Posts Tagged ‘equality’

Why The Alt Right Is Winning

Monday, October 23rd, 2017

Across the media, mass bloviation has broken out. They dislike the Alt Right and want to explain it away as a fluke or a dark gesture of primeval hatred from the unrefined portions of the human psyche. And yet, it and similar movements continue to grow, mainly because they are an organic alternative to the plastic world in which we live.

Humans have a pathology — at least if you pay attention to the stuff written on the outside of boxes of home and body care products — for the “natural.” We like 100% natural ingredients, natural methods, and ancient Indian recipes for hemorrhoid care because we distrust the scented, artificially-flavored, plastic wrapped, safe, corporate and sugar-added world of slick products designed to appeal to our lowest desires and worst impulses.

Implicit in this desire is the idea that somehow, everything wrong with our society is the opposite of the “natural”: the fake, contrived, flavored, over-produced, and deceptive human world common to both extensively-advertised products and human social groups, where little white lies and euphemisms quickly adulterate and divide any logical perspective into mental goo reflecting our simian weaknesses.

We have become accustomed, brave moderns that we are, to a society that is mostly toxic in the guise of being safe and sterile. Pasteurizing milk was a great success, so we pasteurized our brains. We know that most of the products in the grocery store are nearly poisonous fodder for morons, that commuting is a giant waste of time, and that 90% of what we do at our jobs is unnecessary.

We are aware that commercial districts grow like a fungus, that advertising is lies, that newspapers are written to flatter advertisers and dazzle us with addictive nonsense so we want to know more. We know that movies are fake, that anything said in public is probably a lie, that most of our taxes are wasted on counterproductive or outright destructive activity.

When we seek out “natural” products or experiences, we are trying to escape the common experience of an artificially-constructed society, starting with the opinion of the herd that everyone is good and therefore whatever they think is right probably is. If we are honest, we admit that we hate our society, but that it is popular with most people, so we do not expect it to go away.

Countering that notion, the Alt Right shows us a group of people who are intelligent, well-spoken and determined to execute a plan of saving this civilization from itself by reversing that artificiality. They want to restore Western Civilization and to get rid of the pervasive hopelessness that we all have, watching insanity happen and knowing it will never change because “most people” want it that way.

The Alt Right has us asking why every European civilization starts out blonde-haired, blue-eyed, long-faced and high-IQ, and ends up with lots of short dark-haired and dark-eyed people who are good at making money. It asks us why every civilization in human history has self-destructed. It looks deeply into our motivations and finds a dark plastic void.

This ties in to what we have observed about our world: we are run by the wrong group of wealthy people, meaning that we got the scumbag exploiters instead of the noble aristocrats. And they, as a means of keeping the herd pacified, have spun a pack of lies which are as insincere as advertising or any other talk in public:

In the world of the wealthy, liberalism is something you do to offset your rapacious behavior in other spheres.

…Most people on the left think of themselves as resisters of authority, but for certain of their leaders, modern-day liberalism is a way of rationalizing and exercising class power. Specifically, the power of what some like to call the “creative class”, by which they mean well-heeled executives in industries like Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

…This is a form of liberalism that routinely blends self-righteousness with upper-class entitlement. That makes its great pronouncements from Martha’s Vineyard and the Hamptons.

People figured out centuries ago, or maybe always knew, that it is easier to make a large public donation than to do the right thing in every case. Similarly, Leftism teaches that there is one area where one must be moral — making everyone equal — and this, too, is easier to implement than it is to do the right thing in every moment. These are shortcuts, a part standing for the whole.

There are great profits in lying, cheating and stealing. If all it takes is to give a tenth of your income to a church or NGO, but you are able to go from making millions to making billions, then it is all worth it. Consider the Sackler family, who donate lavishly to charity but got their money from hooking America on Valium and Oxycontin.

One of the big stories about the West over the past few decades has been the concentration of wealth. This is not so much a story of people being more competent, but of our tax systems: we zap anyone who realizes income as salary, while those who are able to own companies find themselves able to pay a lot less because they do not take anything more than a nominal salary; their wealth is in the firm itself.

For example, consider Bill Gates and his billions. When people first started talking about him being “worth $60 billion,” that conjured up an image to most people of a man with a huge bank account. In reality, his wealth was almost entirely all Microsoft stock, and while he took a high CEO salary, it was relatively small compared to his holdings.

The average American or European voter understands economics about as well as history, so is oblivious to the fact that over the past four decades, the middle class has been eroding:

Over the same period, however, the nation’s aggregate household income has substantially shifted from middle-income to upper-income households, driven by the growing size of the upper-income tier and more rapid gains in income at the top. Fully 49% of U.S. aggregate income went to upper-income households in 2014, up from 29% in 1970.

When presented in the standard narrative, this makes it sound like those evil rich people just took all the income for themselves. What it really means is that the middle class is being squeezed by taxes to pay for a growing underclass, higher expenses due to taxes and regulations, and pressure from below as a steady flood of immigrants depress wages.

This becomes clear when we look at the fact that real wages have not budged since the mid-1960s, at about the same time we changed our immigration policy, began our welfare state and started shuffling women into the workforce.

It is relatively simple economics: whatever you have more of is less valuable; compare tin to gold, for example. And when you have a workforce, and raise the costs of each worker through unions, taxes, regulations and lawsuits, you will then create a situation where business wants cheaper labor, but providing that cheaper labor will shatter salaries, with all of the money still being frittered away in taxes, union fees, legal costs and hiring of endless bureaucrats within companies to deal with regulatory compliance. In other words, we took the money from the middle class and gave it to government and those who, by working with government, have made themselves quite wealthy. This is the same mistake that humans always make, because of defective wiring apparently, which is that they want government to protect them, so they give it power, forgetting that it is self-interested and provides income opportunities to many who will then enlarge those opportunities. Soon government is an industry in itself, and this takes money out of the functional economy and puts it into the political fantasyland economy.

Your middle class person now has seen their fortunes fall. They are working longer hours for less, in part because the increase in taxes has come not through income tax but through withholding, property taxes, healthcare taxes, sales taxes and other ancillary taxes which increase the total load. In Europe, they rely on the social benefits system to get them through, which it does, but increasingly this means they will enter retirement later and still have a nation in deep debt when they leave the workforce.

In addition, they have seen the fundamental transformation of their nation by liberal social engineering, have been excluded from many opportunities by affirmative action, realize there is a runaway altruism spiral that is propelling big government, have witnessed the rise in existential misery, have become accustomed to political violence as a norm, are waking up to demographic replacement and the failure of liberal democracy, and now they are ready to leave behind liberal democracy so that they can leave the “liberal” part, that seems inextricable from the rest, behind.

The Alt Right appeals to the middle class because it addresses these issues instead of explaining them away with moral justifications. It sees that the fundamental problem of humanity is herd behavior, and that when this takes over, people engage in some kind of group-think that always favors the simplistic, so we find ourselves applying increasing amounts of force to change effects instead of addressing their underlying causes. Across the West, “populist” parties are winning for the same reason.

People have tired of The Age of Ideology, which is based on the idea that we can create a human-only order which is superior to nature. This human order invariably involves the notion of removing differences, akin to pacifism, through equality or other universal acceptance for all humans instead of ranking humans in a hierarchy by how realistic they are, as measured by whether their actions turn out to have positive consequences instead of negative ones. This naturally implicates qualitative thinking, or measuring how much better one result of actions was than another.

After the age of ideology comes The Age of Organicism. In this age, people desire civilization again; they want to have human social order, instead of rampant individualism producing greed and obliviousness to the consequences of our actions. They see a wisdom in the natural order that we abandoned long ago, when we became confident that our pacifism was better than the terrifying Darwinism of nature and its social component, where doing something stupid, selfish or unrealistic marked us as being of lower status. That confidence is gone now, and natural order has returned, bringing with it an inherent desire to restore Western Civilization and recognize that its roots are genetic, not ideological. Ideology springs up from that desire toward pacifism so that a purely human world can exist, where our individual desires and their counterparts in what the social group wants are more important than consequences in reality, which are regulated by the rules of natural law, logic, history and common sense.

Part of this impetus comes from realizing that other groups have an agenda contrary to our own because each group has its own identity and seeks to make itself powerful by conquering other groups. Diversity is a prescription for constant conflict followed by genetic degradation, at which point we have as little hope of restoring civilization as ethnically-mixed groups like Italians, South Americans, Eastern Europeans or the Irish. We need to take a stand for Western identity, which has its roots in the Western European people, the same group that left mummies in the Tarim basin, founded Greece and Rome, invaded or originated in India, and then created the modern nations of Northern and Western Europe which share that Nordic-Germanic genetic root.

The Left has begun to notice this when it realizes belatedly that, by embracing identity politics, it opened the door to European identity politics, which had been suppressed since they were a primary part of the nationalist message in WWII:

“They’re targeting white male students,” said Lecia Brooks, Southern Poverty Law Center’s director of outreach, who worked on a guide about how to deal with the “alt-right” on campus. “For the young white men who feel excluded from the diversity of campus culture — these groups offer an alternative. It’s a counter to the popular culture that they think doesn’t include them.”

Spencer and his allies all claim to be working toward the preservation of “white American culture” — a culture they view as threatened existentially by multiculturalism…Spencer advocates only for creating a whites-only ethnostate.

Naturally, the question of this whites-only ethnostate invokes the question of nationalism, which is generally ethnic (“Germany for Germans”) and not racial (“Germany for all whites”). This issue further threatens the break-up of the modern state, which embraced multi-ethnicism before multiculturalism or multi-racialism, as it might be properly described, possibly causing it. This issue appears tangentially on a regular basis:

“Actually, he probably hates me,” Spencer added, half joking. “Because I’m a WASP and he’s Scots Irish.” I tell him that the Scots Irish didn’t get along with Irish Catholics either—they didn’t even consider us white for a while—so he probably hates me too. Finally, we’re interrupted by his fans, and only later I think to ask Spencer: Does he consider me white?

And yet, if one is to escape the artificial modern world, half-measures will not really work; only going to the roots of organic society and identity will. People do not want imposed identity, like ideology, and they are skeptical of elective identity, like being a Star Trek fan or a radical Christian. They want innate identity, such as only comes with an ethnically-isolated civilization.

The Left has counter-attacked this movement by claiming that, instead of demanding equal rights for European-descended groups, this new movement exists to subjugate other groups. Like all Leftist claims, this is a begging-the-question fallacy: the Left assumes that a multicultural, liberal democratic, and sexually tolerant society is the only acceptable form of civilization, when it is merely a test hypothesis that we have acted out, in increasing degrees, for the last two centuries.

As Leftist commentators gather to try to defuse the situation, they have come up with only one plan: to argue that liberal democracy is the end of history, and therefore, that we are stuck with it and need to make it work. For people who talk about change and progress, they get awfully shifty when the arc of history bends away from their preferred humanistic assumptions, all based in the liberal ideology of equality.

For example, The New York Times wants you to think that our problem is not that our society is falling apart, but that some people have noticed this and begun criticizing the multicultural republic as the ultimate model of human society, because this harms the sensation of well-being that we have in the midst of this decay:

As an ideology, white nationalism poses a significantly greater threat to Western democracies; its proponents and sympathizers have proved, historically and recently, that they can win a sizable share of the vote — as they did this year in France, Germany and the Netherlands — and even win power, as they have in the United States.

Far-right leaders are correct that immigration creates problems; what they miss is that they are the primary problem. The greatest threat to liberal democracies does not come from immigrants and refugees but from the backlash against them by those on the inside who are exploiting fear of outsiders to chip away at the values and institutions that make our societies liberal.

Anti-Semitic and xenophobic movements did not disappear from Europe after the liberation of Auschwitz, just as white supremacist groups have lurked beneath the surface of American politics ever since the Emancipation Proclamation. What has changed is that these groups have now been stirred from their slumber by savvy politicians seeking to stoke anger toward immigrants, refugees and racial minorities for their own benefit. Leaders from Donald Trump to France’s Marine Le Pen have validated the worldview of these groups, implicitly or explicitly encouraging them to promote their hateful opinions openly. As a result, ideas that were once marginal have now gone mainstream.

Left and Right are different things, but in a Leftist time — one originating in democratic, humanist, Enlightenment,™ or Renaissance™ thought — the Right-wing party is part Left-wing. And so you can hear essentially the same message from conservatives, which is that what matters are our rules, not our people, nor continuation of the past through heritage as a repository of values:

Bush’s speech deserves our attention.

Here’s what he said: “Our identity as a nation . . . is not determined by geography or ethnicity, by soil or blood. Being an American involves the embrace of high ideals and civic responsibility. We become the heirs of Thomas Jefferson by accepting the ideal of human dignity found in the Declaration of Independence.”

That’s exactly what Abraham Lincoln said in 1858. What makes us Americans is our allegiance to a creed.

Both of these Left- and Right-wing commentators are saying the same thing: the institution of democracy is our only hope, and so we must reason backward to figure out how to support democracy, instead of thinking toward what we need as a civilization. In other words, civilization itself is a means to an end of democracy and the ideas it enshrines in rules, like equality.

The Age of Ideology has ended, however, and so these fellows are barking at the tail-end of a receding trend. Democracy brought with it many great promises, but what it really meant was that the lowest common denominator always won out over any kind of sensible realistic thinking, and so we are constantly in crisis, with our civilization in decay.

They must think it is normal to turn on the news and read of political, social, economic, military, environmental, and diplomatic crises every day. In reality, this is a sign of our dysfunction, as are the subjugating careers we undertake in order to pay high taxes and fund the permanent underclass, the debt of our national governments, and the ugliness of our cities.

Modernity is a failure. Modernity results upon the Renaissance™ idea of the human individual, not social order or natural law, being the primary focus of humanity. It appeals to a desire in all of us to stop struggling against the endless illogicality, parasitism, venality, and stupidity of the herd, and instead to just be tolerant and retreat to our suburban homes while the madness rages outside.

That has not worked. What you tolerate, you get more of. And so, when we retreated from trying to have a sane and virtuous society, we let the chaos monkeys run free, and they have managed to steal, vandalize, adulterate and bowdlerize every single aspect of our world. It has been a fundamental transformation indeed.

The Alt Right points out a brutal reality, which is that the medium is the message. In other words, how we live is more important than the words we use to rationalize our lives, and we are seeing the failure of that rationalization.

We have also noticed the agenda to replace us, much as equality was a hidden agenda to overthrow higher echelons and replace them with mercantile middle classes:

For Taylor, the endgame of the “alt-right” is create an “ethno-state” for people of European heritage.

“If there is no territory that white Americans can call their own, we will ultimately be shoved aside,” he said. “If that is not done, are what point are white Americans allowed to say it has gone too far? When we’re 20 percent of the population? When we’re five percent of the population?”

He feels that this goal has been misrepresented by the media – and that it is a peaceful movement. He said it is a fundamentally different ethos than white supremacy.

“I’m not even sure what white supremacy means,” he said. “If it means anything it means whites are supposed to be ruling over other races. I don’t think anyone in the ‘alt-right’ wants that.”

He makes a point that any other ethnic or racial group could easily do, but when spoken by a European person, is seen as taboo. This occurs because Europeans, as a strong and creative group, threaten the idea of the worldwide herd being equal. Those who rise above must be cut down in order for equality to occur, and the Left are a neurotic bunch who are driven by the parasitic mental virus that demands they always push for equality and see it as the only form of “good” in our world.

The Alt Right is winning because we have chosen to reject The Age of Ideology, with its creeds and demands for the destruction of quality in order to have equality, and have embraced The Age of Organicism, in which results and traditions matter more than conjectural ideologies and their promises. Those promises have failed. And so now, we venture bravely forth into a new era.

Fundamental Transformation

Monday, October 23rd, 2017

Very few people understand what a fundamental transformation has occurred in the USA and EU over the past seventy years. Society has become inverted, meaning that it is the opposite of what it set out to be, simply because we have adopted egalitarianism in its raw form, which is a mental virus that seemingly overcomes all human resistance.

This fundamental transformation involved social engineering which was commanded by the ideology we adopted starting in the Renaissance™ but formalized with The Enlightenment™ where we decided that the human individual was more important than natural order or social order, kicking off centuries of egalitarian thought, or thinking which assumes the equality of all humans so that the individual cannot be excluded or judged.

Most deceived themselves into thinking that the core of an idea could expand so much. In reality, however, related ideas expand to fill all available space and conquer any competing ideas, so the situation more resembled the proverb:

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of the shoe, the horse was lost;
For want of the horse, the rider was lost;
For want of the rider, the battle was lost;
For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost;
And all from the want of a horseshoe nail.

We started with a simple idea: instead of giving credit to those of higher social rank, we would treat everyone equally before courts of law. Some cautioned against this because, while you may have some higher rank people who are bad, in general the ranks reflect what each has contributed, and so the productive need to be protected against the rest.

But we inverted that, and instead protected the rest against the productive by removing any positive claims that the productive could make. This gave the advantage to those without any positive claims about past history to make.

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;

With equality, we suddenly had the notion that people should be treated equally, but this led to a converse assumption: if results differed, it was because of unequal treatment, not unequal aptitudes. Worse, saying anything against this was considered cruel. As a result, we began to consider any outcomes which differed from our expectations to be the result of racism, through the American “disparate impact” doctrine.

These began at first in respect to caste and class, which were the sources of great tension in the UK. Our society was outraged that once, we had aristocrats who were considered above others. In order to gratify our pretense, we began to systematically remove any distinctions between people. At first, this seemed to pacify the herd which felt ready for revolution, but then decay began.

For want of the shoe, the horse was lost;

In order to justify this affirmative action, our society began to work around uncomfortable clashes of difference. It does not matter, in the big accounting, what caused them or what they were. Just let it suffice to say that different ethnic groups are different for a reason, having evolved apart and for different regions and goals, and so incompatibilities arose.

Instead of admitting these, which would require backtracking on both diversity and equality, we lied. We covered up the clashes, hid the bad statistics, re-categorized certain crimes as not-crimes and certain events as non-existent, and basically forged our way until we got to the point where the whole system seemed to be working.

In addition, a gap in wealth persisted, so we adopted a social welfare program for the Other among us so that we could claim to be a fair, generous and equitable state. Instead we simply bankrupted ourselves, but we covered that up, too. In order to make diversity work, we shifted our economy toward a socialist model and taxed everyone more.

Precedent really crushed us here. Once you accept one lie, you must either (1) admit it was a lie or (2) build everything else on the basis of that lie. This is one of those truly binary areas in life. Once we accepted that “all people are equal,” it naturally flowed from that idea that caste was obsolete, diversity was good, socialism was fair and mob rule was intelligent. All unraveled from that point.

For want of the horse, the rider was lost;

This in turn produced problems because the socialist order took from ordinary people in order to subsidize the permanent minority underclass (PMUC). That in turn made people wary of government, which meant that government had to demonstrate its day-to-day relevance and importance in the lives of ordinary people, which in turn made government grow more powerful.

Throughout the next decade, well-meaning government reached into every area of human life, creating rules and people to administer them. Soon government became one of the biggest industries in the land, since a government job meant an end to financial troubles. The government borrowed itself into debt. Since there was no point doing anything else, the people did the same.

At this point, reality had drifted far away. All of the money was monopoly money and when you wanted more, you borrowed it. The social welfare programs that make up nearly 60% of the budget resulted in a massive debt, and any attempt to reduce it would raise cries of “racism” so was immediately discounted.

People began to experience the neo-Communist nature of this society when they accidentally spoke out in some way that contradicted the official explanation of how everything was going well and diversity was our strength. Widely-known truths from fifty years prior became thought-crimes, investigated by the police and ending with firings, massive news coverage, destruction of reputations, loss of home and income, and the shattering of families.

It became mandatory to praise diversity, equality and pluralism (“tolerance”) at every juncture, and those who did not risked having their careers and fortunes destroyed if any complaint surface against them; the only way to fend off these attacks, most of which were spurious and destroyed their targets before the facts came out, was to have a longstanding record of pro-diversity activity.

At this point, diversity had become the pro-Party sign of Vaclav Havel’s greengrocer:

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence.

At this point, the diversity agenda took on an inertia of its own and essentially rolled over everything else. To succeed, you had to have the right opinions, and in the post affirmative action employment market, this meant that one would not hear a word of dissent. Society had become acephalous (headless) and was careening onward purely on momentum, without any way of checking itself.

For want of the rider, the battle was lost;

Now it was agreed that society must be transformed, and the election of a black president to the most powerful nation on Earth was a guilt-offering and sacrifice to the voracious monster of political correctness. However, this merely intensified feelings because there is no such thing as null bias; one acts in favor of a group at all times, even if it is the group of not having a clear group.

The disgruntled assembled a group of themselves and others with an interest in taking over our civilization, namely ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, angry single women, large corporations, megalomaniac billionaires and media empires. They then summoned a new group, formed of SJWs or “Soviet Jurisdiction Workers,” and SWPLs, which is shorthand for “Stuff White People Like” and refers to white people who draw attention to themselves and show off their presumed inner goodness by being excessively, tritely and painfully politically correct.

At this point, the culture war that had been brewing for a century reached its apex and the revolutionaries clearly won. All of media, entertainment, academia and government was in lock step with the “new” and “innovative” methods of the neo-Communists. No one dared speak out in resistance because their lives would be destroyed.

For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost;

Revolutionary thought has an Achilles Heel: it is essentially a bribe that promises no loss of status for being unrealistic or crass, offers power to be seized from a hierarchy, and beckons with the thought that instead of spending our energy and money on building civilization — which must be done on a regular basis to stave off entropy — we can spend it directly on citizens.

This bribe holds the attention of the crowd as long as the economy is in good shape; when the economy goes sideways, people have less confidence in democracy because it has failed to deliver on its dual promise of prosperity and individualism at a more anarchic level than social order will allow:

In 19 countries, people who say their national economies are in bad shape are less likely to believe representative democracy is good for the country.

In 23 nations, the belief that representative democracy is good is less common among people who think life is worse today than it was 50 years ago. In Spain, for example, just 63% of those who believe life is worse than before consider representative democracy a good thing for their country, compared with 80% who support representative democracy among those who say life is better than it was a half century ago.

Similarly, pessimism about the next generation is related to negative views about representative democracy. In roughly half the nations surveyed those who think today’s children will be worse off financially than their parents are less likely than others to say representative democracy is a good form of government. Among Mexicans who believe the next generation will be worse off, only 52% say representative democracy is good for the country. Backing for government by elected representatives is at 72% among those who say children will be better off than their parents.

When the neo-Communist years came, away went the wealth. The currency fell in value; people noticed that real wages had been stagnant for a long time; taxes, including the new 0bamacare tax, savaged the middle classes; sexual tension reached an apex of false rape accusations; people had nothing in common because every interaction was highly politicized, and so soon we saw the future of America: the destruction of its population, everyone lonely and enslaved to pointless jobs while living in apartments that, if you scratched off the facades, were decidedly Soviet in their layout.

And all from the want of a horseshoe nail.

And so we come down to the cause of it all: the proliferation of people who both do not understand what is needed to have civilization and are stunted enough in self-actualization to be individualists, a condition the ancients called hubris. This was legitimized by The Renaissance™ and The Enlightenment,™ both of which shifted focus from natural law, divine hierarchy and social order to the glory of the human individual.

Our only useful metaphor for this process is obesity. When we are prosperous and have more than enough food, we get fat unless we take conscious steps to avoid that process. In the West, our wealth allowed a vast breeding program of those who are naturally “drones” as Plato calls them, or people oriented toward a mentality of parasitic dependency.

At first, it did not seem that it would unravel so fast or go down this dark path. But humans suffer for their big brains which allow them to rationalize, and in so doing, to alter their knowledge of what is true in order to make it fit a human narrative. This causes inversion of our thinking, which is then mirrored when society inverts the meaning of words and ideas by filtering out what contradicts the human narrative.

We see also that the differences between “types” of Leftism are inconsequential. They share the same philosophy and, more importantly, the belief that everything else is a means-to-the-end of achieving that condition, such that we are all expendable. Leftism starts with the idea of equality, an addicting mental virus, and as it grows in power, it becomes closer to full Communism, even if it hides that fact behind decentralized structures as used in neo-Communist states across the West.

When all is a means-to-an-end, we engage in “social engineering” which really means the destruction of anything which does not fit the narrative so that the narrative can be converted into ideology and used to control the masses. This only happens when equality has already taken over, so that mass opinion can be used as a substitute for fact or logic, and then the takeover is complete.

At some point, humanity will have to face the fact that all of our best intentions are destructive, and that what matters is a cold logical look at how to adapt and what has worked in the past. Then, we can broach the qualitative dimension, and choose the methods and principles which worked best in the past, avoiding the spiral of decline in which we now find ourselves.

We Know Better

Sunday, October 15th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Know Better, said the crowd.

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

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

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

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

We Know Better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Know Better.

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

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

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

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

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

We Know Better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Never Trust Hollywood

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

Beware the rise of The Satanic Pig. Not just any Satanic Pig, but the Satanic Male-Chauvinist Pig! The “Satanic Panic” of the 1980s has given way to the PC panic of the 2010s.

A male chauvinist pig isn’t born, he’s made, and more and more of them are being made by women.

Either that, or Girl Power has taken a dark and gothic turn for the worse. You see, a Hollywood travesty on the level of Estrogenated Ghostbusters is about to leap forth onto the screens of mostly empty movie theatres across Amerika. An all-female Lord of The Flies. I recommend they channel some Old School Miles Davis and call the thing Bitches Brew.

If you see a black cat, and then see the same black cat again, it is a deja-vu. This, you see is perhaps an unavoidable glitch in the all-powerful narrative. Just as an earthly woman cannot possibly live simultaneous archetypes of both Madonna and Whore, an earthly, human female cannot possibly be completely dominant and completely moral. The story arc of “Lord of The Flies” is both empowering and yet also completely disillusioning. This is causing professional females who seem to do not much else except female to ramp up the criticism.

“Not every story makes sense to gender-flip,” wrote Yohana Desta at Vanity Fair. “Particularly if that story is William Golding’s classic Lord of the Flies, a vicious tale about a barbaric boy-made society. The concept alone,” she continues, “disregards the point of the book!” Get it? “The point of the book” is that boys—just boys!—are inherently bad.

At the time William Golding wrote Lord of The Flies he was accused of being sexist. He triggered early feminists who haven’t read some of the scenes of Golding’s opus too closely by stating the following about little girls versus little boys.

If you land with a group of little boys, they are more like scaled-down society than a group of little girls would be. Don’t ask me why, and this is a terrible thing to say because I’m going to be chased from hell to breakfast by all the women who talk about equality.

He saw his career dissipation light flicker and deftly virtue-signaled his way out of the wilderness with this rejoinder.

This has nothing to do with equality at all. I mean, I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been.

So let’s take William Golding’s Girl Power Thesis to its logical asymptote. We have the scene in the novel where Simon kills the female pig.

Here, struck down by the heat, the sow fell and the hunters hurled themselves at her. This dreadful eruption from an unknown world made her frantic; she squealed and bucked and the air was full of sweat and noise and blood and terror […]. The spear moved forward inch by inch and the terrified squealing became a high-pitched scream. Then Jack found the throat and the hot blood spouted over his hands. The sow collapsed under them […].

So just how would Girl Power supersede this? What, pray tell would a shemale of valor and might do to a pig to outdo the silly little boys? Would any studio in Hollywood have the guts to make a band of WunderWomyn go even as far as the boys did?

We would, however, like to draw your attention to a highly disturbing scene in Chapter Eight when the boys kill a female pig. The sexual violence of the scene and the repetition of “right up her ass” (8.197) make us think that this slaughter sounds a lot like rape. Since the only females on the island are female pigs, we don’t have to face the horrors of what might have happened had little girls been stuck on the island, too. But Golding does make us wonder…

You get a sense of why Ms. Vanity Fair doesn’t think flipping gender (whatever that still is) makes sense here. It almost reminds me of George W. Bush telling us that there jobs Amerikans just won’t do. But then again, Ms. Vanity Fair probably wouldn’t want us extending this logic without loss of generality. Induction can be a treacherous crutch once it starts being used to add things to the subtended set that the original user did not intend. I’m reminded of the infamous 115 lb Female Firefighter. We can move from there to discuss just how many females you want deploying as part of a Combat Infantry Brigade.

Once you decide that you maybe don’t want females walking through minefields or hauling 2/3 of their body weight in firefighting gear, we then move on to peripheral issues like the wage gap vs workplace mortality. Let’s talk benefits vs workplace mortality. Let’s discuss perceptions of male victims of spousal physical abuse vs the perception afforded female victims of the same unrightful treatment.

At some point, Ms. Vanity Fair is not going to be fond of where this conversation starts leading people. At that point, some stories don’t makes sense to gender-flip. That silence that falls is the end state of a narrative that has self-sabotaged. Maybe then, we can all talk some sense. Perhaps that Satanic Pig isn’t such an evil bloke after all.

As Democracy-Created Problems Mount, The Thin Veneer Of The First World Cracks

Tuesday, September 12th, 2017

We, the citizens of the air conditioning and the infomercial, of the the fast food joint at the corner and the Wal-mart in the middle of town, like to think that we have attained a status where the problems of humanity — namely that 99% of us are screwing up most of the time, producing miserable societies — are as far away in time as they are in space.

Any time you see something denied, look quickly to see the truth that is being concealed and know it is true. The more we insist on equality, the more we know we are unequal; the more that we talk about our first world lifestyles, the more we should know that these are disappearing, replaced by a life completely controlled by democracy, consumerism and neurosis.

Hurricane Irma is currently ravaging Florida, but Hurricane Harvey changed America. It was not the story hidden within the story — that a city flooded itself by draining its reservoirs, after relatively minimal storm damage — but that normal people everywhere are waking up to the fact that we live in a fake society.

The media was quick to run a narrative of “Texans helping Texans, regardless of race, color or creed.” You know what this is: emphasize the dominant paradigm, so that people can go back to comfortable oblivion instead of being forced to face the fact that our society is in collapse.

Alone that tells you that our civilization is in collapse. If people have to actively deny and conceal something, it means the opposite is true. So Texans did not come together, regardless of race, color and creed; instead, minority-majority rule meant that the mayor was content to treat the relatively wealthy flooded suburbs as subject populations, knowing that his voter base would approve. Looting was widespread and generally ran across the color line. And we are not back to business as usual, because people have realized that our current civilization is dysfunctional and hostile to those who have the ability to fix it. Government hates competence in its constituency because the competence of certain individuals is a threat to control that is enforced by shepherding the masses of the brainwashed. The masses, voting for individualistic benefit, create a parasitic government that then promises to take care of them, and in the process, becomes a system of wealth transfer from the productive to those whose only commodity of value is their vote. They then form a loose cartel based on insisting that this way of life is the best and only option, and that anyone who dissents is guilty of anti-social behavior. Usually, this quiets the herd, including the dangerous tip of those who are intelligent, thoughtful, analytical and alert.

This time however, it did not work. As part of the growing alienation between Americans who support the equality agenda and those who do not, people are rebelling against the narrative. They realize that things would not be concealed unless they contained a grain of truth, and that the truth is that once you look behind the curtain, you see that everything about our government, equality and diversity is a lie.

A natural disaster shows you how much you depend on civilization. The first layer is the obvious stuff: electricity, water, sewer, grocery stores and cops on the streets. Then, you want a basic sense of stability, such as that there are those who will help you and people in power who will do their best to minimize the impact of events like this. You also want more than cops on the street, but a justice system which cannot be bought and puts the bad guys away or sends them away. You also want leaders that you can believe in who you think will replicate the world you grew up in, maybe a little improved, but not greatly diminished. And finally, there is the existential level: you want a civilization that has a purpose, so that life has a point, and that recognizes reality and adapts to it, so you do not encounter unpleasant surprises, and ideally that aims for excellence, so that we are creating meaning together by striving to not just subsist, and not just adapt, but even more than thrive, to ascend and therefore, to have something worth sacrificing for. People will go to work for the paycheck, but they are only really motivated when they believe there is something larger and more important than them which is being honored, perpetuated, refined and improved by the group participation of which they are part. The existential level comes out more than anything else during a natural disaster because people need an answer to the question, “Why rebuild? Why keep going? Why strive at all?”

Right now in the West we have the parasite dark organization that arises in any human group as the basis for our government, industry and cultural institutions. To understand this, we must first define terms: “organization” used in an adjectival or adverbial sense means the state of being organized, or having a plan, separated functions, tools and materials in place, hierarchy, delegation and the like; an “organization” in a noun sense means a group of humans united by certain principles and goals, from three friends up through a large corporation, government, tribe or centralized religion. Dark organizations happen when the goals of individuals conflict with the goals of the organization, and those individuals begin using the organization as a vehicle for their own goals instead of the goals of the organization, and the hierarchy or leadership within is not strong enough — or is disempowered by internal conflicts, including revolt by lower ranks — to resist it.

This happened in the West when we overthrew our monarchs to divide power so that the mercantile middle classes could expand their own power. First they removed the absolute authority of the monarchs and then, blaming them for the problems caused by that lack of absolute authority, removed them entirely. Since then we have had mob rule, but it keeps going because people believe in it and rationalize its failures because of their need for that belief, mainly because they cannot conceive of anything different. So they shrug off the insanity, wait in the lines, sit in entirely avoidable traffic jams that we treat like an odd kind of weather event, endure pointless make-work activities and moronic socialization, pay taxes that increase every year, support both criminal underclasses that contribute nothing and parasitic fake culture and fake leadership that actively steals from them, and cut off their brains from thinking about all the productive things they could do with the money, time and energy wasted on the parasites.

Government seems like it can keep going indefinitely. But it has a weakness: it depends on lots of nice white guys showing up, willing to carry out its insane orders, believing in its justifications and purpose. This is eroding, and events like Hurricane Harvey are accelerating it. When your local government makes disastrous decisions, and the number of people who want to take from the till increases, and bloat also swells, then you know that you are headed toward a crash. You are in a bubble, trading on the wealth and power of the past so that useless people can take “their fair share” despite offering nothing that contributes to improvement.

Our thinking went backward when we insisted on equality. Before equality, there was the idea of hierarchy, or that each person had a place in the structure of society, but unequally; we all gave according to our ability, and received according to our actual need in order to serve our purpose, which meant that many were poor because their roles were small. If they died, they were easily replaced, and so they received lower levels of funding. After equality, the assumption was different: we basically said that x + y = 1 for all values of x, so choose any arbitrary values that make you feel good. This is why people are fanatical about believing lies; they must make all choices good so that no one can be assessed according to their level of contribution. This is a type of pacifism that says we do not need to struggle for position, or even to use self-discipline to improve our contributions, but in a backward interpretation of the original formula, we are assumed to be contributors and then the system makes room for us and approves of whatever weird behaviors we indulge in. That is an anti-reality formula; instead of rewarding those who adapt to reality, we assume that the reward goes to everyone, and find an argument that says that whatever they were doing was useful after all, in contradiction of how things appear.

The reversal of thinking — instead of seeing what the result is, assuming that the result is good and therefore approving of anything on the left side of the equation — creates warm and fuzzy feelings among human beings. They no longer must struggle to get a good result (the right side of the equation) but can focus entirely on the left side of the equation, which is where they project their feelings, drama, emotions, judgements and sentiments. To them, their notions appear real if other people treat them as real, and it is this affirmation (or validation) that they want. They want other people to rubber-stamp the unrealistic as the real, because then they are blameless if a Darwinistic Event occurs and they are eliminated or humiliated.

Politics arises from that reversal. It is no longer important to show that an idea, when implemented, produces the right results; all results are the same. Instead, you merely have to excite 51% or more of the population about it, and it becomes law. Democracy is the expression of the social sensation of going along with the crowd because it is easier and less risky than standing out. Whoever produces the simplest idea wins, but that idea needs to not only be simple in itself, but appeal to the basic desires of humanity. Free stuff, blaming someone else for our problems, and feeling that nice warm togetherness that lets a hive mind buzz in unison are all perpetually popular themes. Politics occurs as a result with having to deal with a society without hierarchy, where other than the leaders, everyone is an equal, which means that in order to get anything done you need to get them all roaring at the same time. Because of equality, leadership becomes a question of politics, which is more like the work of an actor on stage or the phenomenon of a football game or even the choice of which television commercial is most effective, than some kind of reasoned decision based on facts, logic and context!

Equality creates nerds. The point of equality is to create a human-only world where all that matters is what other humans think; reality itself is deprecated and obsolete, but mass sentiment determines who wins and who dies. This produces nerds, or those who are experts in deductive reasoning based on human sources. A nerd can read an instruction manual or scientific study, and from it make conclusions about how reality is, focusing on broad and square logical statements instead of the finely nuanced, coordinated detail-oriented, logic-intensive and depth-focused world of nature. A nerd loves machines and rules, references and orthogonal logic patterns, and shies away from the complexity of a forest, ecosystem, weather pattern or philosophical argument. They are products of the system. They are the ones who rule in any democracy because they understand the mechanisms of both technology and the herd. When your society goes nerd, it becomes entirely self-referential, and misses out on the broader world outside of the human-centric logic used by social interaction and politics. Where nature demands results, politics and nerds focus on methods and procedures. This makes them powerful within human society, but unable to predict the consequences of nature, which turns out not to be “some thing out there” but a pattern order that pervades us all, and dooms the best-laid plans of nerds and politicians because those schema are too simple to take account of the nuance, detail and subtlety of nature.

This in turn creates neurosis because there are no actual rules, only responses to whatever the herd is doing at that moment. Modern people are attention whores because with equality, no one has any actual place, and everyone starts from square one. As a result, they are all trying to prove their importance by competing for money or ideological purity, because either makes them noteworthy and then they can start cultivating their personal Crowd which will ensure their popularity and thus, newsworthiness and from that, profitability. Equality makes everyone into a prostitute for social influence points, or status. This leads them to become entirely self-serving independent of their actual role in civilization, and this leads to a mixture of arrogance, pretense, narcissism and solipsism which is the defining feature of the person in the egalitarian society. The more equal we are, the more we have nothing, and must seek out some position of importance in order to avoid becoming simply generic human containers who die alone in irrelevance. Human attention is the only thing between us and the voracious void, so we pursue it like a drug, feeling good about ourselves only when we glow in the eyes of others, and feeling awful when we are deprived of this socializing influence. We are dependent on others for our own sense of identity and worth, and this is how we are controlled, not by a centralized force but by the instinct to form a herd that lurks in every human soul.

This leads us to the dirty secret of humanity: we think we are all so very individualistic, distinct and important, when in truth, most people are the same, being simply feral atavistic animals seeking to become important through using others in order to survive. Civilization becomes addictive like sex or skydiving, a feeling of well-being we seek before anything else because it temporarily ceases the emptiness we feel from having been made equal. Humans pursue ideas like “equality” and “diversity” because these reflect individualism, but since the individualist is beholden to the Crowd for his power, individualism corrupts and reduces individuality, creating empty people. We are more similar than we think in that there are only a few functions known as the “4 Fs” — feeding, fighting, fleeing and reproduction — which humans focus on, although our versions are more abstracted than those literal ideas. For example, people posture at being important in order to feed better thanks to higher salaries; they fight through sports, business, socializing and culture; they flee from any idea which invalidates what they have achieved; and they seek mates by showing off whenever they can. We are biology, no matter how much we deny it.

Our contemporary narrative takes advantage of this. The Leftist idea, which is egalitarianism, makes us feel like the adversity we face has been removed by the collective action of humanity. This in turn makes us believe that we are somehow breaking new ground for humanity when in reality we are denying fundamentals that we need for civilization. Like a bad business, we are cutting corners by refusing to put energy into civilization so that we can instead devote it to short-term enjoyments. The only way to rationalize this behavior is through the nebulous and emotional world of social morality, which follows the utilitarian idea that whatever most people will vocalize approval of must then be what is right, even when it is not — or especially when it is not. This rationalization enables us to live in a solipsistic bubble where we pretend that we are unique, different, iconoclastic and special by using the same logic that allows us to claim that decay is progress. To those caught in the addiction to being unique and special that comes with trying to rise to a state above the mere equality that is granted to everyone, and therefore is worthless, “diversity” seems a natural way to decrease the amount of standards in a society, and therefore allows us to get more freaky, weird, eccentric, eclectic, and dramatic, which in turn allows us to engage in stunts and attention whoring and raise our own status, since “equality” actually pushes us downward by eliminating any innate identity or position we would have if we were living in a hierarchical society.

Our behavior thus is compensatory in that since we are not getting what we need, we focus instead on short-term temporary wants as a means of feeling compensated for what has been taken from us that we cannot identify. That makes us dependent on our compensatory behavior because we feel that it is all we have, and we have a vague sense of being victimized, but since the person doing the victimizing is ourselves, since we have unknowingly become pathological in our cult-like pursuit of equality, we cannot lash out, and instead target those around us by becoming parasitic to our own civilization. This takes us full circle: people feel a lack of power, so they demand equality, which in turn makes them powerless, so they sabotage their society, but this makes them complicit in a dark organization like a gang, cult, cartel or mob which then demands allegiance, so they cannot stop the cycle. Endless cries for equality are met by endless degradation of conditions, while those savvy and cynical enough to see through the whole thing promise the mewling mob what it demands, and then abscond with the profits because they know that only disaster lies ahead. Whether that is Hugo Chavez dying a billionaire as his countrymen starved, Soviet apparatchiks in their dachas, Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren becoming millionaires in office, or simply your average rank-and-file bureaucrat making six figures to administer civil rights, affirmative action, sexual assault protection or any of the other voter hot button programs, equality means theft.

People generally recognize that this is the case, and it makes them hopeless. Anyone with a brain in the West has been morbidly depressed since at least the 1920s, with the most perceptive beginning to feel the queasiness in the 1820s or earlier. However, they know that a transition to anything else will involve massive carnage and possibly failure, so they hang on, patching up society like a leaky boat and hoping for the best instead of letting it sink while they build a new boat. These people, who are complicit in continuing the decline because they have rationalized the decay as positive and are afraid of anything else, collaborate with the government and other captive industries to further the narrative: We Can Fix This. They want us to think that Houston flooding is merely an aberration, a glitch, or a deviation from the norm, instead of the norm itself. The truth is that we cannot fix this and even if we could, it would be doom for us, a slow death by a thousand cuts that makes us existentially miserable and prone to abuse our families, friends and coworkers as it drives us mad. We are locked in a train heading toward a ravine where the bridge is out, keeping ourselves distracted by fighting over the distribution of food in the restaurant car while the abyss grows steadily nearer. We all want off the train, but there is no way to jump from a speeding train without risk of death or serious injury, so we huddle closer, in public keeping up the charade by focusing on any issue other than the one real issue of civilization collapse, and in private always wondering exactly when the crash will come.

Houston shows us our future. The minority-majority city will never act in a sane way because it is divided by racial politics. Every group votes for what benefits them, with only the Western European group voting for what will make the local civilization there work for everyone. Who wants to pay for a billion-dollar aqueduct when there are pensions, benefits, diversity programs, more schools for the children of illegal aliens, and more helpful government programs that hire the bureaucrats who get those pensions, to be funded? Houston has known since Tropical Storm Allision in 2001 that an epic flood disaster was going to occur, and the :

What’s at stake is the safety of the nation’s fourth-largest city. If the dams failed, half of Houston would be underwater.

…Addicks and Barker were six decades old, with a long history of seepage and erosion, when the Corps evaluated their condition in 2007. Once positioned far from downtown, they were now surrounded by houses and highways. Some residences sat within the reservoirs, which straddle the Energy Corridor along Interstate 10 and west of Beltway 8.

Development upstream was sending more runoff into the reservoirs, which were filling faster and storing water for longer. Nine out of the top 10 pools for both reservoirs have occurred since 1990.

“Every piece of concrete that’s poured upstream is going to have an impact on these reservoirs. Every square inch,” Long said

…The deadliest scenario for Addicks involves the outlets failing as the pool rises to 106 feet, producing the staggering loss of billions in property and thousands of lives after water submerges downtown, west and south Houston and the Texas Medical Center. 

You can see the growth of Houston over time, and how that growth coincides with the mostly-Hispanic immigration that transformed a once white-run city into a Democrat-run, mostly non-white city. Houstonians who grew up after 1982 found themselves in a minority-majority city with street signs in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean and other languages corresponding to the 145 languages that people speak there. White people make up 24.9% of the population of Houston, and 38.8% of the population of the Houston metropolitan area.

As Houston grew, it lost a vital resource: the wide flood plain that enabled the reservoirs to dump water outside of the city, instead of having to release it into the mainly white neighborhoods surrounding the bayous, into which the reservoirs drain as outlets.

It was not to be. On April 18, during the height of the storm, when the dam gates were closed, the flow in Buffalo Bayou reached nearly 7,000 cfs, as measured by the gauge at Piney Point. (The Memorial Day flood on May 26, 2015, exceeded 7,000 cfs and reached 8,500 cfs, according to the Harris County Flood Control District, page 9.) As of this writing, combined releases from the dams, measured by the Piney Point gauge, have exceeded 3,000 cubic feet per second for longer than even after the Memorial Day flood, the first time the Corps deliberately raised the release rate to 3,000 cfs, and frequently have reached 3,700 cfs. Homes downstream are expected to flood above 4,000 cfs.

Consistently, Houston has rejected any plan for addressing the problem of huge amounts of rain, namely that such amounts would necessitate a release above 4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) in order to drain the reservoirs in anticipation of future rain, as it indeed did, destroying many neighborhoods. Hurricane Harvey called Houston’s bluff, which mayors Lanier, Brown, Parker and Turner — all Democrats, two black — had been ignoring as a possibility by not acting on any plan to increase drainage. The growth of Houston, coupled with its refusal to upgrade its drainage, created this flood.

In fact, there were two floods: the initial storm surge, which flooded areas that normally flooded during storms like Allison, and the reservoir release, which produced the really devastating damage that destroyed homes along the bayous two days after the storm hit. This flood has provoked a class action lawsuit from homeowners who observed the correlation between the reservoir release and the destruction of their homes. In their view, the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Houston essentially used some of its oldest and wealthiest neighborhoods as a giant retention pond, instead of venting the reservoirs outside the city, which created a flood of epic proportions:

The controlled releases, which topped out with the dams gushing a combined 13,000 cubic feet per second, sent water surging into homes along Buffalo Bayou in neighborhoods, outlined by I-10 to the north, Gessner to the east, Briar Forest to the south and the reservoir to the west. Mayor Sylvester Turner ordered a mandatory evacuation for all homes that had flooded once it became clear the water would not recede anytime soon.

…This comes as people are looking back at the years of warnings that this kind of event could happen, about developing rice fields and wetlands that used to sop up storm water, about how Addicks and Barker were aging, about how another plan was needed to be put in place before a major storm like Harvey hit.

…After all, in 1996 a report from engineers with the Harris County Flood Control District found that Harris County’s reservoir system was not cutting it, a problem that put thousands of home in jeopardy. At that time the proposed solution was a $400 million underground system that would pipe water from the reservoirs to the Houston Ship Channel.

And so it comes down to money. Spend on benefits for the diversity, or spend it on protecting the mostly white and Jewish neighborhoods threatened by reservoir-induced flooding? The 1996 report warned that Houston had expanded to cover the floodplain once used to drain the reservoirs:

The report was filed away without action, then last week Harvey struck. The usually dry Addicks and Barker reservoirs quickly filled until, on Aug. 28, they were nearly full and water had spread to their surrounding neighborhoods. The Army Corps of Engineers opened the floodgates to let a controlled amount escape. But instead of the normal 4,000 cubic feet per second, Corps officials opened the gates wide enough to release more than 13,000 cubic feet per second to keep the rising reservoir levels from overtopping the dams. They did so knowing it would flood neighborhoods downstream.

And just as the 1996 report predicted, water in many of the flooded homes would not drain for days or even weeks.

Despite this warning, the coalition of housing developers who wield the power of campaign financing and the minority voters who make up the largest voting bloc, would not support any changes, especially since the new homes in the floodplain were providing affordable housing for the new population, which was mostly non-white which was accelerated by the Obama policy of relocating Section 8 housing to the suburbs. As in Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles and other cities where the minority vote decides every election, people vote for what benefits their own tribes, and leave the costs to be absorbed by others, in this case mostly white, longer-term residents of Houston. Minorities never vote conservative, and Democrats win elections by promising benefits, not addressing infrastructural or structural problems. The more benefits we pay out, the more our wealth declines along with our motivation and hope, in parallel to what we saw in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries; benefits, like labor unions, are a socialist idea. The Balkanization begins in Houston.

Every plan that has promised to address the potential superfloods has been voted down, including some that took the reasonable step of limiting development:

Harris County Flood Control District, Texas Water Development Board and others released a study in August that looked at a key problem area: the overflow of Cypress Creek into Addicks Reservoir. One plan listed in the study, known as “Alternative Five,” proposes the acquisition of land along Cypress Creek to act as a sponge or reservoir for floodwaters. The more land that soaks up floodwater, the less likely the dams are to be breached: That’s just common sense. Area officials, nonprofit organizations and developers should unite to take the steps necessary to implement this plan now.

This alternative, which will provide a host of benefits to residents in addition to flood protection, is garnering support from groups that want to use natural resources as a primary defense against flooding as well as groups that support conventional infrastructure projects. Not only will the plan help relieve the pressure on the dams, as the area grows more populated, Houstonians also will be grateful for the green space. The mixed-use floodways will provide recreational amenities and will benefit the biodiversity of the area by maintaining a home for quail, dove, rabbits and a large variety of songbirds and ducks.

There’s no time to waste. Nearby land is being developed and concrete is being poured at a rapid pace.

However, displacing this land by making it a floodplain would frustrate both the developers, who see money in building neighborhoods closer to the city, and minority voters, who are increasingly located in suburbs and want this new housing. While people from the coasts — seemingly to a man knowing zero about the situation in Houston, yet willing to opine on it with the pretense of authority — suggest that Houston’s lack of zoning is the problem, the reality is far simpler: even with zoning, new neighborhoods are springing up anywhere land can be bought in order to accommodate the flood of newcomers, most of whom are from Central America and Asia and vote consistently Democrat. Zoning will raise the costs of housing, but will not stop the growth of the city. And Texas’ famously high property taxes, required to maintain the school system under the “Robin Hood” policy of redistributing money from wealthy areas to poorer ones, keep going up as bilingual schools are built to take on the flood of new children, 91% of whom are non-white. This means that anyone who owns land that could be kept in a natural state is driven out when they receive the astronomical bill based on the new value of their land, since development nearby raises its estimated sales price, which is the metric by which taxes are calculated. And whites? They are the prosperous tax base that also accurately reports its income, in contrast to some newer successful groups who have already for cheating in schools and, by reputation, on their taxes. In Asian and many Hispanic countries, cheating on taxes and exams is part of the national culture.

It is not global warming that brought about this flood, but over-development to support a rising minority-majority population:

Other researchers argue that poor urban infrastructure and the rapid, unchecked sprawl of cities on to marshlands and other places that usually absorb excess rainwater have led to flooding.

“We know climate change is influencing the capacity of the atmosphere to hold water but it is hard to attribute this to individual [flooding] events,” says Paolo Ruti, head of the global weather research division of the UN’s World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in Geneva.

Those marshlands refer to the areas West, Northwest and South of Houston that in the past absorbed the extra water.

Television coverage of this event was interesting, since it focused mostly on what appeared to be obese people from minority groups getting rescued from homes in the outer suburbs like Cypress. This both affirms the narrative of equality (less capable = victims; more capable = tax base and evildoers) but also plays to popular stereotypes in the cruelest manner of bigots, so that the standard low-information white voter can sit back and quietly mutter ethnic slurs, which focuses his attention on specific minority groups instead of the problem of diversity, which is that his interests will never win in an election again. Hating black people plays into the hands of the pro-diversity crowd because it redirects focus to a false event, which is the behavior of minorities, and away from the actual question, which is that diversity is a government-sponsored event which can be ended by changing our laws, unleashing a wave of similar lawsuits, or, if necessary, open revolution.

White Houstonians are held hostage by the minority vote just as white voters are in Detroit or Baltimore. The third world strategy is to arrive en masse in clueless Western-style democracies, and then produce many offspring, so that soon, the minority population controls the vote and can turn the government against the people who created it. This demonstrates a classic conflict between r– and K-strategic populations — something I have been writing about since 2009 — which is that poorer and dumber populations have many more children, and eventually overwhelm those who are more competent at making leadership decisions, at which point the society collapses into a third-world state. Couple this with the fact that, to dumber people, more intelligent ideas than they are capable of generating in fact appear to be unintelligent ideas, and you have a perfect political storm where the incompetent swarm the gates and take over, only to create a failed state which makes successively worse decisions, as happened with the French Revolution and Russian Revolution, and arguably, the Obama revolution which wrecked America economically, culturally and structurally, paving the way for the populist backlash, which wanted an end to “globalism” or the advance of worldwide Leftism with its diversity initiative, after noticing the Soviet-style transformation unable to respond to actual risk. These people want their countries back and distrust the permanent political class running those countries. They are united against the toxic coalition of Leftists, minorities and large corporations that has transformed America and Europe by following the Leftist agenda.

We have seen this pattern before outside America, where minority-majority voters pair with Leftists and corporate interests to pursue an internationalist agenda instead of focusing on the health of the civilization and its founding group:

It is no exaggeration to say that this myth of the “moral high ground” was sustained only by sheer denialism, by a studied aversion of the eyes from these well-known faults. This held true even as the first signs of a new corruption became clear as one ANC leader after another quickly developed wealthy white “godfathers”. I asked Anton Harber, then editor of the Mail and Guardian, why his paper was paying so little attention to this alarming new phenomenon. He replied indignantly that having campaigned so strongly for liberation they had no wish to embarrass the new black elite. This sort of attitude was widespread. There was a rush among white opinion-makers to befriend the ANC and anyone who brought up such matters, let alone things like the use of torture in the MK camps, was thought to be churlish, perhaps even pro-apartheid.

The new ANC elite could not have hoped for such luck: a key newspaper deciding that news of budding corruption should be treated as non-news. They were not slow to take advantage. Even before 1994 Joe Modise, the putative defence minister, had made contact with various large arms manufacturers, had established contact with many old apartheid security apparatchiks and was a frequent attender at European air shows and the like: everything was ready to go.

This follows a pattern we see worldwide throughout history, which is that diversity is not a friend, but a challenge that no society has successfully navigated. Thomas Sowell lays out the basic problem with diversity:

If there is any place in the Guinness Book of World Records for words repeated the most often, over the most years, without one speck of evidence, “diversity” should be a prime candidate.

Is diversity our strength? Or anybody’s strength, anywhere in the world? Does Japan’s homogeneous population cause the Japanese to suffer? Have the Balkans been blessed by their heterogeneity — or does the very word “Balkanization” remind us of centuries of strife, bloodshed and unspeakable atrocities, extending into our own times?

Has Europe become a safer place after importing vast numbers of people from the Middle East, with cultures hostile to the fundamental values of Western civilization?

To which Ann Coulter adds the unpopular truth that diversity causes permanent political division that endangers societies:

Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the “beautiful mosaic” — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”

On top of that, research data shows that diversity destroys social order and therefore is a dysfunctional form of civilization that will eradicate the host population. By contrast, homogeneity provides a firm basis for civilization, as a landmark study that demonstrates the superiority of ethnocentric civilizations in holding back both groupthink and selfishness:

Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.

For now, people are vested in the system — it pays their wages, provides their security, and threatens to destroy them if they say something that is not politically correct — and so they feel clever for partaking in it and believing that it functions. They like the thought that they are represented by something, that they have freedom, and that no matter what they do, society cannot eject them or judge them as lower because they have equality. In order to have these, they select utilitarianism, or the idea that whatever most people think is “good” actually is good, and in order to have a society where most people disagree on most things, they adopt pluralism or the idea that we can “agree to disagree” and still have some semblance of functional order. From that, the step to diversity is not a long one, and it brings the eternal crisis of egalitarianism (equality): if you have a group of people who are fundamentally different in ability, the only way to make them all the same — how our brains interpret the word “equality” — is to take from those at the top, and give to those at the bottom, which means that the worst slowly consume the best, in a metaphorical relationship similar to that of biological parasites in nature. This happens without diversity, but diversity accelerates it, and soon we get the white=bad/non-white=good narrative that we saw in the early news stories about the Hurricane Harvey floods in Houston.

Even more, during a natural disaster, we see the need for civilization, which is not a generic thing but comes in different types, of which first world, third world, totalitarian, democratic, and nationalistic are potentially overlapping descriptors. All nice things end when you set up your civilization incorrectly; homogeneity is a pre-requisite for having a nice civilization. You cannot shape people into being like you with laws and incentives; to have nice places, you must have nice people, which means people like you on a biological level, as expressed both in genetics and outward appearance (phenotype). Even more, you need a leadership system that ensures that instead of having the worst slowly consume the best, you both empower the best to rule, and remove incentives for the best to victimize the rest, which requires vesting most of the wealth — usually through land, without insane property taxes — with the best. Without people of genius for leadership curating civilization at every step and every level, idiocy intervenes, and idiocy is subversive because it appeals to the broadest number of people since anything less idiotic is incomprehensible and offensive to them, so they will demand that those higher ideas go away and are replaced by idiotic ones. We have nothing now but pro-idiot policies.

The mayor of Houston is a man named Sylvester Turner who has a glowing résumé. He is not of the majority, so experience has taught me that this means that his experience and deeds have been vastly inflated by well-meaning but self-hating which means neurotic members of the majority group. He works for those who vote for him, which in a city that is three-quarters minority, means that he works against the interests of the white people and in favor of the Left-leaning, benefits-inclined minorities. Before him came Annise Parker, who was also an outsider, being a lesbian. She, too, worked for her tribe at the expense of the founders of this city, who were Western Europeans. She achieved the minority vote because she was not of the majority. Before her was Bill White, a member of the majority who was popular with the business community and progressives for his mixture of libertarian business policy and Leftist social policy. Previous to him was Lee Brown, also not of the majority ethnic group, who was universally recognized as lazy and incompetent but made Houston look “progressive” at a time when it was trying to expand. Before him was Bob Lanier, an old-school Democrat who was cozy with industry. He was of the majority group and should have known better, but apparently wanted power more than he wanted to be right, and the citizens of this city voted enthusiastically for them because he promised to make it grow by bringing in lots of outside people and industry. All of these people had a chance to make this flood problem go away, perhaps only for $400 million — a tiny fraction of the damage done by Harvey — and blew it off, because the coalition of minority voters and voracious industry did not want to spend the money on anything but benefits and new roads to the suburbs they were perpetually building around the city, many of which became homes for those minority voters. These people were mostly white, but under the non-white mayor Brown, the time was right because of Tropical Storm Allison, which flooded the city to the point that it was clear that something needed to be done. None acted.

Houston is a blue city. Most of the whites are faced with a grim choice: admit they are living in a third world nightmare with a pile of white wealth on top, or rationalize the problem, which means finding a way to argue to their own minds that bad=good, which they do through enthusiastic support of diversity, high taxes, immigration, gay rights and a slough of other Leftist issues that make people feel that nice warm sense of one-ness that comes with a buzzing hive mind. Rationalizers follow the mental policy that inevitable disaster can be postponed for long enough to forget about it, and that in the meantime, it is best to explain away the bad as good and tilt at windmills that are unrelated to actual problems. Most of us are familiar with the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

They came for the Communists, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn’t
object – For I wasn’t a Jew;
Then they came for me –
And there was no one left to object.

Rationalization means recognizing that there is an incoming and ongoing problem and choosing to re-style it as a victory. Obviously Niemöller had some issues, because removal of labor leaders, Socialists and Communists is never a bad thing, but the point he makes is a good one. Rationalization is a sickness of the mind. It takes many forms, some of them on the right. “Work hard, pray hard” and the Benedict Option are one form; another is anti-Semitism, which blames Jews for the problems created by Aryans through caste revolt, in which our r-strategy serfs overwhelmed our K-strategy aristocrats with the help of the mercantile bourgeois middle class. The so-called “Jewish Question” or JQ is a form of rationalization that avoids the real issue — civilization decline brought on by egalitarian sentiments, and a resulting lack of hierarchy and social order — while pursuing a symbolic issue, namely the scapegoat of the Jews, who for whatever wrongs they have done, did not create our decline, because we did it ourselves. The JQ is “we wuz kangs” for white people, or an explanation of how we were once great until someone else stole it from us, and an easy answer in that if we destroy that other, then the good times can resume. Leftism is another rationalization; instead of admitting that people are unequal and we want the best on top, Leftism says that it is positive that ineptitude and chaos rule because otherwise, we would have to face the morally and emotionally difficult task of recognizing hierarchy and the need for purpose. Leftism is just like the JQ: a pathology of blaming someone else for our cognitive incompetence.

Turner is obviously a bad guy here, in his participation in encouraging the reservoir release that created the flood, but he is not the source. Neither are the poor Jewish people who got flooded out in Meyerland. Democracy and diversity did this to you, and they happened because you voted for them, tolerated them and were afraid to speak up while you still had a chance. Now that Leftism has momentum, it is squashing all dissent aggressively, and so the only response is to confront it head-on as Trump and Brexit voters have done, but we must go further. The problem with democracy is that it cultivates helplessness and neurosis in us, much as socialism does, and so it must be removed; the problem of diversity is easily removed by sacking our Civil Rights laws and affirmative action, then beginning the reparations-with-repatriation process for all who are not of our founding group, who are Western Europeans. This means that Irish-Americans go back as well as Mexicans, Africans, Asians and Arabs. Modernity is the era defined by equality and individualism, and we now see that its end result is that all nice things get destroyed and are in turn replaced by third-world ruins.

It is hard — intellectually, morally, and emotionally — to face these truths. The sociable thing to do in any situation is to insist that everyone is good, we are all one, and all are welcome. People perennially desire to give in to this pathology, which like pacifism is a desire to avoid conflict by sacrificing what is accurate, good and right. It must be opposed, if you want a functional civilization, without regard to level of detail. Any egalitarianism is toxic; not one drop can be permitted. Any pluralism is toxic; not one drop can be allowed. Any democracy is toxic; not one drop can be sustained. All of those little drops come together to make a trickle, and that wears down the levee, and then they multiply, and soon those drops are a flood, submerging everything good while the bad feasts on the remains.

Pathological Sanity

Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy’s Triumph: Idiocracy

Friday, September 1st, 2017

Why is it that, thousands of years after the collapse of the two most promising human societies, ancient Greece and Rome, the civilizations that have taken their place are essentially third-world ruins? These are populated with racially-mixed people who have moments of insight, but seem to achieve very little that requires long-term concentration.

The answer is that the people in these civilizations went insane, chasing the illusion of a universal truth, and in the process, because they were seeking equality, eliminated themselves genetically. Universalism creates an illusion that demands sacrifice of all functional things for the new god of equality, and this god is only happy when he leaves behind a mediocre, confused audience.

Universalism centers on the idea that all people are “equal,” or that, with the right external influences, we can make an idiot into a genius and a criminal into a noble. Comical, when you think about it, but it makes the majority of people feel good, and so it wins out wherever there are elections and popularity contests.

As it takes over, however, it suspends the need to demonstrate utility; after all, people are accepted whether they are retarded or genius. This makes it advantageous to be stupid, because one does not need to spend any effort in doing that. The intelligent, who are marginalized by their smaller numbers, are then tasked with babysitting the rest and somehow convincing them to do the right thing.

Obviously, this fails, and over the time the herd runs away with the narrative as usual. They gain the upper hand and demonize any of the ideas that intelligent people tend to have, which means that only stupidity wins. If you wonder why formerly great empires consist mostly of idiotic mixed-race opportunists and a small number of intelligent life drop-outs, this is what you are seeing: entropy consumes a population by steadily eroding the value of intelligence.

For example, look at Italy. In theory it has a high average IQ, around 107. The usual Italian one encounters however is not all that bright. What this means is that all of the intelligence was concentrated in relatively few people, and these are not the people one sees on the street. Maybe they are professionals, or hiding in small towns. But they are avoiding public life, because there, they cannot win.

The entire West is heading to an Italy-like duopoly. There will be a few really smart people, mainly because they have been refined by business, academia and having to live by their wits in a society where most people exist in a dysfunctional neurotic delirium. Everyone else will be dumb as rocks, essentially identical to our hominid ancestors but with cell phones.

We can see the first stages of this process through the drop in average IQ across the world:

“We tested the hypothesis that the Victorians were cleverer than modern populations using high-quality instruments, namely measures of simple visual reaction time in a meta-analytic study,” the researchers wrote in the study, which was published online in the journal Intelligence on Thursday. “Simple reaction time measures correlate substantially with measures of general intelligence and are considered elementary measures of cognition.”

…As UPI notes, previous research studies have found that women of higher intelligence tend to have fewer children on average, meaning that population growth may be driven by those with a lower IQ. And over time, the abundance of less intelligent offspring would affect the overall IQ average.

On average, the general intelligence of those populations measured dropped by 1.23 points per decade.

“These findings strongly indicate that with respect to general intelligence the Victorians were substantially cleverer than modern Western populations,” the study says.

So despite the “Flynn effect,” which was an 0.3 point increase per decade in average IQ that has reversed itself over the last decade, our intelligence is in freefall owing to dysgenic factors, the most interesting of which are education and careers. Smarter people spend more time in education, then invest another decade in their careers, leaving them to have fewer children on average, while those who take society less seriously keep on breeding and lower the average IQ.

This provides a sense of the futility of life in the modern West and why the population is committing suicide through dysgenics. To be intelligent is to be saddled with the obligation to take care of the rest of the herd of idiot monkeys, knowing that they cannot and will not care for themselves, so “someone” had better step up and be the “bigger man” and make everything work. That means that among the intelligent, there is fierce competition for jobs and simultaneously, zero support network because in an egalitarian society, there is no pity for someone from an affluent or high-IQ background. As a result, they work themselves to death, have trouble finding mates, have few children when they do, screw up those children with divorce or by trying to control them like their idiot monkey employees, and then only at age 65 do they have a “waking up” moment where they realize that they wasted their entire life on some stupid job, at which point they become miserable and a high percentage of them commit suicide.

The West is not dying because “the wealthy” are destroying it; it is dying because we are destroying “the wealthy,” which means the upper half of middle class people who are cleverer than most, usually of 125 IQ points or above.

And as a result, we have created an Idiocracy where the thoughtless freeload on the leadership of the thoughtful, and because we are all cordycepted by egalitarian ideals, the latter feel obligated to support the former. As a result, they face two cognitive options: first, admit that this is all a failure and that they want a way out, but cannot see one, or second, accept that this situation is failing and rationalize it as either consistent with history or necessary, at which point they feel better about themselves, which is the equivalent of being sure to run hot bath water before you get in the tub and slit your wrists, as that way you will not feel the spine-chilling cold as your vitality drains away.

Across all of the West, as we have gone into a society which is hostile to intelligent people, average IQ rose but now is dropping as intelligent people check out of society and fail to breed, or take it seriously and fail to breed much or well because they are too busy focused on careers and personal drama.

In Denmark, the most rapid rises in IQ, of about 3 points per decade, occurred from the 1950s to the 1980s. Scores peaked in 1998 and have actually declined by 1.5 points since then. Something similar seems to be happening in a few other developed countries, too, including the UK and Australia.

Equality made all of us nothing without our jobs, stuff and social status, which is the opposite of actual social rank because it is based on who is presumed to be “important” for economic reasons. That makes us manic for work, and oblivious to everything else, which then means those areas — family, soul, intellect, body, sanity — atrophy, resulting in people who are fundamentally unstable and not reproducing, a condition which afflicts the most sensitive (in the sense of sensitive instrument more than precious snowflake) people the worst, effecting killing off the next future generation of smarter people.

Naturally, some are going to have trouble with the concept of intelligence as relates to IQ testing itself. New Scientist is a perfect example after pasting this bumble into an article:

Poor performance by immigrants on IQ tests had nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with poverty. Malnutrition, poor health and lack of education all depress IQ. As social conditions have improved, IQ scores have shot up in country after country, in what is called the Flynn effect. In the US, they rose by 3 points per decade between 1932 and 1978.

…In some countries, the long rise in IQ scores has come to a halt, and there are even signs of a decline. The reason, according to a few researchers, is that improving social conditions have obscured an underlying decline in our genetic potential. Perhaps we are evolving to be stupid after all.

Their argument inverts itself. If IQ scores can rise but do not rise to the same level, then IQ scores have everything to do with ethnicity. However, these scores can be damaged by malnutrition and general uncertainty regarding tests. When scores go up, and then that effect stalls, it means that IQ was not increased, but there was a momentary advantage because of nutrition or other conditions, but now, that effect is decreasing which means that the overall pressure is downward. This suggests that world average IQ is falling.

Looking at another source, we can see a nuanced pattern:

IQ is rising in some countries, mainly those where nutrition was most depressed, and so those losses are being recaptured; at the same time, it is falling in the West, where there was not as wide a gap between average nutrition and ideal nutrition. It is also falling worldwide, which shows us the Italian pattern: after civilization falls, the average person becomes dumber, and a few smart people cluster at the other end of the scale, raising the average IQ but powerless (apparently) to fix their fallen civilization.

We fear the coming of idiocracy because it means that we will be powerless in such a way. We are dependent on civilization, but that means that it exerts power over us and determines whether the results of our actions will be appreciated or ignored. If we lose control of it, the rise of the dumb means oppression of the smart.

This is one of the reasons why the IQ debate becomes so threatening to modern people. It shows that our future is doom, and that we did it to ourselves by following illusions instead of looking at the hard reality that intelligence is unequal:

The functional importance of general mental ability in everyday life, however, means that without onerous restrictions on individual liberty, differences in mental competence are likely to result in social inequality. This gulf between equal opportunity and equal outcomes is perhaps what pains Americans most about the subject of intelligence. The public intuitively knows what is at stake: when asked to rank personal qualities in order of desirability, people put intelligence second only to good health.

Let’s translate that:

  1. Unless you live in a Communist state, smart people are going to naturally dominate the others.
  2. This means that even with equality and meritocracy laws, we will not have equality of outcomes.
  3. The intelligent will always be healthier, happier and more successful than others.

As parents tell small children, “Life isn’t fair.”

Personally, I would have preferred to have been born movie star handsome with a John Holmes style organ. It would have been great to have flawless vision and teeth, be good at sports, and maybe even naturally smooth with the ladies, instead of just blurting out Lord of the Rings references.

But, nothing is equal, because equality is entropy. If you created a society where everyone had the same IQ and abilities, no choice would be meaningful, and there would be no successes because nothing would change. Eventually, people would like prisoners in solitary confinement just stop trying and go catatonic.

Denial of reality and the mathematical and logical need for inequality has reduced us to this state. This seems to be how all great civilizations destroy themselves: once they are established, people take them for granted, and then those who are not successful demand that success itself be abolished, so that everyone can feel important.

At that point, the entire gig goes insane. Any amount of focus on “equality” is a denial of reality, and it becomes a powerful mental virus which quickly takes over and crowds out everything else. People cannot stop themselves from pursuing it because it makes them feel good to think that competition is over, everyone is important and therefore, they as individuals do not have to struggle for social rank, a process in which “being wrong” in even a small incident can cost them greatly.

Paradoxically, the solution to this is to lessen social competition by assigning people both vertical and horizontal rank. Vertical rank is caste, generally divided by layers reflecting the intersection of intelligence, moral character and creativity. Horizontal rank is localization, so that someone can be the blacksmith for his small town and be proud of that association.

Since we are natural lottery players, the human simians opted for the chance that an individual could rise above his station in the natural order and hierarchy of humans, and in so doing, have made all of our society into a struggle and obligation to demonstrate that rising above. This does not work for most people because, even if they rise in rank, their abilities remain unchanged, and so they make a mess of whatever is assigned to them, and their self-esteem can only survive by going into denial.

Two Visions of Equality

Thursday, August 24th, 2017

Terms like “equality” present a problem because their definition seems plain, but never having been clarified, quickly reverts to the mean in the hands of those who wish to exploit it.

To the average productive and independent American or European, “equality” means that everyone gets treated the same way. But since we are not equal in nature, it implies to those who are less productive and independent that those who are on the lower end of the curve will be subsidized and given separate privileges to make up for their “inequality,” which is assumed to be imposed upon them by oppressors.

Consider the quandary of the homosexual establishment which refuses to admit heterosexuals, which is inequality to the first group and equality to the second:

This was my go-to gay bar’s backroom until two months ago, when a straight woman wandered back there, got touched, and threatened to call the cops. Here’s a lesson: When you walk into a backroom, you waive a degree of consent. Gay men go back there to get groped. If someone starts feeling you and you’re not interested, gently push his hand away. If you feel the need to do this a lot, you shouldn’t be back there. Guys who don’t like anonymous sex stay on the dance floor or by the bar. No judgment, no shame.

The hallmarks of our culture don’t seem to matter when you, heteros, feel threatened by them — you who can go anywhere and find bars, films, restaurants, billboards, and a million stupid Top 40 hits catering exclusively to your relationships, not ours. Fearing a police raid (something we gay men are rather familiar with), the owners of my home base recently installed painfully bright lights, took down the curtains, and turned our backroom into a well-lit smoking lounge.

Every group has its own identity, standards and need for control of its destiny. This includes spaces where others do not belong, but on the flip side, means there are spaces for other groups where that group does not belong.

We can have it one way or the other, but not both: either gays have bars where only they belong and heterosexuals have places where gays do not belong, or everyone can go everywhere, and gays lose their exclusive spaces and thus, a large part of their identity.

As a minority of the population whose sexual practices repulse the other 98%, homosexuals are clearly an underdog. But giving them exclusive privileges does not feel right to the majority who then sense that they are excluded, and find this to be unfair. After all, some of that majority — like women — are underdogs too.

If we accept that equality means inequality, then we can either discriminate against the majority by creating spaces where they cannot go, or we can try for what the majority thinks equality means, which is either no exclusions or mutual exclusions. That means spaces for gays, but not straights; blacks, but not whites; Jews, but not Christians — and on the flip side, spaces for whites, but not blacks; straights, but not gays; Christians, but not Jews.

The only sensible vision of all of this is to realize that each group needs its own spaces and that this cannot be regulated by some law designed to be fair to everyone. With that comes the beginning of wisdom: groups naturally seek to separate so that they can maintain their identity and do the things they need to do, which will be disgusting or incomprehensible to others.

With that statement, however, we have buried the idea of “equality.” There are no longer equals, only separated groups. This then offends both groups of equality fans because on one hand, no one gets to go everywhere, and on the other, there is no subsidy for the underdog. But since equality has failed, we have nowhere else to go.

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.

Recommended Reading