Posts Tagged ‘assimilation’
Thursday, April 20th, 2017
Diversity does not work because it cannot work. It is paradoxical to place groups with different goals together and insist they compromise, because this deprives all groups of their goals, and thus creates tension which will inevitably detonate in ethnic violence.
This week, the exciting ethnic violence came to us from sunny Fresno where an African-American Muslim man shot three white men:
Dyer said that it’s too soon to determine if the shooting rampage was terrorism-related. However, a review of Muhammad’s social media shows he quoted the phrase “Allahu Akbar” in a tweet. The Arabic phrase translates to “God is the greatest.”
In addition, Muhammad’s Facebook posts indicated that “he does not like white people, and he has anti-government sentiments,” the chief said. The four men who were targeted Tuesday were white, Dyer said.
Dyer noted that in Thursday’s shooting at Motel 6, which was caught on surveillance video, Muhammad did not make similar statements.
Diverse society has failed Kori Ali Muhammad as well. He wishes to live among his own people and according to their own values. In a society which is permissive and facilitative, as diverse societies must be because they cannot have a majority culture or purpose, he is denied those things.
Until we stop blaming specific groups, and instead recognize that all groups act in self-interest as coded into their genes and therefore that diversity and assimilation can never work, we will continue to suffer an increasing spiral of race riots, police shootings, and spree killings from diversity unrest.
Thursday, April 13th, 2017
We could just rename this blog Tales Of Self Deception because that seems to be the predominant hobby of human beings. Or maybe a cult-like obsession. Either way, today offers an example of brain-warping silliness from Germany:
Muslims who migrate to Europe should understand that there are better places for them to live if they do not want to accept the European way of life, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said on Wednesday.
Such migrants who do not accept Europe’s way of living should be told “you have made the wrong decision”, Schaeuble said during a round table discussion in Berlin.
“There are better places in the world to live under Islamic law than Europe,” he added.
Schaeuble is a friend of Angela Merkel’s and has reason to re-iterate her party line, which is that Europe needs migrants. She has now modified this after the disaster of the past year, and he is speaking the party line when he talks about assimilation and integration. What he means is that Germany will now send home the outright criminals and keep the rest of the migrants flowing in.
Assimilation is total nonsense. It requires that each group give up its identity and what makes it unique in order to become beige grey cultureless people who serve the Leftist Establishment. They know this means doom for them, and so tend to resist, as African-Americans sensibly have done so in the USA.
Even more, assimilation inherently rejects the majority population. It says that the majority group is a resource to be used up for the purposes of government and the economy, not the survival of the country. After all, this group will be replaced by outbreeding, which means it is doomed as well. These are only a few of the reasons that assimilation, and diversity, will never work.
Tuesday, April 4th, 2017
Another terrorist attack, or three (one attempted). Another series of prayers, playing “Imagine” on out-of-tune pianos, piling up flowers and stuffed animals where the blood once pooled, and political speeches about how these terrorists will not damage our democracy and freedom. And then, nothing, except more reminders that we need to protect Muslims from racial animus in response to these attacks.
As in most times of confusion, people are focusing on what social groups reward them for instead of truth. Those who repeat the dominant ideology get ahead; those who do not, or oppose it, are pushed aside. It is thus logically correct to follow the herd. And so, all of our “facts,” news, politicians, experts, professors, scientists and writers are fake; their assumptions are lies and so all that follows must be.
This puts us in the unenviable position of having to wake up, make our way upstream against the current, and use unapproved methods — such as logic itself — to understand our world. Everything else resembles houses built on loose sand, falling down with the slightest shift, and so dedicated to stability even if it means affirming insanity as truth.
Let us apply logical fact to the question of class warfare, diversity, immigration and nationalism; contrary to what our wise leaders tell us, these are the same question.
Those who care for themselves will care for something greater than themselves because the individual does not exist without context. This context gives meaning: it shows that our inevitable sacrifices go toward something enduring, instead of vanishing in the moment, and by doing so, create a sense of poetry to existence, placing us in unison with our culture and world.
The context in which individuals exist could be described as a combination of civilization, nature and metaphysical or idealistic principles that guide our sense of what it is to be good, promote pleasure and beauty in life, and achieve improvement over our prior state. The opposite of this is individualism, where we take all of the above for granted as existing without our interference.
For this reason, civilization and its maintenance become important on par with our own lives. Without them, we are single creatures wandering alone, without any chance to build on what we create, and with no hope that it will have significance beyond us. At that level, everything we do is a ruin the instant it is created.
With stable civilization, we can pursue the other parts of our context — understanding nature, metaphysics and ideals — and know that we can build on what others have done and have others do the same. For this reason, our thoughts and actions endure and therefore, have a purpose. Without that endurance, they are pointless and mere fantasy beyond the basic needs for food, shelter and safety.
Civilization by that token serves as an extension of the individual that gives meaning to our striving. This then raises the question of how to make civilization last for as long as possible, such that it extends our work and gives it something approximating permanence. Possibly a civilization could become eternal, or self-renewing in perpetuity.
History shows us that most civilizations start out as nationalistic ones, or comprised of a group from similar ethnic backgrounds. By the time they collapse, these societies are beige, or of mixed ethnic background. Whether as a cause or consequence of civilization decline, the loss of nationalism heralds bad things for the future of that civilization.
In addition, nationalism makes sense because it eliminates internal conflict. A group of people of similar abilities and inclinations, sharing a culture, does not require much internal negotiation because people are all headed in roughly the same direction. There is a shared purpose and principles. Societies of this nature function more smoothly than those with high internal negotiation.
Further, having a common heritage means that not only is culture encoded in the genes of the population, but that people have a common identity which relates closely to the sense of purpose. Their civilization is not its government, money or victories, but both an end in itself and a means to an end of its purpose, which ties into itself. This seems elliptical at first but in fact reflects the ancient ideal of balance in that each part of the system works toward furthering other parts, so that none are divided from this core.
However, if nationalism is logical, then immigration — which adulterates nationalism — is not only foolish, but suicidal. It means the replacement of the civilization and its transition into the beige nation which will shortly thereafter fail, and become like all the other ruins of empires across the world.
The important thing to remember is that most people are self-destructive and groups doubly so because they avoid difficult thoughts, and therefore fail to address necessary questions, and leave themselves open to being blindsided by the reality that they deny. People view their survival as dependent on social cooperation with others, so they deny truth in favor of what pleases others to hear.
For this reason, most people will select insane ideas as a matter of course, and the more stress they feel, the more their social group will be stressed, encouraging them to retreat further from reality into a consensual hallucination of peer pressure.
Given that most people will, if not stopped, demand suicidal policies like immigration and its consequence, “diversity” or the existence of multiple ethnic groups in the same civilization, it becomes important to suppress the opinions of those who are prone to such thinking. At the upper end of human quality, in intelligence and character, are a rare few who can resist the self-destruction urge.
Class warfare arises when the rest, who are inherently self-destructive, decide that they are tired of being ruled by those who are competent. Those after all impede the will of those self-destructive people. As a result, they declare that all people are equal and none are more fit to rule than others, which then allows the self-destructive to implement their plans.
Diversity naturally arises from class warfare because importing foreign people allows the coalition of the self-destructive to have allies that they can use against the rest. Since people are equal, some system like democracy will result, and so having more warm bodies than the other side is how that coalition intends to win, and it imports those with an interest in destroying the culture.
This is the essence of diversity: despite its statements of all people being the same, it goal is to import those who are not similar to the rest of the population, so that this group can act against the interests of the majority. This is how all successful class warfare conflicts play out, even if they end in the collapse of the civilization.
In this way we can see how class warfare, diversity, immigration and nationalism comprise the same question.
Those who argue for diversity, especially conservatives, will argue that immigration is good if the groups “assimilate” or adopt the culture around them. This forgets that no group can assimilate because to do so is to self-destruct; every group has an interest in being itself, and individuals are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to make another group beige so it can be conquered.
No group can assimilate. Each group has a self-interest which includes its identity, and assimilation requires the destruction of that. Some individuals can assimilate, but they serve as an ethnic vanguard that dilutes the ethnic similarity of the population, making it ready for conquest by others.
For a group to assimilate, it must give up on itself, and so while “take only the immigrants that assimilate” makes for a handy sound bite, it has no relation to reality. No immigrants assimilate. They merely serve to unwittingly destroy the host population. Those who do give up their culture find themselves confused about purpose and values, and tend to act destructively.
The Americans know this from the contrasting experience of Indians and African-Americans. Indians were relocated to reservations where they kept their identity; African-Americans starting in the 1960s were “assimilated,” leading to ethnic conflict in the cities and crime spurred by resentment at the loss of identity.
Diversity does not work. It can never work because it demands that people either destroy their identity to be accepted, or become permanent outsiders. It makes enemies of all the groups involved, and eventually ethnically destroys the majority through outbreeding. This is why failed empires are “beige nations” filled with only those left over after the cataclysm.
Saturday, March 25th, 2017
In the Wall Street Journal, a commentary buried within a commentary appears in the form of an introspection regarding immigration:
Finally, limits on immigration also protect the stability of our social arrangements. To be successful and harmonious, any society needs to cultivate a sense of fellow-feeling and solidarity among its members. Most of our fellow citizens are strangers to us, and yet we tax ourselves for their benefit, yield to their political choices at election time and perhaps serve in uniform to protect them. We do this precisely because they are our fellow citizens and have a claim on our loyalty and affections that citizens of other countries do not.
In more homogenous societies, like Japan or Denmark or Swaziland, this fellow-feeling may arise organically from kinship ties and a shared cultural heritage. But in a more heterogeneous society like ours, it must be cultivated if it is to flourish, and we can’t ignore factors that undermine it.
This is not to say that immigrants don’t learn English, get jobs, join the military and drive on the right side of the road. They do all those things. But the deeper and more important process of reorienting one’s emotional and psychological attachments from the old country to the new has not fared well in recent decades in the U.S. and would be overwhelmed, I believe, by any dramatic increase in immigration.
Mainstream media will not get any closer to the idea of identity: genetics and culture linked, and culture is a better system than government, thus societies need to be homogeneous to avoid being internally conflicted and dissolving. Even more, diversity inevitably leads to hybridization, which genocides the original group by replacing them with a mixed-race grey tribe.
We know immigration has failed because American national culture has vanished. Social trust has died. Every decision we make is now made in minutiae consisting of details split by details because there is no common standard, purpose or agenda.
In other words, we are falling prey to what destroys organizations. We no longer have shared purpose, and we have a divided power structure. All of our energy now gets wasted on internal conflict, similarly to how we waste our wealth with entitlements instead of focusing it on producing more.
The result is predictably horrifying:
“Ultimately, we see our story as about the collapse of the white, high school educated, working class after its heyday in the early 1970s, and the pathologies that accompany that decline,” the authors Anne Case and Angus Deaton, of Princeton University wrote in the report.
…According to the report, white non-Hispanic people of all ages show an increased mortality rate from 1999 to 2015 with some age groups seeing nearly a 50 percent rise in mortality rates. People aged 25-29 went from a mortality rate of 145.7 deaths per 100,000 in 1999 to 266.2 per 100,000 in 2015 and people aged 40-44 went from 332.2 deaths per 100,000 to 471.4 deaths per 100,000.
… Case and Deaton found that while gains were made as fewer people died of heart disease and cancer, these gains have mostly stagnated and did not cancel out the rising number of “deaths of despair” or related to alcohol, drugs or suicide.
In 1990, France, Germany and Sweden outpaced the U.S. in these deaths which totaled approximately 40 per 100,000 from those countries.
Looking back through history, we see that in the mid-1960s the United States and its European allies started to believe their WWII propaganda and adopted diversity as an official affirmative goal of government. It took a few years to hit, but the decline kicked into gear during the 1970s, and has really flowered in the decades since.
We warned you. You are killing our people for an ideological imperative which has never worked. You justify it by claiming that it will help the economy or make us benevolent kings among men, but this denies the existential side of things. It makes European-descended people into a conquered group, discriminates against them and convinces them there is no future.
For now, it is hitting the poor whites. The wealthier ones can escape to Whitopias but soon, that too will go away. Then they will fade away as well, starting with the most sensitive and perceptive, who realize that all they need and work for will be erased in the new beige regime.
It makes sense to have zero immigration. It makes even more sense to have fully negative immigration and to repatriate everyone who is not of Western heritage. Diversity has not worked and cannot because it is paradoxical. Each group needs its own nation so that it can know it has control of its future, and this is the only way to avoid the existential despair that is killing off white Americans.
Wednesday, March 15th, 2017
In the modern time, where every consideration is based in the individual, people have trouble conceptualizing things of importance that are larger than the individual, despite such things being the one and only path toward significance, meaning and pleasure in life itself.
One of these things — we might call them “transcendentals,” or qualitative and not quantitative measurements of reality — is identity, or the knowledge of having a group, gang, cult, troupe, army, family or tribe to which one belongs. Identity is important; it conveys the notion of having a purpose and a direction, which are the rarest things among all humans.
And yet, people are deprived of their tribes by the false tribalism of ideology:
I’m a feminist, so shouldn’t the men I date and sleep with be feminists too?
…But men looking for feminist-sanctioned romance tend to fall in to one of two categories: those who use our attraction as a sign of approval and seek out trophy feminists to clear their conscience of any inherent patriarchal wrong-doing, and outright predators who employ a bare-bones knowledge of feminist discourse to target any young woman whose politics so much as graze the notion of sex-positivity.
Ideology replaces organic membership with a type of vote: you affirm the dogma, and then are accepted. Since the dogma consists of symbols without any feedback loop to check whether or not you understand them and to what degree, it becomes a comedy of swearing allegiance to the unknown and then manipulating the authority conferred for personal gain.
The dogma then becomes a means of manipulation. It is trivial to claim allegiance to the dogma, and then to use that membership in a group for personal gain. For this reason, the men drawn to feminism are those most likely to be rapists; the people drawn toward altruism are those most likely to steal from the rest. They are given a cover story by the symbol of goodness, which is license to steal.
In turn, this destroys the identity of groups. With equality, whatever makes a group unique is erased in service to the idea of making everyone equal. For example, look at the erasure of gay culture by equality:
In our lifetime, the gay community has made more progress on legal and social acceptance than any other demographic group in history. As recently as my own adolescence, gay marriage was a distant aspiration, something newspapers still put in scare quotes. Now, it’s been enshrined in law by the Supreme Court. Public support for gay marriage has climbed from 27 percent in 1996 to 61 percent in 2016. In pop culture, we’ve gone from “Cruising” to “Queer Eye” to “Moonlight.” Gay characters these days are so commonplace they’re even allowed to have flaws.
Still, even as we celebrate the scale and speed of this change, the rates of depression, loneliness and substance abuse in the gay community remain stuck in the same place they’ve been for decades. Gay people are now, depending on the study, between 2 and 10 times more likely than straight people to take their own lives. We’re twice as likely to have a major depressive episode. And just like the last epidemic we lived through, the trauma appears to be concentrated among men. In a survey of gay men who recently arrived in New York City, three-quarters suffered from anxiety or depression, abused drugs or alcohol or were having risky sex—or some combination of the three. Despite all the talk of our “chosen families,” gay men have fewer close friends than straight people or gay women. In a survey of care-providers at HIV clinics, one respondent told researchers: “It’s not a question of them not knowing how to save their lives. It’s a question of them knowing if their lives are worth saving.”
The brutal thing is: a tribe cannot be defined by opposition to others, only by what it hopes to achieve. Minority cultures are dependent on the majority culture, causing resentment and from that, resistance. Within that comes the seeds of their own doom: when given the autonomy they crave, their unifying mission is erased, and the culture disappears.
Dogma and anti-culture pervade the tribal landscape of the balkanized West. At some point, the easy gambit of opposing the majority becomes obsolete, and people must assert what they stand for, instead of what they stand against. The tragedy is at this point, few know what that is, and so their tribes will be assimilated into the democracy and shopping malls anti-culture of the herd.
Friday, March 3rd, 2017
An illusion afflicts mainstream conservatives. This is the notion that we can take people from all over the world, indoctrinate them in our laws, and have them be versions of us that carry on our society without us having to.
This ignores the fact that ethnic replacement via this method is a type of “soft genocide” or genetic eradication. It ignores differences in abilities. But most fundamentally, it ignores the fact that it is forcing people to give up on what they are and to become essentially cultural slaves of some other society.
Assimilation brings nothing but destruction. And yet mainstream conservatives love it because it enables them to pretend they have an ideology like the Left, and to think they are winning because others are in theory carrying that ideology forward:
The left constantly repeats “we are a nation of immigrants” without citing the other half of that fact — “who assimilate into America.” The left mocks the once-universally held American belief in the melting pot. But the melting pot is the only way for a country composed of immigrants to build a cohesive society.
America was never just “a nation of immigrants.” America was always a nation of immigrants who sought to become — or at least were taught by American public schools and by the general American culture to become — Americans.
If America becomes a nation of nonassimilating immigrants, or a nation consisting of nonassimilating ethnic, racial and national groups who are already here, it will cease being a glorious idea and become just another nation torn by conflicting interest groups.
The great cuck hope is that we can bring in people from all over the world, use them as grist for our economic mill, and become “powerful” through proxies like the economy, population size and consumer satisfaction. In reality, all we are doing is abolishing ourselves and replacing ourselves with others, then claiming victory because this group has “assimilated.”
No good person assimilates. They uphold the values of their culture and heritage and feel proud of their origins. Those who assimilate tend to be either non-serious about it, or self-deluding, but even if they do assimilate, they have become substitutes for the original group — Western European people — selected for ideology, as a Leftist would.
Instead what happens is that the more different groups you add, the less culture you have no matter who claims to be “assimilated.” These people will uphold your ideology and economic system, but ultimately, will revert to their own wiring, which is for a culture totally alien to your own.
This is how cuckservatives abolish themselves. They confuse the methods of success, such as economics and ideology, for success itself. This leads them to create a proposition nation unified only by ideology and economics, at which point the original group fades away, leaving yet another beige-grey cultureless race in a third world ruin of a former first world empire.
Saturday, September 3rd, 2016
The general perception of American-style communication is that it involves a social process of asking questions, listening, flattering the speaker and then finding a compromise. This is clearly wrong from the international perspective because other peoples such as Africans find this funny.
The liberally oriented book “Culture’s Consequences” by Geert Hofstede states as follows:
Paradoxically, having English, the world trade language (lingua franca), as one’s mother tongue is a liability, not an asset, for truly communicating with other cultures.”
Apart from language and cross-cultural communication skills (such as to avoid humor), a general “Acculturation curve” was proposed as follows:
The curve can be used to describe the German initial euphoria in welcoming migrants, followed by the current “culture shock” phase they experience at this point. However, experience with German “Turks” shows (just as it has in America with Africans and Latinos) that stabilization of “feelings” will remain a negative. This is clearly, in my opinion, grounds for an alternative more realistic approach.
The British have long experienced this inability to return to the status quo and thus coined the term “culture rub.” On the other hand, Merkel supports the New World Order push for liberal-democracy where a stable state is supposed to be possible. However, Hofstede spent an entire chapter also describing the culture rub between individualist and collectivist societies as follows;
Some animals, such as wolves, are gregarious; others, such as tigers, are solitary. The human species should no doubt be classified with the gregarious animals, but different human societies show gregariousness to different degrees. Here again, then, we have a fundamental dimension on which societies differ: the relationship between individual and the collectivity.
Regarding language and communication, an example (by Hofstede) of the differences between individualist and collectivist societies is as follows;
So the languages spoken in individualist cultures tend to require speakers to use the (I) pronoun when referring to themselves; languages spoken in collectivist cultures allow the dropping of this pronoun.
Negotiation between cultures will therefore result in the American saying “I propose this” while the African will answer “We like that”. Again: clearly there is a difference between individualist and collectivist societies to the extent that assimilation is not assured, hence the widely used term “multi-cultural” referring to societies that (sort of) work together. Hofstede is not a philosopher and he performed an admirable job by producing this book (for his sponsor, IBM). However, multi-national corporations mostly like to jump the gun on philosophical matters because they see that (and any other socialization issue) as the “Government’s problem”, including (real) communication.
The way they get away with it, is by educating people in a one day Culture Sensitivity course. Clearly this is not working.
Therefore, as an illustration of what really happens, let us extrapolate this to foreign relations by using the Hillary example. Assume she goes to King Saud asking “May I buy your oil?” He might answer “We sell oil, after all.” This part is just the first communication cycle in the sense that recognition is given and loyalty is established. This literally “makes” them equal, not to be confused with human equality. They are both now on the same page. Hillary will not go out on tender and the King has enough reserves to cover the expected sale.
The second communication cycle however, takes a totally different tack. In western society, one would expect the details of oil requirements and payment to be negotiated, but this time there is another interlude. In order to get access to the King, Hillary had to speak to the Prince first. The Prince established her credentials and also “trained” her on how “things are done” here in this Kingdom. At the start of the second cycle, the King will invite Hillary to his “Tent” where they will be treated to various cultural achievements, after which the term “we” is replaced with the term “I.” This is totally confidential of course and happens in the private retreat of the King. Hillary must now negotiate a separate deal between her and the King before the aforementioned oil sale can be continued.
From what can be gathered in the media, it appears that Hillary is a tough negotiator because monies were overtly donated to her “Foundation” in large quantities. This, apparently were in exchange for “Intelligence Briefings” from either herself or her husband. Essentially therefore, two cycles of communication is applied in collectivist societies.
The same communication style was applied during the negotiations with Mugabe and Mandela and is (apparently) in process in America. Both Mugabe and Mandela, being “elected” representatives of their peoples, were handsomely paid for their services in assuring democratization of their countries. Subsequently this author undertook a trip to Mandela’s backyard to experience the vibrancy of that culture.
What was immediately apparent was that Mandela’s tribe was instructed to continue their tribal way of life despite the mask of democracy. The only difference visible to this author was a single water tap at each family kraal (extended homestead). However, the fascinating discovery of the trip was their use of dual cycle communication. It is a variation of their own tribal survivalist tradition that stemmed from the manner in which they would treat “strangers” unable to speak their language for the most part. But in the European case (that they have already adjusted to in terms of having a new tradition) their requirements change from what do you want to how can the “we” and “I” benefit separately.
Over centuries, the “white” man has always brought something with him hence their established curiosity for what that may be. In survivalist terms, this translated to recognition, equality, and sharing. This also explains the moral indignation when those values are not supported, regardless of the facts of the matter. What the individualist has to understand though, is that these values are individual and not meant for the collective. The King is not equal to his followers.
So this is complicated and motivates the idea that perhaps assimilation is not going to be a natural process.
Tuesday, November 17th, 2015
A lot of people have suddenly realized that they should show solidarity with France. It’s nice of them to tune in. They so endeavor for two reasons.
Something genuinely horrible happened in Paris this Friday. Several hundred French civilians were deliberately targeted and slaughtered by Muslim radicals who indiscriminately (and with impeccable multiculturalism even), gunned people down in a spirit of true egalitarianism.
The political and governmental policies that made this possible are near and dear to the hearts of much of the Post-modern West. When Marco Rubio and Charles Schumer were contemplating bi-partisan comprehensive amnesty reform, Senator Rand Paul attempted to add an amendment to the bill that would screen people to avoid having terrorist organizations use a comprehensive amnesty reform as a Trojan Horse. Here’s the bi-partisan response his amendment got from the politico-corporate elite :
“Two, three years ago, I introduced a bill, or an amendment, to the immigration bill that would have provided for more scrutiny of people coming into our country: refugees, immigrants, students,” Paul said, when asked about his response to Friday’s attacks.
“They would have had background checks and they would have had a much higher degree of scrutiny. And the point I made in my speech was, I introduced this to Rubio and (Democratic Sen. Chuck) Schumer’s immigration bill and then Rubio and Schumer and all of the authors voted against any conservative amendments. And I think that was a mistake, not only for the bill, but also for our national security.”
So almost 200 mostly undeserving, very mundane people have been burned on the funeral pyre for the sake of open-borders, population replacement and a nice, big reserve army of the unemployed to reduce corporate labor costs. Therefore, a lot of guilty and disingenuous people want to put French flags in the background of their Facebook profiles and wear ribbons to commemorate the people who were sent to the slaughter because we were all so open-minded that our collective brains fell out.
So this new found appreciation of the French People is touching. So is the pedophile that does really vile things to the neighbor’s five-year-old. But that bit of snarky nastiness brings up a valid question: What if I really do empathize and grieve for the innocents blown up and gunned down in Paris? How do I legitimately show solidarity with those whose deaths I verily lament? JPW is very happy you so inquired. Here’s my Mizzou Manifesto’s worth of suggestions.
- Cease and Desist with Visa Programs such as H1B until the US Workforce Participation Rate hits 75% rather than the 61% it sits at now. If you don’t have the reserve army of the unemployed, you don’t have people who are we tell them twice and they ignore us, may God have mercy on their souls.
- Reject Immigration from places prone to radically anti-Western activities. As was earlier pointed out at this site, successful immigrants come as settlers that take over and replace prevailing cultures. If you want to disbelieve Mr. Warkin, ask yourself how well the Iroquois Nations did with assimilating General George Washington. They are looking to replace you, not join you or become like you. If they wanted to emulate you, they could do so while sparing the expense of long distance transit.
- Help France do whatever is necessary to speed members of ISIS to their next destination on the wheel of karma. Terrorists do not really perform acts of terrorism because of stress. They execute terrorist attacks because they believe it works like hell. The body count inflicted in the general vicinity of where these terrorists live must be high enough so that no one will continue to offer them shelter or succor. The economic butcher’s bill that a terrorist organization or society must pay for terrorist activities has to go a lot higher. Otherwise, terrorism will still be viewed as a tactically intelligent option for extracting bribes and concessions out of Western Democracies.
Adopting the JPW program for dealing with ISIS and all other JV squads suiting up to help the world burn would show far greater sympathy and remonstration with the grieving victims of French Terrorism than lots of French flags on Facebook and at NFL stadiums.
To prevent those who have died from dying in vain, we must set an example for the rest of the world by rejecting the ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity that so inspire ISIS to believe that terrorism is an obviously good tactic to deploy against the West. The question for our leadership becomes which is politically and morally easier; protecting our people or letting the politically and financially lucrative conditions that make innocent Westerners such fun and easy mass terror targets remain in situ?
How our society answers this question will tell you how much the elites who lead us really care about victims in France or in either of the Twin Towers.
Sunday, April 5th, 2015
In this world, all good things become destroyed, and they all go out the same way.
Neoreaction, the post-libertarian reactionary conservative movement that has showed so much promise, is in the midst of a stumble. Interest flags, writings have petered out or become circular, and internal divisions have reached an apex.
We do not have to look far for the causes. Neoreaction began as a movement that is like most conservative movements consequentialist, or based in results rather than intent. It arose from the libertarian idea of minimizing government to avoid it adopting an “ideological mandate” by which in the name of protecting its most vulnerable citizens it enforces control on all. Its idea, held in common with some anarchists and transhumanists, was to treat government like a corporation which sold enumerable services to its clients in exchange for a fair market price, and to deprecate all of its other functions.
However, by escaping the mental ghetto which says that Western liberal democracy is the ultimate evolution of human society and the best we can achieve, Neoreaction opened the door to other dangerous and scary ideas. Its members embraced ethnonationalism, patriarchy, hierarchy/royalism and other ideas which have been the norm for most of human evolution but have been denied in the West since The EnlightenmentTM, which held that the individual human’s preferences were more important than social or natural order.
Rejecting consequentialism, the Age of Reason created the idea of “equality” where each human had the absolute right to make any choices he or she desired, with the idea emerging later that society would subsidize these choices. As a form of “Dark Enlightenment,” Neoreaction rejected the Age of Reason as a wrong turn and suggested instead a merging of what has been perennially true in human relations with modern technological know-how and engineering standards.
It is an appealing mix. Many of us warned of the problem with being a conservative movement that does not admit it is conservative, which is that it will quickly turn on itself as it tries to adapt to the status quo of steadily increasing liberalism in the West since the 1700s. Conservatism represents the only alternative to liberal ideology, which is based in equality, and generally consists of two components: (1) consequentialism or results being more important than intent or methods and (2) transcendental goals, such as “the good, the beautiful and the true” or for many a religious purpose to human existence.
The problem is that in human society, things do not die of weakness but of strength. What made Neoreaction strong was that it introduced eternal ideas of human civilization in a new form, separating them from the forms which have become tired in the hands of the GOP and other seemingly misguided and disorganized conservatives. This strength drew people to it and, not having first cleared their minds of liberal programming, they began to treat Neoreaction as if it were another liberal concept.
Liberal concepts value individual participation and self-expression because the individual is more important than the results. Conservative concepts value individual participation where it achieves certain results, and only then. The same writers who gave Neoreaction its early strength pulled it apart as they competed for audience with blogs, books and YouTube videos. To differentiate their product, they had to each invent unique theories and viewpoints. These in turn created confusion about the core of Neoreaction, and drifted farther away, which meant they lost their conservative core and as a result became increasingly liberalized.
If we listened to the liberals at the outset, Neoreaction was doomed because it was not liberal enough. As it turns out, it was too liberal, but not by ideology but rather by the behavior of human individuals seeking to profit from it. All those blog hits, video watches, and book sales became a goal in and of themselves, and the idea of Neoreaction got lost in the muddle.
Thus the movement became moribund in the same way a civilization does: it becomes a vehicle for individuals to express their own self-importance, not a cooperation toward a qualitative end. Neoreaction became assimilated by liberalism because it adopted the methods of commerce and popularity, part of the demotism that makes up modernism.
Naturally, there are some who kept the idea strong and you can find their blogs in the list to the left. But in the meantime, for Neoreaction “The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fail to the ruin of all.”
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011
People do not want tangible answers. They want tangible targets. An answer is like an algorithm; it’s a to-do list with formulas. A target is something you can mash, smash or ban and be OK.
When they cannot find a tangible target, they invent one.
If the target is within themselves, they invent an external one.
All of this means that politics is the science of waving red flags in front of bulls, making them charge and then using that inertia to accomplish small things.
What this kind of symbolic politics cannot address is the self-referential nature of democracies. We have invented a civilization-system that is so comprehensive, it accepts nothing but itself.
- Political. We believe in liberal democracy, and we think everything else is ignorant and bad and we’re going to bomb it. We are slow to go to war, unless we’re all motivated by being told that someone else is doing it another way. It is as if we fear being proven wrong, but really, we just fear any options. If we are all doing the same thing, none of its failures can be seen by outsiders because there will be no outsiders.
- Economic. Our economy in a nutshell: make stuff that idiots like so enough of them buy it to make you rich. It doesn’t matter if you make a better widget; you need to make a widget that is trendy, convenient and appeals to the true lowest common denominator. Any use outside of our society, or societies outside our own, are ignored.
- Social. People are either nice or not. They’re nice if they let everyone else do whatever they want to, and then do not get caught publicly wanting things for themselves. If they’re really nice, they wait for the cameras to roll and then start giving money to orphans, stopping AIDS, educating the inner city or any number of other tasks we’ve tried for the last two centuries without success.
- Outlook. This society is post-totalitarian because we cannot imagine anything outside of it. Past history was ignorant and cruel; other nations are scary. What we have now is convenience, wealth and happiness. Any other viewpoint is not only wrong, but stupid, and dangerous. Invent new things? Get better? We don’t want anything but what we have.
This ultimately regressive viewpoint leads to a complete collapse of our ability to do things effectively. We do not construct, create or achieve; we sell things to ourselves. We sell services to ourselves. We tell ourselves pleasing lies, and so some of us get elected.
The end result in equality is that each person becomes a perfect narcissist. No one can tell them anything; their viewpoint is equal, after all. They don’t need anything but themselves. The result is a self-referential nation, oblivious to anything but the propaganda it spins itself.
In the meantime, this self-referentialism has another effect: it promotes misery. There are only two options: join the system and be assimilated, or drop out and starve and/or face the wrath of the fearful herd. No wonder so many people seem depressed and exhausted.