Very few people understand the conservative argument for “small government.” It takes this basic form: reduce government so that it no longer has an ideological goal, but acts only as a support/defense infrastructure for culture.
When government gets an ideological mandate, such as “enforce equality,” it becomes a self-guiding perpetually expanding entity with a blank check from the voters to do whatever it wants so long as it can justify those acts under the broad umbrella of its ideological objectives.
The same things that liberals feared with the government regarding terrorism — that fear of terror would be used to justify any number of intrusive acts — are also true of government objectives like civil rights, anti-poverty, gender equality, wealth redistribution and anti-discrimination. All of them create that blank check and make government grow like a tumor.
Odd as it seems, the point is not size of government per se, but size of government reach. In other words, if government focuses on defense, roads and space exploration, it presents no threat because it has a finite goal that does not submit to mission creep. How do you justify having military police in every city in the name of space exploration? (Actually, I am sorry I asked: bureaucrats have probably dispatched a fact-finding commission to find a way.)
If the citizens of a nation are so foolish as to give government an open mandate to do anything it can to achieve an ideological goal, they have opened the gates. Ideology reflects what people feel should be, not what is. There is no check for success in that feedback loop because it is based exclusively on feelings. Thus when ideological programs fail, the answer is to try even harder with the same idea. If the programs succeed, they are used to justify new objectives which are simply expanded versions of the old.
Imagine a department in your workplace. The owners decide that it is essential to be inclusive to fifth-dimensional beings. This requires redesigning the building to have M.C. Escher style recursive staircases, and to rethink the concept of “rooms” entirely. Ordinary people require velcro to stick to the ceilings because up is no longer up and down is no longer down. All drinks and food must be in paste form. Harmful parts of the color spectrum, and the light spectrum, must be filtered, requiring ordinary people to wear 3D glasses with one red and one blue lens each. Since fifth-dimensional beings do not experience time as we do, the office runs on a 24-hour rolling schedule and measures those hours in radians. Soon every aspect of the office has been entirely re-dedicated to first figuring out how to accommodate the fifth-dimensional beings, and only second (and optionally, if the first is not accomplished) act out its normal role. Quality and productivity plummet but management sees this as resistance to its grand plan, and doubles down on punishing those who do not comply. In five years, the only people left in the office are those who are good at one thing: making a comfortable environment for fifth-dimensional beings. Everyone else has been fired or fled.
The same has happened to American government, following in the footsteps of other governments. Let us look at the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. In the former case, ideology supplanted reality and made the nation unable to feed itself. In the latter, a fascination with Jews and racial purity led the nation toward military and political disaster. The problem in both cases was that a single principle took over from the multiple principles of quality government. Ideology tends toward a single principle because its goal is to focus people on one thing and have them hammer at it until they force it on others. This is why ideology is so devastatingly effective. Non-ideological governments, called “conservative” now, focus on multiple methods of achieving what is known as health, or a society that aims toward the excellent and has happy residents as a result.
When ideology takes over government, the bureaucracy swells and becomes self-important, and starts to view any criticism as treason. It then purges those critics and, more importantly, rewards only those who achieve ideology-first and reality-second. This drives away anyone who might know better. Like many human failures, this path to death is driven by our own inability to see the obvious because we have re-trained our minds on a single focus. When conservatives say they want small government, what they mean is to remove ideology from government and instead focus on real-world activities that create health, which are generally best administered by culture and natural selection while government takes care of defense, roads and space exploration.
At its founding, America was a WASP nation. This acronym, originally meaning “White Anglo-Saxon Protestants,” generally included those of indigenous Western European heritage regardless of religion. English, Scots, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians, northern French and Austrians fell under this banner. Genetic outlier and admixed groups like Greeks, Italians, southern French, Slavs, Jews, Poles and Irish did not.
As industry boomed in the northeast, it needed more menial laborers: unskilled, repetitive task-doers who could be paid minimal wages which would, relativistically, be seen as a great step up in condition of life. The importation began with a flood of Irish, then Italians, Greeks and Poles. The WASP establishment disliked this process but rather than fight it, retreated behind a wall of money and exclusivity. The fuse was lit however, and during the Civil War it became clear how useful these “New Americans” were: they could be counted on to wage war on those more prosperous or simply more selective than themselves. With the advent of massed infantry charges and repeating rifles, the skill of warriors became less important than having a willing mass which would charge forward when the horn blew.
When the new century dawned, the world wars required that the West — ironically like both Napoleon and Genghis Khan — adopt a pose of being accepting of all as a means of differentiating itself from those nasty, exclusive nationalist and monarchist states. Each war increased the propaganda for acceptance and solidarity based on position, such as political stance or economic position as workers, and this enabled the West to produce the human wave it needed to win its wars. Unfortunately, in a pattern that would repeat time and again, most of the casualties were from the original WASP contingent. When you read the names in the old 13 colonies churches, you see mostly English, German and Scots names with a smattering of Dutch and French. When you read the casualties from the first two world wars, the same pattern prevails.
During the second world war American propaganda reached new intensity. Not only did it set the stage for the future of “perpetual war,” or constant definition of our purpose as struggle against impediments to ideological objectives such as democracy, but it also established egalitarian dogma as the basis of why we considered ourselves exceptional. No longer was America the “city on the hill” for its morality of doing the right thing, but for its morality of inclusivity. Not surprisingly, the so-called Greatest Generation — with non-WASPs more prevalent because of their lower casualties — voted for a series of disastrous immigration acts, first in 1958 and then in 1965, which guaranteed that the new population of the country would be mostly non-WASP.
Liberals rejoiced. Their line for years had been that the snooty WASPs, who retreated from the Irish/Italian/Polish immigration waves to gated communities, were the source of our misery and injustice. In their thinking, if the WASPs were removed, a new Utopia would reign. That event happened in the 1990s, when the work-ethic of the 1950s combined with the politics of 1968 as the Baby Boomers assumed positions of authority across the board, and the immigration that had been nascent even when Ronald Reagan made his 1987 compromise became a flood. The new rules had been posted: liberals are now in control, and everyone is welcome to come get a slice of the American pie. What occurred was predictable, since people act both in their own interests and through the path of least resistance. The third world fled its homelands and poured into the West, both America and Europe. Unable to attack the flood politically for fear of being seen as Hitler or the antiquated WASP establishment, conservatives retreated.
No one called the liberals on the failure of their plan. They promised a new land of peace, justice and equality with the demise of the WASPs. Instead what they produced was a faddish land where the new elites, generally of the former immigrant stock, chased after trends and clickbait statements to make to the press, while the newest immigrant groups joined in the civil rights experience by using the same justification that achieved affirmative action and federal benefits for African-Americans. This resulted in a society dedicated to taking from its founders and giving to new warm bodies, and no one could criticize it, or they would be branded as racist in the media and lose their jobs, homes, spouses, friends and legal protection.
Fast-forward twenty years from that point and the Rainbow Nation is in chaos. Race riots are a regular occurrence to which the only solution seems to be not to police non-white groups, who still have disproportionate rates of crime and victimization compared to WASP groups. Affirmative action has not resulted in widespread equality, but it has resulted in widespread expense, since the law does not recognize the difference between a qualified minority candidate and an unqualified one. Even more, as Robert Putnam discovered in his landmark study, diversity increases alienation and distrust even within ethnic groups. As our presidential candidates openly admit to treasonous scandals, our military is embroiled in corruption, and control by moneyed interests reaches a new peak, we might ask the role that our lack of cooperation with each other plays in those developments.
Our choice is clear: we either go back to what worked, which was a Western European only nation, or we continue down the path of diversity which is the policy that produced most third world nations. As Ann Coulter clarified for us all, this is not only a “clash of civilizations” but clash of civilization-models. In particular, our method works better; the third world method works less well; by merging our method with the third world method, we will end up with the third world method, and no one will benefit:
You fled that culture. Because it is a — there are a lot of problems with that culture. Hopefully, it can be changed. But we can share our culture with other nations without bringing all of their people here. When you bring the people here, you bring those cultures here. That includes honor killings, it includes uncles raping their nieces, it includes dumping litter all over, it includes not paying your taxes, it includes paying bribes to government officials. That isn’t our culture.
You can see the successful cultures in the world. They have been studied ad infinitum, America is about — it is the best in the world and we are about to lose it. And everyone who lives here is going to lose that. And the people who are going to suffer the most are the weakest ones. It’s the women. It’s the children. … No country has ever had the sort of respect for women that Anglo America does and that is going out the door.
Ann might as well have extrapolated to Western European culture in general: no society has had so much reverence for learning, for excellence instead of mere participation, for sacredness and sacred roles to the genders, for respect for nature, and for caring for children. Compared to us the rest of the world is a cold, dark and unforgiving place, and yet in our best of days, we were also the most warlike, vigorously squashing whatever offended our values. There is a connection: among other things, Western Europe is the culture of the hard rule. We know what we like, and what we do not, and we eject the bad and multiply the good, while being skeptical of the unknowns. At least, that is how we were during the best of our days. Since the rise of liberalism, these positive attributes have been attenuated.
The facts of this complex dilemma take two dimensions. Our society makes the first taboo, which is noticing that genetic differences result from societies which take the path we did not. The second is more complex, and relates more closely to Putnam’s revelations: homogenous societies, with a strong cultural and ethnic identity, provide the best basis for working together and therefore thrive in a lack of internal friction. Even more important is the notion of identity, and having pride in who you are and your history, so that you want to continue this beyond the threshold of personal convenience. Identity turns our method into a way of life and a tendency imbued deep within every soul. It means we do not need constant government to prevent third-world style chaos, but have high-trust societies where cooperation is more prevalent than coercion. We might call this the “first world method” because all first-world societies became that way under its rule.
In contrast, third world societies are the most individualistic, “free,” autonomous, cheerful, tolerant places on earth. There, you do whatever you want. In exchange, you have less social order and fewer functional institutions. In other words, they are closer to the state before civilization. This is why the vast majority of third-world societies are low on social standards; the focus is on the autonomy of the individual, and the unintended secondary consequences are the lack of social order, rule by warlords and gangs, corruption and high crime. But to a true individualist, this is a benefit not a curse. The individual is restrained by nothing and can do whatever he or she wants with no negative feedback from society and no enforcement of standards. These societies have more freedom than the first world, and their tolerance is such that they admit any newcomers, which is why almost all of them are mixed-race. They are also highly sexually liberated for the most part, with no tedious social standards forcing boys and girls to wait until long-term commitment for sex (even in countries with strong putative sexual morality, the reality is more liberated). The third world is the liberal ideal, although liberals want to hang on to first-world conveniences and will attempt to do so through totalitarianism, which as we see in the Russian, Venezuelan, Cuban and East German experiments, does not quite work out as expected.
In the West, the first-world method resulted in our meteoric rise to the top of the world. We then colonized it, bringing with us technology in exchange for what the left calls “oppression” but was more likely the grim process of beating radical individualists into conformity so they could actually achieve something. Where we have retreated, technology remains, but it has now become a tool of the corrupt warlords and gangs rather than a means of restraining them. In other words, the third-world method has absorbed the first-world one. The same is being attempted in the United States and European Union, but even now the writing on the wall suggests this will lead to more of what the rest of the world is doing. Nine out of ten humans live in third-world conditions or near to them, with the Western Europeans in the US and EU as the outliers. Naturally the rest of the group wants us to conform, and stop rising above their level, so that no one feels challenged by the possibility of life being better. Mediocrity loves company.
How can we pull out of this tailspin? The germ of it lies in accepting Western European exceptionalism: our method works better, but we cannot share it with others by inviting them here, only by succeeding and making them jealous and angry to the point where they implement it in their home countries. Diversity does not work. It cannot work because it is paradoxical. It assumes that all people are the same and that beating the same rules into them will achieve the same results. Yet the lesson that colonialism taught was that this approach does not work either. Each group must develop the “first-world method” on its own; it cannot be taught. Western Europeans must withdraw to our own spaces in America and Europe, and eject everyone else to take our lessons home to their countries, which badly need improvement. It is not our responsibility to fix them, because if we assume that, it takes the burden off of those countries to improve themselves. And then we would live in a WASP world with one vital change, which is that we will remove the “gated communities” plus cheap labor formula of the early WASP decline. That would look more like this promising vision from South Africa:
But in the midst of a sinking South Africa, there is one beacon of hope: the Afrikaner self-governed town of Orania.
Orania in today’s South Africa is a bit like Asterix’s village in conquered Gaul. The town is a private entity that has striven since its founding in 1991 to provide a self-determined homeland for Afrikaners. Here Afrikaans is the official language. All work, even manual labour, is done by Afrikaners. In that way, jobs for poor Afrikaners are created. There is no interference from government in how Oranians run their businesses, and there are many one-man enterprises. Apart from having to pay a low yearly registration tax, we are left alone.
Crime is virtually non-existent in Orania. Here is no violent crime, and rare incidents of theft, committed by fellow Afrikaners, are quickly resolved; in such cases, the transgressor has to do community work for minor offences, or otherwise has to leave town.
Notice the vital difference: this community requires affirmative and constructive participation, and it wields a great threat to those who do not conform, which is exile. Much as Europeans sent their unwanted to Tripoli and Americans sent them into Mexico, this population can eject those who commit crimes. The point is that being in this society is a privilege, not a “right,” and that only those who uphold the first-world method get to stay there. This makes it something to reach for by its citizens, and something to emulate by the third world. It also ends the tedious duality of importing third-worlders to do our cheap unskilled jobs, then a generation later noticing the vast social impact of creating a third world within the first. Send the Irish, Italians and Poles back; send the Mexicans, Chinese and Africans back. Restore America and Europe to their Western European roots, because that is when we were not just barely functional but great, and it gave us the pride to have the will to work together.
The average social program that takes seventy years to produce results would be viewed with skepticism. But not liberal social programs. Those are “good,” by the sentiment of the herd, so they never get assessed for whether or not they achieved — well, anything.
Since the second World War, America and Western Europe have veered to the left. This was a necessary fiction to make the fascists and National Socialists seem like outliers, rather than the extremist version of the norm that they were. As part of this veering to the left, liberals have infiltrated schools and media and have been busy teaching Americans to lean left.
Thus, the dramatic headlines: social liberals now match the number of social conservatives. No mention of the fact that no propaganda was needed to produce those social conservatives, nor were they products of education or media addiction. They just were, as an outpouring of culture and common sense.
Later in the article, this mention sneaks out:
Gallup first asked Americans to describe their views on social issues in 1999, and has repeated the question at least annually since 2001.The broad trend has been toward a shrinking conservative advantage, although that was temporarily interrupted during the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency. Since then, the conservative advantage continued to diminish until it was wiped out this year.
In other words, this reflects a very recent event and the culmination of a concerted effort to brainwash people into accepting official state ideology. It does not show us Americans as a whole finding liberalism more acceptable, only that the political environment has become so polarizing that people are drifting to extremes, shaped by media and government education.
If you listen to the liberals tell it, this is the Great Awakening as people suddenly realize that liberalism is “reality-based” and “on the right side of history.” More likely it shows the widening split in our society between the clueless conformists and the resistance, with a third of them following the bandwagon while another third tries to sit out and hopes it all blows over.
The media inflates again with seemingly endless bloviation about the Iraq war. Again this exists to conceal some difficult truths behind the scenes. Let us investigate the Iraq war (II) and see what may be found.
At first the question seems simple and to coincide with the one asked by the media: was this a just war? Was it a successful war? And, did it simply damage American prestige worldwide?
Each of these questions aims to hide a more complex truth.
First, was this a just war? Meaning: did the bad guys deserve punishment, and are we in a moral position to do it? Glossing over for a moment the specious and irrelevant question of whether there is morality to war, as it is generally a thought debated by those far from the battlefields who have no intention of participating, let us look to Saddam Hussein. There was much to admire about him as he unified Iraq at least temporarily.
However, the dark side to Saddam Hussein was that he was also the ruling power in the Arab world and he had supported terrorist attacks against Israel including launching Scud missiles from long distances. That in turn prompted the question of whether Iraq had “WMD,” a term that in its honest use means NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) weapons. Lobbing 150kg of Semtex into downtown Haifa is bad enough, but hitting it with the same amount of VX gas could achieve a measurable percentage of genocide and precipitate a collapse of Israel. Speaking as realists, we must recognize that the West would not simply sit on its hands when that happened, so a rather extensive conflict would result. Further, Iraq was the weapons clearinghouse of the middle east, and many of those ended up in the hands of Palestinian terror groups. For these reasons, the war on Hussein was “justified” if such a thing must be done.
In addition, the war against Hussein represented a clear response to the middle east as a whole: if terrorist attacks happen to the United States, we will show up to where you are and destroy enough stuff that you will regret your support. Then you will be engaged in fighting us in your backyard and will not have the time or resources to follow up on terror attacks. This also displaced all terrorists from Iraq, a populous area, to the more sparsely-populated regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan where they could be droned from armchair comfort.
The question of WMD was never resolved. Iraq had developed WMD in the past and might be doing so currently. What changed this question was Hussein’s ability to launch Scuds and the rising power of Islamic “extremism” in response to the 9/11 attacks. The Iraq war took all of that down a peg. Oddly, like the Viet Nam war, the Iraq war was massively successful in that it dissuaded others from following the path of mideast terror. Resistance happens in increments and is emboldened by a lack of strong response, because that means that one can be a revolutionary and also face a likelihood of zero penalty. When the penalty rises, support falls. In the same way that the Viet Nam war stopped Chinese Communist expansion, the Iraq war stopped Muslim extremist expansion. This re-asserted a geopolitical balance where the nations intolerant of this resistance movement held the upper hand by the fact of not only being unwilling to tolerate it, but picking a semi-arbitrary nation to sacrifice for having supported it in the past. Message delivered: support this and you may be next.
Then there comes the question as to whether Iraq was a successful war and with it, the question of whether America lost or won. The factors that determined these questions were beyond a single president. It makes sense to divide the Iraq action into two parts, the “war” and the “occupation.” The first resembles what Bush I did, which was to smash the opposing army and level huge parts of its industrial capacity, cutting it back if not to the stone age at least to less harmful levels. As in the first Iraq war, the second one — the war part at least — was successful. After that came the occupation, where almost all of the casualties and expense occurred. Occupations, as happened also in Viet Nam, are generally costly because all of the strategic advantage goes to the guerrillas, much as it did during the American revolution. As luck has it, occupations are also virtually demanded by any democracy fighting a war because it cannot support the un-democratic alternative, which is relocation or destruction of the subjugated population. You can avoid a guerrilla war, but it takes extreme means.
Saddam Hussein lobbed missiles at Israel, experimented with WMDs, gassed his own people and supported terrorists. Together these showed a pattern that revealed a strong nose-thumbing at Western authority in the middle east, which is essential since the middle east is Europe’s southern flank. This was in itself not a problem, but with 9/11 the Islamic terrorists got too arrogant and strong for our interests, so they had to be spanked down. In Iraq, this consisted of a successful war to depose a tyrant, and a less-successful occupation demanded by our “democratic feelings.” In Afghanistan, it consisted of a prolonged guerrilla war which drove its targets to remote areas where we identify them and drone them to this day. Much like Viet Nam, this war pushed back against a challenger to our authority, and radically reduced the support for terrorist organizations in the middle east.
Whenever reading about the failure of a large entity, whether a corporation or civilization, the temptation rises to ask aloud why no one noticed what was going wrong
The answer can be observed in any organization: political activities, or behaviors which are aimed not at direct results, but solely at holding the group together. The corporate retreat, group hug, and nastier versions like public executions and show trials all fit in this category. As do the leftist favorite of “raising awareness” and the political rally or group discussion of funny things liberal comedians said on TV last night.
Political activities also represent a warning sign. The presence of political activities reveals two problems. First, the group is not holding together well and requires constant conditioning to stay together. Second, a real-world problem or need is being ignored in order to enforce the herd.
The best political activities are totally useless, completely polarizing and comically absurd. If they are useless, they can achieve no damage by failing. Activities that are polarizing both unite the group through finding an enemy and serve to weaken that enemy, in addition to providing an excuse for failure; any lack of achievement is immediately attributed to the enemy working against those participating. The ludicrous nature of most of these activities provides a further insight into their use. Those who engage in humiliating and pointless activities succumb to a Stockholm syndrome-like condition where they must justify their participation, and thus rationalize it as having meaning when it does not. This forces all participants to both turn off their brains and view their self-esteem as contingent upon the success of the agenda.
As an empire dies, political activities — activities that serve no other use than to unify the group — increase in direct proportion to the dysfunction arising from a lack of shared goal. Such dying empires start to resemble cults, in which all activities serve to brainwash the population into not noticing failures of its own narrative, and increasingly punish those who deviate from the official explanation. As the West spirals down into dysfunction, activities like “political correctness” and “social justice” fit within this framework and constitute a form of scapegoating where enemies are chosen at random as a means of unifying the population around something negative, since positive agreement no longer exists.
The difference between the left and right when it comes to speech is that the right identifies threats, while the left targets non-compliance.
While this distinction seems thin to most people, it forms a dividing line between the two: the right reacts to threats, while the left demands all people act toward the same goal.
In other words, there is a middle ground with the right. You can choose not to attack what they hold dear. But with the left, you are either with them, or you are assumed to be against them.
Of the two perspectives, the leftist approach is the more logical. It is designed both to attract converts, and to recognize that no lifestyle or system of belief can thrive with any others. Diversity is an illusion, even of thought. At some point a choice must be made and, while the age of democracy is designed around not making choices, the future belongs to that belief system which puts itself in power and removes or educates away all other options.
The left gains its power from being seen as a revolutionary underdog opposing oppression. This subterfuge creates a public image that is hard to oppose, much as it would be with an anti-pedophilia group, and allows the left to play both roles in government. It portrays itself as both the loyal opposition and the victim, but never the force in power. That way, if anything goes wrong with leftist plans, it is the fault of a vast right-wing conspiracy; if anything goes right, it is a stirring and inspiring story of the little guy rising up and telling the truth to power.
As part of this narrative, the left portrays itself as the victim of rightist-oppression. Frequently mentioned is Joseph McCarthy, who identified a list of security risks, 1/16 of whom were later verified as Soviet spies. In classic right-wing style, he saw a threat and demanded its suppression. Whenever right-wingers point out traitors among us, they are accused of exhuming McCarthy.
Over the past few years however the left has revealed its actual agenda: not censorship of dangerous speech, but removal of all speech except the leftist narrative. They do this by defining certain altruistic-sounding goals, such as avoiding the incitement of hatred, and then expanding the definition over time. Speech codes designed to prevent racial assault have become excuses for suppressing political, artistic, philosophical and scientific speech.
Rightists would benefit from waking up and recognizing the modus operandi of the left. Instead of simply removing threats, we should form a tight clan that excludes all who do not see life in our way. Approve nothing which is not right-wing and if you spot left-wing speech, do your best to sabotage it. It is what they do to you and if you do not play on their level, the disadvantage will forever be yours.
Identity is a strange thing. It can mean different things at different times, and each man has many different identities, each stemming form a different role or stimulus. To quote the Bard “all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players; they have their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts.”
Identity is something told to a child, and assumed naturally by the same as they grow; your name, your parents names, your sex, and later, the standards that your parents hold you to. As you grow, your identity may be defined a little further into your race, class, what things you like and don’t like, what you excel at and that at which you are poor. Moral instruction turns into habits of thought into routine, then virtue.
Vices, if unrestrained, can come to twist their way into one’s identity. A thousand years ago, local culture, language, religion, would all be taken for granted, and absorbed by the individual unconsciously. One’s range of acceptable personas narrowed, even among personalities or identities that might be considered rebellious, or strange. Identity framed you, even if you rebelled against it, it still framed those rebellions. Walls are erected within the psyche; through the narrow canyons and valleys those walls create, one can channel new individuality.
Or at least that was the paradigm in this country and in every land on earth until relatively recently. Beginning in the era of mass media, the intergenerational conveyance of identity could no longer be taken for granted. Mother, father, church, culture, and so on, conveyed identity through a process as old as time. Suddenly those rituals, stories, anecdotes, symbolism- began to have to compete with a rival. Mass media brought its own powerful symbolism, its own new ideologies, its own language, idea-frame and narrative.
The widespread availability of books, along with a literate populace, was the West’s first encounter with the warping effect of mass media. Identity began to be constructed during this period of the Enlightenment, and its spawn were strange ideas- that man was reasonable, and could be constructed. Americans could be made, not born. Rational laws could be agreed to, regardless of cultural baseline.
The nineteenth century brought more of this. Strange figures, entirely self constructed, began to appear, like the bizarre Henry Mortan Stanley and Joshua Abraham Norton. America, then as now, led the charge into the free-radicalization of identity. The anonymity of the city helped this by narrowing identity to who you are, right now, with the past forgotten. New religions formed. A man could become someone completely new; a new name, a new career, new wife, new loyalties. In many ways, this era was a spiritual presaging of leftism and its blank slate ideology. A man was a piece of paper, to be written on as its owner saw fit.
In the 20th century, identity was continuously dislocated further and further from its traditional transmission vehicles. The spiritualism of the 19th century gave way to wholesale interest in Eastern religions, Satanism, and free form buffet spirituality. Gurus proliferated- this was the era of Frithof Schuon and Gurdjieff, the Thule Society and Grail Movement. Youth culture was formed, explicitly making its mission the dialectic of identity. Individualism, through all this, transformed itself into an unsettling cult which elevated personal autonomy above all else.
The dialectic of identity was not chaos, however. These things rarely are.
Instead, the advent of explicitly identity-forming narratives emerged directly from those elements in control of the mass media, which were overwhelmingly left-wing. Individualism is not an essential element of leftism, nor is it a primary Semitic value, and so this push can be seen clearly for what it was; a step down the path of leftism, with its comforting lies, and a further chess move in pursuit of the parasitic evolutionary survival strategy of our new false elites. So, the hyper individualism and identity-forming dialectic of the 20th century came to be a reflection of the uniquely multicultural perspective at its source; people were atomized, to become “rootless cosmopolitans.” Beneath the illusion of identity crafting, there was a default floor laiud, a narrative of acceptable personas and anti-personas to arrive upon.
With the advent of the internet, the process has both accelerated and reversed in interesting ways. The old methods of cultural transmission have been delivered a coup de grace- even the children of faithful evangelical Christians in the American heartland can see their son invent a strange transsexual identity just by internet echo-chambering (see Joshua Alcorn). Yet, on the other hand, the dialectic has turned so hard to the left that it is pushing people into identities they previously would not contemplate. When Chthulu swims leftward, he leaves a big wake.
The bad part about the destruction of traditional identity conveyance is Tumblr and the like. Identity can now be completely constructed, leading people to believe that they are the opposite gender, related to unicorns or secretly inanimate objects, among other mentally ill behaviors.
However, if you are white, the old days of blithely falling into the deracinated narrative are over. The narrative has advanced to a sufficient point where the powers that be are directly and openly anti-European. This leaves the de-racinated, identity-fee new subject with a basically emotional choice; either internalize the narrative, and continue down the path of identity construction ashamed of one’s whiteness, absorbing the negativity. Or, alternately, the narrative can germinate a rebellion.
This is where the internet and its varieties of Tumblr like echo chambers is beginning to be turned against the Cathedral , and it frightens them. The alternative right is the new home of those who have leapt or fallen off of the Cathedral’s persona conveyor belt. The internet allows the new man or woman to learn about his or her history, race, spirituality, heroic ideals and true history. Once even a piece of the narrative is rejected, the rest falls easily, like a dyke admitting water. Tumblr can become Nazi Tumblr pretty quickly. SJW Twitter serves the same purpose as reactionary Twitter. Those who react viscerally to the narrative, who simply cannot swallow the anti-Traditional narrative and spit it out, now have a place to go. And new identities can form.
I believe that 90% of politics is emotional. Those of us who have an aristocratic spirit or just a very conservative nature, and who cannot bear to swallow anti-Traditionalism find the real right, eventually. When these people find us, they often describe feeling sane that they have found other people who feel the way they do. They get more confident. Things fall into place for them; the damage that the narrative does the Aryan soul begins to be repaired. Antibodies are generated; the pathogen begins to die. I myself have experienced this.
What we are witnessing is the early stages of the birth of an alternately constructed counter-identity. It was only made possible by the sheer audacity of the narrative, and the Cathedral knows this. It also knows it cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Welcome to the reactosphere; we aren’t going anywhere.
Which brings me to my final point: Stalinism. The footsoldiers of the Cathedral realize that this identity-pathway cannot be abolished; to do so would mean changing the narrative or destroying the internet as a common medium, neither of which is possible at this point. So the Cathedral response is the desperation move that all leftist movements eventually succumb to: they censor. They know that a crack has opened, and that water is pouring through, which is why the cries about hate speech, trigger warnings, and demands for firings are growing louder and louder. A wise reactionary should expect that some level of censorship will be the inevitable result, even if it is informal, such as being eliminated from search engine options. We must, of course, plan accordingly.
The left operates like a bad codependent relationship, constantly generating new crusades to keep its membership base together. Like a fish without active gills, it must keep moving forward in order to stay afloat.
Of the most recent crusades, the most interesting is the War on Inequality. It has not yet begun, but is waiting in the wings especially in the USA were an out-of-the-closet socialist, Bernie Sanders, is running for President. Right now, we have the early stages of the war, which is the victimhood narrative requirement of mourning and self-questioning over “rising inequality.”
Assuming that we take these figures at face value — and we should not, since the liberal method is to choose anecdotal examples, cherry-pick data to avoid contrary viewpoints, and then declare broad conclusions from a tiny sample size — America is becoming a place where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
More interestingly, the middle class appears to be eroding.
Many will point out that, since liberals are the party of egalitarianism and conservatives the party of results, the two will differ. Indeed, both care about inequality, but conservatives see it as a Darwinistic method while liberals see it as The Enemy, as this article discusses:
Inequality is the major theme of the American political debate because inequality is the major theme of the policy debate between the two major parties. The conservative economic agenda at the federal level is built around reducing the portions of the tax code that fall most heavily on the rich and spending that flows most heavily to the poor, and at the state level, to shift the financing structure of government onto the most regressive tax base. The liberal agenda has pushed in the opposite direction.
It is true that liberals talk explicitly about inequality much more than conservatives do. But to conclude that inequality is simply an issue that liberals care about far more than conservatives do (like greenhouse gas emissions, say) is mistaken. The agenda of both American parties is centered on firm beliefs about inequality. The main difference is that Democrats are more prone to frame their inequality-reducing policies as such, while Republicans (understandably) prefer not to frame their inequality-increasing policies in those terms.
Ignoring the obvious fallacy — that allowing a natural process to occur by not instituting “progressive” taxation is not increasing inequality but revealing its actuality — the summation is roughly correct. Liberals want wealth transfer to create equality, conservatives do not.
As said earlier in the article:
In 1972, the neoconservative intellectual Irving Kristol defended existing income inequality on the ground that it simply reflected the natural distribution of human ability. “Human talents and abilities, as measured, do tend to distribute themselves along a bell-shaped curve, with most people clustered around the middle, and with much smaller percentages at the lower and higher ends …” he argued. “This explains one of the most extraordinary (and little-noticed) features of 20th-century societies: how relatively invulnerable the distribution of income is to the efforts of politicians and ideologues to manipulate it. In all the Western nations — the United States, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Germany — despite the varieties of social and economic policies of their governments, the distribution of income is strikingly similar.” This was a comforting story for the right. The level of inequality in the United States happened to be a perfectly optimal reflection of the talent of the populace.
In other words, because our media no longer uses complex terms, Social Darwinism: the idea that income should reflect ability and the best should rise, and that others will do better — a broad tide will raise all boats — if power, wealth and culture are in the hands of the more competent. This idea offends liberals to their core because it points out the contradiction in egalitarianism, which is that there will always be disparate results because there are differing abilities, and thus that attempts to create “equality” amount to parasitism on the more competent in order to subsidize the less, in reversal of evolution itself.
Now that we see where the different sides stand, let us look at the two questions before us, namely whether inequality is rising and whether the middle class is disappearing. As with all writings on this site, I will use a combination of pure logic and unfiltered history. Pure logic means that we analyze a situation by its causes and effects alone, using what we know of logic to point out where some preclude others. Unfiltered history means that we remove the politicized conclusions from the events of the past and look at what actions caused what results. The two, pure logic and unfiltered history, work in parallel because they use essentially the same method, which is the scientific method outside of the linearizing analysis of a laboratory which looks at a single factor of thousands and invents reasons why it should ignore the rest of that context, thus rendering itself fallacious for social, political and cultural discussions.
To an observer a thousand years from now, it will be clear that “rising inequality” is a case of focusing on a detail and missing the background. What has happened in the United States is not that inequality has risen, but that the population has changed in two ways. First, it has shifted from majority Western European (“WASP” in the vernacular) toward majority third world and fringe European under liberal immigration policy, and second, it has been altered by liberal social policy, which has changed focus from a K-strategy focused on strong families to an r-strategy focused on third-world style mass subsidy and absence of stable family, religion and culture.
Since the end of the second World War, which completed the arc of European wars beginning with the French Revolution and ensuing Napoleonic wars, the West has turned down an increasingly liberal path. Unlike previous liberal incarnations however, its liberalism has been of an economic rather than ideological nature, meaning that it follows a financial guideline instead of a purely moral one. Thus unlike the Soviets it does not dive into pure socialism, but funds socialism through capitalism, and unlike the French it does not regulate social mores directly, but relies on the free market media industry to make conservative notions taboo. This is probably what Francis Fukuyama called “the end of history” simply because it is the most effective form of authoritarianism ever created.
During the French Revolution, one of the cries of the Revolutionaries was for “internationalism,” or the idea that all workers worldwide were in solidarity by social class and not national origin, so national boundaries should be abolished. This idea lives on as multiculturalism, diversity and other synonyms for what is essentially racial pluralism. It appeals because it tears down social standards, and for no other reason. Revolutionaries always destroy social standards because their goal is to replace multi-tiered hierarchy with a giant mob following ideology and a strong leader to keep that mob pointed in the right path. There is no other term for what they do than “breakdown,” and liberals spend most of their time denying that (for the purposes of this article, “liberal” and “leftist” mean the same thing, just as Communist and Socialist are differences of degree not different philosophies — a Communist is merely a Socialist who recognizes that in order for People’s Utopia to come about, it must have strong authoritarian power).
In the United States, starting with the Hart-Cellar act in 1965, immigration has shifted toward third world populations. These are different from first-world populations not in “skin color,” as the popular media alleges, but culture and biological abilities. If the third world could have produced what the first world did, it would have done so, and colonized the first world instead. This is pure logic: every species struggles for supremacy, and every population aims to be as powerful as possible, with those who cannot do so being ground down under their wheels, part of the process we call “evolution” or “Darwinism.” There was no lack of trying in the third world to reach military supremacy, as the Mongol invasions and Muslim raids that provoked the Crusades show us. The West achieved stability of society and higher average IQs and beat them out, despite being severely threatened by them, especially by the Mongol raids which may have several centuries later provoked colonialism as a means of avoiding a repeat of those brutal years.
The people coming into the United States now are almost all already of mixed-race as most third-world populations are, and generally of lower IQ. Not surprisingly, IQs in the West have dropped 14 points in the last century. Those figures do not tell us when IQs fell, but a logical inference is that recent immigration has something to do with it. That alone explains inequality, which is that if you take a thriving first-world population and import a third-world population which lacks the ability to achieve what that first world population did, the third-world population will remain poor and thus statistically inequality will rise. Factor into that cultures based on endurance of dysfunction rather than fixing it, and you see a society where only a few will have any wealth but they will have many customers for whom what they do is witchcraft or magic.
Leaving that aside, as it is politically taboo to mention, it is worth mentioning what has happened since 1965 under liberal social programs. Casual sex has become the norm; stable families the rarity. This means that people are more neurotic, less able to commit and less likely to be stable themselves. In other words: they are more dysfunctional (or “less functional”). This also explains inequality. Add to this the rising tax burden to support Great Society and New Deal programs which like zombies rise from the dead because it is seen as gauche, ignorant and uncultured to vote against them, and we can see where the situation has broadened. Even worse is what we have done to education, which is taking it from “competitive” to “participative,” such that any degree except a graduate or professional school degree is officially worthless. To have a $70k job now the average person must be extraordinarily lucky, or put down $200k for schooling through age 27.
Let us also mention rising costs. As social disorder increases, the comfortable middle class subdivisions of the past vanish. Instead, one must buy into a gated community. In the past, people could simply buy homes; now they must buy luxury homes to escape the roiling violence of the permanent social underclasses. In the past, grocery store food was safe and local; now you must go to Whole Foods to get eggs that taste like eggs or bread with fewer than 1500 ingredients. Water was once safe, but now it is Mexico City water, so you must buy filters. Living as a normal human being has become more expensive than middle class salaries can afford, which explains the second question being asked here, which is whether “rising inequality” is a cover story for elimination of the middle class by dysfunctional liberal programs.
I rest my case. The distinction remains obvious: we are engaged in a war of narratives. The left argues we are victims of some external force, whether the shadowy the RichTM or favorite scapegoats like The Jews or The Racists, but on the right, we see the problem as degeneration or the breakdown of our culture, people and individual abilities. This is the real inequality occurring: we are converting the West into another third-world remnant of a once-great civilization, and therefore, the few competent and realistic people are becoming radically wealthy, along with the corrupt of course. The rest are just trying to hang on and are being eliminated by replacement DNA and lifestyles which reward idiotic obedience in order to afford escape from the rising third-world society within our society, which will eliminate them, leaving a vast horde of low-IQ people ruled by a handful of smart plutocrats, as is the case in almost every third-world society. Eventually, the herd will rise up and eliminate even those, leaving only a vast equal mass of mid-80s average IQ and no prospects beyond living in filth, corruption and dysfunction.
Organicists such as myself have long argued against diversity. It replaces an organic population with a mixed-race group like is common in most of the world. In doing so, it averages traits and replaces unique ones with generic ones. It removes the identity of that group, and replaces it with ideology and commerce. In losing identity, citizens become essentially clients of government with no values system of their own.
It turns out that others have had this thought. Here’s Alexander Hamilton on diversity:
Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
This essentially tells the story of the difference between Europe and the rest of the world. Europe kept its identity; other nations based theirs on trends, commerce and other short-sighted impulses. The result was disaster for them.
Where do I vote to end democracy?
From Bruce Charlton, who is insightful as usual, a criticism of the process of voting itself:
Voting is a corrupting process – and for me the corruption is palpable. It feels like giving a sworn public endorsement to someone I know to be an evil liar.
The fact that it is futile is the least of its problems; the worst of it is the tacit agreement that voting is how things should be done, how decisions should be made – this ‘should’ being focused upon an arbitrary mechanical process which destroys moral responsibility.
Worse than this – voting has usurped responsibility; so that now it is abstract, impersonal voting and calculation which is seen as responsible and a person’s judgement which is seen as arbitrary.
As people often say in conversation, “We will have to agree to disagree.” That is a form of fatalism which consists of believing that no answer can be found, so each person should go on doing what they were doing anyway without ever examining it. If analysis and asking questions have an opposite, this is it.
Democracy encourages “football-style” decision making where people root for a team and defend it against all comers. At that point, they stop looking into their own beliefs to figure out what the intent is, and focus on the game of beating the other team. Over time, this leads to the teams being very similar, which by the nature of leftism as more general than rightism, leads to a leftward drift.
Voting is an alternative to the old fashioned way of making decisions, which is either to have truly excellent people and/or wise elders in control, or to get together your best people and talk it out. Ask every relevant question. Take every line of thought to a conclusion. Never fall back on “well that’s just subjective” or “that’s your ideology.” Remove ideology and politics entirely, and look at the task itself.
Of course, that is hard work. It can result in all-nighters and substantial risk, since appearance is the opposite of reality. Voters panic if a new program does not immediately deliver results, which causes politicians to avoid rocking the boat and to construct new programs so that there is always someone else to blame for their failure. Voters respond to flattery, such as programs that show off how wealthy their nation is, and glaze over when negative, difficult or complex things are mentioned. But even more, voting itself causes distancing from the task. The question is no longer what should be done, but which of the two options — absurd oversimplifications polarized by the necessity of differentiation — seems a safer bet.
Our civilization has dedicated itself to avoiding the hard work of making choices and taking leadership roles out of fear of the crowd. We look for “systems,” or “objective” and automatic processes like democracy and the economy, to lead for us, but all of them succumb to decay through inevitable entropy and drift toward what humans want to believe is true and not what is. Economics reflects what people are willing to buy, not what they need. Democracy reflects what people want to think is true, not what is real. Even systems like “education” presuppose that simply indoctrinating people gives them the magical ability to make decisions that they lack the intellectual or moral fortitude to make. The future is not found in systems, but in organic leadership, which is putting the best people in charge and having them debate out questions instead of putting them to a vote.
Lest it seem I praise Charlton too much — although it is doubtful that such a thing is possible — he blurts out a disappointing deferral to systems in his next piece.
Society is either secular – based on evanescent psychological expediencies; or else society is based on religion – and ultimately, overall, in the long run, aiming to run things in a way satisfactory to divinity.
The primary choice that is not-Left is therefore “which religion?” That question is the basis of real politics – now extinct.
Astute observers will note that this piece commits the exact error he describes in the former piece: instead of making decisions, we defer to a method or principle and hope it will magically solve the problem for us.
The division between secular and religious is nonsense entirely. A realist sees that religion is a description of reality, with a possibly added metaphysical dimension, but that this dimension cannot be incompatible with the physical. Further, such a person sees that both secular and religious access are two different voices to the same truth, because it is derived from the same world.
He ends on a positive note however:
Nowadays, in an increasingly-corrupt world of mostly-corrupt people aiming at ever more corruption; political analysis and discussion is therefore only of value when it leads to a consideration of ultimate goals – asking what, overall, are we trying to achieve'; what, overall, is our society aiming-at? And does that make sense: And is it Good?
The question of goals lives with us daily. We either aim for what is good, or we accept a substitute — argued for by compensators, apologists and distractors — and try to justify it as a surrogate or substitute for good. However, good is not found through religion; it is found, as Plato showed us, through the pursuit of good, which begins in the understanding of reality and extends through that to a transcendental appreciation of the methodology of nature, in which it finds a harmony between form and function that reveals the parallels between beauty, goodness and truth.
Slamming this into the religion ghetto only creates more of the same reliance on systems, and also gives people another way out. Conservatives in the West have for centuries perverted their beliefs into the idea that if you personally do good, you will have done enough, and the world — a system — will somehow reward that. All evidence suggests this is the foulest of lies. If you do not control your species and your civilization, it follows its tendency like a runaway horse to go straight into trouble or over a cliff.
We have many people already relying on systems of this nature. Mind your own business, work hard and take care of your family, and everything will be all right. Apologists from libertarians through anarchists believe this same drivel because it lets them off of the hook of restoring function to their society. By interpreting the question of “good” as a personal one, and inevitably a religious one, they focus on the heavens… their own pursuits… their own egos… and forget about the consequences of actions for which we are all accountable even in a civilization. Being part of a mob does not excuse us from culpability. It makes us more culpable, because we hid behind the faceless mask to act instead of doing it ourselves.
In a time of many lies, the only thing that can save us is the simplest and clearest focus possible on the truth. This is not to say that religion does not serve a role, only that saying “the answer is religion” is as silly as saying “the answer is capitalism” or “the answer is democracy.” There is no the answer, only the singular health of our civilization, and that will require varied methods to fix. Systems will not do, and democracy certainly will not.