Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘democracy’

We Know Better

Sunday, October 15th, 2017

Long ago, we had a system called hierarchy where we took the people who were smartest and most prone to do the right thing in every circumstance, and put them on the top. They ruled over the rest of us, which by the very nature of humanity, involved telling us that what we “felt” or desired was not going to lead to a good outcome, so we could not do it.

That never sits well with a man, being treated like a child, reasoned the herd. Given that humanity is 90% people who need to be told what to do, and only 9% who can be delegated tasks to, most people need to be restrained from their own impulse to self-destruction most of the time. But the herd knew better.

“Those kings, it’s just an accident of birth,” the shopkeeper said, because he always says what flatters his customers. Say something nice, sell an extra pound of cheese, and the wife of the peasant or artisan who buys it will never tell and her husband will never ask. So the shopkeepers grew wealthy on the pretense of the unpunished herd.

Then the masses were formed, of the shopkeepers and the peasants, and they decided that the kings really were worthless. They worked with the rich merchants of the cities to overthrow the kings. Those who had read and understood the classics of history, who knew things about human nature, said this was a bad idea, and that we needed hierarchy.

“Oh, no,” said the proles. They brought out their own writings which used complex but irrelevant theory to suggest otherwise. “The kings are merely a social construct. When the people rule, we will end the abuses that were perpetrated upon us because we, who are obviously equal because we are people too, were obviously innocent.”

The elders thought that one over. The notion of “equality” slipped into the concept that they knew as “fairness,” which was that you listened to people and tried to do what was right before them. But they were baffled, because people were obviously not equal on the inside, where some showed more intelligence, moral character, determination and honor than others. The elders rejected the new idea.

We Know Better, said the crowd.

So the great experiment began! After all, all of the great works from the past suggested that this was a bad idea, based in no small amount on the graves of Rome and Athens signaling the end of the civilizations which were widely acknowledged as our superiors, except in technology, of course. But onward bravely we sailed.

The first thing that happened was that people were reduced to their dollar value. In the past, the kings and aristocrats were considered divine, or of the bloodlines closest to the divine, at least, and so they owned the land and laid out the social structure. No more! Now every person was free to join the lottery of salaries. They might earn more, but more likely, they earned less.

“Obviously, we can fix that, too,” said the sages of the new age of ideology. They got to work and busily wrote reams of law to make sure that hiring and firing were fair. They instituted taxes to pay for those who were “poor,” a nebulous category which included anyone who was not of the middle class, that is, with a stable salary, home and high tax rate.

Proud at having fixed that one, the sages turned to the next problem, which was that economies blew up every now and then because the masses, having no structure, moved in waves of panic at what had just failed and greed toward what seemed to be the Next Big Thing. The old sages suggested social order, where investment was limited to those who knew something about it.

We Know Better.

The new sages appointed leaders, created banks, expanded government and busily wrote more reams of laws. These seemed to just intensify social competition, so they raised taxes more to pay for those who were not succeeding. This made jobs nearly unbearable, with people giving most of their time just to live, and to pay the taxes, of course. The old sages pointed out that they warned people.

“You have removed social order,” they said. They pointed out that, in the hands of the merchants, civilization had become crass, a race to the lowest common denominator so that one could capture the widest audience, since the 90% were known for their low standards and fascination with the crass, sexual, excremental, cloyingly sentimental and mindlessly violent.

In the meantime, the herd was rioting again. It turned out that the new rules just made it easier for those with money to make more money, but even worse, the burden of red tape and legal barriers made it harder for smaller businesses to compete. And so the rich got richer, the middle class got poorer, and the poor got government benefits.

The new sages produced their final idea: since everyone was equal, everyone deserved the same money and power, so they would take from the wealthy and give to the poor. Refulgent in its simplicity, the theory seemed to defeat all. Unfortunately, it then collapsed, so they patched it up by saying that now they would not take from business, only individuals.

That made the richer citizens smile. They could keep their wealth in their businesses, and raise taxes on income, which would hit the middle class and then those suckers could pay for the poor. The laughter echoed through the halls of commerce and exclusive clubs in the center of the big cities.

By now marginalized to the outside of scholarship and literature, the old sages warned: you will merely replace social order with a commercial order, and by limiting that order, replace it in turn with government, which serves only itself. It seems like power to the people, but in fact it is slavery, thinly-disguised behind an economy and “good intentions.”

We Know Better.

The new sages of the herd came up with their next brilliant idea. In order to make everyone happy, the solution was for all of us to live the same way. We each got an apartment, a car and a job; we went to the job, and got taxed; the taxes paid for others, and then everyone would live in peace because no one had less than anyone else. We could be identical as equals.

At this revelation, a new energy infused the population. Finally, we were all equal, and all we had to do was obediently go through education, attend our jobs, do everything on the checklists for each task, and then we had up to four hours a night to amuse ourselves with television, alcohol, sex, drugs and motorcars.

For the new sages, this was a boon, because now they had most of the population on their side. Every person wanted their equal share, and was bigoted and paranoidly suspicious of anyone who proposed any other idea. Like ants, they swarmed over anyone who suggested otherwise, or merely failed to agree, and tore them to pieces, carting off the remains for themselves.

“The problem with this society is that you cannot tell the truth,” said the old sages. So they expressed themselves through literature, warning that the city and its businesses, if unleashed, became self-serving like everything else in this life, and would simply consume everything good and replace it with assembly line style interchangeable parts, rote process and divided roles.

Like the Romantics before them, they warned that the greatest risk to us was not some shadowy group, but ourselves. In a mob, we express ideas that are more emotion and personal attention-seeking than reality, and by chasing this phantom of the unreal, we lead ourselves over a cliff just like those ancient societies did.

We Know Better.

The new sages realized that their power might wane, so they introduced a series of distractions. First we had to all fight for sexual equality, which meant the ability to have sex with anyone and not be seen as less important for it. Next, we had to bring in other ethnic groups in order to be truly equal. Finally, we need more payments for the poor to keep everything fair.

“It’s just distraction,” said the old sages. They realized that the herd was deflecting from its own bad choices, and rationalizing decay instead of acting against it. But the masses were fully mobilized now. They were educated! They were empowered! They had money, too. And so they tore down any idea but going further along the existing path.

This forced civilization into a quandary: the few who seemed sensible opposed the new way, but everyone else wanted it, and they were more numerous. Now there was no way out but a breakup, with the Know-Betters on one side, and those who were skeptical after centuries of problems on the other.

Ironically, this brought us back to where we had been before the whole Know-Better crusade started. The kings, aristocrats, caste, culture and customs of the past — including a faith that this life is good, and therefore the end of the body is not The End — served a role, but only a few people could understand them.

And as history had shown, once again, those were the people who knew better, not the crowd.

Catalonia Shows The “Clash Of Civilizations” Emerging After The Downfall of Liberal Democracy

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

We are in the midst of a vast change here on planet Earth, for all of humanity. An old order has fallen, and while most of us are scrambling to catch up, all that was based on this old order is falling silently at the same time. You can feel the muted panic in the streets.

That old order is named modernism, and it is the series of ideas which flowed from The Enlightenment™ concept of individualism, where natural law and social order take a back seat to what the individual desires. To make society subsidize that by refusing to enact Darwinistic sorting on those whose desires lead to bad or useless things, individualism became egalitarianism, and from that, collectives form.

For humanity in all ages, the problem is herd behavior, sometimes called peer pressure, which is the root of our trends, gangs, stampedes, cults, panics, cliques and other behaviors that are “dark organizations” which counteract our goals as civilizations, and the actual needs of individuals versus what they will say are their goals.

It is a paradox to most that individualism is a form of collectivism, but when you think about it, there is nothing more selfish than a crowd: a group of people united by lowest common denominator wants, desiring to enforce those on others, and to do so without accountability because they are in a faceless mob.

Caste revolt of this nature has destroyed every civilization to date. The faceless mob, unaware of what they cannot understand, tears down those above them and assumes that civilization will just keep on trucking as it has in the past. Instead, they quickly find that social order begins to decay.

The recent history of humanity shows us trying to find ways to make mob rule work, and failing. Parliaments, the Constitution, Communism, Socialism, Communitarianism, Distributism, Anarchism and all of these other “isms” are simply attempts to adapt to a new reality in which we have an ad hoc hierarchy based on who has the favor of the crowd at any moment.

As with most unstable things, and following in the path of the French Revolution which led to economic collapse and ideological warfare, global liberal democracy — the political philosophy of equality, itself a form of individualism — has died of its own success. Illogical plans, when put into action, “succeed” for some time, but then their unrealistic approach causes them to collapse.

Arising from that, we are entering the age of what political philosopher Samuel P. Huntington described as “The Clash of Civilizations” in which people move away from ideological and economic definitions of who they are, and instead turn to civilization, which is formed of the intersection of culture, heritage, religion and values:

World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be-the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

What is happening in Catalonia now fits this pattern. The Spanish state has smashed, jailed, censored and disenfranchised its citizens in order to try to prevent the inevitable: the breakup of the nation-state, formed of many different ethnic groups united by ideology and economic system, into smaller civilizations based on innate identity.

In the United States, a similar sentiment has arisen with the election of Donald J. Trump; people want America “before the change” to return, and by that they mean the 1950s style Western European America. In the United Kingdom, voters opted to escape the economic and political cartel of the European Union. In Germany, the proto-nationalist party Alternative For Germany won record gains.

The pushback has become, and it is consists of people not just rejecting the mixed-racial modern state, but the mixed-ethnic one as well:

People are people; differences, even intraracial differences (as those between English and Irish, or Ukranians and Russians, for example) exist, and frictions, up to and including warfare, happen. We can’t wave a magic wand and make those things disappear.

Following this, other aspects of modernity are fading as well, including faith in democracy:

The next step will be a rejection of caste revolt itself. Cynicism toward equality is spreading. The sheer incompetence of our leaders has made us distrust the utilitarian premise of democracy, which is that whatever most people think is good, is actually good. The future includes hierarchy, both of leadership, and of social roles, with those who have the most prized traits rising above the rest.

Even more, recognition of the total failure of pluralism, or that we can coexist with those of other racial and ethnic groups, religions, philosophies and even political inclinations is collapsing on both Left and Right:

Obama was wrong when he said that we are not two countries, one blue and one red. Because, in fact, we are. Our job is to make sure that our country prevails.

As the fundamental ideas of democracy, equality, pluralism, and diversity unravel, something new is coming to take their place. It will be “new” in that, as history cycles, we will find ourselves back where we were before this disaster of modernism occurred, and when then start going the other way, toward the traditional forms of living that have protected us for millennia.

We will now be addressing the only question remaining which is that of whether, after this seemingly endless disaster, we can restore our civilization and ourselves to be something great again, as slumbers in our ancestral memory and imaginations:

I often wonder about this question: is the character or the spirit of a people genetic, and if so, is it passed down through generations — or can it be subverted by means of propaganda, dysgenics, and what amounts to psychological/spiritual warfare? Could the original character of these peoples re-assert itself, or can it be restored by conscious effort? Can decades, even centuries or manipulation be reversed?

It seems to me that we are entering a new dark age of terror as the old order falls. Most of our fellow citizens will not be coming with us into the future. Many of our most cherished beliefs are departing. But in this vast void, opportunity lurks for those who are brave and realistic. We finally have a chance to escape the disaster of modernism, and replace it with something better.

Courage!

Surrounded By Corruption, Donald Trump Unveils A New Plan And Doctrine

Sunday, September 24th, 2017

We must all have sympathy for Donald Trump. In the late days of a dying empire, he achieved power in a contest of wills. Then he faced the worst thing any leader can: an entrenched but informal bureaucracy of people who have gotten fat and lazy by voting themselves salaries and pensions from the wealth of the sleeping sheep, who seem to respond to “good” symbols with a pathological and reality-denying reflex.

He faces hostility from not just the Democrats, but the conservatives who are at heart Democrats, who call themselves “Republicans.” On top of that, most government employees enjoyed the free-for-all of the Obama years, where tagging “diversity” to any project meant that there would be free money for anyone who participated. The Cathedral is real: a parasitic organism that lives on top of government and society.

Trump has come up with a stunningly powerful plan. It is not 4D chess, or some other wizardry, because these things do not exist given the sheer complexity of any real world task. Instead, he has chosen a simple and straightforward but deceptive path which will guarantee his victory over time.

He is letting his opponents reveal themselves. His procedure is simple: offer a reasonable compromise, then watch them shoot it down, then force them to own the consequences of that denial. He does not believe in any of the plans he is offering, but is using them instead as examples of “bipartisanship” that our current incumbents reject.

Once they reject these plans, they have proven that their beliefs are in fact illusions, and their only goal is to become part of a system and to find a place at the trough at which to feed. He reveals what they are by forcing them to act on what they say they believe in, and the instant they back down, they are doomed.

Many Republicans and some Democrats will be replaced in 2018. Their actions will reveal that their campaign promises were outright lies, instead of conditional lies, by which they promise to act on something if convenient. Trump made it convenient for them to act, and their ongoing failure made it clear that they were lying about their motivation and goals.

After 2018, the carnage will be vast. Many previously well-esteemed members of our Establishment will find themselves voted out as a wave of Trump coattail candidates seize power. Democrats will die out for failing to agree to the moderate plans Trump advances, and Republicans will fade away for having failed to oppose Leftist plans using the moderate plans that Trump has advanced.

Once the 2018 elections are over, the Trump agenda can actually begin. This is a man who handles complex projects all the time. He has begun from the ground up, and once he has killed off the opposition, he will move forward with his actual agenda. In the meantime, many of the usual fakers that democracy produces will find themselves obsolete and irrelevant, and out of power.

People Of Genius Made The West, But Only Hierarchy Protects Them

Wednesday, September 20th, 2017

Back in the delusional early 2000s, it was popular to bleat out the notion that the “wisdom of crowds” enabled humans to do great things in groups. This allows the individual to take credit for the achievements of the group and seems to enforce the idea of equality, which means it does not matter what unique traits individuals have, only that you put interchangeable average humans in the right order.

Recent research suggests that the “wisdom of crowds” is nonsense, and that higher-IQ individuals produce any greatness in a group:

Contrary to prediction, individual IQ accounted for around 80% of group-IQ differences. Hypotheses that group-IQ increases with number of women in the group and with turn-taking were not supported…The experiments instead showed that higher individual IQ enhances group performance such that individual IQ determined 100% of latent group-IQ. Implications for future work on group-based achievement are examined.

From the study itself:

For some time, it has been known that work-groups whose team-members have higher IQ out-perform teams of less-able members (Devine & Philips, 2001). Against this background, Woolley et al. (2010) asked whether groups themselves exhibit a general-factor of intelligence, if this might be distinct from individual IQ, and, if so, what the origins of such a collective intelligence might be.

…The three studies reported here and, especially, the joint modeling cast important light on the origins of high cognitive performance in groups. Rather than a small link of individual IQ to group-IQ, we found that the overlap of these two traits was indistinguishable from 100%. Smart groups are (simply) groups of smart people.

…The finding that IQ and group-IQ can be set equal bolsters studies reported in work-performance showing that groups of bright individuals outperform groups of less able individuals (Devine & Philips, 2001). We take this work to a new level, suggesting that, in terms of latent group-IQ, group performance reflects nothing beyond individual contributions to average IQ. Thus we found no support for the hypothesis that “group intelligence [has] relatively little to do with individual intelligence” (Woolley & Malone, 2011, p. 2).

In other words, if a crowd has wisdom, it is because of the intelligent people in that crowd. Remove those, and you have just organized idiocy, which is probably a good description for your average job.

The problem with crowds is that contrary to conventional wisdom, they are staffed by individualists. The individualist joins a crowd for the ability to be important without having to contribute or adapt, because the crowd is run entirely on social principles which are intuitive to the individualist.

This then creates a tragedy of the commons for social attention, which is a problem when one is seeking answers, because it means that the most digestible and distinctive expressions win out over the more accurate. A tragedy of the commons takes the following form:

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

Human attention in a social group is a commons. Whoever is willing to inject themselves into the dialogue, or perform a distracting behavior or stunt, is able to take some of the attention. This creates a force entirely opposite to the perception of reality, which is a force based in the recognition of human interest.

In contrast, what made the West great was its emphasis on results in reality that enabled it to create a hierarchy based on those who demonstrated exceptional ability to not just lead, but lead us toward the best results instead of simply bare minimums. For this reason, despite not having the highest average IQ, the West produced the greatest amount of genius, and those geniuses enabled the West to have exceptional competence. Leftists demand that we assume that this competence came from the form of the crowd itself, and not the composition of that crowd, including the exceptional individuals who did all the thinking for it. Hierarchy protected genius from this incursion of the crowd by ensuring that all key positions were held by people who could tell the difference between genius and idiocy, and therefore could elevate genius above the usual babble of the herd, where now the babble holds sway over anything intelligent.

The “wisdom of crowds” is merely a restatement of democracy. The idea there is that politics becomes a commons, and whoever distracts the greatest number of people from real problems, wins. Unfortunately, as the evidence from this above study shows, this marginalizes intelligence and guarantees an incompetent result.

Amerika Gets Its Worst Congresscritter Ever, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Thanks To The Voting Rights Act

Wednesday, September 20th, 2017

Houston needs disaster relief. It has needed such succor since Jan 3, 1995. On that tragic date in history, Sheila Jackson Lee joined the nefarious ranks of Congress.

Jackson-Lee is perhaps the worst member of Congress ever for three reasons: She is stupid. She is evil. She is greedy. She is also obnoxious, but I said three reasons and we on the Alt-Right never give out extra credit. Other than that, she has an opaque and unfathomable character. If she were not in Congress, she would be that woman whose fundamentally bitchy and malignant nature would be driving otherwise dutiful Christians out of a low church Baptist congregation. She is an execration.

She is not merely stupid. She is the long and wrong tail of the intellectual bell curve. She is to stupid what Harvey was to rainy weather. Her real objection to Harvey is that NOAA didn’t name it Hurricane Jamarquavious. I wish I were kidding. I.AM.NOT.KIDDING.

Texas congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee complained in 2003 that storm names were too white. “All racial groups should be represented,” she said, and asked officials to “try to be inclusive of African-American names.”

And in case you thing President Trump needs more advice on how to handle Kim Jong-un, here’s who not to call. Sheila displays her geographical cluelessness below.

“I stand here asking us to do what we did not do in Vietnam, (which) was to recognize the valiant and outstanding service of our men and women, and to understand victory had been achieved,” she said during the special order speech, which House members can give on any topic at the end of a day’s legislative work. “Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working,” she said. “We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace. I would look for a better human rights record for North Vietnam, but they are living side by side.”

And I would have you know, I am not a liar when I call The She-Jack an outlier. Her visit to NASA JPL will go down in history. Winston Smith’s Memory Hole can burn it over and over again. Yet the stupid cannot die!

In 1997, while on a trip to the Mars Pathfinder operations center in California, Jackson Lee asked if the Pathfinder had succeeded in taking a picture of the flag planted on Mars by Neil Armstrong in 1969. Needless to say, Jackson Lee, then a member of the House Science Committee, had confused Mars with the Moon.

I find myself sick and tired of genius tech overlords who are evil. I don’t like being tired, so today I’ll discuss low tech evil. It’s She-Jack, so I’ll be discussing evil that may well require a job that’s one or two steps below automation. It’s low, mean-spirited, hyper-aggressive nasty. In Amerika, that typically involves an absolutely moronic obsession with race. She won’t drink Pepsi-Cola, so let me ask you a very personal question, Amerika… Is your cola dark enough?

Jackson Lee recently blasted a Pepsi advertisement shown during the Super Bowl in which a black woman throws a can of soda at her husband for ogling an attractive white woman next to them. “It was not humorous. It was demeaning — an African-American woman throwing something at an African-American male and winding up hitting a Caucasian woman,” she thundered from the House floor.

And then there is the Sheila Jackson Lee management style.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas also hands out nicknames to the people who work for her. The Houston Democrat addressed one of her employees as “you stupid motherfucker.” And not just once, but “constantly,” recalls the staffer, “like, all the time.”

It wasn’t just limited to demeaning sobriquets.

Capitol Hill is famous for its demanding, insensitive bosses. Yet even by the harsh standards of Congress, Sheila Jackson Lee stands out. She may be the worst boss in Washington. “It’s like being an Iraq War veteran,” says someone who worked for her. Strangers may say, “‘oh I know what you’ve been through.’ No, you really don’t. Because until you’ve experienced it…. People don’t tell the worst of the stories, because they’re really unbelievable.” For some, a job in Jackson Lee’s office proved not just emotionally but physically perilous. One staffer recalls a frank conversation with his doctor, who told him he needed to quit. “It’s your life or your job,” the doctor told him…

And it wasn’t just her employees who were in danger when the intellectual and moral Low Pressure System known as She-Jack blew into town.

Her former drivers say the congresswoman demanded they run red lights and drive on highway shoulders around traffic. This caused at least one accident. As Jackson Lee was yelling at a staffer to drive faster she turned too sharply, smashing the side of her car into a wall. Jackson Lee’s requests don’t stop at the end of a normal working day. “In the middle of the night, people had to go get her garlic. She’ll call you at two in the morning for garlic because she takes them as supplements,” a former staffer said. Jackson Lee’s garlic runs were confirmed by other staffers, too, though no one could remember the exact brand of the supplement. The deputy chief of staff “would have to go get it, and he would have to go drop it off. It was some kind of a multi-vitamin,” another former staffer said. On Christmas Eve, one staffer was at a midnight mass ceremony at her church. When the boss called, the staffer didn’t answer. “She got so irritated that I wasn’t answering her call on Christmas Eve. So she called me every minute for 56 minutes,” the source recalled.

Evil is bad, stupid is worse. Greed makes it quite the trifecta. Nepotism, like charity, begins in the home. Members of The House of Representatives have the power of the purse. Representative Jackson-Lee opened up that purse and made it rain over where her husband worked.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) steered more than $5 million in tax dollars to the University of Houston, where her husband is an official. The Washington Post revealed in an investigative report dubbed “Family Ties” that Jackson ensured her husband’s university was well subsidized.

Then there was what happened a hospital her husband had ties to had monetary problems.

Houston Riverside General Hospital specialized in the kind of medicine its better-heeled brethren did their best to avoid. Like treating the poor, the mentally ill, the drug-addled. So it’s no surprise that the 95-year-old nonprofit — formerly known as Houston Negro Hospital — shared the same broken finances as the people it served. Most patients couldn’t pay their own way, leaving Riverside to survive off the rock-bottom reimbursement rates of Medicare and Medicaid. At one point, it was losing $10,000 a day. That’s when executives decided to cauterize the wound with a hot poker of fraud.

So they were about to go down hard. Then Representative Jackson Lee went up to bat for her friends.

In 1996, the State of Texas accused Riverside of padding fees and billing for drug rehabilitation services it never provided. Texas canceled $1 million in contracts and demanded that the hospital repay another $763,000. It also urged the feds to audit Riverside’s Medicare and Medicaid payments. Yet charges of fraud weren’t enough for bureaucrats to fully close the spigot. The money continued to flow.
It would take another eight years before the state finally had enough. In 2004, it moved most of its drug-treatment contracts to more trusted providers, slashing Riverside’s funding by 75 percent.

Unfortunately for the taxpayers, CEO Earnest Gibson III had friends in influential places. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) demanded an investigation of the cuts, calling on Governor Rick Perry to restore the money. Perry, who had appointed Gibson to the Board of Regents at Texas Southern University, was happy to oblige. By the time it was over, Riverside emerged with another $3 million.

Thus, like garbage, Congresswoman Jackson Lee floats to the top of the harbor as the Houston bayous are flooded by the City of Houston and the Army Corps of Engineers deciding to use half of the city as a reservoir pond. She is demanding $150Bn in recovery money.

Houston congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said federal lawmakers should begin working on a Hurricane Harvey aid package worth about $150 billion, more than double the amount Hurricane Sandy needed five years ago. Jackson Lee told CNN today that the funding to recover from the massive flooding is needed “because this not only includes the Houston Harris County area, which is 6 million in its metroplex, but all of our areas, such as Beaumont, that was hit last night, Victoria and Corpus and places in south Texas.” “We don’t know where else Hurricane Harvey will come,” she said. “And we understand it may turn back to Houston on tomorrow and the next day.”

If it were just hurricane relief, and if somebody could produce an estimate that demonstrated where this money is needed, then it would be logical to vote for the funds and get Houston back on its feet. But this is not the case with hurricane relief bills. They are demotic vehicles for the grifters and the greedy. Hurricane Sandy’s $75 billion relief bill only spent $25 billion on actual storm relief.

If the same proves true of the Harvey relief bill, and if She-Jack gets her way, we’re talking $100 billion stolen from the American taxpayer. Nobody in their right mind would ever put somebody like Sheila Jackson Lee in charge of a $150 billion hedge fund with little or no administrative control on how she invested it. But this, by its very nature, is what happens under government by and for the people, who after all elected fraudster Sylvester Turner, the Kwame Kilpatrick of Texas.

Harvey’s floodwaters will recede. Brave and hard-working people will feed the starving, shelter the dispossessed, rescue the stranded and rebuild among the sodden refuse and wreckage. Then Joel Osteen will go back to asking for more of your money. Sadly, Sheila Jackson Lee will remain an anthropogenic disaster that infects both Houston and the United States Congress until the various tribes of Houston emerge from their primeval state of demotism.

Democracy’s Google Problem

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

Trust the United Nations to say that the world not as the world is.

They tell us that democracy is barely breathing in Venezuela. The only thing slowing its breathing is its constant gorging at the trough. Democracy is eating Venezuela like a buffet after the Oakland Raiders arrive. French President Macron accidentally and egregiously told the truth about what was happening over there.

“The generalised and systematic use of excessive force during demonstrations and the arbitrary detention of protesters and perceived political opponents indicate that these were not the illegal or rogue acts of isolated officials,” the report said. The extent of the violations “points to the existence of a policy to repress political dissent and instill fear in the population to curb demonstrations at the cost of Venezuelans’ rights and freedoms”, it (Macron, I presume) added.

The Unelected Cucking Caudillo of the UN (UCCUN) then held forth on what a democracy should do when bad things happen to people who protest election results.

“The government must ensure there are prompt, independent and effective investigations of the human rights violations allegedly committed by the security forces,” as well as by pro-government groups and armed protesters, Mr Zeid said.

But what if a good, solid working majority of the voters get off on the “the generalised and systematic use of excessive force during demonstrations and the arbitrary detention of protesters and perceived political opponents?” If Antifa forms a government in the US or Great Britain, wouldn’t they want Nazi-punching inaugurated as an Olympic Sport?

The flaw in democracy is the flaw in human individuals amplified by groupthink, hive-mind and committee mentality behavior. Once a majority of We The People (WTFP) wants your sorry posterior dirt-napped, you are going down. Democracy demands it — and no emperor, king or dictator is as cruel a master as the mob. Ask Jesus and Socrates.

And if you don’t believe that the will of the people is perverse, puerile, perverted, pusillanimous and frequently in accordance with the true spirit of Mordor, then you need to get your ass off the couch and meet more of the fine folk in your neck of the woods. So democracy in Venezuela delivers. It’s the product Macron’s mom, oops, I mean his wife probably instructed him to object to.

Joel Kotkin gives us the #Cuckservative version of the same sort of whinge. He tells us that President Trump damaged democracy and Silicon Valley will finish it off.

The Silicon Valley and its Puget Sound annex dominated by Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft increasingly resemble the pre-gas crisis Detroit of the Big Three. Tech’s Big Five all enjoy overwhelming market shares—for example Google controls upwards of 80 percent of global search—and the capital to either acquire or crush any newcomers. They are bringing us a hardly gilded age of prosperity but depressed competition, economic stagnation, and, increasingly, a chilling desire to control the national conversation.
Jeff Bezos harrumphs through his chosen megaphone, The Washington Post, about how “democracy dies in the dark.” But if Bezos—the world’s third richest man, who used the Post first to undermine Bernie Sanders and then to wage ceaseless war on the admittedly heinous Donald Trump—really wants to identify the biggest long-term threat to individual and community autonomy, he should turn on the lights and look in the mirror.

Now, as America’s version of the democratic Visigoth Holiday threatens to wind on down, even Matthew Yglesias over at Vox started to take notice. Journalism’s extra from the set of Eyes Wide Shut ponders with furrowed brow that a company that owns over 80% of its market and maintains a fleet of offshore cruise ships to house its illegal immigrant workforce, might just be exerting a wee tad bit of influence over Matthew’s beloved Democratic Party.

All businesses lobby on behalf of their interests, and in recent years that lobbying has increasingly expanded to include more focus on things like think tanks and other aspects of the “deep” influence game. Google has been especially an especially aggressive player at deep influence. The Wall Street journal reported in July, for example, that they’ve spent millions of dollars subsidizing academic research that backs Google policy positions, often mapping out the thesis to be proven and then shopping to find the scholar to do the work. Google’s money, not always disclosed, has backed donations to think tanks across the ideological spectrum as well as more prosaic forms of influence peddling like campaign contributions. What makes Google somewhat unusual for such a big company is that it’s fairly closely aligned with the Democratic Party. Dozens of people moved from jobs at Google to jobs in the Obama administration, and vice versa, over its eight-year span.

We’ll walk Matthew through a gentle black-pilling here and let him see how The Matrix really works. Google finds it refreshingly pleasant and surprising that the Democrats are so willing to align themselves with its long-term corporate strategy. They find it particularly surprising how benign their acquisition of this old and once-proud political monopoly of coercion has actually been. There have been occasional hiccups along the way, but then again, what Megacorporation hasn’t had to spin-off or terminate a few unprofitable divisions.

And yes, dozens of people have moved back and forth between Google HQ and their subordinate Obama White House. It was a high-risk acquisition, that Obama White House, and somebody had to fly out there and provide a bit of technical expertise. So democracy has been surprisingly effective for Goolag, Crapple, Zuckerface, et al, but all good love affairs come to an end. Google owns politicians the way Wall Street money managers own positions in Walmart or Caterpillar.

They hope that they know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, and never let those positions have any normative influence on their beliefs. Perhaps, as President Trump LBOed their butts out of DC and the EU decided to tax them as perhaps a rainy-day fund in case the Brexit actually leaves the building, Google thinks their democracy position is reaching its shelf life and smells like last Thursday’s delivery from the milkman. So as Google begins to think it has a democracy problem — and democracy wants to think itself potent enough to even solve a Google problem — something will have to be done.

Now Google properly evaluates ROI on democracy based on how frequently their paid politicians win and then how well they behave and stay bought once in office. If they get Hillaried, or if their protégés/catamites defect to Bernie or The Donald, then Google has a dilemma on its hands. They can double-down on the information control and politician-buying, or they can cut their losses and divest. They can be Amerikan and start moving all their jobs to China.

Democracy, on the other hand, has two options of its own to deal with their Goolag problem. We’ll describe these options as Roosevelt I and Roosevelt II.

  • Roosevelt I (AKA The Tedster) involves dusting off an old law known as The Sherman Anti-Trust Act and hammering the crap out of the Silicon Valley Oligarchs. Break their companies and make them spin off tentacles the way Judge Green dismembered AT&T. This would lead to something akin to the regional Baby Bells and a briefly less efficient Internet. After that, innovation will kick in and Google and Twitter will seem about as advanced as old, early 1990’s brick cell phones. If democracy beats Google, this is how I’d want it all to go down.
  • Roosevelt II (AKA Evil Amerikan Emperor) involves making the Internet into some sort of giant TVA. Theoretically, at least, nationalization of social media would make Goolag, Faceberg, Twatter, et al, have to work around the First Amendment in order to censor, say Baked Alaska. They would be licensed public carriers rather than private enterprises. But what if democracy goes into end-stage demotic decline here as badly as it has in Venezuela? Well, then the voters would demand “The generalised and systematic use of excessive force during demonstrations and the arbitrary detention of protesters and perceived political opponents.” Twitter’s Memory Hole Committee wouldn’t keep the people waiting. They’d be GLAAD to get cracking on that one pronto. The Roosevelt II option would only make the Internet more Orwellian than it already is.

So if you beat Google with democracy, you get totalitarianism. If you democratize Google, you get authoritarianism. Only smashing Goog-hole or smashing democracy — or ideally, smashing both Goolag and mob rule — will resolve the issue in a favorable manner for the commonweal of the society. Is there any conceivable chance that we can embrace healing power of and on this one?

As Democracy-Created Problems Mount, The Thin Veneer Of The First World Cracks

Tuesday, September 12th, 2017

We, the citizens of the air conditioning and the infomercial, of the the fast food joint at the corner and the Wal-mart in the middle of town, like to think that we have attained a status where the problems of humanity — namely that 99% of us are screwing up most of the time, producing miserable societies — are as far away in time as they are in space.

Any time you see something denied, look quickly to see the truth that is being concealed and know it is true. The more we insist on equality, the more we know we are unequal; the more that we talk about our first world lifestyles, the more we should know that these are disappearing, replaced by a life completely controlled by democracy, consumerism and neurosis.

Hurricane Irma is currently ravaging Florida, but Hurricane Harvey changed America. It was not the story hidden within the story — that a city flooded itself by draining its reservoirs, after relatively minimal storm damage — but that normal people everywhere are waking up to the fact that we live in a fake society.

The media was quick to run a narrative of “Texans helping Texans, regardless of race, color or creed.” You know what this is: emphasize the dominant paradigm, so that people can go back to comfortable oblivion instead of being forced to face the fact that our society is in collapse.

Alone that tells you that our civilization is in collapse. If people have to actively deny and conceal something, it means the opposite is true. So Texans did not come together, regardless of race, color and creed; instead, minority-majority rule meant that the mayor was content to treat the relatively wealthy flooded suburbs as subject populations, knowing that his voter base would approve. Looting was widespread and generally ran across the color line. And we are not back to business as usual, because people have realized that our current civilization is dysfunctional and hostile to those who have the ability to fix it. Government hates competence in its constituency because the competence of certain individuals is a threat to control that is enforced by shepherding the masses of the brainwashed. The masses, voting for individualistic benefit, create a parasitic government that then promises to take care of them, and in the process, becomes a system of wealth transfer from the productive to those whose only commodity of value is their vote. They then form a loose cartel based on insisting that this way of life is the best and only option, and that anyone who dissents is guilty of anti-social behavior. Usually, this quiets the herd, including the dangerous tip of those who are intelligent, thoughtful, analytical and alert.

This time however, it did not work. As part of the growing alienation between Americans who support the equality agenda and those who do not, people are rebelling against the narrative. They realize that things would not be concealed unless they contained a grain of truth, and that the truth is that once you look behind the curtain, you see that everything about our government, equality and diversity is a lie.

A natural disaster shows you how much you depend on civilization. The first layer is the obvious stuff: electricity, water, sewer, grocery stores and cops on the streets. Then, you want a basic sense of stability, such as that there are those who will help you and people in power who will do their best to minimize the impact of events like this. You also want more than cops on the street, but a justice system which cannot be bought and puts the bad guys away or sends them away. You also want leaders that you can believe in who you think will replicate the world you grew up in, maybe a little improved, but not greatly diminished. And finally, there is the existential level: you want a civilization that has a purpose, so that life has a point, and that recognizes reality and adapts to it, so you do not encounter unpleasant surprises, and ideally that aims for excellence, so that we are creating meaning together by striving to not just subsist, and not just adapt, but even more than thrive, to ascend and therefore, to have something worth sacrificing for. People will go to work for the paycheck, but they are only really motivated when they believe there is something larger and more important than them which is being honored, perpetuated, refined and improved by the group participation of which they are part. The existential level comes out more than anything else during a natural disaster because people need an answer to the question, “Why rebuild? Why keep going? Why strive at all?”

Right now in the West we have the parasite dark organization that arises in any human group as the basis for our government, industry and cultural institutions. To understand this, we must first define terms: “organization” used in an adjectival or adverbial sense means the state of being organized, or having a plan, separated functions, tools and materials in place, hierarchy, delegation and the like; an “organization” in a noun sense means a group of humans united by certain principles and goals, from three friends up through a large corporation, government, tribe or centralized religion. Dark organizations happen when the goals of individuals conflict with the goals of the organization, and those individuals begin using the organization as a vehicle for their own goals instead of the goals of the organization, and the hierarchy or leadership within is not strong enough — or is disempowered by internal conflicts, including revolt by lower ranks — to resist it.

This happened in the West when we overthrew our monarchs to divide power so that the mercantile middle classes could expand their own power. First they removed the absolute authority of the monarchs and then, blaming them for the problems caused by that lack of absolute authority, removed them entirely. Since then we have had mob rule, but it keeps going because people believe in it and rationalize its failures because of their need for that belief, mainly because they cannot conceive of anything different. So they shrug off the insanity, wait in the lines, sit in entirely avoidable traffic jams that we treat like an odd kind of weather event, endure pointless make-work activities and moronic socialization, pay taxes that increase every year, support both criminal underclasses that contribute nothing and parasitic fake culture and fake leadership that actively steals from them, and cut off their brains from thinking about all the productive things they could do with the money, time and energy wasted on the parasites.

Government seems like it can keep going indefinitely. But it has a weakness: it depends on lots of nice white guys showing up, willing to carry out its insane orders, believing in its justifications and purpose. This is eroding, and events like Hurricane Harvey are accelerating it. When your local government makes disastrous decisions, and the number of people who want to take from the till increases, and bloat also swells, then you know that you are headed toward a crash. You are in a bubble, trading on the wealth and power of the past so that useless people can take “their fair share” despite offering nothing that contributes to improvement.

Our thinking went backward when we insisted on equality. Before equality, there was the idea of hierarchy, or that each person had a place in the structure of society, but unequally; we all gave according to our ability, and received according to our actual need in order to serve our purpose, which meant that many were poor because their roles were small. If they died, they were easily replaced, and so they received lower levels of funding. After equality, the assumption was different: we basically said that x + y = 1 for all values of x, so choose any arbitrary values that make you feel good. This is why people are fanatical about believing lies; they must make all choices good so that no one can be assessed according to their level of contribution. This is a type of pacifism that says we do not need to struggle for position, or even to use self-discipline to improve our contributions, but in a backward interpretation of the original formula, we are assumed to be contributors and then the system makes room for us and approves of whatever weird behaviors we indulge in. That is an anti-reality formula; instead of rewarding those who adapt to reality, we assume that the reward goes to everyone, and find an argument that says that whatever they were doing was useful after all, in contradiction of how things appear.

The reversal of thinking — instead of seeing what the result is, assuming that the result is good and therefore approving of anything on the left side of the equation — creates warm and fuzzy feelings among human beings. They no longer must struggle to get a good result (the right side of the equation) but can focus entirely on the left side of the equation, which is where they project their feelings, drama, emotions, judgements and sentiments. To them, their notions appear real if other people treat them as real, and it is this affirmation (or validation) that they want. They want other people to rubber-stamp the unrealistic as the real, because then they are blameless if a Darwinistic Event occurs and they are eliminated or humiliated.

Politics arises from that reversal. It is no longer important to show that an idea, when implemented, produces the right results; all results are the same. Instead, you merely have to excite 51% or more of the population about it, and it becomes law. Democracy is the expression of the social sensation of going along with the crowd because it is easier and less risky than standing out. Whoever produces the simplest idea wins, but that idea needs to not only be simple in itself, but appeal to the basic desires of humanity. Free stuff, blaming someone else for our problems, and feeling that nice warm togetherness that lets a hive mind buzz in unison are all perpetually popular themes. Politics occurs as a result with having to deal with a society without hierarchy, where other than the leaders, everyone is an equal, which means that in order to get anything done you need to get them all roaring at the same time. Because of equality, leadership becomes a question of politics, which is more like the work of an actor on stage or the phenomenon of a football game or even the choice of which television commercial is most effective, than some kind of reasoned decision based on facts, logic and context!

Equality creates nerds. The point of equality is to create a human-only world where all that matters is what other humans think; reality itself is deprecated and obsolete, but mass sentiment determines who wins and who dies. This produces nerds, or those who are experts in deductive reasoning based on human sources. A nerd can read an instruction manual or scientific study, and from it make conclusions about how reality is, focusing on broad and square logical statements instead of the finely nuanced, coordinated detail-oriented, logic-intensive and depth-focused world of nature. A nerd loves machines and rules, references and orthogonal logic patterns, and shies away from the complexity of a forest, ecosystem, weather pattern or philosophical argument. They are products of the system. They are the ones who rule in any democracy because they understand the mechanisms of both technology and the herd. When your society goes nerd, it becomes entirely self-referential, and misses out on the broader world outside of the human-centric logic used by social interaction and politics. Where nature demands results, politics and nerds focus on methods and procedures. This makes them powerful within human society, but unable to predict the consequences of nature, which turns out not to be “some thing out there” but a pattern order that pervades us all, and dooms the best-laid plans of nerds and politicians because those schema are too simple to take account of the nuance, detail and subtlety of nature.

This in turn creates neurosis because there are no actual rules, only responses to whatever the herd is doing at that moment. Modern people are attention whores because with equality, no one has any actual place, and everyone starts from square one. As a result, they are all trying to prove their importance by competing for money or ideological purity, because either makes them noteworthy and then they can start cultivating their personal Crowd which will ensure their popularity and thus, newsworthiness and from that, profitability. Equality makes everyone into a prostitute for social influence points, or status. This leads them to become entirely self-serving independent of their actual role in civilization, and this leads to a mixture of arrogance, pretense, narcissism and solipsism which is the defining feature of the person in the egalitarian society. The more equal we are, the more we have nothing, and must seek out some position of importance in order to avoid becoming simply generic human containers who die alone in irrelevance. Human attention is the only thing between us and the voracious void, so we pursue it like a drug, feeling good about ourselves only when we glow in the eyes of others, and feeling awful when we are deprived of this socializing influence. We are dependent on others for our own sense of identity and worth, and this is how we are controlled, not by a centralized force but by the instinct to form a herd that lurks in every human soul.

This leads us to the dirty secret of humanity: we think we are all so very individualistic, distinct and important, when in truth, most people are the same, being simply feral atavistic animals seeking to become important through using others in order to survive. Civilization becomes addictive like sex or skydiving, a feeling of well-being we seek before anything else because it temporarily ceases the emptiness we feel from having been made equal. Humans pursue ideas like “equality” and “diversity” because these reflect individualism, but since the individualist is beholden to the Crowd for his power, individualism corrupts and reduces individuality, creating empty people. We are more similar than we think in that there are only a few functions known as the “4 Fs” — feeding, fighting, fleeing and reproduction — which humans focus on, although our versions are more abstracted than those literal ideas. For example, people posture at being important in order to feed better thanks to higher salaries; they fight through sports, business, socializing and culture; they flee from any idea which invalidates what they have achieved; and they seek mates by showing off whenever they can. We are biology, no matter how much we deny it.

Our contemporary narrative takes advantage of this. The Leftist idea, which is egalitarianism, makes us feel like the adversity we face has been removed by the collective action of humanity. This in turn makes us believe that we are somehow breaking new ground for humanity when in reality we are denying fundamentals that we need for civilization. Like a bad business, we are cutting corners by refusing to put energy into civilization so that we can instead devote it to short-term enjoyments. The only way to rationalize this behavior is through the nebulous and emotional world of social morality, which follows the utilitarian idea that whatever most people will vocalize approval of must then be what is right, even when it is not — or especially when it is not. This rationalization enables us to live in a solipsistic bubble where we pretend that we are unique, different, iconoclastic and special by using the same logic that allows us to claim that decay is progress. To those caught in the addiction to being unique and special that comes with trying to rise to a state above the mere equality that is granted to everyone, and therefore is worthless, “diversity” seems a natural way to decrease the amount of standards in a society, and therefore allows us to get more freaky, weird, eccentric, eclectic, and dramatic, which in turn allows us to engage in stunts and attention whoring and raise our own status, since “equality” actually pushes us downward by eliminating any innate identity or position we would have if we were living in a hierarchical society.

Our behavior thus is compensatory in that since we are not getting what we need, we focus instead on short-term temporary wants as a means of feeling compensated for what has been taken from us that we cannot identify. That makes us dependent on our compensatory behavior because we feel that it is all we have, and we have a vague sense of being victimized, but since the person doing the victimizing is ourselves, since we have unknowingly become pathological in our cult-like pursuit of equality, we cannot lash out, and instead target those around us by becoming parasitic to our own civilization. This takes us full circle: people feel a lack of power, so they demand equality, which in turn makes them powerless, so they sabotage their society, but this makes them complicit in a dark organization like a gang, cult, cartel or mob which then demands allegiance, so they cannot stop the cycle. Endless cries for equality are met by endless degradation of conditions, while those savvy and cynical enough to see through the whole thing promise the mewling mob what it demands, and then abscond with the profits because they know that only disaster lies ahead. Whether that is Hugo Chavez dying a billionaire as his countrymen starved, Soviet apparatchiks in their dachas, Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren becoming millionaires in office, or simply your average rank-and-file bureaucrat making six figures to administer civil rights, affirmative action, sexual assault protection or any of the other voter hot button programs, equality means theft.

People generally recognize that this is the case, and it makes them hopeless. Anyone with a brain in the West has been morbidly depressed since at least the 1920s, with the most perceptive beginning to feel the queasiness in the 1820s or earlier. However, they know that a transition to anything else will involve massive carnage and possibly failure, so they hang on, patching up society like a leaky boat and hoping for the best instead of letting it sink while they build a new boat. These people, who are complicit in continuing the decline because they have rationalized the decay as positive and are afraid of anything else, collaborate with the government and other captive industries to further the narrative: We Can Fix This. They want us to think that Houston flooding is merely an aberration, a glitch, or a deviation from the norm, instead of the norm itself. The truth is that we cannot fix this and even if we could, it would be doom for us, a slow death by a thousand cuts that makes us existentially miserable and prone to abuse our families, friends and coworkers as it drives us mad. We are locked in a train heading toward a ravine where the bridge is out, keeping ourselves distracted by fighting over the distribution of food in the restaurant car while the abyss grows steadily nearer. We all want off the train, but there is no way to jump from a speeding train without risk of death or serious injury, so we huddle closer, in public keeping up the charade by focusing on any issue other than the one real issue of civilization collapse, and in private always wondering exactly when the crash will come.

Houston shows us our future. The minority-majority city will never act in a sane way because it is divided by racial politics. Every group votes for what benefits them, with only the Western European group voting for what will make the local civilization there work for everyone. Who wants to pay for a billion-dollar aqueduct when there are pensions, benefits, diversity programs, more schools for the children of illegal aliens, and more helpful government programs that hire the bureaucrats who get those pensions, to be funded? Houston has known since Tropical Storm Allision in 2001 that an epic flood disaster was going to occur, and the :

What’s at stake is the safety of the nation’s fourth-largest city. If the dams failed, half of Houston would be underwater.

…Addicks and Barker were six decades old, with a long history of seepage and erosion, when the Corps evaluated their condition in 2007. Once positioned far from downtown, they were now surrounded by houses and highways. Some residences sat within the reservoirs, which straddle the Energy Corridor along Interstate 10 and west of Beltway 8.

Development upstream was sending more runoff into the reservoirs, which were filling faster and storing water for longer. Nine out of the top 10 pools for both reservoirs have occurred since 1990.

“Every piece of concrete that’s poured upstream is going to have an impact on these reservoirs. Every square inch,” Long said

…The deadliest scenario for Addicks involves the outlets failing as the pool rises to 106 feet, producing the staggering loss of billions in property and thousands of lives after water submerges downtown, west and south Houston and the Texas Medical Center. 

You can see the growth of Houston over time, and how that growth coincides with the mostly-Hispanic immigration that transformed a once white-run city into a Democrat-run, mostly non-white city. Houstonians who grew up after 1982 found themselves in a minority-majority city with street signs in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean and other languages corresponding to the 145 languages that people speak there. White people make up 24.9% of the population of Houston, and 38.8% of the population of the Houston metropolitan area.

As Houston grew, it lost a vital resource: the wide flood plain that enabled the reservoirs to dump water outside of the city, instead of having to release it into the mainly white neighborhoods surrounding the bayous, into which the reservoirs drain as outlets.

It was not to be. On April 18, during the height of the storm, when the dam gates were closed, the flow in Buffalo Bayou reached nearly 7,000 cfs, as measured by the gauge at Piney Point. (The Memorial Day flood on May 26, 2015, exceeded 7,000 cfs and reached 8,500 cfs, according to the Harris County Flood Control District, page 9.) As of this writing, combined releases from the dams, measured by the Piney Point gauge, have exceeded 3,000 cubic feet per second for longer than even after the Memorial Day flood, the first time the Corps deliberately raised the release rate to 3,000 cfs, and frequently have reached 3,700 cfs. Homes downstream are expected to flood above 4,000 cfs.

Consistently, Houston has rejected any plan for addressing the problem of huge amounts of rain, namely that such amounts would necessitate a release above 4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) in order to drain the reservoirs in anticipation of future rain, as it indeed did, destroying many neighborhoods. Hurricane Harvey called Houston’s bluff, which mayors Lanier, Brown, Parker and Turner — all Democrats, two black — had been ignoring as a possibility by not acting on any plan to increase drainage. The growth of Houston, coupled with its refusal to upgrade its drainage, created this flood.

In fact, there were two floods: the initial storm surge, which flooded areas that normally flooded during storms like Allison, and the reservoir release, which produced the really devastating damage that destroyed homes along the bayous two days after the storm hit. This flood has provoked a class action lawsuit from homeowners who observed the correlation between the reservoir release and the destruction of their homes. In their view, the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Houston essentially used some of its oldest and wealthiest neighborhoods as a giant retention pond, instead of venting the reservoirs outside the city, which created a flood of epic proportions:

The controlled releases, which topped out with the dams gushing a combined 13,000 cubic feet per second, sent water surging into homes along Buffalo Bayou in neighborhoods, outlined by I-10 to the north, Gessner to the east, Briar Forest to the south and the reservoir to the west. Mayor Sylvester Turner ordered a mandatory evacuation for all homes that had flooded once it became clear the water would not recede anytime soon.

…This comes as people are looking back at the years of warnings that this kind of event could happen, about developing rice fields and wetlands that used to sop up storm water, about how Addicks and Barker were aging, about how another plan was needed to be put in place before a major storm like Harvey hit.

…After all, in 1996 a report from engineers with the Harris County Flood Control District found that Harris County’s reservoir system was not cutting it, a problem that put thousands of home in jeopardy. At that time the proposed solution was a $400 million underground system that would pipe water from the reservoirs to the Houston Ship Channel.

And so it comes down to money. Spend on benefits for the diversity, or spend it on protecting the mostly white and Jewish neighborhoods threatened by reservoir-induced flooding? The 1996 report warned that Houston had expanded to cover the floodplain once used to drain the reservoirs:

The report was filed away without action, then last week Harvey struck. The usually dry Addicks and Barker reservoirs quickly filled until, on Aug. 28, they were nearly full and water had spread to their surrounding neighborhoods. The Army Corps of Engineers opened the floodgates to let a controlled amount escape. But instead of the normal 4,000 cubic feet per second, Corps officials opened the gates wide enough to release more than 13,000 cubic feet per second to keep the rising reservoir levels from overtopping the dams. They did so knowing it would flood neighborhoods downstream.

And just as the 1996 report predicted, water in many of the flooded homes would not drain for days or even weeks.

Despite this warning, the coalition of housing developers who wield the power of campaign financing and the minority voters who make up the largest voting bloc, would not support any changes, especially since the new homes in the floodplain were providing affordable housing for the new population, which was mostly non-white which was accelerated by the Obama policy of relocating Section 8 housing to the suburbs. As in Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles and other cities where the minority vote decides every election, people vote for what benefits their own tribes, and leave the costs to be absorbed by others, in this case mostly white, longer-term residents of Houston. Minorities never vote conservative, and Democrats win elections by promising benefits, not addressing infrastructural or structural problems. The more benefits we pay out, the more our wealth declines along with our motivation and hope, in parallel to what we saw in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries; benefits, like labor unions, are a socialist idea. The Balkanization begins in Houston.

Every plan that has promised to address the potential superfloods has been voted down, including some that took the reasonable step of limiting development:

Harris County Flood Control District, Texas Water Development Board and others released a study in August that looked at a key problem area: the overflow of Cypress Creek into Addicks Reservoir. One plan listed in the study, known as “Alternative Five,” proposes the acquisition of land along Cypress Creek to act as a sponge or reservoir for floodwaters. The more land that soaks up floodwater, the less likely the dams are to be breached: That’s just common sense. Area officials, nonprofit organizations and developers should unite to take the steps necessary to implement this plan now.

This alternative, which will provide a host of benefits to residents in addition to flood protection, is garnering support from groups that want to use natural resources as a primary defense against flooding as well as groups that support conventional infrastructure projects. Not only will the plan help relieve the pressure on the dams, as the area grows more populated, Houstonians also will be grateful for the green space. The mixed-use floodways will provide recreational amenities and will benefit the biodiversity of the area by maintaining a home for quail, dove, rabbits and a large variety of songbirds and ducks.

There’s no time to waste. Nearby land is being developed and concrete is being poured at a rapid pace.

However, displacing this land by making it a floodplain would frustrate both the developers, who see money in building neighborhoods closer to the city, and minority voters, who are increasingly located in suburbs and want this new housing. While people from the coasts — seemingly to a man knowing zero about the situation in Houston, yet willing to opine on it with the pretense of authority — suggest that Houston’s lack of zoning is the problem, the reality is far simpler: even with zoning, new neighborhoods are springing up anywhere land can be bought in order to accommodate the flood of newcomers, most of whom are from Central America and Asia and vote consistently Democrat. Zoning will raise the costs of housing, but will not stop the growth of the city. And Texas’ famously high property taxes, required to maintain the school system under the “Robin Hood” policy of redistributing money from wealthy areas to poorer ones, keep going up as bilingual schools are built to take on the flood of new children, 91% of whom are non-white. This means that anyone who owns land that could be kept in a natural state is driven out when they receive the astronomical bill based on the new value of their land, since development nearby raises its estimated sales price, which is the metric by which taxes are calculated. And whites? They are the prosperous tax base that also accurately reports its income, in contrast to some newer successful groups who have already for cheating in schools and, by reputation, on their taxes. In Asian and many Hispanic countries, cheating on taxes and exams is part of the national culture.

It is not global warming that brought about this flood, but over-development to support a rising minority-majority population:

Other researchers argue that poor urban infrastructure and the rapid, unchecked sprawl of cities on to marshlands and other places that usually absorb excess rainwater have led to flooding.

“We know climate change is influencing the capacity of the atmosphere to hold water but it is hard to attribute this to individual [flooding] events,” says Paolo Ruti, head of the global weather research division of the UN’s World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in Geneva.

Those marshlands refer to the areas West, Northwest and South of Houston that in the past absorbed the extra water.

Television coverage of this event was interesting, since it focused mostly on what appeared to be obese people from minority groups getting rescued from homes in the outer suburbs like Cypress. This both affirms the narrative of equality (less capable = victims; more capable = tax base and evildoers) but also plays to popular stereotypes in the cruelest manner of bigots, so that the standard low-information white voter can sit back and quietly mutter ethnic slurs, which focuses his attention on specific minority groups instead of the problem of diversity, which is that his interests will never win in an election again. Hating black people plays into the hands of the pro-diversity crowd because it redirects focus to a false event, which is the behavior of minorities, and away from the actual question, which is that diversity is a government-sponsored event which can be ended by changing our laws, unleashing a wave of similar lawsuits, or, if necessary, open revolution.

White Houstonians are held hostage by the minority vote just as white voters are in Detroit or Baltimore. The third world strategy is to arrive en masse in clueless Western-style democracies, and then produce many offspring, so that soon, the minority population controls the vote and can turn the government against the people who created it. This demonstrates a classic conflict between r– and K-strategic populations — something I have been writing about since 2009 — which is that poorer and dumber populations have many more children, and eventually overwhelm those who are more competent at making leadership decisions, at which point the society collapses into a third-world state. Couple this with the fact that, to dumber people, more intelligent ideas than they are capable of generating in fact appear to be unintelligent ideas, and you have a perfect political storm where the incompetent swarm the gates and take over, only to create a failed state which makes successively worse decisions, as happened with the French Revolution and Russian Revolution, and arguably, the Obama revolution which wrecked America economically, culturally and structurally, paving the way for the populist backlash, which wanted an end to “globalism” or the advance of worldwide Leftism with its diversity initiative, after noticing the Soviet-style transformation unable to respond to actual risk. These people want their countries back and distrust the permanent political class running those countries. They are united against the toxic coalition of Leftists, minorities and large corporations that has transformed America and Europe by following the Leftist agenda.

We have seen this pattern before outside America, where minority-majority voters pair with Leftists and corporate interests to pursue an internationalist agenda instead of focusing on the health of the civilization and its founding group:

It is no exaggeration to say that this myth of the “moral high ground” was sustained only by sheer denialism, by a studied aversion of the eyes from these well-known faults. This held true even as the first signs of a new corruption became clear as one ANC leader after another quickly developed wealthy white “godfathers”. I asked Anton Harber, then editor of the Mail and Guardian, why his paper was paying so little attention to this alarming new phenomenon. He replied indignantly that having campaigned so strongly for liberation they had no wish to embarrass the new black elite. This sort of attitude was widespread. There was a rush among white opinion-makers to befriend the ANC and anyone who brought up such matters, let alone things like the use of torture in the MK camps, was thought to be churlish, perhaps even pro-apartheid.

The new ANC elite could not have hoped for such luck: a key newspaper deciding that news of budding corruption should be treated as non-news. They were not slow to take advantage. Even before 1994 Joe Modise, the putative defence minister, had made contact with various large arms manufacturers, had established contact with many old apartheid security apparatchiks and was a frequent attender at European air shows and the like: everything was ready to go.

This follows a pattern we see worldwide throughout history, which is that diversity is not a friend, but a challenge that no society has successfully navigated. Thomas Sowell lays out the basic problem with diversity:

If there is any place in the Guinness Book of World Records for words repeated the most often, over the most years, without one speck of evidence, “diversity” should be a prime candidate.

Is diversity our strength? Or anybody’s strength, anywhere in the world? Does Japan’s homogeneous population cause the Japanese to suffer? Have the Balkans been blessed by their heterogeneity — or does the very word “Balkanization” remind us of centuries of strife, bloodshed and unspeakable atrocities, extending into our own times?

Has Europe become a safer place after importing vast numbers of people from the Middle East, with cultures hostile to the fundamental values of Western civilization?

To which Ann Coulter adds the unpopular truth that diversity causes permanent political division that endangers societies:

Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the “beautiful mosaic” — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”

On top of that, research data shows that diversity destroys social order and therefore is a dysfunctional form of civilization that will eradicate the host population. By contrast, homogeneity provides a firm basis for civilization, as a landmark study that demonstrates the superiority of ethnocentric civilizations in holding back both groupthink and selfishness:

Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.

For now, people are vested in the system — it pays their wages, provides their security, and threatens to destroy them if they say something that is not politically correct — and so they feel clever for partaking in it and believing that it functions. They like the thought that they are represented by something, that they have freedom, and that no matter what they do, society cannot eject them or judge them as lower because they have equality. In order to have these, they select utilitarianism, or the idea that whatever most people think is “good” actually is good, and in order to have a society where most people disagree on most things, they adopt pluralism or the idea that we can “agree to disagree” and still have some semblance of functional order. From that, the step to diversity is not a long one, and it brings the eternal crisis of egalitarianism (equality): if you have a group of people who are fundamentally different in ability, the only way to make them all the same — how our brains interpret the word “equality” — is to take from those at the top, and give to those at the bottom, which means that the worst slowly consume the best, in a metaphorical relationship similar to that of biological parasites in nature. This happens without diversity, but diversity accelerates it, and soon we get the white=bad/non-white=good narrative that we saw in the early news stories about the Hurricane Harvey floods in Houston.

Even more, during a natural disaster, we see the need for civilization, which is not a generic thing but comes in different types, of which first world, third world, totalitarian, democratic, and nationalistic are potentially overlapping descriptors. All nice things end when you set up your civilization incorrectly; homogeneity is a pre-requisite for having a nice civilization. You cannot shape people into being like you with laws and incentives; to have nice places, you must have nice people, which means people like you on a biological level, as expressed both in genetics and outward appearance (phenotype). Even more, you need a leadership system that ensures that instead of having the worst slowly consume the best, you both empower the best to rule, and remove incentives for the best to victimize the rest, which requires vesting most of the wealth — usually through land, without insane property taxes — with the best. Without people of genius for leadership curating civilization at every step and every level, idiocy intervenes, and idiocy is subversive because it appeals to the broadest number of people since anything less idiotic is incomprehensible and offensive to them, so they will demand that those higher ideas go away and are replaced by idiotic ones. We have nothing now but pro-idiot policies.

The mayor of Houston is a man named Sylvester Turner who has a glowing résumé. He is not of the majority, so experience has taught me that this means that his experience and deeds have been vastly inflated by well-meaning but self-hating which means neurotic members of the majority group. He works for those who vote for him, which in a city that is three-quarters minority, means that he works against the interests of the white people and in favor of the Left-leaning, benefits-inclined minorities. Before him came Annise Parker, who was also an outsider, being a lesbian. She, too, worked for her tribe at the expense of the founders of this city, who were Western Europeans. She achieved the minority vote because she was not of the majority. Before her was Bill White, a member of the majority who was popular with the business community and progressives for his mixture of libertarian business policy and Leftist social policy. Previous to him was Lee Brown, also not of the majority ethnic group, who was universally recognized as lazy and incompetent but made Houston look “progressive” at a time when it was trying to expand. Before him was Bob Lanier, an old-school Democrat who was cozy with industry. He was of the majority group and should have known better, but apparently wanted power more than he wanted to be right, and the citizens of this city voted enthusiastically for them because he promised to make it grow by bringing in lots of outside people and industry. All of these people had a chance to make this flood problem go away, perhaps only for $400 million — a tiny fraction of the damage done by Harvey — and blew it off, because the coalition of minority voters and voracious industry did not want to spend the money on anything but benefits and new roads to the suburbs they were perpetually building around the city, many of which became homes for those minority voters. These people were mostly white, but under the non-white mayor Brown, the time was right because of Tropical Storm Allison, which flooded the city to the point that it was clear that something needed to be done. None acted.

Houston is a blue city. Most of the whites are faced with a grim choice: admit they are living in a third world nightmare with a pile of white wealth on top, or rationalize the problem, which means finding a way to argue to their own minds that bad=good, which they do through enthusiastic support of diversity, high taxes, immigration, gay rights and a slough of other Leftist issues that make people feel that nice warm sense of one-ness that comes with a buzzing hive mind. Rationalizers follow the mental policy that inevitable disaster can be postponed for long enough to forget about it, and that in the meantime, it is best to explain away the bad as good and tilt at windmills that are unrelated to actual problems. Most of us are familiar with the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

They came for the Communists, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn’t
object – For I wasn’t a Jew;
Then they came for me –
And there was no one left to object.

Rationalization means recognizing that there is an incoming and ongoing problem and choosing to re-style it as a victory. Obviously Niemöller had some issues, because removal of labor leaders, Socialists and Communists is never a bad thing, but the point he makes is a good one. Rationalization is a sickness of the mind. It takes many forms, some of them on the right. “Work hard, pray hard” and the Benedict Option are one form; another is anti-Semitism, which blames Jews for the problems created by Aryans through caste revolt, in which our r-strategy serfs overwhelmed our K-strategy aristocrats with the help of the mercantile bourgeois middle class. The so-called “Jewish Question” or JQ is a form of rationalization that avoids the real issue — civilization decline brought on by egalitarian sentiments, and a resulting lack of hierarchy and social order — while pursuing a symbolic issue, namely the scapegoat of the Jews, who for whatever wrongs they have done, did not create our decline, because we did it ourselves. The JQ is “we wuz kangs” for white people, or an explanation of how we were once great until someone else stole it from us, and an easy answer in that if we destroy that other, then the good times can resume. Leftism is another rationalization; instead of admitting that people are unequal and we want the best on top, Leftism says that it is positive that ineptitude and chaos rule because otherwise, we would have to face the morally and emotionally difficult task of recognizing hierarchy and the need for purpose. Leftism is just like the JQ: a pathology of blaming someone else for our cognitive incompetence.

Turner is obviously a bad guy here, in his participation in encouraging the reservoir release that created the flood, but he is not the source. Neither are the poor Jewish people who got flooded out in Meyerland. Democracy and diversity did this to you, and they happened because you voted for them, tolerated them and were afraid to speak up while you still had a chance. Now that Leftism has momentum, it is squashing all dissent aggressively, and so the only response is to confront it head-on as Trump and Brexit voters have done, but we must go further. The problem with democracy is that it cultivates helplessness and neurosis in us, much as socialism does, and so it must be removed; the problem of diversity is easily removed by sacking our Civil Rights laws and affirmative action, then beginning the reparations-with-repatriation process for all who are not of our founding group, who are Western Europeans. This means that Irish-Americans go back as well as Mexicans, Africans, Asians and Arabs. Modernity is the era defined by equality and individualism, and we now see that its end result is that all nice things get destroyed and are in turn replaced by third-world ruins.

It is hard — intellectually, morally, and emotionally — to face these truths. The sociable thing to do in any situation is to insist that everyone is good, we are all one, and all are welcome. People perennially desire to give in to this pathology, which like pacifism is a desire to avoid conflict by sacrificing what is accurate, good and right. It must be opposed, if you want a functional civilization, without regard to level of detail. Any egalitarianism is toxic; not one drop can be permitted. Any pluralism is toxic; not one drop can be allowed. Any democracy is toxic; not one drop can be sustained. All of those little drops come together to make a trickle, and that wears down the levee, and then they multiply, and soon those drops are a flood, submerging everything good while the bad feasts on the remains.

Diversity Paradise Houston Shows The Psychological Effects of Diversity

Saturday, September 9th, 2017

A week after a tragedy, the psychological effects begin to manifest. People who otherwise were stable and sane start to act differently. They stumble over common words, drive as if they were distracted and on heavy drugs, and make decisions with no relationship to reality. The tragedy has set in; now, the body assimilates it, taking all of the darkness within in an attempt to master it.

People experience these little mental health moments as they become unable to deal with the sheer crisis around them. Houston survived a hurricane, only to be flooded by its government which released the reservoirs in order to avoid endangering the newly-built areas around the city. There was hope, and then it perished under waves of rain, pond and sewer water.

It is perhaps a euphemism to call these failures of cognition “mental health moments.” They occur when people check out of reality entirely, and turn into the world of the self, like autistics stimming looking for a source of inspiration within themselves instead of out there in the world or even the more dangerous territory of their inner selves.

In fact, it seems like our entire society uses natural selection to ensure that the only people who prevail are those who do not mind going into a mental fugue state. Too much traffic, a task at a job that is both pointless and sure to be wasted, a society wracked by legal corruption? Just go into the zone of nothingness and allow the hours to pass without pain. It’s like morphine plus religion.

This mental discoordination appears after a disaster. The normal state of things, guaranteed by social good feelings and government, has been interrupted. People feel a sense of loss, but even more, a feeling that all of the normal rules do not apply. The promises were lies. The usual way of living has failed and been replaced by a more basic sense of survival.

When Houston flooded, the disconnection appeared. The normal way of doing things, which we assume to be safe and benevolent towards us, revealed itself to be empty and toxic. The assumptions of our fellow citizens, and the glowing newspaper articles about how people “came together regardless of race, age or gender” showed that they were not just lies, but lies designed to make us into ideological zombies.

White people — mostly Western Europeans — love diversity, mainly because they are naturally competitive, and so this becomes just another way of beating your neighbors. You have a black friend? Well, I have Asian, Latino, Indian and black transgender friends. And yet, when all the drama is done, they retreat to their all-white suburbs, and if those become infiltrated by the Other, the value of those houses mysteriously drops as all those anti-racist white people go elsewhere in search of others like them.

In that sense, we exist in two realities. The public reality affirms the equal nature of all people; the private truth points out that all of us want people like ourselves to exist alongside. Every now and then, the streams cross, as happens when a disaster removes all the pretense and forces us to adhere to what actually functions in terms of results in reality.

After the Houston floods, the mayor came out and made a speech. Then, he indulged in the pretense of the crowd: he allowed them to criticize him, ask “pointed” questions, and demand answers. Victory was on his side: there are always reasons why none of those apply, or at least can be deferred long enough to be swallowed by the memory hole.

The audience immediately separates into two groups: the fools, who do not understand that politics is a game of image, rely on the promises made and the laws written, and demand results. More savvy, the realists recognize that politicians thrive by finding large groups of people to vote for them, and so those laws, standards, and conventions can be overthrown and replaced.

Whatever the crowd wants, it gets.

The emptiness of the response shows us how much we are self-selected victims of democracy. We fear the moment where we must prove ourselves in reality, so we fall back into these human-only activities where all of our choices are “just opinions,” and therefore never wrong. We make the economic decision to suppress reality in favor of our own pretense and that of our friends.

All is vanity. About the only pure things left are love for nature and love for God. Those who adore and trust whatever created all of this, while knowing that it was not necessary and therefore somewhat arbitrary, recognize that it tends toward a proliferation of life, beauty and goodness. Such people have not an innate purpose, but the ability to choose a logical path which resembles purpose.

Humans fear that purpose because it makes us feel small, and we retaliate by demanding that our opinions become law, which is what the term “equality” really means. We are equal without having to adapt to our world or to contribute anything. We can just be as we are and never change, which means we never cross the streams because we remain only in that public world.

In the public world, appearance matters more than reality. Most people just want to be nice, or inoffensive but with the right motivations, because that way they feel powerful for having used The System toward their own ends. But this replaces reality with human emotion, which is why so many of them would rather die than be proven wrong.

Again, natural selection emerges. All of the people who were willing to confront reality have died off by becoming Romantic poets or joining the French Foreign Legion. What remains are those who live in a world of human emotion, denying both reality out there and the deep inner traits of their personalities which demand meaning, something which requires context in the world.

The result is that our nations do not feel like home anymore. They are ruled by a mechanical ideology that resembles that of the Soviets. The people who win are those who care the least about the consequences of their actions. We become neurotic, and come to hate each other. Much of this comes from our denial of the situation around us.

For example, in Houston, Sylvester Turner is an affirmative action mayor. He was elected because he did not offend the various minority groups, who did not want a white guy in charge. This means that he will say whatever makes those groups happy, and offer to everyone else empty excuses.

We need to call guys like this what they are — Kwame Kilpatrick (Detroit), Lee Brown (Houston) or Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) diversity candidates — because they are fundamentally insincere to the stated objectives of multiculturalism and democracy. They work for their own groups, which requires obliterating all others, and they do this through the soft methods of law, economics and social opinion. People go along with it in order to seem intelligent, while insisting that what we actually have is the surface definition of democracy and diversity.

The result shows us our future if we do not remove diversity. All groups act in self-interest, except the pretentious Caucasians, and so when a member of these groups gets in power, he does nothing but steal, corrupt and manipulate. That benefits his people. The rest of you will starve in flooded homes.

Across Houston, in its white neighborhoods, piles of debris and soaking belongings have emerged. The reservoir was emptied so that those who are likely to support the mayor were not inconvenienced, but those white people — unlikely to vote for him in the first place — they can be destroyed. It’s not like they will ever rise up against the system they have created.

You can see immediately whether someone understands the world around them by their attitude toward democracy. Those that think their elected leaders are coming to save them, or that they can manipulate those leaders, or even that a logical argument is being had in the media or with politicians… these people do not get it. They still believe in the surface.

Someone who sees government as an employment program that sells power in exchange for donations to candidates, the media as an entertainment product that reports only what creates an emotional reaction, and other people as a herd in which most understand almost nothing, by having seen this things, can never believe in “the System” but has seen the actual nature of people and their behavior.

We are victims of democracy. We believe in it, when it is actually a form of theater; we trust it to save us, when really its objective is to enrich its own members. And then, as doom approaches, we rationalize it, so that we can feel good and smart for having chosen the winning side, even if it will eventually destroy us.

This originates in our own hubris. We insist that whatever we do is right, instead of the natural form where we must do what is right according to the order above us, including nature and whatever gods we can summon. Our hubris makes us blind, and so we trust the Sylvester Turners of the world, forgetting that their goals do not overlap (much) with our own.

That hubris prevents us from seeing the obvious. This life is insane: sitting in traffic, tolerating idiocy at the office, pretending everyone matters and claiming our world is the best possible option, all reflect a mental health moment that has become a crutch. Surrounded by ugliness, we just space out when the time comes.

Even greater insanity might be trusting democracy itself. How can one reasonably expect a herd of human animals — bickering, preening, conformist, emotional — to make any kind of realistic choice? The answer is that one cannot, and so whoever tells them pleasant lies will win the day. This especially applies to smarter and smugly self-satisfied groups like Caucasians.

When you add diversity into the mix, it becomes even more impossibly unstable. Houston, after all, had two floods: one that flooded the usual areas that get hit by heavy rains, and the second caused by the release of water from the reservoirs, effectively using most of the city’s remaining white areas as a giant retention pond. The first flood was unavoidable, but actually not all that bad, compared to previous events; the second was catastrophic, and a product of the toxic brew of diversity and democracy that strangles Houston.

The West is headed toward dhimmitude not through importation of Muslims, but through diversity and democracy. We invite in the world; they vote against our interests because their interests begin when our power is shattered. And then, to rub our nose in it, they flood our neighborhoods and refuse to pay for actual drainage systems because there are benefits to be had and paid out, for votes, taken from our money.

In the long term, as we watch Houston float away, it becomes clear that diversity will never work. It merely enslaves the productive to the needs of the destructive. In turn, that makes the productive neurotic and oblivious, and so they self-destruct in emotional events far more devastating than even a 1,000 year flood.

Pathological Sanity

Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

Anytime you can not speak of your accurate and realistic observations, you live in a controlled society. This means that your society is in the process of decline and has already collapsed, and is awaiting a coup de grace from some invading Vandals or Conquistadors.

We cannot speak of everyday truths at this time. Things we observe, if they contradict the going narrative, will end our careers, friendships, families and futures. And so, we self-censor, which is even worse than government censorship or the cabal censorship of large dot-com agencies.

That in itself tells us something. When accurate observations about reality are taboo, this means that civilization at that moment is based on something other than realism. This means that it has a secret to hide, and that this secret clashes with what it knows of the world around it. In other words, civilization is afraid of reality, because too much truth will point out what it is hiding.

In a roundabout way, this answers a question you may have had while sitting in history class, bored out of your mind and daydreaming as is the norm in school, all those years ago: what was it like to be in Rome or Greece before they fell? Did people know what was happening? How did it happen? What did it look like?

The answer now becomes abundantly clear. People in those societies simply went insane. It started with a few, and everyone else imitated them, and because they were afraid of sane people, they became pathological in their desire to exterminate sanity. Once that was done, everyone focused on illusions while their world crumbled around them, and if they woke up at all, it was too late.

In the centuries before the fall of Rome, bad behavior accelerated. People indulged in fetishes and excesses, became entirely individualistic and disregard tradition and sanity as a result, accepted corrupt business practices, and spent more time demonstrating their allegiance to the “right” ideas than on trying to counteract the problem.

They all went insane, for practical purposes, because they were imitating each other instead of paying attention to the road ahead.

We are seeing the same thing happen now. Our official dogma of egalitarianism cannot be questioned, and so there are many areas we cannot discuss. Those proliferate as we achieve more equality, because then we see more of the inequality of ability, and in the end, find ourselves vastly confused because ideology conflicts with reality.

Civilizations die because of behaviors which most humans find difficult to limit in themselves. What we think of as “sanity” is relative to the behavior around us; when people begin behaving in insane ways, we intensity the insanity while thinking ourselves sane.

Our morality and actions are referential and deferential to other humans which came before us. This is sometimes called “precedent,” but in reality, it is a trend, and like all trends it starts as an idea, and then other humans emulate it. This inward-looking tendency to a group obliterates any ability to see the whole picture, which requires seeing ourselves as a species struggling for sanity, with history as a record of what did and did not work, and how well those worked.

That measurement invokes concepts that are lost to most, such as scope, duration and quality. Scope means how deeply the effect goes, and other “dominoes” that fall when a concept takes over one area of society and then, in light of its “success,” is applied to others; duration considers for how long it succeeds, and then what the long-term effects are, which are often the opposite of those in the short-term, leading to an inversion because what once seemed good becomes awful; quality refers to how well it succeeds, meaning

We turn away from those complicated questions of the whole picture, and focus on a human-only perspective comprised of ourselves and others, in order to avoid looking at history, our existential needs and how humans as a biological species are subject to Darwinism both as a group and as individuals. The thought of being the victims of natural selection offends us because it means that we are at risk, and cannot survive simply by wanting to, but have to understand how our world works, and are graded on that by our success or failure.

As part of this great indulgence of fear and human wants, groups of people tend to agree on insanity because it makes it easier to endure the fear. The problem with this is that like any trend, this insanity gains momentum and quickly spirals out of control, culminating in reality-denial that subjects the group to the same events that it feared enough to make mention of them taboo.

For those who want to restore civilization, the only successful counter attack is pathological sanity, or a dogmatic insistence on a realistic outlook and discipline of the self to it, such that we are at lesser risk of a natural selection event and also, to beat back the human tendency to crave denial, projection and as a result, solipsism and insanity.

This change is feared by many people because if we implement any hard standard, it means that some will fall below that level and require ejection from civilization. However, if we follow the Darwinistic model, it makes sense that in every generation we will be ejecting people who have deleterious mutations, birth defects, or just general ineptitude that makes them weaker specimens. This, too, is sane.

On the other hand, the prevalence of this fear explains the power of the mental virus known as equality. The notion of equality appeals to the individual because it says that no one will face a loss of social status for being inept, and therefore, that people can feel “safe” from social threats, and that society will do its best to save them no matter what they do. It is an anti-Darwinistic notion.

When we see people cuck, or give in to the tendency to go along with the herd, we are witnessing the power of this fear. It seduces all but the strongest because they are mentally addicted to the vision of a world where they are safe from the consequences of their own actions. That is an illusion, and for that reason becomes insanity when it is portrayed as reality.

Pathological sanity retaliates against this by affirming that life is never safe and that all actions have consequences, and that us hiding those merely prolongs the disaster. In addition, it notes that it is impossible to escape loss of social status for doing something stupid, in that those above the individual on the Dunning-Kruger scale can and will notice the screwup.

The only means of adopting pathological sanity is to invert the fear, and point out that insane and inept people are a bigger threat than our fears for our personal safety. The real safety is found in competence; false safety is found in protection of the individual without regard to their actions and the results — including side effects — of those actions.

As civilization leaves the era of ideology, in which we constructed elaborate theories to justify conditions where the individual was made safe at the expense of the group, focus returns to the organic society. People will be more concerned with the health of the society around them and its future, and less about preserving those who, in the name of fear and safety, insist on equality despite its destructive effects.

Folk Heroes Of The Apocalypse

Monday, August 28th, 2017

Many people are currently telling you that the Alt Right is doomed, but they are only partially correct. The Alt Right is growing, and will become the Right, because it finally beat the civil rights warriors of the 1960s. It did that by assuming the position that those social warriors took: as the victims of an Establishment, and the folk heroes who would liberate us all.

In 2017, European-descended peoples are really tired of the diversity gig. It always works out that a few white people end up paying for a vast horde of third world people at the same time that diversity, by lowering social trust, destroys the white society by making it paranoid. This means that on an individual level, at an existential level, white people live in fear and uncertainty for the future.

They are now tired of this. We have seen where Leftist programs like diversity, social benefits and equality lead, which is to a Soviet-style society, and so we are fighting back. The only problem is that now we are the revolutionaries against a system filled with dimwitted bureaucrats who are making a good living by being Leftism, Inc. and they do not want to cede that role. This applies whether they are Democrats (socialists) or Republicans (liberals).

You can see that the tide has turned because today, in normally Left-leaning “Pravda on the Potomac” newsrag The Washington Post, there is an article entitled “Black-clad antifa attack peaceful right wing demonstrators in Berkeley,” which is notable for several major reasons:

  1. They noted that Antifa were the attackers.
  2. They acknowledged the Right-wing demonstrators as peaceful.
  3. They called them “right wing demonstrators” instead of “white supremacists” or another dogwhistle term.

Holy mackerel, this is unbelievable. The above changes represent either the longest typo in the history of the world, or the media hedging its bets because it has seen how popular the Alt Right has become. The latter makes more sense because in the 1990s, anyone demonstrating along neo-Nazis would have been written off immediately. In the 2010s, people are less bothered by the Nazis

And although the anti-hate and left-wing protesters largely drowned out the smaller clutch of far-right marchers attending a planned “No to Marxism in America” rally, Sunday’s confrontation marked another street brawl between opposing ends of the political spectrum — violence that has become a regular feature of the Trump years and gives signs of spiraling upward, particularly in the wake of the violence in Charlottesville.

“I applaud the more than 7,000 people who came out today to peacefully oppose bigotry, hatred and racism that we saw on display in Charlottesville,” Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín said in a statement. ” … However, the violence that small group of protesters engaged in against residents and the police, including throwing smoke bombs, is unacceptable. Fighting hate with hate does not work and only makes each side more entrenched in their ideological camps.”

Last May, 150 similarly black-clad agitators caused $100,000 worth of damage when they smashed through Berkeley protesting a University of California Berkeley speech by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Portland, Ore., has been the scene of street battles between antifa and white nationalists this summer. White nationalist Richard Spencer was sucker-punched by a protester in a January video that went viral. And Inauguration Day 2017 in Washington, D.C., was marked by violence when masked protesters burned vehicles, smashed windows and clashed with police, leading to 231 arrests.

Unbelievable. Amazing. Stunning. This shows the media reporting what they absolutely refused to in the past, which is the possibility that more than one side exists. Granted, they like to get the core message in there — “Fighting hate with hate does not work and only makes each side more entrenched in their ideological camps” — because their hope is for a return to centrist politics, so that over time as the voters go to sleep again, the Left can resume its steady infiltration and takeover of everything to the left of Charlemagne.

Public opinion is shifting toward the Right. The last eight years just showed us what all those nice people really intended to do in the 1930s and 1960s, which is make us into the Soviet Union. This caused people to lose faith in freedoms, civil rights, liberties and pluralism as a means of protecting them from the insanity of human social collapse. They no longer want democracy; they want order, and only the Right delivers order, because only the Right believes in an organizational level above the atomized individual.

In part, the reason opinion is shifting is that the Baby Boomers are retiring, and people who grew up under the disaster that the 1960s created are rising. Skipping the Millennials, most of whom seem to have taken what they were taught in school and Wikipedia as gospel, Generation X and Generation Z are appalled by the adult world they were expected to enter, because they realize that in this world, nothing good wins, ever, and most people are crazy and most of what we do is merely for show and has no value.

This is not a political revolt, but a social one inspired by the fact that the existential experience of European-descended peoples — how we think about the future, the meaning we find in life, the hope we have of being relevant — has declined radically over the past two centuries, and the situation now is too bad to endure. We are turning to politics because the crazy people who run our society have made daily life (jobs, marriages, dating, socializing, public life) into a uniquely placid and pacifistic form of Hell, and we want out. But the only way out is to overthrow the crazy Leftist regime ruling over us.

Among other things, the brightest of these generations have turned toward the Alt Right:

Among many anti-racists, there has long been a naïve hope that racism is handed down from one generation to the next. If that cycle is broken, this view goes, then racial harmony can finally prevail.

…Far from defending the ideas and institutions they inherited, the alt-right—which is overwhelmingly a movement of white millennials—forcefully condemns their parents’ generation. They do so because they do not believe their parents are racist enough.

…To complicate matters further, many people in the alt-right were radicalized while in college. Not only that, but the efforts to inoculate the next generation of America’s social and economic leaders against racism were, in some cases, a catalyst for racist radicalization. Although academic seminars that explain the reality of white privilege may reduce feelings of prejudice among most young whites exposed to them, they have the opposite effect on other young whites.

In other words, the Alt Right is not the ancient specter of racism rearing its head, but the result of people who are not racist but then encounter diversity and the half-socialist hybrid of a Leftist society that we live in, and decide that both are broken. This is why the Alt Right so heavily embraces social issues like chastity, discipline, morality, cleanliness and most of all, order. We grew up in the disorder of failed marriages, clandestine affairs, soulless jobs, constant ethnic resentment, high taxes paid to subsidize parasites, heart-crushing dating, urban blight and crass mass culture, and we hate all of it. We want something that works instead.

A recent poll by ABC News and the Washington Post revealed that attitudes are changing toward the far-Right in gradual but steady steps:

Additionally, 9 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll call it acceptable to hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views, equivalent to about 22 million Americans. A similar number, 10 percent, say they support the so-called alt-right movement, while 50 percent oppose it.

Twenty years ago, the numbers of those who outright oppose the Alt Right would have been much higher, and few who have admitted that neo-Nazi or white supremacist views were acceptable in any form.

The poll reveals the separation of views along ethnic and ideological lines, which makes sense given how we see Leftist whites and minorities forming the bulk of the Antifa who vandalize and riot their way across America, and protesters against Alt Right events:

Trump has 44 percent overall approval among whites vs. 22 percent among nonwhites, including just 11 percent among blacks. On Charlottesville the pattern also is similar – 35 percent approval from whites, 14 percent among nonwhites and a single-digit 8 percent among blacks.

…Trump’s approval rating overall drops from 80 percent among Republicans to 34 percent among independents and 12 percent among Democrats; it’s 67-27-16 percent moving from conservatives to moderates to liberals.

The country is divided: on one side, white Democrats who are still hammering on the 1960s message of inclusiveness, and minorities; on the other, Republicans and a new audience who have realized that if each group gets to have “identity politics,” European-descended people need an identity too, and this means divorcing themselves entirely from those who are not European-descended.

Unfortunately for the Left, they are now in the place that conservatives have been since the French Revolution, which is the unenviable role of defending the wisdom of the past against the trends of the moment, and arguing for the preservation of an imperfect society against those who damaged it and now want to finish the job. The Left, after having made themselves powerful enough to alter society, pointed to the results of failing Leftist ideas and claimed that those failures were the result of capitalism and conservatism, and so were able to style themselves as revolutionaries attempting to overthrow a failing system.

Now the shoe is on the other foot; it is obvious even to outside observers that Leftism ideals dominate academia, the lower levels of government, the media, every non-white group, and even many of our largest corporations. The Alt Right are the underdogs, the little guys, the brave few who dare to say that the Emperor has no new clothes after all, and this makes people sympathize with them, especially since the Leftist system is achieving bad results across the board which are hidden by a lap-dog media, and has no intention of changing course, which makes it an old calcified geezer ranting about ideological purity while everyone around him starves.

In another strangely sympathetic article in the mainstream press, the idea behind the Alt Right is revealed in its simplest form:

…”[The Alt Right] think that liberalism and diversity have led to the decline of Western civilization.”

What people are starting to realize is that Leftism — the notion of human equality — naturally leads to diversity. “Workers of the world, unite!” as the unions used to say. The Left views race through the filter of class, and to them the goal is class warfare which puts the proles on top and the natural elites on bottom (we have seen this in Obama’s America through relentless pro-diversity affirmative action styled programs) and this requires accepting all as equal, and using diversity to shatter any culture or heritage that people have in common.

Culture limits class warfare. You might see someone with more money than you, but think, “He’s one of us, and he’s not a bad guy, so I’m not against him.” If he is also a positive contributor to your community, you can see it as not just fair but intelligent that he has more money and power. Diversity erodes that.

The Alt Right takes a different approach to anti-Leftism, which is to create a cultural wave like the Polish Dissident movement which helped overthrow Communism. It combines all things that existed before the Left — order, hierarchy, culture/nationalism, civilizational morality, family focus, spirituality — and champions those while mercilessly mocking the gap between what Leftists promise and what they deliver.

It is this mockery which has inspired a wave of censorship against the Alt Right, but most Americans values free speech over safe places, and so the Left is driving a wedge between those who desire a normal, healthy and organic society and its own SJWs and SWPLs, who want an anarchic State-sponsored perpetual lynch mob.

From this division, people are starting to reject those things which came before the current Left and enabled it, because they realize that these were not accidental correlations. Any Leftist — egalitarian — ideas lead to full Leftism, which now we see revealed as something like Full Communism. The only solution is to rip out any idea or practice based on the notion of “equality,” which exists in mathematics but not reality, and apparently is the opposite of “quality.”

Even relatively staid paleoconservative Pat Buchanan has noted the link between equality, democracy and crazed Antifa Leftism. As he writes, faith in democracy is falling as the Left gains power, and proves to be a worse Establishment than any before it:

To another slice of America, much of the celebrated social and moral “progress” of recent decades induces a sense of nausea, summarized in the lament, “This isn’t the country we grew up in.”

Hillary Clinton famously described this segment of America as a “basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic…bigots,” and altogether “irredeemable.”

So, what still unites us? What holds us together into the indefinite future? What makes us one nation and one people? What do we offer mankind, as nations seem to recoil from what we are becoming, and are instead eager to build their futures on the basis of ethnonationalism and fundamentalist faith?

If advanced democracy has produced the disintegration of a nation that we see around us, what is the compelling case for it?

The answer of course is that America is gone. Leftism killed another one. “This isn’t the country we grew up in,” is beyond obvious, but the real story is that the old America is not coming back because it was based on an illusion, which is that we can all get along if we just adopt the same Constitution, sing the same songs, speak the same language, and use the same economic system. 2017 answers with a definitive “Nope.”

As everything fails at once, with a debt-ridden government presiding over a herd of selfish and oblivious citizens, those who are not products of the decay are uniting to oppose it. We want escape, but know that it will not leave us alone, so we are rising to take power and drive out the bad and replace it with the good. The Alt Right are folk heroes of this movement, even as all seems lost and the future uncertain.

Recommended Reading