Amerika

Author Archive

White People Need To Realize That “The Enemy Is Within”

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

Is It "Facism" To Send All Leftists To The Third World?

We live in a time of great upheaval and thus, great opportunity. Liberal democracy has died from an inability to govern. Our leaders and media say things that are obviously insane, but are not recognized as such by the herd, and so they are accepted.

But over time, claiming that “everyone thinks this is true” — rule by consensus, instead of rule by realistic thinking — falls apart when the results of those claims being put into action are consistently bad. In Europe and the US, not only are the results bad, but they are getting worse and accelerating.

We are seeing the failure of liberal democracy around us every day. Soon it will be replaced. If we are intelligent, we will skip over tyranny and move to a more sensible option.

In the meantime, however, we have to face our enemy: ourselves. If we are honest — and if we could be realistic about other races, we can do the same to our own — we will admit that most of us are incapable of making the complex decisions required for leadership. Most make bad decisions, the “educated” frequently make irrelevant choices, and in groups, the committee effect dominates and we act like domesticated cattle, shuttling between stampede-level panic and bovine-level insouciance. Committees make compromises based not on a realistic goal, but on the pragmatic choices required to keep every member happy, and so the compromises pile up until no one can act because all of our objectives are paradoxical and we have many, many illusions to uphold.

Right now, many people are talking about populism and how “we the people” are going to take back our countries from the governments… err… that we elected. Let us set the record straight: populism is not the people defending themselves against a monster. It is buyer’s remorse for having gone along with the liberal democracy sham and, upon seeing exactly where it was heading, realizing that it was a bad choice all along. People feel this in their guts, but will never admit it. To admit it would be to affirm the obvious truth that the voters screwed it up for centuries, that they did so because they got greedy, and that this is typical human behavior in groups — think of attendees at a carnival, all the litter on our roadsides, graffiti on every wall — because in groups, people do not face the consequences of their actions. They externalize or socialize the cost to the rest of society. When given power with no responsibility for the results, people tend to do just whatever, because we have replaced the goal of power with the need to maintain that power itself. Democracy, consumerism and social popularity are all manifestations of that transition.

The thing that ties these together is human social behavior. In a group, the way to win the game is to make everyone feel comfortable by including them. It is more important to have everyone get along than it is to reach any certain conclusion. In this way, the committee mentality arrives. When everyone at the table is invited to participate, someone balances all of their concerns and comes up with a solution that avoids inconveniencing anyone terribly. The result is that the original goal is long forgotten, and in the name of pacifism and making everyone feel included, a non-solution is erected. Repeat this by tens of thousands of times — in congresses, boardrooms, voting booths, bars and churches — and you get a civilization dedicated to keeping everyone together instead of cooperating toward any kind of sensible behavior. The problem is us because in groups, we behave like nitwits, no matter how educated or intelligent we are. The situation itself creates the bad results.

Human thinking is comprised of these two prongs: wishful thinking at the individual level, and socializing at the group level. The West encountered this problem not because — as the scientists say — the West is particularly altruistic, open or introspective, but because when a civilization gets powerful enough that it can forget its natural constraints and get by for awhile while ignoring its goals, people fall back on this type of social thinking and then use it to make their wishful thinking be accepted as real. We wish we were all equal, so we make it a taboo to deny equality, even though equality does not exist in reality. We then enforce that on each other, and out of pragmatism, it is accepted, and any who rise up and point out that this is insane are smashed, in the name of protecting the group consensus and the “good feelings” it depends on to keep everyone feeling chipper enough to continue their contributions. Such smart monkeys, we have manipulated ourselves into oblivion!

This disaster is not unique to Western Europeans, but a consequence of their success plus high IQ and a tendency to be social, since the more powerful a human is, the more benevolent and sociable they tend to be. In addition, it is lonelier at the top because with dominion over nature and want, there is no longer a need to cooperate as closely with others. The system does that. People know their roles, and do their tasks, and somehow everyone turns out okay. For the past couple millennia, the West has been in this state for the most part, especially relative to other groups.

Bad decisions however have a way of coming back to haunt us. With each compromise, our options decreased. The voters, concerned only about the time between the day of the voting and the next paycheck, kept electing people who went along with the system. Over time, the system began to strengthen itself because it had not been rebuked. But even more, it was popular. Barack Obama was elected. Ruby Ridge and Waco did not lead to massive outcry. Nor did the increasing pollution, crime, racial antagonism, corruption, and unsustainable programs like the entitlements that make up 60% of our budgets. The voters kept rubber-stamping these bad ideas, or at least not opposing them enough. And so finally liberal democracy came to its endgame. Bankrupt, purposeless, self-interested and apparently clueless, our governments doubled down on their agenda again and again. This culminated in an attempt to replace the citizens themselves with third world newcomers who were designed to be permanent Leftist voters, keeping the system in power.

What is Leftism, however, but people power? The United States was founded on some Leftist ideas and some Rightist ones. But over time, the Leftist ideas always won out because they were simpler and they made “we the people” feel good about the free stuff we would be getting, how Mother Theresa like we looked for being open-minded about immigration and class warfare, and how we were all going to have good jobs and fat pensions by using the system for our own gain. The voters were greedy, and this made them select leaders who were greedy, and those promptly created greedy governments which came to want power for its own sake so that the graft could continue unabated. At that point, there was nothing left but failure.

If our time has heroes, history will find them in men like Anders Breivik and Timothy McVeigh. Instead of committing callow acts of violence against the newcomers, these men targeted the governments and the Leftists behind them. They recognized that what went wrong was that the voters had lost their moral compass, as most people tend to do when given power without responsibility, and had created this monster and sustained it with their interest. Left-leaning cinema, news, entertainment and academia remained wildly popular. People were only too glad to inform on others for having the wrong (Right) opinions. The herd wanted to believe that it was good, and so it chose poor options every time instead of tackling problems head on. People ran from looking at the actual needs and solutions that stood before them. Pretense ruled over common sense. These men knew that the government was not a thing of its own creation, but entirely created by the voters and the illusions of people acting in groups.

At this point, nothing remains but separation. Leftists — up to 40% of the population — want a different type of civilization than the rest of us do. We cannot coexist.

Breivik made his point by forcing people to be accountable. Those who agitated for communism and immigration were killed in order to show that them supporting these destructive ideas might have costs for them, personally, which had never happened before. McVeigh showed people that just because the system was there and paid good wages, there are costs for supporting that which is immoral and an abomination to logic. That spirit can be carried on without violence by physically removing Leftists. Half of our people are mental children, foolish and selfish, intellectually and morally broken, and the only solution is to move them on and work with the rest.

Since a big shakeup is coming, and the collapse of a system as surely as Communism and National Socialism collapsed, we will have this opportunity. Relocating all of those who are not of the founding group in the USA will leave us with maybe 150 million people, and removing the committed Leftists from among them will result in an America of 80 million people. This leaves us with enough competent people to do whatever we need to, but without the constant chatter and chaos from the Left. In fact, it will be a more productive nation, and there will be more room for nature, so our environmental problems will relax and so will the pressures of life. Jobs will no longer be a lifeline and jail sentence but places where people are rewarded for performance instead of attendance. Natural species that have been crowded out by the endless suburbs, roads, strip malls, warehouses and parking lots will come back to life. Oxygen will rise from our forests and our water will be cleaner. We will be able to actually live again, instead of subsisting at virtual gunpoint in order to subsidize a system that has been failing for a long time.

We the people are not good people. Some of us are good, and many are mixed degrees of good and bad, but in groups we make bad decisions. The individual and group act in parallel because both use social thinking, or the assumption that we the people are good and therefore that we must include everyone through the mental acrobatics required to support egalitarianism. People choose easy answers over complex truths. As a result, whatever is popular is a lie: the disgusting mass culture and pop art, the glib explanations of media, the details turned into grand theories of science and academia, and at the root, the idea that we the people have any legitimacy as rulers at all. Mob rule is still mob rule. Mob rule extends beyond the voting box to what people buy, the mental viruses they repeat as truth in order to seem intelligent to others, and the behaviors that are enabled by a permissive society and so become more degenerate, generation after generation. We the people prefer lies.

This tendency for human groups to self-delude is called Crowdism, and it forms naturally wherever success enables people to take their eyes off the ball for even a second. The only thing that opposes it is a hard realism that denies our human impulses to consider ourselves good and to be sociable by assuming the same of others. Under the illusion of the goodness of we the people, we have created an idiocratic society where the stupidest and most blatant lies triumph over everything else. And so now, a purge is coming. For society to survive, it must remove those who thrive in an environment of chaos and degeneracy, and replace it with those who want a realistic order that improves itself qualitatively so that it always has a goal, and never falls back into the self-congratulatory and self-referential circular reasoning of the herd.

Like a garden, a civilization can be renewed. The necrotic tissue must be cut off and burned, the unhealthy plants removed, and the health ones nurtured. If any plants are in the garden that do not belong, they must be relocated. This makes the garden healthier this year, healthy the next, and progressively healthier each year that we repeat the process. There is no other solution.

Right now most of our fellow citizens are busy looking for excuses and scapegoats. They want someone to blame for our failure, anyone but us. They complain about capitalism, government, the Rich and shadowy conspiracies, but really we have no one to blame but ourselves. The sooner we grow up, accept that fact and act on it, the sooner we can stop being failures and start doing something fun again.

Next Stage Diversity: Back To Chinatowns

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

As European immigration policy drowns under a wave of African and Middle Eastern refugees, the clever but not intelligent leaders elected by the apparently moronic voters have decided to “fix” diversity so the outraged sheep stay asleep for just a little while longer.

Instead of demanding full integration, they are now proposing “Chinatowns,” or ethnically unified communities for foreigners among the communities for natives. In this way, they will localize the problems of third world immigration — hiding from sight some of those rapes, assaults, thefts and public defecation events (PDEs) — and allow integration to take place over time.

This begins with the idea of relocating a whole Syrian village to a deserted area in Latvia:

In a conversation with the “New Osnabrückerzeitung” last Tuesday, Ska Keller has proposed to send a whole Syrian village to Latvia, for example. “The idea with the Syrian village is a possibility that could be used, for example, if refugees do not want to go alone in a country where there are no refugees.”

Of course, we know how this works. Low self-confidence European males have a high proclivity toward outbreeding, so they will find girlfriends in the new communities, have children with them, and then integrate those children into the native communities. Eventually admixture will be high enough that people will just throw in the towel and let it happen.

Diversity takes multiple forms. The first, as was present in the USA for many years, is the idea of having separate communities for each ethnic group. This allows them to be oblivious of the actual problem of diversity until gradual admixture creeps up on them and obliterate them. Our democratic leaders replaced this with integrated community diversity in the 1960s to speed up the process.

Now that their new method is failing, they are going back to the old for a generation so that the conservatives go back to sleep, as they always do, while immigration continues and integration infiltrates the population and destroys its ethnic continuity as a prelude to outright replacement by outbreeding.

How Unions Created Globalism

Tuesday, June 20th, 2017

Over at the Claremont Review of Books, a sensible analysis of the origins of globalism:

That goal is to flee high Western wages. Almost all “global value chains” were set up to acquire the same good—a waiver from accumulated obligations to Western workers. In the work of Thomas Friedman and other boosters you find value chains described as kaleidoscopic, complex, operating in a dozen different countries. Those are rare. There is less to “global value chains” than meets the eye. Most of them, Baldwin shows, are actually regional value chains. As noted, they exist on the periphery of the United States, Europe, or Japan. In this, offshoring resembles the elaborate international transactions that Florentine bankers under the Medicis engaged in for the sole purpose of avoiding church strictures on moneylending. Their purpose is not to seek value in the earth’s far corners but to get across the border to where the customs, expectations, and regulations that arose in the industrial age regarding compensation of the workforce don’t apply.

…Global value chains are extraordinarily delicate. They are vulnerable to shocks. Terrorists have discovered this. In order to work, free-trade systems must be frictionless and immune to interruption, forever.

This means a program of intellectual property protection, zero tariffs, and cross-border traffic in everything, including migrants.

If you are wondering why your nation has been assimilated into a global village of large corporations and compliant governments who act mostly through NGOs, this is why: costs of labor rose, thanks to unions, and so American and European industry began departing those shores in the 1980s, when union action almost destroyed the automobile industry.

Unions drive up costs not only by collective bargaining, but by threatening shutdowns, as were common in the 1980s. This means the company cannot derive any income from its products while its debt keeps getting more expensive, and threatens the company.

Unions today are mostly neutered because of two factors: (1) the government adopted regulations that covered most of their complaints, and (2) offshoring and outsourcing so broke their power that it became recognized that if a strike were threatened, the company would simply close the plant and ship production overseas.

For example, look at some of the data on how unions drive companies to offshore:

The model shows that, when there is imperfect competition on the product market, firms that face strong unions should outsource more of their production of final goods because such offshoring causes a decrease of their quasi-rent and disciplines workers. However, offshoring does not necessarily decrease wages. Then, estimation results show that, indeed, offshoring decreases the size of quasi-rents. A regression discontinuity approach shows that bargaining institutions affect outsourcing. Employment is also shown to decrease when offshoring increases.

How epic was the effect? Quite:

It’s unclear how many jobs were offshored between 1979 and 2001, but data shows there were 398,887 private manufacturing establishments of all sizes in the United States during the first quarter of 2001, and by the end of 2010, the number had declined to 342,647 — a loss of 56,190 factories.

Unions wreck not just profits, but productivity and work quality. They leave behind obligations that no one can pay, and a workforce which is bloated, spoiled, selfish, and vindictive.

This is why companies outsourced and got away from unions. Regulations, which at some level make sense, took on a political dimension and began to involve more than health and safety, raising costs further. More companies went away then as well.

Like socialism, unions are a form of a collective, insisting that people be rewarded before performance instead of after performance. This means that bad is rewarded along with good, and counteracts the necessary principle of competition. Individuals join in collectives in order to advance their own interests at the expense of the larger group, dooming themselves to eventual replacement.

The same principle drives immigration. When domestic workers get too expensive, firms look for workers with a lower cost curve and externalize their costs to government social programs. As long as the West pursues its policy of collectivism, it will always lose productivity and gain outsiders who, realizing they are not vested, then agitate for power.

Alt Right Ideas Lead To A Lord Of The Rings Civilization

Tuesday, June 20th, 2017

The Alt Right confuses modern people (“moderns”) because it does not fit into their ideal of government. It takes together what seem like disconnected ideas and from them, projects a vision of a civilization that is traditional but future-oriented.

As at least one commentator has noticed, this looks a lot like what was portrayed in The Lord Of The Rings:

Often this is referred to as “anarcho-monarchism,” which captures the way monarchy is different than government: monarchy does not regulate and control its citizens, but rewards good behavior and throws out bad behavior, while setting a standard and exhibiting leadership, or the shaping of a nation toward a qualitatively better version of what it is while defending it against threats:

The text of his sole anarcho-monarchist manifesto, such as it is, comes from a letter he wrote to his son Christopher in 1943 (forgive me for quoting at such length):

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people . . . .

And anyway, he continues, “the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men”:

Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. At least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediaevals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Grant me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you dare call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line. But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that—after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world—is that it works and has only worked when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way . . . . There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.

Last week, as I watched the waves of the Republican electoral counterinsurgency washing across the heartland, and falling back only at the high littoral shelves of the Pacific coast and the Northeast, I found myself reflecting on what a devil’s bargain electoral democracy is.

Our goal in this time is to treat the West like a garden: prune the dead, nurture the healthy, and remove that which will never be healthy. We can take what remains of the good and put our focus on it, and reward it, therefore getting more of it, while driving away that which sabotages or otherwise ruins our civilization.

In doing so, we will be doing what intelligent people have done since the dawn of humankind, which is to focus on qualitative improvement instead of trying for something “new” that reflects more our own biases and prejudices than realistic thinking:

Circular Ponzi Scheme

Tuesday, June 20th, 2017

The circular Ponzi scheme long described by this site is a process by which liberal democracy funds itself based on demand for its currency.

It takes the following form:

  1. Government taxes its citizens who are above the poverty level, and promises to redistribute this wealth to people below the poverty level.
  2. The impoverished then buy up consumer products, increasing economic activity.
  3. Based on this demand, government makes borrowing easier.
  4. Government then takes on more debt based on the collateral of this “thriving” Potemkin economy.
  5. It uses this debt to distribute money to its impoverished citizens, and repeats the process.

The notion for this odd program came from Keynesian economic theory, which holds that government should borrow to invest so that its economy can grow and its taxes will be higher. This was often described as “pump priming”:

the activity of helping a business, programme, economy, etc. to develop by giving it money:

The government is awarding small, pump-priming grants to single mothers who are starting their own businesses.

But really, this is a version of an ancient tactic of self-promotion by having a friend or relative purchase a product that you have for sale, so that other people will buy it based on its popularity, in effect reifying the false promise offered by its advertisement. Someone who claims to have the best hot dogs in town will do better to have his friends buy a few hundred to make that statement seem true.

In fact, even governments do this to promote their own agenda:

The State Department spent an additional $9.8 million on purchases the GOP characterized as “frivolous,” such as the $79,000 in taxpayer funds Clinton’s agency used to buy up copies of President Obama’s book or the $53,004 her agency spent on “marble polishing services” at the U.S. embassy in Brasilia “during the summer of 2010.”

The liberal democratic governments of the West rely on continual pump priming to keep their economies from imploding with the burden of costly entitlements or social benefits paid directly to citizens, which are the largest source of increase of government spending since the 1930s:

This is clarified by a category breakdown:

Eventually, this scheme will self-destruct when the tax base — those who pay taxes — are drained completely in order to pay for the tax eaters, and government has so much debt that it cannot borrow any more, presenting conditions for default.

Default will ruin the value of the currency. Of course, government and professional political agitators will have taken their money out in advance and transferred it into other assets, so they will own most of the country even though the money will be worth less than monopoly money at that time. These were the conditions in Weimar Germany brought on by wartime debt and reckless social spending like is common in Europe and the USA at this time.

This calls to mind Margaret Thatcher and her famous statement, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Other People’s Money (OPM) is the currency of government social programs. They redistribute this income through wealth transfer in order to create a Potemkin economy where people are buying junk so that government can take out loans.

A circular Ponzi scheme relies on the same “fast money” policies introduced during the Clinton era that carried forth the ideas of FDR, JFK and LBJ to create a permanent socialist state within a capitalist economy. Most problems attributed to “capitalism” are actually a result of this circular Ponzi scheme glitching.

This variety of demand-side economics is popular with Leftist governments. Most of them carry huge debt, like Venezuela, which they default on once the government collapses, but not before the elites get rich, like “man of the people” Hugo Chavez who died a billionaire.

One problem of the circular Ponzi scheme is that it leads to make-work and pro forma activity at jobs instead of productive activity. The massive debt load incurred by social programs depends on lots of economic activity, so even nonsense fake work and importing third world labor are seen as “necessary” to pay for yesterday’s benefits (2009 article).

The circular Ponzi scheme also causes runaway growth, which leads to overpopulation as money is distributed before there is a realistic basis for its perpetuation, causing the lowest echelons of the socioeconomic order to explode in population, as this chart shows:

Like all forms of false growth, the liberal democracy circular Ponzi scheme will result in simultaneous economic, political, social, environmental and biological collapse. Those who stole money from the system — the smartest monkeys of all, in their view — will retreat to special enclaves where they can afford to generate air, synthesize food and live comfortably while the rest of the world and its ecosystems die off.

As usual, humanity is too clever — but not intelligent, which may require the nobility to care about what is real versus backscatter from the neurotic human brain, enough — for its own good.

Horseshoe Theory: Large Corporations Behave Like Communism

Tuesday, June 20th, 2017

The theory of Crowdism states that our problem as a species is not a particular ideology, but any behavior in which humans become a goal in themselves. This is equivalent to a means-over-ends analysis that selects for methods which do not harm, inconvenience or embarrass any individual.

Since the dawn of our species, humans have been self-destructing in groups because at a certain point, the herd wins out. The innovators, leaders and pioneers are always few and the herd many, and the herd takes over and makes the activity about the herd, instead of about its ostensible purpose.

And so a business becomes a support system for its workers (unions, socialism); a government becomes an industry for lobbyists and bureaucrats; a church group becomes a social opportunity for bored middle class ladies; a gang becomes a cult centered around a leader who tells people what they want to hear.

This is the real horseshoe theory: at any point, human endeavors become their opposites because the need of the herd to be a goal in itself inverts the purpose of the organization.

Witness the similarities between monopolistic businesses and Communism:

Look at how Google games searches. A study reported in The Wall Street Journal found that in 25,000 random Google searches ads for Google products appeared in the most prominent slot 91% of the time. How is that not the unfair leveraging of search dominance and the abuse of algorithm? All 1,000 searches for “laptops” started with an ad for Google’s Chromebook — 100% of the time. Kim Jong Un would be envious of results like that at election time.

And then there are the recently launched Google snippets, which stylistically highlight search results as if they were written on stone tablets and carried down from the mountain. Their sheer visual physicality gives them apparent moral force. The word “Orwellian” is flagrantly abused, but when it comes to the all-powerful algorithms of Google, Amazon and Facebook, “Orwellian” is UNDER-used.

As for news, institutional neglect has left us perched on the edge of the slippery slope of censorship.

Interestingly enough, Mencius Moldbug picked up on this years ago by noting that organizations who desire a monopoly no longer act out of need, but out of aspiration to total power and total control:

Sometimes I get an almost Soviet feel off Google. After all, what was the Soviet Union but a whole country run by a single company? Of course, Google is much better managed than the Soviet Union. But give it a few years.

When you are writing a large piece of software in order to just give it away, it has to be a labor of love. If it’s not a labor of love, the task becomes Brezhnevian. Google will do just fine if everyone in the world accesses their servers via Apple or Microsoft phones. The commercial justification for writing Android strikes me as quite thin.

While this passage argues against his own theory of Neoreaction — if big corporations running a country end up like the Soviet Union did, then Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism is not an escape from the human problem described in the first paragraph of this essay — he makes a good point: we either act toward ends for the sake of those ends alone, or we become the ends, and then regulate method until we invert ourselves from ends-over-means to means-over-ends and filter out anything that offends the herd. That in turn produces the entropy that takes down every human group from a cluster of friends through a civilization, namely that internal division predominates over cooperation because the meaning of the activity has been lost through inversion.

Any corporation, if it becomes large enough, comes to serve itself, just like any government without hierarchy and culture becomes a parasitic predator determined to use its people as a means to the end of itself. Without some kind of cooperative goal, as is found in culture and transcendent appreciation of life, the activity becomes merely technical and then, becomes a purpose in itself.

Plato noted this in his own account of the end of a golden age and the degeneration to the point where democracy “seemed like a good idea” to the round-headed herd:

When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.

You either do things for their own sake, or they become masters over you. You can feed your people because you love them, strive for excellence, fight for supremacy, and try to build the greatest civilization ever, and fortune will shine on you. But when you are doing things because of the things themselves, like “we gotta keep the corporation running” or “the Party demands sacrifice,” then everything falls apart. That is the horseshoe in effect: whether Communist or Capitalist, you will end up in the same place without some kind of transcendental goal.

Plato calls it virtue. Christians call it holiness, but that seems too serving of itself as well. To the ancients in The Odyssey, it was a sense of putting the world to right, both morally uncompromising in a way that the Christians wish they could be, and geared toward balance more nuanced than the silly yin-yang that every teenager puts on their bedroom wall next to the dreamcatcher and Che Guevara poster.

Without this transcendental goal and people smart enough to keep us focused on it, every one of our ventures comes to serve itself and then self-destructs. This even applies to Metallica; when they were out there to make the best music they could imagine, the band had quality, but as soon as the goal became making the band more successful, the quality dwindled and popularity surged. This is the sign of an entropy bloom: like a red tide, at first the algae seem to be successful because their numbers have increased, but then there is a population crash. Like yeast in a bowl of syrup, or lemmings in a field of grain.

That transition from cooperation to control is what wrecks human endeavors, even solitary ones.

Consider the church. First it came to save the souls of men, but then it started competing with pagans and other sects, and acted toward its own power and control. This made it corrupt. That then removed the value it offered — salvation by inducing people to do what was necessary to save their minds, souls and logical ability — and it went into decline, but first it became wildly popular because it had lowered standards to the point where the herd could participate. Profiteers surged in and made themselves famous, but now, it is basically a dead institution in the first world. So it goes.

Power serves only itself unless you have an aristocrat — a philosopher king, in the sense of Marcus Aurelius and Meister Eckhart — to intervene and redirect things toward intangible and immutable but ongoing goals, known as the transcendentals. These are exclusively qualitative and relative, such as the classic formulation “the good, the beautiful and the true,” and also include the Bill And Ted’s Excellent Adventure sense of just wanting excellence, a form of benevolent elitism. Make everything the best of everything.

As the old saying goes, you either struggle upstream or are swept downstream. Civilizations either reach for constant improvement or are swept into the third world mentality of subsistence living, essentially dishonest people, and warlords to act as fences to keep the herd from running loose and harming itself.

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

How To Win At The Democracy Game

Monday, June 19th, 2017

One reason that European-descended people have gone insane worldwide is that they are trying to win at the game of democracy.

To win at democracy, a person must appeal to a broad section of people by being both harmless and seeming iconoclastic, different and unique in a way that others want to be.

Perhaps the best example comes from the iconic film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986) in which a school secretary reveals the ugly truth of popularity:

Grace: Oh, he’s very popular Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads – they all adore him. They think he’s a righteous dude.

Everyone — no matter what race, caste, class, activity or status — loves Ferris Bueller because he flatters them by projecting the people power myth. In that myth, authority is the problem, and people are good, so all those restrictions just need to go away.

At the same time, Bueller offers something that appeals to everyone. We all want to be different, creative, not following the rules, and gliding through life easily while having an excellent time.

All of our politicians play into this mythos. There has to be a certain amount of bad boy, including hypocrisy, and a sense of having a charmed life. Everyone wants to be Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.

But at the same time, what we worship is illusion. Just like in the market crash before the Great Depression, everyone in the herd is chasing the dream while ignoring the fact that it comes to very few, and followers get nothing.

Ceremony Of Opposites

Monday, June 19th, 2017

Poor humanity. Like a trapped beast, it rages, but no matter what it does, the result always seems to be the opposite of what was planned.

This suggests that the next frontier in human evolution consists of understanding our world better, possibly through self-discipline that also keeps us from choosing emotional and symbolic actions over realistic ones.

Plato observed that opposites attract, or at least create one another in human affairs:

The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy –the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government.

True.
The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.

Yes, the natural order.
And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty?

He writes about what was described to me as “the middle path” by those who study spirituality. It means that one consciously avoids extremes because they are almost always wrong, and aims for a middle instead. The catch is that this does not regulate goals, only degree of application. One does what is right, always, but chooses the most balanced and least risky way to get there.

The dark secret of humanity is that few engage in analytical thinking. They react emotionally and seek out a position that makes them feel better, instead of thinking about what goal they should have in the long term, and then acting toward that. As long as this process is with us, we will never do more than self-destruct.

As Diversity Fails, Europe Intensifies Censorship While America Backs Off

Monday, June 19th, 2017

Someone ran over some Muslims in England yesterday. The Muslims, sensitive to optics and public relations moments, quickly made a big show of being peaceful despite having been attacked in front of a mosque known for its extremist sentiments. They know the voters are stupid and plan to take them for the fools they are and use them as useful idiots in their war against non-Muslim civilization.

In the meantime, the circus ringmasters of the useful idiot herd started up with the sentimental and strong statements designed to pacify the sheep for another good fleecing in the next election. That included applying anesthesia in the form of action to conceal the problem, so that the voters can go back to sleep in the blaze of glory that is themselves:

It was the latest in a series of statements from Ms May that suggest she believes recent attacks have strengthened the case for her widely-criticised plans to regulate the online world.

Those plans include launching a massive crackdown on internet security so messages on apps such as WhatsApp can be accessed more easily by authorities, and censorship of what can be published online.

England has experienced three Muslim terrorist attacks in a row and one white guy hitting a few people with a van. This shows that whatever the UK is doing is not working, but admitting that requires the voters to admit they were wrong, which means they were manipulated, which means they have lost. So what will they do?

Like all primates, they will double down. To reverse course is to admit error, and especially at the lower end of the IQ curve, people hate to do that. Instead of looking at the issue of terrorism and diversity, which really is a single issue when you think about it, they will focus on the best way to sprinkle gold dust on the disaster and proclaim themselves strong, independent voters who don’t need no logic.

In the meantime, as if in concert, Google and the other big internet monopolists are planning to increase censorship on their services:

Google and YouTube will:

  • Use “more engineering resources to apply our most advanced machine learning research to train new ‘content classifiers’ to help us more quickly identify and remove such content.”
  • Expand YouTube’s Trusted Flagger program by adding 50 independent, “expert” non-governmental organizations to the 63 groups already part of it. Google will offer grants to fund the groups.
  • Take a “tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies — for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content.” Such videos will “appear behind a warning” and will not be “monetized, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements.”
  • Expand YouTube’s efforts in counter-radicalization. “We are working with Jigsaw to implement the ‘redirect method’ more broadly across Europe. This promising approach harnesses the power of targeted online advertising to reach potential Isis recruits, and redirects them towards anti-terrorist videos that can change their minds about joining.” A Google spokeswoman said Jigsaw’s “redirect method” is already in use in the US.

Google, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit have all stepped up their censorship policies of late. They claim they intend to crack down on terrorism, and maybe they will. But as the bolded words above indicate, their real target is to crack down on any Right-wing speech by declaring that it is supremacist, extremist or otherwise anti-social. They have been doing this for years.

They are doing this because the EU has demanded this crackdown on anti-diversity speech after events like the Cologne rapefest of New Years’ Eve, or subsequent terror attacks. The EU is becoming unstable because people share anti-immigrant and anti-diversity sentiment on social media, and so they are demanding (yet again) that social media censor its users.

No social media will escape this, because the EU will fine or block these social media services within its borders if they do not comply, forcing them to comply with its censorship or lose huge chunks of income.

In EU states, people are regularly arrested for posting anti-diversity messages, but this makes the EU states look bad, so instead they are using their broad regulatory powers to force the social media services to comply.

This enables the EU to cover up how badly its policies are failing. The voters really just want to go back to sleep, and if they stop seeing alarming messages, they will bed down in the paddock for a good rest before another day of grazing and dodging sheepdogs. But the broader concern is that speech laws are being taken into the realm of health and safety laws, where they are invisible.

On the other hand, in American the Supreme Court took a strong stand for freedom of speech, mainly because it can since the real censorship these days is being done in de facto public spaces like social media that are nonetheless owned by private parties, thus not regulated by the First Amendment:

In his opinion on the case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a separate opinion, echoed Alito’s sentiments. “A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional,'” Kennedy wrote, continuing to say, “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.”

“The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society,” he concluded.

The best decisions are those which change nothing but grab headlines, and the Supreme Court has done that. The United States has strengthened free speech in public, perhaps, but not necessarily on private college campuses or private services like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Netflix and Skype.

EU governments are experts at the shakedown. All they need is one law that says they can suspend, fine, or stop your service and the entire market of the EU is shut down to your company. Using this tool, they will invisibly force these companies to censor content, so that while technically we have free speech, in the places where people talk, nothing of the sort will exist.

Anti-Diversity Goes Mainstream In The Wall Street Journal

Monday, June 19th, 2017

In the pages of The Wall Street Journal, we find a welcome summary of the argument against diversity. Couched in analysis of the European immigration disaster, the article examines some of the points and issues I have been writing about since the early 1990s:

It is as though some great hole lies at the heart of the culture of Dante, Bach and Wren.

When people point out the downsides of this approach—not least that more immigration from Muslim countries produces many problems, including terrorism—we get the final explanation. It doesn’t matter, we are told: Because of globalization this is inevitable and we can’t stop it anyway.

All these instincts, when put together, are the stuff of suicide. They spell out the self-annihilation of a culture as well as a continent. Conversations with European policy makers and politicians have made this abundantly clear to me. They tell me with fury that it “must” work. I suggest that with population change of this kind, at this speed, it may not work at all.

Diversity is a way of engineering a permanent Leftist majority because the new group will always vote for more benefits, which are the province of the Left (and when conservatives embrace entitlements culture, they rapidly shift Leftward). It eventually means ethnic replacement of the population first through trace admixture, where your son or daughter marries someone who is 1/8 or 1/4 something else, and eventually everyone is a little bit newcomer, and the original racial group is erased. Genocided. Gone forever.

Diversity never works because each ethnic group wants to be in control so that it can set standards, values, customs, practices, procedures, aesthetics and cultural memes. This means that in a nation-state with multiple ethnic groups, they are subtly at war with one another as they compete for dominance. Even when one wins, the others struggle, at least until everyone is mixed into a grey cultureless nu-race.

The intellectually difficult point here is that we do not have an enemy. Our problem is not Muslims, but diversity itself; even “nice” other groups will invade us and genetically replace us. A Germany that is genetically 1/4 Japanese is no longer Germany, for example. They do not mean to do this, but it is the way of tribes that want to prevail, that they assert themselves and dominate others.

Diversity itself is a bad policy because it is paradoxical in this way, promising peace and freedom but delivering constant ethnic conflict. It cannot work because it is illogical given the innate needs of different populations. Every individual and every group acts in self-interest, and diversity makes those interests clash.

In America, people are fleeing diversity because it destroys social trust in their communities, causing them to distrust even people of their own ethnic group. Minority communities suffer because of diversity as well because it deprecates their own prospects and makes them subject to the same social distrust. The nation-state itself becomes corrupt with the introduction of diversity.

Healthy nations recognize homogeneity not as a fanatical goal, but a prerequisite for health and so are abandoning diversity just like the people in the West who are fleeing it. Energy is growing behind the idea of ending diversity without acrimony.

The WSJ article goes on to point out the core reason for diversity:

The reasons lie partly in our history, not least in the overwhelming German guilt, which has spread across the Continent and affected even our cultural cousins in America and Australia. Egged on by those who wish us ill, we have fallen for the idea that we are uniquely guilty, uniquely to be punished, and uniquely in need of having our societies changed as a result.

There is also, for Europe, the sense of what I call tiredness—the feeling that the story might have run out: that we have tried religion, all imaginable forms of politics, and that each has, one after another, led us to disaster. When we taint every idea we touch, perhaps a change is as good as a rest.

Modernity — equality, consumerism, individualism, democracy, social mobility, pluralism, class warfare — is the monkey on our back. No matter what we change, we bring our fundamental egalitarian assumptions with us, and so like an inverse King Midas we destroy everything we touch.

This “tiredness” was first chronicled by the generation of writers after World War One, who noted that “the war to end all wars” had convinced no one, and that people had become fatalistic because it was clear that society was heading down a path to doom and yet our pretense of equality prevented us from stepping off that path. Drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and life has no point.

This leads to a condition like the present day:

The migration policies of the political and other elites of Europe suggest that they are suicidal.

The West has to decide whether it wants to keep committing suicide for the pretense that every person is good, and that we all have equal potential and abilities and moral character, or whether it wants to admit that we need an external order above the human individual. Around here, I suggest the eternal social order that made Golden Ages in the past and can do so in the future, even as we prepare to take to space for the next phase of our great human adventure.

Recommended Reading