Jobs alter personality, make you obedient and mindless


The American Psychological Association recently issued a bulletin in which it summarizes research which states that unemployed people over time lose the traits that jobs inculcate into them:

Unemployment can change peoples’ core personalities, making some less conscientious, agreeable and open, which may make it difficult for them to find new jobs, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

What they do not mention is the converse: if people can lose these traits from not having a job, then jobs instilled them into people in the first place. Let’s look at those traits:

  • Conscientious: detail-oriented/big-picture oblivious.
  • Agreeable: prone to compromise.
  • Open: easily guided.

In essence, the APA is complaining that indoctrination fails when people are taken out of the workforce. I suggest we take every white male out of the workforce immediately.

No solutions


“There is no solution!” This answer pleases everyone. That is because what we call “modern” is just one of many. Every civilization goes through a life cycle where suddenly, at the peak of its technological and social power, it collapses as if everyone just up and left. What remains are shattered third-world mixed-race shells like Brazil, Mexico, or what remains of Angkor Wat. That is collapse: a long slow process of apathy grinding against material self-interest, leaving only mud huts and a bazaar patrolled by local warlords.

People wish there to be no solution because it enables them to keep on living as “normal,” by which they mean the new normal of every generation being worse off than the last. The reason is not a discrete “issue,” like whether we legalize abortion or weed, but the issue of whether our civilization has a healthy design or not. A healthy design promotes constant renewal not through novelty and irony, as our current society does, but through constant improvement in all areas. If you have a bad king, you need a better king, not democracy.

Their instinct to live normally comes from our oldest biological urge, which is to fight and predominate. For them, the question becomes how they can beat out everyone else and smash them down, because peak empires tend to be packed with people most of whom are utterly useless. This enrages people but they cannot articulate it, both because their brains are not disciplined enough to notice, and because they are in denial. Denial allows them to continue thinking they are successes, winners, exceptional people with fascinating lives, even though they are simply more profiteers on the carcass of greatness invented long ago.

Bravely they recite what they were told at schools: that all other methods of government have failed, that anything but our mixture of commerce and subsidies is tyranny, and that the best future for us is to keep repeating the same acts that have gotten us into this position, just take them to new extremes. This dovetails with the ultimate self-interest in a place where society is overgrown, which is the need to get noticed. If they can capture attention for a few moments by being radical, that makes them stand out above the crowd.

No one wants a solution. A solution would require we discipline our own behavior, change our ways, and apply social standards to everyone including ourselves. Anarchy with grocery stores provides what each undisciplined heart wants, which is the ability to act as selfishly as possible without consequences. It is no wonder we talk of dying societies imploding; they collapse into the dark void of individual human need.

You will meet two types of people in a collapsing society. Both of these are compensating, or justifying failure with the thought that they get a reward in some other area, by insisting that we ignore the problem — that our civilization is a long, slow collapse to nothing but a polluted third-world wasteland — and wanting us to agree with them that there are no solutions but to keep doing things as we are, but with a few details changed, like illegal abortion or higher minimum wage. Then we’ll be in paradise, finally. Misery loves company.

These types are:

  1. The Republican

    Comfortable with the idea of social Darwinism, the Republican believes that you should work hard and get ahead, and by that he means get wealthier. He is basically correct, since that is how in a biological sense you beat out other animals and rise to a position of power. He forgets two things: (1) working like a dog will make you act like a bear, and your family will suffer, thus your line ends soon after you and (2) as society decays around you, it has a nasty habit of taking you down with it.
  2. The Democrat

    The Democrat deals with decay by outright ignoring it and rationalizing it. In his view, society has always been bad and there has never been any hope, so all we can do is make ourselves comfortable and wait for the end. Comfortable means no rules and hopefully a state subsidy, so no one has to do anything but sit around and be social, which is where the Democrat excels over his Republican counterparts: they are good at business, he is good at socializing. As a result, he wants to make a civilization of socializing only.

These caricatures are cut of whole cloth and almost as transparent as Ayn Rand or Barbara Kingsolver characters, but they exemplify the two basic responses to civilization decay, which are biological and social respectively. They are created this way because they by definition refuse to see the problem and its solutions, so are left with compensatory behaviors that enhance their own powers at the expense of others.

No one wants a solution. Solutions mean changing ourselves and limiting our freedom, 99% of which we do not need, but which gratifies our narcissistic egos. Nature gives us such egos because in the wilds, failure is frequent and the healthiest creatures shrug it off with an innate sense of self-worth. When channeled into a social sense however this confidence becomes a sociopathic greed and tendency toward manipulation. Including, of course, insisting that there are no solutions.

Identity versus racism redux


Most people are denialists who lack the spirit to oppose the ongoing degeneration of our civilization. They compensate for this by picking “surrogate” activities and beliefs that symbolically substitute for effective counteraction.

Almost all political philosophies fall into this camp because to do otherwise is to contradict the founding myth of our current civilization and thus to break taboo and not only be ostracized, but be unpopular because most people are compensators not concerned with the truth so much as what makes their choices in life seem correct.

The problem faced by the right is that over the years, we have seen too many apologists and compromisers who serve as an entry point for compensators into the right. Our goal is not to find parity with modernity, which formalized itself in 1789 with the French Revolution, but to oppose it.

That situation leads to a fracturing of the Right where the mainstream right is exclusively compromise-oriented as a means of “keeping the shop open” or working with others much as one would in any office, which results in perpetual compromise shifting incrementally to the left. On the other hand, the underground right tends to emulate the left and adopt an ideological dogma as its sole agenda. This then also drifts to the left.

Recently the fellows at Aryan Skynet blog wrote about my outlook on white nationalism:

The philo-Semitic “New Right” writer Brett Stevens offers a typical Cain-critical hack job in his neoreactionary rant “Serf’s Up!” at

Fact is, modern man, you were so clever — you saw what the lord of the manse had, and you desired it, like Cain viewing Abel naked in the shower, resplendent in a natural glory you are in your Gollum-like ugliness not given, resplendent in a natural intelligence that in your Goliath-like stolidity you are not given — cheated! — like Esau viewing Jacob the future inheritor, like a dark-haired girl looking longingly on a blonde until longing turns to hate. You saw what those gifted by nature had and you determined you’d take it. You gathered all you knew and said, now we rule — and you did. You overthrew the Lord of the Manse, you married and impregnated his granddaughters, and now everything’s equal. Yet there’s a new Lord of the Manse and it’s not one person, but millions, hiding behind your credit cards and your house payments, parasitically wanting exactly what you do which is more money all of the time, and thus we all prey on each other, parasitic brothers locked in arms as we descend the whirlpool of our feedback loop rotting society for our profit — but surely it was worth it, because you’re free?

His attitude toward Cain, moreover, is of a piece with his dishonest and belittling attitude toward racialist politics. Zionist rodeo clown Stevens, who claims that “Hitler’s goals are near realization” and that “Jews are under attack and now are not protected by the liberal media establishment”, argues in his mean-spirited hit piece “Destroy White Nationalism”, that “white nationalism is an underconfident teenager” who “sulks in its bedroom, takes its toys and goes home, refuses to play nicely with the other kids, passive-aggressively throws spitwads at the African-American kids and takes candy from the Jewish kids (at least until it needs a doctor or lawyer).” What Stevens really believes, however, is that racialist identitarianism – nationalism writ large – violates the Jew-god’s insecure and incessant demands for humility and its enviously infantile prohibition of “idolatry”.

Stevens instead suggests that conservatives should “celebrate” the degenerate pederast, ethnomasochist, heroin addict, and murderer William S. Burroughs as one of their own. “Shoot the bitch and write a book. That’s what I did,” conservative Burroughs flippantly said of his 1951 murder of spouse Joan Vollmer. “When all the cards are counted,” Stevens writes, “Burroughs will be remembered as one of the good guys.” “That their children’s children’s children might be a different color is something very alarming to them,” this “good guy” literary celebrity said of white nationalists; “in short they are committed to the maintenance of the static image. The attempt to maintain a static image, even if it’s a good image, just won’t work.” Stevens, then, by his endorsement of Burroughs as a model conservative, must believe that miscegenation represents progress – the mule’s vibrant dynamism as opposed to the thoroughbred’s monotonous stasis in genealogical symmetry.

This same “conservative” wise man, Stevens, in tweeting a link to an Aryan Skynet post about Francis Parker Yockey, dismisses white nationalism as “ethnic Bolshevism” – the idea of the qualification being that historical, Jewish-financed-and-administered Bolshevism was somehow not ethnic? He characterizes white identitarianism as “fake nationalism” – as opposed to the “revitalized mainstream [i.e., kosher] conservatism” he extols – because of what he claims are white nationalism’s “emotional outbursts of racial hatred and paranoid anti-Semitism”, which, one assumes, include the telling of inconvenient facts about 9/11. Merely to speak the inviolable name of Larry Silverstein in vain and in lieu of its tetragrammaton is to murder Abel all over again in the Stevensian contribution to Talmudic theology.

“As is normal in a civilization that is collapsing from within, all of our words have become mis-defined for the political convenience of our rulers,” Stevens writes, and he would know this, considering his own services rendered to “our rulers” in perpetuating their historical distortions and misappropriating the concept of ethnonationalism as a label for psychotic maladjustment, paranoia, brutish behavior, and rabid calls for the resuscitation of some mythological program of genocide – a vast multiplication of the purportedly evil act of Cain.

As for Bolshevism, it is important to note that Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov, the embodiment of that Judaic plague, is remembered principally, in addition to his political destiny, murderousness, and personal dynamism, for his pragmatism – that and the fact that his party won. Lenin’s biographer Robert Service describes him as “an improviser” who “worked by instinct as well as by doctrine” – a man not willing to sacrifice a victory on ideological grounds. There are lessons in Lenin’s life for whites who would revolutionize their people. White activists might lack the deep New York pockets that Lenin had at his disposal, but can still benefit from a study of the Bolsheviks’ pragmatic approach to the tasks of strategic subversion. Allies change with political winds, as should political programs and propagandistic exigencies. Let whites dispense with Bolshevism’s more obviously Jewish aspects – the mass executions, contempt for tradition, and service to the Zionist banking complex – and embrace its flexibility and its pagan versatility.

The Babeuvist Conspiracy of the Equals failed, as did the Paris Commune; but this did not prevent Lenin and his supporters from learning from the mistakes of their less successful forebears within the revolutionary tradition. Racialists have their own rich heritage of failed experiments – and, to this extent, there is a grain of truth in Stevens’s nasty characterizations – but, like Marxism, white nationalism cannot allow itself to rigidify, stagnate, and become overly patterned and doctrinaire. When classical, economically fixated, and insurrection-oriented Marxism failed to produce the Western European revolutions its theorists and propagandists had prophesied, the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt School reinvigorated the movement by changing its arsenal, image, and tactics, if not the ultimate target of its perpetual onslaught. While recognizing and honoring the triumphs of nationalisms past, the white nationalist of today must choose either to look to the future or else relegate his cause to nostalgia fetishism.

Nietzsche “would remind us, too,” Stevens writes in his essay “Morality”, “that it’s important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because you don’t like herd morality doesn’t mean you get all Sandusky on some kids” – unless, of course, one is as staunch a reactionary as William S. Burroughs. Racial solidarity being as noble a cause and commitment as any, should whites jettison identity and group interest – and throw their babies out with the bathwater, as it were – only because the moral herd happens to have frowned upon some of their forebears’ fashion sense?

I am thankful to Aryan Skynet for introducing the many topics which are considered above, and for having read so deeply of the articles on this site.

However, I disagree with their conclusions and can point to a few errors among their assumptions as well.

Civilizations die where there are too many conflicting loyalties for them to be united. They literally fall apart because they no longer reflect a group of people inclined toward the same purpose or social standards.

Identitarians like myself suggest that identity — comprised of the triad culture, heritage and values — is the only method of avoiding this collapse. It forces the majority to declare the social standard to which it is otherwise blind, and forces those who are incompatible with that to leave or form their own republics elsewhere.

We tend to favor strong action to establish that state, and then no action; the strong action was like our response to an earthquake or hurricane an emergency measure.

The advantage of identity is that it restores the idea of social order. Instead of simply having government administer rules which make everything turn out OK, the nebulous concept of social order includes social roles, caste distinctions, and cultural standards as well as a tendency to promote the best leaders to leadership roles independent of whether most people — who lack leadership ability — can make the leadership-level choice to decide who should be leaders.

White Nationalism, like leftism, is the idea that racial ideology alone can fix a problem. It emulates the 1789 masters by proclaiming an ideology and demanding that it be the method of fixing society, which not only imitates the methods of its enemies but their goals, namely a civilization without social order. They want government and dogma in place of social order.

Conservatives like myself see it the other way around: government is limited in what it can do. It can write rules by the tens of thousands of pages (in fact, it has) and then enforce those, but only after a tragedy has occurred. Further, its enforcement relies on bureaucrats, courts and police who are not present everywhere nor would we want them to be. Thus most infractions get missed and many thousands of people are involved who can easily be bribed to simply look the other way. Government as a solution to human problems is a failed model.

Instead, we propose that every citizen be a police officer, compliance specialist and intervention expert in their own right. With cultural standards, we apply standards on each other by having ideals that we aim for, and having no-fly zones that we seek to avoid. This is not a single level of rule, like laws and regulations, which only specify a no-fly zone; it also includes the goal, which tends to be an ongoing standard like morality itself, which is both timeless in that it applies in every age and evolving in that as a society gets healthier, the moral standard raises and becomes less rigid.

Most people missed the salient argument of the book The Bell Curve, since the denialists and compensators on the left had a huge tantrum about it and one chapter in which it discussed race. The real argument of the book was that the Standard Distribution applies to all population groups. Whether that is a group of white-haired Nordics or spear-holding Bantu, within that group intelligence and other traits will break down according to the standard distribution, with most in the middle (the “bell curve” shape) and some outliers on the right who are excellent. This is evolution in action; healthy evolution takes the far-right (heh heh) group and promotes it above the rest, as monarchism, aristocracy and identitarianism did in the past.

Liberalism opposes this because it wants equality, or the notion that people in the middle of the bell curve are equal to those on the far right and that — this thought is created backward in order to justify an argument for equality — there are no special abilities to those on the far-right. Any person can judge with “common sense” or better, be “educated” in the right ideology and science and make the decision. This turns out to be nonsense, since leadership intelligence which the far-right excels at requires consideration of many factors in a particularized, context-dependent and non-universal way, which clashes with the exoteric/universalist ideas of education, ideology and equality. Liberalism perpetuates a denial of evolution in order to argue for equality, which while it is enforced by a mass, herd, mob or crowd is actually an individualist idea, which is the individual and his ego wanting to be the center of his own world and not contradicted by reality, social standards or awareness that he is anything but the apex of humanity.

All of this states that leadership is rare and we need social order to promote those who can lead to the top, because there is no way we can design a “system” to replace the ability to understand particularized (context-dependent) problems. Universals do not work because these are false abstractions which assume that context can be equalized and that all cause-effect relationships consist of a single step, which is obviously false.

With that in mind, let me answer the charges laid at my door:

I do not support White Nationalism for two reasons. First, it is racial Marxism that seeks to abolish social order for the purposes of equality, and thus will fail and destroy the host civilization like all parasitic liberal governments have since their birth in ancient Greece over two thousand years ago. Second, it equates nationalism with racism, which is not so. Nationalism is the idea that identity is required for social order and that culture is better than ideology, thus each ethnic group — defined by culture, heritage and values simultaneously — needs its own space and self-rule. While nationalism does not rule out noticing racial differences or the biological root of race, it tends not to focus on such things because much as people are different, ethnic groups will be different, with each working to evolve or become the best version of itself that it can be. A highly-evolved African kingdom like ancient Ethiopia will be radically different from a highly-evolved European or Asian one; we are different peoples and have different fundamental structure to our beliefs, needs and ideals. Nationalism is a workable way to address this situation, but White Nationalism is not and is often correctly categorized under the Hate Group tag. Most conservatives do not mention this since we do not believe in circular firing squads, but since it has been brought up by others…

As to “philo-Semitic,” I stand accused. I support Israel and the ability of the Jewish people to have nationalism, which is described by the phrase “Zionism.” I think the Holocaust was disgusting and horrible and shocked our people, and makes us think less of ourselves. We have moral standards and one is enslavement of enemies, but this is generally for a temporary period and does not involve mistreatment. The Holocaust is actually two things, the first being the use of Jews as slave labor in Germany and Poland, and the second the field executions that generally occurred in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. I recognize that Jews in Europe occupied two ugly roles, the first as perceived nepotistic wealthy merchants and the second as overrepresented in the Communist Party. These two factors contributed heavily to their genocide and any ethnic group should learn from that and avoid both of those perceptions if possible. But this does not justify or excuse genocide. If you endorse the quest against the Jews, you will first make yourselves into craven murderers, no matter how good your intentions, and second expend your energy fighting the wrong enemy. The enemy is an idea, liberalism with its roots in individualism, and the solution to it is social order with social roles, rooted in identitarianism.

Beyond that, I cannot offer much other than to point out that William S. Burroughs, like many of us, has his scars as well as his victories. Among other things, he was a heroin addict for most of his life and a marijuana farmer during his thirties just outside Houston, Texas. Let’s look at that quotation again:

That their children’s children’s children might be a different color is something very alarming to them…in short they are committed to the maintenance of the static image. The attempt to maintain a static image, even if it’s a good image, just won’t work. – William S. Burroughs

He is not saying “go miscegenate” here; he is talking about methods and not goals. The point is that we cannot defend our goals by looking backward and saying “change nothing,” but that we must find ways to keep that society alive. He outright says that the image “is a good image,” implying approval of the idea of having children of the same heritage. He says however that the right will not succeed by pointing to a static image, a form of ideology, and implies that there must be another way. (This makes sense given his life interest in semiotics and criticism of static symbology as having parasitic aspects, which he attacks among the left — for whom Divisionists may be a metaphor — as well as the right in Naked Lunch.)

Those of us who are not in denial or compensating recognize that our civilization is in decline and that we would like to not only reverse the decline, but have a sense of pride again derived from the legitimate tendencies of a civilization toward higher levels of its own evolution. White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism will not deliver us there and, like liberalism and other denialist and compensatory mechanisms, seeks only to distract us with false promises and illusory solutions while we wait for the inevitable end.

The end of inclusiveness


Liberalism fears more than anything else the removal of a social standard of obligation by which the rest of us are forced to tolerate the exceptions.

Conservatism loves the idea of separation, where the best rise above the rest, but liberalism fears this. It wants everyone obligated to everyone else, so no individual can be found wanting and excluded.

With the rise of libertarianism, mature anarchism and related philosophies, we see our thinking in the modern West turning away from inclusiveness. This allows communities to set their own standards and thus compete economically on the basis of results, which achieves definitive answers about what ideas are best.

For example, imagine if the small town of Buckshot, Texas is able to set its own rules. The federal government has retreated to the role of providing military safety and political leadership, and has delegated (again) power to local communities. Buckshot decides on a simple regimen.

To live in Buckshot, you have to be oriented toward the nuclear family. It does not mean you cannot be childless or gay, but that you have to act in such a way that the nuclear family unit is seen as most important. People who want gay marriage or free love are run out of town, exiled, if you will.

Buckshot also has a zero-tolerance policy for substance abuse. It does not mention which substances. If you manage to get addicted to Reese’s Pieces, they will ask you to leave and if you do not, ride you out of town by force. Alcohol, drugs, whatever. They do not want your disease here.

You will not find a place with a more lax attitude toward crime than Buckshot. It is not mentioned until it happens and then there is a hard push to find all who committed or enabled it and send them on. “I didn’t know my friend had a gun” will not suffice in Buckshot. You either had good intent, or you need to leave.

While intention is important for showing that one was not involved in criminal activity, Buckshot looks first to consequences of actions. There is not really a distinction between accidents and crime. If you backed over your neighbor’s mailbox, the remedy is the same whether you intended to or did not: fix it, pay for it, or GTFO.

Not surprisingly, there is zero social welfare in Buckshot. Welfare makes people weak through mental dependency, the feeling goes, so it is an evil. You either find a way to make it — and someone always needs odd jobs done — or you go somewhere else. Maybe in New York they need human pets.

There is also a curious custom in Buckshot. When you want to move to a new street, you meet the neighbors. They decide if they are OK with the move or not. If they are not, no sale. The reason for this is to prevent blight and encourage neighbors to get to know one another.

You might notice government is different in Buckshot. There is less paperwork, more streamlining. This is because government also must play by these rules. If it penalizes your time, it must pay restitution. It is no longer a one-sided transaction because obligation falls on bureaucrats too.

On paper, Buckshot seems like a horrible place. No compassion, “my way or the highway,” and probably highly conformist. In reality, Buckshot is about the best community you can live in: inexpensive, low crime, high community involvement, and no parasites. Sort of like society would be if it stopped thinking we must include everyone or be bad people.

The transition from secular to religious traditionalism


In a post entitled “Helpful links on the journey,” the intelligent and thoughtful writer over at Secular Traditionalist blog has offered up a number of useful news sources for transitioning from a secular person who rejects modernity and wants tradition to someone who sees a religious basis and purpose to the same.

Disclaimer: this writer is my wife and I am unabashedly a fan of all that she does. continues to be “secular” in the sense that I believe the derivation of conservatism and traditionalism can be found through religion, or through material reality. It makes sense either way and neither is exclusively needed, because all paths lead to the same destination if enough thought is put into them. This is part of my basic approach to learning and history, which is esotericism, or the idea that knowledge reveals itself only after precursors have been learned and only to those who have the ability for it. This is the opposite of exoteric modern learning systems, where we presuppose that you can lecture people and make them memorize ideology and they then know all that needs to be known about that thought system; many of us have noted how this approach requires dumbing down vast amounts of knowledge into linear flat hierarchies which do not admit subtlety, context or interconnection.

We’re thankful for this list of useful material to read on that journey because for many people out there, a religious interpretation of life is the one that makes the most sense. It is then only fair and sensible to allow them to continue learning in the way that is most comfortable for them. In addition, it’s nice to have other people who understand what us few dissidenten who dislike the modern erosion of all that is better than equal, and whether they read philosophy through the Bible or Human, All Too Human is in the final accounting not really significant.

A continent paralyzed


Europeans, long used to being wealthy and forgetful of the philosophical bases for western achievement, are reluctant to acknowledge that a new global economic paradigm has emerged that leaves Europe behind much as Europe has abandoned the ideas and actions that made it great. Europe has been adrift in a sea of financial uncertainty since 2008 with little sign of the real recovery needed to restore investor confidence.

Continental bien pensants for years have sat in their secular confessional boxes and divulged their sins to the world. Their self-flagellations have engrossed blacks and Arabs and Asians and given them ready-made excuses for their own societies’ technological and cultural retardation. Western wealth, it is commonly believed in Egypt and Nigeria and Venezuela, is not founded on the rule of law and millennia of philosophical theorising and dialectic, but on the plunder and rape of the natural world. In a zero sum game, the disparities in wealth between the German and the Egyptian “must” be the result of colonialism alone.

This makes no sense given the historical record. The only colony that ever made any money for its colonising power was Togo for Germany. Strong evidence for the lack of colonial profitability exists in the fact that Europe’s great powers boomed economically after giving their colonies up in the 1950s, suggesting that bringing infrastructure, education, sanitation and beautiful civic architecture to primitive societies was a rather expensive game. Colonialism restricted the European wealth and power boom, which was clearly fueled by other things, namely behaviors based on certain ideas unique to European civilization.

Now the world has changed. With China’s embrace (or at least recognition) of the role of free market principles in driving general well-being the world has absorbed into the global labour marketplace hundreds of millions of high-IQ individuals. India contributes millions of traditionally endogamous Brahmins, similarly intellectually blessed. These are but two nations that have emerged from economic wilderness. With people still alive in those countries who recall famines and the ideological madness of communism, Indians and Chinese differ from westerners in that they don’t take wealth for granted. Decadence exists among the super rich, of course, but it does not yet corrode the moral fibre of the general population as it does in Europe.

The realities of a globalised world mean that the hand-wringing westerner’s traditional desire for material equality between himself and the emaciated, loinclothed Bihari of his childhood is being realised. Malnourished Chinese men in proletarian four-pocket jackets have been replaced by metrosexuals wearing Alexander McQueen and Google Glass. What the European still doesn’t realise, apparently, is that the world now has millions more people who are just as capable as the white man, but work harder for less money. Using the ideas that Europe developed along with its technologies, they are ready to replace a decadent Europe that has drifted farther from reality.

Europeans forget that their wealth and power are not accidents of history but the result of deliberate development. Suffering from an amnesia which causes Europeans to forget that peace and prosperity is not some immutable status quo but a fortuitous quirk on an otherwise blood-soaked continent, European cities have — economically at least — drifted into the arms of Morpheus. While multitudes are being raised out of the sort of grinding, absolute poverty that exists nowhere in the West, Europeans and Americans whine relentlessly about a furtive and sinister “1%” without acknowledging the comfort the west’s poorest quartile lives in compared with the bulk of people on three other continents. These two conditions are linked: in abandoning its founding ideas, Europe had to choose new ones, and it chose poorly.

One possibility is that Europe has mis-identified democracy as the source of its prosperity. What do Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai have in common? Aside from their ability to get large numbers of foreigners to live together peacefully with natives and their very high per capita GDPs the obvious answer is that they aren’t democratic. Supercharged capitalism and the light touch of benevolent grandees have turned these cities into philistine, crudely materialist editions of Vienna in 1900 or London in 1860.

Without democracy, the language of envy is a tongue seldom spoken. In democratic societies the politician makes great headway by talking of who unfairly has what and why some should have more and others less. This generates not only class warfare but also friction between races; raises to the minimum wage – used as bribes by those seeking election – cause unemployment which in turn causes race relations in the poorest neighbourhoods to deteriorate. These conditions lead the masses to the snake oil of the far left; either the narrow-minded fraternity and bigotry of national socialism or the herdist anonymity and greed of communism.

Democracy has re-directed Europe away from its founding ideas toward ideological quests which are more emotional than realistic. Europe’s problems with its minorities and barren women are not going to be fixed by force. The continent must allow its peoples to be economically free, accepting that egalitarian utopias are an unattainable fantasy and that there will always be poor people and sick people and clever people and stupid people. The continent’s Islamists poke at Europeans with a stick, but for now the white man merely bats the annoyance away without ever fully waking up. Europe’s cities are museum pieces, dotted with empty cathedrals, voluntarily childless women and walls festooned with Marxist calls-to-arms. Diversity and multiculturalism are failing miserably. We must face reality, both economic and biological.

A nation without a lavish welfare system will repel those ill-equipped to survive in its environment. Monoglot women in niqabs who speak Urdu and Arabic and contribute nothing to Europe would be forced to face the constraints of economic reality back in Karachi and Algiers, but opulent state payouts grant them the opportunity to breed at the natives’ expense while autochthonous fertility rates are at record lows. Dubai, Singapore and Hong Kong thrive precisely because they do not offer handouts to illiterate peasants. Looking at the PISA results (a test which measures 15-year-old school pupils’ scholastic performance on mathematics, science, and reading) one would expect Singapore and Hong Kong students to perform well based on the presence of high-IQ northeast Asians, and indeed, they do. Dubai (or United Arab Emirates to be precise) performs less impressively, finishing in the 45-50 bracket out of a total of 65 countries. But what is education’s purpose in the modern world if not to translate itself into material prosperity? Dubai has transformed itself from a backwater to one of the world’s alpha cities based on little more than business acumen and allowing a diverse community of global citizens to converge and do what they do best in an environment free of politics. Some might say oil is the reason for Dubai’s success but if oil is all it takes to turn a country into the UAE what explains Venezuela, Nigeria and Iraq?

It should be crystal clear to anyone paying attention that while Saddam-era Iraq was unpleasant, democratic Iraq is a nightmare. Saddam Hussein was no Cincinnatus, but the Iraqis he ruled were not virtuous Romans either. In a society free of sectarian discourse (which is what the ‘coalition of the willing’ brought to the table when it introduced democracy) Sunnis and Shias lived side-by-side peacefully. It took the wonders of the vote and the encouragement of power-hungry politicians to fan the flames of hatred and envy and to point out to Iraqis what it was their neighbour had that they deserved. Neoconservative naïveté assumed that a Greek invention which required centuries of tinkering to work in the west (and is now failing disastrously) would work just fine for Iraqi Arabs. Needless to say, Iraqis understood the machinery of democracy — the inked finger, dropping the ballot in a box — without knowing that democracy in theory is not merely about articulating covetousness, but about respecting differences in others.

Democracy can work temporarily in a homogeneous society where there is high social trust. It will not work in a place like Iraq which is divided into Shia, Sunni and Kurd, all of whom under democracy must vote for unscrupulous men whose first priority is to get elected. Politicians are just like any other creature on this planet. They do what they must do to survive, which involves dividing the people and indulging their side of the mob with talk of what they deserve to inherit and from whom. This might be the redistribution of resources from an oil-rich Nigerian province to the Lagos poor, or from Eton-educated ‘bankers’ to the working-classes in England. Either way, the seeds of discontent are sown and allowed to grow into a noxious weed, that deadliest of deadly sins: envy. The root of democracy’s temporary success is not democracy, but the founding principles of the society upon which it is based, including ethnic homogeneity.

There have been very few cases of a state willingly surrendering powers and this scenario grows ever more unlikely, despite being exactly what is needed. When funding is cut to pensions or healthcare, barren leftists who burden the system with their childlessness blame fuzzy concepts like greed instead of accepting that there are not enough taxpayers to fund their communitarian lifestyle. The solution to all this in Europe is to import third world peasantry with the effect of turning the continent into the make-a-wish foundation for the planet’s illiterate. Europe is already facing massive labour competition from the aforementioned Asian superpowers and will probably never reach previous levels of economic dominance even with solely native populations and now it must compete with better educated Chinese while carrying millions of low-IQ inheritors of civilisations not renowned for intellectual rigour.

Accepting the necessity of this ’21st century Malthusianism’ means reducing welfare handouts to non-natives in Europe. Freeing the continent economically will allow European cities to attract the brightest from the rest of the world. The decadence that sees Europeans bestow generous handouts upon Pakistanis and Afghans and Maghrebis and west Africans causes long-term divisions as it produces in the alien not only a sense entitlement at the hands of guilt-ridden ex-colonisers, but also a lack of understanding of what is required to replicate such success in their own country: hard work, a respect for the rule of law and for science, zero tolerance of religious extremism, free mixing of the sexes, etc. After all, when your host country earned its riches through the colonisation and pillage of your fatherland, it is only fair that you get what is owed to you.

Europe cannot afford to live in a bubble of self-denial any longer. With current settings it must acknowledge that its days of economic hegemony are drawing to a close. What, then, does Europe offer over its competitors? The children of the Chinese nouveaux riches take violin and piano lessons playing music by European composers. The world devours western literature and American cinema and European art. For all its problems Europe is still a motherlode of global culture. Singapore and Dubai and Hong Kong are economic miracles and attract people for sound professional and financial reasons, but they lack the European je ne sais quoi which made the Vienna of 1900 a cultural high-water mark.

Without the dead weight it currently carries and under the right economic conditions, there is a chance for Europe to undergo another renaissance. But to revive the commercial brilliance of the Hanseatic League and the unparalleled genius of the Italian city-states the impossible needs to happen. There must be a massive reduction of the state and no more respect for a culture of self-hatred. But since these are both indicators of the irreversible onset of civilisational collapse I am filled with a sense of foreboding. And so, we circle the drain.



Those of us born into this time inherit a world of ruins. The promised land of equality has put the ego before sanity, creating an era in which only the idiots thrive, because for them it is paradise. With everyone equal, we are all important, but reality itself is not important because it is not us. And thus like every society that has collapsed before us we have used law and money to hide away the consequences we will face for our denial of what is plain as the noses on our faces, and instead have drifted into a communal narcissism where good feelings predominate at the expense of honest thought.

Our society — which in turn determines what options will be available to us for our future — has been stolen from us. Worst of all, the thief is ourselves: people acting rationally in self-interest chose to adapt to our notion of communal narcissism, and profited from it, but the cost was further passage down the trail to oblivion. We as those who come after them can enrich ourselves and escape to gated communities, then congratulate ourselves on our new-found wealth and social prestige like generations before us, but that leaves the problem intact. Our society is infected with illusion and it will not stop until it suicides.

We cannot smash evil with non-evil; we must instead have a purpose, a goal, and role toward accomplishing those. This turns our faces from the argument as framed by those who want us to fail and instead we can look at reality itself and choose a future that might be not only non-failing but also encouraging and exciting. We need to aspire to something, or we will settle for the usual cons that conceal evil power seizure behind altruistic and pacifistic ideals. We need a goal that is not within what we have now, but can be found in exceeding what we are. Improving who we are, instead of replacing ourselves with the latest trend or idea and hoping to derive meaning from that, which is a backward approach to the sane idea of using ideas to express a goal and working toward that.

For these generations — X, Y and millennials as well as those who follow for them — our immediate task is to tear down what is ruined and replace it with that which is living. The ruin is Amerika, the dystopia-Utopia of collective emotion and self-esteem through ideology that has taken over Europe, North America and the world beyond. All that it promises are lies cloaked in ideas which, for social reasons, cannot be denied. It uses these ideas as a shield and a justification, and leveraging its power from that justification, grows to take over every aspect of our lives and make us slaves toward its ends. But then, since it has no goal except power itself, this leads nowhere but to more slow degradation of society and self.

The following list of complaints addresses the blight that modernity has fostered in our lands:

  1. Jobs are jails

    We waste our days making products for fools, working for diligent morons who got themselves promoted through being sycophants and obedient non-questioning cogs, and appearance rules over performance, so we must “compete” by spending the most hours doing the least important tasks possible. All jobs are now make-work, either by inventing tasks that do not need doing or expanding existing needs into quests among themselves. Goverment aids this with regulation and industry supports it to keep us as interchangeable gadgets in a vast machine, easily replaced if a problem arises. There is no security when this climate dictates our days and takes our best hours for reasons that are not even relevant to us.
  2. People are whores

    When popularity matters more than reality, only attention whores are rewarded, and those who make not the best but the simplest and most palatable solutions are rewarded. Our culture has become a cheeseburger: once a noble food, now distilled into what is convenient for industry to make cheaply, then adorned in surface decoration by a legion of hipsters and marketers to make us forget that underneath the skin is nothingness. Sexually, socially, politically and culturally, people are opting for simplistic childlike ideas that flatter them instead of ideas with substance, and as a result, their behavior is craven and whorelike.
  3. A narcisstic age

    When there is no goal, we turn on ourselves and to ourselves, and so we have created a society of self-important “equals” who each believe the universe rotates around them. This leads to abusive behavior, where people externalize costs to the rest of us through selfish acts, and constant drama of people acting out illusory dreams and then leaving the failures for us to clean up. Even worse, people are faithless, just as likely to throw over a friend for a crumb of social esteem as they are to meet that friend again. This makes people arrogant without cause, inflated and abusive of whatever power they encounter no matter how small, and generally boring as rocks.
  4. Our leaders are liars

    When you confront a herd with the choice of leader, it turns the competition into a popularity contest, and picks the best actor or the most flamboyant personality but leaves aside the humble candidate who addresses actual problems. Their technique is to divide the question of our future into lots of little “issues” which can be discussed in isolation as a means of deflecting debate from the question of our direction as a whole, and so we fritter away our time fighting over details as the whole rots from within. These liars profit for themselves and plan to bail out and sell out when the situation grinds down into collapse, retreating to gated communities with armed guards and looking down their noses at the rest of us.
  5. Social events are stupid

    All social events are in fact product events: buy alcohol at bars, buy movie tickets, buy dinner, buy products, buy media. We have no actual social events because narcissists cannot socialize, only show off. But since we are told we are “equal,” narcissism is all but commanded by the powers above (which we will refer to as “the all-seeing Eye”). Once we met in ritual or for no purpose other than to be in each other’s company, but now we meet on terms that are competitive to consume products to fill the void within us, and to do so in groups so that none may feel doubt.
  6. Ecopocalypse

    “Climate change” is another deflection which reduces a larger problem to a smaller issue in which both sides of the debate can be controlled. The more people we have, the more we create impact on our environment. The worst of this is our use of land, which deprives natural species from the space they need — unbroken by roads, fences, hunters, hikers, off-roaders, the military and so on — to live, hunt and reproduce. As we add more billions of people, we squeeze species to the least valuable land, in which their numbers fall below the point at which they can escape inbreeding and passing on of genetic diseases which ultimately exterminate them. The solution is fewer people, especially fewer thoughtless and irreverent ones.
  7. No stop button

    Because we are all equal, there is no way to say NO to anyone. Every dream is valid and must be acted upon even if the consequence is dire, and every person deserves a shot at the dream of a house in the suburbs with a big garage, two cars, and lots of exciting gadgets to while away the hours until inevitable (but not acknowledged) death. Like a horde of rats we descend upon the earth, consuming all that we can including each other in pursuit of this goal, and because everyone else is doing it, we cannot step out of it or we will simply be consumed by the rest of the mob. Our government has no way to stop our society from growing bigger and more vapid, since individual people made those choices, and so the disaster spirals out of control because to stop it is to be unpopular and thus to leave power in shame.
  8. Diversity cannot work

    Diversity fails not because black people are bad as the racists tell us, but because putting more than one ethnic-cultural group in the same space forces a decision on that group: either give up its culture and assimilate into cheeseburger culture, or resist and forever be marginalized in ghettos. To their credit, African-Americans have told the rainbow monoculture to take a hike, for the most part. The rest of us assume we are the majority culture and fail to notice any culture that does exist being steadily subverted by those who turn it into products, entertainment or politics. The more varied something is on the surface, the simpler it must be beneath, and so this cultural norming forces simplification to a lowest common denominator which reflections the “culture” of commerce, government and media more than an organic or honest culture.
  9. All “solutions” are controlled

    We have met the enemy and he is us. Individual choices and the pretense of individuals leads to a system that bases itself on the idea of equality, which to the individual means a lack of oversight and social standards which might restrict his actions. This in turn creates social chaos, to which government presents itself as the only alternative. It then divides the question of the health of society into many small issues, and by doing so, guarantees that these are expressed solely in the terms of the equality debate that gives government its perceived legitimacy. Through the selfishness and obliviousness of individuals, this process took over, and now shows zero tolerance for any solutions outside of its assumption of equality, government and commerce.

The worst part of this situation is that all of the decisions that landed us in this pickle have been “logical.” In reaction to what came before them, people made rational decisions that led to the best of the possible options offered to them. But this is a trick: the real option we want — a functional society instead of a popularity marketplace — is never offered. We spill our blood over many battles for details and cannot see the bigger picture, in which all of our logical decisions are in fact insanity that will lead us nowhere but to destruction.

Any mentally healthy person will find this society unbearable on a daily level, with its ugly streets, dramatic people, make-work jobs, constant lies paraded as virtue and our time being wasted on the trivial when it could be spent in getting to know ourselves and putting our heads in sane places instead of the neurotic, solipsistic and consumptive mindset this society fosters and requires for its favor. We are being brainwashed into a lifestyle and values system which is anathema to all healthy things and which destroys our chances for happiness while increasing our chances of pleasure in the moment. “Live in the now,” they say, by which they mean a future of actually enjoying life has been foreclosed to you.

Our goal is to destroy what is in power because it is corrupt. This includes not only the lying government and the deceptive media, but all people who have benefited from the system as it is now. To benefit, you must not only accept the lie but force it onto others, the oldest “multi-level marketing” or pyramid scam in existence. These people are therefore corrupted and cannot be saved and must be exiled, executed or otherwise driven out of our society. They used the lie to their own advantage, which makes them criminals, not leaders. Our media pundits, “entertainers,” fake religious leaders, corrupt politicians and leaders of useless industry are all parasites like the leech or the mosquito, and we need our blood to rebuild not to subsidize these otherwise useless people.

A new creation is needed, arising from a desire for purpose instead of equality. Toward this goal we each do our part, and so derive roles which are not interchangeable but specific to us. We value ourselves by what we are able to do, not what titles or money we have tricked a corrupt system into paying us. This will reverse the current situation, which is where the parasites are on top in the workplace and in politics, elected by the credulous millions and their pretense of making the “right” choice when they actually make the convenient one that flatters their egos, and instead will put the most capable people in charge. We can have one or the other, rule by parasites or rule by the capable, but not both.

We face two groups of dangerous fools. The idiots wearing pukka shell necklaces and listening to Coldplay must be made into serfs; they cannot manage their own affairs and when given money become destructive. The corrupt leaders like Joseph Biden, David Cameron, Tony Abbott, Ed Miliband and Barack Obama must either be forced to serve as slaves for their sins, or be removed from society by any means necessary without particularly concerning ourselves with these means. If our fellow citizens require the sight of a smoldering heap of corpses to realize that change is upon them, let us sacrifice the false and corrupt! It is not as if we have any shortage of such people. A round of violent executions might startle these people out of their sleep and make them focus on the consequences of their actions.

Abolish the rules. These are designed to protect idiots, who suffered under the old order which measures the consequences of our actions and held people responsible when their fond fantasies turned out to have bad results. By putting the burden back on the individual to act so that the effects are right, instead of having “good intentions” or conforming to the trend of the time, we put our people on notice that all of us are responsible for what comes of our actions. This removes the hiding places of parasites and deceivers and makes each citizen aware of their duties in a clear and unambiguous manner.

Finally, deport everyone who is not of the historical American majority — English, German, Scots, Dutch, Scandinavian and French — because we need a clear identity as a people which lies in the Western European traditions from which our rules, aesthetics, culture and values originate. This is not deportation because they are bad; it is deportation because diversity fails and history shows us no successful diverse nations, only many failed societies which just happen to be diverse. Diversity is a symptom of decay and not of health.

As individuals, we have a choice for our future. We can follow what past generations did and keep passing the buck along to the next generations, fully aware that we are on a slow path to failure and for each new generation the future is darker than for the previous. Or we can throw out the old, corrupt ideas of “equality” which originate in the Magna Carta and French Revolution and certain religious fanatics before them, and destroy all of the parasitic dystopia that those lies have wrought, in its stead creating a new society with a better future not just in avoiding present problems, but in directing itself toward a higher way of life and future that is not just free of disaster, but filled with joy, purpose, belonging and meaning. We will be judged by history for what we do.

Liberals are apologists for the failure of our civilization


A popular way to defuse arguments involves offering a surrogate. These take the form of symbols which represent the problem, but do not include all of its aspects.

If you are concerned with environmental problems, for example, you might claim that the root of the problem is styrofoam containers and ban those. This creates a tangible, easy solution based on removing a bad behavior instead of a forward, constructive and whole solution that involves changing behavior on an inconvenient level. The surrogate is easier to understand and implement so it wins out over an actual solution.

All of liberalism represents a surrogate. Born of a simple problem, which was that under the kings the lower classes had prospered to the point where they were breeding far beyond carrying capacity, liberalism has grown through this process of finding easy scapegoats instead of addressing actual problems.

In doing so, liberals have become apologists for the failures of our civilization, denying its deep-rooted problems and replacing those with trivial surface changes that allow us to continue business as usual. The core of liberal ideology rests in the idea of equality, or making all people have a similar share of the wealth, power and prestige in a society. All of their solutions take some form of this idea.

This demonstrates a preference for improvement in quantity — equality — over an attempt to improve in quality. It is the difference between having more people and having our species evolve to a greater height, which mirrors the original lower caste overpopulation problem that liberalism was created to conceal. The liberal idea represents a tax: pay out some of what you have to achieve “peace” through making everyone important, and nothing else needs be done.

This ignores the vast underlying problems. Our environment is increasingly toxic, we are killing off species left and right, our cities are ugly, commerce rules our lives, and people are becoming shallow selfish parasitic beings without any reference point except to their immediate pleasure, convenience and social status. Of the two great apocalyptic writers, Aldous Huxley was correct with Brave New World and George Orwell was wrong with 1984: our doom comes not from tyrants above us, but the tyrants we become through absence of control. We created a society that pursues wealth, power and sensual enjoyment to the point of being oblivious to reality. It takes great delight in forcibly ignoring the consequences of its actions in fact.

But do we hear anything of that from liberals? No: their attitude is that doom is upon us so we might as well divide up what we have and “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” To be merry, we need an absence of conflict, so hand over those reins to We The People who will promptly vote for whatever flatters them and makes them feel good about themselves, ignoring the worsening problem of the health of our society as a whole. We are the sick man of the world and seem determined to create as many humans as possible to take our world down with us.

Instead of reading liberals at face value, it makes sense to look to their actual motivations. They are no different than the vain teenager shopping for accessories to make himself or herself look cool to a peer group. Except with liberals, the accessories are what the kings had but modern people can only imitate: subsidies instead of generosity, bold ideology instead of leadership, altruism instead of evolution. When liberals stand revealed as what they are, which is shallower than a French ashtray, we can pick up the remains and grow healthier instead of growing mindlessly toward a doom we assume cannot be avoided.

Why the usual suspects are going after anti-vaxxers


You may have noticed that comedy acts, newspapers, talk shows, magazines and internet pundits have all been talking about anti-vaxxers a lot lately, even before the measles outbreak in California. If you wonder why, backtrack to last year.

A number of issues arose in which religious people said NO to progressive policies. Hobby Lobby objected to paying for healthcare that included abortion, bakery owners did not want to make cakes for homosexuals, and some claimed religious exemptions to medical care in general. In every case, a progressive idea was thwarted by individuals retaining the ability to reject it on the basis of religion. This became particularly problematic when the Left, endlessly searching for a new disenfranchised group to use to argue for more equality and more subsidized rights, seized upon LGBTBBQ and the gay marriage issue. The fear was that — as did happen — clerks would refuse to perform gay marriages on the basis of their own religion, much as they have refused to sell birth control and morning after pills (and, which the Left forgets, support slavery, go to wars and look the other way during pogroms).

Religious exemption is a thorny issue because Americans have traditionally defended it. This means that people can opt-out of crazy Leftist policies which means in turn that greater numbers of them will find religion and do so, because to anyone with a functional brain these policies seem insane when examined closely. The left thus must find a smoking gun issue — like dead black kids after a KKK bombing, skinny Jewish corpses in a concentration camp, slavery in the South, or starving peasants in Russia and France — to cry out “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” or equivalent and declare jihad so that they may eliminate this loophole. They have seized on the anti-vaxxers who, against not just modern medicine and modern science but the experience of two generations ago with epidemics, believe vaccines cause autism and thus must be avoided. Most anti-vaxxers are left-wing but Leftists often choose to sacrifice a few for the good of the party, like Comrade Stalin’s missing 20 million good Russians.

For those reasons, you’re going to hear a lot more about how terrible it is that people can deny science and opt out of vaccines. That will expand, in the painstaking way of both the stupefactively idiotic and the left alike, to a detailed discussion of how terrible it is that people use religious exemptions to deny science. Do you get it? The next step will be to eliminate religious exemptions, in the name of civil rights which is the blank check that has kept Leftists in power in the West since 1945, entirely. That way every baker must bake a cake for whoever comes into the shop, whether transgender, gay or radical Muslim, of course (“more icing on the suicide belt please, and ‘Happy Birthday Muhammad’ in green”). That way no one can say NO to progressive policies.

Expect more of this in the West. The right works by finding a goal and arguing toward it; the Left finds a group to be pitied and creates a law in the name of those people, using them as an excuse. Trust none of this. It is mere machination for the ultimate goal, which is totalitarian power, at which point Leftist ideas can be implemented and those who think Leftism is intelligent — a dubious crew — can rest assured that they like Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Hugo Chavez and Napoleon Bonaparte will have permanent power. That is the real goal. But they will use every backdoor stepping-stone they can find to get there.

Soft censorship


Back in the 1980s, a number of suburban political wives wanted to protect their special snowflakes from the bad content in rap, rock and heavy metal. They formed a group, the Parents Music Resouce Center (PMRC), which attempted first to get legislation passed to require warning stickers on album covers.

Then the PMRC-heads discovered another way to achieve the same thing. They called up and threatened record stores who sold material without stickers. They did not claim it was morally bad content they wanted to censor; they claimed it was dangerous. As with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and other 80s phenomenon, this proved irresistible for store owners and insurers, who saw an advantage to being zealously “safe” in case an incident came about. Remember that this was a time when bands were being sued for the suicides and murders committed by their fans, even though there was usually another precursor — depression, drug use and divorce seemed to be the usual triad — that was more probably both the cause of the eventual violence and the reason for the appeal of certain bands, much as gangsta rappers often attract as their audience people who want to be gangsters more than they care about the music.

The point is that soft censorship was born. Why make a law when you could simply induce the sheep to flee to the other side of the corral by telling them the offensive material was “unsafe”? Any business interested in staying in business would gladly write off the risk and take on the positive of seeming to be safe for the cowed herd.

It was not a new idea, but its newness was its transfer to the cultural and social realm instead of the political. With the Civil War and the world wars, the American federal government established a policy of not just beating its enemies, but invading and smashing their economies. This paralleled the type of action that occurred in the Napoleonic wars where the threat was not only that one might be conquered, but that the victors would bring in their own delusional ideas and in the process, destroy culture and economy alike. Nations shied away from “extreme” ideas relative to the Revolution because to do so engendered the risk of invading revolutionaries who would then trash the place. Looking at the ruins of what was once the world’s foremost power, France, and later Russia, many countries decided like most of Scandinavia to sit out WWII and other conflicts.

In the 1960s, this doctrine transfered to the social sphere with government laws and court decisions which rendered opposition to civil rights as frowned upon and thus unsafe. Businesses were on notice that certain behaviors could attract federal suits, crucifixion in the media and worst of all, negative status as government contractors. They all lined up to conform after that. The 1980s saw this doctrine being taken up by private parties who quickly realized that all they needed to do was create legal risk for having certain ideas or behaviors. This only worked against people with ideas that rose above a baseline (“equal”) level of venality. For example, headshops could keep selling drugs and porners could keep selling hardcore abuse videos because their business was venality and thus legislative approval was all they needed to achieve. But a normal business had something at risk because it did not want to get shunted into the same category.

Soft censorship lives on today through the user complaint. Leftists motivate large groups of people to complain about something and the company that moderates the space in which it is displayed opts to leave it aside. For this reason, “hate speech” — a nebulous category which stretches from racial slurs to the notion that racial differences are genetic, including published science — is banned on most internet sites. They do not want the risk and have nothing to gain from a minority viewpoint that will not attract them the dollars of the herd, who are busy avoiding any public mention of such thoughts.

You can see the effects of soft censorship above. An outspoken men’s rights blogger, Heartiste, is now categorized as a “dangerous” site through search engine DuckDuckGo’s results. On the surface, this seems harmless; some people complained, so DuckDuckGo — which promotes itself as a privacy safe alternative — drops them from the listings. Users have the option to turn off safe search results, but most will not do it, because at work or at home no one wants to unknowningly enter keywords that despite their normal meaning also trigger popular porn or hate sites. If you type in “two sisters who act in movies” or “black metal fence to stop crime” you might accidentally get something… unique. And if your boss, girlfriend, friends, Mom or pastor/rebbe are looking over your shoulder, an awkward moment may result.

The only solution here is the one that should have been taken with “free speech” in general, which is to decouple political speech from free expression. Political speech comprises written documents like the one you are reading, speeches, books and other forms of analysis. It does not include spray-painted obscenities, nude pictures, or slurs. Free expression on the other hand includes all of those. By decoupling these two, we can also separate “dangerous” material — images, slurs and obscenities — from merely “dangerous ideas,” which have always constituted the cutting edge of social growth. Some of today’s taboos are tomorrow’s new frontiers. In the meantime, it is shameful that DuckDuckGo and other internet companies are browbeaten into this position by a public who, through inaction against obvious travesty, has rubber-stamped its approval on soft censorship.