Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Russia, Not Syria, Is Again The Target Of Trumpreich Intervention In Syria

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017

When the United States first attacked a Syria airfield, Amerika was the only news source at the time to point out that this was a proxy war. Proxy war occurs when two superpowers clash by using a third country. The Spanish-American War, Vietnam War, Korean War, Granada Conflict, and Cuban Missile Crisis are all of this variety.

Currently, the USA is warning Syria not to go ahead with a purported proposed chemical weapons attack. Do we think this is bu– nonsense, made up and fabricated? Yes and no.

Assad is getting ready to end the US-sponsored rebels. These rebels almost surely exist in order to thwart Russian power in the region. Why else would a superpower create them? He is going to end these rebels by concentrating their active forces in a few areas, and then barrel-bombing them to death. Many civilians will perish, which is fine, since any pro-Assad civilians were beaten up and driven out by rebels long ago.

This means that the CIA-or-whomever loses a pet project, and worse, that Russia gets power in Syria. When looking at superpower actions, you have to use naturalistic metaphors, so this is one group of wolves driving another one away from a prime hunting ground. There is no moral dimension to it higher than that, but one is not needed; power is self-evident.

Just like in the last attack, this one is about superpowers maneuvering for dominance over strategically-important regions of the world. No one really cares if Assad gasses or barrel-blasts a few million more starving, low average IQ middle eastern zealots into oblivion. But everyone is also representing their own best interests.

As always, what seems like warlike conduct by Trump is in fact a way of staving off warfare. It could be that too much Russian weaponry is turning up in hostile hands in the middle east, or that he wants these resources not under their control. But his strong warning now means that the chances of an unintentional war later are reduced.

For example, consider Vietnam. We think the Gulf of Tonkin attack was fake; it was a pretext for war, sort of like Fort Sumter. But what if a decade before America had threatened to bomb any Russian or Chinese personnel in the area? There would be been a political event, and that is what democratic politicians hope to avoid. But it might have staved off war by making a clear communication instead of a wishy-washy one.

Trump is not wishy-washy. He needs Russia out of Syria. He also needs something else that separates the sane from the insane. Each time he does something sane, some people on the Right and Left scream and wail, and those get silently marked in the Useful Idiot category by not just Trump but most of the sane people left in America. His momentum builds and America gets closer to separation each time this happens.

“Free Will” Is A Nonsense Theory

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017

In the latest round of neurotic hand-wringing about culpability and free will:

Does this mean we are relieved of moral culpability for our actions? As the old joke goes: nature or nurture—either way, it’s your parents’ fault. With all these intervening variables influencing our actions, where does free will enter the equation? Like most scientists, Sapolsky rejects libertarian free will: there is no homunculus (or soul, or separate entity) calling the shots for you, but even if there were a mini-me inside of you making choices, that mini-me would need a mini-mini-me inside of it, ad infinitum. That leaves two options: complete determinism and compatibilism, or “mitigated free will,” as Sapolsky calls it. A great many scientists are compatibilists, accepting the brute fact of a deterministic world with governing laws of nature that apply fully to humans, while conceding that such factors as brain injury, alcoholism, drug addiction, moments of uncontrollable rage, and the like can account for some criminal acts.

The egalitarian jive goes like this: if we do not have complete free will, we are not responsible for our actions, so we revert to our favorite idea, which is everybody do whatever they want because we already have grocery stores. Their thinking is that of the third world, which is to say, they do not plan to renew anything, only eat the seed grain and party today and ignore tomorrow.

If you ask philosophy professors in confidence about “free will,” the best of them — what you saw teaching at top-notch universities thirty years ago — would laugh at the idea. They might start out with an explanation such as this:

Minimally, to say that an agent has free will is to say that the agent has the capacity to choose his or her course of action. But animals seem to satisfy this criterion, and we typically think that only persons, and not animals, have free will. Let us then understand free will as the capacity unique to persons that allows them to control their actions.

Many will go on to tell you the words that every human needs to hear: we are animals, we think like them, and if we have souls they do as well, but we also have a higher ability toward abstract thinking because we are tool-makers. The most abstract thinkers can anticipate game plays in chess, or events in reality, several moves into the future. The average prole cannot think past the next paycheck.

For this reason, we have moral culpability, in that we can be aware of a truth or the need to discover that truth, about any given event or situation. Unlike the animals, we cannot just shrug and move on to the next food source. We have the ability to know, therefore we have the duty to know. If you ever wondered about what that Garden of Eden story was metaphorically expressing…

Back to “free will.” Many of us find it comical as a concept. First, free will implies being aware of the full range of possible actions. That is not achievable even with our smartest people. Next, is the idea that we are not a bundle of nerve impulses — a “bag of snakes” as Jordan Peterson styles it — where the brain selects the strongest impulse. Finally, we hit the really taboo idea.

Spoiler: it is the same really taboo idea which it is always is, namely that we are in fact unequal. Some people can figure out stuff better than others, which is why they end up wise or rich and powerful. Most people cannot be neurosurgeons or philosophers, at least until we dumb down those fields as we have, resulting in an incompetence surge.

Free will then would be a quantum which is apportioned unequally to people. This means that some would be barely culpable because, like retarded people or insane people, they are not very accountable for their actions. But that leads to another problem… if they are not accountable for their actions, at least very much, then they are not equal and should not have equal privileges and responsibilities.

Oops. We’re back to feudalism and some people being given little money and power simply because they are prolly-oles and have diminished mental capacity and thus diminished moral culpability, so the intelligent response is to limit what they can do, by acknowledging that they will screw it up if given the chance.

In the same way, our ancestors enslaved the primitive savages of the New World and Africa because they viewed in them a diminished moral and mental capacity. Much as we enslave, geld, discipline, bridle, breed and sell horses, we did the same with them. Right or wrong, the IQ data backs them up, in that groups with average IQs in the mid-90s and below seem to have diminished moral and intellectual capacity, at least if we look at normal behaviors in their societies.

Think of the constant violent crime, graft, theft and favela-style construction of Brazil. The drug lords running towns and child trafficking of Mexico. The slave labor camps of Asia and the owned housemaids of Arab nations. These are the norm in third world societies, and there is a good argument that third world societies are as they are because of diminished moral and mental capacity. I would agree.

At this point, the notion of “free will” as a binary — yes/no question — dies, so we turn to “free will” as an ingredient. In other words, ever person has some amount of “free will,” and only those above a certain threshold are actually accountable for their actions. This becomes ludicrous as we consider that even among the top fifth of our population by IQ, predicting responses to our actions in reality is difficult and unreliable.

For us to have free will, we would have to possess divine intuition like angels or gods, meaning that we would know with certainty what happens in response to our actions. Our hack is to say that for very simple actions, even the dumbest know how they would turn out, so we can say that “everyone” knows and therefore everyone is morally accountable for those. The more general principle is that whatever you have the intelligence to foresee, you are responsible for, which almost makes sense except for the unintended consequences that crop up all the time when we enlarge time scale to see how seemingly benevolent acts produced disaster decades later.

Nihilists acknowledge that we have the ability of choice in theory, but that it is most commonly interrupted by our monkey minds and bodies, and that only those with a certain amount of raw ability and self-discipline will get anywhere, and even then not consistently.

Our question at that point is not whether we have free will, but how to maximize the power of our choices.

Choice is a sensible explanation because it takes into account our limited abilities, the continuity between animal and human abilities, and the moral imperative upon us to refine our choice through self-discipline. In this way it is esoteric, or cumulative to the point where the next step is hidden until the one previous is taken, in the way the ancients explained all disciplines.

But “free will”? This is a creation of egalitarianism: the need to believe that all people have the same ability to perceive, so that our treating them as equal does not appear as lunatic as it is.

Family World Order

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017

Humans thrive only with civilization, and civilization remains a popular topic in discussion although we do not frequently frame it explictly as such. Current talk about civilization is mostly spurred by the decline of what George H.W. Bush famously called a “New World Order” (NWO) which consisted of an American empire of globalist economics based in world domination by liberal democracy.

Its failure was apparent back in the middle 1990s when Samuel Huntington declared it dead in his epic The Clash Of Civilizations and the Remaking Of World Order, but has recently been in the news with the Chinese proposal of a “Real new World Order,” a replacement for the presumably (by the logical inversion) fake old NWO.

Meanwhile, based on the results of the multicultural experiment called South Africa, the top Institute for Security Studies in Africa has declared that the most important risk to society is “social organization.” Some books have been trying to entertain this idea as well.

This confuses economists and politicians unknowingly fighting the multitude of problems emerging from the above-mentioned social organization. We can’t blame them, because they are focused entirely on their own fields of expertise. However, these people only acknowledge standard societal risks identifiable as a combination of the following:

  • Health risks
  • Security risks
  • System risks

However, these standard risks ignore the risk of failure of social organization, which is cyclical by nature and apparently coincides with societal growth and decline. Using industry as illustrative example: a company starts a new patent becoming quite profitable, after which it goes bankrupt because the next creative patent destroyed its market. In the same way societies grow and decline, to be replaced by a next society.

Any organization within a failing society will also fail. This civilizational growth and decline cycle can also be visualized through a healthy (competitive) society becoming dark (defensive), ending up becoming toxic (decomposing) while its territory is taken over by the next healthy society.

The combination of risks as it applies to a healthy society has shown that life expectancy correlation with GDP/capita is 0.61. The same correlation in a dark or toxic society is obviously unknown, which implies that the risk of “social organization” has a funny (complex) effect on top of our “standard” society.

Projecting this idea further means that whatever handbooks economists and political professionals now produce will mean nothing in a future (healthy society) which is unfortunately also true of current leadership concepts.

A new social organization is undoubtedly on the way, whether Chinese or our own, meaning we may as well start discussing it. Since we cannot tell future leaders how to arrange their future organizations, the best would be to identify probable solutions to risks currently perceived as enduring over time.

To mitigate the currently unattended risk of social organization — the organizational cycle of health-to-dark-to-toxic) — a more realistic view of humans is required. Apart from the natural formation of culture, what we also confirmed historically is that women do things differently than men. In fact, we should expand on that because families are the most important economic unit of all.

Based on that, a slight change in how we do things is proposed herewith. Instead of the “equal” workplace where men and women are “equal,” why don’t we acknowledge the benefit of inequality and make women line managers, with men getting the job of project managers. This is of course a sort of matrix organization few “experts” know how to deal with, despite the fact that they are married.

The specialized roles are consistent with use in a matrix organization, which as the name implies is one where both horizontal and vertical aspects of power exist:

Employees in a matrix organization report on day-to-day performance to the project or product manager whose authority flows sideways (horizontally) across departmental boundaries. They also continue to report on their overall performance to the head of their department whose authority flows downwards (vertically) within his or her department.

Taking it further, since not all women are excellent line managers, or men excellent project managers, this inequality benefit can be even further “taken advantage” of by establishing whatever they might be excellent at that others are not. This will be made possible, because of the one benefit a matrix organization has above all else, which is that it optimizes resources from both angles continuously.

For example, look at the flexible structure of a family. It can include members of different abilities both horizontally and vertically, and by allowing each member to succeed using his own methods, a group of unequal people can cooperate flexibly and without excessive internal communication toward an implicit goal.

In a matrix organization, it is easier to accept “Who You Are,” through which implicit goals are set. Any group wants to be itself and improve itself qualitatively, which requires both external methods such as excluding the Other, and internal ones such as improving the moral discipline and capabilities of individuals.

By way of contrast, a typical pyramid-based or vertical-only structure relies on people being interchangeable parts, some of which rise by attempting to be “perfect,” resulting in a “crab bucket” effect where every person competes against every other for the same things. This encourages dark organization by forcing people into a defensive mindset, at which point they exploit the organization for their own purposes, which usually takes the form of incompetents getting promoted because they “worked the system” and “played the game” instead of trying to achieve the goals of the organization.

A more flexible organization can be found in a civilization of families, where the civilization itself is understood to be a “family” because it will almost automatically mitigate the risk posed by social organizations. In other words: everyone has a place, in exchange for these places being unequal, and everyone works toward the same goal as they can according to their abilities.

We could call it the Family World Order (FWO) after a statement by Queen Elizabeth II. When asked what (Her Majesty’s) highest priority was, she answered “Family.” She understands that civilization must be a family, and within that have health families, so that each individual is guided to a cooperative role instead of competing against all others.

Many of the defects of our society blamed on capitalism are in fact aspects of the managerial pyramid structure. Without social order, where each person has a rank and within that, a level of horizontal specialization, competition becomes destructive. Where there is stability first, the tendency toward dark organizations is limited.

For those of us looking to replace the NWO, the FWO offers a consistent model that is both flexible and resilient. It also fits with traditional ideas of nation, caste and decentralized cooperation through strong principles and implicit truths shared through culture and genetics. As the old order fails, let us strive for this new better option.

How To Destroy An Aristocracy

Monday, June 26th, 2017

Democracy and aristocracy cannot coexist. As soon as there is conflict within the power structure, the aristocracy becomes a mouthpiece for whoever wins. In this case it was democracy, which simpers over every underdog and hates every naturally healthy thing, slating the aristocracy for destruction by outsourcing of opinions to the herd:

“My government will make further progress to tackle the gender pay gap and discrimination against people on the basis of their race, faith, gender, disability, or sexual orientation,” she said, before continuing on to talk about other noteworthy initiatives such as prioritizing mental healthcare, investigating the recent tragedy at Grenfell Tower, fighting climate change and terrorism, and supporting victims of domestic violence and abuse.

The most sensible policy on homosexuals et al. is to leave them be in exchange for their willingness to keep their activities invisible. You do not want to live in a society of pogroms, which will also force gays to adopt heterosexual lifestyles, possibly passing along whatever deleterious genetics caused nature to make them gay in the first place.

Like all good policy, this one should not be formalized but culture. The State, given any power, becomes abusive, so the best power does not involve the state but instead informal, flexible and resilient organizations like aristocracy, culture, religion, and of course a caste system so the sensible people make buying and social decisions, instead of leaving it to the turnip-picking proles.

Unfortunately, long ago our Western aristocracy was bought from within by the middle classes. The aristocrats sought only to defend their people; the middle class would help them only if it also got power. Thus mercantile elements, symbolized by some as a race of hook-nosed creatures, took over from within.

And now, we have a Queen issuing public statements which could have come from Evergreen College or the Alt Lite.

Diversity Fails Even With Nice / Smart / Assimilated Minorities

Monday, June 26th, 2017

An Asian dean at Yale, obviously an accomplished woman, fell into the same behaviors as other minorities when she lashed out at white people in a series of angry posts:

June Chu, who came under fire earlier in 2017 for using disparaging terms like “white trash” in Yelp reviews, has left Yale University.

…Chu had been placed on leave by Yale towards the end of May over disparaging remarks she made on Yelp towards local establishments surrounding New Haven, Connecticut, where the university is located.

“This establishment is definitely not authentic by any stretch of any imagination and perfect for those low-class folks who believe this is a real night out,” Chu wrote in one post. In another review, Chu wrote that the restaurant was perfect for anyone who was “white trash.”

From a political point of view, this behavior is baffling. She clearly benefited from her position in American society, succeeded more than most, and was not a candidate for violent crime or running people over with trucks of peace. In fact, by all standards she was living the good life.

From a naturalistic standpoint, however, her behavior makes perfect sense. Her subspecies finds itself in territory that appears to be controlled by another subspecies. Therefore, they are not safe until they have control. The correct solution is to dominate them, which can be done by breaking down their self-esteem and then seizing control.

Her comments applied to ethnic restaurants, which are not only typically dumbed down for mainstream consumers, but are often staffed by other minorities. In this city, all the Chinese food is made by Mexicans or Guatemalans. It is entirely understandable that it would not be “authentic” under those circumstances.

While other people have spent their time bashing specific racial groups, I have dedicated the last twenty-five years to writing about how what we need is not racism but nationalism. Nationalism recognizes that each group acts in self-interest, and that diversity puts each group in a position where other groups are competition and thus enemies to be dominated.

Even “nice” minorities — and probably everyone on Earth would prefer a college-educated professional Asian lady living next door to an Arab Muslim radical — find themselves caught up in this cycle, and while most are savvy enough to hide it, it peeks out from behind the curtains of denial now and again.

Platonic Forms In Quantum Physics

Monday, June 26th, 2017

Plato remains widely misunderstood, and his concept of forms perhaps the most of all. Plato wrote an early form of Germanic Idealism, where he specified that pattern was more important than material substance or linear causality. Perhaps the most unsettling implication of this idea is the notion that cause-and-effect are not limited by time or physical content, but are determined by pattern alone.

Many years later, science writers are discovering Platonic forms in quantum physics through the notion of decoherence (as opposed to incoherence, of which I am frequently accused):

Quantum effects such as interference rely on the wave functions of different entities being coordinated (the technical term is coherent) with one another. If they’re not, the effects are averaged away. That sort of coherence is what permits the quantum property of superposition, in which particles are said to be in two or more states at once.

…If their wave functions are not coherent, two states cannot interfere, nor maintain a superposition. The process called decoherence therefore destroys these fundamentally quantum properties, and the states behave more like distinct classical systems.

…What, though, causes decoherence? This arises because of a long-neglected aspect of quantum entities: their environment. The way a quantum system behaves and evolves can depend crucially on the fact that it doesn’t exist in isolation.

…If one quantum object interacts with another, they become linked into a composite superposition: in some sense, they become a single system. This is, in fact, the only thing that can happen in such an interaction, according to quantum mechanics. The two objects are then said to be entangled.

Quantum objects interact on the basis of being coherent with one another, or being parts of the same pattern, and this enables them to function as a single system. This in turn means that patterns do not dissolve because their parts tend toward integration with the larger pattern.

Those patterns which fit with another, like phrases in music complementing one another, constitute a larger pattern, and so endure more than the chaos of everyday existence, which follows classical physics because it has no higher degree of organization.

In other words, our world is comprised of patterns, and where those break down we have raw entropic data, a kind of miscellany, in which no piece has a particular relation to the whole.

Our ignorance to patterns implies that we have lost touch with the world, and instead have receded to a world of our personal human desires and whatever the group is chattering about today.

We can see that through our alienation from the world as it is directly experienced through our neurosis, or confusion of cause and effect, brought on by socializing taking over our minds:

Originally, Men simply perceived and believed the suprasensory reality – they saw and heard the voices of spirits, gods and demons…

Then the world became more confined to perception by the five senses. The spirit reality could only be perceived as a result of special rituals. First there were shamans who specialised in contacting the spirit realm, then there were priests…

Now the spirit reality is so remote to us that we cannot perceive it at all, except in altered states of consciousness such that our consciousness, our self of self awareness, is suppressed – by drug intoxication, disease, in sleep… When we are awake, alert and in clear consciousness we live in a world of five senses merely, from which spirits, gods and demons are absent.

In the long term, quantum physics affirms the beliefs of the ancients.

There is an invisible order.

As soon as we interact with it, the die is cast.

Focus on those moments of interaction force our minds away from seeing the underlying structure.

This structure is consistent with classical mechanics, but goes beyond it.

VDARE Celebrates Our Definition Of White Genocide

Monday, June 26th, 2017

It was great news to see Jason Kessler reporting on the fact that by the UN definition white genocide is indeed genocide on June 19, 2017:

According to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, the United Nations has a very interesting definition of genocide: “Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group … ”

“Killing members of the group”
“Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”
“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”
“Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”
“Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”

The relevance of this to the plight of whites, in the U.S. and worldwide, is obvious.

It’s great to see they agree with us. Our page on this topic, published on June 20, 2016, covers the same information:

The United Nations (UN) defines genocide as:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.1

Diversity “inflicts on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.” When different ethnic or religious groups have been placed nearby, they have fought each other in a pattern that has been consistent since the dawn of time. Then, as we can see by observing the remains later, the two groups assimilate each other, and in the process lose what made them unique. These leftover groups never attain the characteristics of the original groups and generally fade away, like the ruins of a once-great civilization. This is what our leaders have in store for us.

It’s good to see other sources come to agree with us.

Western Leadership Is Needed More Than Ever. Can The Alt Right Fit The Bill?

Monday, June 26th, 2017

Without advancing a robust analysis of leadership qualities, we can note that the quality of Western civilization and the quality of its leadership degenerated in parallel.

If anything demonstrated this collapse of leadership, it must be recent elections.

The 2016 US election revealed that the people you vote for do not really run the country because candidates must be either allied with the entrenched globalist cosmopolitan establishment or against it. Candidates who are aligned with the globalists will, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they are from, support the further expansion of globalism. Candidates against the globalists — and these tend to come exclusively from the Right, which opposes utilitarian thinking like globalism — alone will be willing to resist the agenda that is thrust upon us. This made the 2016 election into a question of globalism versus nationalism (“populism”) and not much else.

The 2017 British snap election revealed that Marxist voters lack particular opinions about any candidate, causing a “hung” outcome. The Marxists bribed college students to vote for free student loans, which being children they thought was a good idea, and the Tories demonstrated the usual conservative befuddlement and infighting.

The take-away here is that before 2016 citizens were subject to global leadership. This caused citizens to become Marxists over a period of a few decades. Marxists are quite happy with global leadership because it is ideological, and to a Marxist, any victory that places us within the ideological camp is a Marxist victory; all ideology shifts ever-Leftward because it is based in moral judgment of the individual, not concern for the outcomes of our actions as a group over the broader span of history.

The origins of global Marxism are only now slowly emerging.  A neoliberal economic system, characterising the Western world, provided incentives for a neo-liberal academia to perpetuate itself via the next leaders trained as “global” leaders. Of course, when you want self-perpetuation, you will implement rules that will discourage any behavior other than self-perpetuation.

The first clue — that we are using “programmed” leaders — appears when investigating the age of political leaders over time. Given that most people acknowledge political representatives to be of an “age of wisdom,”,  it is remarkable to see how youthful 44 year-olds (Blair and Cameron) became Prime Minister of Great Britain (verifiably a globalist Mecca). Globalists simply used these poor chaps as tools after which they both voluntarily resigned.

And it is not as if only a few young “leaders” popped up, thousands are being groomed as we speak, for what is intended to be the next wave.

The most critical technique enabling this self-perpetuation via programmed leaders was to prohibit long term risk/threat assessments. As long as no one is thinking in the long term, the global order cannot be endangered. But when people start asking how all our programs will perpetuate themselves for longer than a century, panic arises as it becomes clear that the global order is mentally deranged. For this reason, the global order focuses on youth so that they can idealize its sense of being extremely temporary. Youth culture emphasizes being cool and dying before that cool fades away. For any political system that may not last more than another human lifetime, an obsession with youth pays fat dividends.

Current Western political leaders such as Justin Trudeau, Prime Minster of Canada (45 years), are totally oblivious to long term risks. One would think Minsters of Defence would consider long term risks, but as Norway’s Marie Eriksen (41 years) demonstrate, having a law degree does not improve long term risk awareness. They are focused on how to succeed in the political system itself as it is now, and not in the wider world of history and nature as it will be for centuries.

It (((is))) considered America’s job to keep the world safe. Does that at least mean that America does long term long term threat assessments?

No, the hubris of global leadership made America think that everybody is global (while BRICs are not), causing them to (progressively) relinquish the “unnecessary” duty of long term risk/threat assessments. That is politically convenient, because it means more money for social programs.

How does a civilization regain its national self-interest, which in effect displaces the globalists? It does the unpopular thing, which is to think of the long-term effects of its actions. This upsets most people, who want to think about the here and now and the benefits that can come to them through government.

This long-term view will require taking risk into account, because the longer the term one considers, the more important risk — unexpected events, resource depletion, organizational collapse, market or political changes — becomes. From that point of view, we can look back at everything in society and see the importance and producing and training quality future leaders.

For the Alt Right to prevail, it must continue its “cultural wave” of changing minds and hearts to see that genetics is the root of civilization and that we thrive through realistic assessment of the human condition, which brings us to the eternal traditions that shaped Western Civilization to be great so many years ago.

That in turn requires the Alt Right to frame the question of leadership in a realistic way so that it can produce realistic leaders to compete with the endless globalist drones, and through that, to lay the groundwork for Western restoration through people who are ready to take us past the intermediate stage of the 2016 populist wave.

Zero Is The Number

Sunday, June 25th, 2017

A new phrase is floating around: “Zero is the number.”

This refers to how we fix the problem of diversity, which ruins whatever civilization is foolish enough to adopt it. People ask how many immigrants should come in our country, or how many people from other ethnic groups should live among us, and the answer is that zero other people can live among us. It will not help them, and it will destroy us.

In Brussels and Washington, the politicians are rubbing their hands over the lengthy debates they plan to have about the “appropriate” numbers for immigration and for refugees in each town. They win the debate if we even start it, because entering that debate signals acceptance for diversity and immigration in the first place. In reality, we cannot tolerate either.

Zero is the number. Civilizations survive based on several prerequisites. They need to be isolated. They need to be able to feed their citizens. They need to be able to defend themselves. And they need to be homogeneous, because anything else — no matter how nice, smart, kind or friendly the other groups are — means that there can be no social standards, culture and hierarchy.

This is why the Left loves diversity. They want to bring in the Other so that they can destroy culture and then, we will have no principle of social organization other than government. They want a group which will feel intimidated by us, so will be defensive and resist us. Finally, they want to breed us into a beige new race, committing genocide against us.

If we let them do any of this, they will wait a few months, then pick up the pace again. They will never stop. The only way to survive is to nip this in the bud and oppose it entirely. Those who are not of the founding group of a country, like Germans in Germany or Japanese in Japan, needs to go back home. If they are mixed, they need to go to mixed-race areas like Dubai or Brazil.

There is no other way. Everything else ends in our destruction. Zero is the number.

Libertarianism Is A Variety Of Leftism And Should Be Avoided

Sunday, June 25th, 2017

What are libertarians? Libertarians (sometimes called “lolberts”) are classical liberals: people who believe that everyone is competent, and therefore that what the market chooses will be the best solution. They tend to be rugged individualists who want as few rules as possible regulating their conduct, including use of drugs and gun ownership.

Naturally, realists find this kind of comical. What use is liberty, when most of the people on your planet will behave simply like selfish fools? We are back to the problem with utilitarianism and democracy, which is that there is no wisdom of crowds; the crowd is a plague of locusts who will devour everything, give nothing back, and leave a ruin which cannot regenerate.

Utilitarianism, after all, sounds good on paper. You do what brings happiness to the most. Well, how do you find out what makes them happy? Simple: you ask them. But then… but then we are into the realm of what humans think, not what they do, and this is an inherently superficial realm because we barely know ourselves.

The same is true of democracy. People vote in self-interest. How the heck do they know? They guess, or “estimate,” if we are being polite, but most of these people run out of money a week before the next paycheck. And they are supposed to understand financial policy, foreign affairs, domestic tranquility, human genetics and long-term survival?

People have an inner dimension and an outer one. The outer one is easily influenced; it is where socialization rests, their reactions and fears, desires and whims, and the narrative they tell themselves about their lives, why those are good, and what they are intending to do. The outer layer is inherently after-the-fact; we observe our world and make up stories about it that make it make sense.

The inner dimension is less easily influenced. This consists mostly of urges, like a primal will to assert oneself as independent and worthwhile, a desire to do good — in some — and any intuition, concept of spirit or soul, and basic instinct to a person. This is the part of us that is both extremely “animal” and most cerebral, not as material- and event-driven as the outer layer.

Ironically, an inversion occurs here, as it usually does when we cross layers. From the outside, the inner dimension looks like the outer dimension and the outer dimension looks like the inner. That is: the part of other people that is accessible to us — their outer dimension — appears to be their actual self. We re-order reality to be convenient for our minds.

For this reason, individualism deceives us. We think we are living for our true selves, but in fact, we are living through the outer dimension of ourselves and others. This means the most malleable, least personal and most conformist parts of ourselves. Individualism inverts individuality by making us justify our “me-first” attitude in the language of others, which then destroys that individuality.

As always with human “good intentions”: it’s a trap!

Now this requires us to revisit our ideas of equality and individualism. These things, instead of liberating us, create utilitarianism, or a society devoted to minimums shared by the largest group, which is in effect a suppression of individuality. While egalitarian ideas sound good to us at first, they really reduce us to our most trivial parts, ignoring who we are.

That allows us to have some fun laughing at lolberts virtue signaling about how individualistic they are:

Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy that considers all people deserving of equal rights. In contrast, Spencer is a tribalist and collectivist whose personal commitment to identity politics vastly exceeds the left’s.

No, you are not individuals; you are conformists hiding behind “individualism” as a way of disguising the fact that you have no inner purpose or plan for civilization. You have retreated from the notion that humanity can succeed, and now all you want is your condominium and grocery store, and to hope the rest just goes away.

As people in horror movies inevitably find out, wishing the monster would go away never works. The monster here is our lack of purpose, as a species and as communities within that species; our lack of purpose arose from our dedication to mercantile matters, thanks to the rising middle class, instead of virtue or moral behavior that leads to the best results in the longest term.

We need a non-modern society. Modernity is the era of egalitarianism, which as shown above, is not about individuality but forming a superficial mass of people to mobilize toward one fascination or another. You can dress up egalitarianism in different costumes, like libertarians pretend to be frontier woodsmen, but in reality, all of it is the same.

And the term “collectivist” should cue you in that you are about to be subjected to utter stupidity. Collectivists are individuals because a mob is formed of selfish people each acting so that he gets what he wants, with the mob enforcing his right to do it. This is why mobs are known for lynchings, looting and turnstile jumping. They are formed of selfish individuals who want to avoid accountability.

On the other hand, tribalism offers us something that is not entrenched in our sick modern individualism. Tribes have an identity, which means a purpose and goal, and they have principles. Each person serves an unequal role in the tribe but so long as they help achieve this cooperative goal, they are accepted and respected as part of the community.

Tribalism requires us to reach down into those inner traits. What would we sacrifice for? What is worth dying for? At the end of the day, we rely on our intuition. Life is good, therefore something good created it. Other people can be good, so we care for them. We do not want to be placeless, identityless, and purposeless just so we can claim to be individualists. We want a place and purpose to bond us to life and make it worth living.

Recommended Reading