Civilization represents an agreement between people to give up some freedoms in exchange for the efficiencies of scale that organizations offer. At some point, this goes too far, and the method becomes the goal, at which point civilization is in decline.
Our civilization encountered its problems by succeeding, which exposed it to new troubles that no one had faced before. This also meant that there was no precedent by which to recognize these problems.
When the method became confused with the goal, our civilization mistook taking care of its citizens for the original goal, which was taking care of those who contributed. Soon people were accepted merely for being alive, and this created a majority of people without purpose who promptly took over and used civilization for their own ends.
Their triumph, a series of individualist ideas from the Renaissance through the Obama presidency, seemed unstoppable until it began to fail, and the way its backers pushed it further revealed that these ideas were never about what was good for civilization and thus for contributors. These ideas were the reign of the parasitic.
As those old ideas fall like so many dominoes, people are becoming more willing to wield the one weapon that civilization really has: the ability to exile or refuse to admit people who are not contributors. This recognizes the eternal truth that you get more of whatever you subsidize, and whatever you discriminate against, you get less of.
Our well-intentioned — and we all know the old proverb about the road to Hell — policies have created mini-industries where people are impoverished, disabled or otherwise dysfunctional as careers which span multiple generations:
They were the fourth generation in this family to receive federal disability checks, and the first to be declared no longer disabled and have them taken away. In days that had grown increasingly tense, as debts mounted and desperation grew to prove that the twins should be on disability, this was always the worst time, before the medication kicked in, when the mobile home was filled with the sounds of children fighting, dogs barking, adults yelling, television volume turned up.
…Talk of medications, of diagnoses, of monthly checks that never seem to cover every need — these are the constants in households like this one, composed of multiple generations of people living on disability. Little-studied and largely unreported, such families have become familiar in rural communities reshaped by a decades-long surge that swelled the nation’s disability rolls by millions before declining slightly in 2015 as older beneficiaries aged into retirement benefits, according to interviews with social workers, lawyers, school officials, academics and rural residents.
…A separate Post examination of census data found that households reporting at least one disabled adult are three times as likely to report having a disabled child, too, although most households affected by disability report only one disabled member. Multigenerational disability, The Post found, is far more common in poor families.
The age we have just left, The Age of Ideology, was based in human individualism, or the idea that no individual should be left behind and that the individual should be protected against obligation to society, culture, heritage, religion, values and even logical realism. This was manifested in “equality,” or the notion that the human individual, not social standards, was our focus.
When ideology takes over mass opinion, there is no way to say no to any program that promises to benefit individuals who are below whatever lowest common denominator we define as the equality minimum in any way. As a result, welfare policies proliferate, eventually reaching the point where we are subsidizing multiple generations to be ill and do nothing productive.
Hegel thought history zig-zagged between concepts and their opposites until it found an optimum; more realistic observers noted that history runs in cycles, where sanity is established and then rebelled against — sort of like the Garden of Eden mythos — and it takes centuries to get back toward sanity. The first step back toward sanity is abolishing equality.
This can be as simple as saying that not every individual needs saving, which affirms the need for Darwinian natural selection among human populations to cease the proliferation of deleterious mutations, instead of encouraging their proliferation by subsidizing those who are suffering. But the herd opposes this because it would require us to make society sane again, which would make the individual less important and social order, values and standards more important.
A great purge is coming. Tolerance, equality and diversity have compelled us to admit too many among us who are dysfunctional, and those who are functional (this includes an in-built tendency to value civilization and contribute to it) are splitting away from the rest. In their view, membership in society is limited to those who can contribute, and this implies further filters as well.
For example, only those who understand a culture will know how to contribute to it, and only those who are hardwired with the genetics of a culture will be able to instinctively uphold it. For that reason, in order for there to be a purge of the useless, first civilizations must revert to being mono-ethnic, and in recognition of that the Left holds obsessively to the concept of diversity.
We are slowly recognizing that tolerance of all means destruction of the productive, because tolerance requires subsidies and that takes money from the productive to give to those who are non-contributors. Where in the past we thought there was a middle, we forgot that there are merely degrees, and that over time, any direction tends toward its furthest extreme.
Equality became a mental virus that took over our souls in pursuit of its extreme. Where we originally wanted merely to help people, and scapegoated hierarchy instead of recognizing that people are inherently unequal, we unleashed an omnivorous beast which soon consumed all other ideas and remade them in its image, resulting in a terminal spiral of guilt and victimhood fetishism that has destroyed our joy in life:
“What is it, honey?” I brush the bangs back from her face.
She lets out a big sigh. “I wish I wasn’t white.”
I start. Nothing in the parenting manuals has prepared me for that.
“All we’ve ever done is hurt people,” she continues. “I wish my skin was dark and that I had a culture.”
We cannot separate class warfare from diversity because they are one and the same, which is an expression of egalitarianism, itself a manifestation of our desires for individualism. Once we thought these things were survivable but now, we know they are not, and history is turning as a result.
No discussion about politics can avoid mentioning race. This becomes further complicated, because “race” means not just the four root races but all of the ethnic groups formed from them, like Germans or Maori. It gets more complex because the races are genetically different and therefore have different average abilities and tendencies, which implicates class and caste as well as ethnic origin.
Politics in fact is inherently tribal. “Tribe” proves to be a complicated term, but to be trendy, we should use it as an intersectional term, meaning the overlap of race, ethnic group, caste, region, and political orientation. Your tribe are people like you. There are many levels at which that determination is made.
Competing with tribe is ideology, or the notion that life “should” be different than it is according to natural order, and that humans should force a human-only pattern onto the world. Ideology is a way of holding together a group of people and motivating them, and so it naturally competes with religion, culture, and heritage.
At the end of the day, political thinking divides into two camps: the ideologists and the naturalists. Naturalists think that we should use the mathematical and informational patterns of nature to guide us, and so tend to see race as a prerequisite — a necessary element, but not thecompleteset of necessary elements — for a healthy society, where ideologists want to abolish race and replace it with ideology.
This division means that we will discuss race from two angles. The Left (ideologists) will argue that we should not have a majority race, which fits their single philosophy, egalitarianism, or that all people should be equal, which requires reducing or removing inner traits like caste, race, class, ethnicity, sex, religion and family. The Right (naturalists) will argue that we should either preserve the majority or at least allow it to preserve itself.
Since America birthed itself with some degree of ideological direction toward egalitarianism, even if as a means of affirming it in order to limit it and avoid a situation like what destroyed Athens, a hybrid approach was adopted: classical liberalism, or the idea that individuals would have freedom and liberty to pursue their own course in life. This is a form of the pluralism inherent in equality, which means that people do not have to work together toward a goal, but each tries to survive as in nature, and we see what comes out on top, even though civilization is the opposite of nature in terms of order and what it rewards. The “freedom” approach of classical liberalism, now called libertarianism, seemed to work, but the ideas that take time to fail are the most deadly, and by the 1960s, a combination of wartime propaganda (Cultural Marxism) and American individualism led to an increasingly Leftward drift.
As this Leftward drift manifests, it demonstrates an increasingly Communist-like attitude toward race which it views as its primary method of smashing the majority and removing the religion, culture, heritage, caste, ethnic, class and sex distinctions which impede the imposition of total ideology:
We may call Trump dumb but he figured out this country while we never did, understanding as the black militant H. Rap Brown put it 50 years ago, when he said that “racism is as American as apple pie.” And 46 percent of Americans voted for him, not in spite of that racism but because of it.
The Aztec civilization was also highly developed socially, intellectually and artistically. It was a highly structured society with a strict caste system; at the top were nobles, while at the bottom were serfs, indentured servants and slaves.
Strong nationalism — the idea that every nation is composed of only one ethnic group — enabled the Aztecs and other ancient civilizations to remove themselves from the genetic chaos blowing around, and focus instead on refining their traits so that they preserved desired abilities, which they then distributed to the rest of the population by elevating those who bore those traits to the level of nobility, at which point others emulated them, and they were prosperous, causing gradual genetic influence in the direction toward which that society aspired. Caste and nationalism supported one another; for example, look at ancient India:
Under the caste system, Indian society was divided into four hereditary divisions. The highest is the Brahmans (priests and teachers). Second was the Kshatriyas (rulers and warriors). Followed by the Vaishyas (merchants and traders) and finally was the Sudras (workers and peasants). In additional to these four castes, there were the Harijans or Untouchables, which were not in the social order. The Indian caste was hereditary and marriage was only permitted within the same caste. Each caste had its own occupation and any contacts with another caste was strictly regulated and prohibited.
Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
…Moorjani’s past research revealed that all people in India trace their heritage to two genetic groups: An ancestral North Indian group originally from the Near East and the Caucasus region, and another South Indian group that was more closely related to people on the Andaman Islands.
Today, everyone in India has DNA from both groups. “It’s just the proportion of ancestry that you have that varies across India,” Moorjani told LiveScience.
…Archaeological evidence indicates that the groups began intermarrying during a time of great upheaval. The Indus Valley civilization, which spanned much of modern-day North India and Pakistan, was waning, and huge migrations were occurring across North India.
In fact, Western civilization famously had similar caste systems, designed to separate people by role and heritage, as was seen in the Nordic countries:
The jarls were the upper echelon of the freeman in ancient Norse society, either noblemen or wealthy landowners, merchants or traders.
…The karls were considered what is known as ‘freemen’, meaning they were free to own land, build property and start a family or business.
…Slaves in ancient Norse times were known as thralls, and they were the lowest rung on the Viking social ladder. Thralls had little to no rights in Norse times, they were not able to own land and they would perform jobs and chores for their owners. With all this considered however its important to note that the bad treatment of a slave was looked down on.
This paralleled the social order created in English society nearly a thousand years later, as remnants of caste were present during the Victorian era:
The Victorian Upper Class consisted of the Aristocrats, Nobles, Dukes, other wealthy families working in the Victorian courts…The Upper Class was by inheritance a Royal Class. Many Aristocrats did not work as for centuries together their families had been gathering enough money for each generation to live a luxurious life.
…The Middle class was the next in social ranking. The Victorian period was very prosperous for the middle class. Middle-class people also owned and managed vast business empires.
…The lowest among the social hierarchy were the working class. This class remained aloof to the political progress of the country and was hostile to the other two classes.
These castes were genetically different, and the pattern resembled that of India. Modern Europe was formed when nomadic hunters mingled with a farming population that was closely related to them, but the higher echelons of Europe came from the root of Western European society, the Nordic-Germanic element. These took up positions in the higher castes, and managed the darker, smaller people who worked for them.
Over time, every civilization succumbs to entropy which occurs when the more numerous lower echelons overpower those above them, who understand things they do not. These things are then lost, and the society loses a degree of internal complexity and becomes essentially an open-air shopping mall where some people have money and others do not.
This is why caste revolt is so important to the Left: their goal is to rationalize this decline and instead, view it as positive, and to make it come about by creating the conditions that cause the imposition of caste and then thwart those conditions, allowing the society to become totally “equal” by losing all structure and standards, including heritage.
By the converse, diversity causes racial conflict and in turn accelerates class conflict, because without a sense of shared unity that comes from being a homogeneous population, groups fragment into internally competing sub-groups. We can see how this process happened in American history:
Let’s back up to the early 1600s. This was a time where racism didn’t exist. People didn’t call themselves Black or White. Back then it was all regional. We’re Irish, we’re Greek, or we’re African and so on. Fast forward to the colonization of what would become the United States of America. This is about 1640. You basically had two groups of people. There were the rich and the workers. There were a few slaves but most people were indentured servants or free labor.
In this way, we can see how questions of race and caste are intermingled, and how the Left has used racial and ethnic diversity to force caste revolt, while the Right attempts to suppress caste revolt by preserving ethnic homogeneity, which confers a sense of shared identity and purpose.
Interestingly, the revolts against traditional social order are initiated by those who seek to expand their profit motive, giving in to the individualism that says they can take civilization for granted, and should be concerned only with the immediate effects on themselves and their profits when making decisions. This bourgeois mentality arises from those with enough mental power to be clever, but not smart, leading to a fragmentation of the power of the higher echelons:
Drawing with varying degrees of conviction and plausibility on Marx’s ideas and insights, the class-based account of modern British history begins with the social origins of the bourgeois revolution of the mid-seventeenth century–otherwise known as the Civil War or the Great Rebellion–that witnessed the transition from feudalism to capitalism and thus from late medieval to early modern times. The victims and beneficiaries of these changes were, respectively, the declining aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie (or, in other versions, the rising gentry), and it was during the Civil War that these two classes, set on very different historical trajectories, first clashed directly. But although in the short term the bourgeoisie vanquished the monarchy, the peerage, and the established church, its revolutionary movement was curiously incomplete. By the late seventeenth century, after the Restoration and the “Glorious Revolution,” the traditional forces of authority were back in control, and for much of the eighteenth century the aristocracy, by now transformed into a quasi-bourgeois elite of agrarian capitalists, reasserted themselves.
If you wonder why so many celebrities, business leaders, professors, shopowners and union bosses lean Left, this is why: they want to destroy the power of anyone who is naturally superior to them in intellectual, morality or wealth. We are in the grips of the final parts of that process now, after it won the upper hand during the turbulent 1960s.
As a result, at this point, racial politics of the ideologist variety have won out, and since they are being used to shatter natural social order as manifested in caste, they are exclusively obsessed with race, to the point where the Right wants to have freedom of association — which would allow it all-white suburbs and offices — just to escape the vast horde of predator-parasites who hate our majority here in the United States and Europe, but want to be here for the socialist style welfare state benefits and also, to conquer us by outbreeding us.
They hate you. They always will hate you. Every group acts in self-interest, and theirs is to conquer you.
The grim fact of racial politics is that it is based in self-interest. Every group has a self-interest, which is in having control of its destiny and then becoming the best version of itself that it can. In order to act on that, it must not exist in the situation that produced the Indian caste system; any situation that is “diverse” threatens the ethnic group.
For that reason, it must win by beating down all other ethnic groups. This somewhat Machiavellian view is borne out by history. The groups that conquered others and drove them away lasted longer than those who attempted to co-exist, producing centuries of ethnic conflict until both groups, exhausted, were destroyed or hybridized.
This is not the fault of other groups, nor does it vary with the group. Any immigration above tiny levels, which is also a bad idea as it obliterates the original group through trace admixture, brings about a conflict between groups, no matter who they are. Simpler groups fight back with crime; smarter groups attempt to conquer by gaining education, wealth and power in law and business.
Ironically, the solution to this problem is for a majority group to double down on its identity and assert that identity positively in a stronger sense, which causes the groups that wish to overthrow it to reveal their nature as aggressors. The more that the majority group focuses on “racism,” instead of strengthening its culture and opposing diversity, the more it plays into the win scenario for its opposition.
Perhaps a greater step further is to oppose equality — the philosophy of lower caste revolt — itself, and by doing so, to assert a strong social order which in turn also broadcasts the importance and solidity of racial and ethnic identity.
Identity must be both racial and ethnic, as when it is racial alone, it allows itself to be adulterated by other ethnic groups from the same race, which ends up then creating a generic racial group which has no particular claim to any identity.
Already the signs are on the wall that this is happening. During the 1990s, “diversity” was a magic word for that bright cosmopolitan future where we ruled the world by inviting them here. Europeans, who both are less accustomed to diversity and are seeing its effects more immediately, have led the way in visualizing how destructive diversity is:
The most common view among the 10 European countries surveyed is that cultural diversity is neither a plus nor a minus in terms of quality of life. In no nation does a majority say increasing diversity is a positive for their country. At most, roughly a third in Sweden (36%), the UK (33%) and Spain (31%) describe growing racial, ethnic and national diversity in favorable terms.
It was the worst performance for her Christian Democrats (CDU) since 1949. They got less than a third of the vote and lost ground in all 16 of the country’s states—this for a party that used to dominate the right of German politics and was capable of winning absolute majorities. The old party of the left, the Social Democrats (SPD), did worse, barely scraping 20 percent. Coming in third with 13 percent of the vote was the brand-new Alternative for Germany (AfD), an anti-immigration party that will send 93 members to the 709-seat Bundestag, the parliament in Berlin.
Leftism is caste revolt. Racial and ethnic diversity are the weapon that Leftism uses to bring about caste revolt. When one part of this structure fails, the whole thing goes down in flames, and is replaced by sentiments of tribalist unity as the basis of nations, renewed identitarian awareness, greater trust in caste and tradition, and finally, a hearty cynicism for Leftism as it joins other ruins on the junkpile of history.
We are seeing a massive shift here. For the first time since the French Revolution in 1789, Leftism is actively losing ground; for the first time since The Enlightenment,™ the idea of human equality — a form of individualism — is also losing ground. But first, we are going to go through a period of great upheaval.
As with many bad ideas, Leftism seemed hip and refreshing when it was untried, but once it was applied, it made a mess of things. Multiple failures of Leftist programs — overpopulation, diversity, collapse of the family, debt, command economies, ignoring third world warlords, nuclear proliferation, pollution and widespread ineptitude — are now coming due. Liberal democracy and Leftism have fallen, and the furious activity we see of late is an attempt to hold on to the franchise granted to those who were allowed to succeed because they were good Leftists or fit the Leftist ideal.
What matters for us, then, is to understand race and caste so that we can reverse the process by which race became the dominant issue of our time, which is the Leftist agenda of caste revolt that is now shattering in ungraceful decay around us.
Participants with post-secondary education saw a 57% decrease in cardiovascular risk after following the diet, and those earning more than €40,000 (about $47,000) a year saw a 61% decrease. Those of lower socioeconomic status saw no benefits.
…The foods eaten by subjects of this study varied widely depending on their socioeconomic status. The more educated the participants, the more likely they were to report eating a broader variety of vegetables, plus more whole grains and organic vegetables. More educated participants had daily diets that contained higher proportions of monounsaturated fats like those found in olive oil and nutrients like calcium, vitamin D, and fiber. Meanwhile, higher-income study subjects ate more whole grain breads, fruits, nuts, and fish, and fewer meat products than subjects with lower incomes.
Those who are wealthy and educated are, on the whole, more intelligent than those who are not.
Most people exist in a simple world where if you take a peasant, “educate” him and give him an office job, he is suddenly equivalent to one of these people. He is not; he is still a peasant, albeit one with some skills. This means that he will find himself out of his depth on a regular basis, and make bad decisions because he is not competent at the level of critical thinking and analysis, which are higher IQ skills, nor is he morally oriented toward leadership, a trait which seems correlated with some in the higher IQ registers.
But as even dietary differences show, there is more to it than that. Those with higher intelligence know different things, and are generally healthier as a result. They can discern what they should do, and can interpret simple instructions such as the Mediterranean Diet in more accurate ways, much as they are better with law, philosophy, literature and art.
PSF: You mentioned previously that a lot of your influences happen to be working class rock and rollers like AC/DC. How do you reconcile that with your aristocratic bearings?
LB: Well, we’ve always said that rock and roll is just like anything else — it’s something that’s better done by the upper classes, as is almost every other enterprise of human endeavor.
That definitely applies to the Mediterranean Diet, and education at least.
Where this gets complicated is that caste has multiple layers. Looking at the IQ distribution charts that make up the basis of the book The Bell Curve, we can see that roughly 13% of our population is above 120 IQ points, which educators who are honest about this issue consider the minimum for a college education.
Among those, less than one percent are above 130 points, which is where people stop trying to earn money and start trying to change history through the battle of ideas. All of our great works of art and philosophy, and most of our innovations, come from people in this group. When these are also of high moral caliber, they provide our best leaders.
Those who have high moral caliber and high intelligence, as opposed to what we might call “medium-high” or “middlebrow” intelligence, are those who naturally should rule a society because they are more competent.
A survey published in this month’s Economic Journal proves the point perfectly. Two economists, Professor Gregory Clark and Dr Neil Cummins, have studied 634 upper-middle-class surnames – including Bazalgette, Bigge, Nottidge and Pepys – from 1850 until today. Their findings show how extremely sticky wealth is. Five generations apart, the descendants of the rich of 1850 remain rich today. They are more likely than others to live longer, attend Oxbridge, have nice houses and become professionals.
Naturally, this offends the middlebrow, who tend to be of the Vaisya caste and thus talented with mercantile concerns, but essentially morally oblivious and not capable of seeing through the long-term consequences of their actions. This is why every society dies the same way: the middlebrow merchants, who are accustomed to manipulating people and understand their hidden desires, unite with the proles to overthrow the upper castes.
As we see with every revolution, including the French and Russian revolutions, this initiates a cycle called the Napoleonic arc where the greater incompetence of the middlebrow and prole army leads to a less prosperous civilization, and then the only way to unite the failing nation-state is by perpetual warfare, which means ideological warfare to spread the People’s Revolution elsewhere. Naturally this too ends in disaster, and the states tend to collapse much like post-Revolutionary French government or the Soviet Union.
Ironically, the American Revolution succeeded because it overthrew a king, but not the natural upper-middle-class (high Kshatriya or low Brahmin) aristocracy in America. That was overthrown during the Civil War, when the industrial and as a result, prole-heavy, North invaded the agrarian South in order to plunder its riches and assert the lower-caste Northern “elites” as rulers instead of the natural elites of the South.
They used race as a justification in that war; to the North, the war was hyped for a Gulf of Tonkin type pretext based in the injustice of slavery. To the South, where slaves were prized and often loved, slavery was the natural extension of European feudalism, which since it had been made illegal and replaced with legal systems, could only live on through chattel slavery. In this case, the serfs were black because they could endure the heat of the fields where people whose ancestors came from near the Arctic Circle could not.
Caste relates to race because to the Left they are the same issue. The Left has one and only one idea, “equality,” and they seek places to demonstrate it. This means overthrowing upper castes, or racial or ethnic groups whose higher IQs make them de facto upper castes in a mixed-race or mixed-ethnic society. To the Left, miscegenation and diversity are weapons for overthrowing that upper caste.
Right-wing movements succeed when they emphasize putting society into order so that people are more prosperous, which includes having the invisible leadership of a caste hierarchy, such that the wealth and power belong to the most competent, instead of the actors, celebrities, athletes, politicians, scam artists, merchants and poseurs we have handed it to now, who are neither morally nor intellectually competent to wield it.
On the other hand, the Right fails when it accepts the Leftist proposition that caste is not important and must be inverted, with the lower in power and the naturally higher subjugated, which is the eternally emergent argument from the idea of “equality.” If the Alt Right wants to succeed, it will have to talk about caste and “huwhite” ethnic hierarchy as well as race.
The racial dynamic in prisons puts whites at a tremendous disadvantage. First, whites are often outnumbered by both blacks and Hispanics. But far more important, just as they show no racial solidarity in “the free world,” whites in prison do not band together to protect each other from predators. As No Escape reports, Hispanics sometimes rape Hispanics, and blacks sometimes rape blacks, but neither group permits anyone of another race to rape its own people. If a black tried to “turn out” a Mexican, the Mexicans would riot and try to kill him. Blacks also defend each other from white or Hispanic rapists. It is only whites — unless they are known members of white racialist gangs who do stick together — who are on their own and can be raped with impunity. It would be hard to think of a more cruel consequence of stripping whites of racial consciousness.
It is important to read this in context: these are whites in prison, many of whom are not really good people at all. It is quite possible to go to jail in this country for something that is not bad, but the majority of people in jails are sociopaths. Lots of people use drugs, for example, and some guys get sent up for wrong place/wrong time. But the rest are probably greedy dealers.
White Nationalists bemoan the fact that whites do not stick together. They do not do it at the ballot box, nor in the media, nor in conversation. Whites seem to identify more with the type of automobile they drive than with race. If pushed, most of them will admit that they like to live near, work with, and befriend “people like me” but will not elaborate.
This is why we should face the ugly truth: there is no such thing as the white race.
But first, let us look into the other reasons why whites are not particularly race-loyal. The first is that whites still perceive themselves as a majority in power and as a result see no reason to be racially alert, and the process of awakening takes many years, so when thrust into prison or another rough situation, they are not prepared to think in racial terms.
Another important reason for the missing white cohesion is that whites are highly competitive. This means that we see each other not as natural allies, but as the other team that needs to be beaten down. In highly competitive situations, helping out the opposition means losing position and prospects.
With this we see the problem of high-trust societies like we have in Western Europe. That high social trust is used against us in class warfare, where those with more than others are perceived as free riders and demonized for their lack of sharing. Think of how your average white parent would react to a child in preschool who refuses to share a toy.
High-trust societies function efficiently and as a result are wealthier and more resilient than other types of societies. However, they also have an Achilles’ Heel, which is that the trust can be weaponized into demands for universal sharing of resources. At first, this seems like a good idea, because it promises to reduce conflict.
The problem with it however is that it also reduces trust. When any person can launch a social attack on you for what you have, it is best to socialize only with those who you know will not do so. This is why class warfare produces even more radical class separation: each class can only trust others of the same class, and so naturally acts to exclude all other classes.
In addition, whites do not perceive a need for racial unity because they still see themselves as the majority in Europe and the USA. For those of us who have grown up in majority-minority areas, this is laughable delusion, but most people take a snapshot of the world around age eleven and expect it to be (mostly) that way for the rest of their lives.
As a result, most whites expect that the mostly-white communities of the 1980s and 1990s still exist, when in fact rising majority populations, refugee resettlement and redistribution of Section 8 housing to the suburbs has changed the nature of those communities. In addition, propaganda in schools has raised new generations who see this not as threatening but positive and cheer their own replacement.
Majorities are notoriously slow to defend themselves. The reason for this is that they do not recognize themselves as having an identity as a majority since they view themselves as the norm. To whites, identifying with being white is like introducing yourself as an aficionado of breathing air.
Because of this majority status, people within a majority identify with smaller groups (lifestyle, class, region, profession, religion) and see no link between themselves and others who share a genetic background, identified as generic because it is of the majority, but not the special interest group to which they belong.
Minorities on the other hand are constantly reminded of their racial identity. They are aware every minute of every day that this society was not designed, created or maintained in its healthy days by people who looked like them. Instead, it belongs to the Anglo-Saxons who founded it, drove out the murderous Indians, and set up systems of law, economics and culture which reflect their heritage.
In addition, it is important to note that white diversity does not work, just like every kind of diversity does not work. Poles and English and Germans and Italians can work together, but at the end of the day, they want to go home to neighborhoods filled with people “like them.” This is why ethnic groups have steadily been pulling apart in America, starting with white groups.
This is why there is no white race. There are white ethnicities, but many of these reflect an origin in Nordic-Germanic people and subsequent admixture, so they are alien to the root and resent it much as minorities resent the majority. Someone of Irish-Italian descent who is told that white diversity does not work inevitably retaliates by insulting Western Europeans. Diversity creates resentment, even among whites, and among admixed whites like Southern and Eastern Europeans, envy and hatred of the Western European founders can be seen as clearly as it is in Hispanic, Black, Asian, Arab and Amerind groups.
We do not view ourselves as a white race because of internal differences, and trying to force us to do so will fail as it has in the past. We know that there is a seed of our people which came out of Asia, brought its blonde-haired long-faced blue-eyed presence among us, and melded with lower castes of previously mixed whites from Central Europe with some ancestors from the Mediterranean.
All of our literature alludes to this distinction in castes, where those who are blonde, tall, long-faced and cerebral rule over the darker, shorter, and brown-eyed lower echelons. In German, Scandinavia, England, France and the Netherlands this is recognized as true, as it was in American class tension literature from the last century. Whites are different based on percentage of Nordic-Germanic (“Aryan”) heritage.
Those who are not Nordic-Germanic tend to want to displace that group, so that the shorter/browner trace admixed Central Europeans — who are either a previous iteration of Europeans, or a group with some mixture that happened in the near Middle East — can rule in their place, just like minority groups agitate for overthrow of whites. Every group wants to rule the world, and needs to displace higher groups to do that.
Some would call this white supremacy, but in actuality, it is a revelation of the caste system within whites which ranks us by degree of admixture, plus the natural tensions of diversity in which every group wants to be in power.
The good news is what white unity is not what we need. Our future will be one of balkanization, or many small tribes breaking away from the failed nation-states of liberal democracy. These groups will be defined by a cascade of race, ethnicity, caste, religion and region on a basic level, with additional modifiers like lifestyle, sexual preference, politics, philosophy and profession.
For example, you may find a neighborhood filled entirely with Irish Catholic ship-builders, or a gay neighborhood that is open to whites and Asians. Maybe there will be a community of metalheads or punks somewhere, like the squatter communes of the 1970s. Perhaps people will find nice WASP neighborhoods isolated by high walls and armed turrets. We are entering a time of collapse when government is an enemy.
In the coming “balk,” being one big group is not useful. Being a distinctive group is however. For example, Western Europeans can recognize each other by sight and immediately read caste/class status, so they group together well. That distinctiveness counts in the split seconds before encountering another person or group will turn out to be friendship or racial violence.
There will be no middle ground. Where old school racism was based on stereotypes and perceived slights, new school racial politics will have a simple rule: if he is of my tribe, he is good; if he is not, he must be killed quickly before he calls others from his tribe to conquer mine. Friendship or violence will erupt seconds after meeting, and to be indecisive is to die.
This saves us from a unique form of suicide that many — usually from the admixed groups of “whites” — think is a really good idea. They want to create a white group, at which point they abolish distinctions between types of white (Western, Eastern, Southern) and caste/class differences. That will produce a generic white group with none of that traits of the group that made Western Civilization great.
Our suicide move would be to throw all whites into a category for purposes of defense, just like in the prison written about above, at which point interbreeding will be natural. This means that all of the white sub-groups will assimilate each other, losing ethnic distinctiveness and caste orientation. This will create generic Europeans who will lose their distinct traits.
To do that, in effect, will be to genocide ourselves. Western Civilization pops up from time to time in different places. Those societies eventually fail, and then the members of the tribe move on to another place and start another society. Ancient Greeks fleeing the fall of Athens went into Central Europe just like Europeans fleeing their socialist states came to America.
But the core, the essence, of Western Civilization remains its Western European people. These are basically still the same group that ranged the steppes, set up empires across Asia, North Africa and Europe, and provided the genetic seeds for the Greek, Roman, German and Nordic empires. These are the Western Europeans.
America has fallen, and Europe is dead for all practical purposes, but as long as we have our people, Western Civilization can rise again. This is why all of our enemies, both white and non-white, want to destroy that group. (Note: there are many non-whites who do not want to destroy us, but their position is a relative rarity because diversity creates such intense minority-majority resentment).
If we mix all the whites together, we will bring in the trace admixture of Asiatic found in Eastern and Southern Europe, which rather than being reduced will be amplified as racial mixing tends to be. At that point, we will have destroyed the seed of our unbroken heritage, and replaced it with a mixed future.
That will lead to white third world countries, where a light-skinned group with the features of the Middle East rules over a slightly darker but dumber herd. If we mix within the “white” race, we will produce a hybrid society like those of Iraq, Mexico, India, Brazil, and the Levant. We will have destroyed our potential for restoring Western Civilization that way.
As the West slowly awakens from its latest stupefactive flirtation with equality, interest in nationalism has risen to new heights. The problem is that the newly-minted “nationalists” are taking Leftist assumptions with them, and so they want an egalitarian nationalism, which is the exact opposite of what nationalism is.
We can see nationalism in white attitudes toward other whites. Nationalism is not race-patriotism, or swearing fealty to the “white” race, but hierarchy including caste and a rough calculation of how much Nordic-Germanic is present in each person. Its ultimate goal is not to form a political herd, but to preserve the subspecies of our peoples, and this cannot be done by combining or associating them.
The dominant story throughout human history is that people specialize in illusions, and when they get together in groups, they create an echo chamber which reinforces those illusions, and then they force those on others.
Then “intellectuals” get famous for inventing alternate stories about how it was not human group stupidity arising from our individual selfishness that did us in, but something else… something external to whatever group we perceive ourselves as part of.
Hence the mania, these days, to blame any group of elites: the Left blames the Rich™ and the Whites,™ and the Right blames the Globalist Elites.™ (And everyone seems to blame The Jews,™ which is causing many Jews to identify as right-wing in order to point out that Jewish Leftists are just as crazy as regular Leftists, but non-Leftist Jews are not part of that craziness and wish to avoid mass graves in the coming physical removal of Leftists — smart of them).
This is how intellectuals distract: they invent a positive story about our shiny future, identify a scapegoat that threatens it, and then push us toward an ineffectual but emotionally satisfying method of achieving that future, usually some variant on the universal sensations that make a room buzz: we are all one, peace on earth, love/accept/tolerate everyone, we are all equal, trust Jesus, etc.
All of those solutions amount to exactly the same thing: accept everyone, ignore goals, and do nothing. This is why they are popular: they are social tokens that signal happiness and success, but require absolutely nothing from the people involved except making the right noises and participating in a few symbolic activities.
In fact, the universal path to human social success is the same as the path to civilization doom: conjure up social pacifism by telling everyone that they are OK, and distracting from the real problem to focus on appearance, so that no one has to change themselves to adapt to reality, making them feel like they have finally escaped from the burden of Darwinism and common sense.
Once you get equality in place, however, you can no longer recognize that some people are born to rule by the fact that they have greater ability in this area. Your best neurosurgeon, computer programmer or car mechanic does not necessarily make a good leader, just like the guy sweeping the floor at the coffee shop probably makes a bad neurosurgeon (and most likely is already a bad programmer).
The reason you recognize right to rule by birth is that it keeps people from having to clobber each other to get ahead, and also, gives everyone who is comfortable with a reg’lar job a chance to succeed unless they are outrageously incompetent. When each person starts at zero, we will all be ranked by how far we get, and so life will become constant struggle to “get ahead” which involves holding others back.
Our modern time exploded into stupidity, cruelty and avarice when we abandoned the caste system. It seemed unfair to the proles, you see, and they are always their own worst enemy because what they choose inevitably empowers those who are cruel at the expense of those who are not. If you feel you are living on planet nitwit and most of your species are idiots, this is the reason why: the herd makes bad decisions.
If you want to know why so many psychotic laws and decisions were made, look to this competition. It enforces xenophilia, for example, because if you get ahead and want others not to, the best way to keep them down is to destroy them with cheap imported labor. With competition, no one can enjoy what they already have; every other person in society is most likely trying to seize it away from them. That is why people act to smash down the others while trying to climb up themselves.
Blame can be cast ultimately at the feet of poorer Caucasians in the cities. Our media likes to blame rural poor Caucasians, which as you know if you have been paying attention so far, is a scapegoat/distraction pair. They are doing this because they want to excuse the poor whites in cities who for years eagerly approved of big government, unions, diversity and other parasitic programs out of a desire to screw the rich. It backfired, because this just gave those in power a way to raise costs on the urban white poor and therefore, deactivate them as any kind of political force — they are too busy working and being driven neurotic by the insanity of the city to do anything. Proles self-defeat again.
Toxic elites spring up in these kinds of situations. They are chosen by nitwits through democracy, which means that appearance is more important than reality and whatever happens after the vote is forgotten; they must keep their position, so they give to the thronging masses what that herd demands, which turns out to be exactly what will destroy it. And so, with everyone miserable, the toxic elites have both lots of problems to claim to solve, and many methods of keeping the round-headed in their place.
A sensible society ends this competition caused by equality, and instead segregates its natural elites and gets them out of the job market by giving them wealth and power. At that point, they have nothing to prove, but are put into a role from which they cannot escape in exchange, and so become the smarter people who organize their local societies, to the benefit of all.
Back in the days of suffering through what passes for “education” in our declining civilization, you were probably told about “top-down” and “bottom-up” orders.
Leftists — most teachers and professors are of this variety, because it makes them feel powerful — fetishize bottom-up orders, or those which have no guiding principle except self-interest of their smallest particles. For them, self-interest means individualism, and they draw the line at capitalism, which they see as limiting the self-interest of other particles.
On the other hand, top-down orders occur with a plan in mind that is used to arrange all those little particles so they work together.
Professors tend to point to nature as an example of bottom-up order. Bacteria form, evolve, and become higher organisms, which then exist in ecosystems, where each particle serves one of many different roles, unequally, and together through acting out those roles, achieve a balance to the whole.
What they do not tell you is that this arrangement demonstrates all of the attributes of a top-down order, only done indirectly and not in the human method of carving things up with large machines. There is some kind of plan inherent to the order of nature where some are granted more power and form different levels of a hierarchy, much like eagles and sparrows are both birds.
This natural hierarchy is what Leftism seeks to abolish.
If you went further on in “education,” you probably encountered the equally mystifying concept of vertical and horizontal hierarchy. In vertical hierarchy, some end up potters and some end up coopers, and the coopers tell the potters what to do. In horizontal hierarchy, everyone is a potter, and some are acknowledged as better potters than the others.
If Leftism has a message with its one ideological pillar, namely “egalitarianism” or the idea that everyone is “equal” (whatever that means), it is that we should have horizontal order alone, and that this will magically create a bottom-up order through competition. This extends from classical liberals (“libertarians”) to Communists; all want everyone equal, and then to see a magic calculation emerge from this.
Only traditional society offers actual social order, which is both top-down and bottom-up as well as both horizontal and vertical. Part of this is aristocracy, which includes social caste or its modern depleted equivalent, “class.” The classes are ranked in vertical hierarchy, but within them, there is horizontal hierarchy. This allows those who are good at making pottery to be ranked alongside their companions in caste, but also, for them to be limited from rising above their level of competence, where they will make decisions without having any idea how to do so.
Social caste is important because it liberates each group from competition beyond what is appropriate to it. Sparrows cannot compete with eagles nor can eagles subsist on grain and grubs as sparrows do, but both are needed. Without the eagles, the sources of grain up which sparrows depend would be unduly depleted by others, such as rodents. In this way, the unequal roles of the ecosystem hierarchy preserve health and happiness for all.
The difference between the ecosystem we had with traditional society and what we have now is that the past was based on authority, and the present is based on control. With authority, those in power are accountable for their decisions, and to that end, given more power. As soon as we regulate their power, they are no longer accountable, because those regulations have hampered their ability to act directly. Instead, we get Control: making everyone do exactly the same thing in order to eliminate deviation so that those in power remain in power. It turns out to be less hospitable to human flourishing.
Jane Austen specialized in writing books that on the surface were the type of social chatter one might find in a tabloid for Oxford-educated upper middle class people, but underneath the skin, argued a philosophy of human excellence which unites morality and natural selection in a harsh judgment of humanity akin to Nietzsche’s analysis of man as a bridge to the superman.
In Persuasion, Austen revisits a timeworn tale: boy and girl fall in love but have no immediate future together, so being sensible people, they avoid a Romeo and Juliet and avoid marriage. Boy then ventures out into the world and makes his fortune. When he returns, girl wonders if boy still cares. Both are now caught in a high society version of the prisoner’s dilemma: the first person to offer himself or herself puts that person at great risk of being denied and crushed, but if both somehow meet in the middle they can begin the happily ever after.
Unlike earlier books from this author, Persuasion features fewer scenes of people interacting through dialogue, and instead describes these through an omniscient narrator closer to what Laurence Sterne used in A Sentimental Journey or Celine’s nearly omniscient narrator-protagonist in Journey to the End of the Night. This is a story told, not “shown” as every idiot creative writing instructor demands, which enables it to move quickly, make more pointed comments on the nature of the people involved, and save conversational points for — in what is almost a return to her earlier drafts of epistolary novels — lengthier communications where characters address points of interest in long soliloquoys. If you ever wondered what Ayn Rand would look like in the hands of an actual master, it is Austen’s dense but informative prose that shows a clearly female voice in its use of multiple dependent clauses in long sentences which elaborate on inter-related concepts. The writing has more in common with Kant than stereotypically “female” voices in modern literature, but preserves a female perspective by approaching from context and slowly getting to the point, in contrast to male characters who are very objective-driven.
Austen elaborates on her perspective of gender differences throughout the novel, culminating in an analysis of the reasons for the differences between the sexes:
I should deserve utter contempt if I dared to suppose that true attachment and constancy were only known by woman. No, I believe you capable of everything great and good in your married lives. I believe you equal to every important exertion, and to every domestic forebearance, so long as — if I may be allowed the expression, so long as you have an object. I mean, while the woman you love lives, and lives for you. All the privilege I claim for my own sex (it is not a very enviable one, you need not covet it) is that of loving longest, when existence or when hope is gone. (233)
This follows up on an earlier soliloquoy where Anne expresses the idea that men are based in conquest of objective, where women seek to frame themselves in a context and make that balance. Through this continuing analysis, she opines on the differences between men and women and which roles befit both as a result; this complex analysis sprawls in dialogue throughout the novel. A more interesting line of inquiry arises from Austen’s analysis of good versus great in terms of people, picking up on another thread in the novel which is the crisis within the “First Families” (titled aristocracy) over their own quality control, a line of thought which in Austen’s view is tied closely to the question of who marries and what children result, and whether people should be accepted merely for social position or for something more. She does not attack the aristocracy, but calls for filtering within it to keep picking the best, in a method of eugenics which emphasizes the positive aspects of promoting the best more than a desire to smite the worst:
Lady Russell confessed that she had expected something better; but yet ‘it was an acquaintance worth having,’ and when Anne ventured to speak her opinion of them to Mr. Elliot, he agreed to their being nothing in themselves, but still maintained that as a family connexion, as good company, as those who would collect good company around them, they had their value. Anne smiled and said,
‘My idea, Mr. Elliot, is the company of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation; that is what I call good company.’ (147)
Much of the language has been altered since the writing of this book by our egalitarian times. In Austen’s parlance, clever means intelligence instead of merely shrewd; well-informed means an ability to analyze and retain information; great deal of conversation refers to a constant intellectual activity and ability to creatively analyze situations and people. Society has since dumbed down these terms to mean entertaining, memorization and chatter, but in the context of this book their meaning is unmistakable and is elucidated in earlier dialogues.
Persuasion will confuse any reader who thought The Lovely Bones or Flight Behavior were profound books, and baffle Randian readers who like one-dimensional characters and scenes where only one idea is transacted at a time. But in this elegant and engrossing novel ideas more akin to what Plato or Nietzsche might discuss emerge from the everyday of society both high and low, and for this reason Persuasion lives on among those who wonder if, after all, there is a solution to the human problem.
Recapping for newer readers: humanity global society is collapsing from within. What did it in was not shortage of oil, but a form of internal derangement known as Crowdism, manifested in liberalism. As a result, these societies destroyed anything above the level of consumerism, social popularity and democracy, and thus converted themselves into lynch mobs. These reflect the lowest common denominator and so always select to deny reality, and denial of reality causes collapse from inward out: first institutions, then genetics, then social order itself.
The West forms the vanguard of this collapse. Since “The EnlightenmentTM,” the West has embarked on the first of two pathways in life:
Individual before all else
Order (natural, social) first
We are perceiving beings. We either accept our place as actors in a vast drama, or pretend the drama occurs in our heads and that it reflects us alone. The latter reflects the first option in the list above, which is putting the individual before all else. Such radical individualism becomes egalitarianism in groups, and egalitarianism removes the principle of reality because it causes unequal outcomes.
The question is, who’s awake to this collapse?
From my own experience, it varies greatly between classes.
Lower-half-of-middle class people tend to believe in institutions and laws (leftist) or churches and people (rightist).
Upper-half-of-middle class people are the most interesting. These tend to be small business owners or professionals. They also tend to have accepted collapse as a matter of course, realize that it’s going to mean a transition to third-world status where Caucasians are a minority, and are already making ready to be prosperous in this new order. Note: this will fail for them, as it has done every time in the past. They are buying time when they are the one group with the potential to avert the collapse. Then again, for all their abilities, they tend to be a bit full of themselves, and thus too arrogant to believe in any kind of actual public service, despite the many charities to which they write checks.
Upper-class people don’t really exist anymore. We have some hereditary wealthy who reflect higher traits, but mostly the rich are nerds, predatory businesspeople and entertainers. The result is that this group is totally oblivious. They lack the biological mental skills to understand subtlety and this makes them believe that society will always be there for them to take advantage of. Even more, they tend to be narcissists, so the idea of collapse happening without them intending it to happen will never occur to them.
The poor are totally inert, as they have always been. Not only do they not care, but they resentfully do not care. They are poor because they blame problems on others that are not the cause of those others, and thus talk themselves into compensatory behavior instead of investing for the future.
As this spirals down to oblivion, it should be interesting to watch these different groups of pretense-mongers as they are forced to face reality.
The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy
by Thomas Stanley and William Danko
272 pages, Taylor Trade Publishing, $9
On the surface, this book attacks the problem of getting wealthy in modern society, but underneath that surface it is a more potent analysis of wealth and how it can replace a native population by creating an inherent burden to membership in a wealthy society.
The authors conducted extensive surveys and interviews with people having assets of one to ten million dollars, and broke a stereotype that is common to conspicuous consumption societies: while we’re all familiar with the image of the wealthy person wallowing in luxury goods, the mundane reality is that most people who amass wealth do so by living conservative lifestyles, converting their cash into investments, relentless frugality and smart financial planning. From this they derive principles of individual wealth management, and its effect on politics.
What is the number one income-consuming category among the affluent? Income tax. The affluent in the $200,000-and-more annual realized income category account for only about 1 percent of U.S. households but pay 25 percent of the tax on personal income…The government will likely place increased pressure on the affluent, possibly by creating innovative ways to tax wealth in addition to income…It is a segment of our economy that will be under siege by the liberal politician and his friend, the tax man. (216)
Seven traits of these “millionaires next door” are identified, and then explained in the context of conventional financial planning advice. These traits ultimately boil down to two, which is (a) spending money on things that create more money and (b) not spending unnecessary money. The authors write about how these millionaires haggle over used cars, buy ordinary homes in middle-class neighborhoods, eschew luxury and branded goods and clip coupons. The statistics back up this analysis. While there are some Paris Hiltons out there, the majority of people in this country did not inherit wealth, and got it by finding a career, applying themselves, and skipping over the great “keeping up with the Joneses” consumer dream.
This book is unsettling because it shows what a house of cards the average citizen is. They are one paycheck away from financial doom, own almost nothing, but spend money like they will never need it again. They save nothing for retirement. If the economy were to hiccup, as it did recently and lost 40% of its value, such people are doomed. The millionaires this book studies on the other hand are likely to survive without major loss.
However, the content of the book moves past these straightforward observations to discuss how the wealthy handle money given to their children. In doing so, it advances a startling hypothesis: wealth destroys the native population. Parents who have middle-class or higher incomes tend to spend it on their children, both to provide good lives for them and, as they’re accustomed to in other parts of consumer society, to exert control over them. The children in turn then face the world with a lifestyle they cannot afford, and a dependency that saps them of clarity about their actual financial status, which is why they do not become as wealthy as their parents. The book hints but does not state that the controlling parents enjoy this as it preserves their control.
In short, wealth creates a kind of dependency because it raises the bar of the lifestyle one must uphold and increases the scope of power one expects over the world. The authors talk about “Economic Outpatient Care,” or the tendency of affluent parents to give to their children and how it creates a dependency. They also point out that the control that this gives over the children creates a dependency in the parents. Demographically, this creates vassal generations of the native population, which makes them less competitive and gradually replaced by newcomers.
Just before the American Revolution, most of this nation’s wealth was held by landowners. More than half the land was owned by people who either were born in England or were born in America or English parents…And yet, what percentage of the English ancestry group in America is in the millionaire category? Would you expect the English group to rank first? In fact, it ranks fourth…most American millionaires today (about 80 percent) are first-generation rich. Typically, the fortunes built by these people will be completely dissipated by the second or third generation. The American economy is a fluid one. There are many people today who are on their way to becoming wealthy. And there are many others who are spending their way out of the affluent category. (18)
Wealth slowly dissipates in the maintenance of wealth and the expectation of control it instills in those who have it. A cynical observer might point out that this book doesn’t touch at all the gulf between the ability to create wealth, and to manage it in a way that rewards something other than the individual. In addition, the list of professions in the back of the book that indicates where people are getting wealth lists a good many honorable professions, and just as many that are entirely products of what some might call a decadent consumer culture and its appetite for non-necessary convenience and luxury services.
However, this book is a vital piece of reading for those who are attempting to understand class in modern liberal democracies. First, it shows us how the path away from poverty is one paved with good life decisions and not necessarily back-breaking work, but at least some facility with a trade or specialization. Second, it shows us how populations replace themselves with those they can import who have lower expense curves and lower expectations. This seems to be a pitfall of having any kind of open borders at all, and illustrates one of the destructive aspects of capitalism.
As a piece of writing, The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy offers great information in an airy package. The writers take an authoritative and judgmental tone because they feel they must in order to make their points clear; they also write in a “Mr. Rogers” style of simple declarative sentences separated by conversational comments addressed to the reader. Their book, like most modern books, would be easily expressed in 120 pages for the content it has. They have opted to pad it with repetition and airy writing, where what they should consider (since they have a vast treasure trove of research) is to instead tell more of the personal stories behind these successful people. Those are often the most interesting human analyses.
Writing from the ivory tower created by fat residuals from a 30-year publishing history, these authors also seem out of touch. They value the “traditional” American ethic of hard work but in doing so, avoid noticing any other attributes of these people. Their advice would replace a nation of individuals with a nation of shopkeepers, and praises those who remain distant from the larger questions of community, but instead focus on the accumulation of personal wealth. While it may be beyond the scope of the book to explore those territories, it is apparently within the scope of the book to tacitly approve of them.
Like many books on the edge of self-help, this book is an oversimplification masquerading as a distillation. That being said, it also offers advice that mirrors what I have seen and read from those who have become successful financially in modern society. It is also a validation of the conservative lifestyle, from stay-at-home Moms to faithful marriages and family-oriented values. As a result, it has become an essential fixture in our cultural landscape, and offers a great pathfinding tool for sensible conservatives seeking to discover a method of succeeding in a society that would otherwise obliterate them.
Our legions of teachers, pundits, entertainers and government employees love teachable moments.
These occur when you get an example of something so obvious that every person in the room, no matter how stupid, can see the point (e.g. trigger of mental control) you wish to communicate.
“See, class. When Johnny comes into the room and sees the nuclear device, he presses START and everyone in the whole world dies. When Jimmy comes into the room, he sees the nuclear device and goes to find a teacher or responsible adult. Which would you prefer? World destruction agony, or a few moments to find Mrs. Hauser or Mr. O’brien in the hall?”
In order to have teachable moments, you need very simple mental viruses that have two components:
Universal. They need to be simple, and highly vague in scope, yet very clearly delineated. Thou shalt not kill functions because it is vague, but it’s easy to pass on.
Dramatic. They must have emotional appeal, by showing us on one hand the happy ending where everyone is friends, and on the other, the boatload of dead orphans surrounded by crying parents.
It’s no different than writing a television commercial: you want to show your audience two options, one of which is really good and the other of which guarantees they will never have sex again. (For all our pretense, we are just silly little animals underneath the suits, laws, tech and verbiage.)
The problem with teachable moments is that while they appear to be highly valuable principles, the process of making them teachable has made them limited and vague, which means they inevitably clash with other needs and leave the student confused.
Each of these teachable moments must be abstracted into an easily-remembered and dramatic principle. Here are some good examples you were taught in school:
Share. If someone comes up to you and you have a toy, share it. This doesn’t take into account relative need or whether you were actually doing something and he’s just screwing around.
Non-violence. Violence always leads to suffering, and suffering is bad (and we like to pretend, socially, that it is avoidable) so never violence. Again, no scope or need considered.
Materialism. The love of the dollar is bad. So is “keeping up with the Joneses” or buying stuff just to impress others. Good citizenship award winners don’t do this.
Tolerance. No matter how crazy someone else’s lifestyle, you should tolerate them, because you would want to be tolerated. Never mind that you put many hours into behaving sensibly and so do not need “tolerance.”
Power. Teachers like pithy statements like “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” which is their way of blaming leadership for bad leaders. Good citizenship students don’t want power, they want love.
Unity. We are all the same under the skin, in the soul, we all bleed red, etc. They don’t want you to shut down your classmates who happen to be idiots, so they force this idiot subsidy on you. But we’re all one! Fearful people love this, because it appeals to their terror of conflict.
All of these miss the real point. Not sharing is a form of putting personal needs before anything else, pointless violence is focusing on means not ends, materialism is a lack of forward motion, hatred of the person distracts from fixing the pattern that produced them, power must not be used for selfish means and group survival is how civilization works. Each of those is too abstract for the teachers much less an assembled group of students ranging widely in ability.
“Keeping up with the Joneses” is one that we are taught by our movies, government propaganda and academic instructors. The classic example is Mr. Smith who sees that Mr. Jones just bought a new wide-screen TV, so Mr. Smith runs out and buys an even bigger one. A pointless consumption race ensues.
But where they fall down is telling you about the abstraction. It’s more complex than buying consumer goods. What about when you decide to put in extra hours at the food bank because Mrs. Jones did? Or gossiping about how crass and trailer trash Mrs. Cook is?
Or even my favorite example, and the point of this article: human consumption. Not the fun kind that involves an open spit and flame, but comparing your “baby bangles” — your loin-fruit that you are certain are smarter, cuter, nicer and more enlightened than the little simians Mrs. Jones popped out.
Ever since WWII, parents have treated children as an extension of themselves. This is equal parts consumerism, moral superiority (mimicking their governments) and conspicuous success, where each person is able to shout down others by showing them wealth, good breeding and possessions all in one.
The results on children have been catastrophic. They experienced both fawning helicopter-parent love and the sickening realization that it is not about love for them, but love for self. The parents want children to show off, “proof” they can use to remind their neighbors that they are indeed inferior.
Generation X got accustomed to being unimportant while the parents had TV to watch, but suddenly vital to the family when neighbors or relatives showed up. We were paid actors — free rent and food — whose purpose was to make the parents look good. And if we didn’t?
Well, I’m sure you’ve all seen the teachable moments about child abuse.