Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘democracy’

What Are “Left” And “Right,” Or, Why To Avoid National Socialism

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017

It is a popular thing to say that one is neither Left nor Right, because the public parties of both have done nothing to save us from the fate that has been obvious and inevitable for so long.

Few know what these terms mean, so it makes sense to revisit them through history. The Left arose when people in France, inspired by The Enlightenment™ and its predecessor The Renaissance,™ overthrew the monarchy in France and established a new system. Those who supported it sat on the left side of the French senate.

On the right sat those who opposed the “new” — only if one had missed what happened in Athens and Rome were these new — order, but were concerned enough for the future of their country that they wanted to work with it. They wanted to preserve as much of the old way as possible, but were hampered by the need to compromise with the democratic regime.

It is not a stretch to call it a “regime,” either, since the time after the Revolution brought changes we might associate today with Stalin-era Communism. Whole families were executed for being aristocrats; secret police were established, and people sentenced to death for hearsay evidence that they had denied the regime or supported the aristocracy. The new nation quickly impoverished itself with egalitarian social roles, since people no longer had to be productive in order to be supported, and quickly launched on a disastrous series of wars to conquer Europe so that it, too, could be democratic. Some of us refer to this process as “the Napoleonic Arc,” referencing how revolts by the people quickly produce tyrants who launch impossible ideological wars in order to keep the disintegrating society together.

All of those Left wing ideas had a single root: egalitarianism, or the idea that everyone is equal. Equal how? However they want to interpret it. They start by asking for legal equality, which means that an intelligent contributor to society for fifty years has the same rights and treatment as a criminal who has never given anything. From that the demands expand to equal participation and subsidies, or “socialism,” in which every citizen is a stockholder of the industry owned by the state, and receives dividends in the form of social benefits or entitlements paid directly to them.

The Right, on the other hand, did not have a single idea except for the notion of classical civilization, which was more a spirit and moral code than a method. Ideology like the Left has is much simpler and easier to understand. The Right wanted to preserve a society that can only be described as “Tolkienesque”: kings, lords, a feudal caste system, code of honor instead of laws, a clear ethnic identity for each group and benevolent xenophobia toward all others, customs, folkways, calendar, cuisine, and an intense reverence for nature and the gods they saw within it. This put the Rightists at a disadvantage, in addition to the “first mover” advantage the Left already had by acting first and changing the dialogue to follow their actions. We can summarize the Right as a perception that there is a kind of natural order to humanity, found in parallel in nature and the divine, where each person has an unequal place that allows them to cooperate toward the goal of civilization by contributing what they can, and being limited in contribution where their abilities are not appropriate to the task.

In our contemporary era, these terms have lost most meaning because of the political parties that represent them. Most conservatives today are a variety of Leftist, a consequence of both their necessary compromise with the Leftist regime, and the fact of democracy, which requires them to say things which appeal to the broadest section of the population. This mass culture has no awareness of history, future or the principles of civilization. It cares about tangible things, like checks in the mail from the government or displays of patriotic fervor. As a result, both parties have been made simplistic relative to their original beliefs.

No sane person can support Leftist, which resembles a fanatical cult or a mental health disorder. It is a pathology that serves individualism, or the idea of “me first” that is supported by discarding the need to maintain civilization, and spending that effort on the individual instead. This institutionalized selfishness naturally leads to the kind of social breakdown that causes the Napoleonic Arc to run its course. The era of modernity is defined by its support of individualism, naturally arising from the ideas of The Enlightenment™ and The Renaissance.™

During the early twentieth century, after the disastrous and fratricidal first world war, several movements arose to try to stop the Napoleonic Arc. Two of these, fascism and National Socialism, are commonly identified as Right-wing. However, these movements were both fundamentally modernist, in that they did not want the Old Order, but to make out of the Leftist regime something with Right-wing values. However, as history shows us, the form of the civilization outweighs its stated values, and so even those extreme forms of government led back to the same problems experienced by Leftism. Both supported some degree of socialism, a lack of caste system, suppression of the aristocracy, and the replacement of culture by ideology, even when they did not intend it according to their public statements.

Some argue that National Socialism was a different type of socialism, but the problem remains that it is a state instead of an organic civilization comprised of aristocratic leaders and different castes, and as such it is still stuck within the modern framework of egalitarianism. Any attempt to distribute wealth makes the focus of the nation the state instead of the culture, and while it is within the realm of good leadership to remove threats — relocating Others and exiling defectives — any step into socialism makes the state the replacement for the nation. This is why such arguments are unconvincing:

In our time the traditional left wing is predominantly Marxist — even to such a degree that the very term “left wing” is thought to be synonymous with the word “Marxist.” This, of course, has no basis in reality. Any revolutionary is a left-winger — it is just that the Marxists have had so little competition that they have been able to appropriate the term.

On the other side of the political spectrum we have the right wing, consisting of reactionaries who want to preserve the present society and the so-called Christian civilization of the West with its materialism and capitalism. The rightwingers stand up for traditional patriotic values: they are good Christians and good citizens who defend the Constitution and are loyal to their country and their monarch, if they have one.

…National Socialism seeks to build an entirely New Order based on idealism and a profound respect for the laws of Nature in all aspects of life. This, definitely, is the most revolutionary idea of this century — and thus very much left-wing! — and it certainly is not Marxist! Compared to National Socialism, Marxism is nothing but a pseudo-revolutionary idea, invented by Christianity and upheld by Liberal Democracy: If all people are created equal, why should not all wealth be distributed equally among all people? Seen in this light, Marxism is simply part of the Old Order we want to destroy.

The mistake here is not going far back enough. The Old Order to which he refers is in fact the “New Order” which was formalized with the French Revolution. To be Rightist is to want not just nationalism — the definition of nation by its founding stock and exclusion of all Others — but an entire civilization built around eternal principles. Some compare it to Tolkien, others look to the middle ages, and still others of us look at the “golden age” described by Plato, which was contra-materialist. Those early idealist times involved acting toward consequences which fit within an order of nature and the divine, an ends-over-means analysis, in contrast to materialism, which is a means-over-ends analysis designed to protect the participants from having to face consequences or exert themselves, contra their own individualism, toward goals higher than themselves. When we say we live in materialist times, it is to this distinction that we refer.

European Aristocracy guided the core of our civilization, which is the genetic strata of Indo-European people, through many tragedies and challenges. They eventually succumbed after being weakened by Mongol invasions, plagues, Muslim conflicts and inter-national conflict but what really took them out was the rise of the middle class. The middle class make their living not with their hands but their ledgers and calculators, and while they may be more natively intelligent than the lower classes, they are not intelligent enough to rule for anything but the type of sphere in which they interact. And so they like laws, rules, fines, taxes, punishments and other short-term solutions that cause long-term chaos. They overthrew the monarchy by pooling their money and dividing the power structure of Europe against itself, essentially allowing their short-sighted greed to predominate over more complex thinking and benevolent visions for the qualitative improvement of Western Civilization.

A middle class person, essentially a glorified clerk, distinguishes himself by his literacy. He knows words and texts. He then remakes the world in his image, thinking “if this, then that,” and reasoning deductively from physical facts. His interpretations of those facts go no further than the sphere in which he operates, and so he thinks exclusively in terms of money, safety, gaining customers and flattering others. “Middle class” or “bourgeois” values are the values of the advancement of the individual in the middle class, and run contrary to what civilization needs, which is for the smartest and most morally excellent people to be in command, thinking about the long term. In the centuries of middle class rule, the West has gone from greatness to mediocrity.

Leftism and National Socialism both come from the middle class tradition. They are short-sighted and focused on people, and convincing others to act in a mass like customers flocking to a new product, and so they miss both the natural and eternal in their thought process. For this reason, they are both things to be avoided. We must be extreme — so extreme that we avoid modernist thinking entirely — and escape this system of ideologies, rules and formal control. Instead, we desire unity through culture, with its roots in race and caste, which requires a denial of egalitarianism in all of its forms, no matter how surfactively nationalist they are.

Alt Right Ideas Lead To A Lord Of The Rings Civilization

Tuesday, June 20th, 2017

The Alt Right confuses modern people (“moderns”) because it does not fit into their ideal of government. It takes together what seem like disconnected ideas and from them, projects a vision of a civilization that is traditional but future-oriented.

As at least one commentator has noticed, this looks a lot like what was portrayed in The Lord Of The Rings:

Often this is referred to as “anarcho-monarchism,” which captures the way monarchy is different than government: monarchy does not regulate and control its citizens, but rewards good behavior and throws out bad behavior, while setting a standard and exhibiting leadership, or the shaping of a nation toward a qualitatively better version of what it is while defending it against threats:

The text of his sole anarcho-monarchist manifesto, such as it is, comes from a letter he wrote to his son Christopher in 1943 (forgive me for quoting at such length):

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people . . . .

And anyway, he continues, “the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men”:

Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. At least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediaevals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Grant me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you dare call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line. But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that—after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world—is that it works and has only worked when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way . . . . There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.

Last week, as I watched the waves of the Republican electoral counterinsurgency washing across the heartland, and falling back only at the high littoral shelves of the Pacific coast and the Northeast, I found myself reflecting on what a devil’s bargain electoral democracy is.

Our goal in this time is to treat the West like a garden: prune the dead, nurture the healthy, and remove that which will never be healthy. We can take what remains of the good and put our focus on it, and reward it, therefore getting more of it, while driving away that which sabotages or otherwise ruins our civilization.

In doing so, we will be doing what intelligent people have done since the dawn of humankind, which is to focus on qualitative improvement instead of trying for something “new” that reflects more our own biases and prejudices than realistic thinking:

The Noise from Illinois Is The Approach of Amerika’s Socialist Death Train

Tuesday, June 20th, 2017

Amerika may well be approaching that day when it finally boards the Proggy Night Train to the Big Effing Adios. The noise from Illinois over its impending Proggy bankruptcy has the true makings of an unforced Anthropogenic SHTF Event. The typically Keynesian Fiscal Times tells why we should all start rubbing the KY Jelly to grease up the nether eye.

Last week, the state marked the second full year in which Gov. Bruce Rauner and a combative Democratic legislature were unable to agree on a new operating budget. The state Senate the week before rejected a House-passed budget measure premised on a $7 billion revenue shortfall after Rauner threatened to veto it. Unlike city and county governments, states cannot legally declare bankruptcy as a means of shedding debt by forcing creditors, bondholders, and government retirees to absorb some of the loss. The last time a state declared bankruptcy was in 1933, in the throes of the Great Depression, when Arkansas defaulted on its debts. But some legal scholars and government experts have argued in recent years that a well-orchestrated bankruptcy might be a far better solution than a federal or taxpayer bailout, and it would likely protect pension programs and health insurance from draconian cuts.

So stupid state fiscal commitments are like student loans and careless bastard children. They are an unwanted gift that keeps on giving and that you can’t pass on stupid, old Uncle Hank. And just how in the fornication would this well-orchestrated bankruptcy differ from a bailout? I think it would not. Here’s my reasoning.

1) The state has promised a future stream of payments that will become obligations in every fiscal year from now until the horizon promised in The Revelation of St. John. Depict that on any competent MBA student’s cash flow diagram, and you get a nice long line of bars extending below $0.00. To obtain fiscal stability (i.e. afford issuing free shit to the Free Shit Army) you need offsetting revenues that create upward-oriented bars that are as long or longer than the ones going down.* This is a doomed prospect. You ultimately encounter Margaret Thatcher’s Iron Law of Socialism. You eventually run out of other people’s money.

2) The reason we have this constant and inexorable downward suckage on Illinois’ fiscal prospects is that everybody voted themselves free beer. Nobody wants to be stuck doing the brewing, everyone is crowding the bar. The people with money and resources are checking out and hoping it’s not The Hotel California.** The Northwest Herald explains the current moronic socialist death spiral in The Land of Lincoln.

“On the surface, Illinois and Puerto Rico would seem to have next to nothing in common. But in fact there’s quite a lot, especially when you look at the recent dire economic, fiscal and population trends for both,” the June 2 column opens. “Both the Midwestern state and the U.S. island commonwealth are hemorrhaging citizens, with thousands leaving. Perhaps not surprisingly, both also have troubled economies, are deeply in debt and have few prospects for fixing their self-inflicted fiscal problems.”

3) You could make sure The Peoples get all the gimmedats. Declare yourself Governor Santy Claws. How so? Lube up the bondholders and screw ’em all up the pooper. To borrow from the movie Johnny Dangerously, most fiscal entities get to do that once. Just once! And boy would that be a pounding. Jihadis are more gentle with sex when they rape the unbelievers. As Frank Zappa once remarked about prison rape: “Make way for da irawn sawsitch!”

Illinois has $15 billion in unpaid bills, which is over 40 percent what the state collects in revenue annually. It has over $100 billion in unfunded public worker pension obligations. Its bonds have the lowest rating of any state ever. It is one of only a few states, and the only one in the Midwest, that is losing population.

4) You could be Governor No. You could say Illinois Pension Liabilities are only valid up to 25% of the State’s revenues in a given fiscal year.*** What’s that you see outside? A million people yelling “Black Lives Matter!” and trebuchets shooting Greek Fire onto the roof of the Capitol Building? Bummer, Dude!

5) So that leads Illinois to do what it does now. It eats the seed corn and milks the foamy dregs from the empty kegs to continue the Visigoth Holiday in hopes the “Congress will take action!” Until Congress horks someone else’s stash to donate to these bums, here’s what you win if you live in Illinois. So long and thanks for all the asphalt!

Due to the General Assembly’s refusal to pass a balanced budget, the Illinois Department of Transportation loses its ability to pay contractors starting July 1. While we are hopeful the situation is resolved before then, the department is notifying contractors that all construction work is to shut down on June 30. Contractors will be advised to secure work zones to ensure their safety during any potential shutdown. As always, the safety of the traveling public will be the top priority as the department works through this process.

And since that wasn’t an effective enough threat to make Speaker CuckRyan pay for all the socialist bums, they really went looking for ways to get the mobs out on the streets. Drop the Lottery, and you totally engage the man on the street.

The association that runs the popular Powerball lottery and Mega Millions games will drop Illinois at the end of June without a budget agreement. Concern over the state of Illinois’ fiscal condition prompted that decision by the Multi-State Lottery Association, according to internal Illinois Lottery communications.

So Venezuela upon The Great Lakes implodes in spectacular fashion 1 July 2017. But tragically, that won’t happen. Congress will massively intervene. Monies from somewhere (unidentified) will be appropriated. Revenues from somebody (unnamed) will be required. It will be the politics of who-versus-whom. If you are not one of the whos — malignant bums milking a ridiculous pension system — then you are the whom. Ever since Vladimir Lenin introduced that particular concept, the whos were to Stalin what the whoms were to Trotsky. It really sucks being one of the whoms.

This is how human groups die. There are a few who start it out. Then come all the others who want to take a share of the pie. Leaders have no idea what to do with all these people, and they get overwhelmed and overthrown. This is democracy; we always blame the tyrant, but the real fascist-Nazi-communist here is this herd of people. They demand gimmedats from the whoms, who shrink in number each generation, and when the whoms revolt, they replace them with a nu-population of people from low-IQ third world countries where corruption, rape, theft, assault and lying are bred into their DNA.

Eventually the whos and their controllers milk the whoms dry, and then like a bad soufflé the middle of the country falls apart, and you wake up and you are living in Brazil, Iraq, Mexico, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Russia, Argentina, Thailand or any other third world country. That is how third world countries get there: the whos outgrew the whoms and replaced them, so now you have nothing but parasites all the way down.

Eventually the whoms get a wee tad sick of it all. They tire rapidly of taking crap off the Eloi in order to feed the cretinous Morlocks. The patience is growing thinner. The quality of mercy will become quite strained. This will become more prevalent when eleven other states subsequently go the tragic way of Illinois and Puerto Rico. Every last one of the gimmedats adds to the labor burden the taxpayer pays to continue lawful participation in Amerikan Democracy.

Eventually, as the number of gimmedats grows and the allocation base of bill payers shrinks, the math becomes impossible. When the math becomes impossible, so does the continued function of the economy. It crashes. Democracy then becomes, at best, a shooting star with an unmanageable burn rate as it suffers the friction of its encounter with reality.


* — I challenge any of the frikking idiots who claim to be Alt-Right and who favor a UBI to square this particular circle.

** — You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave! (guitar solo follows)

*** — With the complete and docile cooperation of a state legislature with Democratic Party super-majorities in both legislative chambers.

How To Win At The Democracy Game

Monday, June 19th, 2017

One reason that European-descended people have gone insane worldwide is that they are trying to win at the game of democracy.

To win at democracy, a person must appeal to a broad section of people by being both harmless and seeming iconoclastic, different and unique in a way that others want to be.

Perhaps the best example comes from the iconic film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986) in which a school secretary reveals the ugly truth of popularity:

Grace: Oh, he’s very popular Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads – they all adore him. They think he’s a righteous dude.

Everyone — no matter what race, caste, class, activity or status — loves Ferris Bueller because he flatters them by projecting the people power myth. In that myth, authority is the problem, and people are good, so all those restrictions just need to go away.

At the same time, Bueller offers something that appeals to everyone. We all want to be different, creative, not following the rules, and gliding through life easily while having an excellent time.

All of our politicians play into this mythos. There has to be a certain amount of bad boy, including hypocrisy, and a sense of having a charmed life. Everyone wants to be Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.

But at the same time, what we worship is illusion. Just like in the market crash before the Great Depression, everyone in the herd is chasing the dream while ignoring the fact that it comes to very few, and followers get nothing.

Ongoing Divide Between Our Mercantile Elites And Organic Realists

Sunday, June 18th, 2017

Sometimes, different sources begin to hit on similar ideas at the same time, suggesting an idea about to burst into mainstream consciousness. Right now the West is slowly coming to realize that its elites, who are essentially bourgeois shopkeepers who got good at manipulating others, and its organic realists, or the people who keep society functional, are warring it out.

Over a thousand years ago, the new rising middle class began its war on the kings. Enriched by the rule of those kings, it agitated for more power, and took it when the kingdoms were distracted by war, revolution and plagues. Eventually it overthrew them by using the masses as its weapon and in the ensuing disorder, seized power through democracy.

Democracy rewards one thing consistently, and that is flattering the audience by using the techniques of salesmanship. Make them see themselves as wise, or rich, or even just morally good, by doing one simple thing, and then they will vote for it and the politician can do whatever he wants in office as long as he makes a token stab at the symbolic victory the voters wanted.

This is not to let the voters off the hook; they are the people who approve of this system and play it like a lottery despite realizing that the house always wins.

Now we find ourselves divided between realists and merchants, with the former emerging from centuries of being beaten back while the latter surged ahead. This battle will determine the future of our civilization. We can either be another Brazil, or become something like the West of old, but with technology this time to push us even further toward greatness.

As Melanie Phillips observers, the divide is permanent and powerful:

The recent terrorist attacks in Britain have exposed once again the enormous divide between millions of ordinary people who “get it” and the elite class of politicians, media and so-called progressives who do not.

…The great political struggle of our times is not between Left and Right. It is between those who are connected to truth, reason and reality and those who are not. It reflects a fundamental division in the West, whose fate will be decided by its outcome.

She comes very close. Matt Briggs has more, including a description that more accurately depicts the divide between realists and Utopians:

The combatants are the Reals and Progs. The Reals hold with Tradition in the metaphysic of Realism, with all its implied limits, strictures, and glories. Their flag is red. The Progs hold with Will in the metaphysic of Nominalism and say what is true is what is asserted and what feels good. Their flag are blue or a rainbow.

…Nearly all, but not all, of official (active) Democrats are Progs, while only a majority of official Republicans are Progs. Unofficial members of these political parties may fall into either camp or are non-combatants.

…As proof that most Republicans are Progs, we have a prominent one who said of the incident, “Anyone on the ‘right’ who defends the BS that went down at the play tonight is showing themselves to be tribalist, not conservative.” That, Mr French, is rather the point.

Realists believe in judging our actions by their outcomes. Merchants believe in judging our actions by the methods used. The former wants an ends-over-means calculus, where if the goal is good, any methods used to achieve it are good; the latter wants a means-over-ends calculus, where no matter how good the goal is, we are limited to certain methods of action.

This makes sense since the latter are salespeople. If you are trying to herd humans, you set certain methods off-limits so that they do not interrupt the control structure. Then, you engage in other activities which are symbolic, and this motivates the herd to complacency or stampede depending on the needs of the controller.

Contrary to what Ms. Phillips opines, this is a divide between Right and Left. The Right has always favored what has worked in the past; the Left perpetually desires whatever gives the individual more power. Interestingly, most people throughout history have been Rightist because they have known the utility of ends-over-means. To them, the more important thing was to have the right goals.

To the Left, however, ends-over-means is difficult because it clashes with the desire of each human individual to have total control of their own lives. Imagine a flood is coming to your small town; other people may force you to give up your truck so that it can transport others to high ground, or force you out of your home so that you survive. That is ends-over-means.

Until someone comes along and demands means-over-ends instead, most people think naturally in terms of ends-over-means. If your child is at risk, you do whatever is necessary by whatever means are necessary to save them. Similarly, when bad guys show up, you do not particularly care about their civil rights or feelings. In fact, you may just shoot them because they are bad and bad people do bad things.

Realists are not socially popular because they do not offer guarantees. The primal guarantee offered by the Utopians is that “everyone will be included” (equality) and “everyone will get along” (pacifism). This will always be more popular than the ideas of realists, which include the idea of doing nice things for good people and punishing bad people, as well as taking everything on a case-by-case basis.

In the evolution of civilization, we are now at the point where the people who are not able to maintain civilization — the Utopians — are visible to all, and the realists want to break away and leave the Utopians to their own doom. If society splits along these lines, the realists will go on to have advanced civilization, and the Utopians will as always end up in the third world.

Prole Holiday

Wednesday, June 14th, 2017

Do you see now what democracy has been? It was a prole holiday:

Central to the issue is that the rapid rise in living standards and prosperity of the past 50 years has been largely based on rising debt levels, ignoring the costs of environmental damage and misallocation of scarce resources.

A significant proportion of recent economic growth has relied on borrowed money — today standing at a dizzying 325 percent of global gross domestic product. Debt allows society to accelerate consumption, as borrowings are used to purchase something today against the promise of future repayment. Unfunded entitlements to social services, health care and pensions increase those liabilities. The bill for these commitments will soon become unsustainable, as demographic changes make it more difficult to meet.

The lower classes declared they were equal to the upper classes, overthrew them with the help of the stolid and stupid middle classes who “just wanted” to expand their businesses, and we entered a time of progressively fewer standards and less social order with every generation.

Like any group of people who depend on those above them for any sense of order or decency, the proles quickly threw out the roles regarding reality and began spending recklessly, each decision both a benefit to them directly and indirectly, another feather in their cap for their new autobiographical narrative as being artists, altruists, philanthropists, sages and martyrs.

Preening and plucking like monkeys in the trees of Africa, the proles pushed aside concerns of eventual consequences, and did what made them feel good in the moment. There was only one goal, which was to keep the prole holiday going, and that required that we ignore all hierarchy and differences between people. That symbolic need became a mania, which translated into diversity and transgender fetishism, among other distractions.

So now, the prole holiday comes to an end. The money is spent, and all that we can borrow, besides. The excuses have fallen flat; we see that all of our grand ideas and vast altruistic gestures were, in fact, simply cynical gambits for power. Nothing that the prole holiday has done has made life better, and everything is worse and cheapened, which you only notice if you are not a prole.

Even the compliant press has noticed that the prole holiday has failed. What can possibly lie ahead? The fall of idols, for one. But then we realize that the man behind the curtain is more important than the projections on the screen. And the man behind the curtain is a frightened, neurotic prole, in over his head and acting out his own drama.

In a miasma of debt, bad decisions, failed social institutions and a population so degraded that it refuses to reproduce, the prole holiday ends. It turns out that, a millennium later, what “we” thought was a good idea was in fact a lie. This is what our elders warned about: nature does not tell us when we are wrong. It merely waits for us to fail, and then consumes us.

Democracy Became Obsolete And Is Now Being Replaced

Friday, June 9th, 2017

More than simply those on the Left, the people who have an interest in our society continuing as it is are warning of a threat to democracy via gradual dismantling:

Post–Cold War populists such as Chávez, Putin, and Erdogan took a slow and steady approach to dismantling democracy. These leaders first come to power through democratic elections and subsequently harness widespread discontent to gradually undermine institutional constraints on their rule, marginalize the opposition, and erode civil society. The playbook is consistent and straightforward: deliberately install loyalists in key positions of power (particularly in the judiciary and security services) and neutralize the media by buying it, legislating against it, and enforcing censorship. This strategy makes it hard to discern when the break with democracy actually occurs, and its insidiousness poses one of the most significant threats to democracy in the twenty-first century.

While it is dubious to link socialists like Chavez with anti-Leftists like Putin and possibly Erdogan, the methods used in the twenty-first century respond to the new reality of democracy: it is enforced by a herd of people who are orchestrated by media and well-funded NGOs, so the only way to avoid being taken over by those groups is to dismantle democracy from the ground up.

A top-down approach would be to seize power, replace democratic decision-making, and then sort out the little details. The new method involves attacking the details first, removing the infrastructure that democracy uses to keep a mental stranglehold on the population and constantly push them Leftward. Without that structure, democracy does not so much fall as stand revealed as already fallen.

One thing we should keep in mind is that democracy was always an illusion. It was kept afloat by the wealth, power and inventions of the past, plus a rising tide of industrialization. As our technology seems to have mostly peaked, and government has expanded to absorb the extra income from industry, our societies are mostly paralyzed, and the bad decisions made by democracy can finally really hurt us.

Any political system takes years to manifest its disadvantages, and rises on what was before it, so it is a gradual process of its adoption followed by an even slower process as consequences distinguish themselves from longstanding problems. With democracy, it has become clear that the herd is not to be trusted, and has made an utter mess of things.

You will find that all the “good thinker” citizens are in total denial of this. For them, things have never been better, or at least this is what they insist, because the psychological alternative is to accept that their lives are being wasted on a dead-end system. They are financially, socially and most importantly psychologically vested in the system.

At the same time, rising generations and drop-outs from older generations like Generation X — most of whom seem to be languishing in slacker jobs in smaller cities — are not vested in the system and see their only chance of future happiness in its replacement. Since they realize that most people, when given the vote, will vote for something like this system, they are turning on democracy.

Perhaps this is why more than populist leaders, it is this cutting edge of popular cultural revolt that is turning against democracy and toward a “fash wave” of pre-modern thought and ideals:

People everywhere are down on democracy. Especially young people. In fact, so rampant is democratic indifference and disengagement among millennials that a shocking share of them are open to trying something new—like, say, government by military coup.

That’s according to research by Yascha Mounk, a Harvard University researcher, and Roberto Stefan Foa, a political scientist at the University of Melbourne. The remit of their study, which the Journal of Democracy will publish in January, analyzes historical data on attitudes toward government that spans various generations in North America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. They find that, across the board, citizens of stable liberal democracies have grown jaded about their government, say Mounk and Foa—and worse.

“[T]hey have also become more cynical about the value of democracy as a political system, less hopeful that anything they do might influence public policy,” they write in a previous article on their research (pdf) published in Jul. 2016, “and more willing to express support for authoritarian alternatives.

People recognize that systems do not work because systems are self-serving.

All creatures, genes, ideas and groups act in self-interest. This varies with their degree of awareness, which since we are no longer under the thrall of egalitarianism we can admit varies widely between individuals and groups. In most cases, their awareness is short term, which means they act for themselves at the expense of civilization, principles and the future.

This is what a prole revolt does: it equalizes short-term thinking with long-term thinking, and so short-term thinking wins out every time. This is why democracy drifts leftward and self-destructs after a handful of centuries. Much as Athens and Rome self-destructed through democracy, the postwar West — the ruins of the Old West — is currently self-destructing, and people want off that path.

As the saying goes, “The West is dead; long live the West!” We are remnants of a once-great people scattered among the detritus of its fall, and we wish to rise to power, throw out the walking dead and restore what once made us great, which is our genetic stock and our principle of social order and future orientation.

Part of the cultural wave that includes the Alt Right, the anti-democratic sentiment sweeping the West consists of a single revelation: we cannot fix ourselves so long as we rely on mass opinion systems like democracy and consumerism. A few do know better than the rest, and if left up to their own devices, people will act in self-interest at the expense of our future.

Even more, people are seeing that democracy has brought misery. It shapes people into wimpy nebbishes and inculcates us in learned helplessness. It spreads existential despair as it becomes obvious that nothing will change if left up to the herd. It distills everything — art, architecture, culture — down to a lowest common denominator, which like all things herd-chosen is ugly.

The solution is not to swing toward dictatorship and purge the weak. It is to restore the order that has always produced golden ages, which is a society based on doing what the best see as right, instead of what is already popular or profitable. When we orient ourselves toward the future, we see the value of the inconvenient, and sidestep decay by aspiring to greatness.

Bastides: A Model For The Balkanized, Post-Collapse West

Wednesday, June 7th, 2017

“Nature abhors a vacuum,” goes the old saying. Nature is competition, which is how it ensures a lack of empty spaces. To avoid any one tendency from going too far, nature uses a system of balances, and it balances the anti-vacuum with a fierce territoriality. That way, it can avoid a tragedy of the commons by ensuring that all territory is owned, defended and to some degree managed by its territorial species.

If you wonder why the ancients spoke of natural order, this is what they had in mind, which avoided the opposite extremes of communism/inclusion and capitalism/consumption. Instead of giving way to once force alone, nature balanced them, and so became more violent but also more efficient and less destructive.

This is why we talk about the “4 Fs” of nature — feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproduction — instead of merely three. Fighting is part of nature and it is how territory is established, and through that, stewardship is established. A lion watches over his patch of the wild and punishes any who will exploit it. The birds, rodents and lizards do the same. Populations stay in balance; resources are not over-exploited; each area reaches an optimal carrying capacity and nothing more. Nature, more than humans, is logical.

That third F however means that war and conflict are not errors, but a necessary part of life. Each group defends itself and its territory so that it can survive as a species, sub-species or cultivar, and so that its territory does not fill up with humans who will then exploit its resources to the point of depletion.

Democracy, which like communism is based on the idea of universal inclusion as an antidote to naturally-occurring hierarchy, cannot defend itself against a tragedy of the commons. This is why democracy follows the pattern of a yeast bloom: the population rises to consume all of the resources and then dies out.

In the case of modern democracy, this exploitation mainly consists of our false elites in media, business and government and their support base of a permanent third world underclass. They divide up everything this society has created and abscond with it, converting it into landfill overflowing with disposable entertainment products and tiered sinecures of graft.

Now that the West has had 228 years of democracy and over a thousand of egalitarianism, or anti-hierarchical thought, it is nearing the collapse of those systems. They ate up everything good and left a rotted infrastructure, mentally and racially mixed-up population, and a total lack of unity on any point.

As Samuel Huntington wrote in The Clash of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order, the backlash to this over-extended period of history is occurring through a cultural wave of people wanting innate connections to others, instead of merely ideological or financial ones. Nationalism, tribalism and ethno-centricism are rising because those are innate, where ideology is imposed from outside.

This leads to an intermediate stage called balkanization where each group — tribe, cult, gang, subculture — will set up its own community and by necessity, exclude all others with force. After democracy comes tyranny, and as the tyrants this time turn out to be twerps of great incompetence, the first world will instead fragment into many smaller groups, shortly before being invaded by any strong powers that remain. Practice your Chinese!

But, before the great invasion takes over, it makes sense to look at what balkanization entails. William Gibson and Billy Roper offer competing views of this vision; in Gibson, people will form massive vertical structures or other specialized forms of the city, with enclaves of secessionists living in geographically-defensible regions like bridges and abandoned buildings. In Roper, the focus will be less on structures than areas which are self-sustaining and defended with military force.

Imagine a combination of the two, and you will see history rediscover itself as we rebirth the bastide, a type of fortified village used in the past and likely again in our future:

The Dordogne region is famous for its historic fortified towns, known as bastides. They were mostly built during the reigns of King Henry III of England and his son Edward I. They were founded by the English kings and by local feudal landlords…The bastides were defended towns planned on a straightforward rectangular grid.

The towns were typically defended by perimeter walls and centered around a market square, often with a covered section, known as les halles; a number of towns still retain these most attractive structures. Each bastide was founded on the basis of a charter. Land was generally provided by the founder, king or nobleman. Legal rights and subsidies were granted to those who contributed to the building of the towns. In return the founder could raise taxes to finance military campaigns and also levy troops.

While most in our society have been chasing scapegoats like The Rich™ and The Jew,™ the more far-sighted rulers have realized that human hubris drives democracy, and that me-first people in groups agitate for collectivism as it allows each individualist to be subsidized. This hubris and its recent manifestation democracy are actually what destroyed us.

For that reason, interest is rising in aristocracy, or replicating the natural hierarchy in human form. We take the best among us by leadership ability and place them in charge, then have them select a staff. This arrangement is hereditary as this ensures that the best women match with the best men, creating a self-perpetuating institution, at least until hubris attacks in mass delusion again.

We can get there easily through democracy. The first step is to remove all the laws that impede natural organization of human beings; the next is to patch our laws so that we can appoint an administrator or regent who will select the aristocrats and entrust them with ownership of land areas, which will then become localized bastides or something like them under the feudal system.

In the intermediate stage of balkanization, should we survive it by not getting invaded by hostile Asian powers as has been the pattern of history, bastides will be more organic: warlords will seize local areas, charge everyone rent, and use those rents to fund a strong army which can repel any regional threats. Life goes on as democracy fades away.

Why No One Should Commemorate D-Day

Tuesday, June 6th, 2017

Every June 6th, the media and patriotic brain-dead conservatives fawn over D-Day, the event that occurred 73 years ago when the Allied forces invaded Fortress Europe. Instead of celebrating reputable holidays, we commemorate a People’s Holiday for a war no one won.

It does not require us to be National Socialists, or even to have felt that the National Socialists offered a better alternate because on the whole they did not, to notice that World War Two was a war for democracy, which is essentially the antechamber to Communism.

As Plato wrote 2400 years ago, democracy naturally leads to tyranny of the sort promised by Communism: a revolt of the plebes, overthrow of social order and caste structure, and its replacement with many equal people dependent on government. When this happens, the intelligent and good die out and are replaced by the kind of thoughtless, short-term, high time preference and low foresight people found in the third world.

Democracy arises from a long chain of events that occur with the pitfall of success. When one task is vanquished, another one arises, and this one is invisible because it is intangible. A society that thrives must find a long-term purpose other than its citizens and their individualistic wants, or it falls prey to egalitarian thinking.

The West succeeded beyond all other civilizations in recent history, but by doing so, it bred and attracted people who wanted simply to participate instead of participating in an active culture. These went into cities, started businesses and became prosperous, and quickly — i league with the Church, foreign groups and secret societies — began agitating for power over those above them in the hierarchy.

With prole revolt, the West overthrew the social order that had worked so well for it, and began a thousand-year fall into Leftism, which triumphed with the end of WWII and since that time has ravaged this society so thoroughly it is unrecognizable. Leftism is egalitarianism, which arises from individualism, which comes from hubris or the “me first” attitude that denies the natural hierarchy of ability.

On D-Day, democracy won its greatest victory since the French Revolution, and a mere twenty years later the people of the West — drugged on postwar economic booms and Leftist self-congratulatory rhetoric — voted for their own ethnic replacement. They were not aware that this was what they were doing, but this is the failing of democracy: voters are not personally accountable, nor do they experience direct consequences, so they treat voting like going to the circus and choose whatever they think makes them appear to be wise, compassionate, generous and most of all, egalitarian. Democracy always goes Leftward for this reason.

As happened in World War One, the West sacrificed many of its best to destroy those who opposed democracy, and drugged itself with talk of freedom, equality, liberty, tolerance, pluralism, justice and peace as a way to explain away the obvious collapse of civilization. Generations despaired. Culture faded away. Religious faith died, and the family was hollowed out.

After 1945, the West still had Communism to keep it in check. Leftism cannot advance when there is an example of how bad Leftism will inevitably become if not opposed, and the rampant murders and genocide of the Stalinist years made it clear that the Soviets had to fall for the Leftist mental virus to continue unchecked. As the 1980s closed and the Soviets fell, Leftism flew free like a pandemic.

Since that point, the West has gone so far democratic and Leftist that it would be unrecognizable and hated by those who stormed the beaches on that first D-Day. As usual, what the politicians promise is an illusion, but like all victims of scams, the voters delude themselves. WWII was a slaughterhouse like the war before it, and we all lost for what the West has become.

For that reason, there is no point celebrating D-Day; it is a tomb, both for those on all sides who lost life and limb in the conflict, and for the West itself. No one won, and the West will never win again until it abandons the arrogant and greedy prole revolt that is democracy.

Typical Posturing Of A Leftist Era Now Fading

Sunday, June 4th, 2017

From The Sunday Times in Britain:

Our message to the merchants of death is that Britain will not be cowed and democracy will prevail. You will not have our hate, as the brave widower of the Bataclan attacks in Paris said, but there will be justice. We are stronger and better than those who seek to divide and destroy us.

Thank you for a synopsis of lies. First of all, democracy has not prevailed, but failed, and you are simply clinging to the past because you fear the future. Second, justice does not exist in this world; once a tragedy happens, there is nothing that can be done to fix it, so intelligent people — Not You — focus on avoid tragedies. Finally, there is no dichotomy between hate and love. We hate what threatens that which we love, and we love what banishes that which we hate. We are not “stronger and better” because that is merely posturing, monkeys preening and puffing their chests, since obviously in this military encounter, we lost. They do not seek to divide and destroy us but to conquer us. What a feast of lies this was.

In reality, every individual and group works in self-interest. Their goal is to oppress all other groups and take command. Only then are they safe from other groups doing the same to them. This game is the basic math of the universe and there is no escaping it. Either we defend our borders and possibly exterminate all other groups, or we are overrun by them. Islamic terrorism is 100% a consequence of diversity, or the pretense of admitting in other groups while knowing that subconsciously and in their logical minds they know they must destroy us. Islamic terrorism is just the most visible — i.e. least subtle — manifestation of this.

Yet again democracy, pacifism, equality, diversity, tolerance and feminism let us down. They will always betray us because they are manifestations of the same idea, or individualism, which is the notion that society should not have any purpose but to make each individual feel accepted, included and safe, including by paying them to live. This is the human ego out of control, blind like overeating or drug addiction, and not surprisingly, it has had terrible results. Until we remove egalitarianism and its underlying notion of individualism, our future is nothing but terrorism, decay, crime, corruption, incompetence, perversity, parasitism and failure.

Recommended Reading