It is natural to be self-referential, self-interested, and to desire a sense of pride in what one does. Like all good things, this has a dark side: it equally natural-feeling to see the world as a facet of self and deny its need to be independent.
Last summer, the Pew Research Center found that people in all 15 countries it surveyed trusted Mrs. Clinton to do the right thing in foreign affairs more than Mr. Trump by ratios as high as 10 to one.
…Mr. Trump’s promise to pull back militarily and economically left many overseas contemplating a road ahead without an American ally.
…”He has been focusing on the negative side of the global markets and globalization,’ Ms. Kobayashi said. ‘But at the same time it is really difficult to go back to the old business world. So how will he explain to the people that benefit and also the fact that there is no option to go back to the old model of business?”
This translates to: what you are doing is not convenient for me, therefore you are wrong.
You can find this same approach throughout history. The Peasant Revolts and French Revolution amounted to over-populated peasants complaining that their kings did not stop them from over-breeding. Class warfare in England amounted to lower classes complaining that those above them did not provide an easy life for those who would do nothing with it.
The complaining voices, who not coincidentally are in the Leftist mouthpiece The New York Times, are essentially repeating the same message:
Globalism is here to stay, whether we like it or not — according to everyone who depends on the US maintaining the status quo. False threats about how we can never go back are actually real, because other nations and people can no longer depend on the US to be their source of easy money and a wimpy foreign power.
Whenever the world is polled about American presidents, they always like the weakest party. This is because, as a different troop of monkeys, their interest is that the American troop remain weak and therefore open to them making their demands from those who have more than they do.
The beggars are demanding that alms be made mandatory. The welfare recipients want their checks to be guaranteed forever. The competition wants us to be weak so they can be strong. This is nothing new — in fact, it is basic self-interest — but it has not served us well under liberals, who seek to appease every group they encounter because liberals think socially and therefore, emotion and appearance are more important than reality to them.
From the article:
“If Trump wins, God forbid,” Macharia Gaitho, one of Kenya’s most popular columnists, wrote on Tuesday before the votes came in, “then we will have to reassess our relations with the United States.”
In practical reality, the US cares very little about its relationship with Kenya, or at least about opinions about that relationship. We do what we must, and they do what they must. Until the two conflict or overlap, there is not much to talk about other than mutual respect and going our own ways
Those of us with a realistic bent are growing tired of the world’s over-inflated sense of self and the demands that we maintain the way things have always been or there will be ¡consequences!.
This psychology reflects every unhealthy family dynamic ever, where the parents demand that children have no needs that inconvenience the parents, or on some pretext the children will be punished. Generation X knows this well, as our self-obsessed parents were only too quick to become enraged when our needs deviated from their plans and self-image.
If nothing else, the dual events of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump represent a symbolic victory, which itself is a form of maturation. We are not ruled by the opinions of the group, or anything but our own place in the hierarchy of nature and realistic adaptations to our situation. We owe them nothing.
When one has to explain Leftism to a child, at some point the term “unhappy people” comes up. Leftists are those who hate life for being unequal, which means having risk to them as individuals relate to the consequences of their actions.
Despite having that ideology, the Left never seem happy. In fact they are generally agitating, and instead of creating working examples in local communities of their ideals, they demand total control so that all of us face the same fate as a whole.
This suggests that Leftism is less a philosophy and more of a pathology, or neurosis perhaps. Leftists are those who dislike what exists, but the solutions they propose always lead to worse outcomes because they deny reality. As a result, Leftists are perpetually unhappy, and act out the anger of the self-created miserable.
One of the leading hermeticists of our time, who like Alex Jones hides her important commentary behind an aesthetic of chaos, speaks to the nature of desiring disharmony among neurotics:
Focusing on what you don’t want only gives you more of what you don’t want. So this woman claims to want “harmony” but is focusing on the lack of harmony; therefore, more disharmony is manifested. Also, she is expecting that her desire for harmony trumps others’ desires for “disharmony.” She cannot see what others’ motives are because she is caught up in her own wishes and imposing those wishes on others.
The person to whom she is speaking shows the signs of neurosis. That person is looking for others to make her feel good and to give her what she wants, which both will never happen, and if it does, will deprive her of any sense of accomplishment. That in turn will lower her self-esteem and make her feel helpless to make decisions because she never learned how.
Hermeticism is based on several rules which include the Law of Attraction, which states that people visualize what they desire, and if they visualize only what they do not desire, they get more of that instead. It has some basis in information science, in that if patterns in the mind correlate to external objects, thoughts attract the objects that resemble the pattern of those thoughts.
Liberals got exactly what they wanted out of this election. Their consequent disturbance comes from being dishonest with themselves about what they really want. Secretly, they desire a perpetual sense of victimhood so that they have an excuse for non-performance, which eliminates the social risk of acting and achieving bad results by the choice of action performed.
If Hillary is president, the Left will not get its continued sense of victimhood. Instead, they will have to face the results of their ideology, which is a crumbling nation of dying international prestige.
In this sense, a Trump election is their victory. It allows them to play the victim card endlessly and relentlessly with impunity. These riots are not from outrage, but a renewed sense of purpose. They wish to be victims until the bitter end.
Ironically, they got exactly what they wanted with a Trump presidency. He will go about fixing up the country as Western Civilization shifts rightward, having had its fill of the delusional liberal democracy and its globalist/diversity dream. They will be able to keep rioting, and displace their internal unhappiness from themselves onto the scapegoat of the world, never maturing because they deny themselves the chance.
The Alt Right contains multitudes — Traditionalism, Nationalism, Identitarianism, Theocracy, National Socialism/neo-Nazism, Libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Social Conservatism, Neoreaction and the New Right coexist within it — all of which contribute to its character, but each Alt Righter finds one dominant over the others in his own thinking.
On the Theocratic side, the Orthosphere and others borrow much from the Traditionalist perspective, and essentially desire a civilization renewal through mass devotion. This causes clashes with other aspects of the Alt Right cluster of beliefs, as can be seen in this erudite article about the new Alt Right logo:
However, the penultimate sin of this artistic foray by Spencer et al. is its imposition of a wholly non-historical, secular, and privately-conceived image upon a decentralized movement designed to defend hundreds of millions of souls descended from millennia of historically and religiously-rooted European history.
In other words, this Alt Right logo does artistically what the European Union’s constitution does legally – it erases European history and replaces it with an abstract, de novo interpretation of who we are to become. It is wholly utopian and idealistic. But that is no surprise considering whence it came.
This illustrates why the Alt Right is composed of an intersection of those many impulses above: any “one right way” approach to restoring Western Civilization tends to become a special interest that eclipses all other needs, resulting in a single change to the status quo that leaves the bulk of the decay intact.
One Right Way philosophies include White Nationalism, which wants to eject or destroy some Other groups but not all, and then merge all white people into a vanilla milkshake under the current democratic regime. This fails because it leaves the conditions which will re-create our present state intact, and by focusing on a scapegoat (Others) instead of actual problems like Western Decline, democracy and individualism, strengthens those forces.
Theocracy/Orthosphere in its purest form is a One Right Way philosophy — ironically, one that is endorsed by many American Republicans. In their view, we need everyone to convert to Christianity, and everything else will work itself out. For most, this is simply an excuse for inaction. With a respected source such as Faith and Heritage, more is at work, but the problem still remains.
For the F&H guys, European = Christian. For them Christianity came first, the people and their culture second. This quixotic miscomprehension is their perpetual downfall. The understanding that Christianity took hold in Europe because it was compatible with the European mindset is incomprehensible to them.
In other words, they have it backward: Christianity did not make Europe, but when Europeans “Europeanized” Christianity, they made it into a religion that could unite Europe. It did not not through Christianity itself, but through the expression of the European mindset through Christianity.
This clashes with the modern view of Christianity, which is that Christianity is the tool of producing civilization. In that view, everyone is capable of becoming Christian and being saved, and this “system” in turn saves the society around it. Not only history but common sense suggests that is not so.
Repeat after me: people are not equal. (It almost rhymes.)
People are not equal. They have different capacities for understanding. If you follow Human Biodiversity (HBD), you know that intelligence fits into a Standard Distribution where only the far-right side is capable of in-depth understanding of the complex history of a people and its relationship to God found in the Bible. This is why we have clergy; they are learned, elite interpreters of the holy Book.
Rejecting equality means that not everyone is capable of being Christian, of being saved, and that doesn’t jive with the feel-good understanding of God that modern Christians pursue. It just does not compute that God would create people who cannot be saved (even though this is Biblical).
Let us look at the scripture:
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. – John 6:44 (ESV)
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. – John 15:16 (ESV)
So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. – Romans 9:16 (ESV)
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. – Romans 8:29 (ESV)
The above passages are traditionally used to support Calvinism, or the notion that human beings are born good or bad and cannot be molded from one into the other. This is highly controversial in our egalitarian times, since it implies that human intention is less powerful than the world of nature and God, which contradicts the individualism incipient behind our modern democratic beliefs.
Romans 8:29 makes this clear: God makes people who are receptive to Him, and by the reflexive principle, not all people are receptive, and the ones who are not are hostile to God. Those who are receptive to Him are so because of the way God made them.
Much like the question of Christianizing Europe versus Europeanizing Christianity, this question hinges on causality. The ability to receive God must exist before a person can receive God, as in the esoteric “Traditionalist” view; this rejects the idea that receiving God creates the ability to receiving god, in the exoteric and democratic convention.
That ability to perceive and receive is the essential component and must come first. Without it, there is no belief in God, only superstitious peoples like in the third world and Western New Age cults. The other verses support this view: God installs in some of us the ability to perceive God.
From an Alt Right view, this means that we must have a hierarchy, and raise those who understand God/nature/logic above the rest so that the best can rule the rest. It may also imply that those who oppose God, because they cannot be “fixed” or “educated,” must be sent elsewhere so they do not threaten the society of those who receive God.
Europeans have a tendency toward ability to receive God, but not all of them can do it. In the past, whether in pagan societies or Christianity, Europeans have sought a transcendental worldview and a metaphysical understanding of their world. This separates them from other groups, and shows why it was Europeanizing Christianity and not Christianizing Europe that is responsible for the positive contributions of Christianity in Europe.
Humans exist in parallel, both as individuals and as groups. At an individual level, we seek existential fulfillment, or the sense that our lives are meaningful enough that death can be ignored, at least for a few moments. As groups we seek stability and the power to exist together without suffocating each other.
Since our media is corrupt, only tabloids provide some degree of accuracy, mainly because of their willingness to step outside of the sandbox created for “safe topics” by the media elites.
Looking at these pictures, what we see is not conformity-for-itself, but individualism living to conformity. The ultimate statement of individualism is “I want my share,” instead of the attitude of independence which is “I will make enough for myself.” Individualists are inherently collectivists, and they create societies like we see in these photos.
The group level reveals an inner bleakness however, and this is the result of the domination of the soul by individualism, which results in social conformity at the level of the group, but at the level of the individual, nothing but selfish decisions which turn out poorly — and for which the individualists blame the rest of us, presumably for the sin of not going along with what they desire.
A lone individualist — err, Leftist — discovers that the grand plans of mice and humans aft gang aglee. In particular, her dream of individualism in the country has crashed and burned:
Despite local MP Rishi Sunak’s promise to make the Dales a kind of northern Silicon Valley, it takes me longer to load and send this column than it does to write it, so slow is the broadband.
It’s the loneliness that gets to me. I go for weeks without talking to a soul. The countryside is so difficult that to survive it you need a family, a husband, pots of money, and high stone walls.
There is this idea that we need to preserve a rural way of life, that it’s our heritage, a refuge: instead, it’s a throwback, it’s sexist and cruel.
Perfectly reflects how the modern city-dweller wants to move to the country and replicate the city with its diversity and fast internet. Her other statements about cruel treatment of farm animals, lack of tofu at the grocery store and the inability to find expensive-ish cosmetics in the country only serve to paint her as an ignorant and self-satisfied urbanite. She can’t help but portray herself as more moral and educated than those who surround her.
Rural life highlights the fact that your modern urban life is a sham! It must be the countryside’s fault! Because in her mind, surely she is not at fault. Damn those pesky consequences. At least in the city all of her friends would tell her how fabulous her rubbish life is and how wonderful she is for making such “brave” decisions about her life.
These are the same dysfunction: people have a vision in their minds — defended by the process of living in cities anonymously itself, and the philosophy of humanism — that what they want should be considered right, and that no one can deny it to them. This ignores the fact that most people are delusional most of the time, as Liz Jones’ experience shows us.
The grim fact is that we need something greater than ourselves to live for. We need nature, God and truth. Without those, we simply fall back into the void of our own projection and drama, and then what that fails, we need someone to blame, like Liz Jones, a neurotic Leftist who is quoted above.
Humans find beauty by living for something more than the self. Get caught up in the beauty! — whether of the supernatural, the natural or those ideals which transcend our individual fears and desires — and suddenly life has meaning. Without it, we are all neurotics wandering through the dystopian city, begging for a clue.
When watching excerpts from the recent Olympics in Rio, I was struck by the difference in physiques from the 1970s to today. The women of three decades ago were long and lithe and took on more difficult and graceful routines. In the following video, you can see the elegance and poise of the past.
The difference between today’s overly muscled globalist equal person and the relative health and strength of athletes of yore is alarming. The emphasis now is on power and strength, and today’s female gymnast does a mostly masculine performance that lacks any artistry. This shift from Western aesthetics to a rote repetition of stunts reveals how far the Olympics has fallen.
For example, Laurie Hernandez performs more dance moves, and has dutifully memorized and executed all of the “tricks” from the list of successful Olympic wins, but the routine does not hold together as anything more than a demonstration.
Along comes Aly Raisman, who displays more technical skill, but again her routine is more like a recitation of familiar patterns with no unity between them than a display of artistry and athleticism in union.
Media darling Simone Biles is the girl who is considered to be the best in the world and perhaps the best ever. She is short and stalky, rather ungraceful. Like the others, she embarks on a routine that is very jerky, having no real flow to the movements. Everything seems to be just a technical checklist to be gotten through to obtain the highest points.
Now compare those to Nadia Comeneci, a Romanian gymnast who scored the first perfect “10” at the Olympics in 1976. Notice the lines of her body as she performs compared to our current batch of athletes. They aren’t even comparable. This is a harder skill than all that power tumbling and is so much more aesthetically pleasing.
In everyday life, as I go through the world from post office to grocery store and work, I frequently experience moments of frisson when I feel I have peeked a secret of the universe. Often this comes when I step back from my everyday perspective of trying to work with what is available, and I realize that the people I encounter are behaving like jerks.
They are selfish, pushy, deliberately oblivious to the consequences of their actions, petty and thoughtless. It doesn’t matter if they are liberal or conservative; everyone seems to be acting up and being hateful. Like so many actions exhibited by the masses, this is a result of realizations that they can neither allow themselves to be aware of nor comprehend. No one can let themselves see the truth that stares them in the face every day: there’s nothing to look forward to.
We occupy a society that isn’t just dying, it’s already dead. We are living in a corpse world that is filled with jobs that have no point, which result in income we never see that goes to complete strangers that have nothing to do with us, so that we can live in neighborhoods that are full of people that we would normally never associate with. We come home to spouses and children who are alien to us because we are caught in a self-perpetuating cycle that kills our drive to change and our will to live.
With the impending election, the futility of our lives becomes even clearer with one salient point inescapable: It doesn’t matter who wins. The underlying issues destroying our society will never be dealt with under our current democratic system. Voting is pointless. The only possible utility voting possesses is the potential to vote for the worst possible candidate in order to hasten the demise of this broken society. There is nothing to preserve, conserve or improve. The only way forward is to destroy the corpse so something better can take its place.
As the world chortles along, seemingly unchanging, the futility and frustration of our current situation chokes the life from the sane. Those who benefit from the current regime are making more noise than ever in an attempt to keep the life-giving (read: tax-paying) native population guilted into continuing acquiescence lest we be seen as “bad” people. Most of them go along with it for the same reason we all do, which like my day-to-day struggles consists of trying to work with what is out there and make the best of what is.
Our greatest fear is not that it will all end in fire and horror, but that nothing will ever change, and that we will continue our slow descent into third world conditions, kill off all that remains of Western culture and genetics, slowly becoming a perpetual Mexico or Brazil. For those who can see clearly, it’s apparent we’re already basically there.
The protests at Trump rallies reveal the tension between keeping things the way they are to the benefit of the parasite, and the knowledge that the West not only doesn’t want the Other in its midst, but that we’d be better off without them. Our current society was taken over by a parasite that reprogrammed our brains to think that democracy, pluralism, diversity, tolerance of moral deviance and compassion for the stupid are positive values. Instead, they are death, and as long as we try to make them work, we will be like the living dead, walking zombie-like among the ruins and trying to pretend we don’t notice.
If we do not triumph in the war against our own tendency toward self-annihilation, we will never have anything to look forward to. We simply cease to exist, dead inside of ourselves, but go through the motions like the zombies we have become. Already the burden of denial has become nearly impossible. It will never get better until we escape this system and find something worth living for instead.
The problem with having a media industry is that you have thousands of people paid to take ideas and chatter them to death. Such is the case with the media’s neurotic handwringing over the proposed bombing of Syria.
Questions fly: should we bomb? When? Do we need consensus? What should we think? Are the good guys good enough, and the bad guys really bad? And the usual bloviation about how much WMD evidence is enough.
I see this issue from a different angle, which is that it’s not the goal that’s a problem here, but our process. Specifically, what kind of nation openly discusses going to war, works itself into a neurotic stupor discussing it, and then acts indecisively, as if thinking backward?
A liberal one, that’s what.
Obama is like the second round of the Clinton years. Clinton loved to back-walk his way into wars too. He was profoundly aware of popularity and so he never went openly to war. He sent in the Tomahawks, maybe played around with special forces, but was slow to commit. That snagged him a few times. He betrayed our armed forces in Somalia after he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, so he yanked back the hand and went into denial. And in Bosnia, his indecision turned a bureaucratic quest for ideological purity into a full-blown massacre.
The current president will approach this war the same way. He’s dipping his toe in the pool. True to the liberal ideal, he values “discussion.” Liberals love discussion because it’s neurotic, and they’re neurotic. It’s a match made in hell. They don’t like the idea of setting up a goal and going for it, because when doing that, one can fail. However, if you’re just discussing and waffling your way through, you can yank that toe back out of the water at any time.
It’s a sign of weakness to be so indecisive and ambiguous about our missions. When we went into Iraq (II), no one heard about the news until Baghdad lit up with B-52 strikes. We did our homework, found a goal, and acted toward that end. That’s good leadership.
In contrast, Obama presents himself as weak-willed and unsure of himself. Add this to some of his other actions, and he appears to be unsure if he even likes America or wants to be American. He makes America look like a dying empire, tamed by its own sloth and downbreeding. We’re no longer leaders, with Obama in charge. We’re overprivileged, neurotic, spoiled brats who are waffling their way through diplomacy and unfortunately have access to high-intensity weapons.
The news will be full of the “discussion” (read: circular chatter and drama) about the proposed Syria strike. The real conversation should be about how we’ve approached this, and what our goals are as a nation. While we lounge in intellectual sloth like obese morons rolling about on holiday, Russia and China wait for their chance to pounce. They’re our historical enemies for a reason, and nothing since 1991 has changed that.
All I can think to do is notice what the press will not, and what the talking heads have not, and say our approach reeks of mental illness and neurosis that it typical of liberals. And then say, “This is broken. Discuss.”
The Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans produced a series of informational advertisements representing the Confederate point of view on the War Between the States. These short commercials clarified key facts about the South’s motivation, the progress of the war and the underlying reasons for the war. They aired briefly until they were removed due to one (1) complaint.
I received an email on Saturday morning (10/23/2010) from Mr. Timothy F. Pilgrim – Adjutant, Georgia Division of the SCV – regarding the excellent series of videos that they produced. It appears that the History Channel received a complaint from a liberal blogger and Friday they reacted as liberals so often do – they have pulled the videos from their broadcast schedule.
As common as this sort of thing is, I would think that it would no longer shock me, but it does. The irony of this is a thing of beauty. Here we have a major media outlet, calling itself the History Channel, pulling a series of paid videos that present historical facts that go against what today is accepted as unquestionable fact in America. What are they afraid of? What is so dangerous about this information that they would turn away paid advertising to keep it from being shown? – Confederate Colonel
If you’d like to see these dangerous ideas for yourself, and decide whether you would ban them on your own screen or not, here are the commercials in their entirety, aired and unaired. Owing to the complaint, only a handful were shown, but you can see them all here:
