Nationalism rises again


Donald Trump has forced his way into the 2016 election by addressing an issue no one else will talk about. Like Nigel Farage, he is a businessman who knows that when the herd is in denial about a relevant fact, it can be exploited. He has and now has beaten all of the Establishment competition.

The immigration debate achieves two vast changes: first, it smashes the politically correct narrative that holds that white people are always the bad guy and must accept the rest of the world — which happens to live in mostly third-world conditions — as their new replacements. Second, it has reintroduced nationalism, or the idea that a nation is defined by heritage, as a form of self-defense against an increasingly crumbling democratic world order.

In particular, the explosion of the immigration debate in the US, UK and Europe has forced us to focus on the paradox of social justice logic. Under that ideology, it is acceptable for any group to have self-interest, except European-descended peoples. This fits with the Leftist paradigm that insists that if some have less than others, it is because they were victimized by those others, not because the people with less could not produce it.

Increasingly, European-descended peoples are realizing that we cannot support the third-world masses, who outnumber us 19 to 1. We are also figuring out that they all want to come here for our social welfare programs, which makes us want those programs gone, too. Finally we are realizing that our fortunes and social orders have collapsed since we abandoned the principle of nationalism.

Nationalism and democracy cannot coexist. “Equality” originally meant political equality. But, since people make those political decisions, it quickly extended to insisting all people are the same. This is because unless we do that, it becomes apparent that those who are less prosperous are making worse decisions than those who prosper. The problem is that we can have one of two: all people are equal, and therefore all nations could be prosperous but because of their decisions, or that equality is nonsense, and some nations rose because of their inherent abilities. Democracy requires equality to be anything more than laughable, and so it excludes nationalism whenever it can.

This gives rise to the paradox of nationalism. If nationalism is bad, non-whites should not have it either and the Black Panthers should be a hate organization just like the White Riders. But if nationalism is not innately bad, then it is admirable for non-whites to be nationalist — and also for European-descended people, including Western Europeans (“whites”) to do so. This realization causes panic in the Leftist camp, who under the guise of “equality” wish to destroy all social order so the individual has no restraints on his behavior including the destructive and selfish acts which neurotic people seem compelled to do.

Nothing illustrates this more than the attack on Donald Trump for becoming popular by opposing immigration. As one writer made clear:

Writing in the conservative American Spectator, Ross Kaminsky says that Trump’s plan to deport illegal aliens is “shameful” and makes a not so thinly veiled comparison of Trump to Hitler:

His plan to require businesses to ‘hire American workers first’ has the stench of xenophobia backed up by the fist of government. Perhaps as a Jew I’m overly sensitive, but when I hear Trump speak I can’t help but think of ‘Germany for the Germans.’

Really? Alexander Hamilton also advocated protectionist policies to favor Americans. Was he an 18th-century Hitler? And if it is wrong to advocate “America for Americans” and “Germany for Germans,” why isn’t it equally wrong to advocate “Israel for Jews”?

As pointed out on this blog long ago, the origin of modern nationalism comes from the Jewish experience. The diaspora began when the Romans cast out the Jewish people from their ancestral homeland, Israel. At this point, Jews expanded into the middle east and finally Eastern Europe, then Western Europe. While they benefited greatly from European methods and genetics, the Jewish people found themselves the frequent target of pogroms from left, right and unaligned groups. Theodor Herzl tackled this topic in his writings, and found that the cause of anti-Semitism was that Jews by not having a national group and homeland became inevitable targets for not assimilating. At the same time, assimilation would mean self-destruction. Herzl concluded that the only solution to “racism” and anti-Semitism was for Jews to move back to Israel, ending the diaspora.

Unfortunately, as the old “in Soviet Russia” jokes go, under democracy, you do not go on diaspora… diaspora comes to you. Leftists want Israel to admit anyone who wants to move there, specifically the “Mexicans of the middle east” the Palestinians, who lag 25 IQ points on average behind their Jewish counterparts and would be at home in a third-world society but out of place in a first-world one. If the point of WWII and The Holocaust was that Jews need safety from persecution, that includes safety from persecution and genocide by “soft” methods, such as forcing them to accept non-Jewish people among them until by inevitable entropy and the poor choices of young people in choosing mates, they are bred out of existence. The choice again is alienation or assimilation.

In other words, the victims of what we assumed was a problem with nationalism have rediscovered the necessity of nationalism. Assuming nationalism is not the problem, we see WWII in a different light: the Jewish people needed a homeland, and they were excluded from it by the British occupation, which led to inevitable conflict that ended in Jewish genocide under the far-right in Germany and under the far-left in Eastern Europe. The problem was not nationalism, but as Herzl observed, diversity. While democracy requires diversity for the pretense of equality, it causes inevitable friction as it forces plurality upon populations that require the direction given by culture and identity.

The Left will do whatever it can to suppress nationalism because democracy cannot coexist with a notion that a specific type of inequality, specifically allowing people to separate by commonality, provides a better way of life than the great equal collectivist melting pot. For the last fifty years, they have used a Marxist concept, “political correctness,” to enforce a fear of “racism” which is a broad, undefined category fudged to include nationalism. Even Pravda-on-the-Hudson admits that the Leftist gambit of political correctness has failed:

“People are starting to see, I believe, that all this political correctness is garbage,” he said. “I think he’s echoing what a lot of people feel and say.”

The walls are falling. These walls are conceptual and designed to limit our thinking. They were erected by Leftists to manipulate us into accepting equality, and therefore, needing democracy, which by its nature as mob rule always leans to the Left. People like illusions, and in groups they vote based on individual fears at a lowest common denominator level, specifically “I don’t want anyone telling me that I am wrong no matter what I do” and “I want government to protect my feelings.” The Left, addicted to the fundamentally dishonest notion that civilization can exist without social order, has invented new lies every week to justify its parasitic and malignant mob rule.

Normal people, who tend to be open-minded, fall for this sucker punch every time. They accept the “new” ideas — really old ideas in new clothing, like rock bands in different costumes who use weird instruments but play the same old song — as important and scientific. They do not realize that Leftism is eternal: it is a pathology of selfishness hiding itself behind altruism, which is a form of passive-aggressive self-interest. Altruism provides a cover which allows these people to demand society support them, and accuse those who resist of some kind of ultimate sin against equality like “racism,” classism, homophobia, sexism, etc. Leftism is a pathological individualism which sacrifices society itself to the fears of the individual.

Like evil, Leftism arises in every generation. When a nation is strong, it opposes it, but if it has encountered tragedies — Mongol invasions, the Black Plague, the Muslim invasions that provoked the Crusades — it may lack the strength to fight its enemies at home. And yet these enemies at home are what destroy a nation by dividing it against itself. They corrupt its language, distort its image of what is right, and send it down the path to doom. The failings originate in the individual but spread through the inability of a society to discipline its neurotics, pathological liars, and other defectives whose insanity arises from individualism replacing a compulsion to do what is good. In other words, by turning from good, they turn toward evil, and the root of evil is in the self. No wonder the collected selves demand “equality”!



Scholomance: depicted as a demonic school of dark arts, run by the devil, it perfectly illustrates our contemporary situation in the wake of The Enlightenment™. Our modern schools are without purpose, without foundation; they exist merely because they are “business as usual,” helpful to show off social standing, and where else would the kids go while the grown-ups work?

To better explain this we must understand the difference between knowledge and information. Knowledge is something that is known, and which is not easily passed since it was not easily gained in the first place. Yet somehow it was gained, perhaps as the result of experience or age in combination with intelligence hence to teach it there must be a promising student willing to go through a similar process to acquire knowledge on its own. The student progress and matures, a seemingly slow process albeit necessary.

Information on the other hand is any scrap of data that may or may not be correct, and which you may or may not comprehend, but which is easy to cram into your head. The better you are at it, remembering what someone else says, and the more of a suck up you are, the better you fit into a society that thrives off of appearances. Modern education is a process that spreads information, indiscriminately without regards to quality, in this way it is a lot like propaganda. Understood in relation to the greater forces in play it is easy to see that it serves the purpose of re-educating children in the wake of the enlightenment. By stuffing the heads of the students, with modern but inessential rubbish, the old ways and their knowledge are pushed aside. The quality suffers; in its place there is quantity: fast food instead of whole grains.

Quantity is taken for quality — in other words book-knowledge and gossip are taken for intelligence — and the more someone repeats the simple message the more it is taken to be truth, for everyone around says so and thus it must be so, even when this is not the case at all. In this way respect for teachers disappear and is replaced with pretensions to the academic mind.

In our modern schools, rather than teach what is worthwhile, that is education based on knowledge and understanding and which few teachers possess, we stuff our children’s heads with information that anyone can teach but which devalues not only the value of a good teacher but also the value of the good student. What is important to succeed is to stand in line, a simple message that most children pick up on early on and practise on a daily basis, like marionettes of conformity. Unfortunately this do not prepare them for life as society crumbles, and it does not help their maturation and has the inevitable result that they turn out mad, like head-cases and underdeveloped like little kids.

Education as we know it is the Scholomance itself. Schools are not real institutions of learning but the tool of evil that enslaves generations. Though information is not bad in itself, beating it into the students, by long hours of repetition and many years of study, is sure to make them stupid by propaganda, insensitive to common sense, and ill-prepared to handle living on their own. The goal is to replace wisdom with mere information and in doing so, make the population compliant.

The answer perhaps, in the age of academia, is to bring back quality, intelligence and knowledge to the Academia. We cannot strike education directly since its so integrated into our societies but by infecting its mileu we could revert education to a healthier functioning. The web is the bleeding point, winning the information war on the web is crucial. All you need to do is take part, and spread what you know, rather than what you do not know. Just be cautious, for there are many little devils out there.

Rename all the mountains


Conservatives are abuzz with the usual tame outrage over President Obama renaming Mt. McKinley “Denali,” a situation made more complex by many Alaskans preferring the Siberian name for it. A number of conservatives have defended his decision on the basis of populism and history.

As usual, humans generate a massive tempest of ideological effluvia over a simple issue. Healthy societies have strong identities. Those identities come from shared origins that are both genetic and cultural and can immediately be recognized, like someone of your tribe, wearing traditional clothing, doing customary things. Leftism systematically dismantles these because they conflict with utter autonomy of the individual. As conservatives, it is our goal to conserve and when necessary resurrect these things.

Our identity is WASP, which is (in the New World) shorthand for Western European. This population is distinct from Eastern and Southern European as well as outliers like the Irish, who have an Iberian-North African descended strain in them and group genetically with Southern Europeans. This identity is what saves us from all the methods of liberalism like big government, equality, feminism, diversity, deviance norming and social breakdown. We must always assert this identity strongly because among us there are unhappy people and neurotics who will always and pathologically work to destroy it.

In a Western European society, all of the mountains — and states, rivers, roads, cities and towns — should have Western European names. This asserts strong identity and bonds us to the land and its people. While Obama is incorrect in terms of his goal, which is to ideologically cuckold conservatives and make them conform, he is correct in his method. To support identity, one must name things correctly.

Some have argued that because the method is similar to a liberal method, that the idea of renaming our national landmarks with Western European names is bad. They would like to categorize actions by method and not purpose in the oldest moral error, which is assuming that social intent, or how inconvenient an action is to our social view of ourselves, is more important than the traditional view of purpose and goal as linked. We cannot measure morality by method alone; sometimes one must kill, for example a murder, in order to be the opposite of murder.

The confusion here is between method and goal (which measures itself by results and not appearances like method-based critiques) alone. Liberalism has a degenerate goal and corrupts every method, but where its methods are effective, it is because they are borrowed from somewhere else. Europeans upon discovering new territory gave names to the landmarks there and in so doing, defined those societies as European. Liberals borrowed this technique for “re-claiming” what had been claimed, and if we embarked on “re-re-claiming” we would simply be doing what is natural in claiming that territory. Assertion of identity is more important than the convenience of people in using certain names that in turn, shape their own view of themselves as a people.

Obama renamed Mt. McKinley in order to damage the self-esteem and self-image of Western Europeans in the new world. He wants them to feel like a subjugated people, which is the necessary consequence of having foreign names around them. In particular, he wants to re-inforce the guilt narrative regarding the people he calls “Native Americans” or “First Nations” when they are in fact neither. The most likely scenario for Amerinds, as they are technically called, is that multiple groups came over from the old world, but the group from Siberia was most numerous and out-reproduced the others. Obama hopes for a similar fate for America and Europe, as do all liberals, which is why beating back “racism” and adopting massive third world immigration has been the central focus of their activity in the postwar period.

As Robert Frost noted when he penned “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,” life often produces binaries when a choice comes down to the line. We cannot use a method here of imposing categorical logic by saying “all binaries are bad,” but should note that at some point one either chooses to act toward what is right, or accepts whatever else comes down the pipe. What is right in this case is asserting our cultural identity exclusively because it is necessary for our survival, and failing to do so will only produce another mixed-heritage third world burnout of a former empire. It may be most convenient to use some familiar names, or to cuckold ourselves as Obama desires we do, but the right thing to do waits for no man. It is an opportunity either seized or a defeat and self-destruction slowly but certainly growing near.

White riot


Diversity creates racism. It does so by forcing groups into competition when they would rather live among their own and have self-determination, or the ability to rule themselves and choose their own future. Racism creates rancor, and if there is a perceived economic or power imbalance, it creates race warfare.

That is what is happening on the streets of America today. Currently, it is white-vs-black drama, but this will soon expand to include other groups, even those that like Hispanic indios and Asians tend to use more indirect methods. Speaking of indirect methods, check out the response. After years of being silenced by accusations of “racism,” white people are mobilizing in protest.

One night after Deputy Darren Goforth was executed at the Chevron station in Houston, over a thousand people gathered at the site to memorialize the man who was apparently murdered simply because he wore a police uniform, as reported by Breitbart Texas. Thousands more gathered on Sunday night to walk the streets in the suburban neighborhood where he was killed.

As reported by Breitbart Texas, the escalation of anti-white and anti-cop rhetoric has been building since militant black activists began marching in support of #BlackLivesMatter after the suicide of Sandra Bland. At protests at the jail where Bland killed herself, a radical activist called for all white people to be killed, and heavily armed members of the New Black Panther Party chanted “the revolution has started … off the pigs.” A Texas-based internet radio show called for the lynching of whites and the killing of police officers. Last week, two white journalists and a white deputy sheriff have been assassinated by blacks who appear to be carrying out the message of hate.

White people favor indirect methods. They prefer to march, sing bad folk songs on acoustic guitar, wave signs and write letters. They show up for midnight vigils. They produce (endless) blogs and editorials. And let us not forget the first-person novels. This is how someone accustomed to a European-style society registers displeasure. They do not achieve displeasure without first having doubts and fears, and when all of those come together, an emotional wave sweeps the population. (Then they usually choose the wrong option based on other fears and that dreaded hallmark of all failure, moral laziness).

For a population that only a decade ago was afraid to discuss race at all, this is a big shift, even a sea change, if you will. The cat is out of the bag and the dissent is spreading. We all want to believe the Benetton ads and political speeches on our televisions, but experience shows us that “birds of a feather flock together” and that difference breeds disagreement. Having uneasily held their tongues for decades, the Caucasians are on the march. Slowly. Indirectly. But discontented nonetheless.

The genetics of ideology


Taylor’s Law of Ecology observes an inverse power law relationship between population size and variance. As the population of a species per area of habitat becomes more numerous, the differences between individuals decreases, as if a form of genetic entropy has appeared. If this law is applicable to human thought, we can conclude that the more prevalent an ideology becomes within a civilization, the less it is capable of producing variations on its ideological genus. This process can be explained by Darwinian reproductive fitness.

Exploring this topic requires analysis of reproductive fitness in terms of ideology. In the context of human society — much to the chagrin of partisans of Rationalism — the human mind is not convinced by logical reasoning alone. It is not even a primary motivator. The Greeks understood this fully and hence extolled the virtues of rhetoric as it includes authority and emotion alongside logic.

Successful ideologies must rely heavily on authority and emotional appeal. In the real world, this takes two forms: convergent philosophies who insist on their own objectivity and appeals to popular sentiment and sensibility. This fitness is not environmental fitness, but rather, what it takes to reproduce. Ideologies, like species, can produce offspring even when maladapted to the external environment. Sickle cell anemia allows for a human to reach reproductive age, yet kills the host in relatively short order thereafter.

Likewise, ideologies also carry genes which are dominant or recessive in the form of mythology and values: historically contingent and flawed presuppositions about the shape of the cosmos and procession of time, humanity’s place therein, and rules to govern its behavior as best not to muck things up.

Communism, as one notable example, spreads by appealing to the rhetoric of progress, displeasure with the inequalities of capitalism and the political failings of extant structures yet in the long term it kills its host for simple reasons: industrial civilization requires the formation of concentrations of wealth and capital to afford the creation of a new factory. Diffuse wealth and capital under egalitarian distributions does not allow for the production and maintenance of factories and thus results in economic stasis.

The expression of “fit” genes over time is flattened to a lowest common denominator with the most broad appeal emotionally and authoritatively. Its logic at this point is taken as common sense: of course things will continue to improve as they always have; we are in a hiccup is all! Of course we can continue to expand the Empire, subduing our barbarian neighbors has always worked and will continue to work! The psychology goes deeper than that however.

The underlying logic of an ideology may correspond highly to the particular social and ecological conditions it finds itself explaining. In accordance with the narratives of contemporary western Progress and late Roman imperial rhetoric/civil religion we can find that both narratives did indeed explain much. The former came at a time when the West found itself sitting on top of millions of years of stored sunlight as well as a few ideological gifts from Bacon and Newton which allowed for quantitative thinking of scientific inquiry to be used alongside these sources of enormous potential energy to produce the largest period of sustained growth the world had yet seen. Betting on that growth reliably produced success whereas those who did not bet on growth failed.

The Roman submission of its warring neighbors allowed it to create stable and productive vassal states in which agriculture could be used to concentrate wealth in Rome. Slave trade allowed for negation of the human costs of production. The success of each strategy drove Roman Imperialism and reinforced the ideology of Empire. Even when the cost of its institutions, expansive military and its bloated intermediary market system became a burden on Roman society, the response had been to implement more extreme measures of the status quo: larger military and more centralization.

The broad consensus and the lack of variation creates an illusion of objectivity which lends to self-policing and group reinforcement amongst the individuals of a society operating on the levels of grassroots action, political organization, and institutional decree. Non-believers and those on the fringe are routinely mocked, shamed and ignored while every cultural and political outlet extol the virtues of the prevailing consensus. The result is the phenomenon this site has termed: Crowdism.

Harvest of liberalism


The idea of liberalism is egalitarianism; it both desires it, and points to absence of it as the source of all human problems. By reflection, that statement suggests that people are victims of anti-egalitarians, and that if we just remove those people, all will be well. This is why all liberal revolutions are followed by a period of mass murder or at least mass punishment. It is a philosophy of revenge on scapegoats.

In reality, people experiencing “inequality” are generally doing so by their own choice or inability. If the former, it seems they have made an informed decision to stay poor in exchange for little engagement. If the latter, it would make sense to move them to circumstances that match their abilities. But in neither case is mass revolt and murder necessary or justified. Thus the origin of liberalism is nonsense.

The problem of ideology is that it elects this nonsense as a goal. This leads to humans colliding with reality, which is the basis of both most good comedy and all politics. In fact, in the West which still rides the postwar economic boom, all of our problems arise from previous liberal attempts to institute egalitarianism. Other than the overspending and social chaos created by Leftist decisions, we are doing pretty well. But since we have gone down the liberal path, many future collisions await us.

One such collision peaked in the news this week: feces, feces everywhere. As part of their desire to uplift the weak and subsidize that by penalizing the strong, liberals have created laws designed to “help” the homeless by forcing their acceptance. This has led, in at least two major American cities, to an increase in street defecation.

The liberal solution is to enact more subsidies and build more homeless treatment facilities, ignoring the fact that most of these people have other issues which preclude those being effective. They also ignore the simple truth that what you tolerate you get more of, and so forcing acceptance of homeless behavior widens the window of behavior which is accepted. This brings us to a point where we have third world conditions, which generally include “open defecation,” on our streets. Liberals are able to get away with this ignorance because life here is better than anywhere else, therefore it seems as if we have little to complain about even with liberal damage. But, why destroy when you can improve?

Homelessness is not our only situation of this nature. Liberals encouraged “tolerance” of diversity, and now we have full population replacement by third world origin people. That is genetic replacement, meaning that what we once were and could do will never come back. It is also genocide, the destruction of a people by breeding them out into others. It is also suicide, which is why liberals like it, because they hate anything that rises above the mean including their own culture and civilization. We see beginning the death spiral of reality denial, emotional reaction and finally, self-destruction that is the hallmark of liberal regimes.

Fear of public opinion


Realists have long lived under the shadow of the specter of public opinion. When someone is so unwise as to offend the pretense of the public, or the justifications on the basis of which they consider themselves “good” in lieu of actual good, the rage of the herd becomes unleashed in something like a stampede.

We, the silent audience, have seen public executions of the mass opinion shift kind. A comic says something funny that is suddenly discovered to be “offensive,” and just as quickly his life goes away: fired from his jobs, losing his contracts, the girlfriend driving away with his furniture and his friends quietly sending his calls to voicemail. Then he never works again, except at Target.

At first the ostracism death penalty was reserved for those who were political extremists. Then it migrated to non-leftist political views, and then to leftists who were not leftist enough. Then it branched outward to social concerns, and now it has taken on a life of its own, with any reason why any non-majority group might be offended constituting reason to destroy a life.

One person inconvenienced by the Ashley Madison hack — itself an irony of those who violate trust being shocked that their own trust was in turn violated — discovered:

Today, Michael finds himself living in fear after his account details appeared — among those of 32 million others — in the most talked-about data hack of the year.

He worries not for his marriage — he and his wife have separated and divorce is in the works — but for the impact it could have on their child and on his job.

“My fear is that this will wreak havoc in all areas of my life. I have a good job, but many involved in it are religious. I could be fired,” he said.

The only reason this one hit the media is that they can blame those “religious” people, which we are led to assume by the momentum of predictability means Christian. And yet for us readers-between-the-lines, this instance shows the very real terror that people experience at the hands of the herd. We are all held hostage by masked terrorists who hide in a crowd of people like them.

No society composed of an internal firing squad can long survive. Our elites are composed of dedicated liars because we, the people, have chosen them to be that way. Truth is never convenient, but the voters reward the person presenting the simpler solution. This means that only someone who knows that what she is saying can never work in reality — having simplified the task to an emotional standpoint — will be elected. All the good people are cut out because of this terror of public opinion.

Democracy itself draws criticism for being mob rule, and this seems correct. We are now entering the last stages of democracy, where it consumes itself by destroying the non-conforming, which creates a circular self-referential public view where only certain opinions are discussed. At that point, society has lost the ability to turn in flight and has become ballistic, its target determined at the moment of launch. As the lynch mobs, hate crowds and angry herd gathers, doom is upon us and yet no one can say that in public.

The essence of religion is realism


Religion presents a quandary for conservatives. On one side are those who believe that God/country/family is enough; on the other are the Nietzscheans and other realists who recognize that “country” is a substitute for identity, and “family” reduces community to slightly-broadened self-interest. We also see how religion can substitute for these other necessary things.

Religion is part of the answer, but not the answer. It presents a good starting point because it focuses people on the idea that they must reform themselves so that they strive to do good. It introduces reverence for nature, history and the distant future. It frames self-interest in a moral context. But that alone is not enough.

In addition to that reverent outlook, which can happen without religion, we need something else. Conservatives often ignore this and conveniently escalate religion to the universal solution, but even religion indicates our need for culture, heritage and identity. Like most things in life, religion operates in parallel (the theme of this blog) with other necessary elements.

Without culture and identity, and an aristocratic leadership, religion becomes lost and corrupted as it has over the past 200 years since the French Revolution. The fascinating conclusion to this puzzle is that in order to appreciate each of those elements, and most importantly to desire all of them, one must find reason to respect life and take it seriously.

For this reason, religion operates in parallel with “realism,” or looking at life through its consequences in reality and the principles thus upheld or denied, much as it requires parallel culture, heritage and aristocracy. None of those can stand without the other. The truth of this can be found in realistic religious writings like Romans 1:18-32:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Those who hate the methods of civilization — religion, identity, aristocracy and culture among them — try to style religion as arbitrary. They wish to portray it as its own domain, which chooses its ideals for its own convenience, rather than what it is: another method of describing reality and regulating individual behavior correspondingly so that civilization can thrive. Through culture, we study success in social and family matters; through aristocracy, success in war, diplomacy and leadership; through identity, principle and purpose. Through religion we discover success in discipline of our souls, but the subject of that study is reality itself.

Witness a similar passage from Plato’s Republic, Chapter VIII:

And so the young man returns into the country of the lotus-eaters, and takes up his dwelling there in the face of all men; and if any help be sent by his friends to the oligarchical part of him, the aforesaid vain conceits shut the gate of the king’s fastness; and they will neither allow the embassy itself to enter, private if private advisers offer the fatherly counsel of the aged will they listen to them or receive them. There is a battle and they gain the day, and then modesty, which they call silliness, is ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nickname unmanliness, is trampled in the mire and cast forth; they persuade men that moderation and orderly expenditure are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them beyond the border.

Yes, with a will.

And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names; insolence they term breeding, and anarchy liberty, and waste magnificence, and impudence courage. And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.

Yes, he said, the change in him is visible enough.

After this he lives on, spending his money and labour and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as on necessary ones; but if he be fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his wits, when years have elapsed, and the heyday of passion is over –supposing that he then re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not wholly give himself up to their successors –in that case he balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium, putting the government of himself into the hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn; and when he has had enough of that, then into the hands of another; he despises none of them but encourages them all equally.

Very true, he said.

Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others –whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.

Yes, he said; that is the way with him.

Yes, I said, he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he-is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.

Yes, he replied, he is all liberty and equality.

Yes, I said; his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many; –he answers to the State which we described as fair and spangled. And many a man and many a woman will take him for their pattern, and many a constitution and many an example of manners is contained in him.

Just so.

Let him then be set over against democracy; he may truly be called the democratic man.

Both of these passages focus on the symptoms of degeneracy, itself a product of degeneration in the Darwinian sense or loss of higher genetic characteristics because, in the hands of social and cultural influences, they have become less valuable and therefore underused, gradually dropping out of the population. The first step toward degeneracy is changing behavior, which changes the economics of civilization such that bad is rewarded and good, by de facto inversion in the zero-sum game of competition that is society, punished.

Contrary to what is adherents sometimes say, religion alone is not a path to survival but to self-destruction. On the other hand, in conflict with what its detractors say, religion is not arbitrary. These rules exist for a reason which is that they provide the optimal survival of a tribe, and thus longest resistance to degeneration, over the centuries as has been witnessed by wise people in the past, repeatedly. Like science, religion is a repository of knowledge, but it describes the metaphysical using metaphor instead of attempting the detailed approach of science. Abstraction allows flexibility over the changes brought by the passage of time, and for that reason, religion is highly abstract. But it is neither nonsense nor a singular solution.

We cannot afford social justice programs


The recent hiccup with China has made everyone nervous, not so much for its immediate effects but in the worry that this is the first of a series of events. A big crash will make the world’s interconnected economies fall like dominoes, and often those smashups are preceded by a pattern of small crises.

Even if this blows over, it has made people nervous because it presages another inevitable event: the collapse of Western debt. Since the Second World War, the West has been able to borrow on the basis of its historical wealth and power, and its role as the only man standing among the industrial economies after that war. This gave it a momentum, or a trajectory zooming across economic skies, that has still not lost inertia.

Debt is only worth something if others will purchase it based on the presumed future value of the assets that support that debt. It used to be that the West could point to thriving economies, happy people and relatively few of the chronic social problems that plague most societies on earth. Now, none of this is as true, meaning that it is fading. Investments on a downward trajectory are worth less than others.

China discovered this because, having borrowed to oblivion, it became unstable economically. This was not an issue in times of growth, which are what liberal leaders excel at, but as the market corrects it shows how short-sighted those decisions — like those of Clinton and Obama in the USA — were. As Pravda-on-the-Hudson relates, the source of this crash was excessive Chinese debt:

How much debt remains an open question, given the opacity of China’s market. The country’s debt load rose from $7 trillion in 2007 to $28 trillion by mid-2014, according to a report published earlier this year by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company, China. “At 282 percent of G.D.P., China’s debt as a share of G.D.P., while manageable, is larger than that of the United States or Germany,” said the McKinsey study. “Several factors are worrisome: Half of loans are linked directly or indirectly to China’s real estate market, unregulated shadow banking accounts for nearly half of new lending, and the debt of many local governments is likely unsustainable.”

What has people worried is not China itself, but that the debt loads of modern nations will lead to disaster. In particular, the introspection that the West deflects with political correctness has finally appeared, and under the lens, while not as bad as China, our debt and instability appear shaky as well. And what made this debt? Since the 1950s, our budgets have more than doubled through the contributions of a single source: social justice, or civil rights and welfare, programs. In Europe and the USA, governments have spent themselves silly buying votes and now, the first inklings of fear that the gig is up are coming our way.

Without social programs, our government spending would be more than halved. Our economy, without such rigid regulation, could grow in a more natural way than the goldrush free-for-all created by liberal economic programs. While we could no longer prop up our economy by dumping money into ghettos and trailer parks for people to buy iPhones, we could build value over time by basing it in not consumerism, but the production of industry and agriculture. This would provide less growth than the liberal program of easy loans and “pump priming” the economy with federal spending, but would provide a more stable longer-term platform for us that does not require radical growth.

For those who can read the tea leaves of history, this suggests a shocking realization awaits the West: we cannot afford — and never could — our “social justice” and welfare programs. We cannot afford governments swollen to more than twice a reasonable size by leftist-style spending on citizens. As China is discovering, that path leads to misery and a series of hiccups culminating in one, big ugly downfall.

Conservatives rediscover pluralism


Conservatives and libertarians are getting excited about Allum Bokhari’s article over at Breitbar, “Rise of the Cultural Libertarians.” In it, he argues that the rising leftist wave of censorship has awakened a new movement of people who are not really conservative, but want to preserve the ability to criticize any beliefs, which includes — to the shock of our media and enfranchised political establishment — criticism of Leftist viewpoints.

Uh oh.

While this new movement, unified and galvanized by the article, seems to have great momentum, it suffers from not having conducted the approach of a philosopher: analyze things through to their ends and compare to what we know of reality. This method, the parent of its less-rigorous cousin The Scientific Method™, means that we look at not what seems like a sensible counter-argument to the dominant paradigm, but what will be the actual results of our acts as planned. This is the only form of accountability and responsibility that exits, and on this blog, we call it “Realism.”

The rising leftist wave of censorship was born of a social phenomenon known as “Social Justice Warriors,” or SJWs. These people participate in politics as an activity, generally to distract from their personal misery, usually a combination of alcoholism, social ineptitude and obesity. They are strident, angry and gather in swarms to attack all who disagree with them, knowing — like terrorists and guerrillas — that by creating a Public Relations incident, they can force the opposition to apologize, kowtow and change its policies. SJWs are effective mainly because there are always thousands of them on the internet at any given time, ready to mob attack the next target.

The cultural libertarian response is to emphasize independence of thought and resistance to any form of coercive attempt to silence others. In other words, classic American freedom. Here’s the summary from the article:

They’ve also worked out that the people leading the charge in social media mobs have vastly disproportionate influence thanks to their publishing platforms and that not only are they hopelessly out of touch with popular opinion but that their tactics are unpleasant and hectoring, often veering into outright cruelty and persecution.

…Cultural libertarians recognise that efforts to police language and expression are not only counter-productive, but also fragile. The people pushing for greater control are a small segment of the population, whose voice is amplified by media support. To fight them, all you have to do is ignore them – or, better yet, mock them.

This may sound familiar to you, because it re-capitulates what by now is an ancient defense of the right. Faced with the onslaught of the French Revolution, they retreated into “classical liberalism”: do whatever you want, on your own property, so long as I can do the same. It sounds so simple and pleasant! It even feels like a social order at times. And yet, it completely fails because it denies the need of a society to have direction: identity, purpose, values, heritage, customs and some sense of the transcendent.

In fact, the “cultural libertarian” approach can be understood as a variant of a well-known political philosophy, pluralism:

Political pluralism usually starts with the observation that there are different value systems in use in the world, and there are various positions that arise out of that observation. Political pluralism is concerned with the question of what sort of restrictions governments can put on people’s freedom to act according to their value systems. The strongest version of political pluralism claims that all these value systems are equally true (and thus presumably all ought to be tolerated), a weaker view is that these value systems all ought to be tolerated, and probably the most common version of the view is that some of these systems (the reasonable ones) ought to be tolerated.

The idea that all value systems are equally true, or at least equally valid — a social surrogate for true that purports to regulate behavior — requires us to believe we can base a society on disagreement at a fundamental level. This is not, as the Left would have it, similar to different tastes in food, clothing or attire, or even a tolerance of eccentricity (which, oddly, seems to belong to the Right). It refers to sharing the same basic values and outlook on the world, which is preferable to the alternative, which first looks like a coat of many colors and rapidly begins to resemble an unruly mob.

We can argue that pluralism could go farther and for example, demand freedom of association. With this, we would not have to hire, buy from, sell to, rent to, talk to or do business with others for any reason. While most societies view this as somewhat of a right, or at least a convention, our society sees this as troublesome because it introduces inefficiencies. If Person A wants to buy a gay wedding cake at a baker, and the one near them refuses to sell to them, they can always go down the road. But time is lost, and money is thus lost, and we lose the simple certainty of business which says we can go anywhere and do anything if our credit rating is good. A sane society would see values as more important than commerce, but pluralistic societies have nothing in common but commerce and maybe some ideology, so pluralism inevitably leads to the conditions that necessitated its creation.

Some have tried pluralism by community. In particular, the original government of the United States, and later the Confederate States of America, were committed to the idea of “states rights” or the notion that individual states could choose their own rules. This conflicted with the desire of Northern liberals to control the South, so they picked a fight over slavery because it was a polarizing issue. After that war, it became clear that states rights was a dead concept, replaced by the notion of a Single Right Way. While pluralism opposes the notion of a singular correct path, it cannot overcome the tendency of governments to make rules, laws and regulations “in your best interest” which can then compel obedience to ideological objectives. For example, a government might insist that hospitals admit anyone regardless of whether their staff wants to associate with that person or not, or demand that pharmacies sell abortion drugs in case people “need” them. Pluralism fails the more people demand function and efficiency from their society.

In addition, pluralism fails to take into account that there will be at least one privileged viewpoint: that of The Establishment™, which refers to those who work in government, media and the public face of industry. People who join the establishment are those who have a higher commitment to working within the system — and thus gaining personal success — than to any truth, purpose or ideal. When someone wants to succeed at government, he must invent new ways for government to be important so his future resume can show an addition that was uniquely his creation. In a pure pluralism, government would have one of many perspectives, but in reality, some kind of leadership will have a privileged position by the nature of having to make and enforce rules. If that leadership takes the form of a State, it will create an establishment — hereditary aristocracies do not have this problem, having barred entry to all but the truly exceptional, who are rare — as people compete for personal success. There pluralism will also die under the ambitions of individuals.

This leaves us with the perspective of pluralism as prolonged suicide. Since the Right has been demonized in the decades following the Second World War, it has focused mostly on “thought experiments” which take the form of arguments to circumnavigate the logic of the Left. As an argument, pluralism may have some success because it points to the hypocrisy of the Leftist viewpoint — but only to outsiders. Inside the Left, it is tacitly acknowledged that the one goal is egalitarianism (or “equality”) through collective altruism, which throughout history has without exception amounted to taking from the competent to subsidize the rest. For that reason, leftists do not see their jihad against non-egalitarian viewpoints as hypocrisy, since their goal is not “freedom” or even actual equality, but a subset of equality defined by its method of using subsidies. Leftists fear their own insufficiency, and create a barrier through equality which forces society to accept them as part of the in-group regardless of their personal choices. This alone, a malignant form of individualism, represents their only goal and it can never be hypocritical in their eyes.

This returns us to the question, then, of civilization design. How do we design a civilization that is improving in quality, rather than degenerating and hiding that fact behind the facade of “progress”? It starts by recognizing that the real enemy is what undoes the civilization compact, an agreement between people to sacrifice some individualism so that social order can exist. This occurs not so much because social order is efficient, or safe, but because it enables a society to rise above the norm of all but a few human groups, which is poverty and corruption through social disorder. Those who fear insufficiency want the benefits of civilization without the obligation, so they cobble together a set of ideas enabling them to have “anarchy with grocery stores”: egalitarianism, anti-hierarchy, altruism and liberalism/progressivism. This destroys the civilization compact but allows the individual to feel safer because they are included by command, and can never be found in a Darwinistic moment to have failed to live up to the civilization compact.

Cultural libertarianism represents the latest attempt by the non-Left to walk back up that path to social order. It does so by demanding that the anti-order order be weakened, but it can only serve as an intermediate step, and will fail for the reasons above and an even more fundamental one. The enemy operates by lumping together individualists into a mob dedicated to establishing individualism by abolishing standards and order; under pluralism, they will still form this mob, and then conveniently declare pluralism over and take their revenge, as they did in the French and Russian Revolutions. While the pushback against SJW ideological imperialism is a noble fight, the danger of being human is that we rely too much on methods, and then go back to sleep. In that role, cultural libertarianism serves as a proxy for the actual quest we must undertake, which is to build a society once again unified by principle and goal.