Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘egalitarianism’

Pathological Sanity

Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flat Earth Theory

Monday, September 4th, 2017

Knowing that the internet has reached the point where sincerity is indistinguishable from trolling, simply because we allowed The Masses to access it, one takes new trends with a grain of salt, and so when a Flat Earth Theory starts making the rounds, the response is to shrug and figure that it is 50% trolls and 50% morons who cancel out your vote in every election.

But the thing about the Flat Earth Theory is that it works as a metaphor. Its appeal is that very few of us have seen enough of the world to claim that it is round, and we do not trust our “official” sources of information. In this sense, the Flat Earth Theory becomes a mental virus, a symbol representing our distrust of the human world around us.

We cannot be unaware of this human world, because it is broadcast to us from televisions, the internet, books, schools, movies, music and the conversation of others. But sometimes, the narrative cracks and we see that it was wrong all along:

Researchers have found 5.7 million-year-old, human-like footprints in Crete, complicating the story of human evolution.

A significant body of paleontological evidence suggests early humans diverged from their ape ancestors in Africa. A set of footprints found in Tanzania suggest hominins, the earliest human relatives, were walking upright some 3.7 million years ago.

…Until recently, no hominin fossils older than 1.8 million years had been discovered outside of Africa.

Modernity is being proven wrong across the board. We are told that humans evolved a certain way; it turns out that this is wrong. We are told that racial differences are not genetic, and then that too is disproven. We are told that educated people support only a certain political view, and then that, too fails.

All of not just Leftist ideas, but Leftist policies, are failing at once. The “fast money” doctrine of the Clinton years has brought us increasingly speculative industry and ever-larger bubbles, while diversity has ended in a terror of political correctness and rape gangs, and globalist policies have reduced our economies to dependents on a worldwide market that swings wildly out of control.

Emboldened by years of weak authority under Obama, crazy leaders and groups are rising worldwide. Climate change didn’t happen, but the ecocidal effects of a population swollen with immigration in the name of “diversity” has made life miserable. Adapting our cultures to accept every culture, and thus to be non-cultures, has made our lands alien places populated with angry foreigners.

The result is nothing short of a sea change in how people view our future, which means that we are rejecting old theories and seizing upon time-proven alternatives instead:

When Francis Fukuyama published his “End of History” thesis in 1989, around the time the Berlin Wall fell, we could see through his simplifications on behalf of a kind of capitalism we were weary of. No one among my cohort actually expected history to end, but it did fit into the tenor of the times, when thinkers reached for the universal. We were proud inheritors of the Enlightenment: That was the intellectual legacy we had to improve on, it was to be our perpetual lodestar, if we were not to be trapped in particularistic thought that could have no good results for anyone. True, Allan Bloom had rung the alarm bells not long ago over the new conformity, but we felt sure that intellectual prowess would reign supreme in the end.

When, a little later, the Bosnian slaughter occurred, we framed it not as Muslims versus the rest, but as a direct attack on the human rights principles we had tried to hold on to in the midst of late Cold War paranoia, which was often ridiculously transparent. Around the same time in the early 1990s, Samuel Huntington came out with his “Clash of Civilizations” thesis, a direct riposte to Fukuyama, a template for a re-energized worldwide conflict of irresoluble identities that has only grown in intensity with each passing year.

I go over this material because I realize that those who are in their 20s and 30s today have not known any other ideological order. Identity politics — the brand of communalism it flows from, i.e., multiculturalism, and the brand of expression it leads to, i.e., political correctness — is existentially unassailable for the young. They know no other means of self-understanding, artistic expression or personal solidarity. They can only be organized around this principle. They see the world strictly through this framework, not through some Enlightenment perspective of universal human rights irrespective of one’s biological identity.

If you read outside the carefully-constructed verbiage, you see that what this author is bemoaning is the rise of particularism or the idea that universalism — the notion that all people are the same, e.g. equal, and can be treated as a fungible commodity — is in fact wrong, and that there is no “we are all one,” but instead a world of many parallels, where each is as tribe that has to find its own path to what works for it, and the two are not comparable.

The difference between these two ideas, particularism and universalism, is night and day. Universalism might be referred to as the philosophy of robots, since it focuses on the minimums of what makes people human, and assumes that these are the most important things. Particularism is essentially localism and nationalism wrapped into one, where people say, “I dunno about this universal human robot you guys are designing, but I can tell you what works in this valley for my people, because here’s our history of what we tried and how well it worked out each time.”

We are transitioning from a millennium of universalism to a new era of particularism. Universalism is seductive because it makes everyone feel important just for being human, and by protecting them from criticism by arguing that they have a “right” to be however they want to be, it is inherently against culture, morality, heritage, values and any other standard which can make a person appear to fall short of what is desired.

The great power of universalism is its simplicity, which makes it seductive: you do whatever you want, and I do whatever I want, and the only cost is that we agree to support this system of mutual anarchy. By ignoring all larger issues of civilization, it reduces the question of society to socializing, and to the not-that-bright average human, seems like a complete solution in one easy idea!

What none of them realize is that they have been fooled, because universalism exists for one purpose, which is to force the sharing of wealth and power. Instead of realizing that wealth and power are not like toys in kindergarten, and should be entrusted only to those who can wield them well, more like Excalibur than the One True Ring, universalists demand that those who produce give to those who do not.

The nature of ideology is that it promises “a better way” through some means other than self-discipline. Individualism, or the notion that the individual is fine just the way they are and should be equally respected even if not a net producer, demands that people be excused from the need for self-discipline, especially adaptation to reality and social standards.

Ironically, this individualism replaces the individuality of a person by forcing them to engage in a cult-like behavior which replaces their inner traits — personality, abilities, moral character — with obedience to dogma:

“People don’t really understand how strong ideology can be,” she says. “I think sometimes of that group and that feminism as being close to a cult. I feel I had to de-programme myself in order to have independent thought. It’s been an ongoing struggle. When you have a cult, you have a cult leader who demands a certain conformity . . . And when you have a celebrity who has cultural-icon status, economic power beyond what you can imagine, you can’t resist that person — if you want to stay in their realm. Because once you start challenging them, they kick you out.”

Cults are based on people adopting an optional or arbitrary idea which they then rely on as part of their personality construct, which in turn allows the cult to control them. Those who do not exhibit enough of the ideal of the cult are excluded, and this creates competition to demonstrate the greatest obedience.

This replaces the identity of the individual with that of the cult, and makes their self-confidence and sense of well-being contingent upon being approved by the cult, much like an abusive social group or family. Those who do not do what the cult wants become the enemy. Total control is achieved by making people desire to be obedient.

A good cult is inconsistent and vindictive, which forces people to be even more aggressive in demonstrating their allegiance by widening the window of forbidden behavior and crowding people into the narrower space remaining. The most successful cults make people believe they have achieved freedom or another Utopian ideal, and they then preemptively retaliate against anyone with a different ideal, which enables them to spread rapidly by demanding that everyone around them be either part of the cult, or an enemy. Once they gain critical mass, everyone within their reach quickly converts or flees.

Egalitarianism may be the most successful cult of all time. People instinctively want to believe that they are equal, so that they do not feel an obligation to use self-discipline to meet any kind of social standard. Instead, they choose to believe that they need to do nothing to understand and adapt to reality, and the freedom from that Darwinian standard makes them feel safe and valuable.

What is most interesting about cults is that they are self-destructive. As if a metaphorical analogue to a cyst, the cult traps the weak in society and bundles them together into a group that destroys them. This happens because a cult at some point either realizes its ambitions, and they fall short, or commits itself to permanent warfare against those it presumes are its opposition, at which point the scapegoat becomes the master and the cult dedicates itself to understanding this contrary view and is absorbed by it.

Modernity has been one giant cult. Since the Renaissance/Enlightenment (PBUH) adoption of individualism as the new and now old form of the West, people have been indoctrinated into defending equality before all else. Equality however requires universalism, which took political form in globalism, and as this reveals itself to be unstable, minds turn elsewhere for archetypes of the future.

Peter Hitchens: Electorate are Equally to Blame for Britain’s Mess

Wednesday, August 16th, 2017

The always-interesting Peter Hitchens makes a point that we have made on this blog many times: the voters are ultimately to blame. Humans in groups indulge in herd behavior, where social factors become more important than the goal at hand, and so even in groups of smart people, voters settle on whatever compromise offends the least number of people. This means that they are selecting an illusion, and after the election, they can blame each other or the politicians. There is no responsibility or accountability in democracy.

Q: Peter, now you’re not known for your love of politicians. Would you bang them up …

P: No, apart from the practical unworkability of it: a selective victor’s justice which would follow, with the losing opposition being prosecuted by the government while people still remember what had been said, and all other kinds of impracticability such as that.

It’s ridiculous for us to pretend that the politicians are the only ones involved in dishonesty at elections.

In the old Soviet Union it used to be said that people pretended to work and the government pretended to pay them. The work was phony, the money was phony.

In our elections the politicians pretend to have lots of money spent on us. We pretend to believe them. And it’s by pretending to believe them repeatedly that we’ve got into the mess we have.

We’re just as complicit in it as they are. We’re far too willing to believe the blatant lies that were being told by people who are bribing us with our own money, and one of the reasons why democracy is going so rapidly down the plumbing is precisely because of that.

So to turn on the politicians and blame them for playing this game which we play with absolutely the same enthusiasm is ridiculous.

Q: We can’t blame the public . . .

P: Yes, you can blame the public.

Q: If they’re all lying . . .

P: It’s time we blame the public because the public’s self-deception is one of the reasons this country is so heavily in debt, both nationally and individually.

We will not face up to the realities of the situation. We would much rather be lied to than told the truth.

If any politician went into an election and said, “This is the real state of the economy: we’re bankrupt, we don’t make or export anything worth having, and we’re going to have to increase income tax or other kinds of taxes very heavily simply to balance the national books,” they’d lose the election.

In the same way, egalitarianism — the philosophy of human equality — removes the need for people to do good or right. If everyone is accepted equally, and given rights just for being human, the bad is equal to the good, and so people have no incentive to keep doing good, much as in socialism they have no incentive to be productive or conscientious in their work because the outcomes are roughly the same with each choice. This resembles the condition known as “heat death,” where particles stop moving because every option is approximately similar in result.

Whether in mainstream politics or the Alt Right, it is taboo to mention this failure of the electorate because if we do, we must accept that we must change from within. We would prefer to simply apply rules to ourselves so that we can control ourselves through manipulation because that requires the least amount of space in our minds, and allows us to continue to be fixated on ourselves and our desires, judgments, feelings, emotions and sensations. When change from within is required, we need to re-organize ourselves to adapt to our reality, which means that we could possibly be wrong, and this incites a fear of Darwinian consequences in us, so we create a superstition called equality which banishes that fear.

As long as there is voting, there will be decisions where people are not invested in doing good or right, but in getting along with the group or getting what they as individuals want out of it. The group, which appears to be a mindless collective, is in fact a mindless collective of individuals who have decided that they want to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Its mindless nature is created by the evasion of individuals, who are in the grip of something approximating hubris or individualism which makes them decide that their own needs are more important than those of organic civilization, the patterns of nature, moral good and cultural values.

You can see the whole video here.

Socialism Must Burn

Saturday, August 5th, 2017

It was gratifying to see that at the recent American Renaissance conference, presenters were looking beyond race alone at all of the failings of modernity, including its dysgenic tendencies.

As Professor Helmuth Nyborg noted, our problem is not just diversity, but government systems that punish the productive in order to reward the unproductive, reversing Darwin:

Prof. Nyborg also noted that unlike the north/south gradient in IQ there is no East/West gradient, virtually proving that it is the challenges of a cold climate that have forced northern peoples to evolve higher intelligence and a greater capacity for cooperation. He pointed out that Arabs have lower-than-expected IQs relative to the latitudes in which they evolved, probably due to the dysgenic effects of frequent cousin marriages.

Two forces could destroy Western Civilization. One is a social system that taxes the competent to subsidize the proliferation of the incompetent. As Prof. Nyborg noted, “The welfare-state debases what created high civilization in the first place. This is the first time in history that the less fit are reproducing more than the more fit.”

At the same time, lower-IQ non-Europeans are pouring into the continent, bringing with them alien practices and religions. Prof. Nyborg concluded with a warning: Unless Europeans are able to reverse these two trends, “the result could be the undoing of the Enlightenment. We may be on the precipice of a new Dark Age.”

Socialism is not just dysfunctional economically; it also destroys people by crushing their hopes by ensuring that all rewards go to those who are not thriving, at the expense of the thriving, in the name of “equality.” If you wonder why Europeans and Americans are not breeding at replacement rates, this is it: socialist-infused societies make life infuriating, unjust and futile.

Nyborg gets some things right, and others seem off-base to me. The Enlightenment™? Why would we want to preserve the movement that legitimized individualism in public discourse, like a bunch of hippies with LEGALIZE HUBRIS as bumper stickers on their Volkswagen buses? Our society is much older than that, and its older values were purer.

In addition, his North-South binary seems off-base. Let us try another binary: there are very few humans who are dedicated to truth and realism, and whatever they do reflects who they are, which is thoughtful and intelligent people. Many if not most of these are the founders of Western Civilization, and they persist today, trying to hold the crowd back from its folly.

Instead of this North-South paradigm, let us be honest: most of humanity is screwing up most of the time because they cannot escape their individual needs, desires and feelings. The few that do, and instead make themselves accept reality as it is, are more effective and end up more prosperous while the rest starve and die in endless revolutions and social chaos.

However, he points out something that the Alt Right denies: we cannot fix existing systems to work in our favor. Anytime there is a socialist program, like any kind of government benefits, people will become domesticated and docile. This is what government as an institution likes; it thrives when it has oblivious sheep to herd around, and fails when it is criticized by people alert enough to do something about it.

Welfare states are entirely derived from the idea of equality, which is a type of utilitarianism that takes only one form: since some are naturally successful and others naturally not successful, it takes something — money, power, status — from those who are succeeding and gives it to those who are failing.

This inverts Darwin. Instead of the most competent succeeding, the incompetent do just as well as the competent, which both drives society to a base level of mediocrity and ensures that future generations will have the genetics of the incompetent. Where nature promotes the good, humanity promotes the weak and penalizes the strong.

All egalitarian systems, including democracy, consumerism, globalism, feminism, socialism and any decisions made on the basis of popularity will enact this anti-Darwinian effect. It is wonderful that people recognize the need for nationalism, but there are other areas where we must remove threats to our people as well.

How Political Correctness Paired With “The Customer Is Always Right” To Make the New Totalitarianism

Wednesday, July 26th, 2017

As the Alt Right struggles to find its new direction while other Right-wing movements fade away, some of us offer a radical piece of advice: it should face the grim fact that our downfall has come through our own bad decisions, which arose from a selfishness and desire for power that led us to deny the natural order of life, and so our solution lies in undoing these bad decisions by replacing them with healthier goals.

For us to do this, it makes sense to inspect in depth the mistakes of the past so that we can recognize in each a fundamental principle, and through that, avoid repeating that principle in a new form. Principles are invisible; they can only be found by understanding the structure of an idea. They repeat in entirely different-looking forms, and when we do not recognize them, they cause us to repeat the same mistakes.

What rankles the Alt Right begins with a typical Leftist behavior, namely the tendency to change thought by making certain methods or ideas taboo. When you cannot use the appropriate method or idea, any given task or issue becomes “inverted,” or comes to mean the exact opposite of its original meaning because the thought process required to understand it is prohibited but its inverse is not. Language shifts and soon, everything in society is upside-down, and nothing means what it should.

One of the prime methods for this in our present time is the issue against which the Alt Right stacks “free speech”: political correctness, or the habit of making certain topics, notions and words off-limits in order to invert the meaning of the issues to which they refer. One explanation of why this is destructive comes from a striking critique based in utility, not morality:

[I] agree with Peter Thiel that political correctness is important in sustaining the stagnation of the West. It’s not even the particular topics that can’t be discussed. It’s the cowardice and the getting in the habit of constantly watching what you are saying that leads to a suppression of intellectual daring and genuinely creative thought.

Early on here I was named by a man who made a living from wind energy as one of the top 10 climate deniers on Quora. A strange honour, I suppose, but also just a little sinister. One had the sense that there was a gunning for such people because one by one they were banned and suspended. Baiting people into saying something that could be considered a violation of the cult of nice, something easy to achieve when you are close to a moderator. Probably it would have happened to me too, except I mostly write about other topics and some people liked what I wrote. If I worked for a big company with a bureaucratic social media policy, possibly it would have been much more effective.

The context is people have proposed criminal sanctions against those with differing views about causation of fluctuations in climate and what if anything we should do about it. Combined with the social ganging up I described above, do you not think this is likely to have a chilling effect on peoples’ expressions of ideas in this domain, and perhaps also in others.

Most people are smart enough not to disagree with the consensus of the group. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down. Group think isn’t some esoteric mildly interesting phenomenon but is at work every day in human groups, large and small. If there had been more people like Michael Burry, the financial crisis wouldn’t have happened. But, as Peter Thiel says, what does it say about us as a society that it’s the mildly autistic and more that are able to go against group norms and those who are more neurorypical don’t do that. It wasn’t always like this, and it probably won’t be in future.

A healthy society needs to be able to tolerate dissent, even about painful or controversial topics. The way to regulate conversation is to replace bureaucracy with good manners, because those can be much more adapted to changing and heterogeneous situations and are less susceptible to being exploited by opportunistic players that game the system. See also Scott Welch’s response below, about which I make no further comment. Except to say that the language used in his answer and in the comments is a pretty nice illustration that Quora does not appear to be serious about creating a forum where people are expected to exhibit nice and respectful behaviour (let alone good manners). BNBR is used as a weapon to shut out dissenting views (see Solzhenitsyn below) – but there’s a lack of seriousness about it. It’s one instrument but one that’s wielded according to the belief systems – and, more problematically, values – of the people running Quora.

Solzhenitsyn at Harvard: Harvard Commencement Address (A World Split Apart):

Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to flock together and shut off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of a petrified armor around people’s minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.

Ultimately it doesn’t really matter if the most pro-PC people accept these arguments or not, because the world is already changing. People increasingly value an unpolished authenticity, and I don’t think anything is going to stop this new trend from developing now it has gotten started.

This is a basic utility argument: when some ideas are taboo, it prevents them from being discussed at all, and this is enforced by decentralized totalitarianism where the majority of people refuse to engage with these ideas from fear of ostracism and retribution, so they simply fall into a memory hole and disappear entirely from public consciousness.

Equality itself gives rise to this phenomenon. When all people are equal, all viewpoints must be tolerated, but this quickly comes into conflict with the noticing of natural inequalities — mostly between social classes, but also including sex, ethnic group, race and sexual preference — which means that some of the equal people will feel marginalized.

Compound this with the fundamental method of equality, which is to “make” people equal by Robin Hood style actions involving taking from the more-successful and giving to the less-successful, or in other words, defending the underdog as a categorical practice. Whenever someone more-successful is in conflict with someone less-successful, the more-successful person is attacked.

Aha. This gives us the root of political correctness, which is that if one of the equal citizens finds himself being observed to be unequal, the right way to fix this is to penalize the person who notices the inequality. Given the power of the Dunning-Kruger effect, this means that only those with the brains to observe reality semi-correctly are censored, and idiocy is given center stage in the ultimate inversion.

Naturally, this leads to domination of the less-successful — who are most likely lower in caste, intelligence, wealth, power, class and competence — over the success. The weak eat the strong because the Crowd enables the weak. Witness this in action in an otherwise advanced legal system where noticing caste differences is a crime:

Calling a Dalit by his caste with a view to insulting him or her is an offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), the Supreme Court has ruled, upholding the conviction of two persons in Tamil Nadu.

…”The word ‘pallan’ no doubt denotes a specific caste, but it is also a word used in a derogatory sense to insult someone (just as in North India the word chamar denotes a specific caste but it is also used in a derogatory sense to insult someone).

…”In our opinion, uses of the words ‘pallan’, ‘pallapayal’ ‘parayan’ or ‘paraparayan’ with intent to insult is highly objectionable and is also an offence under the Scheduled Cast/ Scheduled Tribe Act. It is just unacceptable in the modern age, just as the words ‘Nigger’ or ‘Negro’ are unacceptable for African-Americans today ,” the bench said.

Equality always goes this way. Diversity just makes it easy because it enables the herd to analogize caste to race, and in our modern egalitarian agenda, racial discrimination is the worst sin ever. This may go back to the days when Americans allied with China and had non-whites serving in its military, and so had to ban discrimination as it threatened loyalty to the State.

Egalitarianism itself mandates diversity. If all people are equal, all races are equal. And nothing seems more discriminatory and inegalitarian than singling someone out for something he cannot control, namely a condition he was born with such as race or caste. Equality must be achieved, and to do that, all differences between people must be eliminated or hidden, in this case by social taboo.

What this means is that in our minds, the idea of equality becomes a runaway train that rolls right over every aspect of life. This egalitarian outlook leads to a type of inward focus that becomes a paralyzing narcissism:

The cause of our narcissism is equality. Not equality before the law, where everyone is bound by the same legal code. That is a fundamental right and necessary for justice, freedom, and happiness in a democracy. I’m referring to equality of conditions—our economic well-being and social status, the material aspects of equality Europeans experienced when they broke from the caste system of their homeland, shedding aristocracy and an impenetrable class structure that denied them access to material wealth and limitless possibilities.

…But equality, like freedom, has its dark side. Just as too much freedom leads to libertinism, anarchy, and destruction, equality (or the expectation of equality) leads to entitlement, self-centeredness, isolation, idealism of human perfectibility and progress, autonomous individualism, materialism, and ultimately despotism.

As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “One must recognize that equality, which introduces great goods into the world, nevertheless suggests to men very dangerous instincts…it tends to isolate them from one another and to bring each of them to be occupied with himself alone. It opens their souls excessively to the love of material enjoyments.” It makes him a narcissist.

Who is de Tocqueville restating here? He is channeling Plato, who famously said:

The State demands the strong wine of freedom, and unless her rulers give her a plentiful draught, punishes and insults them; equality and fraternity of governors and governed is the approved principle. Anarchy is the law, not of the State only, but of private houses, and extends even to the animals.

Father and son, citizen and foreigner, teacher and pupil, old and young, are all on a level; fathers and teachers fear their sons and pupils, and the wisdom of the young man is a match for the elder, and the old imitate the jaunty manners of the young because they are afraid of being thought morose. Slaves are on a level with their masters and mistresses, and there is no difference between men and women.

At last the citizens become so sensitive that they cannot endure the yoke of laws, written or unwritten; they would have no man call himself their master.

With these two views of the same thing, we see the problem with equality: without focus on something outside of the self, people become obsessed by the self like a golden calf or the One True Ring, and pursue it with a mania like addiction, because like all good dependencies it provides brief relief from noticing drab reality, and then as the situation settles back into normalcy, requires more of the drug.

Diversity serves this pressure for inward focus by enacting a pincer strategy on civilization: one claw of the pincer is increased alienation and atomization, and the other is a need for self-validation in order to keep the addiction going. People simultaneously flee the public sphere and cling zombie-like to ideology.

All of this arises from the need to “create” equality through banning negative but true observations about the lower castes. Diversity happens in parallel with the maniacal, Soviet need to enforce equality for other groups — women, homosexuals, transgenders, odd religions, the retarded — because both originate from the same root in egalitarianism, and naturally and inevitably develop into these special interest “identity” politics.

This identity in turn reflects a lack of actual identity, because egalitarianism has eaten that right up, and instead a need to find some reason why one is special and hopefully a victim, because that way the individual deserves to be made more-equal through wealth and power transfer from the more successful. This is the crisis of identity:

But the truly notable thing about today is not so much the obsession with identity – it’s the instability of identity. Humans have been hunting for identity for centuries. The instinct to define ourselves, to project ourselves into the world, is strong. And there’s nothing wrong with it. What’s new today is that identity has become an incredibly subjective phenomenon. ‘I identify as…’ Where once an individual’s identity was informed, or shaped, by experience and belief, through an engagement in the public sphere or with a party or association, today identities are self-consciously and often defensively constructed. The NYT, in its description of 2015 as the year of identity, asked: ‘How do you identify? [W]hat trait or aspect of your being is central to your idea of yourself, and your relationship to the world?’ The keyword here is your. The NYT doesn’t ask ‘What are you?’ or ‘Who are you?’, which would speak to a strong sense of being something; it asks what ‘aspect of your being’ is most important to ‘your idea of yourself’. ‘Being’ is treated almost as something external to the individual, a thing to be mined for ‘traits’ we might identify with. Identity is not something we are or we experience; it is a technically cultivated category, built from ‘traits’ and ‘aspects’ to give ‘an idea of yourself’.

What the NYT and many others describe as new era of identity politics is in fact an era in which the historical, traditional underpinnings of identity have been ruptured, or even destroyed, unleashing an often desperate search for new identities, a rush for self-identification, for shallow identity construction. The subjectivity of human identity in the 21st century is striking, and alarming. Today, to feel something is to be something.

Arising from the nature of equality itself, identity politics speaks to a need for self-validation, which is the second claw of the pincer. There is no identity outside of the self, so people look for a group to join, but since this is not related to any actual membership, it becomes entirely symbolic. The individual wants a position from which they are able to justify their narcissism.

Not only that, but any existing identity that is actual threatens their ability to choose any identity they want, which in turn limits them to being what they are, which violates equality. The manic, all-devouring instinct of Leftism toward culture, religion, heritage, race, ethnic group, customs, calendar, cuisine and even symbols comes from this need to be the determiner of their own identity.

Equality makes people into crazed individuals, gazing inward and finding nothing, thus trying on different identities as a means of being special enough and marginalized enough to have power in a society that is constantly pushing people downward in order to enforce equality. The root of this churn lies in the nature of Leftism itself:

It is Liberalism that believes in the Autonomous Individual, it is Liberalism that always hides its real beliefs, it is Liberalism that has turned us from Nations into mere economies.

…Lying is the only way they can gain support so they do. They never talk about the Autonomous Individual instead they talk about freedom, about freedom of choice and other such nonsense. Why?

Because the Autonomous Individual has no need of a country, or a family, or a God, or anything. It is a life of hopelessness and pointlessness and they know it. They don’t talk about it because they see a perfect world and the Autonomous Individual lives in that perfect world. But if they went to the next election talking about people getting to live in a perfect world people would reject them and they know that. They never talk about where their philosophy leads because to any sane person it holds absolutely no appeal. Who wants to live a life were they have no family, no roots, no history and no future, only today repeated endlessly until death?

Political correctness is the vanguard of Leftism. Like the outer shell of a virus, it merges with the wall of a cell, making it think that the virus is part of itself. Then, the virus enters and reprograms that cell with its own DNA, so that the cell propagates the virus, sacrificing itself in the effort.

Pair that with “Keeping Up With The Joneses,” which in this case is symbolic, and people begin excluding dangerous ideas while repeating obvious lies, just so that they stay relevant and are part of the in-group that gets all the wealth and power. They will eventually adopt a victimhood pose through the identity Olympics, and act out increasingly extreme versions of egalitarian idealism.

Enter another cliché: “The Customer is Always Right.” This is the basis of mercantile middle class ethics and explains how societies are taken over by bad ideas. Bad ideas are always popular because they are simpler, and therefore make the person considering the idea feel more powerful for having this simple, clear and absolute bottom line. No merchant will refuse a customer the right to purchase an illusion. For this reason, business and law follow public opinion, and when enough people are keeping up with the Joneses by being politically correct, the governments and corporations follow suit.

From this, all of the evils of civilization decline flow, and the society goes out like Rome, anesthetized to its own decline because the way that individuals succeed is by jumping on the bandwagon. What is right, is wrong. All values have been inverted. And so the people of that society play follow the leader all the way to their eventual doom.

Our only hope of avoiding this is not to fight political correctness, but to orient our civilization toward a different direction entirely, one in which what is true, right, sensible, logical and leads to the good is more important than our selves and our individualism. This requires a breakaway group who will rise above the rest, who seek authenticity so thoroughly that they aspire to a society of virtue:

In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us.

The primary idea of virtue is that we, as individuals, are less important than the patterns of reality that show us how to adapt to our world. The inversion of this idea, individualism, arises from the Renaissance™ and Enlightenment™ and holds that the human individual is the new order that replaces nature, and therefore we can ignore both the physical aspects of nature that our wealth and technology have conquered, as well as the pattern-order of nature that determines what thrives and what dies in the long term.

Virtue commands that we eschew individualism in favor of purpose, and that this purpose must be like that of nature, which is an aristocratic and relentlessly aggressive drive toward constant improvement. Our society beat back the wolves and starvation, but it cannot beat the cycles of time and the logical way in which nature works. Virtue is the ultimate realism.

Right now, our civilization has fallen, which was formalized in the World Wars. All of our decisions leading up to those were based on individualism. If we want to rise again, and at the core of the Alt Right is a desire that we do, we will need to rediscover our virtue and discard the individualism that leads to political correctness and eventually, downfall.

Escaping The Two-Party Paradigm Requires Realizing That The Left-Right Division Is Real

Tuesday, July 18th, 2017

The wires of the internet are alive with bloviation about a “horseshoe theory” and “false Left-Right paradigm.” As with anything popular and trending, these too are stupid and illusory, but they refer to something else we should pay attention to which the herd has poorly articulated.

So what are we missing?

Andy Nowicki gives us part of the vision with a look into the futility of mass politics:

For in casting one’s vote for or otherwise throwing one’s weight behind one side—be it the yin or the yang—of a binary, duopolic, Manichean paradigm, one is in fact not only selling one’s soul (which is to say, serving a master who is not God), or supporting evil in order to oppose what one takes to be a greater evil… no, one is not merely guilty of these betrayals ; one is also in a sense propping up the other side, the side one recognizes as being the worse of the two factions.

For in a world ruled by a duopoly, each side of the yin-yang spectrum parasitically feeds off the other for its own sustenance. One side could not be what it is without the active contrivance of its supposed opposite, and vice versa. Both yin and yang are fortified by the other’s scorn, contempt, and hostility; each digs in all the more when it perceives itself being threatened, and by digging in, thereby causes the other side to feel threatened, which in turn enhances the other side’s sense of righteous hysteria, leading to a never-ending cycle of rationalized provocations and self-justified aggressions.

What he describes is a feedback loop, or what occurs when there are two or more entities in a system interacting with one another. The first does something, the second reacts to it, and then the first reacts to that, perpetuating a cycle. The classic feedback loop as described by William Gibson is a child playing a video game, with computer and human both responding to the other and then triggering the next iteration of responses.

When we support one side of a duality, it strengthens the other by making it necessary, since the first is based on its relationship to the other. The two are defined relatively. This even applies to multiple parties, in that if all participants in a system adjust their behavior based on what others do, to support one is to cause interaction with the others.

However, this model fails when we step outside the democratic paradigm and as a result, stop treating politics like a conflict between football teams. The goal of politics is not to fight the other guy, but to assert what is the right type of society to have. This is why Leftists and Rightists are incompatible: we want entirely different types of civilizations.

The difference between Left and Right comes down to a war of ideas:

The very idea of a political spectrum fosters the illusion that if two schools of thought are both on the Right, they must be just two versions of the same thing, differing only in matters of degree. But of course Right and Left are on the same political spectrum as well, and we do not think they differ only in degree. Political philosophies differ fundamentally in terms of their basic principles and their political goals. This is true of Left vs. Right, and it is true of one Right vs. another. The only thing that really unites the different camps of the Right is a negative belief, namely rejecting the idea that equality is the highest political value. (The camps of the Left are more unified because they all affirm a positive, namely that equality is the highest political value.)

…ultimately White Nationalists believe and want very different things than the civic nationalists, classical liberals, neoconservatives, and Christian conservatives who oppose us. They have different philosophies and goals. They don’t want to be like us. They have nothing to gain from us — except looking more moderate and reasonable to centrist eyes, which is really the only reason they mention us at all.

…We will be a lot more effective if we stop being threatened by principled intellectual disagreement and start taking ideas a bit more seriously.

The basic argument above — that this is a war of ideas, and we must discuss ideas to clarify them, even through argument and debate — is a healthy and sensible one. There are a few points upon which elaboration is necessary.

First, most people do not understand that in a war of ideas, each idea is a sub-archetype of some fundamental philosophy that represents more of a direction/purpose in life and an explanation of how life works than a distinct and new direction in itself. Even if we accept that Rightism is not a spectrum, we can see how all Rightist beliefs are unified by some ancestor in thought.

On Amerika, we have identified the Right as consequentialists who also strive for transcendental goodness. To be an extreme realist like a consequentialist is to believe that we get anywhere only by understanding our world in detail, but that tells us method, and we then must know toward what we should strive.

The answer comes from reality itself: like Darwinian evolution, or even self-discipline, we strive for qualitative improvement based on our lot in life “as it is” according to realism. To do that, we must seek that which is good and beautiful in life, exploring our own capacity for virtue, so that we know what to do with what we know of how reality works.

It is not as simple as saying that the Right opposes equality. We do oppose it, but mainly because it is unrealistic. It is also moral sabotage, but that is minor compared to the fact that equality clashes with the mathematics underlying our universe and, as a result, leads to accelerated entropy and decrepitude.

More importantly, the Right desires a society that is based on an order higher than the individual; this is part of consequentialism, or measuring our actions in terms of their results and not how humans judge them. The other extreme, egalitarianism, figures that whatever is popular is right, simply because it is what the individual wants. This is the secret meaning behind equality: no one can rise above the herd, and whatever the herd desires, is presumed to be right, especially if it contradicts what more intelligent, honorable or wiser people know.

So while the “official” Leftist and Rightist parties — or even a host of parties including Greens, Communitarians, and other permutations, all of which boil down to one ideological ancestor of the other — are engaged in a football game of Red Team versus Blue Team, the battle between Rightist (realism) and Leftism (individualism) is real.

Those official parties are allegorically similar to the difference between a McDonald’s cheeseburger and the abstract notion of cooked meat. The Right-wing parties sometimes do something vaguely Right-wing, true, but most of the time they are buying votes just like the Left-wing party. The difference is that buying votes and other attributes of democracy push further toward the Left, because democracy itself as the political wing of egalitarianism tends toward the Left. Whether this is done through elections, judges, shifts in meaning to common terms or all of the above is irrelevant at that point. Any participation in democracy strengthens the Left.

In addition, democracy is doomed because it always favors what is not real. In a democracy, those who offer the words that make most people feel warm and happy inside become the winners. There is no obligation to follow up. That means that we are choosing actors, not leaders, and that they will do as little as possible to change the course of history because doing so would endanger their personal place within the hierarchy. In addition, there is no accountability for the people making the decisions in question, because the voters cast their lot like throwing dice and then blame everyone else for whatever they get.

Now let us return to the horseshoe theory which states that at their extremes, Rightism and Leftism resemble each other because both become authoritarian. Looking at this more sagely, it is clear that “government” — as opposed to leadership as in a monarchy — itself is a creation of modernity, which is the time period that arose after the individualism of the Renaissance™ became the egalitarianism of the Enlightement™ and finally, mutated into a collectivism and conformist version of those.

Equality is the root of modernity and government. However, government does not work; it is a self-serving corporation that becomes parasitic to the nations in which it holds power. As a result, it becomes unstable over time and must become authoritarian in order to remain in power by retaining control. The “horseshoe theory” applies to government, not political inclinations.

Rightism, as you no doubt recall, was the name given to those who liked the way things were before the French Revolution. All conservatives have this in common, and the use of time-honored methods represented a variant of the Rightist idea of extreme realism plus existential well-being through qualitative improvement. Kings are the only stable method of leadership; this can be improved qualitatively, but not changed.

If you are not an egalitarian, you are most likely a Rightist, but this is because of a lack of other options. You either believe in an order above human intentions, or an order of human intentions. You can avoid the question entirely, but there is no “third front” or “third way.” The Egalitarianism Question (EQ) divides all theories into these two camps.

We know that government is doom; how would a rightist pick something… better? One answer comes to us from civic engagement and social capital, which are both not-government and not-anarchy:

Especially with regard to the postcommunist countries, scholars and democratic activists alike have lamented the absence or obliteration of traditions of independent civic engagement and a widespread tendency toward passive reliance on the state.

…When Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, it was the Americans’ propensity for civic association that most impressed him as the key to their unprecedented ability to make democracy work. “Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition,” he observed, “are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types–religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. . . . Nothing, in my view, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America.”

Recently, American social scientists of a neo-Tocquevillean bent have unearthed a wide range of empirical evidence that the quality of public life and the performance of social institutions (and not only in America) are indeed powerfully influenced by norms and networks of civic engagement. Researchers in such fields as education, urban poverty, unemployment, the control of crime and drug abuse, and even health have discovered that successful outcomes are more likely in civically engaged communities.

These civic engagements only exist for so long as they are protected by a conservative social order, however, because the “me first” individualist order of egalitarianism erodes them by demanding attention to the individual, and not the shared social space. In effect, when each individual can take power, a “tragedy of the commons” results where each person seizes power for themselves, and none is allowed to remain shared between the citizens; the paradox of this is that for power to remain shared, it must be owned by someone so that there is actual accountability, because otherwise people take what they want and then blame others or the group for the collective tragedy.

This tragedy of the commons takes effect anywhere humans go, and constitutes part of The Human Problem, which is how every human organization decays. The goal of the group is eroded under waves of individual need. As individuals exploit their own need, they see no reason to be limited in doing so, because if they do, others will win out. Only when a factor like a shared goal or higher order intervenes can people be induced to stop competing with one another and cooperate, but at that point, those who do not cooperate — “free riders” — gain power.

Ironically, success brings about this condition. A society that is thriving has extra wealth that it can squander on various forms of non-productive or even destructive behavior. In societies where every moment and morsel count, there is less tolerance for getting it wrong, and so the individuals in those societies develop social codes based on long-term thinking, honor, fidelity and shared goals. Where there is tolerance for getting it wrong, The Human Problem accelerates. This may be why the original Western Civilization originated in people who emerged from the Arctic Circle, where sloppiness or parasitism resulted in death, and were punished accordingly.

Egalitarianism, on the other hand, says that sloppiness and parasitism are just fine because everyone is equal and therefore, should be accepted even if they are unproductive, screw up a lot or have bad faith participation. Leftism is the philosophy of egalitarianism, much as democracy is its political arm. For that reason, the West cannot be Leftist:

The Alt-Right certainly doesn’t believe the West is “liberal values.” Western civilization existed for centuries before the Enlightenment. It was the product of a particular people, their religion, history and culture. It used to be a very illiberal place in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era. The Left admits this by saying we should be ashamed to be Westerners because we weren’t always so liberal.

We believe that liberalism is destroying Western civilization. It has led to this crippling sense of racial guilt and cultural malaise. It has opened our borders to the ongoing Third World invasion. It has unraveled and debauched our culture. We’ve degenerated to the point where we celebrate the death of our own children as “freedom.” We can’t even reproduce ourselves anymore or assert our own identity and interests. It will suffice to say that liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

In other words, the West is its people, and those people only thrive when subjected to natural selection, such that those who are productive, intelligent and morally good are advanced above the rest and keep that herd under control, because otherwise the herd discovers egalitarianism and promptly exploits civilization in a tragedy of the commons.

So now we come full-circle. The horseshoe theory is nonsense if applied to Left and Right, but describes exactly what happens as government decays. The Left-Right paradigm is not false at all, but taking sides based on the parties and not the philosophies that they in theory espouse, is in fact nonsensical and merely strengthens the Left-leaning system. And Leftism, like all forms of herd morality, is our death.

Watching Caste Revolt Kill Off Another Great Civilization

Monday, July 17th, 2017

Any time you are in a situation where obvious problems appear, and everyone in authority either shrugs them off or seems incapable of understanding them, you know that you are in a dying organization.

This can happen at a job. Many of us have ended up working for companies that were months or a few years away from bankruptcy. The one thing that the “corporate culture” (LOL) had in common between them was denial. That is, people found it mentally more convenient and easier to chase after non-problems than face the one big problem, which is that the business pattern of the company was broken.

And so there is endless neurotic chatter about getting time sheets in, keeping track of minor expenses, cracking down on office supply theft, turning up the air conditioning after work, and other cost-cutting measures that while not terrible in themselves, missed the big point that the business needed to bring in more money or lose a large number of its people.

Now imagine this on the level of a nation. Even some of our more successful business leaders are noticing the decline:

We are unable to build bridges, we’re unable to build airports, our inner city school kids are not graduating…we have become one of the most bureaucratic, confusing, litigious societies on the planet.

If that sounds like democracy in action, think about this: the United States has spent the past thirty years in a stupor of civil rights obsession and has missed out on many necessary changes, while having passed a whole lot of laws.

Democracies always go out this way. Voters crave the possibility of never losing more than the potentiality of winning. Fear is greater than aspiration, with most people. And so the herd approves tens of thousands of little band-aid laws.

The problem is that when you add all of those up, and the regulatory agencies that apply them and the interpret them in thousand-page documents, and the court cases and expert recommendations about them, you have a nation tied down with red tape and fears.

Democracy always goes out this way, and caste revolt always creates democracy. When you are a prole who wishes to be king, your only strategy is to claim that you are equal to the king, which legitimizes overthrowing him and implementing prole rule. But how do “equals” rule? Only through a lengthy process in which everyone is involved, even if the end result is more of a dice roll than decisive leadership.

Caste revolt requires the removal of all healthy, normal and fulfilling behavior so that people are empty and thus are driven to cling to the ideology of caste revolt, egalitarianism.

Not surprisingly, this makes them existentially miserable and they stop breeding beginning with the smartest. We are seeing this now because American happiness in decline:

“America’s crisis is, in short, a social crisis, not an economic crisis,”economist and Columbia University professor Jeffrey D. Sach wrote in a chapter of the report called “Restoring American Happiness.”

Sachs mentions that while per capita GDP — an indicator used to gauge the economic health of a country — is rising, happiness is falling.

“The United States can and should raise happiness by addressing America’s multi-faceted social crisis—rising inequality, corruption, isolation, and distrust—rather than focusing exclusively or even mainly on economic growth, especially since the concrete proposals along these lines would exacerbate rather than ameliorate the deepening social crisis,” he wrot

How can anyone be happy here? First, incompetence and disorder reign; second, we can have no faith in a society without purpose because it is ruled by lower castes for whom “equality” is more important than “good,” “correct” or “accurate.”

Think about it: we are in the grips of a mental virus, an ideology which people fear to say “no” to, that has replaced our real-world goals with an ideological goal. Everything we do is to achieve reality. We have forgotten reality in the process.

We can make this civilization happy again but it requires removing equality as our goal or our method, since as a method it quickly becomes a goal, and replacing it with the idea of virtue. We need a society dedicated to good.

That is not the same as a society dedicated to happiness. The secret is that if we do good, we will improve ourselves, and in so doing, will find purpose and become happy. But the politicians and voters will never tell you that.

Find The Enemy Before He Destroys You

Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

When under attack, there are two reasons to find your enemy quickly: first, to figure out where to counterattack, of course, but second, to know where the enfilading fire is coming from.

As we approach the end of modernity, it becomes clear that the enemy is not clear. We are fighting a guerrilla war where the enemy can look exactly like us, act like us, and still be evil in intent. This means that we are surrounded by false enemies that we will not know are distractions until we destroy them, and then notice that the problem remains.

Mjolnir took up the quest to avoid the “JQ” and instead to focus on the actual problem, which is mental breakdown within our citizens and social order. Their analysis encourages a more holistic view than the JQ can provide:

These “Hitler was right” types have no sense of reality – or of history – and think that Joe Public is suddenly going to start embracing the Führer and revolt against their masters. The problem is they spend all their time in little cliques and on the internet and then believe everyone is like them deep down.

[There is] a wider problem in the movement, and that is a sort of autistic focusing on a single antagonistic group, as though with the removal of that group, the whole world would hold hands and sing songs together. For some it is the Jews, for others the Muslims, still others Negroes, and so on. And here I believe young Jack has been led astray by older heads who ought to know better, but who, like their Leftist counterparts, have never grown up – people who in middle age and beyond still fantasise about the Third Reich of their imagination. While I do not subscribe to the official narrative concerning the Third Reich and the Jews, the fact remains that that regime had determined upon an expansionist war in the East, beyond the 1914 boundaries, in order to turn White European ethnostates into German colonies, a war that would cost millions of lives of the best of European men.

…So what does one do with the Jews? The simple answer is they have a place to go: Israel. And that is why Israel is actually needed. Individuals who have attempted to ensure our genocide must be punished as individuals, just as those individuals of our own people would be. Yet one cannot put all the world’s woes on Jewry. Do not forget that only a few centuries ago, they lived in ghettoes and were forbidden power. So who let them out and why?

Our problem has always been eternal human weaknesses. No strong nation perishes solely from outside influence; it commits suicide by choosing illusion over reality. Since our society began to thrive, our people have been entranced and zombified by the idea of “equality,” which really means that each person can be part of society no matter how much or little they contribute.

When this situation — a default weakness of humankind, emboldened by The Renaissance™ and legitimized by The Enlightenment™ — gained power, the result was the French Revolution, which left behind a prole-goverment so unstable that it quickly embarked on a world war to spread democracy to everyone. Since that time, we have been repeating this pattern, over and over again.

The solution is to get away from the idea of equality. We are not equal and we need hierarchy. We cannot rule ourselves with mass votes, no matter how much we adjust democracy with Constitutions and regulations; democracy is evil because it is based on the lie that people are equal when in fact they are not.

Part of this involves changing how our culture works. We can expect to be unequal participants in a larger process, each with a unique role, or we can demand that we are equal and be interchangeable conformists repetitively doing the same stuff. The most profound realization of our time comes from recognizing that equality does not work, so our choice must be the other option.

That notion is creeping in from the edges of mainstream consciousness:

My personal opinion is that the form of government where a person is anointed as ruler by the clergy and receives not just a mandate from voters to exercise governing powers for a certain period of time, but a sanction from God, through the Church, to his rule—and the rule is for life, until the monarch passes power to his heir—has proved itself favorably in history. It has many advantages in comparison with any election-based forms of government where a person comes in for some specific term.

While everything said there is true, it still dances around the issue: some are more fit to rule than others, just like some are better musicians, plumbers, neurosurgeons, soldiers, artists, writers, athletes and dancers than others. You cannot take a generic (“equal”) person and turn them into a world-significant leader. You must find the raw material for that leadership first.

Democracy and equality totally oppose that idea. In the narrow mental landscape of equality, only a “meritocracy” is safe, which means treating everyone like they are equal and forcing them to leap through endless hoops, choosing the most obedient and least likely to see things differently. This is how societies fall into lock-step around illusions and self-destruct.

The future belongs to those who recognize what just became obsolete in the past, and therefore what to avoid investing in. Equality is the ghost of the last century and the one before it, but as of 2016, its validity as an idea died. The future belongs to those who think outside of the mental ghetto of equality.

Understanding Individualism

Sunday, July 9th, 2017

It is good to see that the Alt Right is catching on to the problem of individualism in the dead West. Individualism means what the ancient Greeks called hubris, or making oneself more important than the order of nature.

That order of nature is a tricky thing. Most people cannot physically comprehend it; that is, their brains lack the circuits to wrap around all of what it entails. It means not just natural order as it is in material terms, but its logical principles, and more subtly, the directions like evolution, quality and supremacy toward which nature subtly moves. It includes the realm of the gods as well as that of men, plants and animals, and is more of a pattern of patterns than a tangible thing. It is above all else, a system of organization.

Each of us have some place in that order. We are born to our places: some will be farmers, some plumbers, some clerks and some kings. Individualism, on the other hand, states that the natural order is not important, and that the individual should come first before all else. The whims, desires, judgments, feelings and impulses of the individual are more important than any other order, including civilization, nature or the divine. Individualism became the dogma of the West with The Enlightenment,™ the Renaissance,™ and the rise of egalitarian thought (ideologies dedicated to humanity equality, which means “no one can be sent away”) centuries ago.

You can either live for yourself, for the group, or for some intangible third entity which includes both, like “race” or “ethnic group” or “civilization” or even “tribe.” In fact, sane people live for all of those; a German wants to live according to the customs of his people so that his people and their values and ideals continuity in perpetuity. Anything else is not motivation, but rationalization of a failure to have some goal so inspiring that it animates a person over a lifetime. Individualism and collectivism, in this view, are two sides of the same coin: instead of living for the eternal, we are living for the material, in the form of our own comfort and safety or that of the group. Heroes, geniuses, inventors and philosophers are not made from such paltry stuff!

Even more, collectivism is individualism. No individual wants to be told “No” or sent away from the group, so the individual demands a rule that all must be included, based on the theory of pacifism, which is that it is more important for everyone to get along than for the group to find realistic answers, since that process involves conflict. Individuals band together into mobs to enforce this individualism. They seem like collectives, but each individual is participating because he thinks he will get something out of the effort he invests. People are self-interested actors. They do not join collectives out of altruism, but selfishness: here is guaranteed participation in not just the social life, but the wealth of the group, and an expectation that like a placental fetus, the individual can offload the costs of its survival onto the group through a process known as externalization or socialization.

This is the secret history of individualism in the West. It has steadily infested us for over a thousand years, and in its triumph, has decided to destroy culture and heritage, so that nothing comes before the individual and its protector, the State. How well we can see this depends on how we define individualism:

No, my problem with America is how dog eat dog it is. How “fellow Whites” will go out of their way to pull you down, just so that they can scramble up over you. They’ll side with minorities to do it to you as well. It’s not right, and it’s not healthy. This lack of solidarity steadily chips away at the fabric of society.

…There is this belief that we are perfect the way that we are, and that all our problems can be blamed on external forces and external tribes. While there is more than enough evidence to prove that there are indeed hostile groups within our societies that blend in and want to corrupt us, do us harm and eventually destroy us, that’s not all that’s at work here.

…I believe part of this stems from the American experience compared to the European experience. Europe was racked by many absolutely devastating wars. Everyone was hurt, and from mutual suffering, a shared consciousness grew. People understood that bad things could happen in life that could hurt everyone. You could die one day from a bombing raid through no fault of their own. You weren’t a loser because you died in a war. You weren’t a loser if you wanted socialized medicine to take care of you in case of misfortune.

He has a great point, but misunderstands individualism. Individualism is not people trying to escape from the herd; it is the herd. The collective is formed of individualists. The Communists were the most selfish people ever, and thought that they should get free support from the rest of society whether they did anything or not. What he calls individualism is in fact the reaction to individualism, which is people trying to cut free from the demands of the herd.

We do not want to be socialists. We do not want to be Leftists, or egalitarians, or individualists. These are effectively the same thing.

Our current situation where white people refuse to help one another is the result of egalitarianism. In a society of equals, every other person is a threat. They want to take your money from you in taxes; they may report you for having non-egalitarian opinions, as happened in France and Russia and was usually a death threat for the person reported. Most of all, we have a “crab bucket” where, because everyone starts out equal, we are all trying to beat down everyone else so that we can rise to a point of comfort and escape the horrors of the system.

In other words, the above article gets it exactly wrong when it defines individualism: socialized medicine is individualism, just like any other government benefit. Tolerating people just because they are white is individualism. No one can be thrown out from the group, in that way, which means that individuals can behave however they want and the rest of us are still forced to tolerate them and eventually, subsidize them.

It makes sense that the Alt Right is experimenting with socialism. They are looking for some philosophy that is very popular, and “no one can be thrown out” plus “free stuff for everyone” is very popular because it addresses a deep fear in each of us. We are all afraid of a Darwinian event where we run out of money, screw up badly enough to be thrown out of the group, or otherwise end up falling short. We like the idea of rules that say that society must keep us around and has to pay for us.

But this is not the path to greatness. It is the path to mediocrity, as has been shown in every society that has embraced it. If social welfare were good for Europeans, they would be breeding at replacement rates. If it made them happy, they would not be so self-destructive. If it actually ended poverty, we would have fewer poor people instead of the growing bloom of them that we have now.

Another article correctly identifies that egalitarianism is the root of inequality and social status games:

Thanks to egalitarianism, the new elite is liable to see the lower orders, not as a Third Estate that, while socially subordinate, is an indispensable member of the social body (the “backbone of society”) with rights all its own that the elite must respect and protect (noblesse oblige), but rather as the losers in an egalitarian contest fought inter pares, and thus deserving nothing but contempt, degradation, and humiliation. For the so-called “Conservatives”, Blacks and Aboriginals have earned the world of poverty, family breakdown, addiction, and criminality in which the rank-and-file must live; for the so-called “Left”, the White middle and working-classes deserve all that and much more. The Left’s attitude towards Blacks and Aboriginals is tempered by a sort of paternalism, and moreover by a more purely cynical appreciation of the political uses to which those groups can be put; but their attitudes towards non-elite Whites are those of a conquering army towards soldiers of the army it has just defeated, or dreams of defeating.

When Leftists brought out class revolt in the US, they guaranteed that those who could rise above the herd would try to destroy all of those below them, because the lower echelons are inherently trying to do the same to them. How do we know this? Lower castes innately attempt to destroy higher castes because higher castes limit the destructive behavior of lower castes by enforcing behavior norms that lower castes lack the biological ability (wiring) to understand; for more information, see the Dunning-Kruger effect, which basically states that none of us can understand anything that requires more intelligence than we have in order to understand. Lower castes have lower g, or general intelligence, as well as lower moral character. There is a reason for the hierarchy, which is that when the most moral and intelligent are in charge, we all thrive; when the lower castes, including the most dangerous of all who are in the middle and thus smart enough to make things work in the short term at the expense of the long term, are in charge, our civilization collapses.

The dirty secret of humanity is that all civilizations die the same way: through caste revolt. The upper castes, who are the more intelligent and capable, are unable to prevent the lower castes from running into problems, as the lower castes naturally reproduce at a higher rate, and therefore make themselves starving. Instead of accepting that they have made an error, which requires a biological intelligence they do not have, they scapegoat those in power and overthrow them, creating a dying civilization which lives off the wealth and power of the past without creating replacements, and over time fades into obscurity as a dead civilization that is now yet another third world ruin of once-great human potential.

In pro-white activism, one question has remained so bedeviling that it has taken on mythical significance, and it is, “Why did whites not unite in order to preserve themselves?”

The answer is as obvious as it is profound: they were already divided. Once class warfare has hit, and the herd has demanded that the higher lower itself for the mental convenience of all, those who are most capable are fleeing civilization. They are no longer pro-white; they are in favor of their own escape from a society which is drugged on the illusion of equality, and so will destroy anything it touches. Your average intelligent white now is a drop-out, and he or she wants nothing to do with the angry rabble, who think they have escaped culpability for mass revolt but in fact are associated with it.

We know how this situation will work out because we have seen it before. Maybe 10% of our society will escape the coming cataclysm and go somewhere else to rebirth Western Civilization; the rest will be bred into the third world. The poor will simply become brown, but the rich will be a mostly-Caucasian group hybridized with Asians and Africans, much like today’s Jews, who demonstrate acute mercantile power but unfamiliarity with literature, philosophy, religion and heroism. The capable people among us aim to be part of that 10%, and they will not spend any time trying to “save” those who have tried to destroy them. In fact, they will welcome their demise, since without the lower echelons, society could move on as it does in nature, through evolution.

This sounds brutally cruel, but it is how the world works.

There is an alternative, of course, but it involves strict hierarchy. If you are born a butler, you stay a butler, and similarly for those plumbers and clerks. Some are born to rule, mainly because this acknowledges what Charles Darwin learned namely that all traits are heritable, and preserves the traits necessary for leadership — found in fewer than 1% of the population — so that all of us can benefit from them in future generations.

Naturally this presents a problem: hierarchies are the opposite of democracy and equality, and those are the founding myths of our time. If you tell the average modern person that no one is equal, he will consider you Hitler or worse. Or at least, he used to. As we see the end results of liberal democracy, it becomes clear that the worst dictators and kings could never do this much damage. Democracy is a pathology which leads people to chase after the illusion of equality like Ahab, heedless of whether or not it destroys them and their cohorts, so long as it is achieved.

Those before us knew this; consider the approach of the founders of the USA:

Their main bulwark against tyranny was civil liberty, or maintaining the right of the people to participate in government. The people who did so, however, had to demonstrate virtue. To eighteenth century republicans, virtuous citizens were those who were focused not on their private interests but rather on what was good for the public as a whole.

They were necessarily property holders, since only those individuals could exercise an independence of judgment impossible for those dependent upon employers, landlords, masters, or (in the case of women and children) husbands and fathers.

Our founders recognized at some level that equality was nonsense, and so intended a hierarchy. In their view, those who worked the land and made greatness of it should rule above those in the city, who only attended jobs and ran their lives on credit. Their ideal of democracy was that the productive and sane members of society should vote, while the herd had no say, much like the European feudal system.

The problem they encountered is that the vote is seductive. It is gambling; you go to the table, cast your vote, and see how the cards reward you. As a result, there is no sense of accountability or responsibility, only a feeling that one chooses the right option like betting on horses or cards, and hopes for the best.

Because of this, even the most reasonable republican government quickly gives way to mob rule, as happened in our past. Despite knowing better as individuals, when grouped into a herd of individualists, even the most sensible people went along with the herd. This shows us the lesson of America: no matter how much you limit mob rule, it returns to mob rule.

As long as we have democracy, there is no future for our civilization. Democracy is the political form of individualism, which really is the individual turning against the goals of civilization in favor of short-term personal reward. Those who demand socialized medicine and other benefits are at the forefront of this movement, and pull everyone else down to their level through passive aggression. There is no survival for civilization when this takes over.

We should — if we want to rebirth Western Civilization, which formally died in 1945 — instead look toward the following stages:

  1. Look toward a vision of what is desired. I suggest Lord of the Rings plus space ships, achievable through a few basic methods.
  2. Unite the 2-5% of our people who do all the important work, at every level of society. Much like the Pareto Principle states that 20% do 80% of the work, it is clear that 5% or fewer do most of the decision making.
  3. Most important: take over our governments, probably by infiltrating our institutions while advancing a cultural wave that rejects Leftist thought, beginning with the notion of “equality” itself.
  4. Change government to favor the type of society we want, transitioning from liberal democracy to monarchy and choosing our best people to rule and own pretty much all of everything, thus restraining the herd.
  5. The purge: all who are not of the founding ethnic group must be repatriated, ideally with reparations, and all who are of the founding group but not in line with its ideals must be exiled.

After that, life finally has a chance. Society will have a hierarchy, where higher caste people make all the important decisions, and lower caste people are ignored. The herd will be cut back to size. Instead, the most competent will rule, which is our only alternative to how things are now, when the least competent rule.

What holds us back is recognizing that there is no “white = right” rule to life. White people are highly varied. America functions best with Western Europeans, and even those are divided by caste, and when the lower classes initiate class warfare as they are prone to do, everything falls apart.

We must remember the two options before us:

  • Left = equality
  • Right = order

Order requires a pattern to life larger than the individual. This is offensive to lower-caste individuals, but is accepted as normal by higher-caste people. Our recent history consists of turning against this truth, which has revealed to us that most white people are foolish when it comes to leadership decisions.

We know democracy has failed. Even more, we know we did it to ourselves, through the thinking of The Renaissance™ onward. No other group has the power to do this to us. We did it to ourselves, by following what seemed right, but it was wrong. Time to change direction, and in doing so, give our civilization the chance to rise from its ashes yet again.

Collective Insanity

Tuesday, July 4th, 2017

For those of you who sat in history class wondering what it was like to witness the fall of Rome or Angkor Wat, we now have an answer as to how they fell: everyone went crazy.

Often the simplest explanations are the best. We know that humans pick up ideas and behaviors from others, and that we imitate those who are successful, so it is no stretch to see that if people succeed while doing crazy things, others will imitate them. They will then get self-righteous about their insanity, and call others ignorant or crazy for not following them down the path to insanity.

This collective insanity is a type of prolonged trend, but its biological counterpart is the stampede. A stampede is both a response to a threat, and a fear-of-missing-out (FOMO) psychology that creates a tragedy of the commons: open space is needed to escape the threat, but each animal is afraid that another will get there first, so they all attempt to get there before the others.

Stampedes contain a certain irony in that in many cases, if they were simply pointed toward the predator, the threat would quickly be over. Instead, they show the effects of mass panic. Each individual is afraid less of the predators than of being trampled, and that others will escape and leave them behind to be eaten. And so, a race to consume space occurs, and this overwhelms every other impulse.

In the case of human stampedes, people respond to opportunity that is too good to be true, as is the case in most human scams. The civilization scam involves the fact that those who act emotionally and appeal to the herd will get ahead, like Justin Trudeau or Barack Obama, and so everyone imitates that model in the hope that they can rise above their level of competence.

Our current stampede began shortly after our civilization became materially successful owing to the rise of cities. Then came the middle class, who chafed at rules designed to preserve culture and civilization since these made commerce inefficient. Instead of asking whether commerce alone could be the center of civilization, the middle class organized to overthrow these rules.

First they made it trendy for “intellectuals” to worship the human form instead of the abstract ideals of the past through a cultural movement, paralleling 1968, called The Renaissance.™ Next they legitimized the idea of equality and the goal of society being to facilitate the dreams of the individual human with The Enlightenment,™ and followed that up with Romanticism in which the idea of the eternal won out to be fleeting sensations of significance found in human emotion.

After that, democracy came and — parallel to Athens in the days of its downfall — quickly began to dismantle culture, religion, heritage, caste, hierarchy, sex roles, family, and even sanity. It became a prole-driven world, where those with the simplest possible opinions and thus the most popular ones won out over any kind of history, logic, common sense or realistic practicality.

Now, most people resemble demons. They greedily endorse the crazy ideas of egalitarianism, and take delight in tearing down anything which is above the level of the average person. Every speech and writing must be made simplistic, music has to be a beat and a random melody line, politics has become a game of giving free things, and in everyday life, “me first” has replaced any kind of civility.

The behavior of the average person in the West is shocking and saddening, and they like that. In a crowd of equals, no one is important until they stand out by doing stunts or otherwise drawing attention to themselves, and so people like to be outrageous if they can. More importantly, they are cruel. They treat their children like possessions, and live for the temporary, because the less they care about and invest in anything outside of themselves, the more personal power they feel.

It seems as if the stampede to overthrow the kings has turned every person into a tyrant.

A few hold out. There is a remnant of people who are Western European in blood, chaste by nature, reflective of mind and who act toward what is good and beautiful instead of what is short term personal gain. But they are few, and the crowd gleefully shouts them down and dismantles whatever they do, once it finds it.

Even more, the herd behavior destroys things that the crowd loves. Any new patch of land becomes a neighborhood with good schools as the pioneers move in, but then everyone wants their share, and they elbow their way in or demand it from their politicians. But they have not changed their own internal traits, and thus their behaviors, so they continue to behave as they have, and quickly make it into the same ruin that everything else is. When the crowd arrives, whatever was new becomes old and mediocre, so that everyone can participate.

This is real end times stuff. Humanity is like a person in a leaky boat who spends most of his time bailing out the water coming in. That represents the constant infighting, corruption, unnecessary drama and incompetence of our society. He looks out in the water and just fifty yards away is a brand new boat. But there is risk in crossing the open water, so he stays and bails.

Our only hope is to kick a hole in the boat big enough that it sinks, so that we can then realize we have no other choice but to swim to the other boat if we want to live. That other boat will not be opposite of our present time, but represent the saner path we were on before we went down this path, and we will pick up where we left off and then improve that, instead of trying to patch the irreparable present.

Recommended Reading