White accountability

white_accountability

As more people cast around various scapegoats in an attempt to explain how the West has fallen from the world’s premiere society to a laughable backwater, it is time to take responsibility and point the finger at the actual cause of our misery.

It is not The Jews, The Rich, or The Government (although that did not help). It is not corporate personhood or the fact that our democracy is not direct. Nor is it even the GOP, although they did not help either. We need to peel back all the layers and look to the core.

Our candidates are liars because democracy rewards lies. They offer a product which might be described as the illusion of peace of mind. This consists of a promise of a solution to some basic problem, a scapegoat to blame for the wider systemic failures, and a reason to consider yourself smarter or nicer than people who oppose this idea.

Leftists are the masters at this. They look at a ruined society and say that clearly the problem is that some have more than others. To support this they show you people suffering, counting on you to worry about what would happen to you in that situation. Then they trot out the studies that consider one factor out of ten thousand and use that to rationalize blame on a scapegoat. Then they say that only mean people could oppose this.

The GOP Establishment (GOPE) has another policy. It lets you know that liberals are insane and PC is bad, and then brings out the old familiars from the Reagan era: defense, Israel, the Bible and maybe even some outrage at abortion. They then say that only morally bad people would not want these things.

In either case, the audience is being manipulated like bulls at a bullfight, with one crucial exception: the audience wants it. They want to purchase peace of mind, and that requires simplistic solutions and blame, and then a reason to feel good even if they lose by calling the other team a bunch of weenies, moochers, meanies or incompetents. That raises the hands and gets the candidate into office.

Once in office, the candidate guffaws. In this system of checks and balances, made exponentially more powerful by two centuries of attempts to fix it, nothing can be done. The direction will not change; the question is only what flavor of compromise. So he goes back to the voters and blames the scapegoat again, but promises to try even harder next time, and the cycle restarts.

White accountability begins when we recognize that our problem has always been an internal war. Most people are bad; like our Simian forebears, they cannot control their urges, and one of those urges is the desire to tear down those above them. They form mass mobs and demand power, at which point the limitations of their abilities are revealed. But the first error was the crucial one, which is demanding that people who cannot make leadership decisions be called on to vote on those decisions.

Out of a hundred people, one is a natural leader with the mental capacity and moral character to see a complex thought through to its conclusion. The rest can fix cars, program computers, draw anime, etc. but that is because these tasks are narrowly framed. They do not have what leadership decisions require, which is a high tolerance for ambiguity when fitting thousands of details into a big, top-down picture.

White internal warfare has marked this country since its inception. The 1% who knew anything wanted to keep the franchise small, but the herd wanted power to make itself feel important. Its first gambit was to import lots of non Western Europeans, all of whom tend to vote Left-leaning. At that point, it began systematically dismantling any sense of sanity in education, media, literature, art, music, government and society.

That process leads us to the present day. You will find lots of people offering you the pair of easy answer and blame, but all of these are lies. What went wrong was that we gave in to our inner evil and the Simian self-important beast that lurks beneath the surface in each of us. We dressed it up, in the way only clever white people can do, as enlightenment and empathy, but really, it was venality and license bubbling to the surface.

The situation has not changed. One in a hundred is capable of making these choices, but we have all one hundred choose, drowning out the leadership capable. We either put these natural leaders back on top and have them suppress the rest of the population, or we will be oppressed by the rest as they continue to choose sociopathic and simplistic illusion over reality.

Tags: , , , ,

26 Responses to “White accountability”

  1. Different T says:

    To support this they show you people suffering, counting on you to worry about what would happen to you in that situation.

    I once had a discussion with a friend I respect (though I find his politics/ideology as near reprehensible) and brought up the liberal trope of how “lucky” we all are to be born in America.

    After I stated it doesn’t seem lucky at all, rather our ancestors directly placed us here while others’ ancestors placed them there and that the real use of such analysis for the left is to enable redistribution and immigration of any human (to be fair, any human that will vote Left); he stated that he doesn’t think the “luck” trope means that. Rather, it means we should be humble and be grateful for our opportunity.

    Whether he believes that or not, it certainly appears a very healthy perspective. One that shows how precious our standing really is.

  2. AntiDem says:

    The loyalist Mather Byles once described the American Revolution as the process of replacing one tyrant 3000 miles away with 3000 tyrants one mile away. Predictably, this has not ended well.

    People can complain about the Jews all they want, but in the end, Jews are 2% of the population and have never used physical violence to get their way in this country. If 2% of the population can successfully impose their morals on the other 98% of the population, then either they are all-powerful demigods (in which case, we might as well give up trying to fight them), or there was something fundamentally wrong with how the 98% was doing business in the first place. The Founding fathers, hopped up on bad French Enlightenment philosophy, managed to get every single pressure point of power completely wrong and build all of their defenses against degeneration pointed in the wrong directions. Classical liberalism built all of its philosophical defenses up to fight against Christian theocracy and hereditary monarchy. In an astounding failure of imagination, it could conceive nothing more leftist than itself, and thus has no defenses whatsoever against creeping encroachment from the left.

    It never stood a chance. Two centuries later, as Moldbug noted, we live in a communist country. It was fated to end this way from the first shot at Lexington Green.

    • If 2% of the population can successfully impose their morals on the other 98% of the population, then either they are all-powerful demigods (in which case, we might as well give up trying to fight them), or there was something fundamentally wrong with how the 98% was doing business in the first place.

      Entirely on point. Alternatively: if we need to find a scapegoat for our own bad choices, what is it actually that we are not permitted to criticize? The ego, equality.

      • Noah says:

        I’m Jewish and highly intelligent. Do I get to stick around when the revolution goes through?
        On a personal note, I do find our society enormously screwed up and frustrating. I just have different thoughts on how to fix it.

        • Jpw says:

          Would putting a gold star right on the tip of your nose bring evil history to mind?

          • -A says:

            Perhaps he would prefer to have “Noah the Jew: very intelligent” on his mail box vis a vis “Wile E. Coyote: Genius.”

  3. “Our candidates are liars because democracy rewards lies.” Truer words were never spoken. The people demand that candidates lie to them and then act shocked when those lies are finally exposed.

    Over twenty years ago, I was one of those candidates. Speaking at a candidate forum, I said (as I had regularly done previously), “If you don’t know – don’t vote.” The audience reacted as though insulted, but I didn’t recognize it as such. A fellow candidate took me aside and said, “Stephen, you can’t say stuff like that. You just can’t.” Another would-be leader was disillusioned and a reactionary was born.

    • “Stephen, you can’t say stuff like that. You just can’t.”

      And therein is a crisis: if those who want to lead cannot speak the truth, how can anyone — and be heard?

  4. JPW says:

    We need to be the white people that invented calculus and analytical geometry. Not the scumbags who fall into the same racial identity games as too many racial diasporas have fallen into. It may temporarily getting some decent heroin as a group, but it will ultimately ruin us all as individuals.

    We don’t need to let our flawed and defective politics devolve us into just another interest group with the rice bowl out begging. Otherwise, it’s the zombie apocalypse – and we’ll be the ones yelling “BRRRaaainnsss!”

    • We need to be the white people that invented calculus and analytical geometry.

      Great summary of Evola’s “races of the spirit” argument.

      • JPW says:

        It always amazes me that a lot of the biggest advocates of racial supremacy have no legitimate agency. They suck and have no use as human beings. (true of any color) Would you hire DeRay McKesson to even pick up the garbage? Me neither.

        • There’s a profound difference between the supremacists, who want to rule the world, and the separatists, who want to go our own way and let the world face its own fate. The supremacists seem to me to be looking for something to bolster themselves, liberal-style. I find it creepy and believe it will lead to murder.

  5. Tucken2.0 says:

    How is it a problem that some have more than others? It is not a problem, it is how things are. If you’re jealous jealousy is the problem. As the jealous person YOU are the problem.

    The only way to deal with this kind of humanity is to limit populations. Humanity has no limiters. No predators. Few diseases. Too much food etc. Gotta keep the population count down. Thats our responsibility. But who could do that? We need more leaders.

  6. Noah says:

    I’ve made this point before. You can’t blame our problems on democracy, because America isn’t a democracy.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/jimmy-carter-is-correct-t_b_7922788.html
    A former president says it. And a Princeton (yell that they’re socialists, I don’t care!) study says that the votes of average people has a negligible effect on actual policy.

    I think some of your criticisms of democracy have some merit, though they’re overly simplistic and reek of confirmation bias. You also have never answered the issue: what if the authoritarian ruler you desire is as stupid, corrupt, and immoral as the average people you distrust with power? Cause you know, that does happen fucking constantly.

    Winston Churchill once remarked on this issue: “Democracy is the worst political system, except for all the others.”

    Unfortunately I have enough spare time to be posting here again.

    • Dualist says:

      Welcome back. Some fair questions here.

      ‘votes of average people has a negligible effect on actual policy.’

      That is true, but that doesn’t mean America is not a democracy; it’s just not of the same kind that you implicitly suggest your definition of democracy as being. It simply means she is a democracy where the politicians are well aware that the voters are so stupid and easily duped that those in charge can do whatever they want and most people will remain in blissful ignorance. If politicians actually thought that a certain policy would mean they would not get elected next time, you can be sure they wouldn’t implement it.

      But America does not use proportional representation. And most people vote for the same party their whole lives, for various psychological reasons; in fact, most states consistently always vote ‘red’ or ‘blue’, election after election. These two facts mean that American democracy just becomes a game were the only people whose views the politicians care about are that tiny number who live in ‘swing seats’ that might actually vote differently from last time.

      ‘what if the authoritarian ruler you desire is as stupid, corrupt, and immoral as the average people you distrust with power?’

      I can’t speak for Brett personally, but what he consistently says is to ‘put the best people in charge’. A stupid, corrupt, immoral person would not, therefore, qualify. The only time your question would be valid would be if ‘we’ supported having a single, HEREDITARY ruler in charge because then, yes, even if the 1st king was great, his son might well have those loathsome qualities you mentioned.

      Have you read ‘The Republic’? If not, give it a whirl. Most of Plato’s suggestions are closer to what this site endorses than having a single, all-powerful king. I included a quote in one of my previous comments that should give you an idea of one possible method to make sure the best are in charge. Plato talks about how members of the ‘Guardian’ class (so not even the top rulers themselves) would be selected: for moral as well as intellectual and physical virtue. Such as:

      ‘If we want to find out if a colt is nervous we expose him to alarming noises: so we must introduce our Guardians when they are young to fear and, by contrast, give them opportunities for pleasure, proving them far more rigorously than we prove gold in the furnace. If they bear themselves well and are not easily bewitched, if they show themselves able to maintain in all circumstances both their own integrity and the principles of balance and harmony they learned in their education, then they may be expected to be of the greatest service to the community..,[and] shall be given authority in our state’.

      ‘And once we have given our system a good start the process of improvement will be cumulative. By maintaining a sound system of education and upbringing you produce citizens of good character; and citizens of sound character, with the advantage of good education, produce in turn children better than themselves….in a word therefore, those in charge of our state must stick to the system of education and see that no deterioration creeps in; they must maintain it as a first priority and avoid at all costs any innovation in the established physical or academic curriculum.’

    • Different T says:

      I think some of your criticisms of democracy have some merit, though they’re overly simplistic and reek of confirmation bias.

      Not to speak for Brett, but it is unlikely any commenter here thinks we have a democracy that accurately reflects the “will of the people.” I will say a government that really did reflect the “will of the people” (a concept so ridiculous as to render it meaningless, so you can approximate it as direct democracy) would be even worse than whatever iteration of bastard child of the Enlightenment we are currently existing in.

      “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite.” Joseph de Maister

      Which is commonly translated as: Every nation gets the government it deserves.

      A less literal translation, but more specific to the referents involved: to a people, the rulers they merit.

      Churchill’s quote is better viewed as elling about his view of himself and his people than as any sort of political wisdom.

  7. Noah says:

    “That is true, but that doesn’t mean America is not a democracy; it’s just not of the same kind that you implicitly suggest your definition of democracy as being.”
    I was truly surprised by this statement. I guess we could nitpick over the definition of democracy. One definition comes up: “A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.”

    If the people aren’t actually governing, it isn’t a democracy. Or even if you want to say that technically it is, you still can’t really make the arguments that Brett has.
    “If politicians actually thought that a certain policy would mean they would not get elected next time, you can be sure they wouldn’t implement it.”
    No, politicians regularly implement policies that the majority of the public disagrees with. You guys may not know this, but many people on the left feel really betrayed by Obama. He actually continued a lot of what Bush did.
    Every few years we get a highly manipulated choice between two candidates who aren’t even necessarily that different than each other. When they are in office their choices are regularly manipulated by lobbyists and special interests. The 2000 election was stolen for Bush. The Congressional elections are gerrymandered. The Senate system is wildly disproportionate which also factors into the electoral college. And we don’t even have a third party. Brett wants an aristocracy? We have one right now! The whole thing is run by wealth rather than votes.
    I actually think some of your criticisms of democracy are accurate, though it’s still generally preferable to the sort of authoritarian rule that Brett often espouses. Hence my Winston Churchill quote, hence the concern that an authoritarian system run by thugs becomes even worse than rule by the majority. Cause you know, history has that happen constantly.
    As my brother said, “It would be nice if we tried democracy before writing it off.”

    Some of your (Dualist’s) argument favors a sort of meritocracy. Fine, I agree. I think there should be democratic elements, and the people should have a say. Because in a system structured specifically so that power consolidates upwards, it really does pave the ground for abuse. And part of my problem with Brett’s writing is that he just doesn’t care about the powerful abusing the powerless, or acknowledge that it constantly happens. How do you structure the system so that the best rise? If power consolidates upward, then can’t those on top rewrite the rules to favor themselves?
    Another hugely important question is what constitutes merit in a meritocracy? Pretty sure my ideas would be hugely different than yours.
    Yes citizenship classes in education sound good. I also think it would be good if the hypothetical “meritocrats” weren’t allowed a super high standard of living, so as to weed out the selfish. They can certainly be comfy. Marcus Aurelius, who fits Plato’s ideal of the philosopher king, often slept on the ground when we was with his soldiers.

    Another important issue is that moral intelligence doesn’t necessarily go with intellectual intelligence. Brett being living proof of this.

    I’m not even claiming to have all the answers, and yes I think these criticisms of democracy have some good points. If it weren’t for the ecological crises (plural), I’d pretty much stick with European style parliamentary democracy, but other issues aside, people don’t seem willing to vote to stop gutting the earth.
    So yes, I’d favor a meritocracy informed by some democratic elements. Because I do think there is inherent moral value in people getting a say in their form of government. And I do think it can check certain kinds of abuse. But my tentative agreement with some of your ideas aside, I still think a return to monarchy and aristocracy is fucking terrible.

    • We have a new comment policy:

      http://www.amerika.org/policy/

      Commenters have rights, but so do readers, and I’m not going to subject them to bad psychology or spam of any type. Your cooperation is appreciated. For example:

      Another important issue is that moral intelligence doesn’t necessarily go with intellectual intelligence. Brett being living proof of this.

      I don’t mind you criticizing me, in itself, but I don’t want to subject readers to nastiness here toward me or anyone else. You will get the most mileage out of this community when you meet it halfway and contribute instead of attacking. (This is true, by the way, of all discussions. I am sure if you examine your experience you will see it matches that description).

      • crow says:

        Encouragement usually succeeds in making the bad worse and the hardly worthwhile even less worthwhile.
        If you’re gonna encourage anybody, save it for the valuable ones, who have some clue how to behave, and have something useful to say.

        This is one reason I value intuition so highly, over lesser attributes like intellect. Intuition clearly identifies evil intent, while intellect does little else than supply various justifications in its vapid desire for good outcomes.

        • I agree wholeheartedly. We who comment are players on the stage that others view…

          • crow says:

            Comments are as representative of the site as are its essays. Freedom of expression can not be extended to those with no appreciation of the bigger picture.

            • Also agreed. I do not want to subject our readers to the same behavior they can find anywhere else. They deserve better, in my view, and maybe a refuge from the insanity.

              • -A says:

                There is some meaningful exhibition of liberal thought, though. Clearly Barry O Hussein got four more years because he was not allowed to be the “real” Obama. Did they choose someone else to be the “real democrat?” NO! They chose him again and they kept on trying to sodomize a round hole with a square peg like a bad romcom for the male feminist demographic.

    • Dualist says:

      ‘A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.’

      So even by that definition, America IS a democracy. We do elect REPRESENTATIVES. Even if they then do things many people are against, the same individuals still get voted in again at next election in the very same States (in most cases). So the voters can’t really say it’s without their consent, either. By voting, you are effectively giving your assent to everything they did LAST term, too.

      ‘No, politicians regularly implement policies that the majority of the public disagrees with.’

      As is often, you’ve slightly re-framed what I said. I didn’t say ‘if they thought some people would DISAGREE’. I said ‘if they thought it would mean THEY WOULD NOT GET ELECTED NEXT TIME’, as a result of whatever policy. If people heartily disagree with a candidate’s choices in the last government, then vote him in AGAIN – then which of Brett’s arguments against democracy doesn’t apply here?

      And then you list many more (genuine) problems with the current democratic system – only strengthening the argument against democracy. Plus, if a people were REALLY bothered about how both Parties have operated over the course of a century, and never DO anything about it like, maybe, starting their own party or even launching a revolution, then what does that say about them? They probably shouldn’t even be voting, to say the least.

      So up to now you’ve listed many problems with democracy (which we see in all democracies, at all times in history, so we can assume such problems are inherent to the system), but only one ‘problem’ with our system:

      ‘that an authoritarian system run by thugs becomes even worse than rule by the majority’

      Yes, so if we had a system such as Plato suggested, we wouldn’t have ‘thugs’ in power. Everything you say about the strong abusing the weak would not be an issue if we had a system that truly put the BEST in power (which obviously means those of high moral character) – which is, again, what Brett regularly suggests and I myself also made very clear in my last comment. Once again, you’ve selectively ignored that aspect of what ‘we’ say and are maybe just remembering one single, exaggerated sentence Brett may have made in the past.

      Citizenship classes? You’re completely underestimating how much we would like to transform society. Plato was talking about a complete system of character FORMATION (as much as that is possible), testing, and selection. If a boy showed signs he was a bully or selfish – then he certainly wouldn’t be given any power whatsoever. But I’d already made that clear in my last comment, which you ignored and carried on talking as if we wanted to install a viscous dictatorship run by hereditary degenerates.

      ‘I also think it would be good if the hypothetical “meritocrats” weren’t allowed a super high standard of living.’

      It’s interesting you say that because that was exactly the same conclusion Plato came to:

      “They alone, out of all the citizens, are forbidden to handle silver of gold. They must not come under the same roof as them, nor wear them as ornaments, nor drink from vessels made from them. Upon this their safety and that of the state depends. If they acquire private property in land, houses or money, they will become farmers and men of business instead of Guardians, and harsh tyrants instead of partners in their dealings with their fellow citizens, with whom they will live on terms of mutual hatred and suspicion; they will be more afraid of internal revolt than external attack, and be heading fast for destruction that will overwhelm themselves and the whole community’.

      As for Marcus Aurelius, yes, he may be the closest example the ancient world gave us to a philosopher king, though more of a Stoic rather than a pure Platonist. If you have read his ‘Meditations’, you should have a good idea how one can ‘structure the system so that the best rise’ (in this case, amongst the Ruler class as opposed to the Guardian in Plato’s tripartite scheme). He was not the (biological) son of an emperor. One of his predecessors, Hadrian, had started a system of selecting prospective heirs based solely on merit rather than primogeniture or any other hereditary system. The results of this ‘elitism’? The period that followed was, in the words of Gibbon, such that:

      ‘If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic, had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom.’

  8. Different T says:

    I still think a return to monarchy and aristocracy is fucking terrible.

    Do you perceive that Brett or others are trying to deceive you into thinking otherwise?

    If you weren’t here elucidating this populist failure, the comments on this site would not even be about the “relative merits of democracy.”

    • -A says:

      Brett himself does seem to be a Monarchist, though. I would agree. Monarchy and Aristocracy, in my opinion, would be a great idea. No more musical chairs and finally, an Emperor with a real tailor.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>