Most logical fallacies, if you boil them down to their essence, originate in taking SOME of the facts and letting them represent the ENTIRE situation.
For example, if you ask why the house is on fire, and I say that Bill was smoking, I have made a true statement, but a fallacious answer; Bill was smoking while Steve and I played with fireworks in a room full of kerosene, and that caused the fire — even if Bill’s smoking was a contributing factor.
In politics by nature, we specialize in making symbols to represent complex issues. Most people do not want to explore the ENTIRE field of facts, so they want SOME fact to become an icon for the issue.
The problem is that this process is both inherently misleading, and necessary, if we’re to curry together a mass vote.
It has struck me more and more lately how discussions about politics with conservative acquaintances become debates between belief and fact. To some extent it seems Republicans (and Tea Partiers) confuse the two. For example, you will hear things like, “do you believe in evolution?” Evolution is science; it is not something you believe in because science isn’t about belief. It’s about demonstrable facts. You can believe in creationism, but you can’t believe in evolution. You either accept the facts or you deny them and hide behind unassailable belief.
Birtherism is another issue that comes down to facts vs. belief. A conservative relative of mine says there is reason to doubt that Barack Obama was born in the United States. No, there is no reason to believe any such thing. The facts are there – birth announcement, birth certificate, etc. But birthers chose to disbelieve the evidence. You can pile the evidence up but none of it will matter because it’s not an issue of provable, demonstrable fact; it’s an issue of belief.
The same can be said of a great many other important issues of our age, including climate change, American history (the Christian nation myth), Sharia law, the “homosexual agenda” etc. These are all debates fueled by belief, not fact. There is evidence of climate change but this is ignored. There is no evidence of either “creeping” Sharia law or a homosexual agenda, yet these are almost issues of faith for conservatives. The evidence is again irrelevant. – Politics USA
If you want a working definition of liberal bigotry, this is it: everyone who believes other than what we do is an ignorant, delusional fool.
What the author doesn’t note is that facts, by themselves, tell us little; they must be interpreted. And in interpretation, belief and natural inclination trump rationality because we’re rarely working with a full fact field.
For example, the author above mentions evolution. Is he going to talk about evolutionary differences, including IQ, between the classes?
He mentions the homosexual agenda. Is he going to talk about the heterosexual agenda, or the Christian agenda, or the conservative agenda? Why does one group get an agenda, while others do not?
I guess it’s all in the interpretation.
While the author wants you to believe (it’s a belief, since he doesn’t have all the facts) that Republican=belief and Democrat=facts, the reality is that he is being selective about which facts he chooses to interpret, and thus, his interpretation is as spun as any religious or other “non-factual” belief.
Wonder what he thinks of this:
Shannon, a man of African and Chickasaw heritage who is angling to become the state’s first black speaker of the House, said he believes that Affirmative Action has failed.
“I believe discrimination exists,” he said. “I don’t think Affirmative Action has been as successful as we like to believe.”
Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said minorities earn less than white people because they don’t work as hard and have less initiative.
“We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.”
Kern said women earn less than men because “they tend to spend more time at home with their families.” – Tulsa World
Well, shoot. Who does know the facts around here?
We do have more blacks in prison. FBI facts seem to suggest they commit more crime, or at least get caught for more of it.
Is this because:
- African-Americans commit more crime?
- Society expects African-Americans to commit more crime, thus watches them more carefully?
The facts of this issue are not important, right now. What’s important is that despite a sea of facts, we have two differing viewpoints, and ultimately each is based on belief.
Sometimes belief is derived from the anecdotal.
Sometimes, it’s power worship. For example, we catch scientists faking data all the time (they’re only human). Most research is funded by giant corporations. And science still can’t cure cancer, explain the origin of the universe, or invent machines as efficient as our bodies.
Isn’t it a form of belief to look blindly to “science” (do they mean scientists? the scientific process? the science industry?) as we once looked blindly on golden idols?
Isn’t liberalism itself a form of belief, or at least, something that behaves like a cult religion?
While inspecting the body politic, one encounters one clear sign that liberalism is dead. It is the condition of our political discourse. Polite commentators note that the dialogue is “rancorous.” Some say toxic. Actually, it is worse than that. It is nonexistent. From the right, from the sophisticated right, there is an attempt to engage the liberals. Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, just did it by presenting a budget that cried out for intelligent response. President Obama’s response was to invite Mr. Ryan to sit in the front row for Mr. Obama’s “fiscal policy” speech at George Washington University. There, Mr. Obama heaped scorn on an astonished Mr. Ryan and his work. He did not even mention Mr. Ryan’s name. This is what Mr. Obama calls an “adult” debate?
From the rest of the liberals there generally is silence. They prattle on about Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin, but they pay almost no heed to the think tanks on the right, to their journals of opinion or to the writers and figures of heft. The liberals are dead. – Washington Times
It’s a tale of two mentalities, more than a tale of two realities. Both sides are picking the data that fits the worldview they feel in their gut is true. The difference is thus:
- Leftism is a defensive worldview: it assumes that reality is a horrible place and needs to be fixed, through equality and compassion.
- Rightism is an affirmative worldview: it assumes that reality is basically good, and that billions of years of evolution have produced an optimal system, not a flawed one; we need to adapt.
One of these mentalities encourages us to find monsters under every bed, self-pity in every glitch, and negativity in life itself.
The other encourages a wide-open sky under which to enjoy life, to push ourselves to exceed our own limitations, and a hopeful, cheerful attitude toward existence.
Which is your mentality?
All ideology is constructed as an interpretation of reality. Over time, in a quest for simplicity, the interpretation supplants reality. This means that ideology as we know it is a distraction from the actual quest of life.
The quest of life is not universal to humans, because we can “choose” an ideology instead. But it is universal to all creatures who want to continue surviving. We call it adaptation.
Adaptation has simple rules. Find a food source and a way of avoiding threats long enough to reproduce. Over time, become better at this task — but a species is many individuals.
This means that for a species to thrive, it must make sure that its individuals correspond to a high standard of adaptation. A self-policing species like humanity then needs individuals with high individual moral standards.
It may shock some people that royalists like myself are dismissive of commoners. After all, we are commoners. But we’re only too aware of how members of our families would crack under the pressure of leadership.
That’s not to say that, over many generations, commoners do not rise. They do, but very slowly. First they rise from peasant to warrior, from warrior to artisan, from artisan to steward, from steward to minor aristocracy and then, over many generations, into royalty.
All of this exists like a giant graduated filter to produce the best at the top. What makes them the best? Moral integrity: they are able to defer their base impulses and desires, assess complex data and make comprehensive decisions, and they never lose their focus on the important values that create a civilization.
Are there bad aristocrats? Yes, many have failed. But at a far lower rate than anarchist societies, democratic leaders, corporate figureheads, and other commoner-derived leadership systems that tend to produce people who use society as a means to their own enrichment.
This is why the recent “Royal” wedding was a gruesome sham. Kate Middleton is not only a commoner, but she acts like one — in fact, she acts like a restaurant hostess, bar girl, or tanning salon proprietor. Her family made its money in party supplies, which is nothing if an occupation unfit to prepare one for leadership.
But the interesting facet of this is how the “Royal” wedding is only an example of a broader phenomenon dissolving our society — the raging ego.
When social order collapses, people return to the law of the jungle, which is every-man-for-himself. But as society collapses slowly, much of that happens within society, so they do this indirectly. They adorn themselves in altruism, egalitarianism, charity, peace and love — and while your brain is baffled by the spotlight of those absolutes, they rob you blind in the shadows.
The result is a society of individuals who are both lonely and selfish. They trust no one, and take everything they can get because they expect nothing from the social order, which leaves them alienated even when among “friends.” They distrust others because they distrust themselves.
Their motto is that no one can tell them what to do or not to do, and they’ll claim that on the basis of “equality” or equal “validity.” They are arguing from equality, meaning that if we assume they are equal, anything they do is also equally valid.
Underneath the bluster, it’s just the selfish impulse — a desire to do whatever they want, have no consequences, and have someone else support them, just because they’re equally human:
If you think every parent would ensure their children go to school with a pen when they are sitting their exams, think again. After all, why should their children bother to pack a pen when someone else is bound to provide it for them?
This lack of responsibility extends to uniforms (children regularly appear in customised versions, hoodies and short skirts), breakfast (that so many children turn up at school at 7am to have breakfast is a sad indictment of our society) and, of course, a profound lack of discipline.
As a teacher, I can tell you the root of the problem: the children I teach arrive at secondary school, aged 11, having already learnt one lesson very thoroughly. Nothing is ever their fault, and they never have to take responsibility for anything. – The Daily Mail
This attitude has spread throughout our society like wildfire since 1789, when we overthrew the idea of a monarchy. It was assumed that it was arbitrary that some were kings and some were peasants; there couldn’t be actual differences between the two.
After all, if I want freedom, I want the ability to do anything I want, at any time I want, in any place I want. And the notion of a social order, or of some being tasked with getting correct answers so that life itself doesn’t slap us in the face, conflicts with that.
Instead of caring about reality, I need to only care about social reality. I need to play by the rules of the game of socialization, and get away with whatever I can by fooling other people. They don’t want to appear uncharitable, so I can passive-aggressively use my equality as a weapon. If they don’t like my selfish behavior, they’re not treating me as an equal, and I can summon a crowd to beat them down.
That’s how you get a society of self-impressed, oblivious people who cheat on the spirit of the law while adhering to the letter of the law. They assume the rules just don’t apply to them:
Someone watching from Wisconsin called rangers Wednesday evening to tell them about the errant tourists, according to a news release. When the first park ranger arrived, she found about 30 people around the geyser’s cone taking pictures.
The tourists said they didn’t see the signs that spell out the dangers of thermal areas and the requirement to stay on boardwalks and designated trails.
The Yellowstone trip planner brochure warns visitors of the dangers of the park’s hydrothermal features. “Their waters are frequently near or above boiling. The crust surrounding them is thin and breaks easily, and often overlies more scalding water. People have died in these pools. Be safe, be careful — enjoy the hydrothermal areas from a distance.” – MSN
It’s easy to not see the signs if you refuse to look for them. You want what you want. Who is anyone else to tell you otherwise? What are they, more equal than you are?
The people who create civilizations have broken away from dying civilizations, or broken away from a larger group with lesser ambitions. They then conceive of the idea of a new civilization and make it happen, often by organizing their fellow humans toward productive behavior.
Of all the un-PC things we say on this blog, one that should be said more is this: the default state of humanity is unproductive, dysfunctional, disorganized and self-serving behavior. Only rarely does a group rise above this and create something good.
Sure, there’s lots of things that are praised in magazines and by politicians or your peers, but how many are “important” a year later — or a decade, or a century? These are trends, not actual achievements.
When civilization-founders impose order, function, hygiene, learning and goal-oriented behavior, they force humanity to rise above its temporary desires and confusions. This is why we elevate those founders to being an aristocracy, and breed our best blood into them.
The raging ego in all of us does not want to see any distinctions made among humanity. In each of us, it wants us to be able to be kings just by wishing it so. Forget all that discipline, creativity and hard work — we just want to be kings because we’re human too.
When a crowd of raging egos forms, they demand the standard of equality so that each can pretend they, too, can be king.
Kate Middleton, who looked confused and distracted throughout the ceremony, and has no particular achievements in life, is not up to the standard of aristocracy. Even her appearance, which reveals a muddle of ancestors without any distinction, and seems more appropriate on a reality TV show than leading a nation, shows her deficiencies.
While the ceremony went on, she showed no signs of understanding the gravity of what was occurring. Rather, she looked like the cat that got the cream. This was not a ceremony about a nation, but about her personal triumph — her acquisition, like she had been shopping. In commoners, wealth may truly be arbitrary.
Middleton not only does not look royal, and not act royal, but in her refusal to address those shortcomings shows she is not focused on the level of detail and gravity which a royal needs. She is a good commoner, perhaps, and may even make a pot of money amusing others with diversions as her ancestors did.
But to conflate her with the kind of leadership that we expect from aristocracy — Charlemagnes and Lavoisiers — is to make a grave mistake. In the name of equality, our raging egos tear down our highest so we can each be kings for a day, and impoverish us all as a result.
If Amerika aspires to be a good blog, it will be a community. Good magazines form a community; their readers seek each other out and exchange memes. Same with books, music, art, and politics.
While most of our posts are about ideas, this one is about you. If you’re one of our four regular readers, or just stopped in, please let us know a little about yourself by posting a comment. Where are you from? What is your biggest concern, and your biggest hope? And where do you stand on what we post here?
The leftist would have you believe that every person is equal to every other, and that those who are richer, smarter or better-looking are that way “by accident.”
In saner times, people older than age 6 would see such a person as developmentally stunted, but now we’re expected to take leftists seriously (even if many of us treat them like the overgrown children they are).
But we live in an age where awareness of the vastness of our species, plus democratic and egalitarian ideals, means that it’s not the quality of thought that matters, but the quantity of people who can find that thought appealing.
Sadly, the British monarchy has decided to suicide through outbreeding with unexceptional people:
Is everyone happy with William’s choice?
Some class-conscious snobs are not amused that the 28-year-old prince has settled for a commoner descended from coal miners and laborers over a bride with a hereditary title. Charles Mosley, editor in chief of Burke’s Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, the Who’s Who of British blue bloods, said that even after eliminating “the married women and those too old,” 10,000 noble women would be eligible. A few of William’s well-heeled friends have reportedly mocked Middleton’s humble family background, dismissing her mother—a former flight attendant—with the phrase “doors to manual.” Many ordinary Brits are derisive of such comments because while Middleton, 29, might technically be a commoner, she’s anything but common. Her parents are millionaires thanks to their party-planning business, and Middleton was educated at Marlborough College, a top boarding school that charges $50,000 a year in fees. – The Week
The idea behind aristocracy is straight out of Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
- All traits are inherited.
- Individuals have different traits.
- Some traits are better adaptations than others.
- Evolution favors more adaptive traits.
- When agrarian society came about, natural selection ended, so we need a gentle form of human selection.
- If we take our best people and form a breeding pool, we will produce superior thinkers, leaders and artists.
The people who most loudly clamor for Evolution-versus-Creationism to be trumpeted from the towers are the ones most likely to be in denial of this obvious truth.
They want evolution to mean that someone else is below them, but not that someone is above them. It’s kind of pathetic when you see how obvious that is.
With our knowledge of the complete unalterability both of character and of mental faculties, we are led to the view that a real and thorough improvement of the human race might be reached not so much from outside as from within, not so much by theory and instruction as rather by the path of generation.
Plato had something of the kind in mind when, in the fifth book of his Republic, he explained his plan for increasing and improving his warrior caste.
If we could castrate all scoundrels and stick all stupid geese in a convent, and give men of noble character a whole harem, and procure men, and indeed thorough men, for all girls of intellect and understanding, then a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles. – Schopenhauer, Arthur, The World as Will and Representation, trans. E.F.J.Payne, 1969, p. 527
The aristocracy was created by taking the best of the founders of civilization, and putting them in a special group that both maintained civilization and bred future leaders.
The commoners were not in that group because their ancestors lacked those traits, and history records that commoners have since then embarked on an unending series of rather pointless existential quests that involve avoiding the hard realities of life and the opportunity for graceful creation they afford.
Any time you hear complaints about the bourgeoisie, you are hearing people complain about the wealthier commoners who have made a good living, but have no concept of direction in life so fall into idleness and neurotic compulsion.
Below them are the peasants, drones, laborers and others who if not supervised, will steal, lie, cheat, deceive and elude. They are people who have no goal except that given to them by material possessions, bodily sensations or the crack of the whip.
When we look at our society through the broader filter of history, we can see why aristocracy are vital: they are those who keep the sacred role of leadership and civilization improvement alive. Everyone else has fallen into individual pursuits and neuroses.
This is not to say that commoners are bad; it is to say however that aristocrats must be exceptional, and that any society without them is on a path to dissolution.
Most people are in total denial of this fact. They prefer to think that a Prince can marry the grand-daughter of a coal miner, whose parents made their money in selling party supplies, and still produce another generation worthy of leadership.
They cannot. The British monarchy has self-destructed at a time when, like never before, it is vitally needed.
About a year ago, the piracy situation was dire. People were downloading copies of the latest Hollywood movies, free of charge, before they were in theatres.
The movie industry responded with a series of direct actions: it attempted to punish the wrongdoers in the courts; it tightened security around its product; it lobbied for harsher laws; and finally, it attempted to educate the population into avoiding the issue.
Much like software in the 1980s, which was expensive and hard to acquire, movies accrued pirates like open-air ordure attracts flies. In both cases, a product was rare, expensive and acquired through only a few channels, and then fell to a double assault: first, it was free, and second, it was more convenient through piracy.
With movies, the business model was similar: scarcity plus high demand meant huge profits. Piracy threatened that. And yet legal action didn’t seem to be working.
In the States Netflix nearly doubled the number of new subscribers in the first quarter of 2010, from 1.7 to 3.3 million. In total, Netflix now has 22.8 million paid subscribers in the US, which generated a total revenue of $706 million in the first quarter of this year.
Movie piracy is not quite gone yet, but Netflix shows that people are willing to pay for access to movies online, even when plenty of pirated copies are available. The next step is to offer easy access to movies in the rest of the world, and get rid of the artificial delays in release dates. – Torrent Freak
The two ends of the problem — cost and convenience — converged. While not free like piracy, Netflix is cheaper than conventional DVD rental; it’s also cheaper in terms of time than spending a bunch of hours finding and downloading movies of uncertain picture quality and/or veracity.
The market restores equilibrium, as all natural forces do. True, the big profits may be gone from the movie business, but that’s what happens in every industry as it matures. Software is another example. Prices have fallen and profits are no longer as epic, and many tasks are now served by open source or shareware/freeware alternatives.
The next time someone makes fun of the libertarian or paleconservative in your life for preferring organic, granular, and emergent systems to rigid centralized rule, think of this. We could have had another 20 years of mind-blowingly expensive litigation instead.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
The Second Coming, William Butler Yeats
Diversity takes many forms: racial-ethnic, religious, cultural, philosophical, even excessive differential in IQ or class.
All of these are fatal to a society, at least when more than one-fifth of the population deviates from the majority (estimate from Jonathan Haidt, but source unknown at this point).
The opposite of diversity is consensus. Consensus takes other names: cooperation, collaboration, agreement — they all mean the same thing, which is that instead of fighting one another like squabbling monkeys, we work together toward the same abstract goal or ideal.
Diversity-mongers create a fake ideal out of circular reasoning. In the diverse world, they reason, everyone has a consensus, which is diversity itself.
Diversity-mongers like diversity because, without a majority, there are no moral standards, there is no “meaning” to actions (as achieving a social goal), and there is no oversight. It’s like class when the teacher’s back is turned, which leaves only one option: the desires and materialistic urges of the individual.
This in turn shows us the downfall of diversity. Acting in our own self-interests brings us into collision, and because there is no standard, there can be no solution:
Vaughn Walker, the retired judge who overturned California’s gay-marriage ban, Prop 8, has confirmed that he himself is gay and in a long-term relationship — prompting conservatives to try to get Prop 8 reinstated. Gay-marriage opponents have long complained that Walker was biased, citing rumors about his sexuality. Now they say he should have recused himself to avoid suggestions that his interest in marrying his boyfriend influenced his decision. Did Walker have a conflict of interest?
This logic would disqualify every judge: Prop 8’s defenders claim that gay marriage is so damaging to the institution of marriage that the government has a vital interest in preventing it, says Adam Serwer at The Washington Post. The trouble is, by that logic, “a heterosexual, married judge could be seen as having just as much ‘skin in the game’ as judge Walker.” Gay-marriage opponents clearly think that straight judges can be impartial, but gay ones can’t. – The Week
In this quote above from a news magazine renowed for distilling news to simple soundbites so people feel comfortable in ignoring it, we see a partial truth. If a judge is biased for being homosexual, a heterosexual judge is also biased. The grim truth is that, in contrast to the one-sided view presented above, both judges are biased.
This means that for a heterosexual couple to get decent judgment, they need a heterosexual judge; a gay couple needs a gay judge; a black couple a black judge, a transgendered couple a transgendered judge, a Jew a Jewish judge, a Roman a Roman judge, and so on. There is no end.
You can see from this example that diversity introduces inherent conflict, which because it looks for exceptions to the rule, is bigoted against the majority. But even that bigotry against the majority can’t save diversity, because clashes exist between minority groups. What if Hispanics aren’t pro-gay? What if blacks are pro-transgendered?
We divide our society then into infinite competing groups which overlap, causing mixed loyalties and adding to the chaos. But the end result is no common standard except the law, and the law serves itself, since it does not have a consensus to guide it.
To protect its 3.3 square miles, Kings Point plans to install 44 cameras and license plate readers at each of the 19 points of entry. The devices will take pictures of every vehicle and license plate and compare them to data bases.
“It will alert us to suspended registrations, felonies, stolen cars, order of protection, sex offenders, things like that,” Kings Point Police Commissioner Jack Miller said. – CBS
Hint: organizations and technologies tend to serve themselves. If you give government a new power, it will expand in order to justify that power and the salaries paid in supporting it. Soon the power will be applied far beyond its original scope.
Technology is the same way. Today it’s a neighborhood; tomorrow, when we find out that this crazy 1984 stuff actually does make it harder to get away with crimes, it’s going to distribute to the whole city.
Now you start to see it… with diversity, there is no clear standard. It’s a constant war to define a standard. Who do you trust? You have no one who has your back and can say, “Dave really tried to do best by our social standards, so this one little infraction with the smuggled napalm can be overlooked.”
Diverse societies are more litigious, paranoid, defensive and self-divided. There are no good guys or bad guys, only Our Team versus every other team.
From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.
But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. – The Boston Globe
Is this the fault of the ingredients of diversity, the individual groups? Can we blame all of this on a group like, say, African-Americans or Jews?
No, because it happens with different groups as well. What the two situations have in common is diversity itself. It’s not who is diverse, but the fact that the society as a whole is diverse, that causes the problem.
Most people will try to take it personally and figure that if diversity causes problems, it must be because someone just isn’t sharing their toys with the rest of the class. It never occurs to them that some designs for society are inherently unstable.
Over the last six decades, our world has become increasingly diverse — and as a result, a counter-reaction brews:
World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be-the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.
It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future. – Foreign Affairs
Here in the West, diversity seems new to us. That is not so for the rest of the world. In many parts, the inhabitants can trace problems that have occupied them for centuries to an ancient diversity program.
While in the West we use our allegiance to the dominant altruistic dogma, which includes diversity, as a means of raising our social status above that of our fellow citizens, the rest of the world has been awakening from this directionless dream.
They are instead embracing the only kind of society that holds together under duress: one with a center, or a consensus, on which cooperation can be build. People prefer cooperation to control, or a single agency forcing everyone to do what is “Right.”
Diversity is a path to control. With nothing in common but dogma, people collide on values. Since there is no norm, government is tasked to derive a norm and enforce it, usually for the basest of economic, political and military motives. The people then become servants of this dogma.
The end result of complete cellular representation is cancer. Democracy is cancerous, and bureaus are its cancer. A bureau takes root anywhere in the state, turns malignant like the Narcotic Bureau, and grows and grows, always reproducing more of its own kind, until it chokes the host if not controlled or excised. Bureaus cannot live without a host, being true parasitic organisms. (A cooperative on the other hand can live without the state. That is the road to follow. The building up of independent units to meet needs of the people who participate in the functioning of the unit. A bureau operates on opposite principle of inventing needs to justify its existence.) Bureaucracy is wrong as a cancer, a turning away from the human evolutionary direction of infinite potentials and differentiation and independent spontaneous action, to the complete parasitism of a virus.
(It is thought that the virus is a degeneration from more complex life form. It may at one time have been capable of independent life. Now it has fallen to the borderline between living and dead matter. It can exhibit living qualities only in a host, by using the life of another — the renunciation of life itself, a _falling_ towards inorganic, inflexible machine, towards dead matter.)
Bureaus die when the structure of the state collapses. They are as helpless and unfit for independent existences as a displaced tapeworm, or a virus that has killed the host. – Naked Lunch, p. 67.
The choice of society is clear: cooperation, or control.
If we have a center, we can cooperate.
If we do not, we need to make a fake center — a strong bureaucratic government — to invent an artificial culture, usually based in control, and then enforce it on all of us.
Diversity is the cause of this control, and of society falling apart because its center cannot hold, and of distrust, and misery.
This is not the fault of the ethnic groups involved, but the fact that we are violating the laws of physics to expect two or more patterns to occupy the same space. Diversity believes that two or more cultures can exist within the same society, but the truth is that those cultures must either (a) give up their own standards and accept a lowest common denominator, utilitarian standard or (b) constantly be in collision not only with each other, but whatever utilitarian standard the society has adopted.
We can see why diversity is popular with the ruling classes: it creates a disunified, cultureless, valueless population that requires a strong government to shape it. Government loves this because it justifies hiring lots of cops, bureaucrats and other controllers. Business loves it most of all, because it creates a vast group of people with no direction in life, so they cast about for meaning, buying lots of products in the process.
Since we have implemented diversity in the West, our fortunes have fallen and our enmity — racism, class warfare, squabbling — have increased. We have looked for someone to blame: the majority, and some blame various minorities. But none of these explanations have made sense.
Instead, we are starting to have to admit the obvious: “diversity” means social breakdown, which leads to tyranny, and finally to civilization collapsing. When we lose our center, we lose all hope.
Politics is a wily game of misleading enough people with too little information that they support too little reality and just enough politics, thus channeling you into power:
It’s surreal and weird and faintly ridiculous that it’s come to this. But this morning the White House caught the press corps seriously off guard by handing out copies of the anti-Holy Grail of birtherism, the fabled ‘long form’ birth certificate. And here’s the actual birth certificate.
Late Update: Apparently the president is actually going to make a statement shortly affirming his birth in the US, presumably because the release of the long form document might reduce the level of lunatic frivolity in the public square and they feel the need to bring it back up to make things even more ridiculous. – Moonbats
This is political theatre at its finest.
The hype builds, the orchestra swells, the bubbling murmur of the crowd reaches a crescendo…
Candidate Obama reaches behind his tuxedo, flips forward a top-hat, and from it yanks the birth-certificate!
But this is just theatre. It’s there to distract us from other questions.
For example, why didn’t he just release this form in the first place? If it’s that easy, that is.
And also, what about his other records? The missing dissertation, missing writing samples, few exception ideological allies who remember him from school?
Why no investigation into the blatant corruption he oversaw during his tenure in one of America’s most corrupt cities?
Let’s make sure we focus on the birth certificate.
I guess my attitude toward the Birthers has always been that they have a valid question which should have been addressed quickly and quietly; in addition, they’re (like most people) aware of something out of place, but thanks to media brainwashing and other confusions, can’t quite articulate it.
I’ll articulate it: we elected Obama because he was black.
A white candidate with the same views would have gotten nowhere near the coverage, or concern.
Obama, like Clinton before him, represented racial reconciliation, which is a form of appeasement.
“If we give everyone the wealth, and spread it around equally, there will be no cause for disagreement and we will live in peace.”
Be wary: this article is racist — against white people.
Only a population of people who have inherited such wealth their jobs are irrelevant could believe such tripe. The suburbanites are not the problem; it’s the city-dwelling people who have easy jobs (working in IT is easy, working in middle-management is easy, being a counselor, teacher, clerk and/or “artist” is easy) who believe in correspondingly easy solutions.
To them, life is a matter of moving from the Xbox to the workplace, and they view everything in both places as being about them. Their desires. Their fascinating life histories. Their amazing witty insights. To these people, the whole world exists to serve their egos.
As a result, when confronted with a real problem, they space out. They start demanding solutions on the level of effect. “I don’t know how to do it, just get rid of this bad thing!” — and they aren’t witty enough to know that every bad thing exists because there wasn’t a good thing to crowd it out.
For example, if the kids in your town are on meth, it’s probably because they are bored, have little future, have a disorganized society with no sense of meaning, and come from broken homes. A minority will always use whatever crazy drugs they can find, but when it’s more than that, you have to ask yourself: what good thing is missing, so that this bad thing can surge in and take over?
White America is predominantly clustered in the cities, working easy office jobs and thinking first and foremost of how to entertain itself, appear more important than those Joneses it has been keeping up with in various forms since 1944, flatter its clients and friends, and justify its own sloth, greed and compulsion to itself.
White America just loves distractions such as race, because they’re the equivalent of reading an intense fantasy novel. Somewhere out there, a battle of good and evil is being fought… in the meantime, in my townhome in the city, nothing will ever change no matter what I do. So toss out those packets of money! Beat down these arrogant upstarts who say that diversity cannot work!
And then go back to work, of course, because the damaged modern ego needs to feel a sense of external purpose and self-esteem boost that a job entails.
We are awash in bad things, but we can ignore them for as long as the private security guards, imported illegal alien lawn service, and helpful staff in the distant office keep the townhome and jobs afloat… no matter what we do, we think, there will always be bread at the grocery store, a friendly pub, 500-channel cable, and people of the right caliber to bother spending your time or lifetime with.
This viewpoint is oblivious to cause and effect logic, which states that if you make a change somewhere, it’s going to cause some effects, meaning that in turn it will alter your environment. It may take a while, but it will start a wave that will eventually wash up on the shore of even your exclusive townhome.
Take a look here at a video in which, inside a McDonald’s, a couple of black girls beat a white woman to the point of a seizure. The black manager makes a feeble half-attempt at helping but ultimately does nothing, while black employees either film, laugh, or tell the perps to leave because the cops are coming. (Via Roissy every non-leftist website in the universe.)
Meanwhile, a bunch of people are quite exercised over an Orange County, CA, politician who sent an email with a photoshopped image of Obama as a chimpanzee. When will white Americans be allowed to become exercised over the wave of violent crime committed by blacks on a daily basis? That’s a bit different and perhaps a touch more serious than comparing the president to a chimp.
Black crime is an open secret that the media generally doesn’t touch, since journalists are normally too busy accusing whites of racism. – Mangan’s Adventures in Reaction
It’s unwise to put much stock into single incidents, but the man has a point. One person said something cruel; others beat someone to a pulp. And which we do fixate on? — the one that fits into our narrative of good versus evil, which we’ve dumbed down to make it convenient to observe from our couches, assuming that nothing will change.
Sadly, that’s not true. Our pile of bad decisions grows bigger every year, and accelerates as we are less willing to look at reality itself. Too many dumb white people are out there feeling like super-educated geniuses because they have the “right” political opinions, namely favoring the underdog. When these opinions lead to enough bad decisions, it will blow up in their faces, and they will blame someone — anyone — else in order to dodge the blame.
Before you get too distracted by this moonbattery over the birth certificate, or any of the other political theatre that democrats love, recognize that this is just symbol-play and demagoguery. They’re manipulating a captive audience of Dunning-Kruger status-climbing useful idiots, and they are oblivious to the damage they do.
It’s now been roughly three years since I first formulated my ideas on world politics in ‘Characterless Society’, back when Obama was running for office.
My writing at the time was inspired by wonder whether the hysterical faith in this political messiah was not at least partly misplaced — promising as he might be, he was still bound to play by the rules of an existing system, and therefore, to its usual inertia. At the time I was still unaware of the existence of Brett Stevens, and he has recently requested that I continued to develop the Characterless-thesis so that it could be posted on his blog.
Another purpose of this article is to clear up a question presented by Russell Campbell. When I discussed whether some persons were naturally more gifted than others to think and to make long-term plans, the query was raised if I thought there should be ‘experts’ to decide the role of others.
These ‘experts’ are the very people I’ve rallied against in the past, since they were the ones who did what they could to prevent me from bringing my philosophies forward. I hope to clarify all of that, and more, in this article.
Some have argued that restoring America to its greatness might be best achieved if Obama were re-elected in 2012. That way his political movement will come to be associated with America’s fall to status of the world’s second largest economy. Regardless of who is elected in ’12, that fall is going to happen, the momentum seems too great to prevent that from happening. It would put a president who goes back to the original constitution of the Founding Fathers in a better light with the general population.
That is, if America’s fall to the status of second largest economy would not happen on the watch of that president. Yet others have emphasized that if Obama continues his presidency in 2012, the nation would be so fundamentally changed that afterwards it might be too late to return to the traditional way of doing things.
Previously, Brett Stevens wondered how it could come so far. He wrote:
“How could all of this happen? We started out so well, with our ideology of freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Somewhere along the way, that changed into a neurotic pursuit of the crowd-pleasing, mainly because what pleases the crowd keeps them buying. And if it makes them neurotic, so much the better — then they need to buy more!” – Brett Stevens, ‘Collapse? We never saw it coming’ (April 2011).
In this article, I venture to explain how this all happened, and why I see no reason to think the current downward trend of events will be reversed.
People in the age of the original Founding Fathers were self-educated men who valued knowledge, objective thought, and took honour in hard work. Basically, they sprang from an age of Humanism and embodied it.
Today, the values of Humanism have been implemented into education programs by collectivist governments. The values of Humanism have been applied at large and as a result have been watered-down. The emphasis on developing an own opinion has become “everything is an opinion”.
The founding fathers were men with the pioneer spirit – they wanted to set up shop in the wilderness to be independent and self-supplying. Their creed of doing hard work to earn one’s place in the world by providing useful services and commodities, simultaneously developing one’s talents and skills, has become: “just print more dollars and live off rent” – digitally created artificial money that has no root in existence whatsoever.
The ideal of self-cultivation was transformed into “following the hypes of fashion.” Thinking objectively about what’s best for the country has become: “Formulate a message that can be sold to your audience.” Whatever you say, make sure the message embraces all, carries the smell of economic gains and has the right religious tone – if you do not, you have no chance to win any elections in the first place.
And if you do not win any elections, you have no chance to translate your ideas, good as they may be, into practical reality.
The bottom line seems to be: Can the moral and intellectual code of a few exceptional men, such as the Founding Fathers, be adopted into a political agenda and come out on top? I have significant doubts, since in general elections, this agenda will have to appeal to the masses, a great part of which are whimsical. For this reason, as De Tocqueville and Mill put it: “No man can struggle with advantage against the spirit of his age.”
The fire and zeal of the inspired reformer is not compatible with the apathy and the habitual, routine ways of the many. The exceptional man requires so much from himself and therefore, indirectly from others. Most require very little from themselves in honesty, and for this reason expect very little from others, too.
The theme of Obama’s campaign was; “Together, we can make this country stronger and better.” People waved flags and cheered on the streets, when this man set foot into the oval office. And then waited for him to do it.
They didn’t realize that even if he was president, he was not a dictator. He couldn’t act without so many advisors, councilmen and officials circling him, like the vultures of inertia. And could he afford to ignore them, if they were the ones to enact his policies? Would he be able to keep track of the bigger picture without the information provided by them? To not even speak of the lobbyists, backed by vastly powerful financial enterprises lurking in the shadows.
Politicians are ‘worked’ by personnel from various organizations, to stall decisions that do not suit their employers or even to remove them from the agenda altogether, and the higher you move towards the echelons of power, the more concentrated this invisible influence becomes. It was not without cause that Dwight D. Eisenhower repeated De Tocqueville’s warning against the growing influence of the military industrial complex, in his famous speech in 1961.
Many of those who circle the White House, Congress, and Supreme Court uphold the rhetoric of patriotism while it suits them, yet their real loyalty is not tied to the culture of their ancestors but to the profits of their future. When the country falls, these corporatists will fire many American employees, pack their gear, and move to India. They are, as Brett would say; “those who want to slurp up the corpse, not revitalize it.”
Boys, – and I’m telling you his from all my experience as a historian, politician, and philosopher – the Americans are screwed. And will need something as thorough as a revolution to set things right, to go against this inertia of procedures, committees and regulations. That means having mandates of power which are almost dictatorial and go against the spirit of the constitution and its balance of powers. And so the Americans will find themselves unwilling or unable to shift the course of the tide.
As a politician, I am paid to investigate the matters regarding the public life that need decision, to hear different stories and brainstorm about ideas, and then to decide for what I regard to be in the objective best interest of the populace.
As a politician, I find the whole political system is arranged so as to make it exactly impossible to do the thing I am hired to do. Politicians are organized into fractions, also known as parties. On your own, without allegiance to a party, it is almost impossible to gather enough votes to acquire a seat. And, once elected, without allegiance to a fraction it is almost impossible to gather a majority for any proposal.
Every party represents a certain section of the populace, so they are organized around the interests of employers, employees, religious people or environmentalists. As a result I know immediately what each fraction will vote the moment I consider any proposal on the agenda. A party that favours employers or employees will never consent to a proposal that might be explained as against the interests of the employers or employees. And if you challenge the members of the fraction to regard those interests in a different light, they will simply not listen to you, weary that your ideas might estrange the populace from the party. As a result, objective thought is per definition eliminated from the assembly of public decisions.
Taken all this together, I support Enlightened Autocracy. The best a country can probably hope for is an approachable sovereign who is accessible for the people with their ideas and requests, and who surrounds himself with a body of intellectually honest, goal-driven, objectively-thinking men, among which he stands as a pater-familias and Primus inter pares.
He won’t be tied to all sorts of procedures, so he can weigh down all rational arguments concerning the matters on the agenda, present the outcome of the deliberation, and enact his decision without further delay. Since he won’t be subjected to the short-sighted whims of the masses, he can present the real and clear grounds for his decisions, and he won’t have to surround himself behind a cloud of emotional appeasement, as is customary today. The real interests behind political decisions currently always remain a mystery, which gives rise to conspiracy theories as well as perpetual suspicion towards our political leaders – which should also be the moral leaders of our nations, not mere managers of collective financial arrangements.
Anyone will of course be free to disagree with the sovereign and his followers, and that person will be taken serious if he comes up with strong arguments. And if he has good ideas he should be accepted among the peers of the sovereign.
Today that is not possible, because true arguments will be mistaken for possible perspectives by the ruling academic elites. Since the rise of postmodernism in the sixties, thinking is no longer understood as a quest for truth, but as a clashing between different outlooks; what is preferable from one perspective might not be from another, and each position from which to decide between these outlooks is held to be arbitrarily chosen.
A preference for one outlook over another could not even be based on the real facts of the world, since for these academics, the perception of a fact is rooted into the theoretical perspective from which one observes it. Relativism has seeped into the memes of the ‘experts’, and consequently into the memes of society.
“Politically correct media, academia, and governments define what’s acceptable and what we’re allowed to think or say. These institutions oversee, generally through repetition and peer pressure, the dominant social landscape by championing particular cultural memes. These ideas then become embedded in the social consciousness of the populace.” – Quoted from the article ‘Collapse? We never saw it coming’ (April 2011), by Brett Stevens.
So, before we can do anything, we have to get rid of them, first.
Incompetent people (and by that I mean people who cannot predict the real-world results of their actions, at all) have one thing in common, whether insane, stupid, criminal, oblivious or intoxicated:
It’s not their fault.
If you are incompetent in this world, you either work your way toward some basic competence or you start making excuses. In fact, most people are incompetent because owing to congenital stupidity, they have done nothing but make excuses and now have no skills and a legacy of failure.
As the United States and Europe continue their thousand-year experiment with liberal/individualistic thinking, we’re seeing the bad results creep forth as people realize these are dying empires, devoured by those who want to slurp up the corpse, not revitalize it.
According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China’s economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now.
In addition to comparing the two countries based on exchange rates, the IMF analysis also looked to the true, real-terms picture of the economies using “purchasing power parities.” That compares what people earn and spend in real terms in their domestic economies.
Under PPP, the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the size of the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America’s share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China’s would reach 18%, and rising.
Just 10 years ago, the U.S. economy was three times the size of China’s. – MarketWatch
This might actually make our drones, plebeians, serfs and peasants wake up: our country is collapsing inward.
First economically, as the foreign investors we’ve courted stop wanting our currency.
Then a host of other failures, as the systems in place fail one by one.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of the nation’s voters believe that most members of Congress are corrupt. Only 27% disagree and doubt that most national legislators are that dishonorable. Thirty percent (30%) are not sure. – Rasmussen
If only our problem were something so simple as lack of faith in government, or a bad round of government. Instead, it’s an underlying knotwork of failures waiting to explode in our faces:
“If something doesn’t happen soon, this country will go the same way as every other empire,” said Mackell. Citing the growing income gap between rich and poor, the deterioration of infrastructure, and, most of all, the problems facing the 77 million aging members of the Baby Boom, the financial funds manager called America’s prospects “abysmal.” – Garden State News
How could all of this happen? We started out so well, with our ideology of freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
Somewhere along the way, that changed into a neurotic pursuit of the crowd-pleasing, mainly because what pleases the crowd keeps them buying.
And if it makes them neurotic, so much the better — then they need to buy more!
Most people assume that liberalism is the antidote to commerce. Instead, liberalism is the lapdog of commerce. It destroys existing standards so the only ones that prevail are those related to commerce, e.g. laws about money and obligations that force each individual to spend more money on others or defending themselves from others.
It distracts us from reality into trying to be morally better people than our peers, so that we get some imagined reward from being socially recognized. This keeps us busy with non-issues, ignoring real issues, and pushing down our fellow citizens by competing with them to be the most “in touch” with the dogma:
Last Friday, undefeated Jasper (Ind.) High School was routing Mount Vernon (Ind.) High, 42-21 in the fourth quarter. The scoreline wasn’t a huge surprise. The game had gone nearly according to plan for Jasper, which had even found a way to work in the team’s most beloved player, senior Zach Beckman. Beckman, a student with Down Syndrome who served as the Jasper team manager for three years, was allowed to be a part of the team during his senior season. His work ethic and Jasper’s dominance helped earn Beckman a spot in a handful of plays as a wide receiver on the end of the field away from where a run was headed.
Then, something magical happened. Mount Vernon coach Paul Maier (whose wife is a special education teacher at Mount Vernon) saw Beckman enter the game on the far sideline for a play. Without thinking twice, Maier called over the referees and said he’d make sure that his players didn’t hit Beckman if he received a handoff. The referees relayed the message to Jasper coach Tony Ahrens, who drew up a play which featured Beckman in the backfield. – AP
What an inspiring story! A distracting story! An uplifting and emotional story… and yet, a meaningless one. In some imaginary game, some coach did something imaginarily nice for a player with a mangled Chromosome 21. While this is a nice symbol, like they use in propaganda, it has no bearing on reality. Except to distract, of course.
The result is a baffling pursuit of political correctness while ignoring all sense:
Nevertheless, the real threat to civility and common decency is this: the substitution of codes and committees for responsible adults exercising humanity and judgment.
For example: How much formal ethics training do you need to know that you don’t secretly film someone in a private moment? Do you need a new committee to determine if women are being denied equal education at a school that has a female-majority student body? Instead of taking direction from lawyers, shouldn’t our college authorities decide the right thing to do—and then instruct the lawyers to make that work? – WSJ
How do empires fall?
Dogma becomes more important than reality.
What has happened to us?
Liberal dogma, a way to make other people think you’re “nice,” has replaced all practical sense. And so we are in decline.
Adam presumed that no one shared his “old-timer” conservative viewpoint that eschewed contemporary mass culture. But is he right? Or is Adam underestimating the number of others like him because of what the mainstream institutions push into the public sphere?
I’d say the latter. In essence, there exists two opposing spheres of discourse, one of which leftism dominates and one of which commonsense/conservatism dominates. The first is composed of the mainstream media, academic, government, and corporate conglomerate. The second is composed of the masses outside these institutions, basically just regular people with minds not sullied by leftist doctrine.
The problem for conservatives is that the former group, an assuredly smaller cohort, dictates the behavior of the latter. PC media, academia, and government define what’s acceptable and what we’re allowed to think or say. These institutions oversee, generally through repetition and peer pressure, the dominant social landscape by championing particular cultural memes. These ideas then become embedded in the social consciousness of the populace. – OneSTDV
The interests of the sane were forgotten in a mad rush to show everyone how cool and freedom-y we were by reaching out to those who really had no hope and were more dysfunctional than we.
That is how empires fall.
No one had their hands on the wheel. No one was looking at the road ahead. No one was paying attention to reality — they were too busy figuring out ways to succeed within our human system, our society and our social structure.
But none of that has any bearing on reality.
Watch as this eventiture winds itself down: people are now just about in shock mode; soon they’ll be in denial; then they’ll kill the messengers; finally, they’ll find someone to blame.
Unrealistic people always do.
One hefty modern politics is that underlying needs get caught up with the issue, or the political method at hand on which we are voting.
Conservatives, always champions of the environment through something not coincidentally named conservation, are portrayed in our media as opposing all environmental reforms.
It just isn’t so. Instead, there’s a split about method:
- Liberals prefer centralized-government, bureaucratic, and wealth-redistributing solutions.
- Conservatives prefer decentralized, incentive-based, and (if anything) meritocratic solutions.
By “meritocratic” I mean that in such a system the motivated and capable individual can rise above others and gain more for themselves; I do not use the term in the modern parlance to mean we dumb down the playing field so every snowflake is special.
The liberal introduction of class war politics into the environmental issue has poisoned it for most conservatives, even though they were the ones who initiated real reform:
Republicans in the US show no mercy when it comes to environmental issues. They refer to climate change as the “big swindle” and some of them view efforts to increase high-speed train service as a way of decreasing automobile traffic as “socialist.” What’s more, most of them would like to see the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dissolved.
During the Nixon administration, Reilly joined the staff of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality before going on to head the World Wildlife Federation (WWF). When severe heat and widespread air pollution became major issues in the 1988 presidential election, George H.W. Bush, its eventual winner, appointed Reilly to lead the EPA…Reilly and Bush Sr. succeeded in toughening the regulations of the Clean Air Act, the effects of which are still felt today. – Der Spiegel
There is no logical reason for conservatives to oppose addressing environmental issues. In fact, unlike the left, the right is likely to see the whole issue, not just a portion of it that is so broadly construed it may well turn out to be wrong:
“Man-made Environmental Destruction” includes the wrecking and over-consumption of our natural resources, the poisoning of myriad environmental communities and the disruption of important bio-networks. As such, measures for negative man-made “climate change,” or eco-holocaust or pollution include: oxygen levels, CO2 levels, the state of bio-habitats, the state of the soil, the severity of weather patterns, the bio-stock, the food-stock, vegetation-stock, the air-stock, the water-stock, and general meta-bio-networks on which our food, bio, air and water stock are themselves dependent on.
“Global Warming” only measures how cold or warm our globe has gotten and further attempts to gauge from those temperatures what impact mankind’s destruction of his own environment has had on it. The single measure here is a quantitative one. – “Reverend Manny”
The left loves global warming because it allows them to do two things:
- Advance the class warfare agenda. The problem isn’t too many people, it’s consumption by the wealthiest; thus our solution becomes to penalize the wealthy and transfer that money to the developing world and the poor instead. Nevermind that the wealthy nations are the source of all of our innovation, and the place where most of our intelligent people reside.
- Ignore the problems of the leftist agenda. Leftists create a society designed for commerce: a society based on individual desire, with as few consequences as possible. This produces neurotic, destabilized and desperate consumers. The leftist agenda will produce a world of 12 billion people who want to drive SUVs to the shopping mall.
The right-wing is ready for green politics, but not in the form (or strawman “issues” like global warming) presented by leftists.
For the right to participate, we must fight environmental damage without sabotaging our economy or creating more bureaucracy. We must instead design environmentalism into the system. This leads to some conclusions that dismay liberals:
- No welfare, entitlements or well-intentioned social programs. The point is to reduce population, not subsidize those who aren’t making it. Job insurance and job loss carryover would be supported by a right-wing environmentalist, as those support the people who truly encounter misfortune. But welfare, entitlements and do-gooder social programs end up being subsidies for incompetence.
- End to class warfare. The more people we elevate to wealth, the more they live these opulent lifestyles. Let the cards fall where they are and build a meritocracy, but stop trying to pull people up by bootstraps they don’t know they have.
- No third world aid. Our population is stable everywhere except in the third world, where it’s booming; people are going to want to have those nice opulent first world lifestyles and they are having many kids apiece to help guarantee that.
- War against competing economies. We don’t want anyone else industrializing, as that puts a heavy load on the environment. As a result, when we do come in conflict with places like Libya or Iraq, part of our agenda should be to blast their infrastructure to bits and slaughter their engineers so they do not rise to industrialized status.
- Conserve land. The only way to reverse our environmental decline is to set aside land for natural species to interact “naturally,” for lack of a better term. As a result, we need to both give huge tax breaks to richer people who set aside land, and use government to purchase or seize all other undeveloped land. This will force existing land prices to rise, with a heavy penalty on the poor.
They sure won’t like that, but when you look at it critically, the above are ways we can actually fix the problem.
This in turn explains why the media religion of Global Warming exists: left-leaning politics cannot solve the real problem, so they invented a surrogate to disguise the elephant in the room.
If we look too critically at it, we see that liberalism created the consumerist gold-rush that defines our modern time. It created it by putting individual desires ahead of standards like culture, class and custom.
When we are all empowered individuals, beholden to nothing but our own wants, nature has no voice — and the collective interest of all of us in a stable society has no voice. The only thing that has a voice is the individual, clamoring for whatever someone else has that it does not.
Modernity was created by the liberalism that put the individual first and if we’re honest, we’ll recognize that it brought about a century of unmitigated disaster, outside of our technological progress:
What’s actually happening is this: we’re realizing that the industrial revolution is fading. The 80 year long run that brought ever-increasing productivity (and along with it, well-paying jobs for an ever-expanding middle class) is ending.
It’s one thing to read about the changes the internet brought, it’s another to experience them. People who thought they had a valuable skill or degree have discovered that being an anonymous middleman doesn’t guarantee job security. Individuals who were trained to comply and follow instructions have discovered that the deal is over… and it isn’t their fault, because they’ve always done what they were told.
This isn’t fair of course. It’s not fair to train for years, to pay your dues, to invest in a house or a career and then suddenly see it fade.
For a while, politicians and organizations promised that things would get back to normal. Those promises aren’t enough, though, and it’s clear to many that this might be the new normal. In fact, it is the new normal. – Seth Godin
We’re kicking around with global warming because few want to admit that change is upon us, and it’s undoing what we knew as the 20th century.
All of our neglected crises — class war, ecocide, toxicity, crime, multiculturalism, corruption and cultureloss — are coming back to visit us at the same time. It’s like we beat them all in fistfights years ago, but now that we’re tired, they want to fight us as a gang.
The result is that our comfy oblivious-to-reality modern lifestyle is going away. Gasoline prices are never going to go down again the way they were in the past; neither will food prices. The supply of both gasoline and land to grow food is finite, as is water and transportation.
And since there are only so many “designs” a civilization can have, we’re going to revert to older ones:
In the 1970s, people had deep thoughts about what energy meant to society. All kinds of people hoped that decentralizing our energy sources — using lots of individual solar panels, say, instead of one big power plant — would create a society in which political power was also spread farther. Lewis Perelman, however, argued the opposite. He contended that a society running on renewable energy would descend into feudalism that looked like this: “wealth and power based primarily on land holdings, political decentralization, a steady-state economy, and social stratification by class or caste.” And we’d go theocratic, too, after the materialism of our non-capitalist society fell away. – The Atlantic
The coming century is not a liberal one. It is a conservative one, in the meaning that existed before the term conservative was created to describe opposition to the near-unanimous support of liberalism. It is a traditional society.
To prepare for this, it only makes sense that we “green” the right. Not as window-dressing, like the left with its wealth redistribution and elite greenwashed products does, but as a fundamental value. We are the party that conserves all good things, and nurtures them. We will guide people safely into this new brave new world, while we say goodbye to the old and corrupt brave new world that brought us such stunners as revolutions, two world wars and a nuclear standoff.
The right however cannot be compromised by this greening, because integrity is the main benefit the right has to offer — instead, we need to remove the hypocrisy of this sick era of public image, popularity contests and slick marketing, and then use that newfound honesty to look at the green problem:
We have not become more tolerant, but we have become more cautious. The more the taboos are broken in private, the more they are hypocritically upheld in public. Popular culture upholds liberal taboos and then violently lashes out at those same protected groups anyway. Repression breeds hypocrisy. The more empty public speech becomes, the more authentic taboo breaking speech comes to seem. Liberal artists walk a curious line between conformity and abuse, trading in the forbidden bigotries, while agitating against them. The best productions do both at once, displaying the garish spectacle of bigotry in order to formally condemn it, much as epics depicted lavish displays of prurient sin as cautionary examples, All in the Family and South Park are obvious examples. The bigotry is always more glaring and more colorful than its pious denunciation.
It is not mere multiculturalism that is to blame, but the dissolution of any single moral code, putting the ball in the hands of countless political and religious factions, all intent on imposing their own form of control. Some merely want to control the portrayal of their own people. Others aim for grander things. Government imposes sanctions on behalf of some groups, but not others. The clash of priorities between different groups can only be resolved by valuing one identity over another, sexual freedom over religious freedom, or racial privilege over gender equality. In such a clash one group must be degraded and the other elevated. The false victims distinguished from the true victims. And which are the true and which are the false is not only a matter of perspective, but of a political value system. – State Brief
Our goal is not to tack “green” onto our existing programs, as the left has done with wealth redistribution, but to make the foundations of a new type of society which is inherently green. A society in which appearance does not (fully) trump reality, and the individual trades some lax freedoms for a certain sense not just stability, but an honesty and doing right by the world.
As the illusions of modernity come to fruition, and reveal how they never were workable plans at all, we have a new mandate for change. We should take advantage of this opportunity not just to seize power, but to finally fix the deep inner sickness of our society and in doing so, birth a new bright age.