Part Two of Three.

In Part One of Three, we discussed the problem of modern conservatives who want to be truthful: an alienated underground “vanguardist” element who talk too violently about race, and a mainstream neoconservative element who don’t tackle any problem that conflicts with the diversity dogma of the mainstream left.

We are struggling with a hard problem. Democracies by their nature favor popular notions, not difficult choices. As a result, they rapidly become generators of wish fulfillment scenarios, where people talk about “could have been” and “maybe if” positions that have zero bearing to the actual consequences of our actions. Instead, we talk about feelings, emotions, possibilities, new theories and popular ideas.

As Friedrich Nietzsche and later Christopher Lasch have warned us, the problem with being human is that we have the ability to shut out the world and pay attention to only our own thoughts; social thoughts, like those of others or the memory-impressions of movies and pictures, also seem like our own thoughts. Soon we are living in a fantasy world where consequences are unimportant; conservatism is the force combating this weird human dysfunction.

From an unusual source:

But I reckoned without any knowledge of the human content of the ‘right-wing’. From the millionaires to the scared little people who attend the endless, pitiful ‘conservative’, ’100% American’, ‘old-fashioned’, ‘constitutional’, ‘states’ rights’ meetings, I learned by bitter experience that the human material of the right-wing consists 90% of cowards, dopes, nuts, one-track minds, blabbermouths, boobs, incurable tightwads and — worst of all — hobbyists, people who have come to enjoy a perverted, masochistic pleasure in telling each other forever how we are all being raped by the “shhh — you know whos,” but who, under no condition, would risk their two cars, landscaped homes, or juicy jobs to DO something about it.

I also grew to know the people my wife and I came to call the “die-hards”, for some obscure reason I can’t recall. These were the perennial ‘patriots’, the eternal attendees of meetings, the inexhaustible babblers, the super-clever know-it-alls who are going to ‘throw the election into the house this time’ and the disgusting hobbyists who discharged their pent-up ‘patriotism’ once a week or so in the masochistic orgasm they seemed to obtain by flagellating themselves with the latest outrages of the Jews. These people seemed to have been ‘fighting’ the Jews all their lives, decade after decade. Their standard reaction to anything they didn’t think up themselves in the way of new schemes for sneaking up on the Jews was, “I was fighting this thing before you were born, son.” This was supposed to send the upstart packing, as if people who had spent forty or fifty years fighting so unsuccessfully had any business opening their mouths at all. These “die-hards” would insist on bending one’s ear endlessly and at all hours of day or night. Any attempt to escape from them was taken as a personal insult. My wife and I grew to dread the sessions with the “die-hards”, who were not interested in doing anything except talk and were World Champions at the pastime. – Counter-Currents

This is an excerpt from the writings of George Lincoln Rockwell, an American National Socialist (Nazi). I don’t know much about Rockwell, but in the piece above he reveals a good deal about where conservatives are stranded: we are split between a mainstream that won’t tackle the underlying issues of our civilizational decline, and an alienated vanguard who will discuss these issues but do nothing effective about them. It’s a horrible place to be.

In Rockwell’s case, he sees the culprit as organized Jewish-Americans and Zionists; I, being more of a grim Nietzschean, see the culprit as masses of disillusioned and self-pitying people who believe in nothing but themselves. These narcissists collaborate to destroy social mores so that they feel less like failures and more like they have a purpose, but in reality, nothing will fill the holes in their souls.

The average liberal is an inwardly miserable, neurotic, self-hating, society-hating, fear-ridden and indecisive person. They cluster together to let social mores dictate the decisions they’re afraid to make themselves; at least that way they have someone to blame but themselves when things go wrong.

Either way, we as conservatives face a brutal prospect: our opposition has ideas that will always be more popular than ours because they:

  • Make excuses for individual human failures
  • Provide an “in-group” identification with a dogma
  • Point the people toward a clear scapegoat
  • Replace social order with a messianic crusade
  • Create dreams of a new social order where dogma trumps reality

It is a perfect virus. If anything goes wrong in your life, you want to hear that it isn’t your fault; the big corporations screwed you; you should quit that stupid job and become an activist, artist or musician; you will lead your people like Moses toward a new Enlightenment; when it arrives, they will all recognize you as the inner genius you secretly are.

Fast-foward back to reality, and you’re still an embittered office assistant living in a basement with more credit card debt than positive prospects. The credit card industry feasts on you because you’re the perfect victim. But in this wish-fulfillment fantasy of liberalism, you get to take your revenge and be a hero, too. It’s an immaculate daydream.

The problem is that the far right has bought into this same liberal narrative.

In their vision, which is equal parts Mein Kampf and They Live, a bunch of shadowy Semites have taken over Western civilization; things go wrong for good people because The JewsTM engineer it; you might as well quit that stupid job and become an activist-cum-jihadi; when the “Day of the Rope” arrives, the traitors hang and America transitions to a National Socialist government, you’ll be seen as the hero who never gave up in the face of adversity.

Mainstream conservatives have a similar mythos, but it’s actually much simpler: there’s a right way to do things, and a wrong way. We’ll do them the right way. Some day, when either Jesus comes back or society runs into greater instability, it’s going to be clear that We were right and everyone else had their heads where the sun don’t shine.

The problem with all of these is the same: they are projections into our future of moral judgment on a world that is not morally aware, and is governed by individuals whose individual emotional outbursts and narcissism dictates its downfall more than any organized oppressor, whether The Jews, The Racists, The Corporations or even Jesus Himself.

Until we are willing to look at the present time, and realize that politics is more than personal, we are doomed to repeat our past errors. It’s not about who was right, or will be right. It’s about avoiding patterns of behavior that we know from history are destructive and pointless. It’s a fallacy to think we lack data about our potential decisions in politics; we know each option and its approximate outcome.

Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a “brake on the vehicle of progress,” I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move. – F.A. Hayek

For conservatism to be anything more than a rearguard action, it must leave behind its desire to hinder progressivism and instead invent its own idea of progress. As liberal society grinds all good things into dust, this becomes more visible and conservatives are starting to articulate it.

Parts: I II III


In an age of lies, the truth is seen as a lie.

You don’t get to an age of lies without massive decay. An age of lies is also an age of a dying civilization. That means that every weak-willed person clusters around some familiar lies, and chants them like a catechism, bleating out their terror as their voices get stronger.

They have the power to shout you down because they have greater numbers. What they don’t have is any relation to reality, so they’re schizoid: drunk on the power they have for social reasons, and terrified in denial of their imminent downfall through the confrontation between their lies and reality.

We live in an age of great taboos that we cannot speak “officially” or we become ostracized by All the Good People, who think our ideas are horrible and barbaric, and because they all agree with each other in a circular echo chamber, they can afford to deny us — for now:

  • Inequality is a fact of life. There are mathematical distributions in physics that determine the spread of traits among a group. Not everyone will be born a genius; few will. Similarly, few will be born great musicians, great athletes, or great orators. The rest of us need to do what we can to keep a social order going that rewards these people, so we have the best at the top. However, that’s unpopular with the angry masses who are upset that anyone has something they do not. They demand equality. Giving in to that demand creates a Soviet-style covert totalitarian state which seeks to smash those who rise above the mediocre.
  • Diversity doesn’t work. Even if your immigrants are from the master race, it destroys who you are. This shatters social order. That means that people have no expectation of being rewarded for good acts, and the assurance that they’ll be harassed for any act that inconvenience others, even if it’s good. As a result, they stop acting outside their homes and crime, corruption, perversity and blatant dishonesty and ignorance reign. With a social standard and consensus, your society has no center and it becomes a giant shopping mall where people earn money, take what they want, and ignore the consequences on the whole. As a result parasites, predators, perverts, thieves with fountain pens and demagogues take over.
  • Our problem is not oppression. All truly burnt out people in life will point to some large entity that is keeping them down, and keeping them from rising. They are making excuses. The large entity may have damaged them, but what’s keeping them down is their own incompetence, laziness, disorganization, and inability to prioritize long-term construction over short term pleasures. Corporations, Israel, Nazis, Ghaddaffi, Jesus, Satan, etc. are not what “oppresses” us. What oppresses us is the weakness of our fellow citizens, and their dishonesty, especially when you gather them in lynch mobs or other democratic groups.
  • We’re committing ecocide and the problem is too many people. Whoah, dude, major party foul. You mean I can’t have my giant house, two SUVs, lots of plastic junk from Wal-mart and a cheeseburger every meal? That’s like, not fair, because some people get that, and I’m a person too. And you know, I think I want it too. So why can’t I have what others have? — this is how people think, and it’s why they expand like a slime mould. You need social roles and social castes to regulate what people can have, and to regulate population so you get more smart ones (who need less reminding to not litter) and fewer dumb ones (who litter because they’re oblivious to anything but themselves). For all the “green” and “environmentalist” blather in the news, you’ll find plenty that is thinly-disguised socialist wealth transfer, and very little that is practical efforts to protect our environment, its creatures and plants.
  • Our society is dying from within. Ugly streets, ugly architecture; commercial advertising covers every open surface, and every design is utilitarian or glorifying the prole. Do you smell the fetid stink of a state religion? People sit in traffic, tolerate idiots, are polite and compromise, try not to lash out and impale the morons on poles for wasting time and being pointless. We’ve made a society of tolerance, alright, but the result is that you must be either (a) oblivious to everything around you or (b) constantly irritated by your fellow citizens. And what is the goal of this? Good, compliant consumers and good, compliant neighbors who never interrupt us when you embark on selfish pursuits. The selfishness of the individual, magnified through a crowd, starts with the desire of the individual to be beyond criticism. The result is social death because soon, any action except “I’ll just go to work, go shopping and go home” is some kind of political-socioeconomic conflict zone because it’s inconvenient to someone else.
  • Your leaders are liars because the voters are liars. People vote dishonestly. Instead of delegating power to someone who can make tough decisions, they’re voting out anyone who will bring up any really difficult issue. They care only about the economy and an occasional quick victory in a war where our greater power leads to the crushing of some lesser enemy. People vote the same way the cheer on a favorite sports team, or pick stocks, or go shopping. They are oblivious to any consequences beyond how cool it makes them look to be supporting the “right” candidate.

All this leads up to a simple reality: problems ahead, people refuse to see them, and so we’ve created taboos around any discussion of these problems.

You think you live in a free society? It’s “free” in that you can do anything, until society decides your thoughts or actions were inconvenient and throws your behind into a court situation:

Geert Wilders, the far-Right Dutch MP will face trial on charges of incited hatred and discriminations against Muslims, after a judge rejected a request to dismiss the case.

Mr Wilders was charged with insulting Muslims by comparing Islam to Nazism. The case has attracted considerable attention, not just because of Mr Wilders’ controversial comments, but also because of the increasing influence of his Freedom Party, which provides support for the Dutch minority government on key issues.

Following a brief adjournment, judges, prosecutors and the defence agreed for the trial to resume on April 13 with key witness testimony. If found guilty, he could face up to a year in jail of a 7,600 euro (£6,700) fine. – The Telegraph

Let me ask you there, fellow Comrade Citizen, why is this man in jail?

Well, he said some bad things.

So we are thinking of jailing him for his opinion or ideas?

Well, no, we’re trying to put him in jail because his words will cause people to be upset, and that could cause disruption in our social order.

I see. I’m sure similar dramas played out in ancient Greece and Rome, in the failing Maya and Aztec empires, even in the collapsing kingdoms of ancient India, Angkor Wat, Easter Island, China and even failing Amerind societies like the Hopi.

Make sure you kill that messenger. If you get rid of him, maybe the trouble will go away because no one will be saying anything offensive, and we’ll all get along.

Except that never works. It just causes resentment to smolder. Eventually, it explodes.

And while we’re fiddling away here in the palace, what’s happening to Rome — errr, our planet?

A growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources could make for an “unrecognizable” world by 2050, researchers warned at a major US science conference Sunday.

The United Nations has predicted the global population will reach seven billion this year, and climb to nine billion by 2050, “with almost all of the growth occurring in poor countries, particularly Africa and South Asia,” said John Bongaarts of the non-profit Population Council.

The swelling population will exacerbate problems, such as resource depletion, said John Casterline, director of the Initiative in Population Research at Ohio State University.

But incomes are also expected to rise over the next 40 years — tripling globally and quintupling in developing nations — and add more strain to global food supplies.

People tend to move up the food chain as their incomes rise, consuming more meat than they might have when they made less money, the experts said. – Discovery

Because our leadership is based in what is popular, not what is realistic/truthful, we’re unable to deal with our real problems.

Fake, symbolic, emotional attention-getters? Sure, let’s keep talking about Libya, racism, abortion, inequality, al-Qaeda, legal marijuana and socialized medicine. These actually have really minor consequences in the big picture.

Most of all, don’t do anything to inconvenience each other. Don’t rock the boat — your neighbor wants a bigger house, two SUVs, more plastic junk from Wal-mart. You just want to get through college into that profitable career and to do the same. You two agree: don’t rock the boat. Ignore these problems, at least until we make our pile and retire, and then it’s someone else’s problem.

Large corporations? Satan? Fascists? No, those aren’t our problem… it’s this simple mechanism. People deciding not to do the inconvenient, unpopular and thus unprofitable.

We have inverted all values. Truths — ideas which correspond to what we can expect from reality, given a certain path — are proclaimed to be Lies; truth-tellers are called criminals and thrown in jail. And the crazy train rattles on, out of control, with no one at the wheel.

Left hand switch

Don’t take it at face value.

How many times do you hear that?

People are good at spinning positive symbols to you, and hiding the information you need to see the picture that’s bigger than their pleasant vision and includes its downsides.

For example, a used-care salesperson telling you that a car has “low miles,” which is true because when you inspect it, you find out it doesn’t start. His statement was true; it was only part of the true information you need, however.

Another way they fool you is the left hand switch. As they shuffle the cards, the right hand makes a big deal of doing what it always does — it’s almost distracting how mundane it is. In fact, the point is to distract you with the right hand while the left hand changes something equally vital behind the scenes.

Modern society could be viewed as an endless series of left hand switches. They told you that oppression was a problem, and got rid of the kings, which thrust you into a society ruled by economics. They told you that nationalism was a problem and flung you into multiculturalism, which means you now exist in a world without a standard in common so you never get praised for anything but money and popularity. It’s the vapidity of high school turned up to 11.

Their latest left hand switch has been the economy. When the leftists got in control in the 1990s, they unleashed a storm of economic chaos from which the world has not recovered.

  • Fast money. Bill Clinton’s economic “miracle” was to make money easy to lend and borrow, which transitioned our economy into a paper tiger where we re-value paper instruments and move them around in a big Ponzi scheme. The result was that in about the year 2000, the economy imploded as people realized that not only the dot-com boom but the country in general was overvalued. The housing blow-up in the late 2000s was just an aftershock of this.
  • The subsidy state. You’re afraid of class war, race war and bullying? Great, just sign here. We’re going to buy these people off with massive entitlement programs. We’re going to take your money and pay it as a daily bribe so they stay calm and don’t start burning down their neighborhoods and hateraping your children. The problem is of course that this money dead-ends; it goes to rent, to entertainment, to booze and to divorce lawyers. It does not rise higher up into the economy and go to new and developing fields.
  • Slashing the military budget. If you want to be popular with teenagers, tell them you’re against war. Say that to a historian or political scientist and you’ll get the polite smile we reserve for the mentally retarded. War is a fact of life; even more, if you’re big and wealthy, you need to be ready for war or ad hoc enemies will close in and take your stuff, destroying your nation in the process. A majority of our fellow citizens are too mentally immature to face this. They find champions in leftist presidents who slash defense and transfer that money to entitlement programs. The difference is that military spending is not just about the military. It’s about research and development: most of the huge booms in our economy, including the internet, came from defense spending. Right now, only a true blue idiot would slash defense spending. We’re on the cusp of a revolution in robotics and military spending, not private industry, is leading the way. It’s too much of a longshot — at this time — for private industry.
  • The red tape society. The liberal response to society is to see it, like nature, as a savage and unstable thing which we need to pave over, make equal, and force to perform according to rigid rules based upon what is convenient for humans to believe about our society. The result is both a Nanny State of absurd dimensions and a bureaucratic semi-totalitarian system that hampers you at every turn with a plethora of rules, each discipline of which requires you hire a special expert, making it less likely that you’ll start a business (legally at least) or take any kind of risk. We paralyze ourselves so that we can enrich these legions of parasites who like their easy and stupid jobs of memorizing rules, then enforcing them on others. Do these rules help? Possibly, but they don’t fix the problems they claim to fix or reduce them so noticeably that we need them. In the meantime, they wreck our competitiveness by tying us down with detail-oriented, big-picture-blind regulations.
  • The touchy-feely society. Liberal governments inculcate in us a vision of a moral society, responsive to compassion and other emotions, that looks out for the little guy. The result is the same thing that happens in an office when someone takes control of a problem: everyone else puts their brain on hold, delegates their consciousness to this person, and then spaces out with more pleasant thoughts about lunch, nailing the new project manager from LA, or video games. You suddenly have an electorate conditioned to behave like children and treat government like a parent, demanding increasingly absurd portions and throwing tantrums (see last week’s riots in the UK) when they are not delivered the impossible. Such an electorate doesn’t accept, ever, the idea that programs must be cut; they want to cut vital programs, like the military or space exploration, before they will cut entitlements, including the education systems and non-profits that provide cushy do-nothing jobs for many of their friends.

The result of all this is a left-hand switch: your economy is officially doing what it always has done. There is no inflation per se. But on the left hand, the market is adjusting to the fact that your currency is worth less as a whole. It’s not inflated, in the sense of losing value, so much as viewed as less important and less desirable as repository for value, which means a covert kind of inflation.

With unemployment still high, companies in recent months have tried to camouflage price increases by selling their products in tiny and tinier packages. So far, the changes are most visible at the grocery store, where shoppers are paying the same amount, but getting less.

For Lisa Stauber, stretching her budget to feed her nine children in Houston often requires careful monitoring at the store. Recently, when she cooked her usual three boxes of pasta for a big family dinner, she was surprised by a smaller yield, and she began to suspect something was up.

“Whole wheat pasta had gone from 16 ounces to 13.25 ounces,” she said. “I bought three boxes and it wasn’t enough — that was a little embarrassing. I bought the same amount I always buy, I just didn’t realize it, because who reads the sizes all the time?”

Ms. Stauber, 33, said she began inspecting her other purchases, aisle by aisle. Many canned vegetables dropped to 13 or 14 ounces from 16; boxes of baby wipes went to 72 from 80; and sugar was stacked in 4-pound, not 5-pound, bags, she said. – NYT

If they officially admit the problem with our currency, panic occurs and the herd lashes out. However, if they just adjust expectations downward — that ol’ left hand shift — the value adjustment happens while the good oblivious sheep keep drunkenly sleepwalking forward, repeating empty actions in a fug of personal paranoia and denial.

Conservatives view modern society as a kind of “evil” because it has this cult-like tendency. You must buy into it, but when you do, the cost is that you put your brain on hold. You accept the official story, which isn’t official from the government so much as it is the intersection of other people’s selfish notions.

Evil corporations? Government conspiracies? Secret fascist sects? That’s Hollywood, and nothing Hollywood is real. More likely: a nation of scared sheep demanding illusions be kept alive so that each individual can get what he or she wants and get out of the system. The selfishness of each individual binds them together into a mob which demands illusions, each person thinking that have passively cheated the others and come out ahead.

Of course, these people don’t understand economics. Dollar bills have no value except that they’re like stock certificates purchased in a nation. You’re betting on the value of the economy by having them. If you gut an economy and then try to take your wealth out, you’ll find that it has lost value. Some hope to beat this by buying gold, but like most periodistic things, this rewards those with really good fine-tuned timing.

The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index fell sharply from a three-year high in February, reversing five straight months of improvement.

The decline raises questions about Americans’ ability and willingness to spend in coming months.

The index fell more than expected to 63.4 from a revised 72.0 in February. Economists expected 65.4, according to FactSet.

The drop was the steepest since the 10.1-point plunge from January 2010 to February 2010, when the U.S. stock market was hammered by worries about Greece’s national debt.

“Rising food and gasoline prices are starting to take their toll on the consumer psyche, and Japan’s triple calamity — earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster — has been very unsettling,” said Chris Christopher Jr., senior principal economist at HIS Global Insight. – WEX

The fools have oversold the whole thing.

Not just the economy — heck, if anything, the economy just shows us where our thinking is going, which means that if we’re treating the economy like a Ponzi scheme, we’re also treating home life, education and culture like the same Ponzi scheme.

First we oversold our economy, and by the Clinton years were re-valuing paper and re-selling it, truly generating no wealth but inventing it out of thin air because people were willing to pay for chunks of our economy. We were coasting on the momentum of the past, trading altitude for airspeed by rapidly selling off whatever we could jettison.

Next, we created a series of bubbles by selling stuff to ourselves. Did we expand into new markets? No, we re-sold stuff to our American consumers. First it was the internet, where we convinced ourselves that some web browser loading an ad was worth money; nevermind that it turned out later it was some impoverished stoned guy in a basement. Next it was in housing, which our brilliant President Clinton inflated by strong-arming banks into loosening up loans, and so we assumed we were doing great because people were buying lots of homes; nevermind that they couldn’t afford them, abandoned them and left behind ghettoes.

Don’t watch the right hand; that’s for show. Watch the left.

The left hand has slowly siphoned money out of the American and European companies into an elite of international super-rich who make their money not by inventing new things, but by catering to the masses of clueless people who are dependent on entertainment, convenience and populist luxury products like iPods. This is not value added to an economy; this is us pouring water from one cup to another and back again, claiming it has gained in volume.

Around four in five female graduates will never repay their student loan under the Coalition’s new tuition fees regime, it emerged yesterday.

An analysis of the student loan system shows that middle-income men who will finally pay-off their loan at the age of 47-50, will bear the brunt of the cost of higher education.

The figures show that between 70 and 80 per cent of women – up to 150,000 a year – will never repay their full loan, compared with 20 to 30 per cent at present. And when loans are written off, 30 years after graduation, the average woman will still owe £26,500. – The Daily Mail

This is from England, but figures are similar in the USA: we have oversold our education. Throughout the 1970s through the 1990s, we dumbed down education so that any idiot could make it through high school. This alienated the smart kids and ensured that most knew nothing. That in turn forced our colleges to become remedial, which meant that our kids graduated having spent half of their college lifetimes re-learning stuff that was botched in high school. But all the parents are happy, because even if Johnny is stupid, he got some kind of award. Too bad that too was oversold.

Now that everyone and their dog has a college degree, a college degree is worthless. It is no longer any particular distinction unless you went to Harvard, and even then employers are wary, because Harvard hands out too many degrees for political reasons in lieu of excellence. So now the name of the game to get ahead is to make your way through graduate education or a certification program or both. You are in school until you’re thirty, and then you demand a larger salary.

How does industry respond? By lessening the value of your money. Sure, you can have $200,000 per year, but that figure in today’s dollars doesn’t translate at all to what it would have been in 1987 or 1997 dollars. Even more, you have new expenses. Since everyone has a house, it’s more expensive to stay out of the ghetto and away from the dangerous/useless schools. Since medical care is tied up in red tape, you want to be able to afford private pay. Since there are 10,000 criminals to every one cop, you want a neighborhood with private security. The list goes one.

Elite-college admissions offices drive professional-class parents crazy because in many respects they do not operate as meritocracies. Consider, for example, those students admitted via one of the two programs that stand as strange mirror opposites: those that give preferential treatment to the sons and daughters of alumni, and those that extend it to the children of unrepresented minorities. The latter practice suggests that generations of injustice and prejudice can be redressed by admission to a fancy college, the former that generations of inclusion and privilege demand their own special prize; the two philosophies would seem to cancel one another out, but each has its place in the larger system.

In fact, when you account for all of the “hooked” seats in the freshman class—spaces specifically set aside for kids who have some kind of recruited talent or family connection or who come from an underrepresented minority group—you accomplish, at the most selective colleges, two things: you fill a large percentage of the class (some researchers believe the figure is as high as 60 percent), and you do so with kids whose average grades and scores are significantly lower than your ideal. Now it’s time to swing a meritocracy into place; the caliber of the class is at stake. All of the unhooked students are now going to be thrown into a hypercompetitive pool, the likes of which the layperson can’t imagine. As daunting as the median grades and test scores of the typical Princeton admittee may appear, those statistics have taken into account all of the legacies and volleyball players and rich people’s children who pushed the averages down. The colleges are looking for one very specific quality at this point in the cycle: not “creativity” or “imagination” (or the ability to say funny things at the dinner table and make perceptive comments about movies—a knack today’s parents tend to call “critical thinking”); what they are looking for are the most deeply smart students in the country.

Chua has accepted, in a way that the good mothers will not, that most children today can’t have it both ways: they can’t have a fun, low-stress childhood and also an Ivy League education. She understood early on—as the good mothers are about to learn, when the heartbreaking e-mails and letters from the top colleges go out this month—that life is a series of choices, each with its own rewards and consequences. In a sense, that is the most unpalatable message of her book, the one that has caused all the anguish: it’s an unwelcome reminder (how can we keep forgetting this?) that the world really doesn’t lie before us like a land of dreams. At best—at the very best—it can only offer us choices between two good things, and as we grasp at one, we lose the other forever. – The Atlantic

By overselling education, and putting political requirements on it, we’ve created a horrific rat race. Either you study all the time and have a soul, or you grow up stunted having spent your youth entirely on becoming an elite student with an elite future. And as we see with many of the graduates of our top schools, automatons do not do so well in creative or unconventional thinking. In fact, they can be a force of entropy that knows too well what has been done and is lost beyond that.

On the other hand, America has oversold itself via the notion that all of us are special, when only a few of us are Beethovens or Watsons:

Americans have been told always to encourage their kids. This, the theory goes, will improve their self-esteem, and this, in turn, will help them learn.

After a generation or so of applying this theory, we have the results. Just about the only category in which American students outperform the competition is self-regard. Researchers at the Brookings Institution, in one of their frequent studies of education policy, compared students’ assessments of their abilities in math with their scores on a standardized test. Nearly forty per cent of American eighth graders agreed “a lot” with the statement “I usually do well in mathematics,” even though only seven per cent of American students actually got enough correct answers on the test to qualify as advanced. Among Singaporean students, eighteen per cent said they usually did well in math; forty-four per cent qualified as advanced. As the Brookings researchers pointed out, even the least self-confident Singaporean students, on average, outscored the most self-confident Americans. You can say it’s sad that kids in Singapore are so beaten down that they can’t appreciate their own accomplishments. But you’ve got to give them this: at least they get the math right. – The New Yorker

The dream is that everyone is equal and if you just work hard, you’ll end up being a Beethoven.

The reality is that geniuses are born and develop with talent, and a high-pressure society produces lots of very competent imitators but crushes any genius, and that in the meantime, we’ve made life so competitive we are sacrificing joy in our own existence for the illusory possibility of really striking it rich.

Our high-materialism lifestyle has other consequences as well:

Children who suffer psychological problems – such as trauma over their parents divorcing – earn up to 30 per cent less than others when they grow up, a study revealed yesterday.

It warned that psychological problems in childhood have a more severe long-term impact than physical conditions such as speech defects because they persist through life.

Children who had psychological problems typically grew up to earn £215,000 less during their lifetimes than those who did not, the study found. This figure is for total ‘family income’, including the earnings of a spouse or partner, and is calculated after tax. – The Daily Mail

Like so many other things, the sexual revolution was sold to us by people claiming to act in our best interests. End fighting over sex — just give it away! This will be most convenient for you as an individual, so join us to get this right.

We find out a generation or two later that it’s actually quite destructive, but no one was thinking about that at the time. The greedy little monkeys were thinking about how it would help them to get their little wicks wet, not what it might do to their country and future generations.

In fact, we could say that parents whether slacker or disciplinarian are projecting themselves onto their kids, trying to live through their kids. We could point to the rising fascination with media as similar escapism. No one wants to live their own life. Everyone wants escape to a simpler world.

Warning: The Super-Rich Delusion has pushed us to the edge of a great precipice: Remember the Roaring Twenties? The Crash of 1929? Great Depression? Just days before the crash one leading economist, Irving Fisher, predicted that stocks had “reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”

Yes, he was trapped in the “Great Gatsby Syndrome,” an earlier version of today’s Super-Rich Delusion. It was so blinding in 1929 that the president, Wall Street, all America were sucked in … until the critical mass hit a mysterious flash point, triggering the crash.

Yes, we’re reliving that past — never learn, can’t hear. And oddly it’s not just the GOP’s overreach, the endlessly compromising Obama, too-greedy-to-fail Wall Street banksters, U.S. Chamber of Commerce billionaires and arrogant Forbes 400. America’s entire political, financial and economic psyche is infected, as if our DNA has been rewired.

The Collective American Brain is trapped in this Super-Rich Delusion, replaying the run-up to the ’29 Crash. – Market Watch

Blame the super-rich if you want, but more likely, blame the audience for the product.

The American people wanted easy answers and simple dreams. They got them. The salesman did not mention the side-effects, which were that the country would perish in confusion.

We spread our money so thin it lost value, and then hammered it home by basing its value on our ability to sell each other paper and banner ads on the internet.

We socialized our culture, our sexuality, and opened our borders to people from all lands. Each of these decisions were errors. We watched the right hand, which promised more of the good, and ignored the left, which behind the scenes destroyed all that was good and already existing.

As the long-term consequences of those acts begin to show, we’re starting to see how badly we were scammed.

Chinese and Western modes of upbringing

A book that’s recently been published is called “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” (2011). It is written by a Chinese woman called Amy Chua, brought up in the U.S.A. Her book was discussed in ‘Why Chinese Mothers are Superior’, an article in the Wall Street Journal. Interestingly enough, she previously published a book called Day of Empire (2007), in which she analyzed the rise and fall of different superpowers, including the Roman Empire, the Mongols, Nazi-Germany and the Dutch trade-empire. There she argued that one of the most important factors that can cause a fallback from superpower-status is the inability to unite the subjects into an overarching identity. I personally found ‘Why Chinese Mothers are Superior’ an interesting article (source can be found below). However, as a politician, former teacher, historian and philosopher, I have several points of criticism.

What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences. This often requires fortitude on the part of the parents because the child will resist; things are always hardest at the beginning, which is where Western parents tend to give up

There are tons of studies out there showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners when it comes to parenting… The vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be ‘the best’ students, that ‘academic achievement reflects successful parenting,’ and that if children did not excel at school then there was ‘a problem’ and parents ‘were not doing their job’.” –Amy Chua, ‘Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior’, 2011

Now as a teacher, what a blessing it would be if all parents were like Amy Chua! They would get mad if their children failed in obtaining the highest of scores, and consequently the pupils would be much more inclined to participate in the lessons and to pay attention. From personal experience, I can tell it’s usually about 20% of the pupils who are genuinely interested in what you are teaching (although this varies, depending on the enthusiasm of the teacher, the natural abilities of the pupil and the interestingness of the topic). 30% are out to sabotage your lesson and to create a stirrup for distraction. The remaining 50% ultimately don’t care and seem to dwell in a fluctuating haze of apathy. When I obtained my qualification as a professional teacher at 20 years of age, I decided that struggling against this apathy was a futile waste of my creative energies. Previously I had concluded that the idea that every pupil is a genius in a nutshell waiting to be awakened by a skilled teacher with a positive approach, is a politically correct fable fostered by the Socialist-takeover of my nation’s education system. So I quit teaching and instead began a career as politician, meanwhile pursuing two master-degrees simultaneously in university. Next to that I made a little money on the side as a part-time instructor of martial arts for children and adults.

However I have plenty of criticism towards the vision of Amy Chua. For example, when I was a teacher, zealous parents seriously wanted to have meetings to discuss test scores to levels of absurd detail; for example, 1 point out of 35. Of course I could prove my case, but this was a waste of 60 minutes. Another time, I gave a class an assignment about a Medieval farm village. The pupils received a leaflet with questions to answer and once that was done they could colour the pictures of the houses and peasants. A kid was mad that he did not receive a 100% score and decided that it had to be the colouring of the pictures that was incorrect. I reasoned that a 100% score for a simple assignment would distort their overall average. After all, this assignment was made for the purpose of giving them a chance to improve their average grade, and then they ungratefully got mad for obtaining 80% scores instead of 100% scores. If I would not have given them an opportunity to improve their average scores, the parents would have been mad at me and at the school, since they care more about the score outcome of tests than about the content of what their child has actually learned. Consequently the school-board would take it out on me. Cloak-and-dagger political games like these is why I decided to say goodbye to my career as a teacher. However these games are tied up with the mentality of “tiger-parents” like Amy Chua, who preach:

If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.” –Amy Chua, ‘Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior’, 2011

On the grounds of what I’ve written about my ‘achievements’, some might consider me a child-prodigy. And perhaps it’s because of that that I, of all persons, should be in the position to comment on Chua’s theories. My parents rarely interfered with my homework or school. My family is of a labour-class background. They didn’t really complain when I came home with some bad grades for music, French, or mathematics. I made my own priorities and decided to invest minimal effort into some subjects, and to focus fully on the rest. During the summer holidays to Spain I brought books with me to read on a variety of topics; literature, chemistry, the First World War.

When I was thirteen years old I had read 1984 and when I was fourteen I ordered and read The End of History and the Last Man. When I was fifteen I had already swallowed the oeuvres of Nietzsche and Edgar Allan Poe, and spent a lot of time reading in the library during the breaks at school. But it was always apparent to me that the need of achieving only 100% scores is hybris. When you are so knowledgeable about topics that your insights transcend beyond your teachers’, there’s no further authority to appeal to. I dare to say that I understand some theories better than my current professors, but there is no “Führer-professor” who transcends all other professors and who will publicly declare that I am right. Same thing with teachers. Best strategy is to have their sympathies on your side as an eager and apt pupil, and not to press your points even when you know you are right. You can gain on the short-term with this but you will lose out on the long run.

I’ve understood this since I was thirteen years old but it’s exactly what Chua fails to comprehend. If you rub your professors the wrong way, you won’t be selected for a promotion-trajectory. On my latest assignment about emperor Augustus, for example, my professors were in mutual disagreement about the topic. During the discussion which followed the grading, they couldn’t even remember what they had graded it. One claimed it had been an insufficient whereas the other didn’t know it at all. They let me off the hook with some clichés like “your piece didn’t get to the point” or “too much of it was based on manuals”. I privately disagreed but decided to let it be and accepted my sufficient grade. It wasn’t an 80%. I had doubts about the competence of one of the graders, but I had learned from experience that sometimes your work receives a much lower grade although you put much more effort into it, and the other way around, too. Bottom line is: They don’t judge your work by objective standards and as a student you can’t force them to.

Chinese parents demand perfect grades because they believe that their child can get them. If their child doesn’t get them, the Chinese parent assumes it’s because the child didn’t work hard enough. That’s why the solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish and shame the child. The Chinese parent believes that their child will be strong enough to take the shaming and to improve from it.” –Amy Chua, ‘Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior’, 2011

This is very dangerous and I owe it to the world to warn against this sort of reasoning. Getting a high degrees usually presumes conforming to the standards of the grader. When I was to write a piece about religion in the Medieval era, I wrote about Islam because I thought I could learn more from it, considering how extensively we had already studied Christianity. My grade was a 50%. When I changed my topic to the Catholic Church like the rest of the master-students, my grade went up to 75%. Naïve grade-pushing parents like Amy Chua should seriously spend some time studying the works of Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend.

Appreciation for a work is tied up with the standards on which it is graded – so even though their research was unique and revolutionary, people at first rejected Copernicus and Galileo’s thoughts about the universe because their standards of evidence weren’t accepted. Likewise, you’re not going to get very far with an insightful dissertation about Darwinian genetics if you are going to push it on a university funded by the Vatican. Or what to think of a study in Eugenetics in post-war Germany?

The theories of Amy Chua seem absurd if you compare them to the real facts of the world. Why isn’t every Chinese civilian a world-class mastermind then? Why doesn’t China rule the world? I’ll tell you why! Because they are ruled by a totalitarian government based on Marxist dogmatism. Nobody ever stands up there with a unique genius idea, because conformity is the ultimate standard to everything. Now if we regard this remark:

Other studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.” –Amy Chua, ‘Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior’, 2011

The observation that the Chinese are less inclined to participate in team-sports seems to contrast with the collectivist character of Chinese society. I admit, China has produced some noteworthy philosophical and political figures – Confucius, Mao, Sun-Tzu – but what they haven’t produced is a Beethoven, a Leibniz, a Goethe or an Einstein. Why don’t they have an Edward Gibbon or a Newton? Because the Western spirit is different from the Chinese. A Chinese top-scholar is produced through repetitive drilling. A Western genius is born with an intrinsic fascination for some topic, and he consistently follows that fascination regardless of, rather than owing to, outside pressure.

’Oh no, not this,’ I said [to my husband], rolling my eyes. ‘Everyone is special in their special own way,’ I mimicked sarcastically. ‘Even losers are special in their own special way. Well don’t worry, you don’t have to lift a finger. I’m willing to put in as long as it takes, and I’m happy to be the one hated. And you can be the one they adore because you make them pancakes and take them to Yankees games’

Chinese parents can get away with things that Western parents can’t. Once when I was young—maybe more than once—when I was extremely disrespectful to my mother, my father angrily called me “garbage” in our native Hokkien dialect. It worked really well. I felt terrible and deeply ashamed of what I had done. But it didn’t damage my self-esteem or anything like that’.” –Amy Chua, ‘Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior’, 2011

Like anyone who’s been a teenager, I sometimes had clashes with my parents where they called me names. But at such times what I felt for them was only a deep contempt. I heard their insult, but it left me untouched and cold – in contrast to them, their faces red with anger and emotion, their voices shouting. Calmly regarding this image, I felt they were beneath me. How easy it was to make them mad! And how effortlessly I maintained my stoic composure. I could read in their faces how powerless they really were to make me do something against my will. When they insulted me, I knew that any classification, any declaration they could make about my character, was devoid of meaning, because it was made by ants trying to fight the sun. Deep down I felt this pure power, a sheer imperviousness, that made any of their insults miscast to begin with. They hit me sometimes, when I was younger, and at those moments I thought: “A time will come when you will not be able to physically control me. What will you do then?” They gave up in the end. I continued my intellectual pursuits and began training in martial arts. And here I am today, with my political career, my teacher’s degree and my master studies.

Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their children’s own desires and preferences. That’s why Chinese daughters can’t have boyfriends in high school and why Chinese kids can’t go to sleepaway camp. It’s also why no Chinese kid would ever dare say to their mother, ‘I got a part in the school play! I’m Villager Number Six. I’ll have to stay after school for rehearsal every day from 3:00 to 7:00, and I’ll also need a ride on weekends.’ God help any Chinese kid who tried that one.” –Amy Chua, ‘Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior’, 2011

I get back to my previous point here: In the Chinese system, everyone is number six, and they conform to that. The only ones who are not number six, are the leaders of the Communist party. God help the Chinese who disagrees with this. As I tried to make a clear, a child that possesses a strong enough individual will to pursue drama against the wishes of his parents, is likely to become a brilliant actor. Western civilization gives room to this. The Chinese don’t.

Chua describes situations where she forces her daughter to play the piano. The daughter resists, but ultimately complies after being pressured and coerced. Maybe her approach works because the Chinese are by nature perhaps more docile and submissive. This makes them industrious, disciplined, and self-supplying, it must be said to their advantage. But if I compare her approach to my own surroundings, well, my parents constantly yell at my brother and pressurize him. Because he smoked pot, when he quit his college-education, because he didn’t spend enough time looking for a job. But it all had no effect, he continued to do as he pleased, regardless. Western people aren’t as malleable as Chua would have us believe. My brother did quit smoking pot, and he did find a new education for himself, but it was only after he had taken some time for himself and gained some responsibility.

Another example, a woman from my gym has a son. The son used to do kickboxing from time to time. However he was constantly in a fight with his mother, he stopped attending the trainings and he smoked more and more pot. He didn’t wake up in the mornings anymore and stopped going to school. His mother did everything; she punished him, she stimulated him by buying a card to do sports, by trying to wake him up on time, by making strict agreements with him and his teachers. But nothing worked. Ultimately he was placed outside of the house and now lives in some special group. People just aren’t as malleable as Chua thinks. Unless we are ruled by some Führer who arranges society so that everyone must go to the Jugendsturm after class. But we aren’t. So get over it and give up your illusions of the malleability of man.


Nihilism vs Fatalism

Culture wars tax our souls because, on the path to finding greater “political” power, each side tends to cozy up to the exact opposite of what it should.

For example, in the United States and UK, our right-wing tends to view itself as a bastion of defense against “nihilism,” which is a nifty Nietzschean shorthand for the fact that leftists don’t believe in reality. If you don’t believe in reality, you can’t be a consequentialist, which leaves preference utilitarianism which is conveniently very popular.

Consequentialists say “only the results matter” and so tend to be goal-oriented; utilitarians say that only mass perception of the results matter, so if you coat the planet in twelve feet of feces and yet most people think that things are better than ever before, they must be better — or at least considered that way.

In turn, the left whose philosophy derives from the Christian ideal of a universal moral standard, are cleaving to relativism and the idea that there is no central truth of any kind. The kiddie Nihilists out there think this is “nihilism” because it does not believe in a single standard for reality.

All three groups are off their heads and have no idea what Nietzsche was saying about nihilism. He implied a distinction between passive nihilism and active nihilism; passive nihilism, upon discovering a lack of immediate tangible reward to the individual, threw out anything but the individual and immediate.

The individual, to the individual, is the only verifiable part of reality; passive nihilism is thus the intersection between narcissism, solipsism and fatalism, or a lack of belief that life outside the self is worth even attempting. You might call it depression if you want to find the ultimate shorthand for its type of belief.

To Nietzsche, passive nihilism was the tendency not to not believe in any truth, but to believe in the individual as the only truth, and in doing so, to change the concept of “truth” from “verifiable tendency in reality” to “popular notion.” Nihilism was a lack of belief in reality itself.

Active nihilism, on the other hand, is more of what he shows in his character Zarathustra. Zarathustra realizes that there are three options: belief in self, belief in world, and (surprise) belief in self as a component of the world. Either of the first two is a loss of belief in the goodness of the outcome of human life, which is self and world together.

I’ll take this even further: passive nihilism is fatalism, or self-pity; active nihilism is a scientific outlook on the world that reduces it to the inherent; and finally, most importantly, nihilism is necessary for spiritual experience.

(There should be a moment of silence here for you to throw things at the screens, pitch a fit, question with wonder, assemble pitchforks and napalm to burn the heretic, etc. These are all just choices and none is more valid than any other. And if you believe that, you are probably very confused in reading this blog.)

Fatalism is what occurs when you stop believing that you have any efficacy on the world or, in extreme cases, on yourself. If you truly think that nothing you do can change or influence the world, you will — in all but a few cases — quit trying and focus instead on taking from the world what you can for yourself. This belief is not only rather narcissistic, but also in a perverse twist, self-destructive. If you believe the external world has what you need to be happy, you have given up on yourself, on your soul (character, personality, soul: about the same, from a distance) and on your future happiness. You’re hoping you win the lottery; otherwise, all is gloom. You do not view your happiness as being in your own hands. Thus, your happiness is left up to chance, since you do not have efficacy on the world, and so you are not only feeling out of control of your life, but also pitying yourself for being in such a situation. End result: you don’t trust the goodness of the world, you don’t trust the goodness of yourself, and as a result you are in a permanent state of resentment, even if you get what you desire, because it won’t be able to cure the hole within.

Inherency is perhaps the biggest question in philosophy. What is true? — at the very barebones level a nihilist will insist upon, the only thing that is true is reality itself. Even our statements about it are degrading as we make them, since they attempt to make equivalencies between complex dynamic systems and fixed, reductionist symbols. Few people point out that the symbols themselves are actually fluid, and change with the system around them; this is too much time, particularly past our own mortal ends, for the brain to grasp in most cases. We have plenty of people however who think “the problem with humanity” is that we use symbols and that these symbols, or sentence structures using to-be verbs, are the essence of our failure as a species. None of these seem to be able to admit that even if our symbols are wrong, the world they symbolize still exists and is vital; in fact, the deniers are making the same mistake as the affirmers, which is to confuse image/symbol/token/memory with the whole. Life goes on and the world keeps turning. That is why we say that reality itself is the only inherent thing; of course, that’s unsatisfying, as it leaves open the question of what we can know about reality. Fatalists say we can know nothing; active nihilists point out that even saying “we know nothing” is affirming an absolutist, universal thought, and for that reason, prefer to say it’s more complex, this knowing what we know thing.

Spirituality occurs when we view invisible orders to reality that are not linear causal (golf club hitting a ball) but immanent, or emerging from the interaction of interconnected parts, like a neural network or storm system. As a result, spirituality of all forms will never be “prove-able” because it is not a solely material concept, and only solely material or pure linear logic concepts (which resemble material) can be proved or disproved. The atheist has no problem pointing to a believer and saying, “There goes an ignorant man,” but if we are honest, we realize we cannot disprove belief, either. As I’m fond of saying, if it were that easy, we wouldn’t be having this debate. Instead, we have to realize that we cannot prove or disprove faith, so both atheism and deism are choices by the believer. Further, these are not preferential choices, where there is no right answer, but choices in the “correspondence theory of truth” school where whatever choice corresponds most to the order found in reality wins. Spirituality and belief are not lifestyle choices, but choices to accept a form of non-linear logic that sees an underlying invisible order to reality and is willing to prioritize that above pure linearly orders. This is the “leap of faith” in its oldest sense.

Given these pieces of the truth, we can see how nihilism is necessary for spirituality. If we institute a false belief in the inherency of God, and claim his presence is obvious among us, we’re denying the choice necessary to spirituality by making God seem like an unavoidable realization.

If we, like the usual callow modern atheists and scientific literalists, choose to sub-divide our world into the smallest linear causes, we end up throwing out consciousness, choice, love, aesthetics and any other complex thoughts in favor of small results. Science does well with finding isolated causes, but for anything more complex, it ends up become one large “correlation does not equal causation” error.

Without nihilism, we either become asserters of a false reality, or deducers of a false reality owing to rationalist, linear, deconstruction and reductionist analysis being applied to a place (existence) that is less the material properties of objects and more the infinite possibilities of their interaction.

People are barking up the wrong tree by blaming nihilism for our problems.

Let us indulge in heresy, you and me — it will perhaps be delicious. The problem with our society is not a lack of belief, but false belief, such as self-worship that occludes the world and precludes giving a hoot about reality and thus, the consistency of consequences of our actions.

“Yesterday when I littered it killed a forest; today, I’d like to think it won’t, so I’ll act as if it won’t.”

The source of our downfall is not that we are oppressed, but that we oppress ourselves by refusing to cooperate, and by refusing to have any kind of consensus of values, we determine that we will be ruled by tyrants, corporations or anyone else who is authoritarian enough to clean up the mess we make. Corporations respond to our actions by offering the products we want at prices we are willing to pay; we hate to admit it, but we the consumers are responsible for the horrible things they do, because we just don’t care. The corporations reflect what we are willing to endure.

“Someday, we’ll all grow together in a mass awakening of consciousness of the cosmos and eternal love, and stop the destruction of the rain forest.”

In our fantasy world, we like to think that the problem is some external force that is crushing our souls. More likely, the problem is what it has been since before we were humans: biological traits are assigned randomly, and only the best must persist for us to succeed; social forces, however, encourage inclusiveness without judgment, so that all persist even the criminal, perverse, idiotic and cruel. In religious terms, we are struggling so that the good be rewarded and the bad smote, which is the personality/soul equivalent of natural selection. All of life is based on this, much like all ideas occur when your brain generates a few thousand impulses in response to a stimulus, and then picks the most appropriate one. The reality of humanity is that we are unequal and for us to thrive, we must reward the good and kick out the bad. Since we don’t do that, it’s not surprising we live in a time of jerks. Many if not most of the people in our society have mental problems in addition to chronic selfishness, and they act it out on the rest of us, justifying it however they want. In fact, it’s usually the ones with the most altruistic and inclusive philosophies who are the most selfish. People don’t want to hear that; it’s harder than thinking we’re all victims of a cosmic corporate conspiracy.

“Criminals commit crimes because they’re desperate. If people were just more giving, criminals would not commit crimes.”

Our society isn’t falling apart because of a lack of belief; it’s falling apart because we’ve redefined “inherent” to be a political construct, not a construct of reality.

  • Our traditionalists got corrupted and re-defined inherent to include religion, ignoring the purpose of religion, which is that you believe in it because it makes sense in a non-linear capacity, not that it is obvious and you “believe” in it to be obedient to a strong political force (coercion can be spiritual as well; if you don’t agree, you’ll go to Hell and be raped by wild boars).
  • Our liberals, who have always been corrupt, redefined our society’s best values — kindness, intelligence, assertiveness — to become this crippling guilt-ridden notion of humanity as gods, where each of us is equally important and equally valid, even when that is far from true.

Nihilism did not cause this; if people truly were nihilists, they would go back to living as beasts, if they lived at all, and this would solve these problems of false values. Nihilism is in fact the greatest assertion of reality ever created: it throws out all inherency except reality itself. It does not preclude conservative politics or even Christian religion, just says they are a choice and that choice like all choices reflects what’s in our souls. If two homeless men are given $20 each, and one buys a wheelbarrow and starts work and the other buys booze, we’re kidding ourselves if we say these decisions are equal.

In the hands of a health person, nihilism rejects any theory or notion that does not correspond to reality. Nihilism is like a form of realism that rejects the notion that we “know” reality and can transcribe it into our symbols, emotions and human constructions. Rather, reality is something against which we compare our crazy notions and actions. What will the consequences of this action be? We don’t need morality to judge these; morality is easy. What we do need is the step before moralizing, which is to know what is real and what is not.

While Nietzsche meant well, he misnamed his “nihilism,” but it’s forgivable because we have no word for what he was describing. It is fatalism, narcissism, depression, and selfishness, all wrapped up around a core idea of philosophical individualism, or placing of the individual — body, preferences, emotions, notions and illusions — before any concept of ultimate reality, including consequentialism.

As shown many times, the problem in our society is not nihilism. It’s disorganization, lack of consensus, and the low character of many of our people. We’ve made this problem worse through relativism, which in the scientifically-illiterate hands of our intellectual paparazzi, becomes the idea of having an absolute moral standard but making exceptions for the underdog, a way of forcing equality through forcing tolerance of our worst examples, thus by definition accepting everyone. But at the end of the day, there is only one reality, and thus, only one sensible path for adapting to it and through that, not only surviving but thriving.

Our own special breed of pollen

What makes us different from them?

The difference is that we don’t gather ourselves around a societal problem (illegal immigration, tailbacks, social inequality), like the other political ideologies have done (liberalism, socialism, etc). Instead, we base ourselves upon a universal analyses of the political evolution of civilization. From this knowledge we approach any societal problem and formulate a political solution.

We formulate our starting principle with the long-term in view and we also formulate political solutions that will have the greatest effect on the long run. We think bigger than that, beyond a quick fix of an immediate need, beyond the popularity of a temporary leader-figure. One may reply: “An immediate societal problem can gain the activism of the masses. A universal analyses of the political aspects of man will not gain the activism of the masses.” My answer is: “Basing the political ideology on an objective analysis is the only way it will not fail.” Republicanism, whose mission it was to prevent the expansion of government influence, has failed.

Fascism and National-Socialism, whose missions were to make Italy and Germany the leading powers of Europe, have failed. Communism, whose mission it was to abolish Capitalism and ensure a generous supply in the daily demands of ordinary labourers, has failed. Other examples are Humanism and Anarchism. Humanism challenged people to question the authority of existing traditions, by making them study the cultures, philosophies and facts of the world, so that they could think for themselves. This clearly failed; in a lecture I gave to 50 random adolescent students, for example, it turned out that only 2 or 3 knew what is going on in Libya. Surely they consider themselves unique individuals, qualified to question the authority of their teachers. While all are wearing the same ipods during the day and watch the same talent shows in the evening.

Anarchism intended to make both the individual and the community completely autonomous, and therefore free and equal. Yet this failed because it didn’t take human nature into account; it’s typically human to want the highest outcome for minimal investment. With other words, to cut corners hoping some do-good can be found willing to do extra work in the service of others. Since our aim is to formulate an ideology that can revive all that is Great, Noble and Virtuous in man, beginning with Western culture and indirectly of all cultures, we need a political philosophy that can see beyond the immediate.

How are we different? Nazis, Republicans, leftists, Communists, anarchists, Greens, Libertarians and presumably a dozen others are like plants in spring, blowing their mimetic pollen across the electorate and intellectuals alike. We’re not just a splinter group of one of those. How are we different? How are people sure they’re not just picking a cryptic version of one of those others?” – Brett Stevens, ‘Resisting Assimilation’, 2011.

The difference between us and them is simple: We always go with the truth and the facts, make an objective analysis of the situation, and base our effective solutions upon that. Does that make us ‘D66-style pragmatics’? No, because we do have ideological values, since we constantly need to consolidate the integration of values within society if objectivity, requiring a reasonable mindset, is to be possible at all. Loyalty, Duty, Rationality – you can only succeed in your purpose if you consequently maintain its pursuit. Creativity is also important – you must be able to improvise and use the fluctuating circumstances in your favour instead of being thrown off-course by them.

If a person has these values, the values required to consequently maintain the pursuit of an objective, we speak of a coherent inner life. If people aren’t taught to endure, haven’t learned to bear hardships and to persevere, this is what happens: Other ideologies initially do follow objective reasoning and they do acknowledge the facts of the world. Until at some point a sensitive issue comes up, for example immigrant crime-rates. Then they suddenly look the other way in order not to estrange their following and thus their power-base.

Americans are a good example of this: Always declaring that the individual must be free in conscience and choice, and that the government must have minimal interference with this. Unless it’s about stimulating people to go (back) to church and to do prayer in class. Then using the governments’ influence is suddenly not an issue and political groups such as the Tea-Party look the other way. Consider everything that follows an elaborate explanation of what happens and why others go wrong.

I’ll tell you why all political movements are flawed except this one: They gather around political programs favouring some group, thus ensuring themselves of a power-basis of loyal activists, instead of gathering around an objective philosophy. They might start off with an open mindset, gathering ideas and people, and suddenly their movement is large and they find themselves with the opportunity of taking governing responsibility. Every choice they make is in accordance with their ideology and choices are explained to the following every time. Until such a leader finds himself in a situation where he has to choose what’s not the right thing for the values of his ideology.

Let’s say he wants labour-elevation programs, but is faced with budget cuts and money shortage. Or he needs the cooperation of some group, let’s say farmers, mayors or the police. So he has to give them some favour or privilege that stays behind closed doors (for example the police get some extra paid office hours that in reality aren’t used – or a Libertarian representative is coerced into withholding his veto from a protectionist regulation). The leader chooses this for the long term survival of his ideological movement and its political influence, but it does estrange the leaders from their ideological following and waters down the ideology itself. If a political movement grows big, it’s unlikely to retain its philosophical ideology.

It is a custom of democratic countries that what has a large following must also be a player in making policies and running the country. That means the ideology gets tied up with the establishment. And the establishment consists of all sorts of old boys, lobby groups and officials, who “have their own age old ways of how things are done around here”. This interaction with the establishment gives the ideological leader an image of the corrupt the moment he becomes a politician.

And he’ll be dealing more and more with those people and less and less with his following, with every step of government-responsibility he gains. Hitler was forced to stop the Sturm-Abteilung when they wanted to go against the captains of industry, this is what happened in the night of long knives. Lenin found himself reintroducing private property in the NEP, and Wilders had to abandon his pensioners-point – although he had repeatedly stated to be without compromise on the issue. What also doesn’t help is that political movements that get big, attract followers who want to lift along with its growing influence to serve their own ends rather than those of the ideology.

When an ideological leader becomes a conductor of government, he has to keep asking himself the question: “What are the grounds on which I’m choosing this decision and not that one?” He has to perpetually ask himself: “Can I still justify this decision to my ideology and my following, and if so, how?” But that’s not how leaders usually are. Instead they drift along on “this is how things are done around here”. Why?

Because [I] they lack the coherent inner lives required to constantly cling to their ideals and keep rowing against such a “business as usual inertia-tide”. And [II] they lack the power-basis to force these establishment members to take the necessary steps to integrate his ideals into society. They lack capable personnel who share their leaders’ ideology, so they are forced to use other personnel. These others often have different ideologies, serve different groups, and therefore work for his ideological agenda only half-heartedly, slowing down effective implementation.

This discourages the ideological followers and their idealism dies down, and suddenly their leader, the once ideological orator, is just another “manager of public affairs”. Now, imagine that the leader, faced with the slacking conduct of his administrative personnel, rallies his following to put his workers under pressure – to force them to make policy that translates the ideology into societies’ daily life. This could work! This mixture of force and vigour could overcome the inertia-tide that surrounds those who’ve already secured comfortable positions at the top. But this wouldn’t work if the farmers already walked out because their leader had to ban protectionism in order to get industry working along. Or if the mayor and the police already gave up support because they didn’t want to be made to crack down on crime so hard. This fails because if people don’t get instantly what they want, they drop out.

As noted, the common person doesn’t see further then his immediate needs, and this seems to contradict with what is required for political activism – that is that the current generation makes a sacrifice of time and effort for the generations of the future. I draw on the wisdoms of philosophers in the past here, who remarked that great leaders lost their battles owing to the inconsistent attitudes of their people:

No man can struggle with advantage against the spirit of his age and country, and however powerful a man may be, it is hard for him to make his contemporaries share feelings and ideas which run counter to the general run of their hopes and desires.

I am not suggesting that they resist him openly by means of well thought out schemes, or indeed by means of any considered determination to resist. They show no energy in fighting him and sometimes even applaud him, but they do not follow him. Secretly their apathy is opposed to his fire, their conservative interests to his revolutionary instincts, their homely tastes to his adventurous passion, their common sense to his flighty genius, their prose to his poetry. With immense effort he rouses them for a moment, but they soon slip from him and fall back, as it were, by their own weight. He exhausts himself trying to animate this indifferent and distracted multitude and finds at last that he is reduced to impotence, not because he is conquered but because he is alone.” -Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

Whatever we may think or affect to think of the present age, we cannot get out of it; we must suffer with its sufferings, and enjoy with its enjoyments; we must share in its lot, and, to be either useful or at ease, we must even partake its character. No man whose good qualities were mainly those of another age, ever had much influence on his own.

But reason itself will teach most men that they must, in the last resort, fall back upon the authority of still more cultivated minds, as the ultimate sanction of the convictions of their reason itself.” -John Stuart Mill, ‘The spirit of the age’, 1831

Therefore, ordinarily a big change in leadership, civilization and ideology can only occur during a time of extraordinary duress. Else people just can’t be bothered to throw their full weight behind it. For example in 1687/8 the Dutch stadhouder Willem III managed to organize a huge army and fleet to invade England, and did it within a couple of months. He did this despite the fact that Amsterdam, at the time the richest city on earth that was going to have to provide for this campaign, had persisted in a trade-friendly military neutral course for many years.

It was only that the people moved to restore the stadhouders’ military command by removing the wealthy tradesmen regents, when their republic was on the verge of being overwhelmed by Louis XIV and his Catholic helpers in Britain and Germany. Likewise, the NSDAP with its radical political agenda, could only gain power in Germany when the stock market crash and the Treaty of Versailles had severely undermined the nation. The people of the Roman Empire were only ready to accept that Octavian gathered all political and religious powers in one person once their city threatened to collapse under civil war. They were effectively breaking with the age old republican tradition because they hoped he could restore order – and he did, in a spectacular fashion. By now it should be clear to the reader what I mean by “a universal analyses of the political evolution of civilization”.

The more of a coherent inner life you possess, the more likely you are to adequately respond to the challenges that arise in your life. Therefore it’s nonsense to think that a group of people can lead a country to better days if the individual behaviour of these people in daily life doesn’t further the goals they say to pursue. In contrast a group of people with coherent inner lives will be able to find an effective solution to any societal problem that arises. Basically we see with effective leaders from the past, like Octavian and Willem III, that they always maintained a coherent inner life, and waited for the opportunity to present itself.

If you look at the first nineteen years of their lives, there was no indication at all that they would ever be powerful men. Today, whimsicalness is everywhere around us in society. When watching TV, when going out, when regarding literature – whimsicalness seems to be what people want (but not what they should want). From these preferences, therefore, it’s unlikely that a leader with a coherent inner life will drift to the top. And in todays’ society a leader needs to gain a broad support if his idea is to be commercially or electorally attractive. Before we look at any specific societal problem (like other ideologies do), this itself seems to be a course for disaster.


  • Objective philosophy, not a policy-programme
  • Learn to bear privations
  • Select a following that is able to bear privations and to endure
  • Use political influence to rearrange society in a way that it makes a coherent inner life the top 1 priority for all

This is also what distinguishes us from the rest. They provide solutions but only push these up to a point – until the inertia overcomes them – and from then on their ideologies become pure rhetoric. Because they lack a universal historic analysis, their political movements are bound to repeat this mistake. Instead of rhetoric, we offer realistic adaptations to the reality in which we find ourselves. Our continuous pursuit of the coherent inner life makes us inertia-proof: We are simply cut from different cloth.

Linkpost 03-25-11

This linkpost is late, but should cover more than usual goodness. People out there are converging on new ideas and a rejection of the failed past. Naturally, those vested in the past are lying at twice their normal speed. But the new growth, rejecting much of what we hear in mass media and society at large, is promising — like a springtime for the soul.

In the meantime, there’s a lot of bloviation about Libya. Let me say this clearly: Obama is Clinton II, as was obvious during his campaign. He will bomb, send in special forces, but avoid commitment. This is the liberal method: subvert, undermine, sabotage, be passive-aggressive, but by no means get involved in a war — any war except a turkey shoot is by nature unpopular after 48 hours. Had GWB limited his Iraq involvement to killing 500,000 Iraqi combatants and noncombatants alike, he’d be a box office hero.


Resisting assimilation

If you ever want to know why nature is a great yin-yang between darkness and light, consider this: without fracas, issues would never get discussed; nothing would ever get stirred up; no resolution would happen except well-this-is-how-we-always-do-it inertia.

A week or so ago, one of my blogscreeds provoked a bit of a intense response across the right-wing blogosphere. In short, people thought I was full of the proverbial used food and wanted to set things straight.

Now, while our society trains us to be good docile obedient stupid compromise-driven pacifistic convenience-motivated conflict avoiders, I think we need to look at the plus side of this: we’re now talking about an issue that is vital to our future, which is the elephant in the room for the alternative right, New Right, far-right and paleoconservative elements out there:

  • What is our diagnosis? Everyone thinks they know what’s wrong with the world. Or do they? On closer inspection, most have a laundry list of complaints, but they don’t know why these things got off-course. That means, by definition, they don’t know how to fix them except with the traditional government square-peg-to-round-hole-pounding of banning things, funding their opposites, and setting up
    “awareness” campaigns to bore us all with “public safety” commercials.
  • What is our plan? How do we intend to get to power? Or are we going to be those political burnouts who stand on the sidelines, reminding us how sad it all is and how sad it is that no one listens, and how it doesn’t have to be this way, but sad, sad, sad instead? Are we a revolutionary movement, with bombs and fatwas, or are we a bunch of guys in suits who are going to talk sense into the world? Do tell.
  • What is our platform? Should we gain power, what changes will we make? What will society look like when we’re doing? How will this fit with our existing system of law? You wouldn’t adopt any view without knowing not only its airy ideology, but what that looks like in real life. People want a coherent picture, tangible examples and some discussion not of what we don’t like — whining is cheap in the internet age — but what we’re going to do that creates a situation better than it. You don’t pick a new car on the basis that it doesn’t make a rattling noise like the old one; you pick the better all-around option.
  • How are we different? Nazis, Republicans, leftists, Communists, anarchists, Greens, Libertarians and presumably a dozen others are like plants in spring, blowing their memetic pollen across the electorate and intellectuals alike. We’re not just a splinter group of one of those. How are we different? How are people sure they’re not just picking a cryptic version of one of those others, specifically the first and third?
  • What are our limits? We need to make it clear to people what our methods are. We don’t want to be effete like the liberals who spend billions in “education” programs that don’t work, but we have to ask ourselves also if we’re ready for the MP40 to the back approach. We have to be honest: some issues require the MP40. You’re not going to get people to voluntarily stop littering because the people who litter already are oblivious to consequences and don’t care about them. But you can handle a lot of the rest with indirect programs which are not only less “fascist,” but preferable in terms of efficiency and low impact.
  • What is our ideal? Every successful political campaign present an ideal. Whether idyllic peasants sharing potatoes under a balmy Russian sky, or 1950s American families gathered around the white picket fences to chat it up in innocent suburbia, we need a picture of our ideal. This is separate from our platform and its picture, because everyone knows that platforms are paths-to an ideal that may never be fully realized. Not every peasant will enjoy the balmy potatoes, and not every American ends up in suburbia. But we need to look at what we love and crave as a future and spill it out as a pastoral.

Until we resolve these things, for the most part, we’re just hobbyists discussing a fond vision of an alternate reality, whether we do this on the internet or not. It’s modern society: any chirping cheeseball can put forth a notion, detach it from reality and get a few hundred thousand people discussing it. They do this quite successfully for trivial things like rock bands, TV shows, favorite products and even dumb trends like putting bacon in ice cream.

In other words, that we have a few hundred thousand warm bodies pounding on their keyboards in unison about some idea proves nothing. If anything, it’s a useful moneymaker for our adversaries, who’d just love an organized uprising of Hollywood-style totalitarianism. The donations would keep rolling in at a snappy pace, then.

But on the other hand, all good things start small. Every giant tree was once a seedling that for a long time looked just like any other weed. The Puritans who founded America were probably considered the 16th century equivalent of potheads home in England: “Right, religious liberty. Good luck with that. Don’t eat too much when you get the munchies.”

However, for any cultural shift to succeed — and in a time when politics responds to trends both illusory and realistic, the only change that happens is a cultural shift in attitudes and expectations, and politics follows that — it must be distilled down into a clear, simple and easily-transferred message. A meme, if you will.

The Republicans have a meme: we beat up the bad guys and cut your taxes. The Democrats have a meme: we’re the civil rights party. Even the Libertarians have a meme: government is a parasite, and we’ll really cut your taxes. Communism has a very effective meme: everybody gets fed at the same time in the same amount. We need a meme of that level to compete.

Even more, we need to make sure we simplify our own approach to the bare minimum. We don’t need ten thousand pages of impassioned writing; what we need are the right five paragraphs that express what we’re about so the average thinking person can anticipate what life with us in power would be like. The more we simplify and streamline, the closer we are to being understood.

Conservatism — and political philosophies built around one part of the conservative platform, like nationalism — is just growing out of the stupor that followed World War II. We don’t give up on doctors if we find a single bad doctor, but people are acting like we give up on conservatism because there was that one guy with the weird mustache. As conservatism grows out of this reaction, we’re looking toward the next stage.

For us to get there, however, we’ve got to hammer out some of these basic issues. Here’s Greg Johnson, one of the people I make sure to read every chance I get, on the source of this fracas:

I do think it is too early for a political movement, and that we should spend our time and money on metapolitics. At best, political activism today should be regarded as a kind of metapolitical education, since we need to have a tradition of people with concrete political experience if we are to someday get involved with politics and play for keeps. (Looking at it that way will also prevent the kind of burn out fostered by false hopes of actually making political headway in the present climate. Managing expectations is always crucial.)

But when the time for politics comes, it will necessarily be a form of modern mass politics fueled by resentment—in our case righteous resentment. My metapolitical role, and the aim of this little essay, is to make sure that we are clear about that fact right now and adjust our attitudes and plans accordingly. – Counter-Currents

Greg Johnson is an intelligent man, and this is not an unconsidered viewpoint, so we should treat it like the product of years of research, which it certainly is.

However, I have to disagree for two reasons:

  1. Better target of resentment. People don’t want this to be personal. They don’t want to target a group. If you want to whip them up into justified resentment, try pointing at a group of people who made a choice to be wrong, namely liberals. Even better, we can point out to this group that their choice, while wrong, can be un-done and they can come over to join us here in the smarter-than-the-rest camp. This is by the way straight out of the liberal playbook: they convinced the electorate that conservatism was an ignorant mental attitude, and if they just changed sides, they’d be cool. We should play up to this with a twist: liberalism isn’t just wrong, it’s emasculating and because it’s a Nanny State, it’s no fun. It’s boring. It’s old and tired like grey-haired hippies sitting around smoking dope and listening to brain-dead music like Bob Dylan, trying to “re-live” those “glory days” of yelling incoherent slogans at bored riot cops.
  2. Don’t cut our balls off. If some slimy minority group kicked our ass and dominated us, it means that we’re somehow inferior and have lost in our souls. The modern person is savvy enough to resent those who get easily misled. If we say that some random group of religious fanatics zoomed in and took over our brains, it makes us sound like chumps. If we say instead that for reasons unknown, some of our people got misled and we have to fix the situation, we’ve got a masculine situation — fix the problem — where we’re not being bullies and beating up on a minority group.

The above are political reasons, meaning that they refer to the craft of politics and how to motivate masses of people with memes. (If you can think of a better definition of politics, let me hear it.)

But I’d like to add another. Finally: it’s a poor diagnosis. What screwed us? Class warfare and revolt, starting in 1789 with the French Revolution. What brought it on? Dumber whites outbreeding smarter whites. Why have we been chumps ever since? Because once you create a system like democracy, where people vote by what they wish to be true and not what is true, you set up a society of chumps right for the raping. White people drugged themselves with football, alcohol, religion, liberal politics and social pretense long ago. As I mentioned in a review of Tomislav Sunic’s excellent Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right, long before the Judeo-Christian confusion we had Greece, and in Greece, the people followed the same failing path we’re now on. This confusion arises naturally from human perceptual errors; it doesn’t require a foreign initiator.

To make it even clearer, no great civilization is taken down by a tiny external minority. That minority isn’t smart enough or strong enough, and the majority isn’t dumb enough, to let that happen. Great societies die from within. The usual perceptual errors — everyday stuff, like thinking we can tell little white lies about whether that dress makes our wife look fat or not — end up being unopposed. The smart people get distracted by irrelevant stuff. People no longer agree on anything. Then the society begins falling apart.

If you’ve ever run your own business, chaired a committee meeting, whipped volunteers into shape or just tried to keep your rock band together, you know that these challenges are constant. They are always there and they are inherent to the human condition. If you do not oppose them, they take over and win, like weeds in your garden. You will always have to weed your garden, as long as you have that garden. You can never relax. You must always be at a state of “moral attention,” as Scott Fitzgerald called it. You can never let down your guard. That’s what it is to be alive: every day is intense! Every day is a struggle! Life and death hang in the balance at every turn, at every moment, every day… it’s just that when you make a bad decision, sometimes it takes 2,000 years for it to move from cause to effect.

If some evil minority took us down, it’s because whites — distracted by sports, beer, keeping up with the Joneses, picking their noses — let them. If whites let them, it’s because they gave in to one or more mental errors. Since we see those errors crop up in each other every day, and in every civilization since the dawn of time, it’s clear those errors are inherent to humanity. If some evil minority took over, it’s because error took over first.

Beating up on that evil minority distracts us from the real issue, which is fixing our society so we stay vigilant against these errors and other pitfalls. Even if every single thing others say is true, and this evil minority is as evil and powerful as they suggest, it does not change the truth of what I am saying. We are too strong to be taken over by even a tiny minority of evil supermen. We did it to ourselves. More importantly, we can only fix it by fixing ourselves to make ourselves resistant to the infection; even diseases that we have eliminated by destroying all the pathogens represent a threat, because if the pathogens reappear, they’ll wipe us out again. We cannot make ourselves healthy by destroying that which threatens us because it will always be there. We can make ourselves healthy by, tautologically, making ourselves healthy: strengthening body, mind and soul so they can resist all pathogens both known and unknown, because future challenges await.

If you killed all the Jews and African-Americans tomorrow, and even all the Democrats and vaporized Hollywood with a thermonuclear weapon, you would still have a dying Western civilization. I like the idea of machine-gunning hipsters for aesthetic reasons, but if I shot every hipster in north America, the day after the bodies cooled some kid would discover Sonic Youth and start wearing sweaters, being inauthentic, posing at being knowledgeable, etc. These are eternal human failings. It is our job to evolve morally so that we can resist them forevermore, because they will always be there, because they are inherent to the mathematics of the universe.

Take hipsters, for example. If you think through the question of a social life half-way, you might believe that by wearing “different” clothing, saying “unique” things, and finding the newest hippest bands, you might have a social life. Someone who thinks the situation through all the way realizes that only by being an authentic friend, a true leader and a good person do you get not only popularity but the good kind of popularity, where you surround yourself with good people. The hipster just makes an error (true, it should be a fatal one, but that’s neither here nor there). It’s the same way many kids learn you shouldn’t steal, you shouldn’t drink too much, and that it’s better to just do your homework before class: by taking a shortcut and then failing.

Western civilization took a shortcut in 1789 and we’re still feeling the fallout. WWI was a direct response to 1789 (through the Franco-Prussian war and a few other flare-ups); WWII was a direct response to WWI. We are paying endlessly for the error we made back then. Was it an innocent error? No, and yes; no, the people involved should have known better, and yes, in that the vast majority of people who supported them were probably not able to know better. Did the Jews do this to us? No more than the Scientologists, the cocaine-fueled late night infomercial pitchmen, and the politicians. Many groups are showing up to feed on the carcass (and in the case of Jews, that’s some Jews, not all, just like some Gentiles and not all contributed to our decline; many Jews and Gentiles are busy working to fix the problem).

Critical mass favors those who come up with the most direct solution with the fewest disadvantages. We cannot attack the wrong group; it causes needless destruction, and makes us think we’re fixing the problem when we’re actually “fixing” some partial problem, unrelated problem, non-problem or other issue that is not the real problem we must fix. Even more, we’re getting off track and trying to do a one-shot cure for a deep ailment that requires constant vigilance against it, which in turn requires we build up the health of the good things in our society so we have the strength to resist it.

I think we could learn a thing from the Jews, specifically those hanging out in Israel:

Under the new law, groups involved in activities that deny Israel’s existence as a Jewish state can be prevented from receiving public funding.

Those activities include marking Israel’s Independence Day as a day of mourning.

Civil rights and Israeli Arab politicians say the law is undemocratic and unfairly singles out Israel’s Arab citizens.

The current version of the law is more moderate than the original, which called for prison sentences for anyone holding Nakba memorial events. – BBC

They’re scared.

Even their liberals are finally getting it: Arabs hate Jews not because Jews are Jews, but because both groups are competing for the same thing.

When that happens inside Israel’s borders, only two outcomes are possible: Jews exile or Holocaust the Arabs, or Arabs take over and then do the same to the Jews.

Two men enter, one man leaves.

Israel is opting for a sensible solution which whites should emulate:

  • Point out we’re unique. There aren’t many of us; we’re cool and different.
  • Point out that others have other places to go. Whites are 8% of the world population; just about everywhere else, outside of specific Asian and African countries, is mixed-race populations. Brazil? Iraq? Mexico? Pakistan? Libya? Morocco? Syria? California? All mixed-race remnants of once great empires.
  • Two things cannot exist in the same space. Such a basic fact from physics, and yet we ignore it. But we can be reminded: do you want to live in the USA, or Mexico? In Israel, or Syria? You must make a choice.
  • Quit the pretense. We’re not making abstract decisions; we’re deciding who will survive. So it doesn’t matter if we’re open-minded or not, or if we’re universally benevolent. We need to fight for ourselves. We do this by not funding our opposition, making laws against their bad behaviors, and changing laws so we’re not required to hire them, rent to them, or live near them. Let nature do the rest. The 2% who are so dramatic they want to mix races will do their thing and get absorbed by the Other population; the rest will keep doing what they always do, which is partner up and live around people like them.

Some Jews, like some whites, are learning not to be “intolerant” but be practical:

Falling into a routine where “minor” attacks prompt minor responses would lead to escalation of this so-called “limited” terror campaign, whose impact on the country and its citizens may be just as grave as that of suicide bombings and multi-fatality attacks.

Lack of global sympathy in the face of such attacks may aggravate the situation further, limiting the IDF’s freedom in responding to terror later. This coming on top of the ongoing de-legitimization campaign against Israel, another seemingly “softer” tactic, may ultimately prove disastrous for the Jewish state. – YNN

They have figured out that diversity is death for their populations, namely that as soon as you try to unite society around more than one thing — race, religion, ethnicity, customs, values, level of IQ and even aesthetics — society splits up, with everyone doing their own thing and no standard in common. This in turn means open combat in the streets, and that commerce takes over from culture:

In such a time, we have infinite things to work against, and only one to work for: a healthy, thriving, clear-sighted and non-neurotic population.

“Multiracial societies always end in violence,” says Mr. Griffin. “The reason for the trouble in these cities is that racial tension was already there, as it always is in mixed-race societies. Yes, we urge white people to stand up for their rights, but it is the Asians who are burning the cities this summer.”

Mr. Griffin may not be entirely correct to say that “mixed-race societies” always end in violence. Sometimes they end in despotism, since the rule of force is all that can hold such societies together. There’s a good reason why the empires of ancient times like that of the Romans were both multiracial as well as despotic; it’s the same reason such multiracial conglomerates as the Russian and Habsburg empires were authoritarian in more recent times. The only way to hold different races and cultures together in the same political-territorial unit is by clobbering whoever steps out of line. Those who push for the outlawing of the BNP and similar groups are bringing modern Britain closer to the same outcome.

In any case, Mr. Griffin is by no means the first to warn that multiracialism breeds results other than peace and tranquillity. “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding,” the late Conservative political leader Enoch Powell told his countrymen 33 years ago, in warning against non-white immigration into Britain. “Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood,’” as a consequence of the naive belief in multiracial harmony. – VDARE

How’s this working out in Israel?

But even the specter of a renewal of such attacks — which deeply scarred the Israeli psyche and left the country’s peace movement in tatters — was enough to bring calls for retaliation.

Arriving on the scene soon after the blast, Eli Yishai, Israel’s hard-line interior minister, urged revenge. “With these murderers, these terror organizations…we must act, or we will lose our deterrence,” he said.

Nearby, young Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men vented their anger, chanting “death to Arabs.”

“It’s a very sad day, said one of them, Meny Friedman. “Finally we have the ability to get out what we have to say about Palestinians.” – AP

Those young men chanting death to Arabs get it, at least partially. Israel belongs to one group and only one group can rule it. Any other group, even if they’re “nice,” will lead to the destruction of the Jewish people.

This is possible in a multi-ethnic society like Israel’s. It can be possible in the USA, if one ethnic group gets convinced its interests are in danger, as the Tea Party shows is happening with white people.

But even among ethnically solidified groups, there are people who don’t get it:

As the Latino population and its political influence have grown, the number of Jewish groups across the country working to build and strengthen Latino-Jewish ties has increased as well. The New York office of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) held a meeting last week for Latino and Jewish leaders, and AJC’s Latino and Latin American Institute is planning a national Latino-Jewish leadership summit for 2012. In addition, in San Antonio, Texas, former mayor Henry Cisneros and local Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg are organizing a strategic dialogue between about 80 Latino and Jewish leaders later this month.

Since last December, leaders from some of Los Angeles’ most influential Jewish organizations have been meeting, coming together on two separate occasions with their Latino community counterparts. The exact outcome of this organizing effort is still to be seen, but it could lay the groundwork for an unprecedented level of Latino-Jewish cooperation.

In Los Angeles, Latino-Jewish relationships are not new. The communities’ leaders often point to the election of Ed Roybal, Los Angeles’ first Latino city councilman, supported in large part by Jewish and Latino voters in 1949, as the first great victory of the Latino-Jewish alliance. Some even credit the intercommunity connections with staving off a wider explosion of tensions in 1998, after the state Senate primary between Richard Katz and Richard Alarcon got particularly nasty.

Even so, the number of efforts by Jewish organizations in Los Angeles to “reach out,” to “build bridges” or to otherwise connect with Latinos has soared in recent years. – Jewish Journal

What would they say if this program was tried in Israel, and this group wanted to important Hispanics (or even another group, like Vietnamese or the Amish) to try to integrate with Israeli society?

Probably “stop it you fool,” in Hebrew.

Why do Jewish groups try this in the USA?

Because our liberal propaganda convinces every group to do this. Whites do it; Jews do it. Even various well-intentioned clueless African-Americans are trying to accomodate the Hispanic, even though this new group will edge African-Americans out of their traditional careers and neighborhoods.

Self-destructive tendencies are not unique to whites. Wherever liberalism goes, they go. And liberalism shows up everywhere because it’s a basic error, like thinking you can drink those 24 mimosas and still walk home without vomiting on yourself.

This partly explains what happened in Arizona, where a surging Hispanic population so panicked the state’s residents that they began pushing lawmakers to pass immigration-related bills aimed at making the state less hospitable to illegal immigrants. This wasn’t about reaffirming the rule of law. It was about returning Arizona to what it looked like 50 or 60 years ago, when the number of Hispanics in the state was much smaller than it is now.

It seems to have worked. The analysis of census data done by the Hispanic Pew Center shows that in Arizona, the number of Hispanics came in at 1.9 million, or 180,000 fewer than expected. – CNN

And look here! White people decided they were tired of the mess, so they made some peaceful laws to turn off the tap. From the tap flowed money: easily acquired work with regular paychecks, government aid, free hospital care, and so on.

I’m not a Hispanic Indio living in poverty in Mexico, but even I’d have to admit: why not take advantage of it? If your northern neighbors are so stupid and greedy that they offer this all in exchange for $20 lawn mowings, why not take advantage of those morons?

Who’s killing you now, white man? It’s the moron within. Or rather: that you tolerate that moron’s vote and opinion as equal to your own. That equality is dogma straight out of 1789, as refined by Western post-Communists in 1968.

You’re tolerating stupidity out of social fear. You don’t want to appear to be not-nice, not-sociable, not-tolerant or not-friendly. You don’t want to be (of all horrors) elitist. So you bleat along and accept stupidity as equal to intelligence. Hey, it’s all good.

Throughout history, when an occupying power has wanted to destabilize and destroy a nation, it has settled a foreign people in its midst. The seeds of the Balkan conflict were sown when the Turks planted Albanian Muslims in Kosovo to uproot the Christian Serbs who had long defended the borders of medieval Christendom and had more than once turned back the tide of an expanding Ottoman empire. The Soviet Union under Stalin methodically encouraged Russian emigration into the occupied Baltic states in a campaign of long-term Russification, to such an extent that nearly 30 percent of the populations of Latvia and Estonia were Russian.

Despite this, Americans did not worry about the massive migration of Mexicans and other third-world immigrants for many years due to their belief in equality and the idea of the American melting pot. Unfortunately, both concepts are complete myths, devoid of any support from logic, history or science. Despite the best efforts of the academic thought police and pop literary fantasists, such as Jared Diamond and Malcolm Gladwell, various scientific disciplines have quietly, but inexorably been demolishing the equalitarian hypothesis with regard to race, culture and sex. – WND

We’ve gone into the psychology of liberalism elsewhere on this blog, but suffice to say there are always Malcolm Gladwells and Jared Diamonds. There are always neurotic people who, missing a purpose in life, decide to band together and “fix” society with insane ideas that nonetheless give everyone good feelings. And there will always be Robespierres to manipulate that group, whip them into a frenzy, and send them off to kill the rich/powerful/intelligent/beautiful/honest.

That is a fact of life, and the sooner we address this and the need to forever be vigilant against it, the sooner we see what our actual task is in finding a solution. In the meantime, unless we adopt some radical crazy solutions like race war, Holocaust II and Day of the Rope, most of our people are with us:

Given equal choice, every race strongly prefers itself:

And white people actually prefer themselves the least, but right now there’s just so many of them. – OKCupid

Like every other race and ethnic group on earth, whites date whites. Central Europeans tend to date Central Europeans, even if both have been in America for five generations; Eastern Europeans tend to date people like them, and Southern Europeans tend to date people like them. Each group tends to marry and breed with those people.

Excepting the 2% (probably a maximum, more like a half-percent) who were raped as children or otherwise have some gaping hole in their souls they need to cover by being “different,” people try to replicate something like themselves for a variety of reasons. Mostly, it’s biological, but it’s also ethnical, aesthetic and ideological.

Then again, saying “I’m going to have German-American children like I was a German-American child” is a politically achievable and socially acceptable end, where mass gassings are frowned upon (usually).

For the study, the researchers surveyed black adults in Michigan. The results suggest the more the participants identified with being black – or the more being black was an important part of who they are – the more happy they were with life as a whole, Yap said.

The study also explored the reasons behind the connection. Yap said it may be fueled by a sense of belongingness – that is, blacks with a strong sense of racial identity may feel more connected to their racial group, which in turn makes them happy.

This sense of belongingness is especially important for happiness in women, Yap said. – PhysOrg

Racial identity is healthy. Celebrating it is also healthy. But in order to do that, we need to make sure the focus is on ourselves, not on blaming others. We need a clean theory of our own health.

From there, we can branch out to other difficult truths, like “diversity of any form always fails and destroys whatever society is stupid enough to host it.”

Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery, according to the largest survey into identity and extremism conducted in the UK.

A Populus poll found that 48% of the population would consider supporting a new anti-immigration party committed to challenging Islamist extremism, and would support policies to make it statutory for all public buildings to fly the flag of St George or the union flag.

Anti-racism campaigners said the findings suggested Britain’s mainstream parties were losing touch with public opinion on issues of identity and race. – The Guardian

Look at this. Look at what’s waiting for us: if we produce a coherent platform, and eschew pointless and angry behavior, there’s a huge audience just waiting for us to come in and solve their problems. Of course, we have to do that without screwing up while in power. We’re not going to get there however if we embrace violent rhetoric without purpose. People are cool with violence, so long as there is a purpose to it and the situation isn’t better solved with another method. If our problem is diversity, saying we’ll make no legal obligation to support diversity — the same solution you’re seeing in Israel — is not only a practical solution, but a political winner.

Our people don’t need resentment. They are ready for our message, with a small gentle push or two. They are seeing that the last forty years of extreme liberalism, from 1968-2008, wreaked havoc on us and destroyed our society. They’re seeing, for the first time, that their future and the future of their children is threatened not by a single issue but by the very notion of liberalism and the multicultural society.

But they’re not going to vote for anyone who acts like a Nazi, and I tend to agree with them. I don’t want a repeat of WWII. I think The HolocaustTM was stupid, not only because it was cruel but also because it took resources away from winning a war. I and most others don’t want to live in a totalitarian state.

Many people now want to find a hero, and they want it to be Hitler. They want the world to admit that what the Nazis said back then was true and we should emulate them. I think we can leave off the question of whether the Nazis were right; the problem was that, right or wrong, they also launched a series of disasters we don’t want to emulate. As a result, we need to forget the past and look toward a different strategy for the future.

We need to think bigger than the problems of today. Multiculturalism, Hollywood perversity, government corruption and political correctness are symptoms of a culture in a dying tailspin. We need to fix that tailspin, undo liberalism and the underlying psychology that creates liberalism in every society and every era in history, and get ourselves back on track toward positive objectives.

We’ve got a lot of work to do. I’m glad the right wing is debating these issues in earnest, so we can get ready for the next stage, which is to leave hobbyism behind and start winning some elections, fixing some problems and gaining the trust and gratitude of our people. After all, that’s who we’re working for.

Tailgating as shortsightedness

Pick any major American city these days, as well as its suburbs, and you’ll see (or feel) tailgating as a prevalent part of the driving experience.

Road rage, specifically tailgating, is mostly due to the shortsightedness of individuals given the free reign to operate a heavy mass of machinery at whatever speed they choose. Give everyone this right, and of course you’ll have accidents, people shooting each other at high speeds, and of course – tailgating.

In simple physical terms, tailgating is a loser’s game. There’s a reason insurance companies have automatic fault for drivers who hit another driver from behind.

Much like the SUV paradox, tailgating and road rage cause an interesting dilemma. There’s no reward for following speed limit signs and for driving in a safe manner, which shows that you’re thinking of yourself and your safety beyond your hood ornament.

But beyond the lack of reward, you also find yourself punished by other drivers in the form of danger (tailgating, road rage, being passed from the right side). This is a perfect symbol of shortsightedness. You want to do the “right thing”? Make money and make a home “the right way?” Good luck with all the other slow-pokes – we’ll have passed you and will be way up ahead in the fast lane!

The reason safe drivers can’t just smirk about the accident awaiting these morons down the road, is that they might be in that accident. Individualist societies think in terms of the individual as a pod: “I’ll speed, and I’ll deal with the consequences if I get caught by a cop. Accident? I’m in an Acura with high performance tires – not gonna happen.”

The increasingly rare safe drivers on the road are thinking in terms of what’s best for travel all around – stay far enough behind the next car that if he slams on his brakes, I won’t hit him. Look in all mirrors every few minutes. Be cognizant of where I’m going. Only do the courteous thing and stop to let someone into the road if I’m not holding up traffic behind me unnecessarily. Careful of stopping for strangers/drifters, or just avoid doing this at all. Etc.

We can see the paraellels between this and how people act in their everyday lives. Who’s careful with what they do? Who is proud of the work they put in for the day? Who’s more proud of the work they put in for the meaningful things – family, religion, culture – than about whether they were able to go to Best Buy and get a new TV for the living room? These people are increasingly rare.

Tailgating is a method used by people seeking instant gratification. Whether by misplaced frustration, or simply out of stupidity, tailgating is a symbol of treating a privilege as a right, then abusing that self-appointed “right” until it’s meaningless. Sound familiar?


When I become a grizzled old guy, if I’m so lucky as to get there, I’ll remember this sage piece of advice for any younger people I have the pleasure of boring:

“The future is tired old ideas. Don’t waste your time trying to invent the next big thing. Figure out what’s expired, and put a fresh coat of paint on it, and the idiots will flock to your side.”

This thought zings into my head every time I see someone from Generation X, Generation Y or the millennial Generation Zero endorsing some kind of hippie logic, or even just leaning to the left. The potential but never to be realized conversation blooms in my head.

Why do you praise and then repeat the failed past? You’re emulating the people who inherited a first world country full of potential, and left you a burnt-out ruin full of debt. America now more resembles the countries that fell to third-world status, like Russia or Brazil, and are now ruled by corrupt oligarchs in the shadows. Your public services are garbage at this point. Your education, overvalued. Your government, incompetent. And the people? We’ve bred a bumper crop of stupid, imported stupid, and in fact done everything but clone stupid in labs. Who did this to you? The Baby Boomers — the generation that became the hippies — way back in 1968.

Do you remember 1968? Of course not: that was a lifetime ago. But these people and their hideous ideas are still kicking it around, and they think they’re smarter than you. Like a bad parent, they think they can manipulate you — and sadly, most commonly you prove them right. They do it with the oldest trick in the book, which is to distract you from what you should have had with bauble or other shiny treat.

“Here, you can’t have a stable country, so have this cookie instead!”

They do it to you a million ways. You can imagine their dialogue:

  • Can’t have a stable country? Well, you’ve got freedom and maybe legal pot! That’ll be a big comfort to you as you get raped in an alley or fleeced by corrupt cops.
  • Most people around you are morons? Well, no problem — you can have sex with them, and you can manipulate them too, so they’ll be like possessions. Your kids, too; you’ll own them like we own you.
  • No longer a superpower? Don’t worry, you’ll be a from a peaceful country! Everyone loves peace, right? Yay, we’re the peace country! And the rest of the world gets run over by dictators? And the USA falls to adversaries? Not our problem — we’ll be dead (we were around in 1968).
  • Too much competition? Yeah, I guess we did open up the floodgates and let everyone in, so now you have to work twice as many hours to get anywhere. And I guess that means this system values slaves not thinkers or heroes. But you’re equal now, at least.
  • Trash culture? We wanted to make sure that your dissonant rock band was considered as vital as the work of some over-rated dead white male like Beethoven. I guess we did kind of lower the standard to a mediocre level, but look at the bright side: you can have fifteen minutes of fame instead of Beethoven having fifteen centuries of it.
  • Failed cities? I guess by forcing rights on everyone, we did sort of convert this country from a culture to an open-air shopping mall. But we’re hippies, and we’re against that stuff! I’m not sure how it turned out so badly. But smile! At least the shopping is great.

The hippies were charlatans the first time around. They took the formula of the 1920s generation, who rebelled against World War I, and turned it up to 11. Free love! Free drugs! Equality! Civil rights! Peace! And ten million other things that share one attribute in common: they’re distractions from the real issue.

All these moral questions are about how you want to look to others. Do they think you’re a nice guy because you defend the rights of the gay mentally retarded Eskimo? Are you giving away your genitals to others to have fun, which by definition makes you a nice girl? Be nice. Give it all to everyone else. Then you’re cool.

But none of this has any bearing on anything other than your popularity with a mob made of selfish people who have no direction in life. What about wanting to raise a family? Have a career that isn’t overwork for low money in the company of idiots? Have a society that is aiming for new heights and doing great things, instead of beating up on every tin-pot dictator who doesn’t endorse our jihad for democracy, equality and “freedom”?

Those 1968 people inherited a country with the best economy in the world, the best legal system, some of the bravest and smartest people, the safest streets and probably the best places to work. What did they have you, Generations X, Y and Zero?

They handed you a wasteland, and they laugh each time you parrot their tired old ideas as if you just discovered something profound. They won: they manipulated you, and you don’t even know it. Enjoy your servitude, because it was done by your own hands.