Most people identity George Orwell’s 1984 with a warning about the dangers of totalitarianism. Read more closely, the book serves as a warning about political instability brought on by popular sentiment.
The political authority in the book is IngSoc, short for English Socialism. Citizens are herded into activities like Two Minutes Hate that remind us of corporate team-bonding activities today. Telescreens watch for dissidents. The root of the problem here is not the control itself, but that it is needed.
In the same way, we live in the ruins of equality now. Equality as a concept is like a virus, using altruism as its approach and reductionism as its weapon. Once allowed into a society, it spreads like a cancer, demanding the “democratization” of all things. First we engage in class warfare to make ability levels equal, then equalize the sexes, and finally bring in the third-world labor as equals.
Equality swallows up all other ideas. If you are an environmentalist, you must work equality into your platform; to make the two work together, environmentalism must not tell anyone what to do — unless they are at the levels above equal, at which point they must be punished to benefit others. If you are an architect, your buildings must emphasize equality; scientists must consider all people to be identical molds that serve as interchangeable parts with no biological differences.
Since equality is a fantasy, and if people were actually equal society would quickly disintegrate, equality serves as the perfect control virus. You either obey and go insane, or resist and are marginalized and eventually destroyed. Since the price of success is accepting nonsense as reality, actual competence becomes secondary. This creates a society, headless and out of control, careening toward oblivion…
Returning to 1984, we can read Orwell’s pugnacious analysis of liberalism:
But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
In his view, it is a pure power trip. The joy of subjugating others with ideology and having the ability to abuse them drives these people. He creates this in parallel to the hate rallies that keep people bonded to government:
The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.
This is what drives the egalitarians. From SJWs gangrushing employers to coerce them into firing employees with controversial opinions, to the mainstream media attacking Donald Trump for even mentioning immigration, all of leftism is an addiction to the power of harming others. It is the rise of those who cannot do much against those who can, and their desire to humiliate, subvert, sabotage and enslave the can-doers. It is human envy, resentment and fear enshrined into a false “goodness” that gives its members license to destroy whatever they want for the brief thrill of power and feeling of superiority.
Even 1984 is infected with this crowd madness. The only conclusion one can come away with from the book is that the crowd is mad, but they can be controlled through “freedom” instead of power-lust. What Brave New World points out, but 1984 missed, is that the root of power-lust is the drive to freedom and individualism. People seek power with their freedom because they lack actual purpose, and because through egalitarianism and assuming that everyone is the same, we have empowered mob rule instead of leadership by the wise and capable.
Physics provides a metaphor here. As written about by Thomas Pynchon and Don DeLilo, modernity consists of chaos: a pretense of order, with people in states of zombie-like panic acting out their individual desires at the expense of the rest. With equality comes chaos, or a lack of cooperation between people, which results in infinite activities of a perverse, distracting, pointless or destructive nature. The concept of entropy comes into play here because it states that, over time, options proliferate.
As more options become available, it becomes less likely that any particular one will be selected; entropy increases. Eventually a state is reached called heat-death where all options are equally the same in value and likelihood of being selected, at which point selection itself shuts down. There is no point doing anything. And so the system drains energy and becomes dead, much like the senescent Soviet Union and now, the modern US-EU axis. Equality creates individualism which creates chaos and ends in a state of paralysis.
If I could leave you with one image, it will be this: that boot smashing into the human face — since not all humans are equal, and most are unable to control themselves, most faces should be smashed by the boot so they do not do the same to the rest of us and doom all of society. Most people are doomed to disappointment by their own inability to control their desires and impulses, but not all of us should go down together, although it appears that “unity” is the goal of liberalism.
Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) has most of Texas riled up, with both sides getting it pretty much wrong as is the norm in democracies which are sometimes called by their other name, idiocracies. HERO made frontpages with its association with the seeming problem that people are having with finding bathrooms for transgendered-people-in-progress, who still have the genitals of their ex-sex but dress and act like their future sex.
However, HERO is just another run-of-the-mill equality ordinance — and that’s what it is bad. Thanks to the Houston Free Press, you can read the actual content of the bill:
HERO protects every single Houstonian from discrimination.
The ordinance reads: “Houston seeks to provide an environment that is free of any type of discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy.” That’s 15 protected characteristics!
Back it up there — you’ve got two things in contradiction:
“Protects every single person from discrimination”
“15 protected characteristics!”
Only one can be true. Which is it: every person, or only those who fall under the fifteen characteristics?
Ah.
As you can see, it protects no one but certain vocal groups and does not help with certain things that might be useful. For example, political viewpoint. Or viewpoint at all. Or intelligence. Or refusal to obey laws. Or even defend against whatever happens when 10,000 obese Tumblrinas and horn-rimmed Instagram users descend to complain about a joke you told at a conference last August.
This shows us the futility of “protecting characteristics” and the superiority of a simpler idea, which is free association. You cannot name enough traits in a law to protect everyone, so what it amounts to is protected status for certain groups at the expense of others who are not protected. With free association, you protect no one and figure that society will sort itself according to who actually wants to be near others, socialize with them, do business with them and romance them.
Society slightly Balkanizes under this plan, as opposed to under the HERO plan where society creates a new elite of a protected group. And what if a member of that group is incompetent, criminal or antisocial? They still can’t be fired or avoided. Freedom of association skips that outcome and stops trying to force people to like each other when they have nothing in common. By doing so, it strengthens specific communities which can hire people of this nature, and stops creating ire (and billions of dollars of lawsuits) by forcing people to interact with others they fundamentally disagree with.
Looking at that list of 15 magic characteristics, it protects nothing that might actually get someone fired these days. What it does do is create a group that cannot be fired, and lays the ground for abuse and resentment as the rest of us realize we’re now second-class Not Officially a Victim citizens. It all reminds me of the old lyrics:
Forces united the choice is yours
Violent pacification
Forces united the choice is yours
Violent pacification
We’ll force you to be nice to each other
Kill you before you kill each other
Violent pacification
We’ll force you to be nice to each other
Kill you before you kill each other
Could it be there’s more truth in this than we thought? That the purpose of creating special elites like this is not so much to protect the members, but to force the rest of us into subjugation and allegiance to large government?
I wouldn’t submit articles to this blog if I weren’t very willing to entertain the possibility that Oswald Spengler had a point regarding the coming demise of Western Modernity. It goes almost without saying that I therefore also entertain the possibility that political reaction could be a valid source of direction and truth to get us all through the impending crisis. We will need a good plan for when The West finally busts its gut string and expires in an undignified heap. That proffered upfront, I now propose we examine whether reactionaries can actually take charge once Modernity earns its farewell cart ride to the political science glue factory.
Sadly, the first group of reactionaries to make the big time and no long have to remain the JV is ISIS. Enumerating the current year 1453 in honor of the founding of the Caliphate brings to mind the quaint Roman custom of dating Ab Urbe Condita. Their efforts to reestablish Sharia Law throughout the world dates them to an era well before Napoleonic Jurisprudence or Post-Saxon English Common Law. Given that ISIS has actually established one of the most powerful Reactionary States on the planet, we use them as a case study to point out what Reactionaries need to learn in order to make a new start out of the future mounds of rubble.
This is no more sustainable than the Palo Alto real estate bubble. There is only so much leftover swag from Saddam Hussein or Hafez Assad. The Visigoth Holiday will rapidly run out of beer. Even the 28% or so of their revenue from oil and gas is dependent upon continued supply and an ongoing market. One can only imagine the moral character and reliability of ISIS’ preferred customers. Being the fossil fuel supplier for Saruman’s orc tribes probably isn’t a good long-term business plan. In conclusion, a reactionary state will have to develop the ability to do far more economically than pawn off the remains of what they seek to replace.
From the ISIS expenditure graph above, we discover what may or may not be a more auspicious strategy. Less than ½ of the ISIS annual budget goes to social welfare. These people probably don’t spend a whole lot of their spare time studying The Epistles of Paul. Yet they have taken 2 Thessalonians 3: 10* to heart well enough to not allow welfare zombies to break the back of their social governance.
However, almost 2/3 of the annual budget goes to waging war. Giving peace a chance would give ISIS the same problem Harry Truman had in post-WWII America: a major economic recession. They are literally forced to war by their economic and societal model. Dar al-Islam would go bankrupt if they didn’t have enemies to pillage and raid. In that respect, they have far more in common with the early Christian Monarchies of Post-Roman Europe than they would ever like to admit.
The problems ISIS currently faces are similar to those of Merovingian France as described by Henri Pirenne in Mohammad and Charlemagne. The Merovingian monarchs also raised much of their money by looting. They were more sophisticated, and looted gold and silver by debasing the full-bodied monies of their eras. It was a slower collapse for the Merovingian coin-clippers than it will be for the ISIS wag-halters. The Merovingian kings had far more specie than the ISIS Caliphate has garish leftovers from Hussein-era Iraq to haul to the pawn shop.
What we see from initial efforts of Middle-Eastern, Islamic Reactionaries are the economics of a coming dark age. They have an economy that produces little and lives off the remains of others. Buzzard economics requires a steady supply of carrion to feed the birdies. The carrion has to be provided by ongoing and culturally debilitating war. Peace would be like a car wreck for this badly unbalanced economy and society.
To effectively stage reaction to the ongoing failure theatre of modernity, we will have to answer a legitimate and vital question. What can we produce and do to actually make the world work? It’s a fair question. ISIS has utterly failed to answer it in a constructive or sustainable fashion. Western Reaction will have to answer these questions as the time for massive economic crisis in the social democracies of the West continues to draw ever closer nigh.
*- “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”
Across the West, liberal policies are creating the opposite of what the voters were told they would do. As a result, liberalism is self-immolating with all the grace of the fall of the Soviet Union or the end of the Napoleonic regime.
In Europe, the citizens voted enthusiastically for policies like multiculturalism which were promised to end the wars of the past and redeem Europe. Instead, they have made Europe the sap of the world where every grifter goes to get the free benefits, welfare and indulgence of the tolerant nanny state.
Finally, even the New York Times is reporting the grim truth: diversity is ethnic replacement of Europeans. Their grand liberal plans lead to suicide:
In early October, the district government informed Sumte’s mayor, Christian Fabel, by email that his village of 102 people just over the border in what was once Communist East Germany would take in 1,000 asylum seekers.
…Germans face “the destruction of our genetic heritage” and risk becoming “a gray mishmash,” Mr. Niemann added, predicting that public anxiety over Ms. Merkel’s open-armed welcome to refugees would help demolish a postwar political consensus in Germany built on moderation and compromise.
You would have to be smoking crack to think that diversity could ever work. Two groups cannot occupy the same space without destroying one another. In the meantime, they guarantee a society permanently divided and focused more on struggle within itself than struggle to accomplish anything outside of itself.
Government delighted in this idea because it gave government new power. To make anything happen, they only had to argue that it was good for diversity and tolerance. This created a permanent mega-state which wants to administer all areas of our lives in what would be called “totalitarianism” if we were not brainwashed to never consider that word.
European leaders — especially the autocrat bureaucrats of the European Union — delighted in this plan because it created permanent employment for them, and allowed them to micromanage the citizens to avoid the dangerous flare-ups that triggered the last two world wars. Note the term “triggered” instead of “caused”: the real causes remain exactly the same, which is the orgy of power-hunger that liberalism unleashed across Europe starting with the Revolution of 1789.
In the United States, the same effect is being achieved by Democratic politicians who are scrambling to import as many third-world people as they can, knowing that these will vote leftist forever as that is what they did in their home countries. Government does not care if it destroys the ethnic population of its lands, because government depends on voters and dollars.
Like other liberal policies that will end in tears as the new Occupants earn less and take more, having come from cultures and genetically-entrenched mindsets of this nature. But liberal governments have shown themselves united in a single attribute, which is a total inability to predict the consequences of their actions. Liberal voters seemingly join them in this by approving plan after plan with no basis in reality.
All of these grand plans are collapsing at once in multiple ways. The governments of Europe and the United States are broke and dependent on selling their own loans as their currencies plummet in value; they can never pay their obligations to their own citizens, much less their insane pension debts. Crime is rising and our ability to suppress it failing; diversity is detonating in the same way it did in the 1860s, 1920s, and 1960s; corruption of our government by moneyed interests increases and public services decline, while the dollar and euro steadily leak value.
Liberalism is self-destructing as we sit here but liberals are so far invested in the idea of enforcing ideology that they have noticed, and moderate through right-wing voters find themselves in the unenviable position of being targeted as ideological enemies of the left. As with most civilizations that collapse, the end will be a surprise to anyone who is vested within the system, but to no one else.
Diversity doesn’t work. Ignoring all of the buzz about it, we can see that it is an impossibility from the basic logic of it. It requires assimilation of all parties; if that succeeds, it replaces the native population. If it does not, it Balkanizes all parties. If they choose coexistence, they have doomed their society to being unable to have values in common, thus to split apart from internal divisions just as Rome did.
Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.
Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the beautiful mosaics — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.
“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”
Diversity is one of those neat ideas on paper that has zero historical evidence for its function, let alone success. Instead, we see it appearing time and again as one of the symptoms of a dying regime. Unable to keep its people motivated, it outsources and then imports the outsourced, quickly obliterating its culture and eventually veering toward third-world status. Why are today’s Italians so dark and Arab-looking, when we know from Roman records that they looked more like Germans and had many blondes among them? The end result of diversity: replacement of the local population.
As Europe struggles with an unending sea of refugees showing up for the socialist free benefits and welfare, and the USA has a stream of Mexican indios — the same people the Aztec and Maya enslaved as menial labor — surging across the border, we should remember that instead of repeating what the talking heads tell us, we should simply think. How could diversity ever work? For the life of us, no one can think of a way, yet we keep repeating the mantra that it is our greatest strength in the hope of patching up the leaky sinking ship for just another election cycle.
As mentioned on this site four years ago, and eight years before that on the predecessor to this site, Israel will lead the way in restoring Nationalism, which is a world order where boundaries are defined by simultaneous shared ethnicity, culture and values of a population.
Now to the dismay of liberals everywhere, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formalized that statement. In a brilliant act of statecraft that flew over the heads of mainstream media, Netanyahu both re-legalized the defense of an indigenous ethnic majority by a state, and announced his plans for Palestine:
Mr. Netanyahu said in a speech to the Zionist Congress on Tuesday night that “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews.” The prime minister said that the mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, had protested to Hitler that “they’ll all come here,” referring to Palestine.
“ ‘So what should I do with them?’ ” Mr. Netanyahu quoted Hitler as asking Mr. Husseini. “He said, ‘Burn them.’ ”
While Holocaust historians and revisionists — neither of whom have a good record of getting the truth right the first time — will debate this into the ground, Netanyahu’s statement was subtle and profound. He looked carefully at the camera as he spoke the words clearly and strongly, aware that he was making history — even if the rest of the media and pundits have not caught on. Here are the implications of what he said:
(1) If you merely want to expel a foreign population, that is not really a bad thing, if you are doing it to defend your own people.
(2) Nationalism is necessary. It was necessary for Germany, and now it is necessary for Israel. It is the only way to preserve a native population.
(3) Palestine has been the darling of Europe both in the 1930s and in the present day, and both times have led to disastrous results.
The American media missed all of these implications in their desire to fight the last world war over again, mainly because it allows them to dog whistle the civil rights conformity signal to their audience, which unites them in a buzzing hive-mind.
Germany, wise to the ways of democracy which is essentially a popularity contest, tried to take away the narrative lead by immediately embarking on a guilt-drenched retrospective. Europeans have long known that there is no such thing as bad publicity and so a public self-flagellation gains power more than a denial. In democracy, it’s important to stay in the spotlight by any means necessary.
But look what else the article mentions, as if the synapses have almost sparked a circuit closed:
The controversy came amid weeks of spiraling violence in which Mr. Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have repeatedly accused Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, of lying, principally about Israel’s actions at a contested holy site in the Old City.
Netanyahu realizes that Europe today, Israel today, Germany in the 1930s and Israel in Biblical times share a problem: being small, higher-IQ and thus wealthier societies beset by vast hordes of angry low-IQ and impoverished third world people. The Palestinians, who are essentially the Mexican indios of the Middle East, consistently outbreed Jews and are using the womb as a strategy for conquest of Israel through the power of democracy. No sane politician — no, leader — would allow that to happen to his people.
Israel needs the right to do what it was formed to do, which was protect the Jewish people against not just the Nazi-inspired murders — most of which happened in advance of the Nazis arriving — but the numerous pogroms that saw the Jewish people ejected from every country in Europe and the middle east as well as some in Asia. This requires Nationalism, which is the exact same political system which was demonized in the wake of WWII.
If we view Western history as a series of political statements resolved by war, we see the French Revolution as the domination of democracy; the Napoleonic Wars as the incompatibility of democracy and aristocracy; World War I as the war to unify Europe under democracy, and World War II as the war against resistance to democracy. Democratization brings class warfare and its logical extension, multiculturalism or mixed-race societies, as part of its need to achieve total equality.
With the end of WWII, it was assumed — at least in the West — that Nationalism was dead because it was incompatible with the class warfare and multicultural narratives of democracy, which favors the Left. However, now that we’ve had 70 years of glorious multiculturalism, it is showing its age with remarkably similar symptoms everywhere it is tried: displacement of first-world populations with third-world ones, lowering of national IQ and raising of crime rate, epidemics of rape and other subjugation violence against the native population, and massive expenditures to try to keep the third-world population succeeding alongside the more intelligent and capable first-world natives.
Diversity does not work simply because it destroys culture by destroying standards. When you have two or more groups, standards differ, and thus an “official” Government standard must be created that includes both, which prevents each group from establishing its own cultural mores and values. This creates a Balkanization effect where each group withdraws, which prompts liberal democratic Government to try to force them to merge, resulting in genocide by outbreeding of both.
But diversity doubly fails when it is third-world integration into the first world. It takes a population which is genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, and introduces a new population which is genetically hardwired for the exact opposite. This forces the first-world natives to become caretakers for the newcomers, exhausting themselves and turning their society into a battleground for the symbolic victory of diversity.
Netanyahu has had extensive experience with the Palestinians, who as a mixed-race (Caucasian, Asian, and some North African) population of third-world status have its typical traits: low IQ in the low 90s, tendencies toward lack of long-term planning ability, r-strategic reproduction, unruly social behavior requiring rule by warlords, and a tendency to blame first-world populations for the third-world population’s endemic poverty, disorder, crime, corruption, poor hygiene and impulsivity. With Palestinians within its borders, Israel can never properly exist, and it cannot protect the Jewish people who share a culture, languages, heritage/ethnicity and religion.
With his statements, which were as much symbolic as historical, Netanyahu has signaled the future for Israel: as a Nationalist state dedicated to the Jewish people and excluding all others. This means the Palestinians must go, and immigrant surges like the Mexican indios in the United States and “Syrian” Arab “refugees” in Europe cannot be tolerated. He has given Europe the go-ahead to quit multiculturalism and eject its non-indigenous people while rejecting all immigration, if European leaders are able to stop emulating the political successes of the past, look toward the future and accept Netanyahu’s nod.
WWII will go down in history as a war of confusion. The Nazis and Japanese fought it to preserve their own people against both immigration and incursions by mixed-race Communists, while the Russians, Americans and English fought it to achieve economic dominance. Broad conclusions which were convenient for the post-1930s liberal parties in the US and UK were drawn, but they are not supported by actual historical events. Netanyahu is now correcting those misperceptions so he can ensure the survival of his people, and all us other first-world populations should follow his example.
The local internet propaganda source where I live, Al.com, seems to inhabit a journalistic world akin to Sports Illustrated or Spin Magazine. They cheer loudly for the Home Team, boo the enemies and pump out all the disingenuous advertising a lousy pop band could ever desire. There are subtle differences within the genre. To make Sports Illustrated, you need to throw a 95 MPH fastball, mow down the middle of the Yankees batting order like a lawnmower or be a good enough professional football player to get admitted on scholarship to The University of Alabama. To get in Spin Magazine, you need to at least avoid musical atonality long enough to convince a record company talent scout you should be signed by the label. Get a load of the useless tossers Al.com chooses to pimp out to the Progressive fan base.
The judge ruled late today in Huntsville’s months-long desegregation dispute, clearing the way for federal attorneys to roll up their sleeves, dig deeper and stay longer.
This brings up an unpleasant question. Who in the heck actually cheerleads for federal attorneys* to “roll up their sleeves, dig deeper and stay longer?” Here we have a supposedly journalistic enterprise composing a front page article with all of the objectivity and fairness you would read in Go Set A Watchman. This is pretty much where the establishment is at on forced desegregation. The article was entitled “Desegregation judge drops hammer on Huntsville schools, ‘Court cannot find conclusively that the Board does not operate a dual system.” Roll Damn Tide!
We start with the “decision” U.S. District Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala handed down.
U.S. District Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala didn’t approve the city’s plan to redraw school zones. And she didn’t approve the Justice Department’s plan. Instead, she appointed Chief Magistrate Judge John Ott to oversee months of mediation between the two as they examine all aspects of racial disparities across Huntsville City Schools. She also called for appointment of a Special Master to oversee the court’s ongoing fact-finding in the case.
It reminds me of a recent NFL game between the Patriots and the Colts. The Colts didn’t want to punt on fourth down. They also didn’t want to run a play against the Patriots’ defense. So instead, they, like U.S. District Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala didn’t bother making a decision. They managed a play call that successfully did neither. What resulted has been hailed as one of the worst play-calling decisions in NFL history. The Head Coach at Indy wasn’t fired. Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala won’t be either. She’s provided months of additional government employment at taxpayer expense.
Then we get to the logical premises underlying her non-decision. It seems that some schools in the City of Huntsville, like some residential areas near these schools, are majority African American. It seems these schools don’t have a proportionally equal number of students in AP classes to other local high schools that are not predominantly African American. This, according to Her Judicial Majesty, has nothing to do with either the students or their parents. She “reasons” below.
The district administrator who determines which courses will be taught at the district’s schools each year testified that all of the courses listed in the district’s course catalogue, including all of the 27 AP courses, are offered to all of the students at all of the high schools in the district, but the district only teaches a handful of AP courses at Butler and Johnson because students at those schools have not requested other AP courses … The uncomfortable truth is that in a high school in which only 33% of the students read at or above grade level, many students probably are not prepared for the rigor of college level AP courses. Students who do not read at grade level need not only encouragement but also remedial help to take an AP course.”
Huntsville, you see, has that magical formula for chicken salad that works no matter what substance you provide them that came out of the chicken. They just keep it locked in a safe along with Colonel Sanders’ secret recipe because they’re all Southern-Fried Racists. A teacher wrote the following about the delusions posited as reasoning by people such as Judge Hughes Haikala.
There is an unutterable secret among teachers: Almost all realize that blacks do not respond to traditional white instruction. Does that put the lie to environmentalism? Not at all. It is what brings about endless, pointless innovation that is supposed to bring blacks up to the white level. The solution is more diversity–or put more generally, the solution is change. Change is an almost holy word in education, and you can fail a million times as long as you keep changing. That is why liberals keep revamping the curriculum and the way it is taught. For example, teachers are told that blacks need hands-on instruction and more group work.
This would imply Huntsville almost has to operate a dual school system. At least if they aren’t in league with the Grand Wizard of The North Alabama Klan Kleagle. And not only will a segregationist’s dream not work here, the African-Americans don’t want it. The reason that they tend to beat your adorable White Honor Student’s sorry butt every day is that they truly hate having white people around. White culture is something that grosses them out and royally pisses them off.
We see this resentment towards oversaturation and forced “Whitification” in the Pilsen neighborhood of Chicago. The people in minority neighborhoods not only don’t oppose racial segregation; they seemingly demand it.
Anti-gentrification signs have again popped up at Bow Truss coffee shop in 18th Street, this time reading: ‘White people out of Pilsen!” The coffee shop, at 1641 W. 18th St., has been vandalized five times in the last two or three weeks, Bow Truss owner Phil Tadros confirmed Monday.
These people don’t even want too much cream in their coffee. There is no way they want to have their kids taught by Whitey. They want whites to leave their bankrolls and take their Ofay butts back down the interstate to the burbs. The conflict and forced desegregation only occurs because Whitey won’t leave behind enough of his money. Now if there weren’t a basically powerless pool of taxpayers to bankroll all the “federal attorneys to roll up their sleeves, dig deeper and stay longer,” this is exactly what the Special Master would conclude in about five minutes. The only real issue these carpetbaggers would have left is when the next plane left from HSA.
* – Now I’ve met Federal attorneys that biologists would classify as both vertebrates and mammals. I haven’t met too many who I wished would roll-up their sleeves, dig deeper and stay longer. I guess I’m just weird in that respect.
Meet the Defense Ministers of Sweeden, Norway, Netherlands, and Germany. The migrant invasion doesn’t stand a chance.
You go girls. – Anonymous Cop
Back in the day, it was assumed that men and women had different roles because of different abilities, and that each would bungle the role of the other. A man staying home and raising the kids was seen with as much derision as a woman in a position of power.
Our ancestors, knowing that men are gifted with more aggression and thus less impulse to social flattery, and certain intellectual abilities while lacking others, saw it natural that men would preside over leadership and war, while women oversaw the home and culture. There’s a reason that every great literary salon in history was run by a woman.
Now we have decided that equality is the only law; equality is actually defense of the individual who demands, “make me equal so my shortcomings are invisible.” With the law being equality, we must use affirmative action style policies to advance those who are “disadvantaged.” This means that people get promotions for installing women, gays and minorities into high positions. If you want a clear example of why The Enlightenment™ is an inversion of society, it is this: in defense of the individual, we discriminate against those who are capable in order to lift up the less capable. This makes a society that puts incompetents first.
Even if we assume that among women there are some Margaret Thatchers, these women are not being chosen as she was, on the basis of competence. They are selected for being women, and for being politically adept, which means they are masters of appearance and not results.
We see that now in the utter bungling coming from the modern West — Western Europe, North America and Australia — as it adopts pro-equality affirmative action policies across the board. Life is falling apart because we have made incompetence the new competence.
It is well-known that one cannot “teach” anything to a social justice worker, or “SJW.” These people organize on the internet at night to attack those they feel are on the wrong side of history. Like a cult, SJW works as a circular confirmation of reason: any challenge is seen as an enemy, and “therefore,” it affirms the truth of what is arrayed against it. They believe they are as righteous as the holiest holy man, as altruistic as Mother Theresa, and as solidly-grounded in reality as the most astute scientist. And yet, at heart, they are a lynch mob which delights in tearing down those more successful than it and then justifying those acts with far-Left ideology.
Liberal (Leftist) thinking has always been debilitating to insight, and despite many analyses on the topic, seems immune to criticism which might provoke introspective. Its inherently defensive, passive-aggressive outlook creates confirmation bias every time it is challenged. This causes me to query as to its origins as a psychology. The Liberal Mind is a book written by the psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter describing how liberal thinking is a nurtured condition, meaning that it starts with psychological instability and becomes a pathology through the hands of others, just like neurosis can be conditioned into obsessive-compulsive purchasing by the right television advertising.
Following up on that, Just Business, Not Personal is another book written by the now deceased psychiatrist Howard F Stein describing how organizations adopt the personalities of their owners and officers. Again a sort of nurtured effect: people in groups are influenced by the culture of that group, but the culture is changed by how people behave and the reasoning they give — even if excuses and justifications — for their actions. How the Mighty Fall by Jim Collins shows the end-effect of liberal nurture in that only approximately 11 out of 20,000 listed companies are assessed as “Great” as opposed to merely “Good.” He does not use the term conservative or liberal, but its quite clear once you look at the empirical failure conditions he condensed (over 10 years) for us mere mortals. The culture of companies reflects the individuals in them, and most are mediocre, with some rising barely above to be good enough to succeed — but not Great.
In the recent economic recession, only one hedge fund seemed to be actually hedging against loss, Universa Investments L.P. This follows from the idea that most companies are in fact nowhere near as competent as they estimate themselves to be, perhaps because something in the general audience of workers conditions them — “nurtures” them — into being mediocre.
So, how does this happen — I mean — where did this nurture thing kick in?
From my limited exposure I am certain that children aged 4-5 start the reasoning process with their parents. Once the child attains the ability to communicate, logic and realism is embedded into them through feedback with parents, others and the world. The parents, in this time-frame, “teach” the kid to do things like cycling or eating properly, the reason one stands up and walk, or sit and eat or laying flat to sleep, as part of explaining why there are roads, or chairs, or beds. The liberalized kid does not learn this. For him/her it is not logic to sit and eat; it is a “moral right” because the parents sit and eat — therefore he/she can also do it. He/she does not cycle down the road because its faster and effective, but because the “other” kids are doing it, so the liberalized child assumes it has the “moral right” to the same. If you look at collective societies, this is where they go wrong.
This juncture is also where the notion of “equality” starts and this is also where it should be killed with pure simple bi-lateral reasoning. Studies by the South African Research Council (CSIR) into criminal behavioral solutions pointed this out as well. I also have the input (based on a book by John T. Malloy) that engineers become creative if they had this — and he actually calls it conservative — experience at that tender age.
However, we all know that not having both parents is problematic. Psychologists also identify “developmental psychology where children growing up cannot “take it” and become traumatized. These trauma can also lead to defensive behavior that can be passed to next generations and so, I would like to posit that this particular strain of defensivity results in SJW action. The reason can be condensed by saying SJWs are anti-realistic not because they are not logical, but because they reference moral rights in a universal context as if still under the care of their parents.
It’s like looking into your own shiny glasses, instead of looking through them. It’s logical to look through glasses, while its morally your right to have glasses because others have those shiny ones too. This goes even further than looking at the glasses. The affected person will continuously in his/her own mind play his/her anticipatory game of who to coattail, or what future moral benefit to gain, instead of achieving simple situational awareness.
In other words, what reasonable people will grasp in seconds, the defensive SJW person will first play in his/her simulacrum head-game overnight, still never actually getting it. They do not exist in reality but in a world composed of moral judgments and based in feelings, lost in a pathology of competition with the parents who failed them. The parents created a culture that nurtured this outlook, and the children carry it on, patient zeroes of a force that will erode the civilization around them and plunge it into eternal darkness.
As things near their state of death, they invert themselves or turn on their original principles in order to preserve their current state. This also inverts reasoning in that, instead of acting toward a goal through themselves, they are acting toward themselves under the guise of goal.
In biology, this happens when organisms lose independence and become parasites. They no longer have any purpose in an ecosystem but to destroy and are wholly dependent on other plants and creatures. In economics, it is the “cash cow” firm which engages in rent-seeking behavior as its investors deplete it. In social groups it is the shrill clique that sets all the rules but has no actual power.
Democracy — AD 2015 version, which looks a lot like BC 400 version — has flipped itself and is now acting anti-democratically, in the name of democracy. First a gentle example of how the need to enforce order quickly overwhelms principle, starting with the most chaotic states:
Portugal is in the midst of a constitutional crisis after President Anibal Cavaco Silva refused to allow a coalition of left-wing anti-austerity parties to take power even though they have a majority in parliament.
The centre-right party of Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho will instead be allowed to continue in power to satisfy the desires of Brussels, despite falling well short of a majority in elections earlier this month. Its ability to govern is in question, however, with the left easily able to vote down government legislation.
These upstarts are against the EU and Portugal is dependent on the EU, so the inevitable clash comes between what the votes say and what must be done. This clash has always been present in democracy but usually, it is the delusional will of the people — who are of varied ability, with most unable to make political decisions, and even more prone to be socially manipulated into compromise — against government. Now for once popular opinion is right, but as usual two generations too late and in favor of convenient solutions that ignore the real problem.
When do we admit that democracy itself is a failure? Mob rule is mob rule. People in herds behave like panicked, selfish, bigoted animals. Since their bigotry must flatter themselves, it usually takes the form of anti-bigotry or universal acceptance of all people, which destroys any standards, culture, values, heritage, religion, and even behavior codes. Democracy converts societies into sloppy, piggish, egotistical mobs.
The twilight of democracy is showing as it violates its basic principles in order to keep the franchise afloat. At this point, its leaders work for themselves alone, and see their job as a business not a mission to do good — although they will say otherwise in interviews, of course!
With pugnacity and self-assurance, the French far-right leader Marine Le Pen defended herself in a courtroom on Tuesday against charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims, provoking cheers of “France for the French” from supporters in the courthouse halls afterward.
Drawing on French anxiety over the migrant surge in the east, an electoral campaign in which Ms. Le Pen’s National Front is seen as having momentum, and her own charisma, she turned what was meant as an accusatory stage into a full-throated platform for her views.
The context was unusual, but the hard line taken by the populist leader was not: France’s Muslim immigrants are an alien force threatening French values.
To have equality, the plastic god in whose name the French killed off the upper echelons of their society back in 1789, one must protect the precious notions behind equality such as the idea that we are all basically the same — interchangeable parts — and that we are all basically good, so whatever each individual chooses is good. That has proven not to be the case.
However, a warning:
Humans tend to follow one error with another exactly like it, but in another area. They have seen the specific context of the error because that is most tangible, but they have not seen the abstract form, and it may take a few iterations for that to become apparent.
The form of our democratic error here is our insistence upon equality, which is really a demand for lack of oversight upon the individual. The selfish ego wants no standards which can make the individual look bad. Democratic lowest common denominator rules are OK, as are popularity contests where being freakiest wins the day, but any kind of shared standards, values, or codes which can make the individual look bad if he fails to uphold them are considered bad by democracy.
With that in mind, the twilight of democracy was inevitable: democracy is paradoxical: leadership by non-leaders, values that are anti-values, and culture created from destroying culture. Democracy never had any substance to it. Like that first error, it is all appearance and no depth. So now, as it deconstructs itself, we should plan toward a future — without it.
