Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘altruism’

Standards Kill Parasites

Friday, July 21st, 2017

Do you believe in miracles? I believe they are possible, but I’ve studied just enough about quantum physics to learn how bloody (expletive) unlikely that is. I can accept God acting outside all physical law, but within the realm of the material, I squint double-hard at miracles.

Thus, I think National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd is exaggerating a tad when he says that morale is at a 20-year high. In the grand tradition of recent American politics, this sounds more like he is “showing results” by showing emotional effects on others.

I did not vote for Donald J. Trump in expectation of miracles, or even few solid and amusing plagues straight from the Book of Exodus. I expected him to get results because he understands what a standard is, and how enforcing those standards prevents exploitation of what the standards protect. He has established a standard that our laws are real, and foreigners can enter the country only in accordance with those laws.

He is securing our borders in order to ensure that those laws are enforced and in turn, is putting pressure on the citizens to change those laws if the results are bad. It turns out that his approach works spectacularly. Here is what happens when you set a standard.

The large drop in apprehensions of people illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border is “nothing short of miraculous,” National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd said on Monday. “If you look at the rhetoric that President Trump has given, it has caused a number of illegal border crossings to go down,” Judd told C-SPAN. “We have never seen such a drop that we currently have.”

Standards kill parasites. Standards make people actually put some skin in the game and commit before they get gimmedats. When people think they can use a resource free of consequence, you get the Tragedy of The Commons. When a good or service comes at a price, the ones too lazy or too dysfunctional to pay are excluded from depleting it. If there are no standards, each person exploits what is there and everyone suffers as a result.

This observation repeats with regard to SNAP enrollment in Georgia as well. Make people work and the ones allergic to that sort of thing will dissipate. They move to places where the pickings are easier.

Work requirements have halved the number of single adults receiving food stamps in Hall County and in 23 other counties. The number of able-bodied adults without dependents getting food stamps in Hall County fell from 529 people in 2016 to 264 at the start of 2017, according to the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services.

If you don’t want your peace, your finances and your environment destroyed by a horde of parasites, commit to standards. Commit to demanding something out of everyone that comes to feed. Apply the John Smith Rule. “He who does not work, does not eat.” States under budgetary pressure are looking to expand it to Medicaid as well as SNAP.

Indiana could become the first state to require some Medicaid recipients to work but it is facing a flood of opposition from health groups, advocates for the poor and others. Public comments filed with the federal government have been overwhelmingly against the idea even as Congress debates whether to give states more leeway in running their Medicaid programs, along with a lot less funding. Other states in various stages of pursuing permission for work requirements include Kentucky, Arizona, Arkansas, Wisconsin and Maine

Standards are the answer to the weight of the poor. Demand more than other, more socialistic places, and the worst of humanity will leave you. This means that the people in your society who are actually contributing are the ones who stay, which means that everyone benefits as contributions increase. Defend the normal, healthy and sane and you get more of it; focus on pitying those who are failing, and you get more of that at the expense of the normal, healthy and sane.

Compassion means saying “No.” Compassion means rewarding those who contribute to a community and banishing those who do not. Standards are the cure to Modernity. Is it any reason why they are so frequently condemned as “Racist,” “Classist,” or just plain “Evil”? Standards threaten the Left, which wants to destroy the normal, healthy and sane so that the insanity will be accepted as normal.

The hordes of parasites that empower the Left are not sustainable without unconditional altruism, which if you decode it is really a type of advertising for individual called “virtue signaling.” The people who talk loudest about The Poor™ care the least about them; what they care about is appearing to be more virtuous than you, while not investing the hard work in actually being, you know, virtuous.

When you think about it, the opposite of good is not “evil” per se, but everything that insists good is not necessary. When we give up on standards in favor of the appearance of altruism, we are relying on a miracle. When instead we demand standards, we are acting from sanity and will achieve the best results possible on this Earth.

Our Problem Is Not “Pathological Altruism”

Thursday, July 13th, 2017

For years, nationalists wrote about pathological altruism as the root of our dysfunction as a race and ethnic groups:

I don’t like the idea of “Pathological Altruism” as an explanation for what is occurring in the White world. The suicide can be explained in many ways, however the theory that White people are just too damn nice and that the further north you go, the more altruistic people are does not pass the sniff test.

Proponents of this theory say that White people are so naive about the nature of other peoples that they just welcome them into their country out of a misplaced sense of love to thy distant neighbor.

Exponents of this theory like to cite the Eskimos as an example. (No, not the Jews, but the actual Eskimos.) In theory, they’re super nice to one another because they have no enemies other than the harsh elements so far up north..

As covered on this blog, the actual problem is simpler but has more complex implications. People are controlled by social appearance, and are using their virtue signaling as a means to advance themselves. It is like writing essays in high school: find some way that whatever you are arguing for helps “the poor,” minorities, gays, women, or any other pitied group, and you get an A.

More accurately, our problem is individualism, or people deciding that no one can say “no” to them and as a result, social order, values, standards, heritage, religion and all other systems of order above the level of the individual go out the window. From this, people invent altruism, because it is a way to show they are “good” without having to do good except in a symbolic role.

Think of politicians kissing babies, or public donations to charities. Your older brother getting you ice cream once to make up for all the times he pounded you flat in the last few weeks. Cubicle workers showing up on the weekend to demonstrate loyalty after screwing off all month. This is symbolism, which like language can be used to manipulate, in lieu of doing the deed the symbolism refers to.

In a broader sense, altruism does not exist. We help others because it helps us, either in anticipated future results or by making us feel better about life because our actions help it all make sense. When we help others, we feel important, and that we have perpetuated an order in which we can succeed, because good is rewarded independent of random circumstance.

Our problem with diversity is that one side — the fake-misfits and fake-outcasts united — wants to replace all semblance of social order so that they can rule, and parasitize what is left of civilization. They use virtue signaling and other forms of attention whoring to make themselves seem important.

Much of this arises from egalitarianism itself. When everyone is equal, the bar has been raised from zero to an arbitrary minimum, but that means that anyone who does not rise above that arbitrary minimum is forgotten. And so, people engage in stunts, drama, and attention whoring in order to not be forgotten. Virtue signaling is one form of this attention-getting behavior.

When we remove egalitarianism, and have social order instead, people are not forced to constantly compete for attention. Instead, they have stable roles in which they fit and can excel, which means that they are stable and comfortable. That however makes for citizens who are not needy and therefore easily manipulated, so government and the herd hate it.

We are now exiting the age of ideology, in which symbolic appearance was more important than innate or inner traits. In that age, advertising and social signaling were more important than reality. In the future, people are looking toward what is real, and distrust the rest as the witchcraft of those who are doomed. With that will die false altruism.

Externalization Creates Dark Organization

Tuesday, April 25th, 2017

Western man is externalizing himself in the form of gadgets. – William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch

Civilization is an uncertain bet. Like the oxidation that allows us to breathe, it also creates secondary effects which must be managed, such as free riders and calcification. Most societies try to manage these through external control, and this proves to be a fatal mistake, but it remains popular because it avoids questions of natural selection, namely evolution toward higher self-control.

Externalization appears tempting because it involves no change in the individual. Instead, centralized forces dictate standards and rules, and the herd equally obeys them, which provides the least friction because no person is disciplined more than any other. This allows mental convenience and attracts people to the idea.

The process of externalization occurs through proxies, or external symbolic “games,” which serve to both represent and obscure reality. Instead of doing what is right, we do what the moral code says we must. Instead of finding a place where we contribute, we measure salaries. Laws take the place of values, and gadgets and entertainment take the place of meaningful time expenditure.

Replacements for reality are comforting because they take a vastly complex target and reduce it to the comforting tangibility of numbers and rules. By making this lawless world comprehensible to our minds, they take away fears and give us direction, but it is not a positive direction — toward something — as much as a selection from what already exists.

For this reason, externalization is naturally backward-looking and navel-gazing. Without some forward purpose, humans have nothing to define their lives except personal convenience, and this removes meaning from existence and leaves individuals in a circular process of wanting more and then being unsatisfied with it. The addict finds himself lonely when the drug effects wear off.

Like other types of formalization, externalization occurs by creating a procedure for every aspect of life and limiting choice. This in turn makes people passive and dependent, since they rely on the external source for the list of options available to them. None of these choices have existential or spiritual meaning, so they become mostly interchangeable, varied only in amount of money or status.

The ugly hyper-competitive social scene common to modern society arises from this externalization. When we measure our lives in terms of gadgets and artificial targets like workplace performance, there is nothing to do but compete for those, and because they are unsatisfying, to keep competing until it exhausts us. This is a perfect method of control.

Those who compete in limited spheres such as these games fear any who do not play by the rules. This gives rise to a manic need to limit inclusion in social groups, and through them the rest of society, through those who are obedient to the basic assumptions that allow the games to exist. Such societies look for ways to exclude people, and force mass activities on the group in order to indoctrinate them.

For example, in schools in the modern West, it is considered common practice to ask students to “share” or tell to the group a personal experience. This opens up the individual to judgment by the herd, and if the individual passes that judgment, makes them feel some debt to the group. The moment of inclusion produces a squirt of dopamine in the brain and safe, happy and comfortable feelings.

In turn, the focus on inclusion and competition for acceptance creates dark organization by encouraging people to manipulate appearance, symbolism and the rules of the game in order to succeed as efficiently as possible, which means with the least amount of risk or exertion to the self.

Our pathological altruism is one form of this behavior. It is easy to very publicly give money to a charity for blind disabled retarded transgender third world orphans; doing this a few times gives the individual status points. It is harder to every day act in a moral way that encourages qualitative growth within individuals and civilization.

This shows us the appeal of virtue signaling: to signal once is more efficient and mentally more convenient than trying to make every act we do into a morally correct action. Doing the latter is a lifetime commitment that requires near-religious levels of commitment, while the former involves a few public relations events plus anarchy.

Pathological altruism is one form of dark organization. It happens when a group within an organization turns against that organization, but uses the methods of that organization to achieve its goals. This only occurs when the goals of the group are corrupted by creating a proxy instead of measuring results by reality.

This trap ensnares human civilizations time and gain. Our best intentions lead to us creating proxies, and then the tool becomes the master and those dominate us, destroying our civilization. Democracy, equality, Leftism, diversity, feminism, liberty, class warfare and freedom are just subsets of this failure that like the best euthanasia, creates a warm sensation before the infinite coldness of death.

“16 Points Of The Alt Right” That Invert The Alt Right Into Leftism

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017

One of the most important experiences in life is to see how good enough is the enemy of good. Most people will settle for good enough, which results in them not only failing to address actual needs, but because they have engaged in surrogate and proxy behavior, concluding that they have fixed a problem which is now strengthened.

The good enough serves to kill off the weak of the enemy, leaving only the strong. And yet, it is more convenient, so people drift toward it like moths to flame, kids to soft drinks, voters to the early stages of Communism, and the like. Whenever you want to actually end a problem, fear the “good enough” like the plague, because it will defeat you.

Vox Day was kind enough to write back a terse reply to a recent Amerika article on the Alt Lite. He writes:

It’s an irrelevant response that completely fails to understand my position. You should try attacking my actual positions: start with the 16 Points.

So, then, let us look at the 16 points:

1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.

While this sounds good on the surface, and in the modern time this is how writers succeed, note what it does not tell you: what the Right actually is. Instead, we have a list of things that are not Alt Right, without attacking the core: Leftism, which is like The Enlightenment™ a type of egalitarianism, and its political counterpart, democracy. Until that rubicon is crossed, the above sounds very Republican with a touch of paleoconservative.

2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

This is a misdirection. First, very few conservatives have read Russell Kirk, and most base their conservatism on the mainstream ideas pro-business, free markets, strong defense, pro-Israel, small government, and “muh freedom.” Libertarians are people who hope to hold off Leftism with freedom of association despite that having worked never throughout history. But classical liberalism (libertarianism) and mainstream conservatism both lead to Leftism, as we see in the transition to neoconservatism, because they are still based in the idea of equality. In this view, how is the Alt Right an alternative? Obviously it is not, and therefore, this definition does not fit the Alt Right.

3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.

There is much to like here, but why is “cultural tradition” used instead of tradition? There is an implication of culture as separate from race, which history shows us is not the case. It also makes sense to clarify what “science” is here, since most “science” seems to have been hijacked by moneyed interests and the Left.

4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

This unfortunately misses the point on two levels. First, this “pinnacle of human achievement” is a universalist concept that leaves us open to entry by anyone else who can demonstrate some kind of relevance to this pinnacle, which has already failed (again) and left us standing among the ruins. Second, these three pillars miss the point: Western Civilization is Western People, who when they act according to their character create all the other things mentioned. Some points should be given for “the European nations,” which seems to be a refutation of white nationalism, or the idea of melting all white people together into a generic/universal white tribe.

5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

It was doing so well until that second sentence. Nationalism should be defined here: what is a nation and how does it relate to ethnic group and race? The answer can be found in The Nationalism FAQ: nationalism is the philosophy that states that a nation is defined by an ethnic group. Germany for Germans, Nigeria for Nigerians, Japan for Japanese, Israel for Jews. At least he mentions homogeneity, but then again, when defined so vaguely, this could mean anything, such as “we’re all Christian.” Instead of focusing on these “rights” to exist and be free of invasion and immigration, it might have made more sense to focus on self-determination and the ability to exclude others, including those among us who are of our tribe but defective.

6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

Check! No problem here. However, since nationalism is the opposite of globalism, this one is somewhat redundant.

7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

Check! But why did it not mention the founding issue of the Left, which is class warfare? If one cannot admit the differences between castes and classes, we are back in French Revolution territory.

8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

A thousand times no. The “scientific method” is deductive from material only, and misses out on both logical fact and any order beyond the material. This seems designed for the IFLScience crowd.

9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.

This cleverly sidesteps an issue: the Alt Right believes that race is upstream of culture and culture is upstream of politics.

10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

Unfortunately, this language is painfully vague. Who is native, and to what? This sounds to me like a crypto-JQ statement, which misses the point that what destroys nations is collapse from within, and scapegoating the outsider misses the culpability we have for selecting egalitarianism, as every collapsing civilization seems to do.

11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

This is one of those catchphrases that sounds good but does not express the whole truth: diversity = civilization collapse, with the recognition that diversity (a synonym for “multiculturalism” or its French Revolutionary equivalent, “internationalism” as later expressed by “workers of the world, unite!”) means the mixing of different ethnic groups into one nation-state.

12. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.

While technically correct, this statement reeks of teenage bluster, and misses the real point: unlike demotic movements, the Alt Right affirms that what is actual and real is more important than collective opinion, and that only some can perceive with higher degrees of accuracy, so we follow them in a hierarchical order instead of trying some crowd-sourced “find the truth through our navels” type democratic event.

13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

No objections here. However, it might be wiser to take the broader approach and point out that culture is more important than commerce. What is efficient and profitable is not always good, and so while we are believers in free markets, we recognize that no free market exists without a culture and those standards come first. Pornography, drugs, and gadgets for idiots are profitable; they are not desirable, at least on a wide scale.

14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

Point number fourteen is David Lane’s fourteen words. No objections here other than the reek of white nationalism which seeks to reduce our national identities to “white,” which only seems sensible when one lives in a mixed-ethnic state. Nationalism covers this topic well enough: we want to survive, and the only way to do that is to show up for the future through our descendants.

15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

This is roughly a summary of the Pan-Nationalism project that I and other CORRUPT/Amerika writers launched back in the early 2000s. No disagreement here.

16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

A smart politician, the author offers an olive branch to the Left. At first this statement seems (emotionally) appealing until one realizes that it commits us to being world peacemakers to end ethnic conflict between other groups. A saner statement is that we represent our own interests only, and the rest of the world needs to take care of itself. Altruism is dead.

He reaches a clearer statement here:

The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage.

In doing so, while engaging in smart politics, he creates a great error. As Evola noted, race is tripartite, consisting of body, mind and spirit. We are defined first by our genetic heritage and more importantly, genetic interests, but also our ability to uphold the tenets and purpose of Western Civilization.

We are not democrats; not everyone is acceptable and destined to be included, even if they are of the “right” heritage. Only those who can do what is necessary to rebuild Western Civilization are welcome because there are many degenerates and sociopaths among us, and there is no need to include those.

The problem with the Alt Lite is that it represents “good enough”: a series of patches to democracy to keep it afloat, when our downfall began with the idea of egalitarianism and any vestige of that which we retain will re-create the same conditions that brought us to our current state. We must get to the root of the problem and remove that or we simply repeat history, which the Alt Lite seems to favor.

Again, the Alt Lite misses the point: the Alt Right is designed as an alternative to both mainstream conservatism and blockheaded White Nationalism. If we wanted blockhead white nationalism, we would have simply joined those groups. We want a more far-reaching purpose in the restoration of Western Civilization, and the Alt Lite is another “good enough” that stands in our way.

Worldwide Collapse Of Democracy Through Death Of Altruism

Tuesday, March 21st, 2017

Fear and trembling seizes the land as the death of democracy becomes clear:

Those three aspects of Western foreign policy coincided catastrophically with the rise of illiberal populism across the globe and a crisis of confidence in the concept of democracy in the West. This was the perfect storm necessary to halt democracy’s advance and transform it into a retreat back toward authoritarianism.

…More substantively, Trump’s early foreign policy decisions (and especially his “America First” rhetoric) has sent a clear signal that the United States will be shifting its focus away from global human rights to focus exclusively on its narrow conception of self-interest. Indeed, his budget proposal would gut the State Department budget, axe pro-democracy foreign aid, and make it far more difficult for the United States to promote democracy generally.

The we-are-all-one altruism that enables democracy to thrive worldwide has died now that the West has rejected its altruism spiral. Instead, people are looking toward realism: what works instead of what “should” work based on ideas of human equality which make people feel empowered to act selfishly, knowing the tribe cannot retaliate against them.

In fact, there is only one type of person who really likes democracy, and that is the person who thinks it is more likely that they will be criticized than praised. They want a defense against the standards of the group, and so they choose egalitarianism a.k.a. individualism, and in doing so, hope to avoid censure.

Democracy was not killed. It killed itself because it became clear that altruism was a lowering of all defenses and enabled exploitation. Whether this was by rich globalists, third world immigration, callous politicians or simply badly-behaved other citizens, it ended badly, and it became clear that further walking down this road would lead to doom.

Instead of mourning the failure of the already dead, we should look toward the future: a society which escapes altruism, but instead of being anti-altruistic, has another purpose instead. After all, that is what the West has lacked for some time, purpose. We need a goal or we stagnate and self-destruct, and even our slowest now know that this process leaves nothing for the future.

What Are “Right” And “Left”?

Monday, March 20th, 2017

Amazingly, most people have no idea what political “Right” and “Left” are, even professionals writing in the field.

To understand this division, we should go back to the origins of the terms. This is a technique sometimes used to trace the meaning of a word over time, and to figure out why it was originally used, because that generally indicates what was so different from the norm that it required a new term.

In the case of “Right” and “Left,” these terms arose after the French Revolution when parties in the national assembly sat on one side of the aisle or the other. Those who liked the new order sat on the left; those who favored the old way and wanted to resist the new as much as possible sat on the right.

From that we get these simple terms which correspond to our cultural conception of handedness: the right hand is the one where action and signaled intent are the same, where the left is the hand that does the opposite of what signaled intent suggests. Historically, this is because the right hand can be used to shake while the left hand draws a blade.

And so we must ask what the “new order” actually stood for, which requires looking at what it wanted. This one is easy; it wanted to overthrow the kings, and in order to do so, it proclaimed equality (as an opposite of hierarchy) so that all people were equal. This meant that none had the right to rule over the rest, and the mob would choose its own path via voting.

Take a moment to get over your laughter. Yes, once upon a time, people were so gullible that they thought that mass voting was a way to make decisions! It is comedic in retrospect that people somehow convinced themselves that groups, most known for panics and stampedes and ignoring crimes, would be better leaders than someone specialized. But humans are prone to denial, projection and fantasy…

The Left stands for one thing and one thing only: egalitarianism, or the idea of equality. This allows them to escape social consequences for being less accurate in their thinking than others. From this, all of Leftism flows naturally. It is not a very complex philosophy, which is why it is disguised in endless play-acting “theory” by its adherents.

On the other hand, the Right stands for what came before egalitarianism: time-honored ways of being, which means they are based in consequentialism or results instead of appearance, and in order to have direction, are also “transcendental” or geared toward qualitative improvement on the former. The Right is complex, nuanced, and has many layers.

The division is this simple: the Left believes egalitarianism will solve our problems and give us direction, where the Right thinks that egalitarianism is a distraction from the real task, which is to discover how our world works and what are the best results we can achieve through known working methods of adaptation to it.

Now where this gets interesting is that the Left has incentive to hide their actual meaning. Like the left hand move, their goal is to separate their public intent from their private actions. Altruism is a great cover story, like politicians kissing babies. It lets you give a few percent of your wealth or time for public image, then do whatever you want with the rest.

The Right, on the other hand, have no way of summarizing their intent. Rightism is inherently complex because it is based not on a human theory, but on many and dissimilar methods for making human civilization improve in quality. As a result, it is a philosophy that requires an esoteric or unequal and cumulative approach to understand.

Humans naturally prefer the Left because we are self-deluding creatures. We know what we want more than what we are. As a result, our desires reflect illusions based on what we want to be, and reflect very little who we are, or in other words, our actual needs. As a result, the Left is perpetually popular, just like circuses, bread, television and pretense.

Whenever the Left appears, it uses egalitarianism as its method of forcing acceptance and shaming those who resist it. Who can, socially speaking, oppose the idea that everyone is accepted? Using this passive-aggressive method, Leftism bullies its way in, and sets up an alternate power structure which then rules with tyranny.

We know this and can speak out against it without having to swing to symbolic opposite extremes like “freedom”, “liberty,” and “meritocracy,” which are Leftist proxies for the idea of reducing everyone to a minimum and then selecting those with the (politically) correct ideas to rise. We can instead point again to history.

When the French Revolution was won, the new government set about doing things differently than the old leadership. After a period of murdering whole families on nothing more than the word of someone on the street, the new regime set up its People Power and promptly drove the nation into worse famine and poverty than ever seen before.

As that settled in to the public consciousness, the regime distracted by declaring what was essentially the first world war and attempting to conquer Europe, an attempt that first brought victory and then great defeat. The result was that the war in the name of the people ended up making life worse for them.

After that, things settled down to the Right versus Left view we have now. Naturally, the Rightists who gave in and adopted the Leftist idea of equality found themselves more popular, and so the mainstream Right gradually eroded until it became a variety of Leftism as today. But that does not change the idea itself.

If we are to make sense of this political question, it first makes sense to go back to our roots and see what Right and Left mean. The Left means egalitarianism; the Right means time-honored solutions producing the best results. Obviously, these are incompatible, which is why the West is currently fragmenting along these lines.

Why Al Capone Gave Lavishly To The Church

Friday, March 17th, 2017

Al Capone gave generously to Catholic charities in Chicago. Perhaps he wanted to take care a few of the widows and orphans he prodigiously created. St. Valentine was probably pissed over the whole massacre thing and Capone perhaps thought he could tithe his way out of that particular faux pas. No, I’m sure that wasn’t it.

Capone was a smart enough guy to read the fine print. The typical guy who dies from The Syph in The Can isn’t doing very well at not coveting his neighbors’ wives. At least the neighbors’ animals were fairly safe — probably. Then, there’s the whole thou shall not kill clause. It doesn’t ever make it taking The Lord’s name in vain before the whole deal just has to be called off. So why drop a check into the collection plate?

You drop the check in there to make them used to it. It makes them beholden. It’s a tactic called Civic Dispersal which involves buying the means by which they survive as a tactic to protect yourself against societal censure. As long as Capone fed more orphans than he created every week, he could wage The Sophist’s argument that he was a philanthropist and a net benefit to society. Just don’t cheat on your taxes. The IRS could give a flying kangaroo fluck less about orphans. They rarely reach a high enough tax bracket to be interesting. So Capone went down like The Bismarck, but the G-Men who bagged him obviously took notes.

The DNC is using the old tactic of Civic Dispersal to oppose President Trump’s new budget. Pass this vile, greedy ¡RETHUGLICAN! budget, and Meals on Wheels runs out of gasoline.

There are a lot of details to parse through in the budget blueprint Donald Trump released this morning, but you can get the gist of it from one sentence: Donald Trump is cutting Meals on Wheels, a program that delivers meals to senior citizens in need, to pay for his border wall.

Apparently, this charity has been heavily subsidized and can be somewhat effectively held up as a hostage against any reduction to spending in the Department of HHS.

The nationwide Meals on Wheels network, comprised of 5,000, local, community-based programs, receives 35% of its total funding for the provision of congregate and home-delivered meals from the federal government through the Older Americans Act, administered by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living.

And of course, DHHS can’t retire a couple of SES-level lifers. The money specifically has to come from Grandma. Cut their funding and Chuckles the Cat isn’t getting that can of 9-Lives. And Bernie Sanders, paying barely over 1/2 the effective tax rate of President Donald Trump, just can’t quite see to selling off one of his three mansions to help poor Gra-ma-ma. Socialists, you see, favor sharing other people’s wealth. Obviously he is a #FakeAmerican with only a potemkin concern for those less fortunate than himself.

And clearly, those voicing concern for the poor elderly fed by Meals on Wheels are no different than The Lord Humongous from the movie “The Road Warrior.” They attempt to use your good will and social concern as a way to control your appetite for government spending. This, of course, must always increase — forever. They are willing to help you out with your dear Grandparents. Provided, of course, that you behave.

As Western Society continues to increasingly turn into the wasteland depicted in the old Mel Gibson flick, there are fewer resources, greater needs and an increasingly harder fight for fewer sheckels of public largesse. Expect the threats to become more and more explicit. And they have to be. They certainly can’t build what’s necessary to live without expropriation.

Your government, is not that different from the infamous Italian-American gangster. They live off the cowardice, laziness, immorality and fear of others. Their power grows in tandem with personal and social dysfunction. When President Trump threatens the racket, the hostages are put on display. Just like the hostages on the hoods of The Lord Humongous’ vehicles. Stand up to these people like Keyser Soze, and the entire crap show crashes down around their ears.

On “Promiscuous Altruism”

Thursday, July 14th, 2016

From an in-depth look at runaway universalism:

In most societies across the world (i.e., clannish ones), there are weak and highly conditional attitudes towards reciprocity. The primary targets of altruism are kin. Prosociality is maintained through various forms of social honor and shame or at worst, fear of reprisal from the aggrieved or by the state. Dealings between non-kin typically take place warily and with many measures to ensure honesty by all participants. Trust is very low and is not given freely.

By contrast, NW Europeans have evolved a sense of reciprocal altruism and can deal much more readily with non-related individuals. Trust is extended. The other party is presumed to act honestly. Indeed, favors will be extended to others because the recipient may one day return the favor (or at the very least, the helping individual may earn a reputation for generosity that may parlay into favors from others).

…Having a sense of reciprocal altruism (which actively seeks targets with which to trade favors) – along with a suite of other traits that co-evolved with this (such as a sense of fairness and a belief in the equality of all in-group members) – there is little to prevent extending the (soft) cognitive barrier those presently in an outgroup when new information serves to humanize this outgroup (by appealing to affective empathy). And since no outgroup is really any different from any other (being effectively equally unrelated), there’s nothing to stop this process from repeating once new outgroups become humanized. Runaway universalism was thus inevitable.

Universalism, or the idea that every person is equal and therefore the same methods can be used on all people, seems like it would arise from this reciprocal altruism turned into promiscuous altruism. However, there is an elephant in the room.

All human civilizations so far have gone out after achieving success. With this success came primary factors of Progress, like industry and universalism. Secondary factors like diversity and instability were both symptoms and direct causes of the disintegration.

Universalism arises from socializing. When you hang out with other people, the correct way to make them happy is to emphasize a sense of group togetherness. This requires including all of these people without looking too deeply into their failings. This is why successful societies develop universalism: what we call bourgeois values are in fact commercial values, which are social values, and demand equal inclusion which produces universalism.

From this comes the altruism we see, because altruism is a virtue signal for universalism.

Not to ruin an excellent analysis by Jayman, but if we look at the psychology involved, we can see he has the causality backward. The societies that succeed adopt a commercial/social mentality and it is what kills them. As we are starting to see, Progress and formalization are a death-trap, and these arise from the same impulse.

Unsurprisingly it also brings altruistic universalism that pervasively infiltrates our minds, starting with the smartest. This explains why civilizations succeed and then self-destruct, not the other way around.

The basis of civilization

Sunday, February 14th, 2016

the basis of civilization is not YOLO

Civilization might be described not as a tangible thing, but a process. Through that, it can be seen as a goal, and since that goal must necessarily be broad, a direction. In this, civilization seems paradoxical: its purpose is generally itself, or a qualitative improvement in the process of becoming civilized.

Several theories exist about this direction as it can be implemented by individuals. Some hold that it should be altruistic, with people working to provide for others who have less. Others suggest that it should be self-interest, or each working for his own improvement. A third option — an ancient option — exists, but more on that later.

On the surface, altruism sounds like the best option, and it is this surface appeal that explains its popularity with younger people, most women and underconfident men. We all work and give some of what we have to those with less, therefore instability is removed and people feel a lack of resentment for one another.

There are a number of problems with this. The first is that any gift-giving is a form of taking control of another person and serves to reinforce their lower status, provoking the very resentment it hoped to placate. The second is that whatever one tolerates or subsidizes, one gets more of, so poverty expands. Further, this form of transfer essentially overworks the successful to provide for the rest, damaging the brightest lights of our civilization by burdening them with guilt and misery.

Self-interest appeals more to those with experience who have seen the vastness of the world and realized that human patterns do not change. Most people are incompetent, many because they are dishonest or delusional, and very few possess the ability or inclination to understand the effects of their actions, probably on the order of 98-99%. Since understanding politics, leadership, and the far-reaching consequences of our actions begins around the 125 IQ mark, by definition fewer than 5% of our population has a chance to grasp these disciplines. Then there is character; even among the intelligent, few think of more than their immediate benefit in the short term. On the positive side, self-interest mirrors natural selection and puts the most competent on top, which ranks it above altruism which essentially enslaves the competent to the rest.

While there is truth to both of these options, they pale before the third, which is to have a direction that unites the individual to civilization. This option is to make our goals the transcendentals, or those intangible things to which we can always aim but which we can never fully obtain: goodness, beauty, excellence, truth and even identity, or the notion of the civilization itself as a distinct and worthy enterprise removed from all others. These can include both self-interest and altruism as methods toward the transcendental goal; after all, it only makes sense to put the best on top, and to help the deserving when in need, as a means of achieving these extremely long-term ideals.

What defines transcendentals is that they are intersectional, or existing within all other areas. Altruism that achieves transcendentals is good; self-interest that achieves transcendentals is good. The method no longer replaces the goal, and therefore, a direction at a level higher than technique can emerge. The difficulty is that transcendentals are appreciated by very few, both from limits of natural ability and character, and require a society willing to experience humility to the degree that it favors hierarchy.

And yet, with transcendentals there is hope: a chance that we can unite not on needs and fears of ourselves, but on a cooperative process in which participation enriches us. This is the qualitative improvement of society in living form, an entity declaring itself worth having and then making good on that promise by enhancing itself in the intersection of many thousands of methods.

At the core of this process hides identity. Without a belief in its uniqueness, no society can last. With that belief, it is able to declare its values without neurotic doubt, and then begin the arduous process of putting those values into practice, refining their meaning as it does. Culture shapes genetics, and reality shapes culture, and this way all of the different disciplines come into coordination.

If you want to find the root of nationalism, it can be uncovered through identity. Groups do not segregate themselves and deport the Other from hatred of the Other, but so that the group can apply and improve its own standards. We cannot control ourselves with mere methods like altruism and self-interest, but with culture we can define our direction and then improve it, and in that alone the process of civilization is found.

White Nationalism failed because it incorporates too much liberalism

Friday, February 12th, 2016

franz_ferdinand

If you grew up after 1789, when the French Revolution formalized liberalism as the Western doctrine, you have grown up indoctrinated in Leftist propaganda. Any idea with its root in egalitarianism, or the equality of all people, is leftist.

This includes democracy, freedom, equality, diversity, pluralism, consumerism and… White Nationalism. While Nationalism itself is an idea as old as time, namely that the ethnic tribe constitutes the nation, White Nationalism is like National Socialism a modern creation. In other words: a liberal version of an ancient conservative idea.

White Nationalism misses the point. This is not red team versus blue team; it is how to save the West from imploding thanks to the influence of democracy, and through that, individualism. We need culture, cooperation and purpose to return and to rule ourselves with kings, not votes, because votes and purchases are made by groups who demonstrate the salient trait of humans, which is vanity as individuals and mass delusion as groups.

Anything short of that is failure. Our current society is a disaster and an unpleasant existential experience because it is failing. All of our institutions are inferior substitutes, our leaders are all corrupt salesmen, the voters are delusional and oblivious, and our culture has become dumbed-down mass appeal madness. This cannot be fixed solely by driving out the ethnic Other. We must fix ourselves, too.

Over at the $PLC, Derek Black makes some interesting points in the midst of groveling and logical fallacies:

Promoting a victim complex for whites does not recognize the oppressed experiences of others not in the position of a white person in society

He may have taken another bad direction into liberalism, but he has a good point about victim complexes. We do not need a victim complex; we need a can-do “let’s fix this” culture. The two are opposites.

White nationalism supports the premise that multiculturalism is a failure, and that politicians trapped in a multicultural status quo are oppressing white people in “their own country.”

Here he is correct, but he misses the underlying point: white people voted for this. Voting transforms individuals into a scared, pretentious herd that always votes for easy lies instead of honest solutions. The solution is to end democracy.

On the other hand, white nationalists consider white people in the US to be ostensibly the victims of an ongoing genocide brought about by immigration and miscegenation, and feel that when they try to speak up about it, they are subjected to a vicious double standard.

No one sensible could argue that this is not true. But: who is enforcing the double standard? White governments, at the behest of white voters.

Most arguments that racial equity programs disadvantage whites who would otherwise be hired or accepted to academic programs mask underlying anxieties about the growth of non-white social status.

Here he is off-base. The problem is that our society is being destroyed, and the only healthy societies are homogeneous ones not heterogeneous ones. This is not about our personal inconvenience, except in that having a society collapse into Brazil 2.0 is highly inconvenient and fatal.

More importantly, white nationalism’s staunch opposition to the gains in numbers and in influence of non-whites makes it a movement by nature committed to suppressing these people.

I think he misses the point here, too. The goal is to have zero non-whites and in fact, zero non-Western Europeans. Western Europeans are the only group on earth that is truly a persecuted minority because of our small numbers and relative wealth. Everyone loves to beat up on the successful nerdy kid, and that’s us.

Though there are plenty of powerful Jewish activist groups pursuing their chosen agendas, it is inaccurate and outrageous to talk about people of Jewish descent as “the enemy” of anyone, as it is essentializing a large group into a fairy tale antagonist.

I agree with him here. Jews are another group under attack, as we can see daily when 90% of the world’s liberals are keen to blame Palestinian terrorism on Israeli “oppression” despite nothing of the sort occurring.

The small, smart and successful groups (3S) like Western Europeans, Jews and North Chinese are always under assault by the rest because we have achieved what others cannot and they resent us for that.

There is no way to advocate for white nationalism but by arguing that minorities pose a threat to our supremacy.

Spot the sleight of hand: is it “supremacy” to ask that we have our own countries? Of course not. He has shiftily conflated world domination with wanting, say, Germany for Germans or Israel for Jews.

Advocating for white nationalism means that we are opposed to minority attempts to elevate themselves to a position equal to our own.

Again he is wrong. We want them to do it in their own countries and to leave us alone. We have our own destiny to plan and work toward.

I believe that a healthy sense of identity and belonging are necessary, and I think being proud of where you came from is important regardless of race or class.

He’s right here. Every group should be nationalist and work in its own self-interest. That is Darwinian, moral and common sense.

I do not believe advocacy against “oppression of whites” exists in any form but an entrenched desire to preserve white power at the expense of others.

Here he is off-base again. We want our own countries and our own destiny, the same as anyone else. Why is this denied? It is white genocide by the resentful herd that gnashes its teeth at the fact that it has not made a successful life for itself as we did for ourselves, before liberalism at least.

The point that White Nationalists miss is that we are not fighting for the current system minus minorities. We are fighting to restore our civilization to a point of sanity, and while race is part of that, it is not the whole. Our society is existentially miserable as it is now and would still be without the presence of minorities. Nationalism is a means to an end, which is allowing ourselves to be ruled by our culture instead of an ideological government and its “proposition nation” united by politics, television, economics and a team identity of a jingoistic variety.

Conservatives “conserves” the behaviors of humanity that produce the best results. Those are four:

  1. Aristocracy: A hierarchy of our best people ruling as kings, instead of having a “System” of rules and laws to take the place of clear thinking. This includes a caste system so that people make decisions only at the level for which they are competent.
  2. Nationalism: Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews. This allows the group to have a shared culture which regulates behavior through reward and shame, instead of punishment and law enforcement.
  3. Free markets: Free markets require Nationalism and Aristocracy, but are the only way to do business that rewards performance instead of conformity.
  4. Transcendence: We need goals beyond the immediate material convenience of our society. We need purpose and to aspire to greatness, not merely react to “issues.”

There are no substitutes. Either you want the above, or you are happy with the status quo… if it would only favor you a bit more. That approach will land us back in the current position in no time because it is built on the same illusions.

Our society is dying. We are near the drop-off point. Our solution is to stop using methods that do not work, and to start using methods that do. These time-honored methods work. Democracy, diversity, equality, pluralism, tolerance and altruism do not. It is that simple.

Recommended Reading