Why Modern Children Are Such Brats

these_kids_are_cool_and_you_are_not

From now-classic article in the Wall Street Journal:

Yet the French have managed to be involved with their families without becoming obsessive. They assume that even good parents aren’t at the constant service of their children, and that there is no need to feel guilty about this. “For me, the evenings are for the parents,” one Parisian mother told me. “My daughter can be with us if she wants, but it’s adult time.” French parents want their kids to be stimulated, but not all the time. While some American toddlers are getting Mandarin tutors and preliteracy training, French kids are—by design—toddling around by themselves.

…The French, I found, seem to have a whole different framework for raising kids. When I asked French parents how they disciplined their children, it took them a few beats just to understand what I meant. “Ah, you mean how do we educate them?” they asked. “Discipline,” I soon realized, is a narrow, seldom-used notion that deals with punishment. Whereas “educating” (which has nothing to do with school) is something they imagined themselves to be doing all the time.

One of the keys to this education is the simple act of learning how to wait. It is why the French babies I meet mostly sleep through the night from two or three months old. Their parents don’t pick them up the second they start crying, allowing the babies to learn how to fall back asleep. It is also why French toddlers will sit happily at a restaurant. Rather than snacking all day like American children, they mostly have to wait until mealtime to eat.

What is really being discussed here?

A trio of related concepts: hierarchy, roles and purpose.

In non-cultured societies (a.k.a. multicultures) there is no culturally-defined purpose to the family, so the only purposes that are acceptable are individual self-interest and political collective goals.

But with culture, the family itself has meaning, like culture and sometimes religion, because there is an archetype of a higher goal than mere self. In particular, people want to find a place within the social hierarchy based not on money or politics, but on upholding the traditions of that culture.

From that comes the sense of roles, as in the idea that children serve the family. They are not the focus of the family which competes with the parents for attention and resources, as in America, but members of the family with a specific role: to grow up, do what is right, and uphold the traditions.

As multicultural liberal democratic society winds down into ruin, we have to consider that our most basic assumptions could be based in lies. The lie of individualism is the starting point: there can be no singular focus on the individual because the individual is always part of a larger group — family, local area, nation — and needs to believe in larger motivations than individual self-interest, such as culture, faith, values and honor.

The Establishment Creates A Narrative Spin In Ali Sonboly Munich Shooting

munich_shooter_-_ali_sonboly

Mass shootings provoke an instinctive question: insanity or terrorism?

Some overlap exists, of course: the people most likely to carry out suicide missions are also those who have given up on life, usually from depression or other mental health causes.

In Munich, we saw a rare event: a German-born citizen of Iranian descent opens fire at a mall, and blames bullying that happened to him as a youth, but shoots (mostly) Turks, Greeks and other foreigners.

This looks more like a diversity stress shooting, where the sheer tension of being an outsider and recognizing the tenuous nature of that position drove an act of seeming insanity that was more of a protest than terrorism, much like the Columbine killers were alienated by the society around them and decided on a suicide-revenge hybrid.

When you cannot bear living any longer, and feel that your surroundings are to blame, the combination of self-destruction and world-destruction seems appealing. In this case, shooter Ali David Sonboly followed the classic pattern of shooting, then retreating to a solitary suicide.

The Establishment wasted no time in giving the Munich shooting the usual spin:

The attack came on the fifth anniversary of the mass shooting carried out by Anders Breivik – and police suspect the two events are linked.

Police chief Hubertus Andrae said: “This connection is obvious.”

The Norwegian terrorist killed 77 people and injured 319 in a bomb and gun attack in Oslo and a summer camp outside the city.

The connection is obvious? Only in this way: Anders Breivik warned that multiculturalism is killing Europe and was proven right: Ali David Sonboly is the multiculturalism.

In the poignant way that life makes most things bittersweet or at least complex and internally conflicted, however, part of what the multiculture did was kill itself, acknowledging that multiculturalism works for no one.

The killer was miserable in Germany. He may also have been miserable had he grown up in Iran, but there, he would not have been an outsider, or bullied by Germans, Greeks and Turks (presumably) for his outsider status.

As usual, the Leftist Establishment is relying on categorical logic to fool us:

Ali David Sonboly = {Terrorist, German-Iranian}
Anders Breivik = {Terrorist, Norwegian}

Ali David Sonboly ∩ Anders Breivik = {Terrorist}
∴ Ali David Sonboly = Anders Breivik

What is removed from here: motivation, and the other factors that inspired these shootings.

Anders Breivik shot Leftists as a means of kicking off a war between the forces destroying Europe and those trying to save it. The end result of his act was brilliant: it made people realize that there is a personal cost to being Leftist, and caused a withdrawal from the perception of Leftism as universally socially-accepted and beneficial to the individual with no opportunity cost. Instead, it identified Leftists as an enemy. This is a far more intelligent method than shooting the multiculture, which feels like bullying to most of us.

Ali Sonboly shot other multiculture and Germans because he hated being an outsider. His goal was the opposite of Breivik: he did not want to save Europe, but to destroy it, and may or may not have identified multiculturalism as part of his misery. Unlike Breivik, he killed himself and left no extensive manifesto, such that all we know of him is what he said at the shooting and what he left on social media.

The killer identified himself as “German” during the exchange, after an onlooker shouted: “F*****g foreigner!”

He replied: “I am German. Yeah what, I was born here. I grew up here in the Hartz IV area.”

Hartz IV refers to German unemployment benefits.

Ali Sonboly accepted the multicultural narrative that being born in Germany makes one a German (the “Magic Dirt” theory).

His rage may have directed itself at other multiculture, but he did not target multiculturalism itself. Instead he targeted Germany.

The Leftist Establishment took its first shots by reporting that the shooter was a white Caucasian with far right tendencies who was targeting immigrants:

There were early reports that the gunman in the Munich, Germany shooting spree may have been targeting foreigners or immigrants. Those reports had people asking: Was the gunman in Munich a Neo Nazi?

…CNN says police were initially calling it a terrorist attack, though, and that a witness heard the gunman shout, “Allahu Akbar” before shooting children in the face.

The reason for this is that the Leftist Crowd can be depended on to take a meme and hold onto it, believing that a vast right-wing conspiracy is trying to conceal the truth.

This is why the press rushes to claim every shooter as Neo-Nazi, so that they can advance the narrative through the acts of useful idiots who will hear what they wanted to, and then close their minds to anything else and beat down anyone who claims otherwise.

That this narrative disintegrated within hours does not matter. The Establishment got its cucked police in there to claim an “obvious” link to Anders Breivik based on the date of the attack, although so far no evidence has emerged of any ideological or motivational link between Sonboly and Breivik.

Blood Treasure

southern_belle

George W. Bush noted in his book Decision Points that he is a “big picture” guy. From a creative perspective it means he agrees with right brain people that a picture is worth a thousand words.  This incidentally motivates also his sometimes incoherent response to questions.

With hindsight one can say that he had a big picture view, not just because he was a right brain person, but also that he was a third generation senior politician raised to perpetuate the Bush Dynasty. He was literally taught how things worked and what “the right thing” to do would be in future. For example, from this book, it became clear that he was gunning for Saddam Hussein in Iraq without really saying why. Another lesson from hindsight is that the Bush Dynasty supported the Washington uni-party Regime, which he openly claimed as his “base.” Therefore, despite his having very experienced “first-hand” training, the outcome of his presidential evaluation has a high probability of being classified a failure (not to be repeated in future).

This puts pressure on the notion that top-down management and leadership is ideal. Top-down management involves a centralized authority above others that sets standards for them to follow down to the level of the man in the street.

The alternative to top-down management is bottom-up management. This can be described by using the legend of the King that donned his servant’s clothes to mix undetected with his subjects. A metaphor is watching all those stars in the night sky. When your feet are on the ground, you are more prone to see potential rather than failures (because of ideas and respect), especially if you happen to see a shooting star.

A top-down guy only has his own ideas, whereas a bottom-up guy gets many ideas. A guy with limited ideas can be influenced with the “next best thing” from Google, whereas the guy with many ideas will distill that to develop proper requirements for what he needs. A bottom-up guy also needs to understand himself a lot better through introspection while the top-down guy can easier live in a simulated world of his choosing.

A recent local newspaper article of a group of white emergency services medics working in the third world country of South Africa support bottom-up leadership. As one medic remarked:

In a situation like this you have to know what your strengths, and what the strengths of the group is. If you need to step back and let someone else take over, you do so. You cannot allow your ego to come before patient care. Afterwards any achievements or concerns must be noted. It is cardinal that you know how you did, what you did and where you can improve. You must know yourself before you can even think, about helping others.

Who says career politicians can’t learn from their insufferable voters? The question rather, is:

Why can’t politicians just care for their voters, instead of stealing their blood?

American blood used to be important, but recent history may prove different. The advent of President Obama transfixing his voters with a vision of American transformation and hope culminated in his trademark socialized medicine scheme. His vision of hope can indeed be described as “big picture” and the ensuing top-down “Obamacare” was to be exemplar of this. As it turned out the big picture was flawed and American blood has been sold as a result of the multi-cultural ideal. It’s not about blood “and” treasure anymore, it’s blood “for” treasure.

In a recent Health (wellness) Study of the Twin Cities, their Advisory Group made the mistake of identifying “Culture as a Protective Factor.” In typical Leftist style it marveled at how strong and resilient young migrants were as a result of their strong “culture,” while Americans are obese and sick because of America’s apparently deficient culture. In other words migrant “culture” is good and we should learn from them. However, common sense indicates that migrant “cultures” of Africans, Indians and Arabs are two centuries behind American culture, so there are obviously a few things wrong with such an excellent “advisory” big picture:

  1. Migrants come from disease-ridden countries, bringing tuberculosis and HIV as free gifts.
  2. Migrant culture is better described as “tribal” and even collective. In fact, there is doubt whether their “civilization” is a true reflection of such civility. After all, why would they send their best “soldiers” away from their own warzones, leaving their women behind to fight?
  3. Migrants come from countries where American blood and treasure is being squandered ostensibly to keep terror away from the Homeland? That’s a ruse, right?

However, the fact is that culture is indeed a protective factor. A renewed grassroots push for realism is affirming real American Culture and whether Trump is a proponent or not is not the issue. What has been proven though is that an enormous amount of people have voted for him in the primaries. Some commentators slam this as populism, but they are wrong because the people that voted from him are the middle-class, not the common street peddler. In fact there is some suggestion that the top 10% (except the top 1%) may support Trump rather than Hillary. This is not populism, it’s culture.

Culture is therefore protective and a resource, not only in politics but in health and in community development and actualization. In attempting to address the problems caused by top-down management, it would be wise to consider drawing on the bottom-up cultural traditions of Americans. Not the open society top-down version of Bush and Obama (and George Soros’ Open Society Foundation) but the culturally protective bottom-up negotiating Trump.

Culture drives politics and blood pumps in the hearts of millions of American men, bringing tears to the eyes of American women. This is my kind of civilization and that is my treasure, learn from us, but don’t destroy the blood that enables us to be what we are.

Counterpoint: Keep Social Media Open To Win The War On Terror

In response to my esteemed colleague, I argue against any censorship of social media.

Our biggest problem in any age is ignorance of what other people are thinking. People are deceptive enough without the confusions of politics, but we also have a media that hides any anti-majority viewpoint behind a smoke screen of victimhood, poverty and banal cultural Marxist theory.

Let us get the viewpoints out in the open. We suffer nothing for hearing exactly why they hate us, which has to do with two crucial factors:

  • They hate our degeneracy. Girls in bikinis and casual sex equal no healthy families. Leftist politics and consumerism equal neurotic people. No sane person wants this in their countries, and unlike us who have accepted this condition as normal since birth, they can see it coming and want it to stay far away.

  • Clash of civilizations. Diversity does not work; civilizations differ in value and cannot occupy the same space, which is why racial/ethnic, religious and cultural diversity always fail. Our governments and media are beating the tin drum of pluralism and its subset, diversity. We need to see clearly how these do not work.

The last thing we want to do is to deny people a voice. When they get a chance to have their say, they can appreciate that we will disagree, but at least we did not tell them, “Your viewpoint threatens us or is insignificant to us, so we will ignore your concerns and keep doing what we were doing before.”

Constant attempts to censor people not just for “racist” content but even other political speech, such as raging against cops or demanding an end to mixed-race America from a minority perspective, do nothing but inflame those viewpoints with legitimacy derived from the fact that we feared them enough to stop them from being spoken.

Terrorism succeeds by generating media attention, but trying to censor terrorism only makes terrorists seem like mystical, intriguing figures who bring us a suppressed truth. Let it out in the open, and let us read their speeches, writings and comments. Let us see where we all stand.

Democracy gives us no hope because most people are inert, but the way to combat that is to allow all voices a platform and to see who clusters to that platform. Then we can see how we actually feel, instead of how we speak around others in order to flatter them so that they will hire us, date us, befriend us, rent to us and sell to us.

We can properly understand terrorism as another form of warfare, and warfare from arising through the breakdown of politics. That situation can be ameliorated by bringing politics back into the equation, but that requires that we actually listen to each other. Censorship is the exact opposite, and will turn us ignorant and jingoistic.

Shut Down Social Media to Win the War On Terror

social_media_and_terrorism

Contrary to what is commonly believed, the tactics which have succeeded in the war on terror are those which were most aggressive and overwhelming. We succeed when we behave like raging barbarians, and fail when we act like wimps.

The original blitzkrieg orchestrated by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Operation Shock and Awe) was extremely effective and drove Saddam Hussein from power in a matter of weeks. The surge (Senator John McCain’s idea) was also effective in keeping terrorists from having strongholds. Then the US tried to hang around to police and rebuild. More passive and theoretically humanitarian methods like drones have been less effective, and have also caused much more backlash than our barbarian tactics.

Social media has played a huge role in the war on terror because terrorists use it to recruit, coordinate and publicize their activities. When ISIS slices off another head, the video hits social media within hours and is worldwide inside of five minutes, serving to both radicalize the already alienated and to create an allure of danger and escape from the tedium of modern society. So far, our approach to social media — “surveillance” — has failed alongside other soft tactics like Iraqi reconstruction, troop drawdowns and political appeasement.

Several incidents show us the failure of our approach. During the Orlando Pulse nightclub slaughter, the terrorist paused many times to update his social media presence while he was shooting unarmed people. Twitter served as an indispensable communication channel for ISIS during recent months, and now we learn how the truck-kamikaze from Nice posted to Facebook in anticipation of the attack. Add this to the network of people spreading jihadist publications, instructions, steganographic encrypted communications and propaganda, and social media serves terror quite well.

It is important to remember that the objective of terrorism and guerrilla warfare in the postmodern environment is to influence the media. The Vietcong knew this, which is why they waged a militarily losing campaign with the Tet Offensive, knowing that the panic induced by media reports would make it a political victory. Terrorists used hostage standoffs to get as much media attention as possible, creating a spectacle that would dominate the airwaves. School shooters did the same thing, leaving behind manifestos and mementos for human interest stories. Since the news is our centralized source of information on the world, it has become a target for manipulation.

Social media is best understood as a different form of media, but still a form of media. Most younger people get their news through social media currently, and this trend is increasing. Monitoring and taking down celebratory posts by terrorists will not stop or mitigate terror. The time has come to decide whether we are serious about winning the war on terror. The only way to do this is to take down social media itself until the war on terror is won.

“But muh First Amendment!” people will say. The fact is that Twitter and Facebook have a first amendment right to say what they want, but that does not apply to running a service where others do the same. Twitter and Facebook can issue press releases with their opinions. The speech of people on those services is what is in question, and since these social media services are being used to further terror, we can force them to take their speech somewhere else. This is akin to shutting down a vacant lot where terrorists gather to swap tips and deliver loud ranting speeches, rather than censorship of the speeches themselves.

I would rather live in a terror-free world than have the convenience of posting selfies to casual acquaintances with the ease of a throwaway comment. Social media acts as a key tool for terrorist recruitment and has a corrosive effect domestically as our homegrown radicals, from Black Lives Matter to God Hates Fags, use it to spread their notoriety and influence.

In times of war, sacrifices must be made in order to achieve victory. The recruitment and propaganda arm of the enemy is largely executed via social media. We need to break their encrypted networks as well and bomb their headquarters tents, but we should start with what is already under our control. Terrorism is largely motivated by the desire to influence the media. Shutting down social media will deprive the terrorists of their most powerful weapon and we should do it, until this war is won.

Counterpoint: Obama Coup Makes More Sense Than Trump Coup

An article in the Los Angeles Times suggests a military coup against Donald Trump should he win the election. This viewpoint amounts to a declaration of war against the will of the American people, not as represented by their elites but as they are in everyday life.

The truth is that if there were to be a military coup it would be against Obama or Hillary because those democratic leaders have worked to undermine America, the spiritual and practical ideal that the American military serves. Military personnel are not stupid: they favor Trump by a 2-1 margin. A coup against the very man they are voting for is a liberal pipe-dream.

President Obama has done a number of things to undermine the US military and foreign policy. He overly telegraphed drawdown levels and a host of other somewhat malicious mistakes. First he failed to assist the student protesters in Iran against the mullahs. Then he failed to support Mubarak in Egypt and let the Muslim brotherhood take over. He compared US Middle East policies to the crusades at the Easter press conference, which was terrible for troop morale, and showed he is on the side of the Islamists against the US. He laid off many top generals and made many experienced vets retire so he could promote younger, more inexperienced yes-men.

I personally have friends who were laid off from the job in the army for basically no good reason. They tell me they think its to reduce their retirement pay and benefits. Obama put gays in charge of branches of the armed forces such as the Navy in order to make a political point, weakening the competence of those branches in the process. He promoted a woman for being a woman despite her lack of qualification to the highest position in the air force.

Obama aided and abetted ISIS by funding rebels who handed over their weapons and vehicles without being vetted. He downplayed them by famously calling them the “JV team” and ignored them until they took Mosul and almost drained a dam that could have killed millions. He continues to flood the US with Iraq and Syrian war refugees despite the fact that such refugees have already shot up much of Europe and have threatened the US. These are all legitimate reasons why the US military should consider sequestering Obama until the end of his term while they regain control over their own forces so that the war on terror can be won instead of encouraged.

The military has another reason to distrust Obama: he has shown his willingness to sacrifice those working for him. Obama has encouraged a race war by jumping the gun and condemning the police in the media without giving the officers due process and the right to confront their accusers in a fair and speedy trial (in regards to controversial largely urban shootings). He has purposely fanned the flames of resentment against police to where now police officers have been killed en masse in multiple cities across the US. The men and women who are enforcing his laws can be conveniently sacrificed to make him look good.

Hillary Clinton is equally deserving of a military coup. She managed to raise $200 billion for the Clinton Foundation by selling US policy to the highest bidder. She circumvented security regulations which if done by a lower-ranking officer would have resulted in a court martial. She also abandoned Americans at Benghazi, and left them to die, then shrugged it off with “What difference does it make?” Like Obama’s symbolic sacrifice of police officers, Clinton’s indifference to the death of her own staff shows a narcissistic and self-promoting agenda that is toxic in a world leader.

The idea that Trump will be a dictator is a left wing fantasy in the first place. Obama has abused executive orders and privileges for extremely malevolent purposes for the last eight years. But the media glosses over that and assumes Trump will be ten times worse and must be pre-empted. The guy hasn’t even had a single day in office and the left wing and RINO talking heads are already suggesting he should be removed.

If the Los Angeles Times wants to talk about preemptive attacks or coups then they should take a look at themselves. By calling for a left wing preemptive coup against Trump they have revealed themselves as treasonous propaganda artists who seek nothing less than the destruction of our government simply because they fear a strong conservative leader. With their calls for a coup, they have opened the door for blowback. As more people see the damage Leftists have done to this country, it is more likely a coup will occur — but against the Left, not Trump.

Trump Cucks Media

The neurotics — this term is a good approximate synonym for “Leftists” — are dog whistling and beating the tin drum again:

Across the digital banner around the Quicken Loans Arena at the Republican National Convention, a tweet from the racist VDARE.com displayed during the night’s proceedings.

…This isn’t the first time the campaign of Donald Trump has made controversial connections with its white nationalist supporters throughout the 2016 race, of course.

…VDARE.com often hosts anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and white nationalist viewpoints and columns.

“America was defined — almost explicitly, sometimes very explicitly — as a white nation, for white people, and what that means is that there is virtually no figure, no law, no policy, no event in the history of the old, white America that can survive the transition to the new and non-white version. Whether we will want to call the new updated version ‘America’ at all is another question entirely,” white nationalist writer Sam Francis wrote on VDARE in 2003.

The highlighted terms reflect the dog whistling. In typical Leftist fashion, he is signaling that something unacceptable was said and that the tribe needs to rally for the attack.

Except that in 2016, nothing has happened. The Left is already in full fight-or-flight mode over Trump, so they cannot turn it up to eleven. And the constant outrage drowns out specific incidents.

The real shocker is what has happened on the right and in the center. To wit: “meh.” No one has joined the chorus of mea culpas and self-flagellation that normally happens whenever a white person indulges in the same freedoms granted to every other race on earth, such as self-interest and self-pride.

Trump has already won. He has cucked the media and beaten them down, never to again achieve their former prestige. They have been revealed as echo chambers and propaganda outlets. He has shown us that you can defy the Politically Correct public standard and win, because that standard is in the hands of a small group of self-appointed elites who are not particularly competent or useful. We do not need them!

As a result, they are in full retreat. They bet the farm on Americans being unable to pull themselves away from the amplified voices telling us what to think, but those voices have failed us, and now their power has evaporated as a result. They are just talking heads, not the voice of the nation, morality, order or history. Everything they say or do is fake, just like Hollywood.

Look toward more of this roiling America and Europe over the next few years as academia, media, government and the arts continue to render themselves obsolete by supporting the old order, namely Leftism and its thought-control method of political correctness. They are no longer needed, and now stand recognized as the threat they are.

Why Nationalism Is Rising And Globalism Is Falling

In a really interesting article over at The American Interest, Jonathan Haidt touches on the appeal of nationalism:

As societies become more prosperous and safe, they generally become more open and tolerant. Combined with vastly greater access to the food, movies, and consumer products of other cultures brought to us by globalization and the internet, this openness leads almost inevitably to the rise of a cosmopolitan attitude, usually most visible in the young urban elite. Local ties weaken, parochialism becomes a dirty word, and people begin to think of their fellow human beings as fellow “citizens of the world” (to quote candidate Barack Obama in Berlin in 2008). The word “cosmopolitan” comes from Greek roots meaning, literally, “citizen of the world.” Cosmopolitans embrace diversity and welcome immigration, often turning those topics into litmus tests for moral respectability.

…Nationalists see patriotism as a virtue; they think their country and its culture are unique and worth preserving. This is a real moral commitment, not a pose to cover up racist bigotry. Some nationalists do believe that their country is better than all others, and some nationalisms are plainly illiberal and overtly racist. But as many defenders of patriotism have pointed out, you love your spouse because she or he is yours, not because you think your spouse is superior to all others.

…Having a shared sense of identity, norms, and history generally promotes trust. Having no such shared sense leads to the condition that the sociologist Émile Durkheim described as “anomie” or normlessness. Societies with high trust, or high social capital, produce many beneficial outcomes for their citizens: lower crime rates, lower transaction costs for businesses, higher levels of prosperity, and a propensity toward generosity, among others.

This is the crux of a complex argument that is worth following in depth. Globalism is the result of stability producing neurotics who make money off of other neurotics; as Darwin predicted, the suspension of natural selection results in a new selection matrix being created from social factors, not results-based (consequentialist) ones.

Nationalism on the other hand is common sense based in knowledge of nature: each species produces results based in how it behaves. If you have a group of dogs, you get dog-society; if you have pigeons, you get a different society than if you have hawks. With humans, this varies between groups.

This leads to realizations of this nature — that America was not the result of its laws, but of its founding Western European stock:

“The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people. “

Most people who are coming to Nationalism are not doing so through political means, but through cultural values and day-to-day revelations. In particular, they are seeing what a country run by the Other looks like, and whether we can “objectively” claim it is similar or “equal” to the old way, the fact is that it is not compatible with what we the majority need.

Throughout history, diversity has failed for this reason: with many groups occupying the same space, no group gets to choose a values system, and so the society is torn apart by internal conflict over individual values because it cannot select a values system as a whole. We are in that process right now.

Leftist Coup Versus Physical Removal

leftist_physical_removal

In the usual neurotic and under-developed way that Leftists agitate, Leftists are now hinting that a coup may be needed if Trump is elected president. They hope to scare us and drive us away from the polls through their usual tactic, which is threatening to set everything on fire if they do not get their way.

Irate (not enough juice or nap) three-year-olds worldwide approve of this tactic.

The Los Angeles Times, always a hesitant apologist for the liberal insanity that provides its city’s industry its largest audience, ran an op-ed by Cathedralist James Kirchick insinuating that a coup is needed:

“I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign,” retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who served as head of the CIA and the National Security Agency under President George W. Bush, said in response to Trump’s autocratic ruminations. Asked by TV host Bill Maher what would happen if Trump told American soldiers to kill the families of terrorists, as he has promised to do, Hayden replied, “If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”

“You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Hayden added. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”

…Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to.

If the above seems incoherent, that is because it is. Kirchick’s argument that is because soldiers must refuse to follow illegal orders, if Trump gives an illegal order they can refuse it, and from that he ventures through mystic deep space to arrive at refusal to follow an order somehow leading to a coup.

Possibly he is suggesting that our military are as dishonest as Leftists, and therefore after having refused to follow an order they interpreted as illegal, they would revolt and overthrow Trump in order to avoid facing the career consequences of that idea. This assertion is nonsense as we see following the damage Obama has done to many military careers.

The right generally avoids coups if it can because they are so destabilizing and lead to an artificial narrative, which is not a natural process but an imposition of human conjectural thinking like any other control mechanism. Coups are a change in quantity, not quality.

However, the right has traditionally emphasized hierarchy, or the thought that people are ranked by ability and having each rank serve its role benefits all. This translates into two other ideas: first, people are not equal, so some should have responsibilities and privileges above others. Second, not everyone needs to be included.

From this we see the two Rightist approaches to Leftist insanity: disenfranchise those incapable of making decisions, through not only political means but social and economic ones, by giving them lower caste-rank. And, for extreme cases, dis-include them through a method known as exile or the physical removal of them from among us.

We must face the obvious: egalitarianism and non-third-world society are incompatible.

Leftists want egalitarianism, or no hierarchy (except money and social popularity) and universal inclusion, or everyone is welcome. This jives with the low self-confidence of the neurotic individual, and merchant-level commerce, which wants as many warm stupid bodies as it can cram in the door.

Merchant-level commerce is generally destroyed by capitalism itself, which creates more efficient engines than little stores and chains and products for idiots, but capitalism can be hobbled by a social welfare system as in the US and EU which distributes money to the clueless in order to make them an important demographic for marketers.

Those of us who want better than third-world levels of dysfunction tend to seek a society that is, well, reactionary. Reactionaries want a society structured around the four pillars or something like them, because that way, civilization rises above merely reacting to its own self-referential drama, and becomes great in the way the Greeks and Romans were.

We are realizing now that the question of Leftism is a path. Any step on the Leftist path leads to full Communism, and after that, to being Venezuela: a mixed-race, mixed-class state with no ability to produce anything, thus no future but increasing poverty and government power.

Those who want Leftism and those who want Rightism are on entirely different paths. They cannot exist in the same society. Rightists acknowledge this; Leftists simply want to stage coups and enjoy oppressing Rightists.

This leads to unfortunate results, such as the physical removal of neurotics — err, Leftists — by the Pinochet government:

It’s known that Pinochet’s soldiers took their victims out over the ocean in helicopters and dropped them into the sea in burlap bags, weighed down with bits of railroad track. It’s known some were burned, and some were buried in unmarked mass graves. But the families of the disappeared, most often, never know what happened at all, and never even know for sure their loved ones are dead. And now we learn some of their corpses were blown to smithereens with dynamite.

We can avoid this unfortunate result by admitting that there needs to be a great American divorce. In this divorce, Leftists go to the 95% of the world which is Leftist, namely the third world. We can ship them via boat to Brazil or Africa, send them over the border into Mexico, or give them permanent vacations in sunny Guatemala or Vietnam.

They will love it. These places are vibrant, diverse and full of life. The people there love to dance and sing and take life not so seriously, which is exactly what the neurotics have been telling us to do for the past couple centuries. Oh, and there is plenty of ethnic food and vivid folk culture. Perfect!

In fact, this situation is win/win. The Left is spared having to live under Trump, and we are spared the slow road to Communism and subsistence living that the Left imposes whenever given a chance. Perhaps the real coup is not against a group at all, but against the idea that both groups can “co-exist.”

coexist_bumper_sticker

Inside The Third Reich (1982)

In my meanderings through history, I found Albert Speer’s Inside the Third Reich to be the most persuasive explanation of how Nazism worked, where it failed, and what its actual motivations were behind many acts that liberal-democratic society attributes to malice and insanity. Fortunately, a television movie was made back in 1982 that tells Speer’s story.