Final hour of democracy

final_hour_of_democracy

The demise of Lee Kuan Yew has prompted much speculation on the reason for Singapore’s success, with the left decrying its “fascism” and the right leery of the type of highly-managed, poly-ethnic society that it has produced.

Few look at the real reason for its success: what it did not do. Blessed with natural wealth because of its position in one of the world’s most lucrative shipping routes, Singapore could have done any number of things, but it refused to follow the democratic trend of its time and instead focused on government as management, as one might organize a business venture or lead a military unit.

Herein we see the convergence of conservatism and libertarianism. Libertarianism might be seen as the absence of liberal social and economic problems causing chaos. Similarly, conservatism is the absence of liberal control — through a powerful government enforcing ideology in replacement for culture, heritage and values — which allows nations to thrive by not obligating the productive to the unproductive, and not uniting all citizens toward wishful thinking goals about what “should” be, and instead focusing on what is and how to find the wisdom and even beauty within it.

The West has denied these values for a long time, and it fears any kind of Singapore on its own shores. This is not to praise Singapore — it sounds like an infuriating gated community based on economics alone which succeeds only because of its position as a major port — but to point out that the West is, under the guidance of liberalism, focused on non-real things and policies that do everything wrong. If a Singapore comes along that simply avoids liberalism, it will outpace the West and quickly banish it to the dustbin of history with other failed empires that now live on as third-world punchlines.

Democracy always tends this way. When we adopt the attitude of the Enlightenment that the individual human is not only correct but optimal, we have created a situation where we argue in reverse. “Because all people are right, we must accept this too as right,” we say to an ongoing stream of offenses and stupidity. Then because liberalism sees itself as right, it becomes impossible to criticize liberalism itself as a philosophy, and the only dialogue becomes criticism of parts of society for not being liberal enough. This is why churches admit female pastors and endorse gay marriage, why conservative politicians approve of war for democracy in irrelevant lands, and why corporations gladly approve of whatever outrage makes the news of the day. Once democracy starts, there is only one path: to liberalism.

So far, the West has gotten away with its liberal bent. We destroyed those among us who opposed liberalism in a series of wars from the Napoleonic conflicts through World War II, and then we capitalized on the learning of the past to build a vast technocracy. Now life no longer has doubt it; we feel our society will last forever because it is so powerful. And yet an auditor would see troubling signs that for now can be explained away as details, but reveal a far deeper problem. The utter lack of common direction; the selfishness and obliviousness of people; the fear of reality itself; and the decay of infrastructure and knowledge of the reasons for things, replaced by memorization of method alone, would alarm a truly disinterested outside observer.

The charade goes on as long as the wealth remains. This process has been ongoing for several thousand years but, thanks ironically to the strength and intelligence of our people, we have been able to hold it back. That strategy is hard to avoid since the other option is to be conquered by rampaging Mongols, Russians or Arabs and to become vassals of moribund powers. However, as we approach the end of the democracy experiment yet again — we’re repeating what happened in Greece and Rome and ushered those empires into oblivion — it becomes clear that our problem is not some external force, but our own choices. Since the French Revolution we have adopted every toxic policy imaginable as people use these insane ideas to prove their allegiance to democracy and to make a name for themselves as revolutionaries expanding the franchise. The pain deferred now comes rushing at us like a wronged avenger.

We should contemplate these wise words from the founding sage of Western philosophy:

Next comes democracy; of this the origin and nature have still to be considered by us; and then we will enquire into the ways of the democratic man, and bring him up for judgement.

That, he said, is our method.
Well, I said, and how does the change from oligarchy into democracy arise? Is it not on this wise? –The good at which such a State alms is to become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable?

What then?
The rulers, being aware that their power rests upon their wealth, refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift youth because they gain by their ruin; they take interest from them and buy up their estates and thus increase their own wealth and importance?

To be sure.
There can be no doubt that the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens of the same State to any considerable extent; one or the other will be disregarded.

That is tolerably clear.
And in oligarchical States, from the general spread of carelessness and extravagance, men of good family have often been reduced to beggary?

Yes, often.
And still they remain in the city; there they are, ready to sting and fully armed, and some of them owe money, some have forfeited their citizenship; a third class are in both predicaments; and they hate and conspire against those who have got their property, and against everybody else, and are eager for revolution.

That is true.
On the other hand, the men of business, stooping as they walk, and pretending not even to see those whom they have already ruined, insert their sting –that is, their money –into some one else who is not on his guard against them, and recover the parent sum many times over multiplied into a family of children: and so they make drone and pauper to abound in the State.

Yes, he said, there are plenty of them –that is certain.
The evil blazes up like a fire; and they will not extinguish it, either by restricting a man’s use of his own property, or by another remedy:

What other?
One which is the next best, and has the advantage of compelling the citizens to look to their characters: –Let there be a general rule that every one shall enter into voluntary contracts at his own risk, and there will be less of this scandalous money-making, and the evils of which we were speaking will be greatly lessened in the State.

Yes, they will be greatly lessened.
At present the governors, induced by the motives which I have named, treat their subjects badly; while they and their adherents, especially the young men of the governing class, are habituated to lead a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind; they do nothing, and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain.

Very true.
They themselves care only for making money, and are as indifferent as the pauper to the cultivation of virtue.

Yes, quite as indifferent.
Such is the state of affairs which prevails among them. And often rulers and their subjects may come in one another’s way, whether on a pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or fellow-sailors; aye, and they may observe the behaviour of each other in the very moment of danger –for where danger is, there is no fear that the poor will be despised by the rich –and very likely the wiry sunburnt poor man may be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has never spoilt his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh –when he sees such an one puffing and at his wit’s end, how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them? And when they meet in private will not people be saying to one another ‘Our warriors are not good for much’?

Yes, he said, I am quite aware that this is their way of talking.
And, as in a body which is diseased the addition of a touch from without may bring on illness, and sometimes even when there is no external provocation a commotion may arise within-in the same way wherever there is weakness in the State there is also likely to be illness, of which the occasions may be very slight, the one party introducing from without their oligarchical, the other their democratical allies, and then the State falls sick, and is at war with herself; and may be at times distracted, even when there is no external cause.

Yes, surely.
And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot.

Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the opposite party to withdraw.

And now what is their manner of life, and what sort of a government have they? for as the government is, such will be the man.

Clearly, he said.
In the first place, are they not free; and is not the city full of freedom and frankness –a man may say and do what he likes?

‘Tis said so, he replied.
And where freedom is, the individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases?

Clearly.
Then in this kind of State there will be the greatest variety of human natures?

There will.
This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colours to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States.

Yes.
Yes, my good Sir, and there will be no better in which to look for a government.

Why?
Because of the liberty which reigns there –they have a complete assortment of constitutions; and he who has a mind to establish a State, as we have been doing, must go to a democracy as he would to a bazaar at which they sell them, and pick out the one that suits him; then, when he has made his choice, he may found his State.

He will be sure to have patterns enough.
And there being no necessity, I said, for you to govern in this State, even if you have the capacity, or to be governed, unless you like, or go to war when the rest go to war, or to be at peace when others are at peace, unless you are so disposed –there being no necessity also, because some law forbids you to hold office or be a dicast, that you should not hold office or be a dicast, if you have a fancy –is not this a way of life which for the moment is supremely delightful

For the moment, yes.
And is not their humanity to the condemned in some cases quite charming? Have you not observed how, in a democracy, many persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk about the world –the gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?

Yes, he replied, many and many a one.
See too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the ‘don’t care’ about trifles, and the disregard which she shows of all the fine principles which we solemnly laid down at the foundation of the city –as when we said that, except in the case of some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy and a study –how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honour any one who professes to be the people’s friend.

Yes, she is of a noble spirit.
These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.

We know her well.
Consider now, I said, what manner of man the individual is, or rather consider, as in the case of the State, how he comes into being.

Very good, he said.
Is not this the way –he is the son of the miserly and oligarchical father who has trained him in his own habits?

Exactly.
And, like his father, he keeps under by force the pleasures which are of the spending and not of the getting sort, being those which are called unnecessary?

Obviously.
Would you like, for the sake of clearness, to distinguish which are the necessary and which are the unnecessary pleasures?

I should.
Are not necessary pleasures those of which we cannot get rid, and of which the satisfaction is a benefit to us? And they are rightly so, because we are framed by nature to desire both what is beneficial and what is necessary, and cannot help it.

True.
We are not wrong therefore in calling them necessary?
We are not.
And the desires of which a man may get rid, if he takes pains from his youth upwards –of which the presence, moreover, does no good, and in some cases the reverse of good –shall we not be right in saying that all these are unnecessary?

Yes, certainly.
Suppose we select an example of either kind, in order that we may have a general notion of them?

Very good.
Will not the desire of eating, that is, of simple food and condiments, in so far as they are required for health and strength, be of the necessary class?

That is what I should suppose.
The pleasure of eating is necessary in two ways; it does us good and it is essential to the continuance of life?

Yes.
But the condiments are only necessary in so far as they are good for health?

Certainly.
And the desire which goes beyond this, or more delicate food, or other luxuries, which might generally be got rid of, if controlled and trained in youth, and is hurtful to the body, and hurtful to the soul in the pursuit of wisdom and virtue, may be rightly called unnecessary?

Very true.
May we not say that these desires spend, and that the others make money because they conduce to production?

Certainly.
And of the pleasures of love, and all other pleasures, the same holds good?

True.
And the drone of whom we spoke was he who was surfeited in pleasures and desires of this sort, and was the slave of the unnecessary desires, whereas he who was subject o the necessary only was miserly and oligarchical?

Very true.
Again, let us see how the democratical man grows out of the oligarchical: the following, as I suspect, is commonly the process.

What is the process?
When a young man who has been brought up as we were just now describing, in a vulgar and miserly way, has tasted drones’ honey and has come to associate with fierce and crafty natures who are able to provide for him all sorts of refinements and varieties of pleasure –then, as you may imagine, the change will begin of the oligarchical principle within him into the democratical?

Inevitably.
And as in the city like was helping like, and the change was effected by an alliance from without assisting one division of the citizens, so too the young man is changed by a class of desires coming from without to assist the desires within him, that which is and alike again helping that which is akin and alike?

Certainly.
And if there be any ally which aids the oligarchical principle within him, whether the influence of a father or of kindred, advising or rebuking him, then there arises in his soul a faction and an opposite faction, and he goes to war with himself.

It must be so.
And there are times when the democratical principle gives way to the oligarchical, and some of his desires die, and others are banished; a spirit of reverence enters into the young man’s soul and order is restored.

Yes, he said, that sometimes happens.
And then, again, after the old desires have been driven out, fresh ones spring up, which are akin to them, and because he, their father, does not know how to educate them, wax fierce and numerous.

Yes, he said, that is apt to be the way.
They draw him to his old associates, and holding secret intercourse with them, breed and multiply in him.

Very true.
At length they seize upon the citadel of the young man’s soul, which they perceive to be void of all accomplishments and fair pursuits and true words, which make their abode in the minds of men who are dear to the gods, and are their best guardians and sentinels.

None better.
False and boastful conceits and phrases mount upwards and take their place.

They are certain to do so.
And so the young man returns into the country of the lotus-eaters, and takes up his dwelling there in the face of all men; and if any help be sent by his friends to the oligarchical part of him, the aforesaid vain conceits shut the gate of the king’s fastness; and they will neither allow the embassy itself to enter, private if private advisers offer the fatherly counsel of the aged will they listen to them or receive them. There is a battle and they gain the day, and then modesty, which they call silliness, is ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nickname unmanliness, is trampled in the mire and cast forth; they persuade men that moderation and orderly expenditure are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them beyond the border.

Yes, with a will.
And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names; insolence they term breeding, and anarchy liberty, and waste magnificence, and impudence courage. And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.

Yes, he said, the change in him is visible enough.
After this he lives on, spending his money and labour and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as on necessary ones; but if he be fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his wits, when years have elapsed, and the heyday of passion is over –supposing that he then re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not wholly give himself up to their successors –in that case he balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium, putting the government of himself into the hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn; and when he has had enough of that, then into the hands of another; he despises none of them but encourages them all equally.

Very true, he said.
Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others –whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.

Yes, he said; that is the way with him.
Yes, I said, he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he-is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.

Yes, he replied, he is all liberty and equality.
Yes, I said; his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many; –he answers to the State which we described as fair and spangled. And many a man and many a woman will take him for their pattern, and many a constitution and many an example of manners is contained in him.

Just so.
Let him then be set over against democracy; he may truly be called the democratic man.

The problem with democracy is not so much democracy as a system — althrough reliance on systems is itself a problem, as it is an indirect admission that we no longer have competent leaders — but how it changes us. Democracy makes us look inward, become egotistical and narcissistic, and eventually relapse into a world of our own desires and those shared with others, so that socializing behavior replaces reality itself. Once that happens, reality is exiled and suicidal and insane acts become the norm, in the process destroying all that is good among us and replacing it with zombies who know nothing but the symbolic and emotional world created by the radical individualism of democracy.

As this old order dies, and it inevitably will, it becomes clear that conservatives of the more extreme bent were right all along. They have won the war of ideas by being not only logically correct, but correct in application. Our wealth allowed us to deny those truths for a long time but much as our debts will eventually come due, so will there come a time where we must once again engage with reality and rebuild ourselves. Or we go to where so many others have, the path to third world status and irrelevance.

Triggered!

triggered!

Too late the slumbering lummoxes who supposedly are the guardians of our society have discovered that colleges are echo chambers of leftist thought. Why, thank you for noticing; it has been this way since 1968 or so, maybe earlier. All of us went through them and being young and impressionable, both gritted our teeth and ignored the crazy or imbibed it because it made us feel better about our lack of knowledge.

Why are colleges leftist echo chambers? The simple answer is ugly: the person drawn to be an educator is usually someone stalled at the point of his own education. This combination of nostalgia and regret has people revisit the point of their injury in life, much like PTSD, and try to re-live it through others. As with the best leaders, the best teachers are often those who do not want the job but feel obligated to take it or take it as a matter of laziness. It is after all an easy job because if you avoid a few errors, there is almost no accountability and the task itself — explaining in simple detail things you learned long ago — is not challenging. Even more, it allows these people to feel power over the knowledge they once struggled with and a time of life that once made them miserable. It is revenge through empowerment.

The leftist echo chamber has accelerated in the last decade for two simple reasons: first, we have sent too many people to college where now two-thirds of high school students go on to college of some form, and second, as liberalism fails the dogmatists feel it necessary to become either more strident lest they be forced to admit their lives are built on a lie.

The grim fact is that only about a fifth of our population, those above 120 IQ points, benefit from any kind of education at all. The others just misuse it and become cleverer, or more able to hide behind technicalities and clever use of language but correspondingly less likely to find answers to problems. In democracy however those who have the most favorable appearance win, and so our politicians used simple reasoning: college makes people richer! Everyone wants to be rich! So send everyone to college! …cleverly ignoring that this would create an industry whose goal is to parasitically sign up as many people as it can and deliver the cheapest possible product. From this, political correctness emerged: a desire to make the product as “safe” and inoffensive as possible so as many people as possible could be induced to take on mind-blowing amounts of student debt and get specialized degrees that credential them to work in a specific field.

As part of this politically correct expansion, colleges invented back in the 1990s something called a “trigger warning”: if a dangerous or possibly offensive topic — which means a topic that might cause any person to question the legitimacy of their participation — arises, a warning must precede it that warns students that the topic may “trigger” their fears and delicate sensibilities.

While this is laughable on its face for how pretentious and narcissistic it is, it also creates another kind of mirth. As a writer, my job is to trigger people. Words cannot convince any person of any thing. What they can do is reveal a pattern, like a metaphor or stylized drawing, that triggers a memory in the consciousness of the person. “Ah yes, I remember thinking something like that once, but less fleshed-out,” they think, and then their brains begin to work on the idea. Soon they see instances of it everywhere, like thinking of a plate of shrimp and seeing plates for sale downtown and shrimp on the menu. This is the opposite of paranoia: where paranoia uses selected instances to prove a pattern, triggering causes people to remember what they have noticed and then see where the pattern applies. This is how writing works. It makes people think when they see their own experiences through the more streamlined and articulated eyes of the author.

Our society fears triggering. Of course it does! It fears reality. It fears anything which may destabilize the individual by pointing out the illusions which they use to prop up their personalities. Triggering removes their justifications and pretenses of importance and places reality in place of the human individual as the most essential thing in life. Society fears triggering become it removes the legitimacy of this “altruistic kleptocracy” and reveals it to be the community in tumbling decline that it is. We are expected to pre-emptively apologize for speaking the truth, because it might “trigger” someone, and use that as a reason to sweep it under the rug and pile lies upon it so that it can never escape. And we do this knowing full well that our only salvation has ever come from confronting truth, and that lies always lead to future downfall. Triggering is interruption of denial, and it is a moral duty for every human being to do it as frequently as possible on all topics.

A modest proposal

a_modest_proposal

In AD 2015, government has failed. All of human innovation in politics since the middle ages has turned into a dysfunctional bureaucracy which borrows money it can never pay back, creates social chaos and worst of all, seems to endanger the best among us while letting the worst run unchecked.

I submit a modest proposal: this year, let us free ourselves from Society.

For too long we have suffered under the notion that Society can tell us what to do, for our best interests. The result is that all of us are forced into the same institutional programs that not only fail to achieve the results they intend, but create total havoc in their wake.

Instead, let us combine the best traditions of the past: anarchy, or total independence from the plans of others, and monarchy, or the tradition of picking our best leaders on the basis of their leadership ability alone.

Leadership is a complex thing. It shows up at every level of humanity and consists of the ability to make decisions intelligently while considering all that needs to be considered. Very few do it well, which is why most of human activity is disorganized and mediocre. To be a good leader, one must be able to balance many competing needs in the mind and to think of the long-term as well as the short-term. Bad leaders create rigid rules that are essentially knee-jerk reactions, but good leaders plan to bring out the best possible outcome and then keep improving on it incrementally through a process the Japanese call kaizen.

I propose a simple revolution in how we lead ourselves:

  • Restore the Althing. The Althing was the Scandinavian parliament which functioned in a way different than any other government: members got together and argued a point to its conclusion. There was no pulling away early and relying on a mechanism, like a vote, to solve what was fundamentally a need to gain clarity. Local communities sent their leaders — usually aristocrats — to the Althing, and chose those leaders however the local community felt was necessary.
  • Get rid of all non-collective benefits. Government can bribe its citizens when it benefits them using the collected wealth of the group; for this reason, any such action should be verboten. Benefits that help us all, like repairing infrastructure or having an army, are good and fine; any act which benefits only a specific group of citizens is wrong, no matter how pitiable that group may be.
  • Replace laws with courts. One reason our courts are so abusive is that they have been displaced from their original function. We have thousands if not millions of criminal laws and crime is rising, although under-reported. Instead of trying to use laws, let people come into the courts and say, “X person did Y thing to me, causing Z damage.” Let them state their case in plain language and show the harm. Laws, under the guise of addressing problems, mostly just restrict what can be made illegal. Instead, make all harm a cause of bringing someone into court. Why is lying legal? Why is cheating legal? Let people have real justice, instead of this elaborate cat-and-mouse game of laws.
  • Wise elders. Every local area needs some leader in charge, but also needs its memory and judgment facility, which is the elders of the society. These are people who have done notable things and are now retired, but still have all of the knowledge of what they have learned over their long lives. Get a group of these together to inform on decisions, offer advice, and listen to citizens’ general complaints.
  • We’re not all in this together. Allow communities to refuse membership to anyone they want. This way, people who contribute nothing cannot simply move wherever they want and begin taking what others have made. Instead of wasting billions of dollars moving people around, we can let those people who are doing the right thing get away from people who are not, whether for political, social, criminal or economic reasons. Allow natural selection to take her course and allow people to group together with others like them. There will be a community for everyone, and we will see how well those work out.

You will note that the above is not a system. Systems exist when we decide it is too hard to choose what is correct, or choose the best people to rule us, and so instead we set up a whole bunch of rules and procedures to do it for us. This makes the same mistake as those who confuse cruise control with an autopilot, in that systems help society keep the same pace but do not give it guidance.

This is more than even a change of government; it is an attitude shift toward the method of government. Instead of forced collaboration, it is willing cooperation, with those who can work together toward the good able to separate themselves from the rest. The rest must then take responsibility for their own futures and figure it out or perish. As human quality has plummeted during the past two centuries, this fixes that problem — yet another of the many that government cannot solve.

The real problem that we face in governing ourselves is that “systems” favor wishful thinking, or us deciding what “should” be true and voting for that instead of a realistic response. Realism requires us to both be aware of our world, and to have a goal other than the immediate, like an aspiration or transcendent purpose. Most people are afraid of that choice because it defines them by quality and ability, and there is no faking it. Good people choose good things in any of a million varieties, while bad people choose infinite variations of the same actual goals, which are always parasitic, perverse or deceptively predatory. These people deny life itself, and rage against it, desiring power so that they can alter in appearance the reality that offends them, and from that, conclude that they were right all along. This giant confirmation bias self-ratifying circle is what lies behind “progress,” which is the idea of pretending that reality is other than it is so that humans feel comfortable because they are no longer challenged to rise above what they are. “Progress” is a path to doom because in the process of denying appearances in reality, it also denies the inherent patterns of reality, and sets itself up for inevitable collision when those manifest in ways that conflict with progressive behavior.

What is most different about this modest proposal is that it does not center on method, or ways we can keep ourselves in line without purpose, but in the discovery of purpose. We do not need systems, dogmas, ideologies and symbolic victories. We need to concentrate on reality and the decisions we make within it, fully aware that doing so will force us to decide what we really want out of life and that this will separate us into different striations based on our degree of aspiration. And yet, this allows us to be free of the parasite of Society while encouraging the best among us so that our future is one of improvement, not “progress.”

Original sin

ruins_of_angkor_wat

For each powerful thing in our world, an opportunity cost is created. This can be what we forego in order to have that thing, or the disadvantages of using it. Opportunity costs represent the sum of costs and obligations incurred by doing something.

Civilization itself has an opportunity cost: the ideas of “freedom” and “free will” are dead, although people who want to sell you products will adamantly rant otherwise. Whether a contract or not, civilization is an agreement to cooperate made between all members of a group and entails not compromise necessarily but outright giving up of certain abilities.

For example, all of us hate annoying people; without civilization, when you encounter one in the wild, you gut him like a pig and use him to feed the worms you will use to go fishing next season. Problem solved. 100%.

In civilization, people need assurances that someone will not deceptively attack them while they are conducting the business required by civilization. In the wild, one is always on one’s guard; if that is attempted in society, it makes you a paranoid beggar living under a bridge.

Let us for a moment consider civilization as a game. That is, separate from all moral considerations — more on that later — how would you play it to win, to extract the most value from it with the least effort?

This question involves two sub-questions. One is acquisition, and the other defense. You want to acquire as much as possible but simultaneously must avoid allowing others to take any appreciable amount of it, acknowledging that some lossage is inevitable.

The game of civilization (not Sid Meyer’s enjoyable Civilization video game) requires that you understand the real currency of social groups: appearance. People need to know why they should do anything for you, even if they are compelled to do so, because performance of any task occurs by degree. If the guy in the cafeteria line hates you, you’ll get a small portion of watery eggs and a biscuit with dust on it. Technically, you were served.

To acquire things in society, you need a reason why people should consider you good and then a reason why they need your product or friendship. The best way to be good is public acts of altruism; the best way to sell a product is to essentially neg them by insulting some ability of theirs — usually centered around reproduction, sustenance and ability to stay cool in a conflict, the primal issues that our hominin ancestors also struggled with — and claiming that your product will invisibly heal the wound. Small penis? Buy a Corvette. No money? Credit card. Nervous? Designer jeans.

At the same time, you want to defend your status. The best way to do this is to advance some claim that you deserve it, namely by claiming that you are working for someone other than yourself. The old salesman says, “This price doesn’t even cover our cost, but we keep these around for nice folks like yourself.” An even better salesman gets himself appointed to the Homeless Rescue Team or Anti-Poverty Orphan Welfare Fund or even the Peace and Harmony Diversity Group. He takes a known social ill — homelessness, orphans, racial strife — and turns it into a marketing opportunity. By doing so, he externalizes the actual problem and creates a fake solution to which money is handed, while simultaneously protecting himself from criticism. This is the ideal product. As long as he keeps doing what he does, people will show up and hand him money and he gets to keep all of it except taxes, which he will dodge anyway by realizing very little of that wealth as personal income. What’s better than a high salary? Owning something valuable, and having it buy your car, rent your house, pick up the tab for travel and eating out and everything else that you can plausibly claim is related to business.

At this point, this person becomes a seller of distractions. Civilization has an opportunity cost which is that it requires people to find some way to motivate each other to work together. This opens a door for fakers, who benefit from the acquisition/defense strategy mentioned above, which is that they create distractions and sell them as solutions. This can be as simple as a beggar asking for money, then spending it on booze. The problem continues unchanged because the root of the problem is in the beggar. Similarly, when people sell junk products or useless charities the problem is in the charity and those who donate to it, because they are perpetuating a problem with the added parasitism of a false solution.

Let’s look at some common distractions:

  • Liberal lie: The rich are too rich, inequality is rising and it will destroy us!

    Actual need: We’re picking the wrong people to be rich and have created a society with too many people incapable of doing much of value.

    Liberals phrase everything they say as a description of the victimization of the people they are speaking to. It is taboo to say that the average citizen has become a doofus because that insults people. Instead, tell them that the average citizen has been victimized by… uh… oppression! Someone with power, money, good looks or a natural ability is oppressing the rest of us without those things. (This will eventually modulate into the smart people are the enemy we are familiar with from the third world, where inventors are regularly burned as “witch doctors.”) The real problem is that we make people rich for make-work schemes like Uber, for being good at sports or twerking, or for conformity to government regulations. Or even for just earning money. We could pick them by ability to lead well, which is different than earning money; earning money happens best by externalizing costs and creating a high-margin product that people think they need but actually do not. The liars and deceivers like psychologists, lawyers, marketers, bureaucrats, self-help writers, etc. grow fat on the stupidity fo the population, which becomes increasingly helpless and unable to do anything but staple TPS reports. The distraction hides this actual problem behind a football game style “us versus them” argument. The actual source of inequality is inequality of ability.
  • Liberal lie: Global warming is holocausting the world, so we need to cut our carbon emissions!

    Actual need: We have too many people taking up too much space.

    Humans have expanded to the point that nature cannot restore itself, a condition which did not exist when we had two billion people. When we expand, we use land, which cuts up ecosystems and chokes out various species that need lots of land for their own health as organic populations. Animals need space to hunt, breed and play; trees need to be spread widely so their internal genetic variation increases through mutation and they do not inbreed. Running roads, fences, pipes, etc. through these spaces destroys the ability of those species to survive. When we had only a billion people, this was not a problem because trees existed to humans in a ratio of tens of thousands to one; now, with far fewer trees, the forests cannot absorb enough CO2 to offset the human production. Our scientists — who claim to be intelligent — tell us that the forest can only absorb so much. The answer is yes, in its current state. But if you plant more trees, that changes. Europe and white-USA have already reduced population to a declining curve but the rest of the world is expanding rapidly. Each person requires new space, not just for an apartment as our media overlords hint and passively suggest is all that is needed, but lots more space for factories, hospitals, roads, schools, stores, etc. for that person. The only solution is to lower our population. Official population reduction efforts are a sham focused on teaching birth control and careers, which only cause the population to rise.
  • Liberal lie: White people are racist and are oppressing minorities, causing racial strife worldwide.

    Actual need: Diversity does not work and deprives groups of autonomy and thus self-esteem.

    Racial strife worldwide is the norm because it is part of natural selection within races: some groups break away, improve, and then conquer the rest. The four root races — Dravidians, Negroids, Euripoids, and Mongoloids — have each achieved internal variation according to this principle with some rising above the rest. Races do not co-exist, and history shows us zero examples of successful multiracial civilizations but rather reveals a long history of multiracial experiments leading to civilization collapse and third-world status, because they are optimized for different functions. Even more, people need to know they are from a group with clear behavior standards; this works better than police, who can only show up after a tragedy and try to arrest the right culpable person. In the meantime, a good person is injured and one of an infinite stream of useless ones receives a usually slight punishment. Minorities are not actually minorities, but a majority on planet earth. White people are the only group asked to “be diverse,” a euphemism for replace itself with a mixed-race population as is the norm in most third-world nations. Diversity is a way of tearing down the society of our ancestors and replacing it with a third world society, which liberals love because then there will be no troublesome social standards and awareness of better options to hold back liberals from whatever venality they desire.

It might make sense to see the distractors as in fact apologists for decline. Their actions say, basically, that society is not worth having and they would rather trade higher levels of civilization for higher levels of profit, which means that civilization itself offers little to them in their estimation. They are usually wrong, but only in the long-term. In the short-term, they would find a third-world society — the remnants of actual civilization — more profitable. With a lower average IQ, there are more idiots who want products. Government and law enforcement are easily bribed. Money is more easily spirited away and in the social chaos, there are few who will notice whatever corrupt, perverse or self-serving things that people do. The third world is the ultimate society of people oblivious to one another so they may each have total personal autonomy. Apologists do not want to stop this decline but hasten it, and they will do anything and say anything to deny the fact of decline. They want you to think that everything is not only fine but improving, and they will spill out ten lies in the time it takes to refute one, so that they keep you wondering and confused while behind the scenes they do what is necessary to secure power.

How does society defend itself against these parasites? With social standards, of course, which is why they are the first target of the apologists. Social standards demand that people put the health of society above their own non-necessary preferences. That is too many words and concepts for the voters, but leaders understand it. People must have the basics of life, but beyond that, their individual desires do not matter much. The reason for this is simple: all of us, until we refine ourselves with self-discipline and a drive toward truthfulness, are basically nothing more than monkeys with the gift of language. Our motivations are crap because all of them are justifications that hide our real intent, which is usually bad. We are selfish (the more advanced term for what your average rock band calls “greed”) and self-motivated, and to preserve that, we become oblivious to others. This mentality removes focus from the necessary task of maintaining civilization and replaces that with a narcissistic satisfaction of appetites.

I mentioned above that it was necessary to consider civilization as a game “separate from all moral considerations.” That is because all but a few people have no moral considerations. True, they talk in public loudly about their moral convictions and when it comes time for people to spend four hours on a weekend helping the homeless at a soup kitchen, they are there first. Why? Because it’s four hours of easy work. The whole rest of the year they can point to those four hours and ignore the other three thousand hours in which they did nothing for anyone but themselves other than to ignore them. It is the equivalent of buying candy for a child and then declaring oneself a good person so that one can take candy from children every other day of the year. It is laughable and yet to most people, it seems not only acceptable, but good honest proof! It’s hard not to laugh at this situation. The public, even the highly educated and successful “elites,” are total dunces who cannot recognize reality when it slaps them in the face and takes their wallets. They are literally oblivious and are so proud of their meagre achievements — a career, a trophy wife and family, a few possessions — that they ignore everything else and exist in a world of themselves. Swimming on self-congratulatory praise, esteemed in the eyes of (oblivious) others, they push aside all “negative thoughts” (e.g. reality) and instead direct their minds toward things that make them feel good. Then one day they retire, and reality catches up. Their children have grown up in a ruined society and turned out badly, their community is now bordered by crime-ridden slums, and all their achievements have been forgotten by a world rushing from one pleasure to the next. At that point, being fundamentally dishonest people, they do what every criminal does when he is caught: blame someone else, and claim to be a victim of oppression, because otherwise he must think himself worthless.

This is original sin. People are basically bad until they make themselves good through discipline and truthfulness, and most will not take on this path. To undertake civilization is to recognize that oppression is inevitable and is a positive thing when it oppresses the degenerate and preserves the good, but that in most societies it goes the opposite way — forcing the good to subsidize the degenerate until the good fade away — and destroys itself. Society is suicide. Trusting other people is also suicide. The only solution is to have high social standards and remove those that cannot achieve them, but that scares all the timid sheep of the herd who fear that they might actually not be good people. Instead of handling that in a mature fashion, and improving themselves, they band together to remove standards, in doing so dooming their civilization. It takes many generations to come to that point but when it does, what is left is a third world ruin like the rest of the world. Original sin has triumphed over its opposite, which is a state that joins religious morality and natural selection. That mentality says the best must rise over the rest and have 0% (zero) obligation to them; it recognizes that most of humanity is mostly monkey and that including them in a civilization will kill it. But already I have said too much that even the smartest among us cannot tolerate.

How your future was ruined

a_man_tricked_by_gypsies-leonardo_da_vinci

In nature, one of the most numerous classes of organisms is that of parasites.

These creatures, instead of producing their own sustenance, draw it from others. They range from viruses to monkeys who steal food from others.

Parasitism can be observed with manipulative behavior as well. In city parks across earth, grackles have learned a simple trick: pretend to have an injured wing or missing leg, and humans will take pity on them and toss over more food.

In the realm of symbols, language and emotions such as are the glue of civilizations, parasitism takes the form of appealing to pity. Pity involves making a public display of ineptitude such that others feel compelled to help, lest the people around them think those others heartless. People like seeing displays of emotion because those make them feel “safe,” thinking that the other person is somehow incapable of acts of self-serving viciousness.

People forget that a parasite is merely a passive form of the predator. Where the predator takes, the parasite begs. This rewards the parasite with less food, but does so at much reduced risk. A predator must hunt and may come home with nothing; a parasite almost always has something. It is the safer, more responsible, and more business-savvy response to the question of predation. No Fortune 500 company would ever endorse hunting — what do you say to the stockholders when you have a bad quarter? — but like farming, represents an evening-out of risk. The reduced risk leads to greater profits through eliminating margins of cost and uncertainty.

Your future was ruined when civilization decided to become a parasite on itself. Or rather: on those who are productive. The non-producers want guaranteed inclusion in society so that they can create a parasitic role for themselves. As the number of parasites increases, the society tips over and eventually order collapses, leaving behind third world levels of chaos.

To force inclusion, parasites invent two destructive forces: politics and make-work. The former requires that every idea be debated not in terms of its effects, which very few can understand, but in terms of its appearance, such as feelings, judgments and desires, which is where human self-discipline is at its lowest and in groups nearly non-existent. It favors anything that introduces strong feelings because those polarize enough of the voters to have a plurality and thus compel others to go along with the plan. Make-work is designed to include those who are actually useless in jobs so that they are not simply cut out of society, and consists of creating tasks which do not need doing. What society ever perished from a lack of lawyers, bureaucrats, or entertainers? Whole industries are invented to “serve” citizens products they do not need, and at each level government, industry and unions conspire to layer the process with administrators, managers, bureaucrats and compliance officers. Each takes a little sip of the chalice of wealth before passing it on to those who actually generate it.

Karl Marx served as the best perpetrator of this fraud. He drew a distinction between workers and owners, which neatly split the class of producers into each group and in each group lumped them in with the parasites. This created a more socially acceptable way of being outraged at the ongoing leeching of wealth from society to parasites, but by creating the artificial category “workers” (versus producers) it ended up providing cover for and defending the parasites as objects of pity. Through this method, your future was ruined and stolen from you, leaving only a path of endless labor to support the growing consort of parasites.

Neoreaction and nihilism

neoreaction_and_nihilism

As the cluster of new movements dedicated to rejecting 1789 using modern reasoning — new right, neoreaction, the dark enlightenment, the red pill and the like — reach their maturity and begin to decay through the inevitable proliferation of divergent internal directions, their fundamental lessons are absorbed into the general idea-space of conservatism.

Conservatism inherits these ideas because it is consequentialist, or based in the judgment of effects to validate its causes, not seeing causes as things worthy in themselves as in a moral or social view. Its morality is presumed and is not expressed in the philosophy itself, but used to assess the results of various actions (“causes”) throughout history, keeping those that not only avoid immediate bad results but work toward the best eternal results, generally summarized as “the good, the beautiful and the true” in unison with each other.

Nihilism seems inimical to conservatives because it rejects the inherency of morality. Under nihilism, moral standards are a choice we elect to have, and function as a kind of technology or learning, much as evolution is a choice without a clear value. It may be more comfortable to remain simple and wild and there is no objective way to disprove that, only to point out that it forecloses certain opportunities, including the good, beautiful and true. Nihilism takes consequentialism to the next level: nothing is innate, and we must choose what consequences we desire not based on ourselves, for that would be granting an inherent value to humanness, but to the whole picture of existence that those consequences silhouette.

Neoreaction and nihilism share a common ground in this area. Removing human emotion and morality from the equation, they treat philosophy and politics as modes of learning. In the neoreactionary view, government and civilization are types of technology that we must master, and we master those not through moral reasoning in which cause is the only consideration, but by looking at causes and the effects they generate, then choosing which effects are most sensible given the parameters of reality. We are limited and judged by what we choose. There is no inherent wrongness in someone choosing to live in a mud hut, but there is also a lack of potential in it, and neoreactionaries abandon both the traditional conservative view of inherent morality above humanity and the traditional liberal view of inherent morality within humanity. Instead, they see only the question of a species adapting to its environment, and the choices before it.

This works around the liberal idea of “one right way” according to a human model. It instead views humanity from outside of humanity itself. The libertarian roots of neoreaction suggested that government be viewed as if it were a business, questioning how effective it is, and comparing what may be purchased with the same money. In this context, modern liberal democracy looks inefficient in that the end result it produces is miserable for its citizens, where an aristocratic monarchy where culture takes the place of day-to-day government provides a more beautiful, realistic and thus ultimately good experience of life. In this view, civilization must be viewed in unison; acts of individual humans do not exist in a separate context from the group. Civilization is a group effort to achieve a specific way of life that constitutes both an adaptation and enhancement of our natural state.

Humans fear this kind of thinking on an individual level. The individual seeks to extend the morality of self-preservative fear to the group, so that it creates a mentality of protecting every individual on the basis of individuality alone. In this context, the individual feels protected from consequences; thought exists at the level of pure cause, where the cause in and of itself constitutes results if it pleases others. The paradox in this is that by creating an ideology to administer this belief, society creates a goal higher than the individual, and as history shows is willing to sacrifice many individuals in order to preserve that dogma. The lesson of the past two centuries is that ideology is a dead-end path, because it is entrenched in cause alone, and that only cause-effect reasoning produces viable results.

What neoreactionaries, conservatives and nihilists have in common is that all three groups are realists. They do not see politics as a question within the human world, but a question of how humans will adapt to their world. This type of thinking frees us from the negative logic of liberalism, where a moral justification must be defended against reality, and lets us see reality adaptation as a technology for achieving any number of ends, forcing upon us the question that defines us: what do we want? It is easy to complain, criticize and lambast existing systems or details, but more difficult to have a vision of the future. That is where the future of realist thought begins.

When did the brainwashing begin?

1950:

superman_un-american

1949:

un-american-1949

We’re familiar with the saying that you can win a battle but lose a war. What about the idea that you can win a war, but lose your own society?

America in 1941 reprised its role from its own Civil War: mobilize the masses and industry and use that power to crush your enemies. To mobilize those masses however, you need a powerful individualistic reason that goes back to the French Revolution of 1789, like class resentment. “If one is not free, none of us are free!”

People being in their unrefined form — before mental and spiritual discipline kicks in — little more than monkeys, they respond impulsively and compulsively to open-ended symbols like freedom, empathy, justice and peace without even knowing what those would look like in application. It just feels good and they are afraid not to support the idea.

The age of mass warfare made it clear that he with the most troops would win, but even more, that he with the most equipment would win. German Panzers were carefully built and crewed while American and Russian tanks were driven by crazed weekenders, with about the results you would expect — at least six losses for each one German loss. But the Allies prevailed by having more men and equipment in the battle zone, and essentially practicing the military equivalent of spamming the Germans into retreat.

This reprised American tactics in the Civil War, where the Union forces massed factory workers with mass-produced and possibly inferior weapons, and sent them up against the sharpshooters of the South. But even a sniper cannot make up for being outnumbered ten to one, especially in materiel. The South had trouble getting enough uniforms; the North had too many and went looking for people to fill them.

It was the mass mobilization at a psychological level that did the former Allies in, however. To justify their war on the South, they needed to appeal to democracy — none are “free” until all are “free” — and so they mobilized the resentful workers of the factories. In the second World War, the Allies mobilized the unemployed and bitter from the Great Depression and made them into somebodies by giving them uniforms. It was a wave of bodies crushing dissent.

In turn, that programming spread throughout society itself and, because it empowered the resentful and otherwise failed and gave them purpose, it took on a life of its own. Now it continues to spread, as a zombie ideology, because people have learned that supporting this ideology gets them brownie points with government and other clueless people, just like it did during WWII. Without purpose and without unity, our society churns onward like a driverless machine heading toward the sunset…

Nationalism returns

wanting_to_know_all_religions

As I predicted, the rehabilitation of nationalism has begun starting with the Jewish people. When the presumptive victims of nationalism find that, in order to avoid the genocide their enemies desired, they must turn to nationalism, the idea of nationalism itself becomes a viable political option again.

In Israel Benjamin Netanyahu swept to victory in an election that the mainstream media said he was likely to lose, surprising pundits and world leaders, but not the citizens affected by the problems he, unlike others, would approach. After his victory, he warned of a typical leftist tactic, which is to use multiculturalism to obliterate the majority culture of a land:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sounded an alarm about a large turnout of Arab Israeli voters who he said endangered his rule, comments the Arab bloc denounced as racist.

The prime minister, who had fallen behind his main center-left challenger in polling days before Tuesday’s election, accused Arab parties of benefiting from funding by foreigners who sought to topple him.

Leftists in the United States use the same tactic. Starting in 1965 with the Hart-Cellar act, they began importing third-world labor, but this law was only the latest in a pattern of expanding the American franchise from “Anglo-Saxon” — German, English, Scots, Dutch, Scandinavian and other related populations with Nordic-Germanic roots — to include those of different traditions, from Greek, Italian, and Jewish to Irish and quarter-Asian Eastern Europeans.

Their goal is simple: to destroy.

Leftism parades itself as a group philosophy based on altruism, but its actual roots lie in narcissistic individualism. The underconfident and mediocre individual fears social judgment much like he fears natural selection, being aware of his weakness. He knows he can play the human game, whether social or credentialist, and succeed, but he fears being put up against a non-humanity reality. A night in the forest, or writing a novel of actual depth, or even understanding himself, puts such a person in a panic. He formulates a goal: remove social standards, so that his behavior can never be compared to an ideal, and through that contrast it cannot be revealed how far short he falls.

When groups of these people come together, they invent endless new theories. Their goal with this is to be a moving target. If you use last year’s term for their issues, or ideals, they will look at you with blank stares. They have moved on. The point is to manifest themselves under as many different names as possible so they are never recognized. This is why leftists have a mania for news and theories.

They also tend toward using justification-based logic. That is, instead of arguing that x action will produce y result, they find a presumed universal good — equality, helping the poor, racial justice — and use it to argue for their plan. On that level, x action is good because it falls under accepted justification y, and whether it achieves that result is irrelevant. This conceals the fact that their goal is not actually to achieve results, but to keep perpetual war going. They want goals that are impossible and paradoxical, because this allows them to force people to accept nonsense, and easily sort the sheep from the goats by letting in only those who zombie-like have accepted the nonsense.

Altruism works because a justification needs an object which is big and unassailable. Once upon a time, it was “the children,” orphans if you could and poor orphans if you were really lucky. After that it was the right of women to vote and do everything else a man could do. Then it was the American Indian, whose empire collapsed before Columbus but whose misfortunes could easily be assigned as a whole (instead of, correctly, in part) to European colonization. Then it was the African-American — formerly “colored” and then “Negro” and finally “Black” — who could be brought along to any party to shock the parents and show how open-minded you were. Then it was the great Hispanic gold rush of 2005-2008, and lately we’ve been on varieties of gays and other sexually non-conforming people. The object of justification must be someone who can be pitied, making the altruist feel both the frenetic strength of righteous conviction and an inner glow at how they are helping the “disadvantaged,” “less fortunate” or “oppressed.” It is a simple psychology.

The goal of the mediocritists — leftists and other Crowdists fit within this category — was to put the majority of Anglo-Saxon America on the defensive by invertedly accusing them of being unfair, cruel and horrible. Like a child lashing out at its parents, this reaction was calculated to invalidate the assumed benevolence behind authority itself: “But you haven’t included everyone!” they shriek, implying that therefore, the authority is favoritist for one party alone. Authority responds to this because without its validity, it looks like an oppressor… and we all remember that ugly situation in France and Russia that ended in streets red with blood (and Reds) and men, women and children being killed for the crime of being more equal than the rest.

The leftist goal is not what they say it is; they in fact, have no goal, only an impulse to destroy. The reason for this destruction is simple. They want to remove authority that can make them look bad. For that reason, they favor big government, which will tell them what to do with millions of little rules but transgressing against those never makes people look bad in a social context. Rather, they get sympathy from others for having been so oppressed. What they fear are social standards like morality, heritage, comportment and most of all self-discipline. What leftists desire is acceptance of all mediocrity, tolerance of all venality, and endorsement of all behaviors so that whatever they are doing goes unnoticed. It is like the classroom when the teacher is gone, where every child is glad to see another child doing something worse than they are. If what the other guy is doing is bad, then lesser offenses will not be noticed or if they are, not punished. This is why leftists want to destroy the majority and replace its standards of behavior with non-standards and a bunch of rules which ostensibly fill the gap.

Since the French Revolution, leftists have been trying to do away with majorities. Anti-nationalism — otherwise known as internationalism, and also: diversity, multiculturalism, multiracialism — became their tin drum to hammer during WWII and they have been beating it since. Whenever someone suggested nationalism, the leftists trotted out pictures of Holocaust victims. Not because they gave a fig about the Jews, but because the Jews could then be pitied. With pity comes altruism, and with altruism comes the magic sword that liberals can use to drive away authority: call it racist and mean and compare it to Hitler. In an instant, it fades away, and the leftists can assume power and hand out lucrative appointments to their cronies, ensuring that their behavior will never come to light. This is the leftist personal goal. They want no oversight, and they want the ability to profit from society by obeying its many frustrating roles that no sane person would tolerate, and being well-paid for their forbearance.

In Israel, the left predicted that Netanyahu could not win without a diverse constituency. In the United States, they now predict the same thing for Republicans:

Ninety-five percent of self-identified Republican primary voters are white. That’s among the findings of the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, as well as that 74% of all Americans age 18 and older are white, a figure that tracks with census data. This means that heading into 2016, the Republican primary electorate is dramatically less diverse than the country overall. The GOP primary electorate is even less diverse than the country was in 1916, when 91% of the voting-age population was white, according to historical census data.

All of this is a smokescreen. The leftists do not actually care about Palestinians or they would be over there taking up arms. They similarly do not care about the African-American, or they would be inviting said people into their elite city condos and gated suburb communities. They could care less on all fronts. What they want is power. They achieve it in the same way every parasite does, which is by destroying the brain of a people — its culture, its best leaders, and its moral standards — and replacing them with oblivion. In oblivion, the host does not notice the parasite, much like a spider with its brain paralyzed by a wasp sting that as a zombie does the bidding of its new master, to its doom.

This leads us to consideration of the future of nationalism. In France with the Front National, in the UK with UKIP, and in Israel with Likud we see that nationalism is rising. With Israel accepting it, we see the pity-justification of the left collapsing. The time is now for nationalists everywhere because people have realized that diversity is a sham, that leftist government is the same kleptocracy it was in the Soviet Union, and that the endgame will be the same as in Venezuela, with people starving while secret police catch those who whisper the wrong slogan. Leftism is death; multiculturalism and egalitarianism are the weapons of leftism. People everywhere are ready to remove the absolute nature of those weapons and replace them with former concerns thought lost: culture, results, responsibilities and moral standards.

World leftism is unraveling much as our kings and philosophers told us it would. It has taken over two centuries, but that is the blink of an eye to history. It takes at least a century to see the impact of any policy in full. In Europe and the United States, people are looking at the chaos that is Brazil and Venezuela and realizing that through leftism and diversity — even if we like and admire the groups being mixed into us — we will be replaced. What comes with replacement is strong leftist government and shortly after that, a series of ongoing collapses resulting in third world levels of disorganization, corruption, poor hygiene and social disorder. Anyone with a brain wishes to avoid this future, while liberals want us to accept it adn go along with because they, as individuals, do not care for the future. They are concerned only with their power right now. What happens in fifty years when they are dead bothers them not at all, and like any true parasite, they are sociopathic in outlook if not in tendency.

Netanyahu was told by all of the “authorities” and “elites” that he could not win with a nationalist platform. He won. Similarly they tell the GOP in the US that it cannot win by appealing to the white people who are 74% of the population, and yet it can win. The majority can and will defend itself once it emerges from the fog of the constant lies issued by leftists and the terms they change every few months to keep observers befuddled. Despite the best efforts of leftists, nationalism is rising and liberalism is falling. No matter how many lies they tell, remember that now is the time to push not for less but more, and to encourage the failed idea of leftism to fall into the dustbin of history where it belongs.

The Book of Strange New Things, by Michel Faber

michel_faber-the_book_of_strange_new_things

Sometime in the 1990s, literature became captured by its own parasitic industry that pumps out MFAs and the resulting “serious” books at an alarming rate, yet seems to produce no books that resonate with an audience. A sort of publishing underground has emerged in response where oddball writers confront issues that terrify us, as opposed to the self-congratulatory empathy teaching circle of “official” literature.

Michel Faber emerges as a strong voice within that new frontier with The Book of Strange New Things, a confrontation with the emptiness of modernity and its rapidly accelerating decay. Set in the near-future or an alternate present, it chronicles the passage of a man into deep space to encounter another civilization. In doing so the book evokes two other works of highly metaphorical fiction, Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and Italo Calvino’s Invisible Cities. As in Conrad, this book involves a journey into the world of the Other in order to understand ourselves, and as in Calvino it separates the human psyche into different possibilities represented by different cities.

Written in sparse functional modern prose with a number of elegant passages, The Book of Strange New Things merits not being spoiled by additional revelations of its plot. It moves quickly and becomes engrossing and, while the latter half may run a bit long, it provides the type of disorienting immersion that serves the plot well as earth becomes a distant memory. It directly confronts the collapse of human civilization on earth and the emptiness of life, using some Biblical passages as a guide and contrast but not in an advocacy role. The resulting is a startling unearthing of the question of purpose in human affairs and how our lack of it has made us marooned in an alien wasteland of our own loveless, faithless and self-doubting souls.

In theory, this book could be categorized as science fiction, and while it borrows much from that genre like postmodernist Thomas Pynchon and Don DeLillo, and more recent meta-modernists like Michel Houllebecq, the fundamental aspect of this book is the descent into the human psyche itself more like a novel from Conrad, Celine or Robertson Davies than any science fiction. It is subtle, almost like the touch of a ghost on the skin, but the meaning saturates the novel in an atmospheric sense and provides both total escapism and inexorable collision with the many necessary things we moderns ignore. Cache a little extra time for this and enjoy departing into deep space that curiously resembles a venture into the space within.

No jobs

van_down_by_the_river

They threaten us when we are young: study hard, work hard, and get a good job or you’ll end up living in a van down by the river. You will fail where others succeed. And life for you will be bitterness as everyone laughs at you.

When I first became involved with conservatism, the most common question floating around was “Why don’t people wake up?” We could see how our society was degenerating through a death of a thousand cuts, and clearly there was no path but into oblivion. And yet people did nothing.

Most astonishing was how inert the smarter people were. The people you would think might be able to make vast change were instead completely resigned. There is nothing we can do, they would explain. The system simply will not change.

It seemed as if the entirety of our society was deliberately pushing itself into denial, if not outright self-destruction. People militantly refused to see the obvious. Resentment, self-pity and helplessness hung in the air.

Many of my cohorts went off on tangents looking for symptoms to blame as if they were causes. Most blamed the rich, some blamed the Jews, others found more nuanced groups to attack like Bilderbergers or Freemasons. I have a simpler suggestion.

Much of this relates to what Bob Black writes in “The Abolition of Work”:

My minimum definition of work is forced labor, that is, compulsory production. Both elements are essential. Work is production enforced by economic or political means, by the carrot or the stick. (The carrot is just the stick by other means.) But not all creation is work. Work is never done for its own sake, it’s done on account of some product or output that the worker (or, more often, somebody else) gets out of it. This is what work necessarily is. To define it is to despise it. But work is usually even worse than its definition decrees. The dynamic of domination intrinsic to work tends over time toward elaboration. In advanced work-riddled societies, including all industrial societies whether capitalist or “communist,” work invariably acquires other attributes which accentuate its obnoxiousness.

Usually — and this is even more true in “communist” than capitalist countries, where the state is almost the only employer and everyone is an employee — work is employment, i.e., wage-labor, which means selling yourself on the installment plan. Thus 95% of Americans who work, work for somebody (or something) else. In Cuba or China or any other alternative model which might be adduced, the corresponding figure approaches 100%. Only the embattled Third World peasant bastions — Mexico, India, Brazil, Turkey — temporarily shelter significant concentrations of agriculturists who perpetuate the traditional arrangement of most laborers in the last several millennia, the payment of taxes (= ransom) to the state or rent to parasitic landlords in return for being otherwise left alone. Even this raw deal is beginning to look good. All industrial (and office) workers are employees and under the sort of surveillance which ensures servility.

But modern work has worse implications. People don’t just work, they have “jobs.” One person does one productive task all the time on an or-else basis. Even if the task has a quantum of intrinsic interest (as increasingly many jobs don’t) the monotony of its obligatory exclusivity drains its ludic potential. A “job” that might engage the energies of some people, for a reasonably limited time, for the fun of it, is just a burden on those who have to do it for forty hours a week with no say in how it should be done, for the profit of owners who contribute nothing to the project, and with no opportunity for sharing tasks or spreading the work among those who actually have to do it.

Societies commit suicide when they become insufferable. Work makes them insufferable, because instead of serving a function, people serve as functionaries of image. This is worst in democracy, with its handmaiden consumerism, where image really is more important than reality because it is what convinces voters to vote and shoppers to buy.

Two hundred years ago, we had roles with clear goals to them, and we were rewarded for them. Now we have jobs, where the role is the job itself, and the reward is the only motivation. Much as we separated sex from marriage, we have separated work from goal, and the result is complete breakdown.

People are not “waking up” because work has crushed them. They either take low-paid jobs for lower stress and live in middle class suburbs where one can never escape the poor judgment of others, or take high-paid jobs and give their lives to them then miss their former power when they retire and die out of pique. Jobs take souls.

The best of our people have the least interest in fixing anything because they have a simple message for society: DIE. They resent their jobs, which are basically servitude to people who are stupider than they are but have more time to become “important” in the job hierarchy, and they find the stupidity of their clients or customers appalling. They have become slaves to stupidity and through that, stupor. Their brains could not recognize the crisis even if it were in front of their noses, and even if they did, they would cheer it on. Destroy this miserable place.

If conservatives want to start a revolution against the Revolution, the best target is work itself: get people working fewer hours by removing all appearance-based standards of conformity, including most regulation. Send as many workers home as possible by eliminating all make-work, and pay them to guard empty lots or watch out for pedophiles instead. Get people off the death trip that comes with the inevitable misery of jobs, work and obedience.