Posts Tagged ‘Culture’

Time Is The Real Zero-Sum Game

Monday, December 4th, 2017

In any task, you will find yourself asking who “da real MVP” is, meaning the person without whom it would not have happened. When we look at decisions made about our future as a civilization, we have to figure out what the bottom line is: what of the many factors involved will draw the line between victory and defeat?

Any sensible analysis will say that the MVP here is time. Ordinary citizens exist in a kind of time-loop where they make decisions about very similar things, day in and day out. For them, a missed opportunity means a need to correct it with the next very similar decision. Life however operates on higher stakes at the civilization level.

Think of it in terms of your birthdays as a child. You can have only one birthday per year, and only one party, and therefore, only one type of cake. You choose lemon, or vanilla, chocolate, or cherry, and that is it. You do not get repeats; you cannot go back and do-over your sixth birthday. The same is true of civilization.

This means that time is the most valuable player because our decisions are a zero-sum game. To choose one thing is to exclude all of the others; to fail to actively select an option is to choose entropy. This means that we are not choosing from a perspective of the present time, but from that of the future. We are choosing our future.

With that in mind, our matrix of decision-making changes. We are no longer looking for threats to what exists as we have it now, but choosing which elements available to us now that will make the future we desire. What we choose will become our future, even if it is not a threat now.

When discussing diversity, many people say things like, “I don’t mind having a Japanese neighbor, because they are high intelligence and considerate.” But do you want to be replaced by Japanese people? To be a society of half- or a quarter-Japanese people? We will no longer be Western Europeans, but a new hybrid group.

People tend to focus on what they see as negatives with other groups. They will talk about crime, average IQ, laziness, resentment, or welfare use. These are disadvantages to having people among us, but can be overcome. What cannot be overcome is that these people will then replace us, and that diversity never works because our group will be in conflict with any other group dwelling among us.

To talk about another group in terms of its bad impact on the status quo requires that we think in negative terms. When we say that a group “fits in” and “does not cause trouble,” we are not thinking of the future, but the present. Our failure to extrapolate to the next stage reflects a lack of faith, hope, and attention to the future.

On the other hand, if we think in positive terms, we will simply ask, “Are these the basis of the civilization we need to be?” Even after our lives, our children and those of our friends and family will live on. Do they want to live on as Japanese hybrids? Once the ancestral connection to a culture is lost, it quickly evaporates too.

Modern people cannot get their heads outside of the mental ghetto imposed by equality, so they assume that culture is like government regulations, a series of rules and procedures which are written down and whoever follows them is getting the job done. In this view, as long as we brainwash random warm bodies into doing things our way, our civilization in theory continues to exist.

In actuality, culture is genetic, as history shows us. Only the group that produces the culture can understand it. They are genetically shaped by it, and it was designed for who they instinctively are, and so they are the only ones who can produce it. Western Civilization requires Western European people.

You can see the negative analysis in the wild in statements of patriotism and loyalty to ideology like this vapidity:

Proudly, we are composed of all kinds of people. People who have different heritages and religions. Though at times we have a cause – like WWII – or a hate – terrorism – that can bind us, it is not something that can last forever.

There must be something deeper, and everlasting, something that all citizens can feel and touch in perpetuity.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is patriotism and nationalism. In other words, the love and affection for one’s country and one’s fellow citizens.

Never mind that they have confused patriotism for nationalism, a common mistake in egalitarian societies, because they cannot face the ethnic and racial roots of culture.

These people are as indoctrinated as any Communist, Fascist or National Socialist. To them, civilization is a means to an end, and that goal is these abstract ideas. They assume that every person who reads the same words on a piece of paper comes away with the same interpretation, and that therefore they live on through their obedience to the rules.

In reality, you only live on if you live on genetically. Anything else means that you pass along your notes for the kids in your class next year, and they fit them to their understanding. If this class consists of radically different people, they will have a different interpretation, and everything you do will fail.

Think about how many civilizations across the third world have adopted Western methods like democracy, constitutions, capitalism, Christianity, and suburban living. Those implementations never look quite like ours, and their results have not been as good. Each society has an order which fits it because genetics is the origin of behavior and values.

You can only make one choice for the future of your civilization. The question is not what fears you have about others, but whether they can be you and your ancestors. If they are from a different tribe, they cannot, and they will replace you, whether by you taking on a Japanese wife, your kids having families with people who are 1/32 Asian or Black, or by the gradual process of outbreeding.

Tyrants — leaders who are concerned only with their own power and view their civilization as a means to that end — bring foreigners here because they know that people are dumb when they are young, and whatever they are sexually attracted to, they marry. Those children no longer have the genetic profile of the original culture, and so it is erased and replaced by the ideology the tyrant uses to justify his continued power.

We know what it is like to be a hybrid. Look at South America, Eastern Europe, India, Southern Europe, or Ireland. The group never attains the greatness of the original Western Civilization, and it forms a civilization that is rather exotic and more like its admixture, even if only in traces.

Still think that Japanese, Korean, Jewish, Greek, Italian, Irish, or Polish wife is a good idea? You are breaking down your genetic profile and replacing it with something that can never be the original. You are genetically erasing yourself, and with that, destroying your culture, even if your laws and economic system live on.

As the old saying goes, “Which way, Western man?” If we deserve to live, we have to realize that time is a zero-sum game and that therefore, we can make only one choice: we must defend ourselves and exclude all others, even if they do not cause problems, or are nice and well-mannered and love our educational systems.

It does not matter whether you replace yourselves with Nigerians or Japanese. Any diversity is the end of your people. If you think your people deserve to live, and want Western Civilization to exist, you have to exclude all racial and ethnic diversity, and choose a future that is exclusively Western European.


Monday, May 1st, 2017

Finally, the mainstream press has moved away from the racism/anti-racism dichotomy to understand, as Michel Houellebecq and Fred Nietzsche did years ago, that the problem of diversity is but one symptom of the great problem of civilization downfall:

Europe is committing suicide. Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide. Whether the European people choose to go along with this is, naturally, another matter. When I say that Europe is in the process of killing itself, I do not mean that the burden of European Commission regulation has become overbearing or that the European Convention on Human Rights has not done enough to satisfy the demands of a particular community.

I mean that the civilisation we know as Europe is in the process of committing suicide and that neither Britain nor any other western

European country can avoid that fate, because we all appear to suffer from the same symptoms and maladies.
As a result, by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home.

None of the above will be shocking to Amerika readers, who have realized for some time that our problem is civilization collapse from lack of internal social order, specifically from a lack of aristocratic hierarchy, and that the only solution is to restore Western Civilization by emulating ecosystems in our human designs.

The article goes on to point out that decay has no single source, but it is manifested in two simultaneous issues:

There is no single cause of the present sickness. The culture produced by the tributaries of Judaeo-Christian culture, the ancient Greeks and Romans, and the discoveries of the Enlightenment has not been levelled by nothing. But the final act has come about because of two simultaneous concatenations — sets of linked events — from which it is now all but impossible to recover.

The first is the mass movement of peoples into Europe…The result was that what had been Europe — the home of the European peoples — gradually became a home for the entire world. The places that had been European gradually became somewhere else.

…Which brings me to the second concatenation. For even the mass movement of millions of people into Europe would not sound such a final note for the continent were it not for the fact that (coincidentally or otherwise) at the same time Europe lost faith in its beliefs, traditions and legitimacy.

He sensibly mentions “guilt for the past,” referring to the toxic brew of guilt for colonialism, the KKK, Hitler, removing travelers from your front lawn, class inequality and having invented more stuff than anyone else that afflicts European-descended peoples like a brain-control virus.

Unfortunately, the author then cucks and declares that European-ness is not genetic (“about race”) but is based in our values. This then becomes a version of the traditional cuck conservative argument for patriotism to our Leftist governments, following the religion of Christianity despite its inability to defend us, and “working hard” to be an equal worker who pays taxes for those social programs that seem very popular until it is time to cough up the money to keep them going.

He has hit on the classic partial truth. This is a modern trope where one detail of a complex situation becomes a symbol for the whole. We have self-help books about how to use carrots to cure your life of all its ills. Surely a well-balanced diet involves carrots, but carrots are not “the” solution. They are part of it.

In the same way, this author substitutes a part of the answer for the whole answer. This means we never reach the whole answer, and it is why his article ultimately fails, despite having hit on some important truths. The whole answer requires us to look at what it means to be European.

If we look at Europeans through their genetics, we see that Europeans are a consistent group, meaning that they have preserved their genetic identity over time. This means that, like every other group on earth, Europeans are defined not by values only but by the intersection of culture, heritage and identity.

Were this author to apply his solution to other groups, we would see if for how ludicrous it is. How could Japan remain Japanese if we shipped a hundred million Russians there? Would Israel remain Jewish if we relocated the population of Syria there? How African would Zimbabwe be if we relocated the population of a full Chinese province to Zimbabwe?

Obviously, replacing the population breaks that genetic line, and at this point, the population ceases to be and is replaced by the new mixed population. The problem with this is that values systems are genetic and so, by replacing the genetics, one destroys the value system.

You can compare this process to what happens in fast-food joints. An ethnic food is put into the hands of another group; they adapt it to their needs, adding sugar and salt and different oils, and soon it fits their needs instead of those of the original group. This is fine if you are importing the food to another country, but not in the native land. Something is destroyed.

Denial of this fact leads to hopelessness because most thinking people recognize at a gut level that when the genetics of a population are adulterated, that population vanishes. This is part of the pathology that is causing Europeans to give up and stop reproducing:

European civilisation is dying. It is dying in plain sight and almost nobody is talking about it. No, our civilisation is not succumbing to onslaught from an external foe. But we seem to be suffering from a pernicious anaemia of the spirit that drags us down from inside. There are many symptoms of this decline but the most deadly is that we are losing the will to breed. Birth rates in all 28 EU countries are now below replacement rates and all indigenous populations are in decline.

What greater sign could there be that our civilisation is dying than the fact that the majority of Europeans have insufficient zest in life to replace themselves? Civilisation can struggle on even in difficult circumstances, but it can hardly survive without people.

Without European-descended people, Europe ceases to exist. We can take a bun, put a salty chunk of fatty meat on it, squirt ketchup (originally from India) and mustard (a German creation) onto it, and call it a McEurope, but it will not be Europe. It will be an inferior substitute.

European hopelessness has many sources. On this front, the Left has taken the lead: our lifestyle is killing us. We are miserable in our cubicle jobs, exhausted by social pretense that requires we pretend to like and approve of idiots and idiocy, and worn down by the endless guilt-propaganda in music, video and art.

Even more, we live in wholly unnatural ways. Our food is over-processed, we do not walk enough, our communities are hostile and covered in ugly advertising, and people are generally so neurotic and unstable that we prefer to avoid them. We have become prisoners in our homes, shuttling between work and shops, then retreating for that glorious moment of locking the door and sealing out the world.

If Europeans are not breeding, it is because they are miserable, and this misery arises from hopelessness. None of us believe the system can ever change. If one good candidate gets elected, this person will be destroyed by the entrenched interests that are vested in not changing the system at all. Even if they survive, one candidate cannot single-handedly un-do decades if not centuries of bad decisions.

Worse still, it seems to us that most of our people support the insanity. Hollow-eyed from lack of sleep in our noisy cities, inundated in propaganda, they repeat dogma like zombies. They do this in order to keep the social position they have already learned. For them, to admit the system has failed is to admit personal defeat, and then they will lose out. So they keep going through the motions.

This has created a situation where we have no culture, only ideology. When television is our only shared culture, we have died as nations, and this encourages the hopelessness that has us not breeding and acting in self-destructive ways:

But the TV industry’s nostalgia quest is “bigger than it was even 10 years ago,” says Rob Sharenow, executive vice president and general manager of A&E and Lifetime. “We live in a fractured culture where there are very few moments of unity and focus. These anniversaries give us a way to compare shared experience and remember.”

Emphasis mine.

The obvious and yet ignored subtext is that a nation of diverse ethnicities and values shares nothing but experiences, not understanding of experiences, so to maintain the appearance of unity we must revisit those shared experiences, but we will still be isolated in our understanding and perception.

Diversity doesn’t work but entertainment media will work hard to use that fact to get ratings for programming that creates the false illusion that we can all get along. We are sheep, controlled by the dumb things we voted for long ago, ushered down a path to doom by oblivious leaders, and with nothing in common that could adulterate our hopelessness.

It is not surprising that, in this situation, any population would cease to breed and start wishing for the end. We have been living without hope for too long, and see no way out.


Friday, February 17th, 2017

The root of civilization is organization, and the root of organization is understanding human psychology, including the pathologies into which people can fall that in groups become runaway trends, manias and panics.

Swarms are a manifestation of one of these contra-civilizational tendencies. Humans are by nature egregious and social. In fact we even have ideologies called “Socialism” based on a social approach to the realities of groups, nations, folk and tribes.

While “swarming” together has demonstrated a tremendous force-multiplier effect such as with armies, negatives such with crime families, dark organizations and even societal decay have prompted people to investigate dark groups and even write novels using swarms in titles.

While the term “swarm” feels like a headless human horde (which it could be), some indications already point to the alternative of good or bad leaders, where weak leaders can lead the strong. In fact, it points to how it is possible that a small “weak” group can dominate a much larger “strong” group from within.

Swarms, as a form of dark organization, are generally not mentioned in a cultural context. A good starting point can be found in a webinar on Hofstede Multi-Focus Model and Organizational Culture.

In Hofstede’s mind there exist National, Organizational and Sub-Organizational cultures. For example he does not define a global culture or indeed “other” cultures outside of organizations. The assumption therefore is that everybody is organized. The model distinguishes National Cultures by the following traits:

  1. (Outer layer) Symbols in organizations
  2. Heroes in organizations
  3. Rituals in organizations
  4. (Center layer) Values of society in Nations (consisting of those various organizations)

Therefore, National cultures are mostly about differences in values/principles, while its internal instituations focus on practices/methods enabled by its symbols, heroes and rituals. The two can be distinguished using the following eight dimensional multi-focus model, of which the first six methods relate to internal organizations, with National cultures adding the last two as well:

  1. Effectiveness
  2. Customer orientation
  3. Control
  4. Focus/social control
  5. Approachability
  6. Management philosophy
  7. Identification with own organization
  8. Leadership acceptance

The Hofstede Centre may or may not agree with my viewpoints as described here. I merely argue towards a possible cultural understanding of the swarm. The deduction is made herewith that National “value differences” must be absorbed within the senior layer of an organization. This connects with another company  that promotes value-based performance management as an internal organizational performance measurement practice.

National cultures are one type of organization, but within them, the methods-driven institutions can adopt swarm culture as expressed in the paper “Culture, self-organization and swarm intelligence.”  The introduction describes the efforts as follows:

This seminar examines current theories, research, applications and interventions associated with emerging “evolutionary” (as opposed to “rational”) models of optimization strategies presented by work in biology, evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms, engineering, the social/behavioral sciences and business involving the related fields of self-organization in biological systems and swarm intelligence.

But in the very next sentence it states:

Particular emphasis is on the implications of this work for culture and the role of communication in dealing with diversity in the completion of collaborative tasks.

This reveals a paradox: on top of a fully logical analysis of swarms, a new value called “diversity” is layered as if our civilization had already been taken over by a swarm. The research assumes that our institutions have conquered our National organization, or culture, through the process of swarming.

By nature, swarms are not diverse. A swarm of bees, or flying geese or even a human organization such as Black Lives Matter are each examples of swarms. Technological swarms like military UAVs consist of hundreds of small units that are identical. This is why the biological metaphor uses an apian term, “drone,” for these types of units.

Instead it is argued that swarms could be diverse, at least in the context of a business organization where employees who do not perform can be fired. This implies that the organization does not necessarily adopt or internalize the national culture, having its own based not on values, but on methods, including value-based performance management.

This reveals to us the nature of organizations as enclosures of one another. Organizational culture cannot work upwards to include national culture, in the same way national culture cannot work downwards by using its values to determine organizational methods and practices.

That in turn shows us the risk of swarms: a swarm is a dangerous entity because it does not have a culture and adheres to no culture. It appears to be merely “droning on,” operating like any other human tool according to a linear function that acts like an agenda of its own, unless carefully controlled by a force like the ability to fire employees.

The science fiction book Ender’s Game describes a war between earth and a race of insectoid aliens who attack using swarm strategies. Since the ants were overpowering in numbers, soldiers had to adopt innovative schemes to engage them. The only solution was to exterminate the source of the swarm, its queen.

Human swarms are comprised of those that have no culture. Some people described them in the past as “hordes,” such as barbarian hordes, which prompts a distinction between high and low cultures. This situation is not described by Hofstede, but his analysis can apply to it, in that we see low cultures have only six of the eight attributes of organizations that he describes.

In terms of human cultures, we might surmise that “high” and “low” refer to degrees of organization, with diverse cultures being inherently disorganized through lack of common purpose to their members. This is why they require the enforcement the workplace provides, but if created outside of that model, act more like natural swarms with out of control replication ending in collapse.

We tend to forget the cultural aspect in our charge towards technology or diversity or globalism, which may result in all of us losing our cultures, thereby becoming “drones” of the “hordes.” Culture is what keeps our organizations operating at the level of National culture, and when we lose it — a consequence of diversity — we turn nations into institutions in search of a purpose.

Perhaps this posits a future where some have higher-level organization and exist in structured organization, and are opposed by the rest, who exist in low-organization swarms. These drones do anything that their sensors observe; this means that engaging them directly (even innovatively) is meaningless. The only victory comes by totally “blinding” them and then, destroying the entire swarm.

Soft Genocide

Saturday, February 4th, 2017

Diversity, or the policy of putting different ethnic groups with their different self-interest vectors into the same group, is a type of genocide, albeit a “soft” or legislative and slow-moving variety:

The United Nations (UN) defines genocide as:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.1

Diversity “inflicts on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.” When different ethnic or religious groups have been placed nearby, they have fought each other in a pattern that has been consistent since the dawn of time. Then, as we can see by observing the remains later, the two groups assimilate each other, and in the process lose what made them unique. These leftover groups never attain the characteristics of the original groups and generally fade away, like the ruins of a once-great civilization. This is what our leaders have in store for us.

Our leaders want this because it will make us easy to control. When religion, race and culture are out of the way, they can have a grey tribe with no values in common, which makes it easy to sell products to or manipulate with political ideology. They are the perfect consumers and perfect voters because they have no higher allegiances — like culture, heritage or belief — that conflicts with the government propaganda and advertising. As the Greek philosopher, Plato, wrote 2400 years ago:

And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more satellites and the greater devotion in them will he require?

And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them?

They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if lie pays them.

By the dog! I said, here are more drones, of every sort and from every land.2

Those who rule over us are using the same strategy as the tyrant Plato describes: import new people from former colonies, or satellites, and use them to displace the existing population. This new population is chosen because it can be bribed with benefits, sometimes called “welfare” or “socialism,” and it will then always support the tyrant. The problem is, as Plato notes, that it requires bringing in foreign people from many lands. This effectively destroys the ability of a society to have any rules of its own, and through time and interbreeding, it is replaced by a new population.

In the meantime, the invisible rules which one made society livable, called “culture,” have been removed. You cannot have culture when the population is made up of people who did not grow up under this culture, and evolved in their own lands to have different cultures. Culture is in the blood because to succeed in a society, you must be compatible with its culture. After a few generations, only those who took to the culture naturally remain.

The loss of culture through loss of heritage makes society paranoid. People no longer trust each other, and for that reason, they no longer invest effort into the shared future that is our society. As Robert Putnam found:

New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.3

Add it up, and you can see that diversity destroys society. It does not matter which groups are involved and it is not their fault. Diversity destroys any society no matter which groups are involved. So if you think this is about a “bad” religion, ethnic group or race, you have missed the point. The point is that diversity will destroy us because it is genocide of all of our populations.

Like all egalitarian programs, its goal is to destroy those who might rise above the rest. This is the resentful and hence vengeful nature of a crowd of people, which is to scapegoat those who do not share its problems for its problems, allowing it to feel more comfortable with its own degree of mediocrity.

With soft genocide, those who wish to destroy populations have a new weapon: passive aggression. They can avoid direct action, but by offering up their insane ideas as normal and then reacting defensively, as if attacked, when others recoil from the insanity, they can use social guilt to manipulate those others into accepting the insanity.

The only solution is to articulate what is sane and insane, avoiding the emotionality of both hate groups and anti-discrimination groups, and instead to point ourselves toward the solutions that work for every group in every age, starting with a removal of diversity and a focus on excellence instead of scapegoating.

Quick Study Guide For The Alt Right

Friday, November 11th, 2016


After Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton mentioned the “alt right” as part of her “basket of deplorables,” interest surged in the political movement named the “alternative Right” or “Alt Right.” Unfortunately, it proves difficult to define, especially for those emerging from the haze of modern liberalism.

The Alt Right is the realist Right-wing that, unlike the public right-wing, speaks taboo truths. We cannot talk about differences between social classes, races, ethnic groups, genders and individuals. That offends our egalitarian pretense that we adopted with The Enlightenment.™

In addition, there is an “underground right” which has been dominated by a single issue, racial nationalism, which both ignores ethnic nationalism which is the traditional domain of nationalism, and sidesteps all the other issues necessary to address in order to have a functional civilization.

The best way to understand the alt right is to see that our society has gone insane following a pretense, egalitarianism, and that this has made it socially unacceptable to notice certain truths as well as the failures of egalitarian society. “Noticing” is the sin of our time.

The alt right has risen to speak the plain realist truth: our civilization is declining, and egalitarianism is both a partial cause and the opposite of a solution, so we need to shatter the taboo line and start talking realistically about things again as we were able to before the World Wars.

Leftism has been steadily taking over Western civilization since the French Revolution, and during that time, our technology has increased, but everything else has declined. The cause is not capitalism, climate change or inequality, but that Leftist does not work.

For this reason, the alt right has risen up to speak the plain truth and avoid the political pretense. The alt right has several general tenets which can be summarized as:

  • Ethnic nationalism

  • Distrust of egalitarianism and socialism

  • Hierarchy

  • Culture enforcing standards instead of government

  • Gender differences and complementary roles

  • Need for some transcendental goal beyond materialism

These are concepts so foreign to the modern citizen that these people react as if they had seen a UFO when these concepts are mentioned. This gives us a clue that these are not forgotten ideas, but denied ideas, and the only way to shatter denial is to break the taboo line as the alt right attempts to.

Nativists Were Right All Along

Friday, November 4th, 2016


Over at VDARE, a reader writes in with a critique of anti-nativist sentiments by Cardinal [[[ Dolan ]]] and Archbishop [[[ Cupich ]]]:

Having been trained as an historian I find allegations of “nativism” lacking in depth and accuracy. Ignored, in what can only be termed “vincible ignorance,” are the disastrous consequences of large-scale 19th Century immigration.

Overcrowded, disease infested, crime ridden slums, pressure on municipal water and sewer systems, corrupt machine politics, exploitation of immigrants by their own kind, were all products of cities overwhelmed by immigration. Are we to tolerate those conditions once again?

Dolan, whose roots are in Ireland, and Cupich, whose are in Yugoslavia, have good reason to oppose Nativism: those of us who are Nativists would send them back to their ethnic homelands. Nativism is the belief that a country should be populated only by those who are ethnically and culturally members of its founding group.

In the case of the USA, the founding group is Western Europeans: English, Dutch, German, Scots and Scandinavians. Those who came from other nations were of this heritage, even if their residence had been in places like, say, Ireland, because they owned property or served administrative roles there.

The quoted analysis misses the vital point that Nativists make: a society can only define standards when all of its members are heading in the same direction, which because genetics point to inclination, means of the same ethnic group. In addition, they must uphold that culture, or they are ethnic in name only, having become genetically broken or otherwise rejecting the behaviors of their heritage group.

This gets us past a discussion of whether the Irish (for example) are good or bad. They are what they are. The point is that mixing the Irish with any other group causes social breakdown. In addition to that, if any other group shows up, the resulting racial admixture will erase what the Irish are. This has happened before in history, and is why great empires tend to leave behind mixed-race groups that do not attain the potential of the original group.

Diversity does not work. This is not the fault of the groups involved. If you moved Chinese people into a high-performing African nation, and they do exist although only as parts of modern-day nation-states, the performance would vanish and be replaced by social chaos. The inverse is also true, or if you shipped the Irish to Africa.

1924’s National Origins Act reined in immigration with quotas favoring northern Europe from whence the majority population had come. It preserved the culture of the country and allowed immigrants to assimilate (before World War One started, many went back to the old country). Rising wages was one if its beneficial components.

As usual, democracy specializes in slamming the barn door extra hard after the horse reaches the neighboring county. The National Origins Act was a backlash against the feeling of creeping insecurity, loss of moral standards, and spiraling social disorder in the “diverse” communities of the day.

A Nativist would have sent the newcomers back home, repatriated Africans to Africa, and sent the Indians back to Siberia. Preservation of civilization requires this kind of Iron Law: no diversity, not even one drop. We can trade ideas with other cultures, and be friendly with them, as long as we all stay within our own borders.

The National Origins act was repealed in 1965 because Democrats were losing the white vote. Importing from failed third world cultures of the padrone and the peon was a ticket to permanent power: give aliens benefits and get votes. Encouraging illegal immigration is part and parcel of this movement, as President Obama’s present push to give aliens citizenship again proves.

In other words, the Left looked back in history and saw how well the Irish had served as voters for the Left during the early years. Why is this? Any immigrant group will be conscious of its origins as not of the founding group, and in order to act in self-interest, will seek to abolish the standards, values and culture of that founding group, eventually trying to abolish the group itself through outbreeding, or “silent genocide.” Only then will the non-majority group be free from competition with the values of the founding group.

And again, history repeats itself:

The Latin lobbies are not interested in assimilation but in taking over and pushing out the hated “Anglo” as La Raza (and the Mexican government) has made amply clear.

The letter writer, “Spirit of the Fighting 69th,” is correct in all that he asserts, but needs to go further. We can only exist here in America as a Western European nation both culturally and — in violation of the Leftist idea of equality — ethnically, or genetically. Race matters; in fact, it is the core of civilization.

Populace and Populism

Wednesday, September 14th, 2016


As the world population grows, interactions between “peoples” explode to the point of chaos.

One can only imagine the panic of a Somalian Warlord as he gets confronted by increasing demands for food and American Dollars from his subjects. So he sends them to the Zulu King who has exactly the same problem and chases those excess peoples as migrants to Europe. In Europe, having a different organizational dispensation called civilization, the Church quickly adopts them and under United Nations charter, promptly sends them to America, the country of food and USD opportunity.

Everybody is happy.

Viewed from space, it appears the uncivilized organizations knows exactly what their limits are while the civilized organization will for some rhyme or reason self-destruct voluntarily. It is time for the astronauts to re-enter earth’s atmosphere and fly back to Houston so they can tell them in person exactly what the problem is.

It is population, therefore we are the problem; forget about space and climate. To be more specific, human organization is the problem. In that sense, we should identify organizations as “civilized” or “uncivilized.” No, not first or third world or the rich or poor worlds with black or white, but to focus on what is civil or uncivil.

Why are civilized organizations outward focused and the uncivilized organizations inward focused? Inward focused organizations control their employees (or populations such as China) and civil organizations welcome any and all migrants even when their own citizens don’t have work such as America.

In a burst of arrogance and hubris, the West declared a “New World Order” in 1991 where this “world” only applied to the Western hemisphere. This showed a false division between civilized and uncivilized: populations from Africa and the East outperform the West by far. In modern terms, the “West” is actually a minority without any status or privilege. It is basically a shell taken over by a crab. The shell is the Washington Uni-party, while the crab is Saudi – Islam. Some called this the greatest geo-political feat ever achieved. But the crab controls its population while the shell does not, having voluntarily embedded the seeds of its own uncivil demise.

Now the question emerges: How does one control civilized people?

In civil societies people (mostly) have the capacity to control themselves but this increases their vulnerability to uncivil behavior, thereby requiring limited organizational control.  For example, the Democratic Party wants a big government to hand-out free stuff to uncivil tax-eaters, while the Republican Party wants limited government because it encourages civilized tax-payers.

Populations can be controlled, but in civilized organizations, they can control themselves as well.  Whoever controls a civil populace has a much more difficult problem, in the sense that it requires more intelligent solutions than just free bread and medicine. It is also required to reduce the vulnerability of the civilized populace (because they can’t do it themselves). One example of how vulnerabilities can be reduced is to ensure that immigrants are civilized.

It is incumbent on a civilization to ensure its own civility at any cost, because otherwise the populace becomes uncivilized and its prospects for social order decline.

A civil society consists of a populace that desires civilization, or where the populace would find civility popular. This means that each individual will strive towards exuding civility finding it virtually attractive. This might not be the case today. So, is civility supported by the organization? Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case as well.

Despite this negative reality, let’s just assume that civilization wants to be civil. This means the populace and its organizations want to be civil, then the next question is what populism is. This is a term that proposes a chasm between the ruling and the working class where it would be popular for the working class not to support the current rulers, in favor of a “popular” ruler.

This would be deemed negative by current rulers meaning that they will not allow succession to a more popular leader unless forced.  The popular leader will never have a soft landing in Government which means that he/she will have to fight the establishment. But since the establishment is not civil, the popular leader will have to become uncivil. This leads to the conundrum of trying to be an intelligent “populist” as well as an unintelligent “populist.”

In addition to being popular to a civil (and uncivil) populace, the “populist” will have to become popular to organizations currently corrupted by the establishment, such as the Pentagon understating ISIS reports, or academia subverting civility.

Being a populist is undoubtedly different in a civilized vs uncivilized dispensation. But what most people miss is that organizations are forgotten in the populace – populist equation, to their own detriment. The real populist therefore is an intelligent, civil person running a limited Government focused on reducing civil vulnerabilities of its organizations and its populace.

The unreal populist is an uncivilized Mugabe, Mandela, Gaddafi, Sadam etc.

The rest will happen by itself whether it’s a monarchy or any organization the populist (leaders, not donors) puts in place. But history actually provides Americans with some guidance too. However, since the Main Stream Media is only a recent emergence, separate focus needs to be applied in its negative roll of uncivil propaganda. On the other hand, civilized media are on the rise and need to be organizationally supported (at all cost).

Cultural Relativism

Thursday, September 8th, 2016


From the occasionally-profound Lindy West, an analysis of our knee-jerk cultural relativist reaction and where it breaks down:

Babies stirs up a shade of white guilt that’s awkward to acknowledge but even more awkward to ignore. Watching the film, hopping back and forth between wildly disparate cultures, one thought is constant: Which baby would I like to be? Where would I like to raise my baby? Which baby is best? After the screening, a friend came up to me and announced—thrilled, unsolicited—that SHE would be the NAMIBIAN baby. Certainly not the Tokyo baby (it’s too crowded there). Certainly not the white baby. Here’s the thing. No you wouldn’t. I’m sorry, but you would be the white baby. The Namibian baby (though it is the cutest!) sits in a pile of red dirt all day and plays with a bone. Once in a while, a goat comes by and steps on it. Like the other babies, it is lovin’ life, it is healthy and deeply cared for, but we can see its future right there on the screen: It will grow up, it will sit in a pile of red dirt all day and care for its baby, and once in a while a goat will come by and step on it. Which is, of course, fine. Whatever. But you, middle-class white lady from Seattle, would be the goddamn American baby and you know it, because as much as you want me to know about your superliberal cultural relativism, you cannot live outside of it. You would rather eat hamburgers and go to college and know who Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is than enjoy whatever noble simplicity supposedly exists in that pile of dirt. Not because it’s better but because it’s true.

Cultural relativism occurs when we are comparing cultures, and out of a sense of fair play or fear of being seen as a critic, we equalize them, which requires putting an undue emphasis on the superlatives of whichever culture is obviously at a disadvantage.

This is why white liberals detonate into paroxysms of virtue signaling whenever presented with something that is obviously less thriving. They invert the meaning of “good” so that they can make the bad equal, which has always been the point of egalitarianism: it appeals to the individual ego by promising to neuter society so that it cannot notice the bad things that this individual does, has done or might do.

At the same time, cultural relativism is not very comforting. For one thing, the superlatives indicate which culture is having trouble, which comes across as even more bigoted than simply stating the obvious. Calling a group of people savages is one thing, but damning them with effusive praise that implies that they are both (1) savages and (2) too primitive to know when they are being conned, is even worse.

Unfortunately, Lindy West came to a sticky end. She was unable to escape liberalism and ended up a neo-SJW.

Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations by Geert Hofstede

Thursday, September 8th, 2016


Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations
by Geert Hofstede
616 pages, SAGE, 2003

The realism emerging today with the Dark Enlightenment and Alt-Right is a refreshing breeze sweeping across the organized western world. It provides many answers as to why the New World Order is collapsing and from my perspective, why fatalities are on the increase.

From a functional safety perspective the spiraling, evolutionary progression towards a safer organization is as follows: “Culture improves safety, improving productivity, which improves competitiveness.”

However, politics and economics can affect this progression in positive or negative manners. One negative manner is the natural ability of organizations to defend them, such as by going dark. This actually means that the “culture” of that organization changes from “growth” to “plateau” curves for as long as it takes.

Therefore, if culture is negative, it means the end effect of competitiveness will also be negative. If everything is negative then the reality is that fatalities increase. The realism problem is not that mortality statistics change, but that it is uncontrolled or, chaotic.

The best social scientific book on culture appears to be from Geert Hofstede, publishing the landmark book Culture’s Consequences in 1980, with a second edition in 2001. He also wrote a shorter version in 1991 called Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. In the original 1980 preface he wrote:

The survival of mankind will depend to a large extent on the ability of people who think differently to act together.

The mistake made was to assume that “mankind” actually wants to survive. However, Hofstede did re-orient himself towards organizations in the second edition, although perhaps not far enough, but far enough to allow others to take it further in a multi-disciplinary way.

The core of his research can be taken from the book as follows:

At first four and later five main dimensions on which country cultures differ were revealed through theoretical reasoning and statistical analysis; they reflect basic problems that any society has to cope with but for which solutions differ.

  • Power distance (Chapter 3) is the extent to which less powerful members of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.

  • Uncertainty avoidance (Chapter 4) is the extent to which a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations.

  • Individualism and collectivism (Chapter 5) is the degree to which individuals are supposed to look after themselves or remain integrated into groups, usually around the family.

  • Masculinity and femininity (Chapter 6) refers to the distribution of emotional roles between genders (tough versus tender).

  • Long term versus short term orientation (second edition Chapter 7) refers to the extent to which culture programs its members to accept delayed gratification of their material, social and emotional needs.

These five dimensions were empirically verifiable, and each (of the 50) countries could be positioned somewhere between their poles. Moreover, the dimensions were statistically independent and occurred in all possible combinations.

Hofstede investigated culture and in this journey found various obstacles to his inquiry, which on its own requires the attention of realists, thus motivating serious investigation.

However, the path taken herewith relates to dual-cultural effects. In other words, what happens when a society in one country or employees in one organization has a wide variation on any specific dimension? For example, liberals may want to avoid uncertainty while conservatives revel in it, ending with the organization continuously fighting with itself. Take as exhibit the blue and red twitter picture which they actually mapped out. Another example is the individual versus collective dimension. This is more interesting because there can only be one set of laws and regulations. This point to how the integration between these two extremes may be a bit of a problem as exhibited by the South African experiences i.e. individualist legal control of a collective society has failed.

Running a “diverse” country requires a lot more (Western) rules than otherwise. This exacerbates the formalism problem where participants will always find a way out ending with too many rules (causing chaos) which makes South Africa the protest capital of the world. A lot more can be said about this, but the picture requiring clearing up at first, is that some people want more rules while others want less. Organizations will be the same meaning there are little movement allowed hence the inevitable desire to undermine or breakout, or even for creative destruction.

The end result of all this is that mortality will increase, if it has not already, despite the health industry being very successful (indeed).

But getting back to the dual cultural effect in the sense of dimensional splits inside organizations, it is quite noticeable that chasms are formed that limit communication between the two poles. In the South African case it has been called the “Vertical Integration Gap” by a very experienced economist and this gap was verified after (some) organizations adapted their structures and methodology against it. In the American case it may be identified as a “horizontal integration gap” where left and right can’t talk to one another (horizontally across the chasm).

This chasm may appear innocent at first, but its negative effects can progress quite quickly as was seen in South African Mines with the “dual production lines” i.e. institutionalized theft, as well as something that appear to be happening in America too, which is “political deaths.” These deaths are remarkable in the sense of “friendly fire” that it happens within its own organization i.e. the left kills the left or one party kills its own members to assert “power” (no less).

If realism is to become a political answer, then the ability of cultures to communicate that realism must be investigated and the one thing that is going to make that very difficult are the existing gaps in our societies caused by dimensional polarization.

This does not mean we are equal and should be all on the same spots in all dimensions, but we should know exactly where we are first (America First). What happens after that is unknown at this point and unfortunately liberals can undermine the future of reality precisely because it does not exist yet.

We just need to push through with typical stubborn creative destructiveness.

Religion And Realism Must Be In Balance

Tuesday, August 9th, 2016

From some of the more insightful Christian rightists, an article about cultural change leading to political change:

The most common way God judges is with the natural consequences of our choices and behavior. This is especially true in politics, which is mostly downstream from – and a reflection of – the broader culture. In other words, especially in our country, we tend to get the leaders we deserve. Which is why this November we should cast our vote with fear, trembling, weeping, praying for mercy, and maybe even while wearing sackcloth and ashes.

The first part makes good sense. Political change is an effect, and the cause is a change in consciousness of the natural leaders — people without political authority who are recognized in their communities for their leadership ability — in a society. It is not a shift in mass consciousness, but among those who lead by instinct, and others emulate them.

With this cultural change, political change can occur, because those who influence others now understand the issue a different way. This cultural change is also required for any restoration of religion, which also requires political change to protect it so that people experience no risk for abandoning the secular humanist outlook, and are also able to experience its rewards.

Religion and realism must be in balance. Some Christian rightists want a religious upheaval, but this will not happen without the groundwork being set in cultural and political change. Similarly, cultural and political change work best when kept in balance with a sense of purpose, which requires a goal, which requires an understanding of reality, including its metaphysical aspects.

Recommended Reading