under the waters. We live under a tyranny of the plurality where any group that forms a consensus on an issue wins out over those who merely want to live normal healthy lives — there’s nowhere to vote for that — and the herd tends to run away with its ideological objectives for the feelgood buzz it gets from sharing those ideas. It helps them bond, you see, because the herd is composed of generally unhappy people because most people are unhappy, resentful, self-pitying, bitter and in the grips of victimhood philosophy, mainly because if you have not found something of value in life and are not outright mentally disabled, one or more of these is almost always to blame. Very few are actually innocent victims; most are just personally disorganized and mentally incompetent to make decisions.

Those who want to impart a leftist design onto libertarianism and the concept of “freedom” forget the nature of freedom: freedom itself is independence from obligation. It means they take care of themselves, and the rest of you do the same, and if you have failed to do so, it is because you are morally deficient or simply less competent and are being eliminated by the process of Natural Selection (sounds like a second-shelf beer) which liberals love in any other context but the human. Evolution happens when the competent few can escape from the rest and finally, without interference from the insane herd, set up a better way, whether that is a farm or a classical civilization.

Leftists talk up their defense of minorities but they refuse to acknowledge the one minority throughout all of human history. That group comprises the people who think beyond the immediate, plan toward the future, study reality and make their dreams happen. Inventors, conquerors, artists, writers, philosophers and many religious leaders belong to this category. They do not slavishly adore a method like “freedom,” but instead aim toward a higher degree of civilization. This goal can both never be reached and can always be striven for, resulting in — like maturity, improvement in sports or another discipline, or organization themselves — a perpetual quest to make ourselves better.

We have 6,000 years of civilization on the books. We know what works and what does not. Good/better/best are your options; which do you choose? Leftists choose “good” with apologies, but others want to aim for better or best and to do so, they have to get away from the herd that will enforce good or “good enough” on us all so that none rise above its egalitarian level and make the rest feel bad. This is not complex politics; it’s pre-school social dynamics. And yet all of the voices in our mainstream media deny it.

The good that comes from libertarianism occurs in the frame of mind that libertarianism instills. In it, each person is responsible for their own lives and the results therein. They cannot scapegoat others. They must make of life something better than its default, and rise above the mediocre, or accept being of a lower order of ability, society, intellect, and morality in tandem. This restrains the vast majority of humanity, who are heading downward on the evolutionary curve, from restricting the others from rising above. Libertarianism also teaches the idea of engineering a better society through indirect methods.

Liberals understand one method of improvement: get funding, create an agency, and apply rules equally by force. Nature does not work with such universals. Instead, it offers particular circumstances in which an actor — person, animal, computer, civilization — can choose to rise or can adapt to its lack of ability to rise, accept the mediocre and make excuses for this failure. Liberalism is one of those excuses, and libertarian-tinged liberalism is just liberalism in another form.

In particular, the most interesting idea to come from liberalism can be found in the idea of viewing society as a corporation. It should send citizens a bill for taxes, then do something with that money which shows an actual return in physical reality. In this view, feelgood warm fuzzies from diversity programs and child protective services fall short; public schools either produce results or get replaced, much as they would in the free markets that libertarians adore. Unlike the great liberal experiment, this approach requires that we take responsibility for our future and measure it by results, not feelings.

I suspect that Kevin Carson is a bigger racist, sexist and gender-normer than those he criticizes. In their view, nature works better than okay and each race, sex and sexual orientation has a place in its order. It may not be together in one big happy, or serving in cloned assembly line part style — sorry, I mean “egalitarian” — identical roles, but it is a place. Carson fears that if liberal White Knights like himself do not intervene, these groups will die out. It is merely his pretense which is the method he and people like him would use to seize power, which is the opposite of the “freedom” concept he claims to espouse.

The importance of working with nationalists of other races

Many nationalists confuse the symptom for the cause and target other racial groups. This scapegoats the instrument for the purpose. The problem we face is diversity, originally called internationalism, which is a weapon used by liberals to destroy culture so that social standards do not exist.

Diversity as an idea originates in the approach liberals used to distinctions between people that formed the basis of social order. Some, known to be of higher genetic aptitude than others, were appointed to higher classes and given more responsibility and enough wealth to keep them honest. This outraged liberals, who declared war on the idea of genetic aptitude itself.

This dovetailed with their general mission to abolish social standards. If you destroy the ethnic makeup of a population, with it gets obliterated the idea of culture itself, since without a historical link to identity, culture becomes a personal choice instead of a tradition into which one is born. Liberals want no social standards so there can be no right/wrong that promotes people up a social order, so they celebrated the destruction of any link between heritage and culture.

As their pawns in this game, liberals demanded the importation of people from third world nations who could then be used as objects of pity from which liberals could argue that culture was oppressive. This is the adult version of “Think of the children!” In the name of protecting minorities, liberals strove to smash any existing culture and replace it with rules administered by government. Minorities — Jews, Africans, Asians, and hybrids — are used as tools in this game by liberals.

The importance of identity is that it grants pride to those who live in a society and binds them to a set of social standards known as culture. The problem with culture from a liberal perspective is that when culture exists, not everything is permitted. Worse, there is a goal in mind, which means that people can fall short and be seen as inferior, even if only in their own minds. To banish this thought from their heads, liberals demand egalitarianism or the equality of all people through removal of all distinctions (except money and power of course).

Nationalism is rooted in the desire of individuals to have culture because it works better than enforcement. Culture unites people to a common goal and social standards, and enables them to begin the process of improving themselves as individuals and a civilization. Without it, even if told otherwise, they subconsciously see themselves as defeated people and fall into a victim pathology.

Other ethnic groups have among them wise leaders who sense this condition as well. Their solution is nationalism for their group, consisting of self-rule and the ability to exclude those who do not uphold the standards of the group. Nationalists can work together even if from different tribes. Instead of vilifying those who are also innocent participants in the vast policy failure that is diversity, consider working together to replace the destructive policy of multiculturalism with a saner one, nationalism.

No solutions

“There is no solution!” This answer pleases everyone. That is because what we call “modern” is just one of many. Every civilization goes through a life cycle where suddenly, at the peak of its technological and social power, it collapses as if everyone just up and left. What remains are shattered third-world mixed-race shells like Brazil, Mexico, or what remains of Angkor Wat. That is collapse: a long slow process of apathy grinding against material self-interest, leaving only mud huts and a bazaar patrolled by local warlords.

People wish there to be no solution because it enables them to keep on living as “normal,” by which they mean the new normal of every generation being worse off than the last. The reason is not a discrete “issue,” like whether we legalize abortion or weed, but the issue of whether our civilization has a healthy design or not. A healthy design promotes constant renewal not through novelty and irony, as our current society does, but through constant improvement in all areas. If you have a bad king, you need a better king, not democracy.

Their instinct to live normally comes from our oldest biological urge, which is to fight and predominate. For them, the question becomes how they can beat out everyone else and smash them down, because peak empires tend to be packed with people most of whom are utterly useless. This enrages people but they cannot articulate it, both because their brains are not disciplined enough to notice, and because they are in denial. Denial allows them to continue thinking they are successes, winners, exceptional people with fascinating lives, even though they are simply more profiteers on the carcass of greatness invented long ago.

Bravely they recite what they were told at schools: that all other methods of government have failed, that anything but our mixture of commerce and subsidies is tyranny, and that the best future for us is to keep repeating the same acts that have gotten us into this position, just take them to new extremes. This dovetails with the ultimate self-interest in a place where society is overgrown, which is the need to get noticed. If they can capture attention for a few moments by being radical, that makes them stand out above the crowd.

No one wants a solution. A solution would require we discipline our own behavior, change our ways, and apply social standards to everyone including ourselves. Anarchy with grocery stores provides what each undisciplined heart wants, which is the ability to act as selfishly as possible without consequences. It is no wonder we talk of dying societies imploding; they collapse into the dark void of individual human need.

You will meet two types of people in a collapsing society. Both of these are compensating, or justifying failure with the thought that they get a reward in some other area, by insisting that we ignore the problem — that our civilization is a long, slow collapse to nothing but a polluted third-world wasteland — and wanting us to agree with them that there are no solutions but to keep doing things as we are, but with a few details changed, like illegal abortion or higher minimum wage. Then we’ll be in paradise, finally. Misery loves company.

These types are:

The Republican

Comfortable with the idea of social Darwinism, the Republican believes that you should work hard and get ahead, and by that he means get wealthier. He is basically correct, since that is how in a biological sense you beat out other animals and rise to a position of power. He forgets two things: (1) working like a dog will make you act like a bear, and your family will suffer, thus your line ends soon after you and (2) as society decays around you, it has a nasty habit of taking you down with it.
The Democrat

The Democrat deals with decay by outright ignoring it and rationalizing it. In his view, society has always been bad and there has never been any hope, so all we can do is make ourselves comfortable and wait for the end. Comfortable means no rules and hopefully a state subsidy, so no one has to do anything but sit around and be social, which is where the Democrat excels over his Republican counterparts: they are good at business, he is good at socializing. As a result, he wants to make a civilization of socializing only.

These caricatures are cut of whole cloth and almost as transparent as Ayn Rand or Barbara Kingsolver characters, but they exemplify the two basic responses to civilization decay, which are biological and social respectively. They are created this way because they by definition refuse to see the problem and its solutions, so are left with compensatory behaviors that enhance their own powers at the expense of others.

No one wants a solution. Solutions mean changing ourselves and limiting our freedom, 99% of which we do not need, but which gratifies our narcissistic egos. Nature gives us such egos because in the wilds, failure is frequent and the healthiest creatures shrug it off with an innate sense of self-worth. When channeled into a social sense however this confidence becomes a sociopathic greed and tendency toward manipulation. Including, of course, insisting that there are no solutions.