Archive for May, 2011
Tuesday, May 31st, 2011
America fought two wars that will forever define her. The first was the war between the states, which broke our hearts and corrupted us so deeply we may never be free of it.
The second was World War II, in which our own citizens were so ambivalent about war that we had to make a comic book or Hollywood movie out of it — brave democratic underdog hero America versus those baby-killing Huns and Caucasian woman-raping Japanese — to convince our people it was a good idea.
Whether or not these wars were just, we paid a great price for them: we have defined ourselves as a moral society.
As far as I can figure it, “moral society” means that we put ourselves on the cross. Whenever someone else has a need, we let them crucify us so that we do not commit some immoral act like slavery, Hitlerianism or samurai Spartan codes of honor.
What is valued instead is deference, and making everyone feel happy and included and like they are equally important, even if they have done nothing at all. This way, America is always the moral victor.
In human emotional politics, if you are the moral victor, you are always the injured party and your retaliation is justified. Every Pearl Harbor deserves a nuclear strike or two; every Holocaust deserves a Dresden or twenty.
It’s not far different from the politics of emotional blackmail played by most of the couples you see around you. He states an opinion; she states a contrary opinion; he defers, but that forces her to make the decision; for the rest of their lives, any doubt about that decision is now her fault, and he will silently blame her for it — and she’ll do the same to him, on another issue.
The point in this whole game is that to take responsibility is to become the oppressor.
To take zero responsibility, and yet still be injured, is to be the victim.
Human urine stains the walls and feces is piled up in an alley that’s just blocks away from the Convention Center and other tourist hotspots.
“If they don’t let you go inside, you have to go anywhere. That’s why El Paso is like that,” Roberto Miranda said.
We questioned the Director of the Farm Workers Center. He told us the people that urinate and defecate in the alleys are not migrant workers.
“That’s a problem by the city. That’s a social problem the city needs to address,” he said.
French says he’s reported the problem to the city, but he says the city has ignored his pleas for help.
“I think somebody through the city should be responsible for cleaning up all the mess, and the quick fix is porta potties,” he said. – KTSM
One of the marks of a first world nation is that there is not feces and urine staining the streets. This is not a matter of interior decorating (you can do a lot with earthy tones, after all) but of practical interest: our waste is toxic, and bacteriologically active. It’s a no-no to have it near where we live. Simply burying, burning or flushing away waste reduces local water-borne illness radically, which is why waste disposal and good hygiene is one of the symptoms of a society moving beyond third world status.
But here in El Paso, we have feces on the street.
The illegal immigrants say someone should have provided them toilets.
The attorneys tell us it’s not the illegal immigrants; it’s the homeless, and the city should fix it.
The residents tell us the city should fix it.
No one wants to be the one who takes responsibility. That makes you the Romans, not the prophet on the cross. You become an authority figure and you will be to blame, much like all three parties seem to agree hte city is to blame.
What is lost is the obvious: homeless or illegal, there’s a huge population of people who have no purpose in the community who are hanging around and defecating and urinating in the streets. Why not put the responsibility where it belongs — on them?
“But they’re poor,” says Sally Knownothing. At home in her suburban home, surrounded by electronic gadgets and entertainment magazines, she is terribly bored. A helicopter parent, she hovers around her children as she forces them through Mozart for Babies, Early Readers Pre-School, accelerated tutoring and finally, prep school. She thinks of herself as a good parent and a good person. And she just can’t understand why with all this wealth around, we’re letting people go without bathrooms.
She doesn’t want to take responsibility.
She wants the city to do it. She wants anyone but herself and the actual defecators and urinators to take responsibility. At least, that’s how she feels, stretched out on the sofa in the comfortable air conditioning, waiting for Bethany and Jayden to finish preparatory math tutoring so she can find a movie on cable.
In her mind, being poor lets people off the hook for being responsible. It’s someone else’s job. After all, if you’re poor, you haven’t taken responsibility, and thus anyone who’s not poor is the person in authority. And Sally doesn’t want to feel any guilt about this. No more guilt. Between the mother-in-law, Jayden’s low score in algebra, and Bethany posting her tits to Facebook, Sally is just over it all.
Human Rights, closely related to the ideas behind the bloodthirsty, ruthless revolutions in France and Russia, are now being used to give our own Left-wing elite the power to override a thousand years of tradition, national independence and freedom, in the name of something that sounds noble but is in fact sordid and ugly.
In the past 30 years I can think of only one instance – a group of railwaymen who refused to be forced into a union closed shop – where Human Rights have been used in the interests of real freedom. In many other cases, the Human Rights Act has been deployed to reduce the freedoms of the hard-working, the tax-paying and the law-abiding.
The rights asserted have been those of lawbreakers trying to avoid justice, illegal immigrants trying to avoid deportation for criminal acts, prisoners trying to win votes and similar unpopular and unwanted changes for the worse in our way of life.
If Christianity is being sidelined, marriage reduced to the level of any other sexual relationship, Britain being pressed to adapt to immigrants rather than the other way round, extreme feminism imposed on workplaces, schools compelled to re-admit trouble-making pupils, Human Rights will be involved.
Real rights and freedoms are not like this. Our British Great Charters, Claims and Bills of Rights do one simple thing – tell the Government what it cannot do. These are in truth the only rights worth having.
But it has become deeply unfashionable to say so. – The Mail on Sunday
Rights are absolute: someone else must be the oppressor, I must be the oppressed, and so I get a shut-off switch called my rights.
Naturally this progresses from “I use my rights to defend myself” to “If I’m not given what I think I need, my rights are violated.” After all, both having your rights violated and lacking what you need to enjoy those rights, through the eyes of a legal system, amount to the same thing.
Whoever takes responsibility is responsible for the rights of the others.
And if those people end up in a mess, or failing? Then it’s assumed to be the fault of that oppressor.
This is how we go from a liberal rights state to an entitlement state. This is why every liberal state eventually becomes a Socialist state.
Socialist states operate by a simple rule: if anyone else has it, I deserve it, since I am equal and have an equally valid claim to it.
Just like rights themselves, the principle is that everyone else must wait for me, because my rights come first since I’m using them to defend against the rest of you. Except — it’s not defense, usually; it’s the assumption that one must defend against the rest, because if one is not responsible, the others are and that makes them the oppressor-benefactor.
How would you like to be a fifty year old with a couple hundred thousand dollars saved in your 401K and the government tells you that they’re going to force you to start withdrawing the money? And oh, by the way, they’re going to tax it at 30%, 50% or an even higher rate? It gets worse!
Megan McArdle at The Atlantic believes both traditional IRAs are in danger due to normal tax increases and that tax-free Roth accounts eventually will be tapped, too. “I think that Congress is going to go after all of it,” McArdle writes. “But Congress doesn’t have to do anything special to get money out of traditional IRAs; it just has to raise income taxes. (401ks and traditional IRAs are taxed at ordinary income tax rates). Roth IRAs, on the other hand, represent a sizable pool of tax-free assets.”
It gets even worse. From Bloomberg:
The Obama administration is weighing how the government can encourage workers to turn their savings into guaranteed income streams following a collapse in retiree accounts when the stock market plunged.
The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.
Encourage workers? Now, exactly how would they do that? More like force workers to buy these so-called annuities. Notice the use of the term “guaranteed income streams”. And what would these guaranteed income streams be invested in? You guessed it, government debt or in nicer terms treasury bills. With one fell swoop, everyone who has an individual retirement account will have all of their life savings stolen by the government. Then what happens when the government defaults on its debt? Sorry suckers… – IMF
All socialist states default to the principle of Other People’s Money, or OPM.
If you create an entitlement state, you will quickly breed the most useless people on earth, because whether they perform or not they get a paycheck. This drives away the capable people, who get tired of supporting a raft of parasites. But those who procreate tend to be the thoughtless, incompetent and irresponsible, which is fine for Government, since as long as it has a stable of irresponsible morons to be pitied, it has an inarguable mission.
“Let me get this straight: You want us to stop feeding these impoverished, malnourished, homeless, sad souls afflicted by mental disease and alcoholism? What kind of a heartless soul-crusher are you!”
But as Sally Knownothing thinks, stretched out on her sofa, it’s just dollars. And we have so many. Why should we care about this irresponsibility/responsibility madness?
In the last 40 years, the percentage of 25-34 American adults who were married has dropped from 80 percent to 45 percent. In 2009, it was reported that at only 52 percent, the percentage of married adults of all ages was the lowest percentage recorded since the U.S. Census Bureau began collecting marital information 100 years ago.
When one considers the widespread availability of wildly entertaining, time-intensive video games as well as high-quality, high-definition pornography produced to suit even the most esoteric sexual tastes, it is not terribly surprising that American men are becoming ever more disinclined to risk pledging their lives and fortunes to the increasingly adipose, decreasingly reliable creature known as the American woman?
Dr. Helen Smith writes: “Nowadays, for many men, the negatives of marriage for men often outweigh the positives. Therefore, they engage in it less often. Not because they are bad, not because they are perpetual adolescents, but because they have weighed the pros and cons of marriage in a rational manner and found the institution to be lacking for them.” – WND
When you make women into victims, and thus command them to be irresponsible, they end up in a permanent role of victimhood which by the relative nature of the universe, requires them to blame the responsible party. If Sally Knownothing’s husband is good to her, provides for the family and loves her and the kids, she’ll have to find another way he’s victimizing her. That’s it! He’s forcing her into the boredom that only stability can bring!
As soon as our society made itself into the avenging superhero, first in the Civil War and next in WWII, it doomed itself by taking on moral rhetoric. Moral rhetoric requires an underdog-hero and a victim. As a result, we all saw ourselves as the victims, and took out our own failings on whoever was in power, if we could not smash the idea of power itself.
Now we’re heading to third world status. Women rut like animals, plop out spawn and blame someone else. Our citizens cannot even demand we enforce laws, and so demand government do everything for them. Government cannot even act when the streets are coated in feces and urine.
It’s a long way to the bottom.
Tuesday, May 31st, 2011
There is no such thing as human rights. It’s a fantasy, and not the good kind with orcs and axes.
Stop — I’ve heard it all — I’m denying the basic value of human life, and will cause our society to descend into nihilism and people will hurt each other for kicks until we all die out.
Most people view a statement like “There is no such thing as human rights” as a total violation of all truth, a rejection of life itself, a commitment to violence — in short, as blasphemy.
Apostate! Infidel! Barbarian! Devil!
For years, we had a Christian establishment which convinced us of certain truths as essential to our survival. One of these was that each person was important in the eyes of God. Originally, this was “important” as in a character in a story — every person had a role to play.
Under the influence of unguarded populism and the consumerism it inevitably produces, that became a Mr. Rogers style perversity, namely “Each one of you is OK just the way you are.” Translated into human behavior that means: don’t change a thing, you’re fine the way you are, and since we’re all equal, that means you should be accepted everywhere and celebrated for being exactly what you are.
The concept of “rights” does the same thing, but on a more militant scale. Rights are absolute, meaning that there’s no compromise. They only work to sabotage what someone else is doing.
Person 1: “Listen, we need to move this heavy object here so we can free up room to grow crops for — ”
Person 2: “Forget it! I have a right to this space, and you can’t tell me not to!”
The community has a need to make certain choices, but the individual is given a giant stop sign. If they feel it contradicts their rights, we all have to stop and begin the endless process of debating it out. Do you ever feel as if our society moves in slow motion?
Instead of having a committee of wise elders to make a choice between the needs of individual and the needs of the group, the needs of the individual trump the group.
It’s like an inverse of the equally abhorrent thought that the needs of the group always trump those of the individual.
Both are rigid, unthinking rules which admit no compromise, which means that anyone getting near them is forced into a state of unending debate and compromise. When you start out with a nonsense principle, the end result is constant low-level conflict.
The idea of “rights” is to give the individual the ability to stop everyone else from doing what they want to do, if it’s inconvenient. You can see this in traffic: everyone is trying to get to work on time, but one driver wants to go more slowly. He lags at the turn. Ten people don’t make it through the light. Oh well, it was his right.
Similarly, in the neighborhood; one neighbor does not want to clean his garage or cut his lawn. The lawn breeds bugs, and the garage breeds vermin. These spill out into the neighborhood. Soon most people in the neighborhood find they’re under assaults by rats and mice. But it’s his right to be lazy.
A more complex example occurs at the workplace. Your boss is more concerned with looking good to his superiors than getting work done; your coworkers are busy screwing off. You work hard. At the time when you need to get your final project in, however, your team is not done, so you are called in to work overnight with the rest of them.
That overnighter would have been unnecessary if people had just worked more effectively. But it’s their right to work at whatever pace they want; if we start making people speed up, it’s not fair to the slow ones. And you could claim it’s your right to bail out on time, but you know that will scotch the project. So rights collide, as they always do, and the result is inertia: everyone works late doing unnecessary work.
The gnarly truth is that society itself is a collaboration. We cooperate with others to achieve goals, and in cooperation, we give up some of our “rights” some of the time, and they do the same, so that we can all work together to make something good happen.
However, that brings up the second problem with rights… any real collaboration is going to require some kind of leadership or other central authority. Anarchists don’t organize, and selfish people don’t work together unless compelled to. But the concept of rights fundamentally clashes with the idea of someone telling you what to do, unless it’s a voluntary exchange of time and money.
Naturally, in times of disaster we know to give up our rights a little bit. We may have to let the Army Corps of Engineers deflect a river through our front lawn, or we might have to abandon property so that others can be saved. But this does not extend to society when no disaster is present.
In fact, if anything the concept of “rights” is like a thumbtack caught on a silk dress: at the slightest motion, it rips the dress in half, because by virtue of not moving it used the momentum of the cloth against it.
This is only problematic because when we work together, we can achieve great things, and triumph over the selfishness of individuals that blights our cities, jobs and friendships:
Soon the city surrounded the salt marsh. Residents began tossing in garbage, and the marsh quickly transformed into a waste dump. Native plants such as sedge grass mostly died, and what was left behind was ugly, murky, swampy, and — on a hot summer day — olfactory torture. A 19th-century account describes it as “being without a single attractive feature. A body of water so foul that even clams and eels cannot live in it.”
As a first step, intercepting sewers were built to catch refuse. Gates were installed to regulate the flow between the marshland and the Charles River, which was then still a tidal estuary where saltwater and freshwater mixed. Once the engineering infrastructure was worked out, Olmsted focused on wetlands restoration. He designed a creek, dredged out of muck, to following a meandering, sinuous path — more “natural” than nature.
The Back Bay Fens was a smashing success. The commissioners asked Olmsted to design a whole series of interconnected parks, what became the Emerald Necklace. Flush with work, Olmsted finally felt comfortable leaving New York City, and moved to Brookline. He’d found a way to return to New England, after all. Olmsted would operate his landscape architecture firm out of Brookline for the rest of his life. – The Boston Globe
One enlightened designer intervened and suddenly a wasteland became a triumph.
What if we applied the same logic to our inner cities? Well, that will trample on someone’s rights.
What about bulldozing empty buildings and planting trees? Some person or people have rights to that, you know.
What about moving whole groups of people to other parts of the city, so we can restore some natural areas that everyone can enjoy? Oh wait, don’t tell me — we’d be crushing their rights.
The fact is that life crushes all of our rights. We die. Accidents happen. Things go wrong. We get sick. Do we shake our impotent fetus fists at the sky and bellow apostatic obscenities?
One big reason why traditional thought seems impossible to so many modern people is the ‘literalism’ of our discourse – its fragmented, specialized and over-precise nature.
So that when we try to discuss fundamental matters that can only be comprehended in mythic poetry; what actually comes out is professional, bureaucratic, procedural prose.
Instead of being able to comprehend multiple poetic and mythic meanings from a single word, sentence or passage – we are reduced to picking it apart and sequentially describing its ethics, its philosophy, its historical meaning etc. Each of which, taken alone, rings false – and is dull, unengaging, indeed aversive.
It used to be possible for The Law to be regarded as beautiful – C.S. Lewis in his book on the Psalms points at the way some ancient Jews loved and hymned their Law – it was seen as virtuous, but also and at the same time true and beautiful. – Bruce Charlton
We can in fact see the entire modern time as a breaking down of meaning from the complex to the literal and uncompromising, the universal and absolute, the block-like and inspecific — like “rights.” After all, they are our modern archetype; equality is guaranteed by rights, and that is the basis of our political system. The lowliest may thwart the most powerful.
Where once laws were a form of harmony toward a goal, they are now a series of excuses the individual may use to avoid being compelled to do what is intelligent or necessary. The curse of civilization has struck, and now instead of working together, we are using the group as a shield for its weakest and as a result, destroying any direction we had in common.
For this reason, I say “rights” are an illusion. They do not exist in nature. They do not make sense if our goal is to cooperate. By the nature of being absolute, and uncompromising, they make rule of law impossible. Thus we are forever enmeshed in endless debates, while backroom deals and money changing hands makes the actual decisions.
All of this fits well into the mentality of those who demand “rights,” as their goal always was the sabotage of society so they could live off it in oblivion, and never be forced to confront reality. Cowardice even in matters small remains our downfall.
Sunday, May 29th, 2011
One thing we riff on frequently here is the nature of bureaucracy and how it ruins basically everything it touches.
Bureaucracy we might define as using professional clerks to process social functions through centralized authority, and with them, the gnarly techniques of measuring life through spreadsheets, using metrics and other indirect methods of figuring out if the job is getting done.
Bureaucracy is not relegated to government alone; from an unlikely source:
During the late 80s and early 90s the industry underwent a transformation and restructured, catalyzed by three distinct factors. Record companies no longer viewed themselves as conduits for music, but as functions of the manipulations of Wall Street. Companies were acquired, conglomerated, bought and sold; public stock offerings ensued, shareholders met. At this very same time, new Nielsen monitoring systems — BDS (Broadcast Data Systems) and SoundScan were employed to document record sales and radio airplay.
Record companies soon discovered that because of BDS, they only needed to concentrate on about 12 radio stations; there was no longer a business rationale for working secondary markets that were soon forgotten — despite the fact that these were the very places where rock and roll was born and thrived. – Huffington Post
If you find it too risky to use intelligent people to figure out what music is crap and what is not, start monitoring statistics. Then stop caring about the organic whole of the industry, where certain listeners are more important than others, and start looking for purely linear reasoning. How many people like it?
- Never mind if they’re idiots.
- Never mind if they’re a plurality whose interests exclude those of a majority.
- Never mind if they are temporary in their interest.
In short, only count warm bodies. “Hey Phil, we gotta lotta customers here who want to buy stuff!”
This type of thinking takes a bigger mission, such as “provide music to a nation,” and dumbs it down into a linear mission, which is “take care of these idiots who have money in their fat grubby hands right now.”
If you ever wonder why music on the radio is so awful, here’s one reason: idiots clutching money react quickly.
On the other hand, the organic collective of music consumers reacts slowly. It is by nature conservative, or skeptical of the new and also skeptical of the repetitive. As a result, new music filters slowly through the independent radio station people, to the cutting edge fans, through cocktail party conversation and finally makes its way to the people on the street.
There, there’s another hierarchy. The people who seem to know stuff, usually musicians or artists, pick up on stuff and pass it down. There is much avoiding of hipsters, scenesters and other false experts. Once the smarter but too busy to be music fanatics crowd picks up on something, they spread it downward to people even less informed than themselves.
This is how nature works. It is in direct opposition to how bureaucracy works.
Every two to three years, Eddie Sales trims and prunes the crape myrtles at his church, Albemarle Road Presbyterian Church.
But this year, the city of Charlotte cited the church for improperly pruning its trees.
The church was fined $100 per branch cut for excessive pruning, bringing the violation to $4,000. – Charlotte Observer
In government, we can either nurture the natural flow of a civilization — nationalism, values derived from culture, religion as social services, meritocracy and a sense of role — or we can try to invent some new jihad that we assume will make everyone happy, and force it on them with bureaucrats.
It would be sad and ironic if it took John Cougar Mellencamp to tell us this.
Sunday, May 29th, 2011
Last summer, we got our first clear picture of how this country is divided: wealthier, whiter, more suburban, more educated and more independently successful people want a meritocracy.
Everyone else wants an entitlement state. In an entitlement state, two factors prevail:
- the prevailing social dogma is that you are OK just as you are — no need to change, to learn, to be good at anything or to adapt;
- the government subsidizes all of its equal citizens, which means that the impoverished, addicted, criminal, retarded and borderline functional get the focus, because they make for better sound bites, headlines, etc.
With recent statistical information, we’re starting to see this as a demographic conflict: a younger, non-white and liberal population replacing an entrenched white majority that became neurotic, lowered its breeding rates, and faded into liberalism in the 1960s, but seems to be bouncing back toward realism.
By realism I mean consequentialism, or “what will the results of that action be?” instead of the kind of wishful thinking, egalitarian moralizing, altruistic sentiment and other reality-denying acts of the left.
Our demographic conflict is going to mask another type of conflict: a clash of civilization-types. The esteemed historian Samuel Huntington wrote about the “Clash of Civilizations,” or how different ethnic-religious groups would duke it out in the future. Back to blood, as the saying goes.
I think this is even deeper than that. This is about the division I mentioned above — meritocracy, or entitlement state — in the context of demographics.
Those who could build a country like the USA (1776-1965) were not believers in sitting around and waiting for government to fix their problems.
Those who have immigrated to the USA recently come mostly from places which have a long history of people waiting for gods, government, weather or karma to save them from oblivion. That is because these places fell into third world status, something which occurs not through a lack of technology, but through a lack of organization, and the consequent corruption, bad hygiene, chaotic government and eventually social collapse.
What’s interesting about this division is that it straddles racial lines as well. Some of the people mentioned in the preceding paragraph come from white communities with a history of social, political and economic troubles, like Southern and Eastern Europe. And many white people buy into the hoax that is killing the West, namely liberalism.
While the divide is racial, that is because since 1965, it has been liberal policy in America to import voters. The white majority tends to vote Republican; newer citizens tend to see themselves as defined in opposition to the majority, and thus they tend to vote Democratic. They are also by virtue of their backgrounds more inclined to the entitlement state.
A lurking surprise for everyone is that while set in the background of a racial conflict, this current split is basically about class war, which only exists as a facet of liberal politics. In liberal politics, the masses are always innocent victims; the right tends to prefer a meritocracy and to point out that if the masses didn’t rise, there must be a reason other than oppression.
But liberalism continues to divide the white people against themselves:
A long-simmering movement by liberal stalwarts in southern Arizona to break away from the rest of the largely conservative state is at a boiling point as secession backers press to bring their longshot ambition to the forefront of Arizona politics.
A group of lawyers from the Democratic stronghold of Tucson and surrounding Pima County have launched a petition drive seeking support for a November 2012 ballot question on whether the 48th state should be divided in two.
Partisan tensions have long been a fact of life between left-leaning Pima County and a Phoenix-based political establishment that has produced such conservative giants as Barry Goldwater and John McCain.
But the rift was heightened during the past two years as Republican Governor Jan Brewer and her allies in control of the statehouse pursued a political agenda Democrats saw as extreme, including a crackdown on illegal immigration and proposals, ultimately unsuccessful, to nullify some federal laws. – Reuters
If you want to know why I politely differ with many of my pro-white political cohorts, it’s this:
- White people tend toward conservative social values and foreign policy.
- Liberalism forces white people into warfare against themselves.
- Liberalism makes neurotic, self-pitying, negative people and broken families.
- European history shows steady advancement until liberalism appeared.
In short, even if by some magic act of an unknown god all non-whites disappeared from earth tomorrow, we would have removed a symptom, and not the disease.
The disease is liberalism.
In the age of the clash of civilization types, most white people want a practical conservative party. Unconsciously, they want to get government out of most functions, since large bureaucracies specialize in screwing up and wasting money. They want to let organic means, like culture, religion and social meritocracy do the rest.
Perhaps the only reason white people are not running to the Republicans in the US and the various conservative parties in Europe is that those parties are off-topic. In Europe, they will periodically stand up and denounce Muslim immigration; then, silence. In the USA, we get a few bones tossed to social conservatism and then, silence. These parties have a few pet issues and don’t get past them.
I’ve written in the past why “underground” right wing parties go nowhere. The public is conditioned by Hollywood movies to fear right-wing neo-Nazis and skinheads who take delight in cruelty toward non-white races; sadly, all too often our white nationalists just act the part, and the voters nod and say, “The movies were right!” and vote to the left. White nationalism is the antithesis of pro-white politics. It is a sabotage of pro-white politics.
While the vanguardists waste our time, and the mainstream politicians are too smart to touch on real issues, our division continues. It’s straight out of 1789, 1861, 1917 or 1968. What kind of society do we want?
One side wants a society that is rising because it adheres to time-honored values. We call these people conservatives. Conservatives note that if you do a lot of drugs, drink too much, whore around, waste your money, or live in filth, you tend to end up impoverished, disorganized and corrupt.
Those same rules apply whether you are an individual or a nation.
The other side wants a permissive society. In their view, there is no need to adapt to nature or to behaviors that avoid bad consequences. All is emotion; everyone is equal without having done a thing to deserve that designation. Because everyone is equal, we should pay for them, starting with the impoverished.
A psychologist might recognize that the first group has a sense of purpose, where the latter group is indrawn and neurotic, wanting a sense of purpose to appear magically out of the world. However, instead of finding meaning in religion, they find it in the false religion of “progress” meaning devolution toward a permissive state.
It’s possible we’re looking at a branching of our species:
In an article published in the April issue of the Journal of Politics, researchers examined physical and behavioral traits of more than 5,000 married couples in the United States. They found spouses in the study appeared to instinctively select a partner who has similar social and political views. – Science Daily
Research by Rice University professor of political science John Alford indicates that what is on one’s mind about politics may be influenced by how people are wired genetically….Alford found that identical twins were more likely to agree on political issues than were fraternal twins…[Alford said] “predictably dissimilar correlations of social and political attitudes among people with greater and lesser shared genotypes suggest that behaviors are often shaped by forces of which the person themselves are not consciously aware.” – Science Daily
Liberals, who want to repeat the pleasant-sounding but destructive experiments of the last three centuries, are being left behind. Conservatives are separating from the herd, again, because they see no point in reproducing failed experiments.
Whenever someone starts talking about how the big corporations control us, or a race or class war will work against us, or even how we should all become liberal to save the white race, remember this: the fundamental conflict that is defeating white people is the clash between two civilizations.
At some point, we will all have to pick a side.
Sunday, May 29th, 2011
Since we’re doing topics about race, in anticipation of another presidential election where race is the crypto-topic on everyone’s mind, how about a quick analysis of demographic collision?
America — with Europe slightly trailing it, not by so far anymore — is heading toward a crucial point: does it become a white nation with a third world minority, or a third world nation with a few white people hanging out?
We have a few choices:
- 1950s America: white people do their thing, African-Americans do their separately. Problem: if you’re waging Civil Wars in which you claim to have the moral high ground, and World Wars to liberate Europe from a lack of freedom, you look like an idiot when every black person works a menial job.
- White ruling minority third world: Mexico, Brazil, Iraq and India are good examples here: a vast horde of Asiatics are ruled by a statistically tiny minority of Caucasians or more-Caucasian-ish people. Problem: much of the country becomes third world wasteland, and frequent revolutions kill off the ruling castes eventually.
- Mixed-race whitish nation: Hello, most of Eastern and parts of Southern Europe, and California: a steady mixture of groups gets absorbed by a majority of mixed-European ancestry, creating a group of Eurasians who may be mostly European in appearance but seem to prefer countries organized more around third world principles: strongmen, corruption, hedonism, and drama.
- Nationalism: White people say, “We did wrong but not all wrong, here are reparations in exchange for repatriation,” and get rid of laws forcing them to hire minorities. Minority groups for the most part see a lack of opportunity and so follow the path of least resistance and return to their host countries. Amerinds are forced to make their reservations communities again.
Whatever choice we make, the choice is upon us, and like so many choices when one is delusional out of preference for oblivion, it seems to rush at us out of the fog:
Last week’s release of national totals from the 2010 census showed that the minority share of the population increased over the past decade in every state, reaching levels higher than demographers anticipated almost everywhere, and in the nation as a whole. If President Obama and Democrats can convert that growth into new voters in 2012, they can get a critical boost in many of the most hotly contested states and also seriously compete for some highly diverse states such as Arizona and Georgia that until now have been reliably red.
In November’s midterm elections, Republicans won 60 percent of white voters—the highest share of whites they have attracted in any congressional election in the history of modern polling. Since May, Obama’s job-approval rating among whites has exceeded 40 percent only twice in Gallup’s weekly summary of its nightly polling. Unless the economic recovery accelerates, many analysts in both parties believe that Obama could struggle to match the modest 43 percent of white voters he captured in 2008.
These twin dynamics suggest that in many states the key question for 2012 may be whether Republicans can increase their advantage among whites enough to overcome what’s likely to be a growing share of the overall vote cast by minorities, who still break preponderantly for Democrats. – National Journal
The moment we have dreaded has arrived: race is now no longer an optional thought, but what will define our politics. It’s a power struggle, formally, …finally.
From the Democratic perspective, this has always been the intention. Democrats in 1965 realized that non-whites voted Democratic, and that the then-current generation of whites were so drugged on liberalism they would approve any underdog-bolstering altruistic imperative, so they changed immigration law. The floodgates opened.
White America slumbered on, buoyed by dreams from their churches of universal equality in heaven, and by politics from their televisions and useful idiots neighbors, talking about how diversity was our strength and our egalitarian politics would keep the proles from rioting.
History grinned a little. Historically, even among groups of the same race, diversity has always been a failure. It takes a century or two to see the full effects, but you’ll note that no societies stay “diverse” for longer than that. They collapse and end up as racial melanges with none of their former potential.
- Does this mean there are inferior races? No, it means that mixing groups of specialized ability destroys that ability in the resulting groups.
- Does it mean that some races are bad citizens? No, it means that diversity itself is the problem. No two or more groups — whether divided by race/ethnicity, religion, even social class or regional differences — can occupy the same space at the same time. This means a power struggle which culminates in successive waves of conflict and compromise until a lowest common denominator is reached.
- Does this mean that some races are defective? No, it means that while there are genetic and thus aptitudinal and attitudinal differences between races and ethnic groups, it is the fact that any difference at all exists that dooms diversity, not the particular groups involved.
- Does this mean America was not a melting pot before 1965? Yes, America was of “mixed” heritage — if you count Western Europeans as mixed. In the 1840s, the slow introduction of Irish and Southern Europeans caused problems, as did the introduction of Eastern Europeans in the 1890s, but these demographic changes were minor compared to what we have now.
- Does this mean white nationalists are correct? No, it means they are insane, because they want to create diversity — white, fascist diversity — which will cause the same problems on a smaller scale, but still create them nonetheless.
We really face a chokepoint soon, where the former narrative of the oppressive majority against the oppressed minority fades rapidly, and we have to actually choose our future. In the past, we were able to assume that we could make changes to America and the country would basically stay the same, just with a little diversity added — think Cherry Coke or Reeses Peanut Butter Cups — for flavor.
Now we realize that we’re talking about replacing the population, which actually makes America a different country. A country is not its laws or economics; it is its people. When we replace the majority English-German American stock with new people, the country will start to resemble the homelands that shaped them genetically.
Nationally, the overall share of the non-Hispanic white population dropped from 69.1 percent in 2000 to 63.7 in 2010, a greater decline than most analysts anticipated. In a mirror image, the minority population grew from 30.9 percent in 2000 to 36.3 percent in 2010.
46.5 percent of people under 18 were minority, a dramatic jump from 39.1 percent in 2000. As recently as last summer, demographers projected that minorities would make up a majority of the under-18 population sometime after 2020. At the current rate of growth, however, nonwhites will comprise a majority of children in the United States by 2015.
Strikingly, as Frey notes, the census found that the number of whites under 18 declined by more than 4 million over the past decade, even as the number of minority young people increased by more than 6 million.
This tells more of the story than the vague news that CNN likes to report, which is that by 2040 whites will no longer be a majority. That doesn’t sound bad, does it? We’re all equal then. But the fact is that some group will be on top, and that group will make the country like their country of origin.
So do we want Western Europe or… Mexico? Nigeria? Brazil? Thailand? Zimbabwe?
Americans will have to choose, after years of assuming that immigration was like having a new family in the neighborhood — and no other consequences. “Sure, the Witherspoons are black, but it’s just one house in a neighborhood of 400.”
Yet as the numbers show, the Witherspoons aren’t just adding to the mix — they’re displacing the native Americans of mostly English/German stock, and replacing them with Mexican indios (Asians), Southern Asians, Indians (Caucasoid Asians) and Africans.
What’s that mix going to look like? A lot like the indios of Mexico, lower castes of India, poorer people in Iraq and Iran, favelas of Brazil, etc.
That’s not the original idea of diversity, which was a few non-white faces to “spice up” the horde of whites.
This is why history grins at us. We are the latest in a series of people to assume that we can make demographic changes to our nations without it vastly affecting us.
The French in 1789 decided to execute their aristocrats, and promptly sent their country into a tailspin from which it has never recovered because of a lack of competent administrators. The Russians did the same thing in 1917. Western Europe itself made the mistake when it allowed many of its best people to emigrate to the USA, and promptly had a population crash from which it recovered just in time to hit two disastrous world wars.
The young, increasingly minority population is likely to view public investment in schools, health care, and infrastructure as critical to its economic prospects, while the predominantly white senior population might be increasingly reluctant to fund such services through taxes. The trends could portend a lasting structural conflict. (See “The Gray and the Brown: The Generational Mismatch,” NJ, 7/24/10, p.14.)
As noted in the past, the Tea Parties in the USA and Europe, while not racist per se, represented an ethnic conflict: whites who want an upward-moving society, and “new citizens” who want an entitlement state.
If the pattern repeats not just from Soviet Russia and Revolutionary France, but the post-colonial revolts across the world, the white minority will accede to these demands. The entitlement state will breed many more than the economy can sustain; bankruptcy will loom; The People will blame the rich, and murder or exile the white minority; a competent administrator drain will then doom the country, which will enter its final spiral to true third-world status. Zimbabwe, South Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, Rwanda, Egypt… the list goes on.
The first step toward that is the step America is about to take, which is ending years of pleasant denial about race to face the power struggle, and realize that in order to “be diverse” we must destroy the majority.
And we’re just about there.
Anti-white prejudice – considered almost non-existent in the ’50s – is now perceived among white Americans as a bigger problem than anti-black bias, according to a new study.
The report found that both races agreed anti-black prejudice declined steadily over the last 60 years, but white Americans felt that bias against them was on the upswing.
Asked to rank prejudice against blacks on a 1-10 scale in the 2000s, white respondents put the number at 3.6 – compared with 9.1 in the ’50s.
But white respondents also put the number for anti-white bias at 4.7 – way up from the 1.8 of the ’50s.
The numbers suggest “that whites also linked the decrease in anti-black sentiment over the last half century to an increase in anti-white bias over the same time period,” the authors wrote. – NYDN
Although delusional people like to gush on about sharing the wealth, the truth is that wealth is finite. Our planet is finite. Its resources are finite. Time is finite. Even energy and matter are finite; what we take from somewhere else has consequences.
You cannot “add diversity” to a country without destroying what is there. This is why history grins: this is the lesson we don’t seem to learn, as a species. We don’t want to think that our actions have consequences beyond the immediate result we wanted to achieve.
As the cycle of history shows, all you do is kill the goose that laid the golden egg. You take a country that is succeeding because its people are motivated and competent, then introduce cultural chaos, and what is left is a new population that cannot replicate the organization and aptitude, thus the competence, thus the wealth, of the old.
Diversity fails not only the majority, but everyone else — minorities — who get dragged into its vortex.
As another commentator writes:
Black Run America is based on the idea that African-Americans cannot get ahead in our society because of White racism. Gunnar Myrdal told White people they suffered from “An American Dilemma” and the Supreme Court responded with the Brown decision that ordered integration in public schools.
Now that White people know that Whites are not racist anymore and that racism isn’t holding back African-Americans, the visible failure of African-Americans to make progress has become a serious problem in need of explanation.
(1) If White racism isn’t holding back African-Americans, there has to be some other explanation for racial inequality.
(2) If the experts in race relations have gotten it wrong for decades, then White America has been told a huge lie and authority figures cannot be trusted.
(3) If blacks can’t get ahead in spite of visible explicit discrimination against Whites and non-existent discrimination against blacks, what is holding them back?
(4) If robbing White people to create social programs like Obamacare doesn’t solve racial inequality, how can social spending on the welfare state be justified and seen as anything more than institutionalized racial extortion of White taxpayers?
(5) If “racism” doesn’t explain inequality in our society, then why should Whites feel guilty about black failure?
(6) If Whites have no good reason to feel guilty anymore, what is stopping White racial consciousness from coming roaring back and looking for vengeance? – OD
I’ll answer his final question (what is stopping White racial consciousness from coming roaring back and looking for vengeance?) first:
- Fear of conflict. Don’t take risks you do not immediately need to take.
- Social fear. Who wants to buck a trend and defy altruism? The basement dwellers only.
- Oblivion. It’s always easier than truth. Just more destructive.
- Kindness. No one wants to wage war or enact vengeance. They prefer practical plans.
The last one to me is the kicker. We cannot allow the mental disease known as “White Nationalism” to infect our minds and turn us from the practical. What are white people more likely to do, declare war… or look for practical solutions?
I think we can see what they’ll do based on what they’ve done in the past:
Dill (Anethum graveolens ) was used in the Middle Ages in charms against witchcraft. It was known as a medicinal herb to the ancient Greeks and Romans, where soldiers placed burned dill seeds on their wounds to promote healing. Medieval Europe could not grow it fast enough for love potions, casting spells and for protection against witchcraft. Carrying a bag of dried dill over the heart was considered protection against hexes.
The whole plant is aromatic and used to flavor many foods, such as gravlax (a Nordic appetizer made with raw salmon that looks soooo good! I’ll try making it someday and report back.), borscht and other soups, and pickles. Dill is best when used fresh, as it loses its flavor rapidly if dried. – Hermione’s Garden
Our arrogant history professors will look at this and infer a causal relationship that was not there. “They were afraid of witches, so they invented a superstition using dill, so they came to like dill, so now it prevails in their taste preferences. Ta-da!”
More likely is this:
This dill dip sure is tasty.
Hans: Ja, ja, it’s good!
Witchfinder General: Witches have been spotted in the briar!
Sven: Have some more of this dill dip, Hans.
Witchfinder General: Comrade Citizen Sven, you do not seem disturbed by the presence of witches! Do you consider witches to be a non-threat, and therefore think that maybe that should walk among us?
Sven: I… ah… dill dip…
Hans: (quickly) The elders say that dill keeps witches away. So we’re eating as much as we can.
Witchfinder General: I have never heard of this superstition!
Hans: Yeah, but you’re not from around here. Here it’s known fact.
Sven: All our scientists agree! Dill keeps away witches. This is entirely unrelated to the fact that it’s delicious.
Hans: Here, you’d better have some of this dip… or people are going to think you’re a witch.
Even all four of my readers have stopped after this digression. What the heck could he be rambling about?
I am talking about nothing less than a different way of governing.
In modern government, you observe an effect and make it illegal.
In the more organic world that Hans and Sven inhabit, you simply find the behavior that is its undoing, and make that preferable.
In their case, a world without dill would be very bad indeed… so when some helpful idiot showed up talking about witches, they used witch-hunting to justify dill-using.
In the same way, I think the race problem that America and Europe share will be solved with this kind of positive futurism.
- Instead of even thinking about criticizing other races (or Jews) — especially since the choice to become diverse was a white thing for the most part — we should focus our criticism on diversity.
- We should recognize that our elites are corrupt, and make fun of them, but not for being successful, because everyone loves success. Criticizing others for having money is a pathway straight to the liberal mentality. Instead, we should make fun of them for being out of touch.
- Next, we should learn from the successful brands of the past century. Mercedes-Benz, Christian Dior, Apple Computer, Ralph Lauren, Mont Blanc and Viking ranges. These each preached a simple message: you can be part of a new growing elite of those who know if you buy our product. It’s a luxury product, without the linear factor of simply costing more than others. They sell cool, and intelligence, more than sheer cost value.
- We create a new elite based on this ideal. Unlike the hipsters/liberals, this brand does not hate success but embraces it. Unlike the stodgy old right, they embrace success only when it comes with a “whole life,” which implies (in hipster/liberal fashion) a social life and a cultural life that are as important as the cash flow. This is a new elite not only from social power, memetic power, financial power and political power, but also pure cool. They are not what is burnt out and dead from the past, nor are they trying to control you. They’re rising above you, and so you have a binary choice to follow them or be left behind.
- This new elite adopts a sensible attitude toward multiculturalism-versus-culture: diversity doesn’t work, so I choose to live near people like me. Not just in race, but ethnicity, and social caste as well as social class (a monetary substitute for caste). Even more, I want them to think like me. None of those burnt-out hippies or stodgy fat businessmen here. Just pure cool. And if I’m white, it looks like my whole neighborhood is. Our schools are better. We pay less in taxes. We’re happier. And we’re unapologetic, because whatever ills occurred from colonialism, slavery and The Holocaust are now bought and paid for.
After demographic collision, politics will have to take off its kid gloves. This is not a battle of ideologies, like the Communism-versus-capitalism follies of the 1980s. It’s not a battle of religions, or class warfare. It’s a clash of civilizations, but even more so, a clash of civilization-types, meaning that those who want a more traditional society for practical reasons will get it and make it cool.
The others will drool.
Our demographic collision looks scary as it comes over the horizon. Knowing that we can’t just keep going to work, buying stuff, amusing ourselves and that everything will turn out OK while we do that… it’s painful to make this transition. It’s like waking up on a luxury cruise liner to find out it has hit an iceberg.
But those who survive will grasp this new reality, and like warriors act; but also, like artists, they will act secondarily by portraying a new and better future without these stodgy old problems (equality is from 1789, class war is from 1917, and racial equality is from 1968).
While “white nation with a third world minority, or a third world nation with a white minority” is the immediate question, the bigger question is how get over the constant class warfare of liberalism which is the origin of our racial crisis. Once we do that, we can build a better society.
Saturday, May 28th, 2011
I was sad to hear of Gil Scott-Heron’s passing recently. He seemed like an iconic figure with much to offer in deciphering the baffling experience of African-Americans.
He chronicled a reality alien to most of the mainstream, and came close to glimpsing the truth: African-Americans suffer most by being pawns for the white liberal.
If we each get fifteen minutes of fame, this was Gil Scott-Heron’s:
Whitey on the Moon
by Gil Scott-Heron
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Whitey’s on the moon)
I can’t pay no doctor bill.
(but Whitey’s on the moon)
Ten years from now I’ll be payin’ still.
(while Whitey’s on the moon)
The man jus’ upped my rent las’ night.
(’cause Whitey’s on the moon)
No hot water, no toilets, no lights.
(but Whitey’s on the moon)
I wonder why he’s uppi’ me?
(’cause Whitey’s on the moon?)
I wuz already payin’ ‘im fifty a week.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Taxes takin’ my whole damn check,
Junkies makin’ me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is goin’ up,
An’ as if all that shit wuzn’t enough:
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face an’ arm began to swell.
(but Whitey’s on the moon)
Was all that money I made las’ year
(for Whitey on the moon?)
How come there ain’t no money here?
(Hmm! Whitey’s on the moon)
Y’know I jus’ ’bout had my fill
(of Whitey on the moon)
I think I’ll sen’ these doctor bills,
(to Whitey on the moon) – source
This poem is alternately described as “sardonic” or “heart-wrenching,” depending on who you talk to.
Whether it was meant to be serious or not, whitey gave up the moon — and instead of pursuing NASA and space exploration, we’re busy funding the ghettos here at home:
We can’t have Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac collapse, because Black people would be harmed disproportionately. But we can see NASA collapse, because that frees up more money from an already exhausted budget (funding BRA isn’t cheap!) to go toward the never-ending cause of improving the quality of life for Black people.
This might be too much for some people reading this site, but I’m in a vendetta kind of mood. I want to put together a short book (100 – 150 pages) tentatively called We Could Have Been on Mars: But we had to Fund Black-Run America.
All of the money spent trying to improve the academic success rate of Black students over the past 40-50 years has been a monumental waste. The Return on Investment (ROI) for this investment has been, well, it’s hard to qualify, but we have helped a lot of Fortune 500 companies find valuable employees to promote over more qualified individuals.
So we ask you readers to search for the best articles on NASA you can find, detailing the budgets of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions. Statistics on diversity of the employees would be awesome. Then, help us locate the statistics for costs associated with programs like Headstart and other monetary wastelands concocted to help Black people excel in the classroom.
Costs associated with HUD, welfare, crime (think incarceration, court costs, the need for more police, etc.), EBT cards, and anything else you can think, send it over to me.
We could have been on Mars by now. Instead, we have to close up shop on space exploration and continue funding Black-Run America. – Stuff Black People Don’t Like
He has a valid point, to which I’ll add two caveats:
- Entitlement funding goes to more people than African-Americans. While the bulk goes to African-Americans, a whopping lot also goes to trailer whites, Hispanics, Asians and mixed-race individuals. Since 1950, the biggest cost increase in government has been the entitlement state, which is now over half our federal budget. The concept of the entitlement state itself is broken.
- How’s diversity working out for black people? Let’s see: lower life expectancy, higher rate of incarceration, higher rate of victimization, lower income potential. It doesn’t sound to me like diversity is working for African-Americans either; in fact, calling this system “Black Run America,” while funny, is inaccurate since no black nationalist would condemn his or her own people to this. Diversity is broken.
We can look at any information about African-Americans and get outraged, but it’s important to remember that African-Americans aren’t living in paradise. Entitlement programs just cost a ton of money and fail. Diversity also costs a ton of money and fails.
In fact, there is no healthy alternative for black people except emigration to Africa with Western money and technology behind them, so they can recapture their continent before the BRICs buy it up — a process called “soft colonialism.”
What African-Americans are however is prized pity objects for white liberals, who collect them like holy symbols. “But how many impoverished paraplegic African-Americans have you helped today?” they ask. Their number is higher; they are better, more like Bono from U2 and Jesus Christ.
But in the meantime, the point is well made: we could have been doing great things, but instead we’re focused on objects of pity, and paying them to be content and useless while the moon looks on, as if amused.
Saturday, May 28th, 2011
If there is anything besides domestic social policy that divides the Western right, it is the Israeli state.
The liberal left prefer to oversimplify this issue, as with all things, into a binary ‘just’ or ‘unjust’ case. This is convenient when your supporting constituents are constantly fed victim and oppressor indoctrination and very little else about life. So the left is neatly united on one side.
For the right, more interested in difficult truth than in easy popularity, there are many subdivided facets to the Israeli state and the people involved.
To the business and economy rightist, a security and intelligence ally in the middle of an oil rich region is a very important consideration. To them, the prosperity, and by extension, military capability of the West depends on reliable access to the petroleum in a volatile part of the world.
For the rightist whose evangelical faith is paramount, his loyalties are biblical in nature. The Promised Land must be the sovereign realm for those who are considered the Chosen people today. To the faithful, this is God’s will.
But the principled rightists are further split, with half expressing some social justice principles as with the left:
Despite the Arab Spring, Likud does not seem to realize or understand that the Palestinians are not animals to be shuffled around, that the absence of dignity and constant humiliation of their people led to the downfall of autocrats like Mubarak, and that this message is getting through to Washington. Still, Netanyahu and his Likud gangsters rely on the American Jewish community to pressure Obama, something AIPAC has been doing for the last fifty years. The final truth is the following: Israel’s Likud does not want peace, and Obama has to realize this and act accordingly. – Taki
Others on the principled right take a different approach. Geert Wilders is one example:
“Israel is a lighthouse and the only democracy in a dark and tyrannical region,” he declares. “It’s part of us, of our European identity. Israel is fighting our war.” – Ynet
The last two subdivisions is where the conservative right both gets itself into trouble, yet if played carefully, can be a method for acquiring some of the left’s popular territory.
There is no question that human rights and democracy are Western values. They are however, liberal progressive values rather than traditional. Because of this, conservatives who take a liberal progressive position with regard to the Israeli state may tend to find themselves out of their element, as they stray from traditional grounds.
A more traditional principled position on the Israeli state would argue for sovereignty and peoplehood. These people are an ancient culture of two distinct ethnic groups, the Ashkenazic and Sephardic. They have a long established, consistent history in the area and now a modern state as well.
Local authority regarding a competing people who are not firmly established and often unstable would go to the stronger and more stable. The side that has its act together in other words, gets to decide for each. Simply put, observable merit in inequality are the traditional grounds.
The alternative is to help perpetuate the leftist system of blind equality against the real observable differences in quality. Furthermore, perpetuating this very myth ultimately causes the conflict and horror experienced by both the inequal sides.
What’s missing is a decisive resolution with finality derived from the more qualified authority that is directly involved and not any distant third party. If observable quality and established right, rather than a baseless equal right to the same thing (living space, resources) in any given competition between groups were adopted throughout the West, the lack of resolution, wasted time, and the utterly useless third party mediators like the United Nations would disappear.
Clearly conflict would still remain in the world, but only for the losing group. But the matter would be decided for the long run so that each side can move on. This is the distinction between a traditional way and a modern democratic way.