Rarely do you see it in plain English:
What they invariably failed to mention was that most of our faster growth was explained by our faster-growing population, not our increasing prosperity. Over the year to June, for instance, real gross domestic product grew by (a pathetic) 1.4 per cent, whereas GDP per person actually fell by 0.2 per cent.
This is a Ponzi scheme. Each person buys in with their taxes, hoping to get more free stuff from the taxes of the people who come after them. However, it turns out that the third world immigration costs about $100k per person, and results in the productivity area have fallen far short of what was expected.
The International Monetary Fund’s latest report on our economy says we have “a notable infrastructure gap compared to other advanced economies”. Spending is “not keeping up with population and economic growth”. We have a forecast annual gap averaging about 0.35 per cent of GDP for basic infrastructure (roads, rail, water, ports) plus a smaller gap for social infrastructure (schools, hospitals, prisons).
They took the money that needed to be invested in infrastructure, spent it on immigrants to tax and vote Leftist, and now have a rotting society as they keep paying the diversity bill, which will fall on ordinary citizens and raise prices to the point that normal life is not affordable.
The Atlantic just let their liberal slips show. Shocking, I know. They are complaining because the Right really doesn’t want them around. Give the typical Righty Whitey a choice between his daughter marrying Che or Snoop Dogg, and leaving retroactive abortion off the menu; and he’s asking “What up, Snoop Dogg?”
As partisans have drifted apart geographically and ideologically, they’ve become more hostile toward each other. In 1960, less than 5 percent of Democrats and Republicans said they’d be unhappy if their children married someone from the other party; today, 35 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Democrats would be, according to a recent Public Religion Research Institute/Atlantic poll—far higher than the percentages that object to marriages crossing the boundaries of race and religion.
This makes The Atlantic long for a longer cucking apparatus. People are discovering that they don’t need Leftists around to be decent or tolerant. No, Amerika, we don’t have to live like this.
In his recent study of the emergence of democracy in Western Europe, the political scientist Daniel Ziblatt zeroes in on a decisive factor distinguishing the states that achieved democratic stability from those that fell prey to authoritarian impulses: The key variable was not the strength or character of the political left, or of the forces pushing for greater democratization, so much as the viability of the center-right. A strong center-right party could wall off more extreme right-wing movements, shutting out the radicals who attacked the political system itself.
So (((Danial Ziblatt))) just admitted something. Democracy can only survive when its prisoners have no other choice. Amerika ends when people are galvanized to think outside the current Overton Window and demand something better than what the largest band of idiots votes into existence.
The inversion of the old, Enlightenment social orders has brought us to a dying end. Some of us can use this chaos as a ladder, climb to the upward exit, and emerge unscathed. To those among the blessed, Bardamu’s piece would not entirely ring true. For the others, there but for the grace of God go I. For those poor souls it describes an ineffable living damnation.
To get ahead of ourselves, we will find that the West has made of entropy a God, One whose final law is that everything shall be the same. It is a false god. The ultimate cosmo-physical problem – How is negative entropy possible? – attests to that. We know that heterogenesis is no weaker than its opposite, even if we do not know how.
Nick Land channels Thomas Pynchon. The universe is based on expansion into particularistic realities, but humans insist on one big theory, which demands that we deny the variety of existence and replace it with a false universal so that our perspective seems like that of the gods. Hubris dooms us in yet another entertaining way.
Greta Thunberg, the teenager from Stockholm, is the prophet of a new religion sweeping the West. Call it Climatism. Like any religion worthy of the name, it comes with its own catechism (what to believe) and eschatology (how the world will end). Thunberg’s bible is the latest report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which gives us 12 years to save civilization as we know it. We have prayed to the false gods of fossil-fired growth, runs Thunberg’s indictment. Guilty are the adults who have “lied to us” and given us “false hope.” But her children’s crusade — no-school “Fridays for Future” — will show the path to redemption.
When science fails, and is then disposed of in a garbage fire, we get treated to “prophets” like Joan of Dark. A lot of Leftists want Global Warming to be right and ALL DONALD TRUMP’S FAULT! It apparently isn’t and it won’t let them hand out the peach mints. But we can’t have logic get in the way of one world governance. So we get Joan of Dark who gets lots of jet rides to go complain about everyone else’s carbon footprint. Scientists are truly dangerous when they are wrong but are too personally and financially invested in the hypothesis to accept reality.
We have taken to awful tactics like higher/cheaper content production, slideshows interlaced with ads, clickbait touts in Google News, and the dreaded sticky video player to try and recover the lost inventory from this blow dealt for 9 straight years. The problem is just as soon as we try a new tactic, a search engine algorithm changes, or a browser update restricts us, and we’re back to the drawing board again.
Over the last fifteen years, the internet has centralized because internet sites are chasing traffic through third-party monopolies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter. This has created a race to the bottom which standardizes all content to capture clicks, missing the possibility of attracting regular users. As social media dies, the internet will cease to become one big audience and again consist of many smaller sites with niche functions. This also means that the idea of one big universal consumer audience has died, and business will have to fragment into separate entities for each special interest group to whom it markets.
I spent last year working as a support teacher — a position new to both me and the school. I flit between nine teachers and 13 classes, helping students with difficult work and aiding teachers in instruction. Some teachers sought my advice and assistance. Others never acknowledged my presence. In the end, passing rates dropped and disparities persisted. Because of the nature of my position, I could spend the majority of my workday on Twitter without a blip of difference in my school’s academic results. There is something seriously off about this.
Can something be the tip of more than just one iceberg? I congratulate the author of this piece. He just ripped the lid off a lot of what’s wrong. He nails the edumacyshun sistem. It’s a social justice dildo, a bat virtue signal, a baby sitter for unwanted youths, and a symbol of everything we want for the children but as a society do not care enough to provide.
Then it gets deeper and digs into working in general. Why are we here as employees? How many of the people at your place of employment really don’t belong there? How much would everyone one else hate them if they developed a viable purpose other than wage-sponging? Give this guy a solid B+ in Philosophy. He sure asked the right questions during discussion group.
In the social media era, the concept of keeping particular ideas out of established organisations, even if you can keep certain groups and their leaders away, is less likely to succeed. In times of rapid political and demographic change, with many searching for answers to complicated questions, it is all too easy to find ready, if simplistic, answers on Twitter and similar platforms.
In the era of social media, new methods to combat the far-right’s ideas are required. Equally, political distinctions matter. If almost anyone can be categorised as ‘far-right’, the term will become entirely meaningless – and the ‘far right’ may then filter into the mainstream by default.
More accurately, the mainstream has accepted certain far-Right ideas that align with observed reality, and this has made the underground movement far Right irrelevant while simultaneously forcing those ideas into mainstream Right-wing parties. The mainstream will try to dumb them down into ideology, sort of like how they always try to convert “nationalism” to “civic nationalism,” while the underground movement far-Right will cling to desperate extremism as a means of distinguishing itself. A better position would be to apply a strong realist filter to both and incorporate them in a new political direction, namely a race-aware, biology-aware, hierarchicalist moderate but uncompromising Right.
I do believe we are entering a post internet time for conservatives. I was one of the first people banned from many sites such as Twitter and Patreon even though nothing I shared violated any rules nor was “hate speech” of any kind. In fact, I have constantly advocated God’s love for ALL people. My most major crime was claiming white people as being an equal part of humanity too.
They are not only trying to prevent us from speaking but they are giving themselves a clear path to create more and more fake information about the average citizen so that they can take their next step, which I believe is already happening, as they arrest average citizens for posting memes. Soon they will arrest you for things you never even posted, things you never said.
That follows the historical arc of Leftist civilizations. They start out being accepting of everyone, then figure out rapidly that because they have no direction, they need to enforce dogma or people will leave the reservation. At that point, it is a regular set of steps from public outrage to deplatforming, censorship, gulags, mental asylums, and eventually guillotines for dissidents, a group which includes both foes of the dogma and those who are simply insufficiently enthusiastic of it. Pol Pot grins like a Cheshire cat from his mountain of skulls.
The Lancet thinks that it’s reasonable to ponder one’s pollution sins before having children. This is insane and misanthropic, and it’s precisely why so many people don’t take environmentalists seriously. Followed to its logical conclusion, nobody should ever have any children, which means we’ll leave a clean and healthy planet for precisely no one. Unsurprisingly, the article also gives a nod to Extinction Rebellion, a group of activists that tries to convince people to act boldly on climate change by, as I described previously, “preventing people from going to work, spraying graffiti, smashing glass doors, protesting naked, and gluing themselves to street furniture.”
Is it acceptable to reproduce yourself? If you seriously have to ask, then do me a favor and zip it the eff back up. I’ll give you the dumb football jock answer to this query. “No risk it. No biscuit.” In case I need to be more specific, here goes.
When you make that half-copy, you place two positive bets.
If you feel ready to go long on both of those propositions, then Lancet can go desanguinate themselves. You have a future to build. Make sure it is yours that show up for it.
Watching Sweden and the United States fracture along ethnic and racial lines, one cannot help but think that Putnam’s 2001 data set got it right. For many years, Sweden led the developed world in the numbers of refugees it accepted per capita. Migrants now make up a fifth of Sweden’s population, and relatively few of them have acquired the skills needed to earn wages in Sweden’s knowledge economy. By admitting an enormous population unequipped to be economically productive, immigration policy broke Sweden’s long-standing social contract. As the Swedish economy has stalled (for reasons thought to be unrelated to migration), social benefits have become less generous and the efficiency of government health care has fallen to the point where Swedish corporations now lure employees with private health insurance. Tamir points out that when diversity increases, voters become reluctant to support social benefit programs. She is hardly alone in viewing the rise of illiberal, nativist movements as a response not simply to immigration, but to the reality that globalism, the mobility of both capital and highly educated people, has broken the national compacts that once offered the middle class not only a social safety net, but a future.
Even Left-leaning people find themselves forced to admit that diversity fails. One of my favorite thinkers, Francis Fukuyama, also makes an appearance here:
Francis Fukuyama, meanwhile, is confused. He knows that a purely creedal identity of the type proposed by Lepore “is not a sufficient condition” for successful democracy, and that the United States “cannot build its national identity around diversity.” He argues that the culture that “Anglo-Protestant settlers” brought with them “was critical for the successful development . . . [of] successful democracy,” and that it is this “culture that is important, not the ethnic or religious identities of those who take part in it.” Indeed, he points to Syria’s recent fracturing along ethnic lines as “a clear example of what happens when a country lacks a clear sense of national identity.” Yet his remedy, like Lepore’s, is to create “creedal national identities . . . based on adherence to basic liberal democratic principles.” It is impossible not to feel that Fukuyama is a political scientist afraid to endorse the argument made by his own work.
Much as in his foundational “End of History” analysis, Fukuyama waffles because he understands Plato too well. He knows that diversity cannot work, and culture through ethnic group is the only glue strong enough to hold together a society, but he also knows that he can only hint at this and appear conflicted over it, not outright say it… yet.
Liberalism is the politics of negative liberty. And it cuts Left and Right — broadly speaking, going Left on culture and Right on economics. On culture, it seeks to dismantle the cultural impediments to minority flourishing and emphasises the importance of individual choice. It is pro-gay and pro-choice. Many are comfortable with all this, but become distinctly less comfortable when words such as “family” and “motherhood” are considered to be a part of the whole apparatus of oppression and in need of deconstruction.
Despite its many undoubted gains, liberalism is now recognised as coming with a heavy price tag. In the name of negative freedom, it hollowed out many of the conditions of human flourishing: the solidarity of community, the importance of place and roots, spirituality and religion, the family, the nation state.
We have entered an age of post-liberalism, where people are focused more on having an order larger than the individual — “the solidarity of community, the importance of place and roots, spirituality and religion, the family, the nation” (nation-states, technically, are mixed-ethnic and united by creeds and ideologies, not blood) — than trying to make everyone equal, because we as a species are learning that the quest for equality simply “hollows out” the core of civilization.
In Culture War 2.0 the correspondence theory of truth—with its commitment to the idea that there are better and worse ways to come to knowledge about an objectively knowable world—is no longer common ground. For those on one side of this latest fight, the correspondence theory of truth has been replaced with more subjective ways of knowing. But this is not merely a turn away from objectivity to subjectivity. Culture War 2.0 is marked by one side’s turn toward understanding knowledge as determined by identity markers like race, gender, disability status, and sexual orientation. And—so the theory goes—the more “oppression variables” comprise one’s identity, the clearer one’s understanding of reality becomes.
This restates the basic difference between conservatism and Leftism: conservatism focuses on reality and the order we can find within it, where Leftism focuses on the individual and therefore prizes victimhood as a means of wresting power from society, itself a proxy for reality and the order we can find within it.
Big multinational interests, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Global Banking interests, etc, were exclusively supporting both President Obama and candidate Clinton. The domestic politics of the U.S. were/are tools toward an end; and, so long as the person occupying the Oval Office did not interfere with multinational objectives, they too would benefit financially.
Think of the scale of wealth headed to the top of the pyramid that President Trump halted. Domestically, all of those lobbyist-written bills worthless on November 9th, 2016. All of the DC politicians, sales people indulged to sell those bills, left teetering on the border of functional obsolescence… It’s quite stunning to think about.
It has always been this way. The Left are the party of shopkeepers who want more business, while the Right still clings to outdated ideals like culture, morality, nature, and reverence for the divine. Leftists, as cynics, know that equality is a nonsense ideal and that their policies will simply concentrate wealth among the nu-elites who are getting rich through government and its labyrinthine maze of rules. They also know that people are stupid and voters are self-herding because they conform to social expectations instead of acting toward any goals. Consequently, as pure creatures of democracy, they promise all sorts of good things and steal everything that they can.
Generally speaking, in Latin cultures, there is a strong separation between the general population and those in power. These are countries that have a preference for cooperation, modesty and quality of life rather than achievement, heroism and material rewards.
Consumers here tend to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity, stick with the brands they know and love, and are uncomfortable with unorthodox behaviour and ideas. In broad strokes, the region is characterised by loyalty, hierarchy and implicit order.
This tells us both why Leftists want to eliminate culture, and how we can defeat them. Strong culture works better than government or ideology. If crafted around a sensible core, it eliminates from the market things which are destructive. This uses the universal attribute of all human societies, choice in purchasing, to get the unrealistic insanity of dogma out of our lives.
There’s nothing new either about the claim that if my experience is radically different from yours, you are incapable of understanding me. It used to be known as middle-class individualism, and involves confusing sympathy with empathy, as well as making a fetish of immediate experience. Once upon a time, the self was hermetically sealed off from the selves around it; now it is cultures that are mutually incommensurable.
It is gratifying to see someone call out bourgeois individualism, which basically means that you treat the world as a means to the end of your own material comfort only; this is where the “I got mine” meme comes from. However, people might look at diversity as simply amplifying this: acting for your group means more things for you at the expense of some other group that you secretly fear will exterminate you at some point.
This isn’t the first time that the conservative movement has faced such a challenge. In the early 1960s, extremists from the John Birch Society peddled racism, anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories like those of today’s alt right. The Birchers were establishing a foothold in the GOP.
It was at that moment that conservatism’s intellectual leader, the late William F. Buckley, made it clear that Birchers wouldn’t be welcome in the movement or the GOP. Buckley ultimately succeeded, as the Birchers were forced to retreat to the fever swamps of American politics.
How the Right went wrong last time. We can never lie about what is true; the Left does that, and we cannot compete at that level. Fake WASP [[[ William F. Buckley ]]] knew how to market the Right, but he was selling it to a temporary Leftward swing, not its core audience, and this explains why so few elections were won after that point. Now that demographic displacement has revealed its carnage, we can return to being honest.