Author Archive

Why American Retail Is Dying

Saturday, August 19th, 2017

A friend asked me today to investigate what sort of laptop they would buy, and in the course of research I found myself looking at NewEgg, Amazon, Walmart, Costco and, on a whim, Best Buy. They wanted it quickly, and no method is quicker than purchasing it locally or semi-locally. But there were some shocks in store.

First, Amazon is not the good deal it once was. Prices mysteriously adjust themselves to what their algorithms think you can pay, and shady merchants have taken over much of the search results. NewEgg fared well, but as always there is the feeling that their best deals are close-outs which manufacturers have dumped at cost on the mail order site in order to clear them out. Costco has the same feeling, and fewer options, but they stuck to the Sears-style “good, better, best” with three options in each category and a few outliers. This made shopping easy, and it would not surprise me if most Americans are not using this as their primary choice now. Walmart was bizarre, having implemented algorithms too smart for their own good, which then specialized in low-end machines with very little difference between them. They know what people buy, but not what they would buy if given only a few options which pushed them upward toward better machines for only a hundred dollars more. People spend $500 on phones, but $400 on laptops that will last three years at the outside? Bizarro world.

But Best Buy was the most instructive. The corporate stodges, who are not so much a type of person but the mentality formed of people above demanding “results!” and people below who are noncommittal to any course of action, or in other words the typical human organization where each person is using it for their own ends, have decided that this year is the year of the 2-in-1 laptop, so that is all you can get there. They do “good, better, best” within a narrow spectrum that emphasizes the better machines, but in doing so, offers few inspiring options and marks everything up by a couple hundred dollars. Their profit comes from people who do not know any better than to go look at what’s new, buy it for an outrageous price, then take it home and use it until it breaks or gets boring, then repeat. This company is not struggling because people prefer online, but because it is an inferior option. For the number of laptops they have, there should have been more choices, but instead the heavy hand of manipulation was there, trying to sweep us sheep into their little plan.

If anything came from this, it is that the Costco and NewEgg options will dominate. NewEgg lets you choose from a wide variety of machines and assumes you will either figure out which one you need or find someone to do it for you, and they have no salespeople and almost no customer support. Costco chooses a few machines that are not cutting edge, but being older are more thoroughly debugged, and you pay $50 more if anything than at NewEgg, and have very few choices because for most humans, the appeal of sorting through eleven pages of laptops is limited. Walmart, Amazon and Best Buy seem to have — much like Western Civilization — destroyed themselves with their own cleverness.

Master of Provocation Milo Yiannopoulos Launches “Free Speech Week” In Berkeley

Friday, August 18th, 2017

To succeed in a time of the oblivious, one must be a masterful troll as well as have a grasp of the real issues which lurk just under the surface of the two-dimensional images that people manipulate in order to feel smart and smug. Milo Yiannopoulos displays the traits of a master of provocation, and he proves it by launching a timely “Free Speech Week” in Berkeley, California.

His success will come from two factors: Charlottesville and Berkeley. The riots ensuing after “Unite the Right” in Charlottesville have showed us that wherever Right-wingers, even Alt Lite cultural libertarian types like Yiannopoulos, appear, there also will be violent and soulless masked Antifa on a mission to vandalize and destroy. Last time Right-wingers spoke in Berkeley, the place almost burned. This time, Yiannopoulos is going to win big by forcing Berkeley to either enforce free speech, or burn in the chaos of thousands of NGO-fed rioters.

MILO is teaming up with our campus sponsor, The Berkeley Patriots, to present Berkeley Free Speech Week from Sunday, September 24th, to Wednesday, September 27th.

MILO described Berkeley Free Speech Week by saying, “We want to bring together liberals, conservatives, and whatever libertarians aren’t too busy mining bitcoin, to celebrate free speech. In the not too distant past, that is what every day at American universities was about. Now free speech is shunned, and in some cases violently shut down. The free speech movement is being reborn at Berkeley, next month, by us.”
We will announce the full list of speakers soon. Here’s a hint — it will include every speaker banned by Berkeley in the last 12 months.

The themes for Berkeley Free Speech Week include:

  • Sunday, 9/24 – Feminism Awareness Day
  • Monday, 9/25 – The Religion of Peace
  • Tuesday, 9/26 – Silicon Valley
  • Wednesday. 9/27 – The Higher Education Establishment

On Wednesday, MILO will present the first annual Mario Savio Award for Free Speech to the person who has most courageously fought for free expression in America.

You can find out more on the website,, for as long as it lasts under the assault of Google de-registration, GoDaddy suspensions, DDoS attacks, hacking and probably people chucking bottles of urine at the servers.

Some may find it odd that Amerika supports Yiannopoulos. Amerika is a conservative blog but we accept conservatism in full, not just the politically-correct parts, and so we are “roots conservatives” and “raging realists” instead of people who see pragmatism as compromise and therefore sell their political beliefs in exchange for popularity and acceptance by those who wish to destroy them. Our goal is to meld the Right by showing the continuity of its ideas from the French Revolution through the Alt Right, and beyond.

Troll Radio Show “Lode Radio Hour” Calls Antifa Who Harassed Gavin McInnes

Friday, August 18th, 2017

Infamous troll radio program “Lode Radio Hour” had a surprise tonight for Antifa: its troll activists had spread around a fake cell phone number belonging to Gavin McInnes, and took down the numbers of the angry bloated bluehairs who called it. Then, with a live audience of several hundred on the air, the radio host called them back and asked them “uncomfortable questions.”

This is the kind of counter-action that can make an Antifa activist think twice about leaving Mom’s basement. The program is live every Friday evening at 10 PM – 12 AM EST.

Steve Bannon Goes Into The Cold

Friday, August 18th, 2017

The following is entirely conjecture, but I started writing to get as close to the elusive workings of the pattern order of nature as I can and to have a great time doing it, and so, sometimes one needs to fire up the pipe, inch closer to the fire and work solely with the little grey cells.

Steve Bannon, after apparently submitting his resignation two weeks ago, giving a controversial interview a week ago, being downgraded by Trump yesterday and leaving the White House today, is making a brilliant move that is going to result in more yuge winning for Donald Trump and his team. Bannon was not fired; he chose to walk into the Cursed Earth because he has another mission.

For those that can hear, Bannon himself says exactly what is happening, but like all statements from the proficient, this is an esoteric communication that needs some reflection to understand:

“The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over,” Bannon said Friday, shortly after confirming his departure. “We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It’ll be something else. And there’ll be all kinds of fights, and there’ll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over.”

Bannon says that he will return to the helm of Breitbart, the rambunctious right-wing media enterprise he ran until joining the Trump campaign as chief executive last August. At the time, the campaign was at its nadir, and Trump was trailing Hillary Clinton in the polls by double digits.

The Trump Presidency is now something else; Bannon is going to Breitbart. What the heck can this mean? First, it is clear he is correct about the Trump Presidency. They were able to run on a certain platform, unite people behind it, and make huge strides within the first year. But now, the game has changed; the President and his staff have seen new challenges that must be undertaken before he can accomplishing the remaining items on his agenda.

In other words, they succeeded at round one, and now, as with every great victory, they have uncovered a new series of challenges that were invisible back then. This leads us to the second part, which is that in the midst of a vast culture war, Bannon seems to be leaving the White House… to go back to Breitbart. He is going back into the culture side and leaving politics because he has done all that he can there.

Bannon has made a brilliant move in this respect. He has allowed himself to leave the White House under the impression that he was forced out and that he is disappointed with Trump, which sets him up to be a critic of the Presidency. That gives him two advantages: backhanded compliments, and he can agitate for Trump to go further to the Right, which makes the President appear to be responding to his constituency instead of acting of his own initiative entirely.

Backhanded compliments will be hysterical. The press does this all the time: “Well, I really don’t like this President guy, but you know he makes some good points when he talks about A, B, and C. Those really need us to look deeply into them, and his policies make sense. But otherwise, I don’t like the guy at all. Not one bit.”

While he is busy doing that, he can also take the pulpit and rant on about how Trump has failed in his mission and needs to get back to basics. From Breitbart, he can unleash a score of articles talking about how the President is not pushing hard enough for what he was elected to do, like bring back 1980s America, end immigration, exile the media to Morocco… Trump accomplished his initial promises, but the ideas behind them naturally lead to new challenges.

Instead of seeing a defection, what we are seeing here is two men separating so that they can attack a problem from different directions. At this point, Trump has uncovered the Leftist Establishment and, big surprise, it is too large to “drain the swamp” with straightforward activity. Instead, it has to be unmasked one node at a time, and its members revealed and sent packing. At the same time, the hostile media will both attack everything that Trump does with fanfare, and apparently miss the less dramatic but more important stuff he does quietly.

Remember, this is the man who deliberately mistyped the word “coffee” and had the press ranting about it for weeks. He is the master of media. He is Howard Stern plus Rush Limbaugh plus Dave Letterman. He knows how to be entertaining, and part of telling any good joke is that you have to misdirect your audience right before the punchline so that it hits them like a ton of bricks. Trump knows how to tackle these people, and so does Bannon.

Watch Breitbart zoom into the spot vacated by Fox News and expand to wider coverage of all sorts of news. My guess is that we will see a more reliable source of daily news which also hits harder on the political front, probably by looking less partisan and more critical of stupidity, sort of like The Onion if Sam Huntington were at the helm. While Trump baffles the press and subverts the Establishment from inside, Bannon will be outside attacking the press and keeping one step ahead of them, which will further ruin not just their reputation, but their utility. Why go to the press if they get the news twenty-four hours late?

As much is subtly declared in a less-than-subtle statement Bannon made to Bloomberg about his intentions:

“If there’s any confusion out there, let me clear it up: I’m leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents — on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,” Bannon told Bloomberg News Friday in his first public comments after his departure was announced.

Bannon led the evening editorial meeting at Breitbart, where he resumed his role as executive chairman, the website said in a statement. A person who was on the call said Bannon called on the group to “hunker down” and work like never before to advance conservative causes.

According to a person close to Bannon, he met Wednesday with conservative billionaire Robert Mercer, co-chief executive of Renaissance Technologies and a major financial supporter of both Trump and Bannon’s efforts. The two mapped out a path ahead for Bannon’s post-White House career and discussed how Trump could get his agenda back on track.

Since day one in office, Trump has played the Bannon card, alternately blaming him for anything controversial and giving him credit for successes. Bannon has construct an aura of mystery around himself, revealing his apocalyptic fascinations as well as his highly strategic mind. My guess is that he is using that mind now, and he is not stepping away from the Trump effort, but stepping up to fulfill a new role that it needs.

As both Trump and Bannon are diligent but flexible strategists and planners, this means that Trump has his agenda set for the next couple terms, and is going to begin acting as he usually does, which is from the bottom up, removing the supports upon which his opposition depend, and then applying pressure indirectly while giving them an easy option that either fulfills his needs or sabotages them in order to create an opening for which he, conveniently, has a method of making things better.

Conservatives should take heart. Trump knew long before he got into office that he would have to deceive, misdirect, deflect, conceal, camouflage, downplay, distort and otherwise act through Odysseus-style canniness instead of trying to go in low and slow like a softball. Bannon and Trump have been engaged in what I would guess is several hours of think tank style strategizing since the election, and Trump has achieved more for conservatives in the last six months than the last two conservative presidents and the half-dozen before them.

Things are looking up. But for that to happen, first there has to be obscurity and myth, and from that, fire and steel.

White Sharia Will Make You Dumb

Friday, August 18th, 2017

Out there on the internet, which daily more resembles an asylum designed to keep the patients occupied instead of an actual public space, there is talk of “white sharia,” or the idea that we need strict rules to keep women in line because of the rampant promiscuity, dishonesty and exploitation of men that has occurred in the decades since the 1960s.

This thinking encounters a fundamental problem: it is based in the liberal idea that people are equal, and therefore that we can treat them as categories when in fact there are gradations. For example, women come from different caste groups, and higher caste women do not behave in the ways described by the white sharia advocates, for the most part. Part of this is simply because they have better options, and so are more likely to have advanced education, careers, then exit those and have a full home life raising kids in a family with a successful man.

On the other hand, a woman whose future will be as a sex object in the clubs until she hits her thirties and has to fall back on being a barista, Facebook consultant, paralegal or other relatively menial task. She may achieve a family, but she will find it hard to attract a top-notch man because men inherently recognize market-style values, and estimate the value of a woman by the cross-section of her abilities, beauty, intelligence, and chastity. A woman who behaves like a prostitute will be treated as having lesser value.

There are variations along the way. Most women are in the middle, and men prioritize different attributes. Some men seek intelligence above all else, especially if they feel that the next generation can climb in status if it is more capable, and others are looking more toward character as a way of preserving what they have. None of this matters excessively because most men both seek out women of similar characteristics to themselves, and find it difficult to acquire a woman from higher innate biological ranking, although some gain temporary breeding rights by dint of their wealth, power or celebrity. And yet, nothing is more common than the beautiful wife of a toadish powerful man having trysts with the pool man, who is both more authentic than her husband and closer to her own ethical level. The best women marry for nothing less than an enduring love, which is formed of friendship, itself formed from mutual admiration and complementary abilities, those in turn forming the root of cooperation.

White Sharia seeks to fix all women at once, as if they were equally in error and could be improved to an equal level, when even a small amount of observation shows us this is not true. In a class of thirty girls, five will be headed toward academic stardom, five will be headed toward extreme promiscuity, prostitution and drug use, and everyone else will be in the middle. The young women that you see sleeping around are generally those without other options. Not particularly intelligent, beautiful, moral or with any particular talents, they become “hypergamous” or offer themselves around freely, perhaps acting out a commandment from nature to capture enough genetic material to reproduce despite being unable to attract a husband. Eventually they attract men of a similar level, and have most of their children by that union. However, they are usually always open to offers from something more promising, following the natural urge to breed up as high as they can. This parallels the r/K strategy divide: those with higher ability are more sexually selective, meaning that they invest more in the choice or quality rather than quantity, much like they will have fewer (2-7) offspring and attempt to raise them well. Women who are wealthy are more inclined to hire nannies and tutors to make this process easier, so that they can share their attention among the children, giving them the guidance they need while someone else does the basic instruction.

In this process, we see the same principle that underlies natural selection: sorting. Women sort themselves by their innate characteristics, themselves a product of genetics and reflecting caste and class origins, and the ones who are top-notch rise to the top and demand a top man. This man not be a rich man, only one who will take care of them and has some kind of purpose and joy in life. These are the true alphas, and some of them are plumbers and some are artists; a woman will choose the best she can within her caste, generally. The purpose is the important point. An alpha is one who approaches life and makes from it something that uses his characteristics and talents to their best utility, instead of just schlepping through reacting to whatever comes his way and acting opportunistically. At the low end, the addicts of drugs, prostitutes, opportunistic criminals and irresponsible people find each other and live horrible little lives because they have little loyalty, mainly because neither party is particularly committed to the other. These are your actual betas, and wherever dysfunction and purposelessness are found, these are the people perpetrating them. They tend to have more sex, but end with less to show for it, generally because they are less intelligent, as is shown in their choice of a less fruitful path through life. Sorting separates these groups and matches like to like, so that smart women end up with smart men, and everyone else fitting into their gradient.

The r/K pattern extends to frequency and onset of intercourse as well:

Last December I passed a paper along to Razib showing that high-school age adolescents with higher IQs and extremely low IQs were less likely to have had first intercourse than those with average to below average intelligence. (i.e. for males with IQs under 70, 63.3% were still virgins, for those with IQs between 70-90 only 50.2% were virgin, 58.6% were virgins with IQs between 90-110, and 70.3% with IQs over 110 were virgins)

In fact, a more detailed study from 2000 is devoted strictly to this topic, and finds the same thing: Smart Teens Don’t Have Sex (or Kiss Much Either).

The team looked at 1000s of representative teens grades 7-12 in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and The Biosocial Factors in Adolescent Development datasets, both of which include an IQ test, and include detailed sexual experience questions ranging from hand-holding to intercourse. As with the other study there was a curvilinear relationship: students with IQs above 100 and below 70 were significantly less likely to have had intercourse than those in between. Also like the other study, they found teens with IQs ranging from 75 to 90 had the lowest probability of virginity (the authors note this is also the same IQ range where propensity towards crime peaks).

This means that among the higher castes, there is no need for White Sharia, but that implementing it could hide the defects of lower caste women, and allow them marry up despite lacking the genetics for such a function. Letting some women be sluts is essential to separating the dysfunctional from the functional, much in the same way that natural selection rewards the capable and slowly squeezes the incapable out of the population. We know that some highly visible female behavior is bad, but for the most part, this is reflection of the caste of these women and therefore, their intelligence and moral character. Only with equality have they been able to participate in the rest of society. The solution naturally is to enhance, not degrade as White Sharia proposes to do, the distinction between higher and lower women. This means that those who are naturally somewhat attentive to reality will see what the better women do and emulate it, while the lower-grade varieties will do exactly as they are genetically programmed to do, which means that in a society without socialism and other genetic effects, they wander out of the gene pool by having fewer and less-stable offspring. Modern society has reversed this process both on a social level and on a biological level, resulting in a corresponding drop in average IQ over the past two centuries:

We do not have a standard deviation (measure of scatter) for the Victorian data – so we need to compare (looking at men) a (mean) average modern reaction time of 250 milliseconds (SD 47) with a (median) average Victorian RT of 183.

This implies that average (and being conservative in my interpretation) Victorian reaction times were more than one standard deviation faster than modern RTs; or, that the average Victorian would be placed comfortably in the top 15 percent of the modern population – probably higher.

If we assume that reaction time is a valid measure of general intelligence, in other words that RT has a linear correlation with g – then this would mean that the average Victorian Englishman had a modern IQ of greater than 115.

The biological component of this is lower infant mortality, i.e. more infants surviving:

Through most of evolutionary history, most babies and children (probably a large majority of them) especially those with the worst genetic damage – have died before reproducing. Thus mutation load is filtered by differential child mortality rates with each generation…But since 1800, starting in England then incrementally spreading across the whole world with no exceptions, child mortality rates have got lower, and lower; the mutation filtering effect has got less and less complete – and the mutation load has got greater with each generation.

This shows us the essential role that sorting plays in our post-technological human existence: since more infants survive, it is important to avoid any further subsidies for the dysfunctional. The problem with White Sharia is that it creates such a subsidy. A woman can, by obeying the simple rules that are enforced upon her, not reveal her inner broken character, which will cause her bad genes to proliferate. This means that White Sharia is a form of lessening the quality of white people.

It has been observed in the past that if you love a group, you will be hard on it so that the best only are allowed to become the next generation. Farmers do this with plants and animals, killing off the scrawny or dumb, and leaving only the strongest, so that over time their crop improves at the level of seed, and whatever animals they are breeding resemble the best of previous generations, removing the characteristics they did not want. This is how, without genetic engineering, European farmers converted ordinary plants and wild animals into rich crops and livestock.

To do this with humans, our societies must raise their standards and create a hierarchy so that the best are an example for the rest, and those who fall short of standards are driven out or at least put in circumstances where they cannot breed much if at all. This idea clashes with egalitarianism, which is the idea that all people “should” be equal, and is directly opposed to natural selection and other ways of filtering out the broken and promoting the good. Proles hate the thought that there will be standards which they can fail to uphold. They prefer instead to have rules and laws which are negative standards, so that they can pay a trivial penalty for their violations if they get caught, but they will never be exiled or otherwise stopped from pursuing life in society because they fall short of a positive standard to which everyone is held, with the idea that those who excel at it will rise and others will be demoted. The prole likes the idea of demonizing a few behaviors, methods or procedures and to make everything else legitimate, where the right way to have society evolve is to make every behavior fit within a set of principles that always produce the best results, knowing that most people will not understand the “why” behind those standards.

White Sharia is a meme. It is something for the football stadium mentality of mass politics. This way, the groundlings can shout in support of the rules that will make it harder for them to be caught failing to uphold the values of society, and throw fruit at a scapegoat which they blame for their problems instead of realizing that our behavior, hidden from sorting by equality, is the root of the problem. The more we try to externalize the blame and then control it through rules, the more we include people among us who really need to go elsewhere, like the third world which has traditionally absorbed our castoffs.

If Western Civilization has a future, it is likely it will involve an event every year with the people who have just reached age 17. This will be called The Sorting. The premise of this event comes from the knowledge that in every generation, the lowest 20% are in need of removal. In a class of thirty girls, there will be six who are promiscuous, idiotic, sociopathic, or insane. These will be sent away, with the same done to the boys. The reason they will be identified is that, unlike under White Sharia, their behaviors will be allowed to manifest and then will be judged. This is what the proles fear: someone will take a look at them, peer into their motivations and their soul, and realize what echoing emptiness is within, then remove them from our civilization. Maybe we will drown those who are Sorted to be bad in the swamps, like the ancient Celts, or take the humane path and drop them on the shores of some primitive third-world nation. Either way, the problem will be solved: we will steadily be removing defective genetic combinations, and in their place, promoting those who are stronger. This cannot be done through tests, but by looking for behaviors. People who deserve to stay are those who may have made some mistakes, but also have done some good. Those who have only mistakes, and no attempt to do something unselfish or that contributes to the community, are the ones who are somehow broken and inward-focused instead of aware of their environment. A fieldmouse that behaves this way gets eaten by eagles quickly, and as a result there are few fieldmice who are that oblivious.

Adding to the above criticisms, we should realize that part of our K-strategy existence involves nurturing the good as well as removing the bad. Women are meant to be treated with respect and generosity, not as chattel slaves. They may have a psychological outlook that is between man and child, as historical accounts suggest was once the normal assumption, but they need to be given a role in which they can excel and honored for what they do well. Punishing all women for the acts of our prole women removes the sense of grace and transcendental beauty that can be found by understanding the sexes as complementary forms of intelligence and behavior that make, together, a family that represents both masculine and feminine principles for a complete whole. In addition, it furthers the errors of feminism, which make the sexes oppositional and therefore destroy any chance of sane and non-manipulative family life. Looking at it this way, the Leftist origins of White Sharia are revealed, and we know we need no further exploration of that path.

Recognition of the Failure of Democracy Goes Mainstream

Friday, August 18th, 2017

Although mainstream consciousness has barely touched it so far, the lack of faith in democracy has crept out of the areas where it was sequestered by media and public opinion, and is now appearing even within SWPL strongholds like TED Talks.

As usual, the solution is to double down, because the only alternative is to admit that we were wrong all along and made bad decisions. It is better to blame something else so that we do not have to recognize that democracy always fails this way, and that all civilizations die from caste revolt, of which democracy is a method. So there are hopeful attempts to patch the leaky ship.

In the long-term view, however, these are like the American Constitution: an attempt to contain the beast that is the herd behavior of humans in groups, despite knowing that it always grinds toward collapse because what most people want to think is true in fact reflects the projections of their own wishes and emotions, particularly a desire to escape anything resembling Natural Selection.

Where the Left embraces individualism through egalitarianism, the Right has always advocated social order and virtue. Our view is that feelings do not matter, but results in reality do, so we must calibrate ourselves toward end results instead of filtering intermediate methods in a hope of casting out what we fear.


Thursday, August 17th, 2017

President Trump used the phrase Alt-Left to refer to the counter-demonstrators in Charlottesville who opposed the Alt Right demonstrators there. This was more than symmetry: he used the term to identify these people as extremists who have risen to oppose the Alt Right, and to tar them with the same brush of “terrorism” that the Left is using against the Right.

Unfortunately, this statement also opened up ambiguity and gave this new group an identity. The press can now wonder aloud who the Alt-Left are, and explore “investigative journalism” that consists of interviewing their contacts on Twitter, Reddit and Facebook. There will be much effort expended in trying to portray the Alt-Left as a new idea.

In reality, we all know who the Alt-Left are: the same group of Communists, Anarchists and criminals who make up Antifa and anti-G20 protest groups, funded by NGOs and wealthy benefactors, and bused in whenever there is chaos with the intent of creating a riot so that middle America cowers and gives them whatever it is they want this time.

Looking slightly deeper, we can see that these different groups agree on one essential thing, namely the forced creation of equality through the redistribution of wealth. Whether they call themselves Anarchists or Greens, they are all essentially Communists, and none of them deny this. Antifa, after all, was always a Communist group sponsored by international Communist organizations.

Above: Antifa conference in Germany in 1932, sponsored by the Communist party.

Maybe we can dig deeper. Those who join Leftist movements are of several types, with most following along for social reasons like being with their friends, and a few true believers who are the ones who instigate violence as happened in Charlottesville.

The psychology of these people reveals an underlying emptiness filled only with an impulse to destroy, which is why they wage war on civilization through class revolt. For whatever reason, they cannot have power and importance in the world by doing productive things, so they focus on making themselves important by being destructive, which makes them feel powerful, a clear sign of low self-esteem.

Their hunger for power manifests in a type of acquired sociopathy that expresses itself in a desire to dominate others:

Yet, leaders can delude themselves that they are working for the greater good (using socialized power), but engage in behavior that is morally wrong. A sense of power can cause a leader to engage in what leadership ethicist, Terry Price, calls “exception making” – believing that the rules that govern what is right and what is wrong does not apply to the powerful leader “for other people, this would be wrong, but because I have the best interests of my followers at heart, it’s ok for me to….” During Watergate, the argument was made that President Nixon could not have acted illegally because “the President is above the law.”

Leaders can also become “intoxicated” by power – engaging in wrong behavior simply because they can and they can get away with it (and followers are willing to collude and make such exceptions “It’s ok because he/she is the leader”). Some have suggested that President Clinton’s engaged in a sexual dalliance with intern Monica Lewinsky simply because “he could.”

…On the negative side, the more people possess power, the more they focus on their own egocentric desires and the less able they are to see others’ perspectives.

In other words, low self-esteem people when given power use it to fill the void of lacking self-esteem, and as a result, become abusive mainly because they were never competent to have power in the first place, but built up their self-image with the idea that they deserved it. This is the long-term mental health fallout from assuming “equality” as a value in our society.

Drilling down deeper, we can see a psychological pattern to people like this. They want to be powerful but are not, so instead they subvert and undermine, and this forces them to justify their actions as “good” in order to maintain their self-image as a positive person. They adopted that self-image to compensate for their lack of actual achievement or goodness.

All Leftists fit within this psychology, and it places them on a power spectrum, which tells us that all Leftism is the same, differing only in degree. A mild-mannered democrat, when given power, becomes a socialist; when given unchecked power, this same person might well become a mafioso, gang leader or Communist because all three grant them the indulgence to act out their power in sociopathic ways.

Through this we see that the Alt-Left is the same group that has always provided people to destructive movements, whether cults like Jim Jones, Communist leaders like Che Guevara, or organized crime kingpins like Hillary Clinton or Jimmy Hoffa. They are what Fred Nietzsche calls Tarantulas:

Lo, this is the tarantula’s den! Would’st thou see the tarantula itself? Here hangeth its web: touch this, so that it may tremble.

There cometh the tarantula willingly: Welcome, tarantula! Black on thy back is thy triangle and symbol; and I know also what is in thy soul.

Revenge is in thy soul: wherever thou bitest, there ariseth black scab; with revenge, thy poison maketh the soul giddy!

Thus do I speak unto you in parable, ye who make the soul giddy, ye preachers of equality! Tarantulas are ye unto me, and secretly revengeful ones!

But I will soon bring your hiding-places to the light: therefore do I laugh in your face my laughter of the height.

Therefore do I tear at your web, that your rage may lure you out of your den of lies, and that your revenge may leap forth from behind your word “justice.”

Because, for man to be redeemed from revenge—that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms.

Otherwise, however, would the tarantulas have it. “Let it be very justice for the world to become full of the storms of our vengeance”—thus do they talk to one another.

“Vengeance will we use, and insult, against all who are not like us”—thus do the tarantula-hearts pledge themselves.

“And ‘Will to Equality’—that itself shall henceforth be the name of virtue; and against all that hath power will we raise an outcry!”

Ye preachers of equality, the tyrant-frenzy of impotence crieth thus in you for “equality”: your most secret tyrant-longings disguise themselves thus in virtue-words!

Fretted conceit and suppressed envy—perhaps your fathers’ conceit and envy: in you break they forth as flame and frenzy of vengeance.

At some basic level, these people are motivated by a desire to take revenge upon the world. It created them, in their view, and then gave them nothing which matches what they think they should be, which is kings or at least powerful, despite not having the ability to be those things. This is the mentality of caste revolt, and the Alt-Left is just its latest incarnation.

People motivated by revenge are — like suicide bombers or career criminals — often willing to sacrifice themselves in order to destroy others who they perceive to be unjustly above them. Their response to power is not to resist it, or find a legitimate means of gaining it, but to sabotage it and then seize the moment in flourishes of anarchic destruction that basically hold normal citizens hostage.

Alt-Left members will demonstrate a psychology common to all Leftists based in low self-esteem and revenge:

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

…13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

…15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

In other words, all of their causes are pretexts and excuses, and their actual cause is hatred of health, prosperity, strength, intelligence, beauty and moral goodness. They feel that if they destroy these things, their own lack of them will not be noticed, and so they will finally escape the “oppression” of being lesser.

They could easily escape that oppression by engaging in the time-honored practices of introspection, meditation and self-discipline, but the need to do those things insults their artificially-created personality construct which holds that they are not losers, but in fact winners, much as in Leftism, winning is losing and losing is winning.

Luckily, the Alt-Left is a perfect foil for the Alt Right, because everything we have said about Leftists (mental health disorder, grifters, parasites, civilization destroyers) comes true in Antifa and the Alt-Left, as even curmudgeonly Leftist Noam Chomsky observed:

“It’s a major gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant.”

…Chomsky said, “what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally self-destructive.”

“When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it’s the toughest and most brutal who win – and we know who that is,” said Chomsky, a professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “That’s quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism.”

In the coming weeks, Leftists will be divided on the Alt-Left. All will support it in private because there is no difference from its ideology and their own, and emboldened by Civil Rights, the Left has become a party exclusively dedicated to its own victimhood and therefore a need for revenge. In public, some will shy away from what looks increasingly like a terrorist or organized crime group.

As George Smiley reminds us in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, we know they can be beaten because they are fanatics, and every fanatic harbors a secret doubt. In the case of the Alt-Left, they secretly suspect that the actual reasons for their life-failure are their own inadequacies and lack of bravery in areas where they could make a positive difference. This makes them unstable.

To counter them, then, the only solution is to be braver than they are: to discuss any issue, to be clear on what we believe and why it is logically correct, and to constantly and brutally point out their personal shortcomings and their motivations. These are fragile people underneath the bluster, and they can be defeated.

Another Reason Why Anti-Semitism Will Fail You

Thursday, August 17th, 2017

From A Program For The Jews by Rabbi Harry Waton:

In any struggle between men, whether it be a struggle on the battle-field, on the political arena, on the economic terrain or in the realm of thought, ordinary men fight their adversary by endeavoring to belittle the adversary, to treat him with contempt and to ridicule him. This is a suicidal method, for by this they shut their eyes to the merits and virtues of the adversary, and for this they pay a terrible penalty. But the great man fully recognizes the merits and virtues of the adversary, endeavors to acquire those merits and virtues, and thus prepares himself to meet the adversary successfully. By this alone we can recognize the great man.

This was the method used by Balaam. Because Balaam knew Jehovah, he fully recognized the merits and virtues of the Jews. In the four addresses, Balaam sought to convince the nations that, unless they acquired the merits and virtues of the Jews, the Jews would destroy them. This was the reason why Balaam praised and blessed the Jews. In what, then, consisted the curse? It consisted in this. Balaam did not praise and bless the Jews for their sake, but he praised and blessed the Jews for the sake of the nations, that the nations should acquire the merits and virtues of the Jews, and thus be able to destroy the Jews. The curse was not in what he said, but in the purpose. And now, how did Jehovah turn the curse into a blessing ? Jehovah turned the purpose of Balaam into a blessing. Balaam intended that the nations should endeavor to acquire the merits and virtues of the Jews, in order to be able to destroy the Jews; but this very purpose turned into a blessing.

By endeavoring to acquire the merits and virtues of the Jews, the nations would become Jews. And so, instead of destroying the Jews, the nations would themselves become Jews and join the Jews. Thus Jehovah defeated the purpose of Balaam. History repeats itself. Since the days of Balaam, Hitler is the first great anti-Semite that adopted Balaam’s method. Hitler fully recognized the merits and virtues of the Jews, and he convinced himself that, unless the Aryan nations will unite against the Jews, the Jews will destroy them. To convince the Aryan nations of this, Hitler wrote his work, Mein Kampf. In this book Hitler endeavors to convince the Aryan nations that the Jews are a world menace, that they would destroy the Aryans, their culture and their world, and would inherit the earth.

But to convince the Aryans of this, Hitler, like Balaam, recognizes the merits and virtues of the Jews, and advises the Aryan nations to endeavor to acquire those merits and virtues; otherwise, they will be destroyed by the Jews. Since the days of Balaam, Hitler is the first anti-Semite that was great enough to adopt this method. But, like Balaam Hitler does not perceive that, if the Aryan nations endeavor to acquire the merits and virtues of the Jews, they will also become Jews, and then they will join the Jews. And so, as in the case of Balaam, Jehovah turns the curses of Hitler into a blessing.

Reminiscent of course of this:

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you. ― Friedrich Nietzsche

Translating this to the practical, what it means is that one cannot substitute polemic against another for a sense of self-identity. To assign enemy status to another group is to cede agency for the future of your own group, and in doing so, you will adopt their tactics as a means of fighting them. In turn, those tactics will convert you, and you will become the new Jews.

In the West, anti-Semitism has involved adopting Old Testament tactics which were designed to eradicate Jews, but in doing so, the West adopted a simplistic version of Jewish morality in which it was conjectured that there existed universal right and wrong, which caused the West to abandon its sense of uniqueness and its self-interest, which consists of us doing what works for us without judging it by categories, instead looking toward our inner spiritual intent and the results we create. By abandoning consequentialism, we made ourselves into people who follow symbols that are alien to us, and it has ruined us.

Taxed and Regulated Into Oblivion, Americans Create a Consumer Debt Bomb

Wednesday, August 16th, 2017

We know that our governments have spent themselves into bankruptcy by promising entitlements they could not hope to repay, and that this has been coming for some time, but to it Americans add a new wrinkle: consumer debt is just as reckless.

To a cynical eye, this looks like a population that is betting that their government will not around long enough to enforce debts, or simply without other options. Taxed to the max to pay for entitlements for the permanent diversity underclass, and finding that once-sound investments like college educations and corporate jobs are no longer tickets to wealth, the American middle classes are in despair.

One way to ride this out is simply to assume a ton of debt and either never pay it off, or hope for either a declaration of personal bankruptcy or a government collapse, with either case letting them off the hook. Perhaps we should hope that they are correct, because the consumer debt bomb is epic:

U.S. household debt reached a new record of $12.8 trillion in the second quarter, driven by rising mortgage debt, a strong quarter for auto loan originations, and an uptick in credit-card balances, which reached their highest level since 2009.

…Total credit-card debt climbed by $20 billion in the second quarter, reaching $784 billion, the highest level since the fourth quarter of 2009.

The quarter also showed strong increases in auto lending, with $148 billion of new auto loans originated in the quarter, including $51 billion of loans to borrowers with credit scores under 660, which are considered subprime. Both figures are near the highest levels of the past 10 years. The total volume of auto loans rose by $23 billion and is now at a record $1.19 trillion.

Some of this, as hopeful economists opine, may be people having renewed faith in the Trump economy, since he saved us from the utterly savage destruction of value that the Obama years created. But much of it looks like people living day-by-day off their credit cards, perhaps as they spend all ready fund to fill holes left by the last eight years of chaos.

About 6.2% of credit card balances became 30 days delinquent over the quarter, an increase from 5.1% in the same quarter a year ago. Though on the rise, it’s still well below the amount of delinquency seen during the financial crisis, when as much as 13% of balances were going delinquent. The share of credit cards becoming 90 days delinquent has also risen, an early sign that some borrowers are becoming distressed.

Leftists create demand-based economies, which means that the value of money is determined by what people will spend to borrow it. Conservatives favor supply-based economies, where the value of money is determined by production of the nation. The latter does not afford meteoric growth, which is where the “Democrats are good for the economy” myth comes from, but the former tends to create huge lacunae in value that are then filled in with recessions and market crashes.

Student debt, driven mainly by women, is one factor, suggesting that since colleges have graduated many more people thanks to grade inflation and affirmative action, the value of a college degree has declined as economists said it would but politicians denied.

Another possibility is that we have entered a time where nothing seems real. If the government spends money crazily among the population, and bail-outs seem like a possibility, one strategy is to go deeply into debt and then hope for aid from Uncle Sap. Another is simply to spend now, then bail out on the country and go to another when the bill comes due.


Wednesday, August 16th, 2017

The modern era is defined by the focus on the human individual which is its core. That perspective inverts, or changes into its opposite, every value of the past, because those values were not focused on the self but on the order outside of the self. We must re-learn everything that was common sense in the past because we have not forgotten it; it was altered.

Such is the case with aristocracy, which modern people do not understand at all. To them, aristocracy means “rule by rich people.” This is typical of the modern materialist view which judges people as economic and political actors only, and is blind to the actual question of humanity, which is individual quality by wisdom, intelligence, spirit, moral character and talents.

Aristocracy recognizes that most humans are low in ability and motivation to do anything more than serve a relatively limited role in a local area. It also sees that, in emulation of nature, humans are pack animals who need strict hierarchy so that each individual knows what to do at any given time. If that is not present, humans revert to their monkey nature and become destructive.

The order of the pack can be achieved several ways. The simplest is combat; the strongest and best fighter wins. The problem with this is that it excludes wisdom, so humans sometimes choose instead those who make the best leaders, which is a combination of fighting and intellectual skill. This produces leaders who are able to manage others and understand long-term goals, and under that, we prosper.

In this way, aristocracy rises naturally. Any group of two or more people requires a leader, much as every home has a Man and Wife in complementary roles. The leader is not chosen by a vote, but by natural ability, judged by those who are most likely to be his peers; in other words, a hierarchy forms from the top down, and choices pass this way as well. This process emerges from human behavior.

To the dismay of moderns, this means that not only is there no voting about who should be the aristocrats, but there is also not universality. That is, if you are on the bottom of the pyramid, it is not expected that you would understand the choice per Dunning-Kruger and therefore, your opinion is not sought or wanted. Those of the highest ability, as demonstrated and perceived by others of high ability, make these choices.

Even more to their surprise, this means that aristocracy is the exact opposite of what they think it is. They think it means that we give power to the wealthy; what it actually means is that we find our best people, and give them wealth and power. This way, they will use that wealth and power toward good ends, and have no need for more so are uncorruptible.

The point of aristocracy is to conserve the good in our society by placing it on top of the hierarchy as an example and so that the rest of us benefit from its abilities. These good people then own most of the land, and tend to keep a good deal of it natural, as the “green belt” in Britain was before it was torn down to make housing for immigrants.

In turn, aristocrats are permanently bound to duty. Rarely do any quit their positions, and they know that they and their descendants will be held responsible for whatever they do. Further, they are not politicians who view their roles as a job, and society as something contracting with them, but representatives and part of that society, inseparable from it.

It is not surprising that aristocrats in the past and present tended to be hard-working and diligent about getting the details right, something none of our politicians seem to care about.

Aristocracy includes a hierarchy and caste system. The hierarchy expresses itself in different levels of aristocrats — kings, dukes, counts, lords — who form a cascading power structure from the king downward (empires are generally a religious construction, and violate the principle of nationalism, so will not be discussed here).

Power is strongest when it is most local. The lord of a certain parish or county will have more direct power over his citizens than the king, who has no limits on his power, but tends to administrate at a higher level. This means that instead of bureaucracy, case-by-case decisions by those actually in power are used to regulate society, making law and red tape less important than anticipate consequences of any action. A law says that pollution from a plant must be below a certain level; a lord may order the plant to cease any action that pollutes at all, or any other action that in the view of that lord, disrupts the local community.

As a result of its cascading structure, aristocracy creates a society around it that follows a mesh pattern as seen in agrarian societies. Instead of huge cities as hubs, there are many smaller cities surrounded by towns and outward from that, villages. These overlap to some degree such that while the individual is never that far from civilization, human habitation is also dispersed so that its negative effects are lessened and no one is anonymous. Instead of a binary hierarchy, where there are those in control and those who are subject masses, there is a tiered hierarchy where everyone has a place and, unless they prove grossly incompetent, will retain that place on the basis of its local connections. This spreads stability and security, and ends the competition that has incompetents aggressively campaigning to become wealthy.

In addition, under aristocracy civilization is liberated from herd opinion. There are no thronging masses waiting to be inspired by the political trope of the day spoken from on high. Instead, there are leaders who are directly accountable for their actions, and who can filter out troublemakers by exiling them. Aristocracy inherently recognizes that whatever is popular is wrong, and that what requires someone of intelligence, moral character and experience to see is what will work best in the long-term, which is the only time scale that counts because only when people can rely on their surroundings to be consistent throughout the ages can they trust that their work and efforts are worth doing.

Aristocracy also implicates a caste system, which generally fits the form of 1% Brahmins, 9% Kshatriya, and 90% Vaisyas and Sudras. Brahmins are the leaders, priests and wise men; Kshatriya are the warriors and artisans, and make up today’s middle classes; the Vaisyas are the merchants, and while they can be quite wealthy, are not accorded respect as leaders, and Sudras are the working class with several levels within it. This caste system ensures that each person can compete at a level where they can do well, and that they are not given power they do not understand how to use.

This caste system arises from an understanding that traits are heritable, as Charles Darwin taught us in the West. Someone who is good at leadership, if he marries a woman of similar ability, will have children with that ability unless they are abused or have some mutation so grotesque that it damages them. In the same way, the other castes perpetuate their traits as well, and the only way for people to rise in status is through multiple generations of actions which are above and beyond what others at their level do.

Such as it is, this outlook is cynical about wealth. Those who are good at making money are bad leaders because the two are entirely different skills; someone who is good at making money aims only toward a narrow end, profit, while someone who is a good leader aims for good results in reality, which means something that benefits civilization as an organic whole, or an entity in which each of us serves unequal roles apportioned to our abilities. Aristocracy is based in duty and excellence, and the ability to make money easily implies an opposite of that, which is why aristocrats do not behave like our rich people now.

Inherently nationalistic, aristocracy recognizes each nation as a tribe of its own and the interests of that nation as inseparable from those of the tribe. There can be no separate entity, like government, which manages society for its own ends; aristocracy manages society to thrive because only that grants the aristocrat success, and since they already have money and power, only success at real-world tasks will allow them to advance in stature in their society. Since humans are social animals, and status competition is a hard-wired behavior, this redirects an otherwise abusive human behavior into a constructive one.

Those who criticize aristocracy generally mention its downfall, but few mention that it avoided the worst of the wars which we unleashed on ourselves later, drove off the worst of the threats, and made our society prosperous enough that mass revolt was even possible. As we have seen through the last few centuries of conflict, corruption, social decay and a failure of our cultures to produce the same abundant art, learning, architecture and literature that they did under the monarchy, we were better off in the long-term with aristocracy.

Recommended Reading