One fine summer evening, Dylan — his parents having awakened to the futility of novelty spellings a few years before — contemplated his final act. He knew he did not want to survive into adulthood; it was too corrupt, banal, humiliating, pointless and most of all stupid to want to live through it. When he looked at the vista of life ahead of him, he saw nothing but bleakness; the drugs he had begun taking a few months ago only intensified this feeling. It was an enemy he could not escape, and he knew the time was soon.
Whispering aloud as he counted the rounds, he loaded all of the clips he owned for his Glock .45 and got into his black Hyundai. While he drove, his mind reiterated the circular loop that had occupied it for the past weeks: Is this what must be done? Yes, there is no other way. He sniffled once, and turned on the radio in disgust. Nothing but hip-hop, ads for Chinese products, and political jargon that made no sense. He snapped it off without care. He would not need this car for long.
At his destination, which he had looked up on Google maps, he took a final breath and turned off the car. Stepping out, he flung the keys as far away as he could, then took a tire iron from under the seat and concealed it in his sleeve. Steeling himself, he walked up to the door.
“I’m sorry, sir, you can’t–” said the guard, but Dylan sidestepped him and brought the iron down on the back of his head. The guard slumped forward but Dylan, having honed his reflexes with video game and played out this scenario in his mind for many days after having seen video of this place on Youtube, was already moving forward to the next guard. He punched him in the face, pushing aside the frantic overweight Hispanic woman clawing at his face, then bashed her behind the head with the iron. The third guard, a thinly-built man whose uniform hung from his bony frame, was frantically operating his radio but Dylan kicked his feet out from under him. A fourth guard came in with weapon drawn but Dylan, waiting beside the door, dispatched him similarly.
Dylan took a deep breath and wished he had a God to thank. He walked down the carpeted hall, bashing unconscious a secretary he found on the phone, and headed toward the thick oak doors at the end. His entire plan revolved around getting to those before someone locked them. He knew that it was inevitable the authorities were already notified, which meant he needed to maximize time. This, too, he had practiced in his mind using a layout of this building in PDF that he had downloaded from a torrent hosted in Sweden. He yanked open the door just as a sweaty little man in a black suit was fumbling with the lock. Dylan kicked him in the gonads and pushed him aside.
His friends had thought it curious that he had spent hours on the face book for the legislature, but now the work paid off. Dylan could recognize faces quickly from the pictures and with his Glock, he stamped down the ones he knew were left-leaning. Blood exploded out of custom-fitted shirts and shattered heads drained life-fluids across the polished desks and onto heaps of pointless bureaucratic nonsense. He fired systematically, imitating Anders Breivik who he had come to admire, showing these people that liberalism was not merely a type of conformity that you got you ahead in life by flattering the crowd, but a death sentence. Except this time, it was for the guilty ones and not everyone else.
Dylan walked down the rows, firing at an even pace, exploding the hearts and livers of those he detested. Liberal politician after liberal politician died, and with each that fell, the others panicked more and rushed toward the door. They crushed each other in panic, some suffocating under the squealing mass of bodies. A conservative politician cautiously raised his hands and Dylan nodded him aside. Then he kept firing, knowing that at any minute the SWAT team would arrive and his ultimate task would end. A woman died gasping, leaving a streak of blood as she slid down the carpeted stairs and flopped before the podium.
As he neared the end of his ammunition supply, Dylan contemplated his life. Born into hell, where people lied not only by outright falsehood but by omitting or denying important truths, he had suffered under this system for too long. He had long ago purged his anger toward the intermediaries, the minorities and authority figures, but now went toward the source. Liberalism had made this change, with the agitation of the Northerners in 1860 all the way through the Hart-Cellar act and anti-discrimination law of a century later. The stamping blast of the pistol comforted him as more recognized liberal faces pointed blankly toward the sky. He only distantly registered the flash bangs and finally, the stabbing pains in his abdomen and chest. For the first time in his life, Dylan Roof had found a task worth doing well with his whole heart, body and soul. As the room grew dim, he rolled backward and looked toward the sky with a gentle smile. He had found his purpose.
The Civil War (1861-1865) still divides the American public. Its origins remain misunderstood, with the South arguing that the war was a case of states’ rights or the ability to shape their society separately from the intent of Washington, D.C., where liberals insist it was a racial holy war for white supremacy through slavery of African-Americans.
Luckily, a respected historian approaches from a different angle which makes more sense in its historical context:
Fleming contends that the real reason for the war – and for why, of all the nations on earth, only the U.S. associated war with the ending of slavery – was twofold: First, there was the extreme “malevolent envy” of Southerners by the New England “Yankee” political class, who had long believed that they were God’s chosen people and that they should rule America, if not the rest of the world. Second, there were a mere 25 or so very influential New England abolitionists who had abandoned Christianity and even condemned Jesus Christ, while embracing the mentally insane mass murderer John Brown as their “savior.” This is part of the “disease in the public mind” that is the theme of Fleming’s book.
John Brown, who had declared himself to be a communist, had organized terrorist attacks in Kansas which included the murder of entire families who did not own slaves, and the murder of free black men. “Perhaps most appalling,” writes Fleming, “were the murders of James P. Doyle and his two oldest sons, while Doyle’s wife, Mahala, pleaded frantically for their lives . . . . The Doyles were immigrants from Tennessee who . . . had no interest in owning slaves.” Brown claimed that his purpose was “to strike terror into the hearts of the proslavery people.” He planned even larger acts of terrorism at Harpers’ Ferry in 1859 where he was apprehended by U.S. Marines led by Colonel Robert E. Lee, and he was hanged for his crimes.
It helps to recall that Europe was wracked by the Napoleonic wars (1803–1815) just a generation earlier, and that those had a similar drift: enforcing centralized liberal ideology through the State over local areas, including independent kingdoms and States much as the South was independent. Liberalism represented on its surface triumph of the common man through egalitarianism, but underneath that shiny exterior it served mostly to empower commercial interests by freeing them from the constraints of culture and those who might know better. Humanity has always been its own downfall, and mobs always demand what is worst for them, and these wars — arising from the French Revolution and bloody mass murder from 1789-1796 — showed the liberal forces attempting to take over Europe.
In the United States, the situation was similar. The South remained agrarian with a high degree of culture, which is why most of the good literature and art came from the South, and enforced that through a strong social order in which a caste system persisted. This enraged liberals, so they engaged on an ideological war against it. Being crafty narrow-eyed Yankees, they chose to pick a fight over an issue the South struggled with: slavery. While slavery was in decline, and many if not most in the South wanted it gone, the problem was that spontaneous manumission would result in a collapse of the Southern economy. The North defined the issue, and provoked the South into a response, at which point the North demonstrated a willingness to conscript as many people as possible into a war it won by numbers and industrial power.
Consider this response from Abraham Lincoln through Ambassador Charles Francis Adams to a letter written to him by Karl Marx:
So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.
The Government of the United States has a clear consciousness that its policy neither is nor could be reactionary, but at the same time it adheres to the course which it adopted at the beginning, of abstaining everywhere from propagandism and unlawful intervention. It strives to do equal and exact justice to all states and to all men and it relies upon the beneficial results of that effort for support at home and for respect and good will throughout the world.
Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example. It is in this relation that the United States regard their cause in the present conflict with slavery, maintaining insurgence as the cause of human nature, and they derive new encouragements to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe that the national attitude is favored with their enlightened approval and earnest sympathies.
One and a half centuries later, we wonder what it all meant. The answer is as simple as it seems: the American Civil War was part of the ongoing world domination by liberalism, which it attempted at first through the French Revolutionary model, then through Communism, and now through European-style “social democracy” mated with American-style industrial capitalism. This war in turn led to others, culminating in the entangling alliances that formed the parties of the first World War, which then in turn led to that fratricidal disaster. The origin of all: liberalism and its ideological compulsion to force others into obedience because it rightfully recognizes the instability of liberalism and thus the fatal threat of any viable competition.
The State of Mississippi has an official flag which is causing some controversy among people looking for a cause, any cause, to distract from the otherwise oppressive fact of our civilization being in terminal decline.
To help them out, we present our new contest in which you, dear readers, design new flags for Mississippi. The old state flag is obviously super-racist, so it’s important that Mississippi receives a new flag, more reflective of Northern urban industrial egalitarian values.
The contest closes in one week, so do not hesitate to fire up your Photoshop, cross-stitch or legal pads and come up with those fine and interesting ideas. Below you can find my suggestion, which I think shows Mississippi abandoning its primitive past and boldly venturing forth into an EnlightenedTM future!
For many years, liberals have enjoyed the benefit of considering politics as a preference, meaning that political choices do not require a logical basis such as what is good for the nation, and reflect the whim and will of the individual alone. If you — for example — find liberalism to be aesthetically more inspiring, why not vote for that? Nothing wrong with it.
As always, time uncovers the hidden lie, and now science slowly reveals the gap between liberals and conservatives as having more of a biological (and thus aptitudinal, although they will fight that notion tooth and nail as they did with race, class and sex) foundation than previously thought. A recent study found that conservatives have a longer attention span and can postpone gratification for longer than liberals:
In a paper published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers say there is a link between political ideology and the ability to exert self-control.
In a series of three studies with more than 300 participants, the authors found that people who identify as conservative perform better on tests of self-control than those who identify as liberal regardless of race, socioeconomic status and gender.
Self-control includes the ability to defer gratification, which means that when the person looks forward to something pleasurable, they are able to put off acting toward that end in order to achieve a greater benefit. The classic example of this is the famous marshmallow test:
Mischel and his colleagues presented a preschooler with a plate of treats such as marshmallows. The child was then told that the researcher had to leave the room for a few minutes, but not before giving the child a simple choice: If the child waited until the researcher returned, she could have two marshmallows. If the child simply couldn’t wait, she could ring a bell and the researcher would come back immediately, but she would only be allowed one marshmallow.
In children, as well as adults, willpower can be thought of as a basic ability to delay gratification. Preschoolers with good self-control sacrifice the immediate pleasure of a chewy marshmallow in order to indulge in two marshmallows
at some later point. Ex-smokers forfeit the enjoyment of a cigarette in order to experience good health and avoid an increased risk of lung cancer in the future. Shoppers resist splurging at the mall so they can save for a comfortable retirement. And so on.
This ability toward self-control increases with intelligence, as we can see when looking at those who commit violent crimes, which are the antithesis of deferred gratification — just go in and take what you want. Researchers found that a genetic basis for low IQ superseded all other factors:
Cognitive ability in early adulthood was inversely associated to having been convicted of a violent crime (β = −0.19, 95% CI: −0.19; −0.18), the association remained when adjusting for childhood socioeconomic factors (β = −0.18, 95% CI: −0.18; −0.17). The association was somewhat lower within half-brothers raised apart (β = −0.16, 95% CI: −0.18; −0.14), within half-brothers raised together (β = −0.13, 95% CI: (−0.15; −0.11), and lower still in full-brother pairs (β = −0.10, 95% CI: −0.11; −0.09). The attenuation among half-brothers raised together and full brothers was too strong to be attributed solely to attenuation from measurement error.
Even more exciting is that research has decoupled socioeconomic status from criminality. In other words, poverty is not the cause of crime — criminal tendencies are. Researchers using the same Swedish data set discovered that innate tendencies do not vary when income changes:
He found, to no one’s surprise, that teenagers who had grown up in families whose earnings were among the bottom fifth were seven times more likely to be convicted of violent crimes, and twice as likely to be convicted of drug offences, as those whose family incomes were in the top fifth.
What did surprise him was that when he looked at families which had started poor and got richer, the younger children—those born into relative affluence—were just as likely to misbehave when they were teenagers as their elder siblings had been. Family income was not, per se, the determining factor.
In other words, not just our political leanings but our behavioral leanings are hard-wired by heritage, much as our ancestors believed. People are either born good or born bad, and social caste exists based on ability instead of affluence. Traditionalists and conservatives have always held and espoused these beliefs but for some time, liberal strongholds in the social sciences were able to baffle, confuse, distract, obfuscate and deflect from the issue. This suggests in turn that there is a biological difference in ability between conservatives and liberals: conservatives may take longer to develop as youngsters, but have more self-control and keep developing throughout adulthood, reaching greater heights of ability than liberals, who peak early and achieve a lower height. Those who have read The Bell Curve may see how conservatives are those on the right side of the center line of the curve, and liberals are those on the left but close to the center. That means they are more intelligent than the average person, but not as intelligent as they would need to be to make the decisions they purport to be making, unlike the ultimate conservative force in our society — military leaders and aristocrats — who tended to be more intelligent and capable of making these decisions.
Now that the Liberal Occupation Government/Zombie Occupation Government has decided to remove flags of resistance to its tyranny of thought, it is your patriotic duty to resist and cause it as many problems as possible. More than patriotism, or even race-patriotism, you have a duty as a patriot to truth and life itself to drive away lies and replace them with truth, beauty and goodness.
A small step along those lines would be to get yourself a bright Confederate flag, and to support one of the few companies continuing to sell this dangerous, subversive, and rebellious symbol of resistance to the encroaching world-death that is modern society in the West. Patriotic Flags will donate one to you in exchange for a link:
If you have a website or blog, you can get a free 3’x5′ polyester flag of your choice. All you have to do is post a link to http://www.patriotic-flags.com on your list of links.
Once you post a link, simply e-mail us with your website url, address, and choice of flag.
You can choose any flag you want, but I suggest the Confederate Navy Jack, known conversationally as “the Confederate flag,” for display in front of your house, from your penthouse garden, or on the armored vehicle of your choice as you resist the creeping fingers of the ideological State trying to reprogram you into the perfect obedient cog.
In the wake of the Dylann Roof shooting, the left/media cabal assumes their usual direction of pointing to the exception and claiming it as the rule. In this case, they want us to believe that America is awash in white supremacists who want to do nothing but murder black people.
On the contrary, very few such events have occurred considering that with 200m whites in America, they would have achieved an incident a week at a magnitude larger than the Roof shooting if they were even halfway trying. Those facts as usual do not fit the narrative so are discarded.
As usual, the leftist modus operandi is to deflect and distract from the real problem, which is diversity itself. Under diversity, African Americans always feel like second-class citizens or a conquered people. Under diversity, white people always feel guilty. And, as Kakistocracy blog points out, diversity has far-reaching negative effects deep in our social order:
Contrary to popular narrative, diversity hasn’t put whites at the throats of oppressed “minorities.” It has put them at the throat of each other.
With Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam showed us how American social fabric has collapsed from within as people trust each other less. His work, and studies by others, show us how diversity increases distrust not just between indigenous whites and ethnics in the West, but within the native group as people come to distrust all other people. Like class warfare, diversity leaves a lasting instability through internal division, resulting in none wanting to trust others. That in turn makes them unwilling to interact except through superficial means like talking about sports, shopping and politics as a form of sports.
As I mentioned in a comment on the post above, the effects of diversity are likely to be far removed from the point of impact. Like paranoia, the diversity virus spreads through society in the form of distrust, and it most commonly targets whites because it is illicit to target anyone else. People find themselves caught up in a society that is spiraling downward and yet are unsure where to cast blame, so they consume themselves in impotent frustrated rage and despair at the utter futility of the dystopian existence.
How many of our past panics were brought on by distrust? The Red Scare, the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic, vaccine phobia, fear of a gluten planet, the terror of pedophiles, even fear of “racists” hiding behind every doorway and perhaps our paranoia about terrorism. Even the increasing political Balkanization of our public might originate in a complete inability to trust each other. Our society grows more litigious, more defensive and more defiantly angry every year, and yet a cause cannot be found. Each side has someone to blame, but these appear to be scapegoats or intermediates, not the actual cause. This cause could well be diversity, since it spreads this kind of alienation like an infectious disease or cancer pervading the cells of an otherwise healthy host.
This reflects the origins of liberalism. When liberals took power during the French Revolution, their first order of business was murder. First they murdered the aristocrats, even the ones acknowledged as “good,” and then they began hunting for any who were royalists or those who aided, believed in, or supported the aristocracy. A simple accusation would result in a family being hauled out of bed in the night and executed publicly after a short pantomime of a trial. The killing never stopped and, when the Revolutionaries ran out of external enemies and people whose stuff they wanted to take, they turned on themselves and began killing liberals for not being obedient enough to the Revolutionary ideology. On a slower scale, the same thing happened in Bolshevik Russia, which conducts purges and pogroms to keep the population in line.
An observer chuckling over the follies of history might notice how ideologies of victimhood/retaliation such as liberalism are prone to such things because these ideologies are inherently oriented toward scapegoating. The Revolutionaries in France wanted someone to blame for the problems of excess population, and so they turned on their leaders, but then achieved worse leadership and an unstable murderous time. This early dystopia was then mirrored in Soviet Russia, where people essentially starved in terror of the KGB, and now exists in the USA where the accusation of “racism”TM results in immediate loss of job, home, savings, friends, spouses and children. We have replicated the Terror in the modern time but because of our intense pretense we no longer bloody our hands, but destroy people all the same and smear their names with a lustful hatred for the destruction of any who are bright enough to see that our civilization is circling the drain.
As usual, the parasites swarm when emboldened by an event that terrifies ordinary people. Before the bodies stopped bleeding out in Charleston, SC a groundswell built on the left to attack two things: (1) “racism” and (2) gun ownership.
Both of these come from long liberal traditions of waving the flag. That is, liberal leaders haul out the tired old symbols of their unity, from the (tin) drum circle to the hippie jive, and then march forth the issues that they know make the assembled crowd yip and yelp and get excited at the prospect of mass revenge on the evil Other, whether that is Republicans, whites, The RichTM or ideally all three like cuck superstar Mitt Romney.
One of the most popular leftist tropes has been the talking point that right-wing domestic terror has killed more people than jihadists in the years since 9/11. The implication is that we can have one Ideological Enemy, and it is not Islam, since they also hate the white possibly rich certainly Republican majority. No, it is homegrown terrorists, but as usual with all things liberal, this statistic is a lie.
Nietzsche famously said, “There are no facts — only interpretations.” This statement gets to the core of data itself, which is that without being given context and conclusions, it reads as rows of figures. This means that the weak point is where people assume that data has 100% authority but are in fact basing their conclusions on the self-interested humans interpreting the data and their usual choice to narrow scope and draw overbroad conclusions. It is like a phishing attempt that claims to come from your credit card company: you give it full credence because it is official, but actually it contains a twist.
This is what they want you to take away from the article — a talking point, useful for shouting down anyone who disagrees with you:
But there are a few glitches with this data:
- Curtis Wade Holley has no ties to the right wing except being “anti-government,” which most left-wingers were in the 1960s.
- Eric Frein was a survivalist, not a political dissident.
- Terry Smith, Brian Smith, Derrick Smith, Kyle Joekel, Britney Keith, and Chanel Skains were Sovereign Citizens supporters, not far-right extremists.
- Raymond Peake never named the organization he represented, only that it wanted to overthrow the government, which all groups do in a takeover.
- Wade Lay and his son Christopher Lay were on a mission to avenge the events in Waco, which was not solely a right-wing view.
In the above listings, “International Security” lists as much evidence as possible to make the case that each perpetrator or group of perpetrators was tied to the right wing. When they have so little to list that the description consists of a vague mention of anti-government or anti-tax sentiment, the case becomes weak. Scratch six off the list and suddenly we are looking at 26 jihadist kills versus 33 “homegrown extremist” kills. This changes the outcome considerably.
The above might be called small lie tactics by the left. They fudge the data, just a bit, including Sovereign Citizens — most of the ones I have met have been left-leaning — and other non-conformists as if they belonged to the KKK. Then they draw very broad conclusions from this, such as that these people are part of an organized, armed and purposeful organization like Islamic terror groups. If you get past those small lies, the data may already begin to have a slightly bad smell which we might call the Reek of Manipulation.
However, more fun awaits, and that is the Big Lie. As famously said by Nazi propaganda minister (and philosophy PhD) Josef Goebbels:
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
Liberals love this quote. “See!” they exclaim with all of the enthusiasm of someone who thinks his diploma makes him a genius. “This was the Nazi plan, to tell a Big Lie all along and have the State repress truth.”
Except for one glitch: that is the exact opposite of the meaning of Goebbels’ statement, in which he criticizes democracy for using the Big Lie strategy and argues that any opposition which can outlast the bubble where the “political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie” remain invisible can defeat that democracy. Hitler attributed the same Big Lie technique to international Jewry. These men were foes of the Big Lie, but apparently liberals were not, and still are not, as they use it above.
What is the Big Lie here? Or rephrased: Why would it be non-significant that there are fewer jihadist attacks on our soil, than homegrown terror?
Answer: Because we are fighting a war overseas against the jihadists and keeping them occupied there.
The great irony of this liberal statement that homegrown terror is somehow bigger than the threat of Islamic terror is that it would not be a lie only if they included Islamic terror overseas. “Oh, well, we’re talking about domestic threats,” they would say with exaggerated patience. However, keeping threats overseas by waging war reduces domestic threats, which was the whole point of the post-9/11 wars: they attack us here, so we will go attack them where they originate.
The audacity of this lie should disturb most people, but Big Lie technique requires constant presence of the lie from all directions, and this is yet another variant of the perpetual lie from liberals. Liberalism is a pathology that attempts to rationalize social decay. As a result, it will always deflect from true threats and point to fall guys and red herrings. The “homegrown terror” threat is no different.
Let us be honest, in the way that only old friends after a long day in the woods where no one else can hear a word can be, and admit that the media crusade against the Confederacy masks an ugly bigotry: hatred of the South.
They hate the South because misery loves company, and the South broke away from the tendency toward industrialized tenement living where gossip is the main activity that characterizes the North, and instead opted for a society of grace, intelligence and honor. This society prioritized the existential experience of being alive over the need to be functionally obedient to a social group, and emphasized social hierarchy over the manic equality that makes cities essentially one long crowd fighting over its place in line. The South wanted truth to come before flattery, realism to come before popularity, and the best to rise above the rest, and that was unforgivable to the egalitarians of Massachusetts and New York who, packed into cities like sardines, resented anyone who had escaped the miserable life they had chosen for themselves.
As a result, they mobilized for a great war where they won by industrial strength and numbers more than skill — with a few notable exceptions — and destroyed their enemy with the implements of modern warfare, including burning cities to the ground, rape, murder and later, theft of its resources through Federally-subsidized legal means. The North can never regain its honor after these events and in its shame knows this, which makes its inhabitants even more virulent in their hatred of the South. They do their best to humiliate and “break” the people of the South, forcing them through social pressures to refute all that they know is true and good, as this extract from Absalom, Absalom! illustrates:
“Tell about the South,” said Shreve McCannon. “What do they do there? How do they live there? Why do they?…Tell me one more thing. Why do you hate the South?”
“I don’t hate it,” Quentin said, quickly, at once, immediately; “I don’t hate it,” he said. “I don’t hate it he thought, panting in the cold air, the iron New England dark: I don’t. I don’t! I don’t hate it! I don’t hate it!”
The South accepted me when I was tired, penniless and broken; it nourished me when I was weak; it cared for me and saw hope in me as a person. When I visit the North, I am a number, fodder for the machines and a question of what can be extracted from me or what I can be induced to do in order to make others prosperous. In that society, there is no social order, only an economic order where the weak eat the strong. It is no wonder it fights back, viciously, with pretense and accompanying shame, wielding guilt and terror as its weapons, because it has nothing to say for itself. It is an empire without a soul and, like all bitter people, it hates anyone who has risen above that state and dedicates itself to destroying them.
Witness our bold President, crossing a taboo line to deliver a socially important message:
“Racism, we are not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say ‘nigger’ in public,” Obama said in an interview for the podcast WTF with Marc Maron.
“That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don’t, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior.”
The usual sleight of hand here. Recall that most humans fear evolutionary pressures to improve themselves, and so make war on the idea of social standards which compel them to discipline or moral behavior. To that end, they attempt to abolish social standards. As a method of doing that, they distract from any important issue with an unimportant but emotionally simplistic one.
In this case, the real issue is the health of our civilization: it is in decline. The false issue is that our real problem is a lack of diversity. That creates the current issue, which is a tendency to (1) blame slavery for “racism” and (2) blame the failures of diversity on “racism.”
Why, you may ask, do I put “racism” in quotation marks? Simply put: “racism” does not exist. A desire to be among one’s own kind — this is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, class and values all together — is the natural state of humankind and exists for a simple reason. Similarity reduces the need for communication, negotiation and the endless rules, regulations and bureaucracy of which liberals are so enamored. Without difference, people are moving in roughly the same direction and much of the overhead that does not work well and more importantly, makes life frustrating and tedious, can be eliminated. Life becomes simpler, with less work and more play, and people are more at rest and trusting of each other.
Most of what we call “racism” consists of people like Dylann Roof who want to resist diversity, and have made the fatal mistake of confusing the visible symbol of diversity — African-Americans — with the program itself and the idea behind it. For liberals, diversity is a way to destroy national cultures and replace them with ideology. They want those rules, regulations and bureaucracy because those are inefficient and always favor anyone who can construe themselves a victim, which allows for successive abolishment of any social standards. That makes liberals happy: to them, civilization is the enemy. They will do whatever they can to subvert, hinder, sabotage, thwart, vandalize and restrain it.
A natural response might be to look at diversity through the only science that can address it, which is a combination of abstract logic and historical data. Diversity does not exist in nature; this implies that there is a reason for its non-existence, and that this must be addressed if we are to replace it. Much as we replaced rainfall with irrigation, and then learned to limit irrigation to avoid killing the plants, we have to get to the root reason for why diversity does not exist. Above we can see the most plausible reason, which is that diversity is inefficient and introduces internal conflict which then replaces actual living as the primary activity in society. Definitely our civilization over the past 200 years has seen a rise in pointless fighting over words on pages because we have no shared unity, purpose or even idea of what the good life would be. The latter is what conservatives generally idealize. With this analysis in hand, we can look to history and see that like many other evolved traits, a lack of diversity manifests itself in parallel across all successful human societies, and many if not all failed societies show a dangerous embrace of diversity. This makes diversity look like a symptom of civilization breakdown, which makes it both not wholly culpable, but also definitively not a solution. That makes it a distraction, beloved of liberals as mentioned above.
When opposition to diversity is criminalized, that act puts critics of diversity in a corner. And like all cornered animals, they lash out at the closest approaching hand, not the set of hands that cornered them and definitely not the metal spikes or rifles hemming them in. This is what Dylann Roof did: he murdered black people instead of doing something productive like killing off pro-diversity whites, or lashing out at the government which supports this program. Anders Breivik in Norway took a more practical approach and shot the children enrolled in liberal indoctrination camp, showing Norwegians that conformity indeed has a high cost and just following the herd to doom sometimes has consequences. While the great love-in after that event raged strong at first, it died down quickly, mostly because people realized that Breivik killed fundamentally unimportant people on a practical level. These were not future leaders, but future parasites. Had Roof gunned down nine teachers at a Mix It Up! conference, or simply chewed his way through a herd of good liberals watching Roots, he might have achieved something closer to his aim. Instead, he murdered people with whom he might have found a lot of common ground, namely that they wanted to associate with their own, too.
There are actual racists, of course. These are people who use African-Americans (or other ethnic, religious and gender minorities) as scapegoats for the failure of Western civilization. That approach ignores the fact that the failure of Western civilization began with egalitarianism, the same ideology that propelled the Soviets, which is a malignant form of individualism that demands an absence of social rules and standards that might compel individuals to self-discipline and hence, upward trajectory on the evolutionary curve instead of stagnation. But the herd wants stagnation because it fears challenging itself, both on a group and individual level. The perennially popular message is that everything is fine, there is no need to strive, and what we really should be doing is enjoying the quality donuts, beer and television (or circuses) that our ancestors have provided for us. Civilization reaches an evolutionary dead end when it succeeds because it loses all of its objectives, and what replaces it is the inherent venality, mental laziness and corrupt inertia of most people.
What racists should do is look to their own race. If, for sake of argument, an artificial intelligence was created which could reliably separate the sheep from the goats, it could strengthen any race by removing the 90% who are useless and keeping the 10% (approximately) who are capable of thought. These would span caste barriers, with those at the top capable of more thought covering more variables, but you would get a net of good people. Sending the 90% away, whether up a smokestack or on boats, would achieve a society of three very different groups that nonetheless acted toward a common goal: the bulk power laborers, the coordination based warriors and artisans, and the brainpower-driven priests and philosophers. If you think about what an ideal society would be like, this is the one, and if it had sufficient technology to defeat the remainder of humanity which would immediately see it as a golden land and want to plunder it (and destroy it in the process) it would thrive at a level hereto unknown by humanity. That goal, while it seems lofty, is more practical and useful than murdering the symptoms of diversity as they pray in church.
One of our long-time and well-respected readers here, crow, has requested an analysis of those who wish us to ban Confederate flags, remove Confederate monuments and erase the Confederacy from history. I consider his question prophetic in that it cuts to the core of the issue: those who wish to eradicate the Confederacy from memory are making the same mistake Roof did, which is to attack the visible symbol of a problem instead of cutting to the root. The problem for such people is that most people wish to live among their own and do not want diversity forced upon them. The more such people, who are indeed ‘butts’ in the sense of being numb and useless, pressure the rest of us to accept diversity, the more incidents like this occur. Not being able to critique their own behavior and see where they are wrong, such people turn those events to their own advantage by blaming mysterious “racists” instead of resistance to the insane program of diversity, and use that to justify even more incursion.
It is this kind of Soviet-style feedback loop that uses its self-confirming assumptions to force itself upon societies, promptly destroying all that allows them to function and entering a death spiral of enforcement and resistance. In the Soviet Union, the ideology jihad took the form of class warfare; here, Democrats insist that racism is a class warfare issue. Draw your own conclusions there, but yes, crow, these anti-Confederates are indeed “butts” or as the older terms had it, fools, blockheads, nitwits and ziggies. They are eternally zero the hero, born losers and back the classroom nerds because their own minds are disorganized and as a result, they are capable of nothing more than basic function, and this makes them miserable. Instead of owning up to that, they scapegoat those who lack the same problem, and find “meaning” in life through their attack on such people. Needless to say, they would be in the 90% who in any sane society would find themselves on a fast boat to Destination Elsewhere.
Chasing symbols and not reality is a side-effect of our need to scapegoat, which arises from the liberal need to distract. Liberals are defined by their denial of actual problems and their preference for illusive schemes that conceal the actual liberal objective of preventing oversight of the individual by social standards or anyone who knows more than the average liberal. For this reason, liberals prefer symbolically-significant acts like burning books, tearing down flags and erasing history. However, this backfires because it forces on a people an ideology that does not relate to their lives, and creates in consequence a distrust of all things related to ideology. This resistance eventually culminates, as it did in Soviet Russia, in a passive culture of futility and consequent national attitude of apathy except when facing threat of execution. That reveals the problem of strong power, which is that instead of as Machiavelli said was ideal being both hated and loved, government is merely avoided because, by the reflexive property of strong actions, anything important is a death penalty and everything else can be ignored. The West has reached the same point in its manic crusade for diversity.
A third option exists to forcing diversity on people and its opposite, allowing us to avoid the issue entirely. That was what Conservatives originally attempted with Affirmative Action, which allowed government to give preference to minorities. This however turned out to be a disaster because it spread far beyond its original intent to become a standard in all things government such that non-minorities were at a distinct disadvantage, and some people were hired or promoted for their racial status alone despite being incompetent. That, too, has been a disaster. I dislike advancing an argument which says “You should just let me do what I want to do, because you cannot do otherwise,” but when facts, history and truth are on the side of that argument, it is pointless to not advance it. Affirmative Action reveals a tendency of centralized government which is that it makes universal rules which, by the nature of universality, become too artificially abstract to help.
This leads us back to the original idea of the Confederacy which was that a centralized state was destructive because of its tendency to universalize from conditions in Massachusetts and New York and apply those in the South; while slavery (and opposition to diversity) were touchstone issues, they were not the underlying issue, which was the belief that local areas should have more power. In the South, slavery was already on its way out thanks to new technology and the general worldwide trend to reduce it; the wild profits had gone out of certain industries as well, which were what had driven the expansion of slavery in Latin, Central and North America because of the trade in these products with Europe. However, liquidating a large portion of its investment would have destroyed the economy, so the Confederate states resisted while behind the scenes quietly downsizing that institution. Many of us oppose the idea of chattel slavery for a number of reasons, including the idea of “chattel” as opposed to sacred role and the fundamental fact that it is a form of diversity. Many in the South did as well. But they wanted to handle the problem locally because the “Massachusetts solution” would not work for the South, and the North knew this but like drunken bullies kept on with their manic charade. We all know how well that turned out: a nation permanently divided.
More people are turning to the idea of local rule at the present time. Diversity enforced by a central government is clearly a disaster, as are the anti-poverty programs and other paperwork-creating wastes of time. As the United States sees its power fade, many are (slowly…slowly) making the connection between the increased regulatory state and its social justice mandate and the slowdown in efficiency, purpose and quality here in these neurotic States. Letting states decide their own diversity rules might have a positive effect. If Texas were to get rid of Affirmative Action, indemnify companies for equality lawsuits, and send to the dustbin whole realms of Federal legislation, Texas might find itself with a faster-moving economy, a more trusting society and an actual sense of purpose. It seems this is what the craven Yankees in Massachusetts and New York fear the most, and so whenever the failures of liberal programs pop out all over the place, they rally the hive-mind around some racist incident to re-fight the Civil War all over again, with ongoing disastrous consequences which they quickly conceal or refuse to acknowledge, treating “out of sight, out of mind” as the cardinal principle of democracy, which it well may be.