Civilization might be described not as a tangible thing, but a process. Through that, it can be seen as a goal, and since that goal must necessarily be broad, a direction. In this, civilization seems paradoxical: its purpose is generally itself, or a qualitative improvement in the process of becoming civilized.
Several theories exist about this direction as it can be implemented by individuals. Some hold that it should be altruistic, with people working to provide for others who have less. Others suggest that it should be self-interest, or each working for his own improvement. A third option — an ancient option — exists, but more on that later.
On the surface, altruism sounds like the best option, and it is this surface appeal that explains its popularity with younger people, most women and underconfident men. We all work and give some of what we have to those with less, therefore instability is removed and people feel a lack of resentment for one another.
There are a number of problems with this. The first is that any gift-giving is a form of taking control of another person and serves to reinforce their lower status, provoking the very resentment it hoped to placate. The second is that whatever one tolerates or subsidizes, one gets more of, so poverty expands. Further, this form of transfer essentially overworks the successful to provide for the rest, damaging the brightest lights of our civilization by burdening them with guilt and misery.
Self-interest appeals more to those with experience who have seen the vastness of the world and realized that human patterns do not change. Most people are incompetent, many because they are dishonest or delusional, and very few possess the ability or inclination to understand the effects of their actions, probably on the order of 98-99%. Since understanding politics, leadership, and the far-reaching consequences of our actions begins around the 125 IQ mark, by definition fewer than 5% of our population has a chance to grasp these disciplines. Then there is character; even among the intelligent, few think of more than their immediate benefit in the short term. On the positive side, self-interest mirrors natural selection and puts the most competent on top, which ranks it above altruism which essentially enslaves the competent to the rest.
While there is truth to both of these options, they pale before the third, which is to have a direction that unites the individual to civilization. This option is to make our goals the transcendentals, or those intangible things to which we can always aim but which we can never fully obtain: goodness, beauty, excellence, truth and even identity, or the notion of the civilization itself as a distinct and worthy enterprise removed from all others. These can include both self-interest and altruism as methods toward the transcendental goal; after all, it only makes sense to put the best on top, and to help the deserving when in need, as a means of achieving these extremely long-term ideals.
What defines transcendentals is that they are intersectional, or existing within all other areas. Altruism that achieves transcendentals is good; self-interest that achieves transcendentals is good. The method no longer replaces the goal, and therefore, a direction at a level higher than technique can emerge. The difficulty is that transcendentals are appreciated by very few, both from limits of natural ability and character, and require a society willing to experience humility to the degree that it favors hierarchy.
And yet, with transcendentals there is hope: a chance that we can unite not on needs and fears of ourselves, but on a cooperative process in which participation enriches us. This is the qualitative improvement of society in living form, an entity declaring itself worth having and then making good on that promise by enhancing itself in the intersection of many thousands of methods.
At the core of this process hides identity. Without a belief in its uniqueness, no society can last. With that belief, it is able to declare its values without neurotic doubt, and then begin the arduous process of putting those values into practice, refining their meaning as it does. Culture shapes genetics, and reality shapes culture, and this way all of the different disciplines come into coordination.
If you want to find the root of nationalism, it can be uncovered through identity. Groups do not segregate themselves and deport the Other from hatred of the Other, but so that the group can apply and improve its own standards. We cannot control ourselves with mere methods like altruism and self-interest, but with culture we can define our direction and then improve it, and in that alone the process of civilization is found.
To all the gods of the past, and anyone who still — despite the onslaught of distracting/deconstructive propaganda — understands anything more complex than technological pattern repetition, I send this missive: let my people go.
Let them go from jobs that involve non-essential activity, workplace stress from the bad behavior of others, and obedience to appearance over function. Let them find ways to use their talents that have meaning, or a real need and a real effect.
Let them go from ugly cities where the pretense and reckless behavior of others makes the environment dirty, violent and boring. Let them find places to live where there are people who can appreciate them for who they are and give them a unique place in that hierarchy and structure.
Let them go from race guilt, or from feeling pity for others and self-hatred for the self-interest of their ancestors. We all act in self-interest and those who deny it are liars and snake oil salesmen. There is nothing “wrong” with conquest, especially when the conquered groups are just screwing around waiting to devolve.
Let them go from public opinion which always favors the pitiable and the angry over the plain truth of what is best in life, which is a chance to dedicate oneself to improving something qualitatively and raising a family. Let them find places where they are valued.
Let them go from casual sex, consumerism, disposable products and other arguments to the short-term peak stimulus over long-term enjoyment of life. Let them find contentment, beauty, elegance, reverence and love instead.
Let them go from the illusion that they can rule themselves. May they find leaders who love them as a parent loves her children, recognizing imperfection and yet always encouraging them toward betterment, in the timeless way of love.
Let them go from ideology, or the belief that what human emotions think “should” be true is worth sacrificing ourselves for. Let them instead focus on what works, and improving it toward a peak of qualitative excellence rivaling the ancient Greeks.
Let them go from social control. Give them leaders above them with wisdom, so that they may be rewarded for the good they do, and to beat back mass opinion, which is always wrong and punishes the excellent so that the mediocre — who are numerically superior, always — feel accepted.
Let them go from the World Wars. These were mistakes brought on by democracy, and led to us engaging in unconscionable and inhuman behavior. Let Hitler rest and the rest of us reflect on where we went wrong so that we never do it again.
Let them go from their own hubris. Let them realize that the apple and the snake are an illusion, much as personal power is, because real power comes from union with our world and its transcendental component.
Let them go from pity. There will always be poor, sad and miserable, and our duty to them is to rise above and show them a path out of their degradation, not to pity them by approving of their failure as if we believed it.
Let them go from atheism and the illusion that the world is empty and material, and not a giant informational space where beauty prevails if given the chance.
My people have labored in unconscious servitude for centuries and it crushes them by denying them existential beauty and hope, and it pains me to see it — as it pains those above me, namely the gods and ancient sages of our people. Let them go, I pray of you.
We have a new world to conquer and make beautiful. Let them go from these parasitic wastes of time. Let them discover beauty instead. I am not fool enough to believe this can be done by humans, nor arrogant enough to think I can do it. I ask you instead: let my people go.
If you grew up after 1789, when the French Revolution formalized liberalism as the Western doctrine, you have grown up indoctrinated in Leftist propaganda. Any idea with its root in egalitarianism, or the equality of all people, is leftist.
This includes democracy, freedom, equality, diversity, pluralism, consumerism and… White Nationalism. While Nationalism itself is an idea as old as time, namely that the ethnic tribe constitutes the nation, White Nationalism is like National Socialism a modern creation. In other words: a liberal version of an ancient conservative idea.
White Nationalism misses the point. This is not red team versus blue team; it is how to save the West from imploding thanks to the influence of democracy, and through that, individualism. We need culture, cooperation and purpose to return and to rule ourselves with kings, not votes, because votes and purchases are made by groups who demonstrate the salient trait of humans, which is vanity as individuals and mass delusion as groups.
Anything short of that is failure. Our current society is a disaster and an unpleasant existential experience because it is failing. All of our institutions are inferior substitutes, our leaders are all corrupt salesmen, the voters are delusional and oblivious, and our culture has become dumbed-down mass appeal madness. This cannot be fixed solely by driving out the ethnic Other. We must fix ourselves, too.
Over at the $PLC, Derek Black makes some interesting points in the midst of groveling and logical fallacies:
Promoting a victim complex for whites does not recognize the oppressed experiences of others not in the position of a white person in society
He may have taken another bad direction into liberalism, but he has a good point about victim complexes. We do not need a victim complex; we need a can-do “let’s fix this” culture. The two are opposites.
White nationalism supports the premise that multiculturalism is a failure, and that politicians trapped in a multicultural status quo are oppressing white people in “their own country.”
Here he is correct, but he misses the underlying point: white people voted for this. Voting transforms individuals into a scared, pretentious herd that always votes for easy lies instead of honest solutions. The solution is to end democracy.
On the other hand, white nationalists consider white people in the US to be ostensibly the victims of an ongoing genocide brought about by immigration and miscegenation, and feel that when they try to speak up about it, they are subjected to a vicious double standard.
No one sensible could argue that this is not true. But: who is enforcing the double standard? White governments, at the behest of white voters.
Most arguments that racial equity programs disadvantage whites who would otherwise be hired or accepted to academic programs mask underlying anxieties about the growth of non-white social status.
Here he is off-base. The problem is that our society is being destroyed, and the only healthy societies are homogeneous ones not heterogeneous ones. This is not about our personal inconvenience, except in that having a society collapse into Brazil 2.0 is highly inconvenient and fatal.
More importantly, white nationalism’s staunch opposition to the gains in numbers and in influence of non-whites makes it a movement by nature committed to suppressing these people.
I think he misses the point here, too. The goal is to have zero non-whites and in fact, zero non-Western Europeans. Western Europeans are the only group on earth that is truly a persecuted minority because of our small numbers and relative wealth. Everyone loves to beat up on the successful nerdy kid, and that’s us.
Though there are plenty of powerful Jewish activist groups pursuing their chosen agendas, it is inaccurate and outrageous to talk about people of Jewish descent as “the enemy” of anyone, as it is essentializing a large group into a fairy tale antagonist.
I agree with him here. Jews are another group under attack, as we can see daily when 90% of the world’s liberals are keen to blame Palestinian terrorism on Israeli “oppression” despite nothing of the sort occurring.
The small, smart and successful groups (3S) like Western Europeans, Jews and North Chinese are always under assault by the rest because we have achieved what others cannot and they resent us for that.
There is no way to advocate for white nationalism but by arguing that minorities pose a threat to our supremacy.
Spot the sleight of hand: is it “supremacy” to ask that we have our own countries? Of course not. He has shiftily conflated world domination with wanting, say, Germany for Germans or Israel for Jews.
Advocating for white nationalism means that we are opposed to minority attempts to elevate themselves to a position equal to our own.
Again he is wrong. We want them to do it in their own countries and to leave us alone. We have our own destiny to plan and work toward.
I believe that a healthy sense of identity and belonging are necessary, and I think being proud of where you came from is important regardless of race or class.
He’s right here. Every group should be nationalist and work in its own self-interest. That is Darwinian, moral and common sense.
I do not believe advocacy against “oppression of whites” exists in any form but an entrenched desire to preserve white power at the expense of others.
Here he is off-base again. We want our own countries and our own destiny, the same as anyone else. Why is this denied? It is white genocide by the resentful herd that gnashes its teeth at the fact that it has not made a successful life for itself as we did for ourselves, before liberalism at least.
The point that White Nationalists miss is that we are not fighting for the current system minus minorities. We are fighting to restore our civilization to a point of sanity, and while race is part of that, it is not the whole. Our society is existentially miserable as it is now and would still be without the presence of minorities. Nationalism is a means to an end, which is allowing ourselves to be ruled by our culture instead of an ideological government and its “proposition nation” united by politics, television, economics and a team identity of a jingoistic variety.
Conservatives “conserves” the behaviors of humanity that produce the best results. Those are four:
- Aristocracy: A hierarchy of our best people ruling as kings, instead of having a “System” of rules and laws to take the place of clear thinking. This includes a caste system so that people make decisions only at the level for which they are competent.
- Nationalism: Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews. This allows the group to have a shared culture which regulates behavior through reward and shame, instead of punishment and law enforcement.
- Free markets: Free markets require Nationalism and Aristocracy, but are the only way to do business that rewards performance instead of conformity.
- Transcendence: We need goals beyond the immediate material convenience of our society. We need purpose and to aspire to greatness, not merely react to “issues.”
There are no substitutes. Either you want the above, or you are happy with the status quo… if it would only favor you a bit more. That approach will land us back in the current position in no time because it is built on the same illusions.
Our society is dying. We are near the drop-off point. Our solution is to stop using methods that do not work, and to start using methods that do. These time-honored methods work. Democracy, diversity, equality, pluralism, tolerance and altruism do not. It is that simple.
I would like to elucidate the connection between society, systems and education. Not being an expert in any of these disciplines will probably render my contribution worthless, but it (just) might irritate someone with such expertise enough to warrant a meaningful response. The environment causing this slightly painful effort surrounds the question
“What are we really doing in tertiary education?”
A recent twitter discussion revolved around the lament that a professor was “being frustrated teaching students inhibited by (their) social media.” That is, the social media used by students in class made the lecture less effective. It is not just that the cellphones made noises, but that it distracted the students at moments when the lecturer were trying to make a specific point as regards the subject being taught.
In addition, access to internet allows interaction (between students) while the class is ongoing, as well as, access to other resources on the same subject interfering with the curriculum agreed to with the institution. There is a lot more to it though, including the entire subject of ergonomics for example, but my simplified direct response was that “the lecturer” (or his institution) should contact the designer of Apple (in this case the example of iPhone was referred to). This should be a standard systemic response to a problem experienced with a “system” (or product).
In fact there are generally 3 possible responses to “failures” which are:
- Perform prescribed maintenance (standard manual)
- Modify system in order to fix the problem (modification process/cycle)
- List problem for future upgrade (structured life changes to product)
The college using/allowing the product which “failed” should have condensed their negative experiences of/with this product as far as possible and contacted the supplier/designer to receive some form of prescribed response. In other words, they should have known what type of response they could expect (as referred to the 3 points above for example). Because they do not know about this, I deduced that they authorized a product to be used (on their premises) in their own lecture halls, without vetting it.
In fact not vetting for any technological impacts on their education plan/methods. I can also state with some confidence, that the designer never even assessed this particular risk during the development phase, hence no response to this question was forthcoming. (I contacted Apple afterwards with such a question and was ignored. I can’t remember the detail now – and have no axe to grind with Apple anyway – this is purely academic or for interest to make a point) That social media has a negative effect on society is common cause, however, the risks have simply not been assessed – and that is the designer’s job.
So people like Bill Gates would say — but why go to all that trouble as it’s not necessary — let’s test the product “in the field” and let real users simply give us feedback (at their own cost). Well, this is a very good example of how (SoCal) South California’s Silicon Valley trashed the System Engineering process, something (NoCa) North California’s Seattle successfully employs via responsible companies like Boeing. You must excuse me if I become a little critical of Silicon Valley engineers at this juncture, because while I have nothing against them of course, this issue is worth mentioning.
But it would be appropriate at this point to inform the general reader that standard engineering processes has been defined and used for 40 odd years by space, airlines, weapons and automotive industries (at least). It’s encapsulated by military standards, used in tender contracts, underscored by project and programme professionals and utilized by intelligent Governments in the world. Even Russia has its own “K” process as opposed to the US’s “Milestone” process. All institutions “should” know about these processes and standards – so it’s a surprise (for me) when they are not known in respectable education institutes.
This may warrant another (intuitive) look at the function of education. The purpose of tertiary education is to skill people that have passed their secondary education. After that humans have identified the need for honors, masters and doctorate degrees at which point it is deemed that more training is effectively impossible because more knowledge is not available (hence research). Each educational phase require its own curriculum developed in conjunction with educational experts – these people know more about “how” humans absorb information and therefore the processes required to learn. This generally result in an education plan based on which an education institute will recruit lecturers, also providing facilities and required resources, ending up at providing a quality service for which they can charge money. However, IMO the thing with education plans is that they will never give it you. Perhaps they view it as intellectual property based “on years of experience”, best “ratings” etc.
However, I think they might be afraid that you will hold it against them in some future event such as a crashed airplane or a legally educated President that made bad laws. What can I say? The point is it should be available simply because you pay hundreds of thousands (money) for it. In fact a public oversight committee should hold them to it (parent board). If they won’t provide the document itself, they should provide proof of the quality of the document.
How this society-system-education “system” was intended to work, was that research would lead to new technology, which will be evaluated for about 20 years, after which enough information will be available to implement it in education plans. To wit, patents last about 16 years after which it (the secret technology) becomes public knowledge. This applies to all types of education from bottom to top. In other words – society is expected to become smarter in an incremental (even generational) way. The reasonfor this cautionary approach was to reduce any risks for society in fact, the entire idea behind the concept of the “K” or “MP” processes, was to reduce risk. Clearly Southern California decided “Oh, what the hell” and now society with people like this twitter account is paying for it.
One interesting aspect people in general won’t know, is that spacecraft generally do not use the latest technology (because risk is still unknown), or the predictability of those risks are not reliable enough. Therefore, using proven systems, leads to proven education, leads to proper based research.
At this point one may ask the question again: “What are we really doing in tertiary education?”
Clearly the purpose is to improve society’s grasp on technology, that is, improve society, as a society (remember that societies can also go through three possible corrective controlled actions too). But instead of looking broadly across society and you were faced with one student enrolling and asking this innocent question (that nobody address BTW), what would one say?
Backtracking a little to groups of Universities (ignoring practical artisans and technicians just for the sake of argument) one would get Ivy league institutions followed by the rest (accuracy not particularly important here), then you get French and non-French European institutions, as well as the old East –bloc institutions. I also relied on feedback from other people such as my father whose job it was to make recommendations wrt which universities his company should support, as well as contact with foreigners relating experiences of their education. Lastly my wife studied an M.B.A. in England’s Henley College (at the University of Reading). I was involved with this search for a credible institution (worldwide) because her (French) employer paid the bill.
Using metrics available on universities in the Western sphere as well as webpages, we finally ended up with Henley College. It is the only M.B.A. informally accepted by the French. They will accept Harvard formally of course, but if you did not get a French qualification, they will look down on you – except for Henley College. Looking past all the basic technical stuff, the motivating argument was that Henley state quite categorically that they expect students to improve emotionally through self-reflection of their learning experience. In fact they have a subject on reflection that students SHALL pass.
It is well known (I think) that the French promote the study of philosophy at school even, and that at commerce level; they do not have “think tanks” because people can think for themselves. I may be wrong, but it seems to me, that a tertiary student can only learn to think for himself, if he understands how he/she, him/herself has emotionally grown as a result of receiving the knowledge, experience, life, exposure, pressure etc. associated with a tertiary institution.
Neurosis has superior comedy value. It’s just great watching somebody pop. It’s just as amusing but far less deleterious than NASCAR wrecks and addicted bums fighting over Wild Irish Rose. It involves catharsis, it involves release…well OK, it doesn’t. It just involves an opportunity to derive cheap pleasure at the expense of another person’s failures. It can also involve a sense of “there but for the grace of God go I.”
Recently Wendy Davis offered the following observations on Twitter describing what she saw as Hillary Clinton being treated unfairly because of her gender.
I’m not saying there aren’t reasons someone should dislike Hillary or prefer Bernie. That is fine. That is your journey. But let’s not pretend for a second that there would be this many issues with Hillary if she was a [expletive deleted] man…and the thing is — I like Bernie! Everyone likes Bernie! Because crazy grandpa is totally electable but crazy grandma could never be. But why do we have to hate her to show how much we love him? Socialist Jesus take the [expletive deleted] wheel.
So whence the wellspring of such an amusing digital reenacting of Chernobyl? What causes Abortion Barbie to pop such a large and viscous mental zit? That gets us to how unrealistic people react to getting pantsed by reality. Here’s the way it works.
- People have this fantasy view of reality. It could be any sort of delusion. Wendy Davis lives by the feminist double standard. She’s female so we are supposed to just automatically assume she is smarter, better and more terrific as a result of her genitalia. Her resume, she implies, is right underneath the front of her shirt. Only misogyny can keep The Great Cleopatra down.
- Reality smacks the neurotic around with a cold, dead fish. Hillary is having a really hard time sending off the grumpy old man from a Saturday Night Live skit in the current Democratic Party Primary Race. Bernie’s man-parts haven’t disqualified him in the minds of Democratic Party voters no matter how many times he manages to step on them in public. Again, it must be the evil, Penis Keepers.
- The Reality-Smacking Reveals A Disconnect Between That Which Is and That What The Neurotic Wishes Existed. Neurotics wish to deny that A is equal to A. For Wendy Davis, Hillary is woman. You must hear woman roar and obey. Democrats are not obeying. It has to be the misogyny. If only Hillary had ordered the tilapia instead. This cannot exist in Wendy Davis Universe.
- The Neurotic Then Attempts To Intimidate Reality Back Into Compliance. That never quite happens, but Wendy has learned that throwing a Two-Year Old’s temper tantrum will intimidate people into accommodating her stupid, delusional fantasies. If Wendy were up in your grill screaming this stuff you would have two options. You could comply to shut her yap and prevent her from embarrassing you in public, or you could go Rick Flair on her butt and totally shut her down. Wendy has never met the person with the total lack of social restraint required to properly eviscerate her verbally or to simply stuff a racquet ball in her obnoxious mouth and secure it there with about four feet of Hundred Mile an Hour Tape.
This is why Wendy made like a salad and tossed herself for all of us to admire on Twitter. I hope you found her amusing. I recommend staying beyond the range of her throwing arm if loose, breakable objects are in the room. It was a good show. Better than Chernobyl, not quite as effective as Mt. Pinatubo. Definitely not in the same league as the asteroid that smashed into Mexico and saw off all the meddlesome dinosaurs who munching adorable, furry mammals. If Hillary continues to struggle athwart Bernie Sanders, stay tuned. There could be even more.
The 1980s were a pivotal time for the West. The great revolution had come in 1968, been mainstreamed and dialed back in the 1970s, but its consequences had created misery as the Left battled everyone else to get us to stop noticing the Cold War and the real threat of Leftism.
A grim truth emerged: modern society itself was the problem. Whether we beat the Soviets or not, everyone would still have to go to work in the morning. And work was stupid: repetitive, boring, clerk-style shuffling of paper and edging around rules. The clients were stupid; that was their problem. The projects were dumb. It was “cover your ass” all the way down.
No one wanted to point out the obvious, which is that our society had become insufferable. It had been this way for a long time, since the 1800s, but traditional social institutions held it back for some time. But with the fall of the Western European elites in 1968, and then the mainstreaming of diversity, everything fell apart.
Now instead of a society, we had a giant marketplace with every man for himself as we all tried to dodge the vast problems created by the pretense of our voters. The politicians would suggest something stupid; the voters would go for it. Huge swathes of our society defined themselves as “good” based on their adherence to this zombie-like, parasitic ideology.
We lived in a totally venal time. Casual sex was accepted not just by the hippies, but the marketplace, which resulted in lonely people with ruined lives and no families. Mass culture was just total garbage. The music was stupid, the movies idiotic, and the television brain-wrecking programming to be a selfish shopper and good office tool.
There were no responsible adults. Conservatives became caricatures who barked out the mantra of “keep your head down, work hard and do the right thing” as if that solved anything; mostly, they wanted us to make the same mistakes they had in order to validate their big contribution, which was not addressing the problem. Liberals as mentioned above were crazy zombies who enjoyed luring other people into making mistakes and then dancing away in the night.
We shared no purpose. Yes, yes, we wanted to beat the Soviets, but that was mainly because of what we knew about life in the Soviet Union: starvation, paranoia, alcoholism and state-sponsored executions. But as to why our society existed? The only meaning any of us had was to get a career and buy our way into comfort so we could ignore the ongoing collapse of all institutions, values and intelligence into a vast mishmash of stupidity.
None of us knew how to state the fact that we were in the middle of an ongoing process of radicalization as a means of not noticing that Leftism had failed us, that it controlled our society, and that our real problem was the huge number of people who acted like acephalous robots in carrying out the Leftist agenda. The more our ideology failed us, the more we pursued it.
There were breaks in the facade, such as when Ronald Reagan took power, but he was not there to challenge the fundamental destruction of the family, our culture and the once-productive way of living. Instead his party offered us symbols like jobs, flags, abortion and military strength. These were substitutes for what we needed, which was to look at our society and realize we were on a wrong path and had to get off.
Even Reagan seemed doubtful. All of our media, entertainers, and intellectuals seemed united against him; anyone who spoke up about how bad he was could expect a career boost as audiences bought the product, fellow travelers promoted them for having the right opinions, or popular focus came their way. A steady stream of celebrities of all sorts bashed Reagan thoroughly but only because of his deviation from the Leftist agenda.
And then, we won. The Soviets turned out to be even more incompetent and decadent than we were, and so they crumbled from within and left a wasteland behind. As more leaked out about how terrible life there had been, you would have thought that the West would avoid the same path. But no, we just found “gentler” ways of going there.
Our weakness was that normal people just kept on being normal and did not fight the decay. They went to college and ignored PC, went to stupid jobs and ignored the waste, married ex-sluts and had kids and kept trying to be regular people. Whenever someone mentioned the decay and that we should fight it, the first voices against them were normal people. “Just don’t rock the boat!” They were afraid of losing what they had, and so they resisted the change that could save them.
The 1980s passed into history as we elected a new Leftist president and he began making changes. The disaster outside began to gain momentum with massive approval from people who believed the salesman’s words that he would stop racial conflict and make us less dangerous than under Reagan. Especially women approved, I recall.
Still the conservatives floated on. Somehow, it would all be changed. The people who lived good lives (and “worked hard” on nonsense) would be rewarded. Even if the bad guys took over, God or the free markets would reward the good. And yet, conservatives were self-destructing. On the surface, they had everything; underneath they could not deny the well-founded fear that our society was committing suicide. They cracked frequently. Everyone else just retreated into their garages, hobbies, entertainment and drugs or alcohol.
Our history since the Great Leftist Takeover has been fairly linear. Everything gets worse, and everyone gets more afraid, so no one does anything and the crazies gain more power to enact even more crazy versions of their Leftist ideas. You can see the gleam in their eyes; they know they will be rewarded for their ideological conformity, and so to them it is like “working hard” at a job for a conservative, the magic bullet which will fix everything.
These are Soviet times. There is a right way to think, and those who think that way will be rewarded; those who do not will be destroyed by the angry crowd. The normal people cower in their homes and jobs hoping to be spared, but if history is any lesson, they will not. Still they do nothing. Like moss, they grow on their warm rocks, unable to change their fates.
But the grimmest fact is that this current downfall is merely the crest of the wave. Our decay has been coming for a long time since people realized that they could use mass opinion against sense. They learned that if they had a mob of supporters, they could get away with anything, for a time at least. And so we followed the Greeks down the same path to suicide, replacing what worked with what was popular.
This started long before the terms liberal and conservative existed, although conservatives are the ones who try to preserve what is left of this ancient order. Nonetheless, they are easily compromised by the same force that undoes everything in our society, which is that among humans illusion with a short-term promise is preferred to time-honored traditions that achieve the best long-term results.
Most people exist in a weird dependency with society: they want the power to do whatever their personal dysfunction demands, and so they insist on freedom and Leftism, even though those are essentially the promises of canny salesman who are manipulating normal people into the grave. People are miserable, but will not admit it as they cling to the power of individualism which allows them to legitimize their dysfunction.
Now we have reached a crisis point. The wave has crested and the crash downward has begun. What to do? There will be panic as the normals realize that the salesmen lied and that all those warm, fuzzy thoughts in fact concealed a sharpened blade of doom. They will, in the Simian tradition of humans, look for someone to blame instead of blaming themselves for taking a sales pitch as fact.
Conservatives are rallying, but will they go far enough? What we need is to overthrow it all: democracy, Leftism, diversity, pluralism, tolerance, altruism, entertainment, mass religion and popularity itself. Most of all we need to disenfranchise normal people who have proven their ability to do one thing well, which is to hide from reality and ignore problems until it is too late to do something about them.
There is much we cannot save and much we should not. The USA and EU are dead and should be thoroughly destroyed because they were stupid ideas; the original population of America and the population of Western Europe however can be conserved. Those who are Leftist, criminal, perverse or broken should be exiled. All of those who are Other — not of a Western European heritage and values — should be given reparations and repatriated to their home continents. After that, we can start working seriously toward rebuilding a civilization damaged by a thousand years of sheeplike stupidity.
Contrary to what you are told in media, the ideas above are not radical: they are how most of humanity has survived through most of history. Self-interest, culture instead of government, strong aristocratic leaders, ethno-nationalism and esoteric religion have always worked. Democracy, diversity and individualism have always led to death and destruction.
The real radicals are those who insist that these forms of dysfunction can work and in fact will turn out for the good. These people are idiots who are busy pointing at their suburban neighborhood and saying “See, I have the good life” which is equivalent to people on the upper floors of a building burning below insisting that there is no need to evacuate. Bad ideas lead to certain doom and delaying tactics like those of our conservatives will always fail.
Our current time is sleepwalking in denial. We suppress our knowledge of how miserable our existence is, how ugly everything is and how corrupt all people are so that we can claim we are living the good life as individuals. That egotistic bragging gets us nothing but it helps people keep pretending that the problem does not exist, which is what most normal people do. We are surviving only because of the vestiges of functional institutions that we still barely retain, and the wealth of the past brought about by the methods to which I suggest we return above.
Like Adam and Eve, we exist in a temporary garden of Eden. In denial we took the apple with a salesman’s promise that it would make us powerful, and instead, it has destroyed the excellent life we once lived and replaced it with outward prosperity and inner misery. Stupid dupes of the lie, we are now telling each other lies to keep pretending that nothing is wrong, even as destruction gathers around us.
Humanity is mostly bad and evil because it is normal. Normal means not so much selfish as oblivious to consequences beyond the meal we are instagramming or the great sale at a merchant that we are live-blogging. Normal means people who cannot lead and do not understand leadership. Normal means death. Normal means dysfunction. Unless, of course, we use those time-honored methods to appoint shepherds for the normal who point them away from their usual petty concerns and toward that which makes a functional civilization.
People will call you a racist and a Hitler but those are lesser things than what we need. We need a redesign of civilization and a restoration of function. We do not need “new ideas” but to throw out the new ideas and go to those that we know are functional. We do not need mere racism and anti-democratic thought, we need to throw out diversity and democracy. The enemy is our bad system of civilization, not the Other. They are just along for the ride to our doom and, because they are normal, are also oblivious.
Living in this world is torment for me, much like being in Hell. I see all of the good things being destroyed and replaced with all of the usual stupidity while normal people pretend they are so smart and clever for not noticing. I see billions of pages of writing that are off-point. I see salesmen of all sorts preaching interesting “solutions” that do not address the problem. No one is committed to stopping the suicide march.
Our problem is not any of the scapegoats: technology, The Jews™, The Rich™, power itself or some vast right-wing conspiracy. Our problem is our bad path of individualism, democracy, diversity and other notions based in the power of the individual, which consists of the ability of normal people to deny reality and not face negative consequences for it. Instead, we face those consequences together in collective suicide.
This decay has gone on for a thousand years without stop and clearly, the bad guys have won. It is time to stop putting our heads in the sand, admit the breadth of the problem and the “radical” notions which will fix it, and then to act to that end. Nothing else is important and nothing else matters when one faces certain death otherwise.
American Nativism was a movement in the 1800s which said that the original founding population of America was Western European and that adulterating that with non-Western European immigrants would destroy it. In particular, these Anglo-Saxons argued that bringing in Southern, Eastern, Mediterranean and Irish European groups would destroy our culture.
It turns out they were right, about everything. These new groups voted Leftist, having lower IQs and being more prone to unrealistic thoughts which they then defensively asserted preemptively as reality. These groups introduced lower standards of social behavior. And they voted, so soon corruption became the norm in politics. Anyone who remembers Tamany Hall shepherding Irish voters or the Chicago machine herding Eastern Europeans knows what this was like.
The fact remains that Western Europeans are the world’s only real minority and are an exceptional group that most closely resembles the historical European ideal. These historical Europeans ranged throughout Asia and India, came over the steppes and dwelt in Northern and Western Central Europe. From there, many other civilizations prospered as offshoots, possibly reflecting caste divisions in this ur-European tribe or its re-integration with the population that once produced it.
What will destroy Western Europeans is assimilation, including by “trace admixture” groups like the non-Western Europeans. Eastern Europeans are part Asiatic; Southern Europeans, part Persian; Irish, part North African; Jewish, part Persian, Arabic, Asiatic and Armenian; Greeks, park Turkic. Mixing these groups into the Western European gene pool will destroy Western Europeans just as surely as breeding them with sub-Saharan Africans. It is not what they are mixed with that counts, but that they are mixed at all, just as diversity of any kind is destructive, no matter what groups are involved.
Luke Ford notices JayMan’s comments on de facto American Nativism:
There are rational and sensible reasons to advocate for a strict moratorium on immigration to every developed nation (not just Europe and the Anglosphere), but if you seriously want to turn back the clock at this point, why don’t we be consistent here and just kick out every single Sicilian, Irishman, or eastern Slav from the United States, considering the poorer intellectual achievement of these European populations. After all, who are they to sap the creative juices of the master race?
JayMan is correct, but not for the reasons he thinks. These groups may have lower achievement but the important fact is that they are not Western Europeans. Western Europeans stand alone and need to act in their own self-interest, exluding all Other of any type.
To prevent ethnic genocide, one cannot simply keep the name of the group but replace it with near misses. The group must be preserved genetically so that it can continue its culture, values and civilization. The greatest threat to Western Europeans now is “white nationalism” or “ethno-bolshevism” which would breed us all into one uniform, admixed population and destroy the historical Western European remnant.
Honor was banished from America in large part coincidentally with the banishment of The Jacksonian from social and intellectual respectability. This was in no manner accidental. It was studied. To understand what is missing when honor is banished, we first need to examine what honor actually means. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary is a reasonably unbiased data source for estimating the current meaning of a word. Here goes:
Full Definition of honor
1 a : good name or public esteem : reputation
b : a showing of usually merited respect : recognition
2 : privilege
3 : a person of superior standing —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office
4 : one whose worth brings respect or fame : credit
5 : the center point of the upper half of an armorial escutcheon
We simplify this down to reputation, recognition, privilege, an order of earned merit, and credit. (We’ll ignore armorial escutcheons because they sound too much like some medical condition.) As we examine the definition above, we see a list of words that would be an anathema to SJWs. Honor reveals itself to be a system allowing us to operate outside the demesne of an overdeterming state. Honor, I conclude, is OS Freedom.
We go through this exercise to set up a discussion that I left hanging in a blog post last week. I was discussing how the banishment of the Jacksonian quadrant of America’s founding ideology had left our national commonweal dangled above the ditch. I remarked the following.
…it’s not too abusive a stretch to map Wilsonians to Progressives, Jacksonians to Classical Liberals, Hamiltonians to Authoritarians and Jeffersonians to Civil Libertarians. Banish one of these four vectors to the outer darkness and you get a disturbance in the force…In recent years The Jacksonian portion of this Tao has been banished to the trailer parks of Appalachian Hollows. This has led to the death of honor* and traditional culture in Elite American Society.
This death of honor is no mean observation and deserves further deliberation. Taking the Jacksonian Quadrant out of America while leaving the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians remaining in proper apposition, leaves Cthulhu but one direction to swim… Yet this is just a facile discussion of a more complex Free Body Diagram. Saying two forces work to cancel each other gives us a layman’s perspective. To evolve towards journeyman status, we need to examine the mechanism driving the force. Jacksonianism thwarts Wilsonianism. The questions previously begged was just “how?”
The answer, quite simply, is honor. Honor allows a society to function without constant micro-management. Middle management meatballs are what you get for killing honor. They are who drives the managerial state. Without these meddlesome, maundering morons to populate its armies with SJWs; Progressivism wouldn’t make any progress. Honor provides a mechanism to get your own defecation in sequence without the aid of some middle management meatball.
So how does honor thwart the Left? It makes them utterly unnecessary. An independent man with a 30.06 doesn’t need a freaking dog-catcher. The Wilsonian gains control when you make that independent man pay taxes for a dog catcher. The Wilsonian will then lobby the legislature to confiscate the 30.06 because the dog catcher conveniently renders it unnecessary.
Cthulhu you say? Aren’t we just comparing courses of action for ridding the streets of mangy rabid curs? Isn’t government supposed to do that? I mean, why have it if it doesn’t? So let me ask you one silly, little old question. Does any Progressive really care about mangy rabid curs? If you guessed no, the next question to address is then “why do they bother?” It doesn’t require a PhD in anything to realize the entire discussion was a way to take away each independent man’s 30.06. Yet that doesn’t get us all the way home to The Big Why.
We also haven’t addressed a couple of other points an SJW would walk you right passed before you could ask the inconvenient forbidden questions that lead the rational mind towards the satanic graveyard of undead hate truths. Isn’t government supposed to do that? Um, not if Mr. Remington does it faster, cheaper and better. But doesn’t that involve risk? Doesn’t the dog catcher not bothering and you having no recourse when he doesn’t also involve risk? The Progressive insidiously assumes that you can’t do this yourself in a responsible fashion while the government will never fail. Which government minister in Venezuela was in charge of grocery stores again?
Now, that second nagging question. Why have government if it doesn’t do things? The Wilsonian, Progressive, Socialistic, SJW is just about cracking up right now. The entire argument that government exists to do things is a dishonest lie. I’m going to have to pick a bone with a former US President here. Ronald Wilson Reagan once remarked the following. “The words ‘I’m with the government and I’m here to help you’ are the ten most frightening words in the English Language.” I think he should have said that they were the ten most untrue.
The government, and all the apparatchik shrubs that constantly want more of it, are not here to help you. They are here to help themselves. They are here to help themselves to you and all the stuff that is currently yours. The only alternative to the managerial state that allows the progressives to use your butt as an ATM to pay for their perpetual Visigoth Holiday is an emergent concept of honor. The concept that was most fully embodied in Jacksonian America.
The current Progressive government that has replaced and overwhelmed the once-great American Republic has so succeeded because it has banished the entire concept of honor. It fears the return of honor the way a parasitic Nosferatu fears the crucifix. The Good Progressive derides the man of honor as a bitter clinger hanging on to his Bible and, not coincidentally, his 30.06.
For years, I listened to people telling me “complex” Leftist theory is. After a brief bit of analysis — coming on the heels of having read the classics of Western philosophy — I found myself laughing at their statements. Liberalism is no more complex than a vending machine, but it contains a twist that baffles 98% of humanity.
Recently an article in the Boston Globe discovered this glitch and opined about it in the usual neurotic muddle of liberals that tries to incorporate many details of the current time to “hide the ball” about the actual simplicity of liberalism:
In liberalism’s race to get ahead, Hartz said, the insecurity of those who win provokes their escalating displays of wealth, but the anxieties and pain of those who fall behind cut deeper scars. Liberalism offers no remedies for these scars because it only defends purely individual rights. Deep divisions might undermine the unwritten social solidarity that is the essential foundation of liberalism itself.
Let me translate this: liberalism says we are all equal, and yet results in reality say otherwise. How do we resolve this paradox? The answer is that we do not, and so we become neurotic in our attempts to do so. Even in the most idealized of liberal societies, some have risen above others. Even the most Communist society must have some leaders, and they will have dachas in the countryside.
The author of that piece cannot face this paradox. His solution? More liberalism:
Donald Trump is an old standby of unconscious liberalism, but Bernie Sanders just might be a real democratic socialist. His campaign focuses on rectifying income inequality, a product of liberalism that liberalism cannot address because it only speaks of individual rights.
Someone will be hired to administer equal income. This person will have more-equal income than the less-equal people to whom he distributes. In every area of life, someone will be better at running the show than others. This person will either receive more income, more power, or both through rewards like dachas which technically are not income but would be purchased with income.
It’s time to point out that liberalism/Leftism is entirely nonsense. People are not equal in ability, therefore they are not equal; some rise above others because of their greater ability, which is an observation straight out of the pages of Charles Darwin’s books. What the American founding fathers meant by “equal” is that people deserve the right to pursue their destinies independent of a government shaping them toward ideological ends. It was actually a statement against liberalism, but to the Boston Globe author, it might as well have been written in Greek.
We have had over two centuries of theory trying to explain around the basic paradox of Leftism. These liberal ideas “sound good” but do not work in reality. This spurs a need for people to invent more of them, since people like the idea of liberalism because it sounds socially acceptable. That is, in sum, what you need to know about liberalism.
An experienced and more cynical American consumer might identify more of what liberalism actually is: advertising. It is promises that sound good, made to the consumer so that they buy the product. The product in this case is rule by liberals, who promptly vote themselves big fat salaries and government regulations that benefit their industries while destroying every other competing force. This ultimately dooms the society.
Looking back through history, we can see the Magna Carta as a formalization of liberalism. A group of merchants wanted to have greater power so that they could make greater profits and so they induced change in the political system to favor them. Being smart, but not quite as smart as their leaders, their first move was to find a way to depose those leaders, and they found they could do it through this universally-popular advertising.
The Americans tried to limit this impulse with a Constitution that in their view would protect citizens against government so that commercial interests would not run roughshod over the needs of ordinary people. It took only a few decades for people to hack around those limits and, with the rise of Lincoln, America became exactly what its founders did not want: an ideologically-driven state imprinting on its citizens that ideology.
While liberals generate mountains of words to try to hide their fundamentally simplistic view behind surface complexity, it wreaks great destruction upon us. We are chasing ghosts and illusions and in consequence, ignoring the actual problem of civilization, which is how — in the absence of regulation by nature — to keep citizenship open only to the useful people and avoid diluting ourselves into mediocrity, then facing the inevitable wrath of entropy.
All of this for a little twist, which is the idea that we are all equal except for liberals who are more-equal intellectually, and therefore we must serve them in order to gain… equality. Imagine if we had skipped this silly episode in our history and simply stuck to reality instead. How much farther along would we be?
Books have tackled the topic of “dark organizations” and lately academic rigor was attempted by Linstead et al. (including Garance Marechal at Manchester University). Initially it was thought that it was a psychological topic, then a sociological topic, so it came as no surprise that these academics concluded a multi-disciplinary domain as suitable for conversations around “dark organizations.”
So instead of diving into the detail of dark organizational case studies, it may be possible to simply discuss the issue in a random sort of way. For example a physicist mentioned entropy the other day saying that “if all roads leads to Rome and you are on a road, then it would be safe to say that you will end up in Rome!”
The conversation will then tend to move towards “where are you now?” and that is where the fun starts. How to answer that becomes more important because – will you be honest, or will you attempt to put things “into perspective” with a metaphor, or will you lie?
Typically a manager would repeat the rhyme currently pushed by the company:
Clearly he won’t say anything about himself, or his own career path, or his own frustrations. Does that mean he was being dark? Not at all. Withholding information is not a crime unless it aids and abets a crime. In the case of dark organizations there is no crime, however, worker unions have a wonderful term called “go slow” as an activity they propose as an alternative to “strike action.” Going slow may look like a dark organization because performance drops substantially, but it is not, because they are honest about it. They will look you in the eye, lying about their activities (assuming therefore that you know about the “go-slow”) requiring you to infer the reality of how a go-slow can be fixed.
So, if you are on the road where you are withholding information (or pretending), and additionally not being honest or following a “dishonest” process, then you generate a picture that is untrue and will end up not making sense to the audience. Darkness is, if you are on the road to no-where, you will most surely end up there. The result of ending up no-where, is that you will become mad, literally. Somebody estimated that 25% of people are mentally unstable. I am sure that is over-stated, but how would one know? DNA genetics statistics suggested the other day that psychological traits can be inherited. This seems plausible only if you include un-certifiable mental illnesses. If you can’t certify it, you cannot make laws on it meaning going dark is not a crime, it’s a condition(trait) that causes your company to go slow permanently.
It is quite limiting for managers to know they can’t prohibit dark behavior in employment letters, or punish it with a disciplinary policy. However, it is also comforting for them to know that they have this avenue should things go south. And things can get bad, as described by psychiatrist Howard Stein, so bad in fact that an employee can become traumatized and erratic while suffering limited memory loss (permanently). I know a mathematician that had to develop traffic light algorithms in a short time span, losing it, was “let go” and ended up divorced and living in a caravan/camping site. If this particular intelligent person had followed the dark road, he would not have gone mad (so quickly) but his boss may have lost it. Funny enough, as it turned out eventually, the company dropped the entire $6m product drive and the executive in charge had to leave himself, unable to explain what went wrong. (There were more trauma cases in case you were wondering.).
At this point the conversationalists becomes a little wary because they realize it can happen to them too. So the questions then attempt to determine the extent of darkness in society.
Re-direct to the American management topic of “hire and fire”. It is normal to say in a “capitalist” society we are proud to embrace the policy of “hire and fire” and that it’s normal to have “two” jobs. Meaning that when I talk to a bank employee, I should know that he won’t be there next time I visit. This makes it difficult for me (the client). And here I thought the customer is “king.” Not in America.
However, the push-back against hire and fire can be seen since it is quite visible. The auto workers union succeeded in bringing the American automotive industry to its knees. They are represented at Board level and can virtually veto any management decision. I am sure there are more qualified people able to describe this situation but I am also sure Daimler and Obama can tell dark stories about this.
Re-direct (again) to the American(ised) topic of “industrialization.” It is not a new concept since the “Industrial Age” however, industry bodies attempt to “industrialize” the industry (such as the automotive industry permeating every nook and cranny of society worldwide), not to forget about pharmaceuticals, or the oil and fracking industries affecting geo-politics through a plethora of lobbyists, but the latest and not least -– the election industry where “strategists” are now circling countries, let alone political parties. The point of any “industry” is to maximize its impact on society, in order to perpetuate the salaries and pensions of those working there. In other words –- it has nothing to do with clients or even voters. The next upcoming “industry” is the geographic information systems industry.
This motivates how the American middle-class is being marginalized, because they have become the target. This is serious stuff but the conversationalist feels better because he/she is not in focus here, the elite is, and it is easy to shift focus and blame to an amorphous entity that everybody will agree with.
So now that we are comfortable the question is –- “yes but, to what extent is this going on in business” (getting closer to conditions that may affect his salary and bonus). Unfortunately the author Jim Collins wrote a book tiled How the Mighty Fall which is about listed companies evaluated over a period of 10 years. Of those approximately 20, 000 companies only 11 passed the test to be called “Great” while the “rest” are clearly not. This requires further clarification however: a company performing at 20% of its potential is assumed to have failed and ignored. However, many of those continue to exist and do not always go bankrupt. I would suggest that a simple life-long multi-year revenue chart may actually be better to expose a dark organization.
The rising concern in dark organizations is multi-nationals able to pick the low fruit of tax havens en production facilities in the “world” and then to enforce their “policies” directly on local executives at will. Not to improve the local organization, but to improve the “salary silo” at headquarters (where-ever that may be).
At this point the conversationalist starts to see the bigger picture and the question (of a more concerning nature) becomes: “Yes, but where do all this come from?”
To answer that one has to investigate humans. How did humans evolve? What makes us do things? The answer is difficult but some light was shed by Dr. Victoria Horner with her research on differences between human and gorilla children’s learning abilities. The difference is that humans over-imitate while gorillas just imitate while learning. Both species imitate their parents in order to develop survival skills, but humans do it (slightly) differently.
It is possible to deduce that humans use tools and that by imitating the use of “tools” rather than “purpose” (food) that gorillas are interested in, humans developed a force multiplier projecting them to the civilization we have today. However, we have never learnt to “limit” tools because we have until now assumed that we will always go “forward” being optimistic and all, you know.
The gorilla learning needs understanding as well because some humans do that rather than learning tools (because tools are difficult). The gorilla is “aware” of the “purpose” of the actions he wants to imitate. In other words, the end-goal of the actions undertaken is what the gorilla learn(food), not the unnecessary technique. Some humans (a lot), whom in modern times could be described as SJWs, do that too. In other words, if you talk to them, they would focus on what your purpose(intention) is, rather than the detail of what you discuss. Their actions then will be determined by what they think your goal is, while they will NEVER inform you of their own goal/purpose. This is of course darkness personified.
The conversationalist now realize how fragile humans are. So the question becomes more security oriented, “yes, but how do we protect ourselves.” This is a very important question and most people think about the short term, but it’s actually the long term we should be concerned about. The crux of security is also in our early education between parent and child. According to Dr. Barbara Holtman researching a solution to South African crime, she (finally) suggested that children not be jailed and that alternative remediating education be implemented for them – to reduce crime that affects 25% to 50% of the population (2 million serious crimes per year). In other words, what she is saying is that we should raise our kids properly. As Donald Trump might say: this is yuge.