Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘balkanization’

11/8/16 (2017)

Monday, November 6th, 2017

In every Netflix queue, somewhere a documentary appears and in weak moments, one is tempted to watch it. Such was the case with 11/8/16, the second project of this nature from its director, which set sixteen directors to work following individuals on the morning of the election which transferred power to Donald J. Trump.

If this documentary has a theme, it consists of two parts: first, that “a five minute conversation with the average voter” will shock and horrify anyone expecting logic or sense, and second, that America is so fundamentally divided and its identity politics have become so narcissistic that there is no way that the center can hold. This nation-state is coming apart.

The various camera streams follow a Sikh cab driver in New York, an independent businessman in Massachusetts, a politically-active Mormon lady in Utah, a squeaky low-testosterone Irish union leader, a political consultant for the Clinton campaign and an editor at the Los Angeles Times, among others. Each of these reveal entirely polarizing views that are part of their personal identities, to the point that giving up those views would lead to existential distress.

More intensely, the cameras reveal how few of these views are based in fact, and how much self-interest comes into play, which sets the varying groups against each other. The Leftists who make their money in Leftist businesses oppose any power to anyone else; the construction union seems to care only about what government projects will bring it money; the small businessman is interested in his bottom line.

This is where the five-minute conversation with the average voter is most poignant: there is a lack of awareness of any larger issues, or any future past the immediate, that makes one see why democracy destroys civilizations. No one is watching the world ahead, but instead they are reacting to a self-referential system, trying to make what already exists work in the short term, instead of redesigning it for the long term.

As with most documentaries, this one is boring and maudlin, mainly because the density of information is quite low as we watch Americans have relatively unscripted conversations about issues they have no hope of understanding. But it reveals the basis of identity politics in America, which is not so much the group, but the benefit to the individual from acts that benefit the group.

While you might fall asleep watching this, memorable moments of clash between cultures and worlds show us the future of America, which is not unity nor strength through disunity, but fragmentation into groups which want to support themselves and are willing to do so at the expense of all others.

In this, finally, we see some honesty about the prospects of democracy: where each vote represents self-interest, people become more self-interested, and then form little gangs of those like them to enforce this self-interest against other groups. This film about a contentious election serves to reveal the source of the contention that culminated in the election more than any sense of group participation.

Through that we see that America has finished itself off the way ancient Greece and Rome did, which is by creating an emphasis on individualism that works through a self-referential system, with the needs of the many steadily driving any conversation about reality out the window. The runaway train chases a phantom, and no one will be paying attention when it runs off the rails.

Growth Of The Entitlement State Spreads Leftism Like A Cult

Wednesday, October 25th, 2017

Many people are wondering what happened to their nice stable nations, and why the people they knew growing up have been replaced by herds of angry and violent Leftists. The short answer is that government grew these people.

First, it adopted an explicitly socialist worldview — welfare, diversity, equality, entitlements — and used this to raise people who expected that the only way to fix a problem was to have government dump money on it and imprison anyone who dissented.

Next, government encouraged a change in immigration patterns, so that many people are ethnic and racial hybrids, therefore are upset that they do not have a heritage and outraged at anyone who does. This began in 1965 across the West.

Finally, these kids went to schools run by government, which somehow the voters somnambulated their way into rationalizing as a good thing. Free school meant free daycare so Mom could work and the household could have two incomes, which was great because thanks to immigration and sexual liberation, there was too much labor and so no one got paid very much.

But what really did it was the growth of the entitlement state. We shifted from a naturalistic view of civilization, in which government was there to protect an organic civilization, to an entirely artificial and socialist one, where government is the civilization and is expected to provide for its citizens.

As Matt Briggs relates, the growth of entitlements — payments directly to citizens — is the biggest story of the past century, and shows why government is rearing a crop of alienated but Left-leaning people:

Stream: The Most Depressing (Government) Graph

…If the federal government were as small as it was in 1900, it would today spend the same $180 per citizen as it did then. Given population growth, this would imply a current budget of around $59 billion. The actual budget is $3.6 trillion, which is sixty times higher. Customs duties alone would have paid for a good chunk of the $59 billion. And there would have been no need of an income tax.

The government is now sixty times more intrusive, sixty times more bureaucratic and Byzantine, sixty times more pervasive. The trend in spending increased fifty-percent over the last decade.

You might say, “It doesn’t matter what the government spends as long as it keeps pace with economy as measured by the Gross Domestic Product.” Yet the government spent at the rate of 3% of the GDP in 1900, soaring to 21% now. The shape of that curve is not much different than the spending per capita picture.

This is what a gradual transition to socialism looks like, and the same is true of Europe. Starting in the 1930s, when political uncertainty caused economic disasters, governments began to get everyone on the dole in some way or another. If that looks like a bribe, perhaps there is some truth to it. Citizens dependent on government tend to be more compliant and less prone to revolution.

With this transition comes a change of outlook. People no longer want to foster situations where good things can happen, but insisted on standardizing all things through force of government, which requires adopting a universal standard for all people. That in turn requires obliterating differences between us and turning us into a grey, casteless, raceless, atheistic and cultureless mass culture.

This universalism explains the new intolerance of the Left. When someone believes in one right way for everyone to do everything, then any failure to comply with that should be punished. When government is the source of all good things, those who go against the official ideology are enemies not just of the state, but of the people, and must be destroyed.

As we leave The Age of Ideology behind, that type of outlook will increasingly find itself in decline and disfavor. But if we want to see its roots, we can see them in exactly what our founding fathers feared: the rise of government as a cause in itself, and the corresponding production of an angry mob who will strike down any who do not conform to the plan.

This mob behaves like a cult, gang or terrorist organization, and it is gaining in prominence because Leftist policies are failing, which provokes a defensive reaction against all non-Leftist thought:

We would hang out at an anarchist library in Sydney. Here a bunch of people on the dole gather enough money to rent out the space and run a bookshop. It’s like extremist networking.

I came to believe that war was a symptom of bigger systems at play in society and they were the real enemy, like white supremacy and patriarchy. Antifa believe these systems need to be smashed through a process of ‘de-platforming’ to save the world. People who don’t necessarily agree on everything are united to attack their common enemy — anyone in the right wing of politics.

…They believe historically their roots were fighting Nazi oppression. They run a website which is updated every couple of weeks with a hit list of right wing names. They believe if these people are allowed to speak, society will suffer. So, they must be pushed back.

Leftism, or the philosophy born from egalitarianism, requires that equality be the most important goal of every person. Those who are not Leftist are increasingly finding that they cannot huddle in the center, mainly because one is either an egalitarian or not an egalitarian, which means anyone who does not see equality as the goal of civilization. Thus all non-Leftists are Rightists to the cultist.

The rise in Rightism worldwide, triggered by dissatisfaction with the globalism and diversity programs that were transforming our nations, provoked the rise of this radical Leftist cult, essentially causing ordinary Leftists to fear the failure of their ideals, and as a result radicalizing and mobilizing to counteract what they view as a threat to their self-esteem:

Dr Troy Whitford, a lecturer in Australian history and politics at Charles Sturt University, says Antifa members tend to be disaffected male university students. Many have joined the cause in recent years to counter far-right groups, such as the United Patriots Front (UPF). “Whenever you see a rise in radical nationalism, you see a rise in counter groups as well,” he says.

…”Look at some of the demonstrations between Reclaim Australia and anti-fascists, and you actually find anti-fascists are the ones throwing the first punch,” he says.

…Antifa members adopt the term “no platform” when confronting far-right groups – meaning that their aim is to shut down entirely their rallies, protests and propaganda.

Those who want to entirely block out something else either fear it, want to eject it from their society, or want to escape it as a negative stimulus. For most, it is enough to be able to avoid it, and so they reject it in public. Antifa, on the other hand, want to blot it out entirely whenever expressed anywhere, which is what “no platform” means.

Someone who has dedicated his entire life to a system and depends on thinking that this system is good in order to feel good about his place in the world, when confronted with doubt, must either accept that his past actions were broken or will have to rationalize his behavior, meaning that he must argue backward and find some way to explain to himself that what exists is good, especially if he thinks it is not.

Kids who have grown up under the entitlement state, received its propaganda through education, and now depend on it for hopeful future employment or social benefits will tend to rationalize and then strike out against any who point out that the emperor has no clothes. Those who interrupt the vision of our society as good must be destroyed, in the views of these indoctrinated children.

This pathology also corrupted conservatives. As Leftism won time and again, and especially pushed the culture war to its conclusion, the average conservative simply rationalized what was happening as good and so accepted the Leftist goals and methods, eventually becoming a de facto Leftist himself. This led to years of defeat as conservatives compromised principles and were circumnavigated time and again.

Leftism grows when government supports it and in the West, by adopting the entitlement and social welfare programs of the socialists, we have created an incubator for future Leftists who fear any alternative way of life to the one they have known. They lash out in hatred and fear, and by doing so, create the conditions for separation of Right and Left into separate societies.

America Slowly Wakes Up To The Fact That It No Longer Exists

Friday, October 13th, 2017

We no longer have anything in common as citizens of the USA or EU. Once we did, because we were born of a common root and shared a culture, but now we are merely those who attend a legal, political and economic system.

Arising from our pursuit of ideology, the notion of America as merely a system flourished for some time, but now has died, raising doubt about the question of unity as a nation:

It was Sept. 11, 2001, that sent existential concerns slamming into American speech. But there was something new, something dissonant, in the way we began to use the word — a change meant to accommodate the idea that just 19 men might strike at a nation’s being. We’d been exposed to an event people found truly unimaginable, one that shifted their sense of the world and what seemed possible in it. And yet, disorientingly, day-to-day American life continued. No armies massed on the country’s borders. The nation felt itself plunged into momentous conflict, and yet so much of that conflict existed somewhere else — not just in remote places but in abstractions and arguments over what developments, far from any battlefield, would indicate that “the terrorists have won.”

…For white nationalists, an America in which minorities mingle and miscegenate and share power with whites is an annihilating, nation-ending danger; for others, America cannot be itself until that happens. For the conservative columnist and radio host Dennis Prager, writing for TownHall in July, “left-wing-dominated media and universities pose an existential threat” to Western civilization — not because they seek to raze cities and scorch the earth, but because they envision it in ways Prager declines to recognize as the thing itself.

Any nation in which “minorities mingle and miscegenate” is a genocide factory. It takes in ethnic groups, and spits out people of no ethnicity. This fits with the Leftist ideal of removing inner traits — intelligence, moral character, race, intuition, faith — and replacing them with an external trait, namely the social ideal encoded as prescriptive philosophy that is ideology, and since this is based on human preference (“social”) rather than feedback from reality, it is always wholly individualistic and manifests as egalitarianism, or the rule that no individual can be seen as lesser than another for understanding less of reality.

In other words, the individual demands to be aided by others, even if they have not made a contribution. Consider how this contrasts the roots of civilization:

For many researchers, our cruelty to “them” starts with our kindness to “us.” Humans are the only animal that cooperates so extensively with nonkin, and researchers say that, like big brains, group life is a quintessential human adaptation. (In fact, many think big brains evolved in part to cope with group living.) Studies of living hunter-gatherers, who may represent the lifestyle of our ancestors, support this idea. Hunter-gatherers “cooperate massively in the flow of every imaginable good and service you can think of,” says anthropologist Kim Hill of Arizona State University (ASU), Tempe, who has studied hunter-gatherers for 35 years. “Anything you need in daily life, the person next to you will lend you: water, sticks for firewood, a bow and arrow, a carrying basket—anything.”

Thus the group buffers the individual against the environment. “Our central adaptation is to group living,” says psychologist Marilynn Brewer of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. “The group is primary.”

A few elaborations: first, the group is not primary; social order is. The reason that hunter-gatherers — and really, people in every type of non-modern civilization — aid each other is that they are sharing a task, and it benefits all to have more hands on deck. People are a scarce resource, and if you are going to hunt, make shelter, prepare food, or otherwise support a society through productivity, mutuality within the group is essential because it makes each person more efficient through delegation of tasks and specialization of labor.

In order to support that, social order emerges. With social order, you have some leaders, and some whose judgment is generally respected, so you achieve both hierarchy and caste. In addition, the basic formula of civilization appears: those who are willing to contribute to productivity are to be aided; those who are free-loading, or subtracting productivity, are to be hated. In addition, the group needs to be xenophobic and paranoid about outsiders because for the group to establish its standards, values and genetics, no competing versions must exist nearby; realists recognize that every group wants to dominate all others unless sufficiently removed from them that the task of conquest entails much burden for little reward.

Even in the years after our hunter-gatherer days, which really might simply be termed a time of nomadic civilization, this principle applied. Those who contributed were aided; once wealth was abstracted into gold and later ownership of businesses or farms, a general notion arose that people should be compensated according to the degree of their contribution, which was measured in the ability to make intelligent leadership decisions more than labor-by-the-pound.

Leftism — individualism — emerged in reaction to that condition. The Leftist wants reward-before-productivity, and they want to remove the system by which people are measured for their abilities. This is the desire of the individual for pacifism; he wants to eliminate the possibility of being lowered by his own failure, whether in battle or in daily tasks in which he will either demonstrate a knowledge of reality or a lack thereof, and by that will be assigned a status somewhere in the hierarchy.

This reveals the great secret of the Left, which is that despite their method of collectivism, they are fundamentally malignant individualists of the type we normally call “parasites,” but ironically, it is not because they cannot contribute, but because they fear their contributions will be insufficient. In this lies the key to defeating them: when you give them other tasks to do in which failure is anonymized, then they have only positive gain because of the “opt-in” nature of this new pursuit, and their fear of failure is alleviated; ironically, a caste system does this by assigning them to roles in which only egregious failure is punished, which gives the 80% who are functional a position that requires very little effort to achieve and maintain, freeing them up to spend more time on the rest of life. Interestingly, it does this without requiring novel changes to society so that there are always new opt-in pursuits to join.

Once we understand that social order is the root of civilization, and that individualism opposes social order, it becomes clear why America has fragmented entirely: the Leftist vision — including diversity — divides us from the sense of mutuality through shared purpose, and replaces it with obligation, or assigned tasks under the threat of social disapproval and possibly ostracism if one fails to do them. With individualism, there is nothing left but power, control, commerce and the chanting mob calling for your head on a pike.

The position someone holds in society — defined by social status, rank and hierarchical level — then, contrary to appearances, grants people stability and freedom from control, where individualism, also visually paradoxically, leads to dominance, control and rule by commerce. Diversity came about as a Leftist social weapon against hierarchy, because if you erase race and ethnic group, obliterate heritage and values, and mangle faith, language and memory, you create equal identical people who can be molded much as we shape products in a factory.

With diversity, Americans no longer had the mutuality necessary for civilization. Black people would look over at white people and wonder if those people were acting for the benefit of their own group, and not for the shared group created of political, economic and social boundaries. As it turns out, blood will out; people act not only for their own race, but for their own religion, ethnic group, political leaning, caste, region and class. They will, for a time, act together for so long as it is perceived that they share a common purpose. However, this does not last, and so diverse societies quickly fragment or self-destruct through endless caste warfare.

Americans adopted diversity in its most recent form because they believed it would end class warfare caused by racial, ethnic and caste differences in ability because of the genetic differences between those groupings. The Left likes to tell us how these divisions are “social constructs,” but that is deceptive because all language is a social construct; we notice similarities between things, group them into a category, and give that category a name. When language is used well, it groups people by the right traits, and the time-honored use of ethnic terms suggest that is true; when language is used poorly, it reflects the needs of the person coining that language, and focuses instead on political or external characteristics of groups like ideology, for example.

Internal characteristics are useful because they cannot change. You cannot alter your genetic code, and if that ability ever becomes possible, those who take advantage of it will be viewed with suspicion; to alter your genetic code is to hate your roots, which means without exception that those roots were bad which means you are bad and trying to hide that fact. In the same way, those who hate their own race or ethnic group have some actual reason for that hatred, in contrast to whatever reasons they state, which is most likely that they are broken and hate their roots as a result. If your roots made you broken, you would hate them as well. Internal characteristics like race, ethnic group, caste, moral character, intelligence, class and intuition allow us to act in good faith within the context of mutuality.

In the 1990s, America finally got onboard with the diversity agenda, since we no longer had a real fight — against the Soviets — and were now focused on fighting each other, which we did by “keeping up with the Joneses” on an ideological level, since WW2 and the Cold War had shifted us from being an organic nation based on realism to being an ideological nation based on politics and economics. In 2008, this new diversity elected Barack Obama; in 2016, amidst a downpour of other anti-globalist actions worldwide, the Obama agenda was rejected because of the disasters it created, Soviet-style, in manic pursuit of ideology even when it contradicted reality.

For us this means a seemingly uncertain future, but even that is human pretense. We know what the future holds: it turns out that diversity was wrong, in the sense of being a policy based on unrealistic/incorrect principles, and therefore, it is ending. People are pulling away from each other not just by race, but by ethnic group, religion, caste, politics, region and class. Two hundred years after we began this experiment, we have our answer: civilization requires both genetic commonality and hierarchy for mutuality, or it self-destructs.

A War Over Online Spaces Emerges

Friday, September 29th, 2017

As it becomes clear that Leftists and Rightists want entirely different types of societies, the culture wars are heating up as they have not since the 1970s. The Left has fired the first shot by invoking the dying nu-internet industry to attack non-Leftist expression as a means of perpetuating the Leftist monopoly over intellectual discourse in America.

However, both parties agree on one thing: online spaces are vital not just for command and control, but so that people can participate in a movement despite being geologically disparate:

According to researchers, the key to hooking new recruits into any movement, and to getting them increasingly involved over time, is to simply give them activities to participate in. This often precedes any deep ideological commitment on the recruits’ part and, especially early on, is more about offering them a sense of meaning and community than anything else.

People do not need to analyze ideology or philosophy. All they need is a gut feeling, and a liking for the people they encounter, and they will drift toward this new social group. At that point, they can absorb enough of the conversation to understand and be able to answer back with the responses to certain common questions, so that they feel mastery over their new belief system.

Naturally, the Left wants to prevent this from happening. In their view, they want to use fear of being excluded as a weapon, and to imply that “everyone agrees” on certain Leftist ideas, so that people are not drawn by positive ambition to the group, but kept in it out of fear of being excluded, because that makes one an enemy of the group, and all friends and opportunities are lost.

In this way, Crowdist agendas such as those of the Left resemble a cult, gang, clique or abusive relationship.

Following up on that idea, the Left is preparing to remove any online spaces where Rightist thought can be discussed with impunity:

A new study by researchers at Emory University, Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of Michigan suggests that the most effective anti-hate tactic may be what amounts to a nuclear option: identifying and shutting down the spaces where hateful speech occurs, rather than targeting bad actors individually or in groups.

…Some users who had posted offensive material on the forums that were shut down stopped using Reddit entirely. Of those who continued to use the site, many migrated to other forums, but they did not bring significant amounts of toxic speech with them, and the forums they moved to did not become more hateful as a result of their presence. Over all, the users who stayed on Reddit after the bans took effect decreased their use of hate speech by more than 80 percent.

…“They didn’t ban people,” he said. “They didn’t ban words. They banned the spaces where those words were likely to be written down.”

We have heard this one before. It is the Left’s “no platform” agenda from the 1970s and 1980s, when Antifa protested any venue that allowed a forum for Right-of-center bands, figuring that if people heard Right-wing ideas, they would be seduced and infected and come over to the dark side. In their view, it is like ideological inter-racial porn: people will just be unable to stop themselves from being attracted to it.

This decision by the Left is fortunate, in that by driving Right-wingers from mainstream platforms, the Left is forcing the creation of an alternate internet. At first this will be run through darknets and other invisible means, but eventually, alternate infrastructure and free speech hosting will emerge, which when put together, will be like an internet invisible to normal people, but easily turned on when someone wants to be drawn to the dark side.

Even better, the Left has enforced the idea that Right and Left cannot coexist because we want different societies. In the Leftist world, Right-wing ideas are so taboo that they cannot be tolerated at all, and in the Right-wing world, Leftist ideas are so laughably out of touch and irrelevant that there is no point bothering to keep them around.

In this way, the online war is bound to further the ideological split among Americans and Europeans. The Left wants equality, the Right wants quality. There can be no middle ground, and as we separate online, we prepare to separate in real life.

RIP USA

Tuesday, August 8th, 2017

Pat Buchanan writes about the inevitability of an American breakup:

As President Donald Trump flew off for August at his Jersey club, there came word that Special Counsel Robert Mueller III had impaneled a grand jury and subpoenas were going out to Trump family and campaign associates.

The jurors will be drawn from a pool of citizens in a city Hillary Clinton swept with 91 percent of the vote. Trump got 4 percent.

Whatever indictments Mueller wants, Mueller gets.

In other words, the Left has finalized its attack: they seek to remove Donald Trump through whatever means they can, none of which will be really legal but with a lapdog media, who will know? Instead this will be another shadowy incident where the people in power destroyed anything which came to change their comfortable parasitic relationship.

As Buchanan points out, democracy always ends this way. People in groups make terrible decisions, and so even if we did not take The Bell Curve at face value and realize that most people will always vote foolishly because they lack the biological ability to do the thinking necessary to make decisions about complex issues, we recognize that democracy will inevitably self-destruct.

Whatever is popular wins, and among humans, what is popular is that which is individualistic. We are not yeast; we are individuals. However, individualism occurs when the individual prioritizes himself over the order and hierarchy existing in society, and by replacing that, creates a mob. This mob can then be manipulated, which makes those who are born manipulators into its new rulers.

On this blog, we talk quite a bit about balkanization, or what happens when the “diverse” society separates into different groups by ethnicity, race, caste, religion and political alignment. Like Rome, we will not be shattered so much as fail to hold together.

As Will Durant, the writer of the excellent The Story of Philosophy, reminds us, “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” We destroy ourselves by being unable to cooperate toward a purpose, and so our only option is control or manipulate a herd, which produces corrupt leaders.

We The People are the problem because we agreed to all of this and, in the name of “everyone getting along” and “compromise,” we sacrifice any remaining purpose to the system itself. Our individual failings, including hubris or individualism, and our herd behaviors make us into an unruly mob, and that requires cynical manipulators to keep it in line, and not surprisingly, they are sociopathic.

And so the USA passes into oblivion. What do “Americans” have in common? Not much, and the most basic schism will be politics because the Left and Right want entirely different versions of the world. The Right wants social order, and the Left wants the individual to be King, which always results in an unruly mob, corrupt leaders and eventually, third world conditions.

When the manipulators, who by their nature as sociopaths are destroyers, win, it will signal the end of faith in democracy, Buchanan says:

The reaction will be one of bitterness, cynicism, despair, a sense that the fix is in, that no matter what we do, they will not let us win. If Trump is brought down, American democracy will take a pasting. It will be seen as a fraud. And the backlash will poison our politics to where only an attack from abroad, like 9/11, will reunite us.

However, as Samuel Huntington predicted, faith in democracy has already died, and people are just waiting to see if they can fix the problem without having to engage in conflict.

If Trump is prosecuted, much less brought down, the conditions for Civil War 2.0 will detonate. Our first Civil War never solved the fundamental conflict in America, which is those who want to live sanely versus those who want to make popularity rule us because that gives them the ability to live without standards, morals, culture or rules.

The North, in comparison to the South, and this is a relative measurement so the amount of difference is more important than how we see it from the present, was a Soviet empire of death. Cities filled with tenements, where people worked in mindless repetitive jobs, and the most important thing was to be accepting of equality, which back then meant ethnic equality with the Irish, Italians, Greeks, Jews and Poles.

The South exhibited the conditions of classic Indo-European culture: a social order with aristocracy and moral standards, a manor-based lifestyle where the best in society ruled officially or not, a strong code of honor and sense of purpose that allowed cooperation by the unequal. This offended the North, where everyone wanted to be “equal” more than they wanted to be good, right or realistic.

Since that time, we have replicated our classic civilization the best we could by fleeing to the suburbs and shutting out the horde. Then in the 1960s, that came under attack as the new Leftist popular wave supplanted the old Anglo-Saxon elite. The horde discovered that it could use “civil rights” to bash down any enclave and that no one would object for fear of being called racist.

That uneasy truce held while we had a common enemy in the Soviets, and while the fear of being too obviously Soviet kept the Left in check, but that condition no longer exists. As a result, the city people are coming for the suburbs just as they did in 1861. Under Clinton, Bush and Obama, they fundamentally changed America to be like a third-world country. Now they are going in for the kill.

As Buchanan asks, the question is, “What next?” One guess is that the dividing line will occur when people in service of government stop enforcing the decrees of government, allowing localities to balkanize and start keeping their wealth away from municipal, state and federal government coffers.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan revitalized America by stopping the Leftist surge that was destroying it from within. Donald Trump wanted to do the same, and for his troubles he has a gang styled after organized crime that wants to remove him so it can put its candidates back into power through the democratic force of the 53% of America who are tax-takers not tax-makers.

This places us at a crossroads where things are awfully bad. The Right wants to break away, but is unwilling to break away from structures like democracy and equality which have been shown to grow a bumper crop of neurotic, destructive Leftists in any nation. Their tendency is to hunker down, shout “work hard, pray hard” at Fox News on their screens, and then do nothing. But doing nothing is no longer an option.

75% Of White Americans Discuss Important Matters With 100% White Friend Group

Thursday, August 3rd, 2017

According to a new survey, when it comes to serious matters, three-quarters of white Americans discuss those matters with a friend group that is 100% white. As the survey relates:

Among white Americans, 91% of people comprising their social networks are also white, while five percent are identified as some other race. Among black Americans, 83% of people in their social networks are composed of people who are also black, while eight percent are white and six percent are some other race. Among Hispanic Americans, approximately two-thirds (64%) of the people who comprise their core social networks are also Hispanic, while nearly 1-in-5 (19%) are white and nine percent are some other race.

…Fully three-quarters (75%) of white Americans report that the network of people with whom they discuss important matters is entirely white, with no minority presence, while 15% report having a more racially mixed social network. Approximately two-thirds (65%) of black Americans report having a core social network that is composed entirely of people who are also black, while nearly one-quarter (23%) say their network includes a mix of people from other racial and ethnic backgrounds. Less than half (46%) of Hispanics report that their social network includes only other people who also identify as Hispanic, while more than one-third (34%) report having a mixed social network. Notably, nearly one-in-ten (9%) Hispanics report having an all-white core social network.

This is what Balkanization looks like: each group retreats into its own, because any other group might be offended or working against them. As this continues, expect less important social groups to follow this pattern as well, leading to all ethnic groups segregating from one another.

Modernity Has Ended, And The Battle For What Comes Next Has Begun

Wednesday, July 19th, 2017

Reading about the ancient empires — Inca, Maya, Angkor Wat, Minoans, Cahokia, Aztec — always fills me with a sense of sadness. Who were these intensely vital people, so committed to living the heck out of life, and why are they not still with us? It is a putrescent shadow of mortality: nothing gold can stay, it seems, and death takes all good things.

That might swell your heart with lightless emptiness. To think that the good is doomed, and that life is merely a mechanical process by which the coarser always wins out over the finer, is to depress yourself thoroughly. Another way to view it is that life contains certain traps or pitfalls which are invisible to our minds, and until we discover their mechanism, they will keep dooming us.

We are now in the midst of one of those periods. Against the advice of the ancients, our society took an individualistic path, which is where people care more about their personal power than doing what is right in order to maintain the order of tribe, civilization, nature and the gods. Abstract order is invisible to all but a few, and the perpetually angry and voracious mob wants to hearing nothing of it!

Because we accepted a bad decision as fact, and have since that time been corralled by that assumption into its inexorable endgame of a third-world style civilization ruled by corrupt politicians, postwar Western Civilization has ended. No one credible has faith in “the system” anymore; we know that we made a fatal choice, and now our only thought is to escape.

This means that we are no longer fighting to save democracy, the West, America, Europe, or even our retirement funds. We are fighting to escape the mental conditioning toward doom — that is the biggest fight — and then to escape from or take control of the dying society so that we can enact The Purge on its failed parts, and nurture The Remnant of good people back to health in a new civilization.

But what will this new struggle look like? Mencius Moldbug gives us the basic topography of this question:

There are two basic ways of executing this divorce. We’ll call one a soft reset and the other a hard reset. Basically, a hard reset works and a soft reset doesn’t. However, a soft reset is more attractive in many ways, and we need to work through it just to see why it can’t work.

In a soft reset, we leave the current structure of government the same, except that we apply the 20th-century First Amendment to all forms of instruction, theistic or “secular.” In other words, our policy is separation of education and state. In a free country, the government should not be programming its citizens. It should not care at all what people think. It only needs to care what they do. The issue has nothing to do with theism. It is a basic matter of personal freedom.

…In a hard reset, all organizations dedicated to forming public opinion, making or implementing public policy, or working in the public interest, are nationalized. This includes not only the press and the universities, but also the foundations, NGOs, and other nonprofits. It is a bit rich, after all, for any of these outfits to appeal to the sanctity of property rights. They believe in the sanctity of property rights about as much as they believe in the goddess Kali.

He essentially advocates two forms of libertarianism: one which relies on rule of law (soft reset) and one which converts all law into civil law (hard reset) by destroying current organizational culture — the Establishment and “deep state” — and replacing it with people who admit their self-interest and in return, obligate themselves to deliver a service.

This fits within one of the more pertinent criticisms of Moldbug, namely that he is not really an innovator so much as a marketer:

Anyway, there are two possible explanations for the end of Moldbugism. One is that his arguments were not original, just stated in a new way. His assertion that Progressivism has its roots in Puritanism, for example, is not new. I was making that point 25 years ago in Usenet debates and I know I’m not the first guy to notice it. His criticisms of democracy have been around since the Enlightenment. Old ideas restated in modern terms eventually just fade into the tapestry of the intellectual movement that spawned them.

The other possibility is that the people attracted to Moldbug’s ideas, including Moldbug, came from the Left ideologically. Young people raised on Progressivism were attracted by the subversiveness of these old ideas. They moved right into Left-libertarianism, then Right-libertarianism and then eventually dissident politics of various flavors. Put another way, the Dark Enlightenment guys were merely going through a phase as they first experienced the outlawed ideas from the outlawed past. Now, they are onto other things.

For those of us who remember the Old Internet, Moldbug represents the type of writer like Pietro Scaruffi or Justin Hall who essentially brought a new style of writing and scholarship to the nerdly internet. They had read broadly in the humanities, and so could discuss concepts that were somewhat alien to the mostly-techie audience of the internet of pre-iPhone era.

His core idea, couched in an imitation of nineteenth century writing that befits his Victorian fascination, is that government acts like a corporation, and markets are the only “objective” way to measure success or failure thus “rightness,” so it makes sense to hire a government instead of the other way around. Citizens would subscribe to a government service and in exchange, receive smaller government.

His “soft reset” describes what the Alt Lite desires, which is equality with freedom of association and speech. These are tempting ideas until one realizes that civilizations have structures, and someone must decide what that is, and government action or inaction will damage or promote such structures. There is no escape from the question of what kind of civilization we want to have.

Even more, as the past two decades show us, pluralism or the idea that people can have their own cultures within a larger culture, does not work. Each culture seeks to dominate because otherwise, it is under attack from competing visions of reality, and people are mostly foolish and will wander off to whatever seems cool that week. With pluralism, no one gets culture, values or civilization.

Most people like the Alt Lite/Libertarian vision because if asked, in a utilitarian sense, most people think they want anarchy with grocery stores. Then they realize that this means that the most vicious and brutal will dominate them, and they go running to government and make it totalitarian to banish their fear of loss in a Darwinian conflict. This is the history of democracy and how it leads to tyranny.

As a writer who came before Moldbug, and encountered these issues before, libertarianism was dead to me as a concept from an early age. Socialism was even more dead, which is why people like me support capitalism, but do not believe it to be a substitute for culture or leadership. Then again, people like me are Edwardians, not Victorians, at heart.

But if you take that nascent Anarcho-Capitalism viewpoint, merge it with nationalism, and add some Anarcho-Monarchism, you have a relatively complete idea: a society ruled by culture, with a caste hierarchy of leadership, in which people are able to market their skills and products within a range appropriate to their caste. This is a complete idea. Moldbug and Rothbard offer nothing that can compete.

However, in praise of Moldbug, what he did was something every computer geek since the dawn of time knows well: he made a compendium of code fragments, a type of ur-stylesheet from which people could draw ideas to use in argument. In that, he was not a mere marketer, but a marketer who defined the frame of the market. This was no small achievement, in that it allowed former Leftists to participate in the Right.

That is a nice way of saying that the answer to civilization decline is not found in Moldbug, although he brings up the word that most of us should be using: restorationist. This means one who wants to bring back civilization after it has failed:

If I had to choose one word and stick with it, I’d pick “restorationist.” If I have to concede one pejorative which fair writers can fairly apply, I’ll go with “reactionary.” I’ll even answer to any compound of the latter – “neoreactionary,” “postreactionary,” “ultrareactionary,” etc.

The term formerly referred to those who wanted restoration of the monarchy, which also applies, since without democracy, our only options are military junta or oligarchy, that is, if we refuse to see the wisdom of monarchism.

However, one cannot restore civilization from within modernity, which is the political form of individualism. Nor can one resurrect virtue from an outside-in or materialist method. Not only that, there is no method which works except, as Michel Houellebecq reminds us, the resurrection of our desire to be good and thus, to have a functional civilization. Without that, there is nothing!

For this reason, many think that our future will be of the “patchwork” that Moldbug envisions, but a more organic type, and here they are more likely right, if we follow the hard reset path. This “balkanized” future involves a restoration of tribalism, where each group separates to its own geographical communities, based not just on race but ethnic group, caste, religion and most likely politics.

The foremost writer on balkanization, Billy Roper, expresses an idea found in Old White Nationalism, namely that nothing will change until the system crashes and dissolves. He gives us a vital insight in his description of the transition to this state:

The crisis trigger scenario which will cause massive riots, ethnic conflict, and systemic collapse is inevitable, now. In ninety days’ time, at noon, the power grid will go down and not return. The United States will begin Civil War II and balkanization. Millions of people will die of starvation, disease, and violence. Millions more will become refugees from ethnic cleansing. Whites will have a shot at an ethnostate, but there will be a chaotic period of struggle which could last years, in the meantime.

The thing to remember about modernity is that it is a bully. Hiding behind rules, it hits people where they are weak to provoke them, and then cries victim when attacked. This is why all Communists seem to point to their stays in jail as proof of having been “oppressed” when usually they were engaged in collusion toward crimes and terrorist activity. It is also why modernity defends perpetrators as much as actual victims.

Bullies tend to make their victims furious, and most people who have finally awakened to the fact that the modern West is falling just like Tenochtitlan are now enraged. They are mad that they were deceived, which requires the partial participation of the person misled, and mad that while they were trying to have normal lives, the herd has been working fanatically and pathologically to destroy everything that it can.

Since the bullying has made people enraged, the vision of blood, fire and death that Roper writes of seems quite pleasing. We all want The Purge on some level, and would be glad to see all of those who are guilty die in writhing pain. But looking at the patterns of history, we see that this vision is not quite likely as stated.

For starters, we have abundant data about how civilizations collapse because we are surrounded by their remnants. In each case, caste revolt did them in, with lower castes overthrowing the upper and then proving unfit to rule as the society plunged into chaos. But that chaos was not of the Hollywood apocalypse variety, but more like modern-day Brazil: a slow descent into crime, corruption, stupidity and filth.

Some always survive those. If you want to look at patchwork in action, see southern Brazil. There, the remnants of German communities — many now hybridized with native Brazilians or Spanish imports — stay in isolation and spend most of their time earning money to pay for the taxes that keep the rest of the country afloat.

There is also the problem that the Confederate States of America encountered, which is that if you set up a patchwork, and there is a larger group nearby, they will invade you and take your stuff. In the age of international travel, this could be China, either buying up or outright invading America. Disunited, self-interesting tribes will not unite in time to repel an invasion, recapitulating the experience of the Amerind tribes who could have resisted European conquest but failed to do so.

Another problem occurs with genetic assimilation. Small groups in the country seem fine for awhile until a girl or boy goes into the city and finds a new partner, or comes back with a half-and-half baby. Over the generations, trace admixture infiltrates the group, much as it did with the remnants of Greece and Rome. The original tribe is genocided by outbreeding, which is inevitable because young people select partners from those that are around them, and are oblivious to the threat of someone who is one-eighth something else.

Already we are seeing signs of the slow decay which will lead to division and eventually, genetic absorption of our people by the far more numerous Other:

An extraordinary new Pentagon study has concluded that the US-backed international order established after World War 2 is “fraying” and may even be “collapsing”, leading the United States to lose its position of “primacy” in world affairs.

…Observing that US officials “naturally feel an obligation to preserve the US global position within a favorable international order,” the report concludes that this “rules-based global order that the United States built and sustained for 7 decades is under enormous stress.”

…The document is particularly candid in setting out why the US sees these countries as threats — not so much because of tangible military or security issues, but mainly because their pursuit of their own legitimate national interests is, in itself, seen as undermining American dominance.

In other words, “rule-based” systems have failed, and clash of civilizations style tribalism and self-interest are rising. Although this report was written about lands outside of American borders, there is no reason to think it does not apply within the US as well, which means a de facto ethnic segregation with the most numerous group (Asians, a root race which includes Amerinds and Hispanics) absorbing the others.

That leaves us with an uncomfortable realization: the transition to tiny libertarian states is not going to work, and the balkanization that occurs will happen slowly, resulting in gradual biological assimilation. This leaves us with one option, which the realist will embrace: we either master our out-of-control countries and send away the Other and those who would thwart us, or we die out.

Unfortunately, this requires a greater plan than simply “nationalism.” Hunter Wallace shows us what form such a plan would have to take:

We do need to do a better job though of articulating our greater overarching vision of a new social order to replace the one that is failing. We have to vanquish this beast though before political change will become possible.

This is the challenge before us. Challenges of this nature are more fun than most will admit because they are hard problems which reward bold solutions and clear thinking. But no matter how we slice it, the old order is dead and we are entering uncharted territory, which means that we will be fighting for our lives — and the ability to restore our civilization.

About The Gay Mafia

Thursday, June 29th, 2017

When times go degenerate, many vital things are forgotten. For us, one of the most vital is the fact that every identifiable group acts in self-interest, such as “the gay mafia,” where sexual preference trumps even national origin:

That’s what Ovitz believes. It is one of the driving factors in his decision to talk about what happened, a burning need to name names, to throw light on the shadowy Hollywood cabal he believes did him in. He calls it the Gay Mafia, though several of its “members” aren’t gay, and much of what he says about these men is nasty and unprintable. In Ovitz’s eyes the cabal’s demagogic leader, its merciless Macbeth, is Geffen, laying waste to all Ovitz held dear, spreading rumors about his family, at the same time he was poisoning the business deals that would have saved AMG—all things Geffen denies. Geffen’s partners in crime, Ovitz alleges, include Ovitz’s onetime protégés at the Creative Artists Agency, Bryan Lourd, Kevin Huvane, and Richard Lovett—powerful Gonerils determined to kill the father figure who gave them life.

…All the gay people get together, like the Jewish people get together. I mean, yeah, we meet on Thursday. I’m offended. That’s just so offensive. You know, all the fags, they get together and they pick a victim: Let’s go get that one! It’s remarkable that, at this point in history, the most powerful man in Hollywood, he’s been brought down by a gay cabal! I’ve never heard anything like it in my life!”

A naturalist does not find this unusual: every organism needs a group to survive, so chooses one based on its most obvious trait. Gays stand out in any group, so they cross group lines and united on gayness, not national origin or religion. It is this type of special interest group secession that is driving the balkanization of the US/EU.

No Place Nowhere

Thursday, June 29th, 2017

Where is home?

This simple question requires many answers: home may be a house, in a town or city, within a nation, as part of a civilization, during a certain time. All of those support structures are required before an individual can make a house into a “home,” a process too complex and nuanced to be trusted to men.

Civilization is important to humans because we depend on group collaboration to have more than the utter basics of life. And yet, we study it very little, in part because like most really big questions in life, it scares us into silence.

On the Right, we fight this battle to understand civilization through an issue that is currently shaping the discourse of the future. This battle is the conflict between nationalism, racialism and patriotism. These are easily understood:

  • Nationalism. Loyalty to tribe or ethnicity, and recognize that genetics produces culture and that produces political and social opinions, so keeping the tribe unadulterated is essential.
  • Racialism. This is like nationalism, but replaces “the tribe or ethnicity” with “the race.” At this point, one is defending the interests of one of the four root races, which since it is distant from origins becomes more like ideology.
  • Patriotism. Loyalty to the state, the flag, and the political interests of the nation-state — a country made of political and economic, not racial or ethnic, boundaries — with a focus on laws and ideology.

At this point, those on the Right are learned to disregard patriotism. Mainstream conservatives essentially lulled themselves into a compliant stupor by focusing more on the government than the organic nation which was responsible for its success. Now that this group is under attack, many more are looking more seriously at the idea that genetics, not laws or finances, are the root of our future.

Many know something has gone wrong and that their people are under attack, but have no idea how to define who their people are because they no longer share a culture or customs, so they default to race. This is a good start, but it ends up removing focus on the nation, or the organic group created together from the same root, such as “Germans.”

As a result, we are seeing the next wave of thinking appear: a focus on specific groups instead of whole races. For example, American Nativists — those who think America should be Western European — have been separating not just from other races, but from Southern and Eastern Europeans, causing clusters in the New World which resemble the geography of the old.

In addition, other racial and ethnic groups are realizing that they, too, need a home. Until they live in a society which is created by them for people like them, with their rules and standards, protecting their values and culture, they are never truly at home. While this is more existential than practical, it touches on some of the most vital concerns that people have, even more than wealth or safety.

The result is that balkanization of the USA and EU will likely involve repatriation more than anything else. Liberal democracy is dying, and with it will go the social welfare programs. At that point, there is nothing for other groups here but conflict, and their homelands — which may be less affluent — will become more appealing.

People do not understand DNA. They treat it like an Excel spreadsheet, where on each line one gene corresponds to many traits. It is more like computer code, where each bit describes how to build a human being with proteins, which act both as building materials and instigators of the chemical reactions that change them. When you hear about how some group is 99% or 97% similar to another, stop and think: would you let someone insert enough code to be 1% of your operating system, into your computer, especially if it — for example — controlled your heart monitor in a hospital? You would be insane to do so; the differences between us seem small, but are vaster than anyone can count.

For this reason, our minds turn toward the tangible and immediately discernible. It is a good thing to be from a tribe that does not look like any others, tied to a specific place, in a society made by your people for your people with an eye toward existing for all eternity. This is the only way to have a home.

Modernity failed Europeans in this way. Our lands were taken over by an ideology, egalitarianism, that made them not dedicated to us and the organic living thing called culture and civilization to which we belong, but instead directed them toward that ideology. This created a new priesthood of ideologues who, being concerned only with that ideology, quickly destroyed our sense of well-being by making society into a mechanistic, neurotic, perverse, greedy/selfish, paranoid and pathological mess. Technology is not modernity; “me first” is modernity, and it always leads to chaos and misery.

This is why Europeans stopped reproducing. We do not have a home, no place for ourselves, and no somewhere where we really belong from now until the end of time. We are adrift, surrounded by bad options and cruel manipulators, but our fellow citizens are so stupid that they keep selecting these people and then patting themselves on the back for having done so! Perhaps is true that as Alfred Einstein reputedly said, “There are only two infinite things, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former.”

Our stupidity has killed us. Our best, looking at this mess, checked out long ago and went to live lonely childless lives on meditative mountaintops or whatever equivalent they could find. Our sane and brilliant people abandoned technology, art and literature to glorified baristas who do not know how to use it without destroying good things. The talented fled leadership and official positions.

As it all spirals down into dust, we should ask ourselves whether we are ready to admit that life is made mostly of mystery, and what we can do best is to create a home for ourselves, and send other groups off to do the same, because this order is — existentially, spiritually, morally, mentally — best for everyone, and will result in a return of human thriving.

How To Live With Diversity

Thursday, June 8th, 2017

Diversity sucks and is dangerous. It is less dangerous when a community actively encourages its members to take full advantage of their rights as American Citizens to own firearms. She points out that nobody cares about the safety of women and children in a diverse, Anarcho-Tyranny such as the Modern Amerikan City. This is excellent self-reliance. I feel greater confidence that I won’t get stuck taking care of someone who handles their own business.

Ownership of a weapon is a responsibility. It is a step towards adulthood rather than the permanent childhood as a warden of the state. It is also empowering. A 6’2″ 225Lb aggressive male would typically have their way with any woman he chose to slap around and assault. That stops when the woman is properly trained in the use of a handgun and points it directly at his center of mass. At that point in the proceeding, the bigger the man is, the more he is in mortal danger. It isn’t hard to drill lead into the center of a really large mass. It is hard to get into a fist-fight with one. There was some old joke in the American West that all men were created equal, but only a Colt .45 kept it that way.

Compare and contrast the females in the YouTube Video above who purchase firearms, join a gun club and go train together at the range to the disarmed London Cops facing the Islamo-Fascists that Sadiq Khan relies on for his continued electoral majorities as Mayor. The London Police don’t believe they should have to employ deadly force in a free society. The attitude is summed up below.

“In a free and democratic society, there is going to be a balance between democracy, freedom and openness, and a police state — and none of us want to live in a police state,” said Brian Dillon, former head of the Met’s firearms command who now runs the counterterrorism consultancy Rubicon Resilience. “Therefore at some point some attacks are regrettably going to hit home, that’s inevitable,” he added. “Not everything can be stopped.”

When a population is disarmed and denied access to firearms, the fightback against soulless killers gets harder. The killers won’t obey laws. If they are willing to kill you, they won’t get too picky as to whether their methods. Once you’ve committed a capital offense, the additional charges no longer matter. They aren’t going to wake you back up and give you a shot in the other arm.

There are three reasons why someone would logically understand they will get the max* for killing another person and do it anyway.

1) They don’t believe they will get caught, so they are brazen. Chicago, Illinois is an example of this. If someone has no moral qualms about dropping and drilling someone, and they assume there is no way they’ll get caught; then they assume murder is de facto legal and if they get the itch they scratch it.

CHICAGO — In 2012, the body count — 506 murders — marked Chicago as America’s murder capital. But here’s another grim statistic: Chicago police solved just 129 of those killings last year, a 25 percent clearance rate — the lowest in 21 years.

2) They believe so strongly that they should kill you that having you die is worth any penalty they eat as a result of their actions. The Fort Hood Shooter, Malik Nidal Hassan, is an example of this sort of killer. When the assumption that the gas chamber awaits no longer discourages a potential killer, you are your only reliable defense against this person’s diabolical intentions.

Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who opened fire on dozens of soldiers at Fort Hood., Tex., was found guilty Friday of murdering 13 people, taking him one step closer to becoming the first active-duty soldier to be executed in more than 50 years. Hasan, who acted as his own attorney but demonstrated little interest in mounting a defense, was convicted on 13 charges of premeditated murder and 32 of attempted murder by a panel of senior officers.

3) They believe that you lack the conviction to defend yourself or punish them. This is what happens when large groups of people have their negative actions excused because of perceived victimhood. The “victims” then no longer consider your death a crime. It is considered condign punishment. They have a right to shoot you for slavery, poverty, racism, classism, capitalism, turning them down for a date 12 years ago, etc… Once you give a knave a moral justification for their behavior, they no longer believe they are the “The Bad Guy.” Once they have a chat with the high-powered lawyer and Officer Friendly, everyone will agree you should have been stabbed, shot or robbed.

In societies afflicted with cultural diversity featuring supercharged identity politics, all three of these individuals will be amongst you. While judicious stereotyping can help you avoid a large number of the orcs, it will be like Pokemon. You can’t catch them all. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not all terrorists are Muslim. Not all killers are dope-dealers, not all dope-dealers are killers. And we can go on all day. Diversity will make it impossible for you to identify every threat and avoid them. You have to be ready when the threat manifests and attacks you or those that you love. It isn’t to trifle that Simone’s video quotes JRR Tolkien.

I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.

Before belittling the gun owner, or arguing they shouldn’t enjoy that right, ask yourself an important question. How much do you love the ones you are responsible for defending? It may be the gun owner, not the one who ridicules his or her ignorance, that is the superior and more mature human being. Diversity is not our strength. A .45 that you know how to use will always be yours.


* — The max in most places in the US is typically a ticket on the night train to The Big Adios. In Europe your mileage may vary.

Recommended Reading