Posts Tagged ‘class war’

“Educated” people

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Let’s talk about the word “educated.” It’s a snotty little word, when you think about it. It’s a way we can both insist that we are all equal, and still be elitist. In the past, people were chosen for an elite based on who their parents were (which makes sense, given that most traits are heritable). Now, we have this fiction that we’ve all “proved ourselves” by becoming educated.

This nasty little sleight-of-brain lets us both pay heed to the great fiction of equality and also indulge our egos. We are not where we are because we were privileged; oh no. We got ahead because we work harder and just had a knack for that education thing.

This forgets of course that education in the United States and Europe at this point is a certification program more than anything else. It tests basic intelligence in some areas; in other areas, such as the liberal arts, it increasingly tests nothing but political allegiance and the ability to recite dogma in different forms (such “A Feminist Analysis of Cetacean Symbolism in Public Policy”).

Even in the sciences, we do not test intelligence so much as obedience, memorization and application of rote. This enables us to stop relying on smart people and to instead promote lots of interchangeable cogs. They may not be smart, but that means they’re easy to replace, and they do exactly what we tell them to. Even better, they’re very proud of having reached more-equal-than-equal cog status, and so they’ll keep the others in line.

“Educated” is a nasty word that reeks of compensatory elitism. It’s a word of the head trusty at the prison, or the Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst at Treblinka, or the kid who gets asked to keep order while the teacher is out of the room. It’s the same privilege-abuse that occurs at Wikipeda, by power-hungry security guards, or in kids put in charge of rooms in virtual worlds. One little group feels superior to the others on the basis of a dubious attainment.

Not all education is a dubious attainment. If you went to a school and had no special political or social category to give you external help, and dedicated yourself to learning and gained actual skills, that’s significant — especially if it’s a good school. But most colleges at this point are little more than High School II, and most degree programs little more than advanced coloring books, which in part explains why our graduates are less capable than ever before, and the market has correspondingly re-evaluated college degrees as having less value.

This media spin wants to give our citizens a sense of control, mainly because as our society decays, everyone is experiencing a loss of control. As a result, they set up a politically-correct dichotomy. The “educated,” or those who were not born into money but through “hard work” achieved it, are opposed to those lazy good-for-nothing non-college-educated ignoramuses.

But the more regimented we make our system, and the more people we force it to include despite a lack of aptitude, the less “educated” means anything but someone who has bought into the system and is now defending it with snotty elitism and destructive political opinions.

Proles versus Elites: the battle rages on!

Monday, November 14th, 2011

It is true that egalitarianism has given room to all opinions, which include the delusions of grandeur of those who would have it otherwise. We all imagine ourselves as heralds of Truth and kings in palaces if given the chance. In our lives we wish for a chance to assume a greater role – an opportunity to prove us worthy and to demand sacrifices of ourselves. Yet every day drifts by just like the previous.

Therefore I would be glad to make a restatement on the monetary system and the banks that run it.

National debts are increasing all around the civilized world, as does our wealth. But in the end the money ends up in the hands of those who make good use of it. This is not because of the generosity of our bankers, but because people look out for themselves. Our banks merely supply the money, and it is the individual’s choice to take out the money. The money will come to those who invest it wisely, and therefore it is in the end a fair system. It will have winners and losers, yet that is due to the unequal distribution of our inherent flaws, and our system – if is to produce wealth – requires inequality to thrive.

Nobody ever took out any loan against his will, and therefore banks cannot be blamed for national debts. There is not a true problem with our monetary system, because by investing it carefully, as is inevitably done on a free market by people with the right entrepreneurial spirit, we will produce economic growth that expands faster than our debts. If people would only stop trying to imitate the idols they see on MTV and started paying their rent, there would have been no housing crisis to begin with.

All of the previous is, of course, a joke. And not because there is not a single grain of Truth in it whatsoever. It is because people are so easily cowed into following images of what they would want the world to look like, instead of what it actually is. Once one achieves a certain degree of eloquence and familiarity with a wide variety of philosophical, economic and political positions, any outlook becomes defensible. We could pick a niche, crawl into that, boost that rhetoric, grow stronger, enrich ourselves. A smart person would probably do that.

And I would have, had I not started my philosophical self-education by reading Plato’s Politeia, and thus my ultimate allegiance is to Truth.

When I approached at the scene of the Occupy Wall Street protest I was greeted by a young man whom I estimated to be about my own age. He stammered slightly yet spoke with an airy tone of voice. He was thin and wore a military coat. I had arrived simultaneously with an elderly professor and an art salesman whom I met on the spot.

“What can I do in my personal life to improve the situation?” the salesman asked.

“The world’s too big to change on your own.” the youngster in the military coat replied, who was a representative of the protest-site. “This demonstration must become a snowball-movement,” he added, “and as long as these people are here, and arrive here, it can become that.”

I recalled my discussion with the elderly professor, who had mentioned Keynes. I had told him that the Keynesian model of economics is a typical tool of the Socialist parties. After all, in times of crisis everyone is afraid to lose customers or to become unemployed. Therefore, if the state throws money at the mass, it’s a good thing, because it will prevent unemployment and will keep the economy running.

However when it’s time to cut cost again, to save money which can be spent later, the Keynesians are never anywhere to be found. Too busy preparing the next elections, most likely.

I pointed out this mechanism in Keynesian policy to my history teacher when I was fifteen years old. He refused to acknowledge it. I understood then that no matter how many arguments and facts one has to back himself up, there will always be those who can never bring themselves to face the Truth. They refuse to acknowledge it even when you poke them in the eye with it. I learned long ago that arguments do not suffice as weapons.

Of course it is true in many countries that, if your bank goes bankrupt, the state pays you a substantial contribution. You are ensured in that sense. But where does the state get this money to begin with? It is issued by banks. Which means that governments must pay interest over that money. There is a substantial difference between how a government gets money and how a bank gets money.

The monetary system allows for the following exploit: Bank A can bring one dollar to another bank, bank B, which can then legally borrow that money to others ten or even fourteen fold. Bank B can bring that money to bank C, and bank C can do the same again to bank A. By that time the money has increased without any actual product or service of value having been added to the world. Someone who calls himself a “Conservative,” would surely recognize that as an outrage. I am convinced that Socialists, and probably even Liberals, are uneasy with it as well. Especially if you consider that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx acknowledged that productive labor added services and goods to the world.

For Smith and for Capitalism in the true sense, hard work is worthy of good pay. You put a bit of yourself in your enterprise, by studying and working you develop yourself as a person. Your labor is a part of your craftsmanship, of your expertise, of your pride. And you may ask a substantial reward to acknowledge the worth of whatever you sell. My cousin is a carpenter, “I would never want to be a teacher if my pupils would be completely spoiled and ungrateful.” he told me once; “When I’m constructing an attic for a house, even when it’s freezing, I know what I’m working on. What I’m creating. I can see what my labor provides and does for the world. There’s honor in my work.”

That, in the end, comes much closer to the spirit of conservation. That’s what I told the professor too: “The media does its best to paint the protesters as crack-using hippies, ridiculing them and smiling at them. With this image the bourgeois go to work, so proud of their own industrious work ethic. But meanwhile captain finance-Capitalism is smiling at them, as they are gambling away with the money of their pensions. Any money given to Greece goes straight into the pockets of bankers, who will otherwise confiscate Greek properties. And if they do so, an economic recovery will be equally impossible.

The bottom line is that my generation will suffer for it, because when I work, the government subtracts money for pensions. But we’re dealing with a declining population, and the part that reproduces the fastest is the least industrious. So who is going to pay for my pension?”

As I asked myself these questions – and not because I’m ‘selfish’ but because I possess common sense – the words of Hady came vividly alive to me: It means nothing to salute a flag if that flag represents a dying society. Likewise, it’s a sign of poor health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society. Or, the words of Brett Stevens: “In the time of universal decline treachery may not be what it appears.”

He was hit by that, the professor, when he heard it, and he showed me a part of an article: 

“An important part of our wealth is not owed to blood, sweat and tears – as it is supposed to be – but to debts,” says Edin Mujagic, monetary economist. Because to grow as fast as we did the past decennia, we had to spend large amounts of money. Very large amounts. We did not have that. But, no problem, because we found a solution; making debts. We agreed that the money that you spend now but in fact do not possess, can be paid back at any point in time. This can go well for a while, as long as you keep growing so that there comes a point in time when you will have the money. And it went well for a while. The biggest problem is that our monetary system became addicted to debt; because in order to make money to pay off our debts, we needed more money. This is where the banks come in, since for every bit of debt we owe to a bank, the bank is allowed to rent out more money, which gives us a chance to pay off our debts.”

However this means that the total debt always grows exponentially faster than anyone’s means to pay off that debt. I must stress this is not a conspiracy – this is something which spontaneously rose up because people recognized opportunities to game the system.

And now, our governments are trying to compete against that by creating a trust-funds that must ward off speculators. However we saw before that banks have ways of exchanging money through mutual promises to pay – which can legally be counted as owned capital. This is virtual capital that can increase infinitely without being tied up with anything substantial.

Yet the wealth of the world is tied up with physically limited labor and resources. A government gains money by either taking out credit from banks (thus increasing the total amount of interest which must be paid, which is debt) or by taxing property and services. Hence the money governments can extract is tied up with the physically limited world. Which means that the governments can’t compete against large-scale speculation. It’s a balloon that keeps flooding and nobody dares to puncture it. But everyone knows it will soon burst – they just don’t want to be around when it happens.

“Yeah but this must be some sophomore’s reasoning who’s been listening to liberal professors. So it can’t really be taken serious anyway. The methods that have been tried and tested for 300 years will surely prove that nothing is wrong with our monetary system.”

Except those were 300 years in which the West completely dominated the world and anyone who refused to play the game by their rules, excluded himself from taking any part in the wealth of nations. Let me just quote the words of Leo Strauss (a not so Liberal thinker):

“The West—in fact this country [United States] together with Great Britain and Germany—could have laid down the law for the rest of the earth without firing a shot. Surely for at least a century the West controlled the whole globe with ease.” – ‘Introduction’ to: The City and Man

I looked upon the prole-test and I saw an immigrant, it looked like he hadn’t slept for days, and had been stiff on speed. Some fat Bulgarian with a heavy accent and a safety-vest approached him and said: “I’m part of the protection here. Are you tired? Do you want to sleep? I’ll show you a tent please come along with me.” The immigrant followed him slowly with an absent gaze, while the Bulgarian pushed him on by pressing his hand into his lower back.

I saw a wanderer sleeping on a worn sofa, a bottle of vodka clutched firm in his hand. There were tiny specks of egg left in his beard.

“We’re democrats,” the young man in the military coat continued, “We don’t stand here because we’re looking for someone to blame. We’re here because we want to look at ourselves. We don’t want to put someone in charge. Because then we can all go home and blame someone else in case it doesn’t go as we expected.”

“You guys are trying to bring in too much stuff.” the art dealer retorted, “And you’re bringing in things that aren’t even relevant. At least not for the financial crisis. You want to solve hunger in Africa, you promulgate free love and romance, and you’ve put up anti-nazi signs. This all really has nothing to do with it – it’s distracting.”

“Yes it does,” the protester responded, “because banking is putting the world into a more competitive state. They’re withdrawing their money from the markets. They’re taking the humanity from our lives. If you want luxury, fine you have to work, I agree. But there should be a basic minimum for everyone. There shouldn’t have to be starvation on this planet.”

“First of all,” I replied, “you need leadership. What I see around here is a bunch of people smoking pot, each on their own island with their own ideas. It’s a bundle of private opinions you’ve gathered here. This is anarchy. If you want the world to be serious about your message – and I see many civilized people have traveled here just because they’re worried about the financial prospect of our civilization – you need a concise message. But you have none. You have a bunch of hippies who are only here because they have nothing better to do. People are whimsical, they’ll say they agree with this protest, because protesting is part of their self-assembled identity. To counter that whimsicalness, you need leadership. You need some form of authority. A bunch of individualized isles is not going to create a snowball effect.”

I knew what those protesters wanted. In the bottom of their hearts they weren’t seriously concerned about government debts. What they wanted was a government to provide for them. A sort of nanny. They wouldn’t demand much of that nanny – all they wanted was a smoke a day and they’d be satisfied. A society where one might dream about ideals, virtues and goals and visions, as long as they could be kept to the private room. Other than that, invisible forces would make it very difficult for you to do anything outside of routine. But officially, you wouldn’t be forbidden to. The very way De Tocqueville imagined human Greatness would one day come to an end.

Parts: I II III IV

Proles versus Elites: a review of the protests, part I

Sunday, October 30th, 2011

For some time on this website there has been a raging debate about the banking system, the protests, occupy movements, and who’s to blame for it all. In the discussion there’s basically two sides.

Side one points out that the captains of industry got where they are by hard labour and a degree of talent. The proles, meaning the lower classes, generally lack direction in life. Therefore they sign stupid contracts and readily allow themselves to be fooled. The proles try to live the MTV lifestyle and don’t consider longer-term financial considerations. If they wouldn’t be so insipid then the financial situation wouldn’t be so messed up to begin with.

Side two explicates that our current captains of industry are pretty much the entrepreneurs that got into power ever since the French and Industrial revolutions. After the ancient aristocratic order was dethroned it was replaced by a more neurotic system where the impulse to buy now forms the fundament of the economy. The bankers are just as greedy as the proles they are fooling – they want money out of everyone’s pocket and they don’t care if family values, honesty and common sense have to be sacrificed in the process.  

It’s time I took a personal hand in this debate, and of course I wouldn’t dare to do so without having personally attended the protest to make up my mind. I’m going to tell you all of the economic and philosophic consequences of this event, which amounts to quite a lot – therefore I’ve decided to cut the review up in parts.

At the very start of the debate, my interest was caught by the analogy of the crack dealer and the party-goer. Both know that the substance is ultimately harmful but the dealer doesn’t care because he’s out to make money, at the expense of others. It is in his interest if the party-goer becomes addicted, even if it means he goes broke, ruins his family by borrowing money, etc. The user knows the substance is slowly killing him but he finds himself somehow powerless to resist it.

Obviously, both are to blame here. Because they could have known that the substance was very harmful. We might say that the dealer is simply being smart. But he does help create another junkie who will roam the streets at night and might eventually slit a girl’s throat during a psychosis that could turn out to be the dealer’s own daughter. The dealer’s just reasoning from the mindset: “I’m gonna make a quick buck and when the shit hits the fan I’m outta here with my money.”

Which is exactly what the bankers think – they have made our nations dependent on their credit. From Greece to France to the U.S.A. – and although everyone knows governments have to cut costs they find themselves powerless to do so. But contrary to the crack scenario, where both know they’re playing a dangerous game, in the credit scenario nobody understands they’re in a game. It’s because: [A] The credit-takers don’t understand the monetary system. [B] The bankers don’t understand the monetary system. [C] The politicians don’t understand the monetary system. [D] Schools don’t teach the monetary system.

Some facts about the monetary system that school doesn’t teach you:

A bank is allowed to rent out one bar of gold it possesses, ten and often fourteen-fold. Imagine ten guys all putting one coin in a jar. They can take it out whenever they want to, they only have to ask the jar-keeper for permission. And he always says: “Sure, it’s your coin, after all.”

A new person comes in and says to the jar-keeper: “Hello, can I please have two coins? Don’t worry I’ll give you back three next week.”

The jar-keeper thinks: “Hmm, since it never happens that all of these ten people come to collect their coins simultaneously, I suppose it’s okay.”

So the guy comes back and he pays his three coins next week. The jar-keeper is happy. He takes out the one extra coin and keeps it to himself.

The week after that four new people come. They all say: “Hello, can I please have two coins? Don’t worry, I’ll pay three back next week.”

There’s still two coins left. So in case someone of the original ten wants a coin back, well . . . Let’s just hope that not more than two request their coin. (This is what a banker calls “risk”. Because he takes risks like any other entrepreneur, he considers himself allowed to make money by producing no actual good or service. This is what the religions call “usury”.)  

Next week, one of the guys doesn’t show up. It means a loss to the bank of two coins. That means the keeper officially only has eight coins left in the jar. However the three others each bring back three coins. That means there’s now eleven coins in the jar.

So he made a profit. This is why banks sometimes allow outrageous debts, because in general most people pay their debts. It’s calculated that the bank will take a loss from some clients from time to time. But most will play the role of predictable bourgeois and pay up; they’re too afraid that their families get thrown out on the streets. However, consider this:

Bankers are always covered. If they invest money and make a fortune, they win. The profit is theirs. If they invest money and lose, the government bails them out because the stakes at large are too great. Too big to fail.

You can say: “Hello bank, can I please get $40,000 to buy a car?” Bank will say: “Sure, but what if you can’t pay us back? Oh, then we’ll take the car.” This is a promise to pay.

A bank can count a promise to pay as its own capital. Capital they don’t even have yet. They may rent that out fourteenfold.

Now in most cases people will work real hard and pay the debt back. However when they don’t manage then the bank confiscates the car. Turns out the car was only worth $20,000 when confiscated and not $40,000. That means a loss of $20,000 right there. Money that never existed in physical form. Money that was never printed or made as coins. However if you consider that 20,000 x 14, it turns out that this amount never existed. It vaporised. This explains why during a housing crisis billions of dollars can vanish over night; because the properties were counted as capital for higher amounts than the bank could actually receive for them.

This is why the monetary system is a bubble that must burst. But it gets worse.

You can say: “Okay I’ll take this loan of 40,000 dollars.” But you can give this money to me. And I can put it on my bank account. Then the bank says: “Ah, 40,000 dollars of new capital.” And it can rent that amount out fourteen times again. Even though there was already money rented out over this same money. But the banks can do it simply because of my promise to pay. Money is not created as value, but money is created as debt.

If you borrow 1000 dollars from the bank, you have to pay back 1200 (interest). It means that you can spend the 1000 dollars in the name of the bank. But where do you get the extra 200 from? By working or selling products so that someone will pay you those 200 extra. How do those people get the money to pay you? They borrowed money from the bank at some point. So they too have to pay back interest over that amount. In the end, that amount of money is not to be found in the money pool. It means that even if everyone works their asses of, someone must eventually be bankrupted. It’s a game of vanishing chairs. When that moment draws closer, governments issue new money from banks. Thus creating more debts over which interest must be paid. It’s an ever-increasing cycle.

Economic growth cannot out-grow this. I spoke about this with some elderly professor on my way to the protests. He was talking about Keynesians versus non-Keynesians. He spoke of how people defending the contemporary form of finance-Capitalism selectively shop from the works of Keynes and Adam Smith to justify something that has absolutely nothing to do with what Capitalism really means: It means adding a product or service to the world, delivering good quality worthy of good pay, developing yourself in the process. Finance-Capitalism adds nothing to the world at all, except debt.

However I told him it’s irrelevant because the monetary system itself is Keynesian. Every single dollar or euro is multiplied many times. And with every percentage of economic growth we make, the debt on our shoulders grows exponentially along.

People will probably refuse to accept this, since they think it’s too unlikely that the foundation they’ve built their very lives upon is revealed to be a form of utter parasitism by some unknown guy on an obscure part of the internet. But still it is true – because the mainstream media won’t tell you this. Because they don’t want you to know.

Because society isn’t held together by money – which as I pointed out doesn’t represent value but debt – it’s held together by the alarm going off at 06.00 and you getting ready to teach kids the alphabet, bake bread in a bakery, or chop dead trees into firewood. Because these are basic life necessities. Because you possess a North-European Protestant-Weberian work ethic. Our economy thrives on trust. On you thinking that everything will be alright in the end and that business will continue as usual.

But think again – this is the place where you really could hear the Truth because nobody around here has any interest in deceiving you.

The U.S.A. is the cornerstone of the world economy. Because they can just print dollars and feed them to whoever wants to have them. However this money is covered by nothing, (it used to be covered by gold; see Bretton Woods but that’s abolished) and even the Feds (and Ben Bernanke) isn’t a government organisation, it’s a club of private entrepreneurs. The guy who gave those banks that caused the credit crisis a +++ rating had to do so, or – so he was told by the owners of that bank – his career would be in serious trouble.

It could very well be but a matter of time before nations like China won’t accept the United States’ currency anymore. Then everything starts to shift. Greece might fall, dragging along Spain and Portugal, then Italy and Ireland, and everything you know as economy will be flushed down the drain.

Perhaps I’ll write more about what happened once I arrived with this story on the protests. Because I think it’s seriously time for to change course. We have to stop supporting the myth of the Open Society – the notion bankers are good because some of the deluded see a reflection of the natural born aristocrat in their fraud that seems like success.

We have to acknowledge the closed society, and consequently attack it. The only people who have an interest in defending the closed society by painting it as an Open, meritocratic-based society, are the baby boomers.

People are ready to embrace a serious criticism of the finance situation, the credit crisis, the economy and the monetary system. The typical socialist-anarchists are pot-smoking nutjobs that ramble incoherently. We have to jump into that hole.

We have to hijack the protests, so to say, and replace them with better-argued, more clear criticism towards the current economic system. When something is found rotten, voices will be raised to amend and replace it. That gives a window of opportunities for new visionaries to climb up the ladders.

Ladders that are withheld from us now.

Parts: I II III IV

The Vicious Cycle

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

Today a woman told me:

“America is, was and always will be the Greatest Nation On This Planet and once we get that idiot out of our White House and get a true born red blooded republican American Patriot voted in, we will be on the right track once again.”

Both the faith in Obama as well as the thought he is to blame for everything rest on messianistic expectations of the political domain. My studies inform me that the American nation is held together by intimate-sounding, utterly superficial chit-chat. Out of sight, out of mind. This is the mentality that profits on the short term but loses out on the long run – people put blind faith in favor of rational recognition of reality – which is that politics, at most, can only offer a subtle adjustment to what the state officials cook up. Politicians can’t even read the bills anymore because those are churned out faster than they can be examined. If Democrats go left, Republicans go right be default – objective discussion is impossible.

The woman’s statement struck me because it contrasted with the feeling that “Rome is burning around us,” as portrayed in several articles on this website. The whole of society is overtaken by a socio-economic mode of thinking in which emotions are exaggerated to win sympathy and display altruism, while people are reduced to nothing but objects of gain. By this I mean to say that people consider each other good and useful for a temporary distraction – but the moment that stops, the connection stops as well, undermining that sense of satisfaction which can only be found in sharing it with another.

Let me just give you an example:

You come across some girl, exchange some photos, she informs you of the deep emotional crisis she has been in, she starts telling you how important you are for her. Someone listens to it and says; “oh that’s wonderful!” and as you hear the sound of the voice you can imagine the lip-gloss of her mouth glisten in the spotlights. However the next day she’s back to college and you don’t hear about her adventures anymore. And then when you will encounter the person once again he or she will pretend as if nothing changed and as if you’re still close friends. If they are all like this, I wonder, must this not lead to a deep existential feeling of fundamental loneliness and emptiness?

Another example:

A group of strangers gather in a meeting, some person starts talking about his work as an antique dealer, his journeys to India to give kids a bunch of pencils, the way he supported his girlfriend when she cut herself due to her condition. People will be listening to these kinds of stories and think: “That person must be so ambitious and helpful at the same time!” And even if people doubt the credibility of these stories they will probably not say so out loud because it makes them look like avaricious and suspicious doubters of the natural goodness of man. A person gives you a phone number, email address or personal cards, but if you actually contact them you never hear about it again.

Can it be helped?

To be honest I am really not sure about it. First because I am not sure whether Conservatism as an ideology can cure the flakiness of people.

Perhaps putting people through rigorous and disciplined exercises can help out. My deepest fear is that Alexis de Tocqueville was right –- which means that deeper loyalty between people was the result of the monarchic and feudalistic systems where people had specific roles to uphold in society with neighbors and family members that closely depended on them.

Second, the main problem of Conservatism is that people aren’t prepared to accept that they require to be ordered around to live their life with a greater efficiency and deeper value. The few that do see it work out are those who perceive themselves at the top of the hierarchy – to order around rather than to be ordered around. I write this because I was struck by the accuracy of what someone recently remarked:

“In our society, most of those who would label themselves “conservative” are just trying to conserve their own goods, caring little about the true meaning of it, while leftists want to distribute wealth because they are jealous of it or because they seek social appreciation. In the end, all of them fight only for themselves.”

Which comes back to the problem of wealth distribution and thus of the political domain: People draw an average, and say: “Okay whoever meets these criteria deserves to get some wealth redistributed to them.” And if you are below that average you’re going to approve of it, while above it one will be against it. This can only be different if either people are convinced they have to work themselves out of their poverty because it is their own fault, or if the upper class voluntarily gives out resources due to fear of a peasant revolution. And in this case both scenarios are rather unlikely because the banks have a large share in the blame – think about it: If everyone would pay off his loans at the same time everyone would be short in money (Due to the fact banks do not create the money necessary to pay the interest).

And thus everything comes together again: We need the political powers to put our banks and monetary system in check, but at the same time we look up to the political domain to fix the problems of our lives. At least many people blame politicians for the misery they experience in their lives.

I think the solution as a whole starts with a sense of community spirit, which requires genuine connectedness between people, serious mutual care. Unite with neighbors to prevent burglary and correct teenagers who strayed off the path, do groceries to help if someone is sick. It begins with trivial but important things like these, without these deeds becoming hey-look-at-me!-actions

How do we create this? Good question really, we already find our communication going through social media, text messages and other digital sources, on which we can easily switch people off the moment something more flashy catches our eye.

Demographic collision

Sunday, May 29th, 2011

Since we’re doing topics about race, in anticipation of another presidential election where race is the crypto-topic on everyone’s mind, how about a quick analysis of demographic collision?

America — with Europe slightly trailing it, not by so far anymore — is heading toward a crucial point: does it become a white nation with a third world minority, or a third world nation with a few white people hanging out?

We have a few choices:

  • 1950s America: white people do their thing, African-Americans do their separately. Problem: if you’re waging Civil Wars in which you claim to have the moral high ground, and World Wars to liberate Europe from a lack of freedom, you look like an idiot when every black person works a menial job.
  • White ruling minority third world: Mexico, Brazil, Iraq and India are good examples here: a vast horde of Asiatics are ruled by a statistically tiny minority of Caucasians or more-Caucasian-ish people. Problem: much of the country becomes third world wasteland, and frequent revolutions kill off the ruling castes eventually.
  • Mixed-race whitish nation: Hello, most of Eastern and parts of Southern Europe, and California: a steady mixture of groups gets absorbed by a majority of mixed-European ancestry, creating a group of Eurasians who may be mostly European in appearance but seem to prefer countries organized more around third world principles: strongmen, corruption, hedonism, and drama.
  • Nationalism: White people say, “We did wrong but not all wrong, here are reparations in exchange for repatriation,” and get rid of laws forcing them to hire minorities. Minority groups for the most part see a lack of opportunity and so follow the path of least resistance and return to their host countries. Amerinds are forced to make their reservations communities again.

Whatever choice we make, the choice is upon us, and like so many choices when one is delusional out of preference for oblivion, it seems to rush at us out of the fog:

Last week’s release of national totals from the 2010 census showed that the minority share of the population increased over the past decade in every state, reaching levels higher than demographers anticipated almost everywhere, and in the nation as a whole. If President Obama and Democrats can convert that growth into new voters in 2012, they can get a critical boost in many of the most hotly contested states and also seriously compete for some highly diverse states such as Arizona and Georgia that until now have been reliably red.

In November’s midterm elections, Republicans won 60 percent of white voters—the highest share of whites they have attracted in any congressional election in the history of modern polling. Since May, Obama’s job-approval rating among whites has exceeded 40 percent only twice in Gallup’s weekly summary of its nightly polling. Unless the economic recovery accelerates, many analysts in both parties believe that Obama could struggle to match the modest 43 percent of white voters he captured in 2008.

These twin dynamics suggest that in many states the key question for 2012 may be whether Republicans can increase their advantage among whites enough to overcome what’s likely to be a growing share of the overall vote cast by minorities, who still break preponderantly for Democrats. – National Journal

The moment we have dreaded has arrived: race is now no longer an optional thought, but what will define our politics. It’s a power struggle, formally, …finally.

From the Democratic perspective, this has always been the intention. Democrats in 1965 realized that non-whites voted Democratic, and that the then-current generation of whites were so drugged on liberalism they would approve any underdog-bolstering altruistic imperative, so they changed immigration law. The floodgates opened.

White America slumbered on, buoyed by dreams from their churches of universal equality in heaven, and by politics from their televisions and useful idiots neighbors, talking about how diversity was our strength and our egalitarian politics would keep the proles from rioting.

History grinned a little. Historically, even among groups of the same race, diversity has always been a failure. It takes a century or two to see the full effects, but you’ll note that no societies stay “diverse” for longer than that. They collapse and end up as racial melanges with none of their former potential.

  • Does this mean there are inferior races? No, it means that mixing groups of specialized ability destroys that ability in the resulting groups.
  • Does it mean that some races are bad citizens? No, it means that diversity itself is the problem. No two or more groups — whether divided by race/ethnicity, religion, even social class or regional differences — can occupy the same space at the same time. This means a power struggle which culminates in successive waves of conflict and compromise until a lowest common denominator is reached.
  • Does this mean that some races are defective? No, it means that while there are genetic and thus aptitudinal and attitudinal differences between races and ethnic groups, it is the fact that any difference at all exists that dooms diversity, not the particular groups involved.
  • Does this mean America was not a melting pot before 1965? Yes, America was of “mixed” heritage — if you count Western Europeans as mixed. In the 1840s, the slow introduction of Irish and Southern Europeans caused problems, as did the introduction of Eastern Europeans in the 1890s, but these demographic changes were minor compared to what we have now.
  • Does this mean white nationalists are correct? No, it means they are insane, because they want to create diversity — white, fascist diversity — which will cause the same problems on a smaller scale, but still create them nonetheless.

We really face a chokepoint soon, where the former narrative of the oppressive majority against the oppressed minority fades rapidly, and we have to actually choose our future. In the past, we were able to assume that we could make changes to America and the country would basically stay the same, just with a little diversity added — think Cherry Coke or Reeses Peanut Butter Cups — for flavor.

Now we realize that we’re talking about replacing the population, which actually makes America a different country. A country is not its laws or economics; it is its people. When we replace the majority English-German American stock with new people, the country will start to resemble the homelands that shaped them genetically.

Nationally, the overall share of the non-Hispanic white population dropped from 69.1 percent in 2000 to 63.7 in 2010, a greater decline than most analysts anticipated. In a mirror image, the minority population grew from 30.9 percent in 2000 to 36.3 percent in 2010.


46.5 percent of people under 18 were minority, a dramatic jump from 39.1 percent in 2000. As recently as last summer, demographers projected that minorities would make up a majority of the under-18 population sometime after 2020. At the current rate of growth, however, nonwhites will comprise a majority of children in the United States by 2015.


Strikingly, as Frey notes, the census found that the number of whites under 18 declined by more than 4 million over the past decade, even as the number of minority young people increased by more than 6 million.

This tells more of the story than the vague news that CNN likes to report, which is that by 2040 whites will no longer be a majority. That doesn’t sound bad, does it? We’re all equal then. But the fact is that some group will be on top, and that group will make the country like their country of origin.

So do we want Western Europe or… Mexico? Nigeria? Brazil? Thailand? Zimbabwe?

Americans will have to choose, after years of assuming that immigration was like having a new family in the neighborhood — and no other consequences. “Sure, the Witherspoons are black, but it’s just one house in a neighborhood of 400.”

Yet as the numbers show, the Witherspoons aren’t just adding to the mix — they’re displacing the native Americans of mostly English/German stock, and replacing them with Mexican indios (Asians), Southern Asians, Indians (Caucasoid Asians) and Africans.

What’s that mix going to look like? A lot like the indios of Mexico, lower castes of India, poorer people in Iraq and Iran, favelas of Brazil, etc.

That’s not the original idea of diversity, which was a few non-white faces to “spice up” the horde of whites.

This is why history grins at us. We are the latest in a series of people to assume that we can make demographic changes to our nations without it vastly affecting us.

The French in 1789 decided to execute their aristocrats, and promptly sent their country into a tailspin from which it has never recovered because of a lack of competent administrators. The Russians did the same thing in 1917. Western Europe itself made the mistake when it allowed many of its best people to emigrate to the USA, and promptly had a population crash from which it recovered just in time to hit two disastrous world wars.

The young, increasingly minority population is likely to view public investment in schools, health care, and infrastructure as critical to its economic prospects, while the predominantly white senior population might be increasingly reluctant to fund such services through taxes. The trends could portend a lasting structural conflict. (See “The Gray and the Brown: The Generational Mismatch,” NJ, 7/24/10, p.14.)

As noted in the past, the Tea Parties in the USA and Europe, while not racist per se, represented an ethnic conflict: whites who want an upward-moving society, and “new citizens” who want an entitlement state.

If the pattern repeats not just from Soviet Russia and Revolutionary France, but the post-colonial revolts across the world, the white minority will accede to these demands. The entitlement state will breed many more than the economy can sustain; bankruptcy will loom; The People will blame the rich, and murder or exile the white minority; a competent administrator drain will then doom the country, which will enter its final spiral to true third-world status. Zimbabwe, South Africa, Cuba, Bolivia, Rwanda, Egypt… the list goes on.

The first step toward that is the step America is about to take, which is ending years of pleasant denial about race to face the power struggle, and realize that in order to “be diverse” we must destroy the majority.

And we’re just about there.

Anti-white prejudice – considered almost non-existent in the ’50s – is now perceived among white Americans as a bigger problem than anti-black bias, according to a new study.

The report found that both races agreed anti-black prejudice declined steadily over the last 60 years, but white Americans felt that bias against them was on the upswing.

Asked to rank prejudice against blacks on a 1-10 scale in the 2000s, white respondents put the number at 3.6 – compared with 9.1 in the ’50s.

But white respondents also put the number for anti-white bias at 4.7 – way up from the 1.8 of the ’50s.

The numbers suggest “that whites also linked the decrease in anti-black sentiment over the last half century to an increase in anti-white bias over the same time period,” the authors wrote. – NYDN

Although delusional people like to gush on about sharing the wealth, the truth is that wealth is finite. Our planet is finite. Its resources are finite. Time is finite. Even energy and matter are finite; what we take from somewhere else has consequences.

You cannot “add diversity” to a country without destroying what is there. This is why history grins: this is the lesson we don’t seem to learn, as a species. We don’t want to think that our actions have consequences beyond the immediate result we wanted to achieve.

As the cycle of history shows, all you do is kill the goose that laid the golden egg. You take a country that is succeeding because its people are motivated and competent, then introduce cultural chaos, and what is left is a new population that cannot replicate the organization and aptitude, thus the competence, thus the wealth, of the old.

Diversity fails not only the majority, but everyone else — minorities — who get dragged into its vortex.

As another commentator writes:

Black Run America is based on the idea that African-Americans cannot get ahead in our society because of White racism. Gunnar Myrdal told White people they suffered from “An American Dilemma” and the Supreme Court responded with the Brown decision that ordered integration in public schools.

Now that White people know that Whites are not racist anymore and that racism isn’t holding back African-Americans, the visible failure of African-Americans to make progress has become a serious problem in need of explanation.

(1) If White racism isn’t holding back African-Americans, there has to be some other explanation for racial inequality.

(2) If the experts in race relations have gotten it wrong for decades, then White America has been told a huge lie and authority figures cannot be trusted.

(3) If blacks can’t get ahead in spite of visible explicit discrimination against Whites and non-existent discrimination against blacks, what is holding them back?

(4) If robbing White people to create social programs like Obamacare doesn’t solve racial inequality, how can social spending on the welfare state be justified and seen as anything more than institutionalized racial extortion of White taxpayers?

(5) If “racism” doesn’t explain inequality in our society, then why should Whites feel guilty about black failure?

(6) If Whites have no good reason to feel guilty anymore, what is stopping White racial consciousness from coming roaring back and looking for vengeance?OD

I’ll answer his final question (what is stopping White racial consciousness from coming roaring back and looking for vengeance?) first:

  • Fear of conflict. Don’t take risks you do not immediately need to take.
  • Social fear. Who wants to buck a trend and defy altruism? The basement dwellers only.
  • Oblivion. It’s always easier than truth. Just more destructive.
  • Kindness. No one wants to wage war or enact vengeance. They prefer practical plans.

The last one to me is the kicker. We cannot allow the mental disease known as “White Nationalism” to infect our minds and turn us from the practical. What are white people more likely to do, declare war… or look for practical solutions?

I think we can see what they’ll do based on what they’ve done in the past:

Dill (Anethum graveolens ) was used in the Middle Ages in charms against witchcraft. It was known as a medicinal herb to the ancient Greeks and Romans, where soldiers placed burned dill seeds on their wounds to promote healing. Medieval Europe could not grow it fast enough for love potions, casting spells and for protection against witchcraft. Carrying a bag of dried dill over the heart was considered protection against hexes.


The whole plant is aromatic and used to flavor many foods, such as gravlax (a Nordic appetizer made with raw salmon that looks soooo good! I’ll try making it someday and report back.), borscht and other soups, and pickles. Dill is best when used fresh, as it loses its flavor rapidly if dried. – Hermione’s Garden

Our arrogant history professors will look at this and infer a causal relationship that was not there. “They were afraid of witches, so they invented a superstition using dill, so they came to like dill, so now it prevails in their taste preferences. Ta-da!”

More likely is this:

Sven: This dill dip sure is tasty.

Hans: Ja, ja, it’s good!

Witchfinder General: Witches have been spotted in the briar!

Sven: Have some more of this dill dip, Hans.

Witchfinder General: Comrade Citizen Sven, you do not seem disturbed by the presence of witches! Do you consider witches to be a non-threat, and therefore think that maybe that should walk among us?

Sven: I… ah… dill dip…

Hans: (quickly) The elders say that dill keeps witches away. So we’re eating as much as we can.

Witchfinder General: I have never heard of this superstition!

Hans: Yeah, but you’re not from around here. Here it’s known fact.

Sven: All our scientists agree! Dill keeps away witches. This is entirely unrelated to the fact that it’s delicious.

Hans: Here, you’d better have some of this dip… or people are going to think you’re a witch.

Even all four of my readers have stopped after this digression. What the heck could he be rambling about?

I am talking about nothing less than a different way of governing.

In modern government, you observe an effect and make it illegal.

In the more organic world that Hans and Sven inhabit, you simply find the behavior that is its undoing, and make that preferable.

In their case, a world without dill would be very bad indeed… so when some helpful idiot showed up talking about witches, they used witch-hunting to justify dill-using.

In the same way, I think the race problem that America and Europe share will be solved with this kind of positive futurism.

  1. Instead of even thinking about criticizing other races (or Jews) — especially since the choice to become diverse was a white thing for the most part — we should focus our criticism on diversity.
  2. We should recognize that our elites are corrupt, and make fun of them, but not for being successful, because everyone loves success. Criticizing others for having money is a pathway straight to the liberal mentality. Instead, we should make fun of them for being out of touch.
  3. Next, we should learn from the successful brands of the past century. Mercedes-Benz, Christian Dior, Apple Computer, Ralph Lauren, Mont Blanc and Viking ranges. These each preached a simple message: you can be part of a new growing elite of those who know if you buy our product. It’s a luxury product, without the linear factor of simply costing more than others. They sell cool, and intelligence, more than sheer cost value.
  4. We create a new elite based on this ideal. Unlike the hipsters/liberals, this brand does not hate success but embraces it. Unlike the stodgy old right, they embrace success only when it comes with a “whole life,” which implies (in hipster/liberal fashion) a social life and a cultural life that are as important as the cash flow. This is a new elite not only from social power, memetic power, financial power and political power, but also pure cool. They are not what is burnt out and dead from the past, nor are they trying to control you. They’re rising above you, and so you have a binary choice to follow them or be left behind.
  5. This new elite adopts a sensible attitude toward multiculturalism-versus-culture: diversity doesn’t work, so I choose to live near people like me. Not just in race, but ethnicity, and social caste as well as social class (a monetary substitute for caste). Even more, I want them to think like me. None of those burnt-out hippies or stodgy fat businessmen here. Just pure cool. And if I’m white, it looks like my whole neighborhood is. Our schools are better. We pay less in taxes. We’re happier. And we’re unapologetic, because whatever ills occurred from colonialism, slavery and The Holocaust are now bought and paid for.

After demographic collision, politics will have to take off its kid gloves. This is not a battle of ideologies, like the Communism-versus-capitalism follies of the 1980s. It’s not a battle of religions, or class warfare. It’s a clash of civilizations, but even more so, a clash of civilization-types, meaning that those who want a more traditional society for practical reasons will get it and make it cool.

The others will drool.

Our demographic collision looks scary as it comes over the horizon. Knowing that we can’t just keep going to work, buying stuff, amusing ourselves and that everything will turn out OK while we do that… it’s painful to make this transition. It’s like waking up on a luxury cruise liner to find out it has hit an iceberg.

But those who survive will grasp this new reality, and like warriors act; but also, like artists, they will act secondarily by portraying a new and better future without these stodgy old problems (equality is from 1789, class war is from 1917, and racial equality is from 1968).

While “white nation with a third world minority, or a third world nation with a white minority” is the immediate question, the bigger question is how get over the constant class warfare of liberalism which is the origin of our racial crisis. Once we do that, we can build a better society.

Will to Power as cooperation

Tuesday, May 17th, 2011

Life is mostly about solving problems using common sense; things don’t need to be very complicated as long they work.

Most conservatives tend to simply “trust their guts” when evaluating problems; consequently, they focus on this freedom to choose, and they individually assume the consequences — to the conservative mind, each to his place.

It is common sense to understand things for their visible and regular outcomes. It is not that common sense is always right, or that all things are as they appear, but on the other hand, common sense can tell us things that are evident because they are simply true.

This is probably why you’re more likely to find conservatives in business than in academics. In academics people “problematize” ad infinitum, very often reaching conclusions that end wandering in their own realm of political correctness without going back to reality, while in business, things are evaluated by their patent productivity. If conservatives are criticized for not “questioning the system”, liberals can be criticized for doing nothing but questioning the system, getting closed in a prescriptive cage made of good intentions.

Perhaps the most important part of this common sense about the world is the understanding of will as a fundamental element of success. A successful society is that which gathers disciplined individuals who have clear ideals in mind, and that are responsible of their actions.

On the other hand liberals tend to think that this will is just a product of structure and that the individuals are not ultimately responsible of their actions, their lack of discipline or will. The will to power, in their minds, is just a pretext to some sort of institutional savagism, as in Fascist regimes where strength and the strong are socially fixated in their positions above the weak.

I’ll follow the leftist train of thought for a while to rebuild their vision, and start by thinking of a world completely dominated by the will to power. A jungle-like scenario, where the strongest rule as long as he can watch his own back, the survival of the fittest as an endless race that gets nowhere but only to selfish and temporary triumph, a scenario whose inhabitants live in permanent restlessness.

Robbery, abuse, death. A terrible picture. That’s the pure will that we commonly praise so much in our “common sense”, without thinking in the importance of the structural socialization around it to make it bearable, or human. Essentially, it is natural selection, and we haven’t imposed our values on it, the will to be selected trumps ethical considerations and results in an everlasting battle.

But if we favor socialization over the will to power, what would we have?

True, it’s called civilization, and in its more advanced form, democracy. But in order to be in such state of harmony, this will to power must be suppressed for the sake of cooperation, tranquility, and equality.  And we will need to evaluate our social constructs over that, otherwise, cruel isolated will. Let’s be leftists to foster socialization over nature. Although we had not so fortunate moments like monarchy and aristocracy, with their legitimately veiled but rampant dominions based on these will as an exclusive attribute, we have progressed.

Aristocratic will ends in tyranny. It is known that power corrupts, and therefore, in order to avoid that corruption, power must be partitioned as much as possible; this ends, ideally, with every individual having the same amount of power as the next. Hence, power in the hands of the best means the exploitation of those ‘who are not the best’.

Much of our modern culture is a way to prevent aristocratism, whether through art, media or law, our culture just seeks to avoid the exploitation of the ‘not best’ through the complete denial of differences among humans. If not will, what we praise then? Meekness.

Meekness is cooperative, don’t you think?  The simple notion of will is domineering, are you going to exert your will against the wind? No, it’s towards other man. Everybody, in common sense, knows that, but we politically correct types praise not will but submission, because as more people submit, the more cooperative our society is: where no one has private property, everyone has private property, where no one has power, everyone has power.

However, this collective submission doesn’t include the leaders of these revolutions, we have to submit ourselves to their peace, but that’s only a gradual step towards the emancipation of the masses. When we look at our current times, in clear distinction to old ages of cruelty, we feel happy of living in safer ages, and we must move forward!

We are afraid of the dominant, willful, and strong, because they are discriminatory towards the meek. It’s simple: we arrange our goals as society and we punish or ostracize those who don’t follow them, either they’re aristocratic values or humanist pursuits, and so we come with very interesting conflicts.

In an aristocratic order, sure, the meek are relegated by the so called “patriarchal” values, but in the individualist society, everything that smells like aristocracy or hierarchy, is despised and sealed with politically correct accusations. There’s nothing impressive here.

Individualism is the optimal form of cooperation, because aristocratic values of strength and honor, are so inherently conflictive, discriminatory, selfish and bellicose, how could a bunch of willful beasts manage to have harmony? We have changed and we have now civilized individuals that are cooperative.

So — that is enough leftist train for me. We know that this modern project failed. Why?

Because it went too far on its appraisal of socialization, and, denied the will to power, confusing it with a naively cruel via of exploitation. Nietzsche, would you explain how, really, aristocratic will works in society?

To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one’s will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization). As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOCIETY, it would immediately disclose what it really is–namely,a Will to the DENIAL of life, a principle of dissolution and decay.

CHAPTER IX. WHAT IS NOBLE? – Beyond Good and Evil. 259

Nietzsche was right when he emphasized cooperation not only in terms of kinship, but in terms of “force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization”. But also, he brilliantly recognized that a society that forces to create this co-relation is destined to fail.

Cooperation is possible if there are individuals of similar worth and purpose. A society with an average of worthy individuals it’s going to minimize its class conflict, and therefore the tyranny that emerges from the existing distance between the peasants and the rulers. But, the reader could ask: isn’t that the same purpose of the Left, to produce people of good attitude? And that’s precisely the spin: it is the purpose, not the consequence.

It is the disgrace of making it the fundamental principle of society, according to Nietzsche. It is a diabolic inversion, whereas social harmony may naturally come from naturally worthy individuals, liberalism tries to produce social harmony to bring worthy individuals.

What do we really need to look for? To equate worth, but from bottom-up: no assistance, no charity, but look for the foundations of a good collective society: worthy individuals that incarnate the will to power as a via to communal transcendence.

The will to power is natural, and so, here we know that the will to power depends on the nature of the individual. The lesson is very simple, if we want to level up society, we need to work with human nature to bring worthy individuals that include creative cooperation as part of themselves.

Social justice review

Sunday, February 20th, 2011

Staged spontaneous uprisings

epic_failOngoing unrest in the Middle East is only the latest in a weary epoch that mirrors the persistence of thermodynamic entropy. Should any inequity rise above the dormant vastness into higher states of complexity and brilliance, the frigid clutches of equalization always awaits in the end to subvert it, whatever form it takes, be it matter and energy manifesting beauty for a while or a few living men who unlike all the rest seek out some excellency in life.

In a latter day globalist age of George Soros activist foundations, we are all expected to believe the teeming revolt across the muslim world is a testimony to lumpen proletariat Will to Democracy. Inside every Ay-Rab is an Amerikan just waiting to come out? Not bloody likely.

The body count, lootings, burnings and rapes accumulate across an entire region, all supposedly in the name of wireless access, equality and freedom, but never to just plunder while the obscuring smoke remains thick in the streets, from whichever nearby neighbors achieved more in life.

We are all expected to ignore the likelihood of a few key activists, like circus ringmasters in clown paint holding butcher knives, working the crowds attending various social media message boards through their connected wireless devices into an uncontrolled stampede. LOL IRL no less.

Nevermind that little but rage, despair, or nothing whatsoever has come from this very proletariat out to the rest of the world, even since the legendary golden days of pyramid building thousands of years in the distant past. Indeed, the herd removes itself from its grazing and rutting cycle to accomplish something of note only when an intelligent autocrat or a charismatic imam assembles it for marching orders.

Alternatively, we also have the ongoing example, where some crafty anonymous ringmasters work the oblivious herd into a frenzy, until this crowd finally notices well past the aftermath they were suckered into a conflagration of their own home but have gained nothing except a general downgrade in civil society organization in return.

These spontaneous uprisings have the fingerprints of the seditious liberal left all over them. Look for instance at their trademark version of imported angry mob democracy in Madison; the same due process circumventing activity we have read about coercing the lawfully elected representatives of Wisconsin’s local people.

Any authentic constitutional republic, any functioning civil society, would expel such democratic mob anarchy well outside the bounds of political legitimacy and into the violent overthrowal margins where the civilization hating undermen lurk.

Accidental lone gunmen

Since everyone has opinions, everyone has a totality of opinions: an ideology. And opinions tend to be shaped by environment. But what shapes environment today? Well, consider that to find right-wing influence, you have to seek it; left-wing influence seeks you. It is today’s default. Leftists control the schools and colleges, create the movies and shows youths watch and the music they listen to. And whatever news and documentaries the young are exposed to (e.g., Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth in class) are also almost invariably products of the Left. The young needn’t scour radio dials to find liberalism; they are born into it.


It may be tempting to mischaracterize a deranged person as some sort of monster for the results of their actions. But this isn’t the truth. The human being Loughner is entirely a tortured social and biological creation of the revolutionary left and its ideology distribution networks, the information gatekeepers we know as mass media.

Yes, this is the same mainstream media that immediately and unanimously disassociated itself from responsibility for its very own creation.

In recent years, he became a heavy smoker of marijuana and was rumoured to have sampled LSD. “His parents were very laid-back, like hippies,” said Jesse Martinez, 17. “They were live-and-let-live people, but not exactly in a good way, and so he grew up doing more or less what he liked.”

The dubious habits of some lifelong 1960s society dropouts resulted in offspring affected with what many have described as a debilitating psychosis.

Maybe his inherited genetic material was already damaged after years of parental alternative lifestyle indulgences. Or, the debilitation was inherited from parents who themselves were born damaged. Whichever caused this particular lone gunman, it was like bringing an automobile into the world but never bothering to put a driver behind the wheel.

For fear of crowd revolt, we no longer challenge thoughtless acts.

The crucial question is now whether Loughner’s killing spree was a random act by a paranoid madman, or whether he was in any way motivated by the hostile tone of contemporary politics.


This anticulture of mostly unaccountable irresponsibility is a product delivered to us by bloody proletariat revolution or the constant threat thereof. Who today is left alive to tell such people no, do not place your tormented offspring among us, or you are unfit for bringing a household and family here, or please leave our society for everyone’s sake?

The Loughner creation of the permanent revolt left and its media hegemony was like someone bringing that driverless automobile with its transmission in neutral to a hilltop and pointing it at our busy town square below. Twenty-two years later it begins rolling.

Worse, the responsibility shirking culprits recoil in cause-effect oblivious horror only to defensively blame random townspeople themselves in the aftermath.

In the end, it is only might in controlled information backed by busloads of bought but still raging protestors that shows us a radical progressive concept of what makes right in our world.


Saturday, September 18th, 2010

russian_revolutionThe world socialist movement provides us with an interesting narrative. They tell us the capitalist system enjoys free movement abroad to harness the cheapest available labor.

Globalized capitalism is free to seek out choice locations with the most lax environmental regulations to keep its profit margins maximized by dropping the operating costs side.

Endless growth can pressure external ecosystems, cultures, and economies. These are variously enumerated as problems by many world socialist sources and others.

But, they tell us the labor side of production is impeded from relocating to where the best wages are found. According to world socialism, restricting the movement of random people into the society you have invested in is an injustice you are doing to others.

In response, world socialism proposes creating internal problems for you:

It is very interesting that after I spoke publicly about the racist “segregation” laws which existed in the South before the coming of the American civil rights movement in the late 1950’s and 60’s, they compared the European immigration statutes to it and saw they could build a mass movement and win. But they also talked about transforming Europen society itself as well as dismantling the laws. They stated that they did not want to just win a few reforms and empower a black middle class, while so many remained in poverty. They had the radical goal of overthrowing capitalism itself.


As a shared world socialism and globalist capital goal, mass labor migration creates about the same results everywhere.

It increases social upheaval and depletes the social safety net without showing improvement for the great expense incurred.

The results show no closing of any wealth gap between classes. Instead, we witness increased ethnic rivalries jockeying for the status and trinkets to be had in capitalist Western societies:

Almost all the attackers were black — but few observers believe the violence was due to racial hatred. Instead, they cite isolation of different groups within the school, certain students’ warped “gangster” values, and for some, simmering resentments over perceived benefits for Asian students.


The proclaimed public goal of equitable fairness no longer conceals the quiet goal of destroying the present order through overburdening us with endless demands for appeasement:

Not a few people see value in Daley’s “strong leadership,” for bringing the city together, for ending (or at least submerging) the racial and ethnic hostilities that have historically divided this city. It has almost become a cliche in recent days: Daley held the city together by bringing everyone “in.”

Uh-huh. If he is to receive credit for the sea change, it wasn’t that he just opened up his City Hall office for every faction and said, “Take a seat at the table.” He did it by giving them stuff. You know, stuff like senior centers, street sweepers, after-school programs, block parties, career academies, school buildings, neighborhood parks, job training, cultural events, flowers and fences, consumer protection, ex-offenders rehab, health and wellness initiatives, home modification programs for the disabled, arts grants, lead abatement assistance, summer jobs programs, and so forth. Ribbon-cutting stuff.

Stuff that, when you add it all up, costs money, lots of it. To the tune of an estimated budget deficit of $655 million next year.


If the Soviet Union or Khmer Rouge are any example of the eventual outcome, we should understand that the installment of totalitarian dictatorship or a brutal junta is the default outcome of radical leftist socialism.

With history as our guide, such radicals, given power, are capable of handing out generous rewards to their own fanatics while murdering or enslaving unsupportive bystanders and the overt opposition alike.

Their claims to humanitarian morality and environmental conservation, two ideals often at odds with one another, are no more than spurious popular appeal of the same sort found with global capitalism.

Unemployed millions means overpopulated

Sunday, June 20th, 2010

When we have too little of something and there is demand for it, its value increases. The reverse is true as well. extra_personIf there is way too much of something, even if demand remains, its value will plummet and the excess will languish, unutilized.

For most of us, our ethical social manchimp brains shy away from the fact that labor is something that can also accumulate to extreme excess. We understand that inert objects, which when foolishly produced in gross excess, can go to waste.

But the idea of wasted human lives is for us a different beast. Reality often hurts, so stictly in the case of our bias favoring our manchimp equals, we modify the rules we use to engage with it as if reality is going to sympathize with us.

This is irrational. A unit of labor, embodied in a human, is a component of economy, not the cause of it, not the whole of it, and not the purpose of it. It is even questionable whether as much human labor will be required in the future as we increasingly automate tasks using our technologies.

Our reasoned response is to face reality and get used to the continued devaluation of the human labor component within economies.

For 23 years, 58-year-old Cindy Paoletti of Salina, N.Y., worked in the corporate accounting division of J.P. Morgan Chase, balancing payroll accounts in an upstate office of the Wall Street bank. In December 2007, Paoletti was let go in a wave of layoffs that eventually shuttered the entire Syracuse operations center. “My job went to India,” she sighs.


There is only so much competent ownership that can go around. Every human has not shown himself capable of entrepreneurship, industry leadership, or even business management. Relatively very few have.

This is why we have a division between the great mass of human labor and the far fewer providers of the means to work. If the human labor portion had even minimal mental compentence, it would understand its own role in the arrangement. It is not the place of labor to own and control the means of production.

Thus, the unemployed are not entitled to work. They are drawn upon as a resource pool and then discarded as required by the reality of economy as a system requiring proportional balance to function.

Too much labor is a gross imbalance between human population numbers and the means of the providers to make use of this overwhelming excess. Unemployment is a compensatory effect of an economy that requires the harmony of its components to maintain stability.

Who wins at equality?

Saturday, June 12th, 2010

sucking_the_flowThe primary component in the equality game is ideology. Ideology is the default winner, similar to the house in a casino. Ideology manages all of the other components in the game, delegating authority through the bureaucracy.

The secondary component is the bureaucracy. As ostensibly impartial arbiters accountable to an ideology which is by definition quite partial, the bureaucracy wields authority over the tertiary components on a transactional basis. The bureaucracy wins by default as well, as a kennel full of curs each win scraps from the king’s table.

Bureaucratic Rational Grounds – resting on a belief in the ‘legality’ of patterns of normative rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands (legal authority).


The third component is you people. You people are divided into us and them.

The us half provides continuous energy to the equality process. To choose otherwise is to default at the “negotiating” table before the “impartial” bureaucratic mediators and thereafter incur penalty.

The them half provides the endless stream of justification for the equality process.

Plus, and minus. Haves, and have nots.

Altogether then, ideology creates the rules all will play by and bureaucracy directs the flow of the game pieces. New generations of us come about and are automatically assigned to the positive, giver side. Simultaneously, a steady flow of thems are brought in to the game as well and assigned the negative, taker side.

One might reasonably ask if Title II at least did no harm since it only codified what was already happening. The case can be made that it was harmful. The effort to pass the Act diverted the grassroots movement from self-help, mutual aid, and independent community action to lobbying, legislation, and litigation – that is, dependence on the white ruling elite. Direct efforts undertaken by free individuals were demoted to at best a supporting role.

That was a loss for freedom, justice, and independence. Our country is the worse for it.


Thus with positive and negative in proximity, or living under the same system, a flow of energy is established. The flow first stops at the second layer, typically as a general tax for public services everyone uses.

Yet, some of the tax is siphoned off to keep our equality game operating and much of this siphoned output stops at the bureaucrats and their zealots in the form of salaries. The remainder is released to the have nots who otherwise, we are told, would not have as much as us.

Since ideology isn’t a tangible thing, it exists over the secondary and tertiary layers invisibly. But as a whole, ideology is nearly always out of mind for all but the ideologues who act as managerial elite zealots among the bureaucrats.

Ideology in the equality game is powered by the negative side from which justification is drawn. Like taxes, justification flows up to the second layer where it is tailored, using the makework hours of liberal arts majors, into public decree which is then sent down to us in official documents pinned up on public billboards.

Like ideology, justification is not a tangible thing. Justification is unlike a steady flow of payments which are actually tangible and accountable. Ideology and justification alike simply require embodiment in the mind of a bureaucrat or a zealot among them.

For us however, the input required is a function of both material and time called labor that for each of us cannot be reclaimed once spent. But happily enough for the ideologue beneficiaries in the layers above, the justifications received by us, like an approving smile to a child for not being naughty, are for us an investment well made and lifetime that was well worth living.

Recommended Reading