Amerika

Author Archive

Which Way, South Africa?

Friday, November 3rd, 2017

South Africa finds itself at a crossroads. With the rise of relative isolationism through the Trump Doctrine, and the failure of liberal democracy as the West collapses inward, South Africa needs to decide which model of government it will follow.

Local scenario planners such as Clem Sunter, Frans Cronje and Jakkie Cilliers pitch South Africa’s future as a neo-liberal state, ignoring the monarchies owning roughly 20% of the country. Perhaps this basic model can work, but since neoliberalism is in decline and not working for South Africa, other paths beckon.

This decision comes at a time of great flux worldwide. At the international level, quantitative easing ruled the Western world since 2008. Where a proper depression would have resulted in a negative economic curve and depression, the failed quantitative easing policy resulted in a positive economic curve that meant rapid growth while lower classes remained relatively poor.

South Africa’s government went one further, and instead of joining the ranks of the slow speed first world, they pitched in with BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) operating at a higher speed, attracting more investments. However, the “S” part did not attract those investments.

It is not all doom and gloom however, since China provides an interesting alternative.  In 1820 China was the biggest economy in the world, but then lagged behind the West. Today they are the second biggest. The bulk of that improvement happened since 1978 over the course of four decades.

The international part of the question is easy: South Africa should stick with BRICS. The local part is tricky due to local infighting in government. This infighting endangers the politics of infrastructure.

An important – but often underappreciated – role of government is to choose the type of infrastructure that is destined to shape the country’s future development path.

The article describes how railroads were advantageous to the South Africa economy as a means to transport goods and raw materials such as minerals intended for export.

The lessons for today? Politics shape the type of infrastructure that’s built. And infrastructure shapes the direction of economic development.

If political infighting continues, the lack of a choice regarding an infrastructure plan will determine the direction of South Africa’s development. No political decisions by any party will change the outcome.

TBefore any infrastructure decision can be made, politics need to re-invent itself without the help of foreigners. One could almost point to a second “Peace-table” session.

Local history provides even further insight. The 1930 depression was by all accounts a terrible period, but having survived it, South Africa can surely find inspiration from how the poor were uplifted, as opposed to the rich being enriched.

The infrastructure referred to in this case is water and specifically the Boegoeberg dam project, in the Northern Cape Province, as was written in the book Boegoebergdam se Mense: ‘n Flukse draai van die Wiel. This book is available from the Water Department close to the town of Groblershoop.

The basic story is that the government at the time decided to improve conditions for that part of the country by using water from a fairly big river. The general idea was to build a dam while adding water canals to it for agricultural access.

Building a dam obviously requires manpower, but the bulk of the manpower was required by the canals. The only prerequisite to be accepted as a worker was that you had to “have nothing.” In other words, you were destitute with only the clothes on your back.

There were quite a number of people, enough to establish a little town, with church and school, which, in the beginning moved with the canal as it was built over time. The initial canal was a pure dirt canal and the people stayed in burlap tents, eventually replaced with military style tents as the project established itself.

Those workers were destitute, without proper clothes and without toilet paper, but they were promised eight hectares after project completion, which they then had to develop on their own, in three years.  One can almost say that Boegoeberg became a human fountain, by attracting poor people from across South Africa, where they developed agriculture in their own life times, but allowed their educated children to return substantial value to the wider country.

I am the grandchild of one of them. Perhaps South Africa should establish more human fountains as China is doing, instead of enriching foreigners. When it chooses its future path, it is best to remember that local productivity is more important than keeping pace with the trend-addled international political scene.

Protesting the Establishment

Thursday, November 2nd, 2017

Protesting the establishment may seem like a straightforward proposition, but it proves to be non-intuitive because it takes no specific form because it must mutate constantly in response to changes in the political environment.

The election of Donald trump seemed straightforward in that it was a normal election. Scratching the surface, and the election can be revealed as a protest against globalism, diversity and political correctness, in that people were willing to overlook any reservations about the candidate in order to thwart those movements.

The Left responded with a wave of criminality disguised as protests and a deep state that leaked information and attempted to subvert the president. Looking at this through the lens of strategy, we can see that these acts were not a protest at all, but an attempt to reconquer power through extra-legal means.

At some level, people realize that this election was about social changes and not issues or candidates exclusively. Social media abounds with examples where children are pulled into political arguments against “whiteness” or “Christmas,” both of which Trump is a de facto example of.

Explaining protest activity to children becomes quickly bizarre because protest takes the form of a political tantrum, and so adults must act like children in the context of issues not designed for consumption by children. And yet we have to tell our children something because they see that we are reacting to something.

This resembles the paradox of adults confronting a child scared of monsters and scary dreams. You cannot tell a child that monsters do not really exist after you have just read them a bedtime story of a monster. When the monster is political, it makes even less sense to disguise events from children, which just makes protest seem even more unreal.

South Africa encountered protest culture recently because the national Minister of Police refused to provide farm murder statistics in the same news cycle in which the farm murders actually took place. This resulted in a nation-wide peaceful protest via blocking highways and dressing in black clothes.

This protest included pre-schoolers also dressed in black. I had to tell my little boy why “we” were dressed up in black. So I told him that we are sorry for people who died on the farms. He knows that “farms” are far away and in his mind it is a distant proposition meaning that he did not need to get scared. From previous “talks” he also knows that “criminals” exist because that is why we have police (after all). However, the connection between criminals and death has not become realized in his mind yet. But what he does know is that showing empathy for somebody who got hurt is acceptable.

During my talks with this young boy I have come to realize that I can under no circumstances tell him that our neighbor is a criminal. The reason may be surprising, because it is not that he would expect the police to protect us, it is that he expects his own father to do something about it – and not tomorrow, but now.

My son finds it utterly inconceivable that I would not immediately act on the knowledge of my neighbor’s criminality. In fact, if he saw me act, he would support me, but if I do not act, he would shrink away with fear. Knowing that I acted would make him stronger while knowing that I failed to act would cause him to potentially suffer from stress his entire life.

In the same way that children intuitively understand stories about monsters, they also know that to fail to challenge monsters is to be defeated by them. It will be many years before he sees that in egalitarian human society, the monsters are seen as victims because they are equal, and so good people find their hands tied.

Therefore it is not a question of what to tell your kids in these dystopian times; it is a question of identifying the threat and acting on it to show success by reducing that threat. There is no way I can tell him that Afrikaners have no authority to reach out to because every structure is the enemy, but he must see me acting or he will grow up scarred by inner terror.

The road to raising a child in these anti-establishment times leads to the necessity of confronting the monster even if it is the majority of our everyday life. Teach your child to act against the monster, including protest where necessary, as a life skill and normalize it. In healthy times, this would not be needed, but we do not live in healthy times.

You will learn from this process simultaneously. Because criminals are taught a life-skill, it is possible to oppose their behavior, even without violence, once you have taken the difficult first step of identifying it and explaining why it is a monster. Since our time is essentially defined by the normalization of criminal intentions through democracy and diversity, the monster must be opposed with protest.

This prepares children for the next step, which is to change our civilization from a dysfunctional to a functional one. Having criminals continuously and increasingly roaming the country-side is unsustainable, just as having an organization that rewards criminality is, and so for the next generation to defeat these monsters, they must prepare now to eventually re-organized or re-make civilization after its fall.

We Need a Worldview, Not a Universal Outlook

Monday, October 30th, 2017

Let’s assume that Realism is a worldview opposed to any rightist or leftist views. From there we can see that nature may have its own view and that a human Realism should not be seen in isolation. Given that nature likes to experiment where the “winner” does not need to be “good,” this presents humans with a dilemma, because religion always tend to style itself as the good, which places it at odds with nature.

Religion relies on a transcendental state for its meaning. However, transcendence is not of this world; it is abstract and intuitive. While it may calm and focus humans, it does not actually do anything tangible, like create spaceships. In fact it may make matters worse by telling people that they cannot die in an attempt to soothe our loss of family members. Even the Bantu do not believe their elders actually die.

When it comes to real world practicality of the kind that creates spaceships, we must accept that humans die as part of nature’s experiments. In order to understand our fate better, we need to understand the experiments of nature. This gives us a worldview that cannot be tainted by political outlooks, which tend to color our interpretation by making themselves the base assumptions through which we filter our perceptions.

That in turn clashes with politics, which seems to be based on lying. People lie because they think others don’t know they are lying (disregarding that truth itself is not the issue). It is therefore impossible for a politician not to lie. In fact the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa wrote, “if you want honesty, you start your own party.”

I agree with that sentiment, even if it is shocking. It is only shocking because I never realized it. But I have met representatives and some of them were obviously “salesmen” while others were apparently initially honest. My limited experience with these representatives shows that they spend a lot of time influencing people, but when they get the seat, they have no idea what to do, as Steve Bannon noted recently.

These parliamentarians are suddenly viewed with enormous respect, while they have no idea what their world view is or should be. They are therefore incompetent, all of them. Sometimes knowledgeable business people that understand “the way of the world” gets the opportunity to affect change, but even then their world view is limited by screeching of the proletariat.

One can almost say that even great leaders get distracted by their children, or in other words, their constituents. This applies to Trump as well. He was recently caught in an untruth when he said that G.W. Bush never called families of fallen soldiers. Once we get over moralizing about the tendency to lie, we can see that instead he is playing a game.

In his world, like the amoral and dispassionate worldview of nature, everything is a game and the best player wins. In the game of restoring America, Trump wants to put America to work which is probably not a lie, because as a developer and businessman he and his friends like workers, because workers are consumers.

The real lie is that Americans wants to work. They actually don’t. In fact they want to talk, a lot. Where at first they had to wait for the Sunday newspaper, they can now express their own views every weekday. You can see this in the rising social media industries now abbreviated as FANG. But you can also see it in American industry.

Returning to the world view discussion, one can say that Africa also like talking a lot. That put them at the lowest ranks of the Competitiveness Index. But it also puts them in a strong position as migrants to bring Western Civilization down to those same levels. Even though Westerners can and want to talk a lot, migrants have the upper hand genetically. They reproduce faster than we do.

A worldview, as opposed to a universal outlook which favors truth and goodness over effects in reality, dictates that Americans must start to work. To convince them will take some time because they have to understand that change is really necessary. The Mandela experiment is an example of where a Western oriented country realized they had to change, setting in motion a grand political effort driven by mass media and education.

The point in South Africa was to allow “acculturation” of all its peoples towards a Western type culture (democracy at the time), but back-fired, because it should have acculturated to the African culture (tribal at the time). Nature’s order wins out: we may think we are more “good,” but really, only what works is what is good, and so instead of projecting onto it, we must accept reality as we find it.

If America wants to make a change, it should acculturate to a tribal dispensation and in my view a semi-re-enactment towards a States’ Rights model prioritizing trade between States as opposed to global trade. This acknowledges the nature of America, instead of the universal morality that we try to convince ourselves is true.

The successor to Trump will have a world view, not a universal outlook, and as a result will be willing to re-write the founding documents to choose a system that works for what America is and has been. They will do this because other tribes are taking to the global stage first, which is putting America in the camp of political lies and not hard realism, which it needs in order to survive and succeed.

Can The Alt Right Perfect “Scientific Government”?

Friday, October 20th, 2017

Understanding risk in the context of organizations involves breaking down a relatively simple definition into its multiple implications:

Business risk is the possibility a company will have lower than anticipated profits or experience a loss rather than taking a profit.

This identifies two areas of concern, first inefficiency and second, failure of productivity. Governments and civilizations, like business, belong to the category of organizations and are subject to risk, including the ultimate risk, which is that disorganization or lack of productivity will cause a collapse as seen in the Soviet Union or Venezuela.

Using the book as input, we can see how to apply risk to American civilization instead of the current government, as it is normally viewed by voters.

In our modern world, we do not refer to nations or civilizations as organic things, but as products of the state, and so when we think of risk, we worry about our government shutting down, spending too much, not taxing enough or being unable to achieve internal compromises and becoming locked up.

The Alt Right, being of a variety of conservative that occurred before the neoconservative and classical liberal forms that were adopted because of their compatibility with Leftism in the era after the French Revolution, views risk different because we see a different target: Western Civilization, or the organic and naturalistic collaboration of Western peoples.

For the crime of looking at civilization instead of the state, we are dubbed “white supremacists” and “bigots,” but in reality, we are looking at the organization which creates and empowers the state. In theory, the state is the caretaker of civilization, but once it becomes powerful enough, it simply replaces civilization with itself through ideology, usually of egalitarianism.

According to the book, risk applies only to objectives, and when civilization does not have an objective, no risk management applies to the typical threats apparently only perceived by the Alt Right. For that reason, an Alt Right view will take the opposite viewpoint: that risks lead to objectives, and not vice-versa.

In other words, civilization has an inherent objective, which is to survive in a Darwinian sense, which at some point requires encoding its values and culture into DNA so they can be passed on without relying on political constructs like the state and social constructs like equality, rights, liberty and freedoms.

Using the ISO 31000 standard, risk is defined as the “effect of uncertainty on objectives,” resulting in the management imperative to “coordinate activities to direct and control an organization with regard to risk.” The White House has no risk management for its “America First” goal because its authorization extends only to setting up a sub-organization to address risk as defined in ANSI/ASSE Z690.2-2011 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines.

In other words, governments cannot address civilizational risk, but can only look after themselves, and only indirectly. This requires us to re-interpret risk as applicable to civilization itself instead of the institutions of those civilizations. This becomes complex because risk involves both threats and opportunities. For example:

The approval of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was intended to infuse the US economy with desperately needed funds. The risks associated with issuing multi-million-dollar grants and contracts as required by ARRA in such a short period of time were great: however, the opportunity to stimulate the economy and make economic gains was projected to outweigh the risks.

This means that a standard threat-versus-opportunity guideline does not exist because most people think only in terms of threats. The eventual outcome of “predicted” threat and opportunity scenarios are never confirmed after the fact meaning that lessons are never learnt and mistakes repeated over multiple administrations, as is obvious from the way risk management in American government is structured.

But at least the Government Accounting Office (GAO) has a “High Risk List” including solutions used. It address solely the government: “The US federal government is the world’s largest and most complex organizational entity, with about $3.5 trillion in outlays in fiscal year 2012.” These risks are:

  1. Limiting federal government’s fiscal by better managing climate control risks.
  2. Mitigating gaps in weather satellite data
  3. Strategic human capital management
  4. Managing federal real property
  5. National flood insurance program
  6. Improving and modernizing federal disability programs
  7. Pension benefit guaranty corporation insurance program
  8. NASA acquisition management
  9. Protecting health through enhanced oversight of medical products
  10. Protecting the federal government’s information systems and the national cyber critical infrastructures
  11. Revamping federal oversight of flood safety
  12. Restructuring the US postal services to achieve sustainable financial viability

The above risks are defined as “important” which translates to sustained manpower and budget allocations. But in the aftermath of flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey, the Manhattan Institute found that instead of mitigating the effect of flooding, that the US Government makes matters worse by tempting people into Hurricane’s paths.

Identifying “all” risks to “America First” — itself a proxy for protecting our civilization, as opposed to setting global standards to protect the world economy — is obviously not possible because it would require inputs from all managers in the American government. Identifying a risk also requires an important methodology of detection, verification and scope before manpower is allowed to define and spend resources on it.

Various sources of risk are possible, but these fail to include threats to civilization. The RIMS (Recent Risk Events) for 2013 is an example of the variety of risk, as follows:

  1. Horse meat discovered in UK beef
  2. New rule strengthens mine safety
  3. Brazil nightclub fire kills 242
  4. The cruise from carnival
  5. Meteor explodes over Russia
  6. Sinkhole swallows Florida man
  7. Data breach exposes 50 million accounts
  8. New avian flu threatens humans
  9. Massive explosion levels fertilizer plant
  10. Bangladesh building collapse kills 1100
  11. Tornadoes tear through Midwest
  12. Vermont fights patent trolls
  13. Washington bridge collapses

If you are not concerned about the risks above, you should be, because of what is missing. For example:

  • Globalism is not a risk
  • Migration is not a risk
  • Economic collapse is not a risk
  • Political succession is not a risk
  • Diversity is not a risk
  • World wars are not a risk
  • Private censorship is not a risk

These omissions present the Alt Right with an opportunity to demonstrate its rightful leadership by addressing risks that affect civilization, even if they do not affect institutions like the American government or clusters of institutions such as those which administrate the world economy.

What the Alt Right can bring to our consideration of risk is the understanding that politics is actually about life or death challenges; the government and its institutions are supposed to serve the people, which does not necessarily mean doing what they want, but in protecting them from that which can destroy them while enhancing that which brings quality of life.

This will force a move away from decadently setting “political goals” based on utopian visions of ideology, and instead toward consideration real risks. For the past two centuries we have focused on symbolic correctness, whether economic or social, and ignored consequences of our actions to the organic entity of civilization.

As the age of ideology fades, and is replaced by consciousness of the need for civilization above the desires of the individual, attention focuses on actual risks instead of what we might call political risks, or things which would displace our rulers or destabilize their institutions.

Luckily for the Alt Right, average people understand risk because they are accustomed to balancing threats and opportunities in their own lives and for the sake of their families. Through bypassing the entire world of political risk, and focusing on actual risk, the Alt Right can address the actual concerns of people instead of these utopian notions.

Lessons for Socialization

Tuesday, October 17th, 2017

The recent emergence of the BBC international news service in pidgin English reminds us that our mode of communication determines what we can successfully express. If we render ourselves in simplistic language, we will make incomplete and misleading points.

This spurs the large question of how to talk to one another, which must consider a few vital challenges:

  1. The emergence of “populism” effectively ruptured media communications in the entire Western hemisphere. The old language is dead, and the two sides are polarizing and withdrawing.
  2. Introspection revealed that a different mindset is required because our biggest risk is in fact not Iran, but our social organization.
  3. In the feverish attempt to do good, people on the right refer to “not punching right” or even debating “differently.”

Talking while using the wrong words can cause serious reputational and financial losses, which means that we should establish a new framework for discourse, starting with standard language, instead of emulating the Left and applying “community standards” as a means of making language simplistic in ways that exclude certain “problematic” viewpoints.

S.C. Hickman reminds us that societies have always struggled with this, and to address it, have created not safe spaces from expression, but spaces where expression can safely tackle difficult and normally contentious issues:

Remember invective and satiric wit or jibes came out of the traditions of Athenian aristocrats rather than commoners. Athenian prohibitions on slander were curtailed by the licensed freedom of speech (parrhesia) of a religious festival. So that both Comedy and Satyr plays arose and emerged out of traditional religious festivals where political invective and humor could be assayed whereas in real life it was deemed anathema and would entail slander and ultimately banishment or worse, death against any and all who used it.

…Those like Ann Coulter are effective and best sellers: biting humor and scathing farce triumph, where serious candor of political intelligence are at best filtered through academic spinsters.

Freedom of speech in the purest form entails a shouting contest or competition for the wittiest put-down, so many societies curtail it. To avoid losing what might be said, they instead raise the bar, and force it to be inserted into a political oration, theatrical production or lengthy treatise.

This was in fact the original idea behind American freedom of speech, which was designed to protect political, social and philosophical critiques written in newspapers or declaimed from street corners. Only recently has it come to mean the ability to publish pornography, nearly libelous insinuations of the media, rants filled with obscenities and cretinous modern art.

But what is acceptable depends on the nature of the society. Nick Land made a few observations of this nature:

  • High-trust societies are even more repulsive than low-trust societies
  • Which disgusts you more, Somalia or Sweden? The scorpion or the scorpion-licker?
  • Better to dwell among cannibals than Cathedral-zombies
  • When science collides with sacred values, it’s howled down (and if possible) suppressed.

For a society to work, it must have both wealth/production and some form of cooperation. Different structures can provide this in varying degrees. We can see this process unfolding in Africa today.

Liberal democracies of a diverse nature require that the local population, in order for cooperation to work, forfeit some of its traditions including its standards of safety. As seen in South Africa under Nelson Mandela, or in Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe, this model prioritizes cooperation of all groups which sacrifices the standard of whatever group has higher or more complex traditions.

In contrast, the China colonization of Africa promotes “normalization” which instead of focusing on diversity, looks to whatever tribe is dominant in a region and channels wealth and power to them. This tends to strengthen local safety and stability instead of prioritizing defense of the rights of minority tribes.

The former model is failing in part because of its high cost of administration, but mostly because it forces normalization to a minimum instead of emphasizing striving for a maximum as exhibited by the most successful group in the region. An old African proverb holds that when fish and crabs are caught in a net, the crabs pull the fish down, because if the crabs are trapped and doomed, they feel that no one should escape that same fate.

Looking into these two examples, we see an axis between acceptance and intrusion. Acceptance is a sense of belonging to an environment; we know that in order to develop potential among children, each child must feel innately and irrevocably accepted, something only made possible through a friendly, tolerant and somewhat mandatory environment.

In contrast, adulthood shows us intrusion. The child must graduate school and enter the less-than-friendly job market where extroverted people have a better chance of survival because they crave and seek a way of finding personal — not universal — acceptance in the previously unknown territory of the workplace.

Introverted people, because they are self-guided, seek acceptance when they are young because they know that if left alone, they will learn what they need to and grow at their own pace. Extroverts, on the other hand, perceive a sense of harm and injustice if they are not allowed to participate, which when they are young and socially inept is a possibility, so they want a system which cannot demote them for being wrong or selfish.

Extroverts constantly seek social acceptance on an individual level into adulthood. If there is a workplace problem, the extrovert will seek out the parties involved to negotiate a resolution, where the introvert will engage in avoidance or confrontation of a legalistic nature, as we see with whistle-blowers who choose to detonate a situation rather than attempt to impose a solution internal to the organization.

In traditional society, this was addressed by having different roles for introverts and extroverts. Introverts handle analysis and principles well; extroverts handle other people well. Talented introverts drifted toward the top because they were less likely to compromise, work around, patch up or ignore systemic problems.

Globalism requires different social skills than traditional society. When the entire world becomes a combination of workplace and shopping mall, then extroverts benefit from this acceptance-type society because they inherently do not take it at face value, but work around its little glitches and exploit it for their own gain. Since they are granted acceptance, they do not worry about whether their acts will have good or bad results, because they are accepted just the same.

In this way we see how socialization, or the process of having social factors dominate over others, can be destructive and leads to the type of civilization that globalism creates: individuals entirely isolated, lowest common denominator prevailing over more complex ideas, unpopular truths ignored, weak eating the strong, and corruption at every level.

We all want a friendly discussion. However, if we make that the goal, we compromise everything else in order to be friendly. For that reason, we need to assist ourselves in order to understand how intrusion, not feelings and acceptance, forms the basis of a logical interaction between the individual and the organization, a category which includes not just corporations but civilizations as well.

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.

Recommended Reading