The idea of liberalism is egalitarianism; it both desires it, and points to absence of it as the source of all human problems. By reflection, that statement suggests that people are victims of anti-egalitarians, and that if we just remove those people, all will be well. This is why all liberal revolutions are followed by a period of mass murder or at least mass punishment. It is a philosophy of revenge on scapegoats.
In reality, people experiencing “inequality” are generally doing so by their own choice or inability. If the former, it seems they have made an informed decision to stay poor in exchange for little engagement. If the latter, it would make sense to move them to circumstances that match their abilities. But in neither case is mass revolt and murder necessary or justified. Thus the origin of liberalism is nonsense.
The problem of ideology is that it elects this nonsense as a goal. This leads to humans colliding with reality, which is the basis of both most good comedy and all politics. In fact, in the West which still rides the postwar economic boom, all of our problems arise from previous liberal attempts to institute egalitarianism. Other than the overspending and social chaos created by Leftist decisions, we are doing pretty well. But since we have gone down the liberal path, many future collisions await us.
One such collision peaked in the news this week: feces, feces everywhere. As part of their desire to uplift the weak and subsidize that by penalizing the strong, liberals have created laws designed to “help” the homeless by forcing their acceptance. This has led, in at least two major American cities, to an increase in streetdefecation.
The liberal solution is to enact more subsidies and build more homeless treatment facilities, ignoring the fact that most of these people have other issues which preclude those being effective. They also ignore the simple truth that what you tolerate you get more of, and so forcing acceptance of homeless behavior widens the window of behavior which is accepted. This brings us to a point where we have third world conditions, which generally include “open defecation,” on our streets. Liberals are able to get away with this ignorance because life here is better than anywhere else, therefore it seems as if we have little to complain about even with liberal damage. But, why destroy when you can improve?
Homelessness is not our only situation of this nature. Liberals encouraged “tolerance” of diversity, and now we have full population replacement by third world origin people. That is genetic replacement, meaning that what we once were and could do will never come back. It is also genocide, the destruction of a people by breeding them out into others. It is also suicide, which is why liberals like it, because they hate anything that rises above the mean including their own culture and civilization. We see beginning the death spiral of reality denial, emotional reaction and finally, self-destruction that is the hallmark of liberal regimes.
Realists have long lived under the shadow of the specter of public opinion. When someone is so unwise as to offend the pretense of the public, or the justifications on the basis of which they consider themselves “good” in lieu of actual good, the rage of the herd becomes unleashed in something like a stampede.
We, the silent audience, have seen public executions of the mass opinion shift kind. A comic says something funny that is suddenly discovered to be “offensive,” and just as quickly his life goes away: fired from his jobs, losing his contracts, the girlfriend driving away with his furniture and his friends quietly sending his calls to voicemail. Then he never works again, except at Target.
At first the ostracism death penalty was reserved for those who were political extremists. Then it migrated to non-leftist political views, and then to leftists who were not leftist enough. Then it branched outward to social concerns, and now it has taken on a life of its own, with any reason why any non-majority group might be offended constituting reason to destroy a life.
Today, Michael finds himself living in fear after his account details appeared — among those of 32 million others — in the most talked-about data hack of the year.
He worries not for his marriage — he and his wife have separated and divorce is in the works — but for the impact it could have on their child and on his job.
“My fear is that this will wreak havoc in all areas of my life. I have a good job, but many involved in it are religious. I could be fired,” he said.
The only reason this one hit the media is that they can blame those “religious” people, which we are led to assume by the momentum of predictability means Christian. And yet for us readers-between-the-lines, this instance shows the very real terror that people experience at the hands of the herd. We are all held hostage by masked terrorists who hide in a crowd of people like them.
No society composed of an internal firing squad can long survive. Our elites are composed of dedicated liars because we, the people, have chosen them to be that way. Truth is never convenient, but the voters reward the person presenting the simpler solution. This means that only someone who knows that what she is saying can never work in reality — having simplified the task to an emotional standpoint — will be elected. All the good people are cut out because of this terror of public opinion.
Democracy itself draws criticism for being mob rule, and this seems correct. We are now entering the last stages of democracy, where it consumes itself by destroying the non-conforming, which creates a circular self-referential public view where only certain opinions are discussed. At that point, society has lost the ability to turn in flight and has become ballistic, its target determined at the moment of launch. As the lynch mobs, hate crowds and angry herd gathers, doom is upon us and yet no one can say that in public.
The recent hiccup with China has made everyone nervous, not so much for its immediate effects but in the worry that this is the first of a series of events. A big crash will make the world’s interconnected economies fall like dominoes, and often those smashups are preceded by a pattern of small crises.
Even if this blows over, it has made people nervous because it presages another inevitable event: the collapse of Western debt. Since the Second World War, the West has been able to borrow on the basis of its historical wealth and power, and its role as the only man standing among the industrial economies after that war. This gave it a momentum, or a trajectory zooming across economic skies, that has still not lost inertia.
Debt is only worth something if others will purchase it based on the presumed future value of the assets that support that debt. It used to be that the West could point to thriving economies, happy people and relatively few of the chronic social problems that plague most societies on earth. Now, none of this is as true, meaning that it is fading. Investments on a downward trajectory are worth less than others.
China discovered this because, having borrowed to oblivion, it became unstable economically. This was not an issue in times of growth, which are what liberal leaders excel at, but as the market corrects it shows how short-sighted those decisions — like those of Clinton and Obama in the USA — were. As Pravda-on-the-Hudson relates, the source of this crash was excessive Chinese debt:
How much debt remains an open question, given the opacity of China’s market. The country’s debt load rose from $7 trillion in 2007 to $28 trillion by mid-2014, according to a report published earlier this year by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company, China. “At 282 percent of G.D.P., China’s debt as a share of G.D.P., while manageable, is larger than that of the United States or Germany,” said the McKinsey study. “Several factors are worrisome: Half of loans are linked directly or indirectly to China’s real estate market, unregulated shadow banking accounts for nearly half of new lending, and the debt of many local governments is likely unsustainable.”
What has people worried is not China itself, but that the debt loads of modern nations will lead to disaster. In particular, the introspection that the West deflects with political correctness has finally appeared, and under the lens, while not as bad as China, our debt and instability appear shaky as well. And what made this debt? Since the 1950s, our budgets have more than doubled through the contributions of a single source: social justice, or civil rights and welfare, programs. In Europe and the USA, governments have spent themselves silly buying votes and now, the first inklings of fear that the gig is up are coming our way.
Without social programs, our government spending would be more than halved. Our economy, without such rigid regulation, could grow in a more natural way than the goldrush free-for-all created by liberal economic programs. While we could no longer prop up our economy by dumping money into ghettos and trailer parks for people to buy iPhones, we could build value over time by basing it in not consumerism, but the production of industry and agriculture. This would provide less growth than the liberal program of easy loans and “pump priming” the economy with federal spending, but would provide a more stable longer-term platform for us that does not require radical growth.
For those who can read the tea leaves of history, this suggests a shocking realization awaits the West: we cannot afford — and never could — our “social justice” and welfare programs. We cannot afford governments swollen to more than twice a reasonable size by leftist-style spending on citizens. As China is discovering, that path leads to misery and a series of hiccups culminating in one, big ugly downfall.
Conservatives and libertarians are getting excited about Allum Bokhari’s article over at Breitbar, “Rise of the Cultural Libertarians.” In it, he argues that the rising leftist wave of censorship has awakened a new movement of people who are not really conservative, but want to preserve the ability to criticize any beliefs, which includes — to the shock of our media and enfranchised political establishment — criticism of Leftist viewpoints.
While this new movement, unified and galvanized by the article, seems to have great momentum, it suffers from not having conducted the approach of a philosopher: analyze things through to their ends and compare to what we know of reality. This method, the parent of its less-rigorous cousin The Scientific Method™, means that we look at not what seems like a sensible counter-argument to the dominant paradigm, but what will be the actual results of our acts as planned. This is the only form of accountability and responsibility that exits, and on this blog, we call it “Realism.”
The rising leftist wave of censorship was born of a social phenomenon known as “Social Justice Warriors,” or SJWs. These people participate in politics as an activity, generally to distract from their personal misery, usually a combination of alcoholism, social ineptitude and obesity. They are strident, angry and gather in swarms to attack all who disagree with them, knowing — like terrorists and guerrillas — that by creating a Public Relations incident, they can force the opposition to apologize, kowtow and change its policies. SJWs are effective mainly because there are always thousands of them on the internet at any given time, ready to mob attack the next target.
The cultural libertarian response is to emphasize independence of thought and resistance to any form of coercive attempt to silence others. In other words, classic American freedom. Here’s the summary from the article:
They’ve also worked out that the people leading the charge in social media mobs have vastly disproportionate influence thanks to their publishing platforms and that not only are they hopelessly out of touch with popular opinion but that their tactics are unpleasant and hectoring, often veering into outright cruelty and persecution.
…Cultural libertarians recognise that efforts to police language and expression are not only counter-productive, but also fragile. The people pushing for greater control are a small segment of the population, whose voice is amplified by media support. To fight them, all you have to do is ignore them – or, better yet, mock them.
This may sound familiar to you, because it re-capitulates what by now is an ancient defense of the right. Faced with the onslaught of the French Revolution, they retreated into “classical liberalism”: do whatever you want, on your own property, so long as I can do the same. It sounds so simple and pleasant! It even feels like a social order at times. And yet, it completely fails because it denies the need of a society to have direction: identity, purpose, values, heritage, customs and some sense of the transcendent.
In fact, the “cultural libertarian” approach can be understood as a variant of a well-known political philosophy, pluralism:
Political pluralism usually starts with the observation that there are different value systems in use in the world, and there are various positions that arise out of that observation. Political pluralism is concerned with the question of what sort of restrictions governments can put on people’s freedom to act according to their value systems. The strongest version of political pluralism claims that all these value systems are equally true (and thus presumably all ought to be tolerated), a weaker view is that these value systems all ought to be tolerated, and probably the most common version of the view is that some of these systems (the reasonable ones) ought to be tolerated.
The idea that all value systems are equally true, or at least equally valid — a social surrogate for true that purports to regulate behavior — requires us to believe we can base a society on disagreement at a fundamental level. This is not, as the Left would have it, similar to different tastes in food, clothing or attire, or even a tolerance of eccentricity (which, oddly, seems to belong to the Right). It refers to sharing the same basic values and outlook on the world, which is preferable to the alternative, which first looks like a coat of many colors and rapidly begins to resemble an unruly mob.
We can argue that pluralism could go farther and for example, demand freedom of association. With this, we would not have to hire, buy from, sell to, rent to, talk to or do business with others for any reason. While most societies view this as somewhat of a right, or at least a convention, our society sees this as troublesome because it introduces inefficiencies. If Person A wants to buy a gay wedding cake at a baker, and the one near them refuses to sell to them, they can always go down the road. But time is lost, and money is thus lost, and we lose the simple certainty of business which says we can go anywhere and do anything if our credit rating is good. A sane society would see values as more important than commerce, but pluralistic societies have nothing in common but commerce and maybe some ideology, so pluralism inevitably leads to the conditions that necessitated its creation.
Some have tried pluralism by community. In particular, the original government of the United States, and later the Confederate States of America, were committed to the idea of “states rights” or the notion that individual states could choose their own rules. This conflicted with the desire of Northern liberals to control the South, so they picked a fight over slavery because it was a polarizing issue. After that war, it became clear that states rights was a dead concept, replaced by the notion of a Single Right Way. While pluralism opposes the notion of a singular correct path, it cannot overcome the tendency of governments to make rules, laws and regulations “in your best interest” which can then compel obedience to ideological objectives. For example, a government might insist that hospitals admit anyone regardless of whether their staff wants to associate with that person or not, or demand that pharmacies sell abortion drugs in case people “need” them. Pluralism fails the more people demand function and efficiency from their society.
In addition, pluralism fails to take into account that there will be at least one privileged viewpoint: that of The Establishment™, which refers to those who work in government, media and the public face of industry. People who join the establishment are those who have a higher commitment to working within the system — and thus gaining personal success — than to any truth, purpose or ideal. When someone wants to succeed at government, he must invent new ways for government to be important so his future resume can show an addition that was uniquely his creation. In a pure pluralism, government would have one of many perspectives, but in reality, some kind of leadership will have a privileged position by the nature of having to make and enforce rules. If that leadership takes the form of a State, it will create an establishment — hereditary aristocracies do not have this problem, having barred entry to all but the truly exceptional, who are rare — as people compete for personal success. There pluralism will also die under the ambitions of individuals.
This leaves us with the perspective of pluralism as prolonged suicide. Since the Right has been demonized in the decades following the Second World War, it has focused mostly on “thought experiments” which take the form of arguments to circumnavigate the logic of the Left. As an argument, pluralism may have some success because it points to the hypocrisy of the Leftist viewpoint — but only to outsiders. Inside the Left, it is tacitly acknowledged that the one goal is egalitarianism (or “equality”) through collective altruism, which throughout history has without exception amounted to taking from the competent to subsidize the rest. For that reason, leftists do not see their jihad against non-egalitarian viewpoints as hypocrisy, since their goal is not “freedom” or even actual equality, but a subset of equality defined by its method of using subsidies. Leftists fear their own insufficiency, and create a barrier through equality which forces society to accept them as part of the in-group regardless of their personal choices. This alone, a malignant form of individualism, represents their only goal and it can never be hypocritical in their eyes.
This returns us to the question, then, of civilization design. How do we design a civilization that is improving in quality, rather than degenerating and hiding that fact behind the facade of “progress”? It starts by recognizing that the real enemy is what undoes the civilization compact, an agreement between people to sacrifice some individualism so that social order can exist. This occurs not so much because social order is efficient, or safe, but because it enables a society to rise above the norm of all but a few human groups, which is poverty and corruption through social disorder. Those who fear insufficiency want the benefits of civilization without the obligation, so they cobble together a set of ideas enabling them to have “anarchy with grocery stores”: egalitarianism, anti-hierarchy, altruism and liberalism/progressivism. This destroys the civilization compact but allows the individual to feel safer because they are included by command, and can never be found in a Darwinistic moment to have failed to live up to the civilization compact.
Cultural libertarianism represents the latest attempt by the non-Left to walk back up that path to social order. It does so by demanding that the anti-order order be weakened, but it can only serve as an intermediate step, and will fail for the reasons above and an even more fundamental one. The enemy operates by lumping together individualists into a mob dedicated to establishing individualism by abolishing standards and order; under pluralism, they will still form this mob, and then conveniently declare pluralism over and take their revenge, as they did in the French and Russian Revolutions. While the pushback against SJW ideological imperialism is a noble fight, the danger of being human is that we rely too much on methods, and then go back to sleep. In that role, cultural libertarianism serves as a proxy for the actual quest we must undertake, which is to build a society once again unified by principle and goal.
We are conditioned to think that allowing one person to starve is an injustice if we ourselves have any income whatsoever. Our society inculcates us in this idea of a “collective,” where all of us support everyone else to avoid being ideological and moral criminals.
This path leads not only to ruin as a civilization, but ruin as individuals. If one must work, all must work, or the few who succeed are penalized and the amount of work grows. Has anyone noticed that since the 1960s welfare programs kicked into high gear in the 1970s and 1980s, people have been divided into two camps? The people who work are spending more time at the job and sacrificing their families (and selves) as a result; the people who do not work do less every year and receive more.
Parasitism of this sort presents more than a utilitarian problem. It corrupts us within. It alters our morality from a sense of what is functional and right to a mentality of endless compromise and acceptance of mass injustice as a norm. It penalizes the good, breeds more of the bad, and reverses not only evolution but our ability to think. Our brains are so drenched in this dogma that we quiver at the thought of violating it.
But violating it is what we must do. No social health will befall us until we reverse this process of legitimizing parasitism. It may seem to benefit “the poor,” an amorphous definition kept obscure by government, but it makes them permanent dependents for the purchase price of their votes. By destroying those who attempt to do what is right, it converts us from healthy well-rounded people into desperate workers who spend most of their lives doing unnecessary and hated tasks, just to indulge the pretense of letting none starve.
Some must starve. Some do, no matter what we do. But there are few who are actually starving; in fact, most of our poor are quite rotund. Darwin says that if we do not reward good traits over bad, the bad will outbreed the good, and we can see this in the declining quality of our people. Even more, a society based on theft — from those who contribute, to those who do not — has legitimized theft itself. That spreads through all areas and creates the “greedy” me-first-at-all-costs mentality that was so shocking to see emerge in the 1980s. Gordon Gekko is not the opposite of the welfare state; he is a product of it.
Naturally people will accuse anyone who rejects parasitism as heartless, discompassionate, even cruel. The greatest cruelty however is found in results. If in the name of saving the non-contributors a society turns itself into a neurotic kleptocracy, a greater evil has been perpetuated than avoided. Our poor remain with us, and always will be, because they lack abilities or dedication. Bribing them with subsidies merely continues this state and sabotages the functional parts of society as its opportunity cost. Reversing parasitism should become a primary goal of the Right, if we want this civilization to not only persist but adjust its trajectory toward thriving instead of degeneration.
Donald Trump eviscerates the Republican establishment by refusing to play by the rules — set by the Left — which require conservatives to apologize for noticing reality. He is the one man they have been unable to cuck, although it remains unclear whether he would be a conservative in office.
Either way, he has forced a lack of submission on the Right as people have realized that we live in a leftist society. Everything it does is based on leftist principles, and leftist goals, with softer methods but no different end-point than the Soviet Union.
While even the moderate right is public anathema, no one freaks out at the idea of Socialism or even Communism lite, a pathway (inevitably) to Full Communism. You can have your life destroyed for being more right-wing than the official Republican position, but no one blinks when someone advocates immediate Stalinesque Communism. This alone proves the Leftist stench of our time.
They will not mention it on your television or the big internet sites, but this society destroys people all the time for not agreeing with its ideological agenda. They do not even need to disagree, only fail to agree. People who notice the man behind the curtain find themselves publicly humiliated, demonized and ostracized.
We are all cuck until we overthrow this delusional system.
If we look at history, we see that America (and Western Europe) thrived with a Western European identity and ethnic composition. The definition “WASP” at first meant the English, but grew to include Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch and other Western European descended people. With that as our ideal, we had an innate commonality of culture, religion and reverence for both history and our unique standards for the future.
With the removal of WASP America, the “melting pot” idea followed, with people thinking foolishly that with enough propaganda… err, “education”… and government regulations, anyone could follow The WASP Method and make our nation just as successful. What has followed has been increasing corruption, incompetence, deception, bloat and dishonesty.
A central ethnic and cultural identity gives people a sense of common purpose and a reason to trust and believe in one another. We come from one root and we are working toward the same goal, which is perpetuation of our society through its principles and heritage. No amount of laws, rules and government videos can compensate for the loss of this unity.
With that loss, we have embarked upon the path to becoming Brazil: a multi-ethnic nation unified only by economics and ideology, comprising mostly a third-world slum with a few fortunate wealthy types on top. This model is not only unstable, but cruel. It deprives people of a sense of pride in who they are and of the moral standards and principles to guide them. It replaces civilization with obedience, positive aspiration with fear, and social order with shopping — even if only shopping for enough private security to avoid the disaster.
Our public opinion currently finds itself in a cycle of desperate search for scapegoats. We blame Nazis, African-Americans, Mexicans, White people, cops, Satanists, right-wingers, Christians and hackers in turn, but the real problem is us. We are disunified. We lack purpose. And so we consume ourselves.
Rule by public opinion — democracy — favors fears and victimhood over any sense of common goal. It delights in the weak and quavering, using a presumed sense of the appearance of injustice to argue for acting in their name, always following the egalitarian pattern: punish the successful in the name of the unsuccessful to make central control stronger. Public opinion makes snap judgments and destroys lives so that people can go back to a somnambulism of apathy and self-interested, short-term purchases.
Democracy has failed. Liberalism has failed, and diversity has failed. Throw them out and try picking up where we were before we turned down this idiotic path. Donald Trump may not be the ideal leader, but he has succeeded by refusing to bow down to the court of public opinion — which represents a plurality and likely not a majority — and instead pointing us toward common sense logic. Whether or not he will be a good President, he has begun the process of galvanizing our people toward deconstruction the liberal authoritarian regime that threatens to destroy us for ideological disobedience.
With the meltdown of Ashley Madison, the online dating site for people looking to cheat on their spouses, some awareness of the impact of seemingly funny and harmless transgressions has come to light.
One brave article went so far as to critique the attack on the family inherent in our social approval of Ashley Madison, and brought up an even more important topic as well:
Dr. Ana Nogales has written a book called Parents Who Cheat: How Children and Adults are Affected When Their Parents are Unfaithful. In the book, the doctor examines what effects an affair has on a child. It can leave a child feeling hopeless, guilty, tainted, and damaged. Many carry these feelings through to adulthood, where they find themselves in a relationship in which their partner cheats or they become the cheaters themselves.
Nogales confirms my thoughts and feelings on infidelity. When a parent breaks a faithful bond with the other parent, they also break an “unspoken promise to their children.” It also leaves them with a wealth of “psychological” and trust issues that could haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Unspoken promises exist in all of the really important areas of human life. When you adopt a pet, you are making an unspoken promise to spend time with that creature, to give it the physical and intangible — affection, love, interest, delight — sustenance that it needs. You are promising to be there for the good times, and the bad. And you have signed up to care for it when it dies, and cry your eyes out afterward. You have promised to suffer for your inevitable future loss of this animal.
Each child who comes into this world needs someone who will make such promises. The best method for this, as shown by history, is the family unit. A loving Mom and Dad who will be there for that child as long as they live, providing both tangible — and perhaps we can borrow from Marx and say that money is time, and showing care through time is self-sacrifice — and intangible types of sustenance. If we search our hearts, which few are brave enough to do, we can see that this is what all of us desire both for ourselves and our offspring.
This conflicts with the individualism inherent, like our simian ancestry, in all of us. Self-sacrifice means a loss; we would rather spend that time, money and effort on ourselves. Even with this however, we spend most of our effort “reaching out” to the world around us, looking for meaning that is bigger than ourselves. The most New Age-y spirit quest consists of this attempt, as do our forays into socializing and finding group activities. It is part of us to want something larger than us. This is not so much social, as the nature of consciousness itself: without some kind of stimulus from the world, it becomes circular and self-referential. That creates a type of heat-death or entropy of the mind and spirit which renders people impotent as decision-making entities.
Reaching out requires self-sacrifice and unspoken promises. Rules can be evaded and conventions overthrown. But what makes people esteem us, and like having us around, is in part our commitment to these unspoken promises. Friendship and love are interest in others which rivals or outweighs interest in self; they imply self-sacrifice, especially when icky or inconvenient, much like cleaning up after a puppy and years later, cleaning out dog hair when the canine has passed on. As a society we have endorsed violation of unspoken promises for the convenience of individuals, and the result has made all of us prisoners of our own mind, afraid to reach out because others will not uphold their own unstated promises.
With all of the rancor thundering through the news about race, the temptation is to fall into the competitive spirit and embark on that type of thinking commonly referred to Us vs. Them. You may be familiar with this trope when you see nasty things being posted about white people or black people, or even The Jews™.
Unfortunately for those who get worked up about these issues, such blame is a form of scapegoating. It will both replace the real issues we should be talking about, and turn you into an angry person who inflicts harm on those who do not deserve it. Cruelty is not a hallmark of my people.
As human beings, we respond in groups to changes in the perception of what is desired for our future as a civilization. This means that ideas, not physical groups, force change upon the tapestry of future history. The most difficult enemy to spot is an idea, because we carry it like a virus, and can never locate a tangible form. Like drunken men we rage at the invisible monkey on our backs.
…and thus you ask, wisely, what idea has created racial violence and mass third world immigration in America and Europe? What idea has so thoroughly corrupted our society, like a clandestine camouflaged conspiracy, that we can never quite figure out who is behind the curtain, pulling the strings? Ideas form ladders from general to particular; let us start with the particular and walk backward.
Failure of race relations is caused by the need for identity in every ethnic group
We see black on white violence in the streets and figure the cause must be the symptom: blacks. But every visible symbol has a cause, and that cause is what motivates African-Americans, or rather, what fails to motivate them. What fails to compel them is a sense of group identity because they are always cast out and kept away.
Yes, we could go on about IQ statistics and MAOA genes and high testosterone, but these same factors would act on any ethnic group, although the attributes mentioned above (and others) determine the exact expression of the underlying crisis. That crisis is a lack of identity. With identity, one has a transcendent — or rising above, and giving order to, the material world — sense of purpose, of past and future, and of what it is to be a good version of what one is. Identity includes culture, heritage and values/philosophy simultaneously, much like traditional society includes aristocracy, religion and principle as one. Without identity, a person always feels a sociopathic ennui toward their civilization. Our mixed-race civilization is administered by white liberals, according to white history, and thus everything white people do feels like a token gesture to all minorities. They sense their role is as a captive people in a foreign land, deprived of identity and the ability to plan and control their own destiny, and this is naturally enraging to all healthy people. Thus whatever you see fit to heap on minorities — blacks, Mexicans, Jews™, whatever — you can see how the origin of it lies in feeling like slaves even when “free.”
Of the minority thinkers, some understand this. Among Jews(™) it was Theodor Herzl, who wrote that the reason for anti-Semitism was the lack of ability to integrate into national populations by Jews, something that would require their self-destruction as culture, language and ethnic group. The African-American writers have produced Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey, among others such as the insightful Osiris Akkebala, who point out that without self-determination a population is doomed to resent those who seem to be in control. Other examples exist among Mexicans, Asians and North-Amerinds (“American Indians”). All see a singular fact: their plight is not so much a direct result of white interference, but situational, caused by the fact of being a minority who must either be assimilated and destroyed or must stand out and fail to reap the benefits of those who are integrated. Even if they were to integrate, most red-blooded people of minority status recognize that they would never be what whites idealize: the tall Northwestern European type, with light coloring and narrow faces. Even if they succeed at the integration game, they fail, on some subtle level, if only in the fact that their offspring will never resemble the ideal.
We must be clear: the enemy is diversity. It is not blacks, or whites, or Jews™. It is the idea of diversity itself, which is the notion that multiple populations can occupy the same space and become a nation. This is false for the reasons shown above, and history echoes that sentiment. The happiest nations are homogenous and in control of their own destinies; the least happy are those that resemble Brazil, a jumble of ethnic groups in competition and managing each other through the nastiest form of authority, which is wealth and the power it buys. Even if you think other ethnic groups are just the worst people ever, the problem does not go away until diversity goes away. With a destruction of diversity, it is possible to part with other groups, saying truthfully, “An error of history was made, and now we have corrected it.”
Democracy has failed because it gives power to those who cannot, should not and will not participate in leadership.
Democracies operate by control. Designed around many millions of individualists each doing their own thing, democracies herd people with carrot (reward) and stick (punishment). This quickly becomes a system where the obedient rise and everyone else is beaten down as if enemies of the state, because in a sense they are. Their inability to become obedient is a counter-argument to the idea that democracy is an ideal system of government. This is why democracy embraces “soft” totalitarianism, or a system where social disorder is used as a weapon to corral people toward being obedient, and rewarding them with wealth and consumer goods. Those who go to school, memorize the drivel and pretend it is important, and repeat the official dogma — “we are all equal” and fellow travelers — and then truck off to work for ten hours a day before watching state-approved television get to live in the nice areas and feel little physical pain or fear. The rest live among the disaster democracy has created, with the duty imposed on the citizen to be a good little tool enough to get money sufficient to crawl out of the morass. This forms a factory for making selfish robots with no long-term or transcendent thoughts in their heads, and explains why the next stage after democracy is a third-world style kleptocracy.
Leadership distinguishes itself from control. A leader looks to the future and plans for the optimum; a democracy settles itself with the minimum, except in material comfort and wealth, because its modus operandi is not to choose principles or goals, but to enable its citizens to choose those for themselves, knowing that most will choose wrongly and thus make themselves easy to control. A leader picks a target that no one else can see and makes it happen directly; a democracy hides its target, if any exists, and manipulates people into pursuing it by publicly destroying as examples those who do not. The witch hunts and lynch mobs of democracy are not accidental. They are a form of signaling to the herd how it must obey on pain of what is done to those who disobey, which is usually a form of ostracism that throws them into the worst of poverty and chaos to self-destruct. Democracy hates leadership because actual leadership makes democracy look as impotent, purposeless and self-stimulating as it is. Democracy is inherently solipsistic, or self-referential and in denial of external reality. Leadership looks to external reality both to change it and to understand its principles and apply them within.
Democracy has failed. In the scarcely over two centuries that it has been the standard in the West, we have gone from world leaders to world shopping mall. Our culture has failed, and produces trivial objects. Our once-shining cities are dirty, ugly and full of fear. Our governments are bankrupt, and keep going by bribing citizens to comply. Through our aversion to war and strong action as voters, we have empowered permanent criminal classes domestically and fanatical enemies abroad. In addition, we have laid waste to our environment and, far from replacing it with castles and elegance, we have paved it over and put shopping malls and suburbs into it so people can escape the rotting cities. Under democracy, humanity becomes a disease. People cannot choose direction in committee, and politics — a symptom of democracy — requires choice by appearance and not reality. Thus our leaders are a progression of con artists and actors who deceive us and leave long-term problems like buried bombs all around us.
The root of our failure is liberalism, or the idea that individuals working separately can choose our collective future.
Civilization is not something one attends like a grocery store or bank. It is an organism. We keep civilization alive by avoiding degeneration or the loss of important cognitive abilities, both individually and as a group. Liberalism holds the contrary principle, which is that degeneration is fine as long as we have enough rules to control it, and gains its power by flattering the individual that any choice they make is right. Liberalism offers to the individual unquestioning acceptance no matter what life choices they make, but is only too happy to penalize them so that the more obedient can climb over them on their way to the top. When you look at our elites, you see self-centered and viciously acquisitive people who destroy everything in their wake on the way to success. Those of us trying to hold civilization together — alas, conservatives — too often perform the role of cleaning up these messes because of our fear of collapse. But collapse is better than perpetual corruption.
Leftism, which is the ideology of liberalism, starts with The Enlightenment™ idea that the individual is the measure of humanity. Forget having culture, values and heritage, say those thinkers, what we really need is society as a blank canvas upon which the individual can project their drama. And yet, over the past two centuries, people have grown more miserable not less. This occurs because individualism itself is a trap; it locks us inside ourselves, alienates us from reality, and infantilizes us as a result. Modern people spend most of their time on trivial decisions which amount to those a child struggles over, like what to eat, wear and buy. That helps block out the dark space inside of us where we put our fears, including mortality but mostly a fear of wasting our lives on the wrong decisions. Liberalism by approving of all decisions deprives us of guidance and resorts to facilitative modes of society that enable us to do whatever we want, and then take advantage of our shortcomings. Liberalism is a long con job that distracts us from the real issues, turns us into a mob that makes decisions by the committee mentality, and then enslaves us all to the collective chaos that is created, all in the name of “freedom” and “equality,” two terms which are always used and never defined.
The disease of our time is that we defer authority to the group, which leaves no one accountable for its results.
With democracy, liberalism and diversity a pattern emerges: that of individuals, making choices as groups, and then since no single person made those choices, having no one accountable. Our presidents? Surely you jest: after four to eight years they move on to making millions in speaking fees and book residuals. Our congresspeople? Also laughable: they get us both coming and going by promising to fix problems, scapegoating someone else when they fail, and then getting elected to clean up the even worse mess that is created. The group decides, which means no one decides, which means no one is accountable. The pollution grows, society decays, and our futures grow darker, but who do we blame? Anyone but ourselves, and yet what put us in this predicament is the belief in human equality which forces decision-making upon a group ill-equipped to do it.
We can fix our problems rather quickly: abandon individualism. Realize that we are part of an organism called civilization which is part of a larger organism called nature, possibly part of a physical+metaphysical organism known as the cosmos. This system has an order, and where we work with it, we thrive; that is what the transcendental principles teach. This requires us to give up the pretense that we are gods in man-monkey bodies and instead look toward the pattern of the whole universe, and see in that our purpose. It feels bad, at first, but then it becomes warming. We have a goal again! We have a reason to exist! We have something to live for more than take-out food, new television, discount shopping and political shouting matches. Our problem is not blacks, Jews&trade, or anyone else; it is our own delusion, and we can fix it by thinking in a different direction. At once, our soul — and our futures — are together reborn.
Over the generations, a sense of dread has been building: the observation that — despite some things which have improved — our society is heading downward. Its organization, or the pattern of how it holds itself together, is fraying. It is the death of the West.
We all make fun of the old guys who rail about how in their day the steaks were redder and the whiskey sweeter, but perhaps those were merely symbols for an ongoing decay in quality. Quality is measured by the experience as a whole, and not particular items that seem brighter and newer than others.
We are at or are fast approaching the point of critical mass for western civilization…The internationalists have the world firmly in their grip and with the United States circling the drain, western civilization is going the same way. Of course, all monarchists know that the USA was never a pure example of western civilization, it has never had any of the high culture of Europe but that is to be expected as it is a branch rather than the tree itself.
…The leaders of the EU have emasculated the countries of Europe to empower their central EU government while also making sure that Europe itself is never significant again. They are all part of the same internationalist clique. They don’t want any European country to be great because that would detract from the European Union and they don’t really want Europe to be great because they have nothing but contempt for European culture, European history and western civilization in general. Some actively want to destroy it while others are just looking out for themselves and willingly go along with those who do want to destroy it to further their own interests.
He makes excellent points and the following notions are designed to harmonize with those, not contradict them.
We do not get to a state such as our present condition without first having lost track of our future. Future is tied to past; past shows us not only what worked and what did not, but also who we are and from that, where we should be going. But that past was rejected in favor of egalitarianism during The Enlightenment™. Egalitarianism states that all people are equal, which means that the individual — not culture, values, philosophy, heritage or social order — determines the future. We base our decisions not on what has worked, or what would be good, but what individuals want to do. This creates a transition to a facilitative society.
Facilitative societies have many problems, but the two largest are the need for control, and the passivity of the population. When each person does whatever they want, there is no balance in social order nor is there a central idea to which people “harmonize” or find themselves in resonance with and attempt to fulfill. Morality would be one example of this type of order. Control in turn creates passivity. Citizens are accustomed to doing whatever they want unless stopped, but also become familiar with correction by their ideological leaders. As a result, they do not act toward any purpose, but instead flit around and do nothing of import unless explicitly told to do otherwise. The far extreme of this is what happens in authoritarian societies where people refuse to act unless commanded because the risks of unauthorized action are too great, and the state will step in at some point and tell them what to do anyway. Like children of an overbearing parent, they wait for this correction and achieve nothing in the meantime.
Control-based societies become miserable places. As the 21st century has taught us, even when “free” and “tolerant” places they become tyrannical because those in power — or those who want to join them — must manufacture a constant series of ideological crises in order to keep motivating the population. A facilitative society has no objectives, therefore must style every change as a “war” or a defensive action. This self-pity mentality spreads to the population at large. Between the constant war for ideological clarity, and the general apathy of the population to everything else, decay results and the society plunges downward into a spiral of despair. Eventually it loses all social order and becomes a third-world style society, unable to organize itself to have public hygiene, rule of law, freedom from corruption and even social order itself.
The origin of this decay begins with egalitarianism (or “equality”) which is itself a form of individualism, or the demand by the individual that society support him in his choices without a corresponding investment by the individual in society. All of the subsidy states — socialism, communism, and even consumerism which is capitalism supported through low-return consumer purchases funded by state welfare programs — are based in this form of radical individualism. It comes about when societies become “bottom-heavy,” or have many individuals who know nothing about how to run a society who nonetheless demand participation in its decision-making. These individuals band together into a “Crowd,” and through a philosophy of Crowdism develop a sense of victimhood based in self-pity which spurs them to attack their society and convert it into a facilitative society.
Control then becomes required because facilitative societies are chaotic and individuals, acting on radical individualism, tend to externalize the costs of their actions to others. Conservatism arises as a resistance to this movement, but generally fails because its adherents are unable to articulate what they really need, which is an end to the facilitative society. Early experiments in liberalism in France and Russia showed how quickly revolutions turn to ideological enforcement, usually by inventing or discovering enemies, and from that to authoritarianism. Conservative experiments in using this force against liberalism, as seen in Italy and Germany, met with less than shining results because of the inherent control-tendencies of liberal society which prevented the restoration of organic culture.
Opposite the control-based facilitative society is the leadership-based society. This is part of what is called “tradition,” which is a way of viewing the world through both (a) realistic and (b) transcendental viewpoints. These aim to discover methods that work in the real world, but to point them toward “transcendentals” or eternal goals that can never be fully realized and thus can both harmonize and motivate a society without the war/victimhood narrative of egalitarian societies. In these societies, leaders do not “control” their population but actually lead it, meaning that they discover necessary tasks and keep people organized toward transcendental goals. Leadership societies have purpose, and as a result, in them people have roles in which they fulfill parts of the overall ongoing goal. Paul Woodruff refers to the basis of the glories of the past as “reverence,” or an awe and transcendental appreciation for our world, and this seems like an appropriate basis for the combination of strong cultural, religious and moral feeling that traditional societies have.
Perhaps the best definition of tradition comes from Aldous Huxley, who wrote The Perennial Philosophy to detail what is present in such societies. He outlines a mixture of religion and philosophy that serves as a principle of social order and personal order simultaneously:
More than twenty-five centuries have passed since that which has been called the Perennial Philosophy was first committed to writing; and in the course of those centuries it has found expression, now partial, now complete, now in this form, now in that, again and again. In Vedanta and Hebrew prophecy, in the Tao Teh King and the Platonic dialogues, in the Gospel according to St. John and Mahayana theology, in Plotinus and the Areopagite, among the Persian Sufis and the Christian mystics of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance–the Perennial Philosophy has spoken almost all the languages of Asia and Europe and has made use of the terminology and traditions of every one of the higher religions. But under all this confusion of tongues and myths, of local histories and particularist doctrines, there remains a Highest Common Factor, which is the Perennial Philosophy in what may be called its chemically pure state. This final purity can never, of course, be expressed by any verbal statement of the philosophy, however undogmatic that statement may be, however deliberately syncretistic. The very fact that it is set down at a certain time by a certain writer, using this or that language, automatically imposes a certain sociological and personal bias on the doctrines so formulated. It is only the act of contemplation when words and even personality are transcended, that the pure state of the Perennial Philosophy can actually be known. The records left by those who have known it in this way make it abundantly clear that all of them, whether Hindu, Buddhist, Hebrew, Taoist, Christian, or Mohammedan, were attempting to describe the same essentially indescribable Fact.
The original scriptures of most religions are poetical and unsystematic. Theology, which generally takes the form of a reasoned commentary on the parables and aphorisms of the scriptures, tends to make its appearance at a later stage of religious history. The Bhagavad-Gita occupies an intermediate position between scripture and theology; for it combines the poetical qualities of the first with the clear-cut methodicalness of the second. The book may be described, writes Ananda K. Coomaraswamy in his admirable Hinduism and Buddhism, “as a compendium of the whole Vedic doctrine to be found in the earlier Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanishads, and being therefore the basis of all the later developments, it can be regarded as the focus of all Indian religion” is also one of the clearest and most comprehensive summaries of the Perennial Philosophy ever to have been made. Hence its enduring value, not only for Indians, but for all mankind.
At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.
The phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness–the world of things and animals and men and even gods–is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
Human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
Man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
Man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.
Tradition treats reality as fact and includes in that fact a philosophical and metaphysical exploration of the order of life. Julius Evola gave us a hint in “On the Secret of Degeneration”:
If we look at the secret of degeneration from the exclusively traditional point of view, it becomes even harder to solve it completely. It is then a matter of the division of all cultures into two main types. On the one hand there are the traditional cultures, whose principle is identical and unchangeable, despite all the differences evident on the surface. The axis of these cultures and the summit of their hierarchical order consists of metaphysical, supra-individual powers and actions, which serve to inform and justify everything that is merely human, temporal, subject to becoming and to “history.” On the other hand there is “modern culture,” which is actually the anti-tradition and which exhausts itself in a construction of purely human and earthly conditions and in the total development of these, in pursuit of a life entirely detached from the “higher world.”
In a traditional culture, all is viewed by its significance as ideal; in a modern culture, all is material. This does not limit the ideal to the metaphysical alone, because ideas like loyalty, values and morality come first before material convenience. The difference lies in the tendency of traditional cultures to view the significance of acts as if, in Kant’s words, they were to “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The order of nature itself as an idea matters more than material fate or condition. Where a modern culture is pragmatic, a traditional culture views itself through the lens of purpose and in that a sense of the underlying informational order to the universe. When radical individualism takes over, and cultures view themselves through egalitarianism, the idea of individuals deferring to an invisible social order formed of honor, loyalty, duty, culture, values and heritage becomes impossible.
That outlook creates a transcendental effect on a society by which it sacralizes itself not as an end, but as a means to more of the sacred. Like the transcendentals “the good, the beautiful and the true,” a traditional culture aims for the principle of every act and aspect of being. These principles are more important than materiality because, in the view of traditional cultures, they create materiality. Whether this is atheistic or theistic matters little. A society can either idealize the patterns of reality itself, or its own people, and the latter path leads to decay and ruin. On a simple level, when principles such as law, justice, integrity and honor are lost, corruption reigns. On a greater level, when principles such as morality are placed first, it becomes impossible for wholesale abuses in which damages of individual acts are socialized to the group to become valid. Tradition is the opposite of utilitarianism, which argues from what a group feels — statistically, or by majority — benefits them as individuals. As the West has turned from this traditional view, it has plunged into slow but inexorable decline.
While we search today for answers, all of our methods resemble symptomatic or palliative treatment. That is: we do not believe we can strike at the core of our decay, and instead apply intermediates. To reverse our decline, we must first — as Kant reminds us — choose to be good. We must target the transcendentals. With a little thought and some reading of history, we can see that these mandate a society quite unlike our own: ruled by an aristocracy, united by heritage and culture, governed not by laws but by principles and, perhaps most importantly, one that has reverence for life and the fact that there are more important things than convenience and survival. The answer is not as simple as a theocracy, or nationalism, or even cultural reign, but includes all of the above. We must restore our identity as the West not just as a physical group, but as a principle: those who do what is right, no matter how inconvenient, and rise accordingly.
All of us on the Right operate within a similar paradigm: realism, or measuring ideas by their consequences in reality and not intention, desires, feelings and judgments. Ann Coulter has been speaking up for the anti-immigration sentiment in this country appearing of late, and she makes a salient point about the recent popularity of Donald Trump:
Ann Coulter said that Donald Trump will continue to do well in the polls as long as he keeps talking about immigration.
“The voters keep saying, ‘We don’t want any more immigration,'” Coulter said. “That’s why Trump is so popular. So pick it up, Republicans.”
She is correct: the issue that divides Trump from the rest of the Republicans is that he, not being vested in the Republican party, is willing to oppose immigration. Coulter has called for a moratorium, which is a good start but falls short of the logical decision which is to restore America as a WASP-only nation of Germans, English, Scots, Dutch, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Finns, and some French. These groups cluster around the Western European heritage that defines the archetypal “white” person and have more in common than they do not. Outliers, like the Irish, Eastern and Southern Europeans, do not share this heritage and have different needs from society.
Mexicans, who are mostly if not completely Amerind (in the case of indios and mestizos, are of Siberian descent like “First Nations” people and do not fit in well in this society. Their repatriation to Siberia would be the most sensible solution. Similarly, African-Americans would be happiest in Africa, which if they can reclaim it from wannabe colonialists from India, China and the Middle East, would be an excellent continent full of natural resource wealth and abundant rich land.
Why is immigration such an issue now?
To understand immigration in 2015 AD, we must look to 1965 AD when the Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the Hart-Celler Act was passed. This act changed American immigration patterns to their opposite; where formerly the United States allowed in mostly Western Europeans, it now put its focus on people from the third world. The reasoning behind this act was that Democrats knew from experience with African-Americans, Amerinds and Hawaiians that non-whites would never vote in any substantial numbers for Republicans. The Democrat solution was to replace the WASP nation of America with a third world population so that Democrats would remain in power forever.
Other than the recklessness and stupidity of this typical liberal social engineering, it possessed one other salient factor: it put Republicans on the defensive with accusations of “racism.” Any Democrat program was designed to benefit the new Hart-Cellar majority, and so any opposition to it, by the reflexive property, was “racist.” This insult has silenced Republicans for the decades since WWII — since it allowed easy analogies to Hitler — and has forced acceptance of every liberal program designed to cultivate and indoctrinate this new majority.
Mainstream Republicans are experts at getting along with the system, not doing what is right. They have gone along with the immigration platform under the assumption that some day, Republicans can become a less-Democrat Democrat party for the new sea of brown faces. Trump, who owes no allegiance to the political system, has made his political career so far entirely on the basis of being willing to challenge the demographic shift engendered by the Hart-Cellar Act, but it is unclear if he will go far enough.