Author Archive

What Idiocracy Got Wrong

Saturday, January 13th, 2018

The movie Idiocracy spawned a national debate about eugenics and the low reproduction rates in Western countries. The movie portrayed a future where intelligent people were too dedicated to careers to breed, while the thoughtless charged right ahead with abundant reproduction.

Although it did its best to tiptoe around political correctness, the movie made a convincing argument that Aldous Huxley was right and that our pursuit of pleasure, liberty, freedom, individualism, and happiness would lead us into a type of dystopia-Utopia in which idiocy would always rule while sanity and intelligence were mocked as “you talk like a fag.”

However, the first part of the movie proves the most realistic, in which the high-IQ nerdly white couple discuss the reasons for delaying the question of reproduction, then their health troubles, and finally, their failure. They just die out, while the rest surge onward, benefiting from the social order and institutions created by high-IQ people.

The point was not made solidly enough that what destroys our society is not the behavior of the low-IQ groundlings, who are the same in every age, but that the people we are relying on to be our high-IQ innovators are chasing phantoms. First their careers, and then, in pursuit of those careers, political correctness becomes what they pursue.

Growing up, I always assumed that we were living in a totalitarian country because there was only one way of succeeding, and it required obedience. Go to the school and memorize the “facts,” then repeat on test. Go to the job and spend hours there doing whatever you are told, even though most of it is unnecessary. Finally, chase trends so you can be “relevant” and get social recognition and through that, be important enough to be promoted and own things.

It was pervasive. If you went off and started your own business, you were still judged by the same things and because you had to socialize (to a degree) with those who were your customers and suppliers, you had to talk their language, which meant adopting their assumptions. The virus spreads through human contact.

Even those in the professions had to bleat out the same tired lies if they wanted to keep their jobs. Whether that was that fat, not sugar, caused obesity, or that race does not exist and we can all be just the same, the force of the lie was the important part: it kept you in a mental position of subservience, ruled over by an illusion chosen by others to flatter their pretense.

That, there, is the core of tyranny. It has two parts: the dogma must be untrue, and it must exist not for realistic reasons — survival of civilization, preservation of nature, increasing the good in the world — but so that people can obscure the parts of reality that make them feel small. They want to see themselves as important, as if the world revolved around them.

We are back to the Garden of Eden with that idea, or the discussion of hubris in The Odyssey. Humans have a role in a vast mechanical hierarchy of life, and it scares us because it acts for its own needs, and not ours. So we, like the rabbit in the field, can only hunker down and hope to find enough to eat while dodging predators. Our deaths and lives are not in our own hands.

Humans and other species retaliate against this smallness with pretense, which is the notion that the judgments of our species — both individual and group — are more important than those of nature, and therefore that we as individuals can be important in that social group and thus, in our minds at least for the short term, defeat death, fear, loneliness, insignificance, and the lack of innate meaning in life.

Our tendency in life as thinking beings is to become frustrated at the world for not resembling our outer intent, or what we thought we wanted to happen. Outer intent is like wishing you won the lottery; inner intent is like the desire for a comfortable life so that you can do something meaningful. When life does not match our outer intent, we tend to rage, even if it will eventually provide one possible option to match our inner intent.

Tyranny consists of humans in groups deciding to enforce their outer intent on the world through other human beings. If we say an apple is a banana, and to buy one at a store you must call it a banana, and you get fired if you call it an apple, then everyone who wants to survive will call it a banana. This flatters human pretense, or convinces us that our illusions are correct.

And yet, tyranny spreads from the top because people compete. If a new audience springs up which wants to call apples bananas, then all industries which depend on masses of individuals doing the exact same thing to support them — clicking a vote, buying a product, liking an idea — will turn toward favoring them, and those who are most driven to succeed will start calling apples bananas.

Those things are all egalitarian, in that instead of asking “what is right?” they ask “what do most people want?” Democracy, utilitarianism, social popularity, consumerism… these are all different faces of the same basic idea. And those who are smarter than average and want to make a better life for their families chase success in these areas.

Storeowners never say anything unpopular. Doctors are slow to deviate from the approved way of doing things. Advertisers play to whatever they think most people find least offensive and most appealing. Politicians know their future depends on promising what 51% of the audience thinks is a good idea. Rising from the bottom where it is formed, the rot then infects the top and trickles back down.

When you look out there and you see big companies insisting on diversity in every advertisement, government buildings lit in rainbow colors, and celebrities praising our enemies abroad, you are witnessing a “race to the bottom” caused by rot from the top. Everyone wants to get in on the latest trend so they can increase their own brand value.

This show us yet again that the real problem with bottom-up systems like equality is that they destroy us. We lose sight of any external mission and instead turn inward, which creates a competition for flattery and obedience, and that both breaks our self-respect and drives us mad as we try to conform to obvious reality-denial.

As Plato showed us, democracy changes us from people who can focus on a goal to people who are constantly distracted by new needs for entertainment, novelty, popularity, and whatever other trend is passing by:

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

…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.

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.

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.

These systems — consumerism, socializing, and democracy — destroy us because by making us “equal,” they create an absence of power into which the raving and raging of the mob mentality rises to have control. They start by destroying our elites and making them corrupt, but ironically, this occurs because those elites are soliciting approval from the masses.

When people tell you that our politicians, celebrities, elites, business, or capitalism is the enemy, it is important to recognize why they are wrong: the rot starts from the top, but that is because egalitarianism has changed the requirements for success to center on popularity with the herd.

Capitalism did not do this to us. Even the media did not do this to us. Nor did our politicians. We did it to us because we demanded — or at least enough of us did — that any official word flatter us, the people, and our notion that we are all equal. Political correctness results, and our society becomes a dog chasing its own tail, racing in circles until divested of its energy, it collapses.

Becoming A Shithole Country

Friday, January 12th, 2018

Donald Trump again demonstrates why he is the master of the media: even with a simple leaked comment, he has characterized the issue in a way that is both practical and iconic, infecting our minds with the idea. Seemingly minutes after he shrugged in approval of a lazy deal on DACA, then killed it, he has created the “covfefe” meme of human differences that subtly shifts our thinking.

According to those who are willing to leak information, Trump said something that was not politically correct regarding immigration:

The lawmakers were describing how certain immigration programs operate, including one to give safe haven in the United States to people from countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife.

One of the sources who was briefed on the conversation said that Trump said, “Why do we want all these people from Africa here? They’re shithole countries … We should have more people from Norway.”

The second source familiar with the conversation, said Trump, who has vowed to clamp down on illegal immigration, also questioned the need for Haitians in the United States.

If we dig into our inner selves, where we can be honest before we clamp down with the fear of social disapproval, all of us will recognize the truth of what he has said: the countries in Africa tend to be impoverished, disorganized, corrupt, chaotic, violent, and filled with people who want to emigrate to the West to take advantage of the wealth there, instead of producing it at home.

Some claim his comments were “racist,” which is nonsense of the first order not only because racial preference is part of “freedom” and something every human has, but also because he did not actually speak of the ethnic groups involved. He simply pointed out that destitute and dysfunctional third world countries are less preferable than taking in people from, say, Norway.

For us to even claim that his comments were “racist,” we would need to sit him down with a list of every country on Earth and have him rank them on a binary scale of hole/not-hole, and then ask him why all the non-white countries were holes, if he ranked them so. If then he said, “It’s because they are full of hole people,” and tied that to their race, then it might be “racist.”

In the context of our thought on his comments, however, the racial angle does not matter so much as the practical angle: why is America the sponge of the world, absorbing anyone who has experienced a tragedy, instead of thinking of our interests in who we take in?

Our politicians posture by giving “safe haven” to people from around the world, but this is an act merely intended to make the politicians look good and feel good about themselves. No one has thought about the consequences of such an act, which makes it a sociopathic act, not a victory for empathy, charity and the human soul. It is the opposite of how it is sold.

The bigger accidental truth involving immigration came from the Left, actually, and takes the form of a leaked memo that in turn leaks the real reason for Leftist support of third world (hole) immigration, which is that it enables them to buy votes and permanent smash the healthy, normal, Western European family-oriented people who tend to vote conservative, even though that group is the source of American success:

A leaked memo from the left-wing organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, admits that passing an amnesty for the nearly 800,000 illegal aliens shielded from deportation by the President Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is “a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”

…The leaked memo comes as the Trump administration has endorsed a DACA amnesty plan that trades legalizing the nearly 800,000 illegal aliens in exchange for mandatory E-Verify, which bars employers from hiring illegal aliens, ending chain migration, where newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. with them, ending the Diversity Visa Lottery program, which randomly imports 50,000 foreign nationals a year, and authorizing the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Pew Research Center found in 2012 that a plurality of Hispanic illegal aliens are Democrats, while only 4 percent said they identified with the Republican Party.

In other words, Leftists are deliberately importing people from impoverished and dysfunctional (“shithole”) countries so that these people vote against the people who made this country not a third world wasteland, which it easily could have been like Mexico to the south or in fact, most of the Americas.

As Plato noted, tyrants import foreigners as a means of establishing their power, which the Democrats have confirmed with the memo above. People who are in a country only because one person or party is in power will support that entity not out of gratitude, but fear of being sent away.

Over time, this effectively obliterates the original population through outbreeding, and guarantees a permanent majority for the symbol of one party over all else. However, that symbol presides over a wasteland, and so has lost its value and meaning, which is something that apparently the original tyrants never think about.

We can see this happen throughout history. Great empires form and then, just as they hit their peak, they become absorbed by whatever imported labor they were using. Centuries later, all that remains are the mixed descendants of the original group, and these are unable to achieve their former greatness. Egypt, Mexico, Iraq, India, Russia, Cambodia, Peru, Greece, and Italy all show us this pattern.

That tells us that the people make the country, and not the other way around. It does not matter if they carry forth the symbols, laws, language, and other “outer culture” of the original population; when the founding genetic group is gone, the civilization is gone, and what replaces it is an approximation of the original just like fast food vaguely resembles real food.

People are not equal, by class, race, ethnic group, sex, and caste. Only when an ethnic group stands on its own, and has a hierarchy both of leadership and of social rank, is it able to function. All of Leftism is a revolution against that social rank, which affirms that some do, indeed, know more than others and are better than those at leadership.

Leftists follow a mental process of scapegoating: irate at their own lack of power, and not realizing that this is because they will abuse it if given it, they prove that point by becoming abusive in their quest for power, perhaps raging at a primal angst of not being immortal gods instead of mortal peasants and merchants. They blame the leaders for the dysfunction of the Leftists themselves.

Scapegoating however is mentally addictive. Once the scapegoat is in place, it explains away all of the personal failings and fears of the people, so they chase that symbol like addicts in a religion dedicated to heroin. Eventually it destroys them, and everything around them, but they do not care because they had those moments of “if it feels good, do it.”

They use the importation of foreigners as a means to this end. It crushes the native population, who are made to feel guilty and inferior. It creates a permanent power base for the Leftists. Then, they invert the society. Good becomes bad so that bad can become good; the lesser become the elites, so that the actual natural elites cannot stop the looting of a once-great society.

We can see the effectiveness of this policy in the unity through hatred of the Left and minority groups who now openly admit that they wish to erase the founding population of America and Europe and replace them:

“As long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, the problem is not solved,” she said, adding,“There are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it – in that prejudice and racism – and they just have to die.”

Diversity is white genocide. Leftists want white genocide. Even some groups of whites — the “near whites” from Ireland, Southern Europe, the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe — want genocide, but they want to destroy the genetic group necessary for Western Civilization, the Western Europeans. Everyone wants to be on top.

Clearly this policy of diversity, both ethnic and racial, is not functional. That is why the Left loves it: they plunge the nation into chaos, and thrive in the center of it, since they no longer lose social rank for being incompetent, venal, or dysfunctional. The rest of us need to realize that we are their target and they aim to eliminate us and erect a shithole nation in our place.

Leftism Is Advertising

Friday, January 12th, 2018

Another day, and people are moving as if in a dream underwater. In line, they are slow. The woman in front of me drops her coffee, twice. She staggers off to whatever office she must attend in order to pay her mortgage, five types of insurance, health care, car note, credit cards, professional licensing, property tax, automobile inspection and permit, 401k, college loans, office attire bills, and upkeep of all the gadgetry that keeps glitching, flaking, and breaking around her. No wonder she loves her job; she hates her job.

On the road, people are also slow, driving twenty miles an hour, forgetting to turn at lights, and seemingly unaware of their surroundings. In the grocery store they are milling aimlessly through the aisles, parking in the center of each and staring at products as if seeking enlightenment. At the gym people keep walking in circles.

They are afraid. Their individual bubbles, the social groups and experts that they read, are fragile because the world around them is both fragile and unknown. They know this, and so when the Chinese threaten to withdraw their purchases of American debt, or government hovers near a shutdown, crippling panic fills their minds with a cacophony of background noise formed of vague, limitless fears.

In this way, we can see that they do not believe the supposed truths they consume every day through media. They do not believe in the future of their world. They assume that the truth is the opposite of what they are told. But for now, all they want to do is make it through to the weekend, and have some wine or take on a lover, or escape to some faraway place. Distract and survive.

Future historians will gauge societies by their degree of future sight. Dying civilizations can see two weeks into the future; healthy ones are thinking about two thousand years in the future or longer. Those who are thriving are aware of death, but not afraid of it, while those who are failing see only death in with all the other fears.

What killed our future sight was individualism. It came out of nowhere because it was always inside of us; then, people sought to legitimize it, because it is an easier way of thinking about life — it temporarily allays the fears of the background hum — and did so by forming groups to insist that others believe the same thing.

In one of the great ironies of history, no one intended for it to turn out that way.

Individualism-through-group-action, which we now generally call Leftism, was always a sales job. It was marketing, or advertising, or just conversation. It was a way for people to make bonds with one another and feel better about their lives. The only problem was that people took it seriously, and the people following them emulated that attitude in turn.

It probably began simply as conversation. A group of people, huddled together, had nothing really to talk about. Everything around them was kind of obvious — this is a good thing, when you think about it — and they saw no need to look within. So instead, they started complaining. About the weather, or the root vegetable crop, or their neighbors. This is how insecure people socialize.

Someone took it to the next level. “You know,” he said, “The king really sucks. We could do a lot better. I know what I would do; what would you do?” In the moribund twenty-first century, we might call that a writing prompt, but really it was just a smart way to stimulate conversation and let people dream.

What followed was a social revolution. People now always had something to talk about that made them feel better for a little while. It infected the field laborers and those of a related group, the merchants, who realized quickly that this new trend, like fortified wine, could make money from the many instead of the few.

The two groups became friendly. The merchants sold the image; the people bought it and felt better. It was cheaper than therapy, anyway. This created a feedback loop, where the merchants invented new versions of the idea, and then people incorporated it into their social activities.

Competition defined these activities. If the first guy says that the king sucks, you have to either come up with a stunt — painting “the king sux” on the bridge to the kingdom — or some new idea based on the notion that the king sucks, like that the king sucks because he is insane, obese, religious, not religious, not obese, too sane, or any variation therefore.

Whoever came up with the newest, freshest, wildest, and most outlandish version of the idea won. They got even farther if they could use that idea to show that instead, they wanted a Heaven on Earth (H.O.E.) where there was no war, poverty, or a social hierarchy that kept grubby simple people out of the coolest places in town. This fantasy made the crowd swoon.

They ran into trouble when people took it seriously. First they challenged the power of the king, which created a divided power structure, and this always means that most of the energy will go toward infighting instead of solutions and future thinking. That gave them more to complain about, so they followed it up with class warfare, diversity, feminism, and other infighting.

Now we see the result: a world ruled by the lowest common denominator, where anyone speaking two words of sense together is demonized, in which the worst decisions are always made through the utilitarian method of asking a group what they want and choosing whatever the largest number of people want, which always seems to be the stupidest and least realistic solution.

People love fantasy. Leftism was merely a fantasy, advertising for another product, namely the Leftists themselves. The merchants wanted to sell more trinkets, and the people — of “We The People” fame — wanted a way to stand out in their social group, look witty and smart at the bar, attract mates despite being weaker and slower than others, and they got it.

As generations went by, each one took this idea more seriously until soon, it had become a quasi-religion. To succeed in this society, you need to be popular, and talking about how the king sux works in any age. Except now our society is nothing but infighting, with plenty of people in power to complain about.

This sort of thing is a “first world problem.” It only happens to societies which are successful enough that they can avoid worrying about day-to-day concerns of survival. Instead, they become large social groups, and whoever creates the marketing that most people can participate in, wins. Even if with this victory, they reduce everything good to ashes and rot.

Why Things Are Looking Up

Thursday, January 11th, 2018

Right now, many people on the Right are feeling sort of depressed. This is normal when you consider that modern society is an unnatural, inhuman, ugly, blighted, self-hating, and suicidal path that makes everyone existentially miserable by wasting their time and depriving them of the purpose in life they need, beyond material success, to feel that their lives have meaning.

In other words: every day that you wake up in this society — which is in the middle-to-late stages of failing just like Rome 1.0 was — you are probably going to be depressed because you notice too much. That tendency to notice is what makes you a Rightist, because we pay attention to results in reality instead of feelings and social emotions.

But take heart! We are in the midst of a vast historical shift, and things are getting better by the day, with the potential to actually get good — i.e. non-suicidal — if we keep pushing.

The first good news is that people are adjusting easily to the new. A large group of people who profited under the Obama-Clinton style tax-and-spend neo-socialist system are displeased, but the average person has seen through at least one lie: the sky did not fall, as promised, when Trump took over. Even more, they are adapting to the changes, and see them as the new normal.

After that, we should look at what Trump and Farage have done to play their long game. They have been mild. They have started from small, reasonable expectations such as ending failed policies, and are gradually extrapolating from that. For example, if your government cannot make itself leave the EU, then corruption is the foundation of that government and it should not be trusted.

These “baby steps” have made people comfortable with the changes occurring around them and ready for more. For example, the Trump tax cuts have revitalized the economy in a way that has not been seen since the 1980s; Brexit restored a sense of national direction to the UK that had been missing since the Thatcher years as well. People want more of this positive feedback.

Another piece of good news is that populism is still spreading. With Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Germany all showing impressive gains for the actual Right, populism has taken a foothold not just in America and the UK, but mainland Europe, and it is influencing people there who would like an end to Leftist policies.

Even better, skepticism of certain “holy” institutions — scientists paid to write research papers, journalists who report what are presumably facts, academics who analyze history, government agencies who make recommendations — is rising as each of these institutions proves itself to be capable of being corrupted for ideological purposes.

The biggest changes however are under the hood. We are leaving behind The Age of Ideology, a time when socially-oriented thinking dominated. This thinking, called individualism, insists that the individual is the largest unit of importance in our society, and that individual rights are more important than rights to a shared purpose like civilization.

The Age of Ideology is the age of individualism, or the time in which the human individual was seen as the focus of civilization. Now we know better: civilization has to be the focus of civilization, and because the individual is disadvantaged by a broken civilization, it is our first and foremost goal. Instead of looking at individuals, we look at what we share.

Populism is the first step in this transition. As one expert opines, populism is interpreted democracy without direct democracy:

A populist, Kaltwasser says, is someone who believes that society is split between the pure people and the corrupt elite. The moral judgment is a key part of his definition. Lots of people can agree that society contains both masses and elites, but populists explicitly associate the masses with purity and elites with corruption.

What follows from populists’ belief is that politics should express “the will of the people.” The job of the leader is to channel and express the people’s will. But that can be a slippery slope toward autocracy. In the extreme, anything that blocks the will of the people is seen as a useless or harmful impediment—even courts and legislatures.

…Populism has two opposites. The one everyone thinks of is elitism, which doesn’t have a lot of (open) support. The other, Kaltwasser says, is pluralism. Pluralists believe in democracy but reject the populists’ idea that there is a single “will of the people.”

Let us translate that: the will of the people is interpreted by a populist leader, who is opposed by elites who are elected or given power by their wealth, and if this will is obstructed, it is fair play to remove impediments like elected representatives, courts, laws, and by inference, democracy itself. This makes more sense than it initially appears to.

First, it finally resolves the delegation versus proxy argument. Some say that we elect the best people that we can and delegate the responsibility for making correct decisions to them; others say that our leaders are our proxies, and we elect them to do specific things. Neither side has been proven right because at times both are.

Populism resolves this paradox: the leader is the one who, eschewing the false elites, figures out what people actually need instead of what they desire, are fascinated by at the moment, say they want, or even vote for. He or she is a translator of dreams, listening to concerns and finding solutions.

This kills utilitarianism, which is the idea that whatever most individuals think is a good idea must be a good idea. That is an extension of the social principle itself which holds that happiness is found when everyone in the group (or as close as possible) is happy. The will of the people, per populism, is something eternal.

And then, finally, we come to the kicker. Populism rejects pluralism, or the idea that people of different backgrounds, radically different viewpoints, and contrasting culture or values can exist in the same society. For there to be a will of the people, there must be a people, and everyone else at least has to be cool with letting them drive.

Populism rejects all that has happened in the West for the past thousand years or so, as we have steadily been drifting from having kings who acted according to eternal tradition to mass culture comprised of many individuals assembled into a mob through the pathology of herd behavior. Populism is the beginning of the reversal of our misfortunes.

The individualism it replaces takes many forms but its essential idea is that of the individual, which is expressed through liberalization more than anything else, which means relaxing the rules which have protected us since time immemorial because individual people want more freedom than the rules provide. From that comes the spectrum of liberal beliefs, which has just become a victim of history:

Liberalism is the modern political philosophy of the emancipated individual, defined in the “state of nature” philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke as a monistic and desiring self. The condition of the “state of nature” is the condition of absolute liberty: the capacity of the individual to achieve his or her desires without obstacle. But because such a condition gives rise to conflict, government is created to secure the rights of such individuals. Under liberalism the primary reason that we have a public order is to secure individual liberty.

Liberalism is thus a political philosophy that rests upon the realization of the autonomous individual self. This means not only must such individuals be politically free from arbitrary government power, but they must be free from what come to be considered all arbitrary and unchosen relationships that include social and familial bonds. Not only must all relationships ultimately be the result of the free choice of the sovereign individual, but, in order to preserve the autonomy of the liberated self, those relationships must be permanently revisable and easily exited. Thus, liberalism not only shapes our public institutions, but our social and private ones as well, ordering society toward the sovereign choice and autonomy of the individual choosing self. We see the liberal human coming fully into being not only in our political domain, but in the breakdown of most of our social and familial institutions, including the rise of the “nones, “moralistic therapeutic deism,” and the deepening generational avoidance of commitment, marriage and children.

We can say, then, that liberalism is the political operating system of America. Our different parties are like “apps” that operate on that liberal operating system, reflecting its deepest commitments in what are most often its main political agendas: on the Right, the picture of the emancipated individual chooser that animates libertarian economics; and on the Left, the vision of the emancipated individual chooser that animates their libertarian “lifestyle” aspirations, particularly relating to sexuality and abortion.

You may recognize similar language in the above paragraph to what was expressed during The Renaissance and later during The Enlightenment:™ that instead of an order of nature, the human, and the divine, we need an order of the human individual exclusively, as in “man is the measure of all things.” This is individualism expressed as a philosophy.

Liberalism manifests itself in democracy, where the vote of the individual — no matter how little they know — is the same value as any other. We see it in order social order, which emphasizes equality, or in other words not dinging someone in social status for being dumb, evil, or otherwise icky.

We also see it in consumerism, which is the market applied to the idea that every individual knows what they need best and should be subsidized by the welfare state in pursuing that goal, which leads to a “race to the bottom” in terms of quality and venality of products. It also appears in our art, architecture, music, literature, philosophy, and law.

Most people do not understand liberalism because it promises certain abstract things, and delivers something entirely different. This split reveals the difference between values and value instantiations, and explains why people only react after seeing the results of a policy; they cannot extrapolate the latter from the former. As one explanation points out:

This matters because a great deal depends on the concrete examples we use for values. In our research, we refer to the concrete examples as “value instantiations”. People are more likely to exhibit a value in their judgements of a situation and in their behaviour if they have recently been thinking of common, typical concrete examples of a value rather than of rare, but equally valid ones.

Common examples “fit” a particular value more obviously and specifically, and can act as stronger reminders of the value than rare examples. As we have seen, recycling is an easy and obvious fit for protecting the environment, whereas becoming a vegan might be thought of as a more obvious fit for other values, such as health or the treatment of animals. Its role in environmentalism gets blurred.

This kind of blurring comes from a disconnect between the abstract meaning of values and the varied ways in which people apply them. In working to tackle environmental and social problems, we overlook the links between values and value instantiations at our own peril.

In other words, people do not deal well with abstract theory; they require concrete examples. This is why literature is more popular than philosophy, and why visual aids predominate in meetings even among intelligent people. Microsoft PowerPoint is founded on this principle entirely.

With liberalism, we get told some things and not know what they mean, fill in the blanks with the type of conjecture that seems normal. For example, consider these aspects of liberalism:

  • Equality. To most of us, equality means that everyone is treated the same way. They are, after all, …equal. But in reality, it means that we must make people equal, because otherwise the philosophy debunks itself. And so, equality means — and never varies from this — taking from the succeeding to give to the less successful.
  • Pluralism. People think that pluralism means that every belief system co-exists happily, with each person in their little solipsistic sphere. In reality, pluralism means that society must adjust to fit every belief system, which means that it can have no values in common, so any assertion of the values of your group is viewed as a special privilege by others, which causes them to demand privileges in return. This creates unresolvable internal conflict.
  • Democracy. On the surface, democracy sounds like the idea that every vote counts. In reality, it means that only those in the middle of the spectrum count since outliers are eliminated. This means that democracy, on the whole, is the least flexible political system ever created, because it keeps following whatever assumption most of the masses are pursuing.
  • Pacifism. In theory, pacifism means eliminating conflict by removing the differences between groups. In reality, it means that whoever has the fewest values wins because they have the least to defend, where anyone who wants to defend their values is seen as violating the commitment to lack of conflict through lack of differences.

The concrete value entirely differs from the abstract values because language is categorical, while concrete examples are procedural. This means that we hear one thing, and then receive another, a fact which cannot help but be taken advantage of by those who wish to manipulate us by trading votes for favors.

Manipulating the human need to be important, these abstract values appeal to our sense of needing to be in control. People feel in power when they are able to make decisions that flatter their own narrative of who they are personally and why they are important, and they quickly become addicted to this mental state.

This attack on the individual — through individualism — proves hard to resist because most people are natural competitors. If offered a field to play on, they charge forward and try to win, oblivious to the fact that by doing so, they are defeating their own interests. This causes them to act out destructive scenarios that nonetheless are personally profitable.

Competition for power causes people to become oriented toward the self-destructive because if they are able to induce others to self-destruct, they gain personal power, even if at the loss of their civilization:

The in-migration was initially hailed as an economic boon; then as a necessary corrective to an aging population; then as a means of spicing up society through “diversity”; and finally as a fait accompli, an unstoppable wave wrought by the world’s gathering globalization. Besides, argued the elites, the new arrivals would all become assimilated into the European culture eventually, so what’s the problem?

As British journalist and author Douglas Murray writes, “Promised throughout their lifetimes that the changes were temporary, that the changes were not real, or that the changes did not signify anything, Europeans discovered that in the lifespan of people now alive they would become minorities in their own countries.”

…Murray explains the motivation of those who engage in such flights of moral dudgeon thus: “Rather than being people responsible for themselves and answerable to those they know, they become the self-appointed representatives of the living and the dead, the bearers of a terrible history as well as the potential redeemers of mankind. From being a nobody one becomes a somebody.”

In other words, individualism works against us yet another way: people will vociferously approve whatever makes them feel good about their choices and position in life, entirely disregarding whether it is constructive or destructive. European voters have approved mass immigration many times through this method.

The good side of this can be expressed simply as, “But we are more aware of it now,” and the grim truth is that people are awakening from the stupor of individualism. Instead of trying to make themselves look cool, they are more geared toward an organic view in which they can find a place, and withstand the storm caused by the collapse of a century of unrealistic Leftist programs.

We are experiencing a sea change. People no longer trust ideology because they realize that it is merely camouflage for self-interest, a game theory type approach where the individual simultaneously advertises a positive position and asserts a negative one. Not surprisingly, science shows us that egalitarianism is a defensive measure, not a positive ideal:

He argues that these egalitarian structures emerge because nobody wants to get screwed. Individuals in these societies end up roughly equal because everyone is struggling to ensure that nobody gets too much power over him or her. As I’ve discussed in my last book, Just Babies, there’s a sort of invisible-hand egalitarianism at work in these groups. Boehm writes, “Individuals who otherwise would be subordinated are clever enough to form a large and united political coalition. … Because the united subordinates are constantly putting down the more assertive alpha types in their midst, egalitarianism is in effect a bizarre type of political hierarchy: The weak combine forces to actively dominate the strong.”

In other words, individualists forsake any sense of shared goal, and instead compete on the basis of what they are to receive. This requires them to demand egalitarianism so that no one else gets any more, which leaves them free to negotiate back-alley deals and buddy transactions whereby they receive more.

Humanity games itself. Hilariously, each individual is betting on receiving more than others, which it guarantees by enforcing egalitarianism, which makes others subject to rules while liberating each individual to compete to the degree that they see is necessary. The most materialistic win under such a system.

When we unleash individualism, we create the tragedy of the commons, which occurs when resources are exploited by the competing careerist ambitions of individuals. Although the Left insists that our problem is inequality, more accurately our problem is equality, or too many people able to raid the same thing.

The failure of “inequality” as a reason for our downfall was ably explained by the mouse Utopia experiment, which showed how equality, success as a civilization, and the resulting plenitude are a formula for self-extermination:

At the peak population, most mice spent every living second in the company of hundreds of other mice. They gathered in the main squares, waiting to be fed and occasionally attacking each other. Few females carried pregnancies to term, and the ones that did seemed to simply forget about their babies. They’d move half their litter away from danger and forget the rest. Sometimes they’d drop and abandon a baby while they were carrying it.

The few secluded spaces housed a population Calhoun called, “the beautiful ones.” Generally guarded by one male, the females—and few males—inside the space didn’t breed or fight or do anything but eat and groom and sleep. When the population started declining the beautiful ones were spared from violence and death, but had completely lost touch with social behaviors, including having sex or caring for their young.

Politically, democracy is the mouse Utopia of opinions: no one is accountable, but everyone has an interest in taking whatever they can, so the system is fully exploited without anyone really knowing why. Individualism of all sorts ends up this way because it is uncoordinated taking of resources, separated from an inherent sense of purpose that would allow collaboration/cooperation.

That kind of setup can fool us for a long time. In the case of Western Civilization, it has been centuries, and the French Revolution which formalized this movement was not long ago. But since that time, despite our increases in technology and wealth which continued from the age before, everything else has gone wrong, and individualism is to blame.

No one in media will come out and say it but the age of individualism has ended, and a new age has dawned based on the ability to work together toward a goal. While things seem bleak right now in the transition, in the long term everything is looking quite wonderful, as we leave behind an era of illusion and find ourselves again instead.

How Trump Just Won His Budget Battle

Wednesday, January 10th, 2018

While the world slumbered, Donald Trump just won his budget battle. Only weeks after his tax plan passed, the reason for that tax plan reared its ugly head: China controls our economy because we depend on them to buy our debt.

Witness the carnage of having your economy be controlled by a foreign power:

China added to bond investors’ jitters on Wednesday as traders braced for what they feared could be the end of a three-decade bull market.

…China holds the world’s largest foreign-exchange reserves, at $3.1 trillion, and regularly assesses its strategy for investing them.

…A top Treasury official signaled confidence in the U.S. government debt market, which at $14.5 trillion is the world’s largest.

…The U.S. is scheduled to reopen $20 billion of 10-year debt Wednesday, followed by $12 billion of 30-year bonds Thursday. Germany sold 4.03 billion euros of 0.5 percent 10-year bonds Wednesday with syndications in Italy and Portugal to follow.

In other words, the entire Western world is selling its government debt — financing for entitlements programs, for the most part — on the open market, and since the Chinese have been buying it for several decades, they are now the customer upon whom we depend. They could not have more control over us if they ran their own candidates for the Senate.

What happened was instructive. On the heels of the Trump tax plan, the American economy rebounded, only to fall on the news that the Chinese might not buy as much of our debt paper.

This shows us the reason for Trump’s tax cuts: until we get our spending in line, we will be controlled by foreign powers, and if we go for the tax-and-spend agenda of the Obama-Clinton gang, we will sabotage our economy and benefit those who hold our debt.

Unlike the ideological presidents, Trump is treating America like a business, so he engaged in the classic budget strategy: first figure out how much money we can spend without running into trouble, and next, trim down our expenditures to match.

As with most businesses, the programs that are closest to the axe are those without which the country can continue to run. If welfare, socialized medicine, government benefits, disability, and other entitlements vanish tomorrow, America will keep on trucking. If anything else — like the military — goes away, we will be in trouble.

The Trump plan is to get rid of those entitlements, which are basically bribes for Leftist voters that also attract mass immigration from the third world, and instead create a government which, by paying off its debt, is independent from China, with whom it has a “frenemy” relationship as primary trade partner and adversary.

Whether it was “4D chess” or not, Trump has been ahead of everyone else, and now it shines through as China uses the power it has left to manipulate us, while Trump tries to move us out of that zone of manipulation. The Left insists that we need our Great Society/Fair Deal programs, but in fact they have made us slaves to those who would destroy us.

We Versus Us

Monday, January 8th, 2018

The future of the West depends on whether it chooses We or Us.

We consists of the implied agreement of the group with the individual as in, “We can solve poverty by raising the tax rate and paying the poor to stay in hotels.”

As the old saying goes, “Who is ‘we,’ white man?”

The Lone Ranger and Tonto get surrounded by hundreds of armed Indians.

The Lone Ranger says, “It looks like we’ve had it this time, Tonto.”

Tonto replies, “Who is ‘we,’ white man?”

We — a group — must act together, or we all will fall, so we — individuals — must do whatever placates everyone else. This serves their individualism because it gives them veto power. Any individual can say, “Only I decide for myself what is true or right,” and the group breaks apart. Out of fear of this, it becomes enslaved to the lowest common denominator.

For this reason, We is an unstable group, with the inversion of leadership. Instead of a leader who shows the way, the leader must poll the group to see if anyone has a negative opinion on the proposed action, and then back off if so, because if that opinion spreads — like a rumor, infection, or market panic — then the group will unravel and turn on the leader.

Modern people are used to describing policy this way. The news is full of what We should do. We need to band together to fight endless wars: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the battle against drunk driving, the fight against cancer, the crusade against online hatred, and of course, the revolutions which overthrow kings and other powers so that We The People can rule.

The use of “We” conveys a sense of inclusion in the group, which keeps us from seeing this as what it is, which is an attempt to use the money of other members of the group to further our own interests. Once we create the sense of false union through the use of “We,” it seems only fair that we share in what others have produced to accomplish these goals that all of We agree on.

Or do we…?

In contrast, Us refers to a sense of what we as individuals are working toward that binds us to others. There is no sense of inclusion because it is not based on boundaries or enforcement, but on shared understanding and appreciation. Us is the essence of civilization: people collaborating because of mutual benefit and more importantly, the glory of doing something great and meaningful.

With Us, individuals see that they share an identity — a story of why they are here, what is “good” that they should do in order to have meaningful lives, and why they have a unique and necessary role in the world — and want to nurture the source of their strength, which is their civilization. Civilization is more than society; it is a shared mission, values, and heritage.

Only with the advent of Us do we escape a society controlled by material reward. Such societies attract cruel manipulators because there is no mission other than the pocketbook, so he who steals/sells/cheats/entertains the most, wins. Voters — who are easily manipulated through their greed — always appoint manipulative actors instead of heroes.

This is how democracy really works its horrors. It is not enough that it is incompetent; as Plato noted, its worst effect is that it changes the people under it. They become narcissistic, flighty, and lost in a maze of themselves. Voters are changed by voting, and this is why we always get horrible leaders, even when we go in with the best of intentions.

Us is a transcendent concept. That is, it both explains our reality as being good despite its scary parts, and gives us a vision of purpose — goodness, beauty, and truth — that is specific to us and therefore escapes being inverted by making it accessible to everyone. Accessibility requires simplifying each time we find anyone who does not understand, and meaning is destroyed.

Transcendent concepts can be used to unite a civilization instead of relying on a single big theory to make everything work. Single big theories are methods of motivation, and invariably rely on the concepts of We instead of Us. That is, they work by appealing to everyone everywhere, and therefore in utilitarian simplicity, becoming popular; this is how they motivate masses of careless people.

This proves important when a society considers the question of ownership. Anything not owned by someone will be exploited by a herd of people who come in, take what they can, and leave a wasteland. This is as inherent to humanity as the possibility of growing too fast and choking all life is to algae; dead ponds are what happen when there is not a balancing force to restrain the algae.

That idea, advanced by Garrett Hardin, shows us that the eternal problem of humanity is growth without structure. Unless we create a hierarchy not so much of power but of duty, everything will be worn down by a crowd, leaving the world trash-strewn and trampled into mud like a field after a weekend carnival.

A natural hierarchy exists among people based on levels of intelligence, with the higher levels understanding more of any given task at hand than the levels below them. If the higher levels do not rule over the lower, data is lost and perception limited, which causes poor decision-making.

A transcendent order like Us can embrace truths like the above and convert them into positives: those who are working together can naturally promote the most competent so that all benefit, and those then have a stewardship role toward those below them who are contributing, and a curator role to the organization, its culture, its knowledge, and its values.

Us can create an order like that. We — the notion of removing hierarchy so that no one is lowered in social status for incompetence or bad behavior — cannot, because that violates its principle of roping everyone together based on what they, as individuals, desire or want to do.

We is the opposite of Us.

Our society is divided against itself because it went with “we.” An emphasis on the rights of individuals destroys the right to have a civilization or shared values, and so societies in pursuit of We always break up. A feedback loop appears: the more individuals are encouraged to pursue their desires, the farther those desires get from reality, and soon internal conflict disintegrates the society.

A civilization can form when people are united toward a goal. This naturally suppresses the raw human instinct toward individualism and its group form, often called “collectivism.” When the focus is on external reality as interpreted through a principle, people discipline their inner selves to be realistic. When it is on people, they fall into an abyss of navel-gazing and over-indulgence.

Individualism means “me first.” Collectivism is “me first” using the power of the herd, because that is both effective and reduces the risk for the individual. This group individualism demands that we always look toward raising up the minorities, the self-styled exceptions, and the underdog in the hierarchy order to prove our allegiance to the herd.

This shows us the fundamental divide in thinking: people are either reality-oriented or socially-oriented. The latter depends on everyone in the room feeling good about something for it to be true; the former depends on figuring out whether a “true” idea actually depicts reality in any accurate way.

Socially-oriented thinking unites individual to group on the basis of individualism, or the pursuit of individual desires. This is separate from self-interest, as animals experience, because human desires often do not reflect needs, but a desire to succeed socially in questions of degree; in other words, to climb the hierarchy.

However, this thinking also negates the individual because it makes them obligated to the group in order to receive the mental reinforcement that they need in order to feel good about themselves. This creates an unhealthy dependency in which the raging desire for satisfaction of desire is inextricably bonded to the need for approval, making the individual addicted to the group.

That in turn creates the fundamental inversion in which the individual sees the world as part of themselves, instead of themselves as part of the world. The human love of money, power, control, manipulation, passive aggression, and vainglorious self-worship comes from the need to rectify the solipsism of the fundamental inversion with contrary data from reality.

Self-interest is inherent to human beings; civilization is the process of disciplining it so that it rewards the best instead of the lowest common denominator. The only successful way to do this is the traditional or ancient way, which is to have institutions which are not oppositional, but working in parallel, because they are united on cooperation toward a goal.

Humanity faces an interesting age. We survived the threat of nuclear warfare, and despite the North Korea drama, it is unlikely to return in the form that threatened all life on Earth. Now, we are faced with a bigger enemy: our tendency to become a raging herd out of control that then creates oppressive, self-destroying societies because of its instability.

Across the globe, human societies are failing. Vital institutions are being replaced by inferior bureaucratic substitutes. They are just too many people, each with their own needs and visions that are tangential at best to any idea of improvement of our society, which is like “progress” without the notion of Utopia; improvement is merely taking what is, and making it more competent.

As all of these degraded institutions fail at once, and all of our policies also fail, people are turning on the root of those policies, which is the notion of individualism as a viable method for assembling a human society. The Age of Ideology — probably the last thousand years — championed the individual; the future celebrates the organic whole, and having a sense of purpose.

In that calculus, we are transitioning from “We” to “Us.” It may be a rocky road, but at the end, we will be saner and healthier for it.

#MeToo Campaign Revealed As Opportunism, Not Justice

Saturday, January 6th, 2018

We suffer under an ideological regime. It is no longer officially in power, but is sustained through the tacit collusion of all who share its viewpoint that society will become Utopia through a steady application of “equality” in all forms. Leftism acts like an infection or autoimmune disease, and no longer needs to be officially in power to have power.

This decentralized totalitarianism represents the ultimate evolution of the idea of modernity, which is individualism as manifested in egalitarianism, pluralism, collectivism, and their political counterparts democracy and socialism. A crowd is unselfish because it is comprised of selfish individuals who want to mask their actual intent while pacifying others with soft words and warm images.

As part of this decentralized totalitarian regime, which is most appropriately seen as the inheritor of the Soviet Union and the Golden Horde, we must have periodic public sacrifices. These are blood sacrifices in the tradition of the Maya, Aztec, and the courtyard of Lubyanka Prison. Those who infringe on the ideological core that enables this totalitarianism must be purged.

The Soviets were fond of this method: if people are falling out of line, pick a few people to make examples of. Have them be shot in private, then release the official version of events when the bodies are cool enough that there is no risk of them speaking up and taking exception to the approved narrative.

This method proves to be more destructive than the Nazi method of shooting those who opposed them. The Soviets killed innocents, deliberately, because this not just beat down the opposition, but made everyone else start showing off how obedient they were to the official narrative and how much they believed in The System. It was pure control, logical and cruel.

Our moral panics in the USA are similar but motivated more by social fear. People are afraid of having the wrong opinion because, the more we encrust this society in rules and regulations, the more it becomes obvious that the only way to get anything done is to work around those, which means that social connections are more important than anything else.

With that context in mind, the recent spate of “#MeToo” accusations of sexual harassment show us the free market system and ideological system working in tandem: people can receive free publicity on the order of millions of dollars for coming up with a sad story of clandestine molestation, and this reinforces the ideological dogma of our time, which is that our problem is that we are not “equal,” and the way to fix this is to bond everyone together into a hive-mind focused on enforcing equality by pen and sword.

To an outside observer, this would look exactly like what happened under Communism. The entire population is mobilized, tovarisch! There are marches, daily news stories, struggle sessions on camera, and even movies and products based on the event. The importance is not who is pilloried, but that their suffering is used as a teachable moment for the population, to remind us that we must bow down to the system of control which replaced the Kings.

In the case of Dan Harmon and Megan Ganz, it looks just a little bit too staged, which is consistent with the fact that having a dozen major media outlets cover you all day is equivalent to a few million in free advertising:

Dan Harmon, creator of the popular animated series Rick and Morty and the cult hit Community, offered a vague apology for being an “asshole” on New Year’s Eve. But Megan Ganz, a writer on that sitcom, called him out for mistreatment.

I wish my memories were foggier. I wish there was a way to fix it. It took me years to believe in my talents again, to trust a boss when he complimented me and not cringe when he asked for my number. I was afraid to be enthusiastic, knowing it might be turned against me later…I want to watch the first episode of television I wrote again without remembering what came after.

While Harmon apologized for “selfish, childish shit,” the precise nature of his abuse during their time working together, from 2010-2013, wasn’t revealed.

Ganz makes it sound like she lived in terror, but her own words reveal an entirely different attitude. Either that, or she demonstrated raw opportunism in being willing to conceal a terrible relationship for long enough to get promoted to the next level. Here she is praising Harmon:

Dan Harmon is a genius. I’m saying that up front in case he finds this page while googling “Dan Harmon + genius.” Hi, Harmon!

I once told Dan that he wouldn’t be a page in my autobiography, he’d be the font. Having him as my mentor during the first years of my television career will shape my writing forever, and I couldn’t have asked for a better guide. He taught me everything I know about writing for TV. Hell, everything I know about story period. The writing I’ve done for him has been the absolute best I’m capable of. I doubt I’ll ever be more proud of anything.

While it would not be entirely unwise to hide abuse until career-secure enough to reveal it without repercussions, this looks like a cash-in since Ganz implies that somehow she lived in terror while working under Harmon, and yet praises him for essentially having taught her how to write.

That disconnect reveals the fundamental truth about not just #MeToo, but feminism and Leftism in general: these are seizures of power through guilt, which is essentially fear of social disapproval. The lesser bully everyone else out of the way by making the herd angry and upset, at which point even the alpha monkeys must step down and let everyone else raid the trough.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode Twelve: Interview With Laura Loomer

Friday, January 5th, 2018

At Nationalist Public Radio, we seek to find interesting people and interview them, even if we are not sure how much we agree. James Price and Brett Stevens interview Laura Loomer, an articulate Zionist nationalist who also believes that white people should have the right to establish their own ethnostate. This interview cuts to the core of what nationalism is, and what it is to love your own people, through a convincing subject who thoroughly knows and understands her political terrain.

Download (66mb, 29 minutes)



When Punk Addressed Race

Thursday, January 4th, 2018

Punk music never intended to live for long. It wanted to be a brief flash of intense insight followed by eternal darkness. In its original form, it attacked modern society as a whole, seeing it as a concept that went wrong somewhere. As part of that, punk periodically addressed race in a way that was forty years ahead of its time.

For example, we have Minor Threat with “Guilty of Being White”:

I’m sorry
For something that I didn’t do
Lynched somebody
But I don’t know who
You blame me for slavery
A hundred years before I was born

Guilty of being white
Guilty of being white
Guilty of being white
Guilty of being white

And perhaps the song that inspired it, the archetypal Black Flag with “White Minority”:

We’re gonna be a white minority
We won’t listen to the majority
We’re gonna feel inferiority
We’re gonna be white minority

White pride
You’re an American
I’m gonna hide
Anywhere I can

These songs point out the instability of the reigning 1980s view, which was that slavery and colonialism were unfortunate incidents of history that could be atoned for, following the reigning postwar Leftist view that race was a class issue that could be solved by egalitarianism. Thirty years later, we know that egalitarianism is broken and diversity will not work.

If we had to symbolize the difference between white nationalism and the Alt Right, it might be that the Alt Right incorporates more of this viewpoint:

So you’re gonna be institutionalized
You’ll come out brainwashed with bloodshot eyes
You won’t have any say
They’ll brainwash you until you see their way

I’m not crazy – institution
You’re the one who’s crazy – institution
You’re driving me crazy – institution
They stuck me in an institution
Said it was the only solution
To give me the needed professional help
To protect me from the enemy – myself

We distrust the entire system based on mass culture and popular rule. People in herds are not geniuses, but the anti-genius. They are immoral. They are selfish, and they use the group to legitimize their selfishness. If we are looking critically at racial policy in the West, we also have to look at the whole thing, and oppose modernism — spawned of “equality” — itself.

Trump Fakes Out North Korea, And The Norks Blink

Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018

While the media continues its ill-advised campaign of preaching to the choir by offering what are essentially panic stories every day about the Trump presidency, the man himself continues to achieve results.

Despite heavy criticism for his tweet that shamed North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, Trump has achieved the desired result: shattering the confidence of the Kim regime.

“North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the ‘Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times,'” Trump tweeted. “Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!”

In other words, Kim threatened the world and Trump laughed at him, which seems like it would push the world closer to nuclear war but may have done the opposite. Instead of feeling a sense of power over the United States, now Kim is on the defensive.

As it turns out, deeds speak louder than words, and North Korea’s response has been to blink, which we can see because they re-opened the hotline to the South which is used, ironically, to avoid wars that might erupt along the DMZ.

The media narrative is blatantly wrong to the point of negligence, and given the profit motive behind pacifying the media sheep who soak up the output of our newspapers, probably simply fraudulent reporting. Trump has restored a masculine American foreign policy that does not seek to pacify, but makes reasoned demands and stands behind them, creating world stability.

Recommended Reading