Sunday, March 26th, 2017
A number of large companies — Coca-Cola, PepsiCo Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Dish Network Corp. among them — have pulled some of their advertising from Google’s YouTube network because of their ads appearing alongside “hate” videos after a change in Google policy.
Like the rest of the Dot-Com 3.0 boom/bust gang, Google is in trouble. Its ads do not work as well as ads in newspapers, television or magazine at least used to work, and so it can no longer charge the high rates that propelled it into superstardom. People on the internet are not paying attention, or if they are, do not have the money to do anything about it, so are near-useless to advertisers.
As a result, Google is looking for ways to expand the number of ads it shows, and as the world shifts Rightward, more people are watching videos about related ideas — “five YouTube videos peddling racist and anti-Semitic content, according to a review by The Wall Street Journal” — and so Google wants to show ads on those.
Not so fast, says corporate America, which obeys the old bourgeois rule of “criticize no one, accept everyone” because in its view, every person out there has some dollars in their fat little fists. What it forgets is that its mainstay, the upper half of the middle class, has a values system and these are the people who are the “power users” that other consumers emulate.
The problem that corporate America faces is that, while the urban elites are Leftists to the core, the suburban and rural upper half of middle class still tend to be WASP and conservative-leaning. By pandering to an audience outside of this group, corporate America continues to demonstrate its sliding relevance, and the possibility that the new audience it has chosen for itself has not panned out.
Asked about the Journal’s finding that their ads were still appearing with such content on YouTube as of Thursday night, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Dish Network Corp. said Friday they were suspending spending on all Google advertising except targeted search ads. Starbucks Corp. and General Motors Co. said they were pulling their ads from YouTube. FX Networks, part of 21st Century Fox Inc., said it was suspending all advertising spending on Google, including search ads and YouTube.
Wal-Mart said: “The content with which we are being associated is appalling and completely against our company values.”
Other companies whose spots appeared, including Toyota Motor Corp. and Microsoft, said they were monitoring the situation. Procter & Gamble said it was working with Google but declined to say whether it was reducing spending.
Every time a sea change is underway as we see happening currently, the market divides into two groups: those betting on the old way, and those betting on the new. Corporate America has backed the wrong horse on this issue because pluralism has failed. People want strong national identity, and that includes the ability to have some opinions considered “extremist” by the Left.
Saturday, March 25th, 2017
In the Wall Street Journal, a commentary buried within a commentary appears in the form of an introspection regarding immigration:
Finally, limits on immigration also protect the stability of our social arrangements. To be successful and harmonious, any society needs to cultivate a sense of fellow-feeling and solidarity among its members. Most of our fellow citizens are strangers to us, and yet we tax ourselves for their benefit, yield to their political choices at election time and perhaps serve in uniform to protect them. We do this precisely because they are our fellow citizens and have a claim on our loyalty and affections that citizens of other countries do not.
In more homogenous societies, like Japan or Denmark or Swaziland, this fellow-feeling may arise organically from kinship ties and a shared cultural heritage. But in a more heterogeneous society like ours, it must be cultivated if it is to flourish, and we can’t ignore factors that undermine it.
This is not to say that immigrants don’t learn English, get jobs, join the military and drive on the right side of the road. They do all those things. But the deeper and more important process of reorienting one’s emotional and psychological attachments from the old country to the new has not fared well in recent decades in the U.S. and would be overwhelmed, I believe, by any dramatic increase in immigration.
Mainstream media will not get any closer to the idea of identity: genetics and culture linked, and culture is a better system than government, thus societies need to be homogeneous to avoid being internally conflicted and dissolving. Even more, diversity inevitably leads to hybridization, which genocides the original group by replacing them with a mixed-race grey tribe.
We know immigration has failed because American national culture has vanished. Social trust has died. Every decision we make is now made in minutiae consisting of details split by details because there is no common standard, purpose or agenda.
In other words, we are falling prey to what destroys organizations. We no longer have shared purpose, and we have a divided power structure. All of our energy now gets wasted on internal conflict, similarly to how we waste our wealth with entitlements instead of focusing it on producing more.
The result is predictably horrifying:
“Ultimately, we see our story as about the collapse of the white, high school educated, working class after its heyday in the early 1970s, and the pathologies that accompany that decline,” the authors Anne Case and Angus Deaton, of Princeton University wrote in the report.
…According to the report, white non-Hispanic people of all ages show an increased mortality rate from 1999 to 2015 with some age groups seeing nearly a 50 percent rise in mortality rates. People aged 25-29 went from a mortality rate of 145.7 deaths per 100,000 in 1999 to 266.2 per 100,000 in 2015 and people aged 40-44 went from 332.2 deaths per 100,000 to 471.4 deaths per 100,000.
… Case and Deaton found that while gains were made as fewer people died of heart disease and cancer, these gains have mostly stagnated and did not cancel out the rising number of “deaths of despair” or related to alcohol, drugs or suicide.
In 1990, France, Germany and Sweden outpaced the U.S. in these deaths which totaled approximately 40 per 100,000 from those countries.
Looking back through history, we see that in the mid-1960s the United States and its European allies started to believe their WWII propaganda and adopted diversity as an official affirmative goal of government. It took a few years to hit, but the decline kicked into gear during the 1970s, and has really flowered in the decades since.
We warned you. You are killing our people for an ideological imperative which has never worked. You justify it by claiming that it will help the economy or make us benevolent kings among men, but this denies the existential side of things. It makes European-descended people into a conquered group, discriminates against them and convinces them there is no future.
For now, it is hitting the poor whites. The wealthier ones can escape to Whitopias but soon, that too will go away. Then they will fade away as well, starting with the most sensitive and perceptive, who realize that all they need and work for will be erased in the new beige regime.
It makes sense to have zero immigration. It makes even more sense to have fully negative immigration and to repatriate everyone who is not of Western heritage. Diversity has not worked and cannot because it is paradoxical. Each group needs its own nation so that it can know it has control of its future, and this is the only way to avoid the existential despair that is killing off white Americans.
Saturday, March 25th, 2017
Western Civilization was a good thing. Starting a thousand years ago, it fell into decline, but as is the nature of decline, this was not an absolute condition but a gradual one overlapping some of the greatest moments of Western Civilization. Thus it was both rising and falling at the same time but its ultimate direction was toward failure.
Starting in 1789 and extending to 1968, the West fully collapsed, and all of us born after those times have inherited a vast disaster which we alternately try to save and escape. This schizophrenic state cannot last; we must choose one, and the sensible answer is to stand and fight, saving what is good and throwing out the rest.
That requires however that we give up false allegiances. Our only allegiance can be to Western Civilization and the genetic stock of Western Europeans that produces it. Everything else is an intermediate, a symbol standing for those great things, and by misdirecting us from the reality to the symbol, these become parasites.
What we think of as our nations — governments and institutions — are dead. They are working against us. The only solution is to destroy them much as we destroy any other enemy, so that in their place we can create something working again. The real culture we need is within our souls, and all of the means to that end need to be removed because they have become corrupted.
We must burn every American and German flag. And cheat every tax authority and public institution. We should ignore all social obligations. Whatever destroys this society is good, and whatever helps it is bad. Burn it down to the ground and keep what we have that still works, carried over from the past, and rebuild on the basis of keeping what is good, and destroying what is bad.
Most people do not realize that we exist in a fallen civilization. Western Civilization, once great, died before we were born. Now we are those who are either trying to hold on to an illusion from the past, or those who are ready to erase that illusion and instead, re-create Western Civilization by displacing the parasites who rule its corpse, and renewing it like a phoenix, rising among the ashes.
Here are ten ways you can tell that you are living in a dying age…
- Overpopulation. We hit 7.5 billion human monkeys this week. How will all of these people live? The answer is simple: by consuming everything we know of as our environment, and leaving behind only ruined wastelands full of starving people who cannot allocate the resources or achieve the social organization necessary to feed them. The first world is imploding, and the third world exploding.
- Diversity. To survive, every group needs to prioritize itself above all others. This is sensible, but means that multiple groups cannot co-exist in the same society. Groups which fail to prioritize themselves will simply fade away. As a result, diversity cannot work, and creates the ethnic tensions that Leftists — consummate reality-deniers — call “racism.”
- Tragedy of the Commons. A tragedy of the commons happens when a resource exists and individuals discover that they have an incentive to exploit it. The Left blames “capitalism” for this problem, but really, it occurs anytime a resource is owned by no one but accessible to all. Imagine a forest: if every person needs firewood, each will cut as much as he can, and soon there will be no forest. With cultural cooperation and a shared purpose, people limit their own takings, but in an atomized dying civilization, each person exploits to the maximum to the ruin of all.
- Ineptitude. Societies that are dying tend to formalize rules and procedures as a means of working around the inequality of human beings which mean that some are more competent than others. Instead of choosing the best, these societies set up “meritocracies” based on memorization and obedience. This means that they select incompetents in both public and private, leading to idiocy like Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, American President Barack Obama, and Catholic Pope Francis.
- Low human quality. When a civilization is dying, it becomes inverted, or focused on the opposite of every meaning so that it can make everyone feel accepted. This means that the good are penalized so the bad can be included as well. This keeps the society together despite its citizens no longer having any real relevance to each other. As a result, the good fail to breed and are replaced by the thoughtless, selfish and mediocre.
This correlates highly with a “free rider” problem. In organized societies, it is expected that every person contribute as they are able and take in proportion to what they give, so that the most valuable members of the community are those who contribute the most. When free riders, or those take more than they give, are allowed, the society becomes dedicated to justifications, rationalizations and excuses instead of actions and the responsibility for them. This creates an industry out of government where people are paid to manage the free riders and in turn become a type of “mega free riders” themselves by blessing the decay and being rewarded handsomely for it, despite making negative contributions to the society.
- Pollution. No sane society sacrifices tomorrow for today, but every dying civilization does exactly that because in absence of a cooperative spirit, each person wants to extract as much wealth as possible and flee the collapsing ruin. As a result, it becomes culturally acceptable to be self-centered to the point of disregarding the environment. Disregarding others is socially taboo, but externalizing cost to the world is encouraged, especially because most resent nature for not making them equal.
- Existential misery. To live in a dying time is to know that all is for naught; every act of the individual will be ground down into the same uniformity as everything else, and nothing honestly good will be appreciated. In addition, people are aware at a gut level that their society is crashing and dying. As a result, they become alienated and unstable because they have no actual hope for the future. This misery spreas between individuals.
Existential misery relates strongly to a sense of purpose. Healthy civilizations have some form of purpose which is shaped from an ongoing and immutable goal, even something as simple as “be the best possibility of what we are.” When a civilization turns inward, and focuses on people instead of purpose, the existential certainty and meaning that comes from purpose is forgotten, and the citizens turn aimless, starting with the most sensitive and intelligent.
- Inversion. In a collapsing civilization, the actual goal of results in reality is replaced by a social goal, which consists of doing things that are approved of by others. This leads to inversion, or the changing of definitions and goals to be the opposite of what they once were. Good becomes whatever flatters most, even though that is bad; heroism becomes victimhood; benevolence becomes cleaning up after a crime instead of preventing it.
- Pretense. An awakened person in the last stages of a civilization will notice that most people around them are pretentious, holding forth as if they are a gift to humanity and nature alike. This is projection and preemptive passive aggression that allows people to act as if they are victims when interrupted despite the fact that they are acting in an exploitative way. Pretense is required to conceal the actuality of their behavior, and enables them to fend off criticism despite it being well-deserved.
- Ugliness. Healthy societies produce beauty, pleasure, goodness and honesty. Dying societies cannot do this, so they produce novelty and freakishness as a way of garnering attention, and then claim those are beauty, inverting the original meaning. When you see brutalist architecture, ugly modern art, crass mass culture and aggressive, unpleasant social interactions, this is a sign of the decline.
On this blog, you will read two general responses to the decay. The first is “clean up, rebuild and restart” and the second could be characterized as “burn it down and start over.” These two are compatible in that they implicate the same action: remove the dysfunctional, collect those who are still able to think realistically (the “remnant”), and then rebuild civilization according to the ways that have worked for time immemorial.
Another way to put this is that an accurate assessment of human existence never changes because humans never change. The pitfalls of our cognition that lead us toward bad acts remain the same, as do the impulses that impel us toward positive acts. Even if we become transhumanist super-geniuses, the same struggles will afflict us. Much as the cosmos might be seen as a struggle between creation and emptiness, the soul of the thinking animal — human or not — will always be a struggle between good and evil (hubris, narcissism, individualism, solipsism and egoism).
For that reason, we do not face this problem blind. We are not struggling against the gods, but ourselves; we do not struggle against an ideology, but the human mental mistake of which that ideology is an example. Our goal is not to defeat evil, but to separate from it, and by our own improvement to thrive, such that the evil fades into the background by virtue of being irrelevant.
Our first step is to discard loyalty to the dead and dying. Take those national flags and throw them in the fire. If there is a war, make sure you do not fight. Anything you do which strengthens the dying system will only prolong its suffering and yours. Give it as little money, time and power as possible, and sabotage it at every turn.
That outlook proves entirely compatible with the idea of rebuilding. When a forest becomes overgrown, a fire sweeps through and destroys all that is weak, parasitic and irrelevant. The vines that choke the trees, being weaker than the trees, burn. All take some losses, but those things that are enduring remain and then regrow, newly freed from encumbrances.
Recognize that most institutions and many people merely serve to impede this process and must go. Yes, the Other must be relocated; big deal — the bigger problem is within, and lies in those who are our people on the surface but not in the soul or mind. These entryists weaken us by appearing to be of Us, and yet, working against us because of their moral or mental weakness.
Apply ancient mental technique to your quest: envision a renewed Western Civilization and visualize us getting there by discarding the bad and keeping the good, then nurturing the good until it covers everything else. Imagine the shopping malls not aflame, but being replaced after the fire. Focus on the image of the civilization you want to see.
This renewed civilization would make note of the fact that modernity was created by egalitarianism, itself a product of the division of hierarchy by conflict between religious leaders and monarchs, caste-mixing and conflict, and destabilization after crises like the Black Death and Mongol invasions. In this light, it becomes clear what to discard from modernity.
Uniting our past civilization with the best knowledge of modernity, namely the study of organizations and psychology, we can envision a futurist traditionalist society as follows:
- Aristocracy. The best of our people are entrusted with wealth, property and power. This occurs in a cascade from kings through lesser lords. Every locale has a lord who is responsible for final decisions.
- Wise elders. In each community, an informal group of wise elders is chosen whose goal is to be the memory of the community and to make helpful suggestions on everything from placement of businesses to potential partners in marriage. They handle civil actions as well.
- Anti-work. Jobs are replaced by roles, in which each person has not only certain responsibilities and privileges, but a unique position in the local landscape and a calling, or a skill they develop. This requires us to be less efficient and decentralize industry and food production to some degree.
- Culture. Our society becomes strongly nationalistic, including only Us with all Other relocated generously. Almost all regulations and detail-oriented laws are rejected, replaced by cultural norms and standards which allow people to collectively ostracize violators. No one has a right to live anywhere; those who exhibit the values of the community have a place.
- Capitalism. No subsidies or wealth redistribution exist. Instead, people are able to offer products and services on the market, as regulated by cultural norms and local lords. Inequality is viewed not as a linear competition for money, but natural to a hierarchy both vertical and horizontal in nature.
- Caste. We recognize the natural divisions in people by intelligence and character, and assign to them familial roles that persist through the generations except in case of getting a “bad egg.” The upper castes become the arbiters of culture and tastes, which enables them to influence aesthetics and through it, values.
- Technology. Our society fears no technology, but insists that every technology fit within our purpose and values. Grants and commissions are used to separate innovators from the workforce so that they may focus on their ideas, even if these have no immediate monetary value.
- Purpose. Civilization requires that we have purpose, which is an ongoing and immutable goal in which we can always improve qualitatively without shifting approaches, a quantitative approach. At first this is simply to cast off the bad, select the good, and use that as a basis for rebuilding.
- Family. The fundamental unit is no longer the individual but the family. Our goal is to have each person be integrated in one of these, or heading in that direction, at all times, and to that end, families and family-directed activities are given precedence. Courtship replaces dating, love replaces casual sex.
- Aesthetics. Instead of aiming for materially-deduced quantities like efficiency and convenience, we act from moral imperatives and aesthetic sensibilities, building a society that is a pleasure to live in as our first and greatest goal. From that come all other good things, including technology and quality leadership.
- Religion. Our aristocrats are also our religious leaders, and they lead by example and argument, not by force. This enables those who can believe to understand the metaphysical underpinning of reality, while allowing the others the time they need to come to that point if they can.
- Leisure. We, as a people, are not a means-to-an-end of ourselves; we are an end in ourselves, as a means of being a means-to-an-end of our principles which create our civilization. Through this, we do not sacrifice ourselves, but better ourselves, as an integral part of the ecosystem of our culture and civilization.
In the penetralia of our hearts, we know what we want: a rising civilization, happy families, pleasant social interaction, the ability to explore ideas and space, honorable and moral standards in our hearts. All that stands between us and that is the illusion of equality which keeps us atomized and withdrawn.
We have not had this for many generations, and this tells us that collapse has occurred and we are no longer in a phase of resisting decline and conserving, but in a mode of having to tear out the bad and rebuild from the good. This painful recognition, while off-putting, provides us a doorway through which to stride in order to inherit our future.
Friday, March 24th, 2017
We love to accuse strong leaders of megalomania. Stalin, Mussolini, Trump: the problem with them, we reason, is that they are driven by their egos. What we are experiencing is a classic case of projection. The gnarly fact of the modern West is that most people live in a bubble of their own megalomania.
In a society designed around equality, social status is geared toward a minimum. Demanding that everyone be equal means that all are accepted, but that any rank higher than that is delivered through popularity, much like how voting and consumerism make celebrities and billionaires. This creates constant competition for importance, which people signal through a sense of self-importance.
This pretense manifests as everyday egomania. It is not just the selfish choice to ignore the needs of others, but a total disregard for consequences in general. They act to make themselves look good, showing off what they own and their job titles and their position in a social group. This makes people hateful and negative toward one another.
Identity, on the other hand, requires one to shed that identity in favor of belonging not so much to a group but to an idea. A civilization is a tangible thing that is perpetuated by an idea. Like transcendentals, it is both immutable and ongoing, which means that people are always striving to achieve more of the idea.
However, most good things in life are this way. A novelist spends his life trying to perfect the expression of his theory of existence. An artist always tries to capture that one moment when the light was just right. A scientist discovers a process and then spends the rest of her days trying to perfect it and fully explain it. The same is true of civilization.
In contrast to this, most people choose to go further into themselves. They do not reach out to timeless, immutable and ongoing goals; instead, they focus on the tangible and immediate because it is less threatening. This separates them from the pursuits which will bring them a sense of meaning to their lives by virtue of being larger than the individual.
Identity presents itself as a transcendental in this context. One is no longer serving the individual or the group, but the idea of civilization as manifested in both. By pursuing principle, the individual is able to lose himself and gain a world. By doing that, he transcends the elements of his existence, and instead embraces something eternal.
For this reason, identity salves the question of mortality. Fragile individuality is transferred to an ongoing process, and the stronger parts of the individual are expressed as manifestations of this process as it is expressed as expressions of those inner values. The barriers between self and world erode, and a sense of unity prevails.
All of us recognize that the shallow/callow world of consumerism, celebrity and politics cannot provide a future for us. We do not even enjoy the present, and we know the future brings more of it and an intensifying form of it. The only alternate path is to start living for more than the abyss of self, and among the other transcendentals, identity provides a way.
Friday, March 24th, 2017
Logical fallacies prove useful because, like many studies of the human animal and its mind, they reveal common pitfalls of cognition and analysis. They are less practical in arguments because they tend to get applied as rubber stamp style deflections, and are often misapplied, which leads to a need to analyze the fallacies for fallacies.
Of interest are a series of illusions which boil down to a very simple idea, namely, the imposition of a false binary on the world. In this mental error, it is assumed that there are only two states of outcome, with one excluding the other. This is called a false dilemma or false dichotomy:
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of “reasoning”:
- Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
- Claim Y is false.
- Therefore claim X is true.
However, this fallacy is not absolute; see the warning on “rubber stamping” above. For example, “Either we are suffering from global warming, or we are getting wiped out by pollution.” Both could be false, but if one is discussing evidence of some kind of breakdown or decline, and it is limited to two sources, this might not be a false argument.
More commonly you see this one as a vernacular expression of support for a program. “Either we adopt Obamacare, or we face revolution as people go bankrupt from healthcare costs,” for example. There are other options to these two, but the person arguing is hoping to exclude all of those possibilities in order to argue for his case against a weaker opposite.
Compare this to the Slippery Slope quasi-fallacy:
In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:
- Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
- Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
In other words, the person arguing asserts that an event will lead to an extreme. This is a quasi-fallacy because it can be true if the intervening steps are true, which occurs if the final state is merely an intensification of the initial state. As historical examples show us, decisions have momentum, and if there is not a reason to stop a policy, it merely accelerates.
These two fallacies are very similar in that the person arguing is claiming that two extremes must exist. Either X leads to Y, or X does not lead to Y, with no variation in between. Since either of these may be false, we quickly slip into false dilemma or false dichotomy territory in the analysis of this fallacy.
For that reason, not every use of slippery slope is a fallacy; X can lead to Y, but depends on other data to be verified, unless (for example) we are looking at a historical pattern. At that point, referring to slippery slope as a fallacy is a form of the false dilemma or false dichotomy.
Now let us look at another example, the motte-and-bailey fallacy:
I will summarize it: a motte-and-bailey argument is where you have a strong ridiculous claim and a weak trivial one. You make the strong ridiculous claim. When your opponent counters by pointing out that the strong ridiculous claim is, in fact, ridiculous, you re-counter by saying, “No no no, I’m just saying [weak trivial claim].” You then go on to say, “Because of [weak trivial claim], it follows that [thing that follows from strong ridiculous claim but not weak trivial one.]”
For example, I claim that our physical bodies would not exist unless we perceived them through a social lens [strong ridiculous claim]. When you rightfully tell me I’m full of horse shit, I respond by saying, “No! I’m only saying that we understand bodies through a social lens.” [weak trivial claim] You agree to this, because it’s damn-near common sense for anyone who has thought about the issue. I then go on to say, “Therefore, not only gender, but biological sex itself, is socially constructed [follows from strong ridiculous claim], because biological sex is understood through the lens of gender [follows from weak trivial claim].”
In other words, with two claims X and Y, a condition of X or Y is asserted, with the idea that failure of one leads to the other. This enables the person arguing to backdoor the stronger claim on the basis of the weaker one through the implication that the two are related.
Translating into false dilemma, this becomes X->Y or not (X->Y) for the sake of arguing, essentially, that we either accept the linkage between the two, or we negate both claims, which also negates the partial truth stated in the weak claim. An implied false dilemma or false dichotomy thus exists there.
All of recent history comes from using a false dilemma to deny slippery slopes, such as “immigration leads to genetic replacement,” which are in fact logical because the final condition is only an increase of intensity of the starting condition, and their replacement with the false dilemma of “partial truth or not partial truth,” therefore the strong claim — which is not an increase of intensity, but a widening of scope — must be true.
For example, we are told that it is not true that immigration leads to ethnic replacement, but that because immigration has some advantages, immigration is necessary, even though there are many other ways to address the problem that immigration purports to solve.
On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to deny the slippery slope, since history shows us that when a population makes itself available to unlimited immigration, it tends to get replaced. The vast number of mixed-race societies across the globe are proof of this, with none of them showing signs of reversal.
For this reason, we come back to the accusations of false dilemma that inevitably follow when it is argued that immigration must be restricted. “Either we restrict immigration, or we are abolished,” sounds like it might be false, except that when one sees that the initial conditions lead to the extreme, the real false dilemma clearly lies elsewhere.
We are frequently told that “We either take immigrants, or we are abolished by low population, low revenues or lack of diversity.” This shows all three fallacies at work: a false dilemma in that we have other options, a false slippery slope in assuming that population or revenues will continue to fall, and a motte-and-bailey that has us assume that since immigration has some advantages, it is necessary.
Now we get to the big point, for which all of the above is prelude.
Leftism itself consists of a false dichotomy. Its origin, equality, comes from the demands of class warfare brought on by a splintered leadership structure. The argument advanced is: “Either we make people equal, or class warfare destroys us.” This fails because there are many options in between.
This argument fools us because there is a partial truth inherent to what is being said: class warfare is a threat. You can see the “first strike advantage” in that the person offering the argument presents it as an option, and then implicitly disclaims all other options, in an inverted form of the motte-and-bailey argument.
A little more reduction shows the false dichotomy inherent in this. They are arguing, in effect, “Accept my plan or all other options will fail,” which naturally is not proven. In this, its naked state, the argument stands revealed for the fallacy that it is, even if it is buried under several layers of misdirection to conceal its raw nature.
Friday, March 24th, 2017
When we engage in conflict, the immediate impulse is to try to find a vital stronghold of the enemy that can be seized or destroyed, giving our group the upper hand. This leads us to pursue mentally tangible objectives instead of realizing that we are in a war of ideas, and ideas are only supplanted, not dissolved.
For those on the Right, this means that we will not find a stronghold of the Left to conquer or obliterate. Instead, we must build up what we know to be true and head in that direction, making the Leftist direction obsolete. War is a bad metaphor here; we are more like people designing a city, rejecting one paradigm because we found a better one.
However, because it is tempting to find a target that we can visualize ourselves conquering, we look for some origin of Leftism that can be rooted out and eliminated. This leads to a mistaken conjecture about the nature and genesis of Leftism:
In order correctly to understand the modern Left, it’s important to recognize it as a secularized religion. Tracing the development of this religion, from its origins in Protestantism, then Puritanism, then through its many transmutations in America — from sixteenth-century Massachusetts, through its northern and western Protestant expansion, through the “Awakenings” of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, through the secularizing influence of Univer[s]alism and Unitarianism, through the sequential attachments of its “mission into the wilderness” to various sacred causes such as abolition, Prohibition, women’s suffrage, global government, desegregation, feminism, environmentalism, Blank-Slate biological universalism, open borders, LBGT-etc. activism, and global warming, to name some salient examples — has been a major project of the dissident and reactionary Right over the past couple of decades.
…The leftmost edge of the Left has accelerated sharply leftward in recent years. This has exerted tidal stresses on what was never a monolithic cultural bloc to begin with, and the laminae are starting to pull apart — with the result that many old-fashioned and relatively moderate liberals are beginning to see for themselves the unmistakable features of a fundamentalist and authoritarian religion beneath the contours of what they had previously imagined to be nothing more than a compassionate and humanistic political attitude. Given that many of these sorts pride themselves on their atheism, to see that they have been associated with a religion is immediately to declare apostasy.
The second part of this statement bears inspection and enjoyment. As revealed here before, the ecosystem of Leftism includes a few manipulative leaders, some true believers and a huge horde of people following along for social reasons, mainly that they think being Leftist increases their social status through iconoclasm or altruism.
As it becomes clear that Leftism is a singular idea — egalitarianism — that varies in degree from classical liberal to Communist, more are seeing the grim truth of Leftism: it gains intensity as its power concentrates such that it will inevitably and invariably arrive at Communism, or what Plato would consider a form of tyranny, if its power is not checked.
This shows us the Leftist cycle, as revealed in Revolutionary France and the Soviet Union: oppose the dominant, sabotage it, then point to the sabotaged ruin as a pure example of the opposite of Leftism, then gain popularity and take over, becoming unstable as Leftism ideals fail, resulting in a military dictatorship that must wage war against ideological enemies to keep itself together.
But the origins of Leftism go farther back than that. In particular, as Plato documents, Leftism assailed ancient Athens as part of its collapse cycle. Even more, we have new world examples of caste and class revolt, such as the ancient Maya, Aztec and Inca. For this reason, it seems that Leftism does not have a modern or Western origin.
For this reason alone, it makes no sense to attribute modern Leftism to modernity, but to assign the reverse: modernity is the result of Leftism, having arisen from The Enlightenment™ thinking of egalitarianism, which is the core of Leftist ideals. But that is in the near term, because clearly there was a cause of The Enlightenment™ that made egalitarianism seem like a good idea.
While it makes sense to say that Christianity has often aided in Leftism, and modern Leftism resembles a religion as Mr. Pollack carefully notes, most of this comes from the fact that Christianity has a focus on the individual, much as Leftism does. For this reason, most people who are Christian are susceptible to the message of egalitarianism as a demonstration of individual moral goodness through altruism.
This leads us to the root of Leftism. Humans fall prey to the same problems they did at the dawn of the species, and sometimes problems which predated it among our Simian forebears. Leftism arises after a civilization becomes successful and as a result, loses focus on a shared purpose and system of values. It is thus not a forward direction, but an inward-focused one.
Leftism for this reason is a form of rationalization that serves to explain the decline as a positive thing, and through its inward focus, to concentrate on redistribution of what remains instead of the creation of new. It is a product of the lack of direction of a civilization that gives perceived social validity to certain human impulses that previously would have been seen as destructive.
What form of ancient human weakness exists to which Leftism can give a voice? It would have to be something fundamental to humans, a mental pitfall as old as time. Civilization is a contract between individuals and the civilization itself to sacrifice some liberties in exchange for participation in the feed of resources. However, this is measured in terms of social approval by the group, or “appearance.”
This creates the problem of formalization. Appearance creates a proxy or intermediate. This is then manipulated by the individualistic, turning the organization known as civilization against its purpose, which is an “inversion” or thematic reversal of its original purpose.
Over time, this destroys every civilization through the same method: individualism, which when expressed by a group is collectivized individualism, or Crowdism. When we face this, we see the monster we are actually struggling with, instead of intermediaries. Leftism is a weakness as old as time, and this is why the ancients called it, simply, “evil.”
Thursday, March 23rd, 2017
Feminism disguises its origins, but its essence arises from egalitarianism, this time applied to the sexes. Much as the classes were once democratized, now the sexes are as well, which means that women must be “equal” to men; this democratizing process only occurs through one method, which is reducing standards so all can participate and taking from the productive to give to the non-productive.
It is therefore not surprising or shocking that feminism, which argues for equality, does so by advocating a force inequality by which those who naturally succeed are penalized in order to subsidize those who naturally succeed less. In the process of advocating this, it becomes a movement against men, which then turns women into replacements for men, destroying all hope of equitable relations between the sexes.
Rebecca Lemke criticizes this tendency of feminism by pointing out its alienating properties… for women:
This sense that freedom is the ability to do whatever I want, whenever I want, and that the earlier I can experience this total freedom, the better. But we know that freedom is the ability to do what you ought to do, to do the good, to choose the good. – Colleen Carroll Campbell
…It always baffled me how I was told that men were supposed to be the oppressors, their traits and qualities were undesirable and they were what was wrong with society, but in order to exercise our equality correctly, I was supposed to act the same way and do the same the things I was supposed to hate about them. I was supposed to be strong (read: obstinate), independent (I was told no woman should need a man), and taught that men were always wrong, women were always right, and I should never apologize to one for anything.
I was supposed to believe what we (women) wanted was equality, but I never believed it.
Feminism, not the patriarchy, was what tried to steal my choices and my femininity.
When equality — not harmony, or like an ecosystem, a balance between unequal but vital parts — becomes the goal, it turns women into men and men into women as a means of evening out those inequalities. This in turn redirects the question of what actions are desirable from doing what is good, to acting toward equality, which is a proxy for the good.
This sabotages women’s hope of a family without internal politics of resentment. Men and women become competing forces, and as enemies, treat each other poorly, which means that they have trouble staying married. This in turn deprives both men and women for what constitutes the best option for life, an enduring love, marriage and family.
From this comes the destruction of the family for trivial reasons, not the large scenarios of evil victimizers versus innocent victims the media likes to portray, leading to decreased happiness for people in marriage:
A recent study from the Marriage Foundation in England found that couples with newborns who were unhappy in their marriage but who stayed together were actually likely to be happy a few years later.
The authors write that of the unhappiest parents — “those scoring 1 or 2 on a 7-point scale — only 7 percent of these said they were still unhappy 10 years later, regardless of whether they stayed together or split up. Two thirds said they were happy or very happy, scoring 6 or 7.”
Inability to work past trivial problems suggests a lack of trust caused by the polarization of the sexes brought about by feminism and sexual liberation. When there is no expectation of harmony, since it has been replaced by the ideology of equality, people no longer look toward good end results, only an intermediate state of perpetual symbolic correctness via the idea of being equals.
Equality as a concept seizes human minds and makes them unable to function because it is an appealing sense of power. In this quest for power, every person becomes opposed to every other person, and works to shatter them and their needs. As the West reels from low reproduction rates, high divorce and other social problems, we have only this equality mind virus to blame.
Thursday, March 23rd, 2017
Life is mathematical. Every organism faces a series of challenges which are defined more by numerical factors than anything else. For example, how much food is there? How many offspring must be produced? All of these calculations determine outcome more than doing one specific task so well that it overcomes the numeric limitations imposed upon it.
The mathematics of life determine survival. A parasitic disease, like a flu, that takes too many resources will kill the host and be less successful as quarantine kicks in; a rapidly-reproducing organism, like yeast, is most likely to reproduce too fast, consume all of its nutrition and die in a bloom of excess.
We see these events happen in nature all of the time. The dreaded “red tide” is one type of population bloom that occurs through algae which reproduce too much and then deprive the water of oxygen, killing off all sea life in the area. If not whacked back, crabgrass takes over lawns and chokes out every other species.
These extreme examples conceal the fact that these mathematical limits apply to every species. If there are too many deer, they will destroy enough trees that next season, they will starve. Too many squirrels means starving squirrels. But the same is even true of human attempts to form groups; if the group cannot limit its natural impulses, it implodes.
Let us look at an entertaining episode where human impulse control failures coordinated with natural over-population and created an ecocidal disaster that destroyed the overgrown species as well:
In August 1944, the Coast Guard released 29 reindeer on the island as a backup food source for the men. Barged over from Nunivak Island, the animals landed in an ungulate paradise: lichen mats four inches thick carpeted areas of the island, and the men of the Coast Guard station were the reindeer’s only potential predators.
…[thirteen years later the] herd was then at a staggering density of 47 reindeer per square mile. Klein noted the animals’ body size decreased since his last visit, as had the ratio of yearling reindeer to adults. All signs pointed to a crash ahead.
…in summer of 1966, he, another biologist and a botanist found the island covered with skeletons; they counted only 42 live reindeer, no fawns, 41 females and one male with abnormal antlers that probably wasn’t able to reproduce. During a few months, the reindeer population of St. Matthew had dropped by 99 percent.
Let us look at the mathematics of the situation:
St. Matthew then had the classic ingredients for a population explosion—a group of healthy large herbivores with a limited food supply and no creature above them in the food chain.
In other words, there is a mathematical threshold here imposed by the ratio of animals to resources given the need for the resources to replenish themselves. With few enough animals, the food source is able to renew itself; with too many, a situation like “eating the seed corn” occurs and there is no crop in the following year.
These thresholds are invisible because they are not formed of anything tangible or evident, only a prediction based on the mathematics of the situation. For this reason, human groups routinely stumble over these and self-destruct through a process known as a death spiral.
In a death spiral, a human group engages in a pathology based on what has worked in the past. They do this because of social factors, which ties into the same type of neurosis that causes “cargo cults” among human groups:
Cargo cult, any of the religious movements chiefly, but not solely, in Melanesia that exhibit belief in the imminence of a new age of blessing, to be initiated by the arrival of a special “cargo” of goods from supernatural sources—based on the observation by local residents of the delivery of supplies to colonial officials.
In these, people confuse what they were doing at the moment an event occurred with the cause of that event. This leads to groups engaging in religious rituals to bring back the cargo, even though the delivery of the cargo was initiated by events entirely unremoved from the group. This provides a good metaphor for human pathology.
A small village has a few dozen farmers. One of them has an abundant crop. “I didn’t do anything different, except sacrifice this fish to the god Ba-El,” he says. The other farmers face a difficult choice: if they fail to sacrifice a fish to Ba-El, and they do not have a good crop, they will appear incompetent to others. Whereas if they do, they are merely out one fish.
The economics of pathology unfold from this moment. The symbolic task does not represent a risk in itself directly, but will cause a “sin of omission” where those busy with the symbolic will miss actual problems. But the social cost of not doing the symbolic task could be much higher, especially if something goes wrong and then no one wants to aid the guy who did not conform.
As a result, economics dictate that people follow the socially acceptable path even though it requires the adoption of what is essentially a lie, which is the idea that the fish sacrifice made the abundant crop. The lie unites the social group. Through this method, the human group starts its equivalent of a yeast bloom or red tide, which is a virtue signaling death spiral.
In a death spiral of this type, appearance is more important than reality and simultaneously, is detached from reality much like the symbolic fish sacrifice mentioned above. This means to social success, and success in terms of realistic results, rapidly become opposites. Symbols and their referents even more widely diverge. And so, the civilization becomes dedicated to lying.
For example, the fish sacrifices may have never worked, but those farmers who were conscientious enough to plough, plant and irrigate correctly are also those prone to make fish sacrifices. And so, it appears that the talisman works; everyone does it and those who do not are not trusted, cannot get loans or sell their product, and are marginalized.
The result is that to be a successful farmer, one must make the fish sacrifice, because social factors mediate reality through the actions of other people needed by farmers. At this point, something fascinating happens.
Clearly the fish sacrifices are not working. Normally, we would conclude that the method either never worked, only partially worked or has stopped working, and place less emphasis on it. But because of social factors, we must double down and place more emphasis on it.
Through this runaway acceleration feedback loop, more fish sacrifices will be performed. They may happen daily or require more or bigger fish. Farmers will spend themselves bankrupt buying fish because to do otherwise is to lose social approval, and so to be unable to get help (loans, sales, labor) from others. Insanity replaces sanity.
A virtual signaling death spiral of this sort adds to the natural conditions for a sudden extinction: unlimited growth plus finite resources reaches a threshold, but now, the added wrinkle is that resources are being expended for symbolic and not realistic ends. This does not cause sudden failure, which is why it is deadly.
Instead, it causes a gradual slowdown. For every dollar made from a farm, ten cents go to fish. This cost is passed on to consumers, who now pass it on to others. Lawyers, teachers, and repairmen all charge ten percent more. This in turn raises costs to farmers, so they raise their costs in turn. This feedback loop continues until the economy is near collapse.
Human groups of all types fail through this process. Symbolic and social behaviors replace practical ones. Then, the group both divides itself internally over the issue of symbolic behaviors and how to interpret them, and bleeds itself dry pursuing non-issues instead of the obvious and massive actual threats.
We see these patterns time and again in human society:
- Communism. Being Leftist meant social success, so people went far Leftist and then destroyed their society. At the time when they needed to be fixing real problems like a lack of food in grocery stores, they were instead fighting over ideological issues.
- Greenland. This Nordic colony thrived on hunting ivory from walruses, but then the market discovered elephant ivory. Instead of admitting the failure of this market, the colony continued hunting walrus with the energy it should have spent relocating or finding new industry.
- South Africa. This colony made itself rich on natural resources until other sources were found. At that point, it could no longer support its underclasses, and mass revolt resulted in a typical diversity death spiral where two groups fight each other instead of looking toward a new source of income.
- Immigration. The West experienced a huge population boom after World War II and started looking for ways to fund the social benefits it had appointed to those people. Instead of admitting that it could not pay these benefits, it began importing immigrants, only to find the tax revenues from these were not what were hoped for.
Future human leaders will be more concerned with feedback loops that produce death cycles than we are now. Failure of organization to respond to changing resource needs, including to slow growth before a crisis, destroys civilizations. Instead of adapting, the dying organization relies on proxies which increase its free rider and tragedy of the commons crises.
Those looking for rules that can prevent this situation will be disappointed. Humans are biological organisms that vary in ability; those with low ability, even in the presence of enlightened rules, will only misinterpret those rules. Without perceptive leaders with the power to act decisively before a crisis, that group will fall into a virtue signaling death spiral and perish.
Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017
Out in the world today, white people seemed to be behaving badly. That is: they were unhelpful to customers at their jobs, either in slow motion or me-first angst frenzies, and generally acted self-obsessed. Knowing those of higher than average intelligence, this seems to be a clear case of a slow tantrum.
Slow tantrums happen when people are nervous and upset more than angry. They are acting out their dissatisfaction with the world through projection and transference, two linked psychological gestures that imply a person is trying to pass on their pain to others as a means to salve it, and identifying in others their own dysfunctions, possibly as a means of diagnosis but at least to escape culpability.
White people are feeling discomfort because the Farage/Trump victories are more than rejections of the past. These upsets indicate that not only was the past unpopular, but that it was having bad effects, just when the liberal elites and their useful idiot herd thought things were going well.
While some millions of people sat around in Facebook Consultant jobs, government sinecures, and luxurious NGO appointments, the rest of our people were hurting. They saw their money drop in value by about 40%, which was visualized as costs rising all around them, and opportunity dried up unless one was from a protected group or part of the Leftist gang, who always seemed to have jobs.
In the meantime, America effectively converted itself into a socialist country under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. This meant that one of our biggest industries was government and the many roles dependent on government. Armies of consultants to interpret rules, legions of clerks, a cornucopia of private industry to work around byzantine laws.
In addition, the Leftists adopted their favorite trick: confuse us into thinking the economy was doing well by making the economy active. This approach, called “demand-side economics,” requires dumping money into the economy through Socialist subsidy programs at the same time it makes acquiring credit easier, increasing the demand for money.
This creates a tight and fast cycle of demand and discharge which from a distance appears to be a thriving economy, which is why most Americans thought they were “doing pretty good” under Clinton and Obama. The problem with appearance that is not reality, however, is that reality and not appearance arbitrates end results.
For this reason, Clinton skipped out of office just in time before the economic house of cards he created came crashing down. The same will be true of Obama. All that fake economic activity causes our currency to be over-valued, and since this cycle naturally ends, at its conclusion there is a crash as the economy takes the loss of all that ersatz wealth.
This means that white people know that the good times are coming to an end. Not only that, but they know that these good times were not just false but fraudulent, stealing from the future to party today (now… yesterday). And that means that in the wealth recapture, all of those easy jobs available just for joining the Leftist Club are going away because they must go away.
Trump will not do it; the markets will do it. The USA is going to experience a fall roughly proportionate to the amount of money that Barack Obama dumped into the economy through social welfare programs. This means that everything is going to trim down and any extraneous positions are going to be made obsolete, including Facebook consultants (and probably Facebook).
As with most who are not Leftists, Farage and Trump advocate a return to “supply-side economics,” or the idea that our economy is only worth as much as it produces. Demand for money is not equivalent to having productivity backing that money. This is reality, but does not have pleasant appearance, so voters abolish it whenever given a chance so that they can have a prole holiday.
Even worse, for white people, they are going to have to behave again. Our most recent prole field day allowed them to prove their moral goodness through a few token political opinions, and then do whatever they wanted with the rest of their time. Degeneracy flourished as it always does when the herd has its way.
But the teacher is back in the room now. Farage and Trump are not isolated actors; they are part of a wave, and the fact that they are a highly visible part suggests they are not its cause. Leftism has made itself obsolete again, failing as it did in post-Revolutionary France and the Soviet Union. Now it has happened in the West as well.
There is even greater fear that those who were the former beneficiaries of the prole holiday will not relinquish power, and will destroy those who try to fix the situation through a death of a thousand cuts:
Ms. Raggi was supposed to be the anti-establishment Five Star Movement’s prime example of how a nonprofessional politician could shake up Italy’s politics. Instead, the movement’s opponents now point to Ms. Raggi’s administration as proof that the party is far more suited to tearing down government than actually running it, and that Italy’s new breed of politician is no better than the old one — no less tainted by corruption, no less ineffective and no less unpopular.
…No one, critic or supporter, would say running Rome is easy. The depths of the city’s malfeasance were amply exposed in 2014 by what is known as the Mafia Capitale investigation, which showed corruption and tainted bidding for a wide variety of city services, including refugee shelters, sanitation and public housing.
No wonder there is panic. Most people are proles of the soul and want nothing more than a good time today at the expense of tomorrow. They eat the seed corn and burn the furniture. A big correction is coming, possibly if not probably including the default of several Western nations. The resulting instability makes war with China, against who we have fought two proxy wars, highly likely.
For those of us who want to restore Western Civilization, this shows us what we have to look forward to with prole rule through democracy: an endless cycle of the appearance of wealth, during which society degenerates, followed by hard crashes during which good people are ruined. Our problem is at its heart a failure of leadership and direction.
Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017
Tim Berners-Lee on how to fix the internet:
Today, most people find news and information on the web through just a handful of social media sites and search engines. These sites make more money when we click on the links they show us. And they choose what to show us based on algorithms that learn from our personal data that they are constantly harvesting. The net result is that these sites show us content they think we’ll click on – meaning that misinformation, or fake news, which is surprising, shocking, or designed to appeal to our biases, can spread like wildfire. And through the use of data science and armies of bots, those with bad intentions can game the system to spread misinformation for financial or political gain.
The internet was originally designed to be decentralized so that if in wartime a city was taken out, the internet could simply route around the damage and keep communications working. The web was theorized as similarly decentralized, with many different sites offering content and users choosing from among those.
However, thanks to the consumer mentality, the internet is now centralized in the hands of a few successful but dying companies, making them arbiters of what is seen and heard, and therefore enforcers of a type of censorship of viewpoints that these companies perceive will offend some of their desired userbase.
As Berners-Lee points out, the solution is to “redecentralize” or stop our reliance on a few big sites and search engines, and instead to have many more variants such that the audience can find its own content without going through mediators, who have the exact same problem that big media does, which is a tendency to cater to the audience that uses them most, over normal people.