Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘barack obama’

« Older Entries

A Cancer Cell Just Has To Cancer

Thursday, October 19th, 2017

If Colin Kaepernick really still wanted a job as an NFL Quarterback, I’d never be able to even milk a sportsball post out of this. He’d bank his half-a-mil, keep the clipboard warm and dry and decide for himself whether he showered before or after the game. He’d have a really nice sportsball jersey to wear out to the club. But Kaepernick can’t just shut up and get himself paid.

Once somebody decides they are too personally important to abide by culture or convention, they can’t help but being destructive. A termite has to eat the foundation, a cancer cell has just gotta cancer. Kaepernick is just that guy. He is engineered to sabotage any system he is forced to be a part of. He thinks fate can fvck off and kismet can kiss his uniquely precious ass.

Former Baltimore Ravens stalwart defender Ray Lewis, had his own set of issues with the Po-Lease. So much so that he felt sorry for Colin and wanted to get him back in the league with his old club and make things work out happily ever after. But Team Kaepernick, the only squad Colin ever really seriously wanted to quarterback, had other ideas. Ray Lewis explains his utter frustration with trying to fix the stupid maliciousness that is Kaepernick.

Ray Lewis: “When me and Steve Bisciotti were talking, this is what we were talking about, Judy. We were talking about giving this kid an opportunity to get back in the National Football League. Look, this is what I wanted to share with people. I have been fighting for this kid behind the table like nobody has … I’ve never been against Colin Kaepernick. But I am against the way he’s done it. Then, his girl [Colin Kaepernick’s girlfriend] goes out and put out this racist gesture and doesn’t know we are in the back office about to try to get this guy signed. Steve Bisciotti has said it himself, ‘How can you crucify Ray Lewis when Ray Lewis is the one calling for Colin Kaepernick?'” …

And the self-sabotage continues. Kaepernick could be in Wisconsin angling to start for one of the oldest and most storied franchises in professional football, The Green Bay Packers. Kaepernick has filed a grievance against every team in the league for colluding against him to keep his magnificent talent off the field. It’s time to gently explain to QBSJW how that Che Guvera T-Shirt he wears around exemplifies capitalism. You see, Che’s jersey still sells, while Colin’s gets burned in the grill for YouTube hits. You see, Che cultists, Jim Morrison and other commercially successful Lefty/SJW types figured out who their customers were and made a point out of protecting the brand and franchise.

Kaepernick? He’s just a termite. He burns down anything he gets invited to a be a part of. It could be because as an adopted, illegitimate child of miscegenation, he never truly can be a part of anything. Perhaps that would describe our most recent former president as well. And if such is truly the case, you wonder at the lack of wisdom that went into making ether one of them at all.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Watching History Shift on Race, Nationalism

Wednesday, September 27th, 2017

Barack Obama famously referred to people on the Right as being “on the wrong side of history,” but that only makes sense if you believe that history is a process that starts at point A (cavemen) and runs straight to point B (world Leftism). In reality, history is like the stars: moving in cycles within cycles.

As a result, we see people discover the same truths, time and again, then abandon them and face the same type of failure. This is why history is a record of failed civilizations, and they all went out the same way: caste warfare, or those of lower natural ability overthrowing those of higher natural ability.

Leftism — a philosophy of egalitarianism — has its roots in a type of quasi-civilized caste revolt that attempts to take power by appealing to the fears of humankind. We fear being inferior, not being accepted, or being victims of those who are naturally stronger, smarter, healthier, better-looking or wiser than us, so we unite to declare that reality is not what it is so that these people no longer prevail.

That in turn, as anyone who is mentally alert can anticipate, leads to domination by the incompetent. The rest oppress the best, so that the best do not oppress the rest, but unlike that latter condition, putting the rest in charge leads to lower levels of competence, and soon civilization collapses. On a historical scale, that takes a few centuries, but it happens every time.

As this revolution builds, its cornerstone issue becomes pathological denial of the differences between people in ability and character. If people are actually different, we realize, it does not make sense to exclude our natural elites from power. But if we can insist that all people are the same, and some have specific “talents” but none are more generally talented at thought and leadership than others, then we can justify replacing those natural elites with mob rule so that all of us feel safe to be mediocre or even outright bad. The herd punishes deviation more than it is concerned about those who are merely parasitic.

Part of that denial of differences between people takes the form of denying the differences between races and ethnic groups. Examples of races might be Caucasian and Asian; for ethnic groups, consider the difference between Irish and Germans. Because multiculturalism means the destruction of original ethnic group in a nation, it is controversial.

Suppression of this controversy drove the Left to global victory in the years following WW2. They established the principle that, in order to have egalitarianism, we must have racial and ethnic egalitarianism, or diversity, multiculturalism and internationalism; those three terms mean the same thing, which signifies racial erasure of European populations.

However, once the Left gained power, things went badly as they usually do, from the fall of Athens to the Napoleonic crusades after the French Revolution or even the collapse of the Soviet Union. Egalitarianism abolishes the rule of the competent, and when it gets enough power, it turns into idiocracy. The backlash has begun, first with Brexit, then Trump, and now, Germany:

German chancellor Angela Merkel has paid a steep price for her controversial 2015 decision to let in millions of people fleeing Middle Eastern and African countries.

Merkel’s party, the Christian Democratic Union, came in first in Sunday’s elections, but its 33 percent haul was its worst result since the party’s founding in 1945, at the end of WWII.

…Similarly, many Germans believed that the “grand coalition” of Merkel’s Christian Democrats and the left-wing Social Democrats had suffocated political debate in Germany, closing out real discussion over the migrant problem, crime, bailouts of countries hurt by the faltering euro, and the loss of German sovereignty.

…After the votes were in, Left-party leader Katja Kipping mourned that “the progressive Left has fallen below 40 percent of the vote” for the first time in any modern German election.

What is called “populism” means simply opposition to the globalist Leftist elites who have made themselves powerful by preaching what the crowd wants to hear, which is that we do not need to strive to be good, but are all “equal,” and therefore there is no difference in quality between people and so everyone is fine just the way they are.

This amounts to saying that Darwin was wrong, and that we do not need to adapt to life, but life needs to adapt to us. With our internal combustion engines, computers and massive overpopulation, it seems like humanity has won over life. But we cannot beat the life within, which is a mathematical organization that exists in all human populations, and it requires that we either have the competent rule us, or elect whoever the crowd favors and end up with a Reich of incompetence.

Humanity has an inbuilt flaw and it is hubris, or our tendency to be individualistic, or think of ourselves as existing outside of the natural hierarchy of human quality, the social order and its standards, and even any kind of spiritual or moral framework to reality. We wanna do what we wanna do, and we want society to foot at least some of the bill.

The root of hubris is fear. We are afraid to admit that we are small, and subject to the whims of the universe, and if there are challenges or standards, we can fail, and lose social status and the esteem of others in consequence. Our fear of failing to adapt rules us, so we gang up and form a clique that is dedicated to denying the need to adapt, like a cult or mob rule.

This clique is willing to destroy society and even humanity in order to have safety from its fear. When it finds a powerful tool, like opposition to “racism,” it quickly converts it into a weapon for forcing people not to publicly state that there are qualitative differences between individuals, families, castes, sexes, religions, ethnic groups and races.

From this erroneous outlook comes inversion, or a situation where all things affirmed in public to be truths are lies because all things that are actually true are taboo, requiring us to invent ersatz inferior substitutes, sort of like how fast food is not real food and modern art is not real art. Even worse, this inversion leads to multiculturalism, which is ethnic replacement:

For the third straight Jewish year, the most popular baby names in Israel were Tamar and Muhammad.

…Some 166,450 babies were born during the year, down from 176,230 in the previous year, while 42,172 Israelis died during the same time period.

This, too, is caste revolt: the populations which could not make great civilizations emigrate to those civilizations, then set up shop and because simpler groups have more children, outbreed the original group in part thanks to the mechanisms of advanced civilizations which allow more infants to survive. That new group then out-votes the original occupants and replaces them.

If a third world group invades a first world nation, it stands to win by demographic prevalence because smarter groups have fewer children. Even if it merely gains a majority, it will then destroy the original group by interbreeding, absorbing the more evolved groups with whom it has common ancestors. The original group ceases to be.

This means that someday, there will be no Israeli Jews, only Arabic people with one Jewish grandparent. There will be no Germans, only African and Muslim people with one Jewish grandparent. In Texas, there will be no Western Europeans, only Mexicans (Siberian-descended indios and mestizos) with one Anglo grandparent. Diversity is genocide.

Donald Trump revealed that he is aware of this shift when he refused to condemn the Alt Right and pointed out that the Left had participated in the violence, which in fact Antifa, Black Bloc and other Leftist protesters had initiated:

I think especially in light of the advent of Antifa, if you look at what’s going on there. You have some pretty bad dudes on the other side also and essentially that’s what I said. Now because of what’s happened since then, with Antifa.

“When you look at really what’s happened since Charlottesville, a lot of people are saying and people have actually written, ‘Gee, Trump may have a point.’ I said there’s some very bad people on the other side also.

He is not merely playing partisan there. Since Samuel Huntington wrote “The Clash of Civilizations,” it has become clear that Leftism had reached the peak of its arc in the 1990s, and since that time, has been in decline, although growing in popularity as a “long tail” of people who imitate socially-successful trends pick it up and use it as a means of drawing attention to themselves.

Part of that long tail trend was the election of Barack Obama, which signaled a complete shift to the Left on race, but then brought surprises:

It’s difficult to overstate the significance of the election of President Barack Obama.

As recently as the 1950s, polls showed that the majority of Americans said they would never vote for a black person for president, no matter how qualified.

…the election of a black person did not bring about the expected “hope and change.” In fact, the percentage of blacks living in poverty increased under Obama.

As it turned out, the problems of American blacks and other minorities were not related at all to racism, which had been abolished for all practical purposes by affirmative action during the 1970s. Instead, with Barack Obama we got a Soviet-style ideological regime, complete with relocating minorities to white suburbs, penalizing wrongthink, and other acts against the Western European majority that founded the nation.

If there was a “Berlin 1945 Moment” for Leftism, it was at its peak or shortly after, when it was revealed that Obama left America as an economic, cultural, social and military wasteland.

We are now heading toward a different view of race and ethnicity which might be broadly termed as “preservationism.” People want to remain what they are, and they realize that any admixture — even one drop — replaces them with a hybrid. A German with one Irish parent is no longer a German. A Nigerian with one Anglo parent is no longer a Nigerian. A Japanese person with one Mexican parent is no longer Japanese.

This rule of totality is becoming more common as majority groups ask why, if Leftism endorses identity politics, these majority groups cannot have the same. This leads to a re-validation of the exclusion of all others:

As Irish-Nigerian writer Emma Dabiri notes: “Whiteness is ‘pure’ and doesn’t extend to brown girls, even those who can trace their Irish ancestry back to the 10th century.” It was for that reason I once turned down my mother’s offer of Irish dancing lessons.

There are two parts to the above: first, the Irish do not feel than an Irish-Nigerian is Irish, and second, the Irish-Nigerian person does not feel as if she can support the Irish culture, mainly because she does not feel Irish.

In fact, all ethnic groups that want to survive adopt a policy of racial and ethnic survival, which means the exclusion of all other racial and ethnic groups:

“Helmuth Kopp remembered how, on the few occasions he saw him during the 1920’s and early 1930’s, his Jewish grandfather, Louis Kaulbars, hit him with a whip and called him goy. Although he had a Jewish mother, his grandfather did not consider him Jewish. One day his grandmother protested this treatment, telling her husband, “That’s our daughter Helen’s child!” The grandfather replied, “No that’s Wilhelm’s goy!” My soul was damaged, Kopp said in 1995. Mother died in 1925, he went to live with his Jewish aunt and uncle. He attended orthodox school, and had a belated bris. He entered the Wehrmacht in 1941.”

…Mischling Hanns Rehfeld told Riggs:

“I have been discriminated against in my life for three things I could do nothing about. First, my Jewish relatives discriminated against me because I had a Christian mother (Schickse). Secondly, the Germans discriminated against me because I had a Jewish father. And (after the war), when I worked in the foreign service for many years, people discriminated against me because I was a German (i.e., I must be a Nazi.).”

Every group wants to know that it has an unbroken line to the past, extending into the future, and that it controls its own destiny. The racial and ethnic unity is essential for that sense of “Us” which allows a group to work together, instead of becoming atomized and individually competitive, which also strips all meaning from work as it is merely in exchange for money, and not to further the health and strength of the nation.

As this becomes clear, the “racism narrative” is falling, as exemplified by the above citations from the article on Obama:

In 1992, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics examined the 75 most populous counties. Turns out the jury is less likely to convict a black defendant of a felony than a white defendant. The study found that “in 12 of the 14 types of crimes (felonies including murder, rape and other serious crimes) for which data was collected, the conviction rate for blacks is lower than that of whites.” Similarly, in 2013, the National Institute of Justice, the research and evaluation agency of the DOJ, published their study of whether the police, as a result of racial bias, stop blacks more than other drivers. The conclusion? Any racial disparity in traffic stops is due to “differences in offending” in addition to “differences in exposure to the police” and “differences in driving patterns.”

It turns out that the social justice agenda was never about helping minority groups, but about using perceived minority plights as a method of destroying the majority group, fully atomizing the population so that hubris, known by its modern name of “individualism,” could win out. People naturally seek to avoid dedicating themselves to activities beyond their immediate wants, but it is those activities that give life meaning, which is why people are seeking them out again.

In fact, with the shift away from the ideological assumption that all people are identical, and therefore share only material needs, we are seeing a broader shift toward the search for a life of meaning:

The first is what you might call The Four Kinds of Happiness. The lowest kind of happiness is material pleasure, having nice food and clothing and a nice house. Then there is achievement, the pleasure we get from earned and recognized success. Third, there is generativity, the pleasure we get from giving back to others. Finally, the highest kind of happiness is moral joy, the glowing satisfaction we get when we have surrendered ourselves to some noble cause or unconditional love.

The second model is Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs. In this conception, we start out trying to satisfy our physical needs, like hunger or thirst. Once those are satisfied we move up to safety needs, economic and physical security. Once those are satisfied we can move up to belonging and love. Then when those are satisfied we can move up to self-esteem. And when that is satisfied we can move up to the pinnacle of development, self-actualization, which is experiencing autonomy and living in a way that expresses our authentic self.

The big difference between these two schemes is that The Four Kinds of Happiness moves from the self-transcendence individual to the relational and finally to the transcendent and collective. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, on the other hand, moves from the collective to the relational and, at its peak, to the individual. In one the pinnacle of human existence is in quieting and transcending the self; in the other it is liberating and actualizing the self.

For too long we have lived without self-actualization because we have been avoiding the task of adaptation. Equality guaranteed this, and diversity finally provided the weapon that the egalitarians needed. But that made us miserable, not just from the Soviet-style malaise that settled over our economy, nor from the transformation of America, but the lack of purpose that stranded us in ourselves without an exit.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Politics | Comments Closed

Liberals Can’t Wish Away Nature

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

Affirmative Action is worse than officially sanctioned state-sponsored “racism.” It is also, corrupt, inefficient and stupid enough to fail the very people it was intended to save. It does as much for a single mother in a project somewhere as King Canute accomplished by commanding the tides.

And that actually seems to be the point if we assume the people in charge of this were cynical. Yet another indicator of how far LBJ‘s vision of greatness falls short involves how little Affirmative Action has done to effectively improve the educational outcomes of targeted minorities.

Even after decades of affirmative action, black and Hispanic students are more underrepresented at the nation’s top colleges and universities than they were 35 years ago, according to a New York Times analysis. The share of black freshmen at elite schools is virtually unchanged since 1980. Black students are just 6 percent of freshmen but 15 percent of college-age Americans, as the chart below shows.

This, according to The Left was not supposed to happen. Government could step in and make the family and the smaller community irrelevant. But lots of things happen that are not supposed to happen. One thing that I personally don’t think is supposed to happen is widely accepted illegitimate human breeding. But, nope, they don’t listen to cranky old JPW and put a sock on the cock unless the deliberately intend to breed. David French briefly uncucks and notes an interesting correlation between what The Carlos Slim Blog doesn’t want to see happen and what JPW would rather not have occur.

The cohort that’s most overrepresented in American colleges and universities, Asian Americans, also happens to have the lowest percentage of nonmarital births in the United States. In fact, the greater the percentage of nonmarital births, the worse the educational outcomes. Only 16.4 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander children are born into nonmarried households. For white, Hispanic, and black Americans the percentages are 29.2, 53, and 70.6, respectively.

This was also something that Managerial State Liberals never wanted to see happen. They were smart guys like Jonathan Gruber who could bullshit reality and change its course because, MIT or somesuch credential. This is hubris. This is the fatally-flawed foundation upon which all Leftism is ultimately built. If poli-sci is downstream from theology, then LBJ’s Great Society is the policy consequence of a leadership steeped in a contemporaneous version of The Gnostic Heresy. Who needs a family when Gov-a-God can command that all women lead the Life of Julia.

Follow the BezosBlog link to the original Life of Julia advertisement on BarackObama.com and you’ll fly the 404-Flag. They’ve called the Fire Department on this one and Montague has dutifully arrived. This is fitting. The Life of Julia ranks up there in believability with “If you like your doctor, you can keep him.” The Life of Julia is better represented by this. The real “Life of Julia” doesn’t lend itself to raising kids who are typical Harvard Material.

The problem is, like so much of our political rhetoric, Julia is not a composite; she’s a myth. Some of the nation’s single moms may be successful Web designers, but many are poor — fully half have incomes of less than $30,000 a year, compared with just 15 percent of married women. It’s not Pell grants and SBA loans these women rely on but Medicaid and food stamps. And it’s not comfortable retirements in community gardens they contemplate but bleak old age. Whereas government benefits were once the state’s compassionate response to women who had lost their husbands, in Julia’s world they are the unquestionable entitlement of women who never married.

The hubris of Amerikan central planners has destroyed the lives and betrayed the hopes and dreams of countless women of every background and color. It has taught them to diminish the family, which has predictably, destroyed and diminished any lasting legacy they hoped would endure beyond their final passage from the terrestrial vale of tears. You cannot undo the stupid with another layer of stupid. Julia’s kids are not getting the benefits of Affirmative Action. The ones raking in money are 3.2% Cherokee and 100% Butthole.

In the end, Affirmative Action is nothing except a fraud and a lie. The only people who still sincerely believe in it’s good intentions are rolling to disbelieve anytime reality bites them in the posterior. Grifters and Card-Sharps use it to steal money, status and honor based on drummed-up racial guilt trips. It can never work because no administrative state in world history has ever been able to change human nature. From Nebuchadnezzer on forward, every attempt at anything resembling an affirmative action program has failed. And here I figured the smart guys at Harvard would piece the truth together and move past…

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Politics | Comments Closed

Republicans Will Never Rally Behind Trump Because He Threatens Their Franchise

Sunday, August 27th, 2017

People get the government they deserve. There is an inverse relationship between how much a population can control its impulses and how heavy-handed its government is. Countries where crime and corruption is rampant end up with strongmen in power to keep the rudiments of control in place, where groups of mostly sensible people end up with gentler government.

In turn, government shapes who succeeds in it. A society that is chaotic will eliminate anyone but the strongmen early on; if they do not get outright killed, they will at least be made to seem wimps and voted out. In America, government rewards its participants with the ability to sell exclusive access to things only government can do, and so corruption has gone mainstream.

Many people on the Alt Right have tried to dodge the label “conservative,” mainly because they erroneously assume that the Republican Party defines what is conservative. In fact, the opposite relationship is true, and the important thing to know about the GOP is that it is a business that makes its money by saying things that get people to vote for it, and most conservative voters tend to vote against instability rather than for ambitious fixes. They would rather put up with high taxes, a parasitic welfare state, dysfunctional foreign policy and corruption than risk rolling the dice on something that could provoke rebellion; like the people in Los Angeles, they keep paying high taxes to buy off the poor so that they do not revolt, because everyone knows that all societies die when the proles take over and then, being inept, steer the cordycepted community right off a cliff.

Any corporation that does not find a niche will perish, and the Republicans found their niche in being the captive opposition. This is the best position to take, economically and mathematically, because they are able to attract votes without having to actually do much of anything. They realize that in a democracy, the idea of conservatism — preserving the best of all history, which involves an order larger than the individual — will always be at a disadvantage to the Leftist idea, which is that the individual is the largest unit in society and all policies must be considered in terms of their impact on individuals. Democracy is inherently Leftist. For this reason, conservatives do not expect to win, but have retreated to a position of defending business and the military so that society can survive the stuff that Leftists do it. This has a downside in that conservatives end up being a subsidy and foil for the Left, and since this role is easier than fighting, the political system selects for people willing to be captive opposition on the Right.

For this reason, no matter what they say, they will never unite behind Trump, who is a conservative second and a realist-pragmatist hybrid first. A realist is someone who is inclined to study the patterns of nature through cause-effect relationships so that he can predict how his own actions will work out, and adjust his actions accordingly; this is like the “scientific method,” but without the pretense of empiricism or universalism. A pragmatism is someone who does what he can according to conditions at the time, which does not necessarily mean that he will compromise principles. He may work gradually toward his goals instead of demanding that they be realized all at once. The primary approach that Trump takes is to reject unrealistic ideas, while working pragmatically toward outcomes that generate wealth, and on top of that he has tapped into the social conservative viewpoint that America has changed too much with its demographics, and we like the 1980s style morality better.

This clashes with the approach of post-Buckley conservatives, which is to ignore most actual social issues and focus on a libertarian platform centered around business and defense. They trot out a few token social issues — abortion, patriotism, Christianity, Israel — and ignore the real contentious themes found in the sexual revolution, demographics, values and a shift toward a theory of dependency and atheism as the basis of society instead of culture, heritage and faith. Republicans will not leave this position because it is easy for them to defend, since they have industry and the “military-industrial complex” (a network of companies, lobbyists and generals) on their side. Politics is much like a prison gang. If you can get enough big guys to agree on something, it happens even if the general mood is against it. Trump, like the Alt Right, wants out of this conservative ghetto, and what the RINOs in charge fear is that Trump may succeed, at which point their franchise goes away.

That is why this is incredibly bad but sensible advice:

If Obama muscles his way in front of the cameras and starts attacking Trump, every Republican and right-leaning independent in the country who’s making a stinkface at the president right now will rally behind him in the ensuing partisan food fight You’ll even get some true independents frowning at Obama for his lack of presidential etiquette in attacking his successor.

If Obama muscles his way in front of the cameras and starts attacking Trump, Republicans will play the usual game of attacking Obama in public while failing to support Trump in private. They cannot both support Trump and have the convenient arrangement that has allowed them, like the Leftists, to become wealthy by indirectly selling favors made possible by their positions of power. If Trump wins, this cozy black market goes away, and for this reason, the Republicans will never join behind him.

Another factor comes into play as well. Republicans are not strictly conservative; they are conservative in inclination, and some are conservative, but the official outlook of the party is toward cooperation with the Left, with whom they share a basic belief in equality. That notion of equality conflicts with a hardline realist view as someone like Trump will have, if nothing else as a result of experience with humanity and realizing that many if not most people are inept and will simply obstruct anything good that someone else is trying to do. The American Right has absorbed much of the American Left because, in trying to reconcile its natural wisdom of the inequality of humanity with the egalitarian sentiments in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, it has become Leftist, accepting that all people are on some level equal and therefore, that they are either all good or that good and bad do not matter. To a realist, people are many things, but good is not one of them. Some are better than others, with varying degrees, based on the basic construction of their personalities and their abilities. Everyone is somewhere on a learning curve, but there is also an upper limit built in to all of us. Realism requires recognizing this as a good manager must because it has a heavy influence on outcomes.

Further complicating things, most Republicans live in Ivory Towers. They grew up in stable middle class neighborhoods, went to elite schools, then graduate schools, then got a series of jobs leading to positions of power, rising quickly above the entry-level existence that most people experience for life. As a result, for these Republicans, dodging the failures of society was a matter of a few years of frustration, followed by the title and wealth that allowed themselves to place themselves out of those conditions. To them now, relating to this other life is impossible, and the memory of being less powerful is distasteful, so their consciousness does not even include it. While Trump was born to wealth and made himself even wealthier, his daily experience consists of dealing with the many layers of human failure from inept employees through corrupt local governments and greedy contractors. In the world outside of government, the raw selfishness of the human animal becomes apparent, something which Ivory Tower people never see and would not acknowledge, in part because they want to believe that the world is like them and their friends, as that way they may maintain a positive view of the future.

A schism has erupted in politics because people have no faith in the way things are done. We want an end to the comfortable working relationships of politicians. This does not happen by us directly managing politics, but by raging around until we all come to a mind on something. No voting — that corrupts the will, and makes us inclined toward compromise and other weakness — but a uniformity of focus. We must find out what is real and agree on it. Then we can delegate to men like Trump, who really care nothing for the Ivory Tower, and want to get their hands dirty. And then, bit by bit, we can begin deconstructing the Empire of Death that is modernity and replacing it with something real.

Tags:,
Posted in Politics | Comments Closed

A Cuckservative Potemkin Village

Monday, July 31st, 2017

Eric Cantor and John McCain show us everything that is morally worng with Cuckservatives. They grandstand, virtue signal and lie to get power and feel more moral than those that they defraud every time our demotic excuse for a republic holds another election.

This time, their surrender monkey routine consisted of rejecting the appeal of Obamacare that they swore up and down they would enact before the ACHA inevitably led to the socialization of Amerikan medicine. Cantor, now a charlatan at a boutique investment firm, tells us how the scam worked while Barack Obama was there to safely veto anything that was, you know, radical.

Asked if he feels partly responsible for their current predicament, Cantor is unequivocal. “Oh,” he says, “100 percent.” He goes further: “To give the impression that if Republicans were in control of the House and Senate, that we could do that when Obama was still in office…”

His voice trails off and he shakes his head. “I never believed it.” He says he wasn’t the only one aware of the charade: “We sort of all got what was going on, that there was this disconnect in terms of communication, because no one wanted to take the time out in the general public to even think about ‘Wait a minute—that can’t happen.’ ” But, he adds, “if you’ve got that anger working for you, you’re gonna let it be.”

Cantor, like John Boehner, is blessedly out of office. He can talk all the smack his Beltway buddies will pay him for. Kiss and tell books and interviews are a coin of the sleazy, greasy realm of the loathsome, oleaginous Cuckservative. But what of those still on duty and on the line? You asked and Cantor told you.

In 2015, every Republican senator voted for this bill to repeal Obamacare with budget reconciliation, which was sent to President Obama’s desk for a veto. In 2017, voting on the same bill, some did not. Here are the senators who changed their positions, breaking their promise to repeal Obamacare.

  • Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
  • Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine
  • Senator Dean Heller R-Nev.
  • Senator John McCain, R-Ariz.
  • Senator Shelley Moore-Capito, R-W.Va.
  • Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska
  • Senator Rob Portman, R-Ohio

These are the Republicans who, given the chance to vote for a clean repeal of Obamacare like they promised, betrayed the American people. Every one of them except for Senator Collins were in the Senate in 2015 and voted for the same bill they voted against today.

Yep. Exact same bill. One difference. POTUS was ready to sign the sucker. This would imply ownership. This would imply consequences. And even worse…it would have Donald Trump’s name on it. That, right there, inspired John McCain. It inspired him to make like Lazarus, rise from his hospital bed, and stick a dagger right into the back of any effort to repeal the hated Obamacare law.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cast the crucial surprise vote that killed Senate Republicans’ last-resort ObamaCare repeal bill early Friday morning in a shocking moment that at least temporarily ended the GOP’s hopes of eliminating the former president’s signature law. Voting shortly after midnight, McCain — who returned to the Senate on Tuesday after being diagnosed with brain cancer the week before — joined GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and all Democrats in opposing the measure that would have repealed key parts of ObamaCare. McCain cast the no vote two days after a dramatic return to the Senate floor during which he called on his colleagues to work together on major issues, which has long been a Senate tradition until the upsurge of partisanship in recent years.

If Congress were Shakespeare’s Theater of Surrender, McCain could be King Lear and Cantor the weasely Shylock. To these scumbags its all just a LARP. The play’s the thing, governance and actual attention to the issues that got them sent to Washington…Hah! Who cares about those rubes? McCain, who went to the Mayo Clinic to treat his own cancer tumor, can’t imagine why mere proles who served in the Navy like him can’t just shut their yaps and wait for the VA. I doubt Eric Cantor ever spent a day covered by Obamacare.

Besides, they both love Obamacare. It’s raised them so much money. It’s like opposing abortion. Guaranteed votes and money. If craziness like Operation Rescue or Project Veritas ever succeeded, they couldn’t oppose feticide for a living. If the Tea Party ever really made a comeback and trashed Obamacare they couldn’t hate on it for dollars.

Our political milieu is a Potemkin Village. We are shown the happy and positive promises, then media and government together ignore the real problems while jousting after simulated windmills, and We The Saps vote them into office time and again. Any time their cozy little racketeering agenda is exposed, they trot out an aborted baby or new Al-Qaeda second-in-command to keep the groundlings entertained.

With Republicans like Cantor and McCain representing “Conservative” opposition, I think we are pretty much guaranteed an experiment with greater socialism. It’s not like any of them will ever have a kid like poor little Charlie Gard. Death panels, quotas and rationed care are totally for the little people.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Politics | Comments Closed

A Tale Of Two Terrorists

Saturday, May 27th, 2017

Politics is mass manipulation. It speaks the language of emotions and current events that polarize people. It never gets to the root causes of these events because to do so would implicate politics itself. Mass manipulation is a form of control. Control leads only to more control. This requires ignoring real problems and chasing after symbolic ones.

Almost all of us are accustomed to being manipulated in this way. The right way to become socially popular is to have emotional reactions that other people find similar to their own. The right way to become politically popular is to offer symbols instead of reality. Consumerism and democracy create a bubble around us, in which our own fascinations are more important than reality itself.

This is how we domesticate animals: block out the world, and reduce all questions to the carrot, or the stick.

As a result of this, very few are willing to look at the actual causes of their problems, and focus on the symbol instead, like a bull in a bull fight lunging for that red cape. Even the supposedly “superior” Aryan types do this. And so they are led around by the nose, and find that despite exerting all of their energy in fighting against symbols, they still lose. Again and again.

Consider how this symbolic reality fails with the term “terrorist.” A terrorist is a member of another group waging guerrilla warfare, but doing it in your civilian territory. We recognize some as terrorists, but not others. For example, consider this set of wannabe terrorists:

Abdullah Alrifahe, 27, and Majid Alrifahe, 26, were arrested on May 11 outside a senior housing project in north Minneapolis.

The elder brother has been charged with a single weapons felony and is being held in the Hennepin County Jail on $200,000 bail.

…Police were called and allegedly found a loaded AK-47, a rifle, handgun, a grenade, ammunition, bomb-making materials and a drone inside the car.

These individuals obviously intended to stage terrorist attacks. We know this because they are from a foreign group, they were prepared for war in a civilian area, and their group competes with ours.

While it is never a bad thing to remove such individuals, they serve as pawns of a bigger division. The Left imports them to advance its agenda of breaking down all cultures, tribes and religions so that it can replace them with more mass control. But in turn, you can count on Useful Idiots from both sides to start doing what monkeys do, which is cheer for their team, and in doing so miss the point.

For example, look at this Useful Idiot acting out the Narrative:

A man who was yelling ‘anti-Muslim’ slurs at two young women on a light-rail train fatally slashed the throats of two men and injured a third person when they tried to intervene, police said.

…Police don’t know if the suspect, described as a white man between the ages of 20 and 40, has mental health issues or whether was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time.

When people say they want a party that is neither Left nor Right, what they are reacting to is the fact that our public parties both Left and Right manipulate us with emotional symbols, and both try to hide the source of decay.

For example, Right-wing commentators on Fox News have been demonizing Muslims for some time. They do this because it motivates their audience, a giant herd of people bloated on boring jobs and abundant shopping, to act in a way that supports those commentators and the candidates they depend on to make the news that keeps them employed.

It is not politics, it is business.

At the same time, having a Right-wing Useful Idiot attack some passive Muslims allows the Left to motivate its audience by portraying Muslims as victims and the white majority as bad, therefore Leftism which opposes it must be seen as good.

Both sides serve to hide the actual truth, which is that diversity does not work. It makes enemies out of groups because they are competing for power. Every group wants power, if for no other reason to have its own symbols prevail.

Consider these famous terrorists:

Malvo was 17 when he and his accomplice, the 42-year-old John Allen Muhammad, began their crime spree, robbing and killing people across California, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, DC and Virginia.

Police did not initially realize the killings, which often involved a single bullet from a distance, were connected.

But the shootings intensified over the course of three weeks in October 2002, and Malvo and Muhammad killed strangers in innocuous places like parking lots, gas stations, and outside schools.

The killings struck fear in Washington DC and surrounding areas in Virginia and Maryland.

The captive Right will immediately point to their Muslim leanings as a way to distract from the obvious truth, which is that they are African and resent (perceived) white dominion over America.

We also tend to use “Muslim” as a proxy for those of middle eastern or African races who seem less familiar with the Koran than a familiar litany of racial grievances against whites. Contrary to what the conservatives will tell you, this is not a religious war; it is a race war. The same was true of the Crusades, the Mongol invasions and the conflict with Mexico.

Just as the race riots in LA helped elect Bill Clinton, having Black snipers wandering around America spurred the fearful sheep into electing Barack Obama. Both candidates promised to end racial strife by pacifying minority groups.

These attacks also help the Fox News style idiots who get a chance for their own burst of cleansing hatred, sort of like they exercise thirty minutes a day. Maybe they spend another thirty minutes screaming at a television screen. Once that is done, they stop thinking about it and go back to jobs, hobbies and shopping. Bloated.

If there is a point to all of this, it is that democracy misleads us by symbols. The symbol is the Muslim fanatic hating us; the reality is that every other ethnic group wants to conquer us, and while we are focused on Muslims, a race war is eliminating us while we stumble forward in the stupor of democratic feeling.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

Comey Beheaded

Wednesday, May 10th, 2017

All corrupt parties have a vested interest in chaos, uncertainty and misdirection. They specialize in generating reams of published material about any event. This then joins with those who write to be popular, which means they invent a way to translate popular opinion into a semi-topical screed about recent events, in spreading nonsense and foolishness.

Donald Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey. Apparently this was a shock, and Comey found out about it secondhand; it also seemed like odd timing because Barack Obama has just brought himself and his new multi-million dollar war chest back to Washington, D.C., in an echo of the Clinton Foundation: a front man for receiving funds to distribute to agitators, as Leftists usually do.

A sensible supposition is that Trump has just sent a message to all employees of the US government:

If you have been working with the Establishment/Deep State, you can be fired at any time, even if there is no replacement handy.

We might call this the Trump Personnel Doctrine, or, throw the bad apples to the pigs. During the last eight years, only those who played nice with the Obama regime were promoted, and this took the form usually of sins of omission, or ignoring obvious lawbreaking, than affirmative acts. In particular, they ignored problems that contradicted the Obama doctrine of white replacement and Leftist rule.

Comey presided over the Fort Hood shooting, the Boston Marathon bombing and several other events where the FBI stood down instead of investigating obvious threats who were not of a politically correct category. Investigate whites, ¡Sí!; investigate non-whites, ¡No!. And so Muslim terror was allowed to continue, making the white population cower in terror and emboldening angry minority groups.

Trump probably waited until he had both a clear picture of what Comey had done or failed to do, and a politically opportune time. Barack Obama has just had his hand spanked, much like Vladimir Putin got his hand spanked in Syria. While the pundits bloviate and talking heads chatter, behind the scenes, interesting things are happening.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Politics | Comments Closed

Democracy Always Converges On The Same Mediocrity

Saturday, May 6th, 2017

With any luck and bravery by the French people, we will be celebrating a different victory than predicted by polls — which do not reflect the socially unacceptable opinions of voters who cannot openly speak what they think — and Marine Le Pen will become the next president of France, continuing the “populist” wave of reactionary nationalist/traditionalist thought into the home of modern democracy.

The talking heads predict otherwise:

The National Front’s Le Pen would close borders and quit the euro currency, while independent Macron, who has never held elected office, wants closer European cooperation and an open economy. The candidates of France’s two mainstream parties were both eliminated in the first round on April 23.

Four new polls showed Macron on track to win 62 percent of the votes in the second round compared to 38 percent for Le Pen, his best score in a voting survey by a major polling organisation since nine other candidates were eliminated in the first round on April 23. A fifth poll showed him on 61.5 percent.

Certainly, conventional wisdom is on their side because of two forces: the Establishment, and the tendency by voters to enact compromise in order to avoid risk. Voters and institutions both suffer from an inertial fallacy, which holds that if what has been working badly has not yet exploded like Communism or National Socialism, the safest bet is to keep voting for it and try to fix the details later.

Of course, like the conservative pacifier of “patriotism, religion and working hard,” the bovine complacency of an inertial vote has not worked at any time in history. Since the Establishment is not rebuked, it takes that as a mandate to double-down on its power and further marginalize its opposition while locking people further into a web of laws, rules, debts, obligations and ideological dogmas.

In fact, we can see how the Establishment controls the outcome of elections in advance through controlling the narrative, relying on the fear of the average person to “step out of line” to keep them voting in an inertial arc:

The French media and public have been warned not to spread details about a hacking attack on presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron.

Strict election rules are now in place and breaching them could bring criminal charges, the election commission said.

A trove of documents – said to mix genuine files with fake ones – was released online shortly before campaigning ended on Friday.

Notice the anonymous assertion that there are “fake files” in with the “genuine ones,” which seems like it affirms the validity of the leak but by asserting that some files are fake without identifying them, casts doubt as to the veracity of any given item.

We can tell that the modern West has been dominated by the stupefactive for many centuries because it replicates fundamental aspects of the failed democracies in ancient Athens and Rome. All democracies end the same way: government becomes the target of all actions, instead of results in reality, so the society simultaneously spaces out and works itself to death for nonsense objectives.

The failure of the French Revolution, which ended in Napoleon, and the Soviet Union, which produced Stalin, follow an identical arc. We might call this “the Napoleonic Arc” because it starts with a revolution against perceived oppression, escalates to actual oppression of a far greater degree, and then ends with fanatical ideological warfare in order to keep the failing nation together.

As part of this arc, government perpetually consolidates its power so that it can keep society together despite the increasing chaos of its population caused by policies of that government. Leftism is popular, but it does not work, even if it takes centuries to see just how bad the problem will become.

Any time humans create a false target like ideology, an elite is produced. These succeed not just in politics, but in the consumer market, because they have adapted to creating products for those who think according to the ideology. Fast food starves in a healthy society, but in one afflicted by ideology, it succeeds because it is more efficient for those living according to that ideology.

This political-financial elite then takes over control of society, aided by government, and dispossesses those who are sane enough to want a normal life instead of craving power and wealth for their own sake. This divides the society into its nu-elites and its remnant of realists:

At the same time, Fukuyama argues that class divisions are primary and come before all other sources of identity. To be sure, Fukuyama is not Marxist. In an essay last year in the Financial Times, Fukuyama writes,” Social class, defined today by one’s level of education, appears to have become the single most important social fracture in countless industrialized and emerging market countries.”

Class, which is the education level, determines the way people think about politics, according to Fukuyama. He imagines that it is the poorly educated who have not done well economically who have become passionately anti-elitist. He recognizes that they do not see themselves in economic terms, but rather racial, ethnicity or nationality terms.

The people in the cities define themselves in economic terms and see themselves as an upper class, even though most of them have come from lower castes. Everyone else defines themselves in terms outside of the terms of this new elite, and focuses on things that have maintained civilization for time immemorial: identity, spirituality, culture, nature and position in community.

In other words, it is the artificial versus the real. The nu-elites are the product of government and ideology; the remnant are the functional people who do not need the nu-elites.

This leads to a radical backlash called “reaction”:

Reactionary thought begins, usually, with acute despair at the present moment and a memory of a previous golden age. It then posits a moment in the past when everything went to hell and proposes to turn things back to what they once were. It is not simply a conservative preference for things as they are, with a few nudges back, but a passionate loathing of the status quo and a desire to return to the past in one emotionally cathartic revolt. If conservatives are pessimistic, reactionaries are apocalyptic. If conservatives value elites, reactionaries seethe with contempt for them. If conservatives believe in institutions, reactionaries want to blow them up. If conservatives tend to resist too radical a change, reactionaries want a revolution.

It is simpler than this journalist makes it out to be: reactionaries are conservatives who refuse to constrain their desires to what “seems possible” in the status quo. They realize there is one ideal state for humanity, and it more resembles something out of The Lord Of The Rings than Brave New World. The $current_year does not matter; one order works, and everything else decays.

This is the environment in which we find ourselves now. Democracy is the political capture of society by ideology; the remnant are realists who want no part of ideology, and focus instead on what has worked through history to produce the best human society, or a Golden Age.

Now that more people have seen what Leftism looks like in practice, since Barack Obama and Angela Merkel took it to its logical extreme, the reactionary movement is gaining force. We realize we do not need our nu-elites, and that we are better off without the political system that put them in power, because it is a crooked game that will produce the same results every time.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Politics | Comments Closed

Consumerism Dies As Currency Plunges In Value

Sunday, April 30th, 2017

Warning signs abound in the prole reich created by democracy. Despite attempts to bolster the economy — “pump priming” — by importing the entire third world, the economy of the West falters as currency declines in value as a result of Leftist social programs:

Whole Foods had grand plans for a UK expansion too, opening its first outpost in Kensington in 2004 with plans for 40 more. But Whole Foods has stalled: like much of the retail sector, it faces economic headwinds including razor-thin margins, competition from other retailers offering organic food, and increasingly price-conscious consumers.

…One rival chain, Sprouts Farmers Market, was found to be on average 19% cheaper than Whole Foods. Other rivals, including Kroger, picked up Whole Foods customers. Last month, Barclays advised that Whole Foods had experienced a “staggering” decline in foot traffic that it estimated at 3%, or roughly 14 million customers.

Here in the mental state of Read Between The Lies you must parse carefully what the herd says in order to figure out what is rationalization/excuse/justification (REJ) and what is actual cause-effect reasoning. They speak of a number of factors, but the big one is price. Whole Foods is too expensive for what it offers.

This fits into the only sensible analysis of the Obama years. Just as under Clinton, the US switched to demand-side economics, but this delegated the value of our currency to world markets, which promptly rejected the Obama doctrine because our economy was based on a circular Ponzi scheme, making a fragile economy which will explode as consumer demand falls.

Whole Foods and others are dying because, despite our “great” economy, most people are suffering a loss of ready cash because the cash is worth 40% less than pre-Obama money. As a result, they are avoiding places that are financial traps, and instead, quietly going to Walmart and bypassing the whole consumer retail spectacle.

As often happens, bubbles occur where a product is scarce but eventually will become easier to come by. Consumer goods were once a huge profit center in the West, but over time, the equality boom of the French Revolution faded and so consumer goods declined in value. Now, we watch that industry pass away, having made itself irrelevant by raising costs just as the audience needed it to level out.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Politics | 18 Comments »

Latest Russian Election Interference Story Is Fake

Thursday, April 20th, 2017

The Left has been trying to crank up the idea that the Russians hacked our election or otherwise interfered with it on Trump’s side, probably as a precursor to attempting impeachment or invalidating the election.

Their latest efforts will fail like the previous ones. The most recent propaganda piece conjures up a Russian “plan” to disturb the election.

Let us look closer at what is actually said:

The first Russian institute document was a strategy paper written last June that circulated at the highest levels of the Russian government but was not addressed to any specific individuals.

It recommended the Kremlin launch a propaganda campaign on social media and Russian state-backed global news outlets to encourage U.S. voters to elect a president who would take a softer line toward Russia than the administration of then-President Barack Obama, the seven officials said.

A second institute document, drafted in October and distributed in the same way, warned that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election. For that reason, it argued, it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead intensify its messaging about voter fraud to undermine the U.S. electoral system’s legitimacy and damage Clinton’s reputation in an effort to undermine her presidency, the seven officials said.

The lügenpresse are counting on the fact that the average voter has zero experience with policy think tanks. Policy think tanks make strategic recommendations and generally have no awareness of actual policy, i.e. what is being done. Instead, they speak in hypotheticals.

For example, that the document says “it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda” does not imply that Russia was issuing pro-Trump propaganda, only that it could be assumed as a possibility and therefore, the suggestion can be made to alter that strategy.

The fact that we have two documents, both pointing in different directions, suggests that these were contingency documents, or potential position papers drawn up to deal with different events that might emerge. Nothing suggests these were adopted as policy but the implication is there in the press.

In the meantime, Trump has rebuked Russia by blowing up an airbase they helped maintain in Syria. What he said during the election was that he viewed Russia as a potential ally, not that he would favor Russia.

If we went through Washington, D.C., looking for think tanks that had made policy recommendations (which is enough to make them “Obama-linked” in the press lexicon) we would find all sorts of absurd plans recommending that the USA redirect resources that might not exist toward possible ideas that look good on paper.

This is the type of analysis this Russian think tank offers, couched in bureaucratspeak of potentialities and possibilities:

It is hardly to expect the development of Obama’s environmental agenda from President Trump, who’s known for his skeptical remarks in relation to climate change. At the same time, it seems that the general strategic course of the United States in the Arctic, outlined in the end of the XX century, will continue. An indirect evidence of the continuity of the current Arctic policy of the US is the fact that almost all the key officials of the State Department responsible for implementing the US policy in the Arctic under the Obama administration, retained their positions under the new President.

In this way, the Russian version follows a format we have seen many times before, which is to second-guess other nations and take broad policy positions, mainly as a way of alerting politicians of options and signaling across the sea (indirectly) about Russia’s concerns and thus likely future actions.

This is not the smoking gun the media wants to try to hype it into being. Behind all of these Russia-stole-our-‘lections stories we can see the hands of a powerful Establishment and the Obama-Clinton gang, who are still looking for a path to permanent, Soviet-style power.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Politics | Comments Closed

« Older Entries

Recommended Reading