Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

The Three Valid Purposes Of Money

Wednesday, October 26th, 2016


Most people out there will tell you that money sucks – when other people have it. A Gab.Ai user named Duke Norfolk who I chatted with this morning reminded me of how badly most people misunderstand money.

Unfortunately most people never understand the real underlying truth about the cause. Talk of monetary policy and the Deep State just goes right over their heads as their eyes glaze over. Instead it’s all emphasis on symptoms: stagnating income, rising educ/healthcare costs, etc.

Money, quite bluntly, is a tool. Take a decent course in money and banking and you will learn that it does three jobs.

  1. Medium of Exchange. As a medium of exchange, money allows producers and consumers to avoid the transactions costs associated with barter or forced redistribution. This allows people to find what they need when they need it and to easily pay for what they want or to accumulate wealth.

  2. Unit of Account. A rich and powerful Alpha Male made the following comment about money:

    Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game.

    Denominate all securities, all bank accounts and all prices in one currency, and you have comparability. It solves the information problem, as long as you believe in the prices and valuations. A universally accepted currency improves the quality of decision-making across the board.

  3. Store of Value. A well-designed money is supposed to hold its value. You put your wealth in dollar-denominated account, and you can get it out ten years later and still have as much money. Oh wait… uses the officially reported CPI and claims that a person who stuck $10,000 in a bank in 2006 now has $12,018.55 in purchasing power. I’m amused. They are claiming an adjusted rate of return of r=1.86%. Not good, but also probably not accurate. This is in comparison to an annual inflation rate of 2% a year, which would imply a nominal rate of return of 3.86%.

Yet it is entirely possible that most consumers don’t experience anything like 2% CPI. John Williams of Shadowstats calculates CPI based on how it was previously done in 1990. This gives an approximate rate of inflation as 5%. This gives us something on the order of r=-1.14%. This “allows” you to put $10,000 in a bank in 2006 and retrieve $8,685 in 2016.

If you haven’t been bemused quite yet, let’s examine what happens if we use the 1980 formulation to estimate CPI from 2006 to 2016. We get a CPI of approximately 10%, for a real rate of return = -6.14 %. Bank $10,000 in 2006, and you get a stored value = $5,306. And all of this is before we calculate state and federal taxes on the 3.86% interest.

Just what sort of Dickensian bank takes in $10,000 in deposits and then allows you maybe $5,300 back? An Amerikan one. The dollar is not fulfilling all three fundamental purposes that a currency really should. This is why we hear the whispered talk of a dollar collapse. I don’t see it going down in a day. Why should it? It goes down a little at a time every day.

The dollar, like most of the rest of our once great culture, is getting sucked into the soft apocalypse. This debasement of our money to pay for a deficit we could never manage under normal circumstances only taxes you a little at a time. Then you wonder why in the heck your salary and your savings can’t afford to buy you anything much at decent value.

Once you understand what money is supposed to actually do, you understand how Amerika’s chosen money only partially fulfills the job order. Like everything else in Amerika it is a substitute for the real thing designed to force you into servitude, and it’s getting worse. It will do so until we all wake up one day and wonder what in the heck happened. That’s the incidious danger of a soft apocalypse.

The Liberal Democracy Bubble Pops

Tuesday, October 25th, 2016


Some of us have felt for a very long time that democracy, like the Mongols, simply arrived with such excellent timing that its success far outpaces its capabilities. In particular, liberal democracy arrived in the West just as the industrial revolution was getting off its unsteady feet and starting to run.

This has made it nearly impossible to oppose liberal democracy. Not only does it have all the appearance of good like Jane Austen’s Mr. Wickham, but it also seemed to be succeeding. The numbers kept going up as did the power, and when enemies like those evil Nazis arose, we could beat them back with our industrial might, much as the Russians crushed them with excess population.

However, signs point to a slowing of this “bubble” existing between implementing democracy and seeing the failure of its intent. The industrial wealth-blast may have been temporary and, under assault from Leftist behavior, it could be further sliding into oblivion.

The most worrisome sign is that productivity has slowed:

There’s general agreement about the factors that improve productivity. Investment in machinery and equipment increases production levels and quality. Education and training improve worker skills. New products, technologies, organizational structures and work arrangements – in other words, innovation – raise efficiency. A healthy climate for entrepreneurship and competition encourages the creation of faster, smarter businesses.

Unfortunately, there’s also general agreement that productivity gains are flatlining. In advanced economies, productivity growth has fallen below 1 percent annually, significantly lower than the 3 to 4 percent common in postwar decades and even less than the 2 to 2.5 percent of the last decades of the 20th century. Similar trend lines are beginning to appear in developing nations.

An alternate theory goes thus: once we were a vital people with a strong culture. Then we adopted liberalism. Technology, which increases over time by its very nature, brought great wealth which enabled Leftists to implement many of their plans because previous plans “seemed” to have succeeded.

Degradation came not swiftly but slowly. People became less competent and more likely to rely on social cues for their thinking and government for their life-plans. Equality programs forced the workforce to swell and social order to dissolve. Over time, people became more helpless as they came to depend on government and society more, and simultaneously saw the futility of resisting the crowd.

By the second half of the twentieth century, people lived in existential misery. Life was a hamster wheel and any acts of significance or beauty were ground down and replaced with the angry mass culture of the proletariat crowd. Good people were ignored, while the criminal but flattering were advanced. All public figures were idiots.

Without hope of goodness, the Western people basically collapsed. At this point, the Leftists brought in new people who were less prone to existential despair or really, existential thoughts at all. They just did what they always did, and people assumed that with the right laws and education, these people would become exactly like the old ones.

Then the computer boom hit. Everything got more efficient, it seemed. But starting in the late 2000s, it became clear that this too had stalled. For every productivity increase, we added more nonsense and made people more miserable. The talented dropped out, leaving only those who were happy with the hamster wheel.

Now productivity is dead. The reason why is that the talent that built the West is either loafing through entry-level jobs or living in a van down by the river. The people who could not have built the West are in the positions of power and influence, and their decision-making ability is mediocre at best.

The immense gains in education and skills over the last 50 years may not be repeatable.

What we refer to as education and skills have failed to demonstrate their utility. We have educated more people to be computer programmers, but few of them can write effective code, so it is constantly glitching and breaking. Many of these skills add nothing to the economy, but keep people employed in jobs that are legislative or civil rights creations.

In the meantime, people have the lowest sense of commitment to their national economies of any time. Where once there was loyalty, now there is an adversarial relationship: the nation is that which threatens to get one fired for the wrong opinions, and enforces endless taxes, delays, red tape and other soul-killing tedium upon the citizen. Not surprisingly, people want to see their nations — represented by government, media and academia — destroyed.

The experts, who are themselves incompetents who advanced because they drove out the sane, will come up with many clever reasons for this drop in productivity, but none of these will have any relation to reality. Instead, the decline will continue until all the smart people are living in shacks in the country and the cities survive only on taxes.

Even worse, the idea of the economy may be fundamentally dead:

Even if productivity growth could be revived, it’s not clear those gains would have as much of an impact on living standards as in the past. Simply being able to make more stuff isn’t terribly helpful in an era of excess capacity and also weak aggregate demand. Many innovations actually eliminate jobs and depress wages. They allow a few creators to capture large benefits but don’t aid the majority of the population.

When populations have nothing in common, behavior falls to the lowest common denominator. That means that relatively few things are done in any significant number, and everything else falls off the scale. This means that a few large companies will dominate most of the economy, and everyone else will work in a support role which will be eliminated eventually by standardization.

Without Leftism, this would not have happened. Society would have structure and a balanced economy not based on consumerism. More activities would occur, at a higher level of pursuit of quality of experience, which would mean a proliferation of local companies instead of large corporations. And with fewer regulations and lawsuits, companies could make decent money without having to make cheap products sold at a high cost.

It seems that the wealth bubble was short and, thanks to Leftism, we have squandered it. This is always what happens when the mob is given the power of leadership. It chooses the things that make it feel good, and these generally consist of reality-denial. Then, after a bubble before those consequences arrive, the end comes swiftly.

Mainstream Media (Mostly) Buries News Of Podesta Leaks

Monday, October 24th, 2016


At this point, no one is surprised that American mainstream media (MSM) acts like a propaganda organ of the Left. Their most recent outrage was to blare less-than-credible accusations against Donald Trump of sexual assault in order to rally the female voters of the Left, and to distract from the Wikileaks releases.

These releases have kept pouring, difficult only in that there is so much that it requires someone who is paid to investigate things like this to pore over them, but that group would be — in theory — our journalists, and they are mostly ignoring the event.

One voice broke through in the pantheon, and reported on batch 17 of leaked emails from John Podesta:

WikiLeaks released its 17th batch of emails stolen from John Podesta’s personal account on Monday, bringing the total number of emails in the leak to 30,235. The group has posted batches of Podesta’s emails nearly daily over the last several weeks.

…On page 31 of the document, emailed to Podesta by research director Tony Carrk, there’s a quote from Trump about Machado: “She weighed 118 pounds, or 117 pounds, and she went up to 160 or 170. So this is somebody that likes to eat.” The quote is included in a section of the report titled, “On Women’s Weight and Appearance … Including His Own Daughter’s.”

The article then covers other highlights of the leaks, including Clinton’s health and mental state, but is part of the CBS online effort and apparently is not also broadcast with television news. However, this shows some cracking within the media facade even if relatively small.

As the MSM spin machine tries to play this one off, they make unintentional revelations which end up helping the case against them. For example, Politifact issues the following hit piece on the leaks, but in doing so, confirmed that their origin was not Russian:

For example, hackers were kicked out of the DNC network June 11, yet among their documents is a file that was created on June 15, found Thomas Rid, a war studies professor at King’s College London.

If one of the leaks occurred after the hackers were booted, then there is another source in addition to the hackers. (This leads us to wonder who among the world’s hackers did not manage to hack the Clinton Foundation and Democratic National Convention, since it sounds like it was like rush hour traffic in there.

In addition, the fact that American government officials leaned on Ecuador to induce that state to cut off internet connectivity for Julian Assange suggests collaboration between Clinton officials and the standing government, which in itself is a gross ethical violation.

All of these factors contribute to the likelihood of two things: (1) distrust of Clinton keeping some voters at home and (2) frustration and distrust of the media driving other voters toward Trump. Let us hope for the latter, as a good option that slowly reverses the decline is, for now, better than an apocalyptic confrontation.

Voting As Mental Crutch And Physical Degeneration

Monday, October 24th, 2016


This afternoon like those of many other Americans my path took me to the local voting booth. We all stood in a long line that bent around the building and snaked into the parking lot. As the line lurched forward in tiny increments, most people stared at their phones, flipping through social media.

Only a few people seemed aware of their surroundings. The rest were aware of the back of the person directly in front of them, and maybe the cell phone. This made it easy to divide the people there into two groups.

The first group were the self-expression types. These were visually identifiable as “different” from my tribe and my people. One was a white guy in his fifties with his hair dyed blue. Another was a man wearing a shirt made of wide bands of the rainbow colors who walked along the line filming everyone while talking to his vlog audience about the size of the crowd.

A woman in her thirties, arms both covered in tattoos, wore a denim jacket with a patch saying U.S.M.C. DAUGHTERS ON BIKES. She was talking to a young Hispanic woman who kept her arms folded. Minorities and white people did not interact much other than this. People carried themselves with a type of provocative aggression, white and otherwise, as if to dare someone to challenge them. Regrettably it did not happen.

Several young women had come over from their jobs. They wore pantsuits and had expensive purses. It looked like their jobs did not involve moving around much. They were visibly nervous, and kept checking their smartphones to see what time it was, even though time was moving so slowly for most of us that it felt like days. They wanted us to see that they were important, and here on a sacrificial mission.

Someone from the group that administrates the elections came out to explain what an ID card is. There were signs in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese but according to her, many people still got to the front of the line only to find that they did not have their IDs or brought the wrong type.

The second group comprised people who were there from a sense of duty. The elderly were most visible, moving slowly but with purpose. Businessmen in suits looked out of place but grimly defiant in the way people are when waiting in line holds up events of actual importance.

This group, which seemed to be about a fifth of the total, are what normal white people think of as normal white people. The faces were German, English and related groups; they were not as ostentatiously dressed as the self-expression crowd, but were dressed simply yet professionally. Most did not bother to check their phones all that much, only too aware of the passage of time.

It was striking how small this group was compared to the self-expression group. The larger group wore more bright clothing, paid more attention to their appearance, and were more active in line, as if on a social outing. For them, their vote was a method of showing something about themselves, like moral goodness or simply standing up to the rest of society with a bold provocation.

If the 20% of people there who had purpose had alone survived and the rest perished, no deleterious effects would ensue. In fact, one might arrive at America before the decay: hardy, purposeful people who have no time to waste on the pretense of self-expression.

This led to meditations on the psychology of voting.

Even among smart people, voting reduces human intelligence to the level of a tabloid. Voting is the opposite of making a decision; it is closer to placing a bet, or playing the lottery. One makes a choice and then something happens to it which has no relation to how correct or realistic it is, so it is mentally destructive to place too much importance on the result.

In addition, voting ends the obligation to interact with the process after the vote. It is like tossing out a comment at the end of the party, then leaving; there is no investment in seeing it through to conclusion. Then, since the process has completed, the tendency is to turn off the mind until the next election.

In our minds, voting also teaches us to rely on the herd both for guidance and as a means of absorbing our errors. When voting, one wants to pick a winning answer, or something that other people like. This makes the question of what is right a distant second. Then, there is the thought that since each individual vote matters little, since only what most people like matters, it is not a serious decision. The group absorbs anomalies, good or bad.

Finally, voting enforces externalization of cost as a model. We are told to vote for what we want, and the group will support it if enough people like the idea. This means that we have no personal cost except for a tiny sliver of the impact, and we are encouraged to pass along costs to those with more wealth than we have.

This creates the mentality of a committee. Instead of making a choice based on the best option, the group chooses by what each member thinks the group will support. Reality is no longer the measure of our decisions; we are the measurement we apply to reality. This is backward thinking.

The end result of all of this is a cult/gang mentality. Society splinters into groups, and each group tries to use the weight of the vote to destroy its opposition. This is like a group of people in a car fighting over who gets to drive and no one is watching the road because to do so is to weaken their attack and defense against others.

With democracy, every gesture is a token or a symbol. None are designed to have effects in reality because they are focused on the system of voting which serves as a proxy or intermediary substitute for reality. We are not making choices, but manipulating each other. It is not surprising the results are so bad.

The early voting process passed relatively smoothly. The smugness of the people involved was hard to tolerate: the self-expression crowd felt like they were beating back some mythological enemy, while the duty-bound seemed grimly determined to participate in something in which their faces revealed a lack of faith.

As the years of liberal democracy fade — it has as surely died in 2016 as Communism did in 1991 — the thoughts that come to mind are not of the disaster of democracy itself, but the psychological effects it has had on us. People are timid, angry and devoid of the self-reliance that once made our nations great.

Someone tell me: where can I vote to end democracy?

The Powerless Of The Power

Monday, October 24th, 2016


Vaclav Havel wrote his influential essay “The Power of the Powerless” to describe why people follow along with soft totalitarian regimes. This essay attempts to understand why people create soft totalitarian regimes.

Havel pitches his thesis with an everyday example:

THE MANAGER of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

As Plato wrote long ago, cause and effect are different animals, but people frequently confuse effect with the cause of itself (although it is the cause of what comes after it). We see the effect here, which is that normal people make symbolic gestures of everyday obedience in order to avoid ostracism by the regime.

The cause of that situation is the powerless of the power, or the group that forms like a gang, cult or union within a thriving society. Once society establishes itself, it loses its initial purpose, which is to establish itself. At that point, humans become spoiled because they have benefits they could not create for themselves.

The Rise of Ideology

This represents a departure from the state of nature. In the natural setting, small groups have only what they can produce, and those who produce nothing or are unwise tend not to survive. Once civilization is established, its morality takes over from that Darwinian role, and if it fails to weed out the idiotic, the society fails.

The “Powerless of the Power” refers to the group that survives when civilization conquers nature. These people are without actual power, i.e. the ability to do things effectively. But in social groups, they have the power of a gang: they can thwart society. And so, society buys them off, with bribes, welfare and benefits.

Although it seems intelligent and peaceful, that approach backfires because whatever we tolerate, we get more of. Buying off the dysfunctional creates a new layer of dysfunctional people who then need some reason to feel good about themselves and some purpose to which to dedicate to themselves.

Havel explains ideology as the product of the regime, but it is the other way around: the regime is the product of the ideology, because the ideology is personally compulsive to those it ensnares. Ideology explains a not-very-happy life as a process of struggle toward an ultimate good, and thus is the one size-fits-all band-aid for any doubt, low self-confidence, or indecision.

Like most moderns, Havel finds his thinking inverted because he is thinking backward from the present, not from the past to the present. In his view, totalitarianism is the cause because he sees it in the present tense and noticing it causing ideology, which can be explained because causality is a cycle where every cause attempts to re-create the conditions responsible for producing itself, so that it can perpetuate. All things desire power, and this is where Havel misses the cause of totalitarianism — unlike Plato — despite having utterly brilliantly described its mechanism.

As he writes:

Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.

In other words, ideology is a cover story and self-marketing. Whatever is wrong with us, we are made equal by ideology, and then those who wield it well can become more-than-equal.

Pretense And Control

That advantage makes ideology as eternally popular as it is perennially wrong. Healthy, capable people have no need for it; ideology is like explaining why you failed a test or lost a sports game by saying that you did it for the greater good. Ideology excuses failings by demanding that failure become equal to success in the eyes of social judgment, which means that a new decision of failure/success is introduced based on how well one flatters others.

Flattery is telling others what they want to hear. If you want to know the secret of humanity, it is that it is not ruled by secretive groups like the Bilderbergers or Skull And Bones, but by the pretense of the crowd. Each person has some failings or hang-ups, and these are obvious to those around them; the people who reach out to others by explaining those glitches as victimhood will instantly be popular.

This pattern reveals itself at every level of a human group as if we were looking at a high school. The popular kids accept each other despite their basic instability, since they are all attention whores. The nerds group together and forgive each other their weirdnesses and fears.

The fat kids can fit in with the nerds and all the emotionally needy kids cluster in the theater department. In each group, all members forgive others and flatter them with the idea that obvious problems are not problems; this is a defensive outlook created in anticipation of criticism, and it replaces purpose and goal with a perpetual cycle of doubt and denial. The defensive nature of this psychology creates a type of pre-emptive strike, or passive-aggressive projections, called pretense, where those with the most to hide pretend they have the least to hide.

This is the mechanism used to control human groups because it renders them inert by making them focus only on themselves, and in the ensuing state of solipsism, reject the idea of noticing the direction of the group as a whole. That makes it ideal for controllers, who want their subjects to go firmly to sleep so the control forces can use that group as a means to the ends of the controllers.

Human social groups with strong leadership create unselfconscious cultures where people feel that doing right by the group as an organic whole is enough. The person who spies the enemy sneaking in through the woods is not a hero, but someone recognized as a contributor in the group. When that group protects enough people who are not healthy, that group like a cult or gang then seeks to replace the distinction between contributor and non-contributor with a single scale, which is how well one repeats the words and symbols of the ideology that in the absence of purpose is presumed to bond them together.

What results is a conspiracy of flattery. It is impossible to diagnose because it has no center and no leaders, and worse still, none of its members are aware they are doing it. Like a viral infection of the mind, it spreads through the process of socializing between individuals, because when one meets a new person, the choice becomes one of either adopting their mode of behavior or being rejected. Thus it passes along, every person flattering the others in order to form groups, and in so doing, they create a society where there are no permanent things, no guarantee that those who contribute will always be loved. Every day one must keep up the flattery or be excluded. By promising to accept everyone, the conspiracy of flattery has made them slaves to constant threatening social interactions.

These people then rationalize their misery as happiness because to do otherwise is to admit that a great mistake has been made. If they recognize the existential terror and confusion in which they live, the value of ideology as a personal ego-support system fails, and then they will fall out of sync with the rest of the group. Instead, they double down as a way to win the “game” of social success, or at least to have a position where they feel safe.

Civilizations die by going crazy. They do so because the powerless, united by ideology, become powerful and divide the group. At that point, the only coherent message is a very simple lowest common denominator one, and ideology — based on what “should” be, usually in the form of universalism or inclusion of everyone whether contributor or not — quickly absorbs the rest of the citizens. Imitating each other in their insanity, they march into the abyss.

Things That Cannot Be Said (In Egalitarian Times)

Sunday, October 23rd, 2016


In healthy times, our symbols correspond to reality. In sick times, symbols are complex labyrinths of thought designed to avoid reality. For that reason, everything is written in code, with most of the time giving to meaningless platitudes so that the various powers-that-be do not behead the speaker.

Such a cryptic messages poked its head out from the pages of The New York Times, normally a solid Leftist rag but one in which occasional flashes of insight sneak past the filter:

Our current debt may be manageable at a time of unprecedentedly low interest rates. But if we let our debt grow, and interest rates normalize, the interest burden alone would choke our budget and squeeze out other essential spending. There would be no room for the infrastructure programs and the defense rebuilding that today have wide support.

…The solutions are clear enough. A realistic approach toward the major entitlement programs is required, given that they are projected to account for all of the growth of future noninterest spending.

Since the 1950s, one area of government has grown to be more than half of our budget: entitlements, or payments to citizens, which your great-grandfather would have called socialism and considered a fate worse than death. As it turns out, he was right. We cannot afford these programs.

Any nation with $20 trillion in debt is hovering dangerously near default no matter how large its GDP is simply by the nature of the effect of that debt on the rest of the world, relative to what the rest of the world has to offer. It is a handle by which the country can be swung. It is also so huge it has rippled effects across the globe.

If our budget consisted, as it did before the 1930s, of military spending and infrastructure alone, none of this would be a problem.

Donald Trump has taken an intelligent approach to policy: he first intends to cut off the government’s blank check spending spree, and then point out that now we cannot afford these social programs because we never could. Some he intends to privatize, like health insurance, which makes more sense as people will be paying reduced rates for their own care.

Baby Boomers grew up in the 1960s with 1930s assumptions. In their mindset, there would always be more happy suburban normies to pay into every program than there would be takers, and they could use this resource — the vast productivity of the American heartland — to subsidize any government program or needy person. Underneath this was the assumption that the Boomers would help themselves to as much of that wealth as possible.

This created the mentality in which we now live: individualism, or the idea of the citizen as someone who takes from the collective wealth and is empowered by rules to do whatever he wants, no matter how insane, because somehow society owes it to him to subsidize him.

What this has done is create an environment that favors this behavior, which makes jobs and living excruciating for the suburban normies of the American heartland. They are now dropping out, just like years ago the Anglo-Saxons dropped out of government because it had become a grinding task of idiot management. This creates a society out of control in the hands of the insane.

This insane group now exists as an echo chamber in the big cities of the world, re-affirming its own assumptions by cherry-picking data and then dressing it up as “theory,” and like the Harvard intellects who bungled the American war in Vietnam, it is usually incorrect but goes into damage mitigation instead of reconsidering its assumptions.

Our elites are the result of us. Socialism creates a passive population which in turn requires a managerial bureaucracy that looks after that population through a in loco parentis style Nanny state. This is why rules and regulations explode outward like flowers in spring. Citizens and government have become codependent in the worst meaning of that pop psychology term.

Also in The New York Times, the usual cheekily well-written and guarded expression of doubt about the system from crypto-Traditionalist Ross Douthat:

The dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump’s authoritarian unknowns, because we live with them in our politics already. They’re the dangers of elite groupthink, of Beltway power worship, of a cult of presidential action in the service of dubious ideals. They’re the dangers of a recklessness and radicalism that doesn’t recognize itself as either, because it’s convinced that if an idea is mainstream and commonplace among the great and good then it cannot possibly be folly.

Almost every crisis that has come upon the West in the last 15 years has its roots in this establishmentarian type of folly. The Iraq War, which liberals prefer to remember as a conflict conjured by a neoconservative cabal, was actually the work of a bipartisan interventionist consensus, pushed hard by George W. Bush but embraced as well by a large slice of center-left opinion that included Tony Blair and more than half of Senate Democrats.

Weak citizens produce weak leaders. For those leaders, politics is a job, and they excel at the job which is the opposite of succeeding at the task of leadership. Leaders tell hard truths and take risks; professional politicians, pundits, lobbyists, journalists and academics specialize in selling pleasant illusions dressed up as profundities. The citizens, who have become huddled sheep, accept this.

Mainstream sources can give us no answers because they are filtered by the same assumptions used by the elites. Even most underground activities, because they are cut free from social concerns, give no useful answers because they are dominated by crazy ideologues who get driven out of any non-dysfunctional social situation (a condition the internet cruelly refers to as “autistic”).

Thus the rise of the Alt Right. In his article “What Is The Alt Right?” Jared Taylor gives us some hints about the radioactive core of this movement:

What is the Alt Right? It is a broad, dissident movement that rejects egalitarian orthodoxies. These orthodoxies require us to believe that the sexes are equivalent, that race is meaningless, that all cultures and religions are equally valuable, and that any erotic orientation or identification is healthy. These things we deny. The Alt Right is also skeptical of mass democracy. It opposes foreign aid and foreign intervention–especially for “nation building.”

…The Alt Right is a necessary alternative to a “respectable” right that has completely capitulated.

In dying concerns — businesses, social groups, societies — the same pattern emerges: dogma takes the place of reality, because by inserting the proxy of politics into the middle between cause and effect, humans force themselves to make decisions based on social appearance instead of realistically likely results of each possible action.

The orthodoxy of the West, egalitarianism, is what produces both the welfare state and the cluster of elites that we call “the Cathedral” who control the narrative by filtering out and demonizing any contrary information. This is the essence of a death spiral: if a pathology is repeating the same act and expecting different results, orthodoxies of this nature create pathology by denying that the results are the same, giving themselves justifications in “theory” and “morality” to repeat those actions.

The Alt Right however goes further and identifies the root of egalitarianism as individualism. Richard Spencer, part of the team that launched Alternative Right back in 2009 — it lives on as Alternative Right and Radix Journal — identifies the magic formula of egalitarianism this way:

The tragedy of Christianity is how cucked it has become, and how it can serve as a kind of basis for leftism (universalism + individualism + resentment). I agree with Spengler and Nietzsche on that count.

(It is worth noting that the precursor to this site, CORRUPT, did the same, as did previous articles by this author.)

Individualism demands egalitarianism so that the individual is protected against judgment by reality and others who might know better. Historically, individualism is a defining trait of lower social castes and third world societies. When your society goes individualist, it reverts to that proletariat mob rule and then, third-world, state.

The truth which cannot be spoken is that individualism is a lie, and we cannot subsidize it, so we must not just limit but fully remove all egalitarian programs. Democracy, welfare, mandatory health insurance, unions, public education, and government retirement benefits must all die in order for us to survive.

Luckily, this house of cards has begun to fall. Trump’s budget will force defunding of the entitlement state; his foreign policy will force Europe to pay for its defense, at which point it will become clear how much it also cannot afford its precious social programs. If he is not elected, Clinton will further push us toward the abyss and, after the default, these programs will cease to exist.

This is the world in which the Alt Right arose: a death-struggle between individualism and realism. The realists see no point in living for the self, or for society. Instead they aspire to transcendental goals like excellence, reverence, wisdom and moral bravery. With those, the West can rise from its moribund state, but only if it kills the monster of egalitarian orthodoxy and the individualism that supports it, first.

The Political Singularity

Saturday, October 22nd, 2016


As the countdown to the election of rapidly approaches, the enemy scales up its attacks, intensifies its hatred, and screeches more loudly its lies.  Each day, it seems, bring forth a newly attempted scandal from the Democrats, and a new emboldening toward frankness and bare honesty from Trump, recently unleashed from the designated loser the Republican party. 

Every day brings a further dulling of the left’s attack words (“racist”, “sexist”, etc), so they push them harder.  Trump’s mere presence has caused the left to rally and focus their energy reserves against him in a way that unmasks them, leaving them more vulnerable to counterattack, and may deplete them.

If we extrapolate the escalating energy levels of these high intensity political forces, we find the conditions and possibilities of November 8th to be unpredictable in a wide range.  The old political equations break down at these energy levels.  After that date, anything could happen — coup, death squads, foreign invasion, nukes, Kekian revelations — anything. Order will be suspended

We are approaching the Political Singularity.

In that moment, we will leave behind the familiar order where liberal democracy is on top. In this order, anything egalitarian is right and whatever is most egalitarian wins. In the new future, self-interest replaces egalitarianism. Globalism falls to nationalism. Good intentions die in the face of practical, common sense defense of the objectives of each person and his tribe.

The modern time has equated social order with equality. This is in fact an absence of social order because it removes all hierarchy but the equal political role of all people, except for appointed leaders who lie and steal as they see appropriate. People cannot conceive of an order outside of this framework.

And yet, we step into a brave new world. The political assumptions that defined 1789 and 1968 are no longer valid. We will have to re-invent civilization from its roots in order to have it prevail, and this terrifies us because for the first time in our lives we are relying not on precedent but our own judgments, based on our knowledge of the world.

While this is terrifying, it is also wholly refreshing.

Our whole lives we have been forced by social pressure to work within a narrow frame of what is acceptable based on what has been done in the near-past. Ideology, which is a type of pretense, guided us not by giving positive examples, but by raging against any choice outside the dominant trend. We were trapped and our results ended up bad because we could not change their founding assumptions.

On November 8, regardless of who wins, the antiquated order of liberal democracy dies. People no longer trust government, media, academia and special interest groups to provide us with answers. We are casting aside the old rule book, and re-inventing what it means to be civilized.

In that moment, many illusions die, but we will also face a task harder than any we have faced. We must look to the results of each type of action and make hard choices about which are better than the others. There will be no textbooks, news articles and think tanks to guide us. All we will have is our desire for a better civilization and our knowledge of what principles achieve it.

Since its earliest days, liberal democracy has faced criticism from those who noted that it resembled mob rule. Now we see the end results of that herd domination: endless debt, failed institutions, corruption and third world disorder among our previously-orderly societies. Liberal democracy has failed.

Instead, we must look to a new dawn. The old assumptions have died. We are now painters with a blank canvas before us with only knowledge of golden ages past to guide us. We know that modernity — egalitarianism — ends in ruins, but what will we appoint in its place? This is the political singularity: we are back to square zero and running out of time.

The Struggle Of Our Time Is Not Race War, But Labor Revolt

Saturday, October 22nd, 2016


The Alt Right was formed of many things, mainly a Nietzschean and Traditionalist influence on New Right ideas, but it absorbed many other disciplines as it grew.

One of these was Neoreaction, a set of talking points much like the thought-experiments of Plato’s The Republic, suggesting that government had separated its incentives from it ideology and thus become corrupt. Neoreaction rest on the ideas of Mencius Moldbug who admit an influence from white nationalism which helped him frame his understanding of the modern power struggle:

In Fjordman’s model, we see two groups: White and Swarthy. White people, or at least some of them, are gripped by some mysterious masochistic urge to self-destruction. If Whites unite, accept even just the slightest touch of White nationalism, and act collectively, they can defeat the anti-White neo-Communist Swarthy jihad that otherwise threatens to devour them all.

In my model, there are not two sides but five. Three of these sides are white, two are swarthy. And we see no mysterious masochism at all, just the usual hominid struggle for factional dominance. One of the white parties (Brahmin) is ganging up with the two swarthy parties (Dalit, Helot) to apply a good old-fashioned whupping to the other two white parties (Vaisya, Optimate). Just another afternoon of nasty on the History Channel.

Moldbug got a lot right, but when he is wrong, he is strikingly wrong, starting with his complete misunderstanding of caste.

The people on top are in fact the Vaisya, or the merchant and bourgeois classes, whom Moldbug seeks to exonerate. There are probably no Brahmins left, as democracy tends to exterminate these through direct action or fading away due to misery.

Even more importantly however, he misunderstands history. Every civilization is undone by a revolt of its labor classes. This is how civilizations go out, because as they prosper they become bottom-heavy because the labor classes breed faster, which then causes smarter people to basically abandon civilization because it involves too much time-wasting care for idiots.

To survive, a civilization must ditch its bottom-heavy extraneous population. However, this becomes difficult one caste systems fall. This is why idiots persist at all levels of American and European culture: we no longer keep them isolated as serfs, and despite being fools — having unrealistic and crass judgment — they are capable of jumping through the intellectual hoops required to have power.

In a sane age, would George Soros be anything but a turnip-picker? What about our celebrities, would they be anything above prostitutes? Or our politicians, who would be running small shops instead. We have pushed the mediocre above the excellent.

This is the actual critique of white nationalism: it does not get to the core death of western civilization, which is mass revolt by lower castes.

Yes, the Other need to be removed from among us, preferably by as gentle a method as possible. Yes, we need Leftism to die. But before that, even, there is the trap that every society falls into: as it grows wealthy, it tolerates too many useless people who then overwhelm its power structure by infesting it and making it so tedious that no one with a bran will go near it.

When mass revolt happens, it does so through solipsism, or the refusal to consider the world anything but part of the self. That in turn reveals that the essence of liberalism is individualism, which is expressed in “Lockean” collectivized individualism which demands the desires of the individual coming first, as is the definition of individualism.

Every other word in his article then operates on clear, overt, Lockean conceptions of the individual being prior to society.

There are three options for the priorities of the individual:

  1. Individual-first.

  2. Society-first.

  3. Principle-first.

The first two fail because they argue from a finite thing and miss the point: society is about doing what is best for the organic whole, in which disparate parts work together without parity of power, as in a natural ecosystem. Prioritizing from principle, or idea, allows the individual to stay consistent with past and future of that society instead of arguing from a specific point of time as an ideal.

This also avoids the error of absolutely placing self or society first. The goal is civilization itself, which is an idea that appears in parallel between leadership, religion, culture and biology. This ideal can be applied to the status quo at any time, improving it.

Nationalism is a rejection of individualism, or the idea that the individual comes first before anything else. This in turn rejects the foggy mental state of solipsism in which most humans, especially those in the bottom-heavy mass revolt group that normally serves as labor, exist by their nature. It is our simian heritage to be oblivious of anything except ourselves and how adorably clever we are.

By rejecting individualism, nationalism allows “bootstrapping”: political order protects the positive in culture, nurturing it upward. Through that mechanism, society improves on a qualitative level, which then allows culture to take over its role as modifying government and not the other way around.

With this in mind, it is clear that achieving political nationalism is the first step in undoing the decay wrought by individualistic leftism:

[Brexit] would be a reversal and overturning of decades of ‘progress’ towards an Establishment-controlled materialist nihilist totalitarian world government; and that would really be a catastrophe, which might not end there but might be the first and crucial strand to break in that vast web of lies in which – the elite recognise – they have made, sustain and in which we all dwell.

One broken thread – and the UK is a very thick and structural thread – strains all the other threads; snapping the UK thread may lead to a chain reaction.

…the sheer ‘mental’ terror of the Establishment lackeys and minions reveals that if Brexit happened fully and soon, it really would strike a blow against the culture of death which is deliberately driving us towards willed spiritual suicide.

The organization created by wealthy special interests is always liberal. It is Leftist because the only way to manage a mass revolt is to turn it into mass culture, and people of that nature only respond to the positive social feelings they get from ideas of equality and social unity.

Asserting any value higher than the human individual and material practicality — this includes society-first reasoning — breaks the back of this corrupt parasitic invader. Since liberal democracy is essentially a dead letter, we are now in the process of turning toward nationalism to bootstrap ourselves to a principle-first outlook.

Donald Trump Delivers A Gettysburg Address

Saturday, October 22nd, 2016


Coming on the wings of a campaign rebound, Donald Trump gave the media the detail that it wanted months ago, but now has very little room to attack.

Speaking at a historical American battleground and symbol of the Civil War that formalized the division between liberal cosmopolitan cities and practical, realistic heartlands, Trump tackled present-day divisions in the nation. He mentioned being inspired by Lincoln, the president who (in theory) held the nation together.

At that point, Trump named the enemy: “the system is rigged” in both Washington and on Wall Street. He mentioned the loss of jobs, many in poverty, and one in five households where no one is working. Trump has re-spun Mitt Romney’s “47%” from parasites into victims, and he is blaming the established interests instead.

Describing his campaign as “the kind of change that only arrives once in a lifetime,” Trump launched a discussion of his major themes, or the manifestations of the problem of a rigged system in everyday life:

  • Voter fraud. This has two parts: first, fake voters and second, that Hillary is running at all. Pew estimates 24 million invalid or significantly inaccurate voter records. “1.8 million dead people are registered to vote, and some of them are voting. I wonder how that happens.” 14% of non-citizens are registered to vote. Hillary should have been precluded for running, but FBI and DOJ covered up her crimes; she said she did not recall, under oath, thirty-nine separate times but was able to recall almost everything else. She also deleted 33,000 emails after subpoena

  • Media is corrupt. They lie about his crowd size, do not show the small size of her crowds. Make him look bad and dangerous. Three highly respected national polls said we’re in first place. Overtones of violent gangs and organized crime in how he describes them.

  • Trust busting. Trump segues into the thought that media is the voice for special interests who happen to be multi-billionaire corporations. He identifies Amazon and other major media owners as too big to be safe for America, and plans to break them up. “They are trying desperately to suppress my vote and the voice of the American people.” AT&T and Time Warner merger is “too much concentration of power in the hands of too few.” Likewise Amazon which controls Washington Post should be paying massive taxes; mentions this is unfair to department stores all over the country. Billions and billions of dollars. Comcast purchase of NBC concentrates far too much power in one massive entity that is trying to tell the voters what to think and what to do. “They’re trying to poison the mind of the American voter.” Will sue false accusers after the election. Then he hits the core of this speech: these big companies are manipulating the lives of everyday people. “Just look at what they can do to you.” Mentions Project Veritas revelations of paid DNC and Clinton Campaign union thugs who committed violence at Trump rallies, says he wants to find out the truth “through litigation.”

  • Cannot rely on politicians who created these problems. Corrupt system in order to keep them in power. “I didn’t have to do this, believe me, there’s nothing easy about it, but I had to do it.” Inverted tautology? Hillary is running against change and against all of the American people and the American voters. This is a fork in the road: repeat past non-working methods, or a “great future yet unwritten” by thinking differently. He then announces his three plans — ethics, economy and security — for the first one hundred days of his presidency.

“I am asking the American people to dream big again,” he said, asking Americans to invoke the “great faith and optimism” that has always been the central ingredient in the American character. This is a contract between Donald J. Trump and the American voter to achieve honesty, accountability and actual change.


  • Constitutional amendment imposing term limits on Congress.

  • Hiring freeze on federal employees except military, public safety and health.

  • For every new regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.

  • Five-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after leaving government service.

  • A lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of foreign governments.

  • A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.


  • Renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw under article 2205.

  • Withdraw from the TPP.

  • Label China a currency manipulator.

  • Identify all foreign trading abuses that impact American workers.

  • Lift restrictions on productions of American energy reserves incl shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

  • Lift Obama-Clinton roadblocks that stop energy projects from moving forward (Keystone Pipeline and others),

  • Cancel billions in payments to United Nations climate change program and instead spend it on water and environmental infrastructure.


  • Cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.

  • Begin process of selecting replacement for Justice Scalia.

  • Cancel all federal funding of sanctuary cities.

  • Begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal aliens from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that refuse to take them back.

  • Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur.

  • All vetting will be extreme vetting.

In addition, he promised to work with Congress to create the following legislation:

  • His aims: aim at 4% growth per year and 25 million jobs plus trade reform, regulatory relief and lifting restrictions on American energy.

  • Tax reform and simplification: middle class family with two kids gets 35% cut, he wants to simplify tax process, reduce from seven brackets to three, and lower the business rate from 35% to 15%.

  • End the offshoring act; establish tariffs to discourage companies for offshoring.

  • American infrastructure act: tax incentives for infrastructure investment over next decade.

  • School choice and education opportunity act: parents can send public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home schools. Also wants to destroy Common Core and return rule of education to local communities.

  • Expand vocational and technical education, and makes 2-4 year college more affordable.

  • Repeal and Replace Obamacare act: replace it with health savings accounts; the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, let states manage medicaid funds.

  • Cutting the red tape at the FDA; 4,000 drugs awaiting approval.

  • Affordable child care and elder care act, also incentivizes companies to provide this with matching contributions for low-income families.

  • End illegal immigration act: fully funds the construction of a wall on our Southern border with the full understanding that Mexico will be reimbursing us for the full cost of the wall.

  • Restoring community safety act: creates task force on violent crime and more funding for training of local police, anti-gang funding and deportation of alien gang.

The whole thing sounds like Daddy coming home early and ending the prole party on his front lawn. In the Trump view, government ineptitude — a classic symptom of democracy — has produced manipulative mega-firms that are now using the corrupt Left to steal what they have not yet obtained. He wants them gone and to banish the parasites.

It reads as if Trump saw Mitt Romney get destroyed for making his speech about the “47%” who are tax-eaters instead of tax-payers, and realized who benefited from that. He then formulated a plan to remove power from the manipulators and restore order by removing the acts of an excessively-large government.

He kept some things close to his chest. High on my list would be:

  • Remove all legal protections for unions.

  • End affirmative action and civil rights law.

  • Revoke the authority of all regulatory agencies.

Why Diversity Can Never Work

Saturday, October 22nd, 2016


Many of us in the West reacted in shock to the headline “Iraqi refugee who raped a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in a ‘sexual emergency’ has his conviction overturned because the Austrian court ‘didn’t prove he realised the boy was saying no'” since it contradicts every principle of common sense.

When we look more closely into it, we see the failure of diversity the way it always fails and the reason for which it was made policy. Diversity destroys social standards, starting with day-to-day behavior. For example, apparently it is not clear that this rapist knew the boy was saying “no”:

The rapist, identified as Amir A, 20, violently sexually assaulted the boy in the changing room of Theresienbad pool in Austria claiming it was a ‘sexual emergency’ because he had not had sex for four months.

But an appeal court in the country accepted the defence lawyer’s claim that the lower court had not done enough to prove he knew the schoolboy was saying no and overturned the conviction.

This implies a few things. First, the court obviously wanted to reach the “right” decision, which is that indigenous people are always wrong and third world invaders are always right, because this advances the liberal agenda of destroying culture and replacing it with Leftism.

But even further, the court copped out of a difficult case by possibly claiming this was a language issue. They can only lose by finding the refugee guilty, because racism is the one sin remaining in our society, and so their only option was to let him off, and they found a loophole.

Looking even deeper however, what they did was to point out the obvious: when all of us are Germans, we not only speak the same language but have roughly the same public behaviors; normally, this is called “culture,” but it is not like ideology something that can be taught, since it is something we know by intuition arising from our genetic makeup which is shared.

With diversity, there is no standard. This destroys social trust. Most people, wanting to believe their society is still functional after diversity, choose to scapegoat the visible Other instead of realizing that diversity itself is the problem, because if diversity goes, equality, democracy and the welfare state — part of the same political movement — must also go, and people fear that much change.

However, in the West, diversity has died. It is not that we are different from Other groups, or the degree of difference, but that there is any difference at all. Homogeneity works; heterogeneity destroys. Most questions of leadership are this simple, but clash with Leftist dogma, so the explanation is complex and usually ignored.

Our governments support diversity because this strengthens the party that has for the most part been in power since the end of the Second World War. This party, like all Leftist parties, wants to eliminate anything that can compete with ideology for prominence in the public mind: family, culture, heritage, customs, values and language. They want to replace all of those with Leftism and be permanent rulers of the new third-world state.

This is why “refugee resettlement” — bureaucrat-speak for sudden mass immigrant relocation — tends to resemble a military attack instead of a gradual process in which the inhabitants of a place have any say. Take a look at how refugee resettlement resembles a government-funded invasion:

[A] new resettlement site cannot be established unless it starts with 50 refugees in the first year. Then, like it or not, the pattern is that the next year they will get 100-150 until they are like the town of Lancaster, PA be swamped with 700 needed third worlders arriving every year!…Once a site is opened, there will be no going back and your town will not get to pick from the ethnic groups the DOS is bringing in.

The governments of the West recognize that liberal democracy has failed, and the last chance to maintain power for these politicians — who like all corrupt people refuse to visualize time past their own lifetimes — to commit ethnic genocide against the indigenous population and replace them with imported third world voters. Ancient Athens and Rome did the same, and died shortly thereafter.