Many people out there ask why white people, especially those with classical educations, are so fascinated by race? To the majority of people out there, race seems like an external characteristic like hair color or eye color.
The answer is that history is more trustworthy than lab science, and history shows us a clear and unbroken standard: when the genetics of a population go, it never rises above a level of third-world style living. For examples of this, we tend to point to the ancient Romans and Greeks, who left behind miscegenated remnants who now constitute the third world of Europe.
In the past, children above the dividing line of the middle of middle class would read about the history of these ancient empires, and see that while we cannot identify a single touchstone for their decline, the symptoms of their decline included many things beloved by liberals: race-mixing, sexual tolerance and promiscuity, colorful cities dedicated to hedonism, welfare states and parent-like governments. All of these together point toward a cause of their decline, which was probably philosophical before it became psychological and then physiological as the consequences of their bad choices etched themselves into body and genes. We can see this cause was something like liberalism, an apologism for failure and decline which justifies itself through the nexus of altruism and egalitarianism. All who grew up under those educational burdens realized that whatever the singular cause, we wanted to avoid that type of decline, which meant beating back the symptoms until we could dislodge whatever mental block caused us to decline in the first place.
At this blog, I spend a fair amount of time writing about that cause, but it may be simpler than we think. Degeneration in any form creates degeneration in all other forms, so lowered standards and the raging egomania that supports them must be fought at every level wherever it appears. There may be no single touchstone event, only a symptom which then, as people justify it as legitimate (a process called apologism) and consider it in the abstract, gets adopted as a principle and leads to other parallel symptoms. These together constitute decline, which then changes the standard to which people must adapt to survive, which causes the independent and intelligent to die out and be replaced with the conformist, obedient and oblivious. At that point, the racial substrate of the population can still be recovered by changing the standard of adaptation, but generally these empires then invite in foreign labor and outbreed to the point of unrecognizability, having reversed thousands of years of evolution in the blink of an eye on the time-scale of history.
Few people will speak it out loud, but in its effort to win the conflict that arose during the Civil War, the United States has turned into a totalitarian society.
In Nazi Germany, you could not criticize the Führer; in the Soviet Union, you could not criticize the Party; in modern USA, if you fail to make the right noises about how great diversity is, your livelihood will be destroyed just as surely in those states. Back then, they had to lock people up. Now, they just cut off your prospects for any employment, put you on welfare and let you fall back into the ghetto. In totalitarian USA, the punishment is in not allowing you to rise above the dysfunction, much as it is in most third-world states.
The land of the free and home of the brave, famed for its First Amendment, has reached the point where people are afraid to sell flags or books because they might be “outed” and “doxxed,” then find themselves unemployable ever again. That is the real threat that the left wields: it controls who is socially acceptable, and it will use that power to eliminate ideological non-conformists.
To get appointed to a position in management, politics, law enforcement, or the professions, you must at some point stand on stage and recite the dogma of diversity and make all the right pleasant-sounding noises. If not, you are considered an ideological enemy and they will not punish you, except by omission: they will not promote you. Over time, you will find yourself in a career dead-end if not outright impoverished.
Government, industry, media and popular figures are all in total agreement on diversity. A few speak out near the margins, but mostly to give themselves edgy cred. Like the great ideological regimes, our totalitarian state insists on uniformity of opinion not for our own good, or for truth, but for purposes of further controlling us. Diversity creates social chaos, and we all try to climb out of it, which makes us obedient little tools who will do and say whatever is convenient for the regime.
As a great irony, the totalitarian diversity regime insists that we are “free.” We are free to starve in ghettos, beg under bridges and die alone in abandoned buildings. The method of control here is money and public opinion, which gets more shrill and paranoid the more society decays, which makes people hungrier for good scapegoats to form a lynch mob to witch hunt in a hive-mind Two Minutes Hate. You have freedom of speech, but who will hire you? Who will rent to you, sell to you? Who will let you shop at their stores without throwing you out, for fear that they too would be seen as supporting non-conforming ideology?
With the recent media/government binge of leftist-fueled demands to remove the Confederate battle flag from as many places as possible, many users are wondering where to get one of their very own.
The Confederacy symbolized resistance to the federal state of America which had been created to enforce a uniform standard among different people, in effect hobbling everyone to the demands of the Crowd. People in cities wanted a type of safety that life cannot provide, and absent a shared culture, they found it in ideology. The Confederacy, like the Founding Fathers, resisted this impulse as it inevitably slides to popular illusions which make people feel validated in their own bad choices by scapegoating any who rise above the lowest common denominator. The Northern States chose to make slavery, a fading institution but still important to Southern livelihoods, their battleground and used the Enlightenment doctrine of “equality” as their justification.
The fracture of the United States remain intact since that time. Most people want — because most people always want this — zero social standards so that they can do whatever they want without consequences, and still receive the protection of society. This denies the historical and logical fact that civilization exists because people come together toward a common purpose of excellence, and administer this through higher standards. The people want lower standards. For this reason, every civilization in history has self-destructed, with for some time America and Western Europe being the exception. That exception has now expired.
Those who wish to resist this process — as any sane person would — desire a rising civilization not just for themselves and their descendents, but for humanity at large. We must evolve above our state of choosing low impulse-control and immediate self-gratification as our goal, but that is what most people want and have always wanted throughout human history. It has only been through the denial of this impulse that civilization, learning, social order and moral decency — the kind that allows people to live safely and dedicate their time to something more interesting that accommodating the dysfunction of others — have arisen.
If you are looking for one way to make your stand, it is in support of the Confederate battle flag, which now joins other banned symbols in the annals of human historical shame. Here are several merchants selling the flag:
I am told these make excellent July 4th decorations. They are also suitable as Christmas gifts, housewarming presents, and Bar Mitzvah gifts. Everyone needs a little color in their lives, and if we are to believe our Western democracies are founded on “freedom” and “liberty” and “equality,” diversity of opinion is also important, especially as our government and social order continues its collapse.
Those of us who remain awake, when all pressures move us toward sleep, frequently find ourselves asking the question: what went wrong?
Awakening in this time is to realize that all of what you have been taught was pleasant time-wasting, a red flag in front of a bull to hide from him the real game behind the scenes, which is this civilization dying and the rush to sell off anything of value and take the money away before the kaboom.
No person undergoes an easy awakening. It is almost as painful as birth or death, a process of coming to consciousness with the realization that something has gone very wrong and like it or not, we either fix it or go out with it, along with our descendants. This crushes men who have been through war, hell and fire as they realize their sons and daughters must grow up into this world and somehow survive it, hopefully to find others like them so they can have decent lives and keep the line going. Our hopes for the future become in doubt when we realize just how bad the situation is.
There is no way to making living in a dying time seem fun or even palatable. It is, quite honestly, miserable. Everything that is beautiful will be destroyed; everything that is true corrupted. Some will hold on, against the tide. Many choose to self-destruct instead of taking the chance. It is like perpetual Civil War battlefields, the corpses of good men strewn among the ruined trees, and the heartbreak of so much waste resonant in the smoky air.
Nothing helps more than to identify the enemy. I call it Crowdism, or the collectivist instinct of individualists, a seemingly paradoxical construction that refers to the tendency of people who want no social order that might restrict their movements to group together into an advocacy group for “anarchy with grocery stores.” Liberalism is one subset of this. What surprises people most about liberalism is that it is entirely different than its advertising. On the surface, it advertises goodwill and equality for all; underneath the surface, that means a vast faceless mass of useless people chanting the same slogans while a few arch-cynical manipulators take all the wealth and power for themselves. Liberalism is a ripoff, the ultimate theft of a civilization from its people, and it brings with it misery but only long after the good vibes have faded.
The worst aspect of liberalism appears in its war on intelligence. As part of its jihad against social standards, so that the individual faces no oversight and evolutionary pressures, it replaces realistic assessments with ideological dogma. That is, “We must gather food for the winter” becomes replaced by “We must make sure the food that we already have is equally distributed.” Liberalism functions through distraction from the real issue by the creation of crash dummy issues which, being more emotionally polarized, deflect from the actual issues and make it such that to oppose them is to invoke the wrath of the gathered onlookers. Nothing makes greater destruction than a mob, because — without accountability — it passes judgment and demands immediate gratification in impossible ways, guaranteeing that only lies will be believed and all truths will be denied.
Once you get to the leftist state of mind, a perpetual downward slide exists because the doctrine of equality applies only to those who are not already equal, and therefore must style themselves as victims of oppression to explain their failure to be equal. For this reason, leftism always favors those who are beneath others, and uses them to expand its power. If the gay orphans are not getting enough attention, we turn to the gay black orphans and make sure they can vote, receive welfare, get preference in hiring and in renting. This, because life is a competition for resources or a zero-sum game, inevitably becomes war against those who are greater than equal. After all, it is that differential — between equal and where these greater-than-equal people are — which must be cannibalized to make the less-than-equal into equals.
And so they become the target, even if they agree with the dogma and are willing to help. It has nothing to do with intention, and everything to do with position, with the ultimate goal as having every person have the same amount of wealth, ability and prospects. Naturally, this creates a society of boring grey people living in boring apartment blocks and going through rote work, but to the person who is less-than-equal this is a better outcome than some rising above. They resent those with the intelligence or talent to know the difference between reality and fantasy, because that judgment ability causes those to rise above the herd. And the herd hates anyone who rises above, and wants to destroy them and take what they have, heedless of how much those people give back to the group as a whole. The egos of the less-than-equal demand above all else that equality be enforced, and if all end up less prosperous and more miserable, that is an acceptable loss.
As a result, the left sees intelligence — real intelligence, not “education” — as an enemy. Intelligence sees reality as it is and sees the Crowd for what it is, which is a group of unhappy people determined that no one may be happier than they. Intelligence must be destroyed because it makes people greater than equal, and that makes them not only a threat but a resource to be exploited, just as we cut down the forests and killed off the whales. Those who are lower than equal are always protected and assumed to be innocent victims in a conflict, with whatever criminal or stupid behavior they exhibited being explained away as a consequence (and not cause) of their inequality. The spiral goes forever downward, never rising above.
There is only one way to end the insanity, and that is to end leftism. There are intermediates, of course. You can point to the Arab quarter (or analogue) where violence is high and prostitution is frequent. Or even look at a specific politician and claim that it is that bastard who ruined everything. But the real culprit, lurking behind the curtain, is the notion that every person is equal and thus every vote counts equally. This creates an inherent prejudice against the ultimate minority, which is smart-and-capable people, or those who are both gifted in analysis and in application. This small group carries humanity on its back. It does very little of the manual labor, but without its intervention, the labor would consist of doing useless things or doing them halfway, leading to far reduced results. It is often invisible, since problems mysteriously “fix themselves” because without much ado, one of this tiny minority has spoken up or acted to fix them. The average person not only remains oblivious to this group, but refuses to recognize them because what they do is beyond the understanding of such a person. These are the actually intelligent, as opposed to those proud of their ability to memorize and repeat, and these are the people who create and advance civilizations instead of merely participating while secretly scheming for more autonomy, usually for degraded ends.
As a Nietzschean, I look at society as a question of human survival. Ultimately however I agree with the Christians that our problem is evil, although I do not see its origin as “Satan” but the poor choices — prioritizing short-term personal gain over long-term stable harmony working toward the good, the beautiful and the true — of individual humans, who without the intervention of self-discipline are merely talking Bonobos with the same licentious and repetitious urges that that tribe of monkeys exhibits. Evil is solipsism, or the creation of an ego that eclipses all else, and its opposite are those who are intelligent and by that nature, disciplined and prone to notice reality instead of living in a closed-circuit feedback loop of their own desires, judgments and feelings. Most of history is deflection, displacement and distraction of reality by those closed-circuit people, so that their venality and corruption remains unnoticed. They are the destroyers of civilization and they thrive in a time bigoted against intelligence, which tells us exactly what we must do to defeat them.
Living in the modern West now resembles a scene from the movie Melancholia: we watch the doom approaching, and the reaction has been to universally go into denial.
“Universally” means that there is zero mention in the controlled media. It means that your friends back away if you talk about it, afraid for themselves. Whole industries exist to explain away the dysfunction, and all politicians get elected by finding something else to blame other than the problem. If you talk, write or make art about the inbound end, no one will acknowledge it in public. We have created the ultimate taboo.
Modern citizens of the West are literally living in a denial bubble, and right now, the people who shout the denial the loudest are the ones profiting. What else is liberalism, with its payouts and subsidies and political correctness, but an admission that society is collapsing from within, and all we can do is adjust to the new failure? They have no long-term plan because they do not believe there is a long-term, so they are just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic by making sure everyone plays well with everyone else, and there are enough meager rations handed out equally to keep the peace.
The reason for this wave of denial is that any solutions we wish to take will destroy the principle upon which, since 1789 at least, our society has been constructed: the equal validity and importance of all individuals. To fix this problem, we need to prioritize some things over others, and that violates the idea that all — and this word has a religious connotation in the West — have a place. Some people will not be able to live in 3,000 square foot houses; not everyone can own their own fast-food restaurant, and not everyone gets a fat government job where they are hired for their race, sex or religion and can be as incompetent as they want. Choices have to be made, hierarchy established and most importantly, a values system upheld, while we have done nothing for the past two-plus centuries but eradicate all of the above.
People go along with this scheme because for the most part, they are unthinking monkeys who do only what is convenient for themselves, which was the reason commercial interests wanted democracy: it would paralyze any clear thinking that stood in the way of reckless financial expansion. The bankers and the proles united, danced in the streets, and murdered anyone with an IQ over 125. The result was third-world style social breakdown, but since the West was riding on the wave of wealth and power created by those over-125s and those who followed them, it has taken two centuries for the West to hit rock bottom.
But now… the West has hit rock bottom. This society is broken and it has been for decades. Daily life here is insufferable because it places fools in power, reduces existence to humiliating and pointless (not to mention tedious) tasks, and slowly distills anything good into a simpler and inferior version of itself. We are in a process of breakdown in which all good things are destroyed and all bad things prosper. Entropy is the condition of having too many options, and it always results in a collapse toward the mean, or a race to the lowest common denominator. That however is an ongoing target which lowers every year. And so the disaster grows bolder and darker in the sky, with all of us doing our best to deny it.
Denial has its appeal. To have been aware of a danger and to have done nothing is to be a bad person; yet that describes most people, which creates a market for people who “explain away” the danger. In addition, denial makes friends, customers, lovers and happy voters. They do not want to hear about the difficult truth. They want soft, sugar-added and deep fried lies. They want some illusion on which to rest their heads. When philosophers of the past said most people were weak, this is what they meant: most people lack the self discipline, moral courage and ability to love required to face hard facts. As disaster approaches, more certain every day, their response is to put their heads back under the blanket, and now many industries are doing a raging good business in selling darker blankets and magazines full of “studies” explaining why spending your life under a blanket is not only scientifically valid, but morally good.
Our current outbreak of political correctness is nothing more than a symptom of this general condition. People are afraid that Noticing, or seeing the holes in the narrative that justifies denial, might occur and so they create mandatory issues for us to discuss instead of any which might lead to Noticing. In the mainstream, this is civil rights; on the underground right, it is a collection of excuses, fantasies and illusions which miss the point. The point is that the West is dying and liberalism is doing it, and that we need to destroy the concept of equality to get back on track. We do not need to do new things, only stop doing the defective and ancient illusory things mandated by 1789.
Perhaps the biggest illusion is that doom will be sudden and violent. We all like that idea because it would make an invisible problem into a visible one where the solution is clear. Riots in the streets! Warfare across the land! Our task would become nice and easy and clear at that point. But that is fantasy. As history shows us time and again, empires do not fall in a conflagration, but collapse to third world status and become useless. The “final” events portrayed by history are long after the empire ceased to become viable, and consist of people it would have brushed aside a century earlier essentially walking in and taking over. The death comes from within first, and this is what people are in denial of. Our future is Brazil, Mexico, and Russia: a walking death of total dysfunction and misery in which anyone with brains escapes or suicides. Eventually someone will destroy that, but it will not be the empire we think we live in — like most people, our perception of reality is a generation or more behind — but the remnants of it.
Our society finds itself buried in silent failure of institutions and an infection it cannot identify. Its institutions fail because they do more of what we consider normal, which is to write rules working around both problems and the obvious solutions that offend the primary goal of equality. Every day, the problems get worse and our response is always the same: write rules, hire bureaucrats, dump money on the problem. It is forbidden to say what is obvious, which is that the entire approach is junk because despite us patching it up for centuries, problems have grown steadily worse. To criticize it would be to criticize equality itself — a philosophy known as “egalitarianism,” which is too long of a word for most modern Western readers — and reveal that equality is the infection. Sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, etc. are all synonyms for “not equal enough.” They just pick increasingly marginalized groups because no one can say no to a victim, since in order to have equality we must lift up the victims at the expense of the victors. That is the pathology gripping the West which conveys us to ruin.
My suggestion to all people who are not so selfish that they cower behind denial is to become the apocalypse. It is in our interests that this empire burn out instead of fade away, because if we can destroy the old West we can erect a new one. Thus it is imperative that we act like the left, but worse: sabotage every institution; create drama at every event; make life miserable for people to wake them up; subvert and impede every public event or standard; your goal is to destroy all of this evil empire and its degenerate systems. Your fellow citizens will not resist the tidal wave but will keep rolling over, congratulating themselves on being open-minded while they destroy the last of a good thing, not realizing that they are in a brief bubble of history where they can be self-important for hastening the end. Gay marriage, anti-white racism, pointless foreign wars, corrupting financial systems, a regulatory nightmare that is essentially a jobs program, and other dysfunctions are merely part of the onrushing third-world state that the West has become.
A sensible goal would be for those who are not infected with the brain-fuzzing delusion brought by the television, politics and socializing with others who are diseased to break away from the dying regime. Secede as states and push back from the epicenter of the dysfunction, which is the big port cities where people make more money through flattery than practicality. They will claim they earn all the money; the truth is that money is “earned” by repackaging the products of the so-called flyover states. They claim they have all the culture, but that “culture” is political obedience. They will claim many things and none of them are real. Without us, they will be forced to finally face the results of their delusional philosophies, and then they collapse faster without us to subsidize them. These people are parasites and those who want any future must get away from them and any nation they control. Their “ideology” enables them to get away with it and scares ordinary people into going along with them. On and on, South of Heaven.
What is falling, push. — Fred Nietzsche
Non-liberals could easily fix the West and set it back on course, but they bicker like marmosets and cluck like chickens instead of doing what they need to do: agree that the enemy is equality and start working against it. This would culminate in a breakaway to let the left die on its own as it is busy doing in Venezuela and Cuba, but first, we need clarity on what the alternative is. Life without equality means social order, hierarchy and social standards. Those are what we want, not a series of intermediate battles that no one can win while the assumption of what is good lies with equality. In order to save ourselves, we must destroy equality, and in order to save the West, we must destroy the West and replace it with a non-egalitarian version. Let those who cannot understand this simple fact perish for being inferior of mind and spirit.
Those who believe in the differences between human races and the importance of at least separation tend to call themselves racialists. This separates them from “racists,” who are people who dislike other races, and puts them into the camp of sane people who dislike diversity because it is inherently paradoxical and produces horrible results whenever and wherever it is tried, regardless of what racial groups make up the melting pot. In that perspective, history and logic — and looking outside the window — agree with the racialists.
Racialism however fails to adequately critique itself in part because it is trying to build up the largest following it can. That approach leads to greater numbers, but also produces a type of ideological entropy as each person re-interprets the belief in some unique way. That in turn erodes the group from having focused into being a generalized gripe session, which suits most people just fine as they do not want to actually do anything but would like to talk about what they would do, you know, if they could.
If racialism were able to focus itself on a single agenda, like liberals have done for years, it would have some power. Instead it dissipates its strength in as many perspectives as it has members. Naturally, hammering out an agenda will make many displeased as it will force some pet issues to the wayside, and by giving momentum to analysis, will also explode some much adored fantasies. And yet, it is the only path to anywhere, so it is the route we must follow.
A good starting question is: Why do racialists focus so much on other races? In a time when our media fawns over every possible story on homosexuals, transgenders, women, the impoverished and any ethnic or religious minority, it seems foolish to follow the blueprint set by the liberal media. Further, it is disspiriting as it removes focus from the object — a healthy white or WASP ethnic group — and turns it instead to a fetishism of what other groups do. More importantly, it shifts focus from the object to be conquered, which is the illogical and deceptive policy of diversity, and instead scapegoats minority groups for what ultimately are the actions of white liberals. White liberals passed anti-discrimination law, the Great Society welfare programs, Affirmative Action and the Hart-Cellar immigration act. White liberals enforce shaming of racists and lead the call for the removal of Confederate flags. The enemy is white liberals, or at least white liberalism.
Further, a philosophy comprised of race-isolation alone becomes a type of ethno-bolshevism (thanks to Nick Land for that formulation). It eliminates class distinctions within whites and turns them into an ideological force, as if emulating Communism. Perhaps it makes sense to emulate the political methods of leftists, but not their goals, since any student of history knows where those lead. Under white nationalism, for example, whites are united regardless of ability and exempted from having to demonstrate evolutionary fitness, much like the reward-before-performance ethos of socialism. This movement also creates white victim privilege which results in whites seeing themselves not as conquerors and innovators, but ghetto-dwellers held down by the man. It turns a once noble group into a parasitic, revengeful mob just like liberalism does.
Not only that, but race as an organizing principle tends to drown out anything else. It does not change the underlying conditions which were the causes that got us to this point in history, where their effects can be seen in the manic racial egalitarianism of the left. It does not address the decay in social order and mental ability of our people that began long before diversity. Even worse, it acts as a surrogate for dealing with these problems much as the left invented class warfare and diversity as substitutes for addressing the actual problem of civilization collapse.
No sane person should object to reasoned discussion of race, including leaving the option on the table that diversity is inherently flawed and a destroyer of empires and (thus) should be replaced. At the same time, to go about an issue the wrong way poisons the well and removes the ability to have useful future discussions on the topic, which then banishes the topic to the dustbin of history for future generations. It is time for racialists to mature and face the decision that has hovered over them for many decades: do they really want to restore civilization, or merely complain about it and bully some African-Americans to make themselves feel better?
One fine summer evening, Dylan — his parents having awakened to the futility of novelty spellings a few years before — contemplated his final act. He knew he did not want to survive into adulthood; it was too corrupt, banal, humiliating, pointless and most of all stupid to want to live through it. When he looked at the vista of life ahead of him, he saw nothing but bleakness; the drugs he had begun taking a few months ago only intensified this feeling. It was an enemy he could not escape, and he knew the time was soon.
Whispering aloud as he counted the rounds, he loaded all of the clips he owned for his Glock .45 and got into his black Hyundai. While he drove, his mind reiterated the circular loop that had occupied it for the past weeks: Is this what must be done? Yes, there is no other way. He sniffled once, and turned on the radio in disgust. Nothing but hip-hop, ads for Chinese products, and political jargon that made no sense. He snapped it off without care. He would not need this car for long.
At his destination, which he had looked up on Google maps, he took a final breath and turned off the car. Stepping out, he flung the keys as far away as he could, then took a tire iron from under the seat and concealed it in his sleeve. Steeling himself, he walked up to the door.
“I’m sorry, sir, you can’t–” said the guard, but Dylan sidestepped him and brought the iron down on the back of his head. The guard slumped forward but Dylan, having honed his reflexes with video game and played out this scenario in his mind for many days after having seen video of this place on Youtube, was already moving forward to the next guard. He punched him in the face, pushing aside the frantic overweight Hispanic woman clawing at his face, then bashed her behind the head with the iron. The third guard, a thinly-built man whose uniform hung from his bony frame, was frantically operating his radio but Dylan kicked his feet out from under him. A fourth guard came in with weapon drawn but Dylan, waiting beside the door, dispatched him similarly.
Dylan took a deep breath and wished he had a God to thank. He walked down the carpeted hall, bashing unconscious a secretary he found on the phone, and headed toward the thick oak doors at the end. His entire plan revolved around getting to those before someone locked them. He knew that it was inevitable the authorities were already notified, which meant he needed to maximize time. This, too, he had practiced in his mind using a layout of this building in PDF that he had downloaded from a torrent hosted in Sweden. He yanked open the door just as a sweaty little man in a black suit was fumbling with the lock. Dylan kicked him in the gonads and pushed him aside.
His friends had thought it curious that he had spent hours on the face book for the legislature, but now the work paid off. Dylan could recognize faces quickly from the pictures and with his Glock, he stamped down the ones he knew were left-leaning. Blood exploded out of custom-fitted shirts and shattered heads drained life-fluids across the polished desks and onto heaps of pointless bureaucratic nonsense. He fired systematically, imitating Anders Breivik who he had come to admire, showing these people that liberalism was not merely a type of conformity that you got you ahead in life by flattering the crowd, but a death sentence. Except this time, it was for the guilty ones and not everyone else.
Dylan walked down the rows, firing at an even pace, exploding the hearts and livers of those he detested. Liberal politician after liberal politician died, and with each that fell, the others panicked more and rushed toward the door. They crushed each other in panic, some suffocating under the squealing mass of bodies. A conservative politician cautiously raised his hands and Dylan nodded him aside. Then he kept firing, knowing that at any minute the SWAT team would arrive and his ultimate task would end. A woman died gasping, leaving a streak of blood as she slid down the carpeted stairs and flopped before the podium.
As he neared the end of his ammunition supply, Dylan contemplated his life. Born into hell, where people lied not only by outright falsehood but by omitting or denying important truths, he had suffered under this system for too long. He had long ago purged his anger toward the intermediaries, the minorities and authority figures, but now went toward the source. Liberalism had made this change, with the agitation of the Northerners in 1860 all the way through the Hart-Cellar act and anti-discrimination law of a century later. The stamping blast of the pistol comforted him as more recognized liberal faces pointed blankly toward the sky. He only distantly registered the flash bangs and finally, the stabbing pains in his abdomen and chest. For the first time in his life, Dylan Roof had found a task worth doing well with his whole heart, body and soul. As the room grew dim, he rolled backward and looked toward the sky with a gentle smile. He had found his purpose.
The Civil War (1861-1865) still divides the American public. Its origins remain misunderstood, with the South arguing that the war was a case of states’ rights or the ability to shape their society separately from the intent of Washington, D.C., where liberals insist it was a racial holy war for white supremacy through slavery of African-Americans.
Luckily, a respected historian approaches from a different angle which makes more sense in its historical context:
Fleming contends that the real reason for the war – and for why, of all the nations on earth, only the U.S. associated war with the ending of slavery – was twofold: First, there was the extreme “malevolent envy” of Southerners by the New England “Yankee” political class, who had long believed that they were God’s chosen people and that they should rule America, if not the rest of the world. Second, there were a mere 25 or so very influential New England abolitionists who had abandoned Christianity and even condemned Jesus Christ, while embracing the mentally insane mass murderer John Brown as their “savior.” This is part of the “disease in the public mind” that is the theme of Fleming’s book.
John Brown, who had declared himself to be a communist, had organized terrorist attacks in Kansas which included the murder of entire families who did not own slaves, and the murder of free black men. “Perhaps most appalling,” writes Fleming, “were the murders of James P. Doyle and his two oldest sons, while Doyle’s wife, Mahala, pleaded frantically for their lives . . . . The Doyles were immigrants from Tennessee who . . . had no interest in owning slaves.” Brown claimed that his purpose was “to strike terror into the hearts of the proslavery people.” He planned even larger acts of terrorism at Harpers’ Ferry in 1859 where he was apprehended by U.S. Marines led by Colonel Robert E. Lee, and he was hanged for his crimes.
It helps to recall that Europe was wracked by the Napoleonic wars (1803–1815) just a generation earlier, and that those had a similar drift: enforcing centralized liberal ideology through the State over local areas, including independent kingdoms and States much as the South was independent. Liberalism represented on its surface triumph of the common man through egalitarianism, but underneath that shiny exterior it served mostly to empower commercial interests by freeing them from the constraints of culture and those who might know better. Humanity has always been its own downfall, and mobs always demand what is worst for them, and these wars — arising from the French Revolution and bloody mass murder from 1789-1796 — showed the liberal forces attempting to take over Europe.
In the United States, the situation was similar. The South remained agrarian with a high degree of culture, which is why most of the good literature and art came from the South, and enforced that through a strong social order in which a caste system persisted. This enraged liberals, so they engaged on an ideological war against it. Being crafty narrow-eyed Yankees, they chose to pick a fight over an issue the South struggled with: slavery. While slavery was in decline, and many if not most in the South wanted it gone, the problem was that spontaneous manumission would result in a collapse of the Southern economy. The North defined the issue, and provoked the South into a response, at which point the North demonstrated a willingness to conscript as many people as possible into a war it won by numbers and industrial power.
Consider this response from Abraham Lincoln through Ambassador Charles Francis Adams to a letter written to him by Karl Marx:
So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.
The Government of the United States has a clear consciousness that its policy neither is nor could be reactionary, but at the same time it adheres to the course which it adopted at the beginning, of abstaining everywhere from propagandism and unlawful intervention. It strives to do equal and exact justice to all states and to all men and it relies upon the beneficial results of that effort for support at home and for respect and good will throughout the world.
Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example. It is in this relation that the United States regard their cause in the present conflict with slavery, maintaining insurgence as the cause of human nature, and they derive new encouragements to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe that the national attitude is favored with their enlightened approval and earnest sympathies.
One and a half centuries later, we wonder what it all meant. The answer is as simple as it seems: the American Civil War was part of the ongoing world domination by liberalism, which it attempted at first through the French Revolutionary model, then through Communism, and now through European-style “social democracy” mated with American-style industrial capitalism. This war in turn led to others, culminating in the entangling alliances that formed the parties of the first World War, which then in turn led to that fratricidal disaster. The origin of all: liberalism and its ideological compulsion to force others into obedience because it rightfully recognizes the instability of liberalism and thus the fatal threat of any viable competition.
The State of Mississippi has an official flag which is causing some controversy among people looking for a cause, any cause, to distract from the otherwise oppressive fact of our civilization being in terminal decline.
To help them out, we present our new contest in which you, dear readers, design new flags for Mississippi. The old state flag is obviously super-racist, so it’s important that Mississippi receives a new flag, more reflective of Northern urban industrial egalitarian values.
The contest closes in one week, so do not hesitate to fire up your Photoshop, cross-stitch or legal pads and come up with those fine and interesting ideas. Below you can find my suggestion, which I think shows Mississippi abandoning its primitive past and boldly venturing forth into an EnlightenedTM future!
For many years, liberals have enjoyed the benefit of considering politics as a preference, meaning that political choices do not require a logical basis such as what is good for the nation, and reflect the whim and will of the individual alone. If you — for example — find liberalism to be aesthetically more inspiring, why not vote for that? Nothing wrong with it.
As always, time uncovers the hidden lie, and now science slowly reveals the gap between liberals and conservatives as having more of a biological (and thus aptitudinal, although they will fight that notion tooth and nail as they did with race, class and sex) foundation than previously thought. A recent study found that conservatives have a longer attention span and can postpone gratification for longer than liberals:
In a paper published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers say there is a link between political ideology and the ability to exert self-control.
In a series of three studies with more than 300 participants, the authors found that people who identify as conservative perform better on tests of self-control than those who identify as liberal regardless of race, socioeconomic status and gender.
Self-control includes the ability to defer gratification, which means that when the person looks forward to something pleasurable, they are able to put off acting toward that end in order to achieve a greater benefit. The classic example of this is the famous marshmallow test:
Mischel and his colleagues presented a preschooler with a plate of treats such as marshmallows. The child was then told that the researcher had to leave the room for a few minutes, but not before giving the child a simple choice: If the child waited until the researcher returned, she could have two marshmallows. If the child simply couldn’t wait, she could ring a bell and the researcher would come back immediately, but she would only be allowed one marshmallow.
In children, as well as adults, willpower can be thought of as a basic ability to delay gratification. Preschoolers with good self-control sacrifice the immediate pleasure of a chewy marshmallow in order to indulge in two marshmallows
at some later point. Ex-smokers forfeit the enjoyment of a cigarette in order to experience good health and avoid an increased risk of lung cancer in the future. Shoppers resist splurging at the mall so they can save for a comfortable retirement. And so on.
This ability toward self-control increases with intelligence, as we can see when looking at those who commit violent crimes, which are the antithesis of deferred gratification — just go in and take what you want. Researchers found that a genetic basis for low IQ superseded all other factors:
Cognitive ability in early adulthood was inversely associated to having been convicted of a violent crime (β = −0.19, 95% CI: −0.19; −0.18), the association remained when adjusting for childhood socioeconomic factors (β = −0.18, 95% CI: −0.18; −0.17). The association was somewhat lower within half-brothers raised apart (β = −0.16, 95% CI: −0.18; −0.14), within half-brothers raised together (β = −0.13, 95% CI: (−0.15; −0.11), and lower still in full-brother pairs (β = −0.10, 95% CI: −0.11; −0.09). The attenuation among half-brothers raised together and full brothers was too strong to be attributed solely to attenuation from measurement error.
Even more exciting is that research has decoupled socioeconomic status from criminality. In other words, poverty is not the cause of crime — criminal tendencies are. Researchers using the same Swedish data set discovered that innate tendencies do not vary when income changes:
He found, to no one’s surprise, that teenagers who had grown up in families whose earnings were among the bottom fifth were seven times more likely to be convicted of violent crimes, and twice as likely to be convicted of drug offences, as those whose family incomes were in the top fifth.
What did surprise him was that when he looked at families which had started poor and got richer, the younger children—those born into relative affluence—were just as likely to misbehave when they were teenagers as their elder siblings had been. Family income was not, per se, the determining factor.
In other words, not just our political leanings but our behavioral leanings are hard-wired by heritage, much as our ancestors believed. People are either born good or born bad, and social caste exists based on ability instead of affluence. Traditionalists and conservatives have always held and espoused these beliefs but for some time, liberal strongholds in the social sciences were able to baffle, confuse, distract, obfuscate and deflect from the issue. This suggests in turn that there is a biological difference in ability between conservatives and liberals: conservatives may take longer to develop as youngsters, but have more self-control and keep developing throughout adulthood, reaching greater heights of ability than liberals, who peak early and achieve a lower height. Those who have read The Bell Curve may see how conservatives are those on the right side of the center line of the curve, and liberals are those on the left but close to the center. That means they are more intelligent than the average person, but not as intelligent as they would need to be to make the decisions they purport to be making, unlike the ultimate conservative force in our society — military leaders and aristocrats — who tended to be more intelligent and capable of making these decisions.