Posts Tagged ‘civil war’

Leftists Finally Admit That They Hate White People

Monday, October 2nd, 2017

Leftists waited only a few hours after the Vegas massacre to announce two things: first, they want gun control, and second, they hate white people.

While I find it ridiculous to fire people for their opinions, the first real salvo of the second prong was a CBS executive who wanted Republicans dead in the shooting:

A top legal executive at CBS, Hayley Geftman-Gold, said she “is not even sympathetic” for the victims of the shooting at a country music festival at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas Sunday night.

“If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing,” wrote Geftman-Gold on Facebook, perhaps referring to Sandy Hook. “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”

Since Republicans are the only party that marginally stands up for majority interests, the coded message here is clear: get rid of the white people and their political interests.

This coincides with what research tells us, which is that Leftists are oriented toward minority interests at the expense of the majority (and here is the full paper):

Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra. In both scenarios the individual decides to throw the person onto the trolley tracks.

…While self-described conservatives more readily accepted the sacrifice of Tyrone than they did killing Chip, the liberals were easier about seeing Chip sacrificed than Tyrone.

…So we went in Orange County out to a mall and we got people who are actually Republicans and actually Democrats, not wishy-washy college students. The effect just got stronger.

…If you’re wondering whether this is just because conservatives are racist—well, it may well be that conservatives are more racist. But it appears in these studies that the effect is driven [primarily] by liberals saying that they’re more likely to agree with pushing the white man and [more likely to] disagree with pushing the black man.

So we used to refer to this as the “kill whitey” study.

Leftism requires that people rationalize equality of human beings despite evident inequality in abilities and quality of character. In order to do this, they must mentally construct a victimhood saga where those who need equality — those below the average — have been oppressed and held back by those above. This causes them to visualize the above-average as stupid, cruel and evil.

In the same way, Leftists when witnessing a mass shooting decide that the majority are to blame for the situation, and reason that it must be not just fair but good if that majority is killed off.

Egalitarian movements all have this duality: because equality is not real, they must invent a narrative in which they can justify the belief despite its delusional quality. In so doing, they separate the world into that which supports the narrative and that which does not, and while they hide this in social settings, fervently wish for and work toward the death of the non-narrative elements.

At this point in the West, our people have divided into these two groups. Not all of the non-narrative are conservative, but all of the narrative are Leftist, and their desire to destroy the other group is pushing us toward open civil war. We no longer have anything in common, and therefore the center cannot hold, making such war inevitable.

Anarchy, Confederacy and Tyranny

Wednesday, August 30th, 2017

Tyranny is not a method, like authoritarianism, but a condition under which one exists when leadership is motivated by something other than the health of the organic nation as a whole. It needs to be the nation as a whole because otherwise it becomes divisive as one group is favored over others, which is one of the many paths to tyranny.

A tyrant might rule for his own sense of power and importance. He might favor one group over others. He might represent a foreign power wishing to destroy the society. Or, he might simply be in the grips of a messianic universalist dogma like Communism. In all cases, the result is the same: the organic nation loses, and the tyrant grows more powerful.

What is this organic nation? Mostly intangible patterns to tangibles like heritage, culture, history, values, faith, morality and wisdom. These are intangible between they are invisible relationships between objects over time, and not objects themselves. The pattern of a nation is first a genetic founding group, and then the culture and values that nurture it to be the best according to its purpose, a nebulous term indicating a position in an order like an ecosystem, where each tribe of humans exists in a balance with nature and have a certain role among both human and animal tribes.

Watching the storm die down in Houston, it has become clear that natural disasters, by interrupting the infrastructure and institutions of civilization, create a type of temporary anarchy which is profound in what is missing: the sense of being able to conduct an ordinary life according to the purpose assigned to the tribe to which one belongs. This, more than “freedom,” is what the healthy person desires. They want the ability to live so that they make something of their lives that is worth living and dying for.

Houston, in the final analysis, will be seen as a typical city like Detroit or Chicago that has run itself into debt because the voters wanted social benefits more than flood control drainage. But more broadly, it shows us why the Confederacy wanted to retain the rights of states, instead of joining an all-powerful Union.

The reason for this, ironically, was the same reason that the original colonies seceded from England in the first place.

The Civil War began based on the pretext of slavery, but the cause ran deeper: the destruction of the Southern economy by Northern industrial interests. Let us look at a primary source, the Declaration of Causes from Georgia:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.

Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

The document begins by talking about slavery, but then picks up to the actual cause: Northern taxation, tariffs and other impositions upon the South which were designed to crush its industry, which would then allow it to be purchased and controlled by Northern industry, which wanted vertical integration of its industry, much of which (including textiles) used the raw output of Southern agriculture.

Georgia explains this here:

After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South.

The South was an agrarian economy that provided raw materials; the North was an industrial economy that took those raw materials, finished them into textiles and other goods, and then sold them overseas. The South, realizing that its goods fetched better prices in England and mainland Europe, began selling directly overseas and receiving higher prices. This sustained Southern independence from the North and frustrated Northern manufacturers, who realized that there was great profit in buying low and selling high.

To counter that, the North imposed a number of tariffs on European goods, and Europe raised reciprocal tariffs in response. This forced the South to sell its goods to the North at reduced prices; when America raised her tariffs, other nations raised theirs to American goods, and so the only market was domestic. However, the Walker Tariff Act of 1846 lowered tariffs, in part to pacify British concern over the borders that were drawn for Oregon earlier that year. That meant the South could keep its economy.

In response, Northern politicians paired up with industry and came up with a compromise: the forerunners of today’s liberals objected to slavery on a moral basis, and so this aegis of righteousness could be adopted in order to conceal the financial motivations behind the desire to crush the South. That ideological crusade then became the pretext, or excuse, for war.

Texas added another complaint:

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

Much of the contentious behavior that preceded that war involved the annexation of new territories in the Northwest and former French colonies, namely because the Northern states — under the guise of opposing slavery, but actually in a competition of economic systems — refused to allow the South any of this territory, and used other means of artificially limiting the size of the South.

With the election of Abraham Lincoln, who made anti-slavery part of his campaign, it became clear that inevitably the larger territory of the North plus its larger population would defeat the popular vote and Electoral College both, and slavery would be abolished, which was significant in that it would gut the Southern economy, allowing it to be purchased by the industries of the North so they would have guaranteed supply of raw materials.

As part of its desire to intensify the pressure on the South, the federal government stopped providing many promised protections, offloading more cost onto the governments of the Southern States in an attempt to weaken them. By allowing Indians and Mexico to attack Texas, the government hoped to force the State to pay for its own defenses and distract itself with more immediate threats.

In other words, the South could either go to war, or be destroyed by the ballot box.

The American Civil War reprised the French Revolution in that ideology was used as a cover for theft. In the French Revolution, the lower classes wanted wealth and power, and some elements of the mercantile middle classes wanted to remove any barriers to their further profits, so an ideological pretext was invented for the overthrow of the kings. In America, the same was done using slavery, when the actual motive was the $16bn Southern economy.

Abraham Lincoln formalized the metapolitics of ideological pretexts with what would become American policy, from a letter to Karl Marx:

Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example.

Today, we call that globalism, which might be better understood as worldwide Leftism, or a doctrine of the equality of all human individuals. This idea makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside because it promises an end to struggle for social acceptance, and so it is a powerful way to motivate masses of people as is required by democracy, and upon its success the US — like the French Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks — adopted it as the most fundamental policy of American rule.

At this point, we have come to the root cause of the American Civil War: it was an attempt to preserve an early form of democracy from the later form into which democracy, aided by the mercantile middle classes and lower class revolt, evolves. As one famous discourse explains it:

The following conversation between English ship Captain Hillyar and Capt. Raphael Semmes-Confederate Ship CSS Alabama occurred during the war on August 5th, 1861. It is a summary from a well-educated Southerner who is stating his reasons for fighting…

Semmes: “Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North”, and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law.”

Captain Hillyar: “All this is new to me,” replied the captain. “I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question.”

Semmes: “That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that ‘No slavery’ would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it.
It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property – it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence.”

The Union victory in 1865 destroyed the right of secession in America,which had been so cherished by America’s founding fathers as the principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England, understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4,1866, Lord Acton (author of the famous phrase, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Editor) wrote, “I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon). As Illinois Governor Richard Yates stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2,1865, the war had “tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian Ideal ( Thomas Jefferson ) that the best government is that which governs least.”

The Jeffersonian ideal consisted of the notion that government was a necessary evil that could be mitigated by limiting its size and power. This is the modern conservative ideal of “small government,” which means not just a government of few employees, but one of few powers, which requires that government not have an ideology such as the one Lincoln adopted above, but merely be a caretaker of its people. The flaw in the Jeffersonian view is that it focuses on restricting government, but does not find a way to compel government to affirmatively reach toward positive goals, which creates a pattern of history where government ignores obvious problems, and then to fix them, as Plato related regarding tyrants, demands more powers which are not rescinded after the crisis passes.

Critics of democracy have long observed that it inevitably grows in power over time because it changes the people over which it rules. Plato notes that men under democracy become solipsistic because of the focus on “freedom” instead of virtue. Alexander de Tocqueville described this risk to human psychology as well in Democracy in America, Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter VI, “What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear”:

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison quotes John Adams as saying:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

The hope of that paper was to establish that a Republic — essentially a democracy limited by laws, rights and procedures — was fundamentally different than a democracy, despite being a variety of democracy. What history has shown us in the intervening years is that if even a highly architected document like the Constitution cannot limit people from voting changes to their Republic to make it into a democracy, there is no hope for democracy at all, because any infection of democracy into a political system will inevitably lead to full democracy and the tyranny of the majority, as happened in the American Civil War.

In Houston, we see a similar failure: a city that was warned about the potential of a catastrophic flood, but chose instead to spend its money on social benefits, as the majority wanted. Who is this majority? Steve Sailer reminds us that Houston became a minority-majority city in the 1980s, and since that time, has leaned Leftward, including toward policies that increased the amount of concrete in the city, avoided vital drainage projects, and enhanced benefits, causing the city to be deeply in debt.

The dynamic of the current situation in Houston is similar to that of the Confederacy, which was held hostage by a more numerous voting majority in the North comprised of mixed-ethnic people who were sympathetic to the underdog narrative of the abolitionists. Anti-Immigrant sentiment blossomed in America for the four decades prior to the Civil War, and in fact pro-immigrant emotions of the time parallel our current national narrative:

Although a smattering of Irish Catholics had lived in America since the colonial period, there was no significant immigration to the United States until the catastrophe of the Potato Famine (1845-1853) set it in motion. The first non-Protestant group to arrive in large numbers, the Irish often faced both religious and ethnic prejudice from the then largely Anglo-Saxon population. Anti-Catholic, particularly anti–Irish Catholic, feelings led to the formation of the American or Know-Nothing Party, which enjoyed a brief period of influence in the early 1850s before the growing sectional dispute pushed the Catholic immigrant issue to the sidelines.

…Nevertheless, the firing on Fort Sumter and President Abraham Lincoln’s call for volunteers evoked a sense of patriotism to the Union that was fanned by Irish newspapers and political and religious leaders. Patrick Donohue’s Boston Pilot, the ‘Irishman’s bible,’ enthusiastically supported the war to restore the Union. Archbishop John Joseph Hughes of New York, the ‘bishop and chief’ of the New York Irish whose influence was nationwide, also urged his flock to help suppress the rebellion. But early in the war he pointedly warned the Lincoln administration that if Irish-American soldiers had ‘to fight for the abolition of slavery, then, indeed, they will turn away in disgust from the discharge of what would otherwise be a patriotic duty.’

…Of the approximately 140,000 Irish-born soldiers in the Federal armies, about one-third came from New York. Ambitious Irish New Yorkers fanned out across the country, encouraging state governors to approve the Irish formations in other states while securing commands for themselves. Scattered Irish regiments were formed in the West, but the East provided the bulk of officially designated Irish units.

Any immigrant group or group in a diverse society that does not perceive itself as being in control will feel a similar sentiment: it resents and tries to subvert whatever group is above it. This is one of the many reasons that diversity does not work. Another is a loss of social trust which results in alienation even within ethnic groups.

More importantly, however, each identifiable group acts in its own interests — this extends to race, religion, ethnicity, class and politics — and will use politics as a means to enrich itself while damaging other groups. This is exactly what happened in Houston, where Mayor Sylvester Turner supports benefits to the mostly-minority city services workers while opposing any increase in drainage systems:

Metro Houston, which includes smaller communities and unincorporated parts of Harris County, has added more than a million people since 1992, while the amount of water-absorbing wetlands per capita has been halved. Paved surfaces in the county increased by well over 25 percent in that period, according to researchers.

Paved land generates five times more runoff than woodlands.

…More than a quarter of the $726,000 in contributions to Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner last December came from developers, engineers, builders and real estate interests. Some of the money for Turner, a Democrat who won a Dec. 12 runoff, was collected at a Metro National fundraiser.

The situation gets more interesting when one considers the nature of Houston: it is a commercial downtown surrounded by suburbs, which are highly segregated by race despite the massively diverse and cosmopolitan character of the city. The suburbs, especially the white suburbs, pay most of the taxes; the recipients of social benefits are mostly minorities. Like the South paid for the North, the suburbs are paying for the city.

For this reason, voters have divided into two camps: those who rationalize the situation and convince themselves to support it, and those who do not, but know that they will never win because the city is only 24.9% white, and therefore between combined minority and Leftist votes, will always approve the Leftist agenda of more social programs and benefits. This is why Houston has elected blacks and lesbians as its recent mayors, and why it is a very blue region in a red state.

Much like the Confederacy, European-Americans are held hostage to a similar pattern: the cities of the coasts, who are blue, have the numbers and the money, so they control the media and the voting, but it is the European-Americans in the center of the country who are the middle class and upper class voters squeezed to provide most of the taxes. In Houston, this occurs through property taxes based on the value of the home. Tenement homes pay very little in taxes; middle-class and above homes pay the vast majority.

Real wages have not budged for decades, corresponding to the introduction of welfare and entitlements programs in the federal budget, which means that the squeeze on the middle class is becoming more pronounced at a time when, owing to the influx of third world immigrants whose lower IQs make them destined to be poor, costs are steadily rising.

As in the past, a refusal to look honestly at the situation and the need for producers to be rewarded and not parasitized has set the conditions for a civil war. While the waters recede, many European-Americans in Houston are realizing that the money taken from them went to another group, and now those European-Americans pay the price with flooded homes and ruined businesses.

Twilight of the Republic

Sunday, August 27th, 2017

My, what a magnificent spectacle the fall of a republic truly provides!  

In the United States of America, we’re seeing the liberal left lob bottles of urine at police at free speech protests. We’re seeing a terrorist organization being praised by news networks located steps away from the attacks of September 11th.  And we’re watching mainstream media fill their programs with outrageous conspiracy theories while ignoring long-elusive foreign policy victories.  

Now that the corruption in American government and media is as obvious as that of Brazil, it has become clear that the republic we’ve grown to know and love is not likely to survive the next generation. The battle lines for the next civil war are being drawn, the alliances between various political factions are beginning to solidify, and it’s becoming clear how this war is likely to play out.

Much like prelude to World War I, multiple micro-conflicts are escalating in America.  The Trump administration is at war with Obama loyalists, the mainstream media, the old guard of the intelligence agencies, and neoconservative Republicans.  Antifa is at war with both the extreme nationalist right and the moderates defending free speech. Black lives matter is at war with the police. The well-funded tech platforms are at war with the alt-tech and the cyber armies of the darkweb. But just as World War I saw multiple alliances forge two solid armies, we will likely see the same here in the United States. All that we’re missing at this point is a hair trigger moment like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand to set the bullets flying.

One that moment arrives, a likely scenario would play out as follows…

The conservative side — let’s call them the “American Republican Army” — will be led by Trump and will be comprised of his loyalists, the military, most of the police, private militias, and civilians of states with less-restrictive gun laws.  The multitude of conservative factions will align with this side. This means the Alt Right, Alt-Lite, moderates, constitutionalists, libertarians, and some neo-cons will set aside their differences and stand shoulder to shoulder. Most of the nation’s centrists will also join this group, as the left is far more radical and far more intolerant. This group will be supported most of the working and middle class of America and nearly all of its veterans.

The opposing side — let’s call them the “Socialists for a Democratic Society” — will be led by George Soros (with Bernie Sanders or Mark Zuckerberg as the face of the movement) and will be comprised of private military contractors (PMCs), Antifa, civilian anarchists, and some traitor state/city military loyal to democrat mayors, senators, and donors. This side will have the mainstream media, celebrities, and social media platforms radicalizing much of the population in Democrat states and large cities and will also include progressives, socialists, radicalized colleges, and some of the more donor-owned neoconservative Republicans.  This group will represent the upper class and will unfortunately convince the lower class that it represents them as well.

The war will be short-lived and vicious. The SDS, heavy on cash, will rely on mostly private military contractors and guerrilla tactics.  Operations will be similar to that of the Islamic State, with unthinkable acts of violence to which the media will turn a blind eye. The superior training and sheer size of the ARA, however, will be swift and decisive in eliminating this foe. The civilian Antifa and anarchists will be armed, but untrained and undisciplined, and quickly picked off by gun wielding conservative citizens in battles fought in open territory. The untrained SDS soldiers will succeed only in terrorizing civilians to stay loyal to their cause, until their numbers are brutalized. Throughout the conflict, Russia will keep NATO loyal to Trump’s America.  Mexico may throw its support behind the Democratic Socialists, but will be partially or fully annexed either way.

It will be urban warfare throughout most of the campaign with New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. being the site of the decisive battles. Once the ARA knocks the mainstream media and social media outlets offline and executes the celebrities and celebrity reporters, the sensitive citizens supporting the Democratic Socialist army will pressure them to surrender. The private contractor armies will eventually betray the men funding them. Riots will be short lived, and the billionaire class will flee the United States in droves.

Trump’s army will emerge victorious, and all of his adversaries will be vanquished. The country will be unified into the first American Empire, and the nation will see a more authoritarian version of the America of the 1950s. For the first time the media will be controlled by the state, as well as the flow of information, and law will be aligned firmly with Christianity.

As a constitutionalist, and as a man of my word, I will continue to support the republic I have pledged my allegiance to.  But as an intellectual, a free thinker,  and a realist, I recognize that the American republic that we know is not likely to survive for much longer.

On The Necessity Of Political Violence

Wednesday, June 14th, 2017

So we have another incident of political violence in America, and as usual the Left is trying to sweep it under the rug.

In this particular instance, however, the shooter was clearly a troubled person. Like suicide bombers, he hitched up with other angry people and did not really care if he lived or died. His life sounds like it was fairly miserable anyway, so the final police bullet that tore out his aorta was probably a merciful coup de grace.

Political violence is a part of our lives now. It happens through race riots and constant third world underclass crime directed at the Western European majority. Add to that constant terrorism, the Antifa riots in the streets and attacks on Trump supporters, and the constant wave of vandalism and theft directed from lower classes toward the upper classes.

The thing no one wants to talk about is that political violence is necessary. If not the acts themselves, the preparation. It does better if kept to a strategic level and not outright warfare by the ton like the American Civil War, but people need to be ready for the fact that most of humanity is delusional and violent most of the time.

A best case scenario for the West is that the Left looks at the Right, sees a group that is ready to fight but willing not to, and then realizes that we are going to cut or defund or sabotage their social welfare benefits however we have to. At that point, they have lost the benefit of staying with us, and will go their own way, which means they will collapse sooner rather than later.

What went wrong during the American Civil War was that the real motive behind the war was control and theft, with slavery being a pretext only. The sides clashed over incompatible civilization-types and only secondarily over issues.

We know that Left and Right cannot coexist, different ethnic groups cannot coexist, that different religious groups in the same area leads to internal division, and that social classes need to be separated or the resentment compounds. The breakup is coming. Author Billy Roper suggests that it will be balkanization, or the division of the West into many small city-states each defending its own tribe, heritage, language, religion, race, ethne, and possibly caste. We cannot coexist and work together, so separation is inevitable.

In the meantime, the Left will do what it always does, which is mobilize masses of people chanting mindless slogans about “freedom” and “equality” to destroy anyone who steps outside the Leftist agenda. This is why it makes sense to be ready for war, but not to start one, and if you must fight, do so on your own turf as a defensive war, slaughtering the invaders instead of trying to conquer them.

History shows us that it is best to avoid engaging in wars, but it is also nonsensical to expect to avoid conflict because your only other option is having unreasonable people force themselves on you. The Left are not reasonable, and there are many more of them with mental health problems who are willing to commit violence.

Guys like James T. Hodgkinson are a common sight around here. They often have good jobs, but no real power or actual influence. Their personal lives are half soap opera and half notes of a psychiatrist. Their habits are out of control, their appearance slovenly, and they tend to live for “being right” by watching the right television, reading the new studies, and always arguing for more Leftism.

To them, the world is bad because it did not work out well for them. This pushes them into a state where they either must admit the need to accept a lower rank in the world, or claim that their low rank is an error caused by the innate badness of the world. Some of them will become weaponized, but they are less deadly than the mobilized mob of normal people fighting for things they are taught to believe are good.

Think about the world wars. Entire societies mobilized because the other side was — in echoes of the French Revolution — against “freedom,” “equality” and “liberty.” Millions gave their lives. Just like in the Civil War, the strength of the Left is in its mass mobilization. Since they control the narrative of what is right and what is wrong, the herd follows those magic symbols and then violence results.

However, the weak point in this narrative is that it requires a victimization to occur. Democracies can wage war after a Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor, but they are incapable of waging war to head off a future crisis that has not taken tangible form, such as an act where they feel like they are the victims.

For this reason, the winning strategy for the Right is to be prepared and to apply pressure, but then to encourage the Left to go its own way by cutting off the wealth they depend on. This will weaken them in advance, and make the retreat to a separate nation seem less costly than trying to stick it out with us. But be wary of provoking them with a first strike — it is what they are counting on.

Could The Civil War Have Been Avoided?

Saturday, May 13th, 2017

From Calculating the Value of the Union: Slavery, Property Rights, and the Economic Origins of the Civil War, by James L. Huston.

When a society is caught in one part of the historical cycle, it loops on the same concepts. President Trump recently opened a can of worms when he asked whether the Civil War was avoidable:

“People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why?” Trump said during an interview with the Washington Examiner. “People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”

Trump said Jackson — who died in 1845, 16 years before the Civil War started — would have been able to figure out how to avoid the conflict between the North and the South.

What Trump touches on is a simple truth: the Civil War was fought to conquer and ideological enemy and take their wealth. The North, enmired in the ugliness of factories, resented the South for having a less egalitarian but more elegant civilization.

As with all Left-leaning societies, the North was outspending its capacity and threatened by the possibility of an option to the increasingly gnarly life in the industrial cities, and saw a chance to both assert its ideology as the only possible way of life, and bolster its depleted coffers.

This war could have been avoided. Instead, we fight it again. The Left wants progress, which means even uglier cities and daily lives of conformity and pointless “hard work” jobs that achieve nothing important, and the rest of us want a society which rises from the ashes of modernity toward the kind of wholesome, fulfilling life that the South had.

Since we have industrial machinery now, slavery is not even a factor, although it seems that American blacks suffered less violence and poverty under slavery, which made them valuable members of the economy instead of disposable labor worth only what industry would give it, and less now that we have found new bulk labor in immigrants from the rest of the world.

Huntington Won The Battle Of Ideas, And Defined Our Future

Saturday, April 8th, 2017

Back in the 1990s, there was debate over our future as a species. One writer, Francis Fukuyama, opined that since all other systems had failed, liberal democracy would be the pattern of human dwelling from that point onward. Another, Samuel Huntington, wrote that humans were motivated by existential need more than compromise, and so our future would be one of clashing tribalism.

Naturally, there was nuance. Fukuyama is perceptive, and basing his argument in Nietzsche’s concept of “the end of history,” he immediately revealed his reluctance to embrace this future as wholly positive. Huntington, for his part, suggested that each tribe would find a political system which matched its cultural needs. And so the complexity deepens.

Almost everyone paying attention realizes that we are right now in the midst of a massive shift of history. The old way has fallen apart; the new way has not yet become clear, but the many failures of the old path suggest that we need to go in an entirely different direction. This resurrects the debate over which of these writers was more correct.

Fukuyama gives us an insight into human decision-making that endures, even if liberal democracy does not:

But whether Fukuyama’s neo-Hegelianism is plausible is not the most interesting aspect of his thesis. For throughout his analysis, Fukuyama insisted on the centrality of thymos (the Greek for ‘spiritedness’), or recognition, to human psychology: what Thomas Hobbes called pride, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau labelled amour propre. This denotes the need to be liked and respected by other people, and to have that recognition outwardly affirmed – if necessary, extracting it by force. Some human beings, Fukuyama thought, are always going to be inherently competitive and greedy for recognition. Some will therefore always vie to be thought of as the best – and others will resent them for that, and vie back. This has the potential to cause a lot of trouble. Human beings demand respect, and if they don’t feel that they are getting it, they break things – and people – in response.

It was this psychological feature of people, Fukuyama claimed, that guaranteed that although we might have reached the end of History, there was nothing to be triumphalist about. Just because humans could do no better than liberal capitalist democracy – could progress to no form of society that contained fewer inherent conflicts and contradictions – it didn’t mean that the unruly and competitive populations of such societies would sit still and be content with that. Late capitalist modernity might be the highest civilisational point we could achieve, because it contained the fewest contradictions. But there was strong reason to suspect that we’d slide off the top, back into History, down into something worse.

In other words, Fukuyama rejected the Hegelian notion of dialectical materialism that saw the zigs and zags of history as converging on an ideal, and instead saw a pattern of reduction to compromise, by which we retained that which was least likely to cause chaos. In this view, the indecisiveness of liberal democracy is its saving grace.

What hovers in the wings is the idea, common to all conservatives, that history is cyclic or composed of repeating patterns which have an apex, then deviation, and finally a return to order. Any theory of golden ages and dark ages bears out this concept, which is that we stumble into bad times by denying what we know of the good, and then must fight to recover that lost wisdom.

This presents an interesting dilemma, which is that by the cyclic view of history, “compromise” is an artifact of the death cycle and not the resurrection of life (think of winter turning to spring). Compromise is what one does when losing and trying to minimize further loss. Fukuyama’s skepticism is well-merited in that context.

On the other hand, Huntington argued that a spiritual and cultural revolution based in the need for meaning would drive humanity to a new dark age leading to the resurrection of classical orders of civilization:

The political scientist Samuel Huntington predicted that the post-Cold War world would be dominated by a “clash of civilizations,” and even the most sanguine observer will admit that recent years have seen more than a few chaotic civilizational clashes. The shifting and fragile alliances between the scores of nations and organizations active in the Middle East, for example, show chaos at its “best” (or worst). War has brought its own chaos and, by displacing millions, has brought the chaos of a refugee crisis to even the most comfortable and complacent nations of the West. Nor is the rest of world immune from international chaos, which seems to constantly take on new forms and create new problems.

…Confucianism and Taoism represent two opposite paradigms of responses to personal and social chaos. Confucius saw chaos and tried to approach it, to master and control it, to tame and pacify it. Laozi (the founder of Taoism) saw chaos and tried to avoid it, to flee from and ignore it, and even sometimes to surrender to its inevitability. Psychologists and physiologists who have studied behavioral responses to threats would identify the well-known “fight or flight” reactions embodied in these philosophical traditions. Confucianism is the philosophy of fighting chaos, and Taoism is the philosophy of flight from chaos.

In these two extremes we see echoes of Nietzsche’s analysis of the Apollonian and Dionysian approaches. Apollo strives for order; Dionysius revels in chaos and indefinable impulses like hedonism and aesthetics. What seems lost is the recognition that chaos is a part of order.

When one desires an effect, it is necessary to look through history to discover its cause, which often does not resemble the effect at all. In Huntington, the desire to escape rigid human order and assert the need for meaning — a property of the individual in interaction with civilization and world, not of the individual alone — shows us chaos leading to order, guided only by logical analysis which realizes that what humans consider “order” is most often a cause of chaos.

In this view, liberal democracy is the last effort of a dying trend to replace what makes human life meaningful with laws guided by our intentions and the presumption of equality. We want good effects, but cannot look into the causes for them, such as tribalism or natural selection. This leads to us creating the chaos of the death cycle, but at some point, that chaos reverses.

The human spirit bounces back, once enough of us see the decay, to want to thrive again instead of merely trying to hold back the ruin. We admit that failure happened, that we have hit rock bottom, and recognize that we have to rebuild. At that point, we start working to overthrow the “order” that has oppressed us, leading to revolution.

Some would say that civil war is upon us but this misses the broader context that Huntington illustrates:

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

…Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

In the Huntingtonian view, therein lies the problem: we are trying to make different groups equal. They cannot be; they desire different types of societies. Those on the Left desire a third-world style anarchy, and those on the Right want a civilization that thrives and moves qualitatively toward greatness. Those views are incompatible.

Human intentions lead us to try to force life to produce good outcomes on the level of effect, but because we deny causes because they are beyond the level of intention, we then create enduring conflict. Leftists and Rightists cannot coexist in the same society. We have been doing so because the Right has been in retreat because Leftism is always more popular, until it collapses.

Now as the collapse begins to filter in through many different angles, we see that coexistence cannot occur. There is no equality, least of all between those who want civilization and those who want subsistence living. The two must separate. And in doing so, we will restart the cycle at a point shortly before its golden age.

In this new history, those who want civilization will separate from the rest and send those others to dwell among those of like mind in the third world. Tribal groupings will reform, and the old alliances will be restored such that related groups act together for mutual benefit. Caste, hierarchy and strong cultural rule instead of the police state will return.

To the modern mind, this will be a new dark age born of chaos because there will not be rules reflecting human intent such as equality, pluralism, tolerance, socializing and individualism in this new age. Instead there will be only realism, stark and yet providing the best results because it understands reality instead of denying it, and an impulse toward goodness that defines the start of a cycle.

American Exceptionalism Died With The Cold War

Tuesday, January 31st, 2017

From an extremely unreliable source published in an extremely untrustworthy newspaper, Aldrich Ames explains why the USA fell apart in the 1990s:

There’s been quite a bit of debate inside and outside the C.I.A. — what’s the agency’s mission now that the cold war is over and the Soviets are gone?
Everyone is pretending things haven’t changed. And by God, the scales have to drop from our eyes at some point.

What would we see?
We don’t have a special mission. We have been . . . deluding ourselves politically and convincing ourselves that we have a special mission.

What do you think this delusion is?
To connect the repression of however you want to describe movements for economic and social justice in this country with a hyped-up threat from abroad, and to try and link the two, and to attack both. I hate to sound like an old-line Stalinist or something, but. . . .

An enemy within?

While one should not trust Ames any more than a personified AIDS virus selling used cars, he makes a good point: after the fall of the Soviet Union, the American exceptionalism myth — refined by WWII to include opposition to nationalism — because a cause in itself, or rather, a national symbol we had to justify with some ideological basis.

Much like the SJWs to come after him, Ames explains “repression of…movements for economic and social justice” as a means by which a shadow government stays in power, implying that while there was an ideological similarity between domestic Leftism and imported Leftism (Communism), that with the fall of the Soviet Union, the lack of Leftist bad guys caused domestic Leftism to strengthen.

In this he is probably correct. America based itself on morality during its Revolution, arguing for “freedom” as a means of proving its own goodness. This exploded during the Civil War into moral signaling overload over the issue of slavery, which was a trigger of the war but not its cause, which was a power struggle between heartland and cities. After WWI, in the wake of economic collapse, the USA slid Leftward like the rest of Europe and re-invented its basic dogma of moral goodness (“American exceptionalism”) to justify its increasingly aggressive foreign policy.

After WWII, nothing remained of the original culture but this ideology — the white whale and one true ring of the human mind, an easy cause which makes the user feel more important than the physical world, like religion, martyrdom and science rolled into one… — which promptly took over in the 1960s after the triumph of the labor movement in the previous decade.

When the 1990s dawned, the only competing form of Leftism failed, and nothing united Americans except a belief in this moral/ideological supremacy. This carried them forward into a foreign policy based in conquest through commerce and culture where those who did not follow the plan were targeted much as Nazis and Communists once were, and bombed.

The election of Barack Obama took this moral/ideological complex to its greatest height, but the ensuing years saw theory after theory put into practice only to fail. Obama had the support of the nation and his party, but still failed by succeeding, leaving a trail of wreckage. The Brexit/Trump repudiation of the Obama years made it clear the postwar liberal democratic order was dead.

Ames touches on one vitally important thing: there is an enemy within, and it is defined by the fact that it is a conclusion in search of an argument, not the other way around. This enemy is formed of the need of the herd and its tendency to choose insane, sub-optimal and mentally convenient but inaccurate solutions over anything resembling sane policy. Unleashed by democracy, now it threatens humanity.

White people do not understand diversity

Wednesday, December 30th, 2015


White people do not understand diversity in the same way conservatives do not understand pluralism. In the happy view they have sold themselves, white people and conservatives see diversity as a type of meritocracy: everyone becomes one big happy, and then we each do what benefits us, working together toward the goal of our happy pluralistic society.

When this fails, conservatives and white people tend to rage at how unfair it is. How can these minorities and liberals not share this vision of our collective destiny? In that assumption of collectivism, conservatives show they have imbibed the egalitarian mythos and doubled down on it, applying its standards to itself instead of understanding the nature of pluralism and diversity, which is “every person — and tribe — for itself.”

Conservatives were shocked to see the lack of collectivist patriotism from students at Yale University (now a third-rate college, apparently) who were demanding special treatment for themselves as divided by ethnic groups. To conservatives, this was segregation and a class system all over again, and so they criticized these liberals using liberal rhetoric:

As students saw it, their pain ought to have been the decisive factor in determining the acceptability of the Halloween email. They thought their request for an apology ought to have been sufficient to secure one. Who taught them that it is righteous to pillory faculty for failing to validate their feelings, as if disagreement is tantamount to disrespect? Their mindset is anti-diversity, anti-pluralism, and anti-tolerance, a seeming data-point in favor of April Kelly-Woessner’s provocative argument that “young people today are less politically tolerant than their parents’ generation.”

The problem here is that the liberals and minorities are right.

Pluralism does not mean “E pluribus unum” (out of many, one) as conservatives surmise. Instead, it means that every group keeps its own standards so that it can maintain its own self-interest. This is the nature of pluralism: it is to agree to disagree, not to agree to work together toward anything, least of all the kind of pro-America Horatio Alger nonsense that conservatives usually babble in public.

White people do not understand this, mainly because — as in all things — the left two-thirds of the cracker Bell Curve statistically drown out the one in five people who can understand the issue and the one in a hundred who can analyze it to a solution. In the white mentality — dominated by college students, clerks and suburban women with too much time on their hands — pluralism is the answer to “why can’t we all get along?” In their view, it means that we all tolerate each other, and then act white as a means to the end of having the white society that people claim to enjoy.

In reality, there is something more important than convenience and it appears unvocalized in all people: the need for control over one’s own destiny. For minorities, to live in a white society even if they control it means to be servants of someone else’s dream and a defeated people in someone else’s kingdom. They need an identity of their own, including institutions and leaders, and this informs their definition of pluralism, but owing to their liberal ideology, they cannot see how this means that diversity ca never work — just as the honkies cannot.

History as always shows us an answer, which usually involves the grim fact that it takes centuries to see the consequences of any act. Media establishments were amazed at how relaxed Caucasians are at becoming a minority in their own lands:

In the early 20th century, Congress, backed by the “science” of eugenics, restricted immigration by the “races” of southern and eastern Europe, which were generally viewed as inferior stock. Madison Grant’s 1916 book, “The Passing of the Great Race,” argued for Nordic supremacy to maintain the nation’s stature. A 1917 law created the Asiatic Barred Zone to further curtail already limited immigration from most of Asia and the Middle East. And in 1921 and 1924 new immigration restrictions were imposed to privilege admission to the U.S. of immigrants from Germany, Ireland and the U.K. and to reduce the flow of most others.

Current resistance to nonwhite immigration — including opposition to the legalization of undocumented immigrants who are already here — is weak by comparison. According to a December Pew Research Center/USA Today survey, 70 percent of Americans supported legal status for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., with 43 percent also supporting a path to citizenship. Specifically among whites, 64 percent said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally if certain requirements are met.

To Caucasians, diversity means that we just keep on truckin’ the same way we always have, but now we have ethnic restaurants and smart black hacker friends like in the movies.

In reality, the American nativists were correct all along. Diversity of any form destroys our control over our destiny by destroying our identity. After that point, there is no unity, only a sense of living in a place for convenience. Pluralism breaks down into each person doing what they want except where obligated, a kind of “anarchy with grocery stores” plus the jobs to pay for those groceries and buy your way into a gated community apart from the 80% of your society that is now a multi-cultural war zone of urban decay.

In this way, diversity takes us to a lowest common denominator. This was apparent to our ancestors. What intervened was 150 years of liberal propaganda based on the successful media blitz before the Civil War, in which the “new Americans” — Irish, Greek, Italian, Jewish, Slavic and lawyers — were convinced to beat up on the old Anglo-Saxon establishment in the South using slavery as a moral blank check. This missed the fact that starting in the 1830s, nations began abandoning slavery because technology was making it obsolete, and that the South was already phasing out slavery but did not want to take a single massive economic hit — or create diversity by freeing slaves.

Think through the logic tree of diversity. Different groups will either assimilate each other, forming a miscegenated substrate like we see in most third world countries across the globe, or will Balkanize, which is the minority view of pluralism seen above: each race segregates, gets its own facilities and institutions, and its own rules to protect it from the others. This will regress into ethnic warfare and end in mass assimilation.

Diversity means genocide. It will destroy whites, yes, but it will also destroy all minority groups and leave behind a less-capable tan group. Much as it was used as a weapon against Anglo-Saxons, who were genocided by liberals using “near-whites” from Ireland, Greece, Italy, Eastern Europe and Israel as a biological weapon to adulterate and replace the Anglo-Saxon population, it is now being used against whites.

This fits the pattern of liberal takeovers of society: liberals seize power, and all are afraid to oppose them because liberals have good intentions expressed in equality. Liberals then destroy any populations that have any beliefs which might come before liberalism, starting with the churches but extending to passive-aggressive ethnic cleansing. In the end, what is left is a 90 average IQ population that permanently votes leftist, and a country with no future.

But this remains unknown to whites. They trust their television, and they trust white liberals, who have led them on like a bull charging at a cape by allowing whites to have their illusions about what diversity is so long as whites support it. Now that the cape was been whipped aside yet again, whites are circling around for another charge, convinced that the square of red cloth, or minorities demanding pluralism as it is — and not the matador in the Che Guevara t-shirt — is the source of their frustration. Not surprisingly, this too will fail for them, just as it is intended to.

“Racism” is a scapegoat for the failure of diversity

Monday, June 22nd, 2015


Witness our bold President, crossing a taboo line to deliver a socially important message:

“Racism, we are not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say ‘nigger’ in public,” Obama said in an interview for the podcast WTF with Marc Maron.

“That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don’t, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior.”

The usual sleight of hand here. Recall that most humans fear evolutionary pressures to improve themselves, and so make war on the idea of social standards which compel them to discipline or moral behavior. To that end, they attempt to abolish social standards. As a method of doing that, they distract from any important issue with an unimportant but emotionally simplistic one.

In this case, the real issue is the health of our civilization: it is in decline. The false issue is that our real problem is a lack of diversity. That creates the current issue, which is a tendency to (1) blame slavery for “racism” and (2) blame the failures of diversity on “racism.”

Why, you may ask, do I put “racism” in quotation marks? Simply put: “racism” does not exist. A desire to be among one’s own kind — this is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, class and values all together — is the natural state of humankind and exists for a simple reason. Similarity reduces the need for communication, negotiation and the endless rules, regulations and bureaucracy of which liberals are so enamored. Without difference, people are moving in roughly the same direction and much of the overhead that does not work well and more importantly, makes life frustrating and tedious, can be eliminated. Life becomes simpler, with less work and more play, and people are more at rest and trusting of each other.

Most of what we call “racism” consists of people like Dylann Roof who want to resist diversity, and have made the fatal mistake of confusing the visible symbol of diversity — African-Americans — with the program itself and the idea behind it. For liberals, diversity is a way to destroy national cultures and replace them with ideology. They want those rules, regulations and bureaucracy because those are inefficient and always favor anyone who can construe themselves a victim, which allows for successive abolishment of any social standards. That makes liberals happy: to them, civilization is the enemy. They will do whatever they can to subvert, hinder, sabotage, thwart, vandalize and restrain it.

A natural response might be to look at diversity through the only science that can address it, which is a combination of abstract logic and historical data. Diversity does not exist in nature; this implies that there is a reason for its non-existence, and that this must be addressed if we are to replace it. Much as we replaced rainfall with irrigation, and then learned to limit irrigation to avoid killing the plants, we have to get to the root reason for why diversity does not exist. Above we can see the most plausible reason, which is that diversity is inefficient and introduces internal conflict which then replaces actual living as the primary activity in society. Definitely our civilization over the past 200 years has seen a rise in pointless fighting over words on pages because we have no shared unity, purpose or even idea of what the good life would be. The latter is what conservatives generally idealize. With this analysis in hand, we can look to history and see that like many other evolved traits, a lack of diversity manifests itself in parallel across all successful human societies, and many if not all failed societies show a dangerous embrace of diversity. This makes diversity look like a symptom of civilization breakdown, which makes it both not wholly culpable, but also definitively not a solution. That makes it a distraction, beloved of liberals as mentioned above.

When opposition to diversity is criminalized, that act puts critics of diversity in a corner. And like all cornered animals, they lash out at the closest approaching hand, not the set of hands that cornered them and definitely not the metal spikes or rifles hemming them in. This is what Dylann Roof did: he murdered black people instead of doing something productive like killing off pro-diversity whites, or lashing out at the government which supports this program. Anders Breivik in Norway took a more practical approach and shot the children enrolled in liberal indoctrination camp, showing Norwegians that conformity indeed has a high cost and just following the herd to doom sometimes has consequences. While the great love-in after that event raged strong at first, it died down quickly, mostly because people realized that Breivik killed fundamentally unimportant people on a practical level. These were not future leaders, but future parasites. Had Roof gunned down nine teachers at a Mix It Up! conference, or simply chewed his way through a herd of good liberals watching Roots, he might have achieved something closer to his aim. Instead, he murdered people with whom he might have found a lot of common ground, namely that they wanted to associate with their own, too.

There are actual racists, of course. These are people who use African-Americans (or other ethnic, religious and gender minorities) as scapegoats for the failure of Western civilization. That approach ignores the fact that the failure of Western civilization began with egalitarianism, the same ideology that propelled the Soviets, which is a malignant form of individualism that demands an absence of social rules and standards that might compel individuals to self-discipline and hence, upward trajectory on the evolutionary curve instead of stagnation. But the herd wants stagnation because it fears challenging itself, both on a group and individual level. The perennially popular message is that everything is fine, there is no need to strive, and what we really should be doing is enjoying the quality donuts, beer and television (or circuses) that our ancestors have provided for us. Civilization reaches an evolutionary dead end when it succeeds because it loses all of its objectives, and what replaces it is the inherent venality, mental laziness and corrupt inertia of most people.

What racists should do is look to their own race. If, for sake of argument, an artificial intelligence was created which could reliably separate the sheep from the goats, it could strengthen any race by removing the 90% who are useless and keeping the 10% (approximately) who are capable of thought. These would span caste barriers, with those at the top capable of more thought covering more variables, but you would get a net of good people. Sending the 90% away, whether up a smokestack or on boats, would achieve a society of three very different groups that nonetheless acted toward a common goal: the bulk power laborers, the coordination based warriors and artisans, and the brainpower-driven priests and philosophers. If you think about what an ideal society would be like, this is the one, and if it had sufficient technology to defeat the remainder of humanity which would immediately see it as a golden land and want to plunder it (and destroy it in the process) it would thrive at a level hereto unknown by humanity. That goal, while it seems lofty, is more practical and useful than murdering the symptoms of diversity as they pray in church.

One of our long-time and well-respected readers here, crow, has requested an analysis of those who wish us to ban Confederate flags, remove Confederate monuments and erase the Confederacy from history. I consider his question prophetic in that it cuts to the core of the issue: those who wish to eradicate the Confederacy from memory are making the same mistake Roof did, which is to attack the visible symbol of a problem instead of cutting to the root. The problem for such people is that most people wish to live among their own and do not want diversity forced upon them. The more such people, who are indeed ‘butts’ in the sense of being numb and useless, pressure the rest of us to accept diversity, the more incidents like this occur. Not being able to critique their own behavior and see where they are wrong, such people turn those events to their own advantage by blaming mysterious “racists” instead of resistance to the insane program of diversity, and use that to justify even more incursion.

It is this kind of Soviet-style feedback loop that uses its self-confirming assumptions to force itself upon societies, promptly destroying all that allows them to function and entering a death spiral of enforcement and resistance. In the Soviet Union, the ideology jihad took the form of class warfare; here, Democrats insist that racism is a class warfare issue. Draw your own conclusions there, but yes, crow, these anti-Confederates are indeed “butts” or as the older terms had it, fools, blockheads, nitwits and ziggies. They are eternally zero the hero, born losers and back the classroom nerds because their own minds are disorganized and as a result, they are capable of nothing more than basic function, and this makes them miserable. Instead of owning up to that, they scapegoat those who lack the same problem, and find “meaning” in life through their attack on such people. Needless to say, they would be in the 90% who in any sane society would find themselves on a fast boat to Destination Elsewhere.

Chasing symbols and not reality is a side-effect of our need to scapegoat, which arises from the liberal need to distract. Liberals are defined by their denial of actual problems and their preference for illusive schemes that conceal the actual liberal objective of preventing oversight of the individual by social standards or anyone who knows more than the average liberal. For this reason, liberals prefer symbolically-significant acts like burning books, tearing down flags and erasing history. However, this backfires because it forces on a people an ideology that does not relate to their lives, and creates in consequence a distrust of all things related to ideology. This resistance eventually culminates, as it did in Soviet Russia, in a passive culture of futility and consequent national attitude of apathy except when facing threat of execution. That reveals the problem of strong power, which is that instead of as Machiavelli said was ideal being both hated and loved, government is merely avoided because, by the reflexive property of strong actions, anything important is a death penalty and everything else can be ignored. The West has reached the same point in its manic crusade for diversity.

A third option exists to forcing diversity on people and its opposite, allowing us to avoid the issue entirely. That was what Conservatives originally attempted with Affirmative Action, which allowed government to give preference to minorities. This however turned out to be a disaster because it spread far beyond its original intent to become a standard in all things government such that non-minorities were at a distinct disadvantage, and some people were hired or promoted for their racial status alone despite being incompetent. That, too, has been a disaster. I dislike advancing an argument which says “You should just let me do what I want to do, because you cannot do otherwise,” but when facts, history and truth are on the side of that argument, it is pointless to not advance it. Affirmative Action reveals a tendency of centralized government which is that it makes universal rules which, by the nature of universality, become too artificially abstract to help.

This leads us back to the original idea of the Confederacy which was that a centralized state was destructive because of its tendency to universalize from conditions in Massachusetts and New York and apply those in the South; while slavery (and opposition to diversity) were touchstone issues, they were not the underlying issue, which was the belief that local areas should have more power. In the South, slavery was already on its way out thanks to new technology and the general worldwide trend to reduce it; the wild profits had gone out of certain industries as well, which were what had driven the expansion of slavery in Latin, Central and North America because of the trade in these products with Europe. However, liquidating a large portion of its investment would have destroyed the economy, so the Confederate states resisted while behind the scenes quietly downsizing that institution. Many of us oppose the idea of chattel slavery for a number of reasons, including the idea of “chattel” as opposed to sacred role and the fundamental fact that it is a form of diversity. Many in the South did as well. But they wanted to handle the problem locally because the “Massachusetts solution” would not work for the South, and the North knew this but like drunken bullies kept on with their manic charade. We all know how well that turned out: a nation permanently divided.

More people are turning to the idea of local rule at the present time. Diversity enforced by a central government is clearly a disaster, as are the anti-poverty programs and other paperwork-creating wastes of time. As the United States sees its power fade, many are (slowly…slowly) making the connection between the increased regulatory state and its social justice mandate and the slowdown in efficiency, purpose and quality here in these neurotic States. Letting states decide their own diversity rules might have a positive effect. If Texas were to get rid of Affirmative Action, indemnify companies for equality lawsuits, and send to the dustbin whole realms of Federal legislation, Texas might find itself with a faster-moving economy, a more trusting society and an actual sense of purpose. It seems this is what the craven Yankees in Massachusetts and New York fear the most, and so whenever the failures of liberal programs pop out all over the place, they rally the hive-mind around some racist incident to re-fight the Civil War all over again, with ongoing disastrous consequences which they quickly conceal or refuse to acknowledge, treating “out of sight, out of mind” as the cardinal principle of democracy, which it well may be.

The Civil War never ended

Tuesday, April 7th, 2015


As we approach the sesquicentennial anniversary of the end of the American Civil War, the same divisions that caused that war remain.

These divisions take the form of intractable issues that spring up like dandelions, frustrating our comfortable narrative which indicates that society at large is heading in a good direction. Instead, like 3:00 AM visions of mortality, our Civil War doubts renew themselves with unsettling consistency and yet random timing.

It is not surprising this is so, because the Civil War was the first modern war in many senses. Unlike previous wars, it involved massive scale; industrial might and demographics, not talent, determined the victor. It was also the first of the truly “democratic” wars in that it was won by mobilizing a population toward total war through the use of propaganda that claimed the other side transgressed against the founding idea and most sacred belief of a society.

Through these claims, history was re-written. America changed from a practical escape from ideology into an ideological separation for moral reasons. Crowds are not mobilized by complex reasons or arguments to history involving many factors. The inner herd animal in the human being likes a good story: we came here to live a certain way, the bad guys hate us because they are bad, so we must destroy the utterly so that we reflexively define ourselves as good.

The heavy mental programming created by such story-telling changes a nation. It achieves its goal, which is to make people act paradoxically and step into line to go sacrifice themselves for ideals that do not benefit them. But when facing such binary definitions as good and evil, people cannot resist, because to refuse to defend one is seen as endorsing the other. This created a mythos that won the war, but changed the nation so much afterward that its present course was guaranteed. We have been ideological lunatics questing for pure moral goodness ever since.

Our history of the war denies its complex roots in favor of propaganda. In the textbooks and TV commercials, the South simply hated black people. They enslaved them because they liked to beat them and call them nasty names. In reality, the South was an attempt to break away from the society which had emerged in the North with the admission of non-Western Europeans, which was a proposition nation united equally by zombie ideology and commerce. In the South, social hierarchy and honor came before shekels and groupthink; the North was the opposite.

Slavery was only one in a series of touchstone issues that made the South pull away. But it was the one the North chose to make its justification for war, and via survivorship bias, we assume it was the only legitimate one. Much of the beef involved shady issues like States’ rights and interstate commerce, mainly because at two thousand miles away from New York city one can live in almost any style one prefers. The North and South only clashed over political questions, where the more populous North dominating by motivating its citizens with good-us-versus-bad-them ideology and won every time, and in trade, where the agricultural South was no match for the industrial North.

To pretend this issue was new is a fallacy (and to pretend that slavery was the cause or purpose of the war is a fraud). Slavery was a trouble during the time of the Constitution, with the agricultural states depending on it mainly because it represented much of their wealth, comparable to infrastructure and equipment in business today. The North, being essentially non-agricultural, had no need for it, and could make slavery into a touchstone issue which it did over the next century. With the removal of slavery, the South would lose most of its wealth and be permanently in hock to the North, ensuring total control over the whole nation-state by the Northeastern industrial powers. The industrialists wanted to eliminate the high costs of textiles and make further profit through the resale of those textiles, which is only possible when raw materials are cheap. As a result, the South resisted, in part knowing that slavery was about to be replaced by industry in any case much as forms of manual labor had been obsoleted in England starting two centuries prior.

Like most wars, then, the Civil War boils down to profit and control. The North wanted to control the entire nation and adapt it to its urban standard, where the South wanted to avoid that fate for itself. This war, like many others, was a coalition between populist moral notions and industry, against the areas which had not already succumbed:

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. – Declaration of Causes, State of Georgia

In this, the Civil War resembled the Napoleonic Wars, where liberal ideologues raged across Europe conquering any nation which did not adhere to liberal ideology.

The Civil War also presaged the coming ideology of Communism, where an international coalition of Communist nations made it their policy to subvert, defeat and occupy any nation that was not already Communist.

It also foreshadowed the World Wars, where the more-ideologically-leftist nations joined together to defeat the outliers.

If you are imagining a mob rushing at any who is different with the intent of subjugating them, you’re getting the picture.

But as we reach 150 years since the Civil War, we have to ask ourselves: what did we fight for, and what was actually won?

Slavery is more prevalent now than it was then and, as instability spreads through the world, only increasing. While African-Americans are technically “free,” most of them live under worse conditions than under slavery and are about to be replaced by Hispanic indios and Asian immigrants that are more convenient for industry.

The United States is still divided into North and South, with the North controlling government, economy and police, but the South having popular sentiment behind it. Most American presidents win because they become popular in the South and use that constituency as a launch platform.

We see the same pattern again and again. The War on Drugs, the crusade against Saddam Hussein, and the social justice jihad against all discrimination. These represent the force of social disorder which is convenient for both industry and the individual, in that it operates to remove social rules and hierarchy. This creates only a market, which is convenient for business, and lifts any expectations from the individual, enabling them to be more self-focused and less obligated to pay attention to reality.

Perhaps we will someday wake up and realize that democracy creates a vast horde of armchair moralists who are easily manipulated like “useful idiots” into calling for war, and that industry goes along with this because its goal is the same. We might even see that government by consensus creates the lowest common denominator, and that we have unleashed a cancer which will find some “moral” reason to make war on anyone who is different until it has total control of humanity and earth.

Since The EnlightenmentTM, where the preferences of the individual were made our guiding concept in replacement of natural law and social hierarchy, the West has been steadily deconstructing itself. When it reaches the lowest common denominator, all that remains is the angry mob and opportunistic industry. The Civil War showed us our future in microcosm, and since that time, no joy has truly existed in the West. Yes, we take pride in what we own and have our personal pursuits, but in each heart lurks the awareness that decay is upon us and, while industry and the mob rule, it has the upper hand.

Recommended Reading