The struggle of our time has become clear: realists, who want civilization, stand against ideologues, who want to rationalize the decline by directing our attention with the false metric of “progress,” which is essentially virtue signaling for social status.
Realists face a series of tough realizations. The first is how much recent politics was bungled; after that, the time scale and scope expands. Soon it becomes clear that our society has been afflicted with deep rot for many centuries.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is realizing that the decay runs deeper than politics. It has infested all aspects of life, including the “lifestyle” and daily experience of people, leading to existential misery. Worst of all of these realizations is the knowledge that modern society is a giant waste of time.
Most of what we do is completely unnecessary except that it allows individuals to claim they are important. Most products fail, but their launches allow ambitious little sociopaths to claim they are wizards, at least for long enough to get hired somewhere else. Most tasks at jobs are there to demonstrate the importance of the manager. Most red tape events involve bureaucrats asserting their power over you. Most social events are jockeying for positions in a hierarchy, and art, culture, literature and even friendship get used as means to that end.
In short, competition has created an infinite demand for ways to compete. As has been observed many times, every thing creates more of itself, and so when we make competition in specific areas part of our society, that takes over everything else. That we do it with money makes it mandatory that everyone join in and waste their time.
The average job could be done in a few hours a week, if we subtract out the activities done to demonstrate the importance of managers and employees, the red tape which solves no problems but creates work for everyone, the waiting around for people who are merely posing at being busy elsewhere, the pro forma meetings and emails. Jobs are mental spam for the most part, and they obscure the tasks which actually need doing.
Add to that the other great waste-of-time activities in modernity: returning the constant defective products, researching products to see which of the options are not corner cutting scams designed to get some idiot promoted to management somewhere, spending days or weeks filing paperwork which no one will see, arguing with self-important customer service representatives and waiting in line — endlessly — while someone in front struggles with understanding the simple nuances of the obvious solution to their avoidable problem.
Modern society is a trap. It will kill us off the same way every advanced civilization dies: it tolerates the stupid, who then gang up on the rest, take over and make a society designed for idiots. This exhausts the intelligent, who promptly die out, leaving the stupid in charge for a glorious generation or two before their corruption accrues and society plunges (slowly) into third-world status.
The intelligent are forced into a role by civilization that they feel obligates them to the rest. What this means in reality is that the smarter parts of our civilization are forced to babysit the rest. That group, essentially reckless proles hungry for power and wealth, is the most destructive force in any society, like a stomach that thinks it is a brain.
This exhausts the intelligent, and makes it easier for the proles to take over.
While this happens, those of mental ability are forced to either (1) stand against the ongoing decay and become marginalized, dying childless in small cabins in the woods or (2) rationalize the decline as good, make the right virtue signals and “succeed” despite it wasting all of their time and energy in the process of babysitting the insane and stupid herd.
Rationalization of a clearly sick and moribund society makes them crazy, and from these tormented souls we get our intellectuals and social elites. They tend to be corrupt because their minds are scrambled by having to accept the destruction of their civilization as a good thing, and to assuage their guilt, they tend to endorse ideas like “progress” and Utopia in order to avoid talking about the actual problem, the collapse of civilization, because it is hard to solve where Utopian plans are trivially easy.
The dying civilization of the West has tormented its intelligent people and driven them insane as they try to adapt to a world created for the crass tastes of the herd. They were aliens in their own society long before diversity, and now they are simply ghosts wandering among the others, with everyone waiting for them to die out so the prole party can kick into high gear.
As we come to grips with how utterly insane and corrupt our leaders have been for the past eight years, it is time to reflect on the fact that these acts did not occur in isolation. We The People voted for these idiots; we are the bigger idiots. But who is “we”? Our society has been hijacked by a mob which wants to destroy civilization and replace it with an endless carnival.
Until we start talking about that problem, we are merely putting band-aids on a sucking chest wound. Our civilization is dying. It has been dying for a long time, and its death will be a slow descend into third world chaos, crime, and corruption. The only way to fix it is to take power away from the proles, and restore it to the responsible people, which recent elections have indicated is a popular (enough) idea.
Whenever we have an election, the sneaking feeling arises that the issues are not the issues. It seems as if a smokescreen is being erected to hide something else. And inevitably, someone starts asserting that there is a difference between democracy and demagoguery.
Candidates are eager to assert that they are not demagogues, and that the other guy is. Leftists in this election have referred to Donald Trump as an unhinged demagogue, which might be an attack on him, or a defense of their own behaviors.
This leads to a deeper inspection of the word demagogue. A definition provides the basics, but this will require some unpacking and interpretation:
a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
In translation: democracy is where we offer “serious” plans to the people and they choose the right one; demagoguery is where their “emotions, passions and prejudices” are manipulated instead.
But functionally, is there a distinction?
It is a pleasant fiction that people can think. First, that there is some group called “people” who are all the same, or have even the same basic abilities. In a society where IQs range from 80-160 points, claiming that all of these individuals are from the same group is dubious at best.
But more importantly, do people… think? Most seem unable to restrain their impulses and act on those rather than the product of deliberation. When they do think, however, only a very few are able to go more than an inch-deep and see the second- and third-tier consequences of any part of an idea.
So, boiling that down, we see that democracy is demagoguery. The “thinking” is usually a disguise for those emotions, passions and prejudices, and most often with humans, their conclusions are designed only to justify choices they have already made.
It is not surprising that only two centuries of democracy — err, demagoguery — were required to reduce the West to a (metaphorically) smoking ruin.
Democracy fetishists like to claim Democracies will consistently avoid really bad leaders. They’ll readily admit to not exactly nominating Charlemagne for the presidency in recent US elections. But they’ll insist that the democratic rise of Hitler was far more of a Black Swan Event than the reigns of Roman Emperors Commodus or Elegabolus.
Strip away the shrink-wrap cocoon of ego-gratifying, jingoistic Whig History and we discover that at least six recent Amerikan Emporers could qualify as legitimate evil emporers who have materially and morally worsened the commonweal of the average decent American citizen. Today we describe the nefarious contributions of the odious Richard Milhous Nixon.
There is a correct way and an erroneous way to react to getting jobbed. You can either hate, revile and refuse to be anything like your enemy, or you can become that enemy and bring down destruction upon your very own principles. Richard Milhous Nixon is a man who failed to make this choice properly, and thereby came to identify with and imitate the malefactors who defrauded him. Nixon, you see, was totally defrauded of an election victory in the 1960 Presidential Election.
In 1968, Richard Nixon had seemed to have put the frustration and unfulfillment of 1960 behind him successfully. He had just outlasted Hubert Humphrey and carried a mandate to “Bring America Together Again.” Yet he had two tragic flaws that brought down his Presidency and rendered him an evil Amerikan Emperor. These two flaws were cowardice and bitterness. He lacked the courage to abolish Liberal government programs that he knew were harmful to the commonweal. His bitterness towards his enemies led him to behave in dishonest and unethical ways that delivered him into legal jeopardy at the hands of his duplicitous enemies. If Watergate was a constitutionally legal coup, then it was President Nixon who handed Brutus and Cassius the knives.
Nixon came into office faced with two situations that required his remediation in order for his Presidency to be a success. He had to solve Vietnam and he had to fix LBJ’s disastrous Great Society Gimme-dat State. Both the war in Vietnam and the metaphorical one on poverty had two potential solutions.
Get out and not fight unnecessary conflicts.
Ensure rapid and overwhelming victory.
Nixon went for an option #3. He continued to wage each in a manner that was not ferocious enough to produce victory. By so doing, Nixon prolonged both terrible policies and failed to achieve what could have been a positive outcome from either. It was the worst of both worlds. It helped make the Nixon Presidency utterly 70s.
In Vietnam, Nixon’s endorsement of airpower was a strategic improvement over LBJ’s. Operation Linebacker I created an opportunity to win. It took a portion of the war into North Vietnam. It wasn’t just Saigon or Huey getting turned into junkyards. Blowing up North Vietnam’s fuel storage capacity and dropping their key bridges stopped their army in its tracks. But it didn’t happen until Nixon had begun winding the US presence down.
Linebacker was a thing out of season. It was rain after the hay was in the barn. To win that war, Nixon had to run Linebacker, followed by Operation Full-House Blitz. Full-House Blitz would have been the ground invasion of the North to annihilate their land forces until at the very least, they renounced all future claims to Southern Vietnamese territory. But instead, Nixon continued dropping the bombs while he watched the South Vietnamese bungle. If there was no plan to finish the job, Nixon should have terminated the entire conflict. All US participation should have ended prior to the Election of 1972. Either we blow them away or we blow out of town.
Nixon inherited a similar quagmire to Vietnam in the form of LBJ’s War on Poverty. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned him to get out of dodge. Back in 1965, Moynihan produced a landmark sociology paper entitled “The Negro Family: The Case For National Action.” His commentary on the negative impact of the AFDC program was a warning of what The Great Society would do to help turn America into Amerika.
The Breakdown of the Negro Family Has Led to a Startling Increase in Welfare Dependency. The majority of Negro children receive public assistance under the AFDC program at one point or another in their childhood. In the beginning, the number of AFDC families in which the father was absent because of desertion was less than a third of the total. Today it is two-thirds. HEW estimates “that between two-thirds and three-fourths of the 50 percent increase from 1948 to 1955 in the number of absent-father families receiving ADC may be explained by an increase in broken homes in the population.” A 1960 study of Aid to Dependent Children in Cook County, Ill. stated:
“The ‘typical’ ADC mother in Cook County was married and had children by her husband, who deserted; his whereabouts are unknown, and he does not contribute to the support of his children. She is not free to remarry and has had an illegitimate child since her husband left. (Almost 90 percent of the ADC families are Negro.)”
So Richard Milhous Nixon could have nipped the situation way before Baltimore got turned into Harm City or before Detroit looked more bombed out than Hiroshima. He could have gotten the government out of the ghetto. He could have prevented anything like ObamaCare from ever have had a prayer of passing. But no. His solution to the problems of The Welfare State was to make it more efficient. All that accomplished was to make more room available on the parasite bus. He created more government and allowed American cities to turn increasingly Amerikan.
And then we come to Nixon’s ethical collapse. He was impeached and resigned to avoid political checkmate. Impeachment is entirely cynical. It’s a way to allow for coups and still maintain the US Constitution. It reduces rebellion to an anomaly. It’s like how the Matrix had already planned for Neo. If the Zeitgeist had ever turned on Barack Obama, Lindsay Graham could have impeached him for halitosis. Barack Hussein Obama could brush, floss and mouthwash all he wanted before he read off his teleprompter. Impeachment is pure political lawfare against the Executive Branch.
By failing at ethics, Nixon gave his enemies the pretense with which they ultimately destroyed him. He may not have felt like a crook, but he became one. Seeing a member of the greasy, loathsome, mobbed-up Kennedy Klan lionized for having founded Camelot on The Potomac made Richard Nixon’s soul seethe. Nixon came to believe Mordred had a point. Mordred way well have had a point, but it didn’t change the fact that Mordred d’Orkney was a bastard. The fact this led Mordred to feel resentment, didn’t justify Mordred destroying what Arthur Pendragon had built. It all just made Mordred an evil bastard.
So Nixon got jobbed in 1960. It caused him to become entitled and paranoid. He adopted the whole LBJ credo of “if you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin’.” He figured it was win at all cost, and would do anything to win. Breaking into the Democratic Party Headquarters at The Watergate was just one example. Impounding the funds appropriated by Congress and refusing to spend them rather than vetoing wasteful spending bills was another. Nixon’s paranoia manifested itself when he made his enemies list and went about using the IRS to Obama the crap out of them. As much as Conservatives hate Lois Lerner, she wasn’t the first to use the taxing power of the state as a political weapon. The Tea Party got screwed by Lois Lerner utilizing a tool Richard Nixon dropped into the DC political toolbox.
The Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon read like a Clinton or Obama Administration SOP for dealing with enemies. So not only did he fail to get them back for 1960, but he brought about his own political downfall. Not only did he bring about his own political downfall, but he gave the iniquitous bastards some nifty evil ideas. If only he had asked himself what cheating his way into power ended up doing for JFK in the end.
Richard Nixon was an intelligent man with potential for greatness. But he was seduced into amorality by defeats at the hands of scoundrels. He betrayed both his party and his nation by adapting their disingenuous tactics for his own cause. He failed at solving the two major problems his administration faced by being too half-hearted and timid to drive the broadsword through to the bloody hilt. He who isn’t willing to die gets killed in a war. He who gets killed dies a failure. Richard Milhous Nixon’s cowardice and dishonesty make him an evil Amerikan Emperor.
Democracy fetishists like to claim Democracies will consistently avoid really bad leaders. They’ll readily admit to not exactly nominating Charlemagne for the presidency in recent US elections. But they’ll insist that the democratic rise of Hitler was far more of a Black Swan Event than the reigns of Roman Emporers Commodus or Elegabolus.
Strip away the shrink-wrap cocoon of ego-gratifying, jingoistic Whig History and we discover that at least six recent Amerikan Emporers could qualify as legitimate evil emporers who have materially and morally worsened the commonweal of the average decent American citizen. Today we describe the nefarious contributions of the odious FDR.
Follow the so-called “inside baseball” coverage of Amerika’s quadrennial electoral eructions and you’ll always hear some detestable, soul-sucking ghoul-geek like David Plouff or Karl Rove discuss how they intend to stack up the voting blocks. You get your Black Block,1 The Hispanic Block, The Women’s Block, The Working Class Block, The Evengelical Block, etc… Just slam all these people into equivalence classes and collect them and trade them with your K-Street friends. All the fascinating things that Hedrick Smith talks about in The Power Game. Politics as a self-licking dog-feces ice cream cone. Politics reduced to an evil, self-perpetuating vote-sucking machine.
So how did American Democracy become this soulless empire of political coalition building? It came to be that way because FDR perfected the art. The art then worked like hell. How well? So well that Franklin Roosevelt won in 1932, then in 1936, and 1940, and 1944. He has the dubious honor of having spawned his very own constitutional amendment which limits presidents to two consecutive presidential terms. In many ways he was the very architect of the cynical and manipulative political machines we so hate yet still see repeatedly grind their way into power.
As Amerika’s Proto-Putin, Roosevelt established the first wonk squad of professional electioneers. Dubbed “The Brain Trust”, these men worked on honing and messaging his message and increasing his appeal. His 1932 election campaign first introduced his idea of a “new deal for America.” By 1936, he had further honed his strategy and now concentrated upon locking in the “New Deal Coalition.” This INGSOC of emerging democratic socialism is described below.
Roosevelt had put together what came to be called the “New Deal Coalition,” an alliance of voters from different regions of the country and from racial, religious and ethnic groups. The coalition combined southern Protestants, northern Jews, Catholics and blacks from urban areas, labor union members, small farmers in the middle west and Plains states, and liberals and radicals. This diverse group, with some minor alterations, would power the Democrats for the next thirty years—and it was Roosevelt who put it together.
Like Orwell’s literary INGSOC, the system needed a controlled anomaly. It needed a Lucifier to scare the butts into the pews every Sunday. Orwell’s governing malefactors invented the imaginary Wandering Jew Emanuel Goldstein. Proto-typical socialist class warfare demagougery follows below.
Referring to “business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking,” FDR crowed, “Never before have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”
When faced with the honorable tradition established by America’s first president, George Washington, Roosevelt would not let a bunch of fuddy-duddy sticks-in-the-mud stand between him and the political power he worshipped.
In 1940, Roosevelt decided to run for an unprecedented third term, breaking the tradition set by George Washington that limited Presidents to eight years in office. FDR had been coy about his future for most of his second term, but finally told confidantes that he would run only if the situation in Europe deteriorated further and his fellow Democrats drafted him as their candidate. Nazi Germany’s successful invasion of Western Europe and defeat of France in the spring of 1940 took care of the former condition; FDR’s political operatives, especially Chicago mayor Ed Kelly, arranged for the latter.
So Franklin Delano Roosevelt deserves to go down in Non-Whig History as a malignant prince of Demotism and one of Amerika’s Evil Emporers for three reasons.
He perfected the black art of winning democratic elections by providing lists of gimme-dats to selected coalitions of voters rather than attempting the difficult and thankless task of developing, programming and selling an affirmative vision to solve the nation’s problems.
He perfected the use of scapegoating to divide the nation and motivate his coalition by turning them loose on an enemy. Politics was one step closer to war and one step further from high-minded philosophical disagreement.
Franklin Roosevelt’s disregard for decency and tradition as a safeguard against personal power-mongering greatly accelerated the trend of politicians never letting a crisis go to waste when it came to acquiring greater personnal fiat. His scheme to create more Supreme Court justices when they declared aspects of The New Deal unconstitutional was an authoritarian impulse that he fortunately backed away from. Yet the sense remains that he would have become Amerika’s Hugo Chavez if circumstances had facilitated him getting away with it.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt may have been merely the predictable result of democracy on its downhill slide into ignorant demotism. Yet he bears blame for exacerbating weaknesses inherent to our system. I indict his memory for using them to acquire more power for himself at the expense of both comity and commonweal. Curse the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was indeed an evil Amerikan Emporer.
1 It’s at this exact point in time when their individual lives no longer matter.
I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly, bodily powers gave place among the aristoi[aristocrats]. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness, and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground for distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say, that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency. -Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams
Aristocracy: the term derives from the Greek aristokratia, meaning “rule of the best.”
The United States was founded by a natural aristocracy. Men like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were true aristocrats. They were “the best” men. It is true that they were men of great wealth but they were also men of great intelligence and virtue as well.
The aristocracy represents something that the rest of the nation can aspire to become. People should aspire to be like the aristocrats. To be well-read, intelligent, cultured, and virtuous. When the people of a nation aspire to become something greater than themselves, then the nation as a whole becomes greater. The aristocracy says a lot about the nation.
Today in the United States, we lack the natural aristocracy that Thomas Jefferson admired so much. Instead we are ruled by the deviant artificial aristocracy that Jefferson warned us about.
Who are these faux aristocrats of 21st century America that I speak of? Let us acquaint ourselves with our new ruling class:
Hollywood celebrities and athletes: They make their millions promoting degenerate behavior both on-screen and in their personal lives. From sexual deviancy to substance abuse, these people are nothing but broken human beings who are admired and worshiped by millions of fans.
Politicians: Think of the type of individual who goes into politics. They are a bunch of Machiavellian and narcissistic sociopaths. They lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top just so they can enjoy the power that comes with being a member of the ruling class. They will say or do anything to retain this power over the people yet the people lack the political will to do the right thing and oust these weasels.
The Ivory Tower College Professors: These are people who have never produced anything of importance in their lives. They make their living promoting Cultural Marxism and socialism. They profit off naive young people leaving them debt-ridden after they have graduated.
The Globalist Corporations: These are people who have turned millions of us into nothing more than cogs in a giant machine. They carve out special regulatory exemptions for themselves with their lobbying so they don’t actually have to compete in a free market. They have no problem robbing the treasury to line their own pockets.
The Media: These people sell propaganda to the masses. They do nothing more than parrot progressive talking points. They fail to do any real journalism anymore. They are selling a message. They are also integral in conducting witch hunts against those who have dissenting views or opinions.
These false elites have no concern for the country as a whole or its people. They have loyalty to no group, no culture and no values system. They are purely self-interested which means they succeed at the expense of others. At a drop of a hat, they have no reservations about laying off millions of Americans to make an extra buck overseas. They promote nothing but cheap, meaningless materialism — the cheeseburger as Brett Stevens puts it.
The culture of the United States is sick because our leadership is sick. It has been hijacked by the talentless faux aristocrats. These people continue to have the power that they do because we the people allow them to have it.
The problem is: Americans like the cheeseburger. They enjoy consuming the vapid filth of the ruling class. Americans celebrate the faux aristocrats while scorning and resenting the talented and virtuous.
I do not know how to restore a virtuous and talented natural aristocracy. I do know that the current culture is on life support though. Perhaps, it is time to pull the plug.
History’s most famous instance of appeasement involved Neville Chamberlain making peace with Hitler in order to buy himself some time, but appeasement is an everyday event. Any time you hear, “Oh, just give them what they want and they’ll go away,” you’re hearing appeasement.
Most people do not realize this, but a democracy is inherently for sale. The greatest number of votes wins, so it is in the interest of all parties to find a way to motivate others to vote for them. This results in parties offering what are essentially bribes to voters in exchange for the vote.
Most people do not also realize this simple truth of reality: all things act in their own self-interest. Animals are not bashful about this since to them self-interest is an extension of individuality. Humans are more cryptic and create the social fiction that people act outside self-interest, e.g. altruism. In reality, altruism is the oldest form of vote-buying.
In the modern West, our countries are literally carved up by the corrupt practice of democracy and its inevitable vote market. Whatever group gets the dollars, then gets the publicity (whether a printing press, a TV or an internet site), then gets to make its promise, and then gets the votes. At some point, society would hit the bottom when it ran out of Other People’s Money (OPM) but now it knows how to borrow.
Thus nothing obstructs the process of special interest groups parasitizing society at large. The vast majority of people in our civilization are just trying to have normal lives, with careers and families. They are too busy to oversee the vast complexity of government, and in most cases, lack the knowledge and aptitude to parse their way past the complex network of jargon and procedure of a modern government. When problems crop up, like a corruption scandal or a race riot, the tendency by the voters is to become passive and cut their losses and appease the dissident party.
The problem with that approach is that when appeasement becomes the norm, it becomes anticipated. Thus groups act out in order to demand more from the rest, and then invent mythologies of victimhood so that they feel justified in extorting more.
A simple fix to this is to stop the appeasement. If special interest groups have enough money to buy votes, they have enough money to fix their problems. If we combined the intake of the SPLC, NAACP, Rainbow Coalition and related groups, there would be the basis for a generous scholarship organization for African-American students. If we combined the intake of all the climate change groups, we could probably purchase most of the open land in America and plant it with trees. If the construction and agriculture industries invested all their money into a stock fund instead of lobbying, they could probably subsidize themselves.
This is why the modern state is a parasite: it takes from the capable and gives to the incapable based on the weak will of public opinion. It is essentially a wealth transfer mechanism. The result is that good people work harder, while special interest groups increasingly get a free ride. To enforce it, a Soviet-style ideological system is created, and people follow it irrationally because they believe they must in order to get ahead. At some point, it all falls apart, and then no one has any options.
Let me introduce you to the future of diversity: endless class warfare.
Diversity — of any form: ethnic, racial, cultural, religious, customs or language — pits a majority against an underdog minority. All underconfident people then flock to defend that minority as a means of raising their own social status.
Since the French Revolution in 1789, the West has been wracked by class warfare. Its obsession with “diversity” (which in actuality means importing third-world peoples to be leftist voters) is just the latest extension of this war.
It will not end, because even when every single person is so ethnically mixed as to have no determinate heritage, divisions will exist. Specifically, any group that appears to be on top will be a target: men, rich people, smart people, good-looking people, etc.
The dogma of equality will enforce itself upon us until a lowest common denominator is reached, at which point no one can be said to be “getting ahead” of the herd.
In the meantime, any majority that is wealthier, smarter or better-looking than its imported labor should watch out — the minority rapidly becomes a majority, and then takes over, basically seizing the wealth of the former majority:
The growth rate of the Palestinian population inside Israel is highly instructive. In 1948, the Arab population of Palestine (which included the land today called Israel) numbered 1,319,000.
Of this figure, over 1.2 million were driven out in the 1948 civil war which erupted following the establishment of Israel, and by the time the dust settled, there were only 160,000 Arabs left inside Israel’s 1948 borders.
It is this figure of 160,000 which has now multiplied, through natural growth only (bearing in mind that Israel does not allow Arab immigration) has now reached 1.5 million.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called this a “demographic bomb” in 2003 and he specifically said that if the “percentage of Arab citizens rises above its current level of about 20 percent, Israel will not be able to maintain a Jewish demographic majority.” – BNP ideas
The problem with minority seizure of majority wealth is that the minority cannot duplicate it. If they were able to do so, they would have done so in the third world. After all, people in the first world created wealth with fewer natural resources and facing as many adversarial factors as people in the third world. They just don’t teach about that in school.
In Israel, as in Europe, the USA and even Northern Asia, the class struggle deepens.
The wealthy majority finds itself suddenly facing huge numbers of people who want to move there. Well, big surprise — wealth is there.
To encourage us to let them in, these thronging masses and the low self-esteem cases who appoint themselves as defenders of the newcomers demand we pay attention to a notion called “equality.” This means that every person is just like every other, and has a right to whatever another has.
Yet that’s not why these countries were founded. Europe’s history is one of people moving northward to escape larger populations to the south; the USA was founded to achieve independence from a politically-unstable Britain; Israel exists to preserve the ethnic, cultural and religious group known as Jews.
Those who founded these nations would reject the modern idea of immigration:
Malik instead claims that the Founding Fathers believed in a universalistic and colorblind American Exceptionalism.
This, he argues, began with the Puritan leader John Winthrop’s much-cited “City upon a hill” trope.
But Winthrop’s city was for whites—and, even more specifically, British Puritans. Winthrop owned Indian slaves and oversaw the introduction of the African slave trade into his colony.
Malik acknowledges that the original draft of the Declaration of Independence includes the phrase “of our common blood.” However, he says this is irrelevant because the “the canons of statutory construction mandate the exact opposite conclusion”.
But how does he explain that the Constitution explicitly enshrined slavery? Or that in 1790, three years after the Constitution was ratified, Congress passed the Naturalization Act which limited American citizenship to “free white persons”?
However, this does not mean that the fact that America was founded by Europeans is not integral to its identity—or that a non-white America will necessarily be able to maintain the same manners, customs, and government.
America was not built upon racial identity—rather, that racial identity was taken for granted. – VDARE
The whole essay is worth reading, but its point is well-made: stable societies do not endorse class warfare.
They do tend to like meritocracy, or letting the best rise. But that is at odds with programs like affirmative action and other ethnic subsidies.
The problem is that in a majority-minority situation, perpetual class war is a given. For that reason, one side will always be agitating for ethnic subsidies.
Krugman is also correct when he points out there was never any huge work relief program like the Works Progress Administration or the Civilian Conservation Corps from the Great Depression.
In the last three years, have you seen anything comparable to the Tennessee Valley Authority or the Hoover Dam emerge from the “American Investment and Recovery Act,” which had a $787 billion dollar price tag?
To put this in perspective, the Panama Canal cost $14.3 billion in 2007 dollars, the Manhattan Project cost $25 billion in 2007 dollars, the Apollo Space Program cost $145 billion in 2007 dollars, the Hoover Dam cost $690 million in 2008 dollars, the Empire State Building cost $558 million in 2008 dollars, and the entire Interstate Highway System cost $500 billion in 2008 dollars. – Occidental Dissent
For his objectives, Barack Obama’s stimulus makes sense. Part of his goal is to raise up the poor African-Americans, and he believes a subsidy can do this. If he read more history, he would see that the subsidy will not work; all that will work is giving African-Americans self-rule, which requires we end the “diversity” charade.
This applies to all majority-minority situations, whether 115 average IQ Israels facing 95 average IQ Palestinians, or the European and American experiment with 110 average IQ natives struggling with 95 average IQ imports.
These differences are bigger than race, but race exacerbates them. For example, Europe’s peasants were probably clustered around 100 average IQ. However, when ruled by smarter people of the same stock — who they could look up to like big brothers — they were able to keep mostly in check. Race just complicates the situation.
A number of white supremacists (or, as they’d like to be known, “racial realists”) have begun taking steps to secure legitimate homes for their racist ideologies, from city councils to the executive branch of the federal government.
David Duke, former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and 2012 presidential hopeful, isn’t a stranger to politics. He’s served as a member of Louisiana’s House of Representatives and, until 2000, was the Republican executive-committee chair in his district. Duke has also run for a whole host of other public positions, and despite his blatantly bigoted beliefs, he’s done surprisingly well. In a 1990 campaign for the United States Senate, Duke received 43.5 percent of the vote, and he considered his bid for Louisiana governor a year later a victory, as he won 55 percent of the white vote.
Duke isn’t the only famous racist hoping to find himself in the Oval Office in 2012. Billy Roper, head of The Nationalist Party of America, a neo-Nazi group that began online in the late ’90s, is also making a run for President of the United States. His platform includes putting an end to dual citizenship in the United States and building a 2000-mile double-line electric fence and barricade wall patrolled by military forces on the U.S.-Mexico border. – Colorlines
Class war has now defined the West for several centuries, and caused numerous wars, internal conflicts, and constant social agitation. It has held us back from greatness, costs us trillions ever year, and deprives us all of a stable community with common sense social standards.
When we hear people talking about “racism,” we should stop and replace that term with “endless class warfare.” This struggle is not about race; third world peoples are used as pawns in this game because their situation attracts pity, and makes it easy to accuse others of “racism” instead of examining the complex situation that brought them to that status.
Class war arises because people closer to the unskilled labor end of the spectrum tend to breed at higher rates than the skilled, educated and wealthier. As a result, these unskilled laborers expand beyond the carrying capacity of the land, and then find they’re starving. As a result, they attack and kill their leaders, which in turn leaves the country without capable leadership, so it collapses inward.
This is what people fear from endless class warfare:
A new survey from Insite Security and IBOPE Zogby International of those with liquid assets of $1 million or more found that 94% of respondents are concerned about the global unrest around the world today.
Fully 90% of respondents have a negative view of the current global economic climate and 41% say they have little or no faith that the U.S. will be able to right itself in this fiscal climate.
More than a third said security concerns have negatively affected business or investment plans.
“The survey found a seismic shift in the attitudes of the wealthy and how they are living their lives, the way they travel and how they are running their businesses,” said Christopher Falkenberg, President of Insite Security. – WSJ
People with money know how to make money. We should pay attention to their wisdom if this is the trend they are seeing.
This trend is in fact how all societies collapse. It is what happened in Russia and France, where the peasant population — thanks to the able care of their aristocratic leaders, who ended much of the widespread disease and disorder — grew beyond the carrying capacity of the land. Starving, they revolted.
In Greece, we see the same situation. Good leaders made a land prosperous; the population then ballooned and absorbed all that wealth. When the coffers ran dry, the people revolted — not realizing that they, not their leaders, are the cause of their own misfortune.
Throughout Europe and North America, pity for third world peoples is being used as an excuse to import them, give them welfare, and then make racial preferences for them. The result is constant class warfare and a sacrifice of our wealth to this new false god, instead of re-investing it in our future. Eventually it will run us dry and revolt or mass disorder will become inevitable.
There is no way out except to end diversity, and thus end this troublesome and destructive class war.
In a time of the embittered, who are the victims and who are the oppressors?
From my experience, it doesn’t matter; there will always be someone rising above on the backs of others. This is equal parts the ambition of that person and the incompetence of those they rise above. In fact, this can lead to positive results, in that the person on top is motivated and capable. We can’t always — or even most or much of the time — say that about the people below.
This means that for us to breathe fresh air, we must throw aside the tired and pointless victim/oppressor dichotomy. It worked in teen movies, but when you think about it, it didn’t really work. Geeks won symbolic victories, and the world went on. The popular kids got out of school and did just fine for themselves, ignoring their one great symbolic loss to the geeks.
Napoleon Dynamite now works as a publicist for a toilet bowl ring manufacturer in Dayton, OH. He’s still a hipster, but those have always been with us. What is clear from a distance is that he is not important, or even visionary; what happens when you get up close is that you get drawn into his personality, and start thinking, well maybe this is Somebody Important.
We can see that the path of popularity for popularity’s sake is a dead-end path. It would be more impressive to gain an audience who respect you for being accurate, and who can work with you to effect a change in the world. This requires you change causes, not effects.
What I mean by causes and effects is this: if your basement floods with water, you can take care of the effect easily by pumping out the water. But where did that water come from? You still have to find the cause, and if you don’t find it and fix it, expect future floods.
Modern people have good reason to be embittered. They are, in fact, victims. Their civilization is moribund and thanks to its globalism and technology, is going to take a lot down with it when it goes. Right now, it cannot stop itself, because too few people have any clue what is wrong and what needs to be stopped. They can try to fix the effects, but this is swatting at flies.
In other words, they are embittered at the wrong things. They are angry at the image, the effects… and have no idea of the cause. Here are their large concerns:
Poverty. The cause of poverty is incompetence. Impoverished people spend too much money on beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets, picture shows and sex. They have lower IQs than those who have skills; this means lower impulse control, less ability to plan, no complex thought and often, violent action to satisfy immediate desires. As a result, they have no self-positive way to explain why they are always working in unskilled, unvalued jobs and are often in prison. Healthy societies tell them their jobs are sacred; our society just tells them they are worth less, which translates into worthless in the big scheme of things.
Economies. The cause of economic recessions is false value. When a society over-values itself, or part of itself, the market corrects. This causes certain things to lose value, which causes a snowball effect as all parts of the economy dependent upon those things in turn lose value; even worse, the consumers and businesspeople react with chimpanzee-like emotion and yank their assets out of the investment field, and stop spending money, which further becalms the economy. If you want no recessions, do not inflate value. Ronald Reagan restored a strong economy in the USA by strengthening the country across the board; when it peaked in the 1990s, Bill Clinton encouraged it to continue in the short term by making assets more available for trade, which generated false value. Bush and Obama have inherited that mess.
Warfare. Warfare is part of humanity. Warfare, like interpersonal violence, achieves an answer where otherwise stagnation would exist. If party A and party B both want the same territory, warfare gives it to one. Otherwise, both would struggle on without what they needed, and the territory would never get fully developed. In the same way, having one group or individual rise above others guarantees that someone more competent is produced; this is the opposite direction that leveling ideologies like socialism take, where they want all to be equal, even if it stalls evolution. Most people confuse disliking a particular war with a need to oppose all wars, and even then, they have little understanding of why that war exists.
Class warfare. There is only one form of class warfare: the masses against the elites. If you have good elites, they make the country as a whole stronger, wealthier, and saner in its interpretation of culture and politics. If you have bad elites, they work only for themselves at the expense of others, and so end up literally exploiting their workers: taking their time and effort, and for their work, giving them a dysfunctional society in return. The common fiction is that class warfare exists because the wealthy like to oppress the poor; the truth is of course that the wealthy do not need the poor. They will always find someone with less wealth than they to work for them, and the cost of the goods produced will rise in proportion to what these people are paid, so everyone else will demand that low-cost labor be provided, whether through immigration or domestic impoverished.
Civil rights. Throughout human history, diversity — of race, ethnicity, religion, culture or values — has always been a product of commerce. Dying empires become so self-congratulatory that, like socialist states, they promote everyone to the same level and no one wants to do the grunt work. So they must either throw a lot of people in prison to make slave labor (the Soviet/Nazi method) or import laborers from different ethnic groups. These groups will in turn (a) be treated badly because they represent a threat on many levels, some of them legitimate (b) become alienated and opportunistic and (c) have no hope of integrating without losing their ethnic identity and thus becoming conquered people. For this reason, diversity always provides a nightmare scenario: constant majority-minority warfare until the political power of “helping the less fortunate” is realized, at which point multiculturalism becomes an official dogma, and the idea of having values in common except those enforced by government, media or commerce dies, leaving an extremely alienated, tentative, neurotic place.
Out there in the world, there are many people trying to whip you into a crowd frenzy by making you embittered about the above issues. However, these issues are not problems; the health of our society is. Healthy leaders take care of their people, keep the economy stable, only fight important wars and avoid the propaganda of class warfare. Bad leaders use all of those to their own advantage.
Healthy societies result from healthy people. Healthy people — in mind, body and moral character — tend to pick healthy leaders. If those leaders are bad, they find a way to get rid of them without engaging full-scale chaotic revolutions that turn into murderfests. If you have healthy people, your society will make itself healthy.
In contrast, if you have unhealthy people — in mind, body and moral character — and they outnumber the healthy, they will screw everything up. They will pick demagogues instead of leaders, and those demagogues will then launch bad wars and tell the people propagandistic lies about class warfare. Everything becomes unhealthy when the unhealthy people are in charge.
It is well and good that people are embittered. They are however embittered at the wrong things. They are looking for convenient targets, like “banksters,” Masons, African-Americans, Christians, Jews, etc. What they need to do is pay attention to the health of the society.
In the end, as human beings, we control our destiny. Our only real enemy is our own stupidity. When we consent to unhealthy people being around us, they outnumber us and pick unhealthy leaders; from there, everything unravels. Be embittered, but be embittered at the right thing: stupidity.
From observing the blog-o-sphere over many years, since that fateful day when Jorn Barger coined the term “blog,” I finally understand blogs:
They are descendants of the teen films of the 1980s.
In these films — Real Genius, Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller’s Day off, 16 Candles and so on — there’s a clear division between the popular kids and the geeks, and people within these two parallel groups struggle for power both within and between those groups.
The popular kids get shiny red convertibles when they turn 16, are blonde and have money, get good grades and generally are pompous jerks. The geeks — nerds, grinds, stoners, grebos, misfits, drop-outs, homosexuals, skaters, rockers and freaks — are more accepting and generally more interesting.
Each group has its hierarchy. For popular kids, it’s about success. For geeks, it’s not about having good grades, money and the right possessions, but about being a nice person. The geek with the wildest big ambitions gets to lead the group and have a personal army which rivals 4chan.
In the 1990s, hipster-cult classic Napoleon Dynamite codified this in its plainest form. The popular kids rule the school; an enigmatic, christ-like nerd unites the geeks and they form a personal army to carry out his plan, which is to tear down the hierarchy of the popular.
These movies show you what both the geeks and the popular kids have in common: they know how to work a crowd. Specifically, they teach you how to be popular, which is like the art of salesmanship for socialization.
Blogs are the same way. You have a grievance with life, so you unite all the other people who didn’t make it in the mainstream, and together you form a personal army to destroy the source of your grievance.
Here’s how to be popular:
Tell your audience they are your equals and just as faultless as yourself.
.: Whatever bad has happened is not the fault of your audience; someone did it to them.
.: Whatever good has happened is the result of your audience being good.
Everything is good except for this one bad thing, which is the someone who did it to them.
The only solution is for us all to unite and depose that someone.
Whatever you do, do not suggest your audience change at all. Their lives are perfect; their status as victims rests on this assumption, so it is sacred. You need to find a target outside the group. Pick someone who could never be part of the group, or you’re losing potential sales er I mean recruits er I mean friends.
(There are mainstream blogs. They get popular through an even more direct route, which is talking about new products. They avoid conflict and make you think about pleasant, positive possibilities this way. Recipes, lifestyle, sex, drugs, rock-n-roll, even politics… all products. But at least they’re consistent and inoffensive.)
Your worst enemy may be within. Among your audience you will find many other bloggers. The purpose of blogging is not to get anything done, but to be a big cheese. Everyone wants to be important through their blog. If you live in a dingy apartment piled with bills and cat feces, having 4,000 people visit your blog makes you feel like Jesus, Stalin or Bono.
Having all of these bloggers means there is never a focal point from which achievement could occur, but that’s convenient too. The goal is not out there, but inside: they want excuses for their own lack of achievement, and reasons to feel good about themselves anyway. Blogs are not salvation through knowledge; they are like greeting cards, movies or fruit baskets, little treats that lift you up and make you feel better about the bad things in life you cannot change.
In fact, the blog audience are the anti-action. They want justifications for where they are, not reasons to reach up and improve their situation. And if they’re visiting edgy blogs during the day, they’re more likely not at a job, or at a job where anyone cares what they do.
For this reason, they’re not a great audience if you want to get something done. What they are however is a ready audience, and there for the taking. All you have to do is tap into their bitterness.
We live in a world of memetic warfare. Each group and person is projecting their idea-sperm into the flow, hoping to convert enough others to have a personal army. We must ask why they do this, and how it’s different from other forms of motivating people — like religion, marketing, and propaganda.
Having been around the world a bit, I’d submit that there’s no difference. Each is an attempt to make life convenient for the individual, singly or in a group, by justifying their needs in terms of the needs of others.
Marketing says: you need this product, ostensibly so it can make your life better, but it also pays my bills.
The religious, political or social memetic warrior says: you need this idea, ostensibly so it makes you look smart, but it also benefits me.
In other words, most human discourse is a variant on the old theme: “I’m not doing it for me, I’m doing it for you,” while quietly not mentioning the benefit to the speaker.
With the industrial revolution, this kind of thinking exploded. Mass-production meant the advent of mass-marketing. Mass-marketing in turn meant that ideas had to sex themselves up to compete with tangible products.
Somewhere along the line “I’m not doing it for me, I’m doing it for you” changed to appeal to a large crowd, the kind that might settle around a barker as he calls out his pitch. “I’m doing it for all of you,” he’d say. “This will make everyone smarter and happier.”
From this we get our doctrine of equality, sacred in the West — for now. Everyone means we’re all equally important. Everyone also means the speaker has a personal army — he’s doing it for us, so we’re going to crush those who don’t believe.
This is the mature form of totalitarianism. Instead of directly applying control, those who lead set up a memetic polarity between what’s “good” and what’s “evil,” and by defining those as convenient for themselves, manipulate their personal armies.
Equality means we all feel better, because if we have doubts about ourselves, they’re driven away by our inclusion in “everyone.” Now we’ve been validated as important and we can feel safe about pursuing our needs and desires. We call that “freedom” and it goes hand in hand with equality.
The thinking is that if we’re all equal, we can all do what each of us decides is the right thing. Nevermind the consequences of individual action, such as sins of omission or failing to do the right thing, as long as each person is happy with their choice. The crowd has bought the product.
These ideas have grasped the West for four hundred years, gaining momentum each year as they become more popular. At this point they are so ingrained that if anyone dares break a taboo and speak against them, that person will have his or her career ended — by the will of the people.
Insidious, this process completes even if many do find the message appealing because a bigger group is always there to embrace the more deconstructive option. No limits. Do whatever you want. No consequences. It’s not your fault. These all distill down to “events are not connected, except by you.”
More than technology, this is the modern paradigm. It is the same utilitarian logic that makes shopping malls, big governments, big media, and crowds of angry people rioting for more deconstructive rights. “Don’t make me do anything I don’t want!”
In separating from the natural struggle for survival, humanity has become its own babysitter. We promise things to ourselves and then riot against ourselves when we want more, but we’re one level removed from whether those things we want are rational in the physical world.
It’s no different than children demanding their babysitter let them each nothing but ice cream, even if it will make them sick — not today, necessarily, but over the next week certainly.
Like drug dealers who accidentally taste their own product, our species has sold itself a bill of goods, starting with the idea that we can all sell each other ideas and products if we collectively deny that the seller has self-interest, even when the agenda applies to others.
And like all marketing, it starts with a promise of being smarter than others — they won’t succeed, they don’t have this product — and works on the Ponzi scheme of individual human choices, where if one person picks an illusion, others will follow because they know others will follow, and back them up.
Of course, it was witless this whole time to assume consequences would not arrive. They did, and now thirty years later, we’re awakening to the fact that:
We have eliminated the open spaces natural species need to breed, frolic, hunt and nest.
We have made toxic most of our air and water.
We have created ugly, utilitarian cities of square shapes.
Our societies reward the biggest drama queens because drama is necessary to rise above equality.
We are entering an age of constant political conflict where unlimited wants meet finite reality.
We have dumbed ourselves down by insisting on equality instead of rewarding the exceptional.
Our climate may or may not be getting ready to destroy us — our authorities cannot agree.
If you ask any modern person their woes, once you get beyond the car payments and toothaches, you will find that these consequences at the root of their misery. Essentially, the social infrastructure is rotted and has been replaced by social preference, which leads to the lowest common denominator enthroned as the optimum.
As these consequences move in with us, and make themselves at home, we will see the facade of equality begin to fade. It’s well and good to tell everyone they’re equal when we have seemingly unlimited industrial wealth; it’s another thing when we’re facing shortage of resources, ugly environmental decay, and the political instability that ethnic, religious, resource (water and oil) conflict will bring.
It’s not implausible to imagine a future authoritarian state arising, one based on the idea of inequality as wisdom. Such a state would cut population with IQ tests, and then compel its population to compete, while wise elders watched to eliminate those of bad moral character.
This state forged of blood would end up being the most peaceful place on earth because it would have eliminated the only true inequality — that people have different levels of competence and moral character. Where the factors of selection are most rigorous, we get the strongest and most uniform peoples, so they have very few internal conflicts.
While our media talking heads deny it, and our politicians won’t speak of it, this time is coming. We are in debt to our future. We have squandered what we had in the name of making everyone feel comfortable. And so now, we’re going to pay the price, and the future belongs to those who see that before the masses.