Happy Thanksgiving, future Americans


The opposing sides have politicized Thanksgiving. To the left, it was an advance vanguard for colonialism, slavery and sexism. To the right, it was a celebration of freedom as an abstract.

In reality, it was a practical celebration. The colonists came not to conquer a continent but to escape the rotted political situation in Europe. Since the Magna Carta, which ended the divine right of kings and let financial and popular interests have control of European nations, life in Europe had been a series of political conflicts as one might expect would happen when you replace a single authority with an ad hoc one.

To those early colonists, Thanksgiving was a time of respect for what they had survived as well as what they had left behind. Here was a new beginning and new neighbors, who they viewed more like we view inhabitants a neighborhood away than as another nation-state they must conquer.

They were aware of course of the difference between tribes. The white tribe came from a very organized society which prized learning; the natives, on the other hand, valued practical skills and not much else. There was a large gap in intelligence, learning and ability between them, but at first they were able to be collaborators toward mutual survival.

Only later, after someone shot first and the first rapes and murders occurred, did this relationship sour. But in its initial stages, they saw themselves as strange new neighbors from whom much could be learned, and much could be shared.

That conflict set the tone for American adventures: different groups never mixed. First the Indians, then the African-Americans, then the near-whites from Ireland and Southern Europe, then finally everyone else. The official policy is that we must insist all groups are identical despite history and genetics showing us this is not the case.

As others have noted, when you put the herd in charge through these ad hoc systems of government, you get mob rule. The herd has delusions of its own grandeur and prefers to think of short-term pleasurable illusions rather than practical, logical truths. And thus decay accelerates.

Now Americans are looking toward a different future. We are again fleeing a political disaster where popular opinion has rotted away common sense, but this time we cannot blame the English — it is our own nation-state which has rotted away. As a result, people are breaking away, becoming colonists in their own land.

Doubters warned us that if we combined too many different people in the same society we would achieve a lack of direction. That happened in the 1960s, and then we decided that we would all be individualists, since we no longer had culture, religion or convention to go by. The 68ers threw those out the window.

As the Barack Obama presidency winds down predictably in a heaping ruin, Americans of the original type — sensible, Western European stock who take delight in a job well done — see how they have been dispossessed. How it happened with pleasant words and pleasant thoughts about how people were suffering just next door, why not let them in? Our fond intentions created an ideology every bit as Soviet and totalitarian as the former USSR or the Terror in post-revolutionary France.

We the Americans of the future are fleeing a political disaster created by politics based on what we wish were true, instead of what history shows us is true. We have 6,000 years of recorded history and what works and what does not is very clear. We are fleeing not just the cultureless hipsters, the lawless multiculture, the corrupt and larcenous nu-elites, but also the problem of ourselves, at least when we choose democracy to rule ourselves.

I suggest that all Americans of this nature sit down with family and friends this Thanksgiving and give thanks. Give thanks for your lives and the amazing chance at potential beauty that life itself is. Give thanks for all we have escaped. And when you get up the day after Thanksgiving, resolve that you too will escape the political disaster and set up a better life for your descendants.

The big world out there


Most people live in very small worlds. These worlds consist of their social group, people at their jobs, and their families. Beyond that, they know little — and they do not care.

Their goal almost universally becomes to have an identity within this small social group. Here they can be either the big cheese, or the person who is an expert in a certain area, and thus always be needed.

Entry by any new party, or arrival of a new group that makes the old group look as small as it is, will provoke energetic response. They want their identities left alone and kept in perpetuity.

In the old days, these groups could be satirized as a competition for who bakes the best crumb cake in the PTA, or which lady at church has the best finery on. In contemporary society the competition occurs over Facebook and Tinder and consists of who gets the most attention from others.

As the small world expands, the complexity of its choice decreases because the competition becomes more anonymous. Soon all that differentiates someone is novelty, promiscuity and outlandishness. The small world remains small because it chooses people based on these social criteria and the broader awareness of consequences beyond what other people think remains mysterious.

It is possible for humanity to be globalized, connected up to the second, and part of the same political movement and still to be a small world. In fact, most political movements are small world gestures: defend your social group, your status, or your pretense of who you are as a person.

Small worlds force competition between people for place. In doing so, they create an identity which replaces moral identity (“I do what is right”) and broader social identity, like national identity. Small worlds want to break people down into granular beings so that no index of selection exists except social popularity in the small world.

When people choose a small world, they create actions which have effects in the big world. All of our choices lead to action; all actions have effects; those effects are not limited to us because they reach beyond us. Small world choices tear down big worlds.

The big world has one essential component: what is called “natural law,” or the order of the cosmos as understood through science, philosophy and religion. Unlike small worlds, it is not based on emotion and social popularity (a form of transmissible emotion). It is reality as we best know it, and a record of what has worked and what has not during our 6,000 years on this planet.

People in small worlds will find big world people impossible to comprehend. Big world people look to the future, and look toward many effects at once, comparing them always to a goal for an “optimum” or “best case scenario.” Small world people look to the immediate, the emotional and the social only.

As we conduct a postmortem on the most recent civilization to collapse into third world status, namely Western liberal democracy, we might begin our inquiry with: were they thinking in terms of big worlds, or were they limited to small worlds?


Our political system polarizes us. Like many of our most important decisions, it causes us to drift toward extremes so our position is clear to everyone in the room.

We tend to analyze these positions as logical responses, but we miss out on what they could be: adaptive justifications. In other words, these attitudes are ways that we justify our continued participation in the system, which requires we believe it has a future.

There are two important vectors for the average citizen. First, they must believe in their own efficacy; second, in the efficacy of “the system” which is the combined effort of government, economy and culture around them. If the system is not effective, it cannot help them — or hurt them for disobeying.

Our modern systems are like the drunken, diseased and senile tyrant of fairy tales. Tyrants are not just authoritarians; they are authoritarians without any direction but maintenance of their own power. They aren’t just bad leaders, they are the anti-leader.

We know that the tyrant is pointless and will say and do anything to maintain his reign. Like most rich and bitter men facing death, he wants to take us all out when he goes. But we’re not yet to the point of saying the tyrant has lost his power, and enough of us rising up at once to oppose him.

In the case of modern society, the tyrant is all of us — it’s shared social attitudes and viewpoints that cause us to believe in certain religious icons like democracy, equality, economy, freedom, etc. These definitions are the tyrant’s power.

We don’t have a single leader to blame because as a mass we are the leader. When we swarm on a product, it makes billionaires. When we hover around a political idea, it makes world leaders. We are inward-looking, trying to figure out what the crowd wants so it will reward us.

This tyrant is harder than most to dislodge. Killing a king, or overthrowing a government, is easy by comparison. Even genocide is tame and easy. But when people stop believing the tyrant can reward them or hurt them, the tyrant will begin to fall.

Realizing the incompetence of modern society is essential to its downfall. Our governments cannot buy a hammer for under $20,000; our social crazes never find answers. And now that this has gone on for two centuries, we’re tired of the constant class warfare and internal division.

At that point, the adaptive justification shifts. We can no longer take either extreme because it’s a comforting illusion that helps us make it through the night. We see both extremes as illusions, and turn to the ideas that came before the great divide into these two illusions in 1789.

The opposition is strong however. They cling to the idea that a solution can be found in the options on their screen, both of which are mostly liberal. Whichever side they pick, they are reinforcing the power of the tyrant by affirming his legitimacy.

The young especially cling to their hollow rebellion, shaped from products bought from large corporations and entertainment activities, because it allows them to believe they have a future. Their ideal is that they can rage about a little bit, get some new civil rights laws passed, and then everything will be perfect.

It is saddest to see the young doing this, because they have the farthest to fall. Where they could demand actual change, they are too ignorant and scared, and so they adopt what “everyone else is doing,” which is rebellious but like all rebellions strengthens the idea of what it rebels against.

When you rebel, after all, you don’t replace that which is there; you replace the people who occupy the positions created by that power structure. You become another one of the options on the screen, inevitably swallowed up by whichever of the two is closest to your ideal.

The clinginess is growing in intensity as the tyrant accidentally displays more weakness in public. First his economy burped, then his military vomited, and finally his vision of peace and happiness keeps erupting in boils and class warfare.

Cling behavior of this type of ardent desperation can only mean that those who read this post are not the only ones to notice the imminent death of the tyrant. The next step is for people to accept this death, and then slowly realize that it opens up fields of new possibility for a better life.

Under the microscope

We live in a post-totalitarian age. Much like post-modernism is a decentralized form of modernism, post-totalitarianism is a decentralized version of the powerful regimes of the 20th century.

To be decentralized, a post-totalitarian state must be self-enforcing. It achieves this through social disapproval. Nothing is against the rules, except that which is not sociable. You must accept everyone and everything is equally valid, or you’re an attacker.

The primary method of social control is guilt. You are responsible for the burden of work and of being polite to insane people, so that we can all live together without any common goal. Except for our leaders; they have some kind of goal, but no one knows what it is.

Post-totalitarian age government actually does very little. It doesn’t have to. Its insane policies produce an unstable and violent society, which causes us to run to government as the solution to our problems. It compels us to work like good little dogs so we can afford to live outside the ghetto and industrial zones.

Our government does not need secret police. It has a complicit media and a vast army of socialized useful idiots who will, if rumor establishes that some person has a “wrong” opinion, conspire using guilt to force others to ostracize that person.

In order to keep the farce going, our government will use police, social workers, and even clergy to “discover” violations of the social code. Then these are releases to the public, and the crowd gets inflamed and takes its revenge. Indirect terror maintains control.

Recently, Anders Bering Breivik found a way to arm himself and execute 90 future communists. Whether or not we agree with his actions, we can see why he thought as he did. Multiculturalism, permissiveness and consumerism were ruining his native country, and he found what he thought was a solution.

However, his acts also empowered greedy legions of government employees. They now have a new Hitler or KKK to pursue, and those who find someone to blame will get promotions. In the UK, a noted writer of architectural and artistic essays found himself facing a police investigation straight out of 1984.

That writer is David Hamilton, and he has hastily answered a few questions for us. We cannot at this time verify his location; he is staying on the run to avoid being dragged into a police station without his lawyer (“solicitor” in UK English). Here are his answers.

Thanks for being with us today, David, if even only virtually. I hear you’re under the microscope, or feeling the eye of social disapproval hovering over your head like a weapon.

I rushed this because I never know if my door is going be smashed down but it covers everything. If I think of anything important I shall post it as a comment.

When did you first become aware of police attention to your activities? Have you experienced any interest from them in the past?

This was completely out of the blue. I had always thought of myself as not being particularly significant in contemporary politics. In fact I had given up writing about politics four months ago and was concentrating on Art, Architecture etc.

I was having a shower on the morning of Wednesday the 18th of January at 11.20 am when, completely unexpected, a very impatient ringing of my bell began. I then heard voices and heavy footsteps outside, a silence, then a very loud aggressive knocking on my door. I never answer threatening knocks on my door so remained silent. Then my telephone started ringing. I crept to the door and listened. I heard one go through the back door and walk around outside probably looking for signs of life inside.

Then a note was pushed through my letterbox which completely puzzled me. It read:

Could you contact D.C. (Detective Constable) Tony Gatter of the Metropolitan Police(Scotland Yard) with refer to a crime enquire(sic). Many thanks DC Gatter.

This completely mystified me. I had not been to London for 18 months and thought it must be mistaken identity

What exactly are you accused of, and how did you find out? If they accused you of no specific crime (e.g. “breaking and entering”) under what pretense did they interrogate you?

They are trying to say I had links to Anders Breivik, which is ludicrous.

I later rang D.C. Gatter on the number he left. I was very cagey to begin with. Then he fired a major volley: he said I had links to the infamous terrorist murderer of children Anders Brevik. I was stunned and exclaimed: “Good God”. He laughed. He was in control and I was flummoxed.

I straightaway said I would co-operate with their enquiries because it was such an appalling crime but I insisted I have never been in contact with Breivik. I told them I had seen the Manifesto Breivik produced.

Gatter asked: “Did he send it to you?”

I stammered: “Good Lord, no. I downloaded it.”

As a writer I download lots of information to look at later or to refer to as examples in my articles. He said he wanted to interview me and I volunteered to co-operate.

In this spirit of willing of willing co-operation I sent D.C. Gatter an email which I had from someone unknown to me signed Kenneth, who I assumed to be with Wikileaks, which simply stated: “In case you haven’t noticed, your name pops up in Breivik’s manifesto (near the end of part 2.2).”

What he meant was my name which could be someone else as my name is common. I wrote to Kenneth but he did not reply.: “KENNETH, I hadn’t noticed but will look. Thanks for telling me. Actually, it probably is someone with the same name.”

Has your home or other property been searched? Have you been tailed in public? Will you be checking your record under the UK FOIA?

I have asked my solicitor (lawyer) to make a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to see what they have made up about me. Major-General Sir Frank Kitson conceived of a state tactic whereby the secret services discredit their marks by making up such things as a criminal record and having fake records inserted into the appropriate files. It is much easier now with computerisation and the Secret Services having open access to everything.

Not to my knowledge. But D.C. Gatter has tried to cause conflict between me and my solicitor.

I went to see a solicitor. He was a Muslim and told me to say no more but to go home and wait to hear from as he was going to ring D.C. Gatter to find out what he wanted. I later rang twice to find out what was happening but he was very curt and told me to keep waiting. It was obvious that he was doing nothing so I changed solicitors.

My new solicitor is very helpful and I am very grateful to her. She told the police I would be interviewed voluntarily but only with her present. D.C. Gatter rang me under the pretext of not being able to contact my solicitor. pretext of not being able to contact my solicitor. I told him I would ring her and get her to arrange a convenient interview time and place. I left a message with her Legal Secretary.

Then the deceit and lying started.

My solicitor rang the next morning and was very upset. She had rang D.C. Gatter to arrange an interview but he was very angry with her. He told her I had agreed to be interviewed as a “witness” — that is a lie. My solicitor also told me that D.C. Gatter had refused to tell her what they want to interview me for, had refused to tell her which police station he works from and what his police number is. This indicates that D.C. Gatter is with the British political police Special Branch.

I say this in the clear knowledge of what I am saying: that was a lie. The Metropolitan Police are trying to fit me up for something I know nothing of and am no part of. This is a warning to all patriots and opponents of Muslim extremism: the police have an agenda to fit us up to make Muslim extremists look less extreme.

What do you think the goal of the police is here? Is it tied to any political agenda? Why would they act now? What does your lawyer say about your prospects?

Breivik might have liked my essays warning the Jewish community in Europe of the dangers they face from Muslim extremists, but I have never knowingly contacted him. In fact I am shunned by the extreme Zionists. The EDL leaders Tommy Robinson and Kev Carrol took me off their Facebook friends lists and the British Freedom Party refused to publish a letter from on Sir Winston Churchill’s views on race and attempt to stop immigration.

Another possibility, is that a state asset at the top of the British Freedom Party might have tried to set me up. Possibly a grudge or trying to remove opposition?

The Metropolitan police has at least 8 al-Qaeda members working for it. I have previously written about Muslim extremist training camps in Britain that are covered up by the police and media and that RAF Nimrod spy planes have picked up Taliban fighters with Birmingham accents. I made this point to D.C. Gatter but he has ignored it which makes me wonder about the motives of the Metropolitan police senior officers.

Breivik was a member of the European Counter Jihad movement but I am not. I am a self-proclaimed Conservative of the Traditional or Nationalist kind. If the Metropolitan Police are actively hounding members of the Counter Jihad it suggests that their agenda is anti-Zionist or anti-Israel. I think that this is their underlying motive. That and the intention of making Muslim extremists look less of a threat to us and the Jewish communities.

Thank you for filling us in, David. It seems the leftist governments of the West have again turned against Israel, which is a strong nationalist country, as well as turning on their own people who endorse nationalism or traditionalism. We look forward to your comments and hope you’ll not be under the microscope soon.

Jobs are jails

An unfortunate fact of modern life: we have replaced callings with jobs and careers.

“Jobs” are things you attend where other people tell you what to do. In order to insure that you do not become too valuable to replace, your task will be broken down into simple steps and highly isolated fields of “expertise.” The result is apocalyptic boredom.

“Careers” are designed to convince you that a string of jobs equals a purpose. There’s a nod and a wink here, which is you recognizing that you’re disposable, and so seeing the “career” — the job of having jobs of the type you like, and hopefully moving up the ladder — as more important than the company you’re now working for.

In contrast, a calling was a skill and the ability to run a business around it. If you were a cobbler, a blacksmith, a teacher, a stonemason, an armorer, a priest or a farmer, you were an independent businessperson producing actual value.

This was distinct from the commercial class, who took the products of your labor and traded them around and spiced them up, making great profit from the cityfolk. For example, if you were a country spinner, and made fine cloth and sewed it into clothes, a city merchant might add a crocheted, stylized flower and call it a new design.

We can’t even relate to what kind of world that was. Today you tumble out of bed as a youngster, and then get shuffled through a series of grades until they find the right funnel to drop you in, and then pour you down it. You then find a job, and they spruce that up into a career so you have something to talk about at cocktail parties.

Everyone knows but few will say the obvious: very little of each day goes to actual work. The rest is mostly activities to include others, such as meetings or group projects. There’s exciting paperwork. There’s waiting on coworkers. There’s goofing off. At the end of the day, an hour of real work has occurred.

In the meantime, from the top of the cycle to the bottom, everyone is fairly miserable. The rich hate the way they are slaves to their jobs, but can’t stop. The demi-professional middle classes are terrified of losing their jobs or even worse, not rising. Everyone else just hangs on.

One ugly side-effect of this is crushing boredom, frustration, resentment and a thirst for oblivion. People run out of the offices and fly screaming into the sports stadiums. They don’t care what the beer costs. Smash the brain, pound it flat, make it stop sending back signals of misery.

They take it out on their kids too. Either they’re typical suburban dads, who are never around and when they are need to be (a) drunk or (b) zoned out and thus are “too busy” to toss a football around with the whiny kid, or they go the direct but less damaging route and beat their children bloody.

The cycle goes on and on. What can we do? First we have to look at the problem of modern jobs: they are designed to be interchangeable parts and thus are geared toward morons, and so must be boring. Even worse, the competition is fierce because there’s always someone worse off than you who wants to spend more hours “working” for lower pay than you get. To reverse that:

  • Halve the workforce. Get women back into the home. If they don’t have families, let them live with their parents. Very few of them want to be in the workplace, but they’ve been programmed by media to consider their disposable jobs “important.” Yet few succeed and none thrive, ending up instead bitter old maids. In the meantime, men come to hate them, because women are natural detail-maniacs, which drives men up a wall since someone who is always in detail mode will never know when to skip a detail.
  • Increase loyalty. Bring back the pension and the cumulative benefits. Encourage people to spend 20-30 years at a company. Get rid of do-nothing federal programs that pretend to take over this function. Perhaps allow greater employee vesting in 401k plans. If you’re getting matching funds to a percentage of the number of the years you’d been at the firm, you might stick around.
  • Deport immigrants. Our entire workforce is being shoved upward because we keep importing ludicrously cheap workers to do our construction and agriculture job. Forget that; replace them with traditional Americans. While no one doubts that illegal aliens work hard, they take frequent breaks and quality control is terrible — our construction industry became mediocre overnight. But even worse was that the immigrants displaced many people, and forced them into administrative or sales jobs that they’re not qualified for, and thus are botching.
  • Stop being nice. If Jimmy is smarter than Johnny, say it. You don’t need to say it to his face. Stop pretending that everyone can do every job if they just attend the right series of two week do-nothing training sessions. Put Jimmy on top and keep Johnny on the floor. Our bureaucracies murder themselves by promoting the incompetent.

These politically incorrect suggestions are sure to shock, horrify, and abjectly nauseate our readers. Hold that thought — savor it and relish just how disgusted you are. Now when you go back to your job in the morning, you’ll be able to compare your disgust at these suggestions to your drear misery and see which is worse.

Leaders and followers

Every society sorts itself by those who pull ahead, and those who are left behind.

In every classroom, some kids are the ones who know the answers and do great work; the rest of us trail behind somewhere. At the bottom, there are the kids who aren’t too good at anything.

Unless you want uniform interchangeable parts, the same is true for any collection of things. They call it “the bell curve,” but statistically, in most collections of objects they can be ranked according to a statistical distribution. There are a few really good ones, a few really bad ones, and a sloping curve in the middle.

Mathematically, this makes a lot of sense. It creates both stability and flexibility. If you impose a boundary on a situation, it lets the space be filled completely with a minimum of outliers, which gives those in the middle a chance to rise or fall.

However, many people hate this state of humanity. They think distinctions like leaders versus followers, smart versus dumb, and innovators versus participants are bad and worse than bad, they’re deliberately mean. They think the only reason such distinctions exist is to make the people on top feel good, which is nonsense because the people on top don’t need that to feel good. They’re on top.

Then again, what else would the people on the bottom say? “You know, I’m really not good at anything, including managing my own life. I can minimize my failure by letting smarter people lead me.” — unlikely. Instead, they claim that because we’re not all interchangeable parts, the “system” is unjust, cruel and elitist.

But in this divide you see right/conservative versus left/liberal.

The right is based on the idea of a reverent, transcendental appreciation for the natural order; for that reason, it values the past as a form of historical learning, aims for religious levels of purity of behavior, sees end results/goals as more important than methods/moralism, and hopes to create a civilization with collective values that raise it above the rest.

The right comprises a spectrum of political beliefs from moderate American Republican (small government, few laws, low taxes, family values) to National Socialism (strong central government, strong traditional laws, ethno-nationalism, eugenics).

The left is based on the idea of the individual being able to fulfill itself by doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants, unhindered by nature or human social orders; for that reason, it values the ideological and idealistic, aims for religious levels of humanistic morality, views methods/moralism as more important than results/goals, and hopes to create a civilization where every individual feels equally valued, free and important.

The left comprises a spectrum of political beliefs from moderate American Democrat (social welfare programs, strong economy, moderate taxes, pluralism) to Stalinism (absolute social welfare, command economy, pluralism, ideological goal as more important than all else).

When you combine the two, you get Totalitarian Anarchism, or a system which enables absolute individual freedom but, because it is responsive to the needs of individuals for stability, also imposes a type of totalitarian order created by media, government and social competition for the purposes of stability and obedience.

In the modern USA and Europe, when left and right fight, the result is a type of compromise of inertia that leads to absolutely nothing getting done. Our current crop of parasites, demagogues, idiots, predators, liars, flatterers, cheats, con men and sycophants loves this: it lets them keep leaching away, pretending that the bill will never come due.

Perhaps this is why the root of conservatism is consequentialism with transcendentalism. If you can think far enough into the future to see how certain actions will turn out, you try to find a meaning to it all, and when you find a reason to love life, you understand why it makes sense to play by its rules.

Everyone else is left behind by this logic, and so they in a fit of hubris demand that nature bow down and play by their rules, starting a chain reaction that always ends badly. This is why they are followers, not leaders.