Fans of democracy accidentally admit that democracy has failed. If we have come to the same point where leaders struggle with the illogical demands of the crowd, then our attempt to contain the crowd by giving it democratic power has failed. Even more, any attempt we make to re-start democracy will end up back at the point where we are now. This is why we are going through a massive historical shift at this point in time as people abandon democracy, equality, diversity, and individualism. They are ripping history apart at the roots, going back to The Enlightenment™ and taking a different path instead. Soon liberal democracy and socialism will join Communism, Fascism, and National Socialism in the dustbin of history.
If you needed proof that we are in Late Rome, consider this: the wealthy and successful, who spend much of their time agitating for benefits to the impoverished and unsuccessful, do not want that same group to live among them. Among other things, they have discovered that the reason for this poverty and lack of success mostly lies within the choices and mental state of these people, which means that they do bad things and are dangerous to be around. However, they also love camping out in the wilderness near where the wealthy live, bringing these two groups into conflict. When do we admit that the altruism of the wealthy is simply a means of controlling the masses so that the wealthy can continue to enjoy their own wealth while the rest of us live in the crisis-level problems that the altruism of the wealthy creates?
Theresa May presents to us the archetype of the typical successful person in a senescent society. She did well at school and her job, then proved able and nimble in her working of a complex political system, including demonstrating the political savvy necessary to get elected and to navigate many conflicting parties through compromise. In a dying civilization, these are desired skills; to anyone else, they are obedience and salesmanship which are acquired at the expense of knowledge about the workings of the world outside of human opinions and desires. This means that she can work the system, but cannot make the type of real-world decisions required from a leader in more trying times. She attempted to work the system by offering a “deal” which would eventually become so onerous that breaking away with “no deal” would be preferable, but this seems to be failing. Nigel Farage said it best: get out with a clean break, do not worry about a deal, and then spend your time and energy acquiring new trading partners. There is a whole world out there and the sooner the UK no longer depends on mainland Europe and its failing EU agenda for trade, the healthier its economy will be, eventually even becoming self-sufficient in an ideal context.
The key phrase for diversity is never free. You will never be free of the demands and problems that it creates. Whatever group is on bottom will say that because they are starving, they have been made unequal by the system, and therefore whatever it has must go to them. The majority will point out that it needs to be able to make a living too, if for no other reason to pay the taxes that fund the minorities. The two will fight, and the nation-state will turn inward, oblivious to both threats and opportunities that are not immediate as it begins the process of terminally exhausting itself. Every day, the price will be higher and the prospects for the future lower, but every democracy seems to go this way, because once you say that people are equal, you cannot impose any boundaries, borders, or hierarchy, and soon your people are dispossessed and replaced by the same mixed-race cultureless grey people found in most third world societies that are remnants of failed empires.
Politicians love bureaucracy, so when citizens object to unlimited immigration, they say lots of warm and comforting words about vetting, applications, and assimilation. In reality, they bring everyone in that they can and have almost no ability to vet them, no plan for “assimilation” because in reality assimilation is an illusion, and then bungle the bureaucracy because bureaucrats are ultimately paycheck-taking clerks who have relatively little care in the consequences of their actions because there is almost zero accountability. If something goes wrong, they blame the rules or procedures. As a result, the flood comes in and then starts up its own local economies based on a black market, at which point no one has any idea who is in the country or what they are doing, and as assimilation fails, these people tend to radicalize.
Donald Trump comes across as a businessman or even a workman. He gets in there, figures out the situation, offers options, and then works with whoever is most realistic to craft the best possible solution under the circumstances. To him, the border wall is more than a campaign promise; it is an attempt to avoid one civilization being swallowed up by the less successful civilization to its south. He knows that our economy is devastated by the endless flood of cheap labor and that the transient nature of immigration is harming any social order that we have. In addition, he sees that instead of filling our country with the most capable people, we are drowning it in low-skilled and low IQ people. In some part of his mind, he knows that his solutions are short-term and that in the long term, diversity will not only fail but will take us down in its failure. Anything he can do to stem the tide then proves to be a victory for the future.
If we go through the history of academic theory, we can see a point at which it became Left-leaning, usually in support of government or war objectives. This eventually blossomed into what Leftism inevitably becomes, namely a demand for civil rights and socialism, but buried itself in many pages of theory and conceptual tools which allowed only one conclusion. The mainstream media claims that “cultural Marxism” is an illusion and an invention of the Alt-Right, which we suppose is about what any cultural Marxist would say in order to be able to continue operating incognito.
The goal of modern society is to drive us insane. When we can longer form coherent and realistic thoughts, our minds become disorganized and we turn toward doubt, which comforts those who already live in doubt because of their lack of abilities or resentment of the world. Our distant ancestors called this hubris, and our more recent ancestors called it evil, but either way it is the human mind giving in to denial of reality based on the presumption that there is no goodness to be found in the world. Our mission becomes the opposite: discover the goodness, find ways to enhance it, and order our minds around it so that evil, stupidity, and doubt are excluded from our frame of reference.
US immigration policy was redesigned in 1965 with a single goal: import enough Leftist voters to cancel out the conservative votes of the WASP middle class. This means that our immigration code is riddled with loopholes, one of which is that we allow young women to come in and then bring in their much-older husbands from overseas. Naturally, this creates a market in US citizenships and encourages abusive marriages formed for the sole purpose of obtaining citizenship, after which point the younger wife may or may not be discarded. Only one solution awaits our immigration problem: realize that diversity has failed, and admit only ethnic Western Europeans, excluding everyone else. That will encourage them to turn to their societies of origin and fix those according to the model that we have established, instead of playing the lottery to get into America.
My experience moderating forums goes back to the early 1980s. It became quickly clear that there were two aspects to any message posted by a user: content and form. Content means the topic, facts, and opinions expressed; form means the way that it is phrased, the language used, and the type of behavior that it instigates. We all agree on censorship by form because we are perfectly fine with blocking spam on our emails and social media. However, censorship by content appalls us because it excludes viewpoints from the debate, creating an echo chamber. In the name of its Leftist masters, Facebook chose to censor content as well as form, and has effectively eliminated public Right-wing speech, driving Right-wingers into their own circles. This will not only further splinter the electorate and drive the Right to extremes, but will also ensure that neither side understands anything about the other.
How to radicalize a population: tell them that their natural instincts are wrong, and then impose policy which contradicts those natural instincts, only to watch it fail spectacularly and make daily life ugly and miserable. Then, instead of admitting that your policy is wrong — doing this would also call into question the sanity of the assumptions upon which your society is based, like equality and democracy — make sure to double down on that policy and punish anyone who fails to agree enthusiastically, Soviet-style. No wonder people want to leave the EU, but as long as the paychecks keep flowing, the voters remain (mostly) inert. This teen hacker released information on hundreds of German politicians but avoided targeting the Right-wing, but he is not really a Right-winger. As stated in the article: “He is definitely a little oriented to the right, but not right-wing extremist,” Schuerlein told ARD. “But he had a big problem with the migrants and migrant policy.”
Without making an extraordinary claims, we can see that the investigation into Trump has produced no solid evidence and instead is functioning as a deflection from the wrongdoing of others. This proves consistent with what was hypothesized about the “deep state,” namely that it is an entrenched bureaucracy of people who do each other extra-legal favors and that it will defend itself against any change, with that change now coming from the Right instead of its Leftist benefactors whose ideology forms the justification for the vast social programs of the Establishment that employ all these bureaucrats. We have this confirmed to some degree by knowledge that Trump firing Comey brought on an investigation, showing a defensive bureaucracy outraged that its authority did not take precedence over that of all others.
We scapegoated smoking for years, but this handily hid the larger problem, which is that airborne particulates are slowly killing us. Technological society has to get over this hurdle or it will self-destruct, but that also requires us to cut back on some of our least expensive methods of transport and manufacturing. That will mostly hurt those who are not wealthy, for whom consumer goods will now be more expensive. Of course, if we reduced population and left half of the Earth for nature, none of this would be a problem. Democracy prevents us from acknowledging that little fact however. It looks like humanity, by trading on the vast dividend brought by the stability and knowledge of the West, adopted a series of non-functional behaviors in order to profit from the period between when we started doing them and when their deleterious effects were revealed. Now we will have to change, and life will not be the same.
Any time a policy fails, society divides into denialists and realists. The realists see that the policy has failed, so they want us to stop doing it and start reversing it while we do something else instead. The denialists, who either profit from the program or are afraid of change, hang in there and kick their feet and insist that we simply punish or destroy the realists, because that way no one has to change and no one has been proven wrong by history. As this plays out the question of race in America becomes as much of a joke as The Party did during the later years of the Soviet Union: a secret hiding in plain sight, something to make fun of because it so obviously does not function and yet we must all pretend that it is functional and in fact, good. When even the pre-teens are mocking the utter stupidity of diversity you know that it is a dead policy walking.
Legal weed seems to be like every other Leftist program: something harmful masked as innocent, sold through a bureaucracy that takes a huge cut, generating a massive black market because the “official way” is dysfunctional. It makes sense to allow people with the minor amount of self-discipline, initiative, and competence required to grow their own weed, but having it sold over the counter for any innocent to encounter seems dubious. Then again, if we simply stopped all of our regulation of medicines and other substances, it could work out for the best, since that way people would be responsible for what they ingest and would have to figure it out themselves.
Were these alleged rapists guilty? Who knows… we have no chance of knowing, now. The witness was unreliable, but a race riot resulted, making me think that the situation probably involved a string of unsolved crimes and an angry mob waiting for a pretext to strike. These guys may have gotten caught up in the crossfire, but also may have been very far from “innocent,” and this spontaneous outburst of uncivilized behavior may have been payback. Few people remember that Ku Klux Klan was started as an anti-rape organization to counter the utter chaos of the Reconstruction South, and that in ethnic conflicts, rape is always deployed as a weapon.
To his credit, James Watson did not back down but doubled down on the science even as he was slandered from all angles and ended up impoverished. He realized that it was better to be recognized as a martyr for prescient truth than to end his life as a scolded and humiliated man, and so he held his head high and kept making controversial statements. As if to prove that “freedom” is an illusion, and the statement “you have free speech to say whatever you want but not immunity from the consequences” is just a dogwhistle for a witch hunt, yet another organization does what it can to destroy his life.
A sane society would look at this list and think, “We need to come up with a new solution for these industries.” Unfortunately, one cannot beat low prices in a free market without strong cultural intervention, and so this is an uphill battle, but if government removed the policies that make hiring illegals easy (bad verification, affirmative action, civil rights) then the market could easily solve these issues. In the meantime, these industries — construction, agriculture, and childcare — can become targets. We only need tons of construction because we are adding more people and growing, our agriculture can be handled by machines, and childcare is only an issue because women are in the workforce. These problems can be solved, and it will be to our benefit, because depending on these “radical growth” oriented industries is part of the old failed plan where we sell value-added goods and services to ourselves while outsourcing all of the actual productivity to the third world, whether through immigration, diversity, or globalism. The new America consists of us producing everything we need right here without relying on any third world people.
Convenience is like free stuff for the government: the more convenient something is, the less we appreciate it. In our own stories of ourselves, which are the little myth-narratives we tell about ourselves to explain our lives in a way that convinces us that we are successful by some measurement, we value having climbed Mount Everest over buying a sports car; we even value buying some products with the right combination of coupons over those we simply found on sale. In the same sense, making a family rewards us more than hookups, and casual sex including dating tends to make us unable to form lasting bonds because we see all partners as merely sex partners and relatively disposable, instead of seeing them as vital pieces of a family. We are happiest when we struggle for hard-to-attain things and achieve some of them, more than when we get utilitarian versions of everything that we want. By turning sex into a by-the-pound commodity, we took the focus away from the choice of partner, and produced people who are fickle and unable to commit.
It turns that only five percent of the land on Earth has not been extensively modified by humans, and eighty-four percent experiences multiple human stressors. In other words, there are no places remaining for wild species, and everything is being forced to adapt to us or die. In the meantime, even for the species that remain, habitat reduction continues to the point where soon there will be no place for them. Humanity is growing with no purpose in sight and no quality control, and we will destroy everything that we care about and make ourselves impoverished in the process.
The EU may have started as a European free trade zone, but it quickly became an Abraham Lincoln project: how to unite disparate states into one super-national entity that could then create an empire through its size and projection of economic power. Not surprisingly, they are justifying this with the need to enforce diversity, citing the events in Kosovo in the 1990s as the reason for their need for a united military which can engage pro-actively, instead of merely defensively as NATO was designed to do. This coincides with the desire of the EU to make itself dependent on Russian oil and gas instead of having to rely on the USA. As usual, when proles are given power, they vote other proles into power, and these proles having no understanding of power choose instead to become megalomanics. The EU wants to be the new superpower for the world, and it is willing to destroy national identity in order to do this.
We were told that our objections to women in the military were silly. Conservatives said that not only would women be targets for assault, but they would be divisive in fighting units. Even more, we all realized on some level, women succeed more at bureaucratic structures than men do because they are more detail-oriented and obedient. As a result, we knew, allowing women into the military would bring on huge costs, a human disaster, and weaken the military by giving it female leaders, who with a few rare exceptions like Joan of Arc or Margaret Thatcher, are not really skilled at military activities. This is not the realm of women for the most part, and yet government wants to normalize it because our new god Equality demands that all people be made equal in all ways (and if we run out of ways, we will invent some). Now we are dumping millions of sexually traumatized women into an already neurotic society, making the problem far worse.
Dystopian fiction shows us what happens if the human world does not turn out well. In particular, they tend to feature broken down societies ruled by extremely simplistic rules as a means of holding together a fragile and imploding social order. Perhaps the big joke here is that most of them are simply metaphors for our present time. Naturally, when you show people the long-term big picture view instead of the short term financial projection, they get twitchy and run to whatever political illusion seems most favorable to them at the time. However, some political methods make more sense than others, and nothing produces a dystopia like the quest for Utopia. Unfortunately, we are now in the midst of a vast quest for Utopia brought on by the lack of any real aspiration toward goodness or excellence. We are now simply sitting around, dividing up the wealth of the past, and bickering — endlessly! — over who gets what and is it fair and did we do enough for some group that are just as impoverished now as they were two millennia ago. We know that dystopia is in the future, and these fictional works both make us angry and attract us.
As conservatives have been banging on about for years, “equality” should — in theory — mean that everyone is treated the same regardless of their background. In other words, meritocracy, or as the tedious moron-trope of the airwaves says, “Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.” This misunderstands equality. If we need equality, it does not exist in nature, so that means it is a social engineering policy which naturally is different from the condition of nature, which is something closer to meritocracy. Further, the need for equality implies two things: (1) all people are equal but (2) they do not experience equality. This means that, in the mental world created by egalitarianism, something held them back or oppressed them, which is why egalitarians talk about oppression all the time. Egalitarianism creates a scapegoat, inequality or the inequalizers, to find someone else to blame other than egalitarians for their own problems. This means that if you have equality of opportunity, but the outcome does not end up being equal, it will be perceived as the result of those who have succeeded oppressing those who have not. Once you agree on equality in any form you go down this path. Even if the pushback against equality of sexes succeeds, it will be replaced for another push for equality, whether by income or background of another variety, such that it will drive out the most competent and replace them with the most compliant.