Posts Tagged ‘democracy’

Why Things Are Looking Up

Thursday, January 11th, 2018

Right now, many people on the Right are feeling sort of depressed. This is normal when you consider that modern society is an unnatural, inhuman, ugly, blighted, self-hating, and suicidal path that makes everyone existentially miserable by wasting their time and depriving them of the purpose in life they need, beyond material success, to feel that their lives have meaning.

In other words: every day that you wake up in this society — which is in the middle-to-late stages of failing just like Rome 1.0 was — you are probably going to be depressed because you notice too much. That tendency to notice is what makes you a Rightist, because we pay attention to results in reality instead of feelings and social emotions.

But take heart! We are in the midst of a vast historical shift, and things are getting better by the day, with the potential to actually get good — i.e. non-suicidal — if we keep pushing.

The first good news is that people are adjusting easily to the new. A large group of people who profited under the Obama-Clinton style tax-and-spend neo-socialist system are displeased, but the average person has seen through at least one lie: the sky did not fall, as promised, when Trump took over. Even more, they are adapting to the changes, and see them as the new normal.

After that, we should look at what Trump and Farage have done to play their long game. They have been mild. They have started from small, reasonable expectations such as ending failed policies, and are gradually extrapolating from that. For example, if your government cannot make itself leave the EU, then corruption is the foundation of that government and it should not be trusted.

These “baby steps” have made people comfortable with the changes occurring around them and ready for more. For example, the Trump tax cuts have revitalized the economy in a way that has not been seen since the 1980s; Brexit restored a sense of national direction to the UK that had been missing since the Thatcher years as well. People want more of this positive feedback.

Another piece of good news is that populism is still spreading. With Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Germany all showing impressive gains for the actual Right, populism has taken a foothold not just in America and the UK, but mainland Europe, and it is influencing people there who would like an end to Leftist policies.

Even better, skepticism of certain “holy” institutions — scientists paid to write research papers, journalists who report what are presumably facts, academics who analyze history, government agencies who make recommendations — is rising as each of these institutions proves itself to be capable of being corrupted for ideological purposes.

The biggest changes however are under the hood. We are leaving behind The Age of Ideology, a time when socially-oriented thinking dominated. This thinking, called individualism, insists that the individual is the largest unit of importance in our society, and that individual rights are more important than rights to a shared purpose like civilization.

The Age of Ideology is the age of individualism, or the time in which the human individual was seen as the focus of civilization. Now we know better: civilization has to be the focus of civilization, and because the individual is disadvantaged by a broken civilization, it is our first and foremost goal. Instead of looking at individuals, we look at what we share.

Populism is the first step in this transition. As one expert opines, populism is interpreted democracy without direct democracy:

A populist, Kaltwasser says, is someone who believes that society is split between the pure people and the corrupt elite. The moral judgment is a key part of his definition. Lots of people can agree that society contains both masses and elites, but populists explicitly associate the masses with purity and elites with corruption.

What follows from populists’ belief is that politics should express “the will of the people.” The job of the leader is to channel and express the people’s will. But that can be a slippery slope toward autocracy. In the extreme, anything that blocks the will of the people is seen as a useless or harmful impediment—even courts and legislatures.

…Populism has two opposites. The one everyone thinks of is elitism, which doesn’t have a lot of (open) support. The other, Kaltwasser says, is pluralism. Pluralists believe in democracy but reject the populists’ idea that there is a single “will of the people.”

Let us translate that: the will of the people is interpreted by a populist leader, who is opposed by elites who are elected or given power by their wealth, and if this will is obstructed, it is fair play to remove impediments like elected representatives, courts, laws, and by inference, democracy itself. This makes more sense than it initially appears to.

First, it finally resolves the delegation versus proxy argument. Some say that we elect the best people that we can and delegate the responsibility for making correct decisions to them; others say that our leaders are our proxies, and we elect them to do specific things. Neither side has been proven right because at times both are.

Populism resolves this paradox: the leader is the one who, eschewing the false elites, figures out what people actually need instead of what they desire, are fascinated by at the moment, say they want, or even vote for. He or she is a translator of dreams, listening to concerns and finding solutions.

This kills utilitarianism, which is the idea that whatever most individuals think is a good idea must be a good idea. That is an extension of the social principle itself which holds that happiness is found when everyone in the group (or as close as possible) is happy. The will of the people, per populism, is something eternal.

And then, finally, we come to the kicker. Populism rejects pluralism, or the idea that people of different backgrounds, radically different viewpoints, and contrasting culture or values can exist in the same society. For there to be a will of the people, there must be a people, and everyone else at least has to be cool with letting them drive.

Populism rejects all that has happened in the West for the past thousand years or so, as we have steadily been drifting from having kings who acted according to eternal tradition to mass culture comprised of many individuals assembled into a mob through the pathology of herd behavior. Populism is the beginning of the reversal of our misfortunes.

The individualism it replaces takes many forms but its essential idea is that of the individual, which is expressed through liberalization more than anything else, which means relaxing the rules which have protected us since time immemorial because individual people want more freedom than the rules provide. From that comes the spectrum of liberal beliefs, which has just become a victim of history:

Liberalism is the modern political philosophy of the emancipated individual, defined in the “state of nature” philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke as a monistic and desiring self. The condition of the “state of nature” is the condition of absolute liberty: the capacity of the individual to achieve his or her desires without obstacle. But because such a condition gives rise to conflict, government is created to secure the rights of such individuals. Under liberalism the primary reason that we have a public order is to secure individual liberty.

Liberalism is thus a political philosophy that rests upon the realization of the autonomous individual self. This means not only must such individuals be politically free from arbitrary government power, but they must be free from what come to be considered all arbitrary and unchosen relationships that include social and familial bonds. Not only must all relationships ultimately be the result of the free choice of the sovereign individual, but, in order to preserve the autonomy of the liberated self, those relationships must be permanently revisable and easily exited. Thus, liberalism not only shapes our public institutions, but our social and private ones as well, ordering society toward the sovereign choice and autonomy of the individual choosing self. We see the liberal human coming fully into being not only in our political domain, but in the breakdown of most of our social and familial institutions, including the rise of the “nones, “moralistic therapeutic deism,” and the deepening generational avoidance of commitment, marriage and children.

We can say, then, that liberalism is the political operating system of America. Our different parties are like “apps” that operate on that liberal operating system, reflecting its deepest commitments in what are most often its main political agendas: on the Right, the picture of the emancipated individual chooser that animates libertarian economics; and on the Left, the vision of the emancipated individual chooser that animates their libertarian “lifestyle” aspirations, particularly relating to sexuality and abortion.

You may recognize similar language in the above paragraph to what was expressed during The Renaissance and later during The Enlightenment:™ that instead of an order of nature, the human, and the divine, we need an order of the human individual exclusively, as in “man is the measure of all things.” This is individualism expressed as a philosophy.

Liberalism manifests itself in democracy, where the vote of the individual — no matter how little they know — is the same value as any other. We see it in order social order, which emphasizes equality, or in other words not dinging someone in social status for being dumb, evil, or otherwise icky.

We also see it in consumerism, which is the market applied to the idea that every individual knows what they need best and should be subsidized by the welfare state in pursuing that goal, which leads to a “race to the bottom” in terms of quality and venality of products. It also appears in our art, architecture, music, literature, philosophy, and law.

Most people do not understand liberalism because it promises certain abstract things, and delivers something entirely different. This split reveals the difference between values and value instantiations, and explains why people only react after seeing the results of a policy; they cannot extrapolate the latter from the former. As one explanation points out:

This matters because a great deal depends on the concrete examples we use for values. In our research, we refer to the concrete examples as “value instantiations”. People are more likely to exhibit a value in their judgements of a situation and in their behaviour if they have recently been thinking of common, typical concrete examples of a value rather than of rare, but equally valid ones.

Common examples “fit” a particular value more obviously and specifically, and can act as stronger reminders of the value than rare examples. As we have seen, recycling is an easy and obvious fit for protecting the environment, whereas becoming a vegan might be thought of as a more obvious fit for other values, such as health or the treatment of animals. Its role in environmentalism gets blurred.

This kind of blurring comes from a disconnect between the abstract meaning of values and the varied ways in which people apply them. In working to tackle environmental and social problems, we overlook the links between values and value instantiations at our own peril.

In other words, people do not deal well with abstract theory; they require concrete examples. This is why literature is more popular than philosophy, and why visual aids predominate in meetings even among intelligent people. Microsoft PowerPoint is founded on this principle entirely.

With liberalism, we get told some things and not know what they mean, fill in the blanks with the type of conjecture that seems normal. For example, consider these aspects of liberalism:

  • Equality. To most of us, equality means that everyone is treated the same way. They are, after all, …equal. But in reality, it means that we must make people equal, because otherwise the philosophy debunks itself. And so, equality means — and never varies from this — taking from the succeeding to give to the less successful.
  • Pluralism. People think that pluralism means that every belief system co-exists happily, with each person in their little solipsistic sphere. In reality, pluralism means that society must adjust to fit every belief system, which means that it can have no values in common, so any assertion of the values of your group is viewed as a special privilege by others, which causes them to demand privileges in return. This creates unresolvable internal conflict.
  • Democracy. On the surface, democracy sounds like the idea that every vote counts. In reality, it means that only those in the middle of the spectrum count since outliers are eliminated. This means that democracy, on the whole, is the least flexible political system ever created, because it keeps following whatever assumption most of the masses are pursuing.
  • Pacifism. In theory, pacifism means eliminating conflict by removing the differences between groups. In reality, it means that whoever has the fewest values wins because they have the least to defend, where anyone who wants to defend their values is seen as violating the commitment to lack of conflict through lack of differences.

The concrete value entirely differs from the abstract values because language is categorical, while concrete examples are procedural. This means that we hear one thing, and then receive another, a fact which cannot help but be taken advantage of by those who wish to manipulate us by trading votes for favors.

Manipulating the human need to be important, these abstract values appeal to our sense of needing to be in control. People feel in power when they are able to make decisions that flatter their own narrative of who they are personally and why they are important, and they quickly become addicted to this mental state.

This attack on the individual — through individualism — proves hard to resist because most people are natural competitors. If offered a field to play on, they charge forward and try to win, oblivious to the fact that by doing so, they are defeating their own interests. This causes them to act out destructive scenarios that nonetheless are personally profitable.

Competition for power causes people to become oriented toward the self-destructive because if they are able to induce others to self-destruct, they gain personal power, even if at the loss of their civilization:

The in-migration was initially hailed as an economic boon; then as a necessary corrective to an aging population; then as a means of spicing up society through “diversity”; and finally as a fait accompli, an unstoppable wave wrought by the world’s gathering globalization. Besides, argued the elites, the new arrivals would all become assimilated into the European culture eventually, so what’s the problem?

As British journalist and author Douglas Murray writes, “Promised throughout their lifetimes that the changes were temporary, that the changes were not real, or that the changes did not signify anything, Europeans discovered that in the lifespan of people now alive they would become minorities in their own countries.”

…Murray explains the motivation of those who engage in such flights of moral dudgeon thus: “Rather than being people responsible for themselves and answerable to those they know, they become the self-appointed representatives of the living and the dead, the bearers of a terrible history as well as the potential redeemers of mankind. From being a nobody one becomes a somebody.”

In other words, individualism works against us yet another way: people will vociferously approve whatever makes them feel good about their choices and position in life, entirely disregarding whether it is constructive or destructive. European voters have approved mass immigration many times through this method.

The good side of this can be expressed simply as, “But we are more aware of it now,” and the grim truth is that people are awakening from the stupor of individualism. Instead of trying to make themselves look cool, they are more geared toward an organic view in which they can find a place, and withstand the storm caused by the collapse of a century of unrealistic Leftist programs.

We are experiencing a sea change. People no longer trust ideology because they realize that it is merely camouflage for self-interest, a game theory type approach where the individual simultaneously advertises a positive position and asserts a negative one. Not surprisingly, science shows us that egalitarianism is a defensive measure, not a positive ideal:

He argues that these egalitarian structures emerge because nobody wants to get screwed. Individuals in these societies end up roughly equal because everyone is struggling to ensure that nobody gets too much power over him or her. As I’ve discussed in my last book, Just Babies, there’s a sort of invisible-hand egalitarianism at work in these groups. Boehm writes, “Individuals who otherwise would be subordinated are clever enough to form a large and united political coalition. … Because the united subordinates are constantly putting down the more assertive alpha types in their midst, egalitarianism is in effect a bizarre type of political hierarchy: The weak combine forces to actively dominate the strong.”

In other words, individualists forsake any sense of shared goal, and instead compete on the basis of what they are to receive. This requires them to demand egalitarianism so that no one else gets any more, which leaves them free to negotiate back-alley deals and buddy transactions whereby they receive more.

Humanity games itself. Hilariously, each individual is betting on receiving more than others, which it guarantees by enforcing egalitarianism, which makes others subject to rules while liberating each individual to compete to the degree that they see is necessary. The most materialistic win under such a system.

When we unleash individualism, we create the tragedy of the commons, which occurs when resources are exploited by the competing careerist ambitions of individuals. Although the Left insists that our problem is inequality, more accurately our problem is equality, or too many people able to raid the same thing.

The failure of “inequality” as a reason for our downfall was ably explained by the mouse Utopia experiment, which showed how equality, success as a civilization, and the resulting plenitude are a formula for self-extermination:

At the peak population, most mice spent every living second in the company of hundreds of other mice. They gathered in the main squares, waiting to be fed and occasionally attacking each other. Few females carried pregnancies to term, and the ones that did seemed to simply forget about their babies. They’d move half their litter away from danger and forget the rest. Sometimes they’d drop and abandon a baby while they were carrying it.

The few secluded spaces housed a population Calhoun called, “the beautiful ones.” Generally guarded by one male, the females—and few males—inside the space didn’t breed or fight or do anything but eat and groom and sleep. When the population started declining the beautiful ones were spared from violence and death, but had completely lost touch with social behaviors, including having sex or caring for their young.

Politically, democracy is the mouse Utopia of opinions: no one is accountable, but everyone has an interest in taking whatever they can, so the system is fully exploited without anyone really knowing why. Individualism of all sorts ends up this way because it is uncoordinated taking of resources, separated from an inherent sense of purpose that would allow collaboration/cooperation.

That kind of setup can fool us for a long time. In the case of Western Civilization, it has been centuries, and the French Revolution which formalized this movement was not long ago. But since that time, despite our increases in technology and wealth which continued from the age before, everything else has gone wrong, and individualism is to blame.

No one in media will come out and say it but the age of individualism has ended, and a new age has dawned based on the ability to work together toward a goal. While things seem bleak right now in the transition, in the long term everything is looking quite wonderful, as we leave behind an era of illusion and find ourselves again instead.

Freedom Versus Freedom

Wednesday, December 20th, 2017

Think of how many times a day you hear the word “freedom.” We fought wars for freedom, our freedom is what makes us better than those nasty Jihadis and Nazis, and in theory we have freedom of speech, despite people going to jail for social media posts and the major media monopolists deleting sites, banning users, and deleting content on a routine basis.

It could be that we do not understand freedom, or have misunderstood it. The term implies the ability to do whatever we want, barring harming others, but somewhere along the way, it has become twisted to exclude having certain opinions or behaviors that offend others if they are from a “marginalized” group.

In other words, freedom has become inverted, and no longer means freedom as we conceptualize it, but the freedom to do what the dominant ideology of our time — remember that we fought on the side of the Soviet Union in the last world war — tells us that we should be doing. This unfreedom expands the rights of others at the cost of our own.

Of course, rights present a troubling question: the more heterogeneous a society becomes, whether in religion or race, the more rights are likely to clash. And so we end up in a time where you must bake that gay cake, or your business gets effectively taken from you.

A new court case threatens to upend unfreedom and replace it with freedom of association, in which you have no obligation to ensure the freedom of others. Your only responsibility is your own pursuit of life, liberty, self-expression and happiness:

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a far-right legal group that the Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed a hate group, is arguing that Masterpiece Cakeshop has a First Amendment right to refuse service, on the grounds that baking a cake (or at least choosing who gets to buy it) is a form of speech.

…What they’re saying is that if you bake cakes and then put them up for sale, you have to sell them to gay and straight couples alike, under Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.

“If you imagine a scenario where the bakery refused to provide a cake for an interracial couple, a proposition that was true in other times in our history, we would understand that to be about race discrimination,” Melling said.

…The point of anti-discrimination laws, Melling said, is “to ensure, for example, that LGBT people would be free to go about their daily lives, would be free to walk up to the door to the store, would be free to walk up to the door of an inn without fear they would be turned away because of who they are.”

In the eyes of the Founding Fathers, much like the first people to experiment with democracy (a gateway drug to Full Communism) in ancient Athens, “freedom” meant a lack of obligation to others; it was a negative right, meaning that you were free from being crammed into the hive-mind and forced to go along with whatever the group found fascinating.

This type of “freedom” cannot last, however, because it conflicts with egalitarianism, or the idea that we are all equal or should be equal. Unfortunately, the notion of “freedom” itself rests on the idea that we are all equal, or at least equal in reason, so to reject egalitarianism is to undermine freedom, which requires us to instead find a common goal or standard and pursue that.

“Freedom” worked when we had a strong culture, caste system, and shared religion that enabled us to have roughly the same values. This meant that individuals outside of that value system were given no special consideration. However, in a pluralistic society, with many races, ethnic groups, religions, and political outlooks, that type of internal consistency is not possible.

As The Age of Ideology winds down, much of our focus has shifted toward discovering that our modern bold-sounding ideas like freedom, democracy, individualism, and diversity are bad not so much in themselves, but in how they condition our population to be weak-minded. The more freedom we have, the less we focus on reality, because the goal of freedom makes reality arbitrary.

The next age will seek non-paradoxical ideas. A society can be “free,” in the sense that people who are doing good or at least no harm are not interfered with, when its people share a basic values system, but this is rooted in genetics more than anything else. When that homogeneity erodes, so do the prospects for “freedom,” creating a clash between freedom and unfreedom that tears the society apart.

Rejecting The Enlightenment™

Monday, December 11th, 2017

Western Civilization slowly emerges from The Age of Ideology as Leftism, having achieved its final goals with globalism, reveals its fundamental impracticality and the misery of life under an ideological (i.e. reality-denying) regime. In its place, a new era appears as people reject anything but the innate and observable, having come to distrust scientists, academics, reporters, and ideologues.

Some object this. Like most Leftists, and they are all Leftists of some form, they differ only in the degree to which they are willing to apply their one idea, which is human equality. Some want a fairly conservative Leftism, where others want to jump into Communism with both feet out. All want to drag us back into The Age of Ideology to some degree.

As is always the case in human affairs, people disguise their intentions, and so many talk about returning to liberal values as found in The Enlightenment,™ the massive cultural change which kicked off The Age of Ideology. Stephen Pinker, who has produced at least one really great book, seems to have joined in this desire to resurrect the failed past:

These are just a few of the issues Pinker will discuss in “Enlightenment Now,” but he explains that the book is more than a compendium of encouraging statistics – it’s an urgent reminder that we need to preserve the Enlightenment values of reason, free expression and scientific inquiry that have led to such remarkable human progress since the 18th century.

…Instead of behaving like petty authoritarians and lamenting the imaginary fascist takeover of the country, anti-Trump forces need to reaffirm their commitment to Enlightenment values and institutions: free expression, universal human rights, unfettered objective inquiry, the rule of law and democracy.

Most people have no idea how all of these values connect to egalitarianism/individualism, which is the one idea of both the Left and the Enlightenment™ (“hmm”). Let us view them in sequence:

  • Reason. For us to believe in human reason, we must believe that it is evenly distributed among the population, but this requires us to think of the step after an idea is generated. When someone produces an idea, it must be recognized by others as correct or not. We either put our faith in exceptional human beings or in the generic “human reason” which assumes that a crowd is convinced by a correct argument, which in turn requires we believe they all possess at least an equal minimum of analytical ability. In reality, people have widely differing abilities to the point that they might as well live in different worlds, and those at lower levels not only fail to recognize accurate ideas, but actively reject them.
  • Free Expression. In theory, we all support free speech… until we encounter spam. The large amount of opportunistic, insane, stupid, delusional, egotistic, and vandalistic speech will make us reconsider! This means that we do not want egalitarian free expression, which is like a herd of monkeys all screeching at once, but quality of expression, which requires that in contrast to allowing a free-for-all, we listen to those who demonstrate the ability to make at least one coherent point.
  • Scientific Inquiry. To seem to oppose science appears to most to be the ultimate apostasy of our age. After all, science brought us hot showers, penicillin, and microwave dinners. People forget that science is in the hands of individuals, and individuals are not as unbiased as science is proclaimed to be, and so they can cherry-pick data, exclude items from study, and draw over-broad conclusions based on limited data. Science remains popular because it is presumed to be “objective,” which forgets that people do not understand the same thing at all from the same facts. This is why science us usually wrong and our “unassailable scientific truths” change every decade.
  • Universal Human Rights. The core of egalitarianism is found in individualism: no individual wants to face the Darwinistic or Social Darwinistic consequences of being wrong in how they understand reality, so they demand reality be abolished and be replaced with human socializing and its laxer standards of judgment. In reality, people have different abilities including to comprehend basic consistencies in our world, and so it makes sense that they would have different roles, duties, privileges, and responsibilities. Extending the same rights to all merely punishes the more productive and intelligent whenever someone of lesser ability struggles near them.
  • The Rule of Law. We like to believe in the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men, or the decision-making of individuals who are probably smarter and wiser than us. With the rule of law, everyone is treated the same, which means that our past contribution or lack thereof is not taken into account. What this does is essentially punish those who have contributed in the name of protecting the vulnerable, and instead of allowing a sensible case-by-case judgment, relies on blocky categorical rules which are never precise enough, leading to endless and tedious legal wrangling. Over time, law degrades us and compels us to do the illogical.
  • Democracy. Look at the people around you. You know that they are unequal in their ability to perceive reality, analyze it, and creatively understand the possible solutions — that means setting up little dioramas in their minds, and then hitting the “play” button on a mental video player to see how interactions play out — that describe the choices we can make in life. Now you realize that ability is distributed unevenly, with the real talent being rare and exceptional. Democracy means that the lower talents win out over the higher every time, which is why democracies die by a thousand cuts, making many bad decisions that ultimately add up to fetters of precedent that prevent anyone from solving any real problems. Democracy destroys civilizations and makes people blockheaded, timid, deluded, and prone to opportunism.

In summary, we do not need a return to the values of The Enlightenment,™ which are ancient at this point and reflect the same type of thinking that killed both ancient Athens and the modern Soviet Union. The herd is not good, but instead is a compilation of the thoughtlessness of individuals who are then separated from responsibility for their actions by the fact that they can blame the crowd. “Everyone was doing it!”

Enlightenment (™) values created The Age of Ideology by separating our thinking from cause-effect in reality and instead directing it toward human consensus, or what most individuals will insist that others believe because this benefits individuals by deconstructing the cause-effect relationship between their actions and the results of their actions, which can result in a loss of social status if the results turn out poorly, showing that the individual does not understand reality well and thus is delusional, less intellectually capable, inexperienced, or otherwise maladapted.

The coming age — barely dawning on us now — is one where people think less of the individual and more of the organic whole, such as their civilization, ethnic group, faith, and caste. Trying to make everyone equal actually created unending disaster at every level, and as we awake from the stupor of good social feelings and rediscover reality, we are casting equality and The Enlightenment™ aside.

Mitch McConnell Demonstrates Why We Need To Stop The Direct Election of US Senators

Sunday, December 10th, 2017

Is there a more degenerate, repulsive, slug of senatorial misrepresentation in Amerika than Mitch McConnell?

Perhaps, perhaps there is somebody just as bad. There is simply no way that Judge Roy Moore is morally fit to stand in the company of deeply caring human beings like Senator Robert Menendez. The answer to my rhetorical question doesn’t really matter. What we need to examine here is process.

Why is it that we get a US Senate fertilized by such excremental moral cretins?

The answer is obvious. We The People elected them via the democratic process. It guarantees a continuation of the Cathedral-Sponsored Kakistocracy. The superpositioned results of our biannual senatorial elections have been similar for years. Watching our two clownshow political parties via for Senatorial supremacy is akin to watching two tanking NBA squads playing a meaningless late season game in hopes of losing to one another and securing more balls in the draft lottery. The final score matters little. The platforms of either candidate, in the typical senatorial election; are about as intellectually stimulating as a proctological exam. Remember how Mitch McConnell was going to repeal and replace ObamaCare? Relax; Mitch doesn’t either.

Giving the US Constitution the same cursory speed-read Barack Obama probably did while in law school, we see that it is a vitally important organ of the US Government. It was intended to provide each state an opportunity to balance the power of the Federal Government. Because of this, the Founding Fathers did not leave it up to chance. They allowed State Legislators to select their own.

Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures. The first proposal to amend the Constitution to elect senators by popular vote was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1826, but the idea did not gain considerable support until the late 19th century when several problems related to Senate elections had become evident.

Now fans of domineering federal imperialism couldn’t let this sort check and balance stand between them and the opportunity to elect Teddy Kennedy, Theodore Bilbo, Robert Byrd or Lindsay Grahamaphrodite. With the hateful Seventeenth Amendment in place, John McCain found it far easier to land in the US Senate than he seemed to find it when he tried to land on an aircraft carrier. It took California to demonstrate the pure and utter heinousness of the Seventeenth. The dysgenic display of electoral ignorance gave us the proud, unbroken lineage of Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Kamala Harris. Never since the direct incestuous conjugation of the Spanish Hapsburgs has such an ongoing display of human evolution in reverse been afforded such a position of power and prestige. The current and recent course of the United States Senate is a deep and profound disgrace to our legacy as a nation and a people.

But there is an answer. It’s well known and it waits for us to harken back to. We only need to brush the dust of our founding documents. I mean if we really are Constitutional Conservatives, here’s how we clear away the toxic, contaminating train-wreck that is the current US. Senate. We go back to what initially worked in Amerika and select our US Senate properly.

Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

But no, we get our Senatorial Elections as demotic turd-chucking contests between ideologue, elitist pigs. All not in the phony millionaires’ club are subjected by compurgation by detestable people like Gloria Allred. An actual, functional Senate that refused to be swayed by the media conglomerates, the corporate interest groups and the soul-dead politicos could not be allowed to continue. Only when this changes will the current decline of our society be arrested. If it doesn’t change, the decline doesn’t stop.

The Senate will get worse, the senators, themselves, will get worse. Eventually this could become bad enough a situation to actually matter. Maybe Alabama Governor Kay Ivy has the testicular fortitude to call this ridiculous dog and pony show of a Senatorial Election. Maybe that could lead us to begin examining whether suboptimal human scum like Mitch McConnell and Gloria Allred should be powerful enough to determine who represents any state in the US Senate other than their own. Perhaps, once our elections become awful enough; people will realize they don’t derive any legitimate power when they cast votes.

An Archetype Roasts in Hell

Friday, December 8th, 2017

Charles Manson gives us a glimpse inside Hollywood and the Progressive Left. He not only worshiped The Zero, he served perhaps as its John The Baptist. We find his actions disturbing, but he behaved exactly the way you know Leftists would if they could put on a magic ring and be invisible. In honor of his departure:

Charles Manson, who plotted a string of bizarre murders in Los Angeles in 1969 that horrified and fascinated the nation and signified to many the symbolic end of the 1960s and the idealism and naiveté the decade represented, has died at age 83. Considered one of the most infamous criminals of the 20th century, Manson did not commit the murders himself; instead he persuaded a group of his followers to carry out the killings. He died at a Kern County hospital at 8:13 p.m Sunday of natural causes, according to Vicky Waters, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Now why would Charles Manson be in jail? Because he could bend the weak-willed to do any depraved act of evil that came to mind. The crimes that ultimately caught up with him and landed him in the Greybar Hotel, Spa and Resort were nothing compared to who Manson was. His essence fascinates the casual viewer. For the observer of perverse and perverted human nature, it’s like watching a NASCAR Race take place right after a good ice storm coats the track. He was a Black Pill spiked with just a dash of MDMA.

Despite the overwhelming evidence against him, Manson maintained during his tumultuous trial in 1970 that he was innocent and that society itself was guilty. “These children that come at you with knives, they are your children. You taught them; I didn’t teach them. I just tried to help them stand up,” he said in a courtroom soliloquy. Linda Deutsch, the longtime courts reporter for The Associated Press who covered the Manson case, said he “left a legacy of evil and hate and murder. He was able to take young people who were impressionable and convince them he had the answer to everything and he turned them into killers,” she said. “It was beyond anything we had ever seen before in this country.”

Manson has frightening similarities with fellow Leftist cult leader Jim Jones.

Jim Jones promised paradise to his followers. He urged them to move to his socialist utopia in the South American jungle. Then, on November 18, 1978, he led them to their graves in one horrific stroke, the single largest loss of American civilian life until the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Like Manson, Jones led his followers in an ultimate worship service and burnt offering to The Zero. This time it involved (mostly) suicide, rather than homocide. This was another Black Pill chased with the infamous Coolaid.

“We’ve had as much of this world as you’re going to get,” he can be heard saying in an audio recording. “Let’s just be done with it. Let’s be done with the agony of it.” He then ordered his followers to drink a cyanide-spiked punch. More than 900 people died, about 300 of them children. “We know from autopsies conducted later that a considerable number of people were held and forcibly injected with poison,” Guinn said.

Ultimately, Jones and Manson were both forerunners. They were an appetizer to the final Modern Symphony of Destruction. Jones and Manson are just a foretaste of the ineffable damnation we can expect when the Modern Leftist Amerikan Elite finally comes to “believe its own bullshit” as Barack Obama famously warned them not to. The demotic Marxist Cult of Personality always leads to a Manson, a Stalin, an Obama, a Jones, a Robespierre, a Mao, a Lenin or a Hitler. It always ends up in corpse-strewn ruination. That is the only way individualism can ever end up.

The Great Leap Forward, Nazi Germany, Altamont, The Khymer Rouge, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Soviet Russia all ended up slaughtering their own people. This is what egalitarianism always does in the end. It is the only thing that Leftism is ever capable of. Leftism is like a virus that keeps nature in balance by destroying all possibility of human success and decency. Jones and Manson only differed from Mugabe and Stalin in their level of power. They were fully in accordance with the ideology and the worldview. They were Amerika’s warning to turn back or be damned.

Sadly we are still drinking the bug juice. Tragically we are all in the process of carving Manson’s Swastika Mark of The Beast right in our very foreheads. We can radically turn away from the the three D’s Manson represents — democracy, demotism, and death — or we will all end up far worse off than just with blisters on our fingers.

How Modernity Will End In The Collapse Of All Empires

Thursday, November 30th, 2017

We are accustomed to thinking of our present time as the ultimate evolution of humankind. We look back and see that all of our ancestors existed just to produce, we think, what we have right now, which avoids some problems of the past, so we assume it is good. However, this is merely bias toward the present.

The problems that we consider solved comprise only part of the list of problems that we face, making our self-congratulatory triumph more a case of distraction than completion. If there is a possibility of something better, then our present time is far from and end position and more resembles a downturn before correction. Even more, we ignore the glories of the past.

If we reduce the argument to its simplest form, we find an argument that modernity has technology and wealth and is safer than any previous time, therefore is better, mainly because we fear those other times. We see bad things that happened to others and fear they could happen to us, despite making different choices than those who faced fate in the ways we fear.

Maybe that will convince us at first, but in the long term, that explanation begins to develop cracks. We see how many of our problems have been intractable because we will not admit the truth of them. We recognize that our art, literature, architecture, and even public speaking have declined to be pitiable, simplistic, and child-like. We see the corruption, insincerity and lack of innocence.

As a result, we realize on some level that our civilization is in decline. Occasionally someone says this in public, but always couches it as an inevitable result of history, and not a consequence of our choices. A prime example can be found in this chronological view of the inevitable end of the American century:

My third heresy says that the United States has less than a century left of its turn as top nation. Since the modern nation-state was invented around the year 1500, a succession of countries have taken turns at being top nation, first Spain, then France, Britain, America. Each turn lasted about 150 years. Ours began in 1920, so it should end about 2070. The reason why each top nation’s turn comes to an end is that the top nation becomes over-extended, militarily, economically and politically. Greater and greater efforts are required to maintain the number one position. Finally the over-extension becomes so extreme that the structure collapses. Already we can see in the American posture today some clear symptoms of over-extension.

Blaming over-extension provides a convenient scapegoat and to avoid the obvious condition that with power, societies become unstable, and that then shapes their citizens toward certain behaviors. The crisis proves to be not external, as he argues, but internal, as the civilization becomes unable to make choices, perhaps caused by how much a concentrated form of power is under attack from those who would usurp it. Another interpretation suggests that states which cease to focus on the internal, or self-improvement, become committed to the external as a means of holding themselves together, which is why they peak and then fall.

As is often discussed on this site, we see in these crises different manifestations of The Human Problem: our tendency to shape any activity around its audience, instead of around purpose, which we might see simply as social influences and peer pressure winning out over an ability to focus on the abstract goals of the activity. The failure of nations relates to The Human Problem, not “over-extension,” and democracy, diversity, and wealth expand it, but its fundamental method is caste revolt, by which The Herd of people without purpose overthrow those who are actually useful.

While this group are not entirely comprised of lower classes, it is the expansion of people who are lower echelon in consideration of their parallel “force of intellect” and “force of character” that overthrows nations. They are opposed by The Remnant, a small group of people who are capable of making both realistic and qualitatively good decisions — maybe five percent of your average European population — but this group usually does not recognize itself as what it is, so seems to always become overwhelmed by the others.

The basics of human civilization have not changed since before Biblical times. There are a few people who have an actual sense of identity, meaning a purpose which unites self and civilization with nature and the divine, and they make all of the important decisions that give civilization shape, where the rest are a vast crowd of people just milling around, competing for wealth and status, acting like a counter-current to the qualitative refinement of that civilization. The good want to go one way, and the rest are not so much an opposite, but people who are engaged in chaotic, pointless, distracting, or otherwise non-contributive behavior toward that goal. Certainly they do their jobs, pay their taxes, and obey the laws, but these are negative considerations, as opposed to measuring whether they advance the cause of civilization itself.

When this group wins out, society becomes internally disordered, and reverts to its most basic form, which is a mixed-culture crowd overseen by tyrannical leaders and run as an open-air bazaar. Almost all of the world, which exists at a third-world level of subsistence living, lives under these conditions, and not surprisingly, they produce little except when told exactly what to do with imminent consequences for failing to do so. Most people are slaves in their hearts, regardless of their condition outside, which is why they constantly blame others for oppressing them; this is their way of rationalizing their inner inability to be anything but slaves.

This means that degree of social order, not wealth, determines when a civilization will collapse.

Unlike Freeman Dyson who is quoted above, many of us see the broader problem: humans have forgotten — through centuries of willfully denying, erasing history, obscuring truths, and otherwise indulging in individualistic behavior at the expense of civilization — how to be civilized, which means the condition of having both social order and people who are genetically inclined to perform within it. In other words, the group gave in to the weakness of individuals, and lost its order which was larger than those individuals, thus like a body whose cells have turned against it, died.

What this means for us students of human history is that any society which does not restrain the impulses of individuals will be torn apart and consumed by them. Regulatory systems like democracy, including democratic republics, do not limit this, but rather enhance it, by shifting the moral center from the individual to following the rules. This sentiment appears also in some apropos words from John Adams:

Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.

Adams notes what Plato noted: the problem is individualism. When leaders are good, they pursue virtue instead of personal wealth because they have the foresight to know that with virtue comes qualitatively-enhanced adaptation, and with that comes wealth for everyone, but that with decline, all wealth is short-term because it is based on the stability of an increasingly unstable civilization. You can run away with your gold, but what can you buy with it, when there is no advanced civilization? At best, you get a rich man’s house in a poor man’s nation, where your children will find no mates of their own intelligence, and you will grow old among the sounds of foreign languages, with alien customs and none of the people or institutions that would appreciate anything good that you did.

With the rise in individualism, society becomes more inclined to cater to individuals, and this in turn changes individuals. Deleterious mutations increase because life is easier. Bad behaviors proliferate because they are rewarded. The ability to focus on purpose and principle disappears because it is irrelevant. Civilization turns into a race to the bottom as the lowest common denominator is rewarded. No matter what form of government this occurs under, the symptoms of the same: a managerial or outside-in approach, bureaucracy, consumerism, recycling wealth through self-referential economies, and the formation of a crowd which enforces these ideals on others.

We can even see this occurring in seeming opposites to our democratic modern state, as it did in the Soviet Union, such as modern China, which is heading for a similar boom-bust cycle because its power is based on the individualism of a consumer economy:

Alibaba has set another Single’s Day record after the e-commerce giant sold over $25 billion of product on the Chinese biggest online shopping date.

…That represents an impressive 39 percent increase on last year’s sales total of RMB 120.7 billion ($17.79 billion), and it comes nicely on the heels of another blockbuster quarter in which Alibaba’s revenue surged by 61 percent thanks to its core business in China.

For comparison, Alibaba’s Single’s Day haul puts America’s largest shopping days in the corner. Retailers pulled in a record $3 billion on Black Friday and then $3.45 billion on Cyber Monday, both of which were records.

We are emerging from The Age of Ideology, a time when what humans felt “should” be true was considered to be true because we had a self-referential crowd to enforce it through social pressures, democracy and consumer economics. When those reached global control, people realized that our way of life was miserable and would never change under the current order, and the pushback that has manifested in Brexit, Trump, and European identitarian cultural revolutions began. While the old order looks stable because it is generating money, much of this is merely hype based on its ability to sell junk to itself, and so will be as fragile as the dot-com bubble and bust cycle which is about to consume the American economy. These economic tragedies are not isolated events, but part of the larger process of civilization decline.

Donald J. Trump won because he conveyed two ideas to his audience:

  1. We need to act for ourselves, not some universal vision of humanity called “globalism”; and
  2. The old America — last seen in the 1980s — was better than the new, Leftist, globalist version.

His appeal was both practical and emotional. Americans had seen their country change radically since the increasing diversity push of the 1960s-1990s Leftist parties, who adopted the Communism vision of importing different races to erase national culture and leave only the Party as a source of meaning for citizens. Clever monkeys, they knew how to manipulate others, but only did so in a negative way which removed connections to the outsider world, and failed to build corresponding connections. This manipulation without regard to the needs of civilization creates the conditions for collapse.

Right now, the people of the West are trying to resist collapse because we are the only group with something to lose. If China collapses, it goes back to being a third-world country for another thousand years, which is not exactly unexpected anyway; if Brazil or Russia return to their original role as serf colonies, they will shrug and say “oh well,” because they never really anticipated having more than that anyway. But the first-world nations of the West, and those at the periphery like Israel and Japan, we depend on being organized as civilizations in order to survive, because only civilization recognizes what we have to offer as more important than the gyrations of tropical music, tasty ethnic food from climates where spices thrive, and the sexual license of impoverished lands.

The rising fashwave in the West emerged from this realization: people recognized that, in our zeal to tolerate the individual, we abandoned social order and gave way instead to socializing, or the habits of people that flatter each other and prize novelty in social settings, sort of like the “peer pressure” they warned you about in anti-drug ads in the 1980s. We see that the entire world has begun following this path started in The Renaissance™ and that it will doom them all, first by destroying social order, then crashing economies, then revealing a natural world savaged by our excess, and finally through the misery of people themselves, who will have become smaller, weaker, dumber, and of indecisive character.

Those who wish to avoid this fate will need to convince The Remnant of the following:

  1. Our current worldview based in individualism does not work, and any amount of it will lead to our decline;
  2. In planning our future, the relevant time scale is the 10,000 year view instead of the immediate.

We, the people who can still independently think and may possess souls, can see the crowd forming around us. They are chaotic, pursuing individual ends that ultimately do not reward them, and they are defined by being unstable, mainly because they have no direction and instead fill in the gaps with a pursuit of self-interest based on whatever trends, illusions, fads, panics, or opportunistic situations present themselves. They are a vast group of no pride in its heritage mainly because it either has mixed heritage or no distinctive ancestors, that is cultureless for the same reason, and is filling the void with consumption such that it becomes like a plague of insects, consuming whatever it can in the moment and rejecting anything more complex, essentially cannibalizing civilization for a few moments of feeling better about its pointless existence.

The modern age winds down around us as we speak. Technology will remain, so long as we have enough social order to support it with the knowledge and innumerable parts it requires, but the belief in the individual and through that in mass culture has fallen. People are finding refuge in the “old” concepts of identity, culture, values, customs, faith, and naturalism. They no longer believe that humans can socially engineer a Utopia, or that socializing provides an alternative to understanding our world and mastering it. They know that this Utopia is crashing down around them, slowly at first, but that this will accelerate.

That Utopia made itself doomed by having no internal order. It built itself around the individual, which means a civilization of many small parts, not coordinated parts which produce an order greater than the sum of its constituent elements. As it turns out, we needed that gestalt in order to have a civilization, and we need a civilization in order to be appreciated, and to know who we are. The passage of modernity into oblivion will not be much lamented.

A Domino Effect Awaits As Debt-Ridden Western Economies Collapse

Sunday, November 26th, 2017

Democracy survives because it pacifies people. Take a group, tell them that decisions are difficult but we are going to take a vote, and everyone calms down because no one is to blame for failure. When you fail, your reputation takes a hit; when a group fails, no one is to blame so everyone rationalizes the failure as success.

As part of that pacification, democracies possess a unique ability to thrive for a short time and then self-destruct. Because they make people feel at ease, those people then invest confidence, time, energy, and money into the various schemes that occur under democracy, all of which consist of manipulating appearance to signal demand, which causes a trend or herd behavior favoring it.

Think of how people make money in the modern world: they invent a product, it becomes a fad, and people buy lots of it; this can even happen with negative fads, like the panic over healthcare or desire for “green” products. The strength of democracy comes from this ability to mobilize masses with dollars wadded in their sweaty, filthy little hands.

In this sense, all of our consumer economy is a bubble. A new thing arrives, and it appears important, and everyone else is doing it, so it appears mandatory in order to compete or at least keep up with the Joneses, and so “everyone” buys it, and investors get behind it, only later to figure out that it was not important after all.

Most technologies fail because they are not relevant. Most trends die early, with only the first layer of investors making money and everyone else getting chumped. But if you build your economy around consumer demand, you will find that what goes up must come down and it will take down everything that relies on it.

We can see the future doom of Western economies through the beginning of an economic domino effect (via /.):

In the U.S., retailers announced more than 3,000 store openings in the first three quarters of this year. But chains also said 6,800 would close. And this comes when there’s sky-high consumer confidence, unemployment is historically low and the U.S. economy keeps growing. Those are normally all ingredients for a retail boom, yet more chains are filing for bankruptcy and rated distressed than during the financial crisis. That’s caused an increase in the number of delinquent loan payments by malls and shopping centers. The reason isn’t as simple as Inc. taking market share or twenty-somethings spending more on experiences than things. The root cause is that many of these long-standing chains are overloaded with debt — often from leveraged buyouts led by private equity firms. There are billions in borrowings on the balance sheets of troubled retailers, and sustaining that load is only going to become harder — even for healthy chains. The debt coming due, along with America’s over-stored suburbs and the continued gains of online shopping, has all the makings of a disaster. The spillover will likely flow far and wide across the U.S. economy. There will be displaced low-income workers, shrinking local tax bases and investor losses on stocks, bonds and real estate.

Retailers grew based on the idea that the type of society we saw in the 1980s would exist forever. Not only was the 1980s the last of the postwar wealth boom, but it was also based on the strength of the Anglo-Saxon elite who were no longer in charge of the culture but were still at the helm of most of the major businesses.

Now we have replaced those with incompetents in the name of political correctness, replaced our population with a third world and second world substrate, and based our thoughts of future value on fake internet traffic by impoverished outcasts and bots which means that what we think is gold, is actually feces, and having sold feces at gold prices, we are about to see our future values… re-adjusted.

The grim fact of democracy economies is that they depend on constant growth because they have no consistency, and so they rationalize all forms of broken policies as a means of maintaining the stream of money through the society, like air through a jet engine, because when the flow stops, everything falls apart at once:

To expand their economies, countries need to expand their populations, particularly at a time of low productivity growth.

“More warm bodies” makes sense as the motto of a system based on mass culture and mass mobilization as democracy is.

The good news in all of this is that as consumerism fails, so also goes the illusion of democracy as a long-term model, and with it goes also the parasitic and destructive notions of greed, diversity, equality, pluralism, tolerance, and individualism. As we watch the dust rise from the collapse, it will become apparent that civilization and social order are more important than those, and in fact always have been, even while we were deluded by visions of infinite wealth and growth.

“Racism” Is Self-Preservation

Saturday, November 25th, 2017

Only Leftists care about “racism.” To a conservative, the fact that some if not most people prefer to live among their own is no more consequential than their choice of shoes or favorite beer. Welcome to freedom, liberty and every other term for allowing innocent choice.

Leftists care about racism because their goal is to destroy. They bargain through collectives, but these are designed to benefit the individual by separating cause and effect, in this case the performance of the individual and the reward it receives from society. An ideal Leftist society is “equal” so that individuals do not have to prove themselves.

That serves as an extension of the decline of societies, in which people fear life more than they are willing to engage with it, so withdraw into human social groups where each person is rewarded merely for being a person, which protects individuals from loss of social status or power because they contribute nothing or are incompetent. This appeals to their fear of being insufficient or inept, and so people are drawn to it because they fundamentally do not believe in their society and have trouble believing in themselves as a result.

The impetus behind this crowd hysteria originates in people rationalizing the decay of their civilization because they lack faith in other people to reward them for doing the right thing instead of the popular thing. At its core is individualism, or the idea that by making the individual part of the group, no one can make that individual anything less than equal to everyone else, which is required for hierarchy and the social order necessary to reverse our decline. In other words, instead of the social order of a thriving civilization, a mob of equals is created so that no individual will be below any other.

As part of this, any attribute which can make someone higher than another must also be destroyed. Their primary target is caste, manifested in the modern “class,” but inherent to the distribution of IQ and moral character through a population. To that end, they must remove religion, race, ethnicity, and even sex so that everyone is finally equal. This is a pathological pursuit which has no ability to reverse itself, sort of like a psychological endgame for civilization, and its appeal to people is that in a world where they feel helpless, they are at least given control over a subset of reality, the human social arena, in which they can feel powerful. This disease exterminates every human group over time through what we call The Human Problem: the tendency of any human group to focus inward on placating its members rather than orienting them toward producing results, which benefit all unequally.

For those who followed all of that, it means that anti-racism is a death impulse by those who wish to destroy civilization because they are underconfident and fear their own ineptitude. Good guys do not engage in anti-racism; they recognize the reality, which is first that people like to be with those like themselves — not just by race but by ethnicity, caste, religion, customs and political outlook — and second that anti-racism seeks to erase the original group through miscegenation in what amounts to a slow and passive-aggressive genocide. This is why conservatives, or at least coherent and realistic ones, do not bother themselves with anti-racism and believe that “racism” does not exist. There are only choices about whom to associate with and where.

In contrast to what the herd tells you, “racism” is not cruelty toward others, but defense of your own group. That requires being the master of other groups or having them be far away. The only way to survive being bred into a hybrid, in fact, is through xenophobia that is systematically and rigorously applied, which requires some amount of demonization of Otherness, although not necessarily any specific other groups. That in turn requires the ability to apply harsh standards to those who are Us, so that what is left are the strong and powerful representatives of that group; if you love something, you prune the weak versions of it so that you get more of the strong.

On a practical level, concerns over racism are dead, for now. The Obama-Ferguson effect — the tendency of minority groups to recognize that a mixed-race group will condescend to them, but not fully include them — manifests in more racial strife, not less, the more concessions are made. In fact, diversity causes every group to begin competing with others because the only way to avoid genocide by miscegenation is to dominate all of the other groups and demonize them to a degree that interbreeding does not occur. However, this current backlash against anti-racism is not a belief in itself, but a frustration with the failed policies that have spent billions over the past fifty years to attempt to fix a problem that is unfixable.

The future for those who care about such antiquated issues as having a civilization and not a giant cultureless mixed-race bazaar can be found in the idea that it is time to start positively nurturing our culture, and withdrawing our focus from specific other groups. What we fixate on, we become; what we tolerate, we get more of. And so instead of being good stupid democracy-bots and trying to herd together as many people as possible, we can focus on the people who have actual ability and reaching them, and then aiming to disenfranchise the rest because like all good zombie voters, they will simply go back to sleep and quite happily vote for any number of pro-diversity items if those are presented with the right soothing language and promises of more social benefits.

Our future lies in snapping out of the modern dream where civilization consists of a government, social engineering and the welfare state, and lacks culture, heritage, customs, and values of its own separate from the ideology of that government. We are here to restore Western Civilization, and we cannot do that through the modern model at all.

The first step in this consists of converting “racism,” as expressed in the media, or ethnic resentment of other groups, into a dogmatic and principled xenophobia, where we stop caring at all about these other groups and whether they are good or not. Even if they are high-IQ angels, we do not want them among us, because any diversity is a path to our genocide.

Instead, we can dedicate our time to understanding who we are, both genetically and as a culture, and then enhancing the attributes of that culture in ourselves and society. This will require removing democracy, individualism, equality, and diversity, but those are only stops on the road to being a greater civilization than ever before.

We Know Better

Sunday, October 15th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Know Better, said the crowd.

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

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

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

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

We Know Better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Know Better.

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

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

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

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

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

We Know Better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Recommended Reading