Posts Tagged ‘communism’

Mark David Chapman, American Hero

Friday, December 8th, 2017

It was 37 years ago today… when a lonely and maladjusted man, perhaps a forerunner of the /pol/ aggro-NEETs of our decade, took aim and destroyed the greatest icon of the hippie era. John Lennon led the Beatles into pretentious pseudo-intellectual pop music that was beloved for its Leftist politics more than anything else, and turned catchy songs into a mantra-like indoctrinate for the 1960s.

When Mark David Chapman raised his .38 special and perforated Lennon, he not only entered himself into the history books as an early type of what later became the spree shooter, namely the attention-driven perpetrator of violence, but also delivered the crucifixion that Lennon had pretended to undergo with his artistic drama and attention whoring.

Having made himself famous for being half of the writing team that produced catchy songs — Lennon-McCarthy invented a way of writing a simple three-part melody and then wrapping it around a pop song format — John Lennon, the Irish-descended outsider who never felt at home in England, turned on and attacked the societies that had enriched him, both England and the United States. It was as if he blamed them for celebrating him despite his failings, and in resentment at condescension he lashed out.

After leading numerous people into the hippie movement, proclaiming atheism and pacifism while living in exclusive parts of New York, Lennon found himself in conflict: the hippies were drifting toward what was essentially Communism, but Lennon found that distasteful, despite being unwilling to connect an ideology of individualism with the type of larcenous, abusive behavior that necessarily goes along with it.

In fact, he descended into that behavior, making numerous people connect the individualism of the hippies with their personal selfishness and the types of mentally controlling philosophies — egalitarianism, socialism, pacifism, asceticism — that they endorsed. Chapman was motivated by dislike of Lennon’s anti-philosophy:

By then, Chapman was already a religious zealot who, though a former Beatles fan, had turned against Lennon for once bragging that the Beatles were “more popular than Jesus.”

At his evangelical group, Mark sang the words: “Imagine there’s no John Lennon,” to the tune of Lennon’s hit song “Imagine.”

Entering his fourth decade, Lennon thus found himself somewhat artistically becalmed, writing songs about seemingly profound truths that he may have no longer fully believed, but since his fame and continued relevance was based in being a hippie icon, he was trapped into being a trope himself, a media figure. Fortunately Mark David Chapman intervened and spared us all further tedium.

Escaping Our Fascination With Nazism

Tuesday, December 5th, 2017

Hitler will always fascinate the West because his Reich was the last vestige of what most of us think of as the old order, where society had structure, there was a right and wrong, and a nation was defined by one ethnic group instead of being a nation-state of whoever showed up and paid taxes. His fall was the announcement that the West had given up.

At the same time, we should remember that in bad times, even good things are tainted with doubt, and so what Hitler thought was right was divergent from what was. His regime was not particularly traditional, not fully nationalist, and modern to the degree that it corrupted whatever message or principle he was hoping to establish.

Future historians may summarize the Nazis as dualistic; they both attempted to re-create an older social order, and chose to do so by using the modern method of finding a message that would motivate the masses toward a singular purpose. If Nazism had a thesis, it would be that we can use mass culture as a means of undoing mass culture, and not surprisingly, this paradoxical attempt failed.

The Left says Hitler was a Right-winger and in fact as far Right as we should dare imagine; the Right says that he was a Leftist. The Right is more correct: Hitler, while he incorporated some goals of the Right in his plan, chose to implement it through Leftist methods and a desire to create an egalitarian society, just one based on race and not citizenship.

In particular, he borrowed a great deal from the Communists:

Adolf Hitler, who admired Stalin for his ruthlessness and called him a “genius,” was also heavily influenced by Marx. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism,” Hitler said, “as I do not hesitate to admit.” Throughout his youth, Hitler “never shunned the company of Marxists” and believed that while the “petit bourgeois Social Democrat … will never make a National Socialist … the Communist always will.”

Hitler’s “differences with the communists”, argued Watson, “were less ideological than tactical”. Hitler embraced German nationalism so as not to “compete with Marxism on its own ground”, but explicitly acknowledged that “‘the whole of national socialism’ was based on Marx”. It is, therefore, unsurprising that Nazi Germany, with its concentration camps and omnipresent secret police, came so closely to resemble the Soviet Union.

How much did the Nazis learn from the Soviets?

In his 1947 memoir Commandant of Auschwitz: The Autobiography of Rudolf Hoess, Hoess recalled that the Germans knew of the Soviet program of extermination of the enemies of the state through forced labour as early as 1939. “If, for example, in building a canal, the inmates of a [Soviet] camp were used up, thousands of fresh kulaks or other unreliable elements were called in who, in their turn, would be used up.” The Nazis would use the same tactic on the Jewish slave laborers in, for example, munition factories.

Following their invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, wrote Watson, the Germans collected information on the immense scale of the Soviet camp system and were impressed by the “Soviet readiness to destroy whole categories of people through forced labor”.

As some have noted, the tactics of the French Revolution were applied in Nazi Germany, just more efficiently than neurotic French Leftists could imagine. Where the French marched whole families to the guillotine, the Nazis attempted to deport them, then used them as slave labor, and finally when that failed, began to liquidate them.

National Socialism, as an idea, combined the need for nationalism — rising in Europe as nation-states became unstable and fragmented — with the dominant strain of European government at the time, which was increasingly socialist, and incorporated some aspects of the capitalist-driven fascist corporate State.

It did not swing to the far Right, which has always been those who hope to conserve l’ancien régime which is a society with caste, aristocracy, elite culture, hierarchy, customs, and a code of honor motivated by virtue. No modern government can emulate that because the basic idea of modernity, mass motivation, requires an equal herd clamoring for some trend or another.

The Nazis chose to make their message one that would motivate a group and, in doing so, reduced its meaning to what fit the expectations of the crowd, instead of what was needed. Having done that, the Nazis could no longer control public expectation, and got carried away with their rhetoric, making them both arrogant and cruel.

People imagine that Hitler was a successful totalitarian, but in fact, he was ruled by his people as much as he ruled them. They rebuked him on his attempt to ban smoking, and enjoyed a more comfortable standard of living even during the war than people did in the rest of the West. The Crowd shared in the dictatorship.

Not surprisingly, the Nazis showed signs of crowd infiltration even in their political statements, as we can see with these excerpts from The 25 Points of The Programme of the NSDAP:

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

If we look at these through the wide-angle lens of history, they do not appear that much distinct from either those of the French Revolution or the Soviet Union: in the name of equality, a State is being formed to re-distribute wealth, and it requires total power to do so. The total power is not being taken from We The People, but from its natural hierarchy (aristocracy).

The West remains obsessed by Hitler mostly because the Left has used him as a convenient symbol for all things that they fear, which means all of the things that would un-do our current time, which not coincidentally are things that many of us crave because we detest the current time. But following their lead is to assign them power over us.

Perhaps the Left fixates on Hitler in order to distract us from the actual far-Right ideas out there like Traditionalism and Futurism, because if we get our hands on those, there is no way we will ever be satisfied with the managerial nanny state ever again. From a perspective that far to the Right, Hitler would appear as a slightly less Leftist version of our present time.

Nonetheless, Hitler still seduces us, mainly because he stands for the return of leadership that actually cares about civilization instead of using civilization as its own meal ticket. Democracy stands for nothing except hollow promises about free speech, free association, and use of your own property that turn out to be lies, as it goes in search of (endless) new forms of funding.

First it was taxes, then it was immigrants, and in the future, they will probably charge you directly to be part of their society, and then tax you. Sales taxes, property taxes, state taxes, licensing fees, income taxes, tariffs which the consumer ultimately pays for, mandatory inspections, and payroll deductions: they kill you with the death of a thousand cuts and it is not about money. It is about power.

Right now, we summarize WW2 by saying that Hitler was evil and the Allies were mostly good. In the near future, we will recognize that the Allies were not mostly good, mainly because they fought a war of attrition against Europe in the name of what became fully Communist Leftism. In the distant future, people will see the Allies as the bad guys, and Hitler as an unfortunate but predictable response. Years after that, they will see the Holocaust as predictable and avoidable too.

At some point, we will dig out Theodor Herzl and realize that he was one of the first — after Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, and others — anti-diversity philosophers. His point was not that the French were bad, but that the Dreyfuss Affair was predictable, because when you stand out from the rest, you will get scapegoated in times of crisis.

This originates in practical reasoning. If the group is basically in agreement, and they are all doing the same roughly right thing, then if something goes wrong either “right was wrong” or there was a sabotage, and suspicion is naturally cast on those who are not doing the right thing like everyone else because they are different. It does not matter how they are different, or who they are, but just the fact of being different alone qualifies them to be a threat or scapegoat.

Jews have been booted out of 109 nations not because Jews are bad, but because being Other is bad. Diversity never works. Jewish groups also have a history of going into nations and taking things out of context, like “work hard, get ahead.” Among a native population, this is understood as part of a social process; to an outsider, it is a singular task that eclipses all others, and is more easily undertaken, because they have no need to participate in that culture and its intricate sorting rules that choose people above others.

Jews, like Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese in the current USA, throw everything normal out the window and go for the throat of education and business. This alone makes them a target, but perceived or actual nepotism — probably a mix of both — and a tendency to lean toward politics and behaviors that emphasize their Otherness also make them a perpetually resented force. This is why the Holocaust was predictable, and in more honest times in the future, we will say that, without approving of the Holocaust at all, because mass murder of families is a Leftist thing and Leftism is a form of brain disorder.

When the future looks back on the twentieth century, it will see that we created all of our own problems through theories that focused on what the audience wanted — equality, diversity, feminism, socialism — instead of what our best people knew must be done to make civilization as an organic whole thrive. As time goes on, Hitler loses his sting, but we still see him as the only force that stood up to the perpetual encroachment of herd behavior, which always focuses on what the audience wants.

The most terrifying taboo out there now is not Nazism; it is the idea that people want to restore Western Civilization, which in turn would make the Left obsolete and forgotten. It would also bypass the intermediate stage that Hitler tried to turn into a future, and avoid the fate he encountered by his own hand.

How The West Beat The Soviets: Consumerism

Sunday, November 12th, 2017

At this point, the Cold War has been mostly forgotten in the West thanks to Leftist teachers who preferred to teach social justice to actual history. However, its lessons remain with us because the order from which we are currently emerging was formed at the moment the Cold War ended, and as the larger Age of Ideology fails, we can see how the two ideas were linked.

From roughly the end of WW2 through the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the West and East (Eurasia and Asia) were engaged in a “Cold War,” or conflict which refused to go fully military but still resembled a military struggle. Ultimately, the Soviets could not make their economy work, overspent on weapons, and found themselves subverted by the Western lifestyle.

We will see, perhaps, the long lines outside the first McDonald’s in Moscow, or note how Russians saved up months of income for a precious pair of blue jeans, and perhaps also recall how scarce a commodity Western pop music was in Communist countries before the fall. But the real story was one of breadlines versus abundance in American grocery stores.

As the Houston Chronicle recalls, a visit by Boris Yeltsin to a Clear Lake grocery store may have set the stage for the collapse of Soviet confidence in their own system:

According to Houston Chronicle reporter Stefanie Asin, it wasn’t all the screens, dials, and wonder at NASA that blew up his skirt, it was the unscheduled trip inside a nearby Randall’s location.

Yeltsin, then 58, “roamed the aisles of Randall’s nodding his head in amazement,” wrote Asin. He told his fellow Russians in his entourage that if their people, who often must wait in line for most goods, saw the conditions of U.S. supermarkets, “there would be a revolution.”

…About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin’s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn’t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia.

In Yeltsin’s own autobiography, he wrote about the experience at Randall’s, which shattered his view of communism, according to pundits. Two years later, he left the Communist Party and began making reforms to turn the economic tide in Russia.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Left regrouped around an idea: it could hybridize consumerism with ideology, and use the fires of capitalism to drive its cultural revolution and ultimate takeover of the West. David Brooks chronicles this in his book about the new elites, BOBOS in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There.

Interestingly, as this new consumerism-communism hybrid rises, people are seeing the appeal in something much older: a touch of the Stalin era, maybe some overtones of Hitler, but mostly, a longing for the world before WW1, when there was still social order, a sense of purpose to the West, and democracy had not yet infested everything with a zombie-like obsession with furthering “equality.”

Perhaps our modern Clear Lake Randall’s is when we visit the countryside, or a society outside the West, and see that people are living with a sense of purpose and belief, and therefore, are a great deal happier than we can be. Somewhere, the good life is meaningful, and it is not found in consumerism, globalism, diversity or any other aspect of the toxic brew brought by egalitarianism.


Thursday, November 9th, 2017

The Age of Ideology slowly ends in the rising dust of its own failures. Our learning has been augmented by the knowledge that no matter what type of “system” we design, they all end in failure because they focus too much on making everyone get along, and not enough on real-world results.

Something called The Human Problem invades every human group. It consists of herd behavior brought on by a desire to get along with others, and that desire replaces goals, at which point the group is shaped by the demands of the individuals in it instead of the shared principles, mission or purpose that originally created it.

We thought we could avoid The Human Problem by avoiding the systems based on social engineering, like Communism and National Socialism. As it turns out, any system based on “equality” — a group-think term used to conceal the individualistic motivation of all involved — ends up in the same place through inversion, or the replacement of meaning with “safe” terms that flatter the group.

Consider the term “equality” itself. When originally designed, it meant that you did not commit an ad hominem and say to something, “You’re from another caste, family, tribe, region or religion, therefore your opinion is automatically wrong.” Instead, you listened to what he had to say, and if it was correct, treated it as closer to the truth.

However, most humans tend to think backward, since they think in terms of effects on themselves, which makes them think the effect was intended, and blinds them to the actual causes. These people therefore are oblivious to the causes of those effects, and so when unequal results occur, they blame the results instead of considering the actual cause, which is that people are unequal.

Over time, the term “equality” inevitably and without exception morphs from treating people fairly to ensuring that everyone has the same level of power, wealth, status and acceptance. To do this, since they cannot raise the lower above their own ability level, they have to tear down the higher and simplify every standard to the mediocre, because that way everyone feels accepted and important.

Through this method, “equality” comes to mean taking from the stronger and giving to the weaker. In the same way, morality has come to mean tolerance of the immoral; fairness has come to mean relativistic judgment; intelligence now means having the “right” opinions memorized. Any attempt to use social engineering to create a more equal, fair or just society seems to result in these inversions.

As such, we recognize now that we are have been living under an undiagnosed regime which we might call neo-Communism. In the years after WW2, it became clear in the West that whatever ideas appealed to the masses would win out over ideas that required sacrifice of personal freedoms in order to have social order, as the Axis powers required of their citizens.

In order to win these conflicts both real and imagined, the West adopted its Leftward tilt from after WW1 and accelerated it. This culminated in the 1960s, after which point Western Civilization — already heavily damaged by the crass commercialism of the 1950s, the French Revolution and the individualistic fallout of The Renaissance™ — really fell apart.

Neo-Communism resembles the old form of Communism, but has two changes: first, it is decentralized, meaning that it is enforced by citizens to show loyalty, instead of by secret police; second, it is grafted onto capitalism, which enables it to avoid the crisis that did in Communism, namely the ability to have any kind of functional economy.

Its decentralized nature means that it works through incentives toward personal reward or social popularity, both of which require the person in question to affirm the ideological narrative in some way. The recent #metoo frenzy of reporting of sexual assaults shows us this market for attention: anyone who can participate in the latest trends, affirming ideology, gets ahead.

In that provides a uniform series of incentives, such that members of all political parties behave roughly the same way, creating a “uniparty” of people who are working to affirm the narrative however they can while staying in the news as much as possible. Since ideology is what holds this society together, the media takes on far greater importance than in any other type of society.

Ideology thus provides both our motivation and a type of currency, in that those who wield ideology well will be rewarded in a society which is mobilized in the military style for perpetual war to enforce that belief system.

Neo-Communism specializes in making us appear “free” while finding ways to entrench us in the system. Simply surviving costs endless money, and jobs are the only way for most people to have that, making people dependent on their paychecks and in turn, on saying the “right” thing so that they do not get fired and end up in the poorhouse.

We can visualize Neo-Communism as a society centered around the idea of equality as enforced by a cultural revolution, as opposed to a political one, and having the following attributes:

  1. Political Correctness. Thoughts are pre-emptively censored for fear of what the neighbors, friends and co-workers might think; this requires establishing an absolute good by setting up an absolute bad, for example, “Hitler was racist, therefore anti-racism is good, and anything against Neo-Communism is racist.”
  2. Wealth Transfer. Neo-Communism synthesizes consumerism, which beat Communism in 1991, with the idea of the socialist-style welfare state, and so it specializes in creation of taxes to perpetually shift wealth from the top to the bottom. This also continually “primes the pump” by encouraging the least affluent to spend money that was given to them by government.
  3. Trend Culture. Neo-Communism specializes in using mass culture as a weapon of cultural revolution, but it must keep its weapon from being turned against it, so it generates constant distractions in the form of trends, or whatever “everyone is talking about” this news cycle, month, year or decade. These overlap and keep people chasing low-carb foods, small urban living, climate-friendly pollution, low-fat foods, collaborative working or whatever other paradoxical but consequently appealing idea they can spin to you to keep your mind fascinated, dazed and misdirected.
  4. Unofficial Nature. What has enabled Neo-Communism to survive for this long is that it is invisible because it consists of social incentives and fears; whatever is popular and trending will result in personal advancement for an individual in any field, and whatever touches the taboo line will destroy that same individual. As a result, you can declare yourself an anti-Communist and still be an agent of Neo-Communism.
  5. Replacement Culture. Like the Cymothoa exigua parasite, which sneaks into a fish through the gills and then replaces its tongue, Neo-Communism uses its cultural revolution to re-define what is “good,” and in doing so, replaces both culture and religion. Soon even all art and media products revolve around the ideas of Neo-Communism.
  6. Individualism. At its core, Neo-Communism appeals to the individualism of others in the form of, “Why do things the right way? You can get ahead by doing things our way,” which creates an attraction for those who do not fit in, uniting them. It also creates a “race to the bottom” as others then compete with this new and trendy mediocrity.

The rise of Neo-Communism came from attempts by the need to reconcile their Socialist leanings with the horrors of Communism, causing them to embrace market-driven communism:

But as evidence of communism’s horrors emerged over the decades, it rightly shocked liberals and leftists in the West, who shared many of the egalitarian aims of the revolutionaries.

…But if we’ve learned one lesson from the communist century, it is this: That to implement Marxist ideals is to betray them. Marx’s demand to “abolish private property” was a clarion call to action—and an inexorable path to the creation of an oppressive, unchecked state.

A few socialists began to recognize that there could be no freedom without markets and private property. When they made their peace with the existence of capitalism, hoping to regulate rather than to abolish it, they initially elicited denunciations as apostates. Over time, more socialists embraced the welfare state, or the market economy with redistribution.

Since then, we have learned that to adopt egalitarian ideals at all leads to the creation of a crowd, or a herd of people dedicated to the type of behavior we see at carnivals, sporting events and Black Friday sales at Wal-mart. The problem is not Communism; it is egalitarianism.

Neo-Communism was created to conceal that learning. The ideal of the Neo-Communist is to befuddle the population with consumerism while simultaneously indoctrinating them in egalitarian ideological dogma. The thinking is that, like political correctness, this will reprogram them so fundamentally that it fundamentally over-rides “human nature” and makes a working form of socialism.

The problem it faces is that human behavior is not so much “human nature” as it is a reflection of the mathematics of survival. People left unchecked will create a tragedy of the commons by which they exploit whatever they can; individualism is the rule of individuals except for the exceptional. It is why in nature, species tend to consume all resources and then die out. Nature imposes a test to see who can transcend raw individualism.

However, creating a perverse incentive by declaring reward-before-performance, or subsidy for simply being human and “equal” as egalitarian philosophies like classical liberalism and Communism demand, ensures that individualism will be rewarded. That in turn forces others to descend to that level, and herd behavior results, with the herd consuming everything it can and then running over cliffs like lemmings, which is how human societies throughout history have self-destructed.

As a result, Neo-Communism is failing just like Communism, democracy, and European Socialism are: it mutates people into selfish, morally nullified, anti-conscientious beings who are oblivious to everything around them because all of it is based on a lie. Democracy killed ancient Greece and Rome, and now it is killing the West because (apparently) people were so oblivious they were willing to try it again. Socialism, or “economic equality,” is a parallel to democracy, or “political equality,” and both lead to Communism and through it, Neo-Communism as the virus evolves.

If we look at the human condition, we see that in individuals, individualism — a denial of the reality of the inevitable consequences of our actions in preference for individual desires — causes lives to become self-destructive, and that in groups, individualism becomes herd behavior.

The herd ruins everything. Any time we have structure, purpose and principle, we succeed; when we descend into herd behavior, we fail.

We can see the effects of Neo-Communism on our current civilization through attitudes toward Communism:

According to the latest survey from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a D.C.-based nonprofit, one in two U.S. millennials say they would rather live in a socialist or communist country than a capitalist democracy.

What’s more, 22% of them have a favorable view of Karl Marx and a surprising number see Joseph Stalin and Kim Jong Un as “heroes.”

Leaving aside the impossibility of ignoring, as a young person, the prospect of trolling a survey by praising Kim Jong Un, this attitude shift shows the effects on the generation that directly received the wisdom of the 1960s because those who matured in the 1960s came into power in the 1990s and re-made the educational system to be Marxism lite. Communism is legitimate again, to them.

The survey, which was conducted by research and data firm YouGov, found that millennials are the least knowledgable generation on the subject, with 71% failing to identify the proper definition of communism.

Smith explained that this “troubling turn” highlights pervasive historical illiteracy across the country and “the systemic failure of our education system to teach students about the genocide, destruction, and misery caused by communism since the Bolshevik Revolution one hundred years ago.”

Perhaps we will find it less surprising that people think in this way when we look at the shift of our economy from capitalism to capitalism with lots of socialism, such that government has become an industry in itself and a part of the economy upon which most people, as under Communism, depend, to varying degrees:

The fastest growing component of household income since 1959 has been ‘transfer payments’ from government. By the turn of the 21st century, 20 per cent of all household income came from this source – from what is otherwise known as welfare or ‘entitlements’. Without this income supplement, half of the adults with full-time jobs would live below the poverty line, and most working Americans would be eligible for food stamps.

One influence on the drive toward full Communism is the shift of American society toward those who are from cultures that are more individualistic and thus more prone to collective subsidy, such as the Irish, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, and the vast number of third-world peoples imported since 1965.

Future historians will probably record that the closer a society gets to third world status, the more accepting it is of regimes like Communism because its people will understand nothing more complex than having someone take care of them. The quality of intelligence in a society determines what systems its population can understand, and simpler populations understand only strongmen.

As the West becomes more ethnically mixed and through that, racially mixed, its possibility of avoiding Communism approaches zero. Neo-Communism offers the West a way to fail gracefully by accepting a crypto-Communism rather than the branded, out-of-the-closet full form, and this enables the elites to continue sipping cocktails guilt-free as they watch their world fall around them.

Getting From Here To Restoration Of Western Civilization

Wednesday, November 1st, 2017

At some point, every person who thinks about politics reaches the next level and directs their musings toward the question of civilization. For those of us who realize how degraded the modern time has been, this leads to questions of effective restoration, maintenance once it is restored, and how much of our comfortable modern world we must give up in order to have a real society.

These thoughts bring us back to the divide between Athens and Sparta. Athens opted for relaxed and accepting society, where Sparta attempted to create meritocratic natural selection through a militaristic culture. Neither endured. The former imploded, where the latter faded away because it was too intense to exist.

We wonder how strict of a standard is required for there to be civilization in a longer term than two hundred years. Must we tow a specific line of belief in all that we do? That would probably lead to something no one wants to live under, a certain roboticism. A society that is civilized is well ordered, but order should not be confused with a strict regimental lifestyle. More it should be concerned with having harmony with nature, and would be focused less on rules and more on goals that unite its people toward a transcendental purpose.

In one of those twists of logic between cause and effect that resemble irony, strict regimental lifestyles have a cause: the freedom obsessives. It starts with early liberal thought that is best represented today by libertarianism. Because we are aiming for freedom, we disappoint ourselves when freedom does not create good outcomes for everyone. Our focus on freedom is a focus on a method, with no end in mind; it seeks freedom for the sake of itself. That replaces goals and purpose, which encourages the “free” people to each go on a path unrelated to any others, as if designed as an antithesis to cooperation and collaboration. This social disunity creates disorder which leads to chaos, and in order to achieve baseline functionality again, the civilization evolves into a strict regimental society like the Soviet Union, or the warlords who rule third world societies with iron fists.

When we instead turn our minds toward thinking of the end result first, the idea of “I want to live in a free society” — an arbitrary notion which cannot be adequately articulated — makes far less sense. “I want to live free” translates to “I don’t want restrictions on my behavior” and shows us the anarchy hiding behind this social pacifism. It is the opposite of being civilized. Being civilized is a mode of being that has purpose, being free is saying you don’t want to be have anything required of you. Since purpose imposes standards, and those impose an obligation to meet those standards, freedom is the opposite of purpose and the doom of civilization.

Freedom in the short term is a sort of reward for achieving a well ordered society. “We’ve done well, streets are clean. Everyone is well behaved. I guess we can do what we want now.” Then generations later the charlatans will say “this is what created civilization” but really, this is what came of it and then ended it. They will say “we weren’t quite at the pinnacle of civilization until we allowed everyone unrestricted access to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

This misses the point of civilization, which is to achieve something for the organic whole, which is the sum of a group of people and the purpose and values they live by, and to maintain a harmony with the natural order. When we allowed unrestricted access to the masses, we quickly fell into decline. Perhaps we can say in a sense, “it was the most prosperous period of our history,” but would it be fair to say it was good? I think not. Good is when balance and order is maintained, and we do right by nature by keeping ourselves responsible and good stewards  of our natural surroundings. We should be revering the things that occur in nature, great art, and architecture. These things give us life, beauty, truth and goodness.

We might confuse ourselves when we think of the industrial revolution, because we had rapidly improved our technological innovations, and as we allowed the market to flourish, it grew rapidly, and lots of individuals who were poor became wealthy. Wealth switched from an honor granted to people who did great deeds for king and country to a a profit for people who pleased the masses, and because there were more of them, we thought, oh, more people are successful, so we are more prosperous. In fact, we just lowered standards and increased quantity as a result, which proportionately decreased quality.

We became more free, thus we became less restricted in what we could achieve, but most of us should have remained enslaved, because clearly we have squandered it all. When we allow the undifferentiated as much freedom (and don’t get me wrong, no ruler is free either, he is also bound by responsibilities) as a king, we are saying that all of us are equal in our endowments. This gives the undifferentiated more pride than he knows what to do with, and more freedom than he can handle. Some of us are naturally capable leaders and thus do not falter even when lots of wealth is given to us, and others when even a small amount of wealth is given is corrupted by it.

We rewarded our ancestors by granting freedoms to our lessers, who granted freedoms to their lessers and so on. We took the long and painful struggle of implementing intricate design in our civilization, and we turned it upside down. We decided that wealth was not determined by what you do for society, in maintaining social order, but how good a salesman you are. Can you sell your product to the most people for the highest price? Well then, you are worthy of high praise, and respect, and we shall kneel to you. Did you receive a high quantity of warm bodies writing your name on a ballet paper? You, sir, are right honorable and worthy of respect!

This shows us that when the axis tips too much toward Athens, it fails just as much as pitching toward Sparta. Libertarianism/classical liberalism is the most moderately Left-wing position to have, but like everything that is not full Right-wing, it inevitably leads to Communism which is ironically enough, the most regimentally strict form of civilization achievable, but it also has no purpose. It needed civilization to leech off of to get to the point where Communism can exist. All leftism is parasitism. It opposes social order, but like all things eternal, social order has to come eventually, but for the left, it’s not till almost everything is destroyed that they realize they need less freedom to restore some of the things they took for granted.

In order to restore order, then, we need less “freedom” and not more. Specifically, instead of going full Sparta and trying to regulate people, or going full Athens as libertarians and the Left would have us do, we need a middle path where people face the consequences of their actions. This requires abolishing all of the social safety nets that they have put in place, all of the regulations that create do-nothing jobs, and shattering — like the NFL, Target and Twitter have been negatively affected — their business model by depriving them of a consumer base. This requires us to understand that we are breaking away from a mentality and a way of life.

There are some who thrive in modernity. They are slaves to the immediate, slaves to their short sighted ideals, slaves to their conveniences. They are the city dwellers, those who hang out in your local shopping mall, always spending money on useless junk, rather than saving for the future, but they are also socialites, extroverted, and thus they a good at getting people to like them. So they probably have more friends than you, and some of their friends might give them good jobs, thus social status that you will have a harder time achieving, unless you can become as debased and fake as them. Those of us more concerned with reality, and being good, can never achieve their status by using their methods unless we go against our nature.

Our defense against them consists of thinking long term, staying consistent, and knowing our place in the social order, and eventually when we allow them to suffer at the hands of themselves, sending them away because they need a different type of civilization. We want the virtues of Sparta through the methods of Athens, not the virtues of Athens through the methods of Sparta as Leftism prescribes. The best way to do this is to reward the good and banish the bad, and we can start right now by mentally breaking away from the modern outlook and values system.

We Know Better

Sunday, October 15th, 2017

Long ago, we had a system called hierarchy where we took the people who were smartest and most prone to do the right thing in every circumstance, and put them on the top. They ruled over the rest of us, which by the very nature of humanity, involved telling us that what we “felt” or desired was not going to lead to a good outcome, so we could not do it.

That never sits well with a man, being treated like a child, reasoned the herd. Given that humanity is 90% people who need to be told what to do, and only 9% who can be delegated tasks to, most people need to be restrained from their own impulse to self-destruction most of the time. But the herd knew better.

“Those kings, it’s just an accident of birth,” the shopkeeper said, because he always says what flatters his customers. Say something nice, sell an extra pound of cheese, and the wife of the peasant or artisan who buys it will never tell and her husband will never ask. So the shopkeepers grew wealthy on the pretense of the unpunished herd.

Then the masses were formed, of the shopkeepers and the peasants, and they decided that the kings really were worthless. They worked with the rich merchants of the cities to overthrow the kings. Those who had read and understood the classics of history, who knew things about human nature, said this was a bad idea, and that we needed hierarchy.

“Oh, no,” said the proles. They brought out their own writings which used complex but irrelevant theory to suggest otherwise. “The kings are merely a social construct. When the people rule, we will end the abuses that were perpetrated upon us because we, who are obviously equal because we are people too, were obviously innocent.”

The elders thought that one over. The notion of “equality” slipped into the concept that they knew as “fairness,” which was that you listened to people and tried to do what was right before them. But they were baffled, because people were obviously not equal on the inside, where some showed more intelligence, moral character, determination and honor than others. The elders rejected the new idea.

We Know Better, said the crowd.

So the great experiment began! After all, all of the great works from the past suggested that this was a bad idea, based in no small amount on the graves of Rome and Athens signaling the end of the civilizations which were widely acknowledged as our superiors, except in technology, of course. But onward bravely we sailed.

The first thing that happened was that people were reduced to their dollar value. In the past, the kings and aristocrats were considered divine, or of the bloodlines closest to the divine, at least, and so they owned the land and laid out the social structure. No more! Now every person was free to join the lottery of salaries. They might earn more, but more likely, they earned less.

“Obviously, we can fix that, too,” said the sages of the new age of ideology. They got to work and busily wrote reams of law to make sure that hiring and firing were fair. They instituted taxes to pay for those who were “poor,” a nebulous category which included anyone who was not of the middle class, that is, with a stable salary, home and high tax rate.

Proud at having fixed that one, the sages turned to the next problem, which was that economies blew up every now and then because the masses, having no structure, moved in waves of panic at what had just failed and greed toward what seemed to be the Next Big Thing. The old sages suggested social order, where investment was limited to those who knew something about it.

We Know Better.

The new sages appointed leaders, created banks, expanded government and busily wrote more reams of laws. These seemed to just intensify social competition, so they raised taxes more to pay for those who were not succeeding. This made jobs nearly unbearable, with people giving most of their time just to live, and to pay the taxes, of course. The old sages pointed out that they warned people.

“You have removed social order,” they said. They pointed out that, in the hands of the merchants, civilization had become crass, a race to the lowest common denominator so that one could capture the widest audience, since the 90% were known for their low standards and fascination with the crass, sexual, excremental, cloyingly sentimental and mindlessly violent.

In the meantime, the herd was rioting again. It turned out that the new rules just made it easier for those with money to make more money, but even worse, the burden of red tape and legal barriers made it harder for smaller businesses to compete. And so the rich got richer, the middle class got poorer, and the poor got government benefits.

The new sages produced their final idea: since everyone was equal, everyone deserved the same money and power, so they would take from the wealthy and give to the poor. Refulgent in its simplicity, the theory seemed to defeat all. Unfortunately, it then collapsed, so they patched it up by saying that now they would not take from business, only individuals.

That made the richer citizens smile. They could keep their wealth in their businesses, and raise taxes on income, which would hit the middle class and then those suckers could pay for the poor. The laughter echoed through the halls of commerce and exclusive clubs in the center of the big cities.

By now marginalized to the outside of scholarship and literature, the old sages warned: you will merely replace social order with a commercial order, and by limiting that order, replace it in turn with government, which serves only itself. It seems like power to the people, but in fact it is slavery, thinly-disguised behind an economy and “good intentions.”

We Know Better.

The new sages of the herd came up with their next brilliant idea. In order to make everyone happy, the solution was for all of us to live the same way. We each got an apartment, a car and a job; we went to the job, and got taxed; the taxes paid for others, and then everyone would live in peace because no one had less than anyone else. We could be identical as equals.

At this revelation, a new energy infused the population. Finally, we were all equal, and all we had to do was obediently go through education, attend our jobs, do everything on the checklists for each task, and then we had up to four hours a night to amuse ourselves with television, alcohol, sex, drugs and motorcars.

For the new sages, this was a boon, because now they had most of the population on their side. Every person wanted their equal share, and was bigoted and paranoidly suspicious of anyone who proposed any other idea. Like ants, they swarmed over anyone who suggested otherwise, or merely failed to agree, and tore them to pieces, carting off the remains for themselves.

“The problem with this society is that you cannot tell the truth,” said the old sages. So they expressed themselves through literature, warning that the city and its businesses, if unleashed, became self-serving like everything else in this life, and would simply consume everything good and replace it with assembly line style interchangeable parts, rote process and divided roles.

Like the Romantics before them, they warned that the greatest risk to us was not some shadowy group, but ourselves. In a mob, we express ideas that are more emotion and personal attention-seeking than reality, and by chasing this phantom of the unreal, we lead ourselves over a cliff just like those ancient societies did.

We Know Better.

The new sages realized that their power might wane, so they introduced a series of distractions. First we had to all fight for sexual equality, which meant the ability to have sex with anyone and not be seen as less important for it. Next, we had to bring in other ethnic groups in order to be truly equal. Finally, we need more payments for the poor to keep everything fair.

“It’s just distraction,” said the old sages. They realized that the herd was deflecting from its own bad choices, and rationalizing decay instead of acting against it. But the masses were fully mobilized now. They were educated! They were empowered! They had money, too. And so they tore down any idea but going further along the existing path.

This forced civilization into a quandary: the few who seemed sensible opposed the new way, but everyone else wanted it, and they were more numerous. Now there was no way out but a breakup, with the Know-Betters on one side, and those who were skeptical after centuries of problems on the other.

Ironically, this brought us back to where we had been before the whole Know-Better crusade started. The kings, aristocrats, caste, culture and customs of the past — including a faith that this life is good, and therefore the end of the body is not The End — served a role, but only a few people could understand them.

And as history had shown, once again, those were the people who knew better, not the crowd.

Reminder That The New York Times Has Always Been A Communist Rag

Wednesday, October 4th, 2017

We forged ourselves, Americans, both in the sense of being produced by fire and having created an ersatz self-image. We came from English culture, heavily infused with other Western European cultures, but succeeded because of the DNA minted in Europe and not our Constitution or “exceptional” status. To conceal that, we had to invent a myth of ourselves, and it was a forgery.

To forge a myth, you come up with a story that is more symbolism than reality, then shroud it in mystery and invent institutions to support it. One of those is The New York Times, which if you listen to our pundits is a bastion of wisdom, and often has really powerful articles, but works the propaganda in among them. This has been going on for eight decades.

Recall, if you will, how The New York Times defended Communism and Stalin by denying a genocide in progress:

I would like to add another Duranty quote, not in his dispatches, which is reported in a memoir by Zara Witkin, a Los Angeles architect, who lived in the Soviet Union during the 1930s. (“An American Engineer in Stalin’s Russia: The Memoirs of Zara Witkin, 1932-1934,” University of California Press ). The memoirist describes an evening during which the Moscow correspondents were discussing how to get out the story about the Stalin-made Russian famine. To get around the censorship, the UP’s Eugene Lyons was telephoning the dire news of the famine to his New York office but the was ordered to stop because it was antagonizing the Kremlin. Ralph Barnes, the New York Herald Tribune reporter, turned to Duranty and asked him what he was going to write. Duranty replied:

Nothing. What are a few million dead Russians in a situation like this? Quite unimportant. This is just an incident in the sweeping historical changes here. I think the entire matter is exaggerated.

And this was at a time when peasants in Ukraine were dying of starvation at the rate of 25,000 a day.

In other words: the human cost is inconsequential when compared to the ideological gains we are making. The “we” is important: American Leftists have never really been critical of Communism, and still aspire to a situation where the group subsidizes all of its members and everyone lives in identical apartments, eats state-approved food and is told what to do.

Some of that is practical; most people need to be told at least generally what to do, most of the time. When left to their own devices, the opportunism and selfishness takes over society, and people like Communism because it promises to do away with that, even if it makes it much worse in reality. But the rest is designed from a simple human individualistic need: do not let anyone get ahead of me.

For this reason, Leftists are not only willing to sacrifice anything for the goal of equality, but will also rationalize this not just as good but as the only possible good. This is what Walter Duranty and The New York Times did for years with the atrocities of Communism and Josef Stalin, and what that newspaper continues to do to this day with the ravages of Leftism.

With Its Competition Gone, Democracy Showed Us Its True Face, And We Recoiled In Horror

Thursday, July 27th, 2017

In a recent article entitled “The Danger of Deconsolidation: The Democratic Disconnect” at Journal of Democracy, authors Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk give us a roadmap for how democracy will fade away.

Their key concept is the idea of consolidation, which refers to democracy being accepted as the only legitimate form of government. As written in the seminal article on the topic, consolidated democracies are those where democratic methods have a monopoly on politics:

First, in a modern polity, free and authoritative elections cannot be held, winners cannot exercise the monopoly of legitimate force, and citizens cannot effectively have their rights protected by a rule of law unless a state exists.

…In sum, when we talk about the consolidation of democracy, we are not dealing with liberalized nondemocratic regimes, or with pseudo-democracies, or with hybrid democracies where some democratic institutions coexist with nondemocratic institutions outside the control of the democratic state.

…Essentially, by a “consolidated democracy” we mean a political regime in which democracy as a complex system of institutions, rules, and patterned incentives and disincentives has become, in a phrase, “the only game in town.”

A consolidated democracy is one where all of the institutions in that society function according to democratic principles, all politics are conducted through democratic methods, and democracy has “legitimacy” in that it is seen as the only acceptable system of government. The instant that other methods are introduced, democracy loses its consolidation, or monopoly over political methods.

In “The Danger of Deconsolidation,” this definition of consolidation is expanded:

In our view, the degree to which a democracy is consolidated depends on three key characteristics: the degree of popular support for democracy as a system of government; the degree to which antisystem parties and movements are weak or nonexistent; and the degree to which the democratic rules are accepted. (15)

In other words, if any of these three change — faith in democracy, broad acceptance of alternatives, or rejection of democratic rules — the democracy is unstable and prone to being replaced. This provides a framework for replacement of democracy:

  1. Subvert faith in democracy
  2. Build an alternative party
  3. Reject democratic rules

Movements such as the (European) New Right and the Alt Right have tackled the first and third by creating a cultural wave against democratic thinking and the vanguard of democracy, civil rights. Civil Rights, which inherently involves multiculturalism per its history, is the most extreme form of egalitarianism yet found, and also an existential threat to the cultures ruled by democracy, which means that acceptance of it means these conquered people are open to all forms of egalitarianism.

Foa and Mounk start out by pointing out the elephant in the room: people are dissatisfied with democracy. Only 13% of Americans believe in their elected representatives, and in Europe, discontent is rising as well. This creates a situation where people are psychologically open to alternatives to democracy.

What is interesting about this is that, much like in the forces that propelled the election of Donald Trump, the anti-democratic sentiment is strongest among those who are more affluent because they are the ones being taxed to pay for the lower-income strata of their society. They are no longer defending democratic institutions, but want a competent leader to evade them:

One reason for these changes is that whereas two decades ago affluent citizens were much more likely than people of lower income groups to defend democratic institutions, the wealthy are now moderately more likely than others to favor a strong leader who can ignore democratic institutions (see Figure 4 below). (13)

Now, if we are reading between the lines in this article, we see what is happening here: democracy is deconsolidating. Those who know best, meaning the higher earners who run their own businesses or departments or professional practices, no longer have faith in democratic methods or democracy, following the subversion path outlined by the Alt Right.

At the same time, those of relatively lower income are more likely to support democracy because they are the recipients of benefits, and therefore are afraid of losing what is being given to them, at least without a corresponding reduction in their costs, taxes or obligations. The Alt Right can win here not by supporting more social programs, but by supporting a radical tax reduction for the lower middle class. If it does not do this, it will strengthen confidence in democracy, and thus undo the Alt Right idea of hierarchy replacing equality.

Democracies survive when they have both wealth and consolidation. If either of those changes, the democracy will become ripe to fall:

Democracies that are both wealthy and consolidated, however, appear to be safe: As Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi have shown, no consolidated democracy with a GDP per capita of over $6,000 in 1985 international prices has ever collapsed. (14)

In the modern West, we are primed to lose both of these things. First, our economy is ripe for downfall because of the past twenty years of dot-com wealth evaporating; next, as “The Danger of Deconsolidation” tells us, it is already partially deconsolidating as people lose faith in leaders like Angela Merkel and Theresa May.

Looking back over the past thirty years, we see that when Soviet Communism fell, so did the only force that both restrained democracy and made citizens of democracies afraid of “The Other Side.” Communism was a threat not because it was obvious that it would fall, but that if it worked for a century or more, it would be serious competition for the Leftward slide of the West that also included capitalism in the trend following the French Revolution.

One way to see this is through rich-country, poor-country responses. In the wealthy West, it made sense to simply “graft on” socialism lite by installing welfare systems, civil rights and social benefits; in the less wealthy countries, there was a need for immediate aid, and so the only solution was military-style mobilization of the economy toward wealth redistribution.

Neither has worked, as it turns out. The Communist model collapsed on itself, but the Western model has run into trouble because those socialist lite programs proved as entrenched as Communism. In addition, they have failed to budge poverty, and may have increased it, while what made poverty less horrifying was greater efficiency through capitalist economies of scale.

Much worse, these programs in both US/EU have contributed to miserable bureaucratic societies where people have ceased reproducing at replacement rates. That is a sign that people have no faith in their future and find their present existence joyless; this corresponds to a rise in hobbies, drug use and fetishes as a way of distracting ourselves from the existential void described by T.S. Eliot in his poem “The Hollow Men.”

It has taken some time to see that the path on which we embarked in the 1930s has led to grotesque failure. Government changes normally require a century or so to shake out, which is why the Soviets collapsed at seventy years with a truly unworkable system but the capitalist-socialist hybrid in the West is still sort of holding on as it approaches the century mark.

However, during this time the citizens of the West have seen their government go down the same path as the French Revolutionaries and Soviet Union: controlling, destructive, and consistently treating its citizens as expendable means to its own ideological objectives. Not surprisingly, democracy is deconsolidating from the ground up.

Jante Law Must Burn In Hell

Tuesday, July 25th, 2017

Here at Amerika, we stalk The Human Problem, which is the inevitable tendency of all human organizations to collapse.

Our answer so far is that they die through herd behavior, which happens when people begin imitating what others have done and forget the reasons why, at which point they substitute their own desires as the purpose of the activity, and in so doing reduce the methods of the organization to the same human behaviors they apply to everything else, destroying its ability to be unique. The origin of this destruction however is in hubris, or individualism, which is the desire to prioritize the desires of the individual first before the necessity of maintaining abstract or distant “invisible orders” like civilization, culture, hierarchy, divinity or natural law.

The paradox of The Human Problem is that unlike most predators in nature, which kill off the weak and old and sick, it strikes the healthiest first like an arrogant parasite who thinks he deserves only the juiciest animal in the herd. This is why Sweden, Britain and Germany were first to acquire the sickness, and that it is well-entrenched in wealthy places like Norway and Denmark and less so in places like Eastern Europe, where it was adopted mainly as a means-to-an-end of parasitic caste revolt. It is caste revolt in the Scandinavian countries as well, but they came by it through having nowhere else to conquer, no more mountains left to climb, and the basic oblivious niceness which comes with high IQ and wealth.

In other words, The Human Problem among intelligent populations is a social disease, brought on by a desire to be nice to others so they like you, because in a wealthy and highly civilized place, this is how the individual succeeds. Back to hubris, or success at the expense of what is virtuous and right, which is that which brings excellence to life through balance and order, in harmony with the invisible patterns of the cosmos. Already 99.9% of humanity has no hope in hell of understanding what is going on.

That leaves us with 7.5m people worldwide who could possibly wrap their heads around this sequence, and this is a good start. Always look on the bright side, because per hermetic law, looking on the dark side just invites it into you, and to have domain over you.

When you realize that The Human Problem is real, you immediately realize a corollary: never trust anything that fascinates the herd. They are behaving in a stampede, panic, trend, fad, gang, cult, and mania style, which means they have given over their mental compass to herd behavior, otherwise known as “social behavior.” At this point, the mind disconnects and the lowest common denominator animal impulses win out.

One of the herd’s fascinations over the past few decades has been Jante Law, which to someone skimming the surface sounds like the solution to all of our problems. It comes to us from those most precious of Eurosocialist-dwellers, the Danish, who want to remind us that they have come up with a form of progress that leads to Utopia:

The 10 rules of Jante Law

  1. You’re not to think you are anything special.
  2. You’re not to think you are as good as we are.
  3. You’re not to think you are smarter than we are.
  4. You’re not to convince yourself that you are better than we are.
  5. You’re not to think you know more than we do.
  6. You’re not to think you are more important than we are.
  7. You’re not to think you are good at anything.
  8. You’re not to laugh at us.
  9. You’re not to think anyone cares about you.
  10. You’re not to think you can teach us anything.

Like most things, this requires interpretation before its essence can be revealed. On the surface, it seems like good kindergarten advice: share toys. Be humble. Be nice. Don’t make fun of everyone else. Accept your irrelevance. Accept your ignorance. Remember that you are bad, and we the herd are good.

Underneath the surface, however, this “Jante Law” is clearly an attack on hierarchy. Everyone is the same. Everyone is of the same intelligence. Everyone is of the same goodness. No one knows more than anything else. Therefore, everything must be accepted, and everyone considered the same. Basically pure Communism.

How could this be? Let us look at the modern origins of Jante Law:

The term, borrowed from the satirical book A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks, published in 1933, suggests that Danes are happy because they aspire to be average.

1933? So this isn’t the Eddas, or folk wisdom, or even Danish culture. It is a modern novel that became a trend, and it did so in the 1930s, when Communism was trending among the elites. It’s hard to find a source less reputable than Wikipedia, but in this “Jante Law” we have found it.

In other words, it is a replacement for Danish culture.

Yet Jante Law is very popular. It allows those who have wealth to hide it, and those who do not, to compensate by hiding the gap. It is as neurotic as modern Europe has been for 228 years, and it follows the same ideal as the French Revolution: me-first, which means no one can come before me, which means we are all equal.

Why would anyone hide the intent of such a law, unless its purpose was deceptive? “Hmm.”

Its success is based in low self-confidence:

In a happiness study by neuroscientist Robb Rutledge of the University College of London, low expectations helped boost happiness.

When your expectations are low, you cannot fail, because the failure occurs earlier in the setting of expectations to a low level. Why would anyone do that, unless they lacked the confidence to think they could achieve better results?

Jante Law is a perfect Soviet state if it were enforced by citizens and not police. Everyone is the same, no one is higher or lower. Everyone is enslaved to what others think, not what is true. Order is maintained by crushing those who are higher so that the lower feel safe as well. It is just like your kindergarten teacher, an authoritarian empowered by “they must all get along.”

Like all good lies, Jante Law is a half-truth. Namely, it overlaps with the type of humility adopted by the upper half of the middle class:

One friend of mine, the newspaper columnist Annegrethe Rasmussen, sparked a recent Jante Law debate when she wrote about her experiences of coming home from Washington, D.C., where she lives, and telling her friends about her son’s performance at school. “As a kind of quick way into the subject,” Annegrethe told me shortly after the column was published, “I said, ‘He’s doing really well, he is number one in his class.’ And the table went silent.” Though she is Danish, and so should have known better, she realized immediately that she had breached the code. “If I had said he was great at role-playing or drawing it would have been fine, but it was totally wrong to boast about academic achievement.”

Here’s the thing: if you are more intelligent and wealthy than the rest, you do not brag. Why? Because it is redundant. Of course your kid is leading the class, dominating business, ruling the nation… he is more competent! Higher castes have higher IQs and higher moral standards than lower castes, and this is an eternal truth. Anyone who opposes it is a mental health case who needs to be killed.

Did you hear that? Good. You should heed it.

In the case of Rasmussen, she made a typical blunder, acting like an American from a classless society instead of a Dane from a society with social caste. Higher caste people do not brag. They under-state their accomplishments because anything else is to over-state them, relative to their position in society, and so they gain nothing from bragging. Instead, they give others the floor.

This is not a law. It is a combination of politeness and pragmatism. If you are a standard deviation of intelligence above the rest of the population, it is not exactly the news that your kid is valedictorian. Or that you are wealthy. Or that you are war heroes. You expect this, because it is a truth inherent to the caste system itself: higher castes are higher performing. Only proles deny this.

On the other hand, the Danes do have an authentic culture with one thing we can all use and appreciate:

For instance, in his new book, Meik Wiking, chief executive of the Happiness Research Institute in Copenhagen, cites the importance of “hygge”—loosely translated as an enjoyment of good, everyday things in life.

Hygge means to appreciate life itself, rather than false achievements — money, fame, popularity, novelty — because only life is real. And so, whatever your day entails, and whatever social status you have, enjoy what is yours. The milk you have for breakfast is the best milk on planet earth, because it is yours. Your wife is the best. Your friends are the best. Your parents are the best.

This seems egotistical, but in fact it is the opposite of egotism. Instead of thinking that there is a center of the universe, with a most important person, you realize that each of us has separate paths and you can know nothing but your path. For that reason, what you have is what you deserve and the best you can have, therefore is worth celebrating.

This is the opposite of Jante Law. In Jante Law, people get together and agree that there is one standard for everyone, namely to obey the herd. With hygge, people realize that they are different, and that what comes naturally to them is what they need and what they should have. There is no universal standard, only a few shared principles, and a path for each individual.

The West was conquered by pretense. The lower-born, even if wealthy, adopted a viewpoint that equality was necessary to work together. This enabled them to feel like those who give, and therefore those who are more powerful than any other, while compelling the lower castes to stop revolting and work with everyone else. It seemed like a good compromise but as usual, it was a devil’s bargain.

As this pretense unravels, we see that at the core of everything is herd behavior, which is comprised of the hubris of individuals who, like herd animals, are too stupid or disorganized to work together and make something like oh I dunno civilization. Herd behavior is what dooms societies.

Attempts to make herd behavior functional and accepted, like the Jante Law, are doomed because they attempt to bless that which is evil. They try to make acceptable that which destroys societies. They befriend Satan, and let him in, rather than realizing that evil and error are eternal and must always be fought, no matter how wealthy and powerful we are.

WWII Ruined America

Monday, July 24th, 2017

Future history books will record that the United States lost the second world war because although she defeated her opponent, she damaged herself so much in the process that she collapsed.

Most people suffer from what I call the fundamental fallacy, which is the thought that the world they know will not change broadly even if they alter it. For example, people in the 1960s thought they would continue living in the old America, just with more Leftism, and were shocked in the 1990s when it actually changed at a basic level because of what they did to it.

Americans in WWII thought that American stability was a blank check. To them, they could bet on everything being the same, and could manipulate this population into achieving their immediate objectives without losing the vitality that made America powerful. Instead they killed the goose that laid golden eggs by savaging the founding population and replacing it with incompetents.

For example, consider the Frankfurt School. The Americans wanted some kind of philosophical justification for the war and so they went to a group of ex-European, mostly-Jewish academics and asked for ideas contiguous to the Renaissance, Enlightenment™, and French Revolution. What came out of there was a mandate for why Hitler was wrong and America was right, but it shaped America in turn.

This shaping took them by surprise. Most people have zero idea how much they are programmed. Language consists of concepts; these are taken as assumptions, and then deductive logic is applied. For example, if society is dedicated to individual freedom, why should marijuana be illegal? If America is dedicated to equality, why does that not apply to African-Americans? If people are “equal” — whatever that means — then how can some end up rich, and some poor, without “us” fixing that?

So America shaped itself by what it had to do to justify getting through the war, and then when people got home they were not interested in fixing yet another big problem, so they did what humans and other primates always do, which is blow it off. Then the next generation, looking for a cause to rebel against the greedy postwar mania for middle class values of profit and personal advancement, dusted off those old documents and took them as a starting point.

Cause to effect. Yesterday’s effect is today’s cause, like an eternal chain of events. If you whack a ball with a croquet mallet, and it rolls into another ball, it transfers momentum there. If you start with a pot of tomato sauce, and add onion, the possibilities open to you have narrowed to only some of the recipes possible with tomato sauce (if you add shrimp, the pool is even smaller). And so, the American dogma that won them the war then conquered them.

The other problem the Americans faced was that democracies are lazy and so will keep around a program that seems to “work” even if it has bad side-effects until something better — enriching the middle class more, perhaps — comes along. This meant that many programs which seemed to do well under wartime were carried into peace, making the peace more like perpetual warfare, which is generally how repressive regimes keep their people motivated. An enemy to the front, and machine guns at the rear.

In fact, people loved the sense of actual motivation through war. To see why requires looking back at recent history proximate to them. After WWI, America launched into la-la land with the 1920s, which were — like the 1950s to come — obsessed with wealth and prestige and privilege and all those other good middle class fetishes. But the mania did them in. Out of an urge to become wealthy, Americans poured money into the stock market and then engaged in herd behavior, which made them easy to manipulate by cynical investors, leading to the sheep getting fleeced as they always do. It also created such market momentum that the crash which invoked the Great Depression was all but inevitable.

The next decade consisted of people looking for scapegoats. It could not be that the greed and stupidity of the average investor brought about this crisis, oh no. It must be that some evil force is at work, perhaps even capitalism itself! Both in the US and Europe, everyone turned a bit “commie” during the 1930s, at least among the middle classes, where the bolshi “educated” people looked down on those sun-reddened lower middle class types who clung to God, nation, guns and distrust of socialism.

Once the next war kicked in, Americans were sort of glad for it. After the last war they had become much more powerful than other European-descended nations, and there was no reason to expect this one to be any different. Not to mention that they knew that to end the Great Depression, the country would need a new gold rush and also, some reason to stick together, since now that the Irish, Italians, Greeks, Jews, Russians, and Negroes had the vote, America was essentially many different groups at war, tearing the nation-state apart.

So war it was. War brings togetherness, and also, fat government contracts. Those in turn pay obese paychecks to the middle class. Those in turn spend those obese paychecks on whatever they could, which during rationing was mostly war bonds, which paid off handsomely as well. The cycle seemed like a perfect terrarium, where government dumped money in at top and then sealed the system and it kept that money in circulation, gaining value each time because someone wanted it badly enough to raise the price they were willing to pay.

They forgot traditional American and European wisdom, which is TANSTAAFL — there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch — and the notion that productivity is better than “re-financialization,” or making money by selling existing assets as investments. After all, you must plan for the next moment in order to survive the last and live in the current, and so planning for productivity in the future is the only way to ensure that your money is safe today.

On top of that, they had to engage in a number of hacks, little ad hoc adjustments which did not fit within the overall plan but helped keep it hitching along, in order to keep the terrarium thriving. First, since all the men were at war, they hired women, and found that women are in fact ideal employees.

For those who are mature enough to realize that every race, ethnic group, caste, and sex has its own advantages and disadvantages, we can talk plainly about women. Women have a certain mentality that works really well for some things, but becomes an invisible pitfall in others. For example, women love plans. You can tell a woman, “Honey, for the next six months we are going to eat nothing but bear fat and onions, but then, we will have enough oregano to head to the big time and we’ll got to Vegas” and she will relax and be happy. After all, there is a plan. The fact that it is a mentally defective plan may occur to her later, but for the time being, she is glad for stability. And it is that desire for stability that makes women so dangerous in the workplace: they act toward stability, everyone getting along, and doing what the instructions say, even when the instructions are a bit cracked.

A woman then becomes the perfect employee. Tell her what to do, and she does it. She feels comfortable the more carefully planned everything is, and shies away from those ad hoc male-style behaviors. She loves procedure and is comfortable taking time to go through the pro forma activities that protect workplaces from legal liability and too much dynamic change. If she is single, she will work long hours because being at work is better than staying at home, pining for some guy to call who is away at war anyway. In women, the American workplace found robotic little fanatics who were less likely to rock the boat and therefore, were a boon to job stability for middle managers.

Women working meant that the home was no longer the home. It was a place to be when you were not working. And even that changed, as women found they had more spending money and nothing to do but flirt around with the few men who were available. This changed American attitudes toward sex and dating, and created a precedent that a man should not know the history of his woman, mainly because he might be upset by what he finds. “With a corporal? In the coat room? Eeeyack!”

The seeds of divorce were sewn in these years. Children became accustomed to having two working parents: one was working at war, the other in the factory. Women became bossy and prone to throw their weight around, since they had paychecks too, now. Men came to view women not as perfect angels, but as properties, ranking them just like their bosses did when it came time to assess raises. Many widowed women meant that remarriage and dating became common parts of the landscape. Sudden influxes of young men back from the front created money-making opportunities that many women just could not ignore. Oral sex went mainstream because of the wartime experience.

Other changes were just as vast. People adapted to the fact that there were propaganda posters everywhere, exhorting people to do everything from buying war bonds to reporting that neighbor who might just be a German spy. Since these posters reflected real fears along with the usual government nonsense, people began to trust them, just like they trusted government and media to be telling them the truth, which brought newspapers back into renown after their reputation had taken a hit during the yellow journalism scandals of the previous century. Censorship of movies was accepted, but more damagingly, insertion of message into movies was accepted: it was generally recognized as okay and fine that Hollywood films urged us to the same things that were found in the propaganda posters. Movies, media, and government working together laid down a framework that was recognizable clear into the 1980s, when the 1920s-born people who fought the war were hitting their 60s.

As part of this acceptance of message, another framework emerged: the idea that you could not say “no” to. When the entire country is united in fighting a war, the answer is always “support the troops!” and anyone who resists is seen as in effect saying they oppose the war. At that point, the entire structure is threatened. If the war is bad, government is bad, movies are bad, and the new mass culture and its behaviors are bad. A whole roomful of scared angry faces turn on the dissenter. And so, just as in Soviet Russia the right answer was “for the Party, of course, comrade!” in America the right answer was “for the war effort, of course, brother!”

With this came the idea of diversity, or a violation of the commonsense xenophobia of all natural species by accepting certain foreign groups as “good” because they were on our side. Chinese, long the scourge of the American West for their tendency to seize who labor markets and set up opium dens and whorehouses, were suddenly the good guys, as were those Russians who had seemed a thorn in our side before. And the negroes that most people feared because of crime, unpredictable behavior, licentiousness and being genetically different? They were our negroes again because they were on our side, and so they were good, and how could we have segregated facilities for these brave men who helped us fight National Socialism?

But even more destructive was the idea that our side was not our side at all. It was the “right” side. This meant that we threw aside the old wisdom, which was that each group was self-interested just as individuals are, and if you want stability you have to manage those competing interests, and replaced it with the illusion of world government. There was a Right Way, and those who resist that are backward and outdated and evil, and so we will crush them not because we are greedy raiders, but because we are the Good Guys. Only a population drunk on profits and scared out of its mind by a real war would believe that one, but it became part of our landscape of assumptions, and persists to this day. Barack Obama’s “the arc of history” and “the right side of history” are expressions of this fundamentally progressive myth, which was adopted in order to con large segments of a population into accepting fratricidal wars.

American mass culture — different than organic culture, which is thoroughly Western European and is basically an English sentimentality balanced by a German practicality — still lives in the house that WWII built. We are surrounded by propaganda constantly through advertising, and much of it pitches to political virtue, or the art of being seen as virtuous by a herd steeped in egalitarian propaganda. We are accustomed to working women, de facto prostitution, movies with political messages, obedience at work, questions we cannot say “no” to, and other parts of the hangover of the second world war. The only difference is that back then, they recognized those as expedients toward a purpose, where now, they are purposeless assumptions that form the basis of our way of life.

Recommended Reading