A friend asked this week if I was optimistic or not. My answer is that no, not by nature; but yes, I’m seeing good signs in the world. True, they’re buried under a horde of bad omens but it is always darkest before the dawn, as the cliche goes.
The forces of stupidity and cowardice are raging as a means of convincing themselves that they’re alive. It’s not a victory dance, but a futile exercise in confidence-building. And the drumbeat of sanity gets stronger, marches on…
- The Obsidian Files: The Plight Of The Marginal White Male
- FerFAL: Hidden inflation and the incredible shrinking toilet paper roll, The Yin and Yang of preparedness
- The Spearhead: The Unfiltered, Genuine Draft, The Game is Getting Worn Out
- The Thinking Housewife: Just Another Career, The Skyscraper and Multiculturalism, More on Game
- Jim Kalb: How to live in accordance with reason
- Secular Right: Social conservatism & religious conservatism
- Gornahoor: Awakening to Consciousness, Perspectivism
- Homestead Revival: Making a permanent lifestyle change
- Man Sized Target: Columbia: Obama’s Alma Mater
- Dienekes: Human migration and cultural change in the origins of European farmers
- GNXP: The residual of the genes & geography correlation, “black Brazilians have a much higher load of European ancestry than black Americans, while white Brazilians have a much higher load of Amerindian and African, than white Americans.”
- Oriental Right: “The best public schools are either heavily Asian or white and wealthy”
- Larval Subjects: Invisible Objects
- View from the Right: The futility of trying to get America to see beyond its own reflection, Demographer says it’s “basically over for Anglos” in Texas
- Victor Davis Hanson: A New America in a New World Order, The Rise of the Adolescent Mind
- Counter Currents: Sex Differences
- The Audacious Epigone: “Liberalism feels good because anyone can succeed. And this underpins its success; realist ideologies advocate fatalism and no one likes that.”
- Fourth Checkraise: Fortune comes for some, summer comes for all
- Bruce Charlton: A definition of political correctness, Christianity and Political Correctness, The Good and the trancendental goods: Truth, Beauty, Virtue, The Psychology of Political Correctness
- Euro-Synergies: Plato & Indo-European Tripartition
- Stephen Clay McGehee: Confederate Independence Day
- Sarah Maid of Albion: When the truth becomes the crime
- Athol Kay:Reader Story: Husband Finally Gets It, Cynical Advice on Responsible Non-Monogamy, A Short Message from the Rationalization Hamster
- Race/History/Evolution Notes: Further update on People of the British Isles project
- Darwinian Conservatism: Does Believing in God Arise from Our Evolved Theory of Mind?
- Home Living: The importance of having tea
- In Mala Fide: In Mala Fide 3.9 launches on Monday, March 7th and here’s how you can be a part of it
- National Review: America’s technological plateau: Tyler Cowen thinks we can’t expect restored economic growth anytime soon.
- Steve Sailer: Hoist by their own petard in Wisconsin
The problem of democracy
by Alain de Benoist
103 pages, Arktos, $27.
In an acrimonious and unstable political season it is refreshing to find a book as level-headed as The Problem of Democracy. This short, dense tome bucks the modern trend of taking a “strong thesis” and arguing it like a machine that makes cocktail-party conversation littered with high culture trinkets.
Instead, de Benoist takes an academic approach — analysis, historical context, and structured argument — and applies it within a conversation that more resembles engineers discussing the workings of a machine than the airy gesticulations of half-drunken hipsters. As a result, this book is universally accessible provided that the reader is able to apply critical thinking skills to follow a complex argument.
de Benoist approaches democracy without cynicism and in effect suggests we understand it before we adopt it or critique it; in developing our understanding, he dissects and re-assembles our notion of democracy, making his thesis as much about what democracy is not as what it is.
However, in recognizing what it is, he walks us through the possibilities in order to suggest but not heavy-handedly repeat a radical thesis: democracy functions only when paired with an organic cultural concept like nationalism. In this, he distills the essence of New Right thinking, which is a distrust of bureaucratic society and free markets and a preference for natural leadership and natural law, or adaptivity to our environment.
One central aspect of de Benoist’s thinking is that democracy and liberalism should be viewed as separate. He points out that democracy can be compatible with a range of government types, including totalitarianism and aristocracy, but that liberalism ultimately trumps democracy and absorbs it. The two are opposites because liberalism is ultimately individualism, or a type of genteel anarchy:
The ‘people’s state,’ which is the genuine democratic state, should therefore not be confused with the liberal state. Democracy is first and foremost a ‘-cracy,’ i.e. a form of power; as such, it implies authority. Liberalism is a doctrine concerned with the limitation of power and based on suspicion of authority. Democracy is a form of government and political action; liberalism, an ideology for the restriction of all government, which devalues politics in such a way as to make it dependent upon economics. Democracy is based on popular sovereignty; liberalism, on the rights of the individual. (45)
This conclusion emerges after many citations and inspections of democracy as an ancient concept that persists in the modern time, but which has been twisted by our modern notions such that it hovers between a “liberal democracy” (in Fukuyama’s terms) which is a quasi-anarchistic liberal state with a veneer of democracy, and a true democratic state, which is a participatory authoritarian state in which power is delegated on behalf of the nation as a whole through the people to its leaders.
In de Benoist’s analysis, individualist states are doomed to failure because at any moment any individual can sabotage the political process by objecting to any part of the law as personally inconvenient. In contrast to individualist states, holistic states act on behalf of the nation as a people and concept, and so are willing to endure personal inconvenience and sacrifice so the larger concept of nation survives.
By adopting a ‘holistic’ approach, Rousseau does not hesitate to define the people as a veritable collective organism. Speaking of the social contract, he writes, ‘This act of association creates a moral and collective body made up of as many members as the assembly has voices, and which receives from this act its unity, its common self, its life and its will.’ This idea is reminiscent of the Roman allegory for the limbs and the stomach. Against the ‘universalist’ optimism of his day, Rousseau has the merit of having posited that each nation is driven by its own particular general will. (55)
His point is to show that in individualist states, the sheer number of different directions guarantees no direction will be taken, and thus that government becomes a raw numbers game in which the lowest common denominator thrives. “The crucial idea behind democracy is not that it is the majority which decides, but rather that it is the appointment of leaders by those government, which constitutes the true foundation of legitimacy. In other words, it is the people who are sovereign, not numbers.” (52)
That concept dovetails with another de Benoist concern which radiates through the new right, which is of the managerial and bureaucratic state operating in a perpetual default behavior. When we rid ourselves of culture, and then of unpopular ideas, we cannot pick a direction, so keep going in a straight line, which hands power over to the technicians, the marketers, the writers of government pamphlets and industry “experts.”
He dissects the nature of democracy through the age-old conflict of representation, which occurs in his terms as either “commission” or “embodiment.” In a commission-oriented state, representatives are actors who act out the demands of the people; in an embodiment-oriented state, representatives are delegated by the people to carry out the will of the people. In his view, the confusion over this issue leads to the modern liberal democracy: a polyarchy.
As de Benoist explains it, the conflict between majority and minority groups in a democracy leads it to view representation itself as a type of participation, and thus to drift toward not just pluralism of opinion, but pluralism of entrenched interest groups.
We should not confuse pluralism of values, which is a sign of the break-up of society (since, while values only have meaning in respect to other values, they cannot all have equal footing), with the pluralism of opinions, which is a natural consequence of human diversity.” (71)
This thesis is bold and intriguing because it goes where few dare go, which is to apply critical thinking to deconstruct our notion of democracy itself. Too often, like other modern terms such as freedom, diversity and justice, the term “democracy” is bandied about like a brand name, without ever being defined or questions. de Benoist very sensibly does not question it, but demands it be clarified, and in doing so shows how classical democracy and modern liberal democracy are going in separate directions.
Writing in clear and simple language in an extraordinarily fluid translations, he extensively cites other sources and thinkers, pulling from each a few sentences distilling their thought on the topic, thus giving us a broad view of historical thought on the matter in a similar method to the one used by Aldous Huxley in his philosophical writings.
de Benoist guides us through this maze of seemingly conflicting ideas and knits them into a singular narrative that is not so much judgmental as it is a process of elimination, removing incompatible notions and stitching together what is left.
In this context, one should not underestimate the importance of the genuine phenomenon of national and folk consciousness, by means of which the collective representations of a desirable socio-political order are linked to a shared vision, comprised of a feeling of belonging that presents each person with imperatives transcending particular rivalries and tensions. (41)
Although this book will be good reading for those who oppose democracy, it is most relevant to those who defend democracy. In it unfolds a playbook for the pitfalls and triumphs of democracy in a form that shows what can and cannot coexist with democracy without over time dissolving it through the compromise of contradictory beliefs.
The Problem of Democracy culminates in a post-face that summarizes the major points made in its previous hundred pages, giving us ten radical theses that guide the adoption of democracy and our contemplation of how to modify it to fit a more ideal government. de Benoist’s outstanding contribution is his notion that the organic state must guide democracy, or it will fall into a bureaucracy of narrow-sighted “experts,” and by writing this as clearly as he does he provides a groundwork for any understanding of democracy in the modern age.
You can find this book on Amazon for $29.
In many discussions anywhere right of center, the no good choices assertion regularly appears. It looks like this: all the options we are given lately come down not to a good choice and an evil choice, but to an evil choice and a less evil choice.
I’m not disputing this truism. But I would like to point out the possibility that elected representatives may also find themselves, to use the archaic idiom, on the horns of a dilemma. Fortunately, in our truth-jihadist toolkit, we will find an instrument called devil’s advocacy.
Now, this tool is not the inverse of the unfortunate hipster contrarianism about leadership decisions found over at the otherwise honest loyalty-to-manhood blog. In other words, this isn’t about picking a side in a fight after rendering our values judgement, or worse, on the basis of blind ideological loyalty derived from the symbol bearers we best associate with.
Instead, we attempt to set aside our obscuring biases and emotional reactions in order to clear our view of leadership decisions to find a more likely truth at work. Leadership may also face an evil or a lesser evil decision.
To begin, let’s first examine a higher up from history, Philip IV of France.
As with many Christian sovereigns of the age, Philip and his subjects were paying duties for services rendered by the order of knights Templar. The knights had started out a couple of centuries earlier protecting Christian pilgrims between crusades to the Holy Land. In a real sense, this was a public service delivered to the people.
As early as 1156 the clergy of the Holy Land tried to restrain the exorbitant privileges of the military orders, but in Rome every objection was set aside, the result being a growing antipathy on the part of the secular clergy against these orders. The temporal benefits which the order received from all the sovereigns of Europe were no less important. The Templars had commanderies in every state. In France they formed no less than eleven bailiwicks, subdivided into more than forty-two commanderies; in Palestine it was for the most part with sword in hand that the Templars extended their possessions at the expense of the Mohammedans.
It is almost as if the military orders, providing a public service, were also manipulated into driving a wedge between the local authority of nation kings and their subjects on behalf of the distant central authority of the Holy See. One of the methods was to afford the Templars privileges and entitlements far out of proportion with what they had begun with as impoverished soldiers.
Eventually, as time passed, the wedge continued to push more deeply and the dividing effect broadened. The entitlements grew into a massive financial burden for the sovereign monarchs and their subjects. It was Philip IV who took action.
“The reign of Philip IV,” writes Renan, “is the reign which contributed most to form the France of the five succeeding centuries, with its good and bad qualities. The milites regis, those ennobled plebeians, became the agents of all important political business; the princes of the royal blood alone remained superior to or on an equality with them; the real nobility, which elsewhere established the parliamentary governments, was excluded from participating in the public policy.”
Philip had the costly Templars, empowered by the Holy See – a sort of central government, falsely accused of various sins and heresies in order to destroy them, and in turn realize his true goal to eliminate the unsustainable financial burden they had placed on his kingdom and its people.
While we may absolve the Templars of these accusations, it remains true they willingly went along with the bloated system of entitlements granted to them from a distant central agency.
Philip faced the choice of playing the sucker by continuing to pay an unlimited amount for protections services provided by the military order, possibly enough to cripple the throne and France itself. He saw this as a greater evil.
Instead, he created a lesser evil, making himself a certain villain to history, but saving France’s autonomy from the whims and manipulations of distant authority for the long run.
Moving on to the present, we see something remarkably similar taking place. State leaders come into power, inheriting an unsustainable fiscal monstrosity created by the entitlement-minded. While the recipients, the public service people, are filling a needed role, the real question addressed relates to the value of such service.
One side feels the service is of infinite value. There is no limit to how much its public services, in the form of rewards for performing this duty, should cost. The public service providers obviously feel they are above adjusting their own level of affluence downward along with the rest of society as a whole as need requires.
Effectively, they revolt against the reality of enduring global recession, not against an elected leader who is only a symbol of this physical balance against unchecked growth.
One one side are the unions. The unions believe that it is the job of the government to confiscate and redistribute wealth to their members, regardless of the consequence to society at large. Sure, they hide their beliefs well, dressing it up in “it’s for the children” and “we’re champions of the working man” rhetoric. But in the end, that’s were unions stand. Pay up, shut up and damn the consequences.
On the other side are those who believe government employees are necessary, and should be compensated fairly. They further believe that as recipients of taxpayer monies, the unions have obligations as well. Primary among these obligations is not to bankrupt the state. The failure to meet this basic obligation is part of what contributed to Governor Walker’s election in Wisconsin.
The conservative opposition believes the value of public service is high, but not unlimited, and should it grow as a cancer beyond its own worth in returns, it must be trimmed back for the good of the whole society, especially in the face of what for millions of Americans is already an economic depression.
Some of them may also understand the results of these services are unimpressive and not worth anywhere close to the advertised value. We could look at the system of education in particular as a car lot with 1,000 automobiles on it. Each automobile has the ‘fundamental right’ to the cost of full tank of gas, overhead shelter, and scheduled maintenance. Yet it is only some tiny fraction of these cars that are ever even driven off the lot each year.
In more plain terms, everyone is treated to a program of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Compared to past civilizations, virtually everyone in ours is literate. Yet, what is literacy without a demonstrable correlating level of comprehension? A thousand cars sit on the lot, ready to be driven, but only about fifty drivers climb in to one car each and drive these off the lot, leaving 95% behind to waste.
With the Democrats, the privileges and entitlements system is a method of buying political loyalty. Vote Democrat and they lavish you with rewards financed by many who vote Republican, or perhaps by people who have given up on the political process entirely and go unrepresented.
For Wisconsin in particular with its public sector unions, taxpayers as a whole are indirectly financing Democrat party power against their wishes.
Accused by Senate Democrats of rushing a vote on his repair bill, Walker fired back with his own charge. He said that two years earlier, many of those senators had rammed through a billion-dollar tax hike contained in a Democratic repair bill — in 24 hours and without public input. The record is clear.
Like Governor Scott requiring public employees to shoulder a small fraction of the expanding financial burden we will all continue to face, Governor Walker is trying to reign in the system of runaway entitlement corruption. Our mass media has turned them into villains attacking the working class, but as with all things mass media, this is at best a partial truth but more likely, at worst, predictable crowd-pleasing leftist discourse poisoning.
More information about:
Maybe our annoying elders were right: sexual liberation, or the cutting loose of sex from family intentions, ruined the family. After all, you got the reward without the obligation, so why bother?
Like most revolutions, the sexual revolution was formed of popular notions that in opposition to common sense denied consequences and focused instead on the moment, the feeling and the social aspects of the act.
Those annoying elders have no idea, the revolutionaries said. People were always having sex; throughout history, 2/3 of brides were not virgins. With liberation, everything is fair, we’re all equal, and we can enjoy this glorious bodily function without strings attached.
Except that they don’t tell you a few things. First, saying 2/3 of brides were not virgins tells us little about the brides. As far as I can tell, 2/3 or more of people live in squalor, hate their families and litter compulsively while working entry-level jobs out of incompetence and laziness. These people cannot control their impulses, appetites and desires long enough to save up enough money to fix the roof; it’s not surprising they rut like hamsters.
In the course of not telling you a few things, they also performed a classic con: they paid off today at the expense of tomorrow. If life were so easy as “have whatever you want, right now,” we wouldn’t need evolution. Instead nature walks us through a series of steps in which we defer our desires in order to apply ourselves to finding solutions to what pains or ails us.
Tomorrow is the whole of your life. You will probably want a family because families are fun, and having kids is fun, and raising those kids in a stable place ensures that you will enjoy your kids and not have to watch them flounder in misery. Even more, it lets you move on to new challenges.
You don’t want to be trying to live the ideal college lifestyle for the rest of your life, or to pretend you’re 27 when you’re 37. You want an ever-evolving series of goals and challenges to get the full experience of life.
Sexual liberation however wants you to pretend that how you are right now is how you will be for the whole of your life, and to ignore the consequences of your actions now on the rest of your life. For example, any action you repeat inculcates you to expect more of the same; at some point, you get hard-wired for it. Even more, your first experience of anything is sacred and the more you adulterate that, the less you experience great intensity (or quality) and the more you experience repetition of diminishing intensity (or quantity).
Call it sexist, call it whatever you want—the evidence shows it’s true. In one frequently cited study, attractive young researchers separately approached opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University’s campus and proposed casual sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes. I know: Women love sex too. But research like this consistently demonstrates that men have a greater and far less discriminating appetite for it. As Baumeister and Vohs note, sex in consensual relationships therefore commences only when women decide it does.
And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse strings, they aren’t asking for much in return these days—the market “price” of sex is currently very low. There are several likely reasons for this. One is the spread of pornography: Since high-speed digital porn gives men additional sexual options—more supply for his elevated demand—it takes some measure of price control away from women. The Pill lowered the cost as well. There are also, quite simply, fewer social constraints on sexual relationships than there once were. As a result, the sexual decisions of young women look more like those of men than they once did, at least when women are in their twenties. The price of sex is low, in other words, in part because its costs to women are lower than they used to be. – Slate
The sexual economics of humanity favor two basic strategies: either you have many partners and spawn and invest little in each, or you are very selective and invest heavily in your choice. The latter is riskier but gives you the ability to find a more selective match and to more carefully manage your offspring’s education and maturation.
Of course, the second strategy also requires more overhead. You don’t raise a family without some kind of contract saying “we agree we’re in this to win it for as long as that takes,” and if you’re going to translate that into any kind of pleasant scenario, you probably want all the gooey goodness about true love too. These things are natural and sensible.
When we throw those out the window however, you get a society of empowered men and women who act differently.
To the men, the risk of long-term partnership grows because since the woman they may marry will have had many partners, she’s less likely to stick with one. That means a man faces a greater chance of being cheated upon, raising a child that is not biologically his, and then having to pay alimony after the inevitable split. Because of this risk, men are less likely to commit.
A woman faces less risk, but also less likelihood of success. She can get away with having multiple partners and then must convince one to settle down, but at that point, she’s not getting the good one — she’s getting the scratch and dent sale that is willing to tolerate the risk of infidelity or alienation because he doesn’t care all that much anyway. The woman is thus likely to pick up a dweeb and carry him around until she chucks him out, resulting in her spending most of her 20s and half of her 30s chasing men, then her 30s and half of her 40s in a loveless marriage, and then when menopause hits, she gets dumped to a future life of low-rent casual sex and loneliness.
What Hymowitz cannot understand (and because she’s an older conservative woman, is constitutionally incapable of understanding no matter how many times it is explained to her, no more than a cat could understand calculus) is that it is the condition of women, not men, that caused the great drop in fertility, the great increase in single-motherhood, and the great delay in marriage and adulthood by most men. Simply put, women for the first time ever, can widely choose sexy men instead of responsible ones. And they choose SEXY EVERY TIME just about. Leaving really, zero incentive for men to “man up” as she puts it. There are other factors at play, including a re-jiggering of the economy to put most jobs done by men by outsourced or H1-B visa holder cheaper replacements, the growth of female-dominated (and White male unfriendly) government, fashion, advertising, media, and corporate jobs. But the heart of the reason most White men in their twenties remain slackers is that women choose sexy men over responsible men. And only a very few men (usually less than 10% of the population) can be sexy. – Whiskey’s Place
This blogger has half the story. “Sexy” is a made-up word referring to people who are momentarily appealing. Past generations would have found this a baffling category. Sexy looks like casual sex, low commitment and probably flakiness. Why would you want that? Women fall for the media archetypes however, and go chasing the surly sweater model, the lanky-haired artist, the so-bad-he’s-good rocker, and so on.
When they’re done chasing and bedding these flakejobs, they go looking for a responsible man. All of those however are wise to the game and realize that women of unclear sexual past who suddenly want a good man are spent in that they have had so many lovers they are prejudiced against anything but casual sex. They’re sexual burnouts, and in the game of sexual politics, that makes them high-risk investments.
This is how sexual liberation kills the family. It pits the interests of men and women against each other. When men see the game is stacked in favor of them hooking up with a burnout, they simply choose not to play. When they get older and have enough income, they can simply buy their way to a cute young thing in breeding mode. They’re not going to deal with the sexual burnouts because those represent nothing but concealed losses.
If we were less selfish as a culture, we’d see that the right to sex right now is trumped by a plan that involves a lifetime of family, love and happiness. But those things are intangible, and almost too good to be true for your average drone, so they figure they’ll take the goods up front and ignore the future. If you don’t believe in happiness, you’ll take whatever you can get.
What exactly is a people, like “Americans”? Some would define it as the people within American borders, or ideologically as those who love freedom and apple pie.
A better definition could be an organic one, which touches on the above categories but does not use them exclusively. Just like a salad is lettuce, tomatoes and other ingredients, but isn’t made up of any one ingredient, we have to look for the overlap in categories.
Americans are those who uphold a certain spirit. This is a lovely country when you stop thinking about politics; the natural land is as beautiful as any place on earth, and the people have a goodness to them. They believe in creativity applied in practical ways, and cutting out any steps between concept and action. It’s hard not to like such people.
The American spirit includes a good deal of things we’re afraid to talk about. It isn’t very hippie, at its core, although it is friendly. It believes in moving aside the dying and moving in the fresh, always rushing toward a new goal, a greater excitement or a limitless frontier. It is also tied to the nativist heritage of Americans, namely the English-German-Dutch and minority French roots of the American aggregate.
Over the past four decades, accelerating since the Viet Nam war, Americans have lost their spirit or at least muddled it. Self-hatred has become trendy. Most of this can be tied to the Baby Boomers who decided to become radical leftists in order to out-do their parents as freedom fighters, but even before them, the “greatest generation” was born exhausted out of WWI and they treated their children like inferior beings, possessions or investments, which caused those children to become virulent rebels.
The result is a society divided against itself, which makes even the Silent Majority who are neutral pick up some anti-Americanism. In fact, anti-Americanism is most profound in America, and has become part of our national culture.
But this masks two difficult truths we should face. The first is that our self-hatred is hollow because we use it as an apology in lieu of fixing whatever concerns us. It’s like self-flagellation in public before the sin. The second difficult truth is that our self-hatred comes from frustration with ourselves and our inability to figure out what our direction is.
As a nation we resemble our basement-dwellers, waking up to self-loathing and another day of working in the video store, wondering when we’ll make something of our lives. Sure, we’re earning money; but what is the future of this grand effort, and what really excites us? Earning money after all can be seen as a defensive move, where we like to have cash around because we don’t trust the unstable place in which we live and want to be able to buy our way out of problems.
One major source of our confusion is a symbolic confusion. Not the kind that postmodernists endorse, where they swear that verbs themselves lead to inequality and oppression, but a simpler one: we are not honest with ourselves. But since we must keep selling whatever it is we peddle at our day jobs, we strap on the false smile and trudge onward:
Researchers found that walking around with a forced smile and faking happiness simply led to people feeling gloomier.
So, putting a brave face on your woes could actually be counterproductive.
The research found that women suffered more than men when pretending to be happy.
He said: “There have been some suggestions that if you do this over a long period you start to feel inauthentic.
“You’re trying to cultivate positive emotions, but at the end of the day you may not feel like yourself anymore.” – The Telegraph
We don’t know ourselves anymore. We are surrounded by a kelp forest of red tape, of rules both official and social about what is offensive to whom, and a cryptic maze of rules about careers that mask the ugly underpinning truth that the game is often rigged because no one trusts society at large. As a result, we game the system. Employers don’t advertise the real jobs; they hide these, lest some unqualified candidate get there first. People lie to each other and hide useful information. We undermine the efforts of others in order to keep ourselves strong. The sum total of these many tiny injustices is a system of covert paranoia and fake, plastic public smiles.
Holden Caulfield, in the otherwise unexceptional A Catcher in the Rye, gained our attention because he said the one thing many people were thinking but couldn’t quite articulate: most people are “phonies,” or are pretenders, fakers, salespeople and actors, but have no authentic thoughts. They are manipulators. If you want truth, shy away from society entirely because it is based on lies.
State Senator Dan Patrick, Republican of Houston and the vice chairman of the Senate Education Committee, called the 58,575 people employed in nonteaching support positions by Texas public schools — “your math department supervisors, your curriculum experts” — a soft target for budget cutters. According to Mr. Patrick, the ratio of teachers to nonteachers, which includes those employed in administrative and support capacities, in districts has grown to nearly 1 to 1 today, from 1 to 4 in the 1970s.
Mr. Patrick cites a staggering statistic — Texas school districts are the fifth largest employers in the world — to suggest that there is plenty of opportunity for slimming down.
“As the old saying goes,” he said, “when I start seeing districts firing assistant football coaches, then I’ll really know that they’ll have a lean budget.” – NYT
The phoniness continues at all levels. We hire tons of administrators because no one wants to take responsibility, and would get sued pantsless if they did. We bloat ourselves, resulting in many people having do-little jobs instead of a relative few having important jobs, and then we resent those jobs for being unimportant and let’s face it, boring. As a consequence of this bloat, we’re forever on fire to sell junk to each other, so we cover every available inch of space with commercial messages. The result is ugly cities and internal division.
We have even brought back something our primitive ancestors, wary of those who blaspheme against the golden idol, would recognize: the speech taboo. Some opinions just aren’t done. And we pretend that we’re enlightened for not having them, but they keep cropping up, so we slash back against them, feeling secretly miserable that we can be so divided and that our response is so juvenile:
Zemmour’s “controversial” remarks included his observation that most drug dealers in France were black or Arab, and that employers “have the right” to deny employment to those two groups of people.
Zemmour’s criminal speech occurred on a popular talk show during a discussion of why French police seem to stop minorities more than whites. Said Zemmour: “But why are they stopped 17 times? Why? Because most dealers are blacks and Arabs. That’s a fact.”
So Zemmour wound up in the French dock, and must now pay $14,000 to five groups that sued him for racism. – TNA
We’ve gone beyond cautious and compassionate to just stupid. While political correctness is vile, an underlying culture of dishonesty allows it such that we flatter each other, lie to each other, and then declare some topics taboo so that we have a reason to feel superior to those people with “unpopular” opinions.
Those who behave in such a way would like to think that their acts affect themselves only. In their pleasantly distracted minds, these are lifestyle choices, like the color of their wallpaper or the type of SUV they put in the driveway. But in reality, these acts undermine our ability to trust our society at large, crushing our spirit and immersing us in self-hatred.
One of the pitfalls of being human is the many perceptual traps that can ensnare us. Spotting an object in water is difficult because of refraction; our ability to estimate the lengths of lines is hampered by nearby objects. Colors surrounding an object affect how we perceive it.
For the past five hundred years, a perceptual trap has gained momentum. This trap starts simply: we see civilization around us, and that it provides for us, and we assume that it will always be that way, even if we make changes. So greedily we demand as much as possible for ourselves and ignore the consequences of those acts.
More than a political movement, this is a social movement based on the wishful thinking of people who are not engaged in maintaining the civilization itself. They view society as like a supermarket: you take what you want, pay your money, and worry about nothing else.
In the USA and Europe, a resistance movement has awakened to resist this perceptual trap. We resist it both as an economic doctrine (socialism/liberalism) and as a philosophy of civilization (narcissism). We don’t want it in any form because it is the opposite of a healthy attitude toward life, and its results are correspondingly bad.
A huge share of the nation’s economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244. – MJ
The good liberals over at MotherJones.com, who provided us the above quotation and several informative charts, have stepped into a perceptual trap. They assume that individual equality exists, therefore that if inequality exists, something must be wrong.
They point out an interesting fact, however: the average income in the USA is dropping, while the incomes of the “super-rich” are rising, which is symptomatic of a third-world population. However, what they forget is that liberalism caused this vast inequality by undermining the middle class:
- Spreading the wealth. The agenda of liberalism is equality, which becomes filtered through the socialist notion of redistributing the wealth from rich to poor; if we’re all equal, the rich have that wealth unfairly, they think. The problem is that in doing this they take money away from those who are more competent, and who will use it to make more money, and spread it to people who are by definition less able to make competent financial decisions.
- Importing voters. A favorite liberal tactic since 1965 has been to import voters from third-world nations. The problem with this is that it skews the population demographic toward low-income low-skilled workers. This cheapens our cost of basic labor-oriented tasks, but in turn, forces the same amount of value to go to more people and ensures that any given task requires more people. The result is a dissipation of value, so that even if the number values remain the same, quality declines, as we’ve seen happen in American construction, poultry/meat and manufacturing since the 1990s.
- Fast money. Bill Clinton effected an economic miracle by making money easy and quick to borrow. While this provided a great stimulus to business in the short-term, in the long-term it shifted profitability from production of value-adding goods to the shuffling of paper and reselling of financial instruments. This produced an economy that while “profitable” existed entirely on paper. This not only creates a new class of super-rich manipulators, but also devalues the currency as investors worry about its actual value.
- Red tape. Affirmative action, H1-B visas, anti-discrimination legislation, Obamacare, environmental regulations, extensive safety rules and a Byzantine tax code afflict our businesses with miles of red tape. This in turn makes them less competitive, which they compensate for by cutting corners, which in turn reduces the value of their goods relative to those who have fewer obligations. Even more, this tempts them to outsource, where they don’t have to pay these costs.
- Unions. Unions combine the worst of all of the above: they spread money to the wrong people, including organized crime; they create violent social polarization between classes; they support and encourage immigration; they generate miles of red tape; they spread the wealth from those who make more wealth to those who sit in offices and pore over books of rules. In addition, unions wreck our competitiveness by creating more internal communication over non-productive issues, having more rules and more people to buy in on any compromise. If unions were biological we’d call them cancers.
- Allegiance. Removing the more organic questions of culture, heritage and ability, the liberal Utopia promotes people based on their allegiance to political concepts. Whether Viet Cong recruits reciting Mao, or Bono from U2 having the “right opinions,” we make a new elite for political motives. Surely Barack Obama, with his missing dissertation and questionable accomplishments, serves as a vanguard for this new political ueber-class.
All of the above are liberal darlings because the above support the liberal agenda of equality through wealth distribution and fragmentation of any majority group (who could possibly be more equal than the rest of us). In addition, the American left gets most of its funding from unions and associated concerns.
Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.
Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party. – Washington Examiner
If you want to know why your money is decreasing in value, and thus inequality is increasing, it is because of the liberal left’s attempts to make inequality disappear.
Before the left took over, the philosophy of Europe and the United States was that we would provide opportunity and reward those who were more competent. This natural philosophy, a lot like natural selection, enabled us to grow and challenge ourselves and produce an elite of smart, capable, dedicated people.
As the fight over the federal budget gathers pace, we will also see big confrontations between the reformers and the hostages to the status quo in Washington. Democrats are salivating over a possible backlash against Republican lawmakers if they force a government shutdown in early March by insisting on spending cuts. And complacent Republicans are dreading that very possibility in the face of the onslaught from the more energetic House Republican freshmen who recently passed that bold measure to reduce the federal budget by $61 billion.
The United States has been getting away with surreal levels of debt for far too long. If the dollar were not the world’s reserve currency, a major debt crisis would have exploded by now. The total outstanding federal debt has reached $14.1 trillion, almost the equivalent of what the economy produces in a year. Meanwhile, the annual deficit, a major source of that ever-mounting debt, stands at more than $1.6 trillion for 2011. It represents almost 11 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product — which compares pitifully even with Greece, whose deficit in 2010 amounted to 8 percent of that country’s economy.
As a result of these imbalances, and of the illusion that unemployment can be brought down with government spending, the Federal Reserve has been printing dollars like crazy — half of them to purchase Treasury bonds. The policy of easy money has contributed to skyrocketing commodity prices, whose ugly political, social and economic consequences we are only beginning to see around the world. – Real Clear Politics
As the left got more popular, it introduced the perceptual trap: why can’t we all just be equal, spread the wealth, be pacifists, and live in tolerance of each other. The problem is that wealth redistribution penalizes the competent and responsible, and replaces them with a few vicious controllers and vast clueless masses who do not care about social problems they cannot understand.
There’s a major difference between the US aristocracy and the meritocracy though. Aristocrats like Henry Chauncey, bred at Saint Grottlesex boarding schools and the Ivy League, were conscious of their privilege and social responsibility, and focused on developing the character and leadership skills necessary for public service. Many of today’s meritocrats, in contrast, don’t believe it’s a rigged game in their favour, and commit themselves to winning it at all costs, which means stepping on everyone else. As a result, too many lack self-reflection or self-criticism skills, meaning even those who are grossly overpaid give themselves outrageous bonuses.
But as long as the global elite is armed with and shielded by the belief that they are a genuine meritocracy they’d find it morally repulsive to make the necessary compromises. Whether American or Chinese, individuals who focus too much on ‘achievement,’ and who believe the illusion that they’ve achieved everything simply through their own honest hard work, often think very little of everyone else as a result.
That’s the ultimate irony of the otherwise admirable efforts of Conant and Chauncey to create a fairer world: in giving opportunities for the bright and able (regardless of whether they are rich or poor), they’ve created a selfish and utilitarian elite from which no Conant or Chauncey will be likely to appear from in the future. – The Diplomat
Liberal policies create inequality. By enforcing an equality of political means, instead of practical ones, they create a false elite. This false elite then takes from the middle class, and funnels that wealth into a cancerous government and a new “elite” fashioned out of those who benefit from gaming the system. These aren’t innovators and trailblazers; they’re people who have learned to manipulate society for their benefit.
In addition, much like the Soviet Union and the ill-fated Southern European socialist states, these entitlement states spread the wealth too thin and re-direct it from growth areas into dead-ends, resulting in not only bankruptcy but a delusional population who, when the money runs out, won’t stop their own benefits in order to get everyone through the trouble. A nation that is disunified like that isn’t a nation; it’s a supermarket.
Traditional peasant societies believe in only a limited amount of good. The more your neighbor earns, the less someone else gets. Profits are seen as a sort of theft; they must be either hidden or redistributed. Envy, rather than admiration of success, reigns.
In contrast, Western civilization began with a very different, ancient Greek idea of an autonomous citizen, not an indentured serf or subsistence peasant. The small, independent landowner — if he was left to his own talents, and if his success was protected by, and from, government — would create new sources of wealth for everyone. The resulting greater bounty for the poor soon trumped their old jealousy of the better-off. – National Review
The psychology of hating inequality produces greater inequality. Where natural inequality may seem unfair, it works to produce “more equal” people who rise above the rest and, through their competence, give to the rest of us a functional society with profitable industries. Artificial equality on the other hand forces us all to the same level of poverty, leaving a few cultural/political elites to rule us, as is the case in most third-world nations.
The choice is upon us: first-world inequality, or third-world equality? The battle in Wisconsin is symbolic more than it is a choice of Wisconsin as a place particularly in need of fixing; it’s a battle over the philosophy that will define us, and decide which of these two societies we pick.
In stable countries, eugenics is the tool which can be used to change the general traits and abilities of the general population. It does this by selecting desirable individuals to become a majority rather than a minority.
It’s a fact that some people will always be better than others, in varying qualities, and if we are sane, we will remove the criminally stupid and replace them with higher quality individuals who we can trust not to wreck the biosphere with overpopulation and wasting of natural resources on mundane consumerism.
It’s evident there is a shortage of intelligent people in any country we observe, and an abundance of dim witted people who look human enough to be intelligent, but are nothing of the sort. If this was spoken to a population now, it would be suicide because it is simply not popular to tell stupid people they are stupid and must reduce their breeding, they would riot, smash and stampede.
So instead of declaring out-right genocide against the stupid, in stable regions that need to evolve, they can zone off areas for higher quality people who contribute toward civilization and leave the lesser to fend for themselves, to which they would only form a mob of starving, stupid peasants – after all, they have the “human right” to eat, drink and be merry, and they’ll kill to prove it, so why shouldn’t God just give it to them?
It’s cheaper to kill the huge distances between worthwhile people rather than the majority of people themselves, instead zoning them into their own territories, trying to keep out of reach, allowing naturalized selection to do all the work (post peak-oil, convergence of catastrophes, civil war, AIDS, etc). The zoned area would attain total self sufficiency, a seed for a better future.
Then it’s only a matter of helping nature by chipping off their numbers, piece by piece, carefully expanding the zone of the higher quality to enclose the whole country. Nature repeats this pattern, so should we.
Toward the next epoch of civilization.
Once a population of higher quality is concentrated, they could then begin to advance toward the next epoch of civilization itself. This involves a migration toward an extreme environment leaving the rotten population behind to die of its own incompetence, especially if it is too big to simply replace at the time.
There are new varieties of civilization possible, because civilization so far has been focused on soil based agriculture as the main support for it. This can be changed in the future with the use of Closed Environment Agriculture and Closed Environmental Life Support Systems. What’s more, is whatever is achieved with these will help space settlement needs and can be developed thoroughly before even leaving the planet, both allowing more compacted, higher civilizations.
These greater civilizations can be created in ‘transnatural niches’ for an advanced population – these are new settlements deep underground, in the oceans – on the bedrock and in floating cities, leaving flat land (for wilderness) in preference of mountainous land where biodiversity is generally lower and finally to thrive in ice deserts like Antarctica and Greenland, Svalbard, even the Sahara as an interesting contrast.
This benefits us in a number of ways:
- It prototypes technology which can be vital for colonizing the entire solar system and beyond.
- It provides many safe zones in the event of mass extinction or death of the biosphere.
- It frees up territory which is rich in biodiversity for wildlife to exist undisturbed, reducing our weight onto the biosphere.
- It uses our creative abilities to exploit regions that have little biodiversity and are difficult for life to survive in.
- Your tribe/ race will gain the higher ground dimensionally and will have a survival advantage over those who are still dependent on standard agriculture.
- There is more depth than surface area of land and so nations gain another dimension toward their borders, there is also more to the surface area of our planet than simply land. The “land carrying capacity” is just that, limited to the available soil of the land for standard agriculture.
When we speak of passive aggression, we’re talking about a general term for all actions that hide their aggressive intent behind egalitarian guilt.
For example, during your dinner hour, a traveling salesman bangs insistently on your door. You tell him you’re not interested, and he gets indignant.
“But I drove all this way, and I’m lugging these heavy carpet samples,” he says. “I have every bit as much a right to earn a living as you do.” Now he’s got you: you must either state a belief in inequality or a disregard for his suffering.
A good salesperson knows that getting the foot in the door is the point of no return. If she makes you hesitate for just a few seconds, that’s tacit permission to continue with the spiel. And at this point, you’re using up that salesperson’s time and since they’re equal, guilt is expected.
Passive aggression strikes when someone uses that guilt at inequality to make you receptive to their message, and then to make your changing the situation seem like an inconvenience or attack directed at them.
You can see this in our politics and interpersonal behavior:
- You can’t change anything. Once we’ve passed a law entitling people to a certain benefit, we can never retract that — jobs or lives are on the line now. Nothing is temporary in government.
- Everyone has the right to you. If someone has a need or a want, they should be able to ask you about it, because you’re there and since they’re equal, your rights don’t come before theirs.
- It’s personal — except for you. If you vote down their bill to award $5,000 to every person with hangnail, they assume you hate them. Since they’re equal, there can be no other way, because taking it personally is one of the most effective guilt-inducing techniques.
- If they are offended, you are to blame. Offense is in the eye of the beholder. Something that is innocent to you, in a relative sense applied like an absolute, might not be innocent to them and that makes them the injured party, so you should compensate them.
- If you have more, you owe it to those who have less. They’re human too, and they bleed red just like you. So if your farm was successful this year, hand out the “extra” cows, if you please. Never mind that your greater skill at farming could result in a better society.
- You cannot have secrets or differing opinions. They — the Crowd — know what is right, because they know what they as individuals fear, and as a group of individuals, they’ve turned those private fears into a paranoid lynch mob mentality. Burn the unbelievers!
- Their bad behavior is your fault. This brain-buster is so blatant you’ll chew on it for weeks, trying to figure out how the logic works, but it’s a trick question: there is no logic. If they behave badly, and you either strike back or don’t save them from themselves, you’re the one who’s to blame.
- If they think they’re right, your objections are wrong. Unless of course you find an “officialTM” source saying exactly the opposite of what they’re saying, you have no reason to reject. Not wanting to or not liking the looks of things isn’t enough. You need a scientifically verified reason for saying “no.”
Our society — which doesn’t lead, but polls us to see what is popular, profitable and inoffensive — forms a paradise for both salesmen (consumerism) and socialists (parasites). In both cases, people irrelevant to your life want something from you.
Whether that is your time, your allegiance, your money or just your eyes, they’re taking something from you — your irreplaceable moments. That quiet dinner you were enjoying? Not for you; they have needs, you know. Your house? Your business? Your family? Not yours; theirs.
Understanding passive aggression helps us understand one great mystery of the modern time: how normal people get caught up in destructive waves, usually by not daring to oppose the passive-aggressives who manipulated them:
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians – most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. – INN
We all get taken for a ride when we don’t stand up to people with insane, incomplete or impractical ideas. Yet in a society where each individual is an island, and any island can be offended and reject oversight by any other, ignorance spreads. Eventually ignorance is united in a movement for The Common Good of one kind or another, and then it’s off to the races.
One reason for this is that in a society of people who put their own interests first, being a victim is the only safe role:
The article, titled ‘To Escape Blame, Don’t be a Hero – be a Victim’, is published in the March issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
The findings are based on three experiments conducted by Gray and Daniel Wegner, professor of psychology at Harvard University.
‘Our research suggests that morality is not like some kind of cosmic bank, where you can deposit good deeds and use them to offset future misdeeds,’ said Gray, who directs the Mind Perception and Morality Lab at the University of Maryland.
Gray suggests that the explanation for these findings is our tendency to divide the world up into moral agents – those who do good and evil – and moral patients – those who receive good or evil.
‘People ignore heroic pasts – or even count them against you – when assigning blame’
‘Psychologically, the perceived distance between a hero and a villain is quite small, whereas there’s a wide gap between a villain and a victim. – Daily Mail
The problem is that without people who are in charge, and keeping others in line through heroic and often unpopular actions, society rages out of control. It starts to follow what people want to be true, instead of what they know to be true or can estimate is more likely to be true. Inconvenient questions get ignored in favor of a gold rush toward what is popular and thus, rewarding.
A new study reveals how ecosystems crumble without the presence of top predators be keeping populations of key species from growing too large. It also provides a cautionary lesson to humans, who often remove top predators from the food chain, setting off an eventual collapse.
The top predators play their role by happily munching away at each channel’s top consumers, explained study leader Neil Rooney of the University of Guelph in Canada.
“Top predators are kind of like the regulators of the food web—they keep each energy channel in check,” Rooney told LiveScience. “The top predator goes back and forth between the channels like a game of Whac-a-Mole,” a popular arcade game in which constantly appearing
Constant predation of the top consumers prevents a population from growing larger than the system can support. – MSN
We can see this kind of passive aggressive behavior in the news quite a bit of late. Generally, it takes the form of individuals putting their interests before all other concerns (individualism) and then justifying their behavior with appeal to an external, socially-recognized good like “equality” or “fighting global warming.”
Beyond politics, our tolerance for passive aggression threatens our ability to have a functional society. By concentrating power in the individual, and making the individual judge and jury as perceiver, we have created an inherently divisive society where we can undermine each other with catty social demands.
As we face an uncertain future, we will have to make hard choices. Choice A or Choice B, but not both, and not half of each since doing either one halfway would mean nothing got done. In this time, we’re going to see passive aggression finally put to the practicality test, something we’ve avoided with four centuries of industrial wealth and easy living.
Our readers know that this site does not shy away from controversial topics. We are open to any logical and realistic ideas, and we are closed-off to any that are emotional outbursts or delusional.
In our view, if more people had this outlook — call it “honest and fearless open-mindedness” — our political landscape would be less polarized and incoherent, which is a condition that benefits those who benefit from the status quo.
As part of our exploration of logical and realistic ideas, we do not shy away from the conversation about race, ethnicity, class and other facets of human biological diversity. We are not all equal. Since ignoring truths about reality endangers us and our society, we embrace the opportunity to analyze and discuss these topics.
For this reason, we stride a thin line between the special interests, who can be fanatical, and their detractors, who are equally fanatical and have popular opinion behind them. We were fortunate enough to find someone else who walks the same narrow line in Jared Taylor at American Renaissance.
American Renaissance is most accurately described as a paleoconservative organization which is highly critical of enforced diversity and third-world immigration. They may have more to say than that, but they rarely get the chance — their recent conference was canceled because of the actions of a local mayor, a few angry leftist groups, and a hotel chain desperate to avoid controversy.
Jared Taylor, who leads American Renaissance, was kind enough to give us his time and energy to answer this short but insightful interview. Whatever your political stripe, you will benefit from hearing someone speak honestly and plainly about this issue that otherwise is mired in deception, euphemism, avoidance and dissimulation.
White Nationalism seems to be an outgrowth of the conservative belief in nationalism, except that White Nationalism swaps racial loyalty for loyalty to a specific national group (German, Dutch, Nigerian). Why do you think mainstream conservatives do not embrace this idea, or do they?
I don’t like the term “white nationalism.” It makes people think of Basque nationalism or Kurdish nationalism, with their menace of potential violence. There is no good word to describe my views on race because they were so taken for granted until 50 years ago that no word was needed for them.
I will draw you a parallel: Imagine that we lived in a society that had decided to promote communal rearing of children and had declared that it was a vicious form of prejudice for parents to care more for their own children than for other children in the community. Let us imagine that traditional parents were derided as “familists,” which had become a harshly derogatory term. There would be no good word for “familists” because their views were so traditional, so taken for granted, that the language never needed a word for them.
Those with traditional views on race are in the same predicament as “familists.”
The traditional view of race was this: Americans believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races differed in temperament, ability, and the kind of societies they built. They wanted America to be peopled by Europeans, and thought only people of European stock could maintain the civilization they valued. They therefore considered immigration of non-whites a threat to whites and to their civilization.
Practically all Americans shared these views, which I believe are entirely sound. I would have seen eye to eye on race with Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Dwight Eisenhower.
To answer your question, however, mainstream conservatives have been browbeaten on race just as much as liberals and have been well trained to think that race is not a legitimate criterion for policy-making or any kind of personal decision.
I would think that any conservative would be interested in conserving the numbers and influence of his racial group — especially when other racial groups are aggressively expending their numbers and influence — but conservatives are just as terrified of race as anyone else.
Your group recently had its biannual conference canceled after
leftist groups and a local governor acted to convince the hotel chain to disallow the meeting on its property. A few days later, the same hotel chain allowed a Minneapolis group to meet to discuss “ending white privilege.” Why do you think this double standard exists, and why did your cancellation get less national press than a similar cancellation for, say, the Nation of Islam?
It is because we are white and believe whites have legitimate group interests. For reasons I cannot fathom, every other race is allowed to have legitimate group interests, but when whites think in these terms it is “hate.” This is ultimately a suicidal state of mind, because if whites continue to act only as unaffiliated individuals they will be pushed aside by others who have no compunction about acting together to advance group interests.
Which do you think is more popular, conservatism or liberalism? Is popularity important, or is there some other metric we should use for picking our political direction?
Liberalism is more popular and it is easy to see why. Liberals think they are compassionate and morally superior to conservatives. They think human beings can be perfected by government, and this is, for them, a comforting thought. It is a strange form of compassion, however, to force citizens, though taxes, to support those whom taxpayers might not, themselves, wish to support.
At the same time, the entire sweep of American history is “liberal:” government intervention into increasing areas of our lives, expansion of the franchise, the rise of homosexual rights and women’s liberation, promiscuity rather than monogamy, rehab for criminals rather than punishment, urban rather than rural life, individual indulgence over responsibility to the community, etc. Liberals therefore think of themselves as the standard bearers of history, and in many respects they are. The attempt to pretend race does not matter is part of this great liberal refashioning of the modern world.
However, “popularity” is the worst reason for choosing a political affiliation. Our politics should reflect what is both moral and in conformity with human nature. Much of liberal politics is based on agreeable fantasy, and most people prefer agreeable fantasy to disagreeable fact.
Do you think whites concerned with having more political
representation should form a separate pro-white movement, or work within mainstream conservatism? How do they overcome the unpopularity of their views, and the popularity of the apathetic worldview many voters seem to hold?
I think racially conscious whites should make their views known in every manner. They should have their own groups but also work within other groups. They should run for office. They should start small, running for city council, school board, etc. Eventually they could be elected to state house and Congress. The best way to make an unpopular (but true) opinion more popular is to repeat it as often and to as many audiences as possible.
Does the cancellation of your conference suggest to you that leftist views are gaining in power, or waning and this is one of their last attempts to assert the old order of political correctness and the
politics of pity?
Leftist views are waning. Just look at the comments to the electronic editions of daily newspapers. They often sound as though they were written by readers of my publication, American Renaissance. The liberal view is a misreading of human nature, and you can push society in unnatural directions only so far. As the Horace noted in the Epistles, you can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but she will always return.
Have you read Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”? If so, what did you think of its thesis as an interpretation of what American Renaissance is doing?
I am sorry to admit I have not. I should. In general, however, clashes of civilizations are proxies for clashes of races. For the most part, only the biological heirs of the people who established a civilization will carry it forward in a meaningful way. Can you imagine moving to Cambodia, assimilating perfectly, and contributing to the unfolding of Cambodian civilization? And yet people from Cambodia, Sudan, Haiti or Iraq are expected to come to the West and assimilate perfectly.
I suspect that Huntington knew that race was at the heart of what he was describing but knew that his book could not be published if it broke that race taboo.
Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for such an honest and engaging interview. Interested parties can read more at American Renaissance’s web site.
Our modern world is a bombardment of distilled ideas and polarizing opinions, so it’s no surprise when well-intentioned parents become confused a month or two after leaving the hospital. Parents are overloaded with too many books to read, too many opinions, too many new “studies” showing what one should and shouldn’t do with, or feed to, the child.
The confusion arises from the big-media image of the happy, slim, smirking moms in commercials about anything from high speed internet to a better mop – smiling moms or families with not a care in the world – which contrasts with the aforementioned bombardment of external advice, along with the general hectic nature of life with a newborn.
Since most new parents know nothing of the world beyond their own experiences, suddenly the books, media images, and clinical trials crowd out the old-fashioned methods of dealing with children. The more strict, disciplined methods get lost and sage advice from grandmothers and grandfathers just becomes another opinion. Never mind that if you turned out okay to begin with, you owe a lot of that to your own parents, so they are probably a better source of advice than, say, a television.
But new parents should also know themselves well enough to cherry-pick advice even from their own parents, especially those who have become parents in the last eight or ten years, as they are the children of Baby Boomers. Here’s a generation which, when they entered child-rearing years in the late 1960s & early 1970s, were told by nurses to pump and throw away breast milk in favor of baby formula, and that holding a child too much or sleeping in the same room as an infant was akin to spoiling.
Finally, after years of this nonsense, nurses and doctors pulled back and realized that breast milk is the only food an infant should eat if available, and that it’s impossible to spoil a child under a certain age. Surprise; infants need the touch of their mother and the love of both parents!
Still, some are repeating the mistakes of the Boomers on the one hand, while realizing that a “free” society which essentially mandates two-income families is backward on the other:
…once it became acceptable for married women who didn’t “have to” to take jobs outside the home, it soon became a stigma not to do so. Being “just a housewife” was not something a bright, educated woman should settle for. And, once “allowed to” became “expected,” the lifestyle expectations shifted because people began comparing themselves to two-income households.
Of course, this changes the supply and demand curve. Most notably, it doubtless contributed to the most recent housing bubble. People could “afford” to mortgage a million dollar home because they had two incomes and this drove up prices, making it harder for single-earner families to keep up.
[+|Outside The Beltway]
In this way, modernism hurts us all, but in particular families who want to be families instead of bags of cash for day care providers. How silly and backward we must be, to believe that a huge company taking money to watch our kids every day is worth what we lose. Go ahead and take the two incomes, and ignore the fact that your slightly larger and slightly nicer home is empty from the hours of 9am and 5pm so Mommy and Daddy can bear the brunt of corporate prostitution.
Meanwhile, impressionable young children feel dumped by their own parents at far too early an age, so “work” becomes a bad word, which prepares them perfectly for the bureaucratic hole of modern education. Brilliant!