Bruce Charlton and Faith and Heritage lead the Christian Reaction (#CRX) movement, and today Mr. Charlton writes about a sensation of Platonic forms:
What I mean is that if you and I are to be in communication, then when we think of a triangle, a face, the theory of evolution by natural selection or anything else… we must both be able to think exactly the identical thought.
…This, in turn, means that the thought cannot be inside either or both of our minds; but must instead be ‘located’ in some realm to which we both have access. In effect, we could only think exactly the same triangle (and therefore experience communication) if both of us were thinking in some kind of common ‘space’ where this triangle was located.
In other words, structures that exist in more than one mind must have a locus outside of that mind.
Another vision might be this: what makes forms real is that they have a logical reason for existing, such as — using the classic example of a chair — the simplest platform for supporting a seated human requires three to four legs, a seat and a back. Chairs can appear in different minds because of this derivation, not because a universal necessarily exists somewhere.
However, by that same token, there must be a larger causal space which contains the designs which make these logical reasons manifest. This space is a calculating space, working like a big computer to forever refine itself, and it feeds back into physical reality to create tangibility to its results, ending the possibility of infinite loops or other “rabbit hole” calculations.
In this vision, the thoughts themselves are not the Platonic space, but the ideas to which they refer, which are derived not from the physical brain but from the idea in which physical reality exists.
This presents to us a monist view of the universe in which both physical and metaphysical attributes exist within the same set of logical rules, and therefore, that activity in the metaphysical zone — the raw idea — is parallel to that in the physical.
Our thoughts, by referring to objects in reality, can then influence those objects if the thoughts are relevant and accurate enough to be logically related to the forms of those objects. This is the principle discovered by the hermeticists.
The sexual revolution is therefore not an epiphenomenon of our cultural malaise – it is core: the single most effective and enduring agent of permanent Leftist revolution.
So far as I know, none of the supposedly ‘right wing’ or ‘populist’ movements in the West have yet made clear their collective (as well as personal) repentance of the sexual revolution; and until they do, they will simply remain what they currently are – which is merely a different species of Leftism (just as National Socialism was merely a different species of Socialism).
When the mind is organized toward promiscuity, it has (1) reversed its process of thinking and (2) rejected any sense of enduring aspects of reality. In this way, promiscuity is itself an ideology which supports the Left, which also begins with reversed thinking that excludes long-term analysis. Reversed thinking occurs when people “argue from” physical objects instead of “arguing toward” principles or transcendental goals. This means that their actions are not deliberate, but in response to the options before them, and so are entirely shaped by their environment.
Sexual convenience relies on the availability of sex, and instead of finding the purpose of sex and its context within a goal, it treats the sex as a reason in itself, eliminating any cause-effect or goal/purpose related thinking. This naturally leads to rejection of the idea of long-term or enduring attributes of reality because reversed thinking is entirely ad hoc but then justifies itself as good by appealing to symbolic reasons, such as the socially-driven morality of the herd.
At this point, you have many brains programming the universe with memes of deconstruction because their own thinking is deconstructed as a result of being reversed and therefore, without the ability to have purpose or goal.
An alternative would be to formulate in our minds ideals that are transcendental and geared toward qualitative improvement, at which point we are sending forth radiant signals of intelligence and long-term thinking, which then makes other ideas available to us at the same time it attracts other objects relevant to those attributes.
In contrast, universal reason would hold that thoughts are objects, and not chains of cause-effect relationships forming structures, and therefore that all minds which hold the same thoughts are in fact the manifestation of those ideas. This seems appealing because we are naturally solipsistic, and want to believe the world is a subset of our minds.
In hermetic wisdom, which is an extension of ancient Hindu and Pagan ideals, whatever you idealize you attract, and thinking of what you lack produces purposelessness. The description of a Platonic view of the world above explains how this could work in the type of information science that views that world as a continuous, calculating, aware but unconscious entity.
Let’s just skip the hagiography here and cut to the sordid chase. Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), Civil Rights Era Dominus et Deus, refuses to consider any president who doesn’t share both his politics and pigmentation as legitimate.
That is certainly the Good Congressman’s right. There is no anti-rectal orifice statue in the current United States Code. He can spew in accordance with his fundamental nature for as long as a sychophantic chap with a microphone and a camcorder chooses to recording his inane ramblings for media publication. Besides, he brings up a good point. I worry about illegitimately elected leaders.
I simply differ from Conggressman Lewis and surprisingly concur wholeheartedly with Former Attorney General Eric Holder as to which of our three branches of government has been most despoiled by the spectre of political bastardy. I agree with him that the methods by which Congressional Districts are drawn to stifle the will of the voters. I further agree that this process gives an unfair mathematical edge to the So-Called Republican Party.
So given that I feel Mr. Holder’s pain and that “Illegitimi non carborundum” has always been one of my favorite lines of Classical World graffiti, I’m here with a set of suggestions as to how we could go about preventing our Congress from continuing to elect people who tour JPL and ask if the Mars Pathfinder took a photo of the flag that the astronauts put up in 1969.
Step 1 is to get rid of all of the mandates that force state legislatures to draw up convoluted districts that are mathematically inclined to elect more Republicans in larger states. This would involve repealing several relevant portions of The Voting Rights Act. This legislation requires the creation of electoral districts that concentrate minority voting power. This concentrates the votes of highly partisan Democrats into fewer districts.
This causes these districts to lose any semblance of quality control in who they send to Congress. This gave The Great State of Texas The Infamous She-Jack. It gave The Great State of Virginia the Moran its Northern Counties truly deserve. It gave Oregon Fake War Hero Wes Cooley. Congress has become a plush refuge for scoundrels.
Step 2 would be to mathematically limit the number of rigged districts that are possible. Take the operations research hours and massive computing power that both parties in our national duopoly and spend them on unrigging the system instead. Force each state to form their districts out of identically-shaped exterior polygons of variable size but identical population. This would get rid of districts that cherry-pick through non-contiguity.
So here’s your to-do list Mr. Holder. Get rid of the stipulations in The Voting Rights Acts that force a major deficit of diversity in so many Congressional districts. Make the state legislatures stop finding ways to draw non-contiguous districts to cherry-pick which neighborhoods vote in which district. Do that, Eric, and you’ll totally put a cork in the bastards. Why do I have these lingering doubts that you would never let these two proposals see the light of day?
This is the levels to which so called black leadership such as John Lewis have sunk to. They actually peddle the belief that slavery is just around the corner. Never mind that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade could not have occurred without the direct, willing participation of Africans (stories of kidnapping by white people are wholly over stated). So unless a significant portion of black people who have power over the lives of black people, countrywide, decide to engage in slave trading, it’s not happening.
He is correct. White people originally viewed slavery as a benevolent institution lifting blacks out of dire poverty and instability and giving them a comfortable, stable life that they could not provide for themselves. Looking at Africa today, we see that our ancestors had a point, and slavery appears to have increased the lifespan, average IQ and health of black people in America.
This does not mean it was “right,” but also, that it was not necessarily wrong either. After all, it was very similar to feudalism and other forms of slavery that happened in Europe, but without the feudal order, slavery passed into commerce (chattel slavery) or law (indentured servitude) and thus lost its sacred origins. Knowing the people in the South, it is likely that slaves were rarely mistreated, especially with no provocation, but any looking into the past is conjectural now, and we know we cannot trust any narrative of it tinged by the Left. The mystery remains.
But the fear of John Lewis that slavery will return, and the apparent interest with which the black community greeted his words, suggests that black America has not caught on to the change in white people. We viewed slavery as bad, so we changed it, and now, we are over feeling bad about it. It was a long time ago, and we have invested a lot in the black community, so in our view, it is over.
On the other hand, white attitudes toward diversity were never about a hatred for any one group. They were more a recognition of our own unique place, which first we saw as reason to enslave others and lift them out of savagery that way, and later as we got more Leftist, to do the same with welfare. But it was always about us, and other groups were pretty much a means to an end.
Now, white attitudes toward diversity have entirely shifted: we see no group as culpable, but we see diversity as a failed enterprise. This means blacks are not being singled out for criticism, as the dumber of the white nationalists tend to do; instead, diversity is the target. We are starting to realize that no matter if the group is “good” or “bad,” diversity will not work for us.
Diversity shatters social trust, removes social standards, alienates people and utterly dissolves any sense of pride in country or self. As a result, it must be dismantled. At the end of the day, this has no bearing on slavery, or anything else related to black people. But slavery is a form of diversity, so now people are realizing why it was insane in addition to being of questionable moral basis.
In the modern lexicon, we are expected to think of each other as equals, meaning that we are all equally important. In reality, however, very few people do anything more than go through the motions, and so we know that most people are not really all that important. In addition, our abilities vary in the same way that traditional lore and modern science tell us they do.
[T]he 1-9-90 rule…states that in a collaborative website such as a wiki, 90% of the participants of a community only view content, 9% of the participants edit content, and 1% of the participants actively create new content.
Similar rules are known in information science, such as the 80/20 rule known as the Pareto principle, that 20 percent of a group will produce 80 percent of the activity, however the activity may be defined.
In traditional culture, 1% are Brahmins, 9% are Kshatriya and 90% are Sudras (minimally-skilled labor) and Vaisya (merchants). The Bell Curve reminds us that only the top 1% of our society have near-genius or genius IQs, that a chunk under that are over 125%, and that almost everyone else is at 120 or below. These divisions are apparent in every human group, although the numbers can shift if the group improves its average IQ.
Our modern time has made its ultimate taboo the singular idea of The Enlightenment,™ which was that all people possessed equal reason and therefore should be treated equally. In reality, most people are incompetent for tasks beyond the basic, and so their opinions, votes and purchases need to be ignored or limited because they will make the decision poorly.
In addition, if we are thinking clearly, we should seek out those with the ability to make complex decisions and put them in places of power because we all benefit from their improved competence. In the same way that the Pareto principle informs us that in any group, 20% of the people do 80% of the work, the 90-9-1 principle tells us that in any human group, 1% make most of the accurate decisions and the input from everyone else will amount to little more than spam.
Donald Trump was inaugurated, and the lügenpresse alternated between claiming that the turnout was low and talking about how exciting the rioting was. But in reality, the Left revealed itself, and what the world saw has reflected poorly on the Left.
For starters, the Left managed to achieve nothing but vandalism and assault. This alone makes them look bad in the same way that they are criminal, namely that they relieved at least one Trump supporter of his wallet and phone at the Deploraball. But even more, it makes them look incompetent. America would have been impressed by revolutionary violence. Instead we got ineffectual revolutionary vandalism.
The burnt trash cans will be replaced. The smashed windows will be fixed. The destroyed limo will be reimbursed by insurance. Life goes on, and yet, something has been established: in the face of what they claim is the second coming of Adolf Hitler, the Left did nothing more than have a giant tantrum that left a mess for someone else.
And then there is Fistgate, which happened when an Antifa protester sucker-punched Richard Spencer while Spencer was busy giving an interview. How brave, to attack someone so stealthily when they were otherwise engaged. And yet, Spencer won this one, not only by looking like a purposeful person in a room full of juveniles, but also because the Antifa guy got outed:
First they got a picture of him. Then some brave souls — glorious internet malcontents — went out and found more on this guy. It turns out that he is a literal cuck who is into degrading excretory sex. Click here for the backstory on this guy [NSFW/L].
Now, normally this would mean little. Most of us have no interest in such things, so leave them to the practitioners in silence. But here we are not talking about “what happens in your bedroom is none of my business.” We see a guy who is telling us what we can and cannot think, and by doing that, he is claiming to have his act together enough to tell the difference. And then, we see the ruins of his life and realize: we should not be taking advice from this guy about how to think. We should be arresting him for violence because he is essentially nothing more than a petty criminal.
Richard Spencer came away victorious from that confrontation. In the mind of this antifa assailant, he would be praised for taking out a vicious enemy. The rest of Amerika — newly attentive because it has awakened from the dream of a Leftist-consumerist new world order — saw a man talking get assaulted by some random guy who it turns out embraces practices that most people in America view as a sign of mental illness.
In the same way, everyone witnessing the Trump coronation inauguration saw badly behaved, spoiled children looting the businesses of ordinary people because they were having an emotional tantrum, or an excuse to take a selfie and post it to social media for the attention points they apparently value more than mental stability and personal responsibility.
Perhaps Americans would have been more impressed if anarchist/antifa types charged the mall with machine guns and grenades, occupying territory like a real rebel army. But instead, we saw the true face of the people who have been bullying us for years. These are not responsible, wise and visionary people. They are angry teenagers with no plan except to legitimize degeneracy, and we are done with them.
Perhaps the doctrine from Buddhism that is most useful on a daily basis can be found in the idea of the middle path, which also possesses counterparts in Greco-Roman ideals of balance, golden means and natural orders and hierarchies. The essence of the middle path doctrine is that in every situation, people gravitate toward extremes, but the real solution is found in having a direction toward a goal and pursuing it through methods that fall between the extremes.
Much as the old saying goes that “exceptions strengthen the rule,” meaning that in a relative universe we only know something through its opposite, and so an exception shows us just how consistent the rule is in the vast majority of cases, extremes serve to reinforce a center. These extremes feed off one another, creating motion back and forth, and somewhere in the middle, a realistic and measured path emerges — if one is fortunate to be aware of what the actual goal is, knowing that the first thing extremes do is redefine common sense goals toward scapegoats, distractions and other human pathologies.
The Alt Right came about for two reasons: in the mainstream, people would not talk about problems of vital importance and the clear logicality of certain erstwhile taboo solutions; in the underground, people refused to do anything but talk about these taboos, turning them into a goal in themselves which leads to pointless stupidity including violence. The big secret of the Alt Right is that it is not White Nationalism, but a reaction to White Nationalism as much as it is to the John McCain style bend-over-here-it-comes-again Republicans.
As modern citizens, we live in an egalitarian time, which is essentially chaos kept in check by concealed power that never arrests the decline. That is because egalitarianism itself is a rationalization of decline; if we cannot stop our downfall, we might as well make sure every person feels comfortable, which happens through the class war pacifism of equality. This leads to another form of pacifism, democracy, which ignores what is right and necessary and replaces it with whatever makes most people feel comfortable. At that point, we have chosen the mentally convenient over the realistic, and so our system cannot make any sane choices except in a crisis when even “most people” see the obvious.
In this time, every decision will consist of choosing a middle path between cuck and sperg. “Cuck” (verb, noun and adjective) derives from the term cuckold which in internet-speak came to mean anyone who is cowed into accepting the lies approved by their social group when those lies conflict with what that person knows to be true and his own needs. “Sperg” is a nasty little term arising from the armchair psychologist diagnosis that Leftists started using in the 1990s to cuck people into denying facts. Someone is a sperg if they notice a socially inconvenient fact and demand it be addressed, in the Leftist usage. However, since that time, sperg has come also to refer to those who then fixate on that socially inconvenient fact and use it to explain all other facts, such as “lower black average IQ is why American television is so bad” (hint: American media was bad even when Stepin Fetchit was the only black role allowed).
With those terms in mind, we can look at American politics through the actual issues we need to be concerned about
Civilization Decline. Civilizations rise and fall according to their internal design and the directions in which this points their leadership. Democracy, for example, is very stable but fails to make long-term decisions, so tends to exterminate itself. Monarchy can lead to more conflicts, but these tend to stave off long-term problems, so life is better in monarchies. In the middle are other types of government which essentially follow the bureaucratic-administrative-managerial attitude of democracy, which is a government to facilitate its citizens administered through politics, which makes any strong and forthright action — the type necessary to avoid long-term problems — onerous and destabilizing, thus unlikely to occur. For a civilization to rise, it must have both a sensible internal design and the will to pursue realistic and existentially rewarding paths; “Does our civilization have these?” is a constant fascination of the intelligent.
Overpopulation. All environmental problems fall under this banner. With few enough people, and common sense about not releasing toxic materials into our environment or over-utilizing its resources, we encounter no environmental problems. But as the population rises, it both naturally produces more waste as a side effect of the infrastructure needed to support a much larger group, and also takes over more land from its natural state, eliminating the diffusion, absorption and deconstruction process by which nature eliminates both natural and manmade pollution. With the over-concreting of earth, we are seeing local disruptions in water and temperature regulation as runoff and reflection of sunlight heat become concentrated.
Collectivism. Humans in groups can take one of two approaches: either they have hierarchy, and reward the best, or they adopt a system of collectivism, where all are accepted and used to subsidize the rest so that there can be “equality,” a concept not found in nature. Collectivism is a form of pacifism that seeks to avoid internal competition so that every individual can be universally accepted. It also retards the qualitative nature of society by tolerating mediocre activity instead of letting it fail naturally. Collectivism is a form of individualism, because the game-playing individual realizes that statistically, he is unlikely to be on the top of the hierarchy, but if he demands equality, he can suppress those at the top and still act in self-interest to accumulate more than others. In this way, society makes parasitism compulsory. Hierarchy, while less popular, eliminates this constant internal conflict.
Genocide. History is the story of genocides. Every group, in a Machiavellian realist sense, can be expected to try to destroy all other groups so that it can dominate them, take what they have including genetics through their women, and raise itself up to a greater height. This does not actually work because it only raises a lower group part way; the smarter groups recognize this and tend to eschew genocide except when threatened by other groups, at which point they either eliminate the other group entirely or bleed themselves out with constant warfare over many centuries until the weaker group finally outnumbers them and destroys them. Smarter groups instead seek to remove themselves from areas near other groups, because at that point, genocide is not a factor. Immigration and diversity cause “soft genocide” by displacing populations politically and then destroying them through outbreeding.
Existential Misery. Life should be pleasurable, in the deepest meaning of that term. That is, if people live sane lives in a sane civilization, they should be enjoying the process and finding themselves discovering the majesty and depth of life over the course of their own biological duration. When this is not true, people begin to die out from lack of an existentially rewarding path. This condition is both a symptom of civilization decline and its cause; when populations succeed, the rise in complexity required to manage the newly larger group places a huge burden on the smarter people, who soon find themselves as glorified babysitters for the less intelligent, which exhausts the smarter and causes the type of despair that leads to suicidal decision-making, even if those decisions take centuries or millennia to manifest.
You will not hear about these issues on your television, from politicians, in academia or even in conversation with your local fans of politics. That is because these are long-term decisions and politics makes any action on those too risky for an individual to attempt, because politics always goes to whatever is easier for most people to understand — a type of lowest common denominator — and so is bigoted, biased and hostile toward complex ideas, and these are required to understand the importance of long-term decisions. All civilizations in decline have this “every man for himself” attitude.
The root of the cuck/sperg dichotomy is found in the denial of these issues. Cucks, thinking of their own self-interest before that of the group or nature or the gods, will deny these issues. Spergs, getting a sense of how much is denied, want to focus in on one solution to one of these issues, and use fanaticism about that to make themselves feel mentally comfortable about the other things going wrong. For example, a diehard racist will believe that if he eliminates white, black or Jewish people, then society will overcome its other problems by some kind of magic. That is the essence of the sperg mindset. A cuck, on the other hand, will accept that “everything’s going to hell in a handbasket” and use that negativity to justify doing nothing about real problems while building up personal wealth and power in the hope of escaping personal consequences of those problems (hint: this never works, because as order declines, the wealthy and powerful become targets and are sold out by their personal security forces or mercenaries).
Extremes such as these provide a sensible middle path: instead of denying the problem, or denying most of it through obsession with one problem, design a solution for all problems. This takes two forms, short-term and long-term.
In the short term, the West is trying to shrug off the immediate doom brought on by Leftism and democracy. These two things create one another: the root of Leftism is egalitarianism, and democracy is based on egalitarianism, so the system has been corrupt from day one because it can only go in one direction over time, which is toward more egalitarianism. All of the intermediaries and proxies — liberty, freedom, justice, free markets — are desired because they offer a way to co-exist with the insanity of egalitarianism without being personally destroyed by it, forgetting that destruction of a civilization means personal genetic destruction in future generations.
In the long term, the West is attempting to reverse its decline. The good news is that we encountered decline, unlike other societies, because we succeeded and therefore got to a new level of complexity and scale which brought with it new problems, and we are now struggling to fix those problems. The list of actual issues above nicely encompasses what must be addressed here, even though these problems seem intractable because the obvious and also singular solutions to each are taboo to the herd, and when mob rule is the standard, the will of the herd banishes any such realistic, intelligent and life-affirming thinking as to try to solve fatal long-term problems!
Our success in beating back the immediate threat of a chain reaction virtue spiral from Leftism and long-term civilization decline from individualism will determine the binary question of whether we exist in the future. While it will take time for decline to reach us, it will eliminate us eventually, and as is the way with most natural systems, the process accelerates as it becomes closer to fruition. This then defines our path: we must choose a direction that goes away from these twin forms of decline, and between the extremes of cuck and sperg.
Enter the Alt Right. The Alt Right does not formalize itself as an ideology, and so keeps itself flexible by having a high degree of internal dialogue. It also avoids cuck by being outright irreverent toward sacred cows that are not backed up by a record of time-proven success, and avoids sperg with the same irreverence, mainly by being skeptical of anyone who claims to solve all of our problems with “this one neat trick,” as egalitarianism did when it promised, during The Enlightenment,™ that equality would deliver us from internal conflict through ending competition via pacifism.
The glory of the Alt Right is that while it is not extremist and fanatical, it is unreasonable, because being reasonable leads to getting cucked by those who are not reasonable, and therefore both roll over the reasonable — who rationalize their own defeat as victory — and set a new social standard that approves of misbehavior, thus encouraging it because bad behavior is always more efficient and rewarding to the individual in the short term than good behavior.
Our middle path consists of going to the root of the problem in the West and seeing that it is individualism, or the tendency to put self first before principle and people. We recognize individualism on the battlefield as cowardice, because any soldier who refuses to engage the enemy in order to preserve himself, and thus endangers or indirectly kills his comrades, is a threat not only to individuals, but to the unity of the military unit itself. When cowards are present, a good man will go forth and get killed so that cowards can survive, so good men hold back, just like the cowards. This behavior then spreads like a virus, much as individualism has spread through the West.
To hold back individualism, we must nail “equality” to a cross and watch it die. There is no equality; people vary in quality. If you want better quality people, you must reward the good and punish or at least not reward the bad. If you want a working civilization, you must not only have a hierarchy of leadership, but a social hierarchy, called caste, where people are only allowed to make the decisions they are competent to make. In any population, only about 5% are natural leaders, and only 1% can understand the basic concepts needed for leadership or avoiding long-term problems. It is essential that those have strong power over the rest, or we see the kind of chaos that we dwell in daily.
This approach avoids the dual extremes of democracy and dictatorship. The former avoids long-term problems and self-destructs, revealing itself as a variety of cuck; the latter pursues symbolic or ideological issues in order to maintain its own power, and so becomes pointlessly extreme and cruel so that it can be stable, revealing it as a variety of sperg. These two paths, cuck and sperg, lead to doom. It is not equal doom, meaning that they do not create the same exact results, but these dooms are two tributaries of the same river, which leads to civilization decline that manifests as a slow conversion of first-world high IQ single-ethnic wealthy and knowledgeable societies to third-world low IQ mixed-race impoverished and ignorant societies.
At the end of the day, for humans, “the problem is us.” What we think we want, or in other words what we intend, is usually what is worst for us. People power makes other people happy, so is socially a winner and personally more convenient and profitable, but this individualism causes society to break apart. The Alt Right is navigating between cuck and sperg, which are both ultimately scapegoats, toward its real goal: reformation of the Western soul, culture and civilization to rise above the broken notion of equality, and through that, to end both short-term and long-term fatal problems that are precipitously close, at the time of this writing, to ushering us into the grave.
As far as the usual profound “out with the old, in with the new” commentary that you expect from websites today — and remember, consumer expectation defines the product — there is only this to say: the election of Donald J. Trump was a strong rebuke to Leftism and the ideals of liberal democracy, which places equality above realistic competence on its list of demands, and the crest of a wave which is the people of the West reacting to the gradual Leftist takeover since the French Revolution.
Leftism is rationalization of decline. Our civilization has been in decline for a thousand years, but decline is a gradual process, and its final stage is liberal democracy and Leftism, including disastrous programs like gender equality, normalizing perversity, diversity, socialism and pacifism. Leftism is insanity. The election of Donald J. Trump is the first of many “baby steps” toward reversing and choosing a new direction not just away from Leftism, but from civilization decline itself.
There has been a long standing warm relationship between a large portion of the alt right and the Russian government headed by president Vladimir Putin. This sentiment has been undoubtedly fueled by what the alt right perceives as more traditional and conservative Russian policies and its staunch opposition to neoconservative wars driven by the “Invade the World, Invite the World” collusion between Republicans and Democrats to further expand the American Establishment worldwide through globalism.
While Russia may be more socially conservative, and this is in itself worth defending, another reason exists for why Nationalists should oppose any destabilization of Russia: Russia serves a crucial role in the stabilization of Europe.
Russia serves as more than a geographical eastern boundary and gateway to Europe from Asia. Russia is, and always has been, a demographic barrier to entry to Europe as well. The upper classes of pre-Revolutionary Russian society instituted a harsh system of feudalism which kept large masses of Russian peasantry of various ethnic origin tied to their lands and barred from moving, and extended this to policies of mass deportations of peoples, mostly peasants, to the far eastern ends of the Empire from which they were forbidden to return. These masses of peasants would then, clear the Siberian continental mass, suppressing the more primitive local population and their customs.
Such policies not only helped curtail the rise and consolidation of lower strata of Russian society to political eminence, but displayed that great sensibility, refinement and understanding which Russian ruling class possessed in domestic and foreign affairs, which was not always met with equal understanding by competing imperial powers. These powers, at occasions often failed to understand the great part that Russian elite was playing in preserving the racial, social and political order of Europe, by not only preventing the westward expansion of large Eurasian masses of peasants, but forcing their migration to the East, where they would capture resource rich lands and suppress what were to Europeans completely foreign racial local elements. Furthermore, Russian aristocracy understood the necessity for the existence of such hierarchy and pan-European stability very well when it singlehandedly prevented the collapse of Prussian Kingdom under Frederick The Great, and Austrian Empire during Hungarian Revolution.
This perhaps crude but effective mechanism of demographic and social control led to the eventual advent of Russian culture and prominence in Europe, and the era of sharply increased scientific, cultural and artistic achievements. I believe that enough has been said on the subject of how and why Russian Empire was brought to an end, which historical and ethnic currents were driving forces behind it, and what dire consequences it brought upon Europe. That calamity was further amplified by disastrous casualties on the Western front during the same era, while any effective defensive mechanisms against demographic turbulence within Europe were brought to a definite collapse when German High Command understood that they could not win the cataclysmic war they unleashed because of nationalistic disputes with Poland, in effect handing entire Eastern Europe and parts of Finland on a silver plate to Soviet Union, a state that at the time was satisfied with so called “Socialism in one State” policy.
Fast forward to 2013, prior to the Ukrainian crisis, and we have a Russian state that has been experiencing an era of increased economic health and activity, much thanks to vast petroleum resources, as well as a fairly liberal economic policies, which although causing much plunder to state-owned companies, has at least supplied the domestic market with plenty of employment opportunities. Ever since 1991 and collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has experienced a sharp drop in its population, particularly the ethnic Russian component, while many of the educated fled abroad.
What Westerners, including Nationalists, tend to miss is that the rise of Russian wealth has attracted many who would otherwise go to Europe to settle in Russia instead, where strong cultural nationalism keeps them relegated to minor roles. Russia lies between Europe and a warland of hundreds of millions of people of non-white origins and predominately Muslim faith. The increase in Russian economic performance and its loose labor policies have attracted these people to Russia instead of Europe, borrowing not only from the Middle East but the lands of the Caucasus where Islam remains popular.
Only in light of these facts one can understand the current neoconservative and Islamic aggression towards Russia which at times seems almost irrational and excessive, but is perfectly grounded in interests of these people. Destabilizing the Russian state, and bringing about one of the colored revolutions there, would lift the gate and enable millions of rootless laborers from Central Asia and Caucasus to seek “asylum” in Europe and completely overwhelm the continent. Coincidentally, those states that are so far the most spared from Arab and African invasion of Europe, such as Poland, Baltic States or Hungary would bear the brunt of this demographic offensive. European Continent would be drowned by Africans, Asians and Arabs and for good. There would be absolutely no barrier left to defend it
Here once again, is displayed the unfortunate, tragic part that Europeans, especially its less astute populations and ideologues play in their own downfall. Apart from Liberals, cosmopolitans and Leftist Jews who have been agitating for “regime change” in Russia ever since its economic advent, even nations in the east, especially Baltic nations and Poland, have joined these ranks and are vocally supporting “regime change” in Russia, seemingly completely unaware of the consequences of the instability of their larger neighbor. Baltic states and Poland have even at certain points harbored Chechen “rebels” who fled after their defeat. Once again, petty nationalistic differences and infantile vengefulness play their part in European racial suicide. Since open war against Russia isn’t (yet) on the table, the Asian demographic barrier in the east provided by the Russian economy is under fierce and collective attack by Leftists who are unfortunately joined by useful idiots from the ranks of nationalists and jingoists.
Hopefully, those European leaders who appear to be more logical and cautious in their policies, as well as pragmatically geared toward the self interest of their nations such as Hungarian president Victor Orban, who also seem to understand the pitfalls of “regime change diplomacy”, will be able to strike a more balanced cord and soothe the impulsive policy making of their fellow-Europeans.
Read David Brooks columns is an exercise in coin-flipping because he is either mostly really on and totally insightful, or completely off-base in an educated, half-bottle-of-wine sort of way that is both entertaining and misleading:
The early Christians seem to have worshiped the way David did, with ecstatic dancing, communal joy and what Emile Durkheim called “collective effervescence.” In her book “Dancing in the Streets,” Barbara Ehrenreich argues that in the first centuries of Christianity, worship of Jesus overlapped with worship of Dionysus, the Greek god of revelry. Both Jesus and Dionysus upended class categories. Both turned water into wine. Second- and third-century statuettes show Dionysus hanging on a cross.
But when the church became more hierarchical, the Michals took over. Somber priest-led rituals began to replace direct access to the divine. In the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus urged, “Let us sing hymns instead of striking drums, have psalms instead of frivolous music and song, … modesty instead of laughter, wise contemplation instead of intoxication, seriousness instead of delirium.”
When elites try to quash the manners and impulses of the people, those impulses are bound to spill out in some other way.
In this column, Brooks gets one thing right, which is that Trump is appealing to those who recognize that the official way is broken and needs to be overthrown through mockery. What he gets wrong is the nature of the process.
New ideas start out with an attitude that is part Dionysian, but more appropriately, esoteric. That is, those who can know, know, and everyone else follows along.
The herd surges, and then infiltrates, and then assimilates, which results in the original idea being converted to a form of hedonism: whatever makes people feel good, whether intellectually or physically, predominates. The Crowd has won!
At that point, a backlash — just as stupidly rigid as that which it is reacting against — takes over. The people of order take over and create a whole lot of rules to keep the sheep in line.
What they are reacting to is not Dionysianism, which is a type of discovering nature through deconstructing the human perceptual barriers that enclose our consciousness, but individualism. Everyone doing whatever they feel good about means that the original purpose is lost.
The 180 degree reaction is not Apollonianism, which is negation of the self and dwelling within the idea outside of the human stain, but a reaction to the emotionality of the crowd with the emotionality of the cause, which drives away anyone fun and lets drippy nerds who excel at tests and fail at life predominate.
A saner way is the middle path: keep focus on the goal, and do not seek to patrol methods, which is a type of control or backward logic that attempts to regulate purpose by making certain types of action taboo. You can regulate goal, but regulating methods does not force the goal to appear, even when you remove all methods known to end elsewhere than the goal, assuming that what is left is a direct path to the goal.
Nietzsche might not see the middle path as Dionysian, but in another view, it is the ultimate Dionysian. Instead of looking toward the idea, one adapts to reality, finds what is beautiful, and then invents theory from that, knowing that (per parallelism) this world is organized in the same way as the next, and therefore that what is realistic is also logically optimal.
Donald Trump may be a jester because the court is corrupt. Western civilization is at its nadir. However, our path out lies in not separating adaptation to physical reality from logical clarity, but in the area where the two overlap, giving us a perspective on what is real both now and forever.
It became clear that America had entered the final stage of collapse during Hurricane Katrina. From my car at a stoplight, the crime being perpetrated by refugees from New Orleans was visible and constant. But on the car radio, NPR was announcing that the previously reported crime rate increase was in fact an illusion.
Official sources at first confirmed a 25% rise in the murder rate of the city, but then those figures mysteriously vanished. The press reported something else instead, and it went down in history, in the media and in Google/Wikipedia that nothing bad happened. And yet, over the course of several weeks, the bad had both been seen and reported. It was covered up.
When that sort of editing of known fact can occur, ideology has taken over your society. This is what kills every advanced civilization: the theory of the tool replaces knowledge of the task, and gets translated into a social control mechanism based on redefining what is “right” to mean what is convenient for the majority of people, who are selfish herd monkeys who do not mean ill but always make things go ill through their self-fixation.
Ideology is a reality replacement. Instead of thinking about how things work, which is a mathematical determination more than a physical one, people think about how things “should” be according to human social intent, which means excluding risk. That translates into a brew of pacifism, universal inclusion, ignoring differences and forcing everyone to behave the same way so that none feel lesser.
When ideology takes over, the path to wealth and power is determined by ideology. There is a type of “ideological market” which regulates which viewpoints are in vogue, and this influences the cultural market which is upstream from political opinion and consumer interest. By this mechanism, those who say the right things — according to the ideological narrative — achieve wealth and power.
This creates a franchise where the most efficient path to success is determined by ideology, and those who choose to avoid this path then take on an additional burden that makes them less competitive. At the same time, institutions and social standards start to work against the civilization by enforcing honesty in the context of an unrealistic narrative, forcing people to become dishonest.
Since the end of World War II, the only remaining ideology has been Leftism, but it has adapted to include capitalism in a neutered form, namely “consumerism” in which through egalitarian policies and the welfare state, all consumers have some money, which corrects capitalism not toward realistic goals, but ideological ones as people buy what they think makes them successful according to the franchise.
With the rise of what the media calls “populism,” drawing comparison to the American Nativist movement of the 1840s, the Leftist regime — driven by globalism, liberal democracy, diversity and consumerism — has collapsed as an idea. People trusted it when it seemed to lead to good results, but when given full power with the election of Barack Obama, the Left proved to be as destructive as in the USSR.
At a time of “uncertainty” we must double down on the values that made Western democracies great, and not allow the “liberal world order” to be torn apart by destructive forces.
…He warned that the reason for the pressure on the democratic order is the rise in income inequality and the hollowing out of the middle class, as the rich get richer and people in developing nations see their lives gradually improve.
Biden went on to identify Russia as the force of this change, wanting to “roll back decades of progress.” In reality, this is merely scapegoating: the Left needs someone to blame for its own failure, so it has conjured up a hybrid of King George III, Jefferson Davis and Adolf Hitler. In reality, the impulse against the “liberal world order” or “new world order” has come from within the West, and is a cultural wave against the ideas which legitimize this new world order by indicating it is our best possible future.
As history shows us, Leftist governments fail the same way wherever they are tried. They fall in the same way every time, which is to gain power, become unstable, and then launch a series of wars as they try to re-build the collective consciousness that united their people when they were in the process of achieving Leftism. The reason for this has to do with the origins of Leftism.
Since Leftism is derived from the ideological viewpoint itself, it serves to unify people by opposing a natural state. Once power occurs, and that natural state is displaced, Leftism no longer has a scapegoat. Since Leftism is based on regulating our methods so that we can change natural reality, its only objection to others occurs on the basis of their methods. This does not allow the formation of a Leftist goal in itself.
As a result, Leftism fragments when power is achieved and it has agreement on nothing but power itself, which causes its social support to waver and often, to oppose it. It is common for people to support a revolution and then turn on it once it has power because it has become the new version of the scapegoat it targeted. Re-unifying these people requires a bogeyman even bigger than Hitler.
For this reason, we must look carefully at what Leftists complain about. If inequality has occurred, it is because Leftist policies failed to remove inequality and instead accelerated it as people learned to use the ideological path to power in their favor. If the middle class is perishing, it is because Leftist wealth transfer programs penalized the most consistent sector instead of “the rich,” always an amorphous term.
As a result, early opposition to Leftism is disorganized and inept, but later opposition has widely popular support and consists of a demand to remove Leftist programs so that what was there before can exist again, because it was better:
Hedge Fund billionaire Ray Dalio warned on a panel chaired by Bloomberg Television’s Francine Lacqua that “we may be at a point where globalization is ending, and provincialization and nationalization is taking hold.”
…Davos over the decades has become synonymous with globalization and open markets, but in the background this year is the failure of business and political elites to predict any of the seismic political events that shaped 2016. That has raised questions over whether they are capable of understanding and addressing the anti-establishment forces that have roiled the U.S. and Europe over the past year.
These elites have become powerful in the years after Leftist takeover by pandering to the society it has created, and they know that with the reversal of these policies, their fortunes will also reverse. Globalization was their dream because it meant that one standardized world market would enable them to expand their empires to all corners of the globe. Now they are looking at a breakup as people pull away.
They might as well rage against cycles of the moon. The breaking away of people, especially more proficient groups, from the rest has been going on since the dawn of time and is how humans evolve. Most humans are mildly delusional and narcissistic, so those that are not move away from the others and set up a civilization based on being realistic. It then thrives until it breeds more delusional and narcissistic people.
Leftism arises through a process of rationalization of the decay. Fighting decay is socially unpopular, so unscrupulous people choose instead to say something popular that denies decay and scapegoats something else, namely the lack of Utopian or “progressive” thinking. This enables them to become kings among the ruins, even if it ultimately dooms them.
Years ago, watching science fiction magazines and newspapers of various sorts come and go, I identified a process I called “roll hard left and die.”
When a magazine or a newspaper or any news or entertainment media was in real trouble, they went hard, hard left, then died.
It took me a little while to realize this was a sane strategy. In a field completely controlled by the left, when you knew that your job was in peril be it through mismanagement or whatever, your last hope was to go incredibly hard left, so you could blame the failure on ideology. And instead of not being able to find a job, you found yourself lionized by all the “right” (left) “thinking people.” New jobs were assured.
This is how societies die: once in the grip of ideology, they can never back down or admit they are wrong, and each person in a quest for personal successful will re-affirm the ideology endlessly even as doom becomes apparent. They do this because they can claim they did the right thing, and were martyred for it, and so always have hope of personal success at the expense of the group, a usual human modus operandi.
Their only option thus is to double down on what they have said so far, and to intensify it by accusing those who deviate from the Leftist program of whatever sins according to Leftism might be made to semi-plausibly stick to them. This is why we get the constant ranting about how those who are not Leftists are Nazis, George III or Confederates:
“Certain politicians are flourishing and even gaining power by portraying rights as protecting only the terrorist suspect or the asylum seeker at the expense of the safety, economic welfare, and cultural preferences of the presumed majority,” wrote Roth. “They scapegoat refugees, immigrant communities, and minorities. Truth is a frequent casualty. Nativism, xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia are on the rise.”
One must remember the old saying that says The Leftist cries out in pain as he hits you to see what is going on here. They accuse us of racial hatred and scapegoating, which means they are motivated by racial hate — against any strong national group, as it turns out — and scapegoating. They accuse of what they are doing to deflect from their own behavior, like children caught fighting: “But he started it!”
What they are really saying here is that the groups they forced together through Leftism and Globalization are now splitting apart because there were insufficient motivations to hold them together, plus as has become obvious during the last few years, massive disadvantages to Leftist rule. This means that we are heading for first what Billy Roper calls “balkanization,” or division into separate groups, and eventually separation and a global re-sorting according to which tribe we find an identity in, as Samuel P. Huntington wrote about in his The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
The result will be a giant crack-up that starts as political separation, but accelerates to tribalism, with massive relocation of populations across the world:
The thirty-year-long Peloponnesian War did not start overnight. Greek casus belli intensified gradually over a fifty-year span as selfish agendas became acceptable through the slow creep of greed, pride and suspicion. Ironically, the very peace Athenians and Spartans secured against Persia enabled the widening of attitudes. Tragically, Greek divergence metastasized into open conflict and, ultimately, mutual ruin.
Why? A key message of Thucydidean history is that without mutual effort for unity, a people of common heritage but different perspectives will develop oppositional interests over time. This was the case with Athens and Sparta and is occurring in “blue” and “red” segments of America’s populace.
…As with Athens, “blue” populations view themselves as exemplars and vanguards for Western civilization’s progress at home and abroad. Athens’ rival was Sparta, principally an agrarian society husbanded within the countryside and without continual contact with overseas cultures. Sparta maintained a formidable army and militant ethos to protect its land’s resources against enemies.
In other words, we see two different ways of life here: the primarily agrarian and warlike red states, and the primarily mercantile and cosmopolitan blue states, but the secret is this, this division extends across the West. Thus we will see the same split in Europe and afterwards in every other first-world nation. The Leftist franchise has ended, and we are separating between those who want it and those who hate it.
With that political breakup dies the forces that held globalization together and which are forcing different groups to coexist, which these groups resent. As the false unification of the Leftist franchise loses cultural legitimacy, individuals will separate voluntarily from those who are around them but of a different political or tribal inclination.
Leftism, in other words, is failing as it always does, leaving behind shattered impoverished nations in which the populations cannot be united again. A sensible act is to leapfrog balkanization as much as possible and encourage the inevitable world tribal sorting to occur as efficiently and bloodlessly as possible. If we refuse to do that, war is our destiny.