Over at The Conversation, important research reveals the reason that modern citizens seem to grumble all the time but never take any action to substantially change their situation: they have been bribed into silence. This is how government, evolving like a tapeworm, has solved the problem of recessions, flagging loyalty and keeping itself in power.
The researchers make an important point. Thanks to government benefits raising the lower and high taxes lowering the higher, people without wealth can afford to live like wealthy people. Here’s the most relevant part of the research in graphical form:
This graph shows how people in the lowest 80% of the population have their spending boosted by social welfare benefits, and how the highest lose about a third of their spending power thanks to taxation. I imagine the graph is similar in Europe because similar methods are applied there.
The authors write:
[S]pending inequality – what we should really care about – is far smaller than wealth inequality…The fact that spending inequality is dramatically smaller than wealth inequality results from our highly progressive fiscal system, as well as the fact that labor income is distributed more equally than wealth.
The top 1 percent of 40-49-year-olds face a net tax, on average, of 45 percent. This means that the present value of their spending is reduced by the fiscal system to 55 percent of the present value of their resources…For the bottom 20 percent, the average net tax rate is negative 34.2 percent. In other words, they get to spend 34.2 percent more than they have thanks to government policy…
Governments guarantee permanent stability (of government) through this model. The people most likely to revolt, namely the lower 80%, are bought off with the wealth of the higher 20%, who are not taxed so much that they cannot still enjoy a good life. This means that any attempt to remove the current system from order will meet with squeals of protest from the lower who fear their benefits going away, and the higher who see that their customer base will fall if the spending powers of the lower are curtailed.
Benefits (“bennies”) have always been bribes in disguise, presumably to keep the proles from rioting. Now they are a way the population is held hostage. It can keep a good life, so long as it keeps voting for the usual gang of incompetents, because while they’ll screw everything up, they’ll keep the bennies coming.
We also see how multiculturalism is made to work on paper in the West. The third world people who are imported are poorer, so they are given government benefits, which generally pacifies them so they mostly limit their violent crimes to the ghettos in which they are stored. The bennies allow them to have a good life, but in return, they buy the products — iPhones and Louis Vuitton and health insurance — that the higher earners produce. This inflates the value of the economy and the take-home of the higher earners, despite it being essential as circular ponzi scheme that is using permanent Keynesianism to suggest the economy is healthier than it actually is.
This shows us the origin of the ugliest form of consumerism: it is how governments pay for the increased taxes that make the bribes to citizens possible. The upper fifth is not buying much of the fast food, gadgets and entertainment as they have better things to do and different priorities. The subsidized people are, which increases demand for money, allowing government to claim positive economic effects from what ultimately will be a deleterious practice.
A recent poll shows Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump at 54 points to 41 points. This reveals the demographic timebomb that Ann Coulter described as being the path to a permanent Leftist regime in the United States:
The poll shows several major demographic struggles for Trump. The real estate mogul is tied with Clinton among men but trailing her among women by 26 percentage points.
He leads whites by 9 points, but trails nonwhites by a whopping 67 points. He also trails among independents by 11 points.
Among white people, Donald Trump is the next President. Among the groups of victims curried by the Democrats — women, minorities and other marginal cases — Hillary Clinton is our next President.
Is the strategy clear now?
The following is a monologue delivered by a friend of mine. He is now in his mid-70s, and a pipe smoker — usually a sign of a good egg — who has retired to the countryside after a successful career at a professional level. I have presented it as faithfully as I can recall it, with gratuitous obscenities edited out because of their marginal utility of expression.
I was born in mid-1940, at a time when everyone knew we were going to war but no one knew when. This explains in part why my parents were so nervous and tried to keep me from seeing the world. Because of that, however, I was the most curious kid you could ever imagine.
I have now survived over 70 years of liberal democracy, if that is what you insist on calling it. To us it was just more of the government in our lives. When I came awake into life at about five years of age, the war was ending and life in America was still pretty good.
You could move somewhere, set up a farm, trade with others, and get yourself going. You did not have the property taxes, local taxes, income taxes and stuff that you have now. There was much less paperwork, if any. Half of the country could not read or barely could but it did not affect them at all. Being able to do basic sums and understand proportion was always more important anyway, and having some mechanical skills so you could fix things.
Doctors were not cheap but not expensive like they are now, and they could not do any miracle work so you were either there for a quick fix, or basically doomed. That sounds bad but it meant that people did not linger on for years, or live with lost hopes. You just got on with life if you could and if not, you died at a natural time. It was also cleaner. Doctors could refuse to treat any patient, and hospitals could turn away people if they needed to, so the bums, crazy people and other races had to go find their own doctors. Now I can’t believe what the cost is for even just an office visit. People wouldn’t have put up with that back then.
America was the type of place the kids would call “fascist” now. Any business could turn a person away for any reason. If the community didn’t like that, business folded and we all got on with life. If someone who looked weird or homeless — we called them bums then — showed up, the sheriff would pick him up and drive him to the edge of town. We did not see many police. They protected the good people. They walked beats around the middle class neighborhoods and business areas.
In poor areas or places where shady business went on, the cops mostly just ignored it. They could do that because if a person decided to engage in shady business, it was on him. He faced the consequences of having done something wrong. In the same way, poor people were viewed as people who just did not have their act together. The cops figured that those who contributed nothing and caused lots of problems should be responsible for their own safety. There was a lot less real poverty then. Good people fell on hard times, and then got out. Bad people tended to self-destruct. If they left their shady areas and threatened good people, they got arrested and sent to prisons which were like concentration camps, where they had to work all day. No shady person wanted that.
There has been a lot said about the plight of Negroes. The fact was that Negroes had it pretty good but they had to make it on their own. The cops left them alone in their neighborhoods, and white people hired the nice ones to work in our shops and factories. The black community had its own stores, doctors, lawyers, and banks. There was a thriving black middle class of people who owned these.
Now, white people kept to themselves. My grandmother raised us to always be kind to everybody, but to realize that there were differences between people. Poor people were probably not as smart as us, and more likely to steal. Niggies (that was her term for Negroes) could be really nice people, but if you did not know one, be careful because they are closer to gorillas and might act like them, getting violent on the spur of the moment. White women stayed away from these. Indies (to her, anyone brown and not Negro was an Indian) were simple people who could be really competent but were prone to cheat. The Orientals (Asians) were like that too but better off. They just cheated on their taxes or put a thumb on the scale. She saw Jews as a type of Oriental. Our kind of people did not associate with these not because we hated them, but because we kept to our own just like those groups did.
One big difference between then and now was education. Not many had it and so businesses did not rely on it so much for jobs. They looked at the candidate and his abilities, and if it looked like he could do the work, they hired him and gave it a try. People got fired a lot more back then which was good because it cleared the decks for those who could do the work. There was less paperwork, and lawsuits almost unheard of, so business could take a chance on a worker knowing he would not vest for his pension until a certain number of years on the job. It was easier to get a new job if you needed one and if you were good, employers tried to keep you around.
I don’t buy into those “the old days were paradise” people. It was a harder time. People had a lot less. But they had a lot more time, and because it was a harder time, idiots were kicked to the curb a lot more frequently. People did not wait in lines and fill out paperwork as much, and there were not so many laws and lawsuits that you could not speak your mind or do what needed to be done. If you did the right things, like have some form of career and live morally, you would do just fine. You didn’t have as many gadgets and doodads and children had fewer toys, but we never noticed any sense of deprivation. Life was good and relaxing once you got on top of it.
As is obvious by my age, I do not have many years left. Naturally that is a bit scary, but I have come to believe in infinite life and a God who does the best for us. It was easier to believe in Him in the old days, although it took me personally many years to do so, because life had an order and our towns and cities did too. If you did good, good things came to you. There was a beauty in life, not this oddball “utilitarian” style of living. People were not always focused on the bad and what they were afraid of.
If you ask me for solutions now, I can only give you the wisdom that time has taught me, against my own arrogance and resistance: keep it simple. Do not interfere with mother nature. Some people will do good, and the rest are going to reap what they sewed, both from nature and God. Let God handle what is His and this is one area where only He can judge, and He does. We can do without all these laws, and should go back to what our Founding Fathers came up with. Just abolish everything since. Get rid of FDR’s programs, because they have not stopped the recessions. Build community and send children like I was to church so that fifty years later, it will all make sense to them.
You know your society is blithely passing into a twilight state when open advocates of one of history’s most pernicious notions are not just tolerated, but encouraged, by your elites. We now have open war on our streets, reminiscent of the 1992 LA riots, and the perpetrators fully admit their affiliation:
Around the world, union members have traditionally marched on May 1 for workers’ rights. In the United States, the annual events have become a rallying point for immigrants and their supporters since massive demonstrations in 2006 against a proposed immigration enforcement bill.
…About 300 people, including members of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union, held signs that read “Long Live May Day” and “Stop Police Terror,” and chanted “No Justice No Peace! No Racist Police!”
…Meanwhile, social justice advocates in Durham, New Hampshire, made the rejection of racism, xenophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment the themes of their annual rally.
Oh, so it’s a union holiday. Is that the full story, Amerikan media? Let’s go to the source:
At this time, socialism was a new and attractive idea to working people, many of whom were drawn to its ideology of working class control over the production and distribution of all goods and services. Workers had seen first-hand that Capitalism benefited only their bosses, trading workers’ lives for profit.
…A variety of socialist organizations sprung up throughout the later half of the 19th century, ranging from political parties to choir groups. In fact, many socialists were elected into governmental office by their constituency. But again, many of these socialists were ham-strung by the political process which was so evidently controlled by big business and the bi-partisan political machine. Tens of thousands of socialists broke ranks from their parties, rebuffed the entire political process, which was seen as nothing more than protection for the wealthy, and created anarchist groups throughout the country. Literally thousands of working people embraced the ideals of anarchism, which sought to put an end to all hierarchical structures (including government), emphasized worker controlled industry, and valued direct action over the bureaucratic political process. It is inaccurate to say that labor unions were “taken over” by anarchists and socialists, but rather anarchists and socialist made up the labor unions.
…On May 1, 1886, more than 300,000 workers in 13,000 businesses across the United States walked off their jobs in the first May Day celebration in history. In Chicago, the epicenter for the 8-hour day agitators, 40,000 went out on strike with the anarchists in the forefront of the public’s eye. With their fiery speeches and revolutionary ideology of direct action, anarchists and anarchism became respected and embraced by the working people and despised by the capitalists.
…Immediately after the Haymarket Massacre, big business and government conducted what some say was the very first “Red Scare” in this country. Spun by mainstream media, anarchism became synonymous with bomb throwing and socialism became un-American. The common image of an anarchist became a bearded, eastern European immigrant with a bomb in one hand and a dagger in the other.
…Today we see tens of thousands of activists embracing the ideals of the Haymarket Martyrs and those who established May Day as an International Workers’ Day. Ironically, May Day is an official holiday in 66 countries and unofficially celebrated in many more, but rarely is it recognized in this country where it began.
However, the above is also a bit spun in favor of its own side, which tends to use the term “socialist” for “Communist.” On Amerika, we recognize that all varieties of liberalism differ in degree only; a moderate Democrat is merely a Communist who has not yet become fully radicalized. A more accurate account of May Day follows:
This was the traditional day in the Soviet Union and the communist bloc countries for massive parades, replete with missiles, tanks, rank upon rank of goose-stepping troops, red flags, and huge posters of Marx and Lenin. This has not changed in countries that are still officially communist, such as China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam. In non-communist countries of the world, the communist and socialist parties have continued to hold May Day celebrations, usually under the banner of International Workers Solidarity Day.
According to The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, communist countries and communist parties celebrate May Day “by mobilizing the working people in the struggle to build socialism and communism.” The same source goes on to report: “On May Day the working people of the Soviet Union show their solidarity with the revolutionary struggles of the working people in capitalist countries and with national liberation movements. They express their determination to use all their power for the struggle for peace and building of a communist society.”
…”The decision to make May 1st a day of annual demonstrations,” says The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, “was made in July 1889 by the Paris Congress of the Second International, to commemorate an action by the workers of Chicago, who organized a strike for May 1, 1886, demanding an eight-hour workday, and held a demonstration that ended in a bloody confrontation with the police.”
We see the same game being played today. The protesters say they are from unions, feminist and anti-racist organizations, but what this really means is Communism. That is not surprising, since in addition to being in bed with organized crime, unions have always been in bed with the Communists.
Let us make this clear:
- Unions = Communism
- Anti-Racism = Communism
- .: Diversity = Communism
All of this is evident from a mildly critical reading of the original article cited in this post, as would have been done by a newspaper reader of the past century. Today’s reader, blighted by a mind stuffed with television, social media and pointless red tape, may be unable to parse it so I type it out for their convenience.
Communism, in addition to killing approximately a hundred million people in the last century, made wastelands out of every land it has occupied. It transfers the wealth of a nation to a few people who are in bed with organized crime, and then kills off anyone smart so it can remain in power, then collapses when the resulting society becomes totally dysfunctional, as it was obvious it would.
Any time Communism is openly tolerated around you, you should be screaming out a different kind of May Day: a distress call. Your nation is packing it in, going down in flames, and sinking faster than the Titanic. There are no lifeboats, so get ready to stand your ground.
White nationalism, a product of ideological confusion and emotional outbursts pretending to be political theory, is a degraded form of nationalism that is gaining in popularity because of the disaster of 0bama and EU immigration policy. Nydwracu points out another area where white nationalism fails:
There are perhaps other reasons to oppose white nationalism, but why worry about the weaker argument given the existence of the stronger? It simply wouldn’t accomplish its proponents’ goals. In a hypothetical white nationalist America, one side or the other would eventually realize both the possibility and the utility of ending white nationalism in order to advance its own interests against those of its traditional enemies. In other words: ‘white’ is not a nation.
In the name of nationalism, white nationalism is the opposite of nationalism: grouping together different nations on the basis of ideological comradeship, instead of natural ethnic interests. It imitates the dominant paradigm of the “proposition nation” but because it hides that behind what seems like the main idea of nationalism, or race in the sense of ethnic group, its proponents can claim it as an alternative to other methods of proposition nationism.
If you wonder why white people have not united behind white nationalism, one major reason is that they do not feel like being grouped into generic whiteness and having their ethnic identity destroyed. They also distrust the class- and caste-denying nature of white nationalism, as well as its anger and tendency to scapegoat other ethnic groups (most commonly: Africans and Jews) instead of looking at white problems, specifically the decay of Western Civilization through increasing Leftism (itself a subtype of Crowdism, or collectivized individualism).
Even more, it makes sense to separate Nationalism from “racism.” While any sane observer knows that diversity is the cause of racism, because when you put two or more ethnic groups in the same place they compete including for dominance of the values system, there is much to dislike about racism. Instead of recognizing that separation is necessary, as Nationalism does, white nationalism/racism blames specific groups for the failure of diversity, which fails no matter what groups are involved. This lets diversity, democracy and Leftism off the hook.
A more sensible viewpoint is pan-nationalism, or the idea of nationalism for every group. The first group to break away from the system of ideological nation-states will inspire others to do the same as a means of competing; Nationalism reduces the massive cost of enforcement required to keep people with nothing in common working together. It also breaks the power of Government, which relies on fruitless quests to justify its own expansion in order to rationalize increased taxation, and thus profit to those in government, a form of corruption.
This also allows cooperation between Nationalists of different races and ethnies because they share a common goal: a world defined by Nationalism, where each group works in self-interest and is beholden to no other group. This spares us from entropy-accelerating standardization and the kumbaya illusion enforced by UN troops showing up to make us all good Leftist internationalists.
White Nationalism is not an alternative to our current political order; it is another form of it. It perpetuates control of the center by the uncontrollable mass, which results in domination by the usual human failings which are sometimes called “the civilization disease”:
All human groups tend toward the same order. Whether it is Open Source, or “wisdom of the crowd,” or whatever: people need to work together, so there must be a power structure and rules. Alternatively, you find some very talented people and give them absolute power, but that upsets people. So, the audience defines the product, and the workers define the organization of the venture, whether it is pro-profit or not. You see the same thing in church groups, rock bands, PTAs and militias that you do in corporate America and Wikipedia.
Amerika offers instead radicalized conservatism: let us conserve what works in reality and that which produces excellent results instead of merely utilitarian ones. This is an odd form of thought, as if Republicans finally understood Nietzsche and turned all the dials up to eleven, demanding a functional social order instead of fighting a rearguard action on the economy, defense and certain social issues.
The weather in my neck of the woods may belie this contention, but winter is coming. Thus, getting ready may seem like a logical consequentialist strategy. Therefore I hope to embark on what will be a logical intelligent discussion of disaster preparation before the early frost kills our herbaceous borders. Today I offer part II, “Classifying Types of SHTF Events.”
In classifying SHTF events we can start with natural disasters versus man-made disasters.* Natural disasters on a large enough scale to qualify as an SHTF event are frequent, widespread, varying in area and temporal length. They generally can be broken down by species into meteorological, geological or biological events. Anthropogenic disasters can be broken down by species into political SHTF, military SHTF Technological SHTF and social SHTF. This can be difficult because man-made SHTF can bleed across multiple categories.
Natural SHTF events of the meteorological category involve severe weather. Hurricanes, blizzards, flooding and tornadoes are representative examples. These events are no picnic, but contrary to Jim Cantore on The Weather Channel; they are the least serious and deadly type of Act of God SHTF Event**. In my previous installment, I rated these events and couldn’t think of a Meteorological SHTF Event that went higher than 3 on a scale of 1 to 5. Perhaps the worst that can happen from this is drought-provoked famine such as the one that helped cause the Ethiopian Civil War in the Late 80’s/Early 90’s.
The really bad thing about these events is that they are no more predictable than the weather. Geological SHTF events encompass dynamic activities of the planet or even the solar system. They are typically no worse than the Meteorological Ones but there have been some rather impressive exceptions to this rule. Volcanoes, earthquakes, and tidal waves are common geological SHTF Events resulting from the unfortunately indifferent whims of plate tectonics. Solar storms and meteor strikes would be examples of Nature’s very own Plan 9 from Outer Space. One mitigating factor to these SHTF events is that they are cyclical and deterministic in nature – thus potentially predictable.
Geological SHTF Events can be on a catastrophic level. One scientific hypothesis of what happened to all the dinosaurs features a meteorite strike worthy of Lucifer’s Hammer. The Yellowstone Caldera is another scenario that captures the disaster-driven imagination. Less catastrophic mixes featuring this flavor of SHTF felled Pompeii, Herculaneum and even hacked down the entire Bronze Age Minoan Civilization.
Biological SHTF Events typically start on a nanoscale. They involve germs. These have historically spanned all levels of my Feke Scale. The famous Philadelphia Legionella Outbreak being a low-level SHTF Event. The Spanish Flu Outbreak in the US went a couple of notches higher. The Small Pox Epidemic amongst the Pre-Caucasian population of the Western Hemisphere and the Black Death have radically changed history. As Amerikan society degrades, the risk of this sort of SHTF goes up. Think Zika Virus in Venezuela and Brazil. Corrupt societies can sicken in ways beyond just moral.
Man-made SHTF can come in four broad categories. Political SHTF involves the failure of a society to govern and organize itself. Venezuela, Brazil and North Korea come to mind. Mao, Stalin and Hitler were even more awesomely leftist in how they swung the wrecking ball into otherwise functional societies. If people play stupid games with stupid leaders, they are going to win the most stupid of prizes. History does not care about anyone’s frikkin’ feelings. Bad political leadership and unchecked leftism will cause an SHTF Event.
Military SHTF is often connected to Political SHTF but will tend to take place even when the “Good Guys” start cooking off keg-loads of whoop-@$$ ordnance. This can be relatively limited in malignancy such as the ongoing terror killings in Iraq (when compared to the Three Punic Wars for example). It can even be accidental. Jon Anderson wrote a dreadfully bad song about “The Day of The Silver Cloud.”***
Military SHTF can also be WWII and can wipe entire civilizations out in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Kahn. It can also be overplayed by popular hysteria. I’m not arguing global nuclear war is easily survivable, but Carl Sagan’s Nuclear Winter Scenario is looking a bit over-cooked in light of data from volcanic eruptions and Saddam Hussein’s infamous Kuwaiti Oil Well Fires.
Technological SHTF entails what economists describe as negative externalities. We invent something brilliant, use too much of it and then suffer The Tradgedy of The Commons thereafter. We typically realize pollution and environmental degradation as an ongoing, low-level SHTF. Disasters like Chernobyl and fictional scenarios such as Terminator: Rise of The Machines make people more afraid of technology than they probably should be. Social and Political externalities such as The Luddite Movement can also be related SHTF events that result from poorly-handled technological change.
Social SHTF may well be the ongoing crux of why SHTF will get harder to survive. It results from people just getting sick and tired of one another and not seeing any reason to remain cohesive. Racial, class, religious and other types of (((diworsity))) enhance the likelihood of this sort of SHTF Event. Examples of these are mobs, riots, racial/ethnic conflict, jihadism/crusaderism, and attempted genocide. Low-level social SHTF occurs in crappy neighborhoods all over Amerika. Riots in LA and Ferguson are higher level events. The Rawanda-Burundi tribal genocide and other historical Shoah-Jobs throughout history would top the magnitude scale for this sort of SHTF Event.
So that’s a taxonomy of what could go wrong badly enough to make the SHTF. There are natural and man-made SHTF events. Things can go wrong in every way that’s pretty much imaginable. Most of the time it won’t quite be as bad as Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. In Part III, we’ll talk turkey and discuss how to prepare yourself and look after the people you care about. Until then, let’s just hope we can all float on…
*- I’ve borrowed another motif from a large, obnoxious Leftist slob – Kathleen Sibelius.
**- Yours Truly was less than 3 miles from where an F5 Tornado went rip-@$$ on a gas station and a section of cheap housing back in AD 2011, but didn’t lose a single shingle off of my roof.
***- The old Field Artillerist saying about collateral damage was “Fvck ‘em if they can’t take a joke.”
So 700,000 people have launched a symbolic boycott of Target Stores. Target is allowing customers to walk into any restroom that matches how they identify. A large number of people have told them this is unacceptable. I congratulate them on their orgasmic dildo display. It overlooks the basic point that Target feels it has no choice.
Target is damned if it does and Memories Pizza if it doesn’t. Between the Socially Conservative Scylla and the Hyper-PC Charybdis, Target has decided Charybdis is the bigger threat. Its commitment to the Left goes back a number of years and the store is unlikely to change course. This protest will make Target change about as many people’s minds as the gay lip-lockers did when they acted like idiots at Chick-Fil-As.
But in the longer term, this only accomplishes one thing. Fewer decent people will go out in public if they can avoid it. Unless Progressives are even more sick and deranged than even I believe, they are just too blind, too high time preference and too wedded to their current crusade to see how this plays out downstream.
At the same time we watch this feces festival over which freak poops in which gender’s restroom, we get news that shopping malls are going out of business at an alarming rate. Business Insider offers their report and diagnosis. You can read more autopsies here.
Retailers like Sears, JCPenney, and Macy’s have been closing hundreds of locations over the last several years, leaving dead or dying shopping malls in their wake as they try to remain profitable amid the growing threat of e-commerce.
Business Insider correctly identifies that more of us will buy online from the same company we used to shop in person. They fail by strongly attributing the decline in retail foot traffic to the increase in retail click traffic. People are not clicking enough to replace what they used to buy in person. The population doesn’t yet trust online commerce enough to buy that much by point and click.
People are actually willing to make do with less because the price of having all you want is having to deal with all the obnoxious people. If perversity + proximity = conflict, then you avoid the perverse perverts. If they are at the mall, you just don’t hang at the mall. When enough people stop hanging at the mall, the mall gets left to hang.
A lot of the rest of our society gets left to hang. It happens all the time with “successful” activism. Lefty always wins the argument. They get progress. People who consider it regress instead don’t raise their voices. They just stop coming around. Social institutions require involved and connected people. If you can’t even go to the can without being grossed out by your fellow human beings then Mr. Logic tells you not to bother with the tossers.
Every society has a “forum,” or public spaces in which people interact without having selected each other specifically. Here the citizen can observe others from different backgrounds and socialize with them, needing no more excuse than finding themselves similarly motivated to engage in similar activities. The forum includes shopping malls, department stores, churches, coffee shops, movie theaters and anywhere else people gather.
Leftism will kill the forum by making it an alienating place for the functional people among us, which by Archimedes’ principle means it will fill with the rest. The SoCOns can fight back all they want, but the blight has already taken hold. We just cross Target off the list of decent places. If enough people do, we just won’t have Target Stores anymore. Societies that tolerate too much from their Leftists eventually don’t get to still have nice things.
Public servants thrive on being noticed. So when Britain’s Natural Environment Research Council asked the Internet to come up with a name for its new boat, this was a brilliant act of theater and notoriety-scrounging. But the results surprised no one, because we all know how democracy works.
Whatever idea is least offensive to most wins. This skews heavily toward illusory ideas, because reality is quite frankly offensive. None of us can have everything we want, and the cause of bad results is usually our own screwups, unless we pay attention to past results (consequentialism), discipline our impulses, and make cold nihilistic calculating decisions based on outcomes but aiming toward the best possible result.
Every other approach in the 6,000 years of recorded human history has failed.
We also know the history of democracy but can also see its effects in local contexts. School elections, HOA elections, even just trying to decide which restaurant to go to or movie to see as a group of friends. Democracy picks not the lowest common denominator, but the lowest option period.
When people become Votey McVoteface, it changes them by sabotaging their psychology. Instead of getting to express what they want, and getting an answer back that this idea is either reasonable or stupid, they get options delegated to them by the rest of the herd. These are never ideal, which neuters voters by forcing them to accept the stupidity of others as a gift.
Over time, Votey McVoteface stops taking it seriously. It’s a game like everything else: getting the fast line at the tax office, impressing the boss with fluff, seducing girls by being feminist, and on and on. When society measures goodness by how many hoops you jump through, the people with the least integrity always win.
I advance this idea also in an argument for an absent God. People say, if God is present, why doesn’t he show himself? Without taking a position beyond the argument itself, I say that it makes no sense for God to show himself or give us writing on the wall. When he does that, his audience become the followers who always win at the game. When you tell people what to do in order to succeed, you get toadies not geniuses.
If God wants a portion of humanity to follow him, he wants the good ones — and they tend toward religion, or at least reverent agnosticism, anyway. Is someone who finds great beauty in the woods and the world of ideas perhaps as religious as the most devoted churchgoer? Quite possibly — and with his disobedient streak, the life-interested agnostic or believer shows more promise than someone who sees the writing on the wall and conforms in hope of personal reward.
Voting does the same thing. It tells people how to be right, safe, inoffensive and successful without having taken any actual risk. That bloats society with lots of yes-men and goody two-shoes, even when they’re being ironic anti-heroes, and no people capable of independent thought. Not surprising that democracy lives up to its epithet, “the headstone of empires.”
This question came up recently in a discussion of conservatism where the phrase “1788 conservative” was used. This one floats around at the periphery, but I have heard it in real life as well as on the internet, and think it deserves elucidation.
The name “1788 conservative” refers to this:
“My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.” ― Julius Evola
The French Revolution began in 1789, and so “1788 conservatives” are those who see this as a horrible error and want to go back to the point before the error, and try again.
We tend to see the French Revolution as formalizing the decay of the West. The decay existed long before that, but picked up when political and military pressures weakened our aristocracy and our society did not support them. Rules made on paper are never good, but having enlightened and intelligent people in charge always works.
The aristocracy made this happen at every level: kings, dukes, and lords. These served as a mediating force on growth and finance, kept most of the land intact as hunting preserves, conserved culture and religion, and avoided the unbroken string of idiotic decisions and pointless wars that democracy has embarked upon.
The term “Right-wing” came about after the French Revolution to describe those who thought the ancient order before the Revolution was a better idea than the revolution; after that, “conservatives” — or those who accept the new government of the post-Revolution years, but want to conserve as much as possible of what went before — and “liberals” who accept the ideals of the Revolution but want it applied through conservative methods, became the only options.
1788 conservatives merely take conservatism to its root: we conserve that which has worked best in the past as proven by history, which is a society with heavy cultural influence regulating liberty, aristocracy in the lead, no government and no safety net, and a tendency toward excellence, divinity and other transcendental goals. We are the most honest form of conservative and the least politically correct and socially acceptable in a democratic regime.
What makes 1788 conservatives unique is that we recognize the inter-connected nature of aspects of civilization. We cannot deconstruct and separate ideas, as the democrats do, from their effect and the existential experience of life in that civilization. Leadership is connected to values and all is vested in the organic nation, or the people born of a similar root with similar abilities and inclinations which form the basis of culture and values.
In our degenerated time, where most of the people who should be able to think exist in a one-dimensional cartoon of ideological thinking, these ideas are mostly lost and forgotten. However, as liberal democracy continues to fail despite our patching it up more than Windows 10, the brightest lights among our people are reconsidering the era of kings as a future and not the distant past.