Why the USA should accept white South African refugees


During the 1898 – 1901 Anglo-Boer War in South Africa, thousands of Americans participated as volunteers on both sides. The US government was apparently indecisive because the policies it subsequently followed in South Africa were radically different from what it implemented just prior in the Philippines.

Political decisions create an inertia which limits leaders to kicking the can further down the road. This little war however, caused a lot of difficulty for the British Empire, with some opining that it was the straw that broke the camel’s back and initiated the 20th century British de-colonization policy, in part because (based on informal information) it took the Treasury a century to pay back the expenses incurred. However, in today’s world, the United States is the Empire required to address the world’s little conflicts, those low-probability but high severity risks some people refer to as “black swan events”.

Today South Africa has changed roles from the “Empire’s” black swan to its “canary in the coalmine.” It’s the “S” in the BRICS organization that supports transition from the dollar as the world’s reference currency, it is the Gate to Africa and a future influencer of world affairs (on the Security Council) if one considers Mandela’s doctrine of demography i.e. (majority) rule. African demographic growth is staggering international commentators with migrants (already) streaming into the West. If these migrants were of above average IQ, the situation would not be dire, but unfortunately their IQ is below average while their inherent culture is incompatible with the West (proven by the refusal of Eastern countries to accept them).

The situation the West finds itself in –- having been exporting “human rights” is in fact a paradox since it does not really want to “import” human rights — consists of telling the third world that the West will give them human rights in exchange for money (not other human rights). This is another form of “what’s good for thee is not good for me.” Africa doesn’t care about all of that. The African proposal is simply: “If you don’t give us money, you must take our people. But after you paid, you will have to take them anyway.” This sentiment was expressed by the “big” men in Africa i.e. Ghaddafi, Mugabe and Mandela.

Time has moved on and the next “big man” on the rise in South Africa is Julius Malema with the updated (African) proposal of “look after your employees, and they will buy your products.”

The environment in which this proposal is expressed relates to the “modern” Africa, where cell phone towers preceded transport infrastructure because cellular service allows migrants to transfer monies abroad. Africa itself is full of migrants since borders are not that important and migrants do not wish to walk all the way. For example, an African migrant can cross America in six months on foot.

Meanwhile in South Africa the political environment is one of continuous covert revolution. Sometimes they call it “Transition” where we are now active in the “Second Transition”, sometimes called the “revolutionary morality.” South Africa employs a dual cultural approach where they would do things at the political level to suit international observers while doing another thing locally. For example, they exclaim that “jobs are our highest priority” while at the same time making deals with crime bosses in order to expand their electorate, bringing in income for the political party.

So what Julius Malema is saying is that he expects a leaderless revolution where police will fire on their officers rather than criminals. He bases his observation on the black student revolts in local universities (not conservative, mostly white students) where they demanded change in University leadership in order to get lower tuition fees. In order to prevent the student revolt to roll-over into industry, employers should make haste in getting their employees “on their side.” Companies can get their employees “on their side” by giving them 51% of the shares. He adds one further tidbit of advice which is that should businesses have their “employees on their side” production will improve. Economically it can be deduced that he proposes disqualification of affirmative action, then to take the money that businesses already lose on AA, and re-route it to normal employee benefits (shares excluded in this part). The employees therefore benefit in the short and long term and will “rescue” all businesses as a result.

So, the situation in South Africa shows that a revolution is on hands either covertly or overtly, and it’s up to Western man to decide which he prefers. The old Boers from the Anglo-Boer War has since also moved on too, and have closer ties with European descendants than Africans, in part because they have been exposed to these revolutions already.

Thus spoke the Canary.

How to end terrorism


After an attack, our politicians and media like to slam the barn door really hard to show that escaped horse that it was wrong. Many people have made many statements about how to stop terrorism, and almost all of them are unrealistic and wrong.

Terrorism arose from guerrilla warfare and succeeds the same way guerrilla warfare does: by convincing the people making the decisions that there are too many costs of doing business to make it worth continuing to participate. In the American revolution, the guerrillas made a king back down after heavy losses; in the Vietnam war, the guerrillas learned a new weapon: the television. If they could get a whole lot of voters, who we all know are useful idiots, to panic and emote over what they see on the teevee screen, then the guerrillas win because the politicians will retreat.

And that’s exactly what happened.

Much of the techniques of those Viet Cong guerrillas involved terrorism, both active and passive. Active terrorism means going into a village that has supported your opposition and maiming, killing and otherwise terrorizing the population so the voters back at home squeal and cry and demand a withdrawal. Passive terrorism means giving 8-year-old hand grenades to throw at Americans, knowing that at some point a My Lai will result. The Afghans did the same thing during the Russian occupation and ensured that the Russians had two types of soldiers: one, killers who wanted every duhkh dead, and two, hesistant killers who shortly would be dead from an inability to comprehend how profoundly they were hated.

Terrorism relies on two things: (1) opportunity and (2) audience. Opportunity means that it is generally far easier to stage a terrorist strike than, say, an invasion or commando raid. It requires lower skills, less equipment, and generally just a nasty will to kill and maim, which conveniently attracts sociopaths that you want out of your society anyway. Audience means a whole bunch of people watching television and poised over computer keyboards, so that when they see the horror you can count on them to flatter themselves as empathetic geniuses by engaging in public displays of weeping, mourning, why-can’t-we-all-get-along and think-of-the-children style behavior.

I suggest applying Occam’s razor and realizing that we can end all terrorism very quickly.

First, we deny opportunity. This action involves two parts:

  1. Anyone who is not of the indigenous populations to Western civilization — national groups in Europe and mixed Western Europeans in America — needs to get a welfare check and a plane ticket sending them back to their continent of origin. Asians to Asia, Africans to Africa, lawyers to Antarctica, and mixed-race/culture people to north Africa.
  2. Destroy the welfare state. A cynic sees humanity correctly: people who act in self-interest, especially by denying the interests of others. Each group wants to prevail. If you let them in, and you are wealthier than they, they will both show up en masse and try to exterminate you because the sight of you succeeding offends their self-image. If we remove our welfare, benefits, free stuff, etc. that politicians use to attract voters, we will stop inviting people in by conspicuously waving our wealth in their faces.

Then, we deny audience. I do not suggest government make any laws or take any action here; laws and government are the most impotent form of action. Instead, our smartest people should begin spreading the word that the correct response to a terrorist attack is to ignore it, and put our support behind those rounding up and beheading the perpetrators. Stop the public heaps of flowers, the endless mourning, the switching of your masturbatory Facebook profile selfie to a French flag. All of that is personal drama in which people engage to make themselves look more compassionate, wealthy and important. (If anything, we should send those people to north Africa, too.).

We do not need laws and restrictions on media. If our smart people hammer out this message, those that admire them will also emulate it, on down to the least thoughtful among us. This changes demand for the product in media, and means that media will stop following the Jane Fonda route as useful idiots for guerrillas and terrorists.

These ideas may be a bit ahead of their time, and are certainly less exciting than the other stuff the talking heads and blog zombies are raving about, but unlike those, they have at least a chance of success.

Collectivism versus Capitalism


As you sit down to your Thanksgiving dinner, you will be full of thoughts of what you are thankful for. The most important ones you will not mention because they are invisible to you. You cannot see them because you enjoy them every day.

First on this list might be stability of your civilization, unlike every other human civilization which like Italian cars and German soap operas seem to be non-stop screw-ups from the start. Most people live in disorder, filth, corruption and incompetence. We here in the West do not, although the gap has narrowed over the past few decades, and not by the acts of others.

What got us this way are two things generally considered opposites: capitalism and collectivism. Both have been replaced by modern, inferior variants that are useful to our society only because they do not offend our leftist ideology.

Capitalism in its raw form is the idea that economic decisions should be made by those who will face the consequences for them. In other words, a bakery must make the choices that determine if it lives or dies, and citizens must make their own spending choices and thrive or flail accordingly. Keep in mind that despite those radical opposites, most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

Collectivism, in its original form, meant that we understood ourselves as a society and kept its interests front and center. That meant that we took care of people who helped that society, in accord with Plato’s “good to the good, bad to the bad”: people who do good should be rewarded, and people who do bad should be driven away. It is natural selection in its social form.

These two offended leftists, naturally, because leftism is based on a single idea: “I deserve to be included for society no matter how little I contribute or how delusional I am.” It is freedom not to be accountable to reality. That is why it is eternally popular; accountability to reality determines who thrives and flails, and so it is not a popular reminder among humans. Using social control, which is peer pressure plus the assumption of goodness, they can banish reality and replace it with equality.

(That summarizes leftism from nose to nethers as far as its essential ideas; it is subsequently draped in layers of theory, studies, facts/interpretations, emotions, etc. that are mostly gibberish and always taken out of context. If you see a leftist, watch their hands instead of listening to them speak. They are most likely lifting your wallet.).

Both capitalism and collectivism have now come to mean something else through the transformative powers of leftist ideology. If our society has one disease, it is the use of a broad and simple idea to replace all other ideas, and in this case, liberal egalitarianism has replaced the original meaning of these terms.

Traditional society liked capitalism because it was efficient. Capitalism has never existed without restrictions because, before modernity replaced the idea of having a goal as a civilization with the notion that civilization existed solely as a means of empowering the individual to be a precious snowflake, capitalism was always subordinate to goals, values, social standards and practical demands. There were also legal restrictions placed on it, usually to protect the consumer but just as often, to prevent the boom/bust cycle where something makes a lot of money so everyone does it, neglects everything else and in the process bankrupts themselves. Crazes, trends and fads are as destruction in markets as they are in society itself, and just as vapid.

But the traditionalists had a different approach to regulating it. Instead of writing a million laws, they allowed organic forces — culture, religion, superior individuals, and social standards — to regulate demand instead of supply. Where moderns tell businesses what they can manufacture, the traditionalists tuned in their people to certain ideas of what is good, and regulated products through that. As a result, things were built to last, more elegant and often far more effective than their modern variants.

In the same way, collectivism has been spoofed. Once it meant that we were all in it together working for the same goal, so anyone who was trying to do that was welcome. This offends the leftist idea of universal inclusion, which has its roots in individualism: the individual wants to always be included, so he desires the removal of any restrictions on who is included so that he always makes the list. After leftism, collectivism means that we all work and throw money into the pot to support everyone else, no matter how useless they are — or how much we dislike them.

A healthy society needs both of these forces. A civilization cannot exist by economics alone, and by making the choice to use solely an economic system — capitalism or socialism — the society signals to its people that it will not have a values system, competent leadership or purpose, which turns people into miserable drips who feel correctly that their lives are without meaning. A society cannot exist without some sense of guidance, direction, and purpose, which is why traditional collectivism is needed and not its modern variety, which obliterates all of those with a single guilt-ridden imperative to be uncritical, non-discriminatory and in other words oblivious in choice of the people surrounding you.

While I admire the French New Right, I find their continued embrace of socialism to be problematic. Once you create benefits, you create an all-powerful state to enforce them, and you destroy the idea of regulating inclusion by who is useful. No society with standards that low can exist, and it imposes on people an immoral duty to spend their time, which translates into money, supporting those who they would not otherwise support. For this reason, socialism is the great evil that destroys societies and rightists should never support it. Under socialism your entire society becomes contorted to fund the bennies and justify them, even at the expense of society itself.

By the same token, I find the reliance on absolute capitalism as a motivator to be unworkable, which is why I am not a libertarian. Libertarianism always shifts leftward because it is based in the egalitarian idea of “Everyone do what they want, and the best will magically rise to the top.” This is far from true, as any look at the most popular movies, music, art and novels will show us. Instead, pure capitalist societies are a race to the lowest common denominator and, like socialism, they replace the idea of a purpose to the civilization with the idea of it facilitating individuals. This is also bad.

I have said in the past that if people were to look more deeply into mainstream conservatism, they would find a way of life more radical than their ideologies and economic systems could ever be. That is because the roots of mainstream conservatism — now buried under layers of lies by 75% leftist “neoconservatives” and “libertarians” — are extremely radical. In that view, most people are scatty little monkeys who will if the whip is not cracked simply engage in every venal behavior possible. No matter what economic or political system we use, the truth of humanity remains and never changes, so we must first look toward producing healthy individuals. That requires the opposite direction from egalitarianism and infuriates liberals, but it explains why conservatism is less formalized.

The idea from which conservatism arises is traditionalism, which has been around in many forms over the ages. It is basically thus: over the centuries, we have found some things that work and some that do not. These do not take the form of ideology, but of knowing our world and its logic, so instead of being individualists, we submit to natural order and find our place in that. Then we are known by how well we rise to that challenge and what it reveals of our moral character, which is the most important part of an individual. By applying this rigorously, we can breed ourselves into a better class of people and make a civilization as great as that of the ancients at their height.

Naturally, this is not a popular message. 5% of the population can understand it, so to the rest it sounds like gibberish and they hate it for making them feel dumb when they desire the pretense of intelligence (they do not understand the Dunning-Kruger effect either). Even among those 5%, traditionalism is controversial because it places limits on the individual, and they have been raised in a civilization that thinks the ultimate good is liberating the individual from limits, even — especially — reasonable ones. This is why people always look for an ideological solution, and choose variants of capitalism and collectivism as the answer when they need a more nuanced approach.

The importance of a nuanced approach is that it avoids collapse. Rigid, sharp-corners thinking like leftism and libertarianism will run a society into collapse as paradoxes emerge based on the attempt to impose a square form over an organic topography. This will force people to deny reality so they can keep ideology intact, and will then cause massive internal friction. On the other end of the pendulum’s swing, however, it is important to remember that both collectivism and capitalism — in their original forms — are vital, and trying to stop the decay brought on by liberalism by limiting them will also lead to failure.

Inflation as a control measure


¡TRIGGER ALERT! This post contains what may resemble a math-like substance. Should this induce anxiety, breathe deeply into a fast food bag that smells like French fry grease. You can then once more relax.

So let’s say you miss the good old days when a king was a king and peasants knew they’d better kowtow properly lest they be shortened by a head, I’ve got nothing but good news. We’ve got a way to keep those little people exactly in the muddy ditch where they belong. You keep their wages essentially stagnant and you make it very expensive for them to improve themselves or put a roof over their heads. What Charles Hugh Smith sees as a problem, I see as a mechanism. One that our betters seem to find very useful.

It starts by undercutting the value of an hour’s hard work. If I build up the cardio-respiratory endurance to withstand the work-a-day treadmill, I could get uppity and develop some serious delusions of adequacy. What you need is a nice effective algorithm to slap these suck-weasels down hard before they get all full of themselves. According to the Economic Policy Institute, we’ve got just the weapon. The table below shows the changes in income by level of education between 2007 and 2014. It assumes a standard wage of $100, develops an exponential function based on the wage change and then projects what that $100 would be worth if earned twenty years hence.


What jumps out immediately is that somebody that straps on the student loan debt to matriculate at Old Ivy and then fails to get the sheepskin is worse off in terms of wage value over time than people I knew who were already cannabis-baked by the 7th grade. How’s that for some Dark Enlightenment?

Then you can press down on them further by steepening the cost of educational credentials so that villains remain villains and the elitists at Yale will never suffer breathing the same air. Here’s what has happened to the cost of college in the last 15 years. The cost of tuition in 2035 will be 7.5 times as much as it was 2000. Ask yourself whether our overlords are going to be 7.5 times as wise and perspicacious.


If people manage to squirrel away money and don’t blow it on the college experience, you can make it impossible to keep a sound, dry roof over your head. Ceteris paribus, the monthly rent will be 2.82 times as much as it was back in Y2K. Will the apartment be 2.82 times as spacious and luxurious?


So if the people get too uppity, we can thank our stellar economic overlords for knowing how to put up-jumped upstarts back in their places. You can’t have these types thinking they can bend the blades of grass on Mark Zuckerberg’s elegant lawn. This is why our current Federal Reserve policies are truly brilliant and those cracker-jack geniuses we keep sending to Washington, DC have our economy humming along on 200 cylinders. Keeping people poor, miserable and locked out of any hope of ever advancing prevents them from worrying their pretty little heads over the direction that their society and culture are heading in. Especially if these elites know good and bloody well that it is ultimately a highway to hell.

The tyranny of democracy


I would like to introduce you to a talented writer who, unlike most of his peers, correctly perceived and communicated the issues on a topic. In doing so, however, he was misled from the truth he should have been looking at.

This man is Michael Cardo, and he writes about the problem of “identity politics.” He understands this phenomenon well and describes it perfectly, but that requires accepting the idea that our purpose should be the sub-issue that identity politics types want to replace the bigger issue.

For the entrepreneurs of racial identity politics, identity is a fixed, ascriptive, collectivist way of being that determines what it means to be a “good” black or a “bad” white, and vice versa.

Here he correctly describes the control method of racial identity politics: it specifies what you must do to be considered good in your tribe, and this allows punishment of those who deviate.

The unasked question is “Why is group identity so important?”

A good white, on the other hand, is one who engages the world through a haze of guilt, regret and shame for the sins of her forefathers.

According to Samantha Vice – a critical race theorist who, astonishingly, claims to be a philosopher – whites in South Africa “ought to see themselves as a problem.”

He’s right, but so wrong. The problem with “good whites” is that they are liberals indoctrinated in liberalism. Liberalism, leftism, Communism, Socialism and collectivist anarchy are all different variations of the same idea, which is that of creating a State to support individuals instead of having us all work together toward an actual goal.

Listen to liberals: they will tell you that for them, racial politics are a subset of class politics. Class warfare is how they take over nations with revolutions, kill off the smart people and install a permanent moron majority that will keep voting leftist up until the day the vodka stops coming.

There is no point projecting the problem of white self-destruction into racial politics; it is part of liberal politics and explains why democracy becomes tyranny.

To justify democracy, we must believe that everyone is equal enough that they can make good decisions about our political future through voting. Daily we see massive evidence to the contrary. At that point, we are in “reality optional” world. Votes are a product. This product is produced through illusions. When most people prefer an illusion, who are we to tell them no? They’re equal, which means that they get included in society no matter how crazy their ideas are or how little they contribute, so that we can support our pretense of being moral altruists.

This egalitarian impulse makes our government seem like an ultimate moral good through its method of wealth redistribution, which means that those who do not support it become social outsiders. This is how democracies become tyrannies: the pretense of “good” + the need to censor, manipulate and hide the grim reality that is constantly clashing with the illusions that most people prefer.

Liberals therefore support anything which weakens society and strengthens government, which means destruction of culture, heritage, values, religion and even the sexes. All must be faceless equals who blindly carry out the ideology of absolute good, equality.

For this reason, every natural thing in our lives is replaced with an ideological substitute. Normally, we have self-esteem from our own acts and deeds; under democracy, we get self-esteem from having the right ideology. For whites and blacks alike, this means hating whites and supporting every minority group whose present helps destroy white society. This is the liberal way, and it is the root of the “identity politics” Cardo describes.

These Social Justice Warriors can barely complete a sentence without crowbarring “whiteness” and “white privilege” into it. Rampant, too, are the “microagressions”, “cultural appropriations” and “trigger warnings” that their counterparts on US campuses have popularised with such discourse-deadening success.

All of these terms are what the historian Robert Conquest would have called “brain blindfolds”, “mind blockers” and “thought extinguishers”. They obstruct understanding and stifle debate.

This means there is absolutely zero difference between them and every other leftist revolution in history. The point of ideology is to stop thinking. You find one concept that seems to explain everything else, and rally people behind it because it flatters them. Equality flatters us because it makes us sound like “good guys” to the chanting mob, so we all want to be egalitarians. Every good business is in favor of equality so it can flatter the pretense of its customers, much like they often give small amounts of money to charities so that people read the story and think, “That XYZ brain mulching business sure is run by a lot of nice guys! I’ll buy my brain mulching videos from them!”

Worse still, the identitarians have, as their articles of faith, a disregard for the Constitution, a contempt for non-racialism, and a vaguely articulated socialism that identifies “neoliberalism” (whatever that may be) as the root of all evil.

Ideology consumes all else. It is the absolute good, remember. Everything else can be sacrificed to it, including fellow leftists. They have no problem throwing each other under the bus if it tightens the Overton Window or radicalizes the base (the majority of people who support them). It is mass hypnosis.

Cardo’s article is brilliant. He writes better than I do — not that this is all that difficult! — and clearly articulates the problem in a way that all can understand. But in doing so, he becomes the bull rushing after the cape, and that cape is designed to lead him away from the obvious: all that we see now is part of the plan that always happens under leftism.

Diversity is part of the leftist agenda because it is (a) class warfare and (b) destroys society so it can be replaced with government. Leftists do not care if that group is black, Asian or mixed; they just want a group to use to fragment society, and they will invent whatever backstory of victimhood, oppression, cruelty, poverty and sadness needed to support that. As in courtrooms and divorces, there are never 100% innocent and 100% guilty parties.

Read between the lines, and you’ll see a simple message. Liberalism created identity politics to destroy us by replacing sane and natural ideas of heritage, culture, and self-esteem through upholding a values system or social standard. Liberalism is here to destroy those things and leave us with only totalitarian government.

We need to turn back now before we all become zombies rushing blindly to our fate.

Awakening from the nightmare of democracy


Across America and Europe, people are slowly awakening from the mental haze of illusions, propaganda and false promises offered to them by democracy. They are re-learning the lesson of ancient Athens, which is that once you go democratic, you get rich but your society self-destructs.

People are beginning to see the split between what they are told is true, and what is actually true. This is leading them to see how they are sold on certain “wants” as “needs,” and this has caused them to spend recklessly on the non-essential while neglecting the essential, which is the condition of our civilization and its future.

For years democracy trapped them in the dream. Follow us, and be Enlightened™. On this new path, you will be more moral than the kings, more powerful than the lords, and the master of your own future, beholden to none! While some glimpsed the demonic nature of this promised control, few had the bravery to confront the massively popular illusions with hard truths that were difficult to explain and understood by only a few.

Thanks to the relentless incompetence, greed and gift-giving of our rulers, we have learned that all the free stuff and good feelings came at a price. Namely, our societies do not feel healthy as they one did, but stand revealed as moribund dystopian wastelands waiting for the final fall into permanent third-world, mixed-race, cultureless and brainless status.

Imagine Idiocracy meets Blade Runner: a devastated landscape of heavy industry, ruling over a population from the low-IQ lands of the third world, mixed into a featureless grey mass that wants nothing except more food, drugs, porn, alcohol and gadgets to distract itself with. Surrounded by an environment that was ruined as it was displaced by the growing society, it is a perpetual future of existential misery but infinite ways of concealing the problem.

Their first taste came this week through a survey which revealed that most Americans feel like “strangers in their own country,” and see a bleak downward ramp for our future:

According to the Reuters survey, 58 percent Americans say they “don’t identify with what America has become.” While Republicans and Independents are the most likely to agree with this statement, even 45 percent of Democrats share this feeling.

More than half of Americans, 53 percent, say they “feel like a stranger” in their own country. A minority of Americans feel “comfortable as myself” in the country.

You can see the cogitation as it happens. “But… we voted for tolerance and peace, not violence and war!” It does not occur to them — yet — that by backing down from strong signals of identity and a unique place in the world, our society invited us to become the world’s punching bag. Or that diversity naturally creates conflict as it puts opposing cultures and groups with different abilities and inclinations in the same face and makes them compete for a share of resources shrinking with each person added.

As mentioned here before, we once thought the future would be glorious, but now we see it as a dark place like a technological Brazil with more uncertainty. As we go, we realize, the rest of the world will collapse inward as our dollars disappear (or are devalued) and a vast rush will appear among us looking for the scraps.

Where once people assumed that the triad of diversity, democracy and pluralism would save us from all ills, the problems with each have come out of the closet. Diversity and pluralism, or the idea that radically different groups who envy and hate each other for unequal abilities can co-exist in the same society, has fallen as we fight over what our standards, customs and values will be. Increasingly it becomes clear that under diversity and pluralism, we can have none of the above, and will instead get a lowest common denominator dictated to us by a government that will find endless reasons to increase its power.

Now that the chaos brought on by multiculturalism is out of the closet, more white Americans are feeling oppressed and alienated now that they are experiencing what it is like to be a minority in a country with an abusive mixed-race third world soon-to-be majority. This is not the future they were sold, they say, in which America would stay the same but other people could come here and participate in our wealth. But they are slowly realizing that the dream and the nightmare are the same, and that they were simply not told about the bad consequences, and with their voting, led themselves into the trap.

A majority (53%) of Americans say that American culture and way of life has mostly changed for the worse since the 1950s, compared to 46% who say it has changed for the better.

…More than four in ten (43%) Americans say that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while 55% disagree. Opinions about ‘reverse discrimination’ have remained fairly constant over the past few years. Half (50%) of white Americans—including 60% of white working-class Americans—agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while fewer than three in ten Hispanic (29%) and black Americans (25%) agree.

Notice the racial split: people with third world origins generally think things are going just fine, while white people are noticing what it is to be marginalized. They are also noticing that third-world groups are more straightforward about their self-interest, while whites are deferential and altruistic. Third-world groups come here as reverse colonizers, conquerors and slavemasters, not as friends. The few who realize this is a bad idea are marginalized in their own communities.

As part of our descent into permanent Brazil with Wal-Mart and Hollywood, we are seeing that third-world behaviors — including corruption, crime, lack of hygiene, dishonesty, laziness and deceptiveness — have taken root in our own communities as third-world people have arrived in significant numbers. It did not occur to the voters that people in the third world live the way they do because the majority of their people behave in such a way, or that there may be a biological condition — such as the few smart ones being killed as witch doctors — corresponding to the low average IQs of their societies and translating into their third-world conditions. The voters bought the line that the third world were equal to us in every way, and simply victims of misfortunes and oppression, when in fact colonialism often improved standards of living in the third world.

In fact, wherever liberal policies have been most successful, white people are most marginalized and conditions are at their worst, causing voters to regret the decisions they made. At the time, those decisions flattered them and made them feel like kings, tossing out gold to those peasants who looked on them with admiring gazes. Now they realize that instead they were waving a red flag in front of a bull, and now it is charging, and its demands will only increase — even as our society bankrupts itself and must sacrifice its essential functions to keep paying those benefits.

Just 28 percent of white New Yorkers approve of the Democratic mayor’s performance, and 59 percent now disapprove, up sharply from the start of his term, according to a citywide poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College. …

Mr. de Blasio’s support among white residents has descended to a level so dismal that it has challenged a core assumption of his political strategy: that in a diversifying city, moderate white voters had lost much of their electoral influence, and that the mayor’s path to re-election runs through nonwhite communities.

The only problem here is that the voters exist in a permanent state of disconnect. In the next election, they might try to roll back… until the opposition candidate says something that offends their pretense as cosmopolitan, intellectual, educated and empathetic voters. Then they will run right back into the arms of the people creating the disaster now. As polls consistently reveal, there is a disconnect in the minds of voters between what they voted for and the results achieved. They do not understand the cause and effect relationship, or how their own pretentious and emotional decisions in the voting booth created the disaster before us now.

According to Rasmussen’s presidential approval rating poll of November 10th, 48% of “likely voters” approved of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, while 51% disapproved. On the same day, however, Rasmussen Reports published results of a poll conducted November 1st-5th showing that only 27% of “likely voters” opined that America was headed in the right direction, while 66% believed the country was on the wrong track.

…Recent polls by Rasmussen Reports show both that approval of Obama as president norms roughly 50%, while about a quarter of “likely voters” have believed America is going in the right direction. (Every poll has sampling error, of course, but most of these percentages won’t vary by more than plus-or-minus 3-5 percentage points if every adult American were interviewed.)

…The Gallup Organization, for example, reported that Obama’s approval ratings for November 1st-3rd, 2015 were 49% approved vs. 47% disapproved. Just a few days earlier (10/25-29/15), a poll conducted for NBC News/The Wall Street Journal found that 27% of the public opined that the U.S. was headed in the right direction, while 64% believed it was on the wrong track.

…a McClatchy-Marist poll (10/29-11/4/15) has data on assessments of Obama’s job performance and opinions about the country’s direction. In this poll, Obama’s job approval-disapproval split is 48% vs. 48%. The same poll, however, shows that 60% of the public think the country is going in the wrong direction, while 35% opine that it’s on the right track.

How could so many people be so wrong? We could point to the average IQ of 98 in America and say that only about 15% of the population possesses the congenital intelligence to understand the consequences of political actions, and that most of those are busy with jobs, football and shopping. But even more, there is a disconnect in democracy. It relies on making decisions based on trust in the candidates, and that these salespeople will tell us the true results of their policies, instead of erecting them and then skipping out at the end of their terms, enriched by their power at the expense of the rest of us. Even more, people are oblivious to the fact that governments justify their power with every group of suffering people they can “help,” and that politicians — like salespeople — are never held accountable for their promises or their actions.

What the voters do not realize — and will never realize — is that not only are the nightmare and the dream the same, but democracy and demagoguery, or the art of manipulating people through image and emotion, are one and the same.

In democracy, the vote decides the rule and after that, the voters (“we the people”) lick their wounds and accept what has come. Before the vote, they see contrasting promises based on theories untested in reality. Whichever one flatters the voters the most, wins. Voters love to be told how smart they are, and how free things are coming their way, and how it’s that other group — the team in red and not blue — who is stupid, ignorant and inbred. This makes them feel better about themselves. So like Pavlovian hamsters they keep pulling the lever, but then, since they have done their civic duty, they forget about all of it until something upsets them. When it does, they react emotionally, and then the other team picks up the ball and as the crowd cheers, runs down the field. Only later do they realize that both teams are fixed and playing for votes to get power to get money, and that they have zero interest in doing anything right for the citizens.

In their view, the voters are pig idiots who pull a con job on themselves from their own greed, and deserve to be manipulated and destroyed for their stupidity. Watching the voters get it wrong yet again, one has to conclude that there is legitimacy to this outlook. In particular, voters love any emotion that makes them feel like heroes, so they go in for altruism and gift-giving. This is the root of a toxic philosophy that separates cause from effect.

According Progressives, there is no original sin. All men can be improved by Darwinian evolution, social evolution, education and the compassionate leadership of the moral elite until they reach perfection. Perfection can be achieved rapidly, provided the enlightened leadership is obeyed in all matters down to the smallest detail of your life, your words, your deeds and your thoughts. Nothing is neutral, nothing is too small to be beyond the need for your betters to place it under their control. Nothing is apolitical.

Because there is no original sin in the Progressive system, all suffering must arise from the institutions of civilization. To be specific, in a semiliterate misunderstanding of Darwin, human societies are said to ‘evolve’ that is to say, to move by trial and error in the general direction of inferior to superior, drive by mystical forces of history. The flaws in human institutions hence are caused by an insufficiency of evolutionary pressure, that is, a lack of the wars and internal social breakdowns that drive social evolution to ever higher and more enlightened forms. This theory makes so little sense one is tempted to conclude it is not meant to. One assumes it is meant only to sound impressive and justify violence.

We all know what the future is: more of the same. They will borrow more money and keep the sad farce alive. Good people will be forced to work even more hours at even more boring jobs to pay for the rest, who will grow in number and in demands. If their demands are not met, they will start race riots or terror attacks, which they will do anyway because everyone knows only one group can be on top and every group wants to be it. Trust will decline, order will erode, and yet, you will be able to buy your way out of it if you sign on with a super-larger corporation. Then you will owe your life to that corporation, and in the few hours a week of free time that you do get, you will be too tired, distracted, and depressed to do anything but nod and maybe even vote. This is the future you chose; you did not vote for it directly, but for the type of delusional policies that have been proven by history to create it. That is the basis of the whole system: the disconnect between an image and what is required to create it, and the revelation that what promises to create it will make something far different indeed.

Let us look at the true root of this problem. It makes no sense to blame the third-world groups; we invited them here (or kidnapped them and sold them for our own profit). It makes even less sense to blame the politicians, because when you see a group of people behaving like idiots, the only thing to do is take advantage of them as any wealth they have they obviously do not merit. The rich? They are people like you and me, trying to escape this world of horror by buying their way out of it. It makes no sense to blame corporations, because they are only trying to survive in an increasingly corrupt and criminal world. Who to blame?

I suggest we look at the people making the decisions: the voters.

As Walt Kelley famously said, “I have met the enemy — and he is us.” Voters want to be flattered, and they support any policy that gives them more freedom — or more license — to behave as amorally as possible. They hate rules and they hate standards, including values and social order, so they vote to dismantle those at every turn. Even when they vote “conservative,” they vote for pseudo-conservatives who let the sick show keep on going on refrain from telling us that, as individuals, we need to grow up and get our act together so we have a brighter future. Voters especially love destroying other groups. They vote for things which will beat down their competition, destroy their neighbors and sabotage anyone who can tell the difference between truth and lie. They use “the poor” and “the minorities” to justify these passive-aggressive acts, but the real target is each other. They each think they’ll win the lottery and climb to the top of the heap by shoving others down.

In short, voters are morons. Most of them are biologically incapable of making sane political decisions, and all but a few of the rest are clearly emotionally and morally incapable of doing the same. The voters are the problem. They are the enemy here, and the only solution is to disenfranchise them by ending democracy. There is a reason democracy destroys every society that adopts it, and that is that most people behave like pigs, and in groups behave like insane pigs, and that voting causes them to switch off their minds and stop monitoring what their leaders are doing except once every four years for two weeks, leaving politics unmonitored and reckless. That is the heart of our problem, not any scapegoats we find.

Switching from democracy is so easy that even democracy can do it. We need to find a place where we can vote to end democracy, or seize power through money or the military or revolution. Then we need to delegate to the best among us the choice, and they will pick others who are also good, and make them our new aristocracy. These people do not get a day off and they are held accountable because they are in office for life. They fix the problem or it destroys them. The voters can go back to making bad decisions in their own lives and, without a power-hungry government to bail them out and control them, will be accountable for the first time. It will be a time of learning, a new golden age for humankind, but it only begins when we remove democracy to solve the problem of our terminal decline.

How well does welfare work?


If I were Joe Cocaine and needed the nose-candy to even bother getting out of bed to use the can rather than idly soiling my bedsheets, my government could help me. They could help me avoid bankruptcy. They could help me avoid the abject humiliation of pooping where I go nite-nite. All they’d have to do is buy me enough free cocaine to get me through the trials of the day ahead. Wouldn’t you just love to see those tax dollars you spend every year hard at work? Oh come on, guys! Have a heart.

So the conundrum of the hypothetical cocaine kobold and his crippling need for Bolivian Marching Powder described above raises a couple of socially vital questions. We’ll start with the mechanical one. Could Uncle Sugar Daddy fix this problem and turn Old Unatoker into a better member of society? A group of people in Oregon actually had the guts to ask such a valid question in a complicated social research study that attempted to quantify how much recipients gained from Medicaid per dollar expended. The results are not heartwarming for the poor family member still washing Joe’s sheets as he turns 42 this April.*

Megan McArdle tells us how little government can help even a well-intentioned but unfortunate tosser who won’t help himself.

Here’s what they came up with: “Our baseline estimates of the welfare benefit to recipients from Medicaid per dollar of government spending range from about $0.2 to $0.4, depending on the framework, with a relatively robust lower bound of about $0.15.” You read that right: 15 cents of value for every dollar spent.

QED. You perhaps can’t save those who can’t or won’t save themselves. This could very well have nothing to do with either you or with them. Medicaid is probably one of the most ethical and genuinely altruistic welfare programs going and its effectiveness is probably less than 1/3 of every dollar going towards the fight of making the poor more healthy. Perhaps even the mythical moral and decent welfare state is attempting to do the impossible. A nastier and harder question then becomes, would you want a welfare state to save these people if it absolutely could while doing nothing to improve either their behavior or ratiocination?

Thus maybe, if you misinterpret probability for fun and personal edification, you can theoretically save 15 to 40 out of an arbitrary sample of 100. The old joke then becomes “What do you do with them? Collect them and trade them with your friends?” I shouldn’t laugh. They elect people in Chicago that way. Herbert Spencer famously answered that to shield man from his folly was to populate the world with fools. I’m sure Martha Stewart would tell us that this is not a good thing.

This is not a good thing for several reasons. What does the world do to people who are “saved” via this method? Historical accounts of life in workers’ paradises such as Maoist China and Stalinist Russia don’t bode well. At some point you just have too many being supported by too little. At that point, someone has to get voted off the survivor island.

And that fundamental paradox of the welfare state is why so many look for the safe space. It is why they don’t want to be the ones excluded. The zebras stay close to the rest of the herd. As the resources are expended and are never replenished. As only $0.30 of risk is assuaged for every dollar set on fire and burned by the welfare state mystic spirit guides. There eventually comes the day when there isn’t enough to go around. It’s at this point we learn the true reason for the safe space. Everybody not therein has lost life’s most cutthroat game of musical chairs.

*-OK, so I’m taking literary license while I make this stuff up.

How do we replace our over-ripened universities?


Having watched twin travesties unfold at both Missouri University and Yale, is there any remaining doubt that the current institution of higher education in the United States is utterly dysfunctional? Perhaps there is. For one thing, I haven’t defined the function set I’m claiming to have gone unfulfilled. Another, more damning critique of my critique would be the fair and logical question of with what do you replace this institution?

So let’s take a whack at what function a university serves. Curtis Yarvin makes a cynical suggestion that Universities are a social control institution that determines what everyone will think. He describes this epistemological osmosis below.

…in post-1945 America, the source of all new ideas is the university. Ideas check out of the university, but they hardly ever check in. Thence, they flow outward to the other arms of the educational system as a whole: the mainstream media and the public schools. Eventually they become our old friend, “public opinion.”

But there is more to it than just that. 99% of the people who set foot on the average campus will not get anywhere close to developing an original intellectual idea. You could be forgiven if you were to believe that sort of thing was subtly controlled against. No, not just forgiven. You should be patted on the back.

This is because the Modern University is a high-pass filter selecting for conformity. You can’t legally test job applicants for IQ or even easily define what social habits they should carry around in their personal and professional knapsacks. However we officially condemn all sorts of segregation; we all want markers so that we can effectively ostracize defectives and outcastes. So what do?

You turn perspective respectable members of society loose and you measure their survivability, maintainability and suitability in a realistic facsimile environment. Based on how they do their over four years, we can then make a fairly educated guess as to whether an aspiring caste member is acceptable. College is a four to six year corporate and government cattle call. Towards the end of year four, the soon-to-be-graduates then send out their resumes and display themselves the way livestock is put on parade at the Fort Worth Stock Show.

And finally, we have the unspoken and deliberately ignored mission we would hope our university system would undertake. We should hope our educational system would promote and champion a serviceable pattern of folkways for a nation similar to what David Hackworth Fisher describes in Albion’s Seed.

So does the Modern University inculcate new and brilliant ideas, select acceptable and mature individuals to govern and work important jobs while also inculcating a future generation of leaders with the timeless folkways that have lead a nation to greatness?

Ok, ok…I’ll pass the spliff left before I boot and disgrace myself. Clown question bro. I wouldn’t put that idiotic student yelling at the Yale professor in charge of in charge of organizing a circle-jerk if you proved to me she could comprehend Euclidean Geometry. The journalism and communications professor at Missouri who demanded some muscle to help her censor the press is not what I’d describe as a high-pass filter. Folkways? That’s a bit like asking Coach Jim Mora whether or not his team should go to the playoffs.

The Modern American University has truly established its very own benchmark of intense, ineluctable hyper-suck. It needs to be replaced, but how?

Corporations and government can most easily acquire their talent without the university system. Many of the tech leaders in Silicon Valley are already hiring without demanding college degrees. They often screen potential employees with “vocational aptitude tests” that I could of sworn were ruled illegal in the landmark Grigg v. Duke Power court decision. The US Department of Defense operates several teaching facilities for both military and civilian employees. They were legally required under the DAWIA to incorporate the Defense Acquisition University. Those that the largest corporations and government cannot train could seek out apprenticeships and a meaningful existence working in the skilled trades. A revived guild system of sorts would do wonders for our nation’s currently stagnant economy.

Folkways can be inculcated now by any number of organizations that cater to individuals whose families choose to enroll them. Boy Scout Troops, Bible Study Classes and Little League sports teams can all provide fill for the vacuum that exists in our educational system. If parents are proactive, they can send their offspring out into the world at age 18 with a strong grounding and appreciation for an organic culture. The challenge then becomes having that positive acculturation survive the idiocy spew they encounter on the modern campus.

As for the ideation: There the University may well be irreplaceable and irrevocably lost. Legitimate scholarship has been replaced by scientific fads, and ideological sell-outs like the Missouri Journalism Teacher that recently demanded censorship. War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength and at many of our best universities, PC-Sanctioned Idiocy is now Intelligence. SETI would not register a positive if it accidentally aimed its telescopic ear at Yale University.

Maybe the ultimate substitute for all that the university is now failing to even attempt to provide is something we each have to do at the individual level. Just figure out who we are by examining our own lives and working towards doing what has always traditionally worked. Or perhaps Lynyrd Skynyrd put it better than a room full of stuffed-shirt Nobel Laureates.

The importance of civilization


The utilitarian assessment is usually wrong. For the price of Budweiser, we could have good beer; for the price of fast food, quality food. But profit is made by cutting expenses and increasing advertising to lure in the masses.

Conservatism, Inc. — the Republican party in the United States, its counterparts in Europe, and their media hive — follow the same model. Real conservatism means taking on the illusions of liberalism, but that can entail failure, so it is safer to merely be the opposition party and rake in those donations.

Not only is the above not conspiracy thinking, it is sound economics. In a time where politicians depend on voters as representative of a certain number of dollars, and no culture exists to keep people honest, count on self-interest as the dominating force.

Mainstream conservatives have created a myth for themselves: as individuals, work hard and get ahead, do what is right, and go to church. Ignore others. You succeed at their expense if necessary. Not only is this morality, but also Darwinism. In nature, the best try to rise above the rest.

In the end, this results in the kind of groups we see across the third world: a few rich white people at top, ruling over the vast toasty masses who are illiterate, low IQ, mixed-race and generally dysfunctional. The third world would not be in the mess it was in if even a plurality of its people were capable.

The glitch of this is that it entails giving up on civilization. Society comes to serve the individual, and some rise to the top and live a good life, but only as slaves. They are slaves to their businesses, dependent on their private security, and have to keep a low profile so the surly groundlings do not riot and overthrow the government yet again.

In the airport at a nearby city, every time there is a revolution in South America, we see lots of people in the duty-free shops, speaking Spanish and buying luxury items. Generally they appear Spanish, but over time, they have become darker and more Asiatic in appearance.

What happens is that as the civilization goes, so go its elites. The people who rose to the top by beating out others now exist in a “bubble world” of their own wealth and social group. They become bored, selective outbreeding occurs, and soon they are “white” in name only.

Even more, they have ceded civilization. They cannot enjoy the simple pleasures of walking down a village street, or going to the market, or relaxing. They are always targets, aware that the masses over which they rule not-so-secretly hate them and will rape, rob, kill and maim if given the chance of a few seconds.

This is why mainstream conservatism fails: its answer is not to fight, but to protect the individual, and in so doing, it makes conservatives a target. In Russia and France, such people were executed. In South America, they live in fear, and now in the United States and Europe they are realizing that even their gated communities depend on rule of law, public services and some governmental competence.

Conservatives have abandoned civilization for too long. An oncologist would recognize liberalism for what it is, a parasitic organism comprised of the lower echelons of society attempting to destroy the higher. It has no more complex ideation; it is simple resentment, based on the universal tendency of every group to clobber whichever other groups it can dominate. Because its members are less brave than socially crafty, it works entirely through passive aggression, at least until it has the numbers to go on the usual murderous rampage.

Yes, you can beat the system. You can be rich and rise to the top. You can beat out all the surly groundlings. But you will forever also be a slave. You will work long hours and never be able to relax. Eventually, you will be absorbed by the genetics of the people below, and never reclaim what once made you proud of yourselves.

The only conservatives to realize the truth of this matter so far have been the extremists. Hitler dreamed of a thousand-year Reich to rival the ancient Greeks; Mussolini saw the restoration of Rome; today’s New Right sees a revival of European civilization as a world leader. All of these miss the point however, which is that the goal of civilizations is to avoid self-destructing genetically.

You may not particularly like your lower-caste neighbors or their ways, but they are part of the same ecosystem as you are. You share biology. Their steady path upward through Darwinism, with the best rising and the rest falling, provides future people to serve those roles and maintain civilization. Wealthy elites cannot do that alone, as the collapse and genetic absorption of South America shows us.

If conservatives are to ever have hope again, it is in abandoning this slow retreat. Realize that we either take over civilization and point it toward health and qualitative improvement again, or we are lost. You personally may avoid it, and your children even, but then you will be destroyed, and all of the history of your people and that once-possible greatness will vanish forever.

How to properly show solidarity with France


A lot of people have suddenly realized that they should show solidarity with France. It’s nice of them to tune in. They so endeavor for two reasons.

Something genuinely horrible happened in Paris this Friday. Several hundred French civilians were deliberately targeted and slaughtered by Muslim radicals who indiscriminately (and with impeccable multiculturalism even), gunned people down in a spirit of true egalitarianism.

The political and governmental policies that made this possible are near and dear to the hearts of much of the Post-modern West. When Marco Rubio and Charles Schumer were contemplating bi-partisan comprehensive amnesty reform, Senator Rand Paul attempted to add an amendment to the bill that would screen people to avoid having terrorist organizations use a comprehensive amnesty reform as a Trojan Horse. Here’s the bi-partisan response his amendment got from the politico-corporate elite :

“Two, three years ago, I introduced a bill, or an amendment, to the immigration bill that would have provided for more scrutiny of people coming into our country: refugees, immigrants, students,” Paul said, when asked about his response to Friday’s attacks.

“They would have had background checks and they would have had a much higher degree of scrutiny. And the point I made in my speech was, I introduced this to Rubio and (Democratic Sen. Chuck) Schumer’s immigration bill and then Rubio and Schumer and all of the authors voted against any conservative amendments. And I think that was a mistake, not only for the bill, but also for our national security.”

So almost 200 mostly undeserving, very mundane people have been burned on the funeral pyre for the sake of open-borders, population replacement and a nice, big reserve army of the unemployed to reduce corporate labor costs. Therefore, a lot of guilty and disingenuous people want to put French flags in the background of their Facebook profiles and wear ribbons to commemorate the people who were sent to the slaughter because we were all so open-minded that our collective brains fell out.

So this new found appreciation of the French People is touching. So is the pedophile that does really vile things to the neighbor’s five-year-old. But that bit of snarky nastiness brings up a valid question: What if I really do empathize and grieve for the innocents blown up and gunned down in Paris? How do I legitimately show solidarity with those whose deaths I verily lament? JPW is very happy you so inquired. Here’s my Mizzou Manifesto’s worth of suggestions.

  1. Cease and Desist with Visa Programs such as H1B until the US Workforce Participation Rate hits 75% rather than the 61% it sits at now. If you don’t have the reserve army of the unemployed, you don’t have people who are we tell them twice and they ignore us, may God have mercy on their souls.
  2. Reject Immigration from places prone to radically anti-Western activities. As was earlier pointed out at this site, successful immigrants come as settlers that take over and replace prevailing cultures. If you want to disbelieve Mr. Warkin, ask yourself how well the Iroquois Nations did with assimilating General George Washington. They are looking to replace you, not join you or become like you. If they wanted to emulate you, they could do so while sparing the expense of long distance transit.
  3. Help France do whatever is necessary to speed members of ISIS to their next destination on the wheel of karma. Terrorists do not really perform acts of terrorism because of stress. They execute terrorist attacks because they believe it works like hell. The body count inflicted in the general vicinity of where these terrorists live must be high enough so that no one will continue to offer them shelter or succor. The economic butcher’s bill that a terrorist organization or society must pay for terrorist activities has to go a lot higher. Otherwise, terrorism will still be viewed as a tactically intelligent option for extracting bribes and concessions out of Western Democracies.

Adopting the JPW program for dealing with ISIS and all other JV squads suiting up to help the world burn would show far greater sympathy and remonstration with the grieving victims of French Terrorism than lots of French flags on Facebook and at NFL stadiums.

To prevent those who have died from dying in vain, we must set an example for the rest of the world by rejecting the ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity that so inspire ISIS to believe that terrorism is an obviously good tactic to deploy against the West. The question for our leadership becomes which is politically and morally easier; protecting our people or letting the politically and financially lucrative conditions that make innocent Westerners such fun and easy mass terror targets remain in situ?

How our society answers this question will tell you how much the elites who lead us really care about victims in France or in either of the Twin Towers.