Archive for September, 2012
Saturday, September 29th, 2012
The way to be cool is to be detached. The less you look like you care, the more you can claim to be above it all, different from the mainstream, and cool.
As a stance goes, this isn’t the worst angle to take. However as time takes over, “cool” doesn’t work so well since truly not caring and being above it all results in dysfunction, poverty and alienation.
At that point, it starts to look like being cool isn’t just another option in a procession of many stances, but one of a few fundamental paths one can take in life.
One can engage, and buy into society at face value; one can engage, and be cynical. One can drop out and pursue higher goals, like religion or art. There are also decent paths in disciplines, like the military or the professions.
Each of these paths is what moderns refer to using the gnomic term “lifestyle.” But it is not that: each is a path. A path is a combination of career, life philosophy, and all other things related to how you spend your time.
For example, you can choose a “higher” path like that of a hermit philosopher. Alone in your hut, or dingy apartment, you can be profound and re-assure yourself that no one else could possibly understand, which is why they crawl around like rodents at their measly jobs.
On the other end, you could decide to go to school and open your mind to whatever they make you choke down and regurgitate. You can spend your time on it for seven years, and at the end of that, find yourself in a decent job or profession. That profession then becomes your path.
Others find paths in disciplines. If you are a sword-maker, you have a position in a community, if one such place still exists. You may not get paid a lot, but you don’t starve either, and so you have a comfortable life and a “calling” that others will know you by.
The point is that each of us make a decision to trade our time for some role in society, even if that role is drop-out. We are inseparable from our context, which is not merely social (who likes you) but civilizational, embodying shared roles toward achieving the goal of a certain type of civilization. Even further, this role is a personal sense of what you believe in.
While this choice is upon us by the nature of being alive, most people refuse to take it. Their attitude is passive, of doing jobs for money and of participating in society only because there are laws and police. They do not choose their destiny, but react to its parameters.
For the last 200+ years, society has pandered to these people in order to accommodate them. It talks about equality endlessly, so that they know that any choice is acceptable, and feel the burden of choosing lifting. They are accepted just for being human and if there are bad consequences of their choices, all the “normal” people owe them a living and respect, just for being human again.
But the past is alive. Memories of a time when people were defined by their choices, not their evasion of the consequences of those, haunts us. It isn’t that far ago — centuries are small change in history — and it isn’t even that removed. We can dust off the old photographs, read the old books.
We see fragments of it any time someone chooses to stand up for what they find to be true (not “believe,” since that word in its modern use implies arbitrary excuses for denying reality). It haunts us in our dreams, too, as we wonder if the justifications we make in daytime can protect us from doubt in the night.
That nocturnal doubt takes a simple form: perhaps a better path could be chosen, or was available.
We have this in a minor sense like an inoculation each time in the moments before sleep seizes us we recall an interaction, perhaps with an attractive person, in which we “could have said” something witty and did not. Next time, we think.
And what is our solace when next time is not possible in this lifetime? When we have spent our quarter and the game is over? It doesn’t happen at the moment of death, but in the decades before. From roughly 20-70 we spend our active years. What did our choices say about us?
Certainly we can hide behind the comforting political dogma and “scientific” notion that all our choices are equal. But in the depths of the night, we realize that other paths awaited and we foreclosed them. Was it through bravery, or did we simply shirk our duty?
We will always measure ourselves by our ancestors. Not what is convenient, trendy, hip, cool, chill, phat, profitable, politically correct, popular, fly or off the chain. Those are temporary things.
What we fight and die for is what defines our innermost essence, our souls if you still believe in those antiquated things, or maybe just the primal center of our personalities.
For two generations we have known relative peace. History however is turbulent, and makes change not through peaceful resolutions over coffee, but war and mayhem.
When the times of chaos come again, what will you stand and die for? Do you think highly of yourself, and of your world, to take a stand somewhere?
The past is alive and it shapes us to this moment and beyond.
Wednesday, September 26th, 2012
You’re going to see a lot more of situations like this. A law or rule is on the books, and it seems unfair to minority groups, so they protest.
In response, government gives them money. Mitt Romney notices they’re part of the 47%. The rest of the country wonders, “Uh oh. Can I actually say this? That the 47% is mostly non-white and the 53% is mostly white?”
Perhaps the Republican Party is slow to figure it out, but the people voting for the Republican Party are not slow. They realize that the Democrats have been using immigration and domestic minorities to pad the voter rolls, in addition to their homegrown cadre of the disaffected, neurotic, self-pitying and futilitarian.
(I should define: a “futilitarian” is any person who believes that humanity is screwed for any effort higher than self-interest, so society should just stop harshing on my buzz, man, and give everyone a chance to live an easy life of non-work jobs, free porn and lots of entertainment from Panem et Circenses, Inc. who is just coincidentally a government contractor. I digress.)
This election isn’t just about getting America back from the Barack Hussein Obama Socialist Agenda(tm). It’s about getting America back, period. Either the majority wins out, or they get replaced by big government, more immigration, a Soviet-style wealth redistribution plan and internationalist rule in the UN style.
When people figure out an inkling of this, and I just mean a little slice of it, doesn’t take much, they begin to freak out. First is that they are conditioned to “not notice” (which means force their brains to ignore) race and class issues. They’re already squirming because they are seeing something they are programmed to not accept as true.
Second they’re losing their marbles because they don’t understand it. “Why do they hate us?” asked 4.1 million well-intentioned ladies hired in middle management simultaneously. Burly outdoors types are wondering if this is the great race war.
The answer is a lot simpler. Think back to when you were a kid. How did you make it through school? If you were popular, you joined the future leaders of America types. If not, you made excuses for not being popular, and joined kids who were united by not being popular.
As any high school movie shows us this unpopular group includes at least half of the kids in the school and comprises many subcultures. Goths, punkers, white rappers, nerds, stoners, geeks and surfers.
When these different groups join together, they have the most power in the school by their sheer numbers. Unlike in the movies the popular kids aren’t scheming against the nerds, they’re busy being popular, getting into Harvard and planning how to spend all the money they’ll make at their future careers.
But what it takes to join all these different groups is a kind of social contract that says “because not being popular is part of who we are, we agree to accept each other totally and form a different type of popularity.”
This is what the Democrats, Communists, Socialists and any other non-majority party do. They unite different groups under the banner of anti-majoritarianism or first, not being part of the majority, and second, wanting to unite and take over from that majority.
I had this one job that rewarded people for sales made on the phones. This quickly separated everyone out like oil and water, between the go-getters (annoying tools) who had lots of sales, and the “slackers” who didn’t even bother to harass ordinary people with these stupid sales pitches.
When someone got enough sales to be part of the cool group, they kind of disappeared. This new identity was something they were proud of and they had a new social group. The rest of us just fell off their radar.
During one pre-Christmas rush, all the slackers got together and started just ignoring the go-getters. We wouldn’t transfer calls to them, or give them any information, or even talk to them. The result was total breakdown of the system and who did the burden fall on? The go-getters. For once the slackers were home at Christmas and the “winners” got to spend the night on the phone, explaining Windows 95 networking to the drunk, lonely and bitter.
The American majority is mostly white, middle class, socially conservative and economically classical liberal, religiousish, family centric and essentially nerdly. They’re not cool like the slackers, the minority groups famed for their music and colorful art and cooking, or the Democrats.
Most of them don’t understand yet. They hate you, the anti-majoritarians. They don’t hate you because you’re white, middle class, possibly Christian or chaste. They hate you because you’re the majority, the well-adjusted people who are happy here. You represent what they can’t have and they project their dissatisfaction with themselves onto you.
Anti-majoritarianism reflects self-doubt on the part of those who hate the majority. If they had the ability, they would either join the majority or find another way to have what that group has. Obviously they have not, so obviously they can not, and this secret in plain sight makes them enraged.
They won’t stop until you the majority are destroyed and replaced with people more like them. Again this is not race, but the mere fact of your majority status, that they will use against you. They don’t care what the truth is. If the facts don’t agree, they’ll fake them. If the newspapers don’t agree, they’ll start their own. They will do whatever is necessary to gain control.
The American majority slept through all the liberal social experiments because the majority believed that these were legitimate ideas to advance society, in the interests of the majority. Instead it turns out to be a replacement and destruction program. The majority now is figuring out that even if they attain minority status, they will still be destroyed through violence, wealth redistribution and lots of hateful laws.
I have observed that almost nobody understands just about anything during this election. People are telling you stupid stuff, like to write-in George Washington or stay home. The real fact is that you can’t afford to. This election will determine whether this country destroys its majority and thus becomes a third-world war zone, or reverses course and regains its former greatness. There are no other options.
Tuesday, September 25th, 2012
Catchy title, don’t you think?
I don’t know if the term exists, or not, but if it didn’t, it does now.
We are what we believe.
Quantum physics notes (incredulously) that sub-atomic particles behave differently, depending upon who is examining them, and what those different people expect to see.
There is talk, in religion, of every being having a piece of ‘God’ within them. Created in ‘God’s’ image.
Some take this to be the soul. While the more foolish believe that it means ‘God’ looks and behaves just like them.
But whatever it is, it probably has – in some measure – the ability to create.
People create things, all the time. Well, some people.
Apply this to political ideologies, and you get people creating realities, based upon what they believe.
Conservatives subscribe to a far different reality than Liberals.
So which is actual reality? Is there one?
Conservatives, by nature, prefer to work with what they see as manifest reality, and operate within its ruleset.
They are consequence-based, so this follows.
Whereas Liberals, by nature, prefer to subscribe to what they prefer, whether it is reasonable, sustainable, or not.
If it sounds good, to a Liberal, he adds it to his view of reality, and to what he believes.
You will hear conservatives speak of the way things are.
Whereas liberals will speak of how things should be.
It always amazes conservatives, that liberals can not see reality.
It always amazes liberals, that conservatives can not see ‘the obvious’.
Perhaps we need some concept of ‘God’ in order to put our own power to create, into a constructive context.
Because, without that, we create alternate realities, willy-nilly, with no thought to the consequences.
These alternate realities, being so often at odds with each other, and with the base reality, itself, can lead, and do lead, to enormous problems, down the road.
I lean, of course, to conservatism. Although I am not a conservative as most people think of that term.
Because conservatism does its best to hold on to what worked, and what currently is working, rather than dream up ill-considered ‘change’ for the sake of it.
Whereas liberalism (read leftism) while initially looking good, always (always!) leads to disaster, and historically to millions of deaths, when it arrives at the communist stage.
Which may be good, if population-control is your thing.
But very bad, if you feel human life is sacrosanct.
And even worse, if you find yourself, personally, on the wrong side of it.
Whatever reality you subscribe to becomes the only one. For you.
A good idea, perhaps, to spend time discovering what reality actually is, rather than subscribe to cleverly-disguised imitations, that, sooner or later, turn into nightmares.
Sunday, September 23rd, 2012
Francis Fukuyama began his watershed The End of History and the Last Man with a definition of liberal democracy: it describes democracies that are centered around the facilitative principle of providing civil rights and equality to their citizens, which necessarily includes economic and consumer freedoms as well as political and civil ones.
Much like thinkers before him, Fukuyama hit on an important principle: no ideology is static. Whatever we implement today leads to something tomorrow that is implicated by the nature of our ideology. For example, in democracy, the idea that individuals are free leads to the idea of equality so all individuals are free, then the idea of consumerism, then the idea of socialism in order to subsidize these individuals in their free choices even if those choices are not supportable by the economy.
Don’t tell the big media “conservatives,” but the same economic freedom that leads to consumerism also leads to welfare. For people to be truly free and equal, they need the nanny state to step in and make sure that they don’t face the consequences of their actions. You might call this an anti-reality bias, as it is biased against results and biased in favor of feelings, emotions, judgments and desires of human beings.
What people don’t like to admit is that democracy tends toward this bias. If we assume that everyone is equal, and everyone can do whatever they want and society will facilitate it, there is only one type of society this can lead toward: the bazaar, or a permissive, rule-less, chaotic and unstructured system tied together only by commerce and the shared belief in ideology. If you can imagine a fusion between the Soviet Union and an American shopping mall, this is the inevitable end result of democracy.
The underlying reason for this is that democracy is a zero-sum game. In theory, we all vote for what we want, and the end result is whatever is most popular. However, this denies that fact that for one person to get what they want means that another is excluded from what they want. The only way around this thought is that pluralism allows us each to do whatever we want, so we can have what we want and what the other guy wants.
This is a fallacy because people do not want individual things unless they are pluralists; they want types of civilization, types of places to live, types of lives (“lifestyles,” in the odious magazine parlance) and types of futures. These are not determined on the individual level. They are determined by civilization, or people working together according to common values and goals. This means that when one person gets their ideal type of civilization, it excludes what everyone else wants. And vice-versa.
As a result, democracies tend toward only one direction: compromise, which means pluralism or many little “parallel societies” existing within one, and in order to support that, the notion of equality and thus, liberalism/leftism in its many forms. Even more disturbing is that liberalism itself is a continuum, so that if a society starts at a moderate form it will inevitably drift toward one of the two extremes, a total managed state (Communism) or un-state (anarchism).
Permissiveness occurs wherever pluralism goes, and it obliterates the ability of a nation to choose any kind of social standard. What results is the bazaar, with its minimal standards for behavior, and a cult of compassion and “open-mindedness” that rewards acceptance/tolerance of any behavior no matter how bizarre, so long as it is deviant enough to warrant protection and thus confer upon its acceptors the role of facilitator of pluralism.
The only real problem with this process is that it un-does civilization itself. There is no longer any common goal or purpose, other than supporting the notion of pluralism and commerce. Like a shopping mall, the society thus exists only for as long as it can profit off of its own citizens, and when any real challenges arise, it knuckles under and runs away to something more cash money deliverable.
If you find yourself wondering why our civilization is always in disarray, yet “powerful” economically and militarily, this is because we live in an anti-civilization. The consumers demand no rules, thus equality, thus democracy, and this creates a giant financial state that supports them for so long as it is convenient. Eventually the civilization collapses, and the only people concerned are those who recognize what greater civilization might have been in its place instead.
Saturday, September 22nd, 2012
Nobody likes the mainstream parties. There’s a simple reason. If you’ve ever tried to pick a restaurant in a group in ten friends, or sat in on a committee meeting, you know how when you get a large group together, you end up not with the intersection of their best traits, but their traits in common, which are by definition unexceptional.
When people assemble a party like the mainstream Democrats or Republicans, they’re trying to distill a wide range of perspectives into a single platform. For example, the Democrats have to accommodate classical liberals, progressives, Utopians, anarchists, Socialists, left-greens, feminists and Communists. You can’t make everyone happy, so instead you focus on symbolic and mostly arbitrary issues.
The right is even more confused because the right is not based on a singular idea (egalitarianism) for a singular group (the discontented) as leftism/liberalism is. The right is based on the idea of finding methods of living that work well, preserving values that uphold those methods, and basically “conserving” good things against the onslaught of easy answers like commerce, popularity and hedonism.
As you can imagine, there’s no good way to sum up these two abstract ideas in an issue, so they become general tendencies. The Democrats become the party of acceptance and, to facilitate that, entitlements and special interest politics; the Republicans become the party of defending common sense against the insanity of such personal politics, and so end up cheerleading for capitalism, small government, capital punishment, religion and the military.
The problem is that especially for young people, these facets of society seem to be part of the problem because they are infected with the same decline that has blighted all of the West since the appearance of liberalism. Conservatives appear to be defending the dysfunction and greed (which is really a desire to escape the rat race) instead of upholding a moral right.
For these reasons, interest in a right-wing alternative has been building. People are realizing that issues politics will not solve our problems, which require “deep” solutions which involve a re-examination of the architecture of our social system.
However, they are caught between the mainstream right which skims the surface of conservatism and an “underground” far right which over-amplifies certain aspects of the right and turns them into a religion which justifies both social non-participation and failure. Like many self-styled ideologues, these undergrounders are looking for an identity and a way to explain their drop-out status as anything but a loss.
This leaves the average American or European — middle class, semi-religious, not very dogmatic, but interested in practical solutions and increasingly, long-term solutions, especially as they have kids and their kids have kids — with not too much of a good choice. The obvious and practical solution is to participate in the mainstream right and use it to demand deeper solutions, but this requires direction and clarity that most people — busy with jobs, families, churches, volunteer groups, etc. — are unlikely to have.
To this end, a number of Alternative Right movements have risen around the West, trying to combine the ideological clarity of the underground with the mass appeal and pragmatism of the mainstream right-wing. Many of them, including the site linked, have done a credible job of it.
However it is still hard to define an alternative right. We know it’s not far-right, but it’s also not neoconservative because neoconservatives have deeply imbibed the liberal dogma of egalitarianism. It’s definitely anti-liberal, but anti-movements don’t go far until they realize what they actually want. It needs something else, a direction, that unites the disparate parts of its belief system.
As mentioned in other parts of this blog, conservatism is fundamentally consequentialism. This means that it is concerned with the results of actions, not our feelings or judgments of them. From this comes its worship of eternal truths, or things that work because a study of reality shows them to produce optimal results, and from that a study of transcendental beauty and timeless good.
Any alternative right — or pressure on the mainstream right — that will succeed is going to work outward from these ideas. They are not fences to keep ideas in a chaotic mass, but like the center of a wheel the anchor to which spokes connect, drawing all the sub-ideas together. They are like the root note in a scale to which key and chord harmonize.
While we watch Marine Le Pen succeed in France and Mitt Romney run the most outrageously conservative campaign since Ronald Reagan in the USA, it’s important to not get lost in the symbols of what what stand for, and to remember what it is that we value and why we are involved. Then we can pressure the mainstream to adopt these alternative right views and get closer to honest conservatism.
Friday, September 21st, 2012
People are so dramatic that sometimes it seems like they want any excuse to give up.
One of their favorite forms of giving up is extremism for extremism’s sake. Why spend your time and effort on an achievable task, when you can invent the morality of a “perfect” solution that shows no promise for reality? It makes you seem above it all.
Another great way to give up is to invent your own spin on a belief. Don’t stick with a plausible interpretation of history; claim you have something new. Better yet, patch it together from incompatible bits of existing philosophy, so it requires impossible total control.
Giving up is what many are doing on election 2012. They have convinced themselves that both parties “are the same,” and that the system is rigged. Or that no candidate represents their values. Or even that it’s all hopeless and there’s no point participating.
All of this denies the fundamental truth of politics, which is that there are essentially two directions. They aren’t positions or parties, but paths of thought.
The first is leftism. It’s new, starting in the 18th century, but seems to appear in every society when it gets too bottom heavy. The idea of leftism is that everyone should be able to do whatever they want to, with minimal hierarchy, because what people feel and perceive is most important.
The second is rightism. It’s ancient, being invented when every society is created. Its idea is that we should pay attention to how reality works and use proven, workable and eternal ideas to guide ourselves. Perception and feelings are secondary to the outside world in this view.
It’s not popular to say this, but America and Europe are basically in the same fix. A massive leftism lobby is slowly taking over and replacing the indigenous people with leftist voters, who are both immigrants and home-grown people who are mentally broken because of the effects of liberal social programs. This mob grows like a snowball, and its only desire is to destroy all culture and heritage, all values and preference, and replace them with good “non-conformist” conformists who have one goal alone, reaching the leftist Utopia through equality. Leftism takes prosperous societies and leaves behind starving third-world ghettos because it removes sanity from human minds.
We can either go toward more leftism, or toward more rightism. Those are your two options. There are no others; even the most far-out and creative belief system is going to be going more toward one direction than the other.
You might look at Mitt Romney and think, “This guy is really too restrained and moderate for what needs to be done. What we need to do is turn around, fast, and throw out the ingrates and put ourselves back on track.”
While that’s true, you should pay attention to our opponents — the leftists — and how they beat us and took over. They found a popular idea. They steadily advanced it, through baby steps and daily acts of disobedience, until they’d browbeaten or guilt-trapped others into joining them.
Soon they became a popular trend, like joining the local bowling league. You knew other people through being leftist, and met girls that way, and had a social group. They were a society within a society. But they did it all through baby steps.
The only way to un-do the damage they’ve done is to take baby steps as well. Peel a layer of the onion, wait, and observe that not only has the country not imploded, but it’s doing better. Then peel another layer, and do the same thing.
While people hunger for sudden explosive change, it’s the guys like Mitt Romney who are pushing us to victory. They are supremely able administrators and they push relentlessly and constantly for baby steps in the right direction.
In other words, no matter where you are on the right, from a moderate who leans left on gay marriage to an extreme radical counter-revolutionary, you are serving your interests best by joining mainstream politics and approving its message mass support for a rightist direction.
This path has the advantage of not risking an unstable rebellion, not damaging the lives and careers of our people, and also giving us time to make slow and cautious moves instead of rushing off into wars like last century.
Times change, and with it we must, or we fail to adapt and become obsolete. This is the age of liberalism’s failure, as all of its social programs turn into disasters, which means we must be the antithesis of those ideals but also use its methods.
As we push forward with patience and deliberation, our opponents quake in fear because this is the one attack they have no defense against. A slow invasion and replacement. It’s what they did to us, so turnabout must be fair play.