Final hour of democracy

final_hour_of_democracy

The demise of Lee Kuan Yew has prompted much speculation on the reason for Singapore’s success, with the left decrying its “fascism” and the right leery of the type of highly-managed, poly-ethnic society that it has produced.

Few look at the real reason for its success: what it did not do. Blessed with natural wealth because of its position in one of the world’s most lucrative shipping routes, Singapore could have done any number of things, but it refused to follow the democratic trend of its time and instead focused on government as management, as one might organize a business venture or lead a military unit.

Herein we see the convergence of conservatism and libertarianism. Libertarianism might be seen as the absence of liberal social and economic problems causing chaos. Similarly, conservatism is the absence of liberal control — through a powerful government enforcing ideology in replacement for culture, heritage and values — which allows nations to thrive by not obligating the productive to the unproductive, and not uniting all citizens toward wishful thinking goals about what “should” be, and instead focusing on what is and how to find the wisdom and even beauty within it.

The West has denied these values for a long time, and it fears any kind of Singapore on its own shores. This is not to praise Singapore — it sounds like an infuriating gated community based on economics alone which succeeds only because of its position as a major port — but to point out that the West is, under the guidance of liberalism, focused on non-real things and policies that do everything wrong. If a Singapore comes along that simply avoids liberalism, it will outpace the West and quickly banish it to the dustbin of history with other failed empires that now live on as third-world punchlines.

Democracy always tends this way. When we adopt the attitude of the Enlightenment that the individual human is not only correct but optimal, we have created a situation where we argue in reverse. “Because all people are right, we must accept this too as right,” we say to an ongoing stream of offenses and stupidity. Then because liberalism sees itself as right, it becomes impossible to criticize liberalism itself as a philosophy, and the only dialogue becomes criticism of parts of society for not being liberal enough. This is why churches admit female pastors and endorse gay marriage, why conservative politicians approve of war for democracy in irrelevant lands, and why corporations gladly approve of whatever outrage makes the news of the day. Once democracy starts, there is only one path: to liberalism.

So far, the West has gotten away with its liberal bent. We destroyed those among us who opposed liberalism in a series of wars from the Napoleonic conflicts through World War II, and then we capitalized on the learning of the past to build a vast technocracy. Now life no longer has doubt it; we feel our society will last forever because it is so powerful. And yet an auditor would see troubling signs that for now can be explained away as details, but reveal a far deeper problem. The utter lack of common direction; the selfishness and obliviousness of people; the fear of reality itself; and the decay of infrastructure and knowledge of the reasons for things, replaced by memorization of method alone, would alarm a truly disinterested outside observer.

The charade goes on as long as the wealth remains. This process has been ongoing for several thousand years but, thanks ironically to the strength and intelligence of our people, we have been able to hold it back. That strategy is hard to avoid since the other option is to be conquered by rampaging Mongols, Russians or Arabs and to become vassals of moribund powers. However, as we approach the end of the democracy experiment yet again — we’re repeating what happened in Greece and Rome and ushered those empires into oblivion — it becomes clear that our problem is not some external force, but our own choices. Since the French Revolution we have adopted every toxic policy imaginable as people use these insane ideas to prove their allegiance to democracy and to make a name for themselves as revolutionaries expanding the franchise. The pain deferred now comes rushing at us like a wronged avenger.

We should contemplate these wise words from the founding sage of Western philosophy:

Next comes democracy; of this the origin and nature have still to be considered by us; and then we will enquire into the ways of the democratic man, and bring him up for judgement.

That, he said, is our method.
Well, I said, and how does the change from oligarchy into democracy arise? Is it not on this wise? –The good at which such a State alms is to become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable?

What then?
The rulers, being aware that their power rests upon their wealth, refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift youth because they gain by their ruin; they take interest from them and buy up their estates and thus increase their own wealth and importance?

To be sure.
There can be no doubt that the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens of the same State to any considerable extent; one or the other will be disregarded.

That is tolerably clear.
And in oligarchical States, from the general spread of carelessness and extravagance, men of good family have often been reduced to beggary?

Yes, often.
And still they remain in the city; there they are, ready to sting and fully armed, and some of them owe money, some have forfeited their citizenship; a third class are in both predicaments; and they hate and conspire against those who have got their property, and against everybody else, and are eager for revolution.

That is true.
On the other hand, the men of business, stooping as they walk, and pretending not even to see those whom they have already ruined, insert their sting –that is, their money –into some one else who is not on his guard against them, and recover the parent sum many times over multiplied into a family of children: and so they make drone and pauper to abound in the State.

Yes, he said, there are plenty of them –that is certain.
The evil blazes up like a fire; and they will not extinguish it, either by restricting a man’s use of his own property, or by another remedy:

What other?
One which is the next best, and has the advantage of compelling the citizens to look to their characters: –Let there be a general rule that every one shall enter into voluntary contracts at his own risk, and there will be less of this scandalous money-making, and the evils of which we were speaking will be greatly lessened in the State.

Yes, they will be greatly lessened.
At present the governors, induced by the motives which I have named, treat their subjects badly; while they and their adherents, especially the young men of the governing class, are habituated to lead a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind; they do nothing, and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain.

Very true.
They themselves care only for making money, and are as indifferent as the pauper to the cultivation of virtue.

Yes, quite as indifferent.
Such is the state of affairs which prevails among them. And often rulers and their subjects may come in one another’s way, whether on a pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or fellow-sailors; aye, and they may observe the behaviour of each other in the very moment of danger –for where danger is, there is no fear that the poor will be despised by the rich –and very likely the wiry sunburnt poor man may be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has never spoilt his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh –when he sees such an one puffing and at his wit’s end, how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them? And when they meet in private will not people be saying to one another ‘Our warriors are not good for much’?

Yes, he said, I am quite aware that this is their way of talking.
And, as in a body which is diseased the addition of a touch from without may bring on illness, and sometimes even when there is no external provocation a commotion may arise within-in the same way wherever there is weakness in the State there is also likely to be illness, of which the occasions may be very slight, the one party introducing from without their oligarchical, the other their democratical allies, and then the State falls sick, and is at war with herself; and may be at times distracted, even when there is no external cause.

Yes, surely.
And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot.

Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the opposite party to withdraw.

And now what is their manner of life, and what sort of a government have they? for as the government is, such will be the man.

Clearly, he said.
In the first place, are they not free; and is not the city full of freedom and frankness –a man may say and do what he likes?

‘Tis said so, he replied.
And where freedom is, the individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases?

Clearly.
Then in this kind of State there will be the greatest variety of human natures?

There will.
This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colours to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States.

Yes.
Yes, my good Sir, and there will be no better in which to look for a government.

Why?
Because of the liberty which reigns there –they have a complete assortment of constitutions; and he who has a mind to establish a State, as we have been doing, must go to a democracy as he would to a bazaar at which they sell them, and pick out the one that suits him; then, when he has made his choice, he may found his State.

He will be sure to have patterns enough.
And there being no necessity, I said, for you to govern in this State, even if you have the capacity, or to be governed, unless you like, or go to war when the rest go to war, or to be at peace when others are at peace, unless you are so disposed –there being no necessity also, because some law forbids you to hold office or be a dicast, that you should not hold office or be a dicast, if you have a fancy –is not this a way of life which for the moment is supremely delightful

For the moment, yes.
And is not their humanity to the condemned in some cases quite charming? Have you not observed how, in a democracy, many persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk about the world –the gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?

Yes, he replied, many and many a one.
See too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the ‘don’t care’ about trifles, and the disregard which she shows of all the fine principles which we solemnly laid down at the foundation of the city –as when we said that, except in the case of some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy and a study –how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honour any one who professes to be the people’s friend.

Yes, she is of a noble spirit.
These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.

We know her well.
Consider now, I said, what manner of man the individual is, or rather consider, as in the case of the State, how he comes into being.

Very good, he said.
Is not this the way –he is the son of the miserly and oligarchical father who has trained him in his own habits?

Exactly.
And, like his father, he keeps under by force the pleasures which are of the spending and not of the getting sort, being those which are called unnecessary?

Obviously.
Would you like, for the sake of clearness, to distinguish which are the necessary and which are the unnecessary pleasures?

I should.
Are not necessary pleasures those of which we cannot get rid, and of which the satisfaction is a benefit to us? And they are rightly so, because we are framed by nature to desire both what is beneficial and what is necessary, and cannot help it.

True.
We are not wrong therefore in calling them necessary?
We are not.
And the desires of which a man may get rid, if he takes pains from his youth upwards –of which the presence, moreover, does no good, and in some cases the reverse of good –shall we not be right in saying that all these are unnecessary?

Yes, certainly.
Suppose we select an example of either kind, in order that we may have a general notion of them?

Very good.
Will not the desire of eating, that is, of simple food and condiments, in so far as they are required for health and strength, be of the necessary class?

That is what I should suppose.
The pleasure of eating is necessary in two ways; it does us good and it is essential to the continuance of life?

Yes.
But the condiments are only necessary in so far as they are good for health?

Certainly.
And the desire which goes beyond this, or more delicate food, or other luxuries, which might generally be got rid of, if controlled and trained in youth, and is hurtful to the body, and hurtful to the soul in the pursuit of wisdom and virtue, may be rightly called unnecessary?

Very true.
May we not say that these desires spend, and that the others make money because they conduce to production?

Certainly.
And of the pleasures of love, and all other pleasures, the same holds good?

True.
And the drone of whom we spoke was he who was surfeited in pleasures and desires of this sort, and was the slave of the unnecessary desires, whereas he who was subject o the necessary only was miserly and oligarchical?

Very true.
Again, let us see how the democratical man grows out of the oligarchical: the following, as I suspect, is commonly the process.

What is the process?
When a young man who has been brought up as we were just now describing, in a vulgar and miserly way, has tasted drones’ honey and has come to associate with fierce and crafty natures who are able to provide for him all sorts of refinements and varieties of pleasure –then, as you may imagine, the change will begin of the oligarchical principle within him into the democratical?

Inevitably.
And as in the city like was helping like, and the change was effected by an alliance from without assisting one division of the citizens, so too the young man is changed by a class of desires coming from without to assist the desires within him, that which is and alike again helping that which is akin and alike?

Certainly.
And if there be any ally which aids the oligarchical principle within him, whether the influence of a father or of kindred, advising or rebuking him, then there arises in his soul a faction and an opposite faction, and he goes to war with himself.

It must be so.
And there are times when the democratical principle gives way to the oligarchical, and some of his desires die, and others are banished; a spirit of reverence enters into the young man’s soul and order is restored.

Yes, he said, that sometimes happens.
And then, again, after the old desires have been driven out, fresh ones spring up, which are akin to them, and because he, their father, does not know how to educate them, wax fierce and numerous.

Yes, he said, that is apt to be the way.
They draw him to his old associates, and holding secret intercourse with them, breed and multiply in him.

Very true.
At length they seize upon the citadel of the young man’s soul, which they perceive to be void of all accomplishments and fair pursuits and true words, which make their abode in the minds of men who are dear to the gods, and are their best guardians and sentinels.

None better.
False and boastful conceits and phrases mount upwards and take their place.

They are certain to do so.
And so the young man returns into the country of the lotus-eaters, and takes up his dwelling there in the face of all men; and if any help be sent by his friends to the oligarchical part of him, the aforesaid vain conceits shut the gate of the king’s fastness; and they will neither allow the embassy itself to enter, private if private advisers offer the fatherly counsel of the aged will they listen to them or receive them. There is a battle and they gain the day, and then modesty, which they call silliness, is ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nickname unmanliness, is trampled in the mire and cast forth; they persuade men that moderation and orderly expenditure are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them beyond the border.

Yes, with a will.
And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names; insolence they term breeding, and anarchy liberty, and waste magnificence, and impudence courage. And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.

Yes, he said, the change in him is visible enough.
After this he lives on, spending his money and labour and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as on necessary ones; but if he be fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his wits, when years have elapsed, and the heyday of passion is over –supposing that he then re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not wholly give himself up to their successors –in that case he balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium, putting the government of himself into the hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn; and when he has had enough of that, then into the hands of another; he despises none of them but encourages them all equally.

Very true, he said.
Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others –whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.

Yes, he said; that is the way with him.
Yes, I said, he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he-is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.

Yes, he replied, he is all liberty and equality.
Yes, I said; his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many; –he answers to the State which we described as fair and spangled. And many a man and many a woman will take him for their pattern, and many a constitution and many an example of manners is contained in him.

Just so.
Let him then be set over against democracy; he may truly be called the democratic man.

The problem with democracy is not so much democracy as a system — althrough reliance on systems is itself a problem, as it is an indirect admission that we no longer have competent leaders — but how it changes us. Democracy makes us look inward, become egotistical and narcissistic, and eventually relapse into a world of our own desires and those shared with others, so that socializing behavior replaces reality itself. Once that happens, reality is exiled and suicidal and insane acts become the norm, in the process destroying all that is good among us and replacing it with zombies who know nothing but the symbolic and emotional world created by the radical individualism of democracy.

As this old order dies, and it inevitably will, it becomes clear that conservatives of the more extreme bent were right all along. They have won the war of ideas by being not only logically correct, but correct in application. Our wealth allowed us to deny those truths for a long time but much as our debts will eventually come due, so will there come a time where we must once again engage with reality and rebuild ourselves. Or we go to where so many others have, the path to third world status and irrelevance.

Triggered!

triggered!

Too late the slumbering lummoxes who supposedly are the guardians of our society have discovered that colleges are echo chambers of leftist thought. Why, thank you for noticing; it has been this way since 1968 or so, maybe earlier. All of us went through them and being young and impressionable, both gritted our teeth and ignored the crazy or imbibed it because it made us feel better about our lack of knowledge.

Why are colleges leftist echo chambers? The simple answer is ugly: the person drawn to be an educator is usually someone stalled at the point of his own education. This combination of nostalgia and regret has people revisit the point of their injury in life, much like PTSD, and try to re-live it through others. As with the best leaders, the best teachers are often those who do not want the job but feel obligated to take it or take it as a matter of laziness. It is after all an easy job because if you avoid a few errors, there is almost no accountability and the task itself — explaining in simple detail things you learned long ago — is not challenging. Even more, it allows these people to feel power over the knowledge they once struggled with and a time of life that once made them miserable. It is revenge through empowerment.

The leftist echo chamber has accelerated in the last decade for two simple reasons: first, we have sent too many people to college where now two-thirds of high school students go on to college of some form, and second, as liberalism fails the dogmatists feel it necessary to become either more strident lest they be forced to admit their lives are built on a lie.

The grim fact is that only about a fifth of our population, those above 120 IQ points, benefit from any kind of education at all. The others just misuse it and become cleverer, or more able to hide behind technicalities and clever use of language but correspondingly less likely to find answers to problems. In democracy however those who have the most favorable appearance win, and so our politicians used simple reasoning: college makes people richer! Everyone wants to be rich! So send everyone to college! …cleverly ignoring that this would create an industry whose goal is to parasitically sign up as many people as it can and deliver the cheapest possible product. From this, political correctness emerged: a desire to make the product as “safe” and inoffensive as possible so as many people as possible could be induced to take on mind-blowing amounts of student debt and get specialized degrees that credential them to work in a specific field.

As part of this politically correct expansion, colleges invented back in the 1990s something called a “trigger warning”: if a dangerous or possibly offensive topic — which means a topic that might cause any person to question the legitimacy of their participation — arises, a warning must precede it that warns students that the topic may “trigger” their fears and delicate sensibilities.

While this is laughable on its face for how pretentious and narcissistic it is, it also creates another kind of mirth. As a writer, my job is to trigger people. Words cannot convince any person of any thing. What they can do is reveal a pattern, like a metaphor or stylized drawing, that triggers a memory in the consciousness of the person. “Ah yes, I remember thinking something like that once, but less fleshed-out,” they think, and then their brains begin to work on the idea. Soon they see instances of it everywhere, like thinking of a plate of shrimp and seeing plates for sale downtown and shrimp on the menu. This is the opposite of paranoia: where paranoia uses selected instances to prove a pattern, triggering causes people to remember what they have noticed and then see where the pattern applies. This is how writing works. It makes people think when they see their own experiences through the more streamlined and articulated eyes of the author.

Our society fears triggering. Of course it does! It fears reality. It fears anything which may destabilize the individual by pointing out the illusions which they use to prop up their personalities. Triggering removes their justifications and pretenses of importance and places reality in place of the human individual as the most essential thing in life. Society fears triggering become it removes the legitimacy of this “altruistic kleptocracy” and reveals it to be the community in tumbling decline that it is. We are expected to pre-emptively apologize for speaking the truth, because it might “trigger” someone, and use that as a reason to sweep it under the rug and pile lies upon it so that it can never escape. And we do this knowing full well that our only salvation has ever come from confronting truth, and that lies always lead to future downfall. Triggering is interruption of denial, and it is a moral duty for every human being to do it as frequently as possible on all topics.

A modest proposal

a_modest_proposal

In AD 2015, government has failed. All of human innovation in politics since the middle ages has turned into a dysfunctional bureaucracy which borrows money it can never pay back, creates social chaos and worst of all, seems to endanger the best among us while letting the worst run unchecked.

I submit a modest proposal: this year, let us free ourselves from Society.

For too long we have suffered under the notion that Society can tell us what to do, for our best interests. The result is that all of us are forced into the same institutional programs that not only fail to achieve the results they intend, but create total havoc in their wake.

Instead, let us combine the best traditions of the past: anarchy, or total independence from the plans of others, and monarchy, or the tradition of picking our best leaders on the basis of their leadership ability alone.

Leadership is a complex thing. It shows up at every level of humanity and consists of the ability to make decisions intelligently while considering all that needs to be considered. Very few do it well, which is why most of human activity is disorganized and mediocre. To be a good leader, one must be able to balance many competing needs in the mind and to think of the long-term as well as the short-term. Bad leaders create rigid rules that are essentially knee-jerk reactions, but good leaders plan to bring out the best possible outcome and then keep improving on it incrementally through a process the Japanese call kaizen.

I propose a simple revolution in how we lead ourselves:

  • Restore the Althing. The Althing was the Scandinavian parliament which functioned in a way different than any other government: members got together and argued a point to its conclusion. There was no pulling away early and relying on a mechanism, like a vote, to solve what was fundamentally a need to gain clarity. Local communities sent their leaders — usually aristocrats — to the Althing, and chose those leaders however the local community felt was necessary.
  • Get rid of all non-collective benefits. Government can bribe its citizens when it benefits them using the collected wealth of the group; for this reason, any such action should be verboten. Benefits that help us all, like repairing infrastructure or having an army, are good and fine; any act which benefits only a specific group of citizens is wrong, no matter how pitiable that group may be.
  • Replace laws with courts. One reason our courts are so abusive is that they have been displaced from their original function. We have thousands if not millions of criminal laws and crime is rising, although under-reported. Instead of trying to use laws, let people come into the courts and say, “X person did Y thing to me, causing Z damage.” Let them state their case in plain language and show the harm. Laws, under the guise of addressing problems, mostly just restrict what can be made illegal. Instead, make all harm a cause of bringing someone into court. Why is lying legal? Why is cheating legal? Let people have real justice, instead of this elaborate cat-and-mouse game of laws.
  • Wise elders. Every local area needs some leader in charge, but also needs its memory and judgment facility, which is the elders of the society. These are people who have done notable things and are now retired, but still have all of the knowledge of what they have learned over their long lives. Get a group of these together to inform on decisions, offer advice, and listen to citizens’ general complaints.
  • We’re not all in this together. Allow communities to refuse membership to anyone they want. This way, people who contribute nothing cannot simply move wherever they want and begin taking what others have made. Instead of wasting billions of dollars moving people around, we can let those people who are doing the right thing get away from people who are not, whether for political, social, criminal or economic reasons. Allow natural selection to take her course and allow people to group together with others like them. There will be a community for everyone, and we will see how well those work out.

You will note that the above is not a system. Systems exist when we decide it is too hard to choose what is correct, or choose the best people to rule us, and so instead we set up a whole bunch of rules and procedures to do it for us. This makes the same mistake as those who confuse cruise control with an autopilot, in that systems help society keep the same pace but do not give it guidance.

This is more than even a change of government; it is an attitude shift toward the method of government. Instead of forced collaboration, it is willing cooperation, with those who can work together toward the good able to separate themselves from the rest. The rest must then take responsibility for their own futures and figure it out or perish. As human quality has plummeted during the past two centuries, this fixes that problem — yet another of the many that government cannot solve.

The real problem that we face in governing ourselves is that “systems” favor wishful thinking, or us deciding what “should” be true and voting for that instead of a realistic response. Realism requires us to both be aware of our world, and to have a goal other than the immediate, like an aspiration or transcendent purpose. Most people are afraid of that choice because it defines them by quality and ability, and there is no faking it. Good people choose good things in any of a million varieties, while bad people choose infinite variations of the same actual goals, which are always parasitic, perverse or deceptively predatory. These people deny life itself, and rage against it, desiring power so that they can alter in appearance the reality that offends them, and from that, conclude that they were right all along. This giant confirmation bias self-ratifying circle is what lies behind “progress,” which is the idea of pretending that reality is other than it is so that humans feel comfortable because they are no longer challenged to rise above what they are. “Progress” is a path to doom because in the process of denying appearances in reality, it also denies the inherent patterns of reality, and sets itself up for inevitable collision when those manifest in ways that conflict with progressive behavior.

What is most different about this modest proposal is that it does not center on method, or ways we can keep ourselves in line without purpose, but in the discovery of purpose. We do not need systems, dogmas, ideologies and symbolic victories. We need to concentrate on reality and the decisions we make within it, fully aware that doing so will force us to decide what we really want out of life and that this will separate us into different striations based on our degree of aspiration. And yet, this allows us to be free of the parasite of Society while encouraging the best among us so that our future is one of improvement, not “progress.”

Original sin

ruins_of_angkor_wat

For each powerful thing in our world, an opportunity cost is created. This can be what we forego in order to have that thing, or the disadvantages of using it. Opportunity costs represent the sum of costs and obligations incurred by doing something.

Civilization itself has an opportunity cost: the ideas of “freedom” and “free will” are dead, although people who want to sell you products will adamantly rant otherwise. Whether a contract or not, civilization is an agreement to cooperate made between all members of a group and entails not compromise necessarily but outright giving up of certain abilities.

For example, all of us hate annoying people; without civilization, when you encounter one in the wild, you gut him like a pig and use him to feed the worms you will use to go fishing next season. Problem solved. 100%.

In civilization, people need assurances that someone will not deceptively attack them while they are conducting the business required by civilization. In the wild, one is always on one’s guard; if that is attempted in society, it makes you a paranoid beggar living under a bridge.

Let us for a moment consider civilization as a game. That is, separate from all moral considerations — more on that later — how would you play it to win, to extract the most value from it with the least effort?

This question involves two sub-questions. One is acquisition, and the other defense. You want to acquire as much as possible but simultaneously must avoid allowing others to take any appreciable amount of it, acknowledging that some lossage is inevitable.

The game of civilization (not Sid Meyer’s enjoyable Civilization video game) requires that you understand the real currency of social groups: appearance. People need to know why they should do anything for you, even if they are compelled to do so, because performance of any task occurs by degree. If the guy in the cafeteria line hates you, you’ll get a small portion of watery eggs and a biscuit with dust on it. Technically, you were served.

To acquire things in society, you need a reason why people should consider you good and then a reason why they need your product or friendship. The best way to be good is public acts of altruism; the best way to sell a product is to essentially neg them by insulting some ability of theirs — usually centered around reproduction, sustenance and ability to stay cool in a conflict, the primal issues that our hominin ancestors also struggled with — and claiming that your product will invisibly heal the wound. Small penis? Buy a Corvette. No money? Credit card. Nervous? Designer jeans.

At the same time, you want to defend your status. The best way to do this is to advance some claim that you deserve it, namely by claiming that you are working for someone other than yourself. The old salesman says, “This price doesn’t even cover our cost, but we keep these around for nice folks like yourself.” An even better salesman gets himself appointed to the Homeless Rescue Team or Anti-Poverty Orphan Welfare Fund or even the Peace and Harmony Diversity Group. He takes a known social ill — homelessness, orphans, racial strife — and turns it into a marketing opportunity. By doing so, he externalizes the actual problem and creates a fake solution to which money is handed, while simultaneously protecting himself from criticism. This is the ideal product. As long as he keeps doing what he does, people will show up and hand him money and he gets to keep all of it except taxes, which he will dodge anyway by realizing very little of that wealth as personal income. What’s better than a high salary? Owning something valuable, and having it buy your car, rent your house, pick up the tab for travel and eating out and everything else that you can plausibly claim is related to business.

At this point, this person becomes a seller of distractions. Civilization has an opportunity cost which is that it requires people to find some way to motivate each other to work together. This opens a door for fakers, who benefit from the acquisition/defense strategy mentioned above, which is that they create distractions and sell them as solutions. This can be as simple as a beggar asking for money, then spending it on booze. The problem continues unchanged because the root of the problem is in the beggar. Similarly, when people sell junk products or useless charities the problem is in the charity and those who donate to it, because they are perpetuating a problem with the added parasitism of a false solution.

Let’s look at some common distractions:

  • Liberal lie: The rich are too rich, inequality is rising and it will destroy us!

    Actual need: We’re picking the wrong people to be rich and have created a society with too many people incapable of doing much of value.

    Liberals phrase everything they say as a description of the victimization of the people they are speaking to. It is taboo to say that the average citizen has become a doofus because that insults people. Instead, tell them that the average citizen has been victimized by… uh… oppression! Someone with power, money, good looks or a natural ability is oppressing the rest of us without those things. (This will eventually modulate into the smart people are the enemy we are familiar with from the third world, where inventors are regularly burned as “witch doctors.”) The real problem is that we make people rich for make-work schemes like Uber, for being good at sports or twerking, or for conformity to government regulations. Or even for just earning money. We could pick them by ability to lead well, which is different than earning money; earning money happens best by externalizing costs and creating a high-margin product that people think they need but actually do not. The liars and deceivers like psychologists, lawyers, marketers, bureaucrats, self-help writers, etc. grow fat on the stupidity fo the population, which becomes increasingly helpless and unable to do anything but staple TPS reports. The distraction hides this actual problem behind a football game style “us versus them” argument. The actual source of inequality is inequality of ability.
  • Liberal lie: Global warming is holocausting the world, so we need to cut our carbon emissions!

    Actual need: We have too many people taking up too much space.

    Humans have expanded to the point that nature cannot restore itself, a condition which did not exist when we had two billion people. When we expand, we use land, which cuts up ecosystems and chokes out various species that need lots of land for their own health as organic populations. Animals need space to hunt, breed and play; trees need to be spread widely so their internal genetic variation increases through mutation and they do not inbreed. Running roads, fences, pipes, etc. through these spaces destroys the ability of those species to survive. When we had only a billion people, this was not a problem because trees existed to humans in a ratio of tens of thousands to one; now, with far fewer trees, the forests cannot absorb enough CO2 to offset the human production. Our scientists — who claim to be intelligent — tell us that the forest can only absorb so much. The answer is yes, in its current state. But if you plant more trees, that changes. Europe and white-USA have already reduced population to a declining curve but the rest of the world is expanding rapidly. Each person requires new space, not just for an apartment as our media overlords hint and passively suggest is all that is needed, but lots more space for factories, hospitals, roads, schools, stores, etc. for that person. The only solution is to lower our population. Official population reduction efforts are a sham focused on teaching birth control and careers, which only cause the population to rise.
  • Liberal lie: White people are racist and are oppressing minorities, causing racial strife worldwide.

    Actual need: Diversity does not work and deprives groups of autonomy and thus self-esteem.

    Racial strife worldwide is the norm because it is part of natural selection within races: some groups break away, improve, and then conquer the rest. The four root races — Dravidians, Negroids, Euripoids, and Mongoloids — have each achieved internal variation according to this principle with some rising above the rest. Races do not co-exist, and history shows us zero examples of successful multiracial civilizations but rather reveals a long history of multiracial experiments leading to civilization collapse and third-world status, because they are optimized for different functions. Even more, people need to know they are from a group with clear behavior standards; this works better than police, who can only show up after a tragedy and try to arrest the right culpable person. In the meantime, a good person is injured and one of an infinite stream of useless ones receives a usually slight punishment. Minorities are not actually minorities, but a majority on planet earth. White people are the only group asked to “be diverse,” a euphemism for replace itself with a mixed-race population as is the norm in most third-world nations. Diversity is a way of tearing down the society of our ancestors and replacing it with a third world society, which liberals love because then there will be no troublesome social standards and awareness of better options to hold back liberals from whatever venality they desire.

It might make sense to see the distractors as in fact apologists for decline. Their actions say, basically, that society is not worth having and they would rather trade higher levels of civilization for higher levels of profit, which means that civilization itself offers little to them in their estimation. They are usually wrong, but only in the long-term. In the short-term, they would find a third-world society — the remnants of actual civilization — more profitable. With a lower average IQ, there are more idiots who want products. Government and law enforcement are easily bribed. Money is more easily spirited away and in the social chaos, there are few who will notice whatever corrupt, perverse or self-serving things that people do. The third world is the ultimate society of people oblivious to one another so they may each have total personal autonomy. Apologists do not want to stop this decline but hasten it, and they will do anything and say anything to deny the fact of decline. They want you to think that everything is not only fine but improving, and they will spill out ten lies in the time it takes to refute one, so that they keep you wondering and confused while behind the scenes they do what is necessary to secure power.

How does society defend itself against these parasites? With social standards, of course, which is why they are the first target of the apologists. Social standards demand that people put the health of society above their own non-necessary preferences. That is too many words and concepts for the voters, but leaders understand it. People must have the basics of life, but beyond that, their individual desires do not matter much. The reason for this is simple: all of us, until we refine ourselves with self-discipline and a drive toward truthfulness, are basically nothing more than monkeys with the gift of language. Our motivations are crap because all of them are justifications that hide our real intent, which is usually bad. We are selfish (the more advanced term for what your average rock band calls “greed”) and self-motivated, and to preserve that, we become oblivious to others. This mentality removes focus from the necessary task of maintaining civilization and replaces that with a narcissistic satisfaction of appetites.

I mentioned above that it was necessary to consider civilization as a game “separate from all moral considerations.” That is because all but a few people have no moral considerations. True, they talk in public loudly about their moral convictions and when it comes time for people to spend four hours on a weekend helping the homeless at a soup kitchen, they are there first. Why? Because it’s four hours of easy work. The whole rest of the year they can point to those four hours and ignore the other three thousand hours in which they did nothing for anyone but themselves other than to ignore them. It is the equivalent of buying candy for a child and then declaring oneself a good person so that one can take candy from children every other day of the year. It is laughable and yet to most people, it seems not only acceptable, but good honest proof! It’s hard not to laugh at this situation. The public, even the highly educated and successful “elites,” are total dunces who cannot recognize reality when it slaps them in the face and takes their wallets. They are literally oblivious and are so proud of their meagre achievements — a career, a trophy wife and family, a few possessions — that they ignore everything else and exist in a world of themselves. Swimming on self-congratulatory praise, esteemed in the eyes of (oblivious) others, they push aside all “negative thoughts” (e.g. reality) and instead direct their minds toward things that make them feel good. Then one day they retire, and reality catches up. Their children have grown up in a ruined society and turned out badly, their community is now bordered by crime-ridden slums, and all their achievements have been forgotten by a world rushing from one pleasure to the next. At that point, being fundamentally dishonest people, they do what every criminal does when he is caught: blame someone else, and claim to be a victim of oppression, because otherwise he must think himself worthless.

This is original sin. People are basically bad until they make themselves good through discipline and truthfulness, and most will not take on this path. To undertake civilization is to recognize that oppression is inevitable and is a positive thing when it oppresses the degenerate and preserves the good, but that in most societies it goes the opposite way — forcing the good to subsidize the degenerate until the good fade away — and destroys itself. Society is suicide. Trusting other people is also suicide. The only solution is to have high social standards and remove those that cannot achieve them, but that scares all the timid sheep of the herd who fear that they might actually not be good people. Instead of handling that in a mature fashion, and improving themselves, they band together to remove standards, in doing so dooming their civilization. It takes many generations to come to that point but when it does, what is left is a third world ruin like the rest of the world. Original sin has triumphed over its opposite, which is a state that joins religious morality and natural selection. That mentality says the best must rise over the rest and have 0% (zero) obligation to them; it recognizes that most of humanity is mostly monkey and that including them in a civilization will kill it. But already I have said too much that even the smartest among us cannot tolerate.

Nationalism returns

wanting_to_know_all_religions

As I predicted, the rehabilitation of nationalism has begun starting with the Jewish people. When the presumptive victims of nationalism find that, in order to avoid the genocide their enemies desired, they must turn to nationalism, the idea of nationalism itself becomes a viable political option again.

In Israel Benjamin Netanyahu swept to victory in an election that the mainstream media said he was likely to lose, surprising pundits and world leaders, but not the citizens affected by the problems he, unlike others, would approach. After his victory, he warned of a typical leftist tactic, which is to use multiculturalism to obliterate the majority culture of a land:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sounded an alarm about a large turnout of Arab Israeli voters who he said endangered his rule, comments the Arab bloc denounced as racist.

The prime minister, who had fallen behind his main center-left challenger in polling days before Tuesday’s election, accused Arab parties of benefiting from funding by foreigners who sought to topple him.

Leftists in the United States use the same tactic. Starting in 1965 with the Hart-Cellar act, they began importing third-world labor, but this law was only the latest in a pattern of expanding the American franchise from “Anglo-Saxon” — German, English, Scots, Dutch, Scandinavian and other related populations with Nordic-Germanic roots — to include those of different traditions, from Greek, Italian, and Jewish to Irish and quarter-Asian Eastern Europeans.

Their goal is simple: to destroy.

Leftism parades itself as a group philosophy based on altruism, but its actual roots lie in narcissistic individualism. The underconfident and mediocre individual fears social judgment much like he fears natural selection, being aware of his weakness. He knows he can play the human game, whether social or credentialist, and succeed, but he fears being put up against a non-humanity reality. A night in the forest, or writing a novel of actual depth, or even understanding himself, puts such a person in a panic. He formulates a goal: remove social standards, so that his behavior can never be compared to an ideal, and through that contrast it cannot be revealed how far short he falls.

When groups of these people come together, they invent endless new theories. Their goal with this is to be a moving target. If you use last year’s term for their issues, or ideals, they will look at you with blank stares. They have moved on. The point is to manifest themselves under as many different names as possible so they are never recognized. This is why leftists have a mania for news and theories.

They also tend toward using justification-based logic. That is, instead of arguing that x action will produce y result, they find a presumed universal good — equality, helping the poor, racial justice — and use it to argue for their plan. On that level, x action is good because it falls under accepted justification y, and whether it achieves that result is irrelevant. This conceals the fact that their goal is not actually to achieve results, but to keep perpetual war going. They want goals that are impossible and paradoxical, because this allows them to force people to accept nonsense, and easily sort the sheep from the goats by letting in only those who zombie-like have accepted the nonsense.

Altruism works because a justification needs an object which is big and unassailable. Once upon a time, it was “the children,” orphans if you could and poor orphans if you were really lucky. After that it was the right of women to vote and do everything else a man could do. Then it was the American Indian, whose empire collapsed before Columbus but whose misfortunes could easily be assigned as a whole (instead of, correctly, in part) to European colonization. Then it was the African-American — formerly “colored” and then “Negro” and finally “Black” — who could be brought along to any party to shock the parents and show how open-minded you were. Then it was the great Hispanic gold rush of 2005-2008, and lately we’ve been on varieties of gays and other sexually non-conforming people. The object of justification must be someone who can be pitied, making the altruist feel both the frenetic strength of righteous conviction and an inner glow at how they are helping the “disadvantaged,” “less fortunate” or “oppressed.” It is a simple psychology.

The goal of the mediocritists — leftists and other Crowdists fit within this category — was to put the majority of Anglo-Saxon America on the defensive by invertedly accusing them of being unfair, cruel and horrible. Like a child lashing out at its parents, this reaction was calculated to invalidate the assumed benevolence behind authority itself: “But you haven’t included everyone!” they shriek, implying that therefore, the authority is favoritist for one party alone. Authority responds to this because without its validity, it looks like an oppressor… and we all remember that ugly situation in France and Russia that ended in streets red with blood (and Reds) and men, women and children being killed for the crime of being more equal than the rest.

The leftist goal is not what they say it is; they in fact, have no goal, only an impulse to destroy. The reason for this destruction is simple. They want to remove authority that can make them look bad. For that reason, they favor big government, which will tell them what to do with millions of little rules but transgressing against those never makes people look bad in a social context. Rather, they get sympathy from others for having been so oppressed. What they fear are social standards like morality, heritage, comportment and most of all self-discipline. What leftists desire is acceptance of all mediocrity, tolerance of all venality, and endorsement of all behaviors so that whatever they are doing goes unnoticed. It is like the classroom when the teacher is gone, where every child is glad to see another child doing something worse than they are. If what the other guy is doing is bad, then lesser offenses will not be noticed or if they are, not punished. This is why leftists want to destroy the majority and replace its standards of behavior with non-standards and a bunch of rules which ostensibly fill the gap.

Since the French Revolution, leftists have been trying to do away with majorities. Anti-nationalism — otherwise known as internationalism, and also: diversity, multiculturalism, multiracialism — became their tin drum to hammer during WWII and they have been beating it since. Whenever someone suggested nationalism, the leftists trotted out pictures of Holocaust victims. Not because they gave a fig about the Jews, but because the Jews could then be pitied. With pity comes altruism, and with altruism comes the magic sword that liberals can use to drive away authority: call it racist and mean and compare it to Hitler. In an instant, it fades away, and the leftists can assume power and hand out lucrative appointments to their cronies, ensuring that their behavior will never come to light. This is the leftist personal goal. They want no oversight, and they want the ability to profit from society by obeying its many frustrating roles that no sane person would tolerate, and being well-paid for their forbearance.

In Israel, the left predicted that Netanyahu could not win without a diverse constituency. In the United States, they now predict the same thing for Republicans:

Ninety-five percent of self-identified Republican primary voters are white. That’s among the findings of the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, as well as that 74% of all Americans age 18 and older are white, a figure that tracks with census data. This means that heading into 2016, the Republican primary electorate is dramatically less diverse than the country overall. The GOP primary electorate is even less diverse than the country was in 1916, when 91% of the voting-age population was white, according to historical census data.

All of this is a smokescreen. The leftists do not actually care about Palestinians or they would be over there taking up arms. They similarly do not care about the African-American, or they would be inviting said people into their elite city condos and gated suburb communities. They could care less on all fronts. What they want is power. They achieve it in the same way every parasite does, which is by destroying the brain of a people — its culture, its best leaders, and its moral standards — and replacing them with oblivion. In oblivion, the host does not notice the parasite, much like a spider with its brain paralyzed by a wasp sting that as a zombie does the bidding of its new master, to its doom.

This leads us to consideration of the future of nationalism. In France with the Front National, in the UK with UKIP, and in Israel with Likud we see that nationalism is rising. With Israel accepting it, we see the pity-justification of the left collapsing. The time is now for nationalists everywhere because people have realized that diversity is a sham, that leftist government is the same kleptocracy it was in the Soviet Union, and that the endgame will be the same as in Venezuela, with people starving while secret police catch those who whisper the wrong slogan. Leftism is death; multiculturalism and egalitarianism are the weapons of leftism. People everywhere are ready to remove the absolute nature of those weapons and replace them with former concerns thought lost: culture, results, responsibilities and moral standards.

World leftism is unraveling much as our kings and philosophers told us it would. It has taken over two centuries, but that is the blink of an eye to history. It takes at least a century to see the impact of any policy in full. In Europe and the United States, people are looking at the chaos that is Brazil and Venezuela and realizing that through leftism and diversity — even if we like and admire the groups being mixed into us — we will be replaced. What comes with replacement is strong leftist government and shortly after that, a series of ongoing collapses resulting in third world levels of disorganization, corruption, poor hygiene and social disorder. Anyone with a brain wishes to avoid this future, while liberals want us to accept it adn go along with because they, as individuals, do not care for the future. They are concerned only with their power right now. What happens in fifty years when they are dead bothers them not at all, and like any true parasite, they are sociopathic in outlook if not in tendency.

Netanyahu was told by all of the “authorities” and “elites” that he could not win with a nationalist platform. He won. Similarly they tell the GOP in the US that it cannot win by appealing to the white people who are 74% of the population, and yet it can win. The majority can and will defend itself once it emerges from the fog of the constant lies issued by leftists and the terms they change every few months to keep observers befuddled. Despite the best efforts of leftists, nationalism is rising and liberalism is falling. No matter how many lies they tell, remember that now is the time to push not for less but more, and to encourage the failed idea of leftism to fall into the dustbin of history where it belongs.

No one cares about your fair cause

dialogue_with_the_crowd

If you thought that your cause was fair, that in actuality you were fighting “for your rights,” that you have rights like anyone else, and, in the wake of the fairness of your cause, you were going to receive popular support, you should know that you were damn wrong.

Unfortunately, your cause being a fair cause doesn’t mean that your cause is necessarily a “supportable” cause. What you think about your cause and what you’re willing to do is actually what you think and what you are willing to do. Only you, no one else. Or perhaps your neighbor, if the problem affects them both.

You should know that your fair cause is among a myriad of just causes, all of them far more supportable than yours, simply because there is a global agenda of the supportable causes by the general public. Furthermore, when the supportable causes by the masses are direct or indirectly convenient to central governments, just at that moment those causes become workable causes.

Looking at the situation objectively, fair causes that are too general — res public — are of broad concern in public opinion, but virtually no real interest. Thus, we can see the fact that global warming, pollution, impacts of ecosystem destruction, poor disposal of rubbish, etc. are problems of public concern, and everyone would like that all those problems were finally solved, although nobody will try to any deployment of resources or effort to solve them. People always choose evading responsibilities, attributing these to society, to the Government, to the world and any scapegoat you can imagine.

And what about the fair but specific causes? Here is the point where the despair is reality.

Fair but specific causes are only of exclusive concern of the direct stakeholder, even though the consequences may affect many more. The picture is bleak enough to say that the rest-who-are-not-directly-affected do not worry about the problem because it does not directly affect their bank accounts. We can attest that although abusive charges for basic services and taxes increase without stopping, the common crowd perfectly accepts any measure, being an example of civilized population. Meanwhile, in other parts of the globe, where there is “uncivilized” populations, we can see through news reports how to trigger the beast inside of man when the uncivilized masses are pissed off.

Well, getting back to your fair cause. What kind of support do you get? Canvases, tweets, marches, facebook statuses, shared images in virtual social networks where your fight is shown so everyone can see it. How much of all that moral support is really useful to your fair cause? How many, after seeing you defending your cause, left behind their normal lives to support you in your fight?

But don’t blame the press: If you are watching reports about shallow things is because that’s the journalists’ job, so if the market, namely consumer society of which you are part, wants to consume the vilest things you can imagine, the press will produce the garbage which society wants.

Blaming the press because it fills the masses with distractions to divert their sight of what is really important, not only is a fallacy, but a vulgar deception to satisfy the minds of the comfortable ones: if the press decide to do reports about fair causes, Would someone die for them?

Popular uprisings? Revolutions? Riots? Popular militias unleashing hell? Common crowds destroying anything they touch? For years, lots of fair causes warriors have been waiting for the people to join the ultimate revolution… which one it never will take place. What about the people? Today, those same people makes rows to buy the latest models of smartphones. Why should the people move for you? No matter how fair your cause is, no one cares.

Nullius Mihi Culpa

paths_we_must_walk_alone

A characteristic feature of an irresponsible society is socialization of failures (externalities) while encouraging individuals to keep (capitalize) all profits from successes. Such societies are susceptible to the ravages caused by those who seek centralized power.

For this reason, in an irresponsible society it is very common to attribute achievements to individual capabilities (as if capabilities were needed in an egalitarian state) and on the other hand to blame failures on society in abstracto, so that the individual gets praise for anything that succeeds but faces no censure for failure.

In such societies convenience requires we ignore that economic success arises from the individual: intelligence, cunning, credentials and alma mater of his choice, capabilities, effort, and many other reasons that directly depend on him and his decisions.

Failures are always attributed to the collective and, even, to the past: “because we are so,” “it’s because of our ancestors,” “they are the politicians who steal everything,” “Communists are ruining it all,” “Capitalism is guilty of the ruin of the people” and an endless list of scapegoats we can blame for the misfortunes, even including superior beings for which we have not even a hint of its existence.

I want to expiate all blame on Television, because it is not T.V. who has turned society into imbeciles, but it is the society itself which has turned T.V. into a stupid thing. For example, an irresponsible society complains about the stupidity of some characters, as if it were not the same society which consumes trash-T.V. on air, filling the pockets of the not-so-stupid people with thousands of dollars. When Rocko’s Modern Life was taken off the air, I stopped watching television. After all, no one is obliged to watch the crap being showed on screen.

However, why should there be better television programming? Should television be educational? Having so many ways to self-educate yourself, why should the TV be responsible — and, therefore, the entire industry which is behind the TV — for the severe lack of education of this society? Since when is responsibility of others the education of the individual? Pick up a book.

It is too easy to blame it on the System when the individual fails, especially if this help us to forget, for a while, that we are the main causes of our own ruin. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Kill the Boomers

Never forget the original name for the generation we now call “Baby Boomers”: the Me generation.

This group, born in the last days and aftermath of World War II, appeared in the United States and England, bringing a message of peace, racial brotherhood, love, happiness, drugs, casual sex and equality. In short, they combined the Bohemian philosophies of the previous century with the wartime ideology of the West, which in opposing forces that were both anti-democratic and nationalistic, championed their opposites in egalitarianism and multiculturalism.

It is significant that they emerged from the victorious powers of the Second World War. Generally when a child grows up with no consequences for his action and yet a sense of great entitlement, we call him a brat. The term “brats” is not often enough applied to the prolonged tantrum that was the 1960s, in which the children of the war revenged themselves on their parents by taking the philosophies those parents claimed to uphold and throwing them back at them.

You stand for equality? Dad, but what about the African-Americans? You stand for freedom? Mom, what about the homosexuals? You believe in peace? Why are we fighting for peace in Vietnam, then?

Gotcha!

The entire Baby Boomer mentality is one of finding exceptions and, using those to claim the invalidity of the philosophy that opposes whatever the Boomers desire, creating a justification that allows them to seize power. If you do not support freedom for everyone (it helps to slowly enunciate each syllable in this word to emphasize its importance) then you are bad, and the new generation should take over.

They seized power in the 1960s with the methods of terrorists, by using the media to scare, embarrass and eventually shame their host nations. As a result, the conservative “Establishment” — otherwise known as those holding on to the idea of social order — caved before them just like it did their ideological forebears in the French Revolution of 1789, which forgot the cynicism about mob rule that the Americans recognized. The crowd threw off the old rules, replaced them with anti-rules which stated negative freedoms aimed at removing all social standards entirely, and relished in its liberation as individuals who now could indulge whatever desires, fetishes and appetites they could conceive of and depend on the group to back them up. More like a street gang or a witch-hunt than a political movement, by 1968 the Boomers had upended social order in the West.

We all now live in the society they created, first in 1968 and next in 1992 when they formally seized power as “responsible adults.” In the USA we got Bill Clinton, the president who preyed on vulnerable clueless over-weight interns for his sexual pleasure after a long history of using his authority to convince (or coerce, depending on who you believe) women into having intimate relations with him. Even more, the Boomers took over culture, with the banal droning rock of the 1960s assuming front and center in commercials, radio play and even museums. Generation X grew up thinking that the best thing they could do was to recapitulate the hippie era by acting out the ritual: drugs, sex, rebellion and then — just as the hippies did — cutting the hair, getting jobs and retreating to the suburbs from the broken-down society the hippie ideals had created.

Our current social situation reflects the ideals of 1968: tolerance for every individual behavior, enforced by the herd, and no place must be left standing where people choose to live by pre-1968 rules. Anything that stands in the way of more freedom, diversity and tolerance must be destroyed. These ideals however exist not in themselves, which is what fooled the Establishment, but as justifications as mentioned above. Any person who wants more power has to simply adapt his argument to one of these justifications and then use it to pry open the door for entrance to power, money and social prestige. This is why we have no shortage of district attorneys willing to champion drug-addled strippers accusing wealthy white field hockey teams of impropriety, or people standing up for drug-addled criminals shot by police while escaping from their first felony assault of the day, or even people willing to cash in on the recent mania for transgender, gay and other non-standard sexual behavior being not just tolerated but mainstreamed. With liberal ideologues like the 68ers in control, the only way to power is to find a new way to apply the dominant ideology. The Establishment was not an establishment, but the post-1968 regime certainly is.

In addition to wanting complete personal liberation, which was a fit of pique at their parents, the Me generation formulated one other agenda. They wanted to close the door to all who followed. Like most radical individualists, they engaged in a combination of narcissism and solipsism which actively denied the world outside themselves except as it could be used for the benefit of themselves. Society existed to be the canvas upon which they painted their bright and beautiful existence. Like every depressed person who speaks frequently about how they are an artist, this too was a power grab using the social prestige conferred on art to convey importance to the individual life. Each of these individualists wanted to be the new Jesus Christ, Albert Einstein and The Beatles rolled into one, a character of vast profundity which conveniently justified their egomania, selfishness and power-hungry greed.

As parents, the Me generation provided a paint-by-numbers example of how to utterly fail. Most divorced, and left their kids wondering if their own conception had not been a mistake; those who did not manipulated their children relentlessly, setting them up to fail and then using that failure as a justification to re-program their lives toward Baby Boomer objectives, which as always are to use ideology as a shield for the personal quest for power. They were narcissistic parents who hid their child abuse behind so many labyrinthine passages of logic that Generation X grew up baffled, belittled and most of all accustomed to instability. If Generation X has a symbol, it is the child’s bedroom with a door that locks; after the terror of the Boomers, they wanted nothing more than to retreat and have a space of their own to be inconsequential, mainly because their damaged brains and psyches needed time to figure themselves out.

They would not receive this time. The Baby Boomers slammed the door. Pathologically they pursued policies that would make society insufferable for those who followed. Reams of regulations, laws protecting people in inferior positions (who were frequently parasitic or criminal) and a complete collapse of social order ensured that Generation X and subsequent generations had nothing more to look forward to than Office Space-style make-work jobs designed to showcase obedience more than competence, a psychotic ideology in the grips of society, rotten cities and expensive suburbs to which to escape, faithless sexual partners become deceptive and manipulative spouses concerned only with self-interest, and children who would grow up without a culture except media entertainment and what the Government presented through education and published “science” reflecting its ideological objectives.

Baby Boomers created hell in their wake. Narcissistic individuals tend to shut the door this way because to them, everyone but the self, and those who provide that canvas to make the self seem to be an angel of enlightenment, is an ideological enemy. To the Boomers, their children were the enemy. What if those children found enlightenment the Boomers did not? What if they did not agree with the 1968 agenda? Those were the worst children of all, and the best way to punish them was to create a trap, much as Baby Boomers were accustomed to setting up their children to fail and then seizing power when the children failed, much as the Boomers seized power when the Establishment had no answer to its new calls for peace, equality and freedom. All of these were justifications; the real goal was revenge, in destroying the world of their parents and those who followed after them. In short, to obliterate, erase, eradicate, pollute, corrupt, sabotage and vitiate everything but the Self. Baby Boomers saw themselves alone and for this reason they ran to ideas which “seemed” to be the opposite, such as egalitarianism, and used them as weapons.

As a wise philosopher once said, “Ontology recapitulates pathology.” Baby Boomers created a worldview to reflect their selfishness and narcissistic desire to exclude everyone else but those who slavishly agreed with them. They ruined social order, knowing that they would be vested in the ideological and commercial hierarchy, and could simply buy their way out of the endless problems created by the collapse of social hierarchy and purpose. Their children would inherit nothing because in the Baby Boomer view, all went to the Baby Boomers as individuals. They are not called the “Me generation” for nothing.

There is no solution to the Baby Boomers. We can fix our society by reversing every change made since 1950, but we cannot fix them as people. Some have repented and joined the Tea Party, but the rest continue to sit around reading The New York Times and commenting sagely on how the world would be better off if it simply followed the Baby Boomer ideological agenda. They refuse to recognize how much it follows that agenda because to do so is to admit the failure of their ideology and by doing that, admit the falseness of their justifications. That in turn would invalidate their power. As a result, the only thing we can do is apply to the Baby Boomers their primal philosophy — revenge — and use it for positive ends, namely a symbol to the world that 1968 was a toxic failure and that those who embrace it are liars using it as a justification for their witch-hunt against all that is good, functional, innocent and kind so that they may replace it with an empire of the Ego.

Line them up. Give them a choice: accept the Tea Party or face the consequences. Take those who will not swear an oath of loyalty (on a Bible or Bhagavad-Gita) to the Tea Party and take them out to a field and kill them. Shoot them in the face with rusty Revolutionary war muskets, guillotine them with replica Robespierre guillotines made by stoned lazy millennials for the Renaissance Faire, or best of all, smash their windpipes with the master tapes for Are You Experienced?. We still have time before they are too old to execute. They are now in their late 60s and 70s and can still own the consequences of their actions. They lived only for themselves, and now they can die for the same.

By doing so, we would erect a giant memorial to all history: we despise the bratty attitude these people had toward our future, and we reclaimed that future by murdering them and letting this unspeakable crime stand as a warning to future generations. If you behave like selfish children having a tantrum, and use that narcissistic jive to destroy our society, we will make mulch of you. And we will do so with the cruelty you veiled in your indirect manipulations and corrupt ideas and show it to you in its raw form so that you finally recognize, as the light flickers from your eyes, what you have done. Then we will bury you in mass graves to emphasize the insignificance of you as individuals and the meaninglessness of the Ego in a world of endless time.

And then, hearts rent at the tragedy of history, we will begin the real work that Baby Boomers dodged: getting over ourselves, transcending our ego and its social counterpart, and rebuilding a society to standards that would have been considered ideal before the French Revolution. Then we will go further, and like athletes or philosophers, push ourselves to actually improve. To get better at being what we are, not try to change what we are every day of the week to appear as unique, new and different. We will get over our fear of death instead of making it into a quest to deny death through worship of ourselves. And on top of those mass graves, we will heap your boring music and your fickle books and set those ablaze, then plant rose gardens in the ashes and dirt so that future generations may remember that even after the greatest storm, flowers boom. The future is there for us all.

Democracy in recession as its true face is revealed

democracy_in_recession

If you listen to the usual voices for (leftist-slanted) news, you will hear the beginnings of a disturbing refrain: democracy is in decline. Those voices are arguing this so that they may claim to be the underdog, because victimhood is the only justification for power recognized by liberalism, and so can return to the argument that worked for them so well from 1861-1969 which was that they were bringing democracy, freedom and equality to a world under the control of evil blue meanies who opposed such things from fear, hatred and other surrogates for inherent evil.

When we look past the inherent evil argument and deconstruct it, it falls apart rather quickly if we are able to consider how different regions demand different solutions because the people there are different. Not good/bad different, but different in the sense of having non-identical needs and responsibilities. Liberals pushed back against that idea hard and in order to prevent it from taking root, demonized any mention of innate differences as “racism.” That left no obstacles to the global application of liberalism, which would be the biggest power seizure in the history of humanity, dwarfing even Genghis Khan and Alexander, but somehow the narrative has cracked and buckled. As broken clock Thomas Friedman notes, democracy is in decline worldwide:

As the Stanford University democracy expert Larry Diamond argues in an essay entitled “Facing Up to the Democratic Recession” in the latest issue of the Journal of Democracy: “Around 2006, the expansion of freedom and democracy in the world came to a prolonged halt. Since 2006, there has been no net expansion in the number of electoral democracies, which has oscillated between 114 and 119 (about 60 percent of the world’s states). … The number of both electoral and liberal democracies began to decline after 2006 and then flattened out. Since 2006 the average level of freedom in the world has also deteriorated slightly.”

Since 2000, added Diamond, “I count 25 breakdowns of democracy in the world — not only through blatant military or executive coups, but also through subtle and incremental degradations of democratic rights and procedure. … Some of these breakdowns occurred in quite low-quality democracies; yet in each case, a system of reasonably free and fair multiparty electoral competition was either displaced or degraded to a point well below the minimal standards of democracy.”

Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Erdogan’s Turkey are the poster children for this trend, along with Venezuela, Thailand, Botswana, Bangladesh and Kenya.

One should be suspicious of studies for no reason other than that the left adores them, but the basic argument against them is this: they measure a single factor out of many and draw broad conclusions based ont heir results. In this case, 25 nations have either limited or abolished democracy. By itself this is not all that unusual. In context, it looks like a world less dedicated to freedom and all that jazz, and this concerns liberals as it might interrupt their seizure of power.

More likely what is happening is that the democracy brand — once assumed to be the reason for Europe’s success — has fallen prey to a bit of experience. People in third world nations are realizing that if you install democracy there, people vote for third world ideas. As scientists will tell you, every effect has a single cause, and there is some reason why third world nations are at third-world levels. Generally the reason is the same actual reason why people are poor: they have made poor decisions. They demand rule by a theocracy or dictator because the people around them are unhygenic, criminal, corrupt, disorganized and unable to make long-term plans, which is exactly why these nations ended up third-world and why people end up poor. That truth has been made taboo and yet it peeks out from behind the curtain at every chance since it is so consistent in its truthfulness.

Democracy resembles a product sold in the big box stores. At first, we all must have the iPad. The obedient press trots out the wild speculation disguised as fact: it will replace desktops! Everyone will have one! They do stuff ordinary machines cannot! At first, the rich buy. It takes a few years to figure out what you think of a gadget, so that starts their clocks ticking. A year and a half later, the gadget makes it to middle-class price levels, and so all of them buy it. A year and a half after that, it gets cheap enough for everyone. Was this deliberate? New audiences appear just as the old ones are discarding the new toy, having learned that while it is neato, it does not do what the press promised.

The same is true of democracy. The West adopted it in 1789 and promptly embarked upon an orgy of self-murder for two centuries, culminating in the fall of the last extreme leftist regime. This enabled the marketers to norm democracy and sell it to the world. It will renovate those starving people, restore those fallen cities, and make everything new again! Also, fresh breath. But while it did many of those things, the cost became apparent: democracy was the advance troop for globalism, itself a form of colonialism by which third-world labor is sold cheaply and then, as the third-world nation comes up in the world, it becomes an “emerging market” and gets sold the same products that the first world got a decade ago, made by people even poorer than its own citizens. The Ponzi scam unraveled.

Even more, democracy failed to deliver on its promises. It did not make the world into the strength of Europe; it made Europe weak and the rest of the world unstable. Liberals have worn themselves tired making excuses for every time “the voters” have chosen jihadi theocrats or blood-drenched dictators of their own free accord. What democracy does is standardize things by making choice difficult, since only pluralities can rule and they always rule in favor of fewer rules, which is good for business but externalizes its costs through the destruction of social order. As Europe falls into ruins, and the face of the disease becomes visible elsewhere as well, people are rethinking democracy, as well they should. Mob rule with a fancy name is still mob rule.

Freedom is not free if you let liberals touch it

hypocrites_making_monotonous_droning_music

People love generic answers. The broader, the better. That way you can retaliate with the answer whenever a difficult question comes up, knowing that the generic nature of the answer means that it will include the issue being talked about. Something in it will address it, even if vague. Such is the case with our modern platitudes: freedom, democracy, equality, brotherhood, peace and justice. We use them as excuses not to think, and they camouflage our lack of actual goal.

“Freedom” ranks most highly as it is used by both left and right. When Islamic wackoes behead goats and rape journalists (I might have that backwards) we say they hate our freedom. When the KKK stages a rally to protest ongoing diversity crime, or a devout Christian baker refuses to decorate a cake with two men having anal sex for a gay wedding, our pundits talk about the “freedom” they are protecting by silencing these dissidents. Freedom belongs to all, you see, and so if anyone is excluded, none of us are free. It’s like being in a gang but with bigger words.

What troubles people about freedom is that it is a concept without an object. It is entirely a negative idea, which is the absence of something. Of what? Restraints, of any kind, with all of us inserting an asterisk automatically to exclude widespread taboos like child molestation, murder, rape, arson and theft. Some of freedom’s most ardent advocates find this lack of direction troubling, and try to give it a slant to the left, as mouthbreathing turnip-picking prole Kevin Carson does in an article bemoaning the lack of leftist ideological foundation to freedom:

A libertarian movement with this demographic as its core base is doomed to extinction. The reason is that these people, for the most part, aren’t interested in winning hearts and minds among the general public. They’re not interested in recognizing the concerns of poor and working people, women, LGBT people or people of color as legitimate, and showing ways that an ideology of human freedom can address those concerns in a meaningful way. They’re interested in being superior, in being the last tiny remnant of rational people who’ve not bowed their knees to the collectivist Baal.

No, pal, you don’t understand your own badly-articulated and philosophically-incoherent concept: freedom means independence from the needs of others and their ideological crusades, in addition to the choice to take up those crusades. When you defend freedom, you are defending those who will set up small towns and by mutual assent exclude any number of groups. Exclusion is one of the fundamental properties of freedom, as it is with other rights, which generally are based upon property rights (you might consider social order instead, in which every rank has a purpose and a duty to the commons in a collaboration/cooperation model). They can exclude other races, other religions, other sexualities… you name it. Welcome to freedom.

If you want to know why libertarianism is both taking off and collapsing, it is this: many of us do not want to follow the ship down under the waters. We live under a tyranny of the plurality where any group that forms a consensus on an issue wins out over those who merely want to live normal healthy lives — there’s nowhere to vote for that — and the herd tends to run away with its ideological objectives for the feelgood buzz it gets from sharing those ideas. It helps them bond, you see, because the herd is composed of generally unhappy people because most people are unhappy, resentful, self-pitying, bitter and in the grips of victimhood philosophy, mainly because if you have not found something of value in life and are not outright mentally disabled, one or more of these is almost always to blame. Very few are actually innocent victims; most are just personally disorganized and mentally incompetent to make decisions.

Those who want to impart a leftist design onto libertarianism and the concept of “freedom” forget the nature of freedom: freedom itself is independence from obligation. It means they take care of themselves, and the rest of you do the same, and if you have failed to do so, it is because you are morally deficient or simply less competent and are being eliminated by the process of Natural Selection (sounds like a second-shelf beer) which liberals love in any other context but the human. Evolution happens when the competent few can escape from the rest and finally, without interference from the insane herd, set up a better way, whether that is a farm or a classical civilization.

Leftists talk up their defense of minorities but they refuse to acknowledge the one minority throughout all of human history. That group comprises the people who think beyond the immediate, plan toward the future, study reality and make their dreams happen. Inventors, conquerors, artists, writers, philosophers and many religious leaders belong to this category. They do not slavishly adore a method like “freedom,” but instead aim toward a higher degree of civilization. This goal can both never be reached and can always be striven for, resulting in — like maturity, improvement in sports or another discipline, or organization themselves — a perpetual quest to make ourselves better.

We have 6,000 years of civilization on the books. We know what works and what does not. Good/better/best are your options; which do you choose? Leftists choose “good” with apologies, but others want to aim for better or best and to do so, they have to get away from the herd that will enforce good or “good enough” on us all so that none rise above its egalitarian level and make the rest feel bad. This is not complex politics; it’s pre-school social dynamics. And yet all of the voices in our mainstream media deny it.

The good that comes from libertarianism occurs in the frame of mind that libertarianism instills. In it, each person is responsible for their own lives and the results therein. They cannot scapegoat others. They must make of life something better than its default, and rise above the mediocre, or accept being of a lower order of ability, society, intellect, and morality in tandem. This restrains the vast majority of humanity, who are heading downward on the evolutionary curve, from restricting the others from rising above. Libertarianism also teaches the idea of engineering a better society through indirect methods.

Liberals understand one method of improvement: get funding, create an agency, and apply rules equally by force. Nature does not work with such universals. Instead, it offers particular circumstances in which an actor — person, animal, computer, civilization — can choose to rise or can adapt to its lack of ability to rise, accept the mediocre and make excuses for this failure. Liberalism is one of those excuses, and libertarian-tinged liberalism is just liberalism in another form.

In particular, the most interesting idea to come from liberalism can be found in the idea of viewing society as a corporation. It should send citizens a bill for taxes, then do something with that money which shows an actual return in physical reality. In this view, feelgood warm fuzzies from diversity programs and child protective services fall short; public schools either produce results or get replaced, much as they would in the free markets that libertarians adore. Unlike the great liberal experiment, this approach requires that we take responsibility for our future and measure it by results, not feelings.

I suspect that Kevin Carson is a bigger racist, sexist and gender-normer than those he criticizes. In their view, nature works better than okay and each race, sex and sexual orientation has a place in its order. It may not be together in one big happy, or serving in cloned assembly line part style — sorry, I mean “egalitarian” — identical roles, but it is a place. Carson fears that if liberal White Knights like himself do not intervene, these groups will die out. It is merely his pretense which is the method he and people like him would use to seize power, which is the opposite of the “freedom” concept he claims to espouse.