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?


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


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


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.

The end of inclusiveness


Liberalism fears more than anything else the removal of a social standard of obligation by which the rest of us are forced to tolerate the exceptions.

Conservatism loves the idea of separation, where the best rise above the rest, but liberalism fears this. It wants everyone obligated to everyone else, so no individual can be found wanting and excluded.

With the rise of libertarianism, mature anarchism and related philosophies, we see our thinking in the modern West turning away from inclusiveness. This allows communities to set their own standards and thus compete economically on the basis of results, which achieves definitive answers about what ideas are best.

For example, imagine if the small town of Buckshot, Texas is able to set its own rules. The federal government has retreated to the role of providing military safety and political leadership, and has delegated (again) power to local communities. Buckshot decides on a simple regimen.

To live in Buckshot, you have to be oriented toward the nuclear family. It does not mean you cannot be childless or gay, but that you have to act in such a way that the nuclear family unit is seen as most important. People who want gay marriage or free love are run out of town, exiled, if you will.

Buckshot also has a zero-tolerance policy for substance abuse. It does not mention which substances. If you manage to get addicted to Reese’s Pieces, they will ask you to leave and if you do not, ride you out of town by force. Alcohol, drugs, whatever. They do not want your disease here.

You will not find a place with a more lax attitude toward crime than Buckshot. It is not mentioned until it happens and then there is a hard push to find all who committed or enabled it and send them on. “I didn’t know my friend had a gun” will not suffice in Buckshot. You either had good intent, or you need to leave.

While intention is important for showing that one was not involved in criminal activity, Buckshot looks first to consequences of actions. There is not really a distinction between accidents and crime. If you backed over your neighbor’s mailbox, the remedy is the same whether you intended to or did not: fix it, pay for it, or GTFO.

Not surprisingly, there is zero social welfare in Buckshot. Welfare makes people weak through mental dependency, the feeling goes, so it is an evil. You either find a way to make it — and someone always needs odd jobs done — or you go somewhere else. Maybe in New York they need human pets.

There is also a curious custom in Buckshot. When you want to move to a new street, you meet the neighbors. They decide if they are OK with the move or not. If they are not, no sale. The reason for this is to prevent blight and encourage neighbors to get to know one another.

You might notice government is different in Buckshot. There is less paperwork, more streamlining. This is because government also must play by these rules. If it penalizes your time, it must pay restitution. It is no longer a one-sided transaction because obligation falls on bureaucrats too.

On paper, Buckshot seems like a horrible place. No compassion, “my way or the highway,” and probably highly conformist. In reality, Buckshot is about the best community you can live in: inexpensive, low crime, high community involvement, and no parasites. Sort of like society would be if it stopped thinking we must include everyone or be bad people.



Those of us born into this time inherit a world of ruins. The promised land of equality has put the ego before sanity, creating an era in which only the idiots thrive, because for them it is paradise. With everyone equal, we are all important, but reality itself is not important because it is not us. And thus like every society that has collapsed before us we have used law and money to hide away the consequences we will face for our denial of what is plain as the noses on our faces, and instead have drifted into a communal narcissism where good feelings predominate at the expense of honest thought.

Our society — which in turn determines what options will be available to us for our future — has been stolen from us. Worst of all, the thief is ourselves: people acting rationally in self-interest chose to adapt to our notion of communal narcissism, and profited from it, but the cost was further passage down the trail to oblivion. We as those who come after them can enrich ourselves and escape to gated communities, then congratulate ourselves on our new-found wealth and social prestige like generations before us, but that leaves the problem intact. Our society is infected with illusion and it will not stop until it suicides.

We cannot smash evil with non-evil; we must instead have a purpose, a goal, and role toward accomplishing those. This turns our faces from the argument as framed by those who want us to fail and instead we can look at reality itself and choose a future that might be not only non-failing but also encouraging and exciting. We need to aspire to something, or we will settle for the usual cons that conceal evil power seizure behind altruistic and pacifistic ideals. We need a goal that is not within what we have now, but can be found in exceeding what we are. Improving who we are, instead of replacing ourselves with the latest trend or idea and hoping to derive meaning from that, which is a backward approach to the sane idea of using ideas to express a goal and working toward that.

For these generations — X, Y and millennials as well as those who follow for them — our immediate task is to tear down what is ruined and replace it with that which is living. The ruin is Amerika, the dystopia-Utopia of collective emotion and self-esteem through ideology that has taken over Europe, North America and the world beyond. All that it promises are lies cloaked in ideas which, for social reasons, cannot be denied. It uses these ideas as a shield and a justification, and leveraging its power from that justification, grows to take over every aspect of our lives and make us slaves toward its ends. But then, since it has no goal except power itself, this leads nowhere but to more slow degradation of society and self.

The following list of complaints addresses the blight that modernity has fostered in our lands:

  1. Jobs are jails

    We waste our days making products for fools, working for diligent morons who got themselves promoted through being sycophants and obedient non-questioning cogs, and appearance rules over performance, so we must “compete” by spending the most hours doing the least important tasks possible. All jobs are now make-work, either by inventing tasks that do not need doing or expanding existing needs into quests among themselves. Goverment aids this with regulation and industry supports it to keep us as interchangeable gadgets in a vast machine, easily replaced if a problem arises. There is no security when this climate dictates our days and takes our best hours for reasons that are not even relevant to us.
  2. People are whores

    When popularity matters more than reality, only attention whores are rewarded, and those who make not the best but the simplest and most palatable solutions are rewarded. Our culture has become a cheeseburger: once a noble food, now distilled into what is convenient for industry to make cheaply, then adorned in surface decoration by a legion of hipsters and marketers to make us forget that underneath the skin is nothingness. Sexually, socially, politically and culturally, people are opting for simplistic childlike ideas that flatter them instead of ideas with substance, and as a result, their behavior is craven and whorelike.
  3. A narcisstic age

    When there is no goal, we turn on ourselves and to ourselves, and so we have created a society of self-important “equals” who each believe the universe rotates around them. This leads to abusive behavior, where people externalize costs to the rest of us through selfish acts, and constant drama of people acting out illusory dreams and then leaving the failures for us to clean up. Even worse, people are faithless, just as likely to throw over a friend for a crumb of social esteem as they are to meet that friend again. This makes people arrogant without cause, inflated and abusive of whatever power they encounter no matter how small, and generally boring as rocks.
  4. Our leaders are liars

    When you confront a herd with the choice of leader, it turns the competition into a popularity contest, and picks the best actor or the most flamboyant personality but leaves aside the humble candidate who addresses actual problems. Their technique is to divide the question of our future into lots of little “issues” which can be discussed in isolation as a means of deflecting debate from the question of our direction as a whole, and so we fritter away our time fighting over details as the whole rots from within. These liars profit for themselves and plan to bail out and sell out when the situation grinds down into collapse, retreating to gated communities with armed guards and looking down their noses at the rest of us.
  5. Social events are stupid

    All social events are in fact product events: buy alcohol at bars, buy movie tickets, buy dinner, buy products, buy media. We have no actual social events because narcissists cannot socialize, only show off. But since we are told we are “equal,” narcissism is all but commanded by the powers above (which we will refer to as “the all-seeing Eye”). Once we met in ritual or for no purpose other than to be in each other’s company, but now we meet on terms that are competitive to consume products to fill the void within us, and to do so in groups so that none may feel doubt.
  6. Ecopocalypse

    “Climate change” is another deflection which reduces a larger problem to a smaller issue in which both sides of the debate can be controlled. The more people we have, the more we create impact on our environment. The worst of this is our use of land, which deprives natural species from the space they need — unbroken by roads, fences, hunters, hikers, off-roaders, the military and so on — to live, hunt and reproduce. As we add more billions of people, we squeeze species to the least valuable land, in which their numbers fall below the point at which they can escape inbreeding and passing on of genetic diseases which ultimately exterminate them. The solution is fewer people, especially fewer thoughtless and irreverent ones.
  7. No stop button

    Because we are all equal, there is no way to say NO to anyone. Every dream is valid and must be acted upon even if the consequence is dire, and every person deserves a shot at the dream of a house in the suburbs with a big garage, two cars, and lots of exciting gadgets to while away the hours until inevitable (but not acknowledged) death. Like a horde of rats we descend upon the earth, consuming all that we can including each other in pursuit of this goal, and because everyone else is doing it, we cannot step out of it or we will simply be consumed by the rest of the mob. Our government has no way to stop our society from growing bigger and more vapid, since individual people made those choices, and so the disaster spirals out of control because to stop it is to be unpopular and thus to leave power in shame.
  8. Diversity cannot work

    Diversity fails not because black people are bad as the racists tell us, but because putting more than one ethnic-cultural group in the same space forces a decision on that group: either give up its culture and assimilate into cheeseburger culture, or resist and forever be marginalized in ghettos. To their credit, African-Americans have told the rainbow monoculture to take a hike, for the most part. The rest of us assume we are the majority culture and fail to notice any culture that does exist being steadily subverted by those who turn it into products, entertainment or politics. The more varied something is on the surface, the simpler it must be beneath, and so this cultural norming forces simplification to a lowest common denominator which reflections the “culture” of commerce, government and media more than an organic or honest culture.
  9. All “solutions” are controlled

    We have met the enemy and he is us. Individual choices and the pretense of individuals leads to a system that bases itself on the idea of equality, which to the individual means a lack of oversight and social standards which might restrict his actions. This in turn creates social chaos, to which government presents itself as the only alternative. It then divides the question of the health of society into many small issues, and by doing so, guarantees that these are expressed solely in the terms of the equality debate that gives government its perceived legitimacy. Through the selfishness and obliviousness of individuals, this process took over, and now shows zero tolerance for any solutions outside of its assumption of equality, government and commerce.

The worst part of this situation is that all of the decisions that landed us in this pickle have been “logical.” In reaction to what came before them, people made rational decisions that led to the best of the possible options offered to them. But this is a trick: the real option we want — a functional society instead of a popularity marketplace — is never offered. We spill our blood over many battles for details and cannot see the bigger picture, in which all of our logical decisions are in fact insanity that will lead us nowhere but to destruction.

Any mentally healthy person will find this society unbearable on a daily level, with its ugly streets, dramatic people, make-work jobs, constant lies paraded as virtue and our time being wasted on the trivial when it could be spent in getting to know ourselves and putting our heads in sane places instead of the neurotic, solipsistic and consumptive mindset this society fosters and requires for its favor. We are being brainwashed into a lifestyle and values system which is anathema to all healthy things and which destroys our chances for happiness while increasing our chances of pleasure in the moment. “Live in the now,” they say, by which they mean a future of actually enjoying life has been foreclosed to you.

Our goal is to destroy what is in power because it is corrupt. This includes not only the lying government and the deceptive media, but all people who have benefited from the system as it is now. To benefit, you must not only accept the lie but force it onto others, the oldest “multi-level marketing” or pyramid scam in existence. These people are therefore corrupted and cannot be saved and must be exiled, executed or otherwise driven out of our society. They used the lie to their own advantage, which makes them criminals, not leaders. Our media pundits, “entertainers,” fake religious leaders, corrupt politicians and leaders of useless industry are all parasites like the leech or the mosquito, and we need our blood to rebuild not to subsidize these otherwise useless people.

A new creation is needed, arising from a desire for purpose instead of equality. Toward this goal we each do our part, and so derive roles which are not interchangeable but specific to us. We value ourselves by what we are able to do, not what titles or money we have tricked a corrupt system into paying us. This will reverse the current situation, which is where the parasites are on top in the workplace and in politics, elected by the credulous millions and their pretense of making the “right” choice when they actually make the convenient one that flatters their egos, and instead will put the most capable people in charge. We can have one or the other, rule by parasites or rule by the capable, but not both.

We face two groups of dangerous fools. The idiots wearing pukka shell necklaces and listening to Coldplay must be made into serfs; they cannot manage their own affairs and when given money become destructive. The corrupt leaders like Joseph Biden, David Cameron, Tony Abbott, Ed Miliband and Barack Obama must either be forced to serve as slaves for their sins, or be removed from society by any means necessary without particularly concerning ourselves with these means. If our fellow citizens require the sight of a smoldering heap of corpses to realize that change is upon them, let us sacrifice the false and corrupt! It is not as if we have any shortage of such people. A round of violent executions might startle these people out of their sleep and make them focus on the consequences of their actions.

Abolish the rules. These are designed to protect idiots, who suffered under the old order which measures the consequences of our actions and held people responsible when their fond fantasies turned out to have bad results. By putting the burden back on the individual to act so that the effects are right, instead of having “good intentions” or conforming to the trend of the time, we put our people on notice that all of us are responsible for what comes of our actions. This removes the hiding places of parasites and deceivers and makes each citizen aware of their duties in a clear and unambiguous manner.

Finally, deport everyone who is not of the historical American majority — English, German, Scots, Dutch, Scandinavian and French — because we need a clear identity as a people which lies in the Western European traditions from which our rules, aesthetics, culture and values originate. This is not deportation because they are bad; it is deportation because diversity fails and history shows us no successful diverse nations, only many failed societies which just happen to be diverse. Diversity is a symptom of decay and not of health.

As individuals, we have a choice for our future. We can follow what past generations did and keep passing the buck along to the next generations, fully aware that we are on a slow path to failure and for each new generation the future is darker than for the previous. Or we can throw out the old, corrupt ideas of “equality” which originate in the Magna Carta and French Revolution and certain religious fanatics before them, and destroy all of the parasitic dystopia that those lies have wrought, in its stead creating a new society with a better future not just in avoiding present problems, but in directing itself toward a higher way of life and future that is not just free of disaster, but filled with joy, purpose, belonging and meaning. We will be judged by history for what we do.

Liberals are apologists for the failure of our civilization


A popular way to defuse arguments involves offering a surrogate. These take the form of symbols which represent the problem, but do not include all of its aspects.

If you are concerned with environmental problems, for example, you might claim that the root of the problem is styrofoam containers and ban those. This creates a tangible, easy solution based on removing a bad behavior instead of a forward, constructive and whole solution that involves changing behavior on an inconvenient level. The surrogate is easier to understand and implement so it wins out over an actual solution.

All of liberalism represents a surrogate. Born of a simple problem, which was that under the kings the lower classes had prospered to the point where they were breeding far beyond carrying capacity, liberalism has grown through this process of finding easy scapegoats instead of addressing actual problems.

In doing so, liberals have become apologists for the failures of our civilization, denying its deep-rooted problems and replacing those with trivial surface changes that allow us to continue business as usual. The core of liberal ideology rests in the idea of equality, or making all people have a similar share of the wealth, power and prestige in a society. All of their solutions take some form of this idea.

This demonstrates a preference for improvement in quantity — equality — over an attempt to improve in quality. It is the difference between having more people and having our species evolve to a greater height, which mirrors the original lower caste overpopulation problem that liberalism was created to conceal. The liberal idea represents a tax: pay out some of what you have to achieve “peace” through making everyone important, and nothing else needs be done.

This ignores the vast underlying problems. Our environment is increasingly toxic, we are killing off species left and right, our cities are ugly, commerce rules our lives, and people are becoming shallow selfish parasitic beings without any reference point except to their immediate pleasure, convenience and social status. Of the two great apocalyptic writers, Aldous Huxley was correct with Brave New World and George Orwell was wrong with 1984: our doom comes not from tyrants above us, but the tyrants we become through absence of control. We created a society that pursues wealth, power and sensual enjoyment to the point of being oblivious to reality. It takes great delight in forcibly ignoring the consequences of its actions in fact.

But do we hear anything of that from liberals? No: their attitude is that doom is upon us so we might as well divide up what we have and “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” To be merry, we need an absence of conflict, so hand over those reins to We The People who will promptly vote for whatever flatters them and makes them feel good about themselves, ignoring the worsening problem of the health of our society as a whole. We are the sick man of the world and seem determined to create as many humans as possible to take our world down with us.

Instead of reading liberals at face value, it makes sense to look to their actual motivations. They are no different than the vain teenager shopping for accessories to make himself or herself look cool to a peer group. Except with liberals, the accessories are what the kings had but modern people can only imitate: subsidies instead of generosity, bold ideology instead of leadership, altruism instead of evolution. When liberals stand revealed as what they are, which is shallower than a French ashtray, we can pick up the remains and grow healthier instead of growing mindlessly toward a doom we assume cannot be avoided.

The Wump World by Bill Peet


The Wump World (1970)
by Bill Peet
Houghton Mifflin, 44 pages. $9

On the surface, this serves as a parable for children about the environmental damage that humans can do. Underneath however as in most of Bill Peet’s work another agenda is at play, which is a confrontation between humanity and the doubt, emptiness and fear that makes the empty pursuit of status and material prestige seem a tempting option.

The Wump World features a planet inhabited by Wumps, who are friendly capybara-like animals who are not particularly exceptional. Like Hobbits, or most people, Wumps specialize in nothing in particular except existence itself. They munch the sweet green grass and frolic in the sun and probably think very little about the big questions of life. Like small children or other innocents, they are still somewhat in love with life itself and concern themselves with nothing greater.

A spaceship lands and discharges a new species, called — in the kind of dead-hand obvious imagery one can use in children’s books — the Pollutians. They have come from a “worn-out world” and are glad to have found a new one for their use. In short order, they tear down the trees and rip up the grass and replace them with concrete, on which they build giant cities complete with “hundred-story skyscrapers.” They are noisy, frenetic, and dump trash in the rivers and fill the skies with smoke.

The Wumps retreat to underground caves where they cower and await deliverance. In the meantime, the cities expand to cover the entire world. The Pollutians work hard at this transformation, but also bicker among themselves and generally seem aimless outside of their hard work in transforming the new world. In the meantime, their own pollution makes the world uninhabitable for them, so they declare it worn-out as well and seek another one. Spaceships explore and find a new place. Then the Pollutians leave.

The story is unexceptional and obvious, even manipulative at its core. To most of us, it seems a preachy parable of environmentalism and nothing more, about what we might expect from the late 1960s and the hippie era. But there is more to this than meets the initial eye. The story of the Pollutians is not so much the external effects of their actions, but the internal hollowness which propels them. These are people without purpose for whom consumption and destruction have become a life quest, even if a suicidal one.

Within the bright colors didacticism of this story lurks the story of emptiness in the soul. The Pollutians have no depth to them and no concern for anything but their own comforts and wealth. This void propels them forward into outer space as it sucks them into inner space, turning them into a type of yeast which consumes all resources and then either moves on or dies. They are their own self-destruction but, unable to suicide, they perpetrate that destruction on others.

For those of us who grew up in Generation X, both stories were familiar. We saw firsthand as our childhood play areas were consumed by an endless procession of condominiums, apartments, factories and skyscrapers. We were told by well-meaning but fatalistic adults that this was simply progress, or humanity advancing, and that all these new people needed places to sleep, work and live. But it also rang hollow, because we saw the haunted looks on the faces of adults going to work and the misery and rage they took out on us after another fun day at the office. Soon it became clear that the plan was no plan except more, more and more of everything to conceal our lack of direction and even more, our absence of a Wump-like innocence and enjoyment of life. It was as if the curse of Eden’s apple finally bit us back.

This book remains vivid in the imaginations of those who read it because it perfectly diagnoses our modern morass, which begins in the soul and not the fingertips. We have no purpose. Lacking any motivation for something larger than ourselves — something for which God is a surrogate, since to know God we must first love the process of life itself or we are simply projecting self-interest into the realm of the spirit — we have fallen into our inner voids and like Stockholm Syndrome victims, have embraced that dark emptiness and now wield it as a sword, consuming all that falls under our control and replacing it with literal garbage as if in the image of our discarded hopes. The innocents, children born into this age, have carried this burden for too long. Either we end it or it ends us, but not first before purging all goodness and innocence wherever we go.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Hero of the Suburbs


Why would anyone ever say, especially in a pained voice, “Can’t we all just get along?”

All of us getting along means acceptance of whatever. It means that there is no evolution, no searching for a better answer. In practice, it means that we all retreat to our homes and ignore each other as well as ignoring what happens to our society. If it gets worse, that is not our fault.

People who ask why we cannot all get along are seeking this kind of bourgeois individualism. They want the freedom to ignore the consequences of their actions and their inaction, so that if they contribute to mass destruction of society, they can look back and say “But I was fair to everyone, and I guaranteed that we all had rights.” Yes, rights to ignore that our fate is bound together and that what determines this is not the freedom of individuals, but the health of societies.

Martin Luther King, Jr. is a hero to many and is taught in every school, government office, and corporate diversity lecture. He is regarded as the origin of profundity on this matter. The reason he is praised is that he took the complex issue of national identity and boiled it down to “Just treat everyone equally,” which fits with the leftist narrative which has been gaining momentum over the past few hundred years. Leftism is popular not because it works, because obviously it brings decay wherever it goes, but because it gives people permission and justification to reduce their lives to uninterrupted self-expression.

In his view, we do not need to look deeply into the health of society as a whole. We do not need to consult the validity of its design or whether its values are good. We just need to be, like good hipsters at a craft beer bar, “nice” to each other. Treat everyone equally and let everyone be part of society. Do not impose standards on them. In fact, impose the anti-standard that says that any inclusive rule is acceptable, and any rule that can make anyone look bad is bad.

This appealed to people in the suburbs. They could keep doing what they were doing and stop thinking. They had only to treat everyone equally and society would magically turn out just fine. Shopping would not be interrupted, nor would meaningless but profitable jobs, nor would the pursuit of individual drama in the evenings and on the weekends. Their egos faced no impediment from Martin Luther King, Jr., who in fact gave them a new way to feel superior to others. Instead of being holier than thou they could be “nicer than thou” and achieve praise for upholding the dogma of our time.

Like the “Je Suis Charlie” trend after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, the King cult is based upon easy answers. Everyone just follow this one rule. Like equality, rules are applied universally to all and are easily understood. They break society apart from being an organic whole into a mass herd of individuals who have nothing but self-interest in mind, and thus form a collective to enforce that self-interest. And no one is thinking about the future of society as a whole, or the question of its design, merely assuming that it will always keep on being what it was in perpetuity as we wish it would so our egos have a blank canvas upon which to paint.

This is the Dunning-Kruger effect as policy: what people understand the most easily becomes the highest value of the land. It is what one might expect from mob rule or democracy. Those who insist this system can work generally do so in the belief that they can manipulate it to their ends, with consideration of the effect on the health of the society itself as a distant secondary if not absent consideration. Martin Luther King, Jr. just gives it validity and lets the suburban empty heads go back to oblivion with a minor modification, instead of questioning their direction and how a change might impact the uninterrupted pursuit of self-expression.

What is the Zombie Ritual?


Out of the gathering fog, they assemble without knowing why. Brainless, they move impulsively like insects, repeating actions autonomically. They consume the living and replace them with the living dead. The few survivors resist but are hopelessly outnumbered and are excluded to the point of living in constant fear, hiding in remote areas and maintaining a constant paranoia, because at any moment the attack can come.

This is the Zombie Ritual. It describes how every society on earth has destroyed itself: by replacing the logic of consequences with a social code that enforces illusion. In a dying society, the only way to advance is to repeat the zombie ideology. This causes other people to approve of you, hire you and befriend you. Once you have joined the group of socially acceptable people, you can then make a life for yourself. It is thus logical to repeat lies and eventually, it becomes logical to believe them, because otherwise you must face the truth that your society is dying and you and your descendants will be destroyed by its collapse.

If you obey the dominant power, all will be OK, at least for now; almost everyone does, because the alternative is to be excluded. The dominant power maintains control by forcing people to accept an idea which is also a goal. This idea “represents” reality but does so like a symbol, inaccurately and favoring certain ideas over others. If everyone else agrees that the Emperor’s new clothes are beautiful, when in fact he is naked and revealed thus as foolish, those who speak up against the new clothes will be pariahs. At the same time, an Emperor that foolish will lead the civilization into decline if not outright dystopia. The official narrative states that the new clothes are beautiful, and anyone who wants to succeed must repeat this dogma.

When contradictions to the official narrative or doubt of its validity emerge, the people become terrified. They take the path of least resistance: instead of opening up critique of the narrative, they gather together with others to reinforce the narrative. First they filter out disturbing thoughts and facts, and then they go on a witch-hunt for any who disagree with this new interpretation of what is real. Individuals can advance themselves by currying favor from this lynch mob by smashing down others who do not embrace the narrative enough, claiming them as deniers. In the grips of such a passion, the society quickly removes all but those who champion the official narrative.

Drink from the goblet, the goblet of gore
Taste the zombie’s drug, now you want more
Drifting from the living, joining with the dead
Zombie dwelling maggots, now infest your head

Zombie ritual
Zombie ritual

For the everyday person, it becomes important to avoid noticing glitches in the narrative. When reality contradicts dogma, the correct response is more dogma. It can be made more extreme and must be, because the farther it drifts from reality the more its errors show, and so these societies inevitable tend toward stronger lynch mobs and/or official voices who will censure or outright imprison those who disagree. It may even, like the first democracy in Athens, execute people for asking questions about the official narrative, as it did to Socrates. The defeat of those who disagree will be viewed as victory for the narrative and thus affirmation that it is correct, good, true and “the right side of history.”

Among the people neurosis and near-schizophrenic conditions will become the norm as they force themselves to believe what is patently untrue. Like the loyalty test question in 1984, where 2+2=5 to those who love Big Brother, the test of dogma exists everywhere, especially in everyday conversation. Those who enforce the narrative are safe. Those who do not must be shunned lest those who associate with them be thought to be critical of the narrative. All must obey not just in their actions, but in their words, which then program their minds. The result is that the average person lives in a world of political assumptions, programmed to see issues within only those narrow filtered questions and cherry-picked data sets.

This creates a fetishism of denial among the people. They compete to see who is most in denial, and by being more rabid and strident than the rest individuals can rise to prominence. They are cheerleaders for the narrative and make everyone else feel good because instead of pointing to doubts and fears, they issue a calming statement that all is well and nothing must change. Just keep on keeping on. And thus people can turn back to their jobs, their personal lives and their fortunes and avoid any thoughts that they are complicit in the creation of a tragedy. They are given the freedom to be oblivious, which is what they wanted in the first place: permission to stop concerning themselves with anything but themselves.

As denial intensifies, the recriminations accelerate and the opposition becomes weaker. It also finds it harder to defend any point of view but the prevailing dogma since all of the language that it uses is already framed in terms that are convenient to the narrative. Any thought except the narrative gets squeezed to the periphery and then excluded. The narrative becomes the new starting point for all thought and the assumption behind every statement. Conflicts with reality become explained as enemies, not errors in the narrative. For this reason, the society goes off on a path of its own chasing chimerae of political illusions and, when it finally collides with reality again, it is in a fatal and permanent correction.

Anti-culture against (unpatriotic) organic culture


For our own convenience, we like to think of the past as a foreign land. That way the present can be a blank slate, like ourselves, just waiting for whatever drama we brew up in our own minds to imprint upon it.

In reality, past dictates present because history shows us the problems that arose and how we responded to them. We keep applying those methods until contradicted by another thread of history. (We could instead have wise leaders who would avoid this quasi-dialectic cycle, but that offends the proles).

The United States still fights the Civil War in its policy of today. In the Civil War, a strong federal government affirmed the “one size fits all” policy by using fear of race hatred as an excuse for its seizure of power. Even one and a half centuries later the ideals of our elites conform to what was needed in that civil war, and in any new situation we apply that old template. When Hitler popped up, it was only too easy to style him as the new Simon Legree.

To show that you have allegiance to the Union, you must recite that white people are bad, racial equality is good, diversity can work and the only way to make it work is to enforce equality by penalizing white people and transferring that money, power and prestige to non-white people. Notice I did not say “blacks.” We have expanded our diversity mandate; the liberal response to troubles in the black community is to replace them with Asiatics, including Hispanic indios who are Siberian in descent.

Europe on the other hand still fights the Napoleonic wars, which were where liberalism — the philosophy of the Revolution — really gained control by threatening all of Europe. To show that you have allegiance to Napoleon, you must recite that you support liberty-equality-fraternity for all, which means everyone can show up here and, if they pledge allegiance to Napoleon, can be part of the grand Republic. Ideology is more important than nationality. In fact, only ideology matters, because it is what the Revolution will use to replace culture, heritage, customs, traditions, religion, marriage, and everything else of an organic nature. Swear to the artificial, alien and manipulative ideology — give in to the virus — and you will be on your way to success.

The goal in both these cases is to make the state the guardian of morality, which ideology absorbs and replaces, and to war against all exceptions. Those who are not infected must be infected and if they resist, they are enemies who must be destroyed. Only those who are infected are safe because they will not resist the power of the government, which administers the will of the People, who are the dictators of the modern time. That they rule by vote and not fiat makes no difference.

What most people do not understand about proleocracy is how patriotic it is. You do not swear allegiance to a people, but to a flag and a political concept behind it. Since politics is a belief system that influences all other belief, this includes views on everything from economics to sex to religion. Proleocracy requires people to be patriotic by reciting the terms that show they have been infected. This makes it easy to see who the enemies are. In our society, the most patriotic people are liberals. For them, the crusade to achieve the goals of government is not just a good idea, but a lifestyle. They may not fly the flag but they do not have to, because by their rabid insistence on equality in every situation, they show their obedience.

Government-based society proves troubling because it is a logical puzzle. Those of us who come from culture do not understand it because it is an anti-culture, which means that it does not have any positive goals only negative ones. “Freedom” for example means the absence of something, not something in itself. You do not run a race for freedom; you run a race to win. Anti-cultures benefit from their inner emptiness because it gives people nothing to do except mob together against all that is not liberal.

You can see the problem with this approach in microcosm if you have ever seen a family or company fail. They become self-referential, and replace deference to reality with deference to ideals which, because they are created to manipulate and not reflect learning, are inherently anti-reality. You cannot have people show they are infected by telling you anything that is true. They must repeat a lie — “2+2=5″ from 1984 — to indicate their obedience. When a company has its own internal culture that denies reality, like Apple in the early 1980s, it quickly becomes anti-reality in addition to anti-culture.

We are at that stage in the West right now. The Soviets used an accelerated version of Revolutionary ideology called Communism and also ruled over 95 average IQ illiterate Eurasian peasants known to history as “slav” because they were the original slave population of Europe and Asia. Their society became self-referential. This meant that even doing the most logical things ensured failure because the precepts — basic assumptions upon which all thinking was based — contained tainted data. The people infected themselves to succeed on an individual basis, chased an ideology of collective subsidy on an individual basis, and failed as a group.

Conservatives in the West need to wake up and smell the coffee. Ideology will never yield. It will compromise because winning by inches is easier than winning by miles. It will hide its real motivation behind wars on poverty, saving the poor African-Americans, and “Je Suis Charlie.” Its goal is total control and exclusion of those who are not infected. You will have to fight it on its own terms by seizing power not locally but federally and dismantling its laws and allowing us to discriminate against the infected and thus exclude it from our lives. There is no escape from the need for a king, leader and strong national culture.