Posts Tagged ‘elites’

Dr. Peter Turchin Misses The Point

Friday, January 6th, 2017

As liberal democracy winds down to a crash, people are looking for excuses to blame anything but the obvious, which is our bad choices based on the illusions inherent to our intent. Dr. Peter Turchin, for example, writes about an illusory collapse which is external and thus can be scapegoated, instead of facing our own culpability:

“Elite overproduction generally leads to more intra-elite competition that gradually undermines the spirit of co-operation, which is followed by ideological polarisation and fragmentation of the political class,” he wrote.

“This happens because the more contenders there are, the more of them end up on the losing side. A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions.”

And once we parse it, we see the truth: he is repeating the same ideas that were popular from the Peasant Revolts onward, that our problem is the differences between people, and not the obvious truth, which is the incompetence of most people and all people in committee-style groups.

The spirit of co-operation died with class warfare, and then was resurrected and killed again with the rise of diversity.

Guilty parties can be found not among the natural elites, but among the proles. We The People is the problem. They pursued an illusion and it destroyed society, so now they are blaming the elites.

As always, there is partial truth here. Thanks to the Leftist war on competence, we have chosen new elites, and they are incompetent because they were selected for political reasons, not actual competence.

From this we get a new form of “inequality.” Those who join the Party become wealthy but have to spend their days on unimaginable tedium; those who resists are condemned to poverty, but often have more time to discover life itself.

In the meantime, society collapses, because neither voters nor elites really care at all about the outcomes of their actions.

What Elitism Is Not

Thursday, December 29th, 2016

As part of the cultural revolution roiling the West, childhood heroes become adulthood heroes as Metallica’s James Hetfield lashes out against the Leftist elite culture of the San Francisco Bay Area:

Hetfield says that in the Bay Area, ‘there was an elitist attitude there – that if you weren’t their way politically, their way environmentally, all of that, that you were looked down upon.’

‘They talk about how diverse they are, and things like that, and it’s fine if you’re diverse like them. But showing up with a deer on the bumper doesn’t fly in Marin County.’

Elitism is the philosophy of favoring quality over quantity, since quality and quantity have inverse relationships to one another. It means that instead of judging something for its social, emotional or political value, you look at how well it accomplishes what it purports to do. Elitists recognize that 90% of humanity are idiots and not surprisingly therefore that most human products are worthless.

An elitist will turn down a Big Mac in favor of a steak, but will not go to the new restaurant in town whose claim to fame is being ironic, hip or cute instead of having great food. For the elitist, the focus is entirely on food, and and he or she will sacrifice other things valued by everyone else — atmosphere, novelty, ironism — in order to pursue that quality.

This is why elitists are so rare. What Hetfield is describing in the Bay Area is the opposite of elitism; these people do not prefer time-proven quality, but socially-hip “progress” that is really just a way of virtue signaling how enlightened and wealthy they are.

In the meantime, here is all you need to know of Mr. Hetfield’s music:

Revolt By The Masses Destroys Civilization

Monday, December 19th, 2016

Humanity existed in a “knowledge bubble” for the last few centuries, having discovered enough to draw dangerously over-broad conclusions, but not enough to see what was actually going on. As more information comes forth, the old theories die, and we rediscover traditional wisdom. Recent archeological evidence affirms the Platonic, Spenglerian and Evolan view of civilization collapse:

Researchers in Guatemala have found evidence of a 1,200-year-old massacre in an ancient city called Cancuén, the capital of one of the richest kingdoms of Maya civilization. The discovery, deep in the jungle of highland Guatemala, provides a snapshot of the Maya civilization as it began to collapse.

…”When they started excavating (the site), the archaeologists started hitting bones, and then more bones, and then more bones, and we then began to realize that the entire bottom half of this swimming pool was filled with human bones,” Demarest says.

Precious adornments found near and on the skeletons — including jade, carved shells and jaguar-fang necklaces — led the team to conclude that the people massacred had been nobles.

Civilization collapse is brought about by success. Civilization is, after all, organization of humanity. Specialization of labor and economies of scale lead to greater efficiency and thus wealth. At that point, many who could not survive without civilization are able to survive, and eventually, they rebel against civilization — because by definition, they do not understand it or that it requires leadership and hierarchy — and in doing so, destroy it.

As part of this process, they kill off the nobles. Scapegoating the nobles is easier than accepting the basic problem, which is that there are too many people with not enough to contribute in terms of productivity. From Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization, by Arthur Demarest:

Another basic question regarding the collapse, decline, or transformation of the lowland cities and kingdoms at the end of the Classic period is why in many areas Maya leadership did not respond with effective corrective measures by the stresses generated by internal, as well as external, factors. Cross-cultural studies of culture change show that “complex societies are problem-solving organizations, in which more parts, different kinds of parts, more social differentiation, more inequality, and more kinds of centralization and control emerge as circumstances require” (Tainter 1988: 37).

Yet the K’uhul Ajaw failed to respond with effective corrections of infrastructural problems. Their ineffectiveness was most likely due to the canons of Maya leadership and its limited range of action. The elites of most Classic Maya kingdoms, in general, did not manage subsistence systems or production or exchange of utilitarian goods. Most Maya polities, while held together by the rituals and authority of the center, were decentralized with local community or family-level management of most aspects of the economy. This decentralized system facilitated adoption of farming systems to the local microenvironment (e.g. Dunning et al 1997; Dunning and Beach in press).

[H]aving their role defined in terms of ritual and inter-elite alliance and warfare, it is not surprising that the K’uhul Ajaw responded through these same mechanisms to problems such as demographic pressure or ecological deterioration. They naturally reacted by intensifying ritual activities, construction, or warfare — the activities within their purview.

Plato points out the same thing: drones are left to manage their own affairs locally, in accord with natural selection. Given help by civilization, they grow in number, and then blame others for the local results of this overpopulation. They want their leaders to fix the problem caused by their own acts, which is classic scapegoating.

We can see in our world today that different types of civilizations have different types of governments. The third world favors kleptocratic strongmen; the “second world” has token political leadership, and local leadership by mafiosi; the first world prefers organized governmental systems which take on attributes of the other two systems based on the degree of decline. In other words, civilization is a spectrum from primitive to complex structures.

The rise of overpopulated drones creates a large audience for third-world style government. They cannot manage themselves, and want government to do it instead, so they depose their leadership and replace it with managerial government. This in turn exhausts the elites, who by taking up their traditional roles in the ensuing government have become slaves to managing unruly and self-destructive children, and they fade away as a result of this existential stress and misery.

Babysitting of this nature is the hallmark of declined or declining civilizations, and represents the root of Leftism, which is an organized form of Crowdism or the collective defense of individualism, which is what everyone who wants to be managed desires. He wants to avoid having to make reality work for him, and instead be told what to do in some things so that he can do whatever he wants everywhere else.

Without being cruel, we might refer to those who need to be managed as incompetents. They cannot take their small local farms and make them work, mainly because as a group, they have reproduced too frequently to sustain themselves. Those who need to be managed desire strong government to be accountable for their welfare, usually through wealth redistribution since they cannot produce wealth locally owing to overpopulation, and their political actions inevitably involve killing off the elites to take their wealth.

Since they are incompetent, and mismanage their own wealth, their seizure of wealth produces a temporary boom — including more population — and then a consequent crash, much like happened after the French and Russian revolutions.

By the time western conquerors arrived, the Mayan civilization was in full decline, which meant that it had a few ceremonial elites of a weakened nature and many peasants. The Spanish were able to overthrow this empire with only 500 men, many of whom were sick with jungle diseases, because the peasants saw an opportunity to further depose the elites. In so doing, they conveyed themselves into slavery, from which they “liberated” themselves in the early 1800s, promptly becoming a third-world society ruled by disease, corruption, unsanitary conditions and crime.

In the first world, we overthrew our elites during the years 1916-1968 by removing their political and economic power. Since that time, we have been ruled by incompetents. In principle and in result, our actions achieved the same end that the Maya did.

From this example, we see that civilization collapse comes about through lack of hierarchy. Leadership does not micromanage its people; it handles the bigger questions of diplomacy, war and cultural direction. As a result, it is always caught by surprise when the incompetents gang up on it and others, in fear of violence, go along with it. Then those others must suffer under rule by tyrants, fools and criminals.

The perpetual rallying cry of the incompetents is “equality.” They realize they are bankrupt, and want to take from others to subsidize themselves, thus become parasitic because civilization depends on hierarchy to exist. As long as one allows the quest for equality to continue, the health of the society will plummet until it reaches third-world status.

The Dark Organization Of Western Civilization

Tuesday, September 27th, 2016


The concept of “darkness” conjures for the average reader an image of something concealed, its motives unknown. With that, there is both fear of that which wishes to harm us, and hope for times when the public is being unreasonable that necessary actions can be taken out of sight of the herd. Darkness takes the form of one of two opposite mental images:

  1. Criminals hiding in shadows or even the Mafia as a “dark” organization corrupting “honest” politicians.
  2. Heroes such as Batman camouflaged by night preparing to protect normal people against the extractive elites.

A descriptive term for darkness however, in a technical sense, is “defensive behaviors.” These arise in response to perception of an attack. When defensive behaviors arise, it becomes immediately necessary to ascertain where the attack is coming from and who the attackers are.

In a worst case scenario, we do not know who the attackers are or what techniques they use because they live among us, meaning our traditional “defenses” are insufficient to detect this risk or threat. For example, many say that our problems were caused by the Baby Boomers. This means that those generations addressed own risks while ignoring the possible risks of the solution they implemented.

My father fit within this model. He would eagerly develop amazing solutions, but in my own observations he failed to address the risk of those solutions, because he was optimistic and altruistic perhaps.  Industry developed the System Engineering process to address this particular problem, but it was a quality control that ambitious people clearly did not like.

Dark organization receives little attention from public institutions. No one is interested in funding it. Ironically this gives rise to the hypothesis that donors are defensive about understanding dark organizations. One wonders why those who work within democracies would be defensive when they have the popular vote supporting them.

This gives rise to two possibilities for their motives:

  1. The need to self-perpetuate against the “threat” of short election cycles combined with change in voter “feelings”.
  2. The need to self-perpetuate against the “threat” of the elites’ demand for money combined with their own “wannabe” demand for money.

Some pundits claim that the problem started with the French Revolution where the French Monarchy was dismembered. However, interaction with French people highlighted the absolute fact that being part of “royal bloodlines” in both France and Germany is a distinctive feature, with influence brought to bear on any activity and decision made today.

When confronted with it, most people would acknowledge the “natural” urge to be part of a monarchy because — as it has been suggested — human genes might contain a familial organizational requirement. We act in favor of that because the promotion of similar genetic profiles allows us, or something very like us, to live on.

A very successful monarchy was the British monarchy but when recently asked if they could (please) take America “back,” they responded that a decision made in the 18th century (by the people) to the contrary made this impossible. What they refrained from saying is that they initiated the entire de-colonization process in the 20th century thereby abdicating all control. In this process they denied back-up promised to their countrymen in those colonies, essentially leaving them to die. Today, they decline back-up to the people within the once Great Britain itself, by allowing free reign immigration that would not have made any sense a century ago.

When the genetic seeds of a nation wish to be ruled by the monarchy, but the monarchy wants no part of them, this points to a dark organization. Both governments and monarchies have become defensive because of the rise of an upper class whose success enables them to pressure both real elites and government, which forces those authorities into a defensive position.

In this dirty fight between the elites, governments are being targeted too. If a politician does not do as he is told, his “popularity” will be negatively affected, including the use of physical and economic hitmen. The politician will therefore increase his attempts to circumvent the elite by manipulating the electorate (in parallel) in order to self-perpetuate. If successful he will join the after-dinner club of upper-class wannabes circling the globe. What is interesting is that this club includes people from the ranks of over-paid “expat” corporate executives also circling the globe.

The struggle between real elites, Cathedralist elites and governments leaves normal people in the middle. Instead of asking “don’t you love me anymore?” we now ask “don’t you love my vote anymore?” Those votes convey power, but they cannot defend a group against the other groups, because power now exists in darkness because in democratic societies it is socially unacceptable to mention the actual underlying Machiavellian methods necessary to hold power.

The Cathedralist elites represent a dark organization because their goal is to act against the interest of civilization so that Cathedralist elites can advance their own power. Whereas the real elite were happy with castles, the wannabes are not happy with even that because they will never have full power until they smash down the actual elites and the normal people who vote.

This frustration causes the Cathedralists to seek to destroy everything like spoiled children. These are “our” people and although not true elites, they are creatively disruptive to the natural order of things thereby representing the real attacking mob “force,” causing the defensive behaviors of Western Governments and real Elites worldwide.

The wannabes have managed to hi-jack the United Nations which originally only focused on finances and security, they have managed to subvert the New World Order claimed in 1991 (barely twenty-five years ago) and they are busy destroying the Western middle-class which compares favorably with Roman decline. Like a wasp egg injected into a paralyzed spider, for them to grow they must consume all around them.

As this battle rages for control of the West, problems pile up. Philosophers agree that democracy is a flawed concept. Economists warn about recessionary bubbles. The talking heads on television promise a blissful, climate-controlled peace of prosperous equality. No one has a clue.

This suggests that instead of further pursuing our failed methods, we should do some serious introspection searching for the door whence we came into this room. To do introspection one needs to be self-aware of yourself, organization and your civilization. This means thinking outside the power struggle consuming it.

A look at the most momentous political changes of our age shows that introspection in process. Nigel Farage and Donald Trump appear to be self-aware outside of the system, while Hillary is self-perpetuating by using the methods of the system, and will only recreate it.

This is the type of struggle that defines the end of civilization through the dark organizational process. The votes are less about the specific issue or candidate, and more about whether we want to continue with a system that is hamstrung by internal conflict. I vote for leaving, because dark organizations never leave anything for us.

2016: The Year The Wall Fell

Wednesday, August 10th, 2016


In Berlin, the wall was made of concrete. In the contemporary West, it was made of pretense: the idea that “nice” people believed certain things and refused to believe obvious truths because they were offensive.

In 2016, the Wall of the West fell, aided by massive immigrant rape violence in Europe and the Donald Trump campaign in America. The pretense was revealed to be fake, and self-serving for a small cadre of self-appointed elites, and common sense peeked through like a ray of sunlight above the clouds.

The amazing thing about the fall of the wall of pretense is that what was revealed was not hatred for a specific group, but knowledge of the importance of groups.

People began to realize that each group acts in self-interest, and when they are crammed together in the same space, they are forced into a life-or-death struggle for what will be the values, standards and behaviors of that society — perhaps we might call this “culture” — because each group wants its own ideals to prevail, and wants to feel in command of its own destiny.

With that came the realization that the pretense was constructed of self-serving lies that benefit an elite which intersects corporations, media and government. This elite wants total control, and it achieves that by forcing us to obey nonsensical ideology which is not to our benefit.

With the realization that our elites were not in fact highly competent people with our best interests at heart, but cynical manipulators, came other realizations. They have ruined our economies, shattered our social order, and made modern life a living hell, worse than it was even in the 1980s, which people felt (at the time) was the nadir of human experience.

Our society is heading downhill under these nonsense rules and ideals. Equality means we accept the lie as equal to truth, and the insane as equal to the sane, and the result is that the more convenient “answers” — always lies or partial truths — prevail, to our disadvantage.

The economy is just the crest of the wave. Modern life has been unfulfilling for some time, and now it has gone into hyperdrive toward nonsense. We are all slaves to the obligation of work, to a broken social order, and to the sociopathic behavior of those who hide behind pretense.

If we do not step off this treadmill, it will further exhaust us and eventually destroy us.

Whatever happens in election 2016, the wall has fallen and with it, the assumption of legitimacy behind the pretense. People are acting in self-interest now, and this means that the great gravy chain of squeezing the middle classes to pay for the welfare state is ending in the Europe and the USA.

Even more, illusions have perished. Even though that death is not yet realized, the hollowness has been recognized. With it comes a desire for the more orderly society and purposeful, gentle existence of the past. With that arrives the recognition that most of our modern activities do not benefit us, but the parasite elites.

The decision of Western people has come down to this. We know that our current course is destructive. We must find another way. The first step was tearing down the wall, and now we must find something to erect in the void left by its comforting but controlling presence. That will be the quest of our time.

Peter Osbourne Describes The Cathedral

Sunday, July 31st, 2016


Writing about Nigel Farage, Peter Osbourne describes the Cathedral:

When he first emerged as a national figure, more than ten years ago, Britain was governed by a cosy cartel. Labour and the Tories may have been separate parties, but they had both been hijacked by a modernising clique who shared many of the same values and beliefs.

Peter Mandelson for Labour and George Osborne for the Tories were the high priests of these modernisers. For them, politics was a game, played for the benefit of a social and economic elite. Both men seemed to disdain the views of voters.

Indeed, together with a group of London-based strategists, they ignored the vast majority of the population and concentrated their efforts on wooing a very small number of voters in key marginal constituencies.

This perfectly describes the ideal of liberal government: equality/anarchy ruled by a powerful state in which each participant is acting to further a political career by cleverness, not goodness or realism.

Its opposite is organicism, which is the type of order described by Burke and Plato: people agree on a few principles which are applied in varying ways in specific situations. The Cathedral rejects organicism and instead creates an elite based on having politically correct opinions.

This mirrors the idea of Cathedralism itself, which is that human intent and control produces better results than organic development:

Linux overturned much of what I thought I knew. I had been preaching the Unix gospel of small tools, rapid prototyping and evolutionary programming for years. But I also believed there was a certain critical complexity above which a more centralized, a priori approach was required. I believed that the most important software (operating systems and really large tools like the Emacs programming editor) needed to be built like cathedrals, carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation, with no beta to be released before its time.

Linus Torvalds’s style of development—release early and often, delegate everything you can, be open to the point of promiscuity—came as a surprise. No quiet, reverent cathedral-building here—rather, the Linux community seemed to resemble a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches (aptly symbolized by the Linux archive sites, who’d take submissions from anyone) out of which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by a succession of miracles.

The above is not quite true, of course: Torvalds developed his system based on thirty years of growth in a highly architected 1960 operating system. Linux is a UNIX clone, and not the first one, either (Minix predated it, among others).

Cathedralism then is not the centralized intent, but the centralized intent to control, or to force people to en masse follow an agenda with identical motions. Control is a zombie horde; organicism involves people agreeing on goals and taking their own paths there, perhaps with a Darwinistic shaving off of those who repeatedly fail.

Wherever human societies thrive, the dark specter of human decay follows them, in the form of a happy hive-mind that wants to feel everyone is accepted so that this pacifism can be used to eliminate conflicts, freeing up the individual to pursue only what it wants. Unfortunately the overhead of enforcing this illogical scheme then enslaves the intelligent but foolish people who demanded it, at which point everyone becomes miserable and stops reproducing.

The only way around this problem is (literally) to avoid it: instead of embarking on the anarchy-plus-control method, go with organicism, or the hierarchy-with-flexibility that makes no promises of peace but avoids destroying everything good in the name of what is ultimately a human illusion based in emotional reactivity.

Stupid Trope Of The Day: “Elites, Not Democracy, Imposed Diversity”

Monday, July 25th, 2016

You will see this one floating around far-right circles as entryist cucks try to justify a demolition of hierarchy through egalitarianism:

The people never chose diversity. It was imposed on them by the elites. Time after time, polls showed that people did not want diversity. And the elites just went ahead and forced it on them.

This is nonsense and lies. In the way of all democracies, our democracy drifted Leftward. Our zeal for diversity is part of the Leftist compulsion toward class warfare, which arises from the founding ideal of the Left, which is egalitarianism (“everyone is accepted and included”).

Let us review history. The voters chose politicians based on speeches. Those politicians, starting early in the history of our nation, began talking about equality. This made people feel warm and fuzzy inside. Then they started talking about racial equality, under the guise of helping African-Americans. Same warm fuzzies.

Repeat that over generations. Each generation accepts what the past generation voted on as truth because it is popular, and so it must be true! Then the next generation took it further, since illogical ideas like equality always conflict with reality, and they expanded the franchise.

Each time, the candidates who spoke more of equality got ahead over the others. Each time new equality or diversity initiative was introduced, the people went into the next election and approved the people who did it for another term. The voters spoke, time and again.

Ten years ago, if you had surveyed a typical American suburb, even with anonymity almost every household would have approved diversity. They would phrase it in terms of fighting injustice, ensuring equality, opportunity for all and the like. They would talk about how it would reduce costs and improve “race relations.”

Now, maybe a few more households would — under anonymity, because we know how Leftists retaliate — speak up about their doubts. But these will get it wrong yet again by saying they are afraid of certain groups, like Muslims or Black Lives Matter. In the meantime, they want everyone else to participate. Warm fuzzies again.

The problem, as this blog reminds you tirelessly, is the voters. The problem is us. Democracy cannot work because it rewards illusion and then distributes the disaster as socialized cost, so the voters never directly feel the pain and connect the dots. Blaming our elites is just scapegoating; we created them, not the other way around.

HERO or anti-hero

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015


Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) has most of Texas riled up, with both sides getting it pretty much wrong as is the norm in democracies which are sometimes called by their other name, idiocracies. HERO made frontpages with its association with the seeming problem that people are having with finding bathrooms for transgendered-people-in-progress, who still have the genitals of their ex-sex but dress and act like their future sex.

However, HERO is just another run-of-the-mill equality ordinance — and that’s what it is bad. Thanks to the Houston Free Press, you can read the actual content of the bill:

HERO protects every single Houstonian from discrimination.

The ordinance reads: “Houston seeks to provide an environment that is free of any type of discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy.” That’s 15 protected characteristics!

Back it up there — you’ve got two things in contradiction:

  • “Protects every single person from discrimination”
  • “15 protected characteristics!”

Only one can be true. Which is it: every person, or only those who fall under the fifteen characteristics?


As you can see, it protects no one but certain vocal groups and does not help with certain things that might be useful. For example, political viewpoint. Or viewpoint at all. Or intelligence. Or refusal to obey laws. Or even defend against whatever happens when 10,000 obese Tumblrinas and horn-rimmed Instagram users descend to complain about a joke you told at a conference last August.

This shows us the futility of “protecting characteristics” and the superiority of a simpler idea, which is free association. You cannot name enough traits in a law to protect everyone, so what it amounts to is protected status for certain groups at the expense of others who are not protected. With free association, you protect no one and figure that society will sort itself according to who actually wants to be near others, socialize with them, do business with them and romance them.

Society slightly Balkanizes under this plan, as opposed to under the HERO plan where society creates a new elite of a protected group. And what if a member of that group is incompetent, criminal or antisocial? They still can’t be fired or avoided. Freedom of association skips that outcome and stops trying to force people to like each other when they have nothing in common. By doing so, it strengthens specific communities which can hire people of this nature, and stops creating ire (and billions of dollars of lawsuits) by forcing people to interact with others they fundamentally disagree with.

Looking at that list of 15 magic characteristics, it protects nothing that might actually get someone fired these days. What it does do is create a group that cannot be fired, and lays the ground for abuse and resentment as the rest of us realize we’re now second-class Not Officially a Victim citizens. It all reminds me of the old lyrics:

Forces united the choice is yours
Violent pacification

Forces united the choice is yours
Violent pacification

We’ll force you to be nice to each other
Kill you before you kill each other

Violent pacification

We’ll force you to be nice to each other
Kill you before you kill each other

Could it be there’s more truth in this than we thought? That the purpose of creating special elites like this is not so much to protect the members, but to force the rest of us into subjugation and allegiance to large government?

Racial antagonism weakens your case

Thursday, September 10th, 2015


As immigration invasions boom in both Europe and North America, racial antagonism is rising. That is, people see the horde of masses designed to replace them, and immediately attack that group.

Over time they start thinking, and realize that politicians approved this, and then they attack the politicians. This fails because it rallies support to those politicians. If they thought further, they might look at a lower level to ideas.

Most people in the US and Europe think it is a good idea to have a society dedicated to equal civil rights, universal acceptance and tolerance and other goals unrelated to reality. The reason we have immigration is that we have bad politicians because the voters keep electing them.

And why does that happen? First, democracy itself encourages “committee thinking” where people vote for what is socially approved of by public opinion, or at least those who whine loudest about their victimhood. But also, people have certain ideas embedded in their head as the right way to think if you are educated, successful, profound, different, insightful and all sorts of other terms people use on dating site profiles.

Targeting ideas is never as satisfying as attacking something tangible. It is also harder work. When people promote racial antagonism, and/or use racial slurs, they are in fact engaging in a cuck behavior. Instead of attacking the real enemy, they are content to become what their opposition says they are, which is angry dissatisfied people. This conceals the fact that the opposition are actually those perpetually unhappy self-pitying self-styled victims.

Cast out the language of racial anger not because you want to engage in Sapir-Whorf style mind control, but because it is an inferior option to simply saying what you want: a nation of people like yourself. You cuck the minute you accept anything less and your enemies rejoice.

No one is afraid of another person screaming racial epithets. They fit into a Hollywood stereotype and are easy to ignore. Someone arguing pointedly and clearly that diversity is a failure, and that mass democracy always tends toward crazy ideas like diversity, presents an actual threat to our lazy-Simian way of keeping things going “as they always have been done.” We are suffering from inertia and an inability to change course despite heading down the road of failure. That is what needs to change, and accepting anything else is to admit defeat before you even start fighting.

The powers that be do not quiver with fear at emotional outbursts. They laugh; they know you have disabled yourselves. They do get upset when they hear loud voices saying that diversity is dysfunctional and self-destructive, that equality is a fantasy and that democracy is a bad system. That might force actual change and an end to the inertia, which is what the powers that be rely upon for personal profit at your expense (and the high cost to the future of your descendants).

Say what really scares them, because it’s also true, which is why it scares them. Insulting various minority ethnic groups is just nonsense behavior, both cruel and ineffective, and we have to rise above that for practical reasons because our goal is to stop the inertia and effect change, not let off steam like we believe nothing will ever, ever change.

The Faux Aristocracy

Wednesday, May 14th, 2014


I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly, bodily powers gave place among the aristoi[aristocrats]. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness, and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground for distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say, that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency. -Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams

Aristocracy: the term derives from the Greek aristokratia, meaning “rule of the best.”

The United States was founded by a natural aristocracy.  Men like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were true aristocrats.  They were “the best” men.  It is true that they were men of great wealth but they were also men of great intelligence and virtue as well.

The aristocracy represents something that the rest of the nation can aspire to become.  People should aspire to be like the aristocrats.  To be well-read, intelligent, cultured, and virtuous.  When the people of a nation aspire to become something greater than themselves, then the nation as a whole becomes greater.  The aristocracy says a lot about the nation.

Today in the United States, we lack the natural aristocracy that Thomas Jefferson admired so much.  Instead we are ruled by the deviant artificial aristocracy that Jefferson warned us about.

Who are these faux aristocrats of 21st century America that I speak of?  Let us acquaint ourselves with our new ruling class:

  • Hollywood celebrities and athletes:  They make their millions promoting degenerate behavior both on-screen and in their personal lives.  From sexual deviancy to substance abuse, these people are nothing but broken human beings who are admired and worshiped by millions of fans.
  • Politicians: Think of the type of individual who goes into politics.  They are a bunch of Machiavellian and narcissistic sociopaths.  They lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top just so they can enjoy the power that comes with being a member of the ruling class.  They will say or do anything to retain this power over the people yet the people lack the political will to do the right thing and oust these weasels.
  • The Ivory Tower College Professors:  These are people who have never produced anything of importance in their lives.  They make their living promoting Cultural Marxism and socialism.  They profit off naive young people leaving them debt-ridden after they have graduated.
  • The Globalist Corporations: These are people who have turned millions of us into nothing more than cogs in a giant machine.  They carve out special regulatory exemptions for themselves with their lobbying so they don’t actually have to compete in a free market.  They have no problem robbing the treasury to line their own pockets.
  • The Media: These people sell propaganda to the masses.  They do nothing more than parrot progressive talking points.  They fail to do any real journalism anymore.  They are selling a message.  They are also integral in conducting witch hunts against those who have dissenting views or opinions.

These false elites have no concern for the country as a whole or its people. They have loyalty to no group, no culture and no values system. They are purely self-interested which means they succeed at the expense of others. At a drop of a hat, they have no reservations about laying off millions of Americans to make an extra buck overseas. They promote nothing but cheap, meaningless materialism — the cheeseburger as Brett Stevens puts it.

The culture of the United States is sick because our leadership is sick.  It has been hijacked by the talentless faux aristocrats. These people continue to have the power that they do because we the people allow them to have it.

The problem is: Americans like the cheeseburger.  They enjoy consuming the vapid filth of the ruling class. Americans celebrate the faux aristocrats while scorning and resenting the talented and virtuous.

I do not know how to restore a virtuous and talented natural aristocracy.  I do know that the current culture is on life support though.  Perhaps, it is time to pull the plug.