Posts Tagged ‘democracy’

Watching Democracy Die

Thursday, April 27th, 2017

We know democracy is an illusion for two reasons: first, most people are not capable of making the decisions necessary for leadership; second, in groups people — even smart people — behave like ninnies by picking what is socially convenient instead of what is true.

In fact, we might view the election of Donald J. Trump not as a triumph of democracy, but as a vigorous slamming of the barn door after the horse is long gone. Democracy has destroyed the United States as it was, replaced its people and buried them in mountains of nonsense laws. No one in power seems committed to changing anything at a fundamental level, and in fact, we see they oppose it. One election cannot fix the vandalism of hundreds of elections.

Luckily, democracy has begun its death spiral worldwide, starting with the fact that people no longer trust it. Worldwide, distrust of governments is at an epic height; even more, people have lost faith in institutions in general because these have become corrupted:

The government’s trust problem certainly predates Donald Trump: trust has been falling for decades. Apart from a short-lived spike in support after the terror attacks on New York in September, 2001, the last time a majority of Americans suggested that the government in Washington, DC could be trusted to do what is right was in 1972, according to the Pew Research Centre. By 2015, less than one in five Americans held that view. And the trust problem spreads beyond government: survey evidence suggests that answers to the question “do you think most people can be trusted?” are also at a historical low in America, with only about a third of people answering in the affirmative.

That suggests that deep-seated, long-term factors might be at play. “Ongoing globalisation and technological change are now further weakening people’s trust” suggests Richard Edelman, creator of an eponymous “trust barometer,” who notes that it isn’t just America and it isn’t just government; trust in chief executives and markets is also down around the world. Bill Bishop, commentator and author of “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart,” argues that much of modern life works against community and trust. He suggests that low trust in government is linked with the decline of social capital (blame television), globalisation and the cult of the individual.

Decline in social capital comes about because under democracy, anything that people do not share is viewed with suspicion, which means that difficult and complex ideas are discarded and replaced with moronic lies. Globalism is a tempting target, but is relatively recent. The cult of the individual (called “individualism” on this site) related directly to the mentality of the crowd, which is a group of people who want to remove social restraints to their acting as is individually convenient. That allows them to externalize cost to society at large and have few restrictions on their own behavior or moral activity, although over time the crumbling of their society results from this and eventually disadvantages them.

People are fundamentally exhausted with the political process. We have constant elections, television, speeches and other drama, but none of it seems to fix longstanding problems, and people are getting the impression — correctly — that no matter what they do, those who work in government, business, non-profits and religion will simply twist popular opinion to support whatever works best at destroying the public so it remains a helpless, quivering, and paralytic mass ripe for the plunder. We are lost in the hands of parasites.

Undoing democracy is surprisingly easy. We need to appoint a regent to rule in the interim, then select aristocrats, and have them select a king. To find aristocrats, we look at people who are the natural leaders — about five percent of the population — and from them, select those who are simultaneously both of penetrating intelligence and morally good. Those then rise in the hierarchy and from those we select leaders, and then encourage those to breed with the like-minded to produce a permanent aristocracy.

No system is perfect, but the best system is informal and emphasizes strong power with high accountability, or “skin in the game” as those wacky Neoreaction kids say. We either die with democracy, based on our pretense that we are so cool as individuals that our votes will make magic results, or grow up and choose actual leadership, and with it get rid of the idea of government and its Nanny State ways that inevitably make it more powerful to our loss.

Alternate Realities

Wednesday, April 26th, 2017

In our present reality, we assume that people mean what they say. In an alternate reality, perhaps a more accurate one, we recognize that the meaning of the words is less important than the social signal being sent. People communicate to others not to express the substance of their words, but to use that substance as a symbol to communicate eternal human needs: friendship, love, lust, violence and belonging to a group.

When we accept that truism, we see that almost all of human behavior is posturing. Humans act to communicate with other humans, not for any direct result of the action itself. This is a side effect of specialization of labor in a wealthy society: it becomes more important to signal social acceptance than to achieve anything in particular, because that is achieved by others far removed.

Unfortunately, because this is more immediately effective than achievement itself, this form of social signaling quickly takes over everything else. Making gestures requires little effort; behaving in a way that achieves results is not only more difficult, but less popular until those results are revealed. Signaling is more efficient than real world action.

Most people are role-playing. They understand what they want to portray, and they act as they imagine someone in that state will act. Their influences come from media and their social group, so they are usually incorrect in how they portray this role. This creates an echo chamber where people act according to how others think they should, obscuring what should actually be done.

This leads to a vicious cycle where people act out, or act in “attention whoring” ways, in order to succeed in their immediate social circumstance while denying the long-term need for actual efficacy. If you wonder why dying societies seem to exist only on the surface, with each person performing as an actor with no concern for the results of their actions, this is why.

In our post-collapse time, a competition for insincerity has emerged which rewards the least realistic and penalizes the most realistic. Image is all: those who appear compassionate and sincere displace those who actually are, and the crowd surges forth to support its latest favorites on the basis of this appearance, then appears bewildered when results do not match expectations.

This insincerity arises from the power of the crowd itself which creates a market for opinions. The crowd rewards appearance, and so those who succeed are those who act the best, which filters out any who are actually sincere and thus unwilling to take on this hypocritical game of play-acting.

We live in an alternate reality where words are used like paintbrushes, and actions, like theater. A crowd will deceive itself in a search for choices which do not require a change in behavior, and so the con men and carnies have their day and everyone of a realistic nature must hide in the shadows. This is the dark organization at the center of “people power,” and we will fail until we rebuke it.

What Is The Trump / Brexit / LePen Wave Of “Populism”?

Sunday, April 23rd, 2017

The Left uses the term “populism” to refer to political sentiments which arises outside the control of the Establishment. This leads to confusion, because to populists, their attitude seems to be an unpopular complex truth beset by pleasant illusions.

Foreign Affairs takes a stab at a definition of “populism” and comes up with a reasonable summary:

It can be hard to pin down the meaning of “populism,” but its crucial identifying mark is the belief that each country has an authentic “people” who are held back by the collusion of foreign forces and self-serving elites at home. A populist leader claims to represent the people and seeks to weaken or destroy institutions such as legislatures, judiciaries, and the press and to cast off external restraints in defense of national sovereignty. Populism comes in a range of ideological flavors. Left-wing populists want to “soak the rich” in the name of equality; right-wing populists want to remove constraints on wealth in the name of growth. Populism is therefore defined not by a particular view of economic distribution but by a faith in strong leaders and a dislike of limits on sovereignty and of powerful institutions.

In other words, populism recognizes the nature of power, which is to use institutions to limit the organic nation and parasitize it for the benefit of international elites and home-grown toadies.

It is “populist” only in that it is meta-democracy, or a popular sentiment created outside the controlled confines of courts, voting and public discourse. It is a cultural wave pushing back against how politics frames the narrative and artificially limits choices based on the pretense of people in groups.

Donald J. Trump may have been elected by the Tea Party, which did not die, but went underground and infiltrated other groups. In the same way, the Alt Right arose when those who were disgusted by both mainstream conservatism and narrow minded HitLARPing nationalist groups came up with a more comprehensive platform that rejected Leftism instead of merely rejecting certain types of diversity.

Where conservatives think we can import people from the third world, “educate” them in our ways and have them live among us, the Alt Right realizes that diversity as a whole fails. Where Nazis single out African-Americans and Jews, the Alt Right points out that every group acts in its own self-interest alone, and in the Machiavellian realpolitik and so ideas like “we are all one” and diversity can never work no matter what groups are involved.

Populists also recognize the nation as an organic entity, or a people. This means that it only lasts so long as its founding group remains unmixed and with its traditions intact. To a populist, social standards must be enforced by culture, and having government step in the way makes government into a parasitic and corrupting force.

Since the adoption of liberalism in the West, a process that took over a thousand years, we have become materialistic or focused on material goals instead of doing what is right. That includes deference to institutions like law and politics, a facilitative society that aims at empowering individual choice over commonality of purpose, and the mentality that whatever is profitable, popular or socially trending is more important that doing what is good, beautiful and true according to the order of nature.

The pushback began once it became clear that Leftists had buried our society in so many rules and precedents that any action except moar Leftism was demonized, ostracized and made politically incorrect. As a result, people have realized that we are now inverted as a society: all of our institutions are corrupt and cannot be saved, and anything done to “improve” society strengthens the evil. Instead, we turn back to the organic nation, and focus on saving that instead.

Democracy Dies As Inequality Is Revealed To Be Innate, Not Social

Wednesday, April 19th, 2017

Democracy is based on the idea that all people are equal, or able to utilize equal “reason” in making choices, and therefore that a mass vote will result in a sensible choice. Let us see how that is working out through the filter of literacy, which tells us how much people are able to read and assess versus simply repeating what they see on their television screens.

The Literacy Project Foundation offers us some statistics on how much our voters can read and understand:

  • Illiteracy has become such a serious problem in our country that 44 million adults are now unable to read a simple story to their children
  • 50% of adults cannot read a book written at an eighth grade level
  • 45 million are functionally illiterate and read below a 5th grade level

Someone should mention that the political issues we discuss in our elections begin at a high school level, and require more to understand. This means that half of our voters have no idea what they are doing simply by lacking the ability, and this does not take into account the many more awash in apathy or fanaticism.

If all 45 million functional illiterates vote, they would have a majority bigger than the dubious vote count upon which Hillary Clinton bases her claim that she won the popular vote in the last election. If we had a normal election and even a major portion of this group voted, then whatever came to mind would claim the election.

Where do they get their opinions? If they cannot read, there are only a few sources: television, radio and entertainment such as movies and music. These verbal only and mostly-verbal voters are thus limited to hearing opinions from others, and then repeating those as if they were their own.

For those who read The Bell Curve, it is worth pointing out that very few people reach the 120 IQ point threshold necessary to go through a college education (this is more important than whether they actually have a college education, since with the ability for it they can educate themselves, as many have in America since our earliest days).

Onward we go…

  • 3 out of 4 people on welfare can’t read
  • 20% of Americans read below the level needed to earn a living wage
  • 50% of the unemployed between the ages of 16 and 21 cannot read well enough to be considered functionally literate
  • Between 46 and 51% of American adults have an income well below the poverty level because of their inability to read

We have created an underclass that pays no taxes, cannot read, and yet can vote and receives the benefits of our extensive social welfare system. Naturally they will vote for what they think benefits them, which is more free government money and less accountability.

Even more, they are voting to spend Other People’s Money on these subsidies.

We can view illiteracy as a proxy for intelligence. Most people are incapable of voting. Of those who are capable, most are selfish, distracted, apathetic, fanatical or otherwise not focused on the issue. And because of their greater numbers, these groups drown out anyone else.

Is it any surprise that our democracy fails time after time in such an obsessive way?

“Late Stage Capitalism”

Wednesday, April 19th, 2017

The Left invented memes, but for them meming took the form of whispers through a crowd. These were little fragments that made people feel witty for repeating and gave them reason to keep on keeping on with the glorious People’s Revolution in whatever form it was taking that week.

One meme the Left loves to sling around is “late stage capitalism” because, having won on social welfare and entitlements, the Left has created a vast audience of dependents who want a full ride from cradle-to-grave just for being precious snowflakes. This is the crisis every society faces; if you include everyone, you legitimize free rider abuse and turn society parasitic.

Europeans like to brag for example about their excellent social benefits states, but none of them are solvent, necessitating importation of third-world labor to pay for those pensions when they come due, and they make people miserable, which is why Europeans are not reproducing at a replacement rate.

Bureaucracy, democracy, and jobs ensure that life is shaped by control for every minute of every day. People can no longer “just live”; they have to deal with the fact that they are born in debt to pay for the social system, then have to work a job which is basically nonsense activity to keep the proles occupied, and must deal with endless rules, red tape and petty authority figures.

This parasitic society makes everyone miserable, but the Left consists of people who are already miserable as part of their character, and so they do not mind going into full misery. For them, it is better to win and “be (proven) right” than to create a pleasant experience of civilization, or a healthy one, for civilization as an organic whole, the group or the individual.

And so we hear a lot about “late stage capitalism.” The simple point of this meme is to blame the failures of our existing Leftist government on capitalism so that we can go full Socialist without our consciences bothering us: if something is already failing, it is illogical to pursue more of it, unless one has a scapegoat.

This strategy is not new. The Left blamed upper classes for the reckless breeding of the lower; it blamed “racism” for the failure of diversity; it blamed nationalism for the instability of the modern nation-state, itself a creation of liberalism. It blamed the kings for its social failings, and promptly elected governments so incompetent that the kings could never be worse.

Capitalism is the latest scapegoat, and it has become more visible of late. Over the past seventy years is that the Left has stripped away everything except the economy and Leftist ideology, and as a result, the economic system takes center stage. If we were thinking clearly, we would blame the ideology, but the Left always styles its beliefs as “normal.”

They get away with it, those wacky Leftists, since the pathology behind Leftist beliefs consists of eternal human failings. Envy, resentment, irresponsibility, lust for power and greed are all part of the Leftist pantheon, but because these are familiar human behaviors, Leftism is less of an advocacy position that acceptance of those failings; this is the idea of equality: we accept people despite their bad behavior, and give them an equal footing to those who behave well. It is a form of “social pacifism” or a cessation of the fight for doing what is right by having all participants “agree to disagree” instead of aiming for finding an answer and improving our own behavior.

Capitalism has always been in their crosshairs because it is not equal. If ten guys set up stalls selling apples, one is going to do better than the others. Those of us who are pro-capitalist are so not because we love commerce, but because we want to minimize it. Having better apple seller stalls means that we do not need to spend time and effort “managing” all of the stalls to ensure there is equality.

One would be hard pressed to find a fan of capitalism who desires to have capitalism alone. All of us on the Right favor capitalism because everything else fails, and we view it as part of a complex structure to civilization. The Left has one idea, equality, where the Right has a pocketful of random bits, like hierarchy, culture, capitalism, nationalism and conservation.

But the Left wants to blame capitalism. This is after they effectively removed it in the 1800s by regulating the banks, then enfranchised a new crop of idiots who invested like fools, and when that detonated in the Great Depression, they used that moment as a chance to bring Leftist-style social welfare programs to America and when those failed, to double down with the Great Society programs.

The funny thing is that all postwar Leftist nations are following the same structure that National Socialism had, just without the nationalism. There is a strong state presence, and it guides us toward race-mixing instead of racial preservation, but it integrates itself with business and depends on capitalism to fuel its fires (and then, on taxes to pay for those fat social entitlement benefits.)

At this point, what we think of as “capitalism” is unrecognizable. When you have millions of lines of regulations and laws, including treaties and international standards, and use a circular Ponzi scheme to both fund welfare and “prime the pump” of consumerism, capitalism is dead.

Some would say it was replaced by consumerism. Capitalism rises from the way life has always been: people do things for one another and are paid for them, and some are paid more than others to encourage a rise in standards. Consumerism is the Soviet version: instead of focusing our economy on the difficult task of producing value, we make cheap schlock and sell it to plebes for low prices (but with high margins).

In other words, we democratized capitalism. Instead of having people at the top driving the economy based on actual productivity, we are selling stuff to ourselves, and claiming that this is productive. This is why we make very little of what we see, from clothing to electronics, even if we manufacture a lot of stuff here.

Consumerism drove immigration because people wanted cheap food, not good food. In the past, we realized that doing things the right way was expensive, and since this was a cultural recognition, stores were able to sell good food at relatively high prices, which kept agriculture healthy. But we democratized that, and so now you can barely find any good food, just more of the same industrial farmed tasteless tomatoes, nutritionless meat grown on inferior feed, bread and more bread made without yeast or real eggs, and an endless supply of food infused with sugar, salt and cheap oils. It is all “prole food.” You will not build a nation on this.

Similarly, consumerism smashed down the quality of goods and services. Fifty years ago, you could get a shovel that had a solid wood handle and a thick blade. Now, you might be able to find one, if you go to a boutique store, but if you are just down at your local hardware store, you find plastic and thin blades. Craftsmanship has mostly fled these lands.

The same is true of construction. Houses and offices are basically pre-fab and designed to last for three decades at most. The pipes are plastic; the walls and furnishings are all off-the-wall parts designed for easy and simple installation. You no longer need a brain to be a construction guy; you are another office worker, not a calling like “carpenter” or “plumber” or “electrician.”

Of course, you can still find those job titles, but they are ersatz too. There is a course of study and a few basic types of procedures one must learn, but the creativity is dead for the most part, since you are hooking up gadgets made in factories far away. Now, there are some who carry on being craftsmen, but they are outside the mainstream, and nearly forgotten.

When all of your workers are craftsmen, construction is more expensive but it is also of better quality, not this IKEA-style paint-by-numbers stuff. Your buildings can last for hundreds of years. But consumerism, with its mantra “quantity over quality,” is a form of democratization. It wants more buildings and more buyers, not discerning buyers or buildings that last for centuries.

We could retaliate against the left by referring to this time as “late stage consumerism.” That oughta piss them off… but it is not accurate, either. Consumerism is a symptom of democracy. Democracy is a symptom of the me-firsters winning out, because it demands that we include everyone equally, instead of having a marketplace for human beings where the best are prized. Equality is a symptom of an angry mob of people, each of whom wanting to be included despite his failings, which is itself a “me first” attitude: individualism.

We should however simply counter their “late stage capitalism” meme with “late empire” or “your civilization has collapsed.” Every effect has a cause, and that cause has a cause, all the way back to someone making some bad decisions in our past, and now we are so far down the rabbit-trail that we can no longer see the light. Until we wake up and make an effort to restore civilization, that is.

Opposite Of “Lowest Common Denominator”: Simplest Distinct Expression

Tuesday, April 18th, 2017

A fascinating aspect of this world is how it has many hidden pairs of opposites. These are hidden because what seems like it should be an opposite frequently is not. Such is the case with the lowest common denominator (LCD) and its actual opposite, the simplest distinct expression (SDE).

If we think of this in terms of music, the LCD would be whatever series of notes a melody could be reduced to, like the tune that one hums because it is least easily ejected from the mind. The SDE, on the other hand, would be whatever melody expresses the character of the piece the best. In the most memorable music, perhaps the SDE acts like an LCD, raising up our standards as it infects our minds.

An LCD seems like it would be the clearest statement of an idea except that it is measured by the audience and not the idea. The LCD is the furthest statement of utilitarianism: what most people understand, and therefore think is good, is what the idea is, in this view. It is a lossy algorithm that reduces complex ideas to simple statements for cheering about at sports events.

In other words, the LCD is the inversion of the SDE, which shows what is real in a clear and transmissible form, not judged by its audience but by the logical order of language and idea.

The SDE of music would be a chain of melodies hummed in their simplest and clearest forms; the LCD would be a groovier, cheesier version of the most obvious melody, maybe with a kickbeat to make it accessible to the crowd. In the same way, the SDE of a hamburger might be a recipe, but the LCD is a mass-market cheeseburger made of soy and plastifood.

Under the modern regime, all things get reduced to LCDs because the form of modernity is control, or forcing a large group of people to pursue the same symbolic goal so that centralized power can have dominance. SDEs are simple but require detailed understanding, and so are enigma to the crowd.

As we look for reasons for the failure of modernity, one reason that comes to mind is its tendency to obliterate truth by reducing it to an LCD, which is pointless because a SDE exists, even if it requires marginal intelligence to perceive and so is available to only about a fifth of the population.

If our new era has a symbol, it might be the SDE. A clear, simple and distinctive expression of each idea reduces mental clutter and allows that idea to stand alone and be compared to others. This upsets the Left, whose ideas require mysticism through baffling irrelevant detail, but will serve everyone else as a sensible alternative to the neurotic insanity.

An Economic Argument Against Equality

Tuesday, April 18th, 2017

We know that there are practical arguments for the failure of equality on a biological level, namely that it eliminates striving for improvement and creates a downward pressure — averaging — instead. If we look at equality on an economic level, we see that this problem replicates itself in a different form.

Equality means that mediocrity is equal to superiority in terms of social value. This makes mediocrity more efficient because it requires more work and attention to achieve superior results. If the outcome is the same, choose the approach that requires the least amount of work; through this mechanism, the mediocre becomes superior to the superior, at least as far as the individual is concerned.

This economic efficiency explains the soft drinks, fast food, junk mass culture, mediocre appliances, inept bureaucrats, mentally lazy voters and other aspects of the blighted modern landscape: when no one is interested in quality, people do not lose jobs or income for being mediocre, and since that gives them more time for themselves, they become active apathists who deny reality.

At a mathematical level, far below the delayed consequences to biology and social order, equality prioritizes the efficiently bad. Whatever is easiest to do wins out over quality; quality, in fact, becomes an impediment, because it is an unreturned cost. Equality is a bias against quality.

With this thinking in mind, it makes sense to replace food with rehydrated soy product, and to serve people carbonated sugar water instead of real beverages. The simple, repetitive song becomes more important than the symphony. Easy-to-understand lies are more effective than complex, less dramatic truths.

Our civilization has undone itself with the idea of equality. However, through this economic analysis, we also see why individuals choose equality: they are guaranteed acceptance, inclusion and validity without having to prove themselves, which means that for them they achieve greater efficiency through mediocrity. Do the minimum, and reap the full reward.

Over time the efficiency of this approach breaks down because it reduces the value of social participation. A dying society where every person is a selfish promoter of mediocrity has little to offer, but once it was a thriving civilization, and then its carnies, snake oil salesman, sycophants, priests, neurotics, parasites and enemies joined together to leach out its value.

Much of human activity for the past several centuries has involved concealment of this simple logical fact. When there is no distinction for doing things the right way, you get less done the right way and more — across the board — done to a minimum standard. This naturally causes social order to unravel and makes people bitter, hateful and prone to take all they can and give nothing back.

As we come out of the centuries of spaced-out delusion, we can again face these simple but prevalent truths about equality. At that point, our only decision is whether we want to encourage mediocrity or superiority. There is no other option.

How Democracy Aims To Destroy White People

Monday, April 17th, 2017

The devastation of failing civilizations is that they leave behind third world populations, not just ethnically through beige mixing, but also spiritually, through people who are conditioned to helplessness, apathy and disorganization. Now Scientific American offers us some insight into the mechanism of the collapse within the collapse:

A number of studies have shown that seeing a peer behave unethically increases people’s dishonesty in laboratory tests. What is much harder to investigate is how this kind of influence operates at a societal level. But that is exactly what behavioral economists Simon Gächter of the University of Nottingham in England and Jonathan Schulz of Yale University set out to do in a study published in March 2016 in Nature. Their findings suggest that corruption not only harms a nation’s prosperity but also shapes the moral behavior of its citizens.

…The findings imply that highly corrupt countries may be difficult to change because their citizens have been shaped by norms that permit dishonesty. Yet there is also a positive practical implication. Rather than tackling corruption by targeting institutions, we might do better to aim at young people.

This shows us what happened after the French Revolution and Russian Revolution: the ideology of Leftism destroyed those populations, both by killing off the intelligent and by conditioning the rest to be weak and dependent on the state. As a result, they were stranded without hope in a world of symbols and obligations, oblivious to reality, through being corrupted in regards to reality

If democracy is allowed to play itself out to its extremes, it will leave behind a “white” race of mixed Southern, Eastern and Western Europeans who have no culture and act out the dispirited and conformist pattern of egalitarianism. They will not aspire; they will merely react, and when that fails, rationalize failure and return to a life of apathy.

Corruption is endemic to democracy. When leaders are elected for promises, and not actual abilities, they are granted a property that they can resell. Further, the nature of politics as the telling of pleasant lies, and the habits of the voters as throwing in their vote and then blaming someone else for the result, spreads corruption like a virus.

Democracy thus is the ultimate weapon of genocide: it will destroy what it can, then reduce the rest to a mental state of servitude, which will guarantee their further destruction.

In turn, this article recapitulates the Alt Right by suggesting that we give up politics as it is, and focus on building a cultural wave starting with the young that resists corruption, and thus by extension resists democracy, equality, diversity and the other insane ideas of the neurotic Left.

The dividing line between the Alt Right and Alt Lite exists on this issue. The Alt Lite thinks that democracy can be reformed and made useful; the Alt Right recognizes that all of modernity, or in other words all ideas emanating from the notion of egalitarianism, must be removed and replaced with the idea of facts over feels.

Battle For America

Monday, April 17th, 2017

The Alt Right and Antifa clashed in Berkeley and the nation lost its mind. Why? They realized that we have not won the Cold War after all, and that we are still in a struggle against Communism. The more informed ones in turn figured out that this means we are still fighting WWII, the Civil War, and the French Revolution all at once.

Leftism is a mental virus. It creates a mental disorder, known as pathological altruism or fanatical extremist egalitarianism, that turns people into zombies. Once they go zombie, they never go back to being the healthy, world-alert and outward-looking people we knew. Instead, they become fixated on an inner world where all that matters is their control, dominion and power through ideology.

Once someone has gone zombie, your solutions are few. Some bounce back, usually those who never took it seriously in the first place. Those who have given themselves over to it, however, cannot come back without extensive work and generally remain stranded within it because they tend to rationalize their failures and explain them instead as successes.

With this in mind, we realize that there can be no reconciliation. There can be no bipartisanship. We cannot achieve a society where both Right-wing and Left-wing people are happy, and we must separate. The Battle of Berkeley, which is the first skirmish of the Battle for America, showed us that. We are incompatible. And we need to separate.

All American struggles fit this pattern. When America was a collection of colonies, the Left-leaning ones were the holdouts who prevented national unity, because to them, all things including the nation were a means to the end of liberal ideology. When our Civil War took place, it was more a contest for the future direction of the nation than a concern about slavery.

During the World Wars, and, come to think of it, Vietnam and Iraq, we induced ourselves to fight for democracy but in a “conservative” view that included empire and strong defense. As time went on, we realized that these were justifications and not reality. Leftism infects every object and makes each a tool for advancing Leftism, and nothing else.

When we see black-clad Communists running down our streets, the cops retreating, and normal healthy-looking white kids fighting back, we realize that our country has been taken over by Leftism and that we need to not only reclaim it, but rip out whatever made it go down this path in the first place. We realize that “America” as we knew it is now over, and we are in uncertain times.

With uncertainty however comes the hope of change. We had no hope for anything but more Leftism for the past seventy years. Now as Leftism and liberal democracy fail worldwide, we have a chance for something else. This is why the Battle of Berkeley is not just about Berkeley, or America. It is a collapsed Western Civilization fighting to rediscover its soul.

Jesus, Democracy and Easter

Sunday, April 16th, 2017

Ahh, spring — a time to relish the joys of Direct Democracy in action. Witness the word of The Lord from Matthew 27: 15-17. Read the entirety of Matthew 26 and Matthew 27 from an Alt-Right perspective and you will almost reach the conclusion that Democracy is blasphemy before the eyes of The Lord.

15 Now on the occasion of the feast the governor was accustomed to release to the crowd one prisoner whom they wished.
16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called [Jesus] Barabbas.
17 So when they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Which one do you want me to release to you, [Jesus] Barabbas, or Jesus called Messiah?”

Democracy by its essential functions must tear down and destroy all individual greatness that crosses its path. Nothing bars the way to “Liberté, Eqalité, Fraternité” like the individual who does things the right way and who has their stuff together. Democracy was therefore the ideal tool of corruption by which The Evil One could smite Jesus down and then wash his hands of the deed. Satan, himself only gets one vote. The plausible deniability of a democratic process is the friend of all malefactors from Marius and Sulla to Aaron Burr. The People chose it.

The Gospel of Matthew begins telling us the bad news of Democracy in Chapter 26:47-52.

47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived, accompanied by a large crowd, with swords and clubs, who had come from the chief priests and the elders of the people.
48 His betrayer had arranged a sign with them, saying, “The man I shall kiss is the one; arrest him.”
49 Immediately he went over to Jesus and said, “Hail, Rabbi!” and he kissed him.
50 Jesus answered him, “Friend, do what you have come for.” Then stepping forward they laid hands on Jesus and arrested him.
51 And behold, one of those who accompanied Jesus put his hand to his sword, drew it, and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his ear.
52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

The key verse of this passage is verse 52. All who live by the sword die by it, but those not bound by the law get their way first before death. Jesus, the one who actually asserts that the law should be followed, is led away by the guards under false and unrighteous arrest. Judas, at least for the nonce, has profited immensely from violating laws that his success in his dastardly endeavor required his victim to follow.

A hallmark of Democracy is the restraint of the law upon the just and righteous, while most mendacious, greedy and mendacious amongst us live the maxim of Aleister Crawley and “Do what thou wilt” with short-term tactical dominance as the law ties the hands of condign and righteous anger.

Matthew’s description of what I call “The Paradox of St. Peter” is at the heart of why mob rule and Demotism are disastrous for not just its targets but for those cursed with moral decency. These people realize the fundamental virus sickening the human species when power is actually given to the foolish and unworthy people. In Matthew 26: 69-75, we witness the temporary demolition of St. Peter as a moral human being.

His dilemma and paradox can be stated thus: If he does what is morally decent, he is arrested and nailed to the cross right next to the savior. If he lies to survive, he betrays the man who made him everything that he is. When Demotism destroys greatness, it does not just destroy the great individual. It unleashes a cancer that kills. Read the verses below and see how the mob does not even have to lay a finger on Peter to utterly destroy him as a human being.

69 Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. One of the maids came over to him and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.”
70 But he denied it in front of everyone, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about!”
71 As he went out to the gate, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This man was with Jesus the Nazorean.”
72 Again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man!”
73 A little later the bystanders came over and said to Peter, “Surely you too are one of them; even your speech gives you away.”
74 At that he began to curse and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately a cock crowed.
75 Then Peter remembered the word that Jesus had spoken: “Before the cock crows you will deny me three times.” He went out and began to weep bitterly.

And does the official power of the state work athwart the vile intentions of the unwashed mob? Not when the cowardly, swaddled officialdom learns of what the mob would unleash. The officialdom then tries to duck and evade. The officialdom, like the “military leadership” in the movie A Few Good Men, can’t handle the truth. St. Matthew is enough of a gracious Christian to understate the reaction of Pontius Pilate to Jesus’ refusal to offer him an out on making the hard decision.

11 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and he questioned him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”* Jesus said, “You say so.”
12 And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he made no answer.
13 Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many things they are testifying against you?”
14 But he did not answer him one word, so that the governor was greatly amazed.

If you imagine an angry, hateful mob giving Pilate the deathstare of a pissed off Middle East the entire time he interviews Jesus of Nazareth, you get the context of the interview. Pilate was not amazed. He wanted Jesus to apologize to the nice old men in their Rabbinical robes. Jesus was not having it. The true believers are scary like that. They care about their perceived truths a whole lot more than any of your delusions of adequacy. Imagine Pilate squeezing his cheeks to avoid evacuating his bowels, and you conjure up the situation as I imagine it playing out.

In Matthew 27: 21-26 we get the true measure of both the leadership of Pontius Pilate and the society at large through the gathered mob. The mob howls for the blood of whoever the demagogues tell them to hate. They are entertained. Maybe some enterprising soul sells them goat kabobs as they howl for the carnage.

And Pilate? Wow, does Pilate hate Jesus. He doesn’t hate the evil mob as much. The idiots will always be with us. He hates the man who forces him to look in the mirror and see a pathetic, pseudo-sapient coward of a laughable public official. All leaders in Democracy hate the great man.

It’s not just the religious visionary. They would hold no brief for Richard Feynman if they had to sit next to him in a Real Analysis course. When greatness reveals them to be weasels, they lash out. Jesus was not whipped just to appease the mob. Pilate was smoking with Lucifer’s cheap and sadistic wrath over having to truly learn about the type of guy he sincerely was.

21 The governor said to them in reply, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” They answered, “Barabbas!”
22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus called Messiah?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!”
23 But he said, “Why? What evil has he done?” They only shouted the louder, “Let him be crucified!”
24 When Pilate saw that he was not succeeding at all, but that a riot was breaking out instead, he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.”
25 And the whole people said in reply, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them, but after he had Jesus scourged, he handed him over to be crucified.

They tell us in our civics class Democracy is the best form of government. The best form of government for whom. The Last Men of Nietzsche? The weakest link in the human chain? The vassals of putrid corruption that not only have to take the Gubbermint Handouts but who would genuinely rather?

This is not what Aristotle, Socrates, St Paul, St Thomas Aquinas or even Jean Paul Sartre ultimately told us to aspire towards. Democracy is the best form of government for those who condignly deserve to live under it. Yes, a case can be made that an exercise in Democracy gave us Easter Sunday. But only because the great man being torn down just happened to be Jesus Christ. When it destroys the rest of us, nobody rises again on the third day.