Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘equality’

They Are Afraid: The Establishment Hits Out With New Bans On Alternative Right, Billy Roper and VDARE

Sunday, August 20th, 2017

As of this morning, Alternative Right has been removed, presumably by its corporate overlords at Google-Alphabet. Simultaneously, Billy Roper has had his accounts removed at Reddit and Twitter, all on the “interpretive logic” of violating the terms of service or content policy (1990s term: acceptable use policy).

In fact, this is part of a wider pattern of mainstream media — including social media, which has now bought into the industry — censorship of Right-wing and white-wing thinkers since what I have called the Alt Right’s victory at Charlottesville. I call this a victory because it forced the Left to admit solidarity with Antifa, and despite media wailing about neo-Nazis and “car terrorism,” this is media hype and will be dead in two weeks, while the message the Alt Right sent will remain: you will not erase us; we have a right to a history, culture, heritage, values, symbols and most of all, to act in self-interest for our self-determination as well. And we owe you nothing.

For the Left, Civil Rights is yet another gambit designed to achieve “equality,” which means caste revolt, so that the lower classes (proles) prevail over anyone who knows better (natural leaders of intelligence above 125 IQ points) with the aid of the middle classes (115-120ish). This inverts society, so that whatever is dumb and popular with the proles wins out over everything else, and while people are chasing these trends, civilization decays, as happened between the French Revolution in 1789 and the defeat of National Socialism in 1945. Since that time, we have been children of the grave, knowing that we are living in a moribund ruin but unable to stop it because, hey, it’s popular.

At Charlottesville, Civil Rights lost its veneer of being “good.” It used to be assumed that class warfare and racial equality were always good, but now, we see people protesting these things because they are doing the exact opposite of what they are intended to do, but since it is happening to white people — a majority who must be overthrown for equality to happen — no one has paid much attention. Until now, that is. And now, the Civil Rights and Equality Agenda (CREA) is being seen for what it is: warfare against those who built this society so that those who could not build it can take it over, like a cuckoo laying her egg in the nest of another type of bird. These are parasites, whether they mean to be or not, and whether they are good or not, and Western Civilization is destroyed but wants to rise again, and for it to do that, it must get rid of both these parasites and its own endogenous screwups and predators.

The Left is in full-panic over Charlottesville because they know that while they can spin the “car terrorism” meme for some time, only the media indoctrinated will believe it once they see the video of Antifa attacking the car before the incident, and when the indictment comes out, it is going to be revealed that this was not a deliberate attack, but an attempt to escape by someone who was not mentally all there. At that point, the Left knows that people will shift their views to be against the Left and its defense of parasitism. People have put up with it for decades, but now they see that it is a path to USSR-style doom, and they want out. That is what scares the Left, and is why they are deleting accounts.

President Trump out-maneuvered the press by blaming both sides, which meant that he blamed Antifa as well, which ruined the press narrative that peaceful Leftist protestors had been “attacked” by the Alt Right, and validated what the videos showed, which was police officers corralling the Alt Right into the waiting Antifa, who then attacked. So, from the average American view, we have the fact that the Alt Right tolerated some neo-Nazis the same way they tolerated Alt Lite, libertarian, Proud Boys, etc. among them, but on the other side, we have the Left showing up with bats, bottles of urine, bricks and pepper spray to attack the Alt Right. That makes the Alt-Right possibly not all good, but the Left is looking increasingly all-bad.

This resonates with everyday white Americans who are tired of double standards and a one-sided Establishment narrative to the point that they are willing to excuse the Alt Right for being the underdog in this fight, but oppose the Establishment for its decades of hypocrisy:

But the president’s words sat just fine with LaMothe. “I think when he called for the unity of the country, that should have been what was pounded on,” LaMothe said in between taking a drag on his cigarette. By pounded on, LaMothe meant respected. He loves Trump and says the president never gets a fair shake from the media.

He says he hates the idea of neo-Nazis and recalls when growing up, he had friends who were black. But now he thinks the white guys he saw on his TV marching in Charlottesville have some reasonable arguments.

“This is a different white supremacy movement than before, because I don’t think whites are saying, ‘Well, we’re better.’ They’re saying why can’t we be treated all as equal?”

LaMothe thinks affirmative action programs should be scrapped. He also thinks neo-Nazis who sparked mayhem in Charlottesville are no worse than a lot of activist groups on the left. “I didn’t hear anything from Barack Obama about Black Lives Matter and that was another hate group,” he says.

In the meantime, after seeing the same masked rioters destroy the streets of Hamburg during the G20 conference, burn and vandalize London in 2011, and savage Portland and Berkeley — looking more like the LA Riots of 1992 than the peaceful anarchist gathering the Left claimed it was — people are having a different view of Antifa, which is more fair and realistic than the sunny gloss offered by the mainstream media:

After left-wing protesters marched through downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota in response to last weekend’s demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia, they hoisted the flag of the violent left-wing group “Antifa,” raising it in front of the county’s government center.

…Antifa, meaning “anti-fascist,” has been responsible for several destructive riots and protests, including one in February where members of the group set fires, threw fireworks, attacked the crowd, and damaged property in order to stop Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of California, Berkeley.

Antifa also vandalized stores, broke windows and rioted during President Donald Trump’s inauguration, before being met with armed law enforcement officers.

Even more, it is clear to people out there who is winning. You do not have the world’s largest corporations, governments, and media establishment uniting to declare a group terrorist, drop it from industry standard services and censor it unless that tiny group is not just threatening them directly, but threatening to win popular appeal from those who are sick of these parasites using us and doing nothing for us. We can live without Google, Paypal, Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and the Left. We cannot live without our people, and we are being taxed to death to pay for others who now we see intend to destroy us.

They do not, as they claimed for all those years, just want to coexist with us and be treated fairly. They want to dominate us, take over our countries, destroy us genetically — some call this genocide — and do it by treating us unfairly all while claiming that they are the victim. Diversity is dead. Equality is dead. The remaining mentally alert people in America and Europe have realized that there is a new “one drop” rule: one drop of equality, socialism, diversity or pluralism means that your civilization collapses. It takes two centuries, in which time all sorts of predatory people will profit from you, but it is your death warrant. We want off the death train to nowheresville.

For the last seventy years, they have pushed diversity on us as the right thing to do; the way to avoid Nazis and the KKK; the way to finally have good “race relations”; and more recently, a way of paying for the huge pensions and benefits gap created when the more-numerous Baby Boomers are replaced by the less-numerous Gen X and Millennials. Now people have seen through the lies, and the Establishment is in full panic, so they are censoring us. While they do that, they reveal their fundamental intention toward unfairness and inequality, and since they have shown us their moral emptiness, we no longer trust them, and we are fighting to escape their clutches.

Affirmative Action Is Ready To Fall

Sunday, August 6th, 2017

As predicted by Samuel Huntington, with the fall of the Soviet Union all restraints on Leftism also fell, and it assumed its final form: a controlling, manipulative, lower-caste revolt designed to remove all sense, sanity, goodness, decency and normalcy from the West. As a result of that, a cultural wave has arisen which rejects not just Leftism but ideology in general.

People are turning back to the time-honored and functional traditions. These have two aspects: first, they work, and second, they point toward something that is morally good, or virtuous. Traditions aim toward a union of man, God and nature on the same parallels of understanding, with the idea of suppressing natural human hubris and raising our consciousness of the world beyond us.

Although it was not clear at the time, the election of Barack Obama was the “Berlin 1945 moment” for liberal democracy, Leftism and ideology, all of which converge on the same end result. As was apparent to anyone with an IQ over 120 and a sense of history, Barack Obama trashed the USA at the same time Left-leaning politicians in Europe like “ex”-Communist Angela Merkel trashed Europe.

Not surprisingly it was those higher echelon voters who drove Trump into the presidency, not so much from financial concerns, but because they realized that their society was being destroyed. They realized that people make bad decisions in groups, and so liberal democracy always moves Leftward, and that any Leftism is a toxic path to a Soviet-style ultra-modernist society.

Last week, Donald Trump broadened the Overton Window by attacking the sacred cow of the Left and their means of replacing us, affirmative action. This has prompted much response, blunted by the supposed replacement of Jeff Sessions, who initiated the attack on affirmative action in academia.

Over the weekend, a viral memo from Google began circulating which criticized affirmative action:

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.

This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

  • Compassion for the weak
  • Disparities are due to injustices
  • Humans are inherently cooperative
  • Change is good (unstable)
  • Open
  • Idealist

Right Biases

  • Respect for the strong/authority
  • Disparities are natural and just
  • Humans are inherently competitive
  • Change is dangerous (stable)
  • Closed
  • Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

  • They’re universal across human cultures
  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  • The underlying traits are highly heritable
  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

  • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
  • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
  • Women on average are more cooperative
  • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
  • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  • The male gender role is currently inflexible
  • Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
  • Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
  • Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.

In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.

I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.

There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.

These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.

I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.

We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity

Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.

Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.

Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.

Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

There is quite a bit to like in this mini-manifesto, which tackles the essential problem with diversity and political correctness: they originate from the Leftist ideology of equality, and aim to achieve it by “inverting” society or making it so that the lower echelons are ranked highest, which makes everyone else a beggar for the approval of these castes.

In its place, the manifesto proposes a different form of equality commonly known as meritocracy, or the idea of making people jump through hoops to gain approval, instead of merely doing it by mob rule. While this is a good start, any institution will inevitably be corrupted and shift the goal posts to reward those who are rote memorization fans or otherwise obedience and successful within a narrow scope, but not necessarily effective at life.

Google learned that meritocracy by academia and “brainteasers” did not work in the past [2013]:

Google has admitted that the headscratching questions it once used to quiz job applicants (How many piano tuners are there in the entire world? Why are manhole covers round?) were utterly useless as a predictor of who will be a good employee.

“We found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time,” Laszlo Bock, senior vice president of people operations at Google, told the New York Times. “They don’t predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart.”

In addition, the article is confused about the nature of conservatism, which is that which emphasizes those things which are both time-proven and oriented toward virtue. It is a classic American confusion to see conservatism as that which resists change and wants to revisit the past; conservatism recognizes the continuity of the past, and the need for reality-based (not test-based, academic, or money-based) standards which affirm both competence and moral character.

The core of it however is a rejection of ideology, which consists of philosophies based on how reality “should” be versus how it is, in particular the patterns of nature. That core can be seen here:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

In other words, this is a shift to the Right: the writer wants a reality-based standard that emphasizes best results, or qualitative improvement of the way the world works, instead of trying to make the world work a different way.

Quite a bit of thought went into this memo, and it may be that Google itself leaked it. The company has faced increased criticism for the failure of its diversity programs and other accusations of discrimination, and since it cannot seem to hire women and minorities fast enough, and make them succeed enough, to defend against these, it is clear that in the future it will get beaten around the head with more legal and possibly regulatory action. Having a revolt in the ranks allows Google to gracefully back down from these commitments. If someone from the Trump administration reached out to them before this memo and proposed it as a solution, that would not exactly be surprising either.

In the meantime, affirmative action and similar programs (civil rights, anti-discrimination, disparate impact, unofficial quotas) are increasingly being revealed as exploitative:

British A-level students are being “discriminated” against by many of the UK’s top universities as they recruit more lucrative overseas applicants instead, often with poorer qualifications, a Sunday Times investigation discloses.

The former education minister Lord Adonis said the findings were “seriously alarming”, attacking elite universities for “crowding out British students” and “betraying their mission” to widen access. Some pupils with top A-level grades were being turned away.

Half the top-flight Russell Group, including Oxford and Cambridge, and 23 of The Sunday Times’s top 50 universities have cut British undergraduate numbers, often substantially, since 2008. Across all universities British undergraduate numbers have also fallen since 2008, even though UK applications for university rose by 17% in that time. Numbers of non-EU students, who pay as much as four times the fees charged to British and EU ones, have increased by 39%.

This comes on the heels of news that American industries may also have overplayed diversity to the point of nearly excluding the founding group of the nation in preference for the new foreign Leftist voters, as exemplified by the ideological success story that is Harvard’s diversity program:

Of the freshmen students admitted to Harvard this year, 50.8 percent are from minority groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and Native Hawaiians. That’s up from 47.3 percent last year, according to the university.

…Last year, the US Supreme Court, in a 4-to-3 vote, decided that college admissions officers could continue to use race as one of several factors in deciding who gets into a school. The decision surprised university officials and disappointed those who had hoped to end race-based admissions.

But the ruling does require universities, if they are challenged, to show that they had no choice but to use race to create diversity on campus and that other factors alone, such as family income or an advantage to first-generation college students, couldn’t create a similar mix of students, said Vinay Harpalani, a law professor at the Savannah Law School, who specializes in affirmative action.

As the cultural wave turns against ideology, the viral knowledge spreads that diversity, affirmative action, civil rights, and anti-discrimination laws are part of a systematic campaign to transform America into a majority-minority society and replace its founding Western European group. This empowers government and ideologues, but has also wrecked America.

In the future, people will speak out about how diversity also causes people, because the majority of them marry and reproduce based on who is nearby, to outbreed and thus is a type of “soft genocide” which hopes to replace an ethnic population with a mixed-race, cultureless group dependent on ideology.

This cultural wave is now appearing in many places at once, readying the fall of not just affirmative action, but all policies based on “creating equality,” since those invariably end up taking from the thriving to give to the flailing, and in doing so invert society, creating a bias in favor of incompetence and political obedience as if in emulation of the Soviet state.

Equality Never Means Equality; It Means Transfer of Power and Wealth

Sunday, July 30th, 2017

Yet another normal person learns the hard way that equality is a mental trap:

Police said that three men entered the residence with guns and a struggle took place with two men inside.

The two in the home seized a firearm from one of the suspects and several shots were fired as the suspects fled. Police later located one of the suspects, who had non-life-threatening gunshot wounds.

Munroe faces charges of attempted murder, intent to discharge a firearm, intent to discharge a firearm when being reckless, careless use of a firearm, improper storage of a firearm, pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized, and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Let us put this in simple terms: bad guys invade your home, so you take their guns and shoot at them. Then your egalitarian government throws you in jail and presents nine charges against you.

This is only surprising to the credulous. Everyone else figured out that equality is not equality, meaning that everyone gets the same chance, but Robin Hood, which means that they take from the rich, successful, intelligent, kind, moral, good, and beautiful, and give to those who have none of those traits.

Since this is a concept, it breeds in our minds and spreads to other ideas. Soon it has even infected the idea of self-defense; now, self-defense is only safe if you are defending against someone who is richer and more powerful than yourself, because otherwise, you — as the one holding higher social status — are assumed to be the victimizer.

At what point do Europeans realize that “equality” is a poisonous notion, and that it destroys everything it touches?

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.

What Awakening Feels Like

Tuesday, July 11th, 2017

Of all the films based on books ever created, The Martian Chronicles may be one of the most haunting. This was shown to America on regular television as a “miniseries” over a few weeks in 1980, at the height of the Cold War, and it unnerved many people. In particular, one scene showed what it is like to awaken to the facts about modernity.

Captain Black: What if we actually have landed on Mars, OK? So this small Illinois town is not really an Illinois town.

Edward: And?

Captain Black: And these people are not my friends, not my family. They’re Martians disguised to look like Earth people. And my mother is not —

Edward: Is not our mother? Then what about me?

Captain Black: And you’re not my brother Edward.

Edward: No, Arthur, I’m not. Suppose there were Martians, and they saw a rocketship landing, and had no defense against its weapons. Suppose they used the only real defense they had: telepathy. Suppose they picked up the childhood memory of a town from the captain of the ship. Suppose the town was deliberately populated with the most loved people from the memories of all the ship’s crew. People like Marilyn Becker. All the men seeing mothers, aunts, uncles, fathers, sweethearts… dead ten, twenty, thirty years ago, abandoning their ship. Would there be any other way, to divide and overcome invaders?

Captain Black: You couldn’t disguise the air.

Edward: No, we couldn’t disguise the air.

Captain Black: I can’t move.

Edward: The chocolate pudding was drugged. Except of course you only thought that it was chocolate pudding. Your death will be painless, Captain.

This is what it is like to come to consciousness in a modern time, and to realize that all of your institutions are fake, that your fellow citizens have ill-intent and not good, that your society has fallen and is dying, and that all of the world seemingly wants you dead so that it can plunder what you have.

Nothing is as it seems. That which says it is good, is in fact evil; that which pretends to be normal, is abnormal and twisted; even those you love are impostors, masquerading as loving family members when they are infected from within by the idea that is modernity, an idea of power that corrupts every human it touches, the notion of equality or “I can do whatever I want, and no one can tell me otherwise.”

To wake up is to realize that you are surrounded by enemies. To know finally that your hometowns are fake, and every public act is an illusion. To recognize that everything you think you see in fact consists of imitations, and that these are designed to deceive you until the poison kicks in.

You cannot go back from this point. You have seen and cannot forget. There will never be a sense of home or safety again. Instead, you realize that you are a hunted animal among packs of fake friends and family members, and that they will not stop until they destroy everything you love. This is the process of Awakening, and you can never go back.

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.

Heterosexual Pride Day Demonstrates How “Equality” Will Not Solve Our Problems

Thursday, June 29th, 2017

In the realization that the best defense is a good offense, a group of non-Leftists got together and christened today Heterosexual Pride Day. Good provocation brings out the issues that lurk under the surface, and this was top-notch trolling.

Naturally the Left responded with outrage. In their view, homosexuals are a persecuted minority, and therefore homosexual pride is good, but heterosexual pride affirms the oppression that they infer is going on because of the delta in power between the two groups.

On the Alt Lite and mainstream parts of the Right, this provokes confusion. How is it, they ask, that if it is good for one group to have pride, it is bad for another group to do the same? Try that with the “White Panthers” or “Christian Holocaust” in conversation and you will see why not.

As they are about to learn, the hardest cuck to beat is the cuck within. In each of us, there is a beaten, derided and humiliated little boy hiding in his room after his parents said something cruel or his social group at school made fun of him for not being enough “with it” in emulating whatever trend everyone else was chasing.

To uncuck yourself, realize that there are two views of human social organization:

  1. Do what allows everyone to just get along.
  2. Do what is right and realize there will be conflict.

Egalitarianism arises from a desire to avoid conflict. Properly speaking, it is a variety of pacifism, or the idea that refusing to fight is more efficient or more moral than getting in there and fighting. The tearful child hiding behind his pillow wants, at first, for the conflict to end so that he is just accepted and can go further down the path of maturation without the horror of social censure confronting him.

If you want to know why most people tend toward egalitarianism, and from that to the range of opinions derived from it known as “Leftism,” the reason can be found in this desire to avoid conflict. If we tolerate everyone, stop fighting, and each of us just does whatever he or she needs to, they think, then society can function and the individual will not be bullied anymore.

To someone in the grips of this mentality, “equality” seems like a savior. In this view, every person and group gets an equal chance to have pride in what they do. But that is not how equality works in practice. In practice, pacifism always penalizes those who know and care enough to fight for what is right instead of what is convenient (that which allows us to “just get along”).

They do not understand egalitarianism. Equality will always and forever mean taking from the thriving and giving to the failing. It will always mean supporting the underdog against the strong. It will inevitably and necessarily oppose those who start conflict, even if the conflict is fair and reasonable, because the goal of equality is keeping everyone together in lieu of finding out what is right because the latter inexorably involves conflict, and egalitarians fear conflict in which they can appear to be in the wrong.

Scratch a bully, find someone who is terrified of not being included. Every bully that I knew had a terrible home life. Divorce, drunk dads who loved the belt more than a single word of praise, dysfunctional parents and siblings in jail. Feeling no place that belonged to them, and thus no value or purpose to their lives, they came to school and did unto others as life did unto them.

The kids who were really sad were the ones who had outwardly functional homes, but parents who belittled them or ignored them. To these parents, children were possessions that were designed to make the parent look good, and if that did not happen — the little screwups of childhood — they treated the children like non-functioning gadgets, and this mentality of “take it back to the store” or “throw it out” imprinted deeply on those children. These are at first inclined to go along with the True Believers in equality, but over time come to realize that what they have always wanted is to know what is right, and to do that, so when people criticize the belittled child can comfort himself with the knowledge that he did what was good and that the others are simply wrong.

One does not need equality in a group that is naturally equal, which means a group where everyone knows roughly what is right and each person is working toward that unequally, or according to their skills and abilities without the expectation of being identical. But in a group organized around control, or forcing everyone to just-get-along so that authority can stop worrying about what is right and focus on increasing its power, inequality is a problem because authority needs everyone to do exactly the same thing in order to avoid internal conflict. They demonize that internal conflict because some of it will consist of accurate and realistic criticism of that authority.

Authority gets a huge boost here. The dividend achieving by not trying to address real problems, and instead using that energy and resource load to further the goals of authority itself, makes authority massively powerful. Despite its promises to citizens, it serves only itself, and power that serves its own goals instead of those that it rules is by nature tyranny, or another form of bullying. It comes full circle.

This creates a match made in some infernal place. The underconfident herd demands an end to being bullied because its individual members fear losing social status if they are found to be wrong, and so authority steps in and promises to abolish all standards except obedience to authority, which makes everyone safe. At that point, society anathematizes realistic thinking and solutions in the external world, and goes down a path of navel-gazing which rewards only lies, since it is based on an assumption (equality) that is a lie.

This is why “Heterosexual Pride Day” or “white pride” will always be viewed as different than their equivalents among minority groups, and will be demonized and treated as an attack. You cannot get to doing what is right through equality; in fact, egalitarianism opposes the very idea of doing right or being realistic, which is required to know how to do right, in the first place. Equality replaces good as the goal of society. As the old saying goes, “Quality or equality; pick one.”

Leftism

Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

Why do those of us who care about maintaining civilization need to be on the Right? And why maintain civilization at all?

Humans are inherently social beings. Born weak, we depend on tools; those make life more complicated. As a result, we exist in a symbiotic relationship with other humans so we can specialize some functions or at least cooperate toward group goals like building, hunting, agriculture and learning. Civilization is necessary for us.

To maintain civilization, humans need to keep the society sane and individuals sane. Sane in this case means aware of reality, or how our actions will play out in the world, and therefore prone to pick actions which achieve what we need to do. Deviation from this means that we will become unrealistic, chase symbolic challenges and ignore the real, and fail after that.

The Left consists of a single idea: equality. This notion protects the individual because equality translates into mandatory universal inclusion, or that every individual is kept within a civilization regardless of their behavior or contributions. This guarantees every individual a place at the table, which means that individuals cannot fail or die because their actions were unrealistic.

We know this through history. Much as happened in Athens, first there was The Enlightenment™ which proclaimed “man as the measure of all things.” From that came human self-worship, which deprecated ideas like a natural hierarchy of human beings mirroring the world of the divine or even of logic. Instead of natural order, we got a human order.

After that, all that remained was to put this into practice, which was done through democracy. Democracy proclaims that the vote of an insane homeless person is equal to that of a genius with superior leadership capabilities. Whatever the largest number of people want, they get, which is the type of utilitarian thinking that arises when people stop trying to find realistic answers and focus on what is popular.

Democracy is the political system of egalitarianism, which is the philosophy of equality:

An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative view expands on this last-mentioned option: People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. So far as the Western European and Anglo-American philosophical tradition is concerned, one significant source of this thought is the Christian notion that God loves all human souls equally. Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different types of equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, or might relate as equals, that might be thought desirable. In modern democratic societies, the term “egalitarian” is often used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of reasons, a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than currently exists.

The Right is that which did not adopt equality because we prefer a non-human order, or one based on things larger than the individual like culture, heritage, religion, values, natural order and hierarchy. To be conservative, one must care about the world beyond oneself on a longer time scale than an individual life. The Right are those who build civilizations; the Left tear them down.

Most conservatives do not know this because they are focused on individual fascinations — patriotism, religion, race and economics foremost among them — and so they do not look at the big picture in the long term as one must when designing a civilization. They think that we can have equality plus racial awareness, or that if everyone just finds Jesus everything will work out okay.

In reality, civilization is defined by its goals. When we focus on ourselves, which we do because the signals from our egos and social groups are in our heads and therefore stronger than perceptions of reality, we lose sight of our actual goal and replace it with human goals. These are largely symbolic, like other people liking us or an idea being popular, and innately deny reality.

The future belongs to those who want to build civilization. Under Leftism, our civilization has collapsed. We can only rebuild it by abandoning equality and focusing on the task of civilization — starting with the notion of understanding reality — itself.

Fear Of Inequality Is Humanity Chasing Its Own Tail

Friday, June 9th, 2017

“The system is unequal,” you keep hearing. Everybody needs a fair chance. and I agree. Everybody needs the chance to prove themselves. Every person must have access to the basic social, cultural and economic footholds needed to make it in society today. This is a non-debatable issue that all systems agree upon.

Children deserve to live their childhood, get a solid education and be culturally enabled to take on the world by the time they graduate. This is the starting point that exists everywhere, and where all people kick off from zero, from equal standing. So what seems to be the real demand of the equality jihadist?

What the equality jihadist fails to tell you, is that they also want equality of outcomes. What if, by some foul nasty trick, someone again gets ahead of the rest? What if by some cheat code, inequality rears up its ugly head again and be a cause of injustice and misery for humanity?

You hear a lot about equality and fairness but this is all a scrambling tactic hiding the real motive behind the calling for equality: the obliteration of any end results beyond the generic and the mediocre.

Leftist activists confuse their readership and the public at large by creating the narrative that they want equality of chances — a noble ideal — for people starting up in life, so that they are able to succeed. Such an impassioned demand is guaranteed to captivate all audiences.

The equality jihadist wins the attention of the public. People are entranced by so much altruism and nobility of the heart. The leftist is a Jedi of posturing and he manages to cling the proverbial high ground from which he now dispenses his moralizing and virtue signaling. He then claims that only he wants equality of chances and that other political opponents are sadists. Massive applause ensues.

But as soon as he develops his idea, those who are not fully entranced by the equality jihadist start replaying their own life. They clearly remember that back in class, there were the poor and the rich students, bright and mediocre ones, lazy and studious ones, and smart and slow ones. Sometimes, there were poorer students who did better in class than richer ones, and vice versa. In sports class there were those who made it to the school football team, those who climbed a rope in seconds, those who had superior muscular strength, and those who collapsed after running thirty meters. There were those who were gifted in painting, or handy in bushcraft and making campfires. There were those who were the most at ease in the chemistry lab and awed the rest of the class with their chemical mixes. They remember their own childhood and how each one of them had different preferences and ability for different activities, hobbies, food, music or clothing.

Clearly each of those children and each of those siblings had their equal chance to start, and each used their time differently and in varying degrees of efficiency and outcome… creating a colorful diversity. That same diversity which the equality jihadist is now calling “inequality” because he has translated this diversity into economic values, which are the only criteria that interest the equality jihadist…

People start to wake up and realize what the leftist is saying. They realize he is trying to make not all opportunities uniform — because they already are! — but all ends. Horror replaces trance as the true intentions of the equality jihadist start taking shape, but it’s probably too late because everybody already cast their vote for the equality jihadist. The equality jihadist is in fact, frothing at the fact of seeing some people earning more and achieving higher social and economic success than others. Such getting ahead is deemed unfair by the equality jihadist and so, many of his own supporters are brought under the blade for failing to be equal.

Equality is an attractive concept, because in our times, it has become loaded with notions of fairness and nobody getting left behind. This is what makes it popular to the masses and by consequence, to the voters, regardless of how distinguished their diplomas are. It only shows its actual meaning once the voting and partying daze are over and reality knocks on the door.

Let us consider the reality of inequality, which is that not only is it inherent, but that we benefit from it as revealed in a short parable:

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey. Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents. And likewise he who had received two gained two more also. But he who had received one went and dug in the ground, and hid his lord’s money. After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them.

“So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, ‘Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them.’ His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’ He also who had received two talents came and said, ‘Lord, you delivered to me two talents; look, I have gained two more talents besides them.’ His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’

“Then he who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.’

“But his lord answered and said to him, ‘You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. Therefore take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents.

‘For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

The equality jihadist is here not to help you have a better life, but to rob you of choices, of dreams, of aspirations. In an equal world, where all outcomes are state-managed to remain equal, the equality jihadist suffers no complaint from you, who voted for his program. A complaint means you are an obstacle to the equality Utopia. The equality jihadist finds your lack of faith disturbing…

Houellebecq On The Emptiness Of “Careers”

Saturday, May 20th, 2017

This one has been making the rounds, but, it serves as an observation that modern life leaves nothing for the future especially in careers:

Children existed solely to inherit a man’s trade, his moral code and his property. This was taken for granted among the aristocracy, but merchants, craftsmen and peasants also bought into the idea, so it became the norm at every level of society. That’s all gone now: I work for someone else, I rent my apartment from someone else, there’s nothing for my son to inherit. I have no craft to teach him, I haven’t a clue what he might do when he’s older. By the time he grows up, the rules I lived by will have no value—he will live in another universe. If a man accepts the fact that everything must change, then he accepts that life is reduced to nothing more than the sum of his own experience; past and future generations mean nothing to him. That’s how we live now. For a man to bring a child into the world now is meaningless.

Jobs make you into a robot. Aristocracy makes each person have a place without being equal. One does not work at all, but the other mostly works. Even when it fails, it is better off that its alternative in the long term.

Instead, we get the standard human behavior: a compromise, more aimed at reducing risk to the present tense than creating something positive in the future tense.

Jobs are jails. Democracy is slavery. Socialism is control. Until we overthrow these things that “seem” good but are actually toxic, we are doomed to live among our own failures.

Recommended Reading