As you sit down to your Thanksgiving dinner, you will be full of thoughts of what you are thankful for. The most important ones you will not mention because they are invisible to you. You cannot see them because you enjoy them every day.
First on this list might be stability of your civilization, unlike every other human civilization which like Italian cars and German soap operas seem to be non-stop screw-ups from the start. Most people live in disorder, filth, corruption and incompetence. We here in the West do not, although the gap has narrowed over the past few decades, and not by the acts of others.
What got us this way are two things generally considered opposites: capitalism and collectivism. Both have been replaced by modern, inferior variants that are useful to our society only because they do not offend our leftist ideology.
Capitalism in its raw form is the idea that economic decisions should be made by those who will face the consequences for them. In other words, a bakery must make the choices that determine if it lives or dies, and citizens must make their own spending choices and thrive or flail accordingly. Keep in mind that despite those radical opposites, most of us fall somewhere in the middle.
Collectivism, in its original form, meant that we understood ourselves as a society and kept its interests front and center. That meant that we took care of people who helped that society, in accord with Plato’s “good to the good, bad to the bad”: people who do good should be rewarded, and people who do bad should be driven away. It is natural selection in its social form.
These two offended leftists, naturally, because leftism is based on a single idea: “I deserve to be included for society no matter how little I contribute or how delusional I am.” It is freedom not to be accountable to reality. That is why it is eternally popular; accountability to reality determines who thrives and flails, and so it is not a popular reminder among humans. Using social control, which is peer pressure plus the assumption of goodness, they can banish reality and replace it with equality.
(That summarizes leftism from nose to nethers as far as its essential ideas; it is subsequently draped in layers of theory, studies, facts/interpretations, emotions, etc. that are mostly gibberish and always taken out of context. If you see a leftist, watch their hands instead of listening to them speak. They are most likely lifting your wallet.).
Both capitalism and collectivism have now come to mean something else through the transformative powers of leftist ideology. If our society has one disease, it is the use of a broad and simple idea to replace all other ideas, and in this case, liberal egalitarianism has replaced the original meaning of these terms.
Traditional society liked capitalism because it was efficient. Capitalism has never existed without restrictions because, before modernity replaced the idea of having a goal as a civilization with the notion that civilization existed solely as a means of empowering the individual to be a precious snowflake, capitalism was always subordinate to goals, values, social standards and practical demands. There were also legal restrictions placed on it, usually to protect the consumer but just as often, to prevent the boom/bust cycle where something makes a lot of money so everyone does it, neglects everything else and in the process bankrupts themselves. Crazes, trends and fads are as destruction in markets as they are in society itself, and just as vapid.
But the traditionalists had a different approach to regulating it. Instead of writing a million laws, they allowed organic forces — culture, religion, superior individuals, and social standards — to regulate demand instead of supply. Where moderns tell businesses what they can manufacture, the traditionalists tuned in their people to certain ideas of what is good, and regulated products through that. As a result, things were built to last, more elegant and often far more effective than their modern variants.
In the same way, collectivism has been spoofed. Once it meant that we were all in it together working for the same goal, so anyone who was trying to do that was welcome. This offends the leftist idea of universal inclusion, which has its roots in individualism: the individual wants to always be included, so he desires the removal of any restrictions on who is included so that he always makes the list. After leftism, collectivism means that we all work and throw money into the pot to support everyone else, no matter how useless they are — or how much we dislike them.
A healthy society needs both of these forces. A civilization cannot exist by economics alone, and by making the choice to use solely an economic system — capitalism or socialism — the society signals to its people that it will not have a values system, competent leadership or purpose, which turns people into miserable drips who feel correctly that their lives are without meaning. A society cannot exist without some sense of guidance, direction, and purpose, which is why traditional collectivism is needed and not its modern variety, which obliterates all of those with a single guilt-ridden imperative to be uncritical, non-discriminatory and in other words oblivious in choice of the people surrounding you.
While I admire the French New Right, I find their continued embrace of socialism to be problematic. Once you create benefits, you create an all-powerful state to enforce them, and you destroy the idea of regulating inclusion by who is useful. No society with standards that low can exist, and it imposes on people an immoral duty to spend their time, which translates into money, supporting those who they would not otherwise support. For this reason, socialism is the great evil that destroys societies and rightists should never support it. Under socialism your entire society becomes contorted to fund the bennies and justify them, even at the expense of society itself.
By the same token, I find the reliance on absolute capitalism as a motivator to be unworkable, which is why I am not a libertarian. Libertarianism always shifts leftward because it is based in the egalitarian idea of “Everyone do what they want, and the best will magically rise to the top.” This is far from true, as any look at the most popular movies, music, art and novels will show us. Instead, pure capitalist societies are a race to the lowest common denominator and, like socialism, they replace the idea of a purpose to the civilization with the idea of it facilitating individuals. This is also bad.
I have said in the past that if people were to look more deeply into mainstream conservatism, they would find a way of life more radical than their ideologies and economic systems could ever be. That is because the roots of mainstream conservatism — now buried under layers of lies by 75% leftist “neoconservatives” and “libertarians” — are extremely radical. In that view, most people are scatty little monkeys who will if the whip is not cracked simply engage in every venal behavior possible. No matter what economic or political system we use, the truth of humanity remains and never changes, so we must first look toward producing healthy individuals. That requires the opposite direction from egalitarianism and infuriates liberals, but it explains why conservatism is less formalized.
The idea from which conservatism arises is traditionalism, which has been around in many forms over the ages. It is basically thus: over the centuries, we have found some things that work and some that do not. These do not take the form of ideology, but of knowing our world and its logic, so instead of being individualists, we submit to natural order and find our place in that. Then we are known by how well we rise to that challenge and what it reveals of our moral character, which is the most important part of an individual. By applying this rigorously, we can breed ourselves into a better class of people and make a civilization as great as that of the ancients at their height.
Naturally, this is not a popular message. 5% of the population can understand it, so to the rest it sounds like gibberish and they hate it for making them feel dumb when they desire the pretense of intelligence (they do not understand the Dunning-Kruger effect either). Even among those 5%, traditionalism is controversial because it places limits on the individual, and they have been raised in a civilization that thinks the ultimate good is liberating the individual from limits, even — especially — reasonable ones. This is why people always look for an ideological solution, and choose variants of capitalism and collectivism as the answer when they need a more nuanced approach.
The importance of a nuanced approach is that it avoids collapse. Rigid, sharp-corners thinking like leftism and libertarianism will run a society into collapse as paradoxes emerge based on the attempt to impose a square form over an organic topography. This will force people to deny reality so they can keep ideology intact, and will then cause massive internal friction. On the other end of the pendulum’s swing, however, it is important to remember that both collectivism and capitalism — in their original forms — are vital, and trying to stop the decay brought on by liberalism by limiting them will also lead to failure.
I would like to introduce you to a talented writer who, unlike most of his peers, correctly perceived and communicated the issues on a topic. In doing so, however, he was misled from the truth he should have been looking at.
This man is Michael Cardo, and he writes about the problem of “identity politics.” He understands this phenomenon well and describes it perfectly, but that requires accepting the idea that our purpose should be the sub-issue that identity politics types want to replace the bigger issue.
For the entrepreneurs of racial identity politics, identity is a fixed, ascriptive, collectivist way of being that determines what it means to be a “good” black or a “bad” white, and vice versa.
Here he correctly describes the control method of racial identity politics: it specifies what you must do to be considered good in your tribe, and this allows punishment of those who deviate.
The unasked question is “Why is group identity so important?”
A good white, on the other hand, is one who engages the world through a haze of guilt, regret and shame for the sins of her forefathers.
According to Samantha Vice – a critical race theorist who, astonishingly, claims to be a philosopher – whites in South Africa “ought to see themselves as a problem.”
He’s right, but so wrong. The problem with “good whites” is that they are liberals indoctrinated in liberalism. Liberalism, leftism, Communism, Socialism and collectivist anarchy are all different variations of the same idea, which is that of creating a State to support individuals instead of having us all work together toward an actual goal.
Listen to liberals: they will tell you that for them, racial politics are a subset of class politics. Class warfare is how they take over nations with revolutions, kill off the smart people and install a permanent moron majority that will keep voting leftist up until the day the vodka stops coming.
There is no point projecting the problem of white self-destruction into racial politics; it is part of liberal politics and explains why democracy becomes tyranny.
To justify democracy, we must believe that everyone is equal enough that they can make good decisions about our political future through voting. Daily we see massive evidence to the contrary. At that point, we are in “reality optional” world. Votes are a product. This product is produced through illusions. When most people prefer an illusion, who are we to tell them no? They’re equal, which means that they get included in society no matter how crazy their ideas are or how little they contribute, so that we can support our pretense of being moral altruists.
This egalitarian impulse makes our government seem like an ultimate moral good through its method of wealth redistribution, which means that those who do not support it become social outsiders. This is how democracies become tyrannies: the pretense of “good” + the need to censor, manipulate and hide the grim reality that is constantly clashing with the illusions that most people prefer.
Liberals therefore support anything which weakens society and strengthens government, which means destruction of culture, heritage, values, religion and even the sexes. All must be faceless equals who blindly carry out the ideology of absolute good, equality.
For this reason, every natural thing in our lives is replaced with an ideological substitute. Normally, we have self-esteem from our own acts and deeds; under democracy, we get self-esteem from having the right ideology. For whites and blacks alike, this means hating whites and supporting every minority group whose present helps destroy white society. This is the liberal way, and it is the root of the “identity politics” Cardo describes.
These Social Justice Warriors can barely complete a sentence without crowbarring “whiteness” and “white privilege” into it. Rampant, too, are the “microagressions”, “cultural appropriations” and “trigger warnings” that their counterparts on US campuses have popularised with such discourse-deadening success.
All of these terms are what the historian Robert Conquest would have called “brain blindfolds”, “mind blockers” and “thought extinguishers”. They obstruct understanding and stifle debate.
This means there is absolutely zero difference between them and every other leftist revolution in history. The point of ideology is to stop thinking. You find one concept that seems to explain everything else, and rally people behind it because it flatters them. Equality flatters us because it makes us sound like “good guys” to the chanting mob, so we all want to be egalitarians. Every good business is in favor of equality so it can flatter the pretense of its customers, much like they often give small amounts of money to charities so that people read the story and think, “That XYZ brain mulching business sure is run by a lot of nice guys! I’ll buy my brain mulching videos from them!”
Worse still, the identitarians have, as their articles of faith, a disregard for the Constitution, a contempt for non-racialism, and a vaguely articulated socialism that identifies “neoliberalism” (whatever that may be) as the root of all evil.
Ideology consumes all else. It is the absolute good, remember. Everything else can be sacrificed to it, including fellow leftists. They have no problem throwing each other under the bus if it tightens the Overton Window or radicalizes the base (the majority of people who support them). It is mass hypnosis.
Cardo’s article is brilliant. He writes better than I do — not that this is all that difficult! — and clearly articulates the problem in a way that all can understand. But in doing so, he becomes the bull rushing after the cape, and that cape is designed to lead him away from the obvious: all that we see now is part of the plan that always happens under leftism.
Diversity is part of the leftist agenda because it is (a) class warfare and (b) destroys society so it can be replaced with government. Leftists do not care if that group is black, Asian or mixed; they just want a group to use to fragment society, and they will invent whatever backstory of victimhood, oppression, cruelty, poverty and sadness needed to support that. As in courtrooms and divorces, there are never 100% innocent and 100% guilty parties.
Read between the lines, and you’ll see a simple message. Liberalism created identity politics to destroy us by replacing sane and natural ideas of heritage, culture, and self-esteem through upholding a values system or social standard. Liberalism is here to destroy those things and leave us with only totalitarian government.
We need to turn back now before we all become zombies rushing blindly to our fate.
Across America and Europe, people are slowly awakening from the mental haze of illusions, propaganda and false promises offered to them by democracy. They are re-learning the lesson of ancient Athens, which is that once you go democratic, you get rich but your society self-destructs.
People are beginning to see the split between what they are told is true, and what is actually true. This is leading them to see how they are sold on certain “wants” as “needs,” and this has caused them to spend recklessly on the non-essential while neglecting the essential, which is the condition of our civilization and its future.
For years democracy trapped them in the dream. Follow us, and be Enlightened™. On this new path, you will be more moral than the kings, more powerful than the lords, and the master of your own future, beholden to none! While some glimpsed the demonic nature of this promised control, few had the bravery to confront the massively popular illusions with hard truths that were difficult to explain and understood by only a few.
Thanks to the relentless incompetence, greed and gift-giving of our rulers, we have learned that all the free stuff and good feelings came at a price. Namely, our societies do not feel healthy as they one did, but stand revealed as moribund dystopian wastelands waiting for the final fall into permanent third-world, mixed-race, cultureless and brainless status.
Imagine Idiocracy meets Blade Runner: a devastated landscape of heavy industry, ruling over a population from the low-IQ lands of the third world, mixed into a featureless grey mass that wants nothing except more food, drugs, porn, alcohol and gadgets to distract itself with. Surrounded by an environment that was ruined as it was displaced by the growing society, it is a perpetual future of existential misery but infinite ways of concealing the problem.
Their first taste came this week through a survey which revealed that most Americans feel like “strangers in their own country,” and see a bleak downward ramp for our future:
According to the Reuters survey, 58 percent Americans say they “don’t identify with what America has become.” While Republicans and Independents are the most likely to agree with this statement, even 45 percent of Democrats share this feeling.
More than half of Americans, 53 percent, say they “feel like a stranger” in their own country. A minority of Americans feel “comfortable as myself” in the country.
You can see the cogitation as it happens. “But… we voted for tolerance and peace, not violence and war!” It does not occur to them — yet — that by backing down from strong signals of identity and a unique place in the world, our society invited us to become the world’s punching bag. Or that diversity naturally creates conflict as it puts opposing cultures and groups with different abilities and inclinations in the same face and makes them compete for a share of resources shrinking with each person added.
As mentioned here before, we once thought the future would be glorious, but now we see it as a dark place like a technological Brazil with more uncertainty. As we go, we realize, the rest of the world will collapse inward as our dollars disappear (or are devalued) and a vast rush will appear among us looking for the scraps.
Where once people assumed that the triad of diversity, democracy and pluralism would save us from all ills, the problems with each have come out of the closet. Diversity and pluralism, or the idea that radically different groups who envy and hate each other for unequal abilities can co-exist in the same society, has fallen as we fight over what our standards, customs and values will be. Increasingly it becomes clear that under diversity and pluralism, we can have none of the above, and will instead get a lowest common denominator dictated to us by a government that will find endless reasons to increase its power.
Now that the chaos brought on by multiculturalism is out of the closet, more white Americans are feeling oppressed and alienated now that they are experiencing what it is like to be a minority in a country with an abusive mixed-race third world soon-to-be majority. This is not the future they were sold, they say, in which America would stay the same but other people could come here and participate in our wealth. But they are slowly realizing that the dream and the nightmare are the same, and that they were simply not told about the bad consequences, and with their voting, led themselves into the trap.
A majority (53%) of Americans say that American culture and way of life has mostly changed for the worse since the 1950s, compared to 46% who say it has changed for the better.
…More than four in ten (43%) Americans say that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while 55% disagree. Opinions about ‘reverse discrimination’ have remained fairly constant over the past few years. Half (50%) of white Americans—including 60% of white working-class Americans—agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while fewer than three in ten Hispanic (29%) and black Americans (25%) agree.
Notice the racial split: people with third world origins generally think things are going just fine, while white people are noticing what it is to be marginalized. They are also noticing that third-world groups are more straightforward about their self-interest, while whites are deferential and altruistic. Third-world groups come here as reverse colonizers, conquerors and slavemasters, not as friends. The few who realize this is a bad idea are marginalized in their own communities.
As part of our descent into permanent Brazil with Wal-Mart and Hollywood, we are seeing that third-world behaviors — including corruption, crime, lack of hygiene, dishonesty, laziness and deceptiveness — have taken root in our own communities as third-world people have arrived in significant numbers. It did not occur to the voters that people in the third world live the way they do because the majority of their people behave in such a way, or that there may be a biological condition — such as the few smart ones being killed as witch doctors — corresponding to the low average IQs of their societies and translating into their third-world conditions. The voters bought the line that the third world were equal to us in every way, and simply victims of misfortunes and oppression, when in fact colonialism often improved standards of living in the third world.
In fact, wherever liberal policies have been most successful, white people are most marginalized and conditions are at their worst, causing voters to regret the decisions they made. At the time, those decisions flattered them and made them feel like kings, tossing out gold to those peasants who looked on them with admiring gazes. Now they realize that instead they were waving a red flag in front of a bull, and now it is charging, and its demands will only increase — even as our society bankrupts itself and must sacrifice its essential functions to keep paying those benefits.
Just 28 percent of white New Yorkers approve of the Democratic mayor’s performance, and 59 percent now disapprove, up sharply from the start of his term, according to a citywide poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College. …
Mr. de Blasio’s support among white residents has descended to a level so dismal that it has challenged a core assumption of his political strategy: that in a diversifying city, moderate white voters had lost much of their electoral influence, and that the mayor’s path to re-election runs through nonwhite communities.
The only problem here is that the voters exist in a permanent state of disconnect. In the next election, they might try to roll back… until the opposition candidate says something that offends their pretense as cosmopolitan, intellectual, educated and empathetic voters. Then they will run right back into the arms of the people creating the disaster now. As polls consistently reveal, there is a disconnect in the minds of voters between what they voted for and the results achieved. They do not understand the cause and effect relationship, or how their own pretentious and emotional decisions in the voting booth created the disaster before us now.
According to Rasmussen’s presidential approval rating poll of November 10th, 48% of “likely voters” approved of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, while 51% disapproved. On the same day, however, Rasmussen Reports published results of a poll conducted November 1st-5th showing that only 27% of “likely voters” opined that America was headed in the right direction, while 66% believed the country was on the wrong track.
…Recent polls by Rasmussen Reports show both that approval of Obama as president norms roughly 50%, while about a quarter of “likely voters” have believed America is going in the right direction. (Every poll has sampling error, of course, but most of these percentages won’t vary by more than plus-or-minus 3-5 percentage points if every adult American were interviewed.)
…The Gallup Organization, for example, reported that Obama’s approval ratings for November 1st-3rd, 2015 were 49% approved vs. 47% disapproved. Just a few days earlier (10/25-29/15), a poll conducted for NBC News/The Wall Street Journal found that 27% of the public opined that the U.S. was headed in the right direction, while 64% believed it was on the wrong track.
…a McClatchy-Marist poll (10/29-11/4/15) has data on assessments of Obama’s job performance and opinions about the country’s direction. In this poll, Obama’s job approval-disapproval split is 48% vs. 48%. The same poll, however, shows that 60% of the public think the country is going in the wrong direction, while 35% opine that it’s on the right track.
How could so many people be so wrong? We could point to the average IQ of 98 in America and say that only about 15% of the population possesses the congenital intelligence to understand the consequences of political actions, and that most of those are busy with jobs, football and shopping. But even more, there is a disconnect in democracy. It relies on making decisions based on trust in the candidates, and that these salespeople will tell us the true results of their policies, instead of erecting them and then skipping out at the end of their terms, enriched by their power at the expense of the rest of us. Even more, people are oblivious to the fact that governments justify their power with every group of suffering people they can “help,” and that politicians — like salespeople — are never held accountable for their promises or their actions.
What the voters do not realize — and will never realize — is that not only are the nightmare and the dream the same, but democracy and demagoguery, or the art of manipulating people through image and emotion, are one and the same.
In democracy, the vote decides the rule and after that, the voters (“we the people”) lick their wounds and accept what has come. Before the vote, they see contrasting promises based on theories untested in reality. Whichever one flatters the voters the most, wins. Voters love to be told how smart they are, and how free things are coming their way, and how it’s that other group — the team in red and not blue — who is stupid, ignorant and inbred. This makes them feel better about themselves. So like Pavlovian hamsters they keep pulling the lever, but then, since they have done their civic duty, they forget about all of it until something upsets them. When it does, they react emotionally, and then the other team picks up the ball and as the crowd cheers, runs down the field. Only later do they realize that both teams are fixed and playing for votes to get power to get money, and that they have zero interest in doing anything right for the citizens.
In their view, the voters are pig idiots who pull a con job on themselves from their own greed, and deserve to be manipulated and destroyed for their stupidity. Watching the voters get it wrong yet again, one has to conclude that there is legitimacy to this outlook. In particular, voters love any emotion that makes them feel like heroes, so they go in for altruism and gift-giving. This is the root of a toxic philosophy that separates cause from effect.
According Progressives, there is no original sin. All men can be improved by Darwinian evolution, social evolution, education and the compassionate leadership of the moral elite until they reach perfection. Perfection can be achieved rapidly, provided the enlightened leadership is obeyed in all matters down to the smallest detail of your life, your words, your deeds and your thoughts. Nothing is neutral, nothing is too small to be beyond the need for your betters to place it under their control. Nothing is apolitical.
Because there is no original sin in the Progressive system, all suffering must arise from the institutions of civilization. To be specific, in a semiliterate misunderstanding of Darwin, human societies are said to ‘evolve’ that is to say, to move by trial and error in the general direction of inferior to superior, drive by mystical forces of history. The flaws in human institutions hence are caused by an insufficiency of evolutionary pressure, that is, a lack of the wars and internal social breakdowns that drive social evolution to ever higher and more enlightened forms. This theory makes so little sense one is tempted to conclude it is not meant to. One assumes it is meant only to sound impressive and justify violence.
We all know what the future is: more of the same. They will borrow more money and keep the sad farce alive. Good people will be forced to work even more hours at even more boring jobs to pay for the rest, who will grow in number and in demands. If their demands are not met, they will start race riots or terror attacks, which they will do anyway because everyone knows only one group can be on top and every group wants to be it. Trust will decline, order will erode, and yet, you will be able to buy your way out of it if you sign on with a super-larger corporation. Then you will owe your life to that corporation, and in the few hours a week of free time that you do get, you will be too tired, distracted, and depressed to do anything but nod and maybe even vote. This is the future you chose; you did not vote for it directly, but for the type of delusional policies that have been proven by history to create it. That is the basis of the whole system: the disconnect between an image and what is required to create it, and the revelation that what promises to create it will make something far different indeed.
Let us look at the true root of this problem. It makes no sense to blame the third-world groups; we invited them here (or kidnapped them and sold them for our own profit). It makes even less sense to blame the politicians, because when you see a group of people behaving like idiots, the only thing to do is take advantage of them as any wealth they have they obviously do not merit. The rich? They are people like you and me, trying to escape this world of horror by buying their way out of it. It makes no sense to blame corporations, because they are only trying to survive in an increasingly corrupt and criminal world. Who to blame?
I suggest we look at the people making the decisions: the voters.
As Walt Kelley famously said, “I have met the enemy — and he is us.” Voters want to be flattered, and they support any policy that gives them more freedom — or more license — to behave as amorally as possible. They hate rules and they hate standards, including values and social order, so they vote to dismantle those at every turn. Even when they vote “conservative,” they vote for pseudo-conservatives who let the sick show keep on going on refrain from telling us that, as individuals, we need to grow up and get our act together so we have a brighter future. Voters especially love destroying other groups. They vote for things which will beat down their competition, destroy their neighbors and sabotage anyone who can tell the difference between truth and lie. They use “the poor” and “the minorities” to justify these passive-aggressive acts, but the real target is each other. They each think they’ll win the lottery and climb to the top of the heap by shoving others down.
In short, voters are morons. Most of them are biologically incapable of making sane political decisions, and all but a few of the rest are clearly emotionally and morally incapable of doing the same. The voters are the problem. They are the enemy here, and the only solution is to disenfranchise them by ending democracy. There is a reason democracy destroys every society that adopts it, and that is that most people behave like pigs, and in groups behave like insane pigs, and that voting causes them to switch off their minds and stop monitoring what their leaders are doing except once every four years for two weeks, leaving politics unmonitored and reckless. That is the heart of our problem, not any scapegoats we find.
Switching from democracy is so easy that even democracy can do it. We need to find a place where we can vote to end democracy, or seize power through money or the military or revolution. Then we need to delegate to the best among us the choice, and they will pick others who are also good, and make them our new aristocracy. These people do not get a day off and they are held accountable because they are in office for life. They fix the problem or it destroys them. The voters can go back to making bad decisions in their own lives and, without a power-hungry government to bail them out and control them, will be accountable for the first time. It will be a time of learning, a new golden age for humankind, but it only begins when we remove democracy to solve the problem of our terminal decline.
Our coddled First World Problems students at the universities, like all leftists, are children of privilege.
We did not have leftists in the West until the French made life so much better for the poor that those r-strategists outbred their superiors so greatly that revolution was sure to follow as soon as a crisis occurred that could be blamed on leadership and not merely overpopulation. Leftists follow this model: superior forces create and stabilize, leftists breed like yeast, then blame their superiors and take over. Classic rebellious child with too much free time scenario.
Humans do not like to face reality. That is in fact the primary challenge of life itself: learn reality. Deal with what is actually there, instead of your thoughts about it, your interpretive dance, your blogs or excuses. Politics falls mostly into the latter camp of “excuses.” Excuses for the lower echelons of society and their low performance. Excuses for those who act in criminal ways. This disguises the fundamental psychology of the leftist, which is excuses for himself.
Leftism demands equality but what it actually wants is state-sponsored individualism. Or: I don’t have to discipline my inner monkey. I can be as useless as I want to be, so long as I tip-toe around the rules and don’t get caught, but I do not have to participate in any kind of plan, social standards or even measures of competence. I am perfect, just the way I am, and no one can tell me “no” — in fact, the rest of you should get out of my way because I am the original Precious Snowflake.
If you want to know why Leftism is eternally popular, it is this attitude. Like Mr. Rogers, it tells people they are OK just as they are. There is no need to discipline themselves to stop their inner monkey from raging, or to shape their minds to understand reality outside of them, or even to worry about the consequences of their actions and be accountable through them, which occurs before those actions through a mental process we call “morality.” They just need to be. They’re beautiful just for being humans and doing the monkeyshines that humans all can do because they’re lowest common denominator: dancing, making “art,” copulating, chatting, getting drunk, eating and posting to Tumblr.
This is what conservatism is up against: inertia. Liberalism validates human behaviors that are useless by declaring them “equal” — just as important as — heroic acts, essential acts and exceptional acts. Liberalism is the anti-Darwin. It argues that people do not need to improve themselves at all, but most be easy on themselves. It is anaesthesia for a dying species. It says don’t worry about the obvious failure that we are undergoing, just bend over and think of England.
The conservative impulse toward religiosity comes from this realization. We see life as a moral battle for mental clarity. We recognize that most people are still monkeys, and by most we mean 98.6% or so. They live through their impulses, are in denial about realities, and their agenda is wholly based in a fascination with their own appetites, lusts, shopping and desires. As a result, they have abdicated the higher mental functions that allow planning and creation, including of civilization itself.
Zen Buddhism bases much of its approach on the same idea. To a Zen Buddhist, the problem of life is that most people are mentally undisciplined monkeys who are destructive by the very nature of their careless, solipsistic, self-obsessed and oblivious behavior. This is the essence of the Zen master slap: “Wake up! Reality is out here, not in there, inside your head! Your life is illusion and you have no idea what you’re doing!”
In the West we refer to this tradition as esotericism. An initiate, usually a teenage boy, is put to a quest as part of his study. On that quest, he has to snap out of the umbilical sac of solipsism and start looking at life not just as real, but through a critical eye. What are the actual motivations of others, despite what they say? What are the strategic positions people take and what are they protecting? What does this tell us about them? You may notice that the same questions arise in the analysis of religious texts, or in a good literature degree, which you can still get in some rare places. They call it critical thinking there.
The point of this is that the appeal of liberalism is entirely a lie. It justifies ignoring the essential task of life and replacing it with an easier task. This appeals to idiots, lower castes, and neurotics, and these types will never stop pushing this agenda. In sensible societies, those in power are aware of this and constantly exile such people. You cannot do that with the rule of law; you need the rule of exceptional and far-sighted men. If you stop, the insane people build up and then they overthrow you with superior numbers, since oblivious people think they are immortal — after all, they’re solipsists — anyway and so are prone to attack in thoughtless groups.
With this in mind, the last thing we want on a college campus or anywhere else is a “safe space.” Safe spaces are solipsism bubble zones where people can go if they fear someone might mention reality. In safe spaces, people can bloviate on about their ideological ideas without being contradicted by someone who has noticed flaws in their narrative, i.e. reality peeking through the carefully-constructed artifice. Safe spaces are designed to blot our reality and replace it with a giant neurotic and morally flatulent human mind. They are the triumph of narcissism, fear and intolerance (of reality!) over common sense, logic and survival. They are suicide cults.
Bashing college kids for this is like swatting a piñata or shooting fish in a barrel. We all know they are delusional; they’re kids with no experience of the world. They are simply acting out the stuff their professors taught them, and in this case, their professors are neurotic Generation X-ers re-enacting what their neurotic Me Generation parents taught them happened in 1968. But looking past this easy game, we should think about safe spaces in general, and the tendency of societies to make them.
The first people to found a society are conquerors, which means both warriors and nerds. The warriors clear away the other monkeys who will steal, sabotage and subvert — they call this genocide sometimes, but it’s the same reason that American settlers killed Indians and Israelis blew away Palestinians — and the nerds start putting together irrigation, sanitation, libraries and other essential things for civilization. At some point they both look at each other and shrug. The basics are done. Now all that is left is to improve what is there. And here is where the problem enters.
When a society is first minted, it has a goal: push back against that which holds it back, including nature and ignorance. This is a forward moving task. After it loses that simplicity, it needs a new task. The most obvious is to try to protect its people from the dangers of life. This is a backward moving mentality, and it always takes the form of looking at who is hurt or gets hurt and trying to “fix” situations that are the consequence of these people’s inabilities or solipsism. This is the start of the idea of safe spaces; society itself is the safe space.
I say we undo all of it. Abolish the FDA; take whatever drugs you want and if you die, we throw you in a ditch. Remove the warning tags from mattresses. Get rid of speed limits, DUI laws, handicapped parking, movie ratings, the lot of it. Those things create a mentality that destroys civilizations because they create an intermediary in place of reality. People no longer worry about the consequences of their actions, but whether those actions are legal. Get rid of all of it. 99% of our laws need to go into the dumpster with the rest of the “think of the children!”-style neurotic rule-making.
We need a society where for every action, the person making it is thinking, “What will happen when I do this?” Not lost in a fog of assurances about how the government would ban it if it weren’t safe, or how he has guaranteed health care, or how his friends think and that might make him a YouTube star. Have him thinking solely about the results of his actions. Don’t give him a forest of laws and nagging nanny moral codes so he can attempt to justify what he is doing. Measure it all by the outcome. If you try to shoot Hitler and you blow a hole in an orphan instead, it really is not different from killing that orphan any other way. Reality matters. Consequences matter. And in the end, you either helped a situation or hurt it — but helping can be hurting, if it enables weakness, stupidity and solipsism to thrive.
I remember the rise of the administrative state back in the 1980s. Suddenly there were warning labels on everything. As a result, people stopped thinking about the consequences of their activities. They just looked for the warning label and, if they didn’t see one, went ahead. If things went wrong, they blamed the government: “There should have been a warning label!” Government gladly paid the fines from these lawsuits because it saw an unstoppable, infinite way to justify increases in its power. All they had to do was find some poor idiot who couldn’t figure out that pulling the pin on a hand grenade and inserting it in his rectum was a bad idea, and boom! another 400 bureaucrats and cops were hired, another 10,000 lines of regulations and twenty federal laws were added, and the great leech-off-society parasitic jobs program called Government could continue.
What encouraged them further was the fact that people — who are basically monkeys — liked this condition. It meant there was always someone else to blame for their own stupid acts, and they could “save face” by blaming the government or some poor manufacturer for whatever stupid thing they did with a product. If the mattress does not tell you not to light it on fire and ride it into a pool of gasoline, your life-changing injuries are certainly not your fault, Mr. Plaintiff!
I’m sure the original intent behind these laws was to protect the poor and stupid from destroying their lives, but like any true evil, the laws took on a life of their own (like a cancer, come to think of it). The dumbing-down of our society really began at that moment. No one was any longer accountable for understanding reality and making the moral decision to ensure their actions did not end in bad results. Nope: there was a warning to read, and someone to blame if it went badly, and because Government was now running the show, there was always some kind of benefit to apply for when you maimed yourself and could no longer work.
No consequences for anyone. That’s what a safe space is, and that’s why all of them should be abolished.
A young woman attended a rock concert in Paris and terrorist guerrillas attacked the civilians inside. She wrote her thoughts on the event in James Joyce style stream of consciousness, and the media picked it up. It seemed to express something that others also wanted to express.
Here is her text:
You never think it will happen to you. It was just a Friday night at a rock show. The atmosphere was so happy and everyone was dancing and smiling. And then when the men came through the front entrance and began the shooting, we naively believed it was all part of the show.
It wasn’t just a terrorist attack, it was a massacre. Dozens of people were shot right in front of me. Pools of blood filled the floor. Cries of grown men who held their girlfriends’ dead bodies pierced the small music venue. Futures demolished, families heartbroken. In an instant.
Shocked and alone, I pretended to be dead for over an hour, lying among people who could not see their loved ones motionless. Holding my breath, trying to not move, not cry — not giving those men the fear they longed to see.
I was incredibly lucky to survive. But so many didn’t. the people who had been there for the exact same reasons as I — to have a fun Friday night — were innocent. This world is cruel. And acts like this are supposed to highly the depravity of humans and the images of those men circling us like vultures will haunt me for the rest of my life.
The way they meticulously aimed at and shot people around the standing area I was in the center of without any consideration for human life. It didn’t feel real. I expected any moment for someone to say it was just a nightmare.
But being a survivor of this horror lets me shed light on the heroes. To the man who reassured me and put his life on the line to try and cover my brain whilst I whimpered, to the couple whose last words of love kept me believing in the good in the world, to the police who succeeded in rescuing hundreds of people, to the complete strangers who picked me up from the road and consoled me during the 45 minutes I truly believed the boy I loved was dead, to the injured man who I had mistaken for him and then on my recognition that he was not Amaury, held me and told me everything was going to be fine despite being all alone adn scared himself, to the woman who opened her doors to the survivors, to the friend who offered me shelter and went out to buy new clothes so I wouldn’t have to wear this blood stained top, to all of you who have sent caring messages of support — you make me believe this world has the potential to be better, to never let this happen again.
But most of this is to the 80 people who were murdered inside that venue, who weren’t as lucky, who didn’t get to wake up today and to all the pain that their friends and families are going through. I am so sorry. There’s nothing that will fix the pain. I feel privileged to be there for their last breaths. And truly believing that I would join them, I promise that their last thoughts were not on the animals who caused all this. It was thinking of the people they loved. As I lay down in the blood of strangers and lay waiting for my bullet to end my mere 22 years, I envisioned every face that I have ever loved and whispered “I love you” over and over again reflecting on the highlights of my life. Wishing that those I love knew just how much, wishing that they knew that no matter what happened to me, to keep believing in the good in people. To not let those men win.
Last night, the lives of many were forever changed and it is up to us to be better people, to live lives that the innocent victims of this tragedy dreamt about but sadly now will never be able to fulfill. RIP angels. You will never be forgotten.
You don’t come to Amerika for the usual tripe and drivel that is designed to make you feel better about your society failing by blaming scapegoats and inventing unicorn crusades to “fix” the wrong problems. You come here for the skinny.
There’s one word to describe the above:
This is not an attack on Ms. Isobel Bowdery, who realized her career was about to get a huge bump if she caught some fame, so she wrote down the right clichés in the right order expressing the right sentiments, illusions and pretenses. She is no different than a good student writing down what his teachers want to hear and handing it in.
But still the same, this is comical. It’s someone writing from Teletubby World where everyone is a happy little bubble, dedicated only to their own introspective personal drama, and the world is just a backdrop for that which never changes. It is the typical effete, narcissistic and oblivious outlook of late civilizations.
In Isobel-Teletubby World, society is not a struggle for anything. It exists for the citizens to do — to do whatever they want, of course! There are good people, and bad people, and the good people never hurt anyone or stop anyone else from doing anything. Nope, even when attacked in a theater where they outnumber the attackers 400 to 1, they will never step on someone else’s dream. No, it’s better to die in clumps and then engage in emotional self-expression on Facebook.
No one wants to use such strong language, but people in the West today are spoiled brats. They think the world exists for them to make the choices they want on an arbitrary basis, and that if it it does not, it is just mean. Upside-down frown goes here. They have a strong moral commitment to the idea that it should be a nice place where everyone nice can do whatever is nice and everything will be fine and maybe we will never die.
But that’s not real, or even all that interesting.
Nietzsche tells you to blame Christianity, and surely the good/mean fantasy dichotomy could come from that. Others blame commerce, and definitely the idea of life being like a shelf of products with arbitrary appeal fits in there. I tell you that what you see here is what happens when people no longer have a goal and have taken society for granted: the narcissism which is always lurking in each one of us comes out. This narcissism predates our passage from ape to human. It is the oldest sin, which is for an animal to assume that because he conceives of the world through his mind, it exists in his mind. If sin is error, this is the grandaddy of errors: a denial of reality.
And yet that denial is the idealized behavior in the modern West. For Isobel, the world does nothing but exist as a support structure for personal drama. It is a world of feelings that can be shared with other people (if they’re “good” — meanies don’t have feelings). It is brutally human to use our ego as a counter-attack against our smallness, and to not claim but treat the world as if it is a giant buffet for us to sample, which requires we imagine it has no significant consequences. Sure, we cannot murder or rape, and we must go to work and pay taxes, but most people avoid those crimes and do those activities anyway so that is not an imposition. To someone in that frame of mind, an act of terrorism seems like the hand of Satan reaching in to paradise for no purpose other than cruelty.
Most voters not only live in this nonsense world, but they created it by refusing to listen to any candidate who does not endorse it. Intellectually, it is baby food; like the half-lies of a salesperson who just needs to make enough fools buy his product for him to have that house in the suburbs. Morally, it is deceptive. We all know the world cannot be this simple, but we want it to be. As soon as we have the wealth and power, we insist that everyone else agree it is this way, so that we “feel” safe even if we are not.
What Isobel expresses is a consequence of this control, or the forcing of everyone else to act as if reality is not real and the fantasy world is the ultimate reality. Like domesticated animals, they do not fight back, but go trembling to their doom. They blame the instrument of their demise, not the illusion that led them to this point. Control creates a mirror image in citizens, much like their mirror neurons learn the world around them by mimicking its structure. People who are controlled come to rely on that control, in the Stockholm system way, but also blame that control for all their problems, which is why they like it. People enjoyed the Soviet Union because no one was ever accountable for their own behavior; the State was, because it had total control. That was why individualists supported it in the first place: much like regulation of an industry removes the onus from that industry to act responsibly, since they only need to comply to laws, total control removes responsibility for one’s actions and accountability for the motivation behind them. Under total control, everyone is a rodent acting in self-interest and no one ever is to blame.
Our method of control in the West is what Isobel expresses in her message: socialization, or people getting along with others. Teachers love it when everyone gets along, as do housewives and Republicans. They don’t want to see conflict, because conflict is “bad” because it interrupts our perfect solipsistic paradise. They want everyone to be nice and to exclude those who are “mean,” which translates to conflict never arising because we are in good conformity. No one will raise a controversial issue for risk of being not-nice. Everyone will agree everything is fine because they want other people to like them. The only things that can be attacked are those that people universally agree are mean, and those are uncontroversial, so people use them merely to signal their own nice-ness. It is a perfect world, a perfect illusion, and it is how societies generally self-destruct: they domesticate themselves, lose their ability to respond to reality, and then fall apart when reality intrudes.
Let us look at the big point that Isobel makes:
It didn’t feel real.
I’m sorry, is this planet earth? The one that has been wracked by wars from its earliest days, where Barbary Pirates roamed the seas and bandits lurked in wait throughout the countryside? The one where various ethnic groups are always murdering each other, frequently successfully, and the globe is a map of bones? Or even the place where drive-by shootings and knife fights are common? What about the periodic outbreaks of disease, the huge hurricanes, or the asteroid that will eventually, statistically speaking, eliminate all life here? The only way one can have such an outlook is to exist in a constant state of denial.
And yet Isobel is not the only one.
Lunatic socialist president Francois Hollande doubled down on the illusion by saying that France not only refused to awaken from the dream, but would enforce the dream on its citizens further in order to keep them asleep:
Hollande said the nation will honor its commitment to take in 30,000 refugees over the next two years, assuring the mayors, “France will remain a country of freedom.”
…“Some have wanted to link the influx of refugees to Friday’s acts of terror,” Hollande said, evoking calls by French and American conservatives to close the borders to fleeing refugees. But he declared the nation has a “humanitarian duty” to help migrants escape war-torn Syria.
Whatever happens, we must be nice. And if our policy is completely nonsense and stupidity, we’ll generate a whole lot of rules to bind it so that people feel better about it. Reality? That’s on another planet, man, no one is paying attention here anymore.
But this is typical. As Richard Fernandez points out, people would rather save the pleasant illusion that feel a small amount of pain by facing reality and acting on it:
The dilemma the West now faces is that it cannot survive on the basis of the platform which its elites have carefully constructed since WW2. They are being beaten to death with their own lofty statements. They must either continue to uphold the vision of open borders, multiculturalism, declining birthrates, unilateral disarmament and a growing state sector at all costs — in other words continue on the road to suicide — or retreat. As recent events at American campuses have shown, when faced with the choice of saving the Left and saving the actual world, the odds are that “the world” goes over the side first.
What needs to be done? This isn’t rocket science. It’s clear that cultures do not mix, but can only assimilate each other after a long period of conflict, which means that diversity is both suicide and genocide. The solution is to shut the borders, deport anyone who is not indigenous genetically to each country, and then resume what worked before the mass appeal madness of the liberal century, namely building up culture and the moral and intellectual quality of individuals instead of relying on liberalism and its illusions to be our substitute.
Our world is formed of three forces — diversity, democracy and pluralism — that are different faces of a single force, individualism. Individualism is the oldest evil of humankind because it always leads to narcissism; first, the individual says that his needs come before all else; second, when he is protected from accountability and consequences for his actions by the first postulate, he becomes narcissistic. Imagine a Hollywood star living alone in a vast mansion, with enough money that he must never face society, and you see the kind of spoiled, bored, empty and miserable brat that modern society creates out of its people. It does so with diversity, democracy and pluralism as methods of isolating the individual from accountability to reality.
As others have pointed out, reality-denial is a sin, and like all sins, it eventually becomes deadly, because like the asteroid it is statistically certain that over time, the piper will have to be paid — it is just not clear when. Like Malthus and other dire predictions of our illusion, its date of impact is unclear, but the inevitably is clear and just makes us more nervous and defensively vapid as time goes on.
Europe’s embrace of secular humanist multiculturalism as a belief system in place of religion and nationalism will not go away anytime soon, if ever. If it persists as the dominant Weltanschauung Europe is likely doomed. Change, if it comes, will emerge from popular opinion among the non-Islamic European masses, and the movements and parties that represent them, like the National Front in France, or Pegida in Germany. This is something that the elites will battle vigorously, possibly with both police and military forces. Civil unrest and the repressive measures that they may provoke may weaken Europe further, undermine democratic principles, and possibly make things even easier for Islamic radicals. But if European elites will tolerate popular change without imposing authoritarian crackdowns, Europe has a chance in this regard.
What no one will tackle is that this is a two-way relationship. Establish democracy, and the voters will demand illusion. Establish illusion, and you force people to engage in it exclusively. At that point they become domesticated animals, shaped by the hand that disciplines them, and when the control illusion fails, they simply fragment because they know no other way of life. This means that no one can even discuss the issue honestly because they are too busy emulating the past, and even that past is not what they think it is:
As Charles Cooke writes:
In the last two hundred years, there have been periods during which there were no immigration laws at all, and periods during which those laws were complex, and even evil. There have been periods during which outsiders flooded in, and periods during which the borders were all but closed. The system has been unpredictable: A Japanese expat heading for California in 1885 would have been welcomed with just an inspection; his grandson, applying in 1933, would have been summarily turned away. Romanticize it as we may, this area is just not as simple as we pretend it is. When a free-speech or Second Amendment advocate notes in absolute terms that this is a nation founded upon certain political precepts, he is correctly reminding his audience that the government is legally allowed to restrict his liberty in only a small number of ways. When an immigration advocate appeals to history, he is doing little more than begging the question.
What he doesn’t say here is that history runs in cycles, as de Tocqueville and Huntington noted, because democracy consists of pleasant-sounding ideas that unite people, but when they are applied, it turns out that reality is more complex than the universal homilies that attracted democracy. Mob rule is based on feelings, and then when those feelings produce disaster, there is a backlash. American immigration consists of repeated attempts to let in everyone, followed by disasters, at which point American law allowed people to either remove the immigrants or exclude them, at which point they self-deported. Europe has a similar history marked more by pogroms than democracy natterings, but the cycle remains the same. The domesticated sheep lunge after their feelings in order to show everyone how nice they are, and then it explodes in their faces and the remaining adults — a dwindling group over the years — take over and fix the mess.
The latest terrorist drama in Europe represents just another iteration of this pattern. In Isobel-Teletubby World, everyone is nice and pleasant and just wants to have a good time. But then some meanies appeared, and they have done something terrible and it is very sad, but that does not mean we should change what we are doing, because — unlike them — we are nice. Nice is sociable and should be rewarded through more socialization, and if another terrorist attack comes, it will feel just as unreal because we have shut it out of our minds, eyes slammed tight shut as we distract with mindless self-indulgence and hope for painless deaths.
The utilitarian assessment is usually wrong. For the price of Budweiser, we could have good beer; for the price of fast food, quality food. But profit is made by cutting expenses and increasing advertising to lure in the masses.
Conservatism, Inc. — the Republican party in the United States, its counterparts in Europe, and their media hive — follow the same model. Real conservatism means taking on the illusions of liberalism, but that can entail failure, so it is safer to merely be the opposition party and rake in those donations.
Not only is the above not conspiracy thinking, it is sound economics. In a time where politicians depend on voters as representative of a certain number of dollars, and no culture exists to keep people honest, count on self-interest as the dominating force.
Mainstream conservatives have created a myth for themselves: as individuals, work hard and get ahead, do what is right, and go to church. Ignore others. You succeed at their expense if necessary. Not only is this morality, but also Darwinism. In nature, the best try to rise above the rest.
In the end, this results in the kind of groups we see across the third world: a few rich white people at top, ruling over the vast toasty masses who are illiterate, low IQ, mixed-race and generally dysfunctional. The third world would not be in the mess it was in if even a plurality of its people were capable.
The glitch of this is that it entails giving up on civilization. Society comes to serve the individual, and some rise to the top and live a good life, but only as slaves. They are slaves to their businesses, dependent on their private security, and have to keep a low profile so the surly groundlings do not riot and overthrow the government yet again.
In the airport at a nearby city, every time there is a revolution in South America, we see lots of people in the duty-free shops, speaking Spanish and buying luxury items. Generally they appear Spanish, but over time, they have become darker and more Asiatic in appearance.
What happens is that as the civilization goes, so go its elites. The people who rose to the top by beating out others now exist in a “bubble world” of their own wealth and social group. They become bored, selective outbreeding occurs, and soon they are “white” in name only.
Even more, they have ceded civilization. They cannot enjoy the simple pleasures of walking down a village street, or going to the market, or relaxing. They are always targets, aware that the masses over which they rule not-so-secretly hate them and will rape, rob, kill and maim if given the chance of a few seconds.
This is why mainstream conservatism fails: its answer is not to fight, but to protect the individual, and in so doing, it makes conservatives a target. In Russia and France, such people were executed. In South America, they live in fear, and now in the United States and Europe they are realizing that even their gated communities depend on rule of law, public services and some governmental competence.
Conservatives have abandoned civilization for too long. An oncologist would recognize liberalism for what it is, a parasitic organism comprised of the lower echelons of society attempting to destroy the higher. It has no more complex ideation; it is simple resentment, based on the universal tendency of every group to clobber whichever other groups it can dominate. Because its members are less brave than socially crafty, it works entirely through passive aggression, at least until it has the numbers to go on the usual murderous rampage.
Yes, you can beat the system. You can be rich and rise to the top. You can beat out all the surly groundlings. But you will forever also be a slave. You will work long hours and never be able to relax. Eventually, you will be absorbed by the genetics of the people below, and never reclaim what once made you proud of yourselves.
The only conservatives to realize the truth of this matter so far have been the extremists. Hitler dreamed of a thousand-year Reich to rival the ancient Greeks; Mussolini saw the restoration of Rome; today’s New Right sees a revival of European civilization as a world leader. All of these miss the point however, which is that the goal of civilizations is to avoid self-destructing genetically.
You may not particularly like your lower-caste neighbors or their ways, but they are part of the same ecosystem as you are. You share biology. Their steady path upward through Darwinism, with the best rising and the rest falling, provides future people to serve those roles and maintain civilization. Wealthy elites cannot do that alone, as the collapse and genetic absorption of South America shows us.
If conservatives are to ever have hope again, it is in abandoning this slow retreat. Realize that we either take over civilization and point it toward health and qualitative improvement again, or we are lost. You personally may avoid it, and your children even, but then you will be destroyed, and all of the history of your people and that once-possible greatness will vanish forever.
When an event like the Paris attacks happen, the excuses begin. People choose non sequiturs instead of rational responses. This seems baffling until we examine their motivations.
Most people want simply to believe. To believe they are on the right path, that their lives will succeed, that they will be well-regarded by others. This lets them make it through the day, which is all they hope to do because most live by not wanting to die, not having anything they really look forward to.
To keep that belief alive, they need to avoid criticizing the direction of our momentum. Any big changes would mean both that they as individuals must change, and that they as individuals have been doing it wrong for some time, which they interpret as an attack on themselves.
For this reason, they delight in non-solutions. And so it was when three Islamic extremists shot up Paris and left 89 dead, the standard response from 99% of humanity was to choose a non-solution.
This non-solution took two forms: the more aggressive screamed nasty things about Islam, and the less aggressive shrieked about how we should not blame the refugees.
Neither group will address the elephant in the room, which is that diversity of any form is poisonous. You can have social standards when everyone is the same. When they are not, your social standards become injustice and are removed.
This is not “Us versus Them.” It is “Us versus all Others.” Not that we have to go to war with them, but that we must exclude them, even when we like the group involved (like Jews, Koreans, Japanese or Irish).
To every group, there is an implicit ranking in the world of those who are succeeding relative to those who are not. Any group above them on that list is a target. They have more stuff that we do; we can invade and take it. This is because civilizations at a lower level do not understand what it takes to get to a higher level, just like fools can dress up as judges but would do a horrible job.
Every other group wants to invade and take our stuff. This takes two forms: the aggressive form wants to attack us, where the passive form wants simply to show up as refugees. The two are the same impulse: changing ourselves is hard, so we should either move somewhere easier, or invade that place.
We stand alone in the West. We know who we are — we are Us — and we know that anyone who is not-Us does not belong among us. That is the only way we or any other group is able to survive.
We do not need to think ill of them to make this decision. Whether they are good, bad or in the middle, the Other do not belong among us. Whether they come in peace or in war, they do not belong among us. Only we belong among us.
All of the fools posting jokes about Islamic goat sex and demanding we bomb ISIS belong in the camp of denialists. So do all of the fools posting about how the refugees are innocent. Neither sub-topic has any bearing on the real topic, which is how we survive without the Other among Us.
Our civilization has real problems. Its falling birthrates indicate misery and narcissism, its ongoing leadership problems show democracy has failed, and its continued reckless expansion shows a lack of standards. Those are the real task we need to fix.
But we cannot do that with Others among us, because as we improve our social standards, it will clash with the Other. For that reason, our best policy begins with taking everyone who is not indigenous to our civilizations, and sending them (gently) on boats to far away.
When you look back through history, this mistake happens time and again. The Holocaust was one form of it. Hitler should have realized that he needed to deport and push back anyone who was not ethnically German; instead, he fixated on the Jews, although at first he wanted to repatriate them.
Had he stuck with that policy for Jews, Roma, English, Chinese and liberals alike — gently putting them on boats to elsewhere — he would have achieved a lasting blow for sanity. Instead the urge to scapegoat took over, which resulted in the big point being missed.
Big point is: there is only Us and Other. There are no grey areas. We must preserve Us, so all of the Other — no matter how nice, smart and clean they are — must go back to their native lands.
Our smug and self-entitled news media have wasted no time in coming up with a counter-meme for the disaster in Bataclan, Paris yesterday. That meme is:
These horrible terrorists are the people that the refugees who are flooding over our borders are running from. Therefore, it’s unfair to blame the refugees for this.
Then they sit there, wide-eyed and vapid, awaiting their reward for pleasing the Great Khan… errr… Stalin himself… errr… the emotionally dramatic mob.
Like most leftist arguments, this one is a misdirection:
- The problem is diversity, not refugees. Refugees are one type of diversity. That destroys the host society and wipes out the indigenous people along with the newcomers, leaving behind the “third world trail mix” of mostly-Caucasian but African/Asian hybrids that seems to be in place in most failing societies.
- The refugees bring with them this type of society. Our society did not develop into jihadi terrorists who shoot up innocents in theaters; theirs did. Something happened there that is different and bad, and refugees are bringing it here.
- We must be able to act in self-interest too. Almost all of the world is always starving, failing or otherwise unsuitable for our occupation. We are the exception. It is an easy answer for them to decide to come here and take advantage of what we have, but they cannot produce it, nor can they uphold it, as we see from the remains of once-thriving white societies in Brazil and Mexico.
- The solution is for them to stay at home and fix the disaster there. When your government is bad and you are surrounded by religious crazies, the answer is to man up and fight the bastards back. Drive them into the sea. But it’s easier to just throw up your hands and go somewhere for free welfare.
These are not nice easy brainless and brain-numbing points like the media gives you. They require some intelligence to understand, and therefore, will be ignored. But they are there for you to understand why this media trope is a lie.
Our media and our politicians are obsessed with control. One form of control is the ability to spend the lives of others, to organize them, as if playing with dolls in a dollhouse. The talking heads on the news and in print love to do this. They were not personally harmed, so for them, the others are mere symbols that the talking heads will arrange into whatever form flatters the talking heads the most. This is one of the biggest problems in modern society: people manipulating others for their own personal sense of well-being.
Back in reality, what is happening is this: civilizations go to war with one another. One method of war is terrorism, another is refugee-dumping, like Castro did to the USA during the 1980s. We are fools if we accept either, but that is exactly what our politicians and media want us to do.
When Michel Houellebecq hits the news for his new novel, Submission, it makes sense to remember his roots: writing about the tedium of modern life and fleeting glimpses of beauty, truth and purity that tempt people from it. Usually, as tragic characters, they cannot realize that beauty because of their broken psychologies and neuroses.
Houellebecq burst onto the scene in 1997 with Whatever, a cynically humorous book — think Louis-Ferdinand Celine or William Burroughs — about the failure of modern life. Its characters struggle through pointless and boring jobs, alienating sexual relationships and dysfunctional families, all while wandering through a 21st-century dystopian wasteland that is both beautiful in its ruin and crassly plastic in the assumptions through which most people survive.
Two years later came Elementary Particles, a classic postmodern novel — think Thomas Pynchon’s V — where two characters take opposite versions of the same path. Written much about wave/particle duality, as a metaphor for both the fragmentation caused by individualistic society and the soul itself, this novel traces two brothers as they wander through the endless existential pitfalls and career successes of modern France. It defines the West handily: to succeed while feeling empty and never having what one actually needs.
After that, Houellebecq wrote Platform, a book which compared sex tourism with terrorism and found moral and existential emptiness at the root of both, and The Possibility of an Island which examines isolation through immortality while looking at the nature of cults, as the West increasingly begins to resemble one in the book. He followed that with The Map and the Territory which explored the difference between symbol and meaning, in a nudge toward the idea that nations are more than mere boundaries but are formed of a shared idea, feeling and spirit. All of his books center on the same notion, which is that modern Westerners are hopelessly lonely because they have removed themselves from life through layers of abstraction.
Houellebecq came on the heels of another artistic movement that took up the thread of a chain of ideas:
The downfall of the illusion started with two important thinkers and a musical movement. Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber, wrote a treatise called “Industrial Society and Its Future” in which he identified technology as the primary enemy of humanity, but also illustrated in clear Nietzschean terms the pernicious influence of Leftism and liberalism through their common origin in egalitarianism. He analyzed them through psychology, not ideology, which helped dig deeper toward the source of our decline. Michel Houellebecq wrote a book in 1997 called Whatever that simultaneously revealed the insanity of liberalism, the inanity of today’s style of work, and the empty misery of modern sex lives, also digging into the psychology of modern life rather than taking Leftist ideas at face value. The musical movement of “black metal,” a type of violent, alienated heavy metal, reversed the psychology of rock music which described itself as “good” in order to defend the callow pursuit of individual desires and karmic drama. The rock approach was both hedonistic and based in “protest songs” or declarations of the victimhood of the individual, cruelly forced to submit to social order, standards, values, and anything else which stood in the way of self-gratification, echoing the egalitarian ideal of liberalism.
Black metal turned its back on “good”; it aspired to “evil” and rejected all that was popular, human, and based in the individual in favor of a naturalistic wildness and feral self-interest like one might find in a Jack London novel. Where rock music assuaged the fears of teenagers that they would be inadequate in some Darwinian contest, black metal affirmed the need for war, death, and competition to restore the strength, honesty, and appreciation for natural beauty in humanity. In doing so, it transcended the individual, and while much has been written about its tendencies toward Satanism, the real drive behind the occult leanings of black metal seems to have been a rejection of the moral binary that made people believe that “good” came from flattering individuals with equal validity granted to all their desires. In rock, the individual and the social group become one; in black metal, the social impulse and the individualistic are together rejected. The morally obedient shopkeeper is replaced by the feral and lawless warrior, artist, and adventurer.
These rising ideas came only a few years after Francis Fukuyama penned his famous (and now partially retracted) The End of History and the Last Man, which posited a final evolution of humanity into liberal democracy, state-subsidized consumerism, and multiculturalism. Some conservative writers explicitly rejected this notion, most notably Samuel Huntington with his The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, in which he argued that history was very much alive and continuing through conflict between civilizations, which were formed of ethnic, cultural, and moral commonality more than by political and economic ties.
Putting Houellebecq into this context, we see him as one of the steps in the groundwork of ideas that led to the explosion in right-wing thinking that linked nationalism, anti-sexual revolution, anti-modern and anti-consumerist thinking together. This followed the Kaczynski/black metal nexus that linked the right with a more intense form of environmentalism that demands, like the Deep Ecology mission statement, that we re-order our society so that it does not create behaviors that damage the environment, instead of applying the band-aid of regulation and energy efficient appliances that leftist environmentalists like.
Others have seen that Houellebecq is the standard-bearer of the new rightist resurgence:
Last week’s Spectator carried a piece about Les nouveaux réactionnaires, French intellectuals who reject the culture of 1968 and the politics of multiculturalism. As Patrick Marnham writes:
The new reactionaries are convinced that one of the cornerstones of French culture, ‘freedom of expression’, is dying. They reject ‘post-colonial guilt’ and are appalled by ‘cultural relativism’. To get down to the nitty-gritty, they take the view that France’s sovereignty is under threat from Arab immigration. Europe’s migration crisis has highlighted their fears, and the lip service that President Hollande pays to Angela Merkel’s refugee-quota system — widely unpopular in France — has further aided the reactionaries’ arguments.
The neo-reactionaries don’t appear to be reactionaries as such, just people who have fallen out with the Left over multiculturalism just as neo-conservatives fell out with the Left over Communism. No true reactionary could argue that a “golden age” began in 1789, as the article states – a year that brought about the “regicide state”, in the words of the late Fr Jean-Marie Charles-Roux.
It is for this reason that many of us who read Moldbug do so in the context of Houellebecq, or more appropriately, as a series of libertarian arguments designed to make us see Houellebecq’s point of view. Other movements like The Red Pill started angry but found themselves coming around to Houellebecq’s observations, such as that men are lonely because of a lack of lasting and faithful love. Even the most recent New Right resurgence has a distinctive Houellebecquian tone (that word just broke my spell checker) in that it looks more toward identitarianism as a source of commonality than a pragmatic adaptation of policy.
Others have noticed the insight that Houellebecq is conveying:
Like many people who pretend to parle a little francais but get tired after reading a page, I’ve only just now read the newly-translated “Submission,” Michel Houellebecq’s dystopian vision of a near-future French republic that succumbs willingly to a vaguely Tariq Ramadan-esque form of political Islam. When I say “dystopian,” the casual reader may infer — as many people did when the book first appeared, literally at the same moment as the “Charlie Hebdo” massacre — that the dystopia is the Islamicized France, that Houellebecq is trying to do for Islamism or “Eurabia” what Orwell once did for Stalinism. But if you’ve read the keener reviews (or Houellebecq’s previous novels) you probably understand that no, actually, the dystopia is the contemporary West, and the Islamified future that Houellebecq’s story ushers in is portrayed as a kind of civilizational step forward, or if you prefer a necessary regression back to health.
I sort of knew this going in but even so it was remarkable how — well, I think neo-reactionary is really the only term to use to describe what Houellebecq seems to be doing in his portrait of contemporary France and his mischievous prophecy about its potential trajectory. And I do mean neo-reactionary in the internet-movement, Mencius Moldbug sense of the term (if you aren’t familiar with this particular rabbit hole, good luck): The overt political teaching of “Submission” is that Europe is dying from the disease called liberalism, that it can be saved only by a return of hierarchy and patriarchy and patriotism and religion and probably some kind of monarchy as well, but that religion itself is primarily an instrumental good and so the point is to find a faith that actually convinces and inspires and works (and that’s, well, a little manly), and on that front European Christianity and particularly Roman Catholicism is basically a dead letter so the future might as well belong to Islam instead.
Kaczynski saw liberalism as a psychological disease; black metal saw it as moral cowardice; Houellebecq sees it as a spiritual disease (calling to mind one of the greats of Swedish death metal, who composed an album entitled Terminal Spirit Disease). Perhaps all three are right. Perhaps it is simply illogical and dismantling of civilization, which in turn creates the effects of all three as people become the particles adrift of Houellebecq’s second novel. Like Celine’s Journey to the End of the Night, his books feature characters venturing through a society that is on its surface thriving but a few levels deeper as dystopian as Blade Runner. The only movies that come close to portraying this kind of disconnect are Apocalypse Now, Demolition Man and Repo Man which reveal the underlying loneliness of anyone who is awake in a time of sleepwalkers who have bought into whatever political or economic justifications seem to make people feel successful for living in this time. It is why they meet so much resistance: they attack society, true, but more pointedly, they attack our individual illusions of living in a good era, which makes people upset because they rely on those illusions in order to tolerate all of the tedium, parasitism and nonsense.
Another insight from fellow writer Karl Ove Knausgaard gives more of the whole picture of what Houellebecq, like Celine, is evoking:
When François at the beginning of the novel writes that the great majority in Western societies are blinded by avarice and consumerist lust, even more so by the desire to assert themselves, inspired by their idols, athletes, actors and models, unable to see their own lives as they are, utterly devoid of meaning, what he is describing is the function of faith in modern society. The fact that he himself does not possess such faith, that he exists outside of it, within the meaningless, as it were, he explains as follows: “For various psychological reasons that I have neither the skill nor the desire to analyze, I wasn’t that way at all.”
This is the only place in the novel that opens up for the idea that the emptiness and ennui that François feels is not just universal, a kind of existential condition applicable to us all and which most people hide away behind walls of illusion, it may also have individual causes. That is somewhere he doesn’t want to go, and thus a vast and interesting field of tension is set up in the novel, since the narrator is a person who is unable to bond with others, feels no closeness to anyone, not even himself, and moreover understands solitude existentially, that is from a distance, as something general, a universal condition, or as something determined by society, typical of our age, at the same time as he tells us his parents never wanted anything to do with him, that he hardly had any contact with them, and that their deaths are little more than insignificant incidents in his life. Such an understanding, that the ennui and emptiness he feels so strongly are related to his incapacity to feel emotion or establish closeness to others, and that it is difficult, indeed impossible, not to see this as having to do with lifelong rejection, is extraneous to the novel’s universe, since nothing would be remoter to François’s worldview, an intimate model of explanation would be impossible for him to accept, a mere addition to the list of things in which he doesn’t believe: love, politics, psychology, religion.
The point here is that most of us are accustomed to “Systems” like democracy, capitalism, etc. and we tend to see solutions the same way. “Get religion in there!” screams the American Republican. But that, alone, will not do it. Religion is not a system of rules like our regulatory state or EU laws, but a compulsion within the individual to charge life with meaning and thus, want to do good. Similarly we cannot like the Nazis impose Nationalism by rules, but need to come together as a people toward a common idea of positive logic, or what we want to create on an ongoing basis. National identity is like that, as is religion, and also the alertness to life itself that Houellebecq’s characters get a whiff of but can never complete. We must regrow our souls, and this cannot be done externally. It can only be done through vague and amorphous ideas like identity, reverence, and transcendence. We must re-grow the love for life in our souls to see what good is, and through that, to re-animate the corpses of religion, identity and culture.
Houellebecq is not as popular on the internet as those who offer Systems. Moldbug offers us the idea of taking the gated community to the next level and creating libertarian micro-states within the dying realms of the West, but that does not address the internal problem, which is that people have not beaten their internal rottenness. The Orthosphere offers us religious fanaticism informed by history, which beats out the fundamentalist and extremist variants and is mostly right, but not a solution in itself. Cramming people into religion without having their souls ready to come to it will turn religion into an ideology and, as a glance over the alt-right Traditionalist and Catholic blogs show us, has already done so. Even capitalism can become ideological, or externally-imposed as a universal, when designated as The Solution. Those ideas are simpler than the thought of a spiritual revival against disease, and so they win out over Houellebecq on the blogs of the world, but none seem satisfying because ultimately they lack what Houellebecq has given us: a map out of the territory of darkness of the soul by noticing beauty and making ourselves receptive to the possibility of goodness, joy and delight in our world.
The sheer screaming ignorance of the debate on this topic has nearly forced me to write about it, as the pain of reading what has been written so far is too great.
Starbucks coffee company — a giant multinational that many Americans go to daily — changed its coffee cup. That is, the coffee cup it uses during the holiday season. The coffee cup that over the past five years has born Christmas ornaments, snowflakes, reindeer, and other Christmas imagery.
But now it’s as red as the Soviet Flag. And Christians are boycotting it. This has prompted many people to opine that the color of the cup doesn’t matter, or that people should simply go to another coffee joint, or that the cup was never a Christmas cup.
All of these miss the point entirely: a symbol was changed from that of a dominant culture to that of anti-culture.
If you expressed one of the above opinions, it is time to shut up. You are not ready for understanding any of the issues in this post or in this discussion. You should not vote, and probably not drive. You are, quite simply, inferior because your understanding is pathetic, really. Whether you agree or disagree, you just don’t understand the issues and have become the equivalent of a child screaming because it does not understand why it must go to school.
I said early on, as if warning that this article might occur, that those who are complaining about the new Starbucks cup do not understand pluralism, and also that the critics of the critics do not understand pluralism. Let me enlighten you to what you could have found in a dictionary or encyclopedia but probably do not understand.
Pluralism is the idea that we do not pick an answer. Instead many answers co-exist at the same time.
- In a rightist sense, pluralism is a “stage” in a market: many solutions are offered, and one is chosen, so pluralism is temporary to any new need.
- In a leftist sense — and remember that leftists are terrified of any hard and firm answers, standards or values because they fear being personally inferior — pluralism is a perpetual state where everyone gets to believe whatever they want and we all just co-exist without ever agreeing on anything.
In a pluralistic sense, Starbucks is offering a generic holiday cup instead of a Christmas one to acknowledge the diversity of religious opinion. This is the equivalent of saying “Happy Holidays!” instead of “Merry Christmas!”
On the other hand, in a pluralistic sense, the Christian boycott of Starbucks is a way of saying that a consumer audience exists who will reward Christian-friendly business. This is part of pluralism too; groups are free to cultivate around them others who agree with them, although liberals forget this and try to ban freedom of association in order to squelch it.
Starbucks and liberals want you to forget the second stage to pluralism: eventually, an answer is chosen, and the perpetual-pluralism of “I choose not to choose” creates an impetus for people to form groups around specific answers. This is part of natural selection, too. One group will win out.
Unlike many on the alt-right, I do not think this boycott is moronic. It is sending a clear signal, from consumer to business, that the consumer is interested in that business only if it supports that consumer’s values, including faith and culture.
Next year, Starbucks faces a difficult choice. If it puts out a non-Christmas holiday cup, the same thing will happen; if it puts out a Christmas holiday cup, it will be attacked by angry leftists, Muslims, #blacklivesmatter jobless protesters, Jews, Wiccans and people who hate reindeer. Its only options are to either scrap the cup altogether, or put out one for each group at great expense. Welcome to pluralism, Starbucks! — you can see why all successful groups grow up and leave it behind.
In the meantime, the other issue lurking in this debate is that Starbucks is a near-monopoly on drive-through coffee and local coffee shops. During the 1990s and 2000s, it grew like a yeast culture on a Petri dish and effectively drove out most alternatives. If you get coffee in the mornings, you are close to a Starbucks and the closed remnants of a once-great coffee shop. Starbucks has made itself a daily feature of our lives and, some say, it owes a debt of social responsibility — not to pity-projects, like far-off orphans, but to its actual audience — to uphold the values of that audience.
Either way, in our media you never hear mention of these topics. They know their audience is composed of mostly insincere persons who lack the intellectual and moral ability to understand one paragraph of the above. They also know there is more ad time to be sold in groups of idiots saying “I don’t get it, just paint the cup!” because they think it makes them look intelligent, than in people who are interested in ideas, history and practical solutions.
This is why your ancestors invented a system called feudalism. Most people are deficient in brains and moral character, barely above monkeys, and so while they can do a modern job just fine, they always choose destructive things. They cannot control their appetites, nor their need to look cool to their friends, nor do they have any particular ability to tell good from bad in quality. They like new things and leave a trail of landfill behind them.
Feudalism took such people and put them in peasant roles where they were kept illiterate so they could not argue or write nonsense, and kept impoverished so they did not generate a trail of disposable wreckage. These people have always been this way. They are inferior and their opinions are unnecessary. But they always think eternal pluralism is a good idea, and until now, Starbucks probably thought that was good for business.