Author Archive

Conservative Progressivism: Environmentalism

Monday, September 18th, 2017

Fake news enwraps our modern world because, in a time when only mass culture matters, the art and science of motivating people toward the intellectual equivalent of a stampede requires some deception. The fake is normal; authenticity is rare.

Seeing through the fakery requires small steps, but large cognitive leaps. Like other problem solving tasks, this involves not just identifying the problem, but getting ahead of it, which means understanding its archetype and counteracting it before the crisis hits. Science does this through isolating hypotheses under controlled conditions.

That isolation allows the problem — a cause/effect relationship — to be seen.  However, since not all problems can be solved immediately, a standard approach evolved where problems are prioritized into three categories such as:

  1. To be solved immediately
  2. To be mitigated (sidestepped) over the medium term
  3. To be addressed in the long term (with new technology)

Our current societal system is dysfunctional and this has become visible to the majority during the last few years as Leftist globalist agenda has ground to a halt in a polyphony of problems. We relied on solutions of the third category, hoping to get ahead of our problems through future advances in technology, but apparently, our problems are systemic and have not succumbed to methods alone.

We cannot solve our problems based on hopes alone. As the old saying goes, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” Relying on the hope of future technology was a major mistake because it enabled the system to get ahead of us, installing itself in a permanent position of power (“the Cathedral”). At this point, our goal is to reverse positions with it.

To do that, we must steal legitimacy from the Cathedral: we must be more “progressive” than they are.

As Sun Tsu said, “You must become like fish in the water.”

But before we just copy their six decade old stance, we must decide which “progressive” ideas can be to our benefit, versus the rest which are toxic and whose adoption would constitute a defeat.

At the first, or “operational” level which is society in general, we are managing risks of health, security and internal systems/tools. This works well as long as things outside our society remain the same.

The second, or tactical level which concerns multiple societies, requires us to manage the risk of cooperation. Actions at this level effect individual societies and some minor effects are visible such as the United Nations and World Bank affecting trade and currencies.

The third level is the strategic level which is nature. No one has really mapped this one, so it has been taken over by the “climate change” charlatans and ignored by everyone else.

Our biggest problem today is that the strategic level is unknown. We simply do not when we will push nature too far, and cause a crash in environment, ecosystems, or resources. This allows us opportunity to seize upon the unspoken fear of this uncertainty, and by addressing it, to be more progressive than the progressives.

Nature has a singular parameter: negative genetic mutation. Without enough natural selection, or too much inbreeding or outbreeding, populations accumulate deleterious mutations and lose abilities through a process known as “degeneration.”

Mutation occurs faster when biological cells are stressed. That does not mean it should not be stressed because stress is in most cases good. Extraordinary negative stress results in faster mutation rates. It is this “faster mutation rate” that is proposed as the point of scientific endeavour to manage “nature.”

Change in human DNA does not necessarily indicate a positive direction. Species die out all the time by failing to adapt. A sensible view is to allow natural selection to identify the successful mutations after the fact, instead of trying to anticipate what will succeed in advance.

We can contrast the South African Boers who migrated from a comfortable Europe to an inhospitable country in Africa, to determine how long it took for them to live “comfortably” again and to what extent their DNA was changed. The alternative or “reverse” condition is to study the Swedes to determine how long it took their DNA to deteriorate after overcoming an icy climate until they became pathologically altruistic.

Now that geneticists have a fair understanding on human genetics, it is inevitable that geneticists can do the same for plants, animals and fish. In other words, while nature affects human DNA, it should also be the case that we affect plants, animals and fish DNA in a negative way too.

Since living tissues affect one other, DNA maps geology since geological changes also have an influence like other species. Similarly human civilization influences our mutation. This proves that our fate is bound up with nature, so even if people do not see a reason to defend its natural beauty and grace, they will do so to save our species from toxic levels of deleterious mutations.

At this point, we have a basis for being more “progressive” than progressives: we can address the environmental crisis in parallel, both as self-interest and as a spiritual need to create excellence in our world. This requires that we end the ecocide caused by seven billion human individuals all striving for whatever fascinates them at the moment, churning nature into waste.

Progressives love those who have a vision that involves humanity escaping its inherent downsides. Conservatives have refused to address many of these, creating a market opportunity for those that do, and by being more progressive than the Left, those who adopt this “new environmentalism” can bypass both parties and establish a basis for power in commonsense biological and natural sciences engineering.

Parallel Organizations

Tuesday, September 5th, 2017

Much has been said about the existence of a group that, while not formally having power, rules America by being deeply entrenched in its institutions and pervasively collusive. This ensures continuance through a parallel state which because it is responsible for administrating the formal power of the public state, can manipulate any legitimate power into doing its will.

This “deep state” or “Establishment” operates by another parallel. As a classic dark organization, it consists of people acting in self-interest. Unelected officials remain active in their professional capacities to ensure continuity, and professionally trained officials anticipate the incompetence of elected representatives and enact defensive measures to work around them.

These professionals and representatives work in parallel with each other towards the same objectives. The problem starts when these objectives differ from those of their official functions, and instead work toward private goals, like the perpetuation of the deep state itself and the expansion of its power.

The parallel above is mostly a horizontal separation, where most parallelism occurs vertically. One example relates to immigration where the immigrant “society” is allowed to form a parallel society of its own. Finland explored this in the context of immigration and multiculturalism.

Muslim integration in America went far smoother apparently, than in Europe.  The reason given is that Europe has anxieties relating to Eastern Europeans and/or Muslim Europeans, because they view themselves as more homogeneous than their new hosts.

But a Swedish report points to the Muslim Brotherhood building a parallel society by exploiting Sweden’s politically correct culture, with the purpose of seizing power.

More reports point towards the negation of assimilation into European society because of Muslims forming parallel societies that are not subject to the constitution. These parallel societies resemble Chinatowns in the USA, or “balkanized” ethnic groups, but aspire to breaking away from their hosts and ruling themselves:

Parallel society (German: Parallelgesellschaft) refers to the self-organization of an ethnic or religious minority, often immigrant groups, with the intent of a reduced or minimal spatial, social and cultural contact with the majority society into which they immigrate.

Parallel societies or organizations generally view themselves as minority from which interdependence with the majority is minimized. These represent a vertical parallel organization, which has autonomy and independence from its parallel state, as opposed to horizontal parallels where the two states command the same organization.

In South Africa, a parallel government is emerging as part of the birth of a parallel state. A white minority is seceding-in-place from a black-run state.

A parallel organization increases on both sides. The minority group requires more expensive security than what the majority needs; the majority, as in South Africa, may find itself dependent on the minority for taxes which they are increasingly unwilling to pay because of the lack of this security.

For South African whites to have a vertical parallel state, they must reduce spatial, social and cultural contact with the majority to a minimum. Then they would have to establish and finance functional groups to manage those interfaces. This achieves what Steve Bannon considers the necessary components of national autonomy:

You have to control for three things…borders, currency and military and national identity.

Once these are established, and the parallel state is separate from the majority except through the interface of its government, it must further effect secession by creating parallel institutions designed to replace those of the majority:

  1. Create your own currency.
  2. Create a software application that can be used by every member to allow interaction for trade, culture education, etc.
  3. Spatial consolidation will be helpful to optimize energy generation, and weaponry for self-defense/policing.
  4. Methodology to maintain identity in order to increase it as a valuable asset when viewed from the outside. In other words (perhaps), the majority should recognize the value of having this minority in their country.

The group can then optimizing systemic costs within itself and therefore reduce what it needs from the host state, which creates an incentive for others of the minority group to join the minority state because it is more efficient than having to exist within the host state, and take the same precautions themselves, such as living in gated communities with private security.

Ultimately this situation depends on the minority group having nothing that the majority needs. If we can imagine an island with no military significance and zero land value, a minority could move to that and save the majority money that it otherwise would have to spend on security. As soon as that land is valuable, however, the majority will extort taxes from that minority group or invade so that it can.

For now, most majority groups are content to ignore the needs of minority security and by doing so, to force individuals to provide for this for themselves, which has the added bonus of stimulating the majority economy. The majority, after all, is only legally obligated to provide security, and can always provide poor quality security and save money that way.

Where this gets interesting is when the minority group provides powerful enough security that the majority cannot enforce its laws within the minority settlement. At that point, monies go to the minority state instead of the host state, and the beginnings of an actual separation can be seen.

Insane Information Creates Insane Action

Monday, September 4th, 2017

Inevitably the internet was going to increase the flow of data across the world. The important aspect of this flow is the exchange of communication between individuals. Other individuals witness these exchanges, and make deductions based on what they see, which then become information upon which they rely when making decisions.

In this decentralized medium, no one can regulate the conversion between data and conversation. Tech companies realize that people act on information they perceive as reliable and important. They filter the exchange through “community standards,” fearing what happens when the masses attribute the information to a reliable organization and have it shape their worldview.

This means that, as with mass media before the internet, all information has some form of bias. It has been said that Trump is a great persuader, but it has also been said that mainstream media is a great manipulator.  So when someone raises his hand to say that: “hey, politicians are now more talked about than Hollywood stars,” then you realize that information flow is going crazy.

And it is insane, because that is not how it was intended to be by our financial overlords. The typical Western “group-think” is that the masses like images of their favorite “stars,” which are used by advertisers to sell products. This is called manipulation, where intelligence agencies combined with media and film corporations are making fortunes from creating and maintaining their own celebrity “bubbles.”

Scott Adams explained how to know when you are in a mass hysteria bubble. If you are not in this bubble, you are persuaded, but if you are within it, you are being manipulated.

It’s quite clear that millions of people are still manipulated, meaning they fall outside the “current popular group” as it were.  There is also no doubt that some people are psychologically susceptible to suggestive manipulations, where media and political “suggestions” include mass violence (assassinations) against the “persuaded” individuals. There is ample evidence of correlation between political statements and street violence in South Africa if such reference is required.

From this it is obvious that the second these masses realized they were not part of the popular group (anymore), they went crazy. But the manipulators including mass media and intelligence agencies as coordinated by the jilted political representatives, exacerbated the natural violent response to unpopularity to such an extent, that crazy information became crazy action.

It’s almost a perfect storm: the combination of greedy corporations and their political sycophants manipulating liberal masses have created a positive feedback loop that is bound to, and may already have hit critical mass. Their public address loudspeakers are at their limits resulting in a squeaking crescendo that chases away supporters rather that invite them, because it is insane noise.

Its sanity accelerates. Each group has found a way to reach maximum intensity, and now has nowhere else to go. SJWs are dressing up like vaginas, defeating any notion that they can be outdone. The bike-lock Professor can’t be outdone. The Charlottesville antifa dress better than SWAT teams and can’t be outdone. There is no more to be done; they have hit their limits.

At this point, the masses are in the process of persuading themselves. This creates circular reasoning, where the group rewards any who express its biases, and then amplify those biases by repeating the information to one another. The more this happens, the more each group withdraws into its own simulation of reality, filtered through its assumptions as if they were truth.

This is the endgame of modern democracy. We have created a pluralistic echo chamber, where each group is diverging rapidly from the rest. This radicalizes them and their competition (“opposition” and “enemies”) at the same time while increasing the speed of the change of events. The information that once controlled people has now made them chaotic and insane.

Our only option for healing this wound is counter-intuitive. The way to encourage these masses is actually to increase their crazy information flow and encourage their crazy actions because it will expose them, meaning break them outside of the bubble of manipulation, and in doing so persuade them that the system of information exchange itself has become broken.

It seems crazy to think such action could work. Then again, what we have now is also crazy, and getting more insane by the day. When the information bubble pops, people will no longer trust any forms of authority or any groups of other people, and will have to rely on gut instinct and immediately observable events and attributes of reality.

At that point, humanity will be closer to its actual nature than it has been for the past century of mass media — newspapers, radio, television, social media — manipulation, and with the fall of the idol of mass information itself, will be immunized to ideology and become weaponized in favor of common sense.

Civilizational Engines

Saturday, September 2nd, 2017

Civilizations run like machines, as most organizations do. Individuals have roles with inputs and outputs, and these mesh and interweave to create a cycle of life which keeps the engine going.

The term “civilization engine” was described in the book A Whole Which is Greater, in which a distinction was made between Utopianism and Eutopianism. A society which is Utopian requires a controlling authority, where a Eutopian society exists in balance with the natural world around it.

It describes this distinction partially correctly:

We might even say that the “civilizational engine” with its dominant image (and energy) of aristocratic prerogative, is in process of slamming into the wall of ecological limitation and environmental capacity, with millions upon millions of folk casualties in its wake, not to speak of all the ecological mayhem and species extinctions.

The mostly painful, difficult and crucial step is displacing utopian mythology with a far more livable and Earth-friendly Green Eutopianism. To get beyond utopian mythology is also to get beyond the controlling influence of the “patriciate”…

We need both a deepening of Eutopian democracy and a shriveling of utopian “democracy”. That is the point we have reached.

A patriciate is a class of nobility or those who act like them. The above analysis falls short for that reason, because you can have a good leadership group or a bad one, depending on whether they are motivated by external factors such as the good of society as an organic whole and balance with nature, or whether they exist only to perpetuate their own power as the expense of those other factors.

Reading more broadly into the idea revealed, the engine in an organization is the part where force multiplication is achieved. One example is the System Engineering Department in an Aerospace company. The company may have 10,000 employees but only forty System Engineers, and yet those few engineers direct the others to be more efficient than they could be with three times their number.

Another example is an Army’s Special Forces contingent amplifying the effect of the entire Army. Small groups of highly proficient warriors, utilized in surgical actions, avoid the need for a battle. Some would say that certain industries, like Silicon Valley, serve this role for the American economy, but perhaps it is merely the efficiency of computers that does so.

Since organizations are managed and thought of entities under the control of someone, it escapes logic (sometimes) that inside each organization there must be an engine that drives it. What makes an engine interesting is that it operates by itself as long as it is fed its inputs, much like a car engine will keep running so long as it is given gasoline, oil, electricity and air.

Engines rely on multiple factors, including the qualities and abilities of their personnel, and so each organization needs to “create” its own engine based on personalities, culture, methodologies, tools etc. One example of how unique each engine is was visible in the failure to replicate Silicon Valley across the world.

The alternative is unfortunately also possible, which is that the “engine” can make the organization collapse. The book referred to above describes one such scenario. It seems clear then that there are multiple engines: those that are dedicated to the organization are good engines, and those made for another purpose, which is necessarily different from the needs of the organization, are bad engines.

Recent history shows that the greatest generation worked hard and sacrificed for the greater good. During that time period America was not globally active and simply made a huge success of trading between its own States. The interests of the engine were aligned with those of the organic society around it, and so it was a good engine.

In a sense things changed when it became an Atlanticist global power. This change was effectively a change in law because the American Government was used to National Law and suddenly it adopted Admiralty Law without batting an eyelid. Essentially the spectre of corruption entered because business people and politicians realized that American law does not apply outside its borders, making it easy to secure illegal benefits.

This on its own would have been enough to change the engine that made America great. However, the point is not to find a culprit, but merely to find an avenue of thought towards finding how to change the engine back to positive again. Trump is moving in the right direction with the America First policy and although a lot of work needs to be done, a focus on the engine might expedite MAGA.

While he is doing this, the “other” engine busily works against Trump and the America First policy. Apart from the difficulty of finding and fixing the original engine, Trump must battle the bad bad engine. Like most solutions, his policy must be twofold, which is to increase rewards for the good and to raise costs for the bad.

What makes this book interesting is the phrase “a whole which is greater,” which refers to a systems engineering ideal of gestalt where “the system is more than the sum of its parts.” This points towards the force multiplier effect: a force multiplier creates an exponential increase in efficiency and output, while a linear or algebraic increase adds units which have a fixed output increase.

The American bad engine only emerged in full view after the 2008 recession when Reserve Banks initiated Quantitative Easing. Do you remember in the “old” days when you needed money, that you would visit a Bank official, while conservatively dressed in a suit, where he/she would earnestly consider your application showing express interest in the security you could provide?

After 2008 that changed almost overnight. Bank officials dressed in pink t-shirts, and all customer-facing employees were changed to women.  Almost every loan proposal was cheerfully accepted because the banks feared that they would lose those clients to loan-sharks. Money became cheap to such an extent that one Reserve Bank went to negative rates, literally paying customers to borrow.

From a civilizational perspective the engine saw the opportunity to follow the drug addiction methodology. Just like a drug addict gets addicted causing him to steal his mother’s purse in order to satisfy his desires, the new “engine” saw an opportunity to drug humans with money by giving it to them for free, thereby causing them to become addicted to it.

Quantitative easing essentially broke the rule of “good” money and turned it into bad money. This was a liberal idea because liberals have no limits and business directors are liberals wanting more and more profits every year. If it means turning other liberals into greedy druggies then that’s great for the Democrat Party, but not for America.

This bad engine fueled by the combination of greed and liberal mentality needs to be opposed by a stronger engine based on productivity directed toward the health of the nation. At the same time, the policies that support this bad behavior, and the illusions or political tropes that support them, need to encounter hard criticism which makes anyone using them appear to be the bad investment they are.

Most of us think of a society, like a corporation, as having leaders that command it to do what it does. In reality, leaders direct it after setting up functioning organs and institutions within it, and the most important of these is the good engine that generates actual productivity, which appears to be against the inclination of the average human being.

In this light, “America First!” is not just a slogan, but a moral statement that will synchronize that engine. We are not working for ourselves, for an ideology shared by the globalist world regime. Instead, we are acting so that the sum of our activity is greater than adding us all up as warm bodies performing rote tasks.

Naturally this will meet with a fair amount of opposition. Bad engines run because people, if not directed toward a goal beyond themselves, revert to doing what is convenient and profitable in the short term. But if Trump can achieve a sense of American unity, and the idea that we all benefit from the force multiplier if we work toward a purpose we share, he can make the good engine outpace the bad.

Where this gets interesting is that America is a thoroughly divided country, something the Founding Fathers anticipated when they designed it as a cascading power structure, with semi-autonomous states responsible to the federal government only in cases of shared interest in defense or monetary systems. For a good engine to form, people have to be working toward the same shared goal.

As the Alt Right reveals in its own theory, these shared goals are organic, or arising from the similarity between people. It seems there can be social factors to whether an engine is good or bad, and with diversity, people have no interest in the whole, and a contrary interest in taking from the whole and giving to their own particular group, like a more extreme version of the confederation of states it once was.

Perhaps our greatest revelation in the future will be that for us to have a good engine, we must be similar enough to be working toward the same purpose, and that this is more biological, cultural and moral than it is political, economic or legal. It may be that good engines only arise from our inner traits, and reliance on our external traits creates bad engines that then doom us to failure.

Sex and Civilization

Monday, August 28th, 2017

The recent Goolag Memo invoked an opportunity to discuss its contents in a larger civilizational perspective, which means one where we look at interdependence of humans within an organization, namely a society or civilization.

Organizations require internal and external communications. During the past few decays, entropy ensured that external communications quickly devolved to Public Relations and internal communications were effectively ignored. This were observable in the many “whiste-blower” cases (such as Enron, WorldCom and the FBI) where corporations publicly encouraged employees to speak up, but when they did, they were quickly (privately) fired.

Whistle-blowers revealed issues that were too sensitive to be used in a normal grievance procedure, so management encouraged them to come forward, and the dismissed them while playing off the problems as if they were always personal, when in fact the issues at hand were company-oriented and not personal at all.

The conflict between organizational and personal issues becomes complex when we consider that enabling personalities to mesh is one of the basic duties of a manager. For example, the Biosphere 2 experiment involved more personal circumstances and technical survival skills than organizational proficiency, but what really transpired was a clash of personalities:

More serious management problems during a second human confinement in 1994 heralded the experiment’s early cancellation and this brought the world’s longest closed system human confinement project to an end.

The interdependency between team members were closely selected for, and monitored during the experiment, in line with similar ventures such as Antarctica and space missions. Their loyalty to the “cause” prevented them from an early exit but was “explained” via correlating to low oxygen atmospheres.

An organization, composed of interdependencies, finds that personalities can become incompatible over time or in certain contexts. These contexts occur in the overlap between organizational structure and the individuals expected to rely on each other to carry out those roles.

In the social organization known as civilization, an interdependency that we do not discuss openly is sex. Women play a massive role in society but it seems a bit underappreciated while their equality is widely touted, like praising the Party in the USSR. The Goolag Memo actually pointed this out, but some may have missed it.

With a hat tip to Rolf Degen, I happened on to Angela Saini’s book Inferior wherein she describes how women are being re-discovered. There is more to her thesis than that, but it reveals that if you re-discover women, you will inevitably re-discover men.

The one aspect jumping out at me was how older men preferred having sex with younger women. This applies to any man, anywhere, but because women are “inferior,” the topic is too sensitive for civilization’s “grievance procedure.” In part, this is because women are too vital to the emerging Family World Order.

Investigating women’s productive capacity includes by definition the ability to bear children. This led to the “Grandmother Hypothesis” where menopause focuses women on raising children and grandchildren. However, new thoughts on this blame man and before you complain, read the book The Patriarch Hypothesis with the following abstract:

Menopause is puzzling because life-history theory predicts there should be no selection for outliving one’s reproductive capacity. Adaptive explanations of menopause offered thus far turn on women’s long-term investment in offspring and grandoffspring, all variations on the grandmother hypothesis. Here, I offer a very different explanation. The patriarch hypothesis proposes that once males became capable of maintaining high status and reproductive access beyond their peak physical condition, selection favored the extension of maximum life span in males. Because the relevant genes were not on the Y chromosome, life span increased in females as well. However, the female reproductive span was constrained by the depletion of viable oocytes, which resulted in menopause.

A metaphor for this would be a lion male living longer because he has many lionesses, regardless of whether the original lioness goes into a menopause. She doesn’t mind because the younger lionesses are hunting for her too. This matriarchal thesis places the female in charge of the process, which allows her to select longer-living mates in exchange for tolerating polygyny.

We see how the interdependencies of human society are both personal and organizational. When we rediscover women, and through that learn more about men, we see how sex drives civilization alongside other influences. People depend on one another as individuals, and as roles in relation to one another, and separating the personal from the function becomes difficult.

From that, it becomes clear that humans are not just individuals, or functions, but personalities which need a place where they fit exactly in order to work with the interdependencies inherent to any organization. A person in the wrong place is toxic to the organization; an organization which excludes people from necessary dialogue is like the company with a whistle-blower, engaged in deception.

For this reason, it is possible to accept women as both not-equal and uniquely necessary. We underappreciate them by treating them as tokens of their sex, or using them for sex alone, forgetting that like the lions and lionesses, we are engaged in a strategic process of selecting behaviors that further the species so that our individual efforts endure and prosper.

In a Right future, we will look at reproduction not as a question of the biological act alone, but the context in which the child is raised and how this contributes to stability of the child. Whether we stay on Earth, or jet off to Mars to start again, the union between the personal and the organizational is found in complementary roles where each person has a vital and unique place.

Why Gorka’s Retreat Could Help Trump

Saturday, August 26th, 2017

The spate of resignations from the White House is an attempt to retreat and regroup, not a withdrawal. Obama did the same thing early in his presidency, as have many others, once the battlefield reveals itself and new demands must be met.

As the most recent departure, Sebastian Gorka has attracted the most derisive comments, but his exit shows the existence of factions in the White House and the necessity of settling these for the administration to function at all. Gorka has stated that the anti-MAGA factions have won, but as an administrative question, what matters is more that the entire staff can implement the will of its chief executive.

Any factional resignation in any organization calls to mind the point of that organization, which begins with a concept derived from safety. Safety is important, because in its civilizational context as measured over the last 40 years (or so), statistics revealed that the life expectancy correlation with GDP/capita is 61%.

This means that births must be in balance with deaths. We see this in nature where grass-eating animals balance with flesh-eating animals. These ecosystems are present in all organizations where there must be a number of balances, one of which is cooperation.

The term cooperation is closely associated with the context of consolidation of democracy. However, just like optimization is required with safety, so is optimization required with “cooperation”. Too little or too much cooperation increases death/mortality.

Taking the White House as just another organization, it is possible to say that a factional break-up of that organization is a good thing because it reduces too much cooperation. The factions will each move towards its own zone of authority, allowing each faction to be economically efficient.

On the other hand, if a factional breakup did not occur, the organization would have enforced “full” cooperation between the potential factions, thereby turning one faction into a Dark Organization just like the Justice Department’s “deep state”.

Trump had the choice to have factions work in parallel or to force diversity upon his staff and to make warring factions work together. A White House where the factions are broken up will continue to operate at 80% efficiency, but forcing them to try to operate together reduces efficiency to 20%. Trump opted for greater efficiency with the knowledge that his staff are his employees, and whatever they think, are charged with carrying out his orders, and he prefers them to be more efficient than entrenched in factional warfare.

In the bigger picture, Trump is reorganizing for his own reasons. As a strong leader, he may want a hostile group to counterbalance his ideas, and by sending out discontents like Bannon and Gorka, he is able to spread criticism of his administration as being not extreme enough in pursuit of its goals, which gives him outside pressure that he can use to justify more radical acts.

On top of that, this is most likely a plain old reorganization. Trump needs a group that works together well just as he needs to keep the media distracted, and these departures keep the newspapers confused about his actual goals and operating methods. In addition, former staff like Gorka and Bannon are now cut free as evangelists for the Trump vision in their respective fields.

Media operates in the pocket between when an action occurs and when it is understood, and Trump benefits from introducing chaos and complexity so that actual understanding occurs after the media asserts its interpretation of events, which keeps everyone guessing. But in the meantime, his new streamlined team is more likely to operate at high efficiency.

Organized Right-Wing Violence is Now Morally Justified

Tuesday, August 15th, 2017

The shocking violence observed during the Unite The Right protest at Charlottesville caused a devastating self-critique by the Right under a chorus of Leftist applause. What made this such a divisive event was the violence, which cause the optics of the protest to go off-script, and provided the Left with a point of entry for an attack on the Alt Right.

Violence is part of my environment (in Africa) and so its appearance is just another day. But for those who intentionally worked hard at differentiating Unite The Right as non-violent, it was devastating, while the “other” literally enjoyed it. Police and Leftist counter-protesters worked together to sabotage the demonstration and incite violence.

These strong variations in opinion allowed for calls by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster to call for the Alt Right to be classified as domestic terrorists by President Trump. There appears to be a serious chasm in communication between rightists and leftists that masks the Leftist narrative and this is compounded by a similar chasm between general protestors and their elected or appointed officials thousands of miles away.

Human history is full of non-violent protests, passive resistance and non-aggression pacts. This advances the narrative trope that moderates are peaceful while extremists are violent. But the fact of the matter is that violence is a moral affair. In reality, most violence arises from moral action, which shows that what we are dealing with here is different moral systems on the Right and Left.

Clearly the Left are active on a world-wide scale with aggression and violence; for example, South African communists have caused the country to be dubbed the “Protest Capital of the World”. We should also not forget that American armies under liberal guidance and in service to globalism have been killing people in at least seven countries.

All of these protests, wars and drone attacks have been justified with moral reasons. The counter-protest in Charlottesville did not need a permit because the Left was perceived to have enough moral justification not just to engage the original protestors, but to motivate and plan aggressive acts of urine catapults, violent assault and spraying down the Alt Right with mace. Government and media agree that Antifa holds the moral high ground because, as Leftists, they are “moderates” in the view that the Left wants to promote.

The Charlottesville counter-protest did not need an objective, it simply needed a signal to release an insane hatred on whoever was there, right-wing or otherwise. This is how herd dynamics work: one person signals, and the crowd rushes forward to smash whoever is indicated as an enemy of the ideals of the group, much like a gang or cult attacking with insect consensus.

Non-aggression will not work because competitive altruism has people trying to be more moral than one another, which means that anyone who acts out what is known as “moral” — in this time, Leftism — will be perceived as the moderate party, while anyone who dissents is viewed as the aggressor, even when defending themselves.

In future protest actions, the Alt Right will have to profess a willingness to be violent because the other side will be bringing violence. By doing so, we will assert a contrary morality and reject the morality that prioritizes Leftism. By stating our willingness to defend ourselves, we are saying that we have the moral high ground, and the others are wrong, therefore we are attacking their presumption of the moral high ground entirely.

The moral motivation for such a restoration of violence is that we are facing an abounding hatred and pervasive insanity permeating our first world society and wholly directed at the Right. Their morality is based in the individual. We need to target that violence and use it to replace traditional enemies like Communists or Nazis, and instead to demand that we as a society mobilize with organizational violence against those who are causing these disruptions. Their violence is personal; ours is in defense of order and our long-term future.

A world boxing champion always gets a chance to defend himself against the next contender, despite suffering temporary injury. Charlottesville has made it clear that even our non-aggressive protests will end in violence. While we do not seek violence, we must avoid non-aggression, because the violence has found us and will continue to do so until we win.

The Heavy, Middle and Tail of the Alt Right

Tuesday, August 15th, 2017

The Alt Right contributed handsomely to elect Trump during the 2016 elections. Despite a large body of knowledge available across many websites about the Alt Right, few read through much of it, which resulted in intuitive emergence of natural deviations.

The reference to “natural” is important because the core of the Alt Right is realism. If the Alt Right was conservative, some of the expected deviations would have been variations on existing conservative issues. But because the Alt Right is rooted in realism, extremism is not really possible, and squabbles mostly concern details and not degree.

Since most of the Alt Right involves smart people, it can be assumed that they know how things work. This includes how the military works with generals, officers, soldiers, logistics, strategies, tactics and operations. They most likely also know the system engineering phases involving user requirements, functional specifications, physical specifications, modelling, testing, operations and maintenance. Last but not least, they most likely also know something about project management of costs, quality and deliverables.

Based on this knowledge it would be fair to assume that each person positioned himself where it was convenient for him to use his existing knowledge. In all of these knowledge-bases the concept of tripartite strategy, tactics and operations appear. Each person intuitively aligned with one of these aspects.

For this reason, we can divide the Alt Right into strategy people who form the Alt Heavy, the tactics people the Alt Middle and the operational people the Alt Tail.

In a normal organization there would be communication between these groups, but not so in the Alt Right (mostly). Because the Alt Right was not a single organization, its Leftist opponents had difficulty in combating the Alt-Right via typical isolation and smearing techniques. The Alt-Right is not a political party, and if it was it may have caused Trump to lose, just like Le Pen lost in France because of the history and polarization of her party.

Productive organizations are generally measured by man-hours expended to reach a goal, but the effectiveness of the Alt Right is measured by Trump’s success. Therefore the number of hours did not matter so much as the tasks accomplished, because it was intuitively decided by each person, acting as his own leader.

This type of operational model can be seen in the military parable of the Strategic Corporal. Essentially what happens is that in a fast moving conflict, decisions evolves to lower and lower ranks until it gets to the Corporal actively engaged with the enemy.

Information flow currently experienced is out of proportion, justifying the way Alt Right is structured. Its tactics are ad hoc, or adjusting to the moment, based on coordination through ideas handed down from the Alt Heavy to the Alt Middle, and then adapted into memes, tropes and tactics by the Alt Tail.

Those of us in the Alt Middle tend to be goal-oriented, therefore we formulate ideas which make the objectives set by the Alt Heavy seem reasonable, and we do not directly face the enemy. In the meantime, the Alt Heavy looks at the changing political landscape and sends ideas down to us, where they are translated into real-world goals, and the Alt Tail then attempts to apply them by whatever means work.

Many in the Alt Right have project management experience, and so they likely have one, five and ten year objectives. What those objectives are is (for now) a secret, but it is likely that they concern the general, nearly emotional goals created by the Alt Heavy such as “spaceships and fields of wheat.”

A semi-decentralized structure like this works very well in a chaotic field where the enemy and overall goal are both well-defined. It will break down if a competing force, like the Alt Lite, weasels its way in between the Middle and Tail layers, changing objectives and therefore making the foot-soldiers of the Alt Right into agents of its downfall.

Making The Transition To Monarchy

Saturday, August 12th, 2017

The Alt Right has suggested that monarchies are better than current Western democracies. In an attempt to understand this in the real world as it is today, we can look at some statistics.

The Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) ranks more than a 100 countries on a scale depicting economic productiveness. What is interesting is the following group of countries:

  • Netherlands
  • Finland
  • Canada
  • Australia
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
  • Norway

They have been consistently ranked within the top twenty-two productive countries from 1999 to 2015. Viewed as a group, however, it can be said that there is a slight downward movement of their rankings over time, most likely due to the “two-speed world” where economic growth in emerging countries (like BRICS) are offset by stagnation in the erstwhile developed world.

However, there is another characteristic of these countries: they are monarchical in some form or other.

These monarchies have exerted tremendous influence on the rest of the world for a long time, where for them the economic imperative of growth or stagnation is not particularly interesting, because they are mainly interested in stability and not growth, which is like a treadmill in that when the economy comes to depend on it, it must constantly increase or the economy suffers. Monarchies are notorious for preferring stability, which also avoids the overpopulation, land overuse, and proliferation of cities that is common to growth-based economies.

They have made mistakes of course, but that doesn’t mean the alternative right is wrong with its assessment. The point is that monarchies have in some form or other been stable for a very long time. If anything, what these monarchies suffer from is paying too much attention to the will of the people, which always results in conjectural thinking.

The latest experiment implemented by the West is bringing democracy to the third world, which was rolled out after colonialism was systematically withdrawn. They do this because monarchs are now limited to enforcing democracy in their own nations because they are forced to coexist with this, and to fail to enforce it in the third world is a rejection of the notion that it is good.

Consider Nelson Mandela’s organization the African National Congress (ANC) which was classified as a terrorist organization by America at the same time it was funded by the European countries listed above. The people wanted equality; the monarchs did not want mass revolt and the horrors of the French Revolution or Bolshevik uprising in their countries, so they went along with it.

In the grips of democracy, these first world countries do not realize the productive decline they are suffering because they persist in supporting democracy, despite strong indicators that democracy in South Africa is literally failing by the numbers. Worse, they are doubling down like good SJWs by sponsoring the destruction of monarchies in Mandela-land.

The first world monarchies wants to destroy the concept of their own existence in the emerging world, while they themselves get destroyed back in the first world by the same democracy they are supporting. Where initially they sponsored terror, now they have become the terrorists aiming to destroy other monarchies. This is clearly not stable.

While we may be critical of colonialism in practical terms, our real assault on it comes from democratic notions of the equality of all people and therefore, a need to dedicate ourselves to questing for egalitarianism everywhere. This eliminates self-interest by the first world while encouraging the third world to assert its self-interest at our expense.

This shows us that monarchism and democracy cannot coexist. Democracy forms a mentally addictive pathology that then drives our countries to destroy ourselves at the same time they destroy third world monarchies in the same nations where democracy is entering its death-phase. Democracy has become our obsession, and it is working for neither first nor third world nations.

One way forward would be to do what every scenario planner has refused to do since 1992: implement a monarchy in South Africa. They fear this because traditionalism is viewed as anti-“reform,” but the Alt Right’s view is that the opposite is true. Reform has been proven to lower competitiveness down where traditional societies have been proven as stable.

Perhaps we are, like most groups of people afraid for the future, relying on what seemed to work in the past as crutches. Democracy seemed to win the world wars, and growth-based economies provide the way of life that seemed to make our people happy. As its instability threatens both third and first worlds, however, it makes sense to consider monarchy and stability instead of growth and democracy.

The Alt Right Is Our Quality Control

Wednesday, August 2nd, 2017

W. Edwards Deming brought the concept of quality into contemporary management theory through his 14 points for managers. The fourth point on this list is as follows:

End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total costMove toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.

Reducing costs balances striving for quality, which costs more. Quality requires a focus on total cost over the long term, not a per-item cost in the short term.  This points to the fact that low costs in the short term can incur long term inefficiencies, damaging long term prospects of the business in question.

Quality is therefore very similar to safety management where the optimal point is at the lowest end of a positive quadratic curve because long term costs will go up on either side. We are looking for the best option that does not incur additional costs, either through low quality or additional administrative overhead.

Further investigation into quality in organizations reveals that quality consultants and even industry level organizations defines their contributions in terms such as the following:

Quality is about making organizations perform for their stakeholders.

The verb used here is “making,” where the idea emerges that quality is managed by a separate organization — the shareholders — that will keep Management honest. That is contingent upon the ability of those shareholders to assess performance and thus, quality. The problem is that shareholders often know little about quality and must rely on the integrity of the CEO, which is why CEOs are brands.

CEOs manage quality, as measured in terms of profit, through optimization or efficiency. Increasing throughput and percentage of resources applied to production instead of lesser tasks like bureaucracy makes an organization more efficient. At the same time, CEOs must also manage risk (things which cause loss) against benefit (things which cause profit) while emphasizing reliability, or consistency.

The damning modernist outcome however, emerges when directors transform the meaning of quality, safety or optimization. Managers, when in the grips of individualism, want to optimize their own quality and safety over that of the organization. This is possible by managing the quality and safety of their dividend, regardless of whether the company performs or not.

One very clever way of doing this is to direct more money into dividends, at the expense of other necessary tasks. We see this time and again in dying businesses that still seem to be thriving: the company aims for quick profit, which pays high dividends, while ignoring the need to achieve quality, reliability, efficiency and consistency. The CEO pockets his bonus and leaves like a president after his two terms.

Most organizations die this way. The Alt Right has created a new idea countering this organizational death-wish, even if Alt Righters are not aware of this themselves.

Viewing organizations from space, one can see governments, businesses and institutions frolicking about. These include industry bodies, lobbyists and media. And slowly, over time we see how success is achieved, but then slightly faster, how the quality of these organizations declines, because they don’t achieve their “targets” anymore. Their profits drop, crime increase and political “hope” disappear because leaders (not directors so much) have become untrustworthy (in the optics of voters).

Since a large swath of middle class voters became unhappy with non-performing elected leaders, they decided to vote for a different candidate. During this process it became obvious that the middle class is actually smarter than their elected leaders as well as the media protecting those leaders. This groundswell is called “populist” today as a means of scaring others from joining those smart ranks. But if this was a court, the judge would dismiss the term populist and replace it with the term quality controllers.

Even with their own chosen candidate in power, the Alt Right still maintains its vigil of quality, thereby keeping its own candidate as honest as possible. Much hope is attached to this movement because quality is its unprofessed outcome. Instead of trying to extract money from the system, the Alt Right increases quality and efficiency by demanding quality output in the form of a functional civilization.

For the first time in human history, people are recognizing the high cost of organizational entropy. Over time, people lose sight of goals and start to act toward personal profit at the expense of the group. This is individualism, and in its organized form, collectivism, it consists of political mandates to transfer wealth from the successful to the unsuccessful.

Like the get-rich-quick scheme to temporarily boost profits, raise dividends, and then bail with the bonus money, individualism rewards those who plunder civilization at the expense of the middle class who supports it. It leaves behind something less efficient, and so we see that quality of dividends, like that of suppliers, depends on long term efficiency of interaction.

Where the Alt Right understands this most clearly is in its distrust of democracy. Given the choice, most people would prefer some money now to more money later, and so in groups, people vote for the destruction and consumption of society so that money can be transferred to them. Nearly a century of welfare, benefits and entitlements programs shows us that this is the case.

Instead of falling for the get-rich-quick scheme, the Alt Right recognizes the necessity of quality in society itself. It must be stable, efficient and most importantly, geared toward reliable results in the long term. These values are forgotten by almost everyone, since few of them are competent managers, and have allowed civilization to decline, until the intervention of the Alt Right.

Recommended Reading