Leftists never change their basic modus operandi. To them, the world is bad and the only solution is to find some strong authority to make it equal by subsidizing the unsuccessful at the expense of the successful, who are resented for having the temerity to thrive in this bad world. That means that if we have starving poor people, we blame the rich; if we have starving minorities, we blame the ethnic Western Europeans who founded and built this country. Like most snake oil marketing endeavors, this one makes everyone poorer, which is the default behavior of humankind: become solipsistic and stop adapting to reality, therefore produce no wealth, and through that, end up being useless and irrelevant and dying out. Only a few of us rise above that level and move on to do great things and the rest of us should emulate those civilizations, but that requires trading self-pitying hubris for thymos, or the desire to do something important, meaningful, and significant. In the meantime, the countries that do best are the ones where everyone is at roughly the same level of ability and therefore no one is truly helpless and lost, but that needs to be a high and not low level of ability or you get Somalia instead of Norway. Add this to the other reasons that diversity does not work, and you get a fatal spin where we keep taking from the successful to give to the unsuccessful until suddenly everyone is unsuccessful and we fade out like the Soviet Union.
It amazes me how many life lessons stare us in the face on a regular basis. In this case, we are seeing how democracy — which is built on internal conflict and competition as a means of avoiding strong leadership — cannot function when presented with anything other than the usual routine of raising taxes, spending on “the poor,” incentivizing industry, and periodically fighting wars when a Hitler or Hussein arises. We need aristocracy; only aristocracy can be both competent and moral in wielding strong power. Some people are of higher quality than others. This is fact; we all benefit when the highest quality people are in charge, instead of the present condition where the herd chooses people like its own members, meaning that we mostly get mediocre attention whores like Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama in office. Where do I vote to end democracy?
From the Freedom-Is-Slavery Department:
A new law allowing for hate groups to be designated and punished before they turn to violence is needed in order to tackle far-right extremists, according to a report by Tony Blair’s thinktank, which also seeks powers to ban marches and media appearances.
Democracy, equality, diversity, pluralism, utilitarianism, and individualism have become parodies of themselves. This is what happens when you base your beliefs on what you do not want in the present/past, instead of what you hope to achieve in the future/timeless state.
They turned it instead into a score that everyone can see reflecting how much people suffer by coming from rougher neighborhoods. Successful societies make it too easy to survive, and they end up with a surplus of the lower-quality people who reproduce faster than others because they plan nothing; these then form consumer blocs which seduce the middle classes, who overthrow their natural leaders. At that point, you get Clown World, and its clown solution is to penalize the naturally competent in order to make incompetence safe again. Just as in the Soviet Union and French Revolution, this causes incompetence and laziness to dominate society, at which point they get terrorist tyrant leaders who rule with militarization and oppression in order to get the herd to do anything, but eventually entropy wins because people who must be told exactly what to do lack initiative and therefore ignore systemic problems while doing exactly what they have been told to do. Unions, socialism, blessed are the meek, democracy, and diversity are attempts to pander to this group in order to keep them in line, but in the end, the chaos it introduces wins out and society dies. Right now, we are in the midst of a pushback against that death, and so there was more outrage than the ruling classes expected against this latest virtual subsidy.
In pursuit of socialist-style entitlements states, first world governments raised taxes, which as Newton would tell us causes an equal and opposite reaction through the lowering of wages so corporations can pay their taxes, a raising of cost to pass taxes on to the consumer, and a lowering of quality because now the underclasses have government money which makes them a prominent market-shaping force via Keynesian consumerism. At that point, people become desperate at the same time they have come to believe that the State is the only force of positive change, so they demand more of the State, a.k.a. socialism plus big government. In reality, the situation requires strong government that can go against “the will of the people” to remove all of those entitlements, regulations, and laws, and instead to reward the good and punish the bad. Natural selection works. Equal subsidies do not.
Government specializes in showing up after a disaster to hand out money and make dismal statements about what a tragedy it all is. It is less useful at doing controversial things like getting out there, figuring out who is committing the crimes, and hounding them until they go away. We know who are targeting the tourists: Eastern European transplants, gypsies, African migrants, and impoverished layabouts with extensive criminal records. A strong leader would simply exile them and end whatever brought them into the country, which requires benevolent xenophobia like saying that only ethnic Spaniards should live in Spain. Citizens taking over from government means a loss of faith in government which means that its duration will not be long now; instead of the liberal democratic idea of weak leadership hampered by constant internal conflict in order to represent all groups, the future involves unity and strong leadership to aggressively minimize problems, including the problem of having too many low-utility people.
What happens when you go minority-majority? Every group votes in its own interests. Phoenix residents wanted to avoid having a public transit system that would bring people from the poorer, browner southern half of the city into the wealthier, whiter northern half. They kept this order to avoid the crime that occurs when poor people can easily get into wealthy areas. However, the poorer citizens simply want to help themselves to what the wealthier have, and to smash down any power over them; poor people — who are of lower IQ — tend to do this everywhere they go because it is an extension of their basic approach to life, short-term thinking. Instead of focusing on long-term thinking, which requires looking for the cause of wealth, they simply steal it because they think in symbolic, immediate terms which dictate that if there is wealth somewhere, and they have no wealth, they need that wealth instead of generating their own. When your city goes minority-majority, the same thing will occur, which is why you will soon want to live in a gated community, have private security, and avoid your neighbors and most of all, ordinary people, at all times. Civilization gets undone by wealth because wealth empowers the poor as well as the rich.
Social credit systems seem to make sense until you realize that they require an authority, that this authority will be run by bureaucrats and not enlightened philosopher/engineer kings, and therefore, that soon you will be dominated by the companies that know how to “study for the test” instead of doing the best job possible. Just like our education system, this will select for obedient conformists who intend to game the system all along, and therefore, will achieve the opposite of its desired result. That end state will not just be manifestly unfair but massively incompetent, which will defeat it. Instead, we will most likely live in societies covered by CCTV cameras (to keep citizens compliant) and high corporate liability (to keep corporations obedient). The first test for this will probably occur with the dot-com crashes that are coming, in which we will see that these firms were more like Enron in their arrogance and disregard of inevitable and obvious long-term consequences. We will then have to ask whether we want to be ruled in the future by incompetent peasants or competent kings, and realize that these social credit systems are simply an attempt to patch up the former and not the latter.
People forget about LinkedIn, the “corporate social media” which operates much like a social credit rating. Like all social media, it lends to abuses because it makes private data into a public life, which encourages people to become lying attention whores (sad but true) because it gives a popularity boost to those who stunt and self-promote the most. That in turn makes them easy pickings for those who can see in that behavior both their utility and their weaknesses. Not surprisingly, China is exploiting this as it exploits all of “open society” silliness.
Choosing illusions creates many bad effects and side effects. New York wants to maintain that its diversity is working, but its police see the constant crime and crack down, mostly to protect the various diverse citizens from the crime breaking out in their chaotic neighborhoods. However, this produces politically problematic visuals; for example, cops choking out Eric Garner for resisting arrest while selling single cigarettes. Communities make selling single cigarettes illegal because it attracts the homeless and alcoholic who cannot plan ahead to purchase a whole pack (something like $12 in New York anyway). They drive away single cigarette sellers for the same reason they drive away the homeless, gang bangers, Hare Krishnas, prostitutes, and criminals; they want to maintain nice communities where productive business can be transacted with functional people. Democracy, however, specializes in defending the unproductive against the productive in the name of equality, so the politicians refuse to support the police. As a result, arrests plunge, and the people who suffer the most are the low-income citizens living in highly diverse areas. Watch this happen nationwide as police are punished for enforcing laws on the diverse as well as the pasty.
We find ourselves in paradox yet again: either our citizens are informed and reasonable and will make their own decisions, or they are unduly influenced by white nationalist shooting videos, far-Right manifestos, social media, and of course the media itself. If the latter, we need to get over our free speech squeamishness and demand that media be accountable for anything it says which is unreal; the gentlest method of achieving this may be Donald Trump’s suggestion of more teeth in our defamation, liberal, and slander laws. We might have to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which indemnifies social media as if they were common carriers instead of publishers. We might in fact benefit from citizens who spend less time on news-entertainment media and watching video in general, and so we might consider taxing that instead of “the rich” (your doctor, lawyer, architect, CPA, and local business owners, mostly) and our corporations, who will simply pass the cost on to the consumer as they always do but politicians will never reveal.
Some data indicates that newspaper coverage heavily affects politics. We know that the same is likely true of social media. If social media has a bad influence on democracy, which Facebook has tacitly admitting by refusing to make vital data available and triggering the researchers to quit in response, then we should go back to those Nixon-Kennedy debates and ask how much of our political process simply reflects the power of media. This power is only centralizing as the internet plus falling faith in media to tell anything like the truth causes the collapse of local and regional newspapers, magazines, and television stations.
Property taxes have steadily risen since the Clinton years in order to pay for shiny new schools for all of that diversity. Although school athletic programs are also expensive, the real cost has come with the rise in numbers of students despite a lack of corresponding rise in high-ticket taxpayers; your average American middle class person is paying a lot of property tax — up to 4% of the purchase price of the house, yearly, in some areas — to pay for gleaming new schools for those illegal immigrants, the many retarded kids that people seem to have, impoverished minorities, discipline problems, and most of all, lots of people with IQs under 115 who do not benefit from education past the “three Rs.” As a consequence of all of these expensive taxes, people are fleeing to low-tax states. Soon they will stop owning houses and simply rent instead because property taxes will eliminate any financial value to ownership. Like the Soviet Union, we are consuming ourselves in our pursuit of the religious symbol of “equality.”
The Left won the culture wars, and turned itself into the new Establishment, or that which defends the system in power regardless of whether or not the system is providing anything useful. For the same reason that people rebelled against society in the 1950s, namely that it was an odious and pointless existence, they rebel now, except now they have a tangible complaint: it wants to tax them until they stop reproducing, then collapse into third world status. Everything that young white and off-white kids love will be destroyed and replaced with another failed human civilization, so now white nationalism has become trendy and making Hitler jokes mainstream. Our system has failed and we are now mocking its pivotal policies of diversity, equality, and pluralism. When the authorities notice this, they remove the evidence immediately lest their be a whiff of scandal, because most people want to avoid rocking the boat more than they want to get into a functional boat.
Unions bring corruption and organized crime in addition to donations to the Left. Based on the same idea as Leftism, “equality,” unions demand collective reward or rules that protect workers so that the worst are rewarded the same as the best, who otherwise are the only winners in a competitive market. Employers have no problem paying good wages for competent work, but most of humanity are flakejobs, so most workers do a poor job and create high turnover. Instead of accepting that we want the non-flakes to rise above the flakes, Leftism and unions demand that we support everyone together, effectively creating a perverse incentive against competence. While many of us dislike jobs and would make work less of a horror, this cannot be achieved by subsidizing the incompetent. In exchange for subsidizing the less useful workers, unions take in a lot of money, and union organizers tend to use that to make more money in ways they are familiar with, namely criminal activity. During the 1980s, the criminal unions effectively drove most manufacturing out of the United States, prompting us to begin bringing in illegal aliens — who cannot unionize — as replacement labor and a threat to workers thinking of unionizing. Despite this, workers (who by definition do not understand the business in which they work) keep falling for the union scam, planning new autoworker strikes and agitating for more free money that the market cannot provide, despite rising costs to consumers which invariably cause the failure of industries and all the jobs going away. It is as if they are self-destructive because they refuse to recognize reality and instead, place their own individualistic demands first, ignoring the logical fact that in order to provide for those, they will have to actually cause an increase in value.
The latest media climate change woo goes down hard. These fires are occurring in agricultural areas at the hands of impoverished indigenous farmers, and might not threaten our oxygen supply after all. This does not mean that these fires are a good thing; in particular, we need to talk about ensuring that someone owns all that Amazon land so that poor farmers can no longer burn it.
What does the fall of an illusion sound like? I have not heard the phrase “diversity is our strength” uttered like the mantra it was before the Populist Era in some time. People are realizing that diversity is yet another failed policy that like entitlements and rent control and public education has brought about negative consequences which are coming crashing down on us at rapid speed.