Monday, January 23rd, 2017
Human beings react to life much like a sapling being pushed back by an unwary hiker. They will bend until they are about to break and then, because they have nothing to lose, will become an equal and opposite force — but released in an instant — to what has pushed them down. The sapling will snap or snap back, and the hiker will go home bloodied.
Since The Enlightenment,™ the best minds of humanity have been spent trying to invent “hacks” — unorthodox improvisations — which will make the idea of government-by-equality work. Our first stab was democracy, but that proved unstable, so in 1789 the Americans came up with a brilliant document, the Constitution, which was designed through an extensive system of hooks and levers to limit the impulses of the herd that come with pure democracy, or “mob rule” as it is more accurately described.
People put great faith in each one of these hacks because they know, on some instinctual level, that Western Civilization is in decline and totally unstable. As a result, they are under constant stress which is (somewhat) alleviated by the illusion of stability. Since WWII, the prevailing doctrine has been what came out of the American civil war: we had to destroy democracy in order to save it, and instead must have a powerful government that enforces the “correct” ideology on all of us. That was kept in check until its competition, the Soviet Union, fell, and in the ensuing monopoly the American experiment truly went off the rails, taking Europe with it, ending up with a new USSR in the US/EU.
One of the cornerstones of this new empire is diversity, or the idea that equality extends beyond class to race, and therefore, that the correct ideology is to accept having people from many ethnic origins in the same society. Like most Leftist programs, this clashes with reality and so requires constant laws, arrests, censorship, lawsuits and ostracism lynchings in order to make it appear to work in the short-term at least.
The perceived necessity of diversity made it a type of superpower for government. Much as they once found the voters were afraid not to approve of any help destined for “the poor,” big governments now found that voters were afraid not to approve of anything that benefited diversity. And so, diversity crept into every aspect of our lives, following “civil rights” agendas where anyone who excluded a diverse person was assumed to be guilty and punished monetarily, which brought business on-line with the regime.
But in 2016, something extraordinary happened. People looked around and said, “We did everything the politicians told us to do, and even elected a black president. But this has made the diversity crisis — ‘race relations’ — worse, as if it only emboldened these diverse groups. They behave as if, in the private truths they keep to themselves, they believe they are our enemies. And in fact, it makes sense that they would want to conquer us, since that is the only way they are really going to feel victorious about having come here as hired help from failed civilizations.”
The sapling whips back.
The founding group of America — Western Europeans, also called WASPs — tend to be non-confrontational people until they are actually endangered. For them, it is easier than for most to simply work around impediments and then go on to do what they enjoy doing, which is being effective at work, play and invention. This is classic behavior of a high-IQ society.
But, now that diversity has revealed itself as exactly what all of the bad boys of history said it was — an invasion, a conquest and a genocide — American Western Europeans (AWEs) are striking back. Their first step is to put themselves in a defensive posture: buy guys, buy gold and canned goods, and get away from the problem:
It’s about how many white people have reacted to increasing exposure to nonwhite populations, who are following in their footsteps and pursuing the traditional American dream. The reaction is not always articulated or even intentional; in fact, most people say they want to live in a diverse and integrated community; they, too, have the dream that no one will be judged by the color of their skin.
But data shows that as minorities move into suburbs, white families are making small and personal decisions that add velocity to the momentum of discrimination. They are increasingly choosing to self-segregate into racially isolated communities — “hunkering down,” as Lichter likes to call it — and preserving a specific kind of dream.
…A growing number of people are worried about the country becoming majority minority, including one in three Trump supporters. And more than half of white Americans believe the country’s “way of life” needs to be protected against foreign influences.
These new white enclaves are different from the old type of white flight which saw people going to whitopias, or areas that were at least mostly white so that they could avoid the problems of diversity. The new flight is not from problems, but from diversity itself, because diversity savages trust and trust is essential for high IQ societies to function.
This is echoed by statements made by those who retreat to white enclaves:
“A country can have racism without racists.” Writing in an opinion piece for The Washington Post in 2009, Benjamin noted that racial discrimination isn’t necessarily as deliberate and intentional as it used to be. In Idaho and Georgia, for example, Benjamin found that many white people emigrate to these predominantly white communities not necessarily because they’re racist, but for “friendliness, comfort, security, safety—reasons that they implicitly associate to whiteness in itself.” But these qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race and class—thereby letting discrimination and segregation thrive “even in the absence of any person’s prejudice or ill will.”
The first inklings of changing white attitudes came during the early years of the Barack Obama presidency, when a petition to stop white genocide made the news, even in the big liberal papers:
“Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY?” he writes. “White countries are being flooded with third world non-whites, and Whites are required by law to integrate with them so as to ‘assimilate,’ i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.”
He says that this is a violation of the United Nations Convention against genocide. Thus, he is petitioning President Obama to “end White Genocide in the United States, and to call for the end of White Genocide in Europe, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.”
And Albert ends with this. “Supporting White Genocide is not anti-racist. It’s anti-white!”
This means that white people no longer think of the threat of diversity as a threat from individual groups or individuals within those groups. If they did, they would have laughed off the white genocide petition instead of reading about it eagerly. Now they recognized that the threat is diversity itself, and that they will not be allowed to have whitopias; instead, they will be milked for tax money and then eliminated.
Here is where government understands nothing of the human mind. Diversity is strictly speaking not necessary; that is, if it went away, white people would resume doing the things they once did that are now served by a minority underclass, and costs would go up, but other costs — taxes, insurance, crime, riots — would go down and so things would equalize.
The problem for politicians with policies that are not strictly necessary is that people treat them as binaries. They either support them, or want them gone entirely. The politicians, smelling money and power, managed to sell diversity for many decades. But now that it has shown us its true nature, people want it gone. They are leaving it behind and have elected Donald Trump to prevent them from being obligated to it.
If Trump really wants to go down in history as the best American president, he will find a way to abolish “civil rights” style laws like affirmative action through a bill passed in Congress or an amendment to the Constitution. This way, his work cannot be undone when we have a few really good years and the voters go back to sleep and elect the next Leftist parasite.
Trump instead is taking a difficult path, probably moving indirectly to make immigration to the United States so uncertain and expensive that few will attempt it, while squeezing the illegals by going after those who hire them, thus strengthening his government with an infusion of fines. Currently his attempt is to reinforce the “proposition nation”, but add qualifiers that amount to being obstacles for most immigrants worldwide:
Trump espoused his worldview in remarkably few words. He is a vituperative critic of the post-Cold War international system. Where the architects of that system see it as a bulwark of stability and global prosperity, Trump sees it as diminishing the United States in favor of foreign countries and an international class of wealthy political and financial elites. Washington has been serving its own interests, he said, and not the people’s. That ends now. His America will turn inward, focusing on domestic stability, education, infrastructure, and jobs. The one exception will be the fight against Islamic terrorism, where Trump is prepared to join with autocracies in pursuit of common goals.
Trump forcefully rejected identity politics. Racial and ethnic identities, he said, are less important than our status as American citizens. “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.” There are no hyphenated Americans in this worldview, only Americans and outsiders. And Americans are to be privileged over outsiders. It’s been said that American presidents are replaced by their opposites. What a contrast to Barack Obama’s second inaugural address, where he called for a “world without walls.”
As others have observed, this is dangerously close to JFK’s policy. We know Trump admires both JFK and Reagan, both of whom were moderates to a realistic person but are far-right to mob rule crazed egalitarians, but his spin on the JFK rule is to stop accepting lower-value immigrants. This defers the diversity problem, legally, but may have ripple effects by making an application for citizenship the opposite of a sure thing, encouraging would-be immigrants to look elsewhere. Watch Europe adopt similar rules in the coming months.
Trump is acting indirectly and it remains to be seen whether he will cuck or not. However, a rising tide of acknowledgement that diversity has failed — following the recognition in Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order that after liberal democracy comes world nationalism — shows us that the people want this to be the first step, an indirect stab at removing diversity, because it is now becoming clear that coexistence between different groups is fatal:
When asked by Jamie Weinstein, senior editor and columnist for The Daily Caller, whether a Jew could be elected mayor of Ramallah in an independent Palestinian state, Areikat said, “after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”
Areikat added that “Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future.”
The die is cast. Americans and Europeans want escape from diversity. This is not limited to opposing immigration; they want diversity to end, at least as a compulsory policy, and if the mood is consistent, as a policy at all. They want us to go back to the order before diversity, having recognized that we have been misled by feelings of guilt, but that any obligation we have to other groups lies in the past, not the future.
This was apparently even a few years ago, when the UK discussed its guilt-fetishism:
Mr Hague said he was not alive when the then prime minister Harold Macmillan made his famous “wind of change” speech in 1960 – acknowledging independence movements across Africa.
…”Britain in seen in a different light. We have to get out of this post-colonial guilt. Be confident in ourselves. The lessons we should take from the admitted need for austerity, saving money, is that we actually need to be more ambitious, not less.”
The UK, he suggested, should “just relax” about its role as an imperial power and the legacy of that period in its history, adding that “it is a long time ago, the retreat from empire”.
If history is any guide, the pendulum of Hegel has swung one way and then the other, and has settled in the middle. We tried colonialism, then we tried inverse colonialism by inviting everyone here, and neither contributed to our well-being, so it is time to try something new and yet time-proven, namely nationalism, the idea that each nation consists of one ethnic group only and that it belongs to whatever group founded that society.
Sunday, January 22nd, 2017
For the first time in recent memory, Civil War 2.0 threatens America: the country is permanently divided into two groups, one a Leftist inclusive group, and the other a realist group that wants sanity before ideology.
This has been building for some time. Thomas Chittum wrote about it in the 1990s, and the certainly of division between the suburban/rural traditional America and the new group of cosmopolitan, multicultural, feminist, Leftist and neurotic people from the big cities.
Obviously, this could be avoided by separating the groups and letting them make rules for themselves in their local communities, but this will both please no one and create a divided nation which is more easily defeated.
This leaves only fighting it out.
Sunday, January 22nd, 2017
Failure comes through success, because success brings new challenges and the need for adaptation is visible to only a few, thus opposed by those who see it as infringing upon their needs.
For example, once the West succeeded, it needed to set new goals, but those clashes with the individualism of its members. They then opposed the necessary changes, and so society shifted to being a life support system for its citizens, instead of an organic or ecosystemic entity which acted to improve itself.
We can find a metaphorical similarity in the combined benefits and disasters of civilization for health and intelligence:
Contrary to popular belief, agriculture has caused decreases in many facets of our lives. These diseases, more aptly termed ‘diseases of civilization‘ are directly caused by agricultural and societal ways of living. This increases disease rates as it’s easier for diseases to spread faster through bigger populations. Moreover, we haven’t had time to evolve to the current diet we now eat in first-world countries which has lead to what is termed an ‘evolutionary mismatch‘ between genes and environment. We evolved to eat a certain diet and the introduction of easily digestible carbohydrates which spike insulin the highest. Since insulin causes weight gain, and carbohydrate intake has dramatically increased since the 70s, obesity has increased as a result as countries begin to industrialize and more processed foods are available to the populace.
However, since the Industrial Revolution, height has increased along with IQ. Researchers argue that in first-world countries, high rates of obesity are not preventable due to the excess amounts of highly refined and processed foods. There is data for this theory. In first-world countries, the heritability of BMI is between .76 and .85. Since first-world countries are industrialized, we would expect them to hit their ‘genetic height and weight’ along with having the ability to reach their IQ potential. However, with the excess amount of highly processed and refined foods, this would also, in theory, have the population hit their ‘genetic weights’. This is what we see in first-world countries.
Civilization has brought us many benefits, but until we figure out how to fit those into a healthy balance, it also brings diseases. These cause a slow degradation of the group which eventually outweighs the benefits, killing the civilization as a whole and leaving behind a lack of social order and broken genetics.
Sunday, January 22nd, 2017
In the land of Oregon, the realization has dawned that immigrants are polluting the local bloodline. Once mixed, the population can never go back, and this makes it more effective in the short term but less stable in the long term. In short, genocide will have occurred through replacement of the population by a new one, and that will erase all that was functional there.
Sound far-fetched? It is not, but we are speaking of genetically modified grass seed instead of human beings:
The altered grass has taken root in Oregon, of all places, the self-professed grass seed capital of the world with a billion-dollar-a-year industry at stake. The grass has proven hard to kill because it’s been modified to be resistant to Roundup, the ubiquitous, all-purpose herbicide.
…”We don’t understand the ecological or the economic impact of this,” said Katy Coba, former director of the Oregon Agriculture Department. “We need to figure out the extent of the contamination.”
…Many international buyers will not buy genetically modified products, citing potential safety concerns. Some countries ban them outright. It was just three years ago that some Asian buyers suspended purchases of Northwest wheat after traces of genetically modified strains were detected.
At first, it seemed ludicrous to worry about such things. Why concern yourself with what happens a valley or two away? Look toward yourself, and accept the new arrival. And then, it becomes clear that the new arrival will displace the old. It is resistant to many of the weaknesses that afflict the old, and yet, in the long term, it may be less desirable.
Slowly, the realization dawns that genetic pollution may be the worst form of all because there is no going back, and once it begins, it is difficult if not impossible to stop.
Sunday, January 22nd, 2017
In the midst of an otherwise maudlin article about race and privilege, an African-descended writer discovers the joys of uniformity, which although admitted in a backhand way, speak favorably for the sanity of nationalism:
The crew of boys leaning against it and joshing each other were recognizable; different faces, similar stories. I was astonished at how safe the streets felt to me, once again one black body among many, no longer having to anticipate the many ways my presence might instill fear and how to offer some reassuring body language. Passing police cars were once again merely passing police cars. Jamaican police could be pretty brutal, but they didn’t notice me the way American police did. I could be invisible in Jamaica in a way I can’t be invisible in the United States.
Walking had returned to me a greater set of possibilities. And why walk, if not to create a new set of possibilities? Following serendipity, I added new routes to the mental maps I had made from constant walking in that city from childhood to young adulthood, traced variations on the old pathways. Serendipity, a mentor once told me, is a secular way of speaking of grace; it’s unearned favor. Seen theologically, then, walking is an act of faith. Walking is, after all, interrupted falling. We see, we listen, we speak, and we trust that each step we take won’t be our last, but will lead us into a richer understanding of the self and the world.
In Jamaica, I felt once again as if the only identity that mattered was my own, not the constricted one that others had constructed for me.
When among our own, identity is natural and evident. Even if the situation is less than ideal, the rules make sense and we can anticipate them. Under diversity, we are all kept in a cycle of distrust and uncertainty, which while it benefits government — which is strengthened as a result — creates existential misery in a population which over time, becomes a form of self-destruction.
The history of white people in America can be understood through this lens. Since its founding days, America has struggled with diversity, first of Amerinds and then of Africans, finally of the whole world coming through our doors. This has lessened social trust and forced white Americans into a custodial role where they serve longer and longer hours to subsidize and manage the rest.
An alternative view of this situation is that it shows a society which has lost purpose and so, is trying to make its citizens happy through increased wealth. Since that has failed, it is time for a different angle, starting with a sense of what is comfortable, natural and capable of bringing joy to our citizens. That cannot be found in diversity.
Saturday, January 21st, 2017
The root of modernity is individualism. The individual wants to be included by mechanistic action like equality, as this guarantees he cannot lose but also allows him to continue to agitate for more. In groups, individuals agree that this is best, and so they create collectivized individualism, or mob rule called crowdism. Like a gang or cult, this infests society and subverts it by reversing thinking from principle to results (cause to effect) to thinking that argues from what is, and tries to find a way to justify it as socially good or bad so that it advances the crowdist narrative. To do this, it creates the mythos of itself as a victim so that its taking of wealth and power from society can be justified as positive. This creates a one-dimensional world where whatever makes everyone feel included is good, and everything else is a source of victimhood and bad, so this must be fought instead of the real-world problems that civilization faces. From that thinking one gets the type of smug, entitled and witless thinking demonstrated by this poster for the women’s anti-Trump protests today.
Saturday, January 21st, 2017
Bruce Charlton and Faith and Heritage lead the Christian Reaction (#CRX) movement, and today Mr. Charlton writes about a sensation of Platonic forms:
What I mean is that if you and I are to be in communication, then when we think of a triangle, a face, the theory of evolution by natural selection or anything else… we must both be able to think exactly the identical thought.
…This, in turn, means that the thought cannot be inside either or both of our minds; but must instead be ‘located’ in some realm to which we both have access. In effect, we could only think exactly the same triangle (and therefore experience communication) if both of us were thinking in some kind of common ‘space’ where this triangle was located.
In other words, structures that exist in more than one mind must have a locus outside of that mind.
Another vision might be this: what makes forms real is that they have a logical reason for existing, such as — using the classic example of a chair — the simplest platform for supporting a seated human requires three to four legs, a seat and a back. Chairs can appear in different minds because of this derivation, not because a universal necessarily exists somewhere.
However, by that same token, there must be a larger causal space which contains the designs which make these logical reasons manifest. This space is a calculating space, working like a big computer to forever refine itself, and it feeds back into physical reality to create tangibility to its results, ending the possibility of infinite loops or other “rabbit hole” calculations.
In this vision, the thoughts themselves are not the Platonic space, but the ideas to which they refer, which are derived not from the physical brain but from the idea in which physical reality exists.
This presents to us a monist view of the universe in which both physical and metaphysical attributes exist within the same set of logical rules, and therefore, that activity in the metaphysical zone — the raw idea — is parallel to that in the physical.
Our thoughts, by referring to objects in reality, can then influence those objects if the thoughts are relevant and accurate enough to be logically related to the forms of those objects. This is the principle discovered by the hermeticists.
Let us see how this would apply to a real world example:
The sexual revolution is therefore not an epiphenomenon of our cultural malaise – it is core: the single most effective and enduring agent of permanent Leftist revolution.
So far as I know, none of the supposedly ‘right wing’ or ‘populist’ movements in the West have yet made clear their collective (as well as personal) repentance of the sexual revolution; and until they do, they will simply remain what they currently are – which is merely a different species of Leftism (just as National Socialism was merely a different species of Socialism).
When the mind is organized toward promiscuity, it has (1) reversed its process of thinking and (2) rejected any sense of enduring aspects of reality. In this way, promiscuity is itself an ideology which supports the Left, which also begins with reversed thinking that excludes long-term analysis. Reversed thinking occurs when people “argue from” physical objects instead of “arguing toward” principles or transcendental goals. This means that their actions are not deliberate, but in response to the options before them, and so are entirely shaped by their environment.
Sexual convenience relies on the availability of sex, and instead of finding the purpose of sex and its context within a goal, it treats the sex as a reason in itself, eliminating any cause-effect or goal/purpose related thinking. This naturally leads to rejection of the idea of long-term or enduring attributes of reality because reversed thinking is entirely ad hoc but then justifies itself as good by appealing to symbolic reasons, such as the socially-driven morality of the herd.
At this point, you have many brains programming the universe with memes of deconstruction because their own thinking is deconstructed as a result of being reversed and therefore, without the ability to have purpose or goal.
An alternative would be to formulate in our minds ideals that are transcendental and geared toward qualitative improvement, at which point we are sending forth radiant signals of intelligence and long-term thinking, which then makes other ideas available to us at the same time it attracts other objects relevant to those attributes.
In contrast, universal reason would hold that thoughts are objects, and not chains of cause-effect relationships forming structures, and therefore that all minds which hold the same thoughts are in fact the manifestation of those ideas. This seems appealing because we are naturally solipsistic, and want to believe the world is a subset of our minds.
In hermetic wisdom, which is an extension of ancient Hindu and Pagan ideals, whatever you idealize you attract, and thinking of what you lack produces purposelessness. The description of a Platonic view of the world above explains how this could work in the type of information science that views that world as a continuous, calculating, aware but unconscious entity.
Saturday, January 21st, 2017
Across the West, people are suspecting that institutions are corrupt, which has led to a lack of faith in not just our civilization but our own personal futures, as polls indicate:
After 17 years of polling, the Edelman marketing firm found that trust in four institutions – government, business, media, and nongovernmental organizations – took the steepest drop ever last year.
Almost two-thirds of people surveyed in 28 countries do not trust the four institutions to “do what is right.” More than 50 percent say “the system” is not working for them.
The rising distrust may help explain the attraction of anti-elitist and ultranationalist political leaders from the Philippines to Europe. More than 70 percent in the survey say government officials are not at all or somewhat credible. And the credibility of business chief executive officers fell 12 points to 37 percent.
Organizations rule the day when it comes to having a first-world society. Without a postal service, hygiene, police, fire, legal and medical institutions, the type of efficiency for which the first world is famed cannot occur and we are left at third-world levels of disorganization. When distrust expands across the globe and across institution-type, we know that organization has failed.
We forget how important organization is because we tend to see our society in terms of ideology and economics. If we have the right ideology, and a working economy, then everything else comes secondary. But other inputs have every bit as much influence as those two. Culture reflects what people want because it has worked for them in the past, religion contains their hopes, and the science of management determines how likely it is that the society will have competent organizations.
The savaging of Western institutions happened through two fronts: first, unions and regulation became involved, and second, these organizations became politicized, which meant that a mediocre solution which was politically correct was seen as superior to a good solution which was not as politically correct. This in turn meant that reality was suspended and replaced by ideology.
The high cost of replacing reality is that soon incompetence rules the day, and with that comforting miasma of confusion to camouflage it, corruption and ineptitude have a field day. The unions defend the inept, the regulations give them plausible deniability, and affirmative action essentially prevents many of them from being fired. As a result, institutional value has plummeted.
Any study of organizations reveals that giving the people at the lower level the ability to hit a stop button for the whole organization will quickly sabotage that organization and drive away the competent. And yet, with Leftist programs like affirmative action, unions and most regulation, this is exactly what we give low-level workers.
Now that the years have run past, and it is too far gone to fix or find the culpable, we are starting to recognize that distrust in American institutions has plummeted. The same is happening worldwide, because those institutions follow the same model. The high cost of Leftism takes years to reveal itself, but then, it always makes us regret ever going down that path.
Saturday, January 21st, 2017
Over at Garvey’s Ghost, as always an insightful commentary into the possibility of the return of black slavery:
This is the levels to which so called black leadership such as John Lewis have sunk to. They actually peddle the belief that slavery is just around the corner. Never mind that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade could not have occurred without the direct, willing participation of Africans (stories of kidnapping by white people are wholly over stated). So unless a significant portion of black people who have power over the lives of black people, countrywide, decide to engage in slave trading, it’s not happening.
He is correct. White people originally viewed slavery as a benevolent institution lifting blacks out of dire poverty and instability and giving them a comfortable, stable life that they could not provide for themselves. Looking at Africa today, we see that our ancestors had a point, and slavery appears to have increased the lifespan, average IQ and health of black people in America.
This does not mean it was “right,” but also, that it was not necessarily wrong either. After all, it was very similar to feudalism and other forms of slavery that happened in Europe, but without the feudal order, slavery passed into commerce (chattel slavery) or law (indentured servitude) and thus lost its sacred origins. Knowing the people in the South, it is likely that slaves were rarely mistreated, especially with no provocation, but any looking into the past is conjectural now, and we know we cannot trust any narrative of it tinged by the Left. The mystery remains.
But the fear of John Lewis that slavery will return, and the apparent interest with which the black community greeted his words, suggests that black America has not caught on to the change in white people. We viewed slavery as bad, so we changed it, and now, we are over feeling bad about it. It was a long time ago, and we have invested a lot in the black community, so in our view, it is over.
On the other hand, white attitudes toward diversity were never about a hatred for any one group. They were more a recognition of our own unique place, which first we saw as reason to enslave others and lift them out of savagery that way, and later as we got more Leftist, to do the same with welfare. But it was always about us, and other groups were pretty much a means to an end.
Now, white attitudes toward diversity have entirely shifted: we see no group as culpable, but we see diversity as a failed enterprise. This means blacks are not being singled out for criticism, as the dumber of the white nationalists tend to do; instead, diversity is the target. We are starting to realize that no matter if the group is “good” or “bad,” diversity will not work for us.
Diversity shatters social trust, removes social standards, alienates people and utterly dissolves any sense of pride in country or self. As a result, it must be dismantled. At the end of the day, this has no bearing on slavery, or anything else related to black people. But slavery is a form of diversity, so now people are realizing why it was insane in addition to being of questionable moral basis.