Posts Tagged ‘capitalism’

Poland Laughs Last And Will Laugh Loudest

Wednesday, December 6th, 2017

You can’t be a Real Conservative and still like Poland. Let me tell you all why the latest Polish Joke will forever render them a laughingstock of retrograde, Christianist thinking.

Polish MPs have approved a bill that will phase out Sunday shopping by 2020. Initially proposed by trade unions, the idea received the support of the ruling conservative Law and Justice Party, who want to allow workers to spend more time with their families. The Sejm, the lower house of Poland’s parliament, passed the bill by 254 to 156 to restrict Sunday shopping to the first and last Sunday of the month until the end of 2018, only on the last Sunday in the month in 2019, and to ban it totally starting in 2020. It will still be permitted, however, on the Sundays before major holidays such as Christmas. Some bakeries and online shops will also be exempt.

You see Poland fails to worship ¡THE MARKET! You can’t be a Real Conservative and not worship money and work. If you take Sunday off, and are on your knees doing anything other than sucking a fat one, Modernity will teach you that it is a jealous god. Poland rebels. Poland looks at Black Friday and realizes, perhaps, that in Amerika NFL stands for Not For Long. A nation that tolerates this sort of garbage does not legitimately qualify as a nation. This Black Friday incident fairly close to where I live brings home what happens when ¡THE MARKET! gets prioritized over the culture.

Poland has priorities. The Poles get that a market is a distribution system. It is not a god. You do not worship Walmart. You buy your consumer non-durables there when it is convenient for the pervading and more important culture and religion to allow Wal-Mart to serve its necessary but limited function.

Nobody should feel that they have to take a third shift 11PM Sunday to 7AM Monday at minimum wage to avoid getting fired. Work should not be that important a part of a balanced and successful life. If that means The Rational Consumer loses marginal utility having to buy his baloney sandwich fixings at 9AM Monday or later, than maybe; just maybe, The Consumer should just damn well tie she/he/its guts to its shirt. Convenience is not the most important thing in life.

There are three things that can keep a nation unified at the end of any day ending in “Y”. They are all more important than the false and ultimately self-defeating whims of the market. A common cultural heritage, a common language and a common religious faith. Christianity provides Poland with two out of the three. That gives Poland a whole lot more to base itself upon than Germany, Great Britain and Amerika, whatever those things still are. Poland fights back against the rot of diversity, consumerism and robotic replacement of its people. Poland will ultimately laugh last and laugh loudest.

Those who tell dumb pollack jokes apparently lack the deeper understanding of life Poland and its government are putting on display. They get that Sunday shopping wasn’t just an option or a convenience. It was a destructive surjection of Modernity over a vital part of national identity. Jesus may have gathered sustenance on The Sabbath, but he also knew when it was time to chase the moneychangers out of the temple.

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

What we learn from both the Polish and the verses I’ve cited above is that the economy of a nation is a necessary but not sufficient condition to its greatness. That also the economy must exist on an Aristotelean balance between The Socialist Deathcult and the heresy of the soulless Homo Economicus. We need a functional economy to give us this day our daily bread. We cannot, however live by that daily bread alone.

The culture and the people are more important than the economy. The economical organization is merely a tool or an algorithm that must be controlled and maintained in proper proportion tot he greater societal good that it serves. Poland has chosen the greater societal good and managed to walk along the beam of proper Aristotelian Balance. Only the fools would make jokes about the dumb pollack today.

How Can We Blame Capitalism Today?

Sunday, October 15th, 2017

On a lazy weekend day, sometimes one wanders into a bookstore, looking for a place of solace from the screaming engines of the world and the constant chatter of others. But since the corporate chain replaced our local stores, much has changed in the quest for a few moments to become lost in the presence of old printed friends and maybe to find some new ones.

It is hard to blame the corporate bookstore. They offered the product at a lower price, and could stock many more options. In addition, they installed a large seating area which serves coffee and treats, which makes the bookstore an ideal destination to meet someone. In our society, the only way to interact in public is through buying things, and these big stores have made that easier and cheaper.

At the same time, something was lost: choice. We have more options than ever, but because they are all about the same, analysis paralysis results like a type of heat death. Where the local bookstore, having far less shelf space, had to choose the best of each category according to the judgment of the employees and owners, now everything hits the shelf and it is up to us to wade through it.

That of course hits the limits of human tolerance. After you have sampled fifteen modern novels, they all start to sound about the same. Maybe they are; perhaps the same phenomenon has happened in the publishing industry itself, where instead of trying to find something good — an uneven, unpredictable process — they have decided to just crank out the average but turn up the irony, novelty of setting, and other surface traits to make each book seem to stand out. But when every book stands out that way, no book stands out.

Before everyone gave up on the idea of quality and focused on quantity, we had editors and book reviewers. These would do their best to filter out the good from the nonsense, and while they got it wrong sometimes, there was also a backup system of salons, professors and fellow writers who could convince them otherwise. Generally, the system worked.

It would not support a bookstore, however. The normal distribution applies to everything, and it means that 90% of books are mildly entertaining, 9% are informative and 1% are transformative. This means that a healthy bookstore has perhaps ten percent of the output of the industry as the bulk of its stock, with some classics and new releases thrown in for good measure.

If we were to do that, most of Barnes and Noble would be empty, for example. This works by me; turn it into a coffee shop with book racks and a row of internet-connected tablets or computers. Keep it open 24-7. Serve alcohol, and give people back a public space that they need. And drop the endless garbage — the 90% — that provokes a frenzy when it is new, briefly, then goes to the sale rack.

The cool kids are out there trying to blame capitalism for this dilemma. They argue that capitalism rewards the bad, and naturally corrupts every industry, and chases the lowest common denominator. The only question we might ask them is: are they sure that it is capitalism doing this, or something else?

First, anywhere the human herd goes it rewards the bad but glib, corrupts every industry, and chases the lowest common denominator. The perpetual human problem is that we tend to be solipsistic, and form together in groups to enforce this as a standard, which rewards the lowest common denominator and thus has those negative effects.

Second, we might point out that capitalism is an economic system, not a social, moral or leadership one. In other words, it is designed to keep the fires burning and nothing more. You do not ask a fruit tree for its advice on how to use its fruit; you have a social order wrapped around your economic system which directs it toward certain ends through the values and mores inherent to culture.

Finally, it is useful to point out that there are different options for economic system. You can have one that is chaotic because it is super-simplified and centrally controlled like communism, or you can admit that systems work best when distributed and localized, and have abundance with capitalism. Communism and socialism create shortages; capitalism creates excess, but you can work with that.

Who is the bastard here? I would point the finger at two other ideas: (1) the Eternal Human Problem, which is the formation of herd behavior, and (2) the naive fear of accountability in corporate America, where anyone who does not follow the current trends is seen as risky and removed the instant something “seems to” be going wrong, even though chasing trends devalues — i.e., makes more ordinary — any initiative.

Add to that the fact that we have educated the ineducable, so they are now book-buying customers, thrown diversity into the mix so that the market has fragmented in niches where low quality is more easily tolerated, dumped money on the clueless and made politics a replacement for transformative profundity, and you can see why the stuff in the bookstore is mostly bad.

Suggesting that our world needs editors, tastemakers and wise leaders like aristocrats is considered a form of blasphemy these days. It is like slapping the average citizen in the face and saying, “You’re not equal!” but it is the right thing to do. In the hands of experts, who are distinguished by their natural intelligence and not test scores or grades, we get quality; with the herd, we get entropy.

Living In A Post-Capitalist Market Economy

Friday, May 12th, 2017

Back in relatively more innocent times, business responded to its consumer base, who were unified by culture and regulated by an informal caste system which made the most productive into the most discerning and valued customers.

As this got democratized, however, business became more responsive to government through the rise of unions and regulations. Now, government defines the opportunities, and so business responds to the ideological initiatives of government.

Consider union-driven, government-supported resistance to Walmart:

When he was mayor, Michael Bloomberg supported Walmart’s efforts to open a store in New York, but the company faced unremitting resistance from unions and elected officials, and it gave up the fight once de Blasio moved into Gracie Mansion. “I have been adamant that I don’t think Walmart—the company, the stores—belong in New York City,” de Blasio said.

Walmart’s benefits are obvious to shoppers and to economists like Jason Furman, who served in the Clinton administration and was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama. In a paper, “Walmart: A Progressive Success Story,” Furman cited estimates that Walmart, by driving down prices, saved the typical American family more than $2,300 annually. That was about the same amount that a family on food stamps then received from the federal government.

How could any progressive with a conscience oppose an organization that confers such benefits? How could de Blasio and the city council effectively take money out of the pockets of the poorest families in New York? Because—though they would deny it—they care a lot more about pleasing powerful labor interests, especially the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), which helped lead the long fight to keep Walmart out of the five boroughs.

The grim reality is that centralization is highly effective. Economies of scale dictate that a product purchased in lots of one million will be much cheaper than those purchased by the dozen. Walmart centralized its purchasing and distribution, and so can make good profit on products that are far cheaper than those of its competitors.

But the unions opposed it, mainly because Walmart fights unions, since it sees no point in paying money to parasitic institutions whose function is better handled by the market and legal liability for abuses, which is actually what curbed abusive workplaces in America’s past. However, unions are popular because they create the appearance of being for the little guy and against the big guys, which is the core of the Leftist egalitarian narrative.

As many remember, the Left always fights against any system which wants performance before reward, and replaces it with systems where reward comes independent of performance. This is the nature of socialism and social welfare states like we have in the USA.

Government also likes the idea of reward independent of performance because this creates voters who are dependent on government, and obliterates those troublesome things like culture and heritage that stand in the way of absolute government power. For government, ideology is a means-to-an-end of having permanent control.

When government gets involved, businesses become ideological agents as well because this is the way they play nice with government, unions and the zombie voters created by Leftist ideology.

Capitalism is far from ideal. It can easily be subverted if the buying public act like idiots, which people in groups tend to do, regardless of their actual IQs. But it works better than everything else.

However, in the hands of ideologues, it becomes a weapon for advancing Leftist ideology, which transitions the West into the type of Soviet ideology totality which has caused empires before us to fail as well.

Why American Broadband Is Expensive And Slow

Tuesday, May 2nd, 2017

As the Left advances its narrative, it likes to blame “capitalism” for many of the problems with consumer services. Looking at internet broadband, it becomes clear that the critics have a point, but have blamed the wrong source.

American broadband is notoriously slow compared to the rest of the developed world and often costs a good deal more than faster services in other countries. In most areas, people have a choice between only a few providers, most of which are content to be equally bad, knowing that as with cellular phone service, users will bounce between them but never like them.

When one does a little digging, the reason for this situation becomes clear: a lack of broadband competition because local regulations make it prohibitively expensive for new competitors to enter the market:

Broadband policy discussions usually revolve around the U.S. government’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC), yet it’s really our local governments and public utilities that impose the most significant barriers to entry.

This seems counter-intuitive because broadband across the country shares the same conditions. Local authorities have enacted very similar rules originally designed to prevent too many firms from laying wire:

States have given municipalities the authority to offer broadband but made it difficult with tons of bureaucratic requirements, he said. “The bottom line is some states have created thickets of red tape designed to limit competition,” he said. Local residents and businesses are the ones suffering the consequences, he argued, pointing to members of the two communities in the audience.

Cities and towns fear a situation where fifteen different cable companies will run lines to homes, disconnecting each other’s wires and making a mess of the backyards and public utility poles they must share. Out of that fear, these municipalities limited utilities and tended to make them public or regulate them heavily, as did the federal government, giving the illusion that this regimen of laws was working.

Instead, the collaboration between federal, state and local governments created markets where regulatory costs make it impossible for new businesses to enter the market and make a profit, which effectively limits competition to whoever got the original cable and telephone (from which DSL lines originate) contracts in the area:

And whose fault is that? Well, that would be the government’s fault. It regulated the cable TV business with a heavy hand since its infancy, giving monopoly rights to operators to string cities with coaxial cable. Those policies have been relaxed, so now it’s easier for a new provider — like telephone companies or fiber-upstarts like Google — to create broadband competition. But the market power of entrenched cable operators and the remaining regulatory hurdles still deter new entrants, suppressing the sort of competition that would make broadband companies more mindful of the needs of customers.

It is expensive enough for a new company to physically run the lines. Regulation introduces many secondary costs: there is paperwork to file, inspectors to pay, and possibly city bureaucrats who must be hired to oversee the process. In addition, the possibility of legal action brought by cities or other companies on the basis of these regulations requires the hiring of lawyers and compliance experts, which also drives up the cost.

In many American industries, we see the same pattern. Capitalism is shoved aside in favor of government, which solves one problem and creates a dozen more. Somewhere in the middle — between raw capitalism and the regulatory state — there could be a flexible zone where informal leaders, like local aristocrats, could make principled exceptions and deliver people the bandwidth they desire.

“Late Stage Capitalism”

Wednesday, April 19th, 2017

The Left invented memes, but for them meming took the form of whispers through a crowd. These were little fragments that made people feel witty for repeating and gave them reason to keep on keeping on with the glorious People’s Revolution in whatever form it was taking that week.

One meme the Left loves to sling around is “late stage capitalism” because, having won on social welfare and entitlements, the Left has created a vast audience of dependents who want a full ride from cradle-to-grave just for being precious snowflakes. This is the crisis every society faces; if you include everyone, you legitimize free rider abuse and turn society parasitic.

Europeans like to brag for example about their excellent social benefits states, but none of them are solvent, necessitating importation of third-world labor to pay for those pensions when they come due, and they make people miserable, which is why Europeans are not reproducing at a replacement rate.

Bureaucracy, democracy, and jobs ensure that life is shaped by control for every minute of every day. People can no longer “just live”; they have to deal with the fact that they are born in debt to pay for the social system, then have to work a job which is basically nonsense activity to keep the proles occupied, and must deal with endless rules, red tape and petty authority figures.

This parasitic society makes everyone miserable, but the Left consists of people who are already miserable as part of their character, and so they do not mind going into full misery. For them, it is better to win and “be (proven) right” than to create a pleasant experience of civilization, or a healthy one, for civilization as an organic whole, the group or the individual.

And so we hear a lot about “late stage capitalism.” The simple point of this meme is to blame the failures of our existing Leftist government on capitalism so that we can go full Socialist without our consciences bothering us: if something is already failing, it is illogical to pursue more of it, unless one has a scapegoat.

This strategy is not new. The Left blamed upper classes for the reckless breeding of the lower; it blamed “racism” for the failure of diversity; it blamed nationalism for the instability of the modern nation-state, itself a creation of liberalism. It blamed the kings for its social failings, and promptly elected governments so incompetent that the kings could never be worse.

Capitalism is the latest scapegoat, and it has become more visible of late. Over the past seventy years is that the Left has stripped away everything except the economy and Leftist ideology, and as a result, the economic system takes center stage. If we were thinking clearly, we would blame the ideology, but the Left always styles its beliefs as “normal.”

They get away with it, those wacky Leftists, since the pathology behind Leftist beliefs consists of eternal human failings. Envy, resentment, irresponsibility, lust for power and greed are all part of the Leftist pantheon, but because these are familiar human behaviors, Leftism is less of an advocacy position that acceptance of those failings; this is the idea of equality: we accept people despite their bad behavior, and give them an equal footing to those who behave well. It is a form of “social pacifism” or a cessation of the fight for doing what is right by having all participants “agree to disagree” instead of aiming for finding an answer and improving our own behavior.

Capitalism has always been in their crosshairs because it is not equal. If ten guys set up stalls selling apples, one is going to do better than the others. Those of us who are pro-capitalist are so not because we love commerce, but because we want to minimize it. Having better apple seller stalls means that we do not need to spend time and effort “managing” all of the stalls to ensure there is equality.

One would be hard pressed to find a fan of capitalism who desires to have capitalism alone. All of us on the Right favor capitalism because everything else fails, and we view it as part of a complex structure to civilization. The Left has one idea, equality, where the Right has a pocketful of random bits, like hierarchy, culture, capitalism, nationalism and conservation.

But the Left wants to blame capitalism. This is after they effectively removed it in the 1800s by regulating the banks, then enfranchised a new crop of idiots who invested like fools, and when that detonated in the Great Depression, they used that moment as a chance to bring Leftist-style social welfare programs to America and when those failed, to double down with the Great Society programs.

The funny thing is that all postwar Leftist nations are following the same structure that National Socialism had, just without the nationalism. There is a strong state presence, and it guides us toward race-mixing instead of racial preservation, but it integrates itself with business and depends on capitalism to fuel its fires (and then, on taxes to pay for those fat social entitlement benefits.)

At this point, what we think of as “capitalism” is unrecognizable. When you have millions of lines of regulations and laws, including treaties and international standards, and use a circular Ponzi scheme to both fund welfare and “prime the pump” of consumerism, capitalism is dead.

Some would say it was replaced by consumerism. Capitalism rises from the way life has always been: people do things for one another and are paid for them, and some are paid more than others to encourage a rise in standards. Consumerism is the Soviet version: instead of focusing our economy on the difficult task of producing value, we make cheap schlock and sell it to plebes for low prices (but with high margins).

In other words, we democratized capitalism. Instead of having people at the top driving the economy based on actual productivity, we are selling stuff to ourselves, and claiming that this is productive. This is why we make very little of what we see, from clothing to electronics, even if we manufacture a lot of stuff here.

Consumerism drove immigration because people wanted cheap food, not good food. In the past, we realized that doing things the right way was expensive, and since this was a cultural recognition, stores were able to sell good food at relatively high prices, which kept agriculture healthy. But we democratized that, and so now you can barely find any good food, just more of the same industrial farmed tasteless tomatoes, nutritionless meat grown on inferior feed, bread and more bread made without yeast or real eggs, and an endless supply of food infused with sugar, salt and cheap oils. It is all “prole food.” You will not build a nation on this.

Similarly, consumerism smashed down the quality of goods and services. Fifty years ago, you could get a shovel that had a solid wood handle and a thick blade. Now, you might be able to find one, if you go to a boutique store, but if you are just down at your local hardware store, you find plastic and thin blades. Craftsmanship has mostly fled these lands.

The same is true of construction. Houses and offices are basically pre-fab and designed to last for three decades at most. The pipes are plastic; the walls and furnishings are all off-the-wall parts designed for easy and simple installation. You no longer need a brain to be a construction guy; you are another office worker, not a calling like “carpenter” or “plumber” or “electrician.”

Of course, you can still find those job titles, but they are ersatz too. There is a course of study and a few basic types of procedures one must learn, but the creativity is dead for the most part, since you are hooking up gadgets made in factories far away. Now, there are some who carry on being craftsmen, but they are outside the mainstream, and nearly forgotten.

When all of your workers are craftsmen, construction is more expensive but it is also of better quality, not this IKEA-style paint-by-numbers stuff. Your buildings can last for hundreds of years. But consumerism, with its mantra “quantity over quality,” is a form of democratization. It wants more buildings and more buyers, not discerning buyers or buildings that last for centuries.

We could retaliate against the left by referring to this time as “late stage consumerism.” That oughta piss them off… but it is not accurate, either. Consumerism is a symptom of democracy. Democracy is a symptom of the me-firsters winning out, because it demands that we include everyone equally, instead of having a marketplace for human beings where the best are prized. Equality is a symptom of an angry mob of people, each of whom wanting to be included despite his failings, which is itself a “me first” attitude: individualism.

We should however simply counter their “late stage capitalism” meme with “late empire” or “your civilization has collapsed.” Every effect has a cause, and that cause has a cause, all the way back to someone making some bad decisions in our past, and now we are so far down the rabbit-trail that we can no longer see the light. Until we wake up and make an effort to restore civilization, that is.

Understanding The Role Of Capitalism

Saturday, April 15th, 2017

In a dying time, everyone is a blockhead because they are forced to think in one-dimensional terms in order to stay on the right side of ideology. As a result, people cannot handle complex ideas like “this thing is good, but only in the right context.” For the herd, it is either yes in a universal context, affirming that something is universally good, or it is just bad and should never be used.

Capitalism presents one such confusion. The Right advocates capitalism mainly because nothing else works, and because capitalism arises from the natural tendency to buy and sell goods. This does not constitute endorsement of usury, or interest-bearing loans, nor does it suggest that capitalism should be used as a replacement for political and social systems.

As an economic system, capitalism does one thing well: maintain an economy. The tool cannot become the master, however, and so this economic system needs guidance from culture and leadership or it will serve only itself much in the same way that government serves only its own power if allowed to grow without limits. As such, “pro-capitalist” does not mean capitalism only.

You might see that this is why many of us identity as conservative because it always creates a principle above method and tool. We may be pro-capitalist, but only because it supports our actual goal, which is conservation of the best of human civilization. In turn, this means that we do not make our ideals follow capitalism, but make capitalism follow our ideals.

The Left has been ranting about “late stage capitalism” as a means of disguising the fact that we are in late empire stages, and that our economic problems are the result of Leftist meddling, notably the welfare and regulatory states which have distorted the market beyond recognition. Government is one of our biggest industries now, and as a result, “capitalism” is only a small part of our system.

Even some of the Left, in their zeal to bash capitalism, have noticed the Rightist tendency to shape capitalism toward Rightist ideals instead of allowing it to lead us around like an undisciplined donkey:

The origins of fascism lay in a promise to protect people. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a rush of globalisation destroyed communities, professions and cultural norms while generating a wave of immigration. Right-wing nationalist movements promising to protect people from the pernicious influence of foreigners and markets arose, and frightened, disoriented and displaced people responded. These early fascist movements disrupted political life in some countries, but they percolated along at a relatively low simmer until the Second World War.

…Fascists promised to foster national unity, prioritise the interests of the nation above those of any particular group, and promote Italy’s stature internationally. The fascists also appealed to Italians’ desire for social security, solidarity and protection from capitalist crises. They promised therefore to restore order, protect private property and promote prosperity but also to shield society from economic downturns and disruption. Fascists stressed that wealth entailed responsibilities as well as privileges, and should be administered for the benefits of the nation.

…The regime intervened extensively in the economy. As one fascist put it: ‘There cannot be any single economic interests which are above the general economic interests of the state, no individual, economic initiatives which do not fall under the supervision and regulation of the state, no relationships of the various classes of the nation which are not the concern of the state.’

Re-framing this from a Right-wing perspective, fascism started with conservative intent, which was to preserve fundamental building blocks like the family and the nation. It did this by reversing the reversed order of civilization where we approve of something if it earns money, instead of finding out what we approve of and arranging society so that these good things earn money.

If fascism had a fundamental problem, it is that it was not Right-wing enough. One cannot defeat modernity by using modernity, and so making the State into a proxy for the nation always leads to a disconnect. As a result, fascism empowers the state beyond the needs of the nation, and becomes top-heavy and unstable.

A more sensible conservative approach would be to recognize capitalism as an economic system that takes inputs from culture and leadership. With a culture that values responsible living over fast food and entertainment, those things will not prosper; with quality leaders, a society grows toward better values and beats back the trivial and shallow.

Even more importantly, as our ancestors realized, it is important to have caste structure. Purchasing decisions that influence the market are best made by the smarter among us instead of the dumber, and giving the lower echelons lots of disposable income creates a financial incentive to make trivial, disposable and low-quality products.

Over the past centuries, capitalism has made daily living affordable for many despite their tendency to run after shiny gadgets and fantasies. In contrast, Leftist social welfare systems have expanded poverty and would have been removed except for the positive influences of capitalism which have made it possible to have a decent lifestyle while technically “impoverished.”

In the future, ideals and culture will rules over methods, mechanisms and tools such as capitalism. This does not mean rejection of capitalism, but putting it in its correct context so that it can do what it does well without interrupting other methods needed in different areas of civilization. While this is too complex for people now, it will soon be seen as commonsense.

Restore Western Civilization

Tuesday, February 28th, 2017

Out there in mainstreamland, confusion arises as to what the Alt Right “is.” That verb becomes deceptive because a cultural movement is composed of one thing, and headed toward another. The Alt Right is an aspirational movement but not on an individualistic basis; it is people of this time who desire an entirely different time, one opposed to the illusions we hold sacred now.

In conventional politics, this makes no sense, mostly because the Alt Right opposes politics. A civilization is free of politics until its chain of command becomes broken and internal fighting over power and wealth takes over. At that point, whoever wins the crowd, wins the prize… and so politics becomes a fact of life, infesting even interpersonal relationships far removed from power.

Complicating things, the Alt Right does not state conventional goals because it is ruled by principles, not tangible goals. We want health and sanity, which is what everyone should want as part of that whole adaptation to your environment thing. Those who would deceive you will convince you to target an intermediate instead, like “freedom” or “socialized healthcare,” but that is not the goal itself. It is more of a symbol than an end result.

Even more confusingly, the Alt Right is fundamentally esoteric, which means that it realizes the innate inequality of people in ability and in level of learning. We are not like organized religion or political groups, where a few symbols are written down in such a simplified form that anyone can get enough meaning to participate, essentially erasing any deeper meaning and creating a surface-level understanding that displaces all others because it is simpler and thus more popular.

Let us go back to the simplest of ideas: the Alt Right is a conservative (Right) movement that says what others cannot (Alternative). It recognizes that conventional politics have failed to address the actual issues of consequence and so are a threat to the survival of our society.

That in turn provokes more digging, like a police investigator, to get to the root of this situation. Most track it back to the 1960s, some to the 1940s, even better to the 1920s… but then we see the French Revolution, the Magna Carta, the politics that divided the European monarchy even a thousand years ago. Then we read Plato writing about a golden age thousands of years before him, where society was motivated by an aspirational impetus that was not on an individualistic basis, either.

And so we realize: the collapse of Western Civilization, the strongest human civilization that we know of, has been ongoing for thousands of years. Every year is a little bit worse, but it adds up to a big kaboom at some point, and that kaboom is going to happen in our lifetimes. Either a new civilization is ready to spring up from the ashes, or the kaboom leaves behind only a third-world ruin where beige people speak a simplified version of a once-great language, languish in poverty among crumbling monuments, and otherwise serve as an epitaph and not a continuation for that society.

The Right recognizes a general truth: the problem we face is ourselves, in that without discipline and guidance, we revert to our unruly Simian origins. “Talking monkeys with car keys,” as Kam Lee says. The Right has always stood for Realism; the Left has always championed individualism, or life measured by the human individual. With The Enlightenment,™ the Left won in the West, but it took another few centuries for that to manifest in the Left’s final form, which is a soft totalitarian state — enforced by economics and social norms instead of guns — where non-Leftist opinion is viewed as witchcraft.

On the Right, we realize that “progress” is always an illusion. History is cyclic, meaning that there is a state of harmony and a series of states of increasing disharmony until order is restored. For humans in the West, there is one type of civilization that works and everything else is an ersatz and inferior substitute. The problem is that these failing civilizations go to war against the core of what we are: our People.

We might refer to bad civilization structural designs as “inverse Darwinism,” meaning that instead of encouraging adaptation to our environment, they discourage it entirely by replacing it with illusions which are necessary to climb the socioeconomic ladder. Human society rewards what is against nature and logic through the mechanism of social popularity, which is achieved through ironic and untrue statements that actively defy common sense, such as pacifism, equality, diversity and so on. But these encourage people to believe that what they feel and visualize in their heads alone is more true than reality, and so comfort them, and whoever tells these handy pleasant illusions — a.k.a. “lies” — gets ahead, while those who focus on understanding reality fail.

Through this, society acts like a cheese grater against its own people, shaving off the good and throwing them away while keeping those that are compliant, simplistic, solipsistic and ethically neutral.

Alt Right participants tend to have some views that disturb the person raised in this Leftist, consumerist society. They acknowledge the differences between peoples, groups, sexes, castes and individuals through the study of human differences known as “human biodiversity” (HBD). They realize that inequality of ability obliterates the question of equality of opportunity or outcome. They realize socialist economics fail, but that capitalism needs to be controlled by some kind of hierarchy or it, too, becomes a mechanism of mob rule, just as democracy does.

And yes, they acknowledge race. To concern oneself with civilization and its future means to consider issues like race. We can see that throughout history, healthy societies have been racially homogeneous, where dying societies tend to be racially heterogeneous, and as the degree of the latter increases the society draws closer to senescence. This means that we disdain diversity, or the multi-racial state, and encourage homogeneity for all societies, regardless of who their founding group is. Diversity is death, nationalism is at least a chance for life.

The core of the Alt Right can then be summarized this way: Restore Western Civilization. This once-great promise for all of humanity has been aging and crumbling for centuries or longer as it has deviated from the moral (aspirational non-individualistic) and structural (the four pillars) habits of successful Western civilizations. We cannot avoid this issue and there is only one path to victory. Either that, or we fade away, which is both boring and ugly, and we reject that.

All Things Are Self-Serving

Monday, January 23rd, 2017

If traditional society has an essence, it is a focus on context and pattern instead of objects themselves, because it recognizes that any thing out of place in the hierarchy and order of nature will become an all-consuming force. For example, beer is delicious, heartening and enjoyable but when pursued to excess, becomes a replacement for life much like ideology, money, power and individualism.

This applies to institutions, governments, organizations, power itself and even abstract concepts. Capitalism, for example, is the only working economic system we have found, but if left to its own devices, it produces the scenario we see in American stores: refrigerators, cheaply made in China, which have a lifespan of four to seven years and a failure rate of 10% within three months.

Once upon a time, less than a generation ago, refrigerators lasted for up to forty years. They were built solidly with few features and produced domestically. A person could expect to own two of these in a lifetime and, when parts wore out, to replace them, because the designs did not vary substantially over time.

What went wrong? We might argue that the new way is more efficient: cheaper refrigerators, newer features, and a wider variety. But underneath that glitz, the refrigerators are not cheaper, especially not in lifetime ownership, since you need to buy ten of them to equal the ownership duration of the past. Capitalism is rewarding itself by, once it has a captive audience, extracting wealth from them.

Naturally other factors are present. Is it capitalism to blame because an industry has overgrown itself and consumer, responding to new features and price, ignored the better options so that those companies then went extinct? Or, as argued here before, perhaps we should blame unions, which raised the price of labor so much that it was offshored and then, when those countries learned to manufacture refrigerators on their own, replaced entirely with imports.

Another factor is the need to keep people employed. A company, beset by regulations and a highly mobile labor force, has to hire more people and so grows constantly like a bloated beast. At that point, it must squeeze more money out of the product, so turns to “planned obsolescence.” But it is hard to argue that planned obsolescence will not be conceived of by a firm, and once it succeeds, others will follow suit to keep their own profits comparable.

This shows us a principle of existence: all things are self-serving, and if not kept in check by some form of power above them — aristocrats, culture, legal liability or media — each thing expands to take everything that it can and passes those costs on through externalization to the collective. Everyone suffers when refrigerators are constantly dying without a technological need for this to be so.

As a salesman said, “They make them cheaply in China. Sure, they’re crap — but everyone makes out like bandits on this side. We sell insurance and make a good profit. The firms keep the name here, and buy them from overseas, and that means jobs for everyone in the office, even if not in the factor. It’s just you the consumer who suffers.”

We can see this profile in other industries as well, such as the lügenpresse:

Far from the British press being the champions of free speech, as the popular buffoon Jeremy Clarkson has suggested, they are instrumental in shutting it down.

The press has an interest in suppressing free speech because free speech competes with the press. If the media offers our only perspectives on the world, then they have a monopoly on news information and will profit greatly. If others, such as citizen journalists like Millennial Woes, are able to draw large audiences, then those are a business threat.

All across the West a great cash-in has been occurring since the 1990s. Without the Soviets to compete with, we turned on ourselves, and every industry became greedy in order to comply with the parasites (unions, governments, lawsuits) and to extract as much as it could from the captive audience in the middle class. Eventually, it killed the goose that laid the golden egg, and now a backlash has begun.

In the future, our thought will not focus on deconstruction, or isolating ideas like capitalism as solutions in themselves, but on context, or how to balance different self-interested forces under the command of some purpose and principles which benefit our civilization as an organic whole. This is the only way to arrest the ongoing parasitism and restore a healthy, joyful life so we are strong enough to want to survive.


Tuesday, September 6th, 2016


Let us distill things a little bit, but try to do so without losing important parts of the whole.

You are living on a rounded rock hurtling through space, entirely dependent on its sun and other planets, which at any minute may be eliminated by other celestial objects.

Fortunately, your species has mastered the rudiments of technology — when you have intergalatic travel, then you will be “advanced” — and has separated itself from the stress of the immediate struggle for survival.

Unfortunately, this has not translated into what it promised, which was lives of leisure where people pursued non-commercial ends like art, culture, learning and social generosity. Instead, everyone works constant and retreats from society into sealed-off homes and bars.

People live in a type of existential fug where they fear death so much that they have discarded any issue which touches on it or its significance, including religion, purpose, meaning, joy, self-fulfillment and love. They have replaced these with plastic surrogates.

The planet is the in the grip of two economic systems. The first, which we might call the people-based system, demands that every person be employed and paid regardless of performance. It tends to fail and leave behind impoverished, aimless societies. The other, which we might call product-based, rewards those who create or produce things that other people want, but in the process changes the goal from “vital things” to “things people desire.”

As with so many things, there appear to be no answers to this dilemma, because in the way people think, concepts take precedence over reality. If someone supports the people-based system, there is no altering it with other methods because then the symbol loses its purity, and to preserve that purity, the borders of the symbol must be made to exist in reality. Most people on earth spend most of their time upholding the purity of symbols.

Let us consider socialism: we subsidize those who are below average, at the expense of those above average, so that we maintain pacifism, or the idea that no conflict is needed within or without of a civilization. The result is that those who are less competent experience the same benefits as the competent, to a net disadvantage to the competent. The future under this regime: reign of the incompetent.

But let us swing over to the other side. Raw capitalism rewards those who provide the products that are most popular. Not that dissimilar to voting, is it? The herd triumphs here: the mediocre product, which pleases those who are least competent, wins out over the finer. This, too, is a dead end:

The big box American beers fail by being perfect products: essentially alcohol-added beer-flavored soda, they please the 90% who are unthinking about what they consume other than noticing that “other people are doing it,” therefore are susceptible to advertising. Then there are about ten thousand IPAs who are unique and well-crafted according to what the committee of people who decide what is important in their profession agree is important, but have one-dimensional taste at a cost higher than that is worth. In the middle is a dwindling number of beers that are drinkable, affordable and for lack of a better term “pleasant” or flavorful enough in an order of flavors that communicates a pleasant drinking experience.

…The tragedy of the American beer aisle reminds me of what happened to heavy metal: we are suffering from abundance, but worse, the A-students are now running the game instead of the C-students. To be an A-student, you have to distill the process of learning into a linear activity that involves many small details which are not correlated; to be a C-student, you get the “gist” and then bullshit your way from there. The C-students understand life; the A-students understand how to appear competent to a group of people, which is to say they are masters of the surface, and of no depth. Metal and beer are now made by A-students. The A-student MBAs make the big box American beers by cutting costs to what their polls say are the concerns of 90% of their audience, like politicians or dealers in drugs not yet synthesized. The A-student art students make hipster IPAs that are unique and in themselves, by the standards of the arty beer community, “unique” but they have not assembled the flavors into a single whole; again, it is a list of detail.

…Society is its own worst enemy. People are blockheads who insist, in order to justify their own cleverness, that they can do better by subdividing every task and then agreeing on what the parts should be, thus forgetting the whole because it reminds them of higher meaning, like the untouchable wisdom of nature or the possibility of gods or even the chance that all is totally meaningless and “random” in the universe. They then formalize these parts through education, certification and industry committee, and because they all agree and people keep buying them, insist they have achieved victory. Instead what they have done is import Soviet-level conditions into the American capitalist model of plenty. They can do this because the human blockhead is the only thing that is universal among humans.

The libertarian ideal of capitalism over all else will not work, nor will its opposite, which denies capitalism in order to have equality. In both cases, an economic system — a means to an end — has become an end in itself. And being mechanistic by nature, and thoughtless, this system runs itself to self-destruction by achieving total dominance and then forcing a collision between the ideals of that system and reality, which is a more comprehensive order.

Democracy does not work. With the fall of the US Constitution sometime in the 1860s and fully in the 2010s, it has become clear that the document designed to limit democracy from becoming mob rule has instead enabled that process to happen. Democracy fails because people have no direct responsibility for their votes, so they act selfishly and then blame an intangible — “the voters” or the politicians in general — for the failure of their own leadership.

Even more, we must acknowledge that biology is destiny. Most people, on the order of all but one percent of the population, cannot figure out the complex issues of leadership, and in fact will be crazed. The worst offenders are the clever or smart but not brilliant who hang out from 115 to 135 on the IQ scale, and tend to vote with their damaged self-confidence and in light of theories designed to prove their own cleverness.

The idea that democracy could be limited to the intelligent is also nonsense. Democracy corrupts people. You cast a vote, but face no real consequences for that choice, whether it is good or bad. Further, to get a vote to happen, issues have to be simplified and sweetened to make them memorable, which distorts meaning and corrupts expectations. Finally, the act of voting is itself an abandonment of the idea of finding the right answer, just like throwing a decision to a committee is. Democracy makes people mentally and morally lazy in any dose.

This puts at an ugly point: all methods known to us are failure-prone. To a Traditionalist, modernity is the time after we decided to stop doing what has worked for all of history, and instead to rely on conjectural untested methods for their emotional value and thus popularity. In other words, all of the methods we have now are failure prone, but there are other methods.

However, because those contradict the fundamental assumption of our time — equality — which is also the most popular notion in human history, we do not consider them.

This leads us to the Fermi Paradox. Enrico Fermi, a physicist, postulated that if aliens existed, they would have the time and technology to travel the universe. In that case, a paradox occurs because we have seen nothing of them.

A number of explanations have been advanced. One is that they, knowing we are in a more primitive state, are hiding. Another is that they control us, or have otherwise blinded us to their presence (the They Live theory, to which all anti-Semites and anti-whites should switch immediately). Some insist they simply do not exist.

I advance a simpler idea: all advanced civilizations, up until this point, have destroyed themselves by exactly the same method. Like ancient Rome and Greece, they failed to hold together toward a purpose, became egalitarian, and this led them down a path of increasing degrees of equality-based actions to which no one could say NO.

As a result, these societies enter a death spiral of pursuing unrealistic ideological dreams and then being unable to mentally accept the reason for the failure of these pursuits, resulting in pathological application of failed policy until the civilization self-destructs and ends up as a subsistence, third-world style society.

Leftism is just our version of this egalitarian delusion. In this view, it is not just another political option, but a death trap, a mirage or illusion that ensnares the unwary. Think of it as a Venus Flytrap, luring in musca domestica with the promise of possible food, then gradually encasing him in a grave he does not recognize until it is too late.

There are other traps in life, too. Addiction, perversity, gambling, and obesity all come to mind as common human failings and yet, when tested on lab animals, the same behaviors emerge. These are the one category of universal behaviors, which is a tendency to engage in illusory thinking for short-term reward. Leftism formalizes these as moral good.

When the founding assumption of your society is based on a lie, nothing you do can succeed. As soon as the egalitarian insanity takes over, good people stop participating and generally self-destruct because they see the futility of even trying to have a sane and normal life. This eliminates them, and leaves only greedy morons and parasites, which is why great empires are followed by mud huts and rain dances.

This is where the alt right leaves behind the mainstream right. It realizes that we are not just fighting for our countries, and not just for civilization, but for our species. If we do not conquer our inner impulse toward illusion, it will conquer us, and we will become another silent star while another species, somewhere in the vast heavens, will take our place. We are expendable.

EpiPen, The Religion of Progress and The Price of Delusion

Monday, August 29th, 2016


Modern Amerika is a paradise for the rent-seeker. The rent-seeker looks for practitioners of the solipsistic fallacy. The rent-seeker seeks these self-centered individuals and picks them off. Health care is where the rent-seeker grows positively sleek at the buffet of solipsistic folly. Health care is where the delusional Amerikan tendency to brand anything they want as a right reaches a peak.

People will piously speak of their faith in Progress with regards to health care in a way that befuddles those of us not so deluded. Meghan McArdle writes of these poor, benighted snake-handles of Progressivism below.

‘The health of Americans should not be a profit center. Health care is a right. Full stop.’ That comes from the Twitter feed of personal finance writer Helaine Olen.

Now Helaine’s proclamation sounds reassuring if your five-year-old girl is running a fever of 102. It makes a certain relieving sense if you’ve just learned your elderly mom has stage three stomach cancer. This sentiment only repels me when I step back from my personal angst and pain over various medical maladies. Words have meanings and the meanings of these words come freighted with unintended consequences that can prove ungodly.

If Barack I declares something a God-breathed right, then United States Marines are expected to willingly die any time we Amerikans aren’t getting enough of our right. If that right is to an unlimited supply of unobtainium, then it properly isn’t a very bright idea to visit your recruiter and volunteer for Paris Island. When that particular right cannot even be objectively surmised in specific terms, it might as well involve unicorns, pixies and a pot full of unobtainium at the end of a cheery, imaginary rainbow.

Healthcare isn’t the most specifiable right. The requirement varies with every diverse individual. The general intellectual concept of health care as a right involves equality of outcome absent any similarity in initial case-by-case baseline. None of us need a single day at Med School to comprehend that not even Dr. Ben Carson can offer you that deal.

But there is always some guy who will tell you he can. This Gnosticism is the devil’s opportunity. Old Scratch just has to tuck that pair of horns under a snappy fedora and find somewhere to stash the cloven hooves and tail. Then he’s right in the front door doing business with Faustus.

It was the Robin Cook novel Coma that featured a villainous physician describing America’s hospitals as the cathedrals of our age. When people collaborate to build a cathedral1 the project seeks to venerate an ideal. The object of veneration here is deified progress. Progress so unstoppable, so ineffable, so complete that the veil of death is torn down and all the crazy superstitions are debunked. To logically and scientifically conquer death is to ascend. It is to kill God in a manner Nietzsche could never have foretold or even imagined.

Immortality, like Faustus’ deal with Mephistopheles comes at a price. It’s a price we don’t like paying, but reality collects. When we borrow against reality’s good graces via delusion, it sends over Carmine “The Spider” Baggadonutz to collect. “The Spider” in our healthcare fanstasyland is the rent-seeker pharamceutical firm. These guys see the dirty end of health care and see it the way all practical professionals see their field of employment.

They see it as a cutt-throat game of poker. When money goes down on the table, they are commissioned by their shareholders with a mandate. That mandate is to seize that money by any means available. In some cases, they carry this waghaltery out with a cheerily obscene elan.

And if you are put off by Martin Shkreli mansplaining this sort of things, Mylan CEO Heather Bresch shows us how it feels to have your wallet handi-vacced with a more feminine touch. She has seized upon her firm’s EpiPen monopoly and totally turned the screw allergy patients.

The drug has risen in price to around $600 from about $100 in 2009, according to medical literature and GoodRx, which lists drug prices at various pharmacies. But Bresch made no apologies for such pricing: ‘I am running a business,’ she told The New York Times. ‘I am a for-profit business. I am not hiding from that.’

Heather Bresch and Martin Shkreli just went in harder and did more damage. This has been an ongoing trend in the pharmaceutical industry at least since 2007. This slide from a presentation I did at work a couple of years back draws on research done by Bloomberg News and puts it in perspective contra the rate of inflation imagined by The US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Drug Prices2

Reality dictates that healthcare consists of a complex bundle of varying goods and services. It will vary as each of us varies as a human being. The outcomes will vary. The prices will vary. The requirements will vary. There is no intelligible process by which we can guarantee it to every citizen as a fundamental right. This belief is delusional.

Every delusion has its price. That price of delusion currently manifests in the cost of prescription pharmaceuticals. Heather Bresch and Martin Shkreli make handy Immanuel Goldsteins for Amerika’s INGSOC, yet neither is the root cause of expensive, inefficient American Healthcare. That is the price for sinful, foolish belief in the heresy of Deified Progress that pervades much of our declining Republic.

1 Apologies to Moldbug, but I speak of the actual physical edifice in this piece…

Recommended Reading