Many people out there ask why white people, especially those with classical educations, are so fascinated by race? To the majority of people out there, race seems like an external characteristic like hair color or eye color.
The answer is that history is more trustworthy than lab science, and history shows us a clear and unbroken standard: when the genetics of a population go, it never rises above a level of third-world style living. For examples of this, we tend to point to the ancient Romans and Greeks, who left behind miscegenated remnants who now constitute the third world of Europe.
In the past, children above the dividing line of the middle of middle class would read about the history of these ancient empires, and see that while we cannot identify a single touchstone for their decline, the symptoms of their decline included many things beloved by liberals: race-mixing, sexual tolerance and promiscuity, colorful cities dedicated to hedonism, welfare states and parent-like governments. All of these together point toward a cause of their decline, which was probably philosophical before it became psychological and then physiological as the consequences of their bad choices etched themselves into body and genes. We can see this cause was something like liberalism, an apologism for failure and decline which justifies itself through the nexus of altruism and egalitarianism. All who grew up under those educational burdens realized that whatever the singular cause, we wanted to avoid that type of decline, which meant beating back the symptoms until we could dislodge whatever mental block caused us to decline in the first place.
At this blog, I spend a fair amount of time writing about that cause, but it may be simpler than we think. Degeneration in any form creates degeneration in all other forms, so lowered standards and the raging egomania that supports them must be fought at every level wherever it appears. There may be no single touchstone event, only a symptom which then, as people justify it as legitimate (a process called apologism) and consider it in the abstract, gets adopted as a principle and leads to other parallel symptoms. These together constitute decline, which then changes the standard to which people must adapt to survive, which causes the independent and intelligent to die out and be replaced with the conformist, obedient and oblivious. At that point, the racial substrate of the population can still be recovered by changing the standard of adaptation, but generally these empires then invite in foreign labor and outbreed to the point of unrecognizability, having reversed thousands of years of evolution in the blink of an eye on the time-scale of history.
You may find yourself wondering why all of the mainstream news and opinion seems to be variants of the same idea.
So you took a trip on the wild side, to the underground. At first, it seemed different — at least, it talked about different things. But then the similarity began to appear. The same underlying theories were there: rights, equality, institutions and laws.
The best type of opposition is captive opposition after all. It repeats what its controllers want, but in a form that looks different, and so a new addition to the hive-mind is formed.
What kind of conspiracy could launch this?
The answer you fear: none.
News and opinion writing, video and audio form a market. People purchase — sometimes only with their attention — products that confirm what they wish to believe is true. And therein is the rub. Capitalism is democracy in that there is no control on truth. If people want to believe that legalizing transgender brony rainbow incest is more important than having a functional society, no one should tell them otherwise because they are equal as individuals. That is the essence of The EnlightenmentTM.
Humanity, in the absence of putting the smartest and noblest in power, falls into an ego-emotion cycle. People look for information that makes them feel good about their lives, purchase it with their attention and dollars, and this encourages the production of more of the same. Soon it replaces everything else because it is simply a better product. The ego demands something to feel better about itself, and is served it, then sees nothing but that and concludes that it is true. Then the emotion kicks in: seeing only information which avoids the actual problem, namely the degeneration of Western civilization and its internal collapse, the ego assumes that everything is just fine except for those few issues. These it tunes into through emotion, which in this case means the type of near-autonomic kneejerk responses that make the person feel alive because they are having an intense reaction. Instead of being unselfishly altruistic, people weep over sad stories and delight in outrage because it makes them feel important, powerful and connected. Like the cycle itself, a smaller cycle exists within: the ego sees the emotional reaction, and then uses that as evidence that the ego is in fact well-meaning and thus, good, and thus, important. It is a closed-circuit self-confirming bias in favor of the ego.
For this reason, people go looking for writing which is emotional. Unfortunately for writers, this type of emotion is surface-only; it does not involve, say, the change in a character through learning, but a world in which we take gestures and reactions as literal. Emotion — honest emotion — comes from within at the end of an analytical process, what we might call “realization.” Surface emotion comes from our inner monkey which reacts to surface details so that it does not need to use its intellect to look beneath. That means that emotional writing limits itself to distractions and must deflect from any deeper truths, which require analysis and thus effort by the reader without the nice, settled, pat, compact and solid feeling given by a simian emotional reaction.
Amerika.org — under my guidance, as Managing Antagonist — has gone in the opposite direction. For the most part, it distrusts emotion because it is manipulative, and focuses instead on logical analysis. This limits its audience to very few and makes reading it more of a process like work than the easy enjoyment of breezing through some flattering fluff. For that reason, this blog will never be popular, but perhaps — with your help, Dear Readers — it can be influential.
The Civil War (1861-1865) still divides the American public. Its origins remain misunderstood, with the South arguing that the war was a case of states’ rights or the ability to shape their society separately from the intent of Washington, D.C., where liberals insist it was a racial holy war for white supremacy through slavery of African-Americans.
Luckily, a respected historian approaches from a different angle which makes more sense in its historical context:
Fleming contends that the real reason for the war – and for why, of all the nations on earth, only the U.S. associated war with the ending of slavery – was twofold: First, there was the extreme “malevolent envy” of Southerners by the New England “Yankee” political class, who had long believed that they were God’s chosen people and that they should rule America, if not the rest of the world. Second, there were a mere 25 or so very influential New England abolitionists who had abandoned Christianity and even condemned Jesus Christ, while embracing the mentally insane mass murderer John Brown as their “savior.” This is part of the “disease in the public mind” that is the theme of Fleming’s book.
John Brown, who had declared himself to be a communist, had organized terrorist attacks in Kansas which included the murder of entire families who did not own slaves, and the murder of free black men. “Perhaps most appalling,” writes Fleming, “were the murders of James P. Doyle and his two oldest sons, while Doyle’s wife, Mahala, pleaded frantically for their lives . . . . The Doyles were immigrants from Tennessee who . . . had no interest in owning slaves.” Brown claimed that his purpose was “to strike terror into the hearts of the proslavery people.” He planned even larger acts of terrorism at Harpers’ Ferry in 1859 where he was apprehended by U.S. Marines led by Colonel Robert E. Lee, and he was hanged for his crimes.
It helps to recall that Europe was wracked by the Napoleonic wars (1803–1815) just a generation earlier, and that those had a similar drift: enforcing centralized liberal ideology through the State over local areas, including independent kingdoms and States much as the South was independent. Liberalism represented on its surface triumph of the common man through egalitarianism, but underneath that shiny exterior it served mostly to empower commercial interests by freeing them from the constraints of culture and those who might know better. Humanity has always been its own downfall, and mobs always demand what is worst for them, and these wars — arising from the French Revolution and bloody mass murder from 1789-1796 — showed the liberal forces attempting to take over Europe.
In the United States, the situation was similar. The South remained agrarian with a high degree of culture, which is why most of the good literature and art came from the South, and enforced that through a strong social order in which a caste system persisted. This enraged liberals, so they engaged on an ideological war against it. Being crafty narrow-eyed Yankees, they chose to pick a fight over an issue the South struggled with: slavery. While slavery was in decline, and many if not most in the South wanted it gone, the problem was that spontaneous manumission would result in a collapse of the Southern economy. The North defined the issue, and provoked the South into a response, at which point the North demonstrated a willingness to conscript as many people as possible into a war it won by numbers and industrial power.
Consider this response from Abraham Lincoln through Ambassador Charles Francis Adams to a letter written to him by Karl Marx:
So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.
The Government of the United States has a clear consciousness that its policy neither is nor could be reactionary, but at the same time it adheres to the course which it adopted at the beginning, of abstaining everywhere from propagandism and unlawful intervention. It strives to do equal and exact justice to all states and to all men and it relies upon the beneficial results of that effort for support at home and for respect and good will throughout the world.
Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example. It is in this relation that the United States regard their cause in the present conflict with slavery, maintaining insurgence as the cause of human nature, and they derive new encouragements to persevere from the testimony of the workingmen of Europe that the national attitude is favored with their enlightened approval and earnest sympathies.
One and a half centuries later, we wonder what it all meant. The answer is as simple as it seems: the American Civil War was part of the ongoing world domination by liberalism, which it attempted at first through the French Revolutionary model, then through Communism, and now through European-style “social democracy” mated with American-style industrial capitalism. This war in turn led to others, culminating in the entangling alliances that formed the parties of the first World War, which then in turn led to that fratricidal disaster. The origin of all: liberalism and its ideological compulsion to force others into obedience because it rightfully recognizes the instability of liberalism and thus the fatal threat of any viable competition.
This week most of the West celebrates the 800th birthday of the Magna Carta. No sane person would see this as a positive situation, because that document ushered in one of the foulest human creations: the determination of leadership through the relationship between financial interests and the masses. Previously money and power had been separated by removing its acquisition as a motivating factor, leaving wealth in the hands of aristocrats who did a much better job of minimizing its harms than the mercantilists to follow.
When the barons of England demanded rights which were universal and beyond the power of the kings, they created an alternate power structure which catered to commercial interests but, because those in turn relied on customers of the mass consumer variety, would quickly become a situation in which every plausible citizen no matter how uninvolved in keeping society afloat would have a vote. This created a channel to work around the question of leadership itself and replace it with a surrogate, namely utilitarianism, or what people think they want when asked in large groups with little in common.
The Magna Carta did more than just hijack power from the kings. It also changed the focus of power from the question of what should be done to create, develop and nurture civilization to the question of the individual, e.g. “What do I want right now?” Since the organizational principle of society has always been and always will be the trade-off of individual wants for what is necessary to do so that all may thrive, this short-circuits the impulse toward civilization itself and replaces it with a predatory self-interest motive, which in turn influences how people vote.
The new focus ignored civilization itself, which it took for granted, and focused on how citizens could maximize their own returns at the expense of that civilization. Although at first described as a method of allowing an equal voice for commercial interests, the new regime rapidly became a way for commercial interests to take over civilization itself. The entire question of leadership shifted from a shared goal of improving the nation and its habits, technology and values, to individual desires and individual profits. Each person became a contrary voice working against civilization itself, because now the two goals were at odds and reduced to a bargaining situation.
Once a society changes its focus from leadership to utilitarianism, or what the largest plurality of people think they want at a given time if phrased in A-or-B styled questions, it loses the ability to discuss improvement and maintenance of civilization itself because that goal contradicts what citizens will inevitably demand, which is more benefits to themselves. Self-interest, when not tied to a sense of communal dependency on common institutions and spaces, becomes as parasitic as crime but hides itself behind politeness, formality and politics.
This in turn corrupts the nature of the word “should,” as in, “What should we do about this?” Previously, the term should contained a notion of working toward an end, as in what should we do to preserve and develop our civilization. When the focus turned to the individual, “should” took on an air of universality, based on the lowest common denominator that all citizens have between each other, which is self-interest in the short-term and oblivious to the bigger picture of the long-term, consequences of actions and civilization itself. This removes any kind of cause-effect thinking where citizens are aware of what effects their actions have in the future, because the future is not even considered. Only demands now, and not how to achieve those demands.
As a result, civilizations which go down this path rapidly head toward becoming subsidy states where, instead of demanding performance before reward, the State rewards citizens simply for being alive and hopes to extract performance from them with a public ideology and the ability to shame them for non-compliance. As found out in the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba and many other places, this process does not lead to better results but to impoverishment of the nation and its domination by ideological fanatics with a tenuous grasp of reality. This is the long-term effect of removing focus on leadership and turning instead toward what pleases the citizens in the short term; of course they will eventually want free money, and very few of them understand or care what is required to produce it.
The ugly truth of humanity is that in large groups we revert to our simian state. We follow what seems to be the group opinion because we have delegated authority to the group on the assumption that individuals do not inherit the consequences of group decision. This is why a mob will attack viciously until its own members start paying the price, at which point its inherent cowardice takes over and the mob fragments. Creating a collective government of the nature that democracy demands produces a permanent version of this mob and, in order to preserve itself, it makes its perennial order of business the process of eliminating those who might make any single member face any consequences for his actions: the elimination of ideological enemies.
It is not surprising thus that, after achieving their own version of the rights provided by the Magna Carta, every civilization which experimented with this path followed a similar series of internal collapses that presaged the lapsing into irrelevance of the larger society. First there is a pleasant anarchy; then, a sense of obligation to subsidize others; finally, a mad and accelerating impulse to destroy all who have more than the average or who resist the dogma indoctrination. Societies go from celebrating freedom to a pathological desire to extinguish it within a handful of centuries.
Long before these results became visible, the Magna Carta started the West down this path to doom. Its ultimate effect would become a severing of action from responsibility, but the financial interests which motivated its adoption did not see it at the time. All they wanted was to enable themselves to have greater profit without performing the acts of leadership, as a king does, that consider the long-term effects of ever action on the health of the society as a social ecosystem, its citizens, their genetics and their long-term future. The kings were portrayed as bad evil no-fun guys, but perhaps they were simply more intelligent and saw what the financial types did not, which was that this path led to short-term rewards and long-term losses.
99% of human activity centers on distracting from the actual issues in life, such as the health of a civilization or the need for the individual to discipline themselves and find purpose. These are grim truths to life, like that one must eat one’s vegetables before pudding. These actual issues do not “exist” because they are based on consequences in the future, and every con man tries to create a mental wall between action (cause) and consequences (effect) by promising that during the time between the act and the result, so many good things will happen that the price seems inconsequential. Every time they fail to mention the many opportunity costs — what options were lost by picking one over the rest — and secondary effects of the act.
For that feel-good warm and damp modern sensation of uplifting symbols and religious faith in the safety from consequences provided by being in a crowd, the Magna Carta delivers a whopping blast of good times like those cocktails with the little umbrellas in them. Eventually however morning arrives, and in addition to the hangover, before us lies the wreckage of what we did when too drunk to consider the consequences of our actions. Such is the 800th birthday of the Magna Carta, and those who realize this see clearly the case for its repeal.
The media foams at the mouth over Rachel Dolezal as we speak. She presented them with a classic paradox by taking mainstream liberal ideology to the extremes. To wit: if race is a social construct, a woman born and raised white can be black, if she identifies with black.
In a wave of great ironies, this comes months after Elizabeth Warren asserted she was part Amerind but then backed away with the help of a compliant media, and after the gory highway crash rubbernecking over Bruce->Caitlyn Jenner, in which he negated all that was hateful about privilege — white, male, virile — by becoming a white female.
And yet the world shrugs because, dear liberals, you cannot have it both ways. If race is a social construct, then people who identify as black are in fact black. If race is not a social construct, then we are all what we are born to be and diversity looks less sunny, and uncomfortable questions are raised about whether Caitlyn is really a Kate and not simply Bruce having left therapy early.
This confusion reveals the heart of the leftist narrative on race which is a deliberate double standard. Race serves as a means to an end of destroying those at the top of society who are naturally smarter, healthier and wealthier. As such, race is used when convenient to take down those at the top — again, the white heterosexual male hunting season is well underway — but ignored when inconvenient. Thus a white male shooting up a school is proof of white degeneracy, but crime by ethnic minorities like Hispanics, Vietnamese and African-Americans is… well… there must be some other explanation.
Few enjoy my explanation, which is that a tribe of people is either victorious or conquered. Diversity ensures that one group will be on top, and every other group will feel conquered. This is the white liberal equivalent of poor Southern whites insisting that blacks were beneath them; the liberal, being craftier and more educated but less anchored to reality, creates inferiority by implication. He invites all in to his diverse nation but then puts himself at top.
In that we see how Rachel Dolezal is the archetypal liberal. Liberals derive their power from ignoring the real problem of civilization decay and offering a surrogate instead through “social justice” which can be addressed by “equality,” a concept not found in nature. The liberal sees herself as part of the hated power structure, but because she refutes it and works to sabotage it, free from blame and thus able to partake in the victim narrative assigned to minority ethnic groups, religions and genders.
Like long-suffering Moms who hit the claret in late afternoon, liberals bond on suffering. It is what makes them different from all that they hate, and heroes to those minorities, so that it is safe to vote liberals into power because they are the good guys after all. Their suffering excuses them of culpability for their success in achieving wealth and power, and they enjoy paying extra taxes as a sacrifice to this self-image.
While Rachel Dolezal may have taken the liberal view of race to the extreme, first she took liberalism to the extreme: you can be powerful, as long as you are “of the people” which means a victim in some way or another. In her case, she celebrated her misfortunes that she thinks placed her on the same level as African-Americans because Dolezal, like all liberals, is still stuck in the superiority-inferiority narrative that liberals claim is responsible for slavery.
An ugly truth of humanity reveals that history is in fact not history, but a series of press releases summarizing what the sponsors of the victors wanted you to think. Those who wished to take over the colonial trade accused the original colonizers of being evil slave-masters, at which point that group withdrew, and the newly corrupt group surged in. Liberals exploit the superiority-inferiority dialogue, forgetting that through most of history hierarchy existed at both vertical and horizontal levels. To nationalists, any other tribe was simply Other and neither superior nor inferior, merely unwanted here, like the more intelligence ancestor of NIMBY.
As liberalism reaches its 226th year of destroying the West, itself a culmination of a millennium of crowdist thought, the cracks in its ancient and scaly skin are beginning to show. Mainly that it depends on rebellion for its logic, and so its “theory” is always an inversion of the functional theory which came before, much as leftists enforce the superiority-inferiority complex on minorities in order to make leftists into victims with an excuse for being wealthy and powerful. Its theories always start with the idea that reality is optional.
This brings us back to Dolezal and Jenner. Rachel can live as a black person all she wants, but as the curtain falls aside, she stands revealed as yet another opportunist — like Elizabeth Warren, Emma Sulkowicz, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton and other professional victims — who used victimhood as a cover story to achieve a comfortable life above the rest of us. Jenner can use science to force his body into female form, but he can never have the experience of being a woman, growing up a girl and developing the mind according to those parameters, then going on to being a young bride with a normal life and family ahead of her.
It is all a theory game on the left. Reality is arbitrary because reality is not arbitrary, but preaching its non-existence makes a crowd of unhappy and purposeless people clap their hands and vote or buy. This allows the fantasy to become reality, but only for a few moments, and then the curtain falls away again and we see it is a boring and sad fantasy, with the camera pulling away to reveal the lonely apartments full of empty wine bottles and copies of Mother Jones, resonant with misery that their new jobs as professional victims cannot quite salve.
Contributed by ‘Subreddit_Llama‘
While “social justice” may be a common topic on the internet, like the average person I never heard of them — until started working at an advertising agency. My job as a web programmer required me to integrate their ad control system with their many websites, adding extra functionality. This in turn required me to understand their marketing strategy, which specifically targeted Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) because they were a lucrative demographic.
SJWs are people for whom activism is an activity, like shopping, or being on a sports team. They bond with one another over having the right opinions. Cheap and easy, with no chance of criticism from others, social activism provides a hobby to talk about at the local bar after a long day of work. The vast majority of SJWs are liberal, middle-class, university educated white women and their low-status male admirers. These are the women who did not get married, but are living the single life, and the men who are of “low status” meaning they are not rich, famous, strong, or so intelligent that they are successful. They hang around middle-level jobs and follow around the women they think may grant them sexual access in exchange for “white knighting” or support in internet combat against the enemy.
Marketing to these people proves to be quite profitable. SJWs spend an absurd amount of money on cheap, mass-produced lifestyle products. They buy these things so they can post photos of themselves on Tumblr with the product, and a referral link to where they bought the item. These people are prolific consumers on par with the “bourgeois” they claim to resent. Where the bourgeois buy BMW and Prada, SJWs — being single, and unlikely to ever get married — spend their money on the same stuff time after time. They may own iPhones and cell phone plans, but the rest of their spending is on what are essentially novelty products. In this way, SJWs are a marketer’s dream because they have already established a sales pyramid among themselves and if a product becomes trendy it automatically scales that pyramid.
This makes it easy to sell them cheap products with expensive messages. There are considerably higher profit margins on “this is what a feminist looks like t-shirts” and a much lower investment is required to make them. There’s less of a barrier to entry. The same can be said for shit like “Depression Quest” or any other SJW fodder indy game. A game doesn’t have to look good or be fun if you can convince your audience to buy it because it addresses “issues.” If the product has the right message, they buy it with a blind impulse that is easily manipulated. They click ads and fall for fake marketeer profiles because they hear what they want to hear. They’re the left’s equivalent of people who’d buy anything with an American flag on for the years following 9/11.
Internet sites love these guys. Instead of surly 4chan types who never buy anything, they can easily attract people who will buy a t-shirt made in a Taiwanese sweatshop with a pro-feminist message on it (and 500% mark-up). How do you attract SJWs? You clear away threats to their ideology, which means anyone who might disagree. For them to see a virtual space as “safe,” it must be cleansed of the “undesirables” who are non-SJW. Luckily, these opposition types are bad consumers. Little money is made by pitching to ad-block, VPN, piratebay, google-fu experts who post things that makes the ladies want to faint. SJWs are a type of consumer that may be unique in its opinions, but it acts like every other type of consumer. If you pitch products to their self-image, they keep buying until they run out of credit.
You can see this same process of consumerization in music festivals. The festivals are made good by members of the counter-culture, but when the festivals start attracting big names, suddenly ticket prices climb, drugs are banned completely, nakedness, improptu perfomances, and general anarchy are stopped and it becomes some homogenised, middle-class-mother-friendly pop concert with Hummus everywhere and excellent baby-changing facilities. Why? Because dirty hippies don’t spend as much money as middle class moms and university-educated white girls. A dirty hippie is there to see the band, buy some beer and have a good time. An SJW is there to buy tickets, bumper stickers, mugs, pens and hats so that they can pose with them for a selfie and possibly win in the lottery of what is trending among other SJWs now. Even better, they are adamant about comfort, so you can sell them hotel rooms and rental cars too.
How do they afford this? Most of the famous SJWs are trust-fund babies. The working SJWs (and there are plenty) aren’t as loud and don’t spend so much time begging for you to supplement their trust fund or to fund their cutting edge game, made in game-maker, about being cat-called (games are art and therefore don’t have to be fun, shitlord). But they tend to follow the lead of the trust-fund SJWs because those have more time and as a result make up more of the cutting-edge trends. To post to Tumblr all day, someone else paying the bills or an easy perpetual entry-level job. SJWs will buy “male tears” mugs and “smash the patriarchy” t-shirts or a “die cis scum” quilt because they can do so from their desks every week instead of investing in homes, cars, kids and a future.
The SJW phenomenon causes a type of gentrification of high-traffic parts of the internet. When they start out, most sites are occupied by people who have goals other than pure consumption itself. They tend to buy less stuff and not buy compulsively. This group is worthless as a target demographic for advertising. They make very little money, buy few products, and hate advertising, so the more you advertise, the less likely they are to buy. Business likes a simple formula of audience x advertising = profits. You can only get that with people who buy compulsively, and since SJWs compulsively buy whatever is trendy at the time, it becomes easy to follow trends, put them on products, and reap the “fat tail” of all the SJWs trying to catch up with their leaders.
If you want to understand the mentality of the SJW, you need to see them as consumers in the classic model and not as radical activists. Where Bob Smith was “keeping up with the Joneses” to avoid looking poor in comparison, SJWs are keeping up with each other to avoid looking uninformed and un-hip. Remember, “social justice” activism is a mode of socialization and an activity for them. They are not engaging in this to change the world like a die-hard ideologue so much as to have fun and attract a social group. As single people without families or extraordinary success in their careers, they need some cause that makes it look like their lives are still important, and their dollars have funded a whole industry based on giving them what they want.
Many times, when I have wished to discuss the problems of my own people, I have found others who proclaim that they are of a similar bent. Discussion inevitably turns toward niggers, which I thoroughly endorse, but halfway through, it becomes clear to me that we are not using the word in the same way.
“You mean,” I say, pipe halfway out of my mouth, “You’re speaking of African-Americans?”
The fact is that — to a student of language — the unfortunate word nigger has connotations beyond “black.” It means a slave, one who must be managed because he will be destructive if he manages himself. It also means someone that is tolerated in society only if he keeps within a lower role, because there is well-justified fear of what he will do if not oppressed.
As such, I find it useless to apply the word to other races. I would like to talk about the white degenerates among us, and why I fear them more than anything else.
Growing up in the South, I was exposed to the great secret of the South, which is that they love their black people. The Southerners are in fact an affectionate group, and they will take you in if you show up lost in a storm and will mend you with affection and grease-laden, vegetable-heavy cooking. Somehow it works. But in the South, black people are viewed as parishioners or constituents; members of the family who need someone to speak up for them. Of course, for a Southerner, many such things fall into this category. Dogs, for one. Forests, for another, and hummingbirds and cottonmouths and eagles and rivers. They love just about everything, each in its place, knowing that putting it above that place will only force it to confront its own inadequacies and make it hate life.
In the South, people have their place. White people have their places… and white people have many divisions. If you are WASP, you are at the top, as these are the people who tamed the wilderness and founded the new nation. Next up are the Catholics, who are viewed similar to cousins obsessed with conspiracies, “well-intentioned” but perhaps a bit lost. At the bottom are the near-whites, the Italians, Irish, Greeks, Slavs and Jews, seen as the remnants of formerly white empires that collapsed and thus always enraged by their fallen status and sometimes prone to clawing their way back up through physical means, only to find out they could not change the beast within.
What the South does is grant self-respect to every group. White people have their half of the city, blacks have their half. There are “quarters” for Mexicans, Arabs, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, stoners and smugglers. Each does what it must, but with a crucial distinction: no one else subsidizes what it does. If the African half runs out of money, the white quarter says #yolo and goes on with its business… and vice-versa. Similarly if there’s a gunfight in the smuggler realm and 30 bodies are left behind, they all get stamped VAGRANT and society moves on.
Modern society has none of this. The group I want to talk about — white people, a.k.a. “niggers” until they improve their behavior — have no self-respect and no space of their own. Neither does anyone else, but that is a consequence of the white people having flaked out. When white people gave up on their role as founders and leaders of this society, chaos rushed into the void (nature abhors a vacuum, after all). The result has been dispossession for all despite many public statements about how empowered we are all now, with no evidence to suggest that is actually true.
White people are niggers. They need to stop their slave-like wailing, pick up the reins they have inherited, and set this society back on course. We cannot “help” any other group but we can give them self-respect, which comes through self-rule and an end to cloying white paternalism. We are all familiar with the standard white liberal whose personal life is a mess, whose family is in ruins and whose mind is perpetually confused, but who “finds meaning” by helping the third-worlders. But helping in this case means condescension, and no amount of foreign aid and hand-dug latrines can compensate for the smug superiority implied to these neurotic whites. They are in fact more racist than any racist group has ever managed to be, but they hide it behind a heavy layer of neurosis and posturing.
Other groups know, just as we know, that white people are merely projecting. What was that the Bible said about the mote in the eye of another, and the beam in one’s own eye? It is always easier to critique the problems of another group, because they appear simpler and easier than our own. This plays into our myth — with some basis in reality — that other groups are simpler and face simpler challenges. However, the real challenge they face is having self-rule and self-respect, and that is universal to all groups. Even buzzards are happiest when they feel that they are captains of their own futures, of their own souls… and so it is with the many human groups. Diversity does not work because it either puts one group on top, and makes everyone else feel like niggers, or puts no one on top and then everyone else feels impotent. This is what white pretense has brought us, and it is why I consider white people the biggest group of niggers on this planet today.
Dear fellow trailer-dwellers, crackers, honkeys, pig people and cheese-eaters, the fact is this: it is only your pretense that causes you to indulge in fanatical anti-racism, pro-transgenderism, anti-sexism, class warfare and other diversity jihads. You are simply transferring the weight of your own problems to others, where because “the grass is greener” everything seems simpler and easier. You are such adorable little individualists that you insist on iconoclasm, which makes it impossible to agree on anything. For every thousand white people, there will be a thousand opinions, guaranteeing that nothing will get done. You are so focused on “keeping up with the Joneses” not just with the junk that you buy but your political opinions that you become utterly “useful idiots” for whatever leftist government is in charge. Not only that, but your resentment for anyone better than you has you constantly penalizing successful communities so you can “lift up” people who have no interest or ability to be lifted up. You are nothing but pretense, white niggers, and you destroy everything you touch for your own grand drama.
Many of the worst white niggers are the ones who speak on behalf of their race. Their goal is always to separate white people, and just like their Bolshevik inspiration, to create a hierarchy of people based on allegiance to race. This will replace the natural hierarchy of ability and create an ideology as toxic as liberalism. It is no wonder that these people, like the neurotic leftists, also project onto minorities and Jews, scapegoating them for white failures. They tend to frequently mention other races with scorn, cruelty and hatred, and they drive any sane white people away from their viewpoint. These people are the nigger-hating white niggers who, as many have observed, would most likely be beheaded and cast into large boiling vats marked UNTERMENSCHENFETT from which soap will be made.
My advice for anyone who wants us to have white people in fifty years — assuming that we forgive whites for their reckless individualism, rampant fatuous narcissism and utter ignorance of nature — is to find the 5% of white people who are not insane and egomaniacally individualist, put them in charge, and enslave the rest of the white people. Put them in cabins and make them pick cotton. Whip them when they misbehave, and if they are unable to do the task with minimal efficiency, sell them at a discount and split up their families. Most white people are utterly useless and toxic in their pretense and resentment. It is time to stop pretending that the term “niggers” refers to anyone but these white people, and for all of us who want humanity to have a future, it makes sense to agree these people are too foolish to be in charge of their own lives, to enslave them and remove them from public discourse to eliminate the danger they present.
One of the favorite presumptions of the left is that we should all be equal, therefore (magically) those with more than the average owe it to the rest of the herd.
A cynical observer might call this simply, “guilt.” It serves no purpose except to allow the person with less to demand a free subsidy from the person with more.
In doing so, the lesser people reveals themselves as inferior. No decent and useful person would ever demand a subsidy. They might ask for a loan, or a grant to do something, but it would be on the basis of what they would achieve, not their failure to achieve.
David Greenberg over at The College Conservative attempts to address this point:
Without first stopping to consider what is actually being charged, the person being accused of possessing a privilege can lose an opportunity to gain a better understanding about themselves and the opportunities that have been afforded to them.
The first step requires empathy. It requires you to look at the situation from that second person’s perspective and see what they mean when they are calling you privileged. If you are having trouble making this deduction on you own, ask them. Hopefully, they will give you a clear answer. (If they do not, then it may be simply a defense mechanism.)
You may come to the conclusion that the idea they are arguing is, in fact, true. Some privilege exists simply because we are different people. A world without privilege is a world where everyone is literally the same.
David writes well and is too polite to say what must be said here:
When should you check your privilege?
If you have “privilege,” it is because either you or your ancestors were more useful than the person asking about privilege. If it was your ancestors, you have most likely inherited those traits. If it was you, then these people are merely parasites who want to share your good fortune without having done a thing to achieve it, thus in the time-honored tradition of human herds dissolving the wealth and destroying the interest, then moving on to something else to parasitize.
Those who are more competent deserve more power, money and recognition for a simple reason: they have shown they can use it. Much like you graduate from school, and have more power than when you did not, or get promoted at a job, those who have shown aptitude are given a chance to use that aptitude for other means. We all benefit from well-run businesses, quality professional advice, and strong leadership. That is not privilege; it is service.
Inevitably, the inferior will complain about “un-earned wealth” and start talking about Paris Hilton when this argument is brought up. You can quickly brush that aside: those people are a minority of those with wealth and, if we believe they are a problem, the logical way to fix that is to stop allowing fools to become wealthy. Somehow you never hear the privilege-checkers talking about that.
The standard Crowdist attack, like all good cons, begins by finding common ground. We all agree that life should be fair, and we all want to have empathy. So why do you have more than others? It must be because you are bad (when in fact the converse is true: the bad have less because they are less good). The real empathy and fairness consists in giving more to the good and less to the bad, because that way we all play by the same rules. The privilege-checkers want to make an end-run around that and be given wealth just for being pitiable.
“Check your privilege” is one of those guilt-attacks that will not go down in history. Like every other political motivation, it departs from truth and becomes a mere seizure of power and wealthy by those who are too corrupt to generate it by other means. The correct response to it is not to, as most conservatives attempt, assess each request to see if it has merit. Deny them all. Never check your privilege. The whole thing is nonsense and the type of scam you find in circus yards. When someone starts talking about privilege, you know they are lying, and the correct response is to call them and a liar and depart before you give credence to their ideas with your attendance.
When you take on any task for a group, whether they pay you or not, a clock starts ticking. This clock measures the time between you accepting the task and when the group will want to see results, including the point at which they get frustrated and fire you.
Liberalism burst onto the world like a breath of fresh air, despite the warnings from wise elders that it was in fact a re-statement of what the ancient Greeks had wandered into during their senescent years. Starting with the transition from middle ages society to a mercantile society, the power of actual leadership was deprecated in favor of social popularity.
In 1789, liberalism eventually got the upper hand in France. It then began to spread through Europe and the world, taking over new places because it was hard to reject the face value of these “new” ideas, namely the thoughts of equality, justice, freedom, fairness and pacifism. Who wants to be known as against peace and justice? Like an aggressive salesman, liberalism kicked open the door with a smugly implicit accusation, forcing countries to defend themselves by adopting liberalism, or facing angry mobs tearing down all social order.
In 1945, liberalism completed its conquest with the destruction of the last two nations which did not base their worldview on liberal principles (although they were infected with them). Since that time, it has grown without meaningful opposition, since conservative parties are staffed by business leaders who specialize in getting along with others, and thus compromise, but since liberalism is the far vaster force even a 1% gain is for it a victory over the smaller conservative forces.
For those of us who grew up in the age of mass culture, it is clear that the herd is always wrong. They chase trends, fads and fetishes but never manage to do anything productive. This is because they are not focused on reality at all, or even other people, but themselves, and they use justifications such as altruism and egalitarianism to force other people to accept this behavior, but its actual goal lies elsewhere. What our governments, politicians, business leaders and clergy style as a great ongoing people’s victory is in fact the progress of degeneration, decay and narcissistic oblivion through our society and represents its final illness.
At the same time, the liberalism bubble — comprised of the time between taking on the task of “reforming” and “enlightening” our society and the time we demand results — has begun to pop with all of the soggy grace of chewing gum. It provided an absence of reality where people relied on the promises of liberalism and waited for them to be accomplished, in the meantime suspending their disbelief and any requirement to show past historical successes or even logical consistency. The result, as Rich Cohen writes over at Tablet Magazine, was a pocket of illusion:
The golden moment came after WWII, when the Jewish population of America crested—the population as a percentage of the whole. Maybe five in 100 Americans were Jews, which might not sound like a lot but was like a bumper crop to us, a remnant of a remnant…The unimaginable evil of the Holocaust seemed to kill anti-Semitism, even the polite country-club variety that shows up in the work of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway. After the war, Hemingway disavowed Jewish jokes, which, he seemed to realize, were connected, in some way, to what happened. It created a bubble, a zone of safety not only for Jews but for other minorities. It’s no coincidence that the civil right movements came in the wake of WWII.
…This is my childhood, the world where I grew up. The horror of the Holocaust purchased us a 70-year vacation from history, though we didn’t know it. We believed the world had changed, as had human nature. Jews remained distinct in the new dispensation, but in a good way—a near-at-hand exotic, a symbol of exile, which we were told was the natural state of modern man. For perhaps the only time in history, you might actually want to be a Jew. Because of the close families and good husbands and yada yada. Saul Bellow, Phillip Roth, Mel Brooks. To those of us who came of age in these years, the future seemed like it would be more of the same, the present carried on forever.
We were wrong.
Cohen views part of the bubble, and he sees it positively. In his experience, for about seven decades the threats were banished and the good times rolled. This is a common assumption after wars that do not eliminate the cause that created the conditions that assured their existence, only the outward manifestations of it. In world war II, we banished the symbolic enemy in the form of nationalism, but missed the point that modern liberal society itself is inherently unstable because its design — the logic of how it is put together — is inherently paradoxical. Like good politicians, we declared victory and went home, leaving the problems fully intact but having beaten back those who, having noticed them, attempted one type of solution (one that is incompatible with conservative ideals, as will be documented in a forthcoming post).
Our bubble in the West is larger however. It started before the Magna Carta with the dispossession of aristocrats by the new city-dwellers and their mercantile interests, as the caste of vaisya displaced kshatriya and brahmin castes. This process gained momentum over the years, and as it began to pull society apart, an apologist movement called “liberalism” rose up. This movement believed that we could live alongside the decay if we just made a few token concessions. These rapidly took on attributes of talisman and superstition. If society made everyone equal, the thinking went, we would eliminate the class warfare that was tearing us apart.
As a result, the idea of “equality” took on a religious fervor among its adherents who feared the explosion they felt was always lurking under the surface. In their view, dogmatic — Stalinistic — promotion of equality would prevent the greater horror they saw within. Little do these useful idiots know that they are in fact patsies and that their “solution” serves only to adopt the original agenda of class warfare as a euphemistic positive instead of the civilizational cancer that it is. Their blindness created a dogmatic ideological group known as Crowdists, of whom liberals are one manifestation, who demanded equality above all else as apologism so that they could use the ensuing chaos to get what they actually desired, which was “anarchy with grocery stores” or unhindered individuals — without social standards — that could take advantage of the benefits of civilization while destroying it.
In 1789, they formalized their offering: egalitarianism must prevail, and it must do so by displacing all hereditary aristocracy and replacing it with rule by the mob, where candidates shout out ideas and whatever sounds good to the drunken, unwashed, and distracted crowd bent only on self-amusement would carry the day. Over the next two and a quarter centuries, this terrible idea bore out its horrendous fruit, which is that no matter how many checks and balances we put on it, and no matter how many elites in academia and government we use to channel it, or how transparent the press is, democracy devolves to demagoguery. It will simply hide this fact behind pleasant illusions, fond visions, cherry-picked “studies” and celebrities telling us other how clever they are for having the “right” opinions. But all of this is false. The actual truth is that liberalism serves to usurp known methods of success and replace them with insanity:
From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, a fundamental tenet of conservatism is the notion that family and society didn’t just randomly happen, but that they evolved because a). they were based on a priori truths about human nature, and b). they worked.
Western civilization, and the freedoms we enjoy, were, as such, not the product of luck, but rather, the result of preserving time-tested institutions.
…Much of conservatism is based on the notion that society is fragile. And if we start tinkering with some fundamental pillars — redefining marriage, here, redefining gender, there — it could have dire, if long-term, unintended consequences.
Liberalism exists to distract from, obscure and muddle the above truths. All that it speaks are lies designed to turn the focus of our minds away from the obvious and plentiful truth, which is that some methods make healthy societies — and some others do the opposite. During the last days of Greece and Rome, increasing liberalization presaged the decline. There is a reason for this: turning away from hard reality, and the need to adapt to it in both a Darwinian sense and the conservative sense of striving for “the good, the beautiful and the true,” requires that we temporarily deprecate our own egos. This offends the crowd and they retaliate by demanding the cessation of all social order, which in turn furthers the decay of the society from which they are trying to distract. This vicious circle only stabilizes when there is nothing left to steal and the society languishes at third-world levels of corruption, poverty, hygiene, degeneracy and criminality. If we have a future, it consists of avoiding that reliable path and instead escaping liberalism for a hefty dose of realism.
It is now near a dozen hours since the news first broke that the Strange Loop conference in St. Louis, Missouri decided to rescind an invitation to Urbit founder Curtis Yarvin, despite his presentation being anticipated by many and entirely on-topic.
The organizers and sponsors refuse to confirm that they sent the email that leaked earlier and in fact refuse to answer questions about the event in general. This tacit admission that they have something to hide is generally what one might expect from an organization that reacts rather than planning ahead.
Since almost all of these sponsors are on Twitter, they have been compiled into a list along with the organizers so you can watch and respond to their various claims, denials and most strikingly, complete refusal to address the issue:
These people, generally called SJWs, specialize in one type of attack: guilt-enforced ostracism. If you accuse someone of being a bad thing, like the racist|classist|sexist|fascist|homophobe|transphobe jargon they throw around right and left, others are afraid of being associated with this person. In rapid order: the person loses their job, loses their friends, loses their house loan and then their spouse.
I had this happen to me in the late 1990s. A former friend who had apparently resented me for years, and later run into certain personal problems, outed me to enemies. They wasted no time in calling everyone I knew making it clear that these people could either abandon me or be subject to the same ostracism themselves. Most fled, bowing and apologizing. Some stood their ground — these are the ones I call “eternals” — and told the accusers off and suffered nothing for it. But over the course of several weeks, job, home, friends, money and many other things went away.
These are not public services. This is not social justice. It is an old-fashioned witch hunt for those who dare not agree with the dogma these SJWs wish to cram down our throats. Like every other form of tyrant, they care nothing for the lives they destroy, because in their view it is not only acceptable but desirable to destroy all that does not see the world they way they do. And since their plans are pure ideology, or what should be and not what is, their ideas constantly fail in application and they look for scapegoats. This is why they are so filled with revenge that they insist on having people like Curtis Yarvin, who have contributed more to industry than they ever could, exiled from conferences. Their actual goal is to make his business fail, so they can destroy his life like they once destroyed mine.
I got into all this stuff — the world beyond the consensual hallucination created by media, products, politics and social factors — in the early 1990s through music and reading too much Nietzsche. The result was that I looked past what the herd wants to enforce as “truth” and saw the more complex reality, then saw how through history certain approaches have consistently succeeded and certain other approaches have just as consistently failed. At this point, it became clear to me that our society was on the wrong side of history but so in denial that it would punish any who noticed the reality. That is what SJWs do: enforce a fake reality so that they can obscure the failure of the very old ideas they personally advocate.
When you step outside the collective lie, you become a target because you have gotten free and they resent you for it. Expect death threats, vandalism, sabotage, subterfuge, back-stabbing and deception at every turn. You have done what they will never allow themselves to do and envy eats them from within, plus their fear of what you see that they cannot admit to themselves. Anyone who sees more of reality than they do is a threat, so they dedicate their lives to enforcing a fake “reality” instead of simply accepting the world as it is and making something beautiful of it. It is not surprising that so few of these people have any real accomplishments, and that makes it unsurprising that they take delight and glee in ruining those who are more intelligent, realistic or competent than they are.
Update 22:42, June 4, 2015: Alex Miller just posted the following statement:
Curtis Yarvin submitted a talk in the Strange Loop 2015 Call for Presentations. The talk went through the review process and was one of about 60 talks selected for the conference out of about 360. The subject of the talk was urbit (attached below). While we use a multi-stage review process, ultimately all final decisions are made by me.
Earlier this week we published the bulk of the 2015 Strange Loop session list, including Curtis’s talk. I quickly received feedback that Curtis also has an online persona under the name “Mencius Moldbug” where he has posted extensive political writings.
A large number of current and former speakers and attendees contacted me to say that they found Curtis’s writings objectionable. I have not personally read them.
I am trying to create a conference where the focus is on the technology and the topics being presented. Ultimately, I decided that if Curtis was part of the program, his mere inclusion and/or presence would overshadow the content of his talk and become the focus. This would not serve the conference, the other speakers, the attendees, or even Curtis.
Thus, I chose to rescind Curtis’s invitation and remove him from the program. The email I sent to Curtis is included below for reference.
June 4, 2015
### Curtis Yarvin’s talk abstract
Title: urbit, a clean-slate functional stack
Abstract: urbit is a new execution stack designed from scratch. The VM is a combinator automaton, nock, defined in 200 words. A strict, typed functional language, hoon, compiles itself to nock. arvo is an event-sourced OS in hoon, designed as a personal cloud server. While urbit still scales poorly, it’s stable enough to host a distributed chat network and serve React apps. The whole system is about 25,000 lines of code, all MIT licensed and patent-free.
Since none of urbit’s layers fits well in any system-software family tree, its key disadvantage is that you need to learn to program again. It’s also pretty slow, though we think we know how to make it fast. In exchange you get: a logical computer whose entire lifecycle is deterministic; a single-level store ("NoDB") where every packet is a transaction; an authenticated, encrypted network with a global immutable namespace; typed functional programming without category theory; typed, exactly-once network messages; and lots of other cool stuff that anyone sensible these days would put in a system software stack if she got the chance to design one.
Comments: The attendee will see urbit in action and come away believing that it’s actually real. They will see enough of what it does and doesn’t do well to decide if they like it or not.
### Email from Alex Miller to Curtis Yarvin
When your talk was posted on the Strange Loop web site today, I had immediate and vigorous feedback about the fact that you would be speaking at Strange Loop. I do not generally make any attempt to audit or care about the particular opinions or ideology of the people that I accept as speakers; I am generally focused on the content of the talks themselves.
However, in this case it is clear to me that your opinions in areas outside your talk are concerning enough for a significantly large number of attendees that those reactions are overshadowing the talk and acting as a distraction for launching the conference as a whole. Because of this, I am sorry that I must rescind your invitation and I will not be able to accept or include your talk at the conference. My apologies if this causes you any inconvenience.
What immediately jumps out to me is this:
A large number of current and former speakers and attendees contacted me to say that they found Curtis’s writings objectionable.
How many? And were these people important, or just angry voices trying to drag down the better man? And why does it matter that they find the writings “objectionable,” if they are not related to the presentation nor to be discussed in it?
This statement makes all the right sounds and has the right decorations, but it says nothing of importance nor accurately defends the actions taken.