Diversity creates racism. It does so by forcing groups into competition when they would rather live among their own and have self-determination, or the ability to rule themselves and choose their own future. Racism creates rancor, and if there is a perceived economic or power imbalance, it creates race warfare.
That is what is happening on the streets of America today. Currently, it is white-vs-black drama, but this will soon expand to include other groups, even those that like Hispanic indios and Asians tend to use more indirect methods. Speaking of indirect methods, check out the response. After years of being silenced by accusations of “racism,” white people are mobilizing in protest.
One night after Deputy Darren Goforth was executed at the Chevron station in Houston, over a thousand people gathered at the site to memorialize the man who was apparently murdered simply because he wore a police uniform, as reported by Breitbart Texas. Thousands more gathered on Sunday night to walk the streets in the suburban neighborhood where he was killed.
As reported by Breitbart Texas, the escalation of anti-white and anti-cop rhetoric has been building since militant black activists began marching in support of #BlackLivesMatter after the suicide of Sandra Bland. At protests at the jail where Bland killed herself, a radical activist called for all white people to be killed, and heavily armed members of the New Black Panther Party chanted “the revolution has started … off the pigs.” A Texas-based internet radio show called for the lynching of whites and the killing of police officers. Last week, two white journalists and a white deputy sheriff have been assassinated by blacks who appear to be carrying out the message of hate.
White people favor indirect methods. They prefer to march, sing bad folk songs on acoustic guitar, wave signs and write letters. They show up for midnight vigils. They produce (endless) blogs and editorials. And let us not forget the first-person novels. This is how someone accustomed to a European-style society registers displeasure. They do not achieve displeasure without first having doubts and fears, and when all of those come together, an emotional wave sweeps the population. (Then they usually choose the wrong option based on other fears and that dreaded hallmark of all failure, moral laziness).
For a population that only a decade ago was afraid to discuss race at all, this is a big shift, even a sea change, if you will. The cat is out of the bag and the dissent is spreading. We all want to believe the Benetton ads and political speeches on our televisions, but experience shows us that “birds of a feather flock together” and that difference breeds disagreement. Having uneasily held their tongues for decades, the Caucasians are on the march. Slowly. Indirectly. But discontented nonetheless.
The idea of liberalism is egalitarianism; it both desires it, and points to absence of it as the source of all human problems. By reflection, that statement suggests that people are victims of anti-egalitarians, and that if we just remove those people, all will be well. This is why all liberal revolutions are followed by a period of mass murder or at least mass punishment. It is a philosophy of revenge on scapegoats.
In reality, people experiencing “inequality” are generally doing so by their own choice or inability. If the former, it seems they have made an informed decision to stay poor in exchange for little engagement. If the latter, it would make sense to move them to circumstances that match their abilities. But in neither case is mass revolt and murder necessary or justified. Thus the origin of liberalism is nonsense.
The problem of ideology is that it elects this nonsense as a goal. This leads to humans colliding with reality, which is the basis of both most good comedy and all politics. In fact, in the West which still rides the postwar economic boom, all of our problems arise from previous liberal attempts to institute egalitarianism. Other than the overspending and social chaos created by Leftist decisions, we are doing pretty well. But since we have gone down the liberal path, many future collisions await us.
One such collision peaked in the news this week: feces, feces everywhere. As part of their desire to uplift the weak and subsidize that by penalizing the strong, liberals have created laws designed to “help” the homeless by forcing their acceptance. This has led, in at least two major American cities, to an increase in street defecation.
The liberal solution is to enact more subsidies and build more homeless treatment facilities, ignoring the fact that most of these people have other issues which preclude those being effective. They also ignore the simple truth that what you tolerate you get more of, and so forcing acceptance of homeless behavior widens the window of behavior which is accepted. This brings us to a point where we have third world conditions, which generally include “open defecation,” on our streets. Liberals are able to get away with this ignorance because life here is better than anywhere else, therefore it seems as if we have little to complain about even with liberal damage. But, why destroy when you can improve?
Homelessness is not our only situation of this nature. Liberals encouraged “tolerance” of diversity, and now we have full population replacement by third world origin people. That is genetic replacement, meaning that what we once were and could do will never come back. It is also genocide, the destruction of a people by breeding them out into others. It is also suicide, which is why liberals like it, because they hate anything that rises above the mean including their own culture and civilization. We see beginning the death spiral of reality denial, emotional reaction and finally, self-destruction that is the hallmark of liberal regimes.
Realists have long lived under the shadow of the specter of public opinion. When someone is so unwise as to offend the pretense of the public, or the justifications on the basis of which they consider themselves “good” in lieu of actual good, the rage of the herd becomes unleashed in something like a stampede.
We, the silent audience, have seen public executions of the mass opinion shift kind. A comic says something funny that is suddenly discovered to be “offensive,” and just as quickly his life goes away: fired from his jobs, losing his contracts, the girlfriend driving away with his furniture and his friends quietly sending his calls to voicemail. Then he never works again, except at Target.
At first the ostracism death penalty was reserved for those who were political extremists. Then it migrated to non-leftist political views, and then to leftists who were not leftist enough. Then it branched outward to social concerns, and now it has taken on a life of its own, with any reason why any non-majority group might be offended constituting reason to destroy a life.
One person inconvenienced by the Ashley Madison hack — itself an irony of those who violate trust being shocked that their own trust was in turn violated — discovered:
Today, Michael finds himself living in fear after his account details appeared — among those of 32 million others — in the most talked-about data hack of the year.
He worries not for his marriage — he and his wife have separated and divorce is in the works — but for the impact it could have on their child and on his job.
“My fear is that this will wreak havoc in all areas of my life. I have a good job, but many involved in it are religious. I could be fired,” he said.
The only reason this one hit the media is that they can blame those “religious” people, which we are led to assume by the momentum of predictability means Christian. And yet for us readers-between-the-lines, this instance shows the very real terror that people experience at the hands of the herd. We are all held hostage by masked terrorists who hide in a crowd of people like them.
No society composed of an internal firing squad can long survive. Our elites are composed of dedicated liars because we, the people, have chosen them to be that way. Truth is never convenient, but the voters reward the person presenting the simpler solution. This means that only someone who knows that what she is saying can never work in reality — having simplified the task to an emotional standpoint — will be elected. All the good people are cut out because of this terror of public opinion.
Democracy itself draws criticism for being mob rule, and this seems correct. We are now entering the last stages of democracy, where it consumes itself by destroying the non-conforming, which creates a circular self-referential public view where only certain opinions are discussed. At that point, society has lost the ability to turn in flight and has become ballistic, its target determined at the moment of launch. As the lynch mobs, hate crowds and angry herd gathers, doom is upon us and yet no one can say that in public.
Religion presents a quandary for conservatives. On one side are those who believe that God/country/family is enough; on the other are the Nietzscheans and other realists who recognize that “country” is a substitute for identity, and “family” reduces community to slightly-broadened self-interest. We also see how religion can substitute for these other necessary things.
Religion is part of the answer, but not the answer. It presents a good starting point because it focuses people on the idea that they must reform themselves so that they strive to do good. It introduces reverence for nature, history and the distant future. It frames self-interest in a moral context. But that alone is not enough.
In addition to that reverent outlook, which can happen without religion, we need something else. Conservatives often ignore this and conveniently escalate religion to the universal solution, but even religion indicates our need for culture, heritage and identity. Like most things in life, religion operates in parallel (the theme of this blog) with other necessary elements.
Without culture and identity, and an aristocratic leadership, religion becomes lost and corrupted as it has over the past 200 years since the French Revolution. The fascinating conclusion to this puzzle is that in order to appreciate each of those elements, and most importantly to desire all of them, one must find reason to respect life and take it seriously.
For this reason, religion operates in parallel with “realism,” or looking at life through its consequences in reality and the principles thus upheld or denied, much as it requires parallel culture, heritage and aristocracy. None of those can stand without the other. The truth of this can be found in realistic religious writings like Romans 1:18-32:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Those who hate the methods of civilization — religion, identity, aristocracy and culture among them — try to style religion as arbitrary. They wish to portray it as its own domain, which chooses its ideals for its own convenience, rather than what it is: another method of describing reality and regulating individual behavior correspondingly so that civilization can thrive. Through culture, we study success in social and family matters; through aristocracy, success in war, diplomacy and leadership; through identity, principle and purpose. Through religion we discover success in discipline of our souls, but the subject of that study is reality itself.
Witness a similar passage from Plato’s Republic, Chapter VIII:
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.
Let him then be set over against democracy; he may truly be called the democratic man.
Both of these passages focus on the symptoms of degeneracy, itself a product of degeneration in the Darwinian sense or loss of higher genetic characteristics because, in the hands of social and cultural influences, they have become less valuable and therefore underused, gradually dropping out of the population. The first step toward degeneracy is changing behavior, which changes the economics of civilization such that bad is rewarded and good, by de facto inversion in the zero-sum game of competition that is society, punished.
Contrary to what is adherents sometimes say, religion alone is not a path to survival but to self-destruction. On the other hand, in conflict with what its detractors say, religion is not arbitrary. These rules exist for a reason which is that they provide the optimal survival of a tribe, and thus longest resistance to degeneration, over the centuries as has been witnessed by wise people in the past, repeatedly. Like science, religion is a repository of knowledge, but it describes the metaphysical using metaphor instead of attempting the detailed approach of science. Abstraction allows flexibility over the changes brought by the passage of time, and for that reason, religion is highly abstract. But it is neither nonsense nor a singular solution.
The recent hiccup with China has made everyone nervous, not so much for its immediate effects but in the worry that this is the first of a series of events. A big crash will make the world’s interconnected economies fall like dominoes, and often those smashups are preceded by a pattern of small crises.
Even if this blows over, it has made people nervous because it presages another inevitable event: the collapse of Western debt. Since the Second World War, the West has been able to borrow on the basis of its historical wealth and power, and its role as the only man standing among the industrial economies after that war. This gave it a momentum, or a trajectory zooming across economic skies, that has still not lost inertia.
Debt is only worth something if others will purchase it based on the presumed future value of the assets that support that debt. It used to be that the West could point to thriving economies, happy people and relatively few of the chronic social problems that plague most societies on earth. Now, none of this is as true, meaning that it is fading. Investments on a downward trajectory are worth less than others.
China discovered this because, having borrowed to oblivion, it became unstable economically. This was not an issue in times of growth, which are what liberal leaders excel at, but as the market corrects it shows how short-sighted those decisions — like those of Clinton and Obama in the USA — were. As Pravda-on-the-Hudson relates, the source of this crash was excessive Chinese debt:
How much debt remains an open question, given the opacity of China’s market. The country’s debt load rose from $7 trillion in 2007 to $28 trillion by mid-2014, according to a report published earlier this year by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company, China. “At 282 percent of G.D.P., China’s debt as a share of G.D.P., while manageable, is larger than that of the United States or Germany,” said the McKinsey study. “Several factors are worrisome: Half of loans are linked directly or indirectly to China’s real estate market, unregulated shadow banking accounts for nearly half of new lending, and the debt of many local governments is likely unsustainable.”
What has people worried is not China itself, but that the debt loads of modern nations will lead to disaster. In particular, the introspection that the West deflects with political correctness has finally appeared, and under the lens, while not as bad as China, our debt and instability appear shaky as well. And what made this debt? Since the 1950s, our budgets have more than doubled through the contributions of a single source: social justice, or civil rights and welfare, programs. In Europe and the USA, governments have spent themselves silly buying votes and now, the first inklings of fear that the gig is up are coming our way.
Without social programs, our government spending would be more than halved. Our economy, without such rigid regulation, could grow in a more natural way than the goldrush free-for-all created by liberal economic programs. While we could no longer prop up our economy by dumping money into ghettos and trailer parks for people to buy iPhones, we could build value over time by basing it in not consumerism, but the production of industry and agriculture. This would provide less growth than the liberal program of easy loans and “pump priming” the economy with federal spending, but would provide a more stable longer-term platform for us that does not require radical growth.
For those who can read the tea leaves of history, this suggests a shocking realization awaits the West: we cannot afford — and never could — our “social justice” and welfare programs. We cannot afford governments swollen to more than twice a reasonable size by leftist-style spending on citizens. As China is discovering, that path leads to misery and a series of hiccups culminating in one, big ugly downfall.
Conservatives and libertarians are getting excited about Allum Bokhari’s article over at Breitbar, “Rise of the Cultural Libertarians.” In it, he argues that the rising leftist wave of censorship has awakened a new movement of people who are not really conservative, but want to preserve the ability to criticize any beliefs, which includes — to the shock of our media and enfranchised political establishment — criticism of Leftist viewpoints.
While this new movement, unified and galvanized by the article, seems to have great momentum, it suffers from not having conducted the approach of a philosopher: analyze things through to their ends and compare to what we know of reality. This method, the parent of its less-rigorous cousin The Scientific Method™, means that we look at not what seems like a sensible counter-argument to the dominant paradigm, but what will be the actual results of our acts as planned. This is the only form of accountability and responsibility that exits, and on this blog, we call it “Realism.”
The rising leftist wave of censorship was born of a social phenomenon known as “Social Justice Warriors,” or SJWs. These people participate in politics as an activity, generally to distract from their personal misery, usually a combination of alcoholism, social ineptitude and obesity. They are strident, angry and gather in swarms to attack all who disagree with them, knowing — like terrorists and guerrillas — that by creating a Public Relations incident, they can force the opposition to apologize, kowtow and change its policies. SJWs are effective mainly because there are always thousands of them on the internet at any given time, ready to mob attack the next target.
The cultural libertarian response is to emphasize independence of thought and resistance to any form of coercive attempt to silence others. In other words, classic American freedom. Here’s the summary from the article:
They’ve also worked out that the people leading the charge in social media mobs have vastly disproportionate influence thanks to their publishing platforms and that not only are they hopelessly out of touch with popular opinion but that their tactics are unpleasant and hectoring, often veering into outright cruelty and persecution.
…Cultural libertarians recognise that efforts to police language and expression are not only counter-productive, but also fragile. The people pushing for greater control are a small segment of the population, whose voice is amplified by media support. To fight them, all you have to do is ignore them – or, better yet, mock them.
This may sound familiar to you, because it re-capitulates what by now is an ancient defense of the right. Faced with the onslaught of the French Revolution, they retreated into “classical liberalism”: do whatever you want, on your own property, so long as I can do the same. It sounds so simple and pleasant! It even feels like a social order at times. And yet, it completely fails because it denies the need of a society to have direction: identity, purpose, values, heritage, customs and some sense of the transcendent.
In fact, the “cultural libertarian” approach can be understood as a variant of a well-known political philosophy, pluralism:
Political pluralism usually starts with the observation that there are different value systems in use in the world, and there are various positions that arise out of that observation. Political pluralism is concerned with the question of what sort of restrictions governments can put on people’s freedom to act according to their value systems. The strongest version of political pluralism claims that all these value systems are equally true (and thus presumably all ought to be tolerated), a weaker view is that these value systems all ought to be tolerated, and probably the most common version of the view is that some of these systems (the reasonable ones) ought to be tolerated.
The idea that all value systems are equally true, or at least equally valid — a social surrogate for true that purports to regulate behavior — requires us to believe we can base a society on disagreement at a fundamental level. This is not, as the Left would have it, similar to different tastes in food, clothing or attire, or even a tolerance of eccentricity (which, oddly, seems to belong to the Right). It refers to sharing the same basic values and outlook on the world, which is preferable to the alternative, which first looks like a coat of many colors and rapidly begins to resemble an unruly mob.
We can argue that pluralism could go farther and for example, demand freedom of association. With this, we would not have to hire, buy from, sell to, rent to, talk to or do business with others for any reason. While most societies view this as somewhat of a right, or at least a convention, our society sees this as troublesome because it introduces inefficiencies. If Person A wants to buy a gay wedding cake at a baker, and the one near them refuses to sell to them, they can always go down the road. But time is lost, and money is thus lost, and we lose the simple certainty of business which says we can go anywhere and do anything if our credit rating is good. A sane society would see values as more important than commerce, but pluralistic societies have nothing in common but commerce and maybe some ideology, so pluralism inevitably leads to the conditions that necessitated its creation.
Some have tried pluralism by community. In particular, the original government of the United States, and later the Confederate States of America, were committed to the idea of “states rights” or the notion that individual states could choose their own rules. This conflicted with the desire of Northern liberals to control the South, so they picked a fight over slavery because it was a polarizing issue. After that war, it became clear that states rights was a dead concept, replaced by the notion of a Single Right Way. While pluralism opposes the notion of a singular correct path, it cannot overcome the tendency of governments to make rules, laws and regulations “in your best interest” which can then compel obedience to ideological objectives. For example, a government might insist that hospitals admit anyone regardless of whether their staff wants to associate with that person or not, or demand that pharmacies sell abortion drugs in case people “need” them. Pluralism fails the more people demand function and efficiency from their society.
In addition, pluralism fails to take into account that there will be at least one privileged viewpoint: that of The Establishment™, which refers to those who work in government, media and the public face of industry. People who join the establishment are those who have a higher commitment to working within the system — and thus gaining personal success — than to any truth, purpose or ideal. When someone wants to succeed at government, he must invent new ways for government to be important so his future resume can show an addition that was uniquely his creation. In a pure pluralism, government would have one of many perspectives, but in reality, some kind of leadership will have a privileged position by the nature of having to make and enforce rules. If that leadership takes the form of a State, it will create an establishment — hereditary aristocracies do not have this problem, having barred entry to all but the truly exceptional, who are rare — as people compete for personal success. There pluralism will also die under the ambitions of individuals.
This leaves us with the perspective of pluralism as prolonged suicide. Since the Right has been demonized in the decades following the Second World War, it has focused mostly on “thought experiments” which take the form of arguments to circumnavigate the logic of the Left. As an argument, pluralism may have some success because it points to the hypocrisy of the Leftist viewpoint — but only to outsiders. Inside the Left, it is tacitly acknowledged that the one goal is egalitarianism (or “equality”) through collective altruism, which throughout history has without exception amounted to taking from the competent to subsidize the rest. For that reason, leftists do not see their jihad against non-egalitarian viewpoints as hypocrisy, since their goal is not “freedom” or even actual equality, but a subset of equality defined by its method of using subsidies. Leftists fear their own insufficiency, and create a barrier through equality which forces society to accept them as part of the in-group regardless of their personal choices. This alone, a malignant form of individualism, represents their only goal and it can never be hypocritical in their eyes.
This returns us to the question, then, of civilization design. How do we design a civilization that is improving in quality, rather than degenerating and hiding that fact behind the facade of “progress”? It starts by recognizing that the real enemy is what undoes the civilization compact, an agreement between people to sacrifice some individualism so that social order can exist. This occurs not so much because social order is efficient, or safe, but because it enables a society to rise above the norm of all but a few human groups, which is poverty and corruption through social disorder. Those who fear insufficiency want the benefits of civilization without the obligation, so they cobble together a set of ideas enabling them to have “anarchy with grocery stores”: egalitarianism, anti-hierarchy, altruism and liberalism/progressivism. This destroys the civilization compact but allows the individual to feel safer because they are included by command, and can never be found in a Darwinistic moment to have failed to live up to the civilization compact.
Cultural libertarianism represents the latest attempt by the non-Left to walk back up that path to social order. It does so by demanding that the anti-order order be weakened, but it can only serve as an intermediate step, and will fail for the reasons above and an even more fundamental one. The enemy operates by lumping together individualists into a mob dedicated to establishing individualism by abolishing standards and order; under pluralism, they will still form this mob, and then conveniently declare pluralism over and take their revenge, as they did in the French and Russian Revolutions. While the pushback against SJW ideological imperialism is a noble fight, the danger of being human is that we rely too much on methods, and then go back to sleep. In that role, cultural libertarianism serves as a proxy for the actual quest we must undertake, which is to build a society once again unified by principle and goal.
We are conditioned to think that allowing one person to starve is an injustice if we ourselves have any income whatsoever. Our society inculcates us in this idea of a “collective,” where all of us support everyone else to avoid being ideological and moral criminals.
This path leads not only to ruin as a civilization, but ruin as individuals. If one must work, all must work, or the few who succeed are penalized and the amount of work grows. Has anyone noticed that since the 1960s welfare programs kicked into high gear in the 1970s and 1980s, people have been divided into two camps? The people who work are spending more time at the job and sacrificing their families (and selves) as a result; the people who do not work do less every year and receive more.
Parasitism of this sort presents more than a utilitarian problem. It corrupts us within. It alters our morality from a sense of what is functional and right to a mentality of endless compromise and acceptance of mass injustice as a norm. It penalizes the good, breeds more of the bad, and reverses not only evolution but our ability to think. Our brains are so drenched in this dogma that we quiver at the thought of violating it.
But violating it is what we must do. No social health will befall us until we reverse this process of legitimizing parasitism. It may seem to benefit “the poor,” an amorphous definition kept obscure by government, but it makes them permanent dependents for the purchase price of their votes. By destroying those who attempt to do what is right, it converts us from healthy well-rounded people into desperate workers who spend most of their lives doing unnecessary and hated tasks, just to indulge the pretense of letting none starve.
Some must starve. Some do, no matter what we do. But there are few who are actually starving; in fact, most of our poor are quite rotund. Darwin says that if we do not reward good traits over bad, the bad will outbreed the good, and we can see this in the declining quality of our people. Even more, a society based on theft — from those who contribute, to those who do not — has legitimized theft itself. That spreads through all areas and creates the “greedy” me-first-at-all-costs mentality that was so shocking to see emerge in the 1980s. Gordon Gekko is not the opposite of the welfare state; he is a product of it.
Naturally people will accuse anyone who rejects parasitism as heartless, discompassionate, even cruel. The greatest cruelty however is found in results. If in the name of saving the non-contributors a society turns itself into a neurotic kleptocracy, a greater evil has been perpetuated than avoided. Our poor remain with us, and always will be, because they lack abilities or dedication. Bribing them with subsidies merely continues this state and sabotages the functional parts of society as its opportunity cost. Reversing parasitism should become a primary goal of the Right, if we want this civilization to not only persist but adjust its trajectory toward thriving instead of degeneration.
Donald Trump eviscerates the Republican establishment by refusing to play by the rules — set by the Left — which require conservatives to apologize for noticing reality. He is the one man they have been unable to cuck, although it remains unclear whether he would be a conservative in office.
Either way, he has forced a lack of submission on the Right as people have realized that we live in a leftist society. Everything it does is based on leftist principles, and leftist goals, with softer methods but no different end-point than the Soviet Union.
While even the moderate right is public anathema, no one freaks out at the idea of Socialism or even Communism lite, a pathway (inevitably) to Full Communism. You can have your life destroyed for being more right-wing than the official Republican position, but no one blinks when someone advocates immediate Stalinesque Communism. This alone proves the Leftist stench of our time.
They will not mention it on your television or the big internet sites, but this society destroys people all the time for not agreeing with its ideological agenda. They do not even need to disagree, only fail to agree. People who notice the man behind the curtain find themselves publicly humiliated, demonized and ostracized.
We are all cuck until we overthrow this delusional system.
If we look at history, we see that America (and Western Europe) thrived with a Western European identity and ethnic composition. The definition “WASP” at first meant the English, but grew to include Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch and other Western European descended people. With that as our ideal, we had an innate commonality of culture, religion and reverence for both history and our unique standards for the future.
With the removal of WASP America, the “melting pot” idea followed, with people thinking foolishly that with enough propaganda… err, “education”… and government regulations, anyone could follow The WASP Method and make our nation just as successful. What has followed has been increasing corruption, incompetence, deception, bloat and dishonesty.
A central ethnic and cultural identity gives people a sense of common purpose and a reason to trust and believe in one another. We come from one root and we are working toward the same goal, which is perpetuation of our society through its principles and heritage. No amount of laws, rules and government videos can compensate for the loss of this unity.
With that loss, we have embarked upon the path to becoming Brazil: a multi-ethnic nation unified only by economics and ideology, comprising mostly a third-world slum with a few fortunate wealthy types on top. This model is not only unstable, but cruel. It deprives people of a sense of pride in who they are and of the moral standards and principles to guide them. It replaces civilization with obedience, positive aspiration with fear, and social order with shopping — even if only shopping for enough private security to avoid the disaster.
Our public opinion currently finds itself in a cycle of desperate search for scapegoats. We blame Nazis, African-Americans, Mexicans, White people, cops, Satanists, right-wingers, Christians and hackers in turn, but the real problem is us. We are disunified. We lack purpose. And so we consume ourselves.
Rule by public opinion — democracy — favors fears and victimhood over any sense of common goal. It delights in the weak and quavering, using a presumed sense of the appearance of injustice to argue for acting in their name, always following the egalitarian pattern: punish the successful in the name of the unsuccessful to make central control stronger. Public opinion makes snap judgments and destroys lives so that people can go back to a somnambulism of apathy and self-interested, short-term purchases.
Democracy has failed. Liberalism has failed, and diversity has failed. Throw them out and try picking up where we were before we turned down this idiotic path. Donald Trump may not be the ideal leader, but he has succeeded by refusing to bow down to the court of public opinion — which represents a plurality and likely not a majority — and instead pointing us toward common sense logic. Whether or not he will be a good President, he has begun the process of galvanizing our people toward deconstruction the liberal authoritarian regime that threatens to destroy us for ideological disobedience.
With the meltdown of Ashley Madison, the online dating site for people looking to cheat on their spouses, some awareness of the impact of seemingly funny and harmless transgressions has come to light.
One brave article went so far as to critique the attack on the family inherent in our social approval of Ashley Madison, and brought up an even more important topic as well:
Dr. Ana Nogales has written a book called Parents Who Cheat: How Children and Adults are Affected When Their Parents are Unfaithful. In the book, the doctor examines what effects an affair has on a child. It can leave a child feeling hopeless, guilty, tainted, and damaged. Many carry these feelings through to adulthood, where they find themselves in a relationship in which their partner cheats or they become the cheaters themselves.
Nogales confirms my thoughts and feelings on infidelity. When a parent breaks a faithful bond with the other parent, they also break an “unspoken promise to their children.” It also leaves them with a wealth of “psychological” and trust issues that could haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Unspoken promises exist in all of the really important areas of human life. When you adopt a pet, you are making an unspoken promise to spend time with that creature, to give it the physical and intangible — affection, love, interest, delight — sustenance that it needs. You are promising to be there for the good times, and the bad. And you have signed up to care for it when it dies, and cry your eyes out afterward. You have promised to suffer for your inevitable future loss of this animal.
Each child who comes into this world needs someone who will make such promises. The best method for this, as shown by history, is the family unit. A loving Mom and Dad who will be there for that child as long as they live, providing both tangible — and perhaps we can borrow from Marx and say that money is time, and showing care through time is self-sacrifice — and intangible types of sustenance. If we search our hearts, which few are brave enough to do, we can see that this is what all of us desire both for ourselves and our offspring.
This conflicts with the individualism inherent, like our simian ancestry, in all of us. Self-sacrifice means a loss; we would rather spend that time, money and effort on ourselves. Even with this however, we spend most of our effort “reaching out” to the world around us, looking for meaning that is bigger than ourselves. The most New Age-y spirit quest consists of this attempt, as do our forays into socializing and finding group activities. It is part of us to want something larger than us. This is not so much social, as the nature of consciousness itself: without some kind of stimulus from the world, it becomes circular and self-referential. That creates a type of heat-death or entropy of the mind and spirit which renders people impotent as decision-making entities.
Reaching out requires self-sacrifice and unspoken promises. Rules can be evaded and conventions overthrown. But what makes people esteem us, and like having us around, is in part our commitment to these unspoken promises. Friendship and love are interest in others which rivals or outweighs interest in self; they imply self-sacrifice, especially when icky or inconvenient, much like cleaning up after a puppy and years later, cleaning out dog hair when the canine has passed on. As a society we have endorsed violation of unspoken promises for the convenience of individuals, and the result has made all of us prisoners of our own mind, afraid to reach out because others will not uphold their own unstated promises.
In a school of my design, economics would be taught alongside literature, mathematics, history, philosophy and science. It belongs among the basic skills that shape thinking — keeping in mind that education beyond fifth grade is only useful to those of IQs 120 and above — by revealing the world as it is, and not as our in-built human delusions, emotions, judgments and biases would portray it.
Economics shows the world in terms of supply and demand regulating value. What people want becomes more expensive at first, and then with economies of scale, becomes normalized. From this comes an important realization, which is that civilization itself has an economics of behavior. That which people desire always wishes to overcome the impulse toward civilization itself, and if that society allows it, will become the norm.
We live in a time of democratization of values. The Enlightenment™ began this process by prioritizing individual choice over traditional social structures, morals, values, and learning (except science, which focuses on details and not the whole, as history, literature and philosophy tend to). Values democratize when the scope of what is tolerated expands. The whole idea that whatever people do in their homes or personal lives has zero impact beyond those lives is the cornerstone of this belief.
Contradicting this comes the basic notion that whatever behavior we allow will take root and expand. What we tolerate becomes the de facto goal. And so, if a town allows some people to engage in adultery, the process will continue — slowly at first, then accelerating — until you have Ashley Madison, the online dating site for people looking to cheat on their spouses. If that town allows some people to get away with smoking weed, then gradually it will shift toward allowing more drugs. Slippery slopes exist all around us, but they are not so much slopes as gradually widening until all behaviors are permitted and thus nothing unites that settlement.
Over the past two centuries since the French Revolution, the West has allowed increasing amounts of personal freedom, usually focused on making what were previously considered as moral violations into accepted behaviors on the basis of “individual rights” and “civil rights,” both terms for the egomania of the individual as defended by the mass herd. The result toward the end of this process is that almost no behavior can be demonized except political infractions, which has created a society of manic intensity to punish ideological dissidents but with almost no moral standard in common. We have suffered greatly for this.
We now have open corruption in the governments of America, Canada, Australia and Europe; on our streets, behavior goes unchecked which would make our grandparents disregard all involved as Darwinistic failures. Our brains were hacked by the idea of the simple incident being localized, e.g. “what goes on in your bedroom is none of my business,” and not changing the principles by which we live. What we tolerate, breeds. What we refuse to tolerate decreases. Our democratization process has ultimately resulted in increased horrible behavior at the expense of good behavior, which is both not rewarded and persecuted for violating the ideology of the individual arising from The Enlightenment&trade.
Conservatives speak often, but even more in the post-war years with the rise of the New Right, about the need for a cultural revolution. We have had political revolutions, and the end result has been ideological change, but that only goes in one direction, which is more permissiveness. As we see problems become ungovernable, what we are seeing is the end result of those small infractions which were thought to be localized at first, now becoming principle. At that point, nothing can be done. The work-around — the hack to oppose the brain hack of tolerance — can be found in resurrecting the idea that we have standards in common and these principles are more important than what any individual wants at any given time, no matter how much the herd delights in the latest transgression. Of course, that requires culture, and culture requires heritage, which is why the left works so hard to make “racism” taboo, when in fact the impulse behind most racial antipathy is a desire for “birds of a feather to flock together” and our society to have actual unity instead of a chanting mob.
The advantage of cultural revolution is that it can happen at any time and attack from any angle. If we decide that dishonesty should be beyond tolerance, businesses will suffer for their dishonesty (something which has not happened for a long time). If we decide that promiscuity is intolerable, then people will start toeing the line to avoid being excluded. We have the power, not as voters, but as members of a civilization who can agree on these standards. When enough of us agree, bad behaviors are punished by our ostracism of those who engage in them, and good behaviors are rewarded by our favor. This moves us back up the evolutionary scale from “adequate” toward “good.” Government opposes this with its many rules and demands for equality, but this tendency increasingly reveals itself to be a self-serving defense of the riches that can be had through government work. Our political problem, after years of fighting over ideology, boils down to a social one: opposing the inherent social impulse to tolerate “small” infractions, which leads to civilizational breakdown, with a social impulse to raise standards and by so doing, raise our civilization from its own ruins.