White Noise, by Don DeLillo (1985)

don_delillo_-_white_noise


White Noise
by Don DeLillo
Penguin, 326 pages, $11

Reviews of postmodern novels present a problem because the postmodern novel, which quotes freely from mainstream fiction genres and wraps them around a metaphorical core, builds itself outward from setting more than character to the point where revealing too much about the setting is to reveal the plot. The characters are generally like occupants on a fast-moving train, watching the changing setting outside the window and rarely able to take any action except periodically have extreme responses when the absurdity peaks.

White Noise entered American consciousness in 1985 and accurately reflected how Western civilization saw itself at the time: going through the motions, unsatisfied and empty, in fear of death constantly because of the purposelessness of it all, and trying to distract from that fact. The thesis of this novel might be summarized as “the self-conscious society dedicates itself to death,” and that phrase could also serve as a handy epitaph for the West. Throughout the book, characters navigate a web of rules — both official and social, but mostly damaging where values have become rules — which have converted life from a process of having a goal, to an endurance test of reacting to a civilization dedicated to social engineering removed from life itself. Characters know what they ought to be doing not on a moral level, but on a social level, as they try to have lives that others would admire. They also know how to succeed by manipulating The System and that also defines what they must do, but they have no heart in it. Hilariously, the most human scenes in this book occur when people are shopping, which from what I remember of 1985 America is pretty much spot-on accurate.

The book centers around a professor, Jack Gladney, who is the leading expert in Hitler Studies, a genre of academia he conjured up that has since become popular. As he struggles with the emptiness and sublimated fear of suburban existence, a chemical spill near his town forces its evacuation. This provides him with a backdrop for analysis of death and its relationship to the self-conscious society — that which critiques, analyzes and compares itself as itself instead of relative to some external goal, like natural law or reality at large — through the highly artificed characters of his wife and children. As in most postmodern novels, characters are “larger than life” or transparently symbolic in their attributes and roles, and his family provide most of this contrast within the book. Frequently these characters discuss death and meaning in life with the gravity of philosophers, using the consciousness of itself in the postmodern novel to allow characters to be both transparent and viable. Gladney illustrates the point of the novel in an accidental thesis statement:

When the showing ended, someone asked about the plot to kill Hitler. The discussion moved to plots in general. I found myself saying to the assembled heads, “All plots tend to move deathward. This is the nature of plots. Political plots, terrorist plots, lovers’ plots, narrative plots, plots that are part of children’s games. We edge nearer death every time we plot. It is like a contract that all must sign, the plotters as well as those who are the targets of the plot.”

Is this true? Why did I say it? What does it mean? (26)

Plots factor heavily into the narrative of the book because both shadowy government forces and individual characters constantly hide information from each other for manipulative purposes, or plots. They justify these events with “good” moral-sounding ideas but ultimately are scheming to control, and through control to have power over death by driving out any thoughts except that their lives and careers are excellent. As a result, no character speaks honestly except when in philosopher-mode, and then most of the comments are speculative as with the above. As the family evacuates from one location to another, trying to avoid the mysterious cloud of industrial waste that hovers above the city, they are left in a void of clarity created by the plots of government and corporations as well as their fellow citizens. In addition, they start to see how in their own lives they have plotted around meaning and actual connection to existence, and instead have become symbolic in what they do even if they find it meaningless. If the disaster reveals anything, it is that most of what people do is indeed unnecessary and can be suspended, but that they have no idea how to fill their own time. This outlook proved prescient over the next three decades. In addition, DeLillo observes — through his characters — some flavors of reality that readers of this blog might enjoy:

“How familiar this all seems, how close to ordinary. Crowds come, get worked up, touch and press — people eager to be transported. Isn’t this ordinary? We know all this. there must have been something different about those crowds. what was it? Let me whisper the terrible word, from the Old English, from the Old German, from the Old Norse. Death. Many of those crowds were assembled in the name of death. they were there to attend tributes to the dead…Crowds came to form a shield against their own dying. To become a crowd is to keep out death. To break off from the crowd is to risk death as an individual, to face dying alone. Crowds came for this reason above all others. They were there to be a crowd.” (73)

The crowd to which they belong has assembled itself on the basis of altruism, or the use of gift-giving from commerce to unify itself as a control mechanism (84). Gladney however cannot acclimate to this life because it is fundamentally a tool in search of a purpose, and unlike the crowds described, does not acknowledge death but attempts to hide it. He sees much of his own life revealed as pointless during the evacuation and subsequent events, and this puts him on a new quest which involves suppressing his fear of death. That in turn brings the book to a revelatory finish in which he uncovers the nature of plots, which is — in classic postmodern form, derived entirely from Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense — that symbols have replaced reality and in turn, have replaced our ability to have honest intent with constant manipulation, neurosis and control:

The drug not only caused the user to confuse words with the things they referred to; it made him act in a somewhat stylized way…The precise nature of events. Things in their actual state. Eventually he worked himself out of the deep fold, rising nicely, sharply outlined against the busy air. White noise everywhere. (310)

Here is why I get off the Don DeLillo train and call the above out as nonsense: our problem is not symbol replacing reality, but appearance replacing reality because in our egotistic altruism of equality, we have made reality-study taboo and replaced it with what the Crowd thinks. Nietzsche described the mechanism of this happening, which is that the egalitarian surge of the enlightenment changed the definition of symbols and values, forcing their re-evaluation according to their purpose and not our moral consideration of them. Popular opinion translated that into blame of the symbols themselves, since we cannot blame ourselves and admit the failure of the People’s Revolution, so we blame our tools like every lazy and inept laborer since the inception of time. Seeing this sentiment at the core of an otherwise sensible book makes someone who still lives for the purpose of excellence want to throw the book out of the window for being so tragically flawed despite so much other quality writing, thought and analysis.

As the cliché goes, a greatest strength becomes a greatest weakness, and DeLillo goes astray because he is an excellent writer with a lot to say but lacks the consciousness above that to edit this stuff down. Too many long conversations make their points through extended repetition, and too much is figurative without need to be. These characters could act out many of their ideas and demonstrate more connection to them with everyday events, and do it quickly, in the style of the father of the postmodern novel, William S. Burroughs. In Naked Lunch, figurative transfer occurred through setting and narrative voice entirely, with characters taking on roles but retaining strong personality. In White Noise, like most postmodern novels of its era, personality is washed out and replaced by an almost robotic duty to act out role. That in turn forces much of the dialogue to have the pace of a New Republic article, painfully exploring the depths of some topic without ever really gaining a position of strategic view. Burroughs cuts to the chase; DeLillo talks around it; this book could lose the usual hundred pages with no loss of communicative power.

Books exist both as objects in themselves, where the writing convinces us to enjoy the story, and within context, where they form part of the wave of thought on an idea and serve to articulate it much like the conversations they so rigidly memorialize. White Noise showed the Western world that in its postwar state, switching from culture to consumerism and ideology, it had completely lost control of its own destiny. Its people are bored, lonely, purposeless and miserable about mortality because life has literally no meaning except commerce, pleasuring others socially, and obedience. Humanity, the clever animal, plotted itself out of tension but in doing so, released itself from purpose, and so everything that we do becomes a background hum to an ego unleashed to find a purpose for itself. Our victory is our defeat, our strength is our weakness, and in the meantime, people wander like the characters in this book, giant brains in search of something to use them on. White Noise remains shocking and vital to this day because conditions have not changed, and inspired whole generations to secede from the nonsense chain of obedience to the Crowd that is modern society. Despite its flaws, it still carries the fire of discontent and emptiness and channels it outside the individual toward a loss of direction on a cultural level, and creates from that a viable critique of the lost West.

Invisible Invaders (1959)

invisible_invaders_-_movie_poster

Movies like this clarify the “golden age” of movies: things were simpler, audiences less demanding and, thanks to common cultural guideposts, it was easy to write a script that fulfilled audience expectations without having to be unduly saccharine. At the same time, movies like Invisible Invaders feature boxy plots, vague mechanics and sometimes, gaping plot holes. For a low-budget sci-fi flick however it seems entertaining enough.

The reason this review pops up here on Amerika involves the setting of this movie. Earth is under attack by invisible invaders who wander around and re-animate the recently dead, using those as avatars through which they attack humanity. This trope appears in other films, as recently as Surrogates (2009) which explores how modern humans live through their avatars, but here it takes on a paranoid dimension. The invaders want earth to surrender so it can be ruled by a galactic dictatorship. Humans resist, but must overcome their own weakness in order to discover a scientific solution to the threat.

That combination of tropes — zombies plus unseen overlords — ranks this film high on the paranoid scale, and also suggests a primitive metaphorical consciousness. Crowdism seems to animate the bodies of the recently dead, or at least hopeless, and turn them into unstoppable weapons of human destruction. The rest of humanity fails at opposing it because it simply wants to give in, hand over some of its money in exchange for peace, and get back to television, beer, donuts and shopping. As in this simple little film, the answer is found in banishing doubt and tackling the problem head-on.

Perhaps this film was more influential than realized, and lived on in Star Wars or another movie using modern editing and detailed plot structure. Maybe it was forgotten except by hipsters who tromp in groups down to basements to watch this between PBR burps. Yet for someone at the height of the early Cold War, with a Communist fifth column at home and shadowy espionage abroad, it may have struck a note. The relentless sociopathy of leftists resembles the zombies in this film, and the invisible enemy — a seductive but illogical notion of equality and the method of prioritizing popularity over truth — wanting to take over the earth resembles the leftist agenda quite closely. Without adding a spoiler, perhaps the method of ultimately solving the problem is metaphorical as well as we struggle in a later time with the same dilemma in new camouflage.

The problem with gay marriage

gay_flag

While most media commentators have focused on the gay in “gay marriage,” the real issue is invisible: that the gay marriage crusade represents domination of symbol over substance, in the name of a tiny group forcing the majority to humble itself for the benefit of centralized control. As Nietzsche and other critics of the modern State have observed, democracies tend to go out this way, demanding symbolic obedience as a means of keeping together a population that long ago lost any desire to actually work together.

In fact, to a historian, the gay marriage debacle may seem indicative of the ideological conformist actions that generally accompany the ends of empires when obedience becomes more important than competence. The Soviets, Romans, Aztecs and even Greeks went out this way. As the clich&ecaute; goes, history repeats itself, and when we choose the same path that has failed before we have committed ourselves to the same failure. When forcing people to follow an ideology is more important than the health of the nation as an organic, living and breathing whole, the writing is on the wall for the end.

Even more, looking at gay marriage on a practical level, we see the danger in symbolic realities. Gays are a minority, perhaps 3% of the population on a good day (although over-represented in media and government). Not all of those want to get married; in fact, if history shows us anything, it is that legalized gay marriage shows us how few gays want to be married. Without the commitment to biological reproduction, there is simply not as much motivation to commit to a lifetime of sexual exclusivity, despite the media tales of dying people on their deathbeds whose life-long partners were excluded from the hospital room. In other words, this issue affects very few people, but is being used to whip the rest of them into submission by government.

When you enter the age of symbolic issues, the first casualty is not truth per se but reality. Laws, rules, regulations, goals and morals are no longer reality-referential, but socially-deferential. That means whatever grabs the attention of the people out there immediately becomes issue number one, which is another way of saying that there are no eyes on the road and no hands on the wheel. Your elites have found a way to control you that allows them to keep running the country into the ground because their goal is to consume it: destroy its resistance, sell its assets and pocket the cash on a plane for the Bahamas. All parasites behave the same way, and our elites — the Cathedral — are parasites of the most common kind, just unusually successful ones that got MBAs and JDs and clawed their way to the top of a heap of other liars.

Taking this further, gay marriage gave them consent. They have successfully pacified the electorate to the point where it votes by what it is afraid of being accused of, not by what it wants to achieve. Most people, as is the nature of majorities, want us to keep on truckin’ with the good times they see in their jobs, their local communities and their families. In the time-honored tradition of stupidity, they define morality as a personal thing only, where it obviously exists on a civilization level. Like the ostrich with its head stuck in the ground, they do not see evils on their commute to work so they pretend these do not exist. Just keep your head down, work hard and take care of your family and everything will be alright — said every dying population ever.

All of this leads us to an unseemly revelation. The “good feelings” and pleasant illusions that our leaders preach to us are lies and they know it. This means for us to live in anything but an evil country, we need to immediately replace them; we are not so naïve to assume that at the leadership level a middle ground exists between nurturing health and parasitism. Further it means that, as predicted by the Greeks and Romans, democracy has yet again failed because groups of people vote with their emotions and greed, not their brains, assuming that the majority of them could even understand the issues at hand. Finally it shows that the USA as concept and reality has self-exterminated and that all sane and good people need to start planning now for what must replace it.

The hipster generation

the_hipster_generation

Apparently some millennials feel that they are “The Hipster Generation,” and there is some evidence to support this. In particular, many millennials seem to be hipsters, and millennial culture values the type of hipster lifestyle that “bohemian bourgeois” aging Baby Boomers pioneered in the 1980s: a justification of lifestyle by unique, ethical and self-expressive behavior, products and values.

Part of this originates in the fact that millennials were educated by the people that Baby Boomers put into the schools, colleges and career placement offices; they know only the reality that was considered “new and exciting” (by morons) in 1968. Millennials were born thirty years behind because they got such old, moldy and discredited theories preached to them as truth since they were in the womb. They are the spawn of hippies, and since hippies have lost their revolutionary status and become boutique identity scenesters since the hippies took over, it is only natural that the millennials end up as hipsters.

For ease of understanding what hipsters are, we should turn to the AdBusters article that initiated the postmodern understanding of what makes a hipster:

Ever since the Allies bombed the Axis into submission, Western civilization has had a succession of counter-culture movements that have energetically challenged the status quo. Each successive decade of the post-war era has seen it smash social standards, riot and fight to revolutionize every aspect of music, art, government and civil society.

But after punk was plasticized and hip hop lost its impetus for social change, all of the formerly dominant streams of “counter-culture” have merged together. Now, one mutating, trans-Atlantic melting pot of styles, tastes and behavior has come to define the generally indefinable idea of the “Hipster.”

An artificial appropriation of different styles from different eras, the hipster represents the end of Western civilization – a culture lost in the superficiality of its past and unable to create any new meaning. Not only is it unsustainable, it is suicidal. While previous youth movements have challenged the dysfunction and decadence of their elders, today we have the “hipster” – a youth subculture that mirrors the doomed shallowness of mainstream society.

As the title says, hipsters are the dead end of Western civilization. When there are no longer values and goals, we have only the ability to make ourselves look cool and unique. This requires pandering to populism by vigorously affirming the validity and importance of every precious snowflake, which is why hipsters are so PC (at least in public). It also requires the endless chasing of fads and trends so that this person appears to be “in the know.” It also requires dressing up in motley, being random in behavior and preferences, just for the sake of being different than others. In every way, the hipster is comprised of exterior traits designed to communicate with others and compensate for a lack of inner traits; with the hipster, “the medium is the message.”

Such non-people exist only because all inner traits have been abolished. Success in this time depends on conformity to a certification process in propaganda-based education, making the right polite noises about the right topics in conversation, and having enough oddball but admirable activities to have an interesting biography to paste below your CV on job applications. In such a backward approach to life, the inner traits of a human being become justifications for outer appearance, which is more important because social reality and not physical reality predominates. Under social reality, what people think of you is more important than who you are; it is essential to be seen doing the right things, but the quality of those things is secondary to having the right quantities, much in like political correctness there must be certain issues raised in all speech. This environment creates people like hipsters who are 100% external signaling to others, and as a result, have nothing of themselves left inside.

Islamoskeptical groups host “Draw Mohammed” exhibit in UK

fawstin-muhammad

Diversity does not work. This is not surprising, since diversity is paradoxical: combining multiple groups destroys culture, and creates a society dependent on near-totalitarian nanny state rule. This applies to diversity of race, religion, ethnicity and culture.

Within that framework, it is clear that the West is under assault by immigration from the other 90% of the world that, not having adopted the methods and genetics of the West, remains in third world levels of poverty, bad hygiene, dysfunction and radical individualism. One group of immigrants that seem to cause additional problems are the Muslims, who much like Jews and Gypsies draw criticism for perceived self-serving insularity.

Without commenting on the truth value of that, since other sources surely offer many opinions on the topic, the recent explosion of interest since the killing of Charlie Hebdo journalists over their satyrical drawings of the Islamic prophet Mohammed has gripped public attention. The left, willing to excuse any group that does harm to the West, ignore the violence; the right points it out. Some point out that this is not a new issue, dating back to the original Kurt Westergaard cartoon and provoking many subsequent cartoons.

Some on the right have begun forcing the issue by having contests to “Draw Mohammed” much as American activist Pamela Geller did in Dallas, Texas at which point two terrorist supporters opened fire and were killed. With this collision of cultures seeming as inevitable as the Crusades, in which young Europe responded to Muslim invasions with a massive military effort, a new “Draw Mohammed” contest has been convoked in the United Kingdom:

Support the “Draw Mohammed” Cartoon Exhibition in London!

In September 2015 Sharia Watch UK, Vive Charlie and Liberty GB will host the UK “Draw Mohammed” cartoon exhibition in central London. The event has been organised in honour of the cartoonists, bloggers and artists around the world who risk their lives in defence of free expression, and of those who have been murdered in this cause.

The organisers are delighted to announce that Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, will speak at the event.

Anne-Marie Waters, Director of Sharia Watch UK said: “It is vital, in this era of censorship and fear, that we stand together in defiance and demand our right to free expression. We will not, and cannot, succumb to violent threats. The outlook for our democracy depends on the actions we take today. We owe it to future generations to pass on the freedom we have enjoyed.”

To help make this event take place, we welcome your donations, large or small. Help us defend freedom of expression in Britain!

CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO “DRAW MOHAMMED” AND THE FIGHT AGAINST SHARIA

Further details of the event will be published in due course. Media enquiries to contact@shariawatch.org.uk

Ms. Waters also gave an interview to Breitbart in which she opined on the reasons for such an event:

Why would you arrange a Mohammed cartoon exhibition?

Because I am Spartacus and it’s an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment. Those of who believe in free speech, democracy, and Western civilisation have simply got to stand up now; both to Islamists who seek to impose their religion on to our world, and to the government and media who refuse to effectively oppose them. The greatest threat to our democracy is this casual refusal to clearly state the importance of our speech, and the greatest threat to our speech is sadly coming from Islam. We have to stop expecting someone else to take the risk of standing up to the world’s bullies, we all have a duty now.

Don’t we have a duty to be sensitive to Islam?

No, we do not. We are under no obligation to be sensitive to anyone about anything, but when the folk demanding sensitivity generally have little to say about brutal violence carried out in the name of their religion, then I think they’ve got a bit of a cheek demanding anything. I’m not talking about Islamic State either, I’m talking about Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other oppressive prison-states. We hear a lot from Islamic groups about freedom of religion, rarely in the context of Christians being executed in Pakistan however.

While these events seem transparently designed to provoke confrontation, as all but a few voices in media seek to conceal the problems created by diversity, integration, multiculturalism, internationalism and multi-racialism including Islamic integration into Europe and the USA, this event raises a necessary awareness about what is essentially a suppressed issue.

When life peaks early

american_gothic

Liberalism is a pathology. Few will say this, but it is true. While liberals accuse conservatives of having bad motivations, like hating the poor and minorities, liberals never question their own motivations. This is in part because liberals know that they are driven not by thoughts, but by compulsion. They have a compulsive need to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the collapse of Western civilization, and to distract instead with talk about dividing up the loot equally before the end.

This pathology does not even qualify as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It resembles passengers on a cruise ship hearing the horrible rending of metal caused by a collision, then breaking into the bar and passing out a bottle everyone so that the party can continue. Why stop? The end is certain, they say, as it always has been thanks to our mortality. We fear death so much we will not avoid its early arrival, or something useful like either patch the hole or launch lifeboats.

Liberals exhibit this pathology unconsciously, like an autonomic response. This is why their hive-mind works as well as it does, because when liberal leaders say the right words the crowd cannot help itself but fall into rage, or pity, and it becomes all they speak of. Like obsessive-compulsives, it rules every minute of their lives until they are able to discharge their worry. That is the root of it: fear, concern, doubt and worry. The liberal has a fragile and narrow conception of life which allows them to continue living in denial of the real problem (collapse). If it is altered, they exist in a state of panic until they can restore the illusion.

When liberals confront a threat to their fragile worldview, they try at first to ignore it. Being oblivious and not noticing are their primary weapons, because they can then argue from themselves: “I don’t see” and “it didn’t bother me” are famous liberal opening lines. If they are not bothered, by reflexive implication, the only people who are must be those who are weaker, dumber or more sensitive. Denial seems like aggressive toughness until you realize it is simply a refusal to engage with the problem, like shell-shock, panic or addiction. If ignoring it does not work, they deflect by saying that another issue is more important. When that fails, they attack the legitimacy of the threat and bury it in theory. After that, they go to their last line of defense, which is to force it to be ignored by making it taboo, much as they have done with ongoing problems like race, crime, drugs, and corruption in the West.

It begs the question: if liberalism is a pathology, what is the pathology of liberals that drew them to it? One explanation that occurs to me is that liberals simply peaked early in life, probably mid-high school. By “peaked” I mean that their understanding of the world and their ability to work with it was at its highest point during that time. For most people of unexceptional ability, their peak is also their standard operating level for the rest of their lives, or at least until senility or television claim them. Much as simpler and dumber people mature faster, they also peak sooner, but do not rise to the heights of the more complicated who require longer extended gestation but then are able to to understand more, do more, and see the world more clearly. This is why the relationship between conservatives and liberals always resembles that of an aged uncle to a young and reckless child: the liberal wants things to be new, and the uncle wants them to be correct. If the uncle and child are the same age, it becomes clear that the child peaked earlier in life and the uncle may not have reached his peak, but will do so from a position of knowledge instead of mere reaction to the world, as most children exist at that level.

If we ranked realism ability from one to ten, we might find that the third world hits a three very early in life and never changes. Almost entirely oblivious to everything around them, they specialize in short term schemes, rapid breeding and other thoughtless acts. Slightly above them are your American liberals, who clearly peak in their sophomore year of high school at about a five and extend that “a little knowledge is a lot dangerous” attitude as they go off into life. To them, there is always a parent who could write a check from infinite funds but won’t because that parent is just a blue meanie, or is obsessed with stuff for which high school kids have no use, like tradition, civilization, religion, philosophy and social order. At the far end are conservatives, who spend most of their childhood, teens, twenties and thirties baffled by the world around them, but start to make sense of it in their 40s when they hit levels seven through ten. Theirs is a complex worldview, and it takes time to knit the many threads together, where the liberal worldview is composed of only a few pieces that snap into place and restrict any further growth.

Those who peak early will always be the most popular because they have ready easy answers from a young age. At the same time, they become increasingly obsolete as they encounter real-life challenges of greater complexity, but rather than admit that they have been living a convenient lie, they conveniently retreat further into their ideology, which has become a justification for the ethic of convenience that plagues their minds and the altruistic pretense they use to pre-detonate any criticism coming their way. A society run by early peakers has nowhere to go but down because it cannot advance its understanding, where a society run by late-peakers is vulnerable because it has few simple and satisfying explanations, almost no pleasant illusions and yet, offers the best long-term hope not just of survival but of having advanced knowledge in all fields.

Democracy = Toxicity

democracy=toxicity

Reading through Christopher Lasch’s excellent Narcissism, the thought comes to mind that Nietzsche’s “nihilism” (which I more accurately refer to as solipsism, including necessary fatalism toward anything outside the self) is not so much a disregard of all value and truth, but a determination to not notice anything outside of the individual. This fits within its role as apologism and compensation for the collapse of Western civilization by misdirecting attention toward non-problems in lieu of looking at the larger problem staring us all in the face.

How does a civilization get to this place? In my view, the progression goes like this: a few First Families set up a healthy society, which causes prosperity. This creates a breeding bloom in the lower echelons, including the top-ranked of them, who form a mercantile caste. These make their money from the lower and find themselves bumping up against social conventions and social standards, such as are normally encoded in culture through morality and aesthetic preferences. As a result, they demand increasing power to abolish these, and they do it with a “think of the children!” style argument for altruistic egalitarianism. This eventually becomes democracy, or mob rule, at which point the electorate demands both no rules and free subsidies at the expense of the more prosperous. This eliminates the middle class and flattens the society, at which point it must hire mercenaries and foreign labor to do its work, which both guts its economy and prepares a next round of enemies to finish it off.

A more profound progression occurs through the idea of democracy itself. Voting separates cause and effect; the pulling of the bar that elects one candidate or another bears little visual or discernible relationship to what happens. Once the election is over, voters are free to blame both politicians and other voters, which conveniently removes any responsibility to think of themselves as having had an influence in the process. That in turn causes them to view their votes as more of a conversational event, or at least an emotionally symbolic one, instead of a decision-making process. Quality suffers accordingly. Voters have little “skin in the game” because socialized costs are distributed to all citizens, which encourages voters to vote terribly with the intent of evading the consequences of their acts by cheating on the bureaucracies which implement the resulting insane rules.

This situation creates a type of “learned helplessness” where voters assume that because elections always lead to failure, there is no point caring about them, and because they can blame everyone else for what went wrong, voters can justify stealing from those others. This learned helplessness allows voters to be both cynical and feel like cynicism is a “moral” response, because the voters have become victims of the system, and they in retaliating against it are striking a blow for decency. From this learned helplessness, voters learn to consider themselves victims of society and therefore to demand as much as possible to recompense them for this perceived injury.

In this way, democracy creates narcissism/solipsism. Voters think of themselves as independent from the consequences of their actions and unbeholden to consider the effects on others. The sense of unity as a society is replaced by a competitive outlook where each voter tries to sabotage society as much as possible in public acts while in private attempting to steal, cheat, lie, graft, etc. away as much wealth as possible. Because democracy reduces the question of leadership to “what is good for you” (as an individual), individuals respond by ignoring important issues like any long-term needs, foreign policy, social order and other issues which impact all citizens and benefit none specifically. The result is a classic human self-consumptive process where everyone cheats, everything said in public is a lie, no one can be trusted, and only dishonest sociopaths succeed because they pitch to the herd the lies they know it will reward from its own short-sighted greed.

Conservatives have no loyalty to country or party

flag_of_the_united_states_of_america_1776-2015

Patriotism is a dirty thing, when you break it down. It means loyalty to the State that claims to represent a particular nation-state, and as you probably know, “nation-state” is what replaced “nation,” or a community of people of the same heritage. Like loyalty to the Republican party, this is a surrogate for conservatives; we represent an idea.

Although people like to pretend there are third options, politics can be broken down into two threads: those who believe in results and those who believe in intentions. The former, like lab scientists, look at history as a laboratory and pick not only what “works” (survives) but what produces the best results. The latter focus on what should be or what ought to be or any other nonsense that serves to conceal their desire to convert politics into a social question, where like when talking with friends most people cheer up when a certain thing is said. They want it to be social so they can work around the results-based nature of reality. It is a shortcut, a con job, a bluff and a deception.

Those who like results-based politics are called conservatives. We conserve what works. We do not conserve a specific age or program, only what works. Because we are not idiots, we recognize that “works” has degrees; even Communism “works” for a few years. As a result, we pick the optimal: what works best for the best possible results. Your daughter will survive if she becomes a meth-addicted hooker, and have children and perpetuate the species, but she will experience optimized survival if she instead devotes herself to discipline, wisdom and has a traditional marriage and nuclear family. Conservatives like that optimum. This leads us to a sense of “transcendence” or awareness-beyond-materiality in life; when you choose optimums, you start to see material as a means to an end and not an end in itself. This is part of the maturation process of becoming a conservative.

With all of this in mind, it is impossible to say there is such a thing as a “conservative country” or even “conservative party.” Conservatism is a principle that some hit upon more than most and so, generally, they get conservative support as a kind of shorthand. This support however comes on the condition that the party, person or country be generally also using conservative principles. When that fails, a conservative cannot morally support that entity because he or she knows it to be going in a bad direction and against principle. Mainstream conservatives would love if it they could obligate all of us to always vote Republican, because then they could do anything they wanted and be just as corrupt as the left. That would achieve the same effect as having an ideological hivemind as is the basis of liberalism.

For this reason, conservatives remain the perpetual alert guardians who do not allow themselves to be lulled by the mistake of categorical thinking, which is that assuming some conservative acts make 100% of what an entity does conservative, which in this case is a substitute term for realistic, morally right and sensible all in one. The point is that we can never entirely delegate to a symbol all that it stands for, and conservatism can only be represented by its fulfillment as a result. This lets us turn to the USA and whether we exist here as patriotic citizens or an oppositional group.

For conservatives, the USA is dead as concept. It turned on its own citizens with affirmative action, feminism and other ideological programs. It redefined citizen from its original meaning — the WASP settlers of this new world — to sell the franchise to anyone and everyone for profit. It discriminated against the prosperous so it could subsidize new groups of voters, in the Soviet style. And now most of its citizens are delusional robots that repeat the propaganda and vote for it time and again, electing our least experienced president ever (Obama) and potentially electing a known criminal (Clinton). This situation is… over. It is burned, done, destroyed and those who control it — the elites, the Cathedral — are simply making money off selling what is left. There is no such thing as an “American” anymore. There are only people who recognize that this civilization has failed, and those who are still in denial.

The death of the USA comes within the broader context of the death of the West. Despite impoverished origins, Western Europe prevailed because it adhered to the idea of promoting right ideas and better people above the rest. When it got successful enough, democracy took over and reversed that process. Nothing but failure has followed and now the West, too, is a dead letter. The USA collapsing is part of the broader scheme of Western European society falling apart everywhere it exists, and the solution is to reverse democracy and socialism, and instead go back to rewarding only the ideas and people who are above the norm. The principle of democracy is to normalize all things to a single standard of equality, where that of traditional Europe was to rise above that standard. It is no surprise that both are falling.

For most of my life, I would have gone off to fight for this country and its people. No more: these people are freeloaders on the acts of myself and my ancestors, and they promote a vision of America that excludes me and replaces me with a mixed-race, anarchic, individualistic society that somehow exactly resembles third-world societies everywhere. Their goal is to destroy me, my culture and everything I stand for. As a result, I owe them not allegiance but hatred. Much as a President once said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” I now turn to my fellows and say:

Mr. Western European, tear down this civilization!

There is nothing left for us here except parasites who wish to share in the benefits of our acts while destroying the principles that made those acts possible. This is not a civilization; it is a Ponzi scheme based on the wealth of the past. At this point, a conservative realizes the arc of history has shifted and, once a conqueror, he is now the conquered fighting for the liberation of his people. The pendulum has swung in the other direction. This means that the USA is not something to be patriotic to, but its opposite: it is the enemy and it must die.

The high cost of pluralism

the_machine_heads

Pluralism, or the idea that multiple standards of values and behavior can co-exist within the same society, carries a high cost that takes years to visualize. If this cost popped up immediately, people would recognize it, but because it hides behind years and complexity it is worse than invisible to them; they actively deny any symptoms of it that they do happen to observe.

In a mono-cultural society, each citizen faces the day with the question of how to do what is right. Since whatever gods may exist left us no writing on the walls, we must infer what is right from what has worked for us in the past. This raises questions of “who is us?” and “what does ‘worked’ mean?” The former addresses both cultural group and divisions within it like class, and the latter addresses standards of values that are unique to each culture. For a German, “success” has more to do with efficiency and architectural elegance than an Italian, for whom success involves a greater degree of leisure and aesthetic beauty. Either way, a standard of values and behavior is defined.

In a pluralistic society, multiple standards of values and behavior co-exist, which means in theory that people would act according to the intersection of those. In reality, it means that people obey the level of performance held in common between them, which creates a bias toward the lowest standard because anything higher is not shared, so the weakest link in the chain defines the chain. When put into practice, this means that people do the absolute minimum possible and achieve mediocre results while attempting to avoid offending all of the groups in the pluralistic society, each of which is struggling to preserve its own values by asserting taboos and rituals. Taboos reflect things that “offend” or disturb, and rituals are activities which affirm the importance of the group.

As a result, people in a pluralistic society act not toward what is right but what is most convenient that avoids offending others. This creates a negative standard of behavior where people are not reaching for any positive result, only trying to avoid offending others or wasting time rising above the mediocre minimum. For this reason, all pluralistic societies tend to be places with low standards, but many bickering enclaves, which causes internal friction that further lowers the common standard until the society is barely a society at all. This is the condition in which most of the world exists and to which most people wish to be lowered, because it places so few restrictions on them that they can indulge in self-aggrandizing egomania and “feel” better about themselves without having to achieve anything of note.

Why are white people so concerned with race?

the_romans

Many people out there ask why white people, especially those with classical educations, are so fascinated by race? To the majority of people out there, race seems like an external characteristic like hair color or eye color.

The answer is that history is more trustworthy than lab science, and history shows us a clear and unbroken standard: when the genetics of a population go, it never rises above a level of third-world style living. For examples of this, we tend to point to the ancient Romans and Greeks, who left behind miscegenated remnants who now constitute the third world of Europe.

In the past, children above the dividing line of the middle of middle class would read about the history of these ancient empires, and see that while we cannot identify a single touchstone for their decline, the symptoms of their decline included many things beloved by liberals: race-mixing, sexual tolerance and promiscuity, colorful cities dedicated to hedonism, welfare states and parent-like governments. All of these together point toward a cause of their decline, which was probably philosophical before it became psychological and then physiological as the consequences of their bad choices etched themselves into body and genes. We can see this cause was something like liberalism, an apologism for failure and decline which justifies itself through the nexus of altruism and egalitarianism. All who grew up under those educational burdens realized that whatever the singular cause, we wanted to avoid that type of decline, which meant beating back the symptoms until we could dislodge whatever mental block caused us to decline in the first place.

At this blog, I spend a fair amount of time writing about that cause, but it may be simpler than we think. Degeneration in any form creates degeneration in all other forms, so lowered standards and the raging egomania that supports them must be fought at every level wherever it appears. There may be no single touchstone event, only a symptom which then, as people justify it as legitimate (a process called apologism) and consider it in the abstract, gets adopted as a principle and leads to other parallel symptoms. These together constitute decline, which then changes the standard to which people must adapt to survive, which causes the independent and intelligent to die out and be replaced with the conformist, obedient and oblivious. At that point, the racial substrate of the population can still be recovered by changing the standard of adaptation, but generally these empires then invite in foreign labor and outbreed to the point of unrecognizability, having reversed thousands of years of evolution in the blink of an eye on the time-scale of history.