Archive for December, 2010
Thursday, December 30th, 2010
Thanks to a generous act from Arktos, we are able to publish this review of Guillaume Faye’s “Archeofuturism” by Michael Walker, former editor of The Scorpion, a cerebral New Right publication from Germany that has until recently been relatively unknown in the New World.
In the 1980s Guillaume Faye was one of the best known member of GRECE and by far their most popular speaker. With humour, panache, invective and contempt thrown in at just the right moment-the dismissive “l’acteur Reagan” the contemptuous and venomous “monsieur Henri Levi surnommé le grand”, he had his audiences rolling in the aisles with delight. Every time I heard him speak at a GRECE conference he received a standing ovation.
GRECE was not only a school of thought, it was also a sort of social club, linking like-minded persons on a cultural, political and social level. However, its concentration on theory made the temptation in hard times great indeed to retreat from direct confrontation and reduce all issues to the level of academic debate. Faye explicates these and other criticisms in Archeofuturism (now available for the first time in English from the Arktos Press at the same time as it has become hard to obtain in the original French).
Archeofuturism suffers from coming from the pen of a man more at home before a gathering than a keyboard. It is unbalanced and paradoxically, given the content, in some respects extremely provincial and theoretical in its approach and design. At the same time, it owes nothing to the respectability and detachment from reality which can make cowards of many writers.
This is not to say that the book lacks structure. It has a very definite if unorthodox structure. It consists of three theses as Faye calls them: 1) the end of civilization as we know it owing to what Faye calls a “convergence of catastrophes”; 2) the necessity for revolution, notably in the European mindset, 3) propositions for the post-catastrophic world (and the title of his book expresses the essence of Faye’s solution).
The last chapter is a piece of science fiction, a story of a world in which the conflict of technics and tradition has been resolved by reconciling the two, and this is the underlying thread of Faye’s entire argumentation, that we must learn to reach back to our furthest yesterday and to the longest future.
One issue is the conflict between tradition and progress. On the one hand, technology is necessary as a tool of our will to power, something which Faye believes essential to the survival of the European. On the other hand, scientific and technical progress may prove and often does prove, destructive of tradition. Are religions just fables? It is hard to die for a fable. How is such belief possible in a world of scientific rationalism and progress?
Faye believes strongly that the world is hurtling towards multi-faceted disaster, less a clash of civilisations, although he seems to write at times in a similar vein to Huntingdon, with his view of Islam especially as a challenge in itself to the hegemony of European civilization, than what he terms a “convergence of catastrophes”. Like Huntingdon, Faye regards Islam as a single cultural, religious, political bloc with a an expansionist will.
On homosexuality : “it is not a matter of advocating any repression of homosexuality, of banning homosexual couples or socially penalising gay people; simply, the prospect of legalising of a form of marriage for homosexuals would have a highly destructive symbolic value. Marriage and legal heterosexual unions enjoy forms of protection and public benefits that are accorded to couples capable of having children and hence of renewing the generations and thus of being of objective service to society. Legalising homosexual unions and awarding them financial privileges means protecting sterile unions.” “pp 106/107)
On demographics: “It is necessary to relfect on the issue of immigration, which rperesents a form of demogrpahic colonisation of Europe at the hands of mostly Afro-Asiatic peoples…Three generations later, the colonisation of Europe represents a form of revenge against European colonisation..are we to accept or reject a substantial alteration oif the ethno-cultural nsubstrate of Europe? The baiss of intellectual honesty and the key to ideological success lie in the ability and courage to address the real problems, instead of attemting to avoid them.” (p49)
On distraction: “The system only makes use of brutal censorship in very limited areas: it generally resorts to intellectual diversion, ie distraction, by constantly focusing people’s attention on side issues. What we are dealing with here is not simply the usual brutalisation of the population via the increasingly specific mass-media apparatus of the society of spectacle — a veritable audiovisual Prozac-but rather a concealment of essential political problems (immigration, pollution, transportation policies, the ageing of the population, the financial crisis of the social budgets expected to occur by 2010 etc.. (p92).
It is a sad paradox, and one about which Faye is acutely aware in his book, that the European New Right in general has failed to make an impact at the very time that the march of events might have been expected to play into its hands: the end of the cold war, the decline of political Manicheanism (East versus West) , the decline of nationalism as a relevant political alternative to liberalism. Faye offers a number of explications for this failure. They can be summarised as a lack of media “savvy”, romantic isolationism, minimisation of catastrophe, cultural relativism and a lack of understanding of and worse, interest in, economics (Faye alone among spokesmen of GRECE had written a treatise on economics).
Faye’s response is to deviate from the consensus among the new right and to insist on European exceptionalism. He returns to what might be called a traditional belief of the radical right when he claims, as he does here, that European civilization is superior to others and that as a superior civilization it has a duty to resist the challenge of immigration in general and Islam in particular. Cultural and racial superiority was the premise (sometimes asserted, sometimes unspoken) of all movements of the twentieth and nineteenth centuries which sought to preserve or halt a decline in the domination of the white man over the political destiny of the globe.
European radical right movements after the Second World War focused their propaganda very much on the restoration of national prestige and glory and a rejection of immigrants and outsiders. GRECE stressed from the beginning the importance of what it called “the right to be different” arguing less in terms of European superiority than in terms of European uniqueness, Europe’s right to the nurture of its own identity and destiny. The great enemy was seen not so much as military or political threats as such, as the forces which sought to attenuate, reduce, trivialise and ultimately abolish differences. The great enemy in this respect was neither Islam nor communism but “the American way of Life”, the manifest destiny to reduce all peoples to consumers, whose sole struggles were ones of economic competition.
This developed in the course of time within GRECE into a position of ethno-pluralism, which Faye and others subsequently denounced as cultural relativism. Simply put, it is the argument that all cultures are worthy of respect within their own terms and no culture is inherently superior to another. The obvious critique of such a position is that it ultimately disarms all willingness to disallow, challenge or oppose other cultures. Opposition even in its politest non-military form, can only be conducted on the premise that in some way one is superior or equipped with superior arguments or in the area of culture and religion, possesses a truer, superior culture and religion and one thereby and therewith seeks an opponent’s defeat.
There is another aspect — that of economic survival. A major criticism which Faye has of GRECE is that it ignores or glosses over demographic and economic warfare against the European. Faye argues that at a time of emergency, when Europe is threatened with being overwhelmed by non-Europeans whose demographics are reducing the significance of the European by the hour, it is a form of suicide to indulge in culturally relativist reflections and debate.
Faye spends no time in fleshing out his arguments about superiority and in what respects the European is “superior”. This is a pity because it would provide the book with a stabilising effect. As it is, Faye assures us that he believes the European is superior and rushes on the next point. What Faye implies although I did not find it in this book explicitly stated, is that when we talk about the right of a people not only to an identity but to a destiny, there is likely to be a conflict between the destiny of a people compelled to expand and conquer and the right of another (conquered) people to an identity. The notion of a “right” be it to identity or destiny is problematic: where does our “right” come from? A Nietzschean,as Faye claims to be, can answer this question. It could be baldly stated as the right to survival-the impulse of nature which all beings have the “right” to practise. Rights to be different are likely to conflict with the rights of others to be different. The right to conflict is therefore the right to survival of identity and it is Faye’s point that such a right can only be preserved by those who actively engage in the politics (as all politics in Faye’s view must be) of conflict. A defence of the identity of the European necessitates entering into a state of conflict with the prevailing hegemony.
Faye candidly states that he made the same mistake as other GRECE members in the expression of cultural relativism and an accompanying primary and fundamental anti-Americanism which took precedence over the ethnic question and the challenge of non-white immigration to Europe, (and presumably, the decline in relative numbers and influence of the Caucasian in North America). The “ethno-pluralist” approach is exemplified by Alain de Benoist’s Europe-Tiers Monde: Même Combat where de Benoist argues that Europe and the Third World (even the term seems a little outdated today) are natural allies against the American and Soviet ways of life. Faye stresses that GRECE (and he willingly includes himself here) ignored the reality of the Islamic threat and that ethnopluralism paved the way for an inactive, “head in the sand” response to the long term significance of massive Mohammedan immigration into Europe.
Faye’s stress on the superiority of Europe in place of the right of Europeans to be different indeed avoids the danger of degenerating into an ineffective and compromising inactive pluralism. On the other hand, it shifts the focus of intent significantly towards a provocative, inevitably conflict laden project which is dear to Faye: the Eurasian Imperium. Faye is for better or for worse an imperialist. His vision of the future as outlined in this book is one of a vast Eurasian bloc, stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
The implied direction, never explicitly stated of the archeofuturist project, is combat and conquest in a world divided into major power blocs jokeying for position. “Like in the Middle Ages or Antiquity, the future requires us to envisage the Earth as structured in vast, quasi-imperial unity in mutual conflict or cooperation.” (p.77). Seen in this light, Faye’s admiration for atomic power implied in this work (and more explicitly indicated elsewhere, dramatically in his comic book notre avant guerre, where he gleefully depicts a degenerate Europe being destroyed in mushroom clouds ) and futuristic technology in general is the ghost in the machine of Faye’s project.
However, unlike most modernisers, Faye does not duck the dilemma of reconciling a world of modern technology with a world of tradition, be it racial, political or other. How does one reconcile advanced technology and its implications with the preservation of continuity with the past? Faye faces this problem head on and if his solution is seems questionable and Utopian, he deserves the credit of highlighting the dilemma. Practically all radical rightists of whatever hue, fail to address the issue at all. Faye’s solution is what he calls “archeofuturism” the title of his book and the project to which he believes European revolutionaries (and Faye believes we must be revolutionaries to save European civilization and not conservatives) the assimilation of the future with the past, building a future not as modern or post modern but archeo-modern, a modernism acutely aware of and with its roots in a deep and profound past.
There will be a small elite of rulers with access to the highest forms of modern technology while the majority of less gifted will make do with crude forms of technical accomplishment-a completely two tier society in fact. This may sound familiar and not perhaps pleasantly so. It is this reviewer’s belief, one shared by many, that the ultimate aim of the ruling elite is the same: the division of mankind into two groups-the elite and the great majority of outsiders who no longer have a say in how public affairs are administered. This seems difficult to reconcile with Faye’s expressed support for populist initiatives. Be that as it may, this writer’s strength is his ability to fire the right questions rather than provide well prepared answers.
The “post catastrophic” world will be one, Faye believes, divided between the futuristic achievements of an elite and the archaic conditions and status of the majority, it will be archeofuturistic. Before we examine this idea more closely, it is worth taking a moment to consider the notions of growth and progress which Faye dismisses as overhauled. His chapter revealingly entitled “For a Two-Tier World Economy” opens with the bald assertion: “Progress” is clearly a dying idea, even if economic growth may be continuing”.
Faye’s rejection of what he calls “the paradigm of economic development” is simple:
“An intellectual revolution is taking place: people are starting to perceive, without daring to openly state it, that the old paradigm according to which the life of humanity on both an individual and collective level is getting better and better every day thanks to science, the spread of democracy and egalitarian emancipation is quite simply false…. Today, the perverse effects of mass technology are starting to make themselves felt: new resistant viruses, the contamination of industrially produced food, shortage of land and a downturn in world agricultural production, rapid and widespread environmental degradation, the development of weapons of mass destruction in addition to the atomic bomb-not to mention that technology is entering its Baroque age.” (pp 162/163).
The last comment excepted (which is pure Spengler), this writing must strike the impartial reader as familiar. It is a fairly good example of the pessimism of environmentalist writers in general and it has been said many times before. Faye knows or should know, that there are very many people who are deeply aware of the heavy price which we are paying for making Progress our Baal. Faye is entirely right in my opinion, as thousands of others before him have been right, to question the cost but anyone expecting Faye to so much as nod with respect in the direction of the many organizations, groups, campaigns and initiatives to reverse this trend, will be disappointed.
On the contrary, Faye contemptuously dismisses the French Green movement in these words, “the political platform of the Green movement contain no real environmentalist suggestions, such as the transport of lorries by train instead of on highways, the creation of non-polluting cars (electric cars, LPG, etc.) or the fight against urban sprawl into natural habitats, liquid manure leaks, ground water contamination, the depletion of European fish stocks, chemical food additives, the overuse of insecticides and pesticides, etc. Each time I have tried to bring these specific and concrete issues up with a representative of the Greens, I got the impression that he was not really interested in them or that he had not really studied them.” (p 145) It is not clear (possibly a fault of the translator’s) whether Faye is referring to one or several spokesmen. Be that as it may, it is not my experience at all that environmentalists are not interested in these issues.
Faye gives the impression throughout the book less of someone proposing ideas in a book for a wide readership as enjoying a discussion with someone who was with him in the days of GRECE over a “ballon de rouge”in a Paris café. Despite his provincialism, Faye has a sound instinct for homing in on some of the genuinely important issues of our time and viewing them in a global perspective, even when (and this is often the case here) his global perspective is obscured by the incidental historical luggage which weighs his book down. The reader should not be deterred by the book’s incidental references from letting Faye lead to key issues of our time and demanding our response to core questions.
The greatest quality of this book is that it gives a voice to the growing sense of frustration that is felt among persons form all walks of life that we are living in a transitory period, that the “end of history” is an utter illusion and that old structures are insufficient to contain the force of history. Faye cites the unlikely figure of Peter Mandelson as an “archeofuturist without knowing it” as someone who has recognised that democracy as we know it from the Mother of Parliaments is tired and no longer able to cope with the challenges which European man and indeed humankind is facing.
Faye’s examination of the real issues behind the palaver of most contemporary politicians is refreshing. Here is a taste: “The new societies of the future will finally abolish the aberrant egalitarian mechanism we have now, whereby everyone aspires to become an officer or a cadre or a diplomat, even though all evidence suggests that most people do not have the skills to fulfil those roles. This model engenders widespread frustration, failure and resentment. The societies that will be vivified by increasingly sophisticated technologies, in contrast, will ask for a return to the archaic and inegalitarian and hierarchical norms, whereby a competent and meritocratic minority is rigorously selected to take on leading assignments.
Those who perform subordinate functions in these inegalitarian societies will not feel frustrated: their dignity will not be called into question, for they will accept their own condition as something useful within the organic community-finally freed from the individualistic hubris of modernity, which implicitly and deceptively states that each person can become a scientist or a price.” “Individualistic hubris” indeed sums up for this reviewer one of the great malaises of our time: the exaggerated importance which mediocre individuals attach to their own boring lives. Faye at his best is very good indeed.
For all its failings this book is a valuable contribution to the growing awareness of persons of European descent of their time of crisis. It provides a highly readable and often acute observations about what Faye stresses are the real issues of our time but the question nags steadily: to what extent has Faye provided a strategy for Europeans in the face of those issues? The answer is that there is no strategy, unless by “strategy” we mean a positioning (for example in favour of European federalism vis-à-vis reactionary nationalism or friendly competitiveness with the United States rather than blanket hostility to the American way of life).
Perhaps someone much younger than either Faye or this reviewer will read this book and know that they are able to provide that response. In that case, this book will have shown itself to be of the past and the future, in a word archeofuturistic.
Thursday, December 30th, 2010
150 years of well-intentioned government programs.
Several dozen serious riots.
Reams of paper for laws, regulations and opinions.
Trillions of dollars of lawsuits and resentful crime.
Why does the American race question persist? Is the answer that we will ultimately breed ourselves into a uniform brown, and finally be rid of the horrid dual curse of racism (against the minority) and racial resentment (against the majority)?
Up until the 1980s, race was really an American topic, but now in Europe we’re also seeing the same problems: crime, riots, hatred, violence, expensive welfare and re-education programs.
It’s as if we’re cramming a square peg in a round hole. Let’s first look at the pure logic of the situation:
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!” – Ann Coulter
Coulter specializes in simplifications of hot-button issues, which is why she’s a millionaire and you’re reading me on Amerika.org. But for the readers here, we need a clearer statement. Why is diversity such a problem?
If you exist in a diverse society, you have two options:
- Assimilation. Forget your culture, your favorite foods, your values system, your language and heritage, and even your history. Become one of the people without any culture except what they see in the news-entertainment media. Give up what made your ancestors unique, get assimilated, and you’ll have fewer problems. You’ll also never know if people are merely “tolerating” you.
- Preservation. Keep your culture, customs, language, values, heritage and history. However, now you’ll always be an outsider. All the other kids will be talking about what they saw on TV, or what typical activities they’re doing. You’ll have culture instead. You’ll also never know if people are discriminating against you for it.
Not a great set of choices there. Either you join the cultureless, or you stand out like a sore thumb. This is the essence of the crisis of diversity: it hands you a path of least resistance that leads to genocide, or puts you on a path of standing out that guarantees racial resentment both to and from the minority and majority.
As we’re fond of saying around here, the problem isn’t blacks, the problem isn’t whites, the problem isn’t Hispanics, the problem isn’t Asians; it’s diversity. Diversity is genocide. It replaces different unique populations with a cultureless, heritageless, valueless, lowest common denominator average. These people then have no binding consensus of values except what they see in the news-entertainment media and what their government says is good (freedom, capitalism, consumerism, democracy, welfare).
When you make a nation or continent “diverse,” you replace its indigenous values, heritage, culture and customs. You replace that unique and rare thing with a common thing, which is the mixed-race person. We already have a billion or more of those in places as “diverse” (heh) as Mexico, Brazil, Iraq and north Africa, where the mixing of the four basic races (African, Caucasian, Australid and Asian) has created remarkably similar looking people.
Something to think about: wouldn’t it be ironic if diversity actually created uniformity? But when you think about it, mixing all those different things together naturally results in a mix. You can’t take the ingredients out again. You’re stuck with the gray mush.
The first forests and terrestrial ecosystems appeared during this time; amphibians began to walk on land.
As sea levels rose and the continents closed in to form connected land masses, however, some species gained access to environments they hadn’t inhabited before.
The hardiest of these invasive species that could thrive on a variety of food sources and in new climates became dominant, wiping out more locally adapted species.
The invasive species were so prolific at this time that it became difficult for many new species to arise.
“The main mode of speciation that occurs in the geological record is shut down during the Devonian,” said Stigall. “It just stops in its tracks.”
Of the species Stigall studied, most lost substantial diversity during the Late Devonian, and one, Floweria, became extinct.
The entire marine ecosystem suffered a major collapse. Reef-forming corals were decimated and reefs did not appear on Earth again for 100 million years. – MedicalDaily
We can see this process in nature. When you introduce an invasive species, evolution stops dead in its tracks as organisms stop putting their effort into adapting to their environment as a whole, and put most of their energy into trying to survive the chaos unleashed by the newcomers.
It’s the same way in societies, when diversity strikes. Diversity is genocide. Once it hits, the possibility of a shared culture (outside of news-entertainment media and political loyalty) is gone. While the citizens now become easier to control, that does not last. Instead, they require more rules and more police, because they no longer have a values system that suggests they don’t engage in lowest common denominator, convenience-oriented behavior.
Mr Piening’s angst about integration comes as Germany is undergoing a period of deep introspection about its identity.
President Christian Wulff said recently: “Islam is part of Germany.”
That prompted Chancellor Angela Merkel to say that “multiculti” – she used the slightly disparaging term for multiculturalism – had “failed, utterly failed”.
On top of that, the best-selling non-fiction book in Germany since the war is a strong argument that Germany is destroying itself by immigration.
The book “Deutschland schafft sich ab” (Germany Does Itself In) is a rip-roaring success but it is hard to know how the complex idea of identity is playing out in German hearts. – BBC
The politically-conscious BBC does its best to downplay the fact that this issue is far from solved. In fact, it’s getting more contentious as Germans realize that Germany is going away, being dissolved, and will be replaced with a giant shopping mall culture like what we see in America. They will be Germans in law and language, but even those will then begin radical changes. Soon it will be Brazil or Mexico, in a land formerly German.
While the BBC attempts to cheerlead us into thinking that Germans are struggling to find their multicultural identity, and ultimately will triumph in accepting anyone and everyone to move into Germany, the reality is that blood is thicker than politics, and this issue will remain contentious. Didn’t we fight some wars over this? We’re still fighting them. One side demands its right to exist and not be assimilated, and the other insists that first side is “just ignorant and evil.”
When you tell someone there’s no possible legitimacy for their point of view, they stop expressing it. But they don’t stop thinking it. In fact, it’s more likely that they’ll simply polarize in the opposite direction, since you’ve told them that under no circumstances will you accept something they know to be true. The result is a further fragmentation of your society.
It’s not unthinkable then that diversity of any form — race/ethnicity, religion, philosophy, values, culture, language, customs, even social class or caste — creates a paranoid society: no one can talk about the elephant in the room. That surely spreads to other areas of discourse, and as Francis Fukuyama showed us in his groundbreaking The End of History and the Last Man, most of us in Western liberal democracies view ourselves as the ultimate evolution of society, which means that criticism of any of our founding myths becomes taboo.
But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
“The extent of the effect is shocking,” says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.
The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools, and it poses challenges to advocates on all sides of the issues. The study is already being cited by some conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to the nation’s social fabric. But with demographic trends already pushing the nation inexorably toward greater diversity, the real question may yet lie ahead: how to handle the unsettling social changes that Putnam’s research predicts. – Boston Globe
We like to think that if we desire peace, we can just command it. But that’s not going to the source of a lack of peace: people have different opinions, and to compromise them destroys them. The same is true of ethnic groups. If you combine them all into one, you destroy the ingredients. While our modern world loves compromise because it preserves convenience for the individual, the evidence suggests that compromise simply avoids facing the underlying reasons for conflict. So we’ll fight all our wars and social battles ad infinitum.
But we’re not going to get any honesty on this issue, because it’s so powerful. It’s a hot button issue ten thousand times more radiant than abortion or gun control, or even drug legalization. You just say a few words and you’ve polarized a room, which is convenient for liberal politicians. Liberalism is defined as opposition to what exists, and desire to use unproven “new ideas” instead, and so it benefits from having a discontent, neurotic voting caste who think they’re victims and the solution is to destroy the strong or the majority.
From the beginning of the Tea Party movement, the Left, its aiders and abettors at MSNBC, the NY Times and other reliable left of center propaganda venues, raised race as the driving force behind the movement, even though the evidence was never there. MSNBC even egregiously cut off a black protester’s head in a photograph of a man carrying a gun to a rally in order to discuss that anti-black racism was rearing its head in America.
But it got even more blatant when Congressmen Andre Carson and John Lewis and other Congressional Black Caucus members staged a walk through the Tea Party crowd in front of the capitol the day before the health care vote. They claimed they were threatened by a violent mob and were subjected to the vile N word slur fifteen times. With the unpopularity of the toxic health care bill that the majority of Americans did not want, the Democrats needed a November strategy. Neutralizing the growing Tea Party movement with charges of racism was clearly its post-health care reform vote priority.
What they did not expect was that new media would successfully challenge the propaganda of the old media and the Congressmen’s racial smear.
First, my $100,000 video challenge for any evidence of racism was met with crickets. The CBC, looking for a fight, and taking to the airwaves to accuse the Tea Party of racism made a 180 degree turn and went into hiding when challenged on the truthfulness of the outrageous allegations. From camera hogs to ostriches in snap of a finger.
When the media chose to ignore that Representatives Lewis and Carson’s story was falling apart, we dug deeper. We found four videos from the moment Rep. Carson claimed the racist Tea Party incident occurred. The four videos, which include audio, show beyond a reasonable doubt that the incident was a manufactured lie. That lie that was supposed to be the centerpiece in the Democratic strategy to destroy the Tea Party. The videos had been available on YouTube almost immediately after the incident occurred and could have been found by any reporter interested in investigating the truthfulness of Rep. Carson’s claim.
While the media ignored these newsworthy revelations, the CBC remained in hiding and ignored a letter in good faith from the Tea Party Federation repudiating all forms of racism, but also asking for the CBC’s help in investigating the Capitol Hill incident. The silence from the CBC was deafening. – Andrew Breitbart
When you can win an argument by calling someone a racist, why would you try to fix the situation? You want the sore to stay open, the wound to keep bleeding.
It’s not much different than how in various totalitarian republics you could accuse someone of breaking a political taboo, and have them hauled off to the gulag. See, there’s an official opinion whose line you must tow now, and those who want control benefit from that official opinion being crazy-insane-talk. The crazier is is, the harder they force it on you, to break your spirit and make you bow.
In the meantime, they’re using fear of being called a racist to allow them to import voters:
Berman said he believes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is a path to creating Democratic voters.
“There’s 25 million in the United States – you can’t listen to the 8 million to 12 million numbers that come out of Washington every day – you’re going to create an instant 25 million Democrats,” Berman said. – The Houston Chronicle
So let’s clarify that: “diversity” is a good-sounding code word for importing enough voters to gain control. One side of the political process is using diversity as a path to power. In the name of treating people well, they’re manipulating them and using them to manipulate others. A more corrupt, dishonest and subversive process is hard to imagine.
You can see from here the problem created by diversity. It becomes too powerful for people to leave alone. It’s like a room with crooks at each wall and a shotgun in the middle. Instantly a mad dash to get the weapon occurs. In the meantime, the pleasant-sounding idea of “diversity” actually means the production of a gray, cultureless and valueless group of people dependent on the government and the news-entertainment media for their surrogate “culture” of Hollywood memes and political dogma.
Diversity is genocide. It happens slowly, so we don’t think about it. The problem is not blacks, or whites, or any other ethnic group. It is diversity because diversity is fundamentally paradoxical and hides its corrupt intent behind nice concepts of universal rights and brotherly love. Evil would be too easy to avoid if it announced what it really was when it appeared. Instead, it’s just another easy thing to ignore that leaves political minefields for future generations.
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010
From The Thinking Housewife:
I really enjoyed your post on race.
I think the people who complained about your post on rape statistics are missing the point. There are two basic groups in humanity: those who want to adapt to reality, and those who want all decisions to be subjective because they fear oversight.
Your average healthy person under normal circumstances marries someone like them, not just in race, but ethnicity, class/caste, values, intellience and health. The happiest couples I have seen are roughly matched in all of these areas.
The people who want reality to be subjective also want to harm those who have risen above the lowest common denominator of society, which we can see in the cities. This group is comprised of people who cannot readily control their urges, live for nothing larger than themselves, and wish to tear down anyone who isn’t like them. These people claim they bring progress, freedom, love, etc. but what they really bring is decay through the division of people.
It makes more sense for us to pay attention to natural divisions, and thus keep humanity together as a whole, than to break our society down into culture-less individuals who have no ideology or values system except “if it feels good, do it.” This is why race, chastity and many other things are important, and this is the fundamental split between conservatives and liberals: conservatives want to use time-honored methods of adapting to reality, and liberals view the only questions in life as social ones, and so say and do the “socially correct” things while completely ignoring their consequences in reality.
As we go on through our lifespan as a species, we need to ask ourselves what our actual goal is. Do we exist for ourselves as individuals only? If so, we become a rabble crowding into Wal-Mart for whatever’s on sale. Are we united by a sense of role, reverence, harmony, purpose and transcendental appreciation of the divinity of life? Then we truly have risen above our alleged monkey origins, and are ready (psychologically) to explore the stars. – “More Thoughts on Race,” The Thinking Housewife, December 20, 2010
Diversity of any kind — religious, ethnic/racial, values, culture, customs and even language — destroys a nation.
It forces the member groups to either assimilate into the majority, or define themselves as being not of the majority, creating resentment.
This in turn forces speech codes as the majority tries to cope with being the enemy, forcing self-hatred upon them.
The end result is resentment, but it’s not the fault of any group involved. The problem is diversity.
Diversity by its nature deconstructs the implicit consensus of civilization, a shared sense of values, heritage, language and culture. The result is that people cannot plan their actions knowing what will be rewarded and what will be censured. Chaos and retribution result.
If you want a healthy society, nurture consensus.
If you want to destroy your society, deconstruct consensus. Diversity is one helpful method.
Monday, December 20th, 2010
The worst fate a civilization can face is to cut itself off from reality.
Sealed away from harmful facts, it swims in its own mind, nourished by wealth created in its past. Over time, the poisons build up and the delusion comes into collision — SMASH! — with reality and its unrelenting consistency. Then the civilization dies.
We like to think that with our technology and open society, we play by a different set of rules than people used in the past. We want to think this collision cannot happen to us.
To justify this, we create a mythos: the past was bad and brutal, but now we’re enlightened, and through the equality of all people, we are making as close to a Utopia as we can. And that’s what matters; everyone thinks they are taken care of.
No matter how “free” a society thinks it is, debunking its mythos will get you ostracized if not outright thrown in jail. There are practical taboos, and then there are taboos against attacking the core assumptions of that civilization.
In the modern west, our core assumption is equality:
- All people are politically equal. This requires we assume they are all of equal abilities, because otherwise we’re letting incompetents vote and demand air time for their beliefs.
- People are distinguished only by hard work and moral goodness (HW/MG). Since all people are assumed to be equal in ability, we must have some way to explain why some are promoted over others. So we invent the mythos of “hard work” and “moral goodness,” which generally translate into social factors like time spent at the office and socializing with others.
- Anyone who has something not earned through “hard work” and “moral goodness” must have stolen it. If we’re all equal, and someone rises by some means other than HW/MG, then they must have done it by cheating.
- In order to achieve moral goodness, we must remove those who do not have HW/MG. Since we are all already equal, the only anomalies are those who are evil, and we must destroy them.
In order to keep this mythos, we deny evolution. To read Darwinism correctly, all species are constantly struggling to reach a greater degree of adaptivity to their environment. That means that at every level, inequality exists.
If inequality does not exist, according to the laws of thermodynamics at least, then any sense of forward evolution stops. With all things equal, there is no need for change.
Our current mythos/taboo pair has us desiring that form of entropy: we want total equality, an end of history, and no further development (except our nifty technology, of course). No striving, and thus none of us have to ever feel like we came up short, at least in public.
This is why our taboo structure becomes so pervasive, and resembles other taboos from dying regimes:
It was due to Lysenko’s efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. Lysenko rose to dominance at a 1948 conference in Russia where he delivered a passionate address denouncing Mendelian thought as “reactionary and decadent” and declared such thinkers to be “enemies of the Soviet people” (Gardner 1957). He also announced that his speech had been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Scientists either groveled, writing public letters confessing the errors of their way and the righteousness of the wisdom of the Party, or they were dismissed. Some were sent to labor camps. Some were never heard from again.
Under Lysenko’s guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology. Science was practiced in the service of the State, or more precisely, in the service of ideology. The results were predictable: the steady deterioration of Soviet biology. Lysenko’s methods were not condemned by the Soviet scientific community until 1965, more than a decade after Stalin’s death. – Skeptic’s Dictionary
Modern humans like to think that the world is a series of external options. They don’t occur within us; they’re outside, and if we just demand the right one, we eliminate conflict and live without fear.
Part of that illusion is that idea that the past was brutal because it was externally brutal. Something happened to us that forced brutality on us, we reason, and so we’re just now escaping that brutal age.
We like to think we beat the brutality like an opponent in an arm wrestling match, like we beat the kings, Hitler, and Enron. After all, an external enemy is one you can fight once and defeat with force. An internal enemy is one you must constantly push back against with discipline.
Our Western Lysenkoism is that we deny any suspicion that equality is not a state of nature. We want to force everyone to be equal, and if that means we sacrifice our best, so be it! At least we’ll finally have peace.
The problem with Western Lysenkoism is that it denies evolution and Darwin as thoroughly as a religious fundamentalist. It manifests itself in the following ways:
- It denies inherent differences between social classes.
- It denies evolutionary differences between racial, ethnic and geographically isolated populations.
- It denies the differences in ability and character between individuals, insisting instead that we’re all “equal.”
- It denies our need to keep evolving by testing ourselves against our environment and finding optimal survival strategies.
We can see the results of Lysenkoism when we understand that our press is every bit as controlled as Soviet press during the Cold War.
Except that where the Soviets relied on centralized control, we rely on social pressures and media memes (passed down by entertainers from the social elites with whom they consort) to shame people into denying the taboo and accepting our mythos:
The problem is that there is no longer any source of objective and trusted information. In previous generations, Americans could turn to reliable sources of information, for example, reportage from newspapers, television, and radio news departments.
Too much information these days is tainted with an agenda, whether political, religious, economic, or some other. The influence of this information is so powerful that some people are believing and supporting policies that are not in their best interests. – “The (Mis) Information Age,” by Dr. Jim Taylor, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 13, 2010
When you think about it, the notion of “equality” means that we reverse direction in society: instead of finding a suitable target and working toward it, we turn to our people and poll them to see what they desire.
Since fear is stronger than a sense of desire for adventure, what most people want — and therefore what wins out — is escape from fear, material comforts, and a lack of accountability (which translates into a lack of social standards).
Our inverted society thinks backward. Instead of thinking what we should do, we think about what will be popular with other humans. By so doing, we deny the consequences of our actions as well as the biological and power-related origins of our desires.
- Products reflect what the masses want to buy, and corporations do whatever is required to deliver those products at the lowest cost and highest margin.
- Politicians promise whatever makes the most voters agree to put them into office, and only later think about whether that’s practical, which means that ideological hot buttons trump real issues.
- Ideas that make people want to like the speaker become popular, and therefore drown out what may be scientifically or logically correct, because if people like your idea you prosper in wealth and friends.
We like to — in our mythos/taboo pair — blame large corporations, kings, governments and religions for our problems. One look at our media confirms that.
But as the list above illustrates, these social institutions are just doing the will of the people. With democracy and equality, the number of votes prevails.
That means that if you have 5 dumb people for every 1 smart one, the dumb people are going to win; this gives rise to very cynical people who pander to the dumb and make themselves rich, passing on the cost to the rest of us.
The notion the dumb people like is that we’re all equal. But the cost multiplies.
A small but influential group of economists and educators is pushing another pathway: for some students, no college at all. It’s time, they say, to develop credible alternatives for students unlikely to be successful pursuing a higher degree, or who may not be ready to do so.
“It is true that we need more nanosurgeons than we did 10 to 15 years ago,” said Professor Vedder, founder of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, a research nonprofit in Washington. “But the numbers are still relatively small compared to the numbers of nurses’ aides we’re going to need. We will need hundreds of thousands of them over the next decade.” – “Plan B: Skip College,” by Jacques Steinberg, The New York Times, May 14, 2010
What is the cost to you if too many people go to college? After all, we like to think that the choices others make do not effect us, unless they directly change our course through life. What they do in their bedroom, on their computer, or at college shouldn’t affect us, right?
- High school degrees are now worthless. To get everyone to go to college, you need to dumb the material down so that more can do well at it. Your HS diploma now says: “Bill showed up for four years.”
- Affirmative action. In order to boost people found in smaller percentages on our campuses, we dumb down the entry requirements. “Even though Jake got a 950 on his SAT, he can go to Harvard.”
- Grade inflation. Once they get to college, you can’t have 2/3 of them fail, so you need to dumb down the coursework to the point where a college degree is only marginally more useful than an HS degree. “We wanted Suzy to feel on par with her classmates, so the lowest anyone can get is a B.”
- Politicization. Because grades are now mostly arbitrary, the process invites abuse. “If you want an A in English Literature with Dr. McGillicuddy, you’d better write about feminist theories of hermeneutics.”
- Lack of real world skills and context. To make people pass, they drop out the hard stuff, like broad surveys and specific abilities. “The staff decided it’s too hard to code up a parser on a 64k Apple II, so we’re going to start you off on Logo for Windows 7.”
This is the price you pay: over two generations, a college degree becomes next-to-worthless.
What’s another cost to our Western Lysenkoism? We can’t talk about certain topics honestly, which then infects our science with “politically correct” (more accurately: socially correct) memes and illusions:
What Eia had done, was to first interview the Norwegian social scientists on issues like sexual orientation, gender roles, violence, education and race, which are heavily politicized in the Norwegian science community. Then he translated the interviews into English and took them to well-known British and American scientists like Robert Plomin, Steven Pinker, Anne Campbell, Simon Baron-Cohen, Richard Lippa, David Buss, and others, and got their comments. To say that the American and British scientists were surprised by what they heard, is an understatement.
In Norway, the social sciences have been more dominated by ideology and fear of biology than in perhaps any other country.
But science started to suffer. With so much easy money, few wanted to study the hard sciences. And the social sciences suffered in another way: The ties with the government became too tight, and created a culture where controversial issues, and tough discussions were avoided. Too critical, and you could risk getting no more money. – “Norway: Brainwashed Science on TV Creates Storm,” by Bjorn Vassnes, European Union of Science Journalists’ Associations, April 26, 2010
Science is corrupted the same way governments, corporations, kings and religions are: through the will of the people.
If the majority wants to buy into an illusion, scientists get grant money for supporting that illusion. They come up with research that cherry-picks data, considers some of the factors, tweaks definitions, etc. to disguise the truth and instead promote this happy idea that lots of people want to buy into. And then those scientists can send their kids to college.
As modern people, we are in denial of the corrupting force of Western Lysenkoism.
When we cannot talk honestly about a topic, we have no hope of fixing problems associated with it.
Even more, we corrupt our own standards of communication to work around socially-inconvenient truths and replace them with lies. This lowers the standard of our communication as a whole, leading us to become a society of simplistic thinkers.
Our Western Lysenkoism originates in our history: in 1789 with the French Revolution, our states decided that it was time to leave the “organic state” behind. The organic state was ruled by aristocracy, or a group of its wisest people, and was united by heritage, language, customs, culture and values.
We threw all that out, and replaced it with the “nation-state,” or a geographically-convenient grouping formed for the purposes of retaining political power. The nation-state is a “proposition nation,” meaning that it is united by a political concept such as equality.
This is why we say liberalism is organized around a single clear principle (equality) where conservatism is an aggregate, formed of all things that believe in a single type of result (the organic state) without being as specific about it. Conservatism is a direction to explore, liberalism is a demand for a certain principle to rule over all others.
But what are the problems of the proposition nation?
Why did ethnic groups need their own states? Mainly because the ethnic group that captures the state favors its own and disfavors others, even if the state’s rhetoric declares the theoretical equality under the law of all ethnic groups. That an ethnic group that captures the state will favor its own seems blatantly obvious, but is worth emphasizing in this age of phony equality.
The classic example of a multi-ethnic state run by one ethnic group that favored itself is Austria-Hungary. It is no accident that nationalist agitators were prominent in this state. The Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians, etc., saw themselves as discriminated against by the ruling German-speakers, their languages relegated to second- or third-class status, and state positions reserved for the ruling ethnic group. Zionism arose in Austria-Hungary as well, with rising nationalist sentiment convincing Herzl that the solution to the “Jewish problem” lay in statehood, so that the Jews could become a nation like any other.
Besides ethnic groups favoring their own through the machinery of the state, some groups will almost always prosper more than others; here again Austria-Hungary exemplifies this, as the Germans were arguably smarter and harder working than most of the other ethnic groups in the empire, another factor in their domination. Human biodiversity, along with geography and demography, predict that this will happen. For these reasons, it would have been impossible for, say, the Croatians ever to dominate Austria-Hungary.
The idea of a proposition nation, namely that a people or peoples will be unified in a nation without regard to ethnicity, using either a shared history, or geography, or adherence to some abstract principle, turns the notion of a traditional nation-state on its head. Real nationalism arose out of historical circumstances and was based on the historical experience of clashing ethnic groups, whereas propositional nationalism shares more in common with doctrines like socialism or fascism, in which some abstract principle, whether state ownership of “the means of production” (a quaint relic from the age of factories) or corporatism are given excessive importance, to the exclusion of all other social factors. – “The Proposition Nation is No Nation”, Dennis Mangan, May 14, 2010
The healthiest societies have the highest degree of consensus, and so require the least amount of enforcement.
If we want a healthy nation, the people should be of similar intelligence, ethnic background, religious or philosophical ideals, and through years of natural selection while the civilization was forming, similar outlook and abilities.
That’s how to have a happy society. You can, instead, choose to take the moral superiority path and jam everyone in together, then ignore widespread misery as is the case in the USA and Europe.
The Times’s story includes a graphic breakdown of police stops by race: blacks made up 55 percent of all stops in 2009, though they’re only 23 percent of the city’s population; whites accounted for 10 percent of all stops, though they’re 35 percent of the city’s population; Hispanics made up 32 percent of all stops, though 28 percent of the population, and Asians, 3 percent of all stops and 12 percent of the population. The article details a host of other police actions by specific racial numbers, including arrests, frisks, and use of force.
Here are the crime data that the Times doesn’t want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. Any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black than by a white perpetrator—a fact that would have been useful to include in the Times’s lead, which stated that “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped.” These crime data are not some artifact that the police devise out of their skewed racial mindset. They are what the victims of those crimes—the vast majority of whom are minority themselves—report to the police. – “Distorting the Truth About Crime and Race,” by Heather Macdonald, City Journal, May 14, 2010
The system isn’t working.
The system isn’t working for blacks. They’re still mostly poor, and white people don’t talk to them honestly for fear of government or social retribution. Even more, the denial of racial differences or the simple fact that each ethnic group wants to rule itself rings hollow, and spreads discontent.
This discontent doesn’t voice itself clearly. It’s snide, like people saying “diversity is our strength” after another interracial crime incident. It’s smug, like millions of people voting for Barack Obama to have a black guy in an office previously held only by white guys.
The system isn’t working for whites.
- They feel targeted for having wealth and power, yet when they try to share, they get only resentment because sharing power from a superior position affirms that position and makes the lower sharer resentful.
- They must deny the reality of crime and race.
- They can’t talk about many topics in public and their science, to curry votes and purchases, turns against truth.
- They lose a society where a standard could be upheld as “this is how we do things.” Who’s we, white woman? We is an open category, so there’s no standard, which translates into standards plummeting to a lowest common denominator.
- Creation of a political elite based on racial pity and having the “right” political views.
- The aforementioned dumbing down of education, science and the professions.
The system is not working for blacks, or for whites. And as it decays, it’s not working for anyone else, either.
We have developed an insidious Lysenkoism that denies biological differences, in the name of preserving equality, and so we alienate ourselves from reality.
President Obama is not helping bring this nation together. In fact, he seems to be doing everything he can to further divide this country. Every time he speaks, he divides us by race, by class, by occupation, and by income. He constantly refers to people in certain occupations–all private industry occupations–as greedy, corrupt, and un-American. His favorite targets right now are bankers and insurance company executives. But if he hasn’t gotten to your industry yet, he will. Unless you’re a government bureaucrat. The president has never met a bureaucrat he didn’t like.
Obama and his minions openly mock hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Americans by calling them names, describing them as racists, bigots, homophobes, extremists, hate-mongers, and teabaggers (the name for a sexual act that Obama himself used to smear Tea Party protestors). – “Splitting America at its seams,” by Chuck Hustmyre, The Hayride, May 13, 2010
We can’t blame this on Obama. He has no choice but to split because the historical onus is upon him to acknowledge what is inherently split: this country is divided between conservatives and liberals because we desire different kinds of societies.
Liberals want the Western Lysenkoism of equality.
Conservatives want an organic society, with different degrees of acknowledgment of this fact.
Instead of trying to compromise these incompatible views, we should recognize where we are incompatible and come up with a way for each group to have its own place.
Conservatives and liberals clash most clearly on the idea of who defines the social order both share. Liberals want an inclusive order, meaning that all behaviors are tolerated. Conservatives want an exclusive order in which standards are set, and those who meet or exceed them are guaranteed reward.
These are mutually incompatible.
Liberal: Why do you oppose legalizing gay marriage, drug use, Wikileaks and miscegenation?
Conservative: Those violate the standards of the community I want to live in. I’m wiling to cede certain rights in exchange for a guarantee of stable, productive behavior. I know what I need to do in life, and I don’t want it interrupted by social decay.
Liberal: But now you’re oppressing me, by telling me that I can’t do these things.
Conservative: But if we legalize those things, you’ll be oppressing me, by denying me the society I want to live in.
Liberals tend to use a passive aggressive argument, which is to assume that everything should be okay, and then to attack anyone who wants to ban anything, calling them “intolerant”, “elitist” or “racist.”
But the fact is that the two groups want different types of civilizations, and to give either group the upper hand violates the needs of the other.
Right now, the liberals have the upper hand, as they have for the most party since 1789. We fought several huge wars over this debacle, including WWI and WWII. Liberals won all of them.
The problem for liberals is that conservatives are not born, they are made. A child grows up innocent of all things until about fourth grade, when they start paying attention to the opinions others have of them. This “social consciousness” becomes increasingly important through college, and then vanishes as they have to face the world on their own. As they head into their late 20s, most of them are becoming far more conservative.
First, they’ve observed how sensible it is to group with people like you in most ways. When you seek a mate, you want someone roughly like you for maximum compatibility and if you have kids, their health. When you seek a house, you want people around you who share your standards, and have a similar way of thinking so they can appreciate why those standards are important.
Finally, the newly-minted conservative starts noticing how most of the problems in the world are caused by a single factor: human incompetence.
Not government, not religion, not kings, not corporations; the incompetence of individuals. The daily bungling, inability to defer desires until after the work is done, refusal to save money or stop drinking, or whatever. The entropy of humanity is its lack of self-discipline and planning for the future.
At this point, the conservative starts seeing herself as under assault from a large group of people who will without being productive demand more resources, siphoning them away from being put to good use generating more wealth, knowledge or stability. Humanity can become a cancer on itself.
This is why conservatives, even those who are unaware they are conservative, start adopting a new strategy — we might call this a counterpart or opposite to the Western Lysenkoism, which is denial of inherent inequality. The conservative strategy is not recognition of inequality, but demand for the ability for the exceptional to exist.
Here it is, in meme form:
Not in our town here.
Gay marriage, drugs, incest, casual sex, miscegenation, wife beating? Great, legalize it in California. But not here. We don’t presume to tell you what to do, but in return, you must not presume to tell us what to do, here in our town.
Although this strategy has been present for years, it’s time we start articulating it clealry and loudly: you can do what you want over there, but don’t make rules for me here. We are incompatible.
If conservatives start doing this, we can begin to erode the chaos wrought on our society by the Western Lysenkoism that denies the inherent inequality of nature.
Friday, December 10th, 2010
The right-wing provides the only realistic view of politics, and the spectra of right from paleoconservative onwards to Plato provides the best hope for humanity, in my view.
However, this forces you in with some strange bedfellows. As Francis Fukuyama pointed out, liberal democracy dominates the globe, and so ended history. The struggle between overlords (kings) and peasants is over and the peasants won, owing to superior numbers.
As a result, the only real opposition in this world at all comes from the right, who by insisting on time-honored tradition uphold the values of not just the past, but a better form of a society, one where in total contrast to all liberal societies, the equality of all people is not presupposed.
In a rightist society, no one is equal — it’s an insult, like saying you are mediocre. People instead serve roles. As a result, these societies are neither individualist nor collectivist, but organic. They are people cooperating at a level of such maturity that each person finds a role they can serve and stays there. If that’s king, great; if it’s peasant, ditto.
Every other political system on earth is shaped around a single premise: the presumed equality of all people. Through mission creep this moves from political equality to assumed equality of ability. This idea underlies all liberal philosophies, and modern “conservative” (or neoconservative) ideals as well.
Because the right stands out as the only real opposition, it is a target of both (a) people who want to discredit it and (b) power hungry people, often those who have nothing to offer but outrage. There are also a number of good people getting confused by by of those other groups (which often share members).
Many of the latter, who are angry at life and want politics to be an outlet, participate in an odious practice of “naming the Jew” as a way of shifting blame. Some have asked in email why we here, who face all truths as much as possible, do not “name the Jew.”
In fact, some won’t stay out of my email box about it and while that behavior may be annoying, they have a point: only a coward backs down from a legitimate challenge to his beliefs. If the beliefs are good, they should be defended.
First, a definition: “naming the Jew” practice of using someone’s Jewish heritage, culture or religion to debunk their arguments or make them a target of aggression. It used to be a right-wing thing, but now that the left hates Israel for not assuming Palestinians are equal, it’s also left-wing.
Here is why this blog and this writer will never “name the Jew”:
- Blame is unhealthy. Diagnostics are good. We like to figure out where we went wrong. But we steer this ship. Just because the kid next door tells us a lie doesn’t mean it’s his fault we follow it. We are responsible for figuring out our own course. Among us there are good and bad people. Bad people love lies. Lies help them cover up their own bad deeds. Good people should hate lies. If an outsider tells a lie, and bad people repeat it and give him money for his products based on that lie, the problem is those bad people, not the outsider. Even more, focusing our blame on outsiders means we do not clean our own house. For every second we spend talking about how someone oppressed us, how someone screwed us, and how someone else did this to us, we experience a corresponding drop in our own power. We sabotage ourselves by undermining our faith in ourselves. Even if the outsider were to blame, and he is not, we make ourselves weak by not insisting that the solution lies within ourselves. If we feel the power to fix ourselves in our own hands, we have power to do what must be done. If we insist that this power lies in the hands of others, we feel helpless and convince ourselves to fail.
- Blaming Jewish people or Judaism is not accurate. What destroyed the West was class revolt. Peasants, who breed without concern for the future, breed themselves above carrying capacity for their land, then starve and blame their leaders. They overthrow those leaders and set up governments based on equality, because if you’re at the bottom of the totem pole of life you (a) want to rise but (b) lack the initiative to do so and therefore (c) your only option is to pull others down to your level. These societies re-create themselves with a founding mythos of revolution: anyone with more than The People, by nature of us all being equal not just in political validity but in ability, must have stolen it to rise above that equal state. Therefore, we band together and crush the rich, crush the authority figures, and crush anyone who tells us that we should do anything other than exactly what we desire right now. That is what did the West in. If — and I don’t endorse this view — a bunch of outsiders showed up to profit from your decline, it isn’t their fault. It’s just good business. Europeans, you defeated yourselves. Or rather: your peasants did.
- We share a struggle. This was the point that spurred me to write this column. Israelis, as a high-IQ population surrounded by a lower-IQ ethnically Syrian/Jordanian/Egyptian of “Palestinians,” are trying to find a way to say, “We need this space for ourselves, and we will not feel guilty about excluding you even though we are wealthier.” The West can’t seem to turn down immigrants of any kind because we feel so horribly guilty that we invented many things, built strong economies, and have high productivity. We forget that we forged these things in blood and horror from a relatively low-resource landscape, and that people arrived in Europe by fleeing from easier living areas where disorder was higher. Israelis did the same thing, as did Jews, who left Israel after political disorder, passed through Turkey, Armenia and Eastern Europe, and finally arrived in Western Europe. Both Europeans and Jews have risen above the rest by going to a different part of the world and making themselves useful despite misfortune. Now both of us are being told we cannot have our societies for ourselves, and that we must admit anyone who shows up with an excuse. Both Jews and Europeans are trying to find plausible arguments for their own nationalism, cultural preservation and even more, the ability to set standards for themselves according to their own values system. Together we are the vanguard of a conservative revolution.
Some will immediately begin countering my bullet points above with lits of crimes by Jews or faults of Judaism. While those may be true, the question is what made us go wrong, and the answer is that even if Jews or Judaism were a contributing factor, they were not the cause. Banishing them is not the solution. It may be an incidental factor, in which Europeans decide they want to live by European idealist values systems, in which physicalist Judaism may be out of place, and vice-versa. But that’s what occurs after a solution, and by pretending that naming the Jew is our solution, we blind ourselves to the solutions we really need to wake up and see.
Monday, December 6th, 2010
When we have individual fears, we wish the world went easier on us.
When confronted with authority, we want to find some kind of rule that means it cannot get to us, or at least that we make it really hard.
Around 1789, we started banding together and overthrowing authority. Their rule: form a hierarchy to achieve an abstract goal. Our rule: all people are equal, and people are the goal, so destroy authority.
We trashed culture, religion, aristocracy, then even the idea of government itself. Surely now we are free.
But there’s a problem. The more we smash authority and enforce tolerance, the more disorder spreads.
It turns out that not everyone is nice. Our thought progression:
- The rich are bad. The rich are the bad.
- The bad are the rich. The rich are the only bad.
- We remove the rich; therefore, we’ve removed the bad.
- Oh wait, the bad exists among We The People, too.
We have rich people and governments as a way of distinguishing leaders. If enough people bought your product, it must be good and you must be smart. If enough people voted for you, you must be doing something that’s right.
Alternatively, we could just pick our best people to rule, and we’d have to con them into it because they and only they will view it as the most serious and hardest job on earth, but that’s another topic for another day.
But instead, we’re focused on defending ourselves against The System. As individuals, we want rules that ensure we are beyond its reach. We want to weaken it however we can. It is beyond us that others will abuse these same freedoms and in the ensuing chaos, produce a worse form of social system.
There are many ways this phenomenon manifests:
- Crime. We pad our courts with rules, laws, appeals, technicalities and other means to protect us if we’re unjustly accused, which happens very rarely. What happens all the time however is career criminals, pedophiles and scammers exploiting these rules.
- Screening. First airplanes, now maybe trains and buses: we will experience the radar scan and pat-down. This means that every single person undergoes a humiliating procedure and thousands of hours are wasted, instead of doing what smarter groups do: find those likely to commit the crime and pull them out. But we can’t do that; it’s not humanistic, or fair, or equal. Human rights must trump logic, because we as individuals fear being on the wrong side of authority.
- Schools. Your child gets a terrible education in public school because (a) the course work is dumbed down so no one feels left out and (b) the school refuses to kick out troublemakers, violent kids, and special education cases who cannot “mainstream” with an ordinary class and always require more attention, yet will never use that education. We all suffer so the few unproductive ones have rights.
- Customer service. At your favorite stores, people do dumb things all the time, and some are understandable. Sometimes, the bottle of apple juice just slips out of the fingers and breaks. Other times, it’s people moving slowly, scamming the customer service returns, vandalizing packages (including the odious habit of leaving frozen goods in random aisles when they decide they no longer want to buy them) and obstructing aisles. The few again ruin the experience for the many.
Our modern world is addicted to this human rights view of reality because all of our political systems are based on it. After all, if you were oppressed and the kings were bad news, you need to have reached a Utopian state after you killed those kings. But we haven’t. So the denial spreads, and we insist further on the human rights of all people, especially to sabotage the rest of us with their selfish and delusional behavior.