Like most good slang, the political term “cuck” exploded into public consciousness because it is highly descriptive. It articulates the thought process behind those who, whatever party they are from, simply give in to the decay of our society without at least putting up a fight. They then get “Stockholm Syndrome” and start acting like sociopaths.
In the oldest human tradition, cucks project. They do not see themselves as a negative force. Instead, they convince their brains that they are enlightened, doing the right thing, rising above the rest and bringing a new era of prosperity to the West. They recite these things like a mantra because they are dependent on that illusion, as otherwise they must see that they are simply rationalizing decay.
Cucks join an old human tendency in this way which is to indulge in the solipsistic fallacy. This mental state suggests to those in its grip that the world is unchanging, and that only the decisions of the individual matter, as if they were made in a perpetual present tense where time did not pass and actions did not have consequences.
This mentality manifests in the classic bourgeois view that the individual should not interfere with the world as it is, but merely concentrate on improving his own position of wealth and social status. That corresponds to a frequent utterance, “everything will be fine,” which encourages that individual to ignore the world around him.
Analyzed as a political viewpoint, this outlook on the world encourages a kind of competitive apathy whereby the individual seeks to take as much as possible from the civilization while investing as little as possible. Technically, it makes sense, so long as the concern is limited to an individual lifetime and that person denies any investment in offspring and their descendants.
Through this mode of thought, the individual is convinced to adopt opinions that produce short-term social benefit at the expense of coherence about long-term concerns. If all of the popular people are insisting that the sky is green, the winning strategy in the short term is to say that the sky is green; a few may try a long-term strategy of being iconoclastic, but that is a long shot.
For this reason, people congregate into herds and gather around illusions. The illusions make other people feel better, so they become mandatory opinion; then, the group stands around confirming those illusions to one another. Anyone who says differently is a threat, and so the group punishes this person.
In societies based purely on competition, which is the case in all egalitarian societies, lies therefore predominate over truth. Individuals are acting in self-interest and, through a cultural variety of the “tragedy of the commons,” they adopt nonsensical views in order to win at the game of being social.
When people in the modern West blame a variety of scapegoats for our problems, they are indulging in the fallacy that they are not responsible for their actions. In reality, social forces and a lack of hierarchy empower this default tendency of individuals, which is why equality is the handmaiden of the death of empires.
As the Alt Right grows, it faces a crisis: its more mainstream components have had their victory with the rise of Donald Trump, but its core — which desires greater social change away from the Leftist stream of Western nations over the last century — finds itself at a loss for how to push the window further.
After all, the Alt Right is half advocacy for traditional civilization and half provocative trolling that turns the shock of an effete Establishment into a weapon again them. Just as Christian parents freaked out over rock ‘n roll in the 1960s, gutmensch bourgeois parents find themselves in panic mode over the memes and rhetoric of a raging right-wing resurgence.
This gives the Alt Right momentum, but like a car going too fast in the night, its speed means that its headlights do not see far ahead and so it is flying blind. This creates a vacuum of direction, and so the strongest and clearest voices win out. On one end, these are the Alt Lite and near Alt Lite types who popularize simple ideas and miss the big point, and on the other, it is the fanatics from the white nationalist world who hope to dominate the Alt Right with their oversimplified and ultimately not radical enough message.
In this way, the Alt Right finds itself in the same unenviable position as Twitter. It can either reach out to the wider audience out there who are less active and less responsive to dogma, or it can deepen its appeal to its captive audience who tend to be fanatical but ineffectual. Twitter panders to SJWs, and many on the Alt Right pander to the True Believers who will be its doom.
To reach a wider audience, the Alt Right must be practical. It cannot merely appeal to our widespread loathing of modern society and what the fallen Western Civilization has become, but offer an option that is not merely negative, that is, not merely directed against symptoms of the present. We have to target the heart of what is wrong, and come up with a replacement that involves a growth direction, such as happens when people find purpose and discover joy in pursuing it.
Some micro-movements have done this. Hipsters are moving to farms and learning self-sufficiency. Tech nerds are forming communities to build next-generation solar and robotics. Futurists have transhumanism and the singularity to aspire to. Libertarians are working toward free states. These will all fail because they are not complete replacements, and become fetishistic over time.
We want to reach the normal people who want both a good normal life and a chance to remake this civilization. They are in favor of what we say, but do not want to give up the chance to live. This is natural and good; as in lifeguarding, one must save oneself first and then deal with whatever disaster is raging in the surrounding environs.
These normal people are fed up with the utter failure of modernity but will not “jump ship” to a vessel steered by fanatics. They are looking for something responsible, realistic and reasonable to which we can transition without destroying families, careers, lives and hopes.
In contrast to regular political movements, the Alt Right has thrived by being an ecosystem instead of a group of people who each do the exact same thing; it has thinkers, agitators, artists and trolls. It is ultimately a cultural movement. The trolls serve an important role: by saying outrageous stuff, they widen the window of what is acceptable by stretching what most people consider as “normal.”
That sort of dialogue shifts the “Overton window” to include ideas that have deliberately been edited from history by the Leftist Establishment. However, the trolling is a means-to-an-end, and not an end in itself. It can help convey a message, and clear aside the critics, but it cannot be the whole of the message.
For the Alt Right, as everyone else who wants to escape modernity, the dividing line proves to be the democracy question. Those who believe in equality are on one side, and everyone else on the other. This means that the “other” side is at a disadvantage, since they are unified by what they do not believe in and not what they do.
It has become clear to most at this point that those who favor equality are either the enemy or a tool of the enemy. Equality penalizes the competent in order to subsidize the less-competent, and by doing so, it inverts the society and gears it toward the negative and finite instead of future positives of infinite potential.
The future of the Alt Right then belongs to those who are against equality even if this is a cultural and not political opinion. It will be guided by those who want escape from modernity, instead of some option to “fix” modern society. Our current path is a winding road to death, and anything we can choose that goes another way is better than sitting around waiting for the crash.
Feminism disguises its origins, but its essence arises from egalitarianism, this time applied to the sexes. Much as the classes were once democratized, now the sexes are as well, which means that women must be “equal” to men; this democratizing process only occurs through one method, which is reducing standards so all can participate and taking from the productive to give to the non-productive.
It is therefore not surprising or shocking that feminism, which argues for equality, does so by advocating a force inequality by which those who naturally succeed are penalized in order to subsidize those who naturally succeed less. In the process of advocating this, it becomes a movement against men, which then turns women into replacements for men, destroying all hope of equitable relations between the sexes.
This sense that freedom is the ability to do whatever I want, whenever I want, and that the earlier I can experience this total freedom, the better. But we know that freedom is the ability to do what you ought to do, to do the good, to choose the good. – Colleen Carroll Campbell
…It always baffled me how I was told that men were supposed to be the oppressors, their traits and qualities were undesirable and they were what was wrong with society, but in order to exercise our equality correctly, I was supposed to act the same way and do the same the things I was supposed to hate about them. I was supposed to be strong (read: obstinate), independent (I was told no woman should need a man), and taught that men were always wrong, women were always right, and I should never apologize to one for anything.
I was supposed to believe what we (women) wanted was equality, but I never believed it.
Feminism, not the patriarchy, was what tried to steal my choices and my femininity.
When equality — not harmony, or like an ecosystem, a balance between unequal but vital parts — becomes the goal, it turns women into men and men into women as a means of evening out those inequalities. This in turn redirects the question of what actions are desirable from doing what is good, to acting toward equality, which is a proxy for the good.
This sabotages women’s hope of a family without internal politics of resentment. Men and women become competing forces, and as enemies, treat each other poorly, which means that they have trouble staying married. This in turn deprives both men and women for what constitutes the best option for life, an enduring love, marriage and family.
A recent study from the Marriage Foundation in England found that couples with newborns who were unhappy in their marriage but who stayed together were actually likely to be happy a few years later.
The authors write that of the unhappiest parents — “those scoring 1 or 2 on a 7-point scale — only 7 percent of these said they were still unhappy 10 years later, regardless of whether they stayed together or split up. Two thirds said they were happy or very happy, scoring 6 or 7.”
Inability to work past trivial problems suggests a lack of trust caused by the polarization of the sexes brought about by feminism and sexual liberation. When there is no expectation of harmony, since it has been replaced by the ideology of equality, people no longer look toward good end results, only an intermediate state of perpetual symbolic correctness via the idea of being equals.
Equality as a concept seizes human minds and makes them unable to function because it is an appealing sense of power. In this quest for power, every person becomes opposed to every other person, and works to shatter them and their needs. As the West reels from low reproduction rates, high divorce and other social problems, we have only this equality mind virus to blame.
Out there in mainstreamland, confusion arises as to what the Alt Right “is.” That verb becomes deceptive because a cultural movement is composed of one thing, and headed toward another. The Alt Right is an aspirational movement but not on an individualistic basis; it is people of this time who desire an entirely different time, one opposed to the illusions we hold sacred now.
In conventional politics, this makes no sense, mostly because the Alt Right opposes politics. A civilization is free of politics until its chain of command becomes broken and internal fighting over power and wealth takes over. At that point, whoever wins the crowd, wins the prize… and so politics becomes a fact of life, infesting even interpersonal relationships far removed from power.
Complicating things, the Alt Right does not state conventional goals because it is ruled by principles, not tangible goals. We want health and sanity, which is what everyone should want as part of that whole adaptation to your environment thing. Those who would deceive you will convince you to target an intermediate instead, like “freedom” or “socialized healthcare,” but that is not the goal itself. It is more of a symbol than an end result.
Even more confusingly, the Alt Right is fundamentally esoteric, which means that it realizes the innate inequality of people in ability and in level of learning. We are not like organized religion or political groups, where a few symbols are written down in such a simplified form that anyone can get enough meaning to participate, essentially erasing any deeper meaning and creating a surface-level understanding that displaces all others because it is simpler and thus more popular.
Let us go back to the simplest of ideas: the Alt Right is a conservative (Right) movement that says what others cannot (Alternative). It recognizes that conventional politics have failed to address the actual issues of consequence and so are a threat to the survival of our society.
That in turn provokes more digging, like a police investigator, to get to the root of this situation. Most track it back to the 1960s, some to the 1940s, even better to the 1920s… but then we see the French Revolution, the Magna Carta, the politics that divided the European monarchy even a thousand years ago. Then we read Plato writing about a golden age thousands of years before him, where society was motivated by an aspirational impetus that was not on an individualistic basis, either.
And so we realize: the collapse of Western Civilization, the strongest human civilization that we know of, has been ongoing for thousands of years. Every year is a little bit worse, but it adds up to a big kaboom at some point, and that kaboom is going to happen in our lifetimes. Either a new civilization is ready to spring up from the ashes, or the kaboom leaves behind only a third-world ruin where beige people speak a simplified version of a once-great language, languish in poverty among crumbling monuments, and otherwise serve as an epitaph and not a continuation for that society.
The Right recognizes a general truth: the problem we face is ourselves, in that without discipline and guidance, we revert to our unruly Simian origins. “Talking monkeys with car keys,” as Kam Lee says. The Right has always stood for Realism; the Left has always championed individualism, or life measured by the human individual. With The Enlightenment,™ the Left won in the West, but it took another few centuries for that to manifest in the Left’s final form, which is a soft totalitarian state — enforced by economics and social norms instead of guns — where non-Leftist opinion is viewed as witchcraft.
On the Right, we realize that “progress” is always an illusion. History is cyclic, meaning that there is a state of harmony and a series of states of increasing disharmony until order is restored. For humans in the West, there is one type of civilization that works and everything else is an ersatz and inferior substitute. The problem is that these failing civilizations go to war against the core of what we are: our People.
We might refer to bad civilization structural designs as “inverse Darwinism,” meaning that instead of encouraging adaptation to our environment, they discourage it entirely by replacing it with illusions which are necessary to climb the socioeconomic ladder. Human society rewards what is against nature and logic through the mechanism of social popularity, which is achieved through ironic and untrue statements that actively defy common sense, such as pacifism, equality, diversity and so on. But these encourage people to believe that what they feel and visualize in their heads alone is more true than reality, and so comfort them, and whoever tells these handy pleasant illusions — a.k.a. “lies” — gets ahead, while those who focus on understanding reality fail.
Through this, society acts like a cheese grater against its own people, shaving off the good and throwing them away while keeping those that are compliant, simplistic, solipsistic and ethically neutral.
Alt Right participants tend to have some views that disturb the person raised in this Leftist, consumerist society. They acknowledge the differences between peoples, groups, sexes, castes and individuals through the study of human differences known as “human biodiversity” (HBD). They realize that inequality of ability obliterates the question of equality of opportunity or outcome. They realize socialist economics fail, but that capitalism needs to be controlled by some kind of hierarchy or it, too, becomes a mechanism of mob rule, just as democracy does.
And yes, they acknowledge race. To concern oneself with civilization and its future means to consider issues like race. We can see that throughout history, healthy societies have been racially homogeneous, where dying societies tend to be racially heterogeneous, and as the degree of the latter increases the society draws closer to senescence. This means that we disdain diversity, or the multi-racial state, and encourage homogeneity for all societies, regardless of who their founding group is. Diversity is death, nationalism is at least a chance for life.
The core of the Alt Right can then be summarized this way: Restore Western Civilization. This once-great promise for all of humanity has been aging and crumbling for centuries or longer as it has deviated from the moral (aspirational non-individualistic) and structural (the four pillars) habits of successful Western civilizations. We cannot avoid this issue and there is only one path to victory. Either that, or we fade away, which is both boring and ugly, and we reject that.
While I almost had to admire the puerile dedication of the “ladies” who held the walking temper tantrum known as The Women’s March the day after President Donald J. Trump’s inauguration, anyone with a native intellect greater than that of a rotifer would have to question not only their maturity but their perspicacity as well. However, amongst the improbable roar of the vaginas there are one or two arguments worthy of dismantling. It serves to examine the argument that keeps getting shouted about equal pay.
The lynchpin assumption is that women are doing equal work. We have female firefighters, and therefore they should receive every dime a male one receives. Fair, after all, is fair! Oh wait….
She could get two plates and a quarter on a squat rack. Not bad for a dedicated CPA. You can see how this would effect her ability to hold up in the sort horrible situation firefighters are paid to charge into like a rhinoceros. Put about 80 pounds of gear on her, and she could barely drag the standard adult male out of a house fire.
So what happens in reality? She never goes into the impromptu Bessemer Furnace of a burning chemical factory. She couldn’t carry the O2 tanks and a live hose. The men put that line on their backs, drop their helmet visors and go for broke. The 115 pound Super Female Firefighter just bitches about how sexist fire stations still are and sanctimoniously reminds us all that diversity is our strength. Pay her the same or the EEOC will be paying you a visit.
And why do male E4s get to be MOS 11B and get combat pay while females only get to be 92As and type in repair orders on an ULLS box? Life is so unfair. I missed that whole scene in the Tomb Raider video game where Lara Croft carries the M-60 on a 10km patrol through hostile jungle terrain in 98-degree high-humidity weather, after going three days on limited sleep and without a shower. I’m not sure why those icky cisgender 11Bs get that unfair pay bump. Let’s ask The Rooster.
So the men do the jobs that are risky and require massive physical exertion. Risk comes freighted with adverse consequence. According to BLS, men worked 56% of the hours in 2010 and died in 92% of the workplace fatalities. Women are 28.41 times as safe from job-related fatality as men. If you think those men getting paid premiums aren’t getting indemnified for the financial consequence of this additional risk, then go ask your local Geico Car Insurance agent why she or he isn’t handing out sales literature over at Cocaine Addicts Anonymous.
The jobs that a lot of men work are hard, demanding, physically rigorous and at times are potentially lethal. If you still don’t get why workplace hazards are a justification for men to get paid more than women, take up that topic with Gordon Lightfoot. He’ll tell you all about The Wreck of The Edmund Fitzgerald.
In social groups where relatedness among interacting individuals is low, cooperation can often only be maintained through mechanisms that repress competition among group members.
In other words, when relatedness among interacting individuals is low — this means a diverse society — it is difficult to maintain cooperation, requiring either a police state or “repress[ed] competition” a.k.a. equality.
Societies that are not diverse are comprised of individuals who have roughly the same inclinations, wants and abilities. For them to cooperate is easy, since everyone knows what the general agenda is and few are far removed from it. But with diversity, people have no internal compass wiring that tells them which direction to take. This means that people compete on the basis of challenges offered by the lowest common denominator in society — jobs, products, social events — because culture is invisible on that level, since it is interpreted through a relatively small group of people who are able to understand it. Without culture, there is only mass culture, and that is what diversity promotes, which then in turn requires equality to keep people from clobbering each other with aggressive competition.
This study produced two other solid conclusions and one that seems a misinterpretation:
This comparison revealed full support for all three predictions of evolutionary policing theory.
First, when controlling for policing efforts, crime rate correlated negatively with the similarity among citizens. This is in line with the prediction that high similarity results in higher levels of cooperative self-restraint (i.e. lower crime rates) because it aligns the interests of individuals.
Second, policing effort correlated negatively with the similarity among citizens, supporting the prediction that more policing is required to enforce cooperation in low-similarity societies, where individuals’ interests diverge most.
High similarity results in higher cooperative self-restraint; low similarity results in lower cooperative self-restraint, symbolized by crime but extending to all other areas of society. In other words, diversity is chaos, and nationalism is order. This much makes sense by the use of logical facts such as that cooperation requires a high amount of internal communication if it is not innate because of the similarity in focus, ability and purpose of those involved.
However, the third point offers some confusion:
Third, increased policing efforts were associated with reductions in crime rates, indicating that policing indeed enforces cooperation.
Science often draws overbroad conclusions. Policing may simply remove those with enough sensitivity or intelligence to react to the situation around them, leaving only the oblivious, which represents a loss of shared culture instead of an enhancement of competition.
It’s time we recognize that the party of Reagan was already dead — and that it died along with the threat of Soviet communism.
Reaganism was…a worldview, in the truest sense of the word. Its broadest ideals were also shared by anti-communist Democrats like historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Universal human rights, limited government, open trade, free elections, multiparty democracy — it was considered in our national interest to defend these values as strongly (and prudently) as possible.
…In his 1998 book The Great Betrayal, Buchanan wrote (foreshadowing Trump) that “while the Soviet Union had paid the ultimate price of imperial overstretch, America had also paid an immense price. We had sacrificed our national interests in the cause of allied solidarity, while Western [Europe] and Japan had made no comparable contributions and had prospered mightily at our expense.”
In other words, ideology has taken a back-seat to tribal self-interest.
This is not entirely surprising, since for 98% (or so) of its history, humanity has relied on tribalism. It rarely fails: group identity excludes outsiders and deviants, and allows for an efficient method of getting people to collaborate without having to be forced to do so.
The February 10 issue of the New York Review of Books contains what I think may be the earliest sighting of the “Proposition Nation” chimera now in captivity.
It’s a reprint of the November 22, 1999 address given in Munich by Peter Gay, the historian, on accepting the Geschwister-Scholl Prize for the German translation of his book My German Question, about his childhood in Nazi Germany. Gay says:
In this view, a Bavarian peasant who could look back on generations of settled forebears was no more German than a Jew who did not know in which country his grandparents had lived.
The fascinating thing about this “ideal” is its utter lack of factual justification. The English, the French, the Italians—all have been formed by waves of migration, often Germanic, within recorded history. But the Germans have been stolidly on the Rhine since the time of Christ.
Yet the “Proposition Nation” myth took root and was apparently seriously entertained.
The “proposition nation” is the ultimate extension of the singular and fundamental idea of the Left, individualism, which holds that the individual is the largest unit in a society. Society exists to facilitate the individual in that view, and cannot exclude anyone from participation, which enables individuals to enjoy the benefits of society with assuming its burdens being an optional choice.
In the reasoning of individualists, society must accept the individual even if that person commits a “tragedy of the commons” style exploitation of collective resources or imposes externalized damage. From this comes the moral relativism of the Left, which is a tendency to adjust standards to fit what individuals are doing, instead of observing which standards produce the best results and then demanding that the little egotists conform to those for the betterment of all.
All of the rhetoric of the Left — liberty, equality and fraternity — comes from this simple idea, which is that society cannot exclude individuals merely because they violate its standards unless those violations are against other individuals (murder, rape, theft). Civilization does not have a voice, nor does the future or the past, because all that matters is the individual.
Naturally this makes it wholly accurate to refer to individualism as the philosophy of parasitism, and to recognize that it is illogical and suicidal. The happiness and health of people is mostly contingent upon having a functional civilization, and benefits cascade downward toward the individual by what this stability and facility enables them to do. Individualism sabotages that function in order to focus on the individual, and as a result leaves behind ruined societies where everyone is miserable or oblivious, because they must either notice the dysfunction and downward trend and thus be depressed, or go into denial and rationalize the decline as “progress.”
What this means is that to become Leftist is to enter a spiral: the individual is given power, the tragedy of the common happens, every public figure rationalizes this and those who do not fail to become public figures, which means that society enters a stage where all of its solutions are wrong because anything other than “more Leftism” was filtered out as an answer before the question even came up. The self-referential society confirms its own biases, validates untruth as truth through moral relativism, and makes its assumptions and precepts into its conclusion through this filtering process.
However, people still need to distinguish themselves socially, and so while the disaster spirals down, individuals are busy becoming socially popular and thus powerful — in an individualistic society — by further advancing this ideology. This means that over time they expand the franchise by seeking ways to abolish differences in status and wealth between individuals. This starts with class warfare, expands to sexual liberation and gender equality, and then embarks on the “internationalist” (now: “globalist”) project of abolishing borders, starting with tribes similar to the founding tribe of the society and then accelerating until it demands multiculturalism, or the presence of members of every ethnic group in the world within the society.
Individualism is thus a franchise that it ultimately extends even beyond the borders of the state. We call that the “proposition nation” because it is defined by law, rooted in the Leftist concept of individualism, and economics, which is based on the individual as a self-interested actor in response to existing economic conditions, in turn creating a need for constant growth to continue keeping individuals motivated. This contrasts conservative economics which aim for low-growth and therefore more stable conditions with less internal social conflict caused by social mobility.
At first, the proposition nation seems like a good idea to most citizens. It reduces the demands placed on them by culture, morality and society. It increases their personal chances of social mobility while allowing them to externalize more of their costs to the collective. Finally, it lessens the stress of competition for mates and friends by allowing the inclusion of people from less-developed societies, which makes having a friend or mate from the founding group more desirable. But it also causes brutal problems, namely the loss of culture and standards because these must now be adjusted — moral relativism again — to fit the newcomers. It also savagessocialtrust and creates alienated, rootless people made miserable by the ugly, anti-heroic and valueless utilitarian boot camp in which they live.
The Left has only one gambit for protecting the proposition nation, and that is to equate enemies of Leftism with enemies of the nation, thus appealing to the labrador retriever level patriotism that most people have as a result of wanting to belong firmly to their social group. We never ask whether Hitler was making war on America, or fighting Leftism and therefore had to also fight America because America was a Leftist state at the time. But the Left assembles its enemies for their choice of pre-individualism philosophies that endorse a social unit bigger than the individual — including race, family, nation, ethne, culture, religion — and chooses to paint them all as Hitler, the KKK, King George III and the Confederacy all rolled up into one single hateful scapegoat.
“Things are getting significantly worse,” Potok says. “We are seeing a very serious rise in right-wing populism.”
The strong upward trend began with President Barack Obama’s election in 2008, Potok says, and it has worsened because of ongoing angst among members of the white middle class, who feel alienated by a society different from the one in which they grew up.
“It’s not simply that there’s a black man in the White House,” Potok says. “It’s what he represents,” which is the fact that whites are losing the demographic majority. “When Obama was elected, most of the country was celebratory … but the next day, the servers of two very major white supremacist organizations” — Stormfront and the Council of Conservative Citizens, which inspired the Charleston church killer Dylann Roof — “crashed because they were getting so much traffic.”
This article is interesting, unique and funny because it extends enemy status to those fighting for a variety of larger-than-individual causes:
The list is a virtual rainbow of hate, showcasing ideologies denouncing blacks, whites, Jews, Muslims, and the LGBT community. The seven Bay Area groups include: the Black Hebrew Israelites and the Christian Guardians, both of San Francisco; the Black Riders Liberation Party, the Nation of Islam, As-Sabiqun, and Masjid al-Islam, all of Oakland; and IslamThreat.com, based in Pleasant Hill.
Truly the ways of Kek and Gnon are wondrous to have gifted us with the supreme comedy of the phrase “a virtual rainbow of hate.” The rich irony of this time, when a rainbow nation can project itself onto an animus composed of multicolored hatred dripping with glitter, delivers the confirmation of a death spiral: this society is so drenched in Leftism that it cannot imagine that someone else would choose another path.
That inflexibility and totalitarian aspect of our contemporary Leftist society shows us the problem with ideology. Like a mental virus, ideology takes over brains, and then weaponizes the crowd as a form of permanent agitation for ever-increasing doses of Leftism, mainly because it never makes people feel contentment, only a momentary sense of superiority.
George Orwell expresses this in his 1940 review of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler:
But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches …. The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. One feels it again when one sees his photographs-and I recommend especially the photograph at the beginning of Hurst and Blackett’s edition, which shows Hitler in his early Brownshirt days. It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can’t win, and yet that he somehow deserves to. The attraction of such a pose is of course enormous; half the films that one sees turn upon some such theme.
Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all “progressive” thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin’s militarised version of Socialism. All three of the great dictators have enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them “I offer you struggle, danger and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.
A society designed purely around material comfort makes people miserable. They long for quests, duties, aspirations and cooperative goals. This is why Hitler always appeals to us: he is the refutation of individualism, and says instead that meaning comes from the union — or intersection — between nature, civilization, race, God and self.
This is the shadow reason for the backlash which hides behind the obvious reason, which is that Leftism has failed. Not only has it failed, but it has failed to inspire. No one wants to live for the Utilitarian, yet egalitarianism/individualism — and they are the same — is the most Utilitarian mode of thought possible. Our souls are stolen by the “pragmatism” of systems dedicated to nonsense.
Worse than that, in this soul-stealing system, we are essentially subjugated by bullies who force us to believe obvious lies in order to affirm their domination over us. Witness this finely-honed lie that was until recently the official state religion, with all who deviated being ostracized and dying impoverished alone:
Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences at Washington University, has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right qualitative type of variation — it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.
Using the latest molecular biology techniques, Templeton has analyzed millions of genetic sequences found in three distinct types of human DNA and concludes that, in the scientific sense, the world is colorblind. That is, it should be.
“Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans — genetic differences,” says Templeton. “Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There’s nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity.”
“The world is colorblind,” repeats the State propaganda on the radio. In this case, it took nearly a decade to undo these lies. We found out that Templeton used too small of a threshold in understanding similarities, and too big of a target in establishing differences. In fact, all of his research is a fraud and a political statement with nothing to do with science, engineered to be propaganda not learning.
The fraud that was perpetrated upon us was designed to manipulate and control us so that the State — an entity disconnected from the organic and amorphous entity that is “a people” — could pacify differences between groups and (hopefully) increase its own wealth. That fraud, like the fraud of globalism, eventually failed. And so now people seek new things.
We also recognize that we were misdirected on race. The question is not whether science officially recognizes race, but that we recognize race: we can discern members of different groups, and we prefer our own group. No measurement can compete with that reality, especially when corrupt scientists like Alan R. Templeton are juggling the figures to portray reality as something other than what it is.
Ideology forced the illusion upon us. Ideology dictates what is correct, socially and politically, and this is by its very nature at odds with what is, namely the underlying mathematics of nature. As a result, ideology is forced to “correct” the error of nature by imposing human intent as reality, and in doing so, displacing actual reality and replacing it with a world of symbols, emotions and political judgments.
This sets up a struggle between realism and ideology, with realism winning because ideology has not only failed, but made us miserable, as one neoconservative writes about his self-engineered fall from grace and consequent rejection of the neoliberal/neoconservative “bipartisan” ideological ideal:
As my doubts grew about neoconservatism, I gave realism another chance. I had generally sympathized with values-based critiques of realism, assuming that balance-of-power diplomacy would inform “a policy of promoting ‘stability’ based on extended authoritarian decay.” I realized, however, that realism is not simply a concession to the world as it is, where religious and ethnic identities retain their stubborn holds, and where human nature resents even the most benevolent efforts to impose societal transformation.
Ideology has run us into bankruptcy. It has shattered our faith in ourselves and in our future. It has made us doubt obvious truths, and filled our heads with lies. The backlash against it is virulent because ideology misled us and destroyed so much in the name of justice, leaving behind a new world order of tedious regularity, fear and neurosis.
All of the programs and incentives put in place by the federal and state governments to induce higher levels of growth by building more infrastructure has made the city of Lafayette functionally insolvent. Lafayette has collectively made more promises than it can keep and it’s not even close. If they operated on accrual accounting — where you account for your long term liabilities — instead of a cash basis — where you don’t — they would have been bankrupt decades ago. This is a pattern we see in every city we’ve examined. It is a byproduct of the American pattern of development we adopted everywhere after World War II.
There are two questions I’m commonly asked when I tell this story. The first is: how did this happen? The second: what do we do now?
The way this happened is pretty simple. At Strong Towns, we call it the Growth Ponzi Scheme. Through a combination of federal incentives, state programs and private capital, cities were able to rapidly grow by expanding horizontally. This provided the local government with the immediate revenues that come from new growth — permit fees, utility fees, property tax increases, sales tax — and, in exchange, the city takes on the long term responsibility of servicing and maintaining all the new infrastructure. The money comes in handy in the present while the future obligation is, well…a long time in the future.
Our society has bankrupted itself in caring for the diverse populations it has adopted. If you look at the map above, you see a functional downtown and some suburbs, and then a vast area of diverse living that essentially absorbs resources. It does so because it cannot compete with the functional parts of society, being geared toward an entirely different way of life.
The entire West will collapse because of this bankruptcy; no nations can stand that owe tons of money for social programs, which generate zero productivity, while sacrificing productivity for that ideological end.
This is the end result of ideology. A few enlightened ones™ rule over a vast mass of proletariat, aided by the sleepwalking bourgeoisie, without ever having formulated a goal of civilization in itself. Instead, the goal is to capitalize on what already is, and to divide it up without producing more. It is a religion of death translated into secular form.
As the West confronts this reality, it must decide its fate: does it continue to pursue the path of the “proposition nation” and ideology, or does it embrace realism — and real biology/genetics — and accept that people are different, and we can still work together, but without the heavy Leftist overtones that require us to be equal? Only time will tell.
On the Left, where people are presumed to be universally good because they have reason and therefore are reasonable, it is presumed that civilizations die from external forces like war, climate change or disease.
To the Right, however, the more realistic scenario is that humans destroy their own civilizations by insisting on ideas that are personally flattering to them, and that this creates insane leadership and social decay, both at the hands of the thronging mob and the oblivious bourgeoisie, who ignore anything but jobs and wealth and thus work to obliterate necessary social standards.
On the Bell Curve, the two problem areas are then the far-left of lower-IQ people and the area slightly above them, where people who are smart but not intelligent enough to understand that life changes in response to our actions or failure to take action, and therefore that they cannot alter society — taking something from it — without needing to also strengthen it by maintaining social order outside commerce.
Archaeologists have long puzzled over what caused what is known as the Classic Maya collapse in the ninth century A.D., when many of the ancient civilization’s cities were abandoned. More recent investigations have revealed that the Maya also experienced an earlier collapse in the second century A.D.—now called the Preclassic collapse—that is even more poorly understood.
University of Arizona archaeologist Takeshi Inomata and his colleagues suggest in a new paper, to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that both collapses followed similar trajectories, with multiple waves of social instability, warfare and political crises leading to the rapid fall of many city centers.
…While more general chronologies might suggest that the Maya collapses occurred gradually, this new, more precise chronology indicates more complex patterns of political crises and recoveries leading up to each collapse.
The West is currently trying to decide whether it will extricate itself from a similar death spiral, sculpted from class warfare, diversity, equality, democracy and consumerism.
Human beings react to life much like a sapling being pushed back by an unwary hiker. They will bend until they are about to break and then, because they have nothing to lose, will become an equal and opposite force — but released in an instant — to what has pushed them down. The sapling will snap or snap back, and the hiker will go home bloodied.
Since The Enlightenment,™ the best minds of humanity have been spent trying to invent “hacks” — unorthodox improvisations — which will make the idea of government-by-equality work. Our first stab was democracy, but that proved unstable, so in 1789 the Americans came up with a brilliant document, the Constitution, which was designed through an extensive system of hooks and levers to limit the impulses of the herd that come with pure democracy, or “mob rule” as it is more accurately described.
People put great faith in each one of these hacks because they know, on some instinctual level, that Western Civilization is in decline and totally unstable. As a result, they are under constant stress which is (somewhat) alleviated by the illusion of stability. Since WWII, the prevailing doctrine has been what came out of the American civil war: we had to destroy democracy in order to save it, and instead must have a powerful government that enforces the “correct” ideology on all of us. That was kept in check until its competition, the Soviet Union, fell, and in the ensuing monopoly the American experiment truly went off the rails, taking Europe with it, ending up with a new USSR in the US/EU.
One of the cornerstones of this new empire is diversity, or the idea that equality extends beyond class to race, and therefore, that the correct ideology is to accept having people from many ethnic origins in the same society. Like most Leftist programs, this clashes with reality and so requires constant laws, arrests, censorship, lawsuits and ostracism lynchings in order to make it appear to work in the short-term at least.
The perceived necessity of diversity made it a type of superpower for government. Much as they once found the voters were afraid not to approve of any help destined for “the poor,” big governments now found that voters were afraid not to approve of anything that benefited diversity. And so, diversity crept into every aspect of our lives, following “civil rights” agendas where anyone who excluded a diverse person was assumed to be guilty and punished monetarily, which brought business on-line with the regime.
But in 2016, something extraordinary happened. People looked around and said, “We did everything the politicians told us to do, and even elected a black president. But this has made the diversity crisis — ‘race relations’ — worse, as if it only emboldened these diverse groups. They behave as if, in the private truths they keep to themselves, they believe they are our enemies. And in fact, it makes sense that they would want to conquer us, since that is the only way they are really going to feel victorious about having come here as hired help from failed civilizations.”
The sapling whips back.
The founding group of America — Western Europeans, also called WASPs — tend to be non-confrontational people until they are actually endangered. For them, it is easier than for most to simply work around impediments and then go on to do what they enjoy doing, which is being effective at work, play and invention. This is classic behavior of a high-IQ society.
But, now that diversity has revealed itself as exactly what all of the bad boys of history said it was — an invasion, a conquest and a genocide — American Western Europeans (AWEs) are striking back. Their first step is to put themselves in a defensive posture: buy guys, buy gold and canned goods, and get away from the problem:
It’s about how many white people have reacted to increasing exposure to nonwhite populations, who are following in their footsteps and pursuing the traditional American dream. The reaction is not always articulated or even intentional; in fact, most people say they want to live in a diverse and integrated community; they, too, have the dream that no one will be judged by the color of their skin.
But data shows that as minorities move into suburbs, white families are making small and personal decisions that add velocity to the momentum of discrimination. They are increasingly choosing to self-segregate into racially isolated communities — “hunkering down,” as Lichter likes to call it — and preserving a specific kind of dream.
…A growing number of people are worried about the country becoming majority minority, including one in three Trump supporters. And more than half of white Americans believe the country’s “way of life” needs to be protected against foreign influences.
These new white enclaves are different from the old type of white flight which saw people going to whitopias, or areas that were at least mostly white so that they could avoid the problems of diversity. The new flight is not from problems, but from diversity itself, because diversity savages trust and trust is essential for high IQ societies to function.
This is echoed by statements made by those who retreat to white enclaves:
“A country can have racism without racists.” Writing in an opinion piece for The Washington Post in 2009, Benjamin noted that racial discrimination isn’t necessarily as deliberate and intentional as it used to be. In Idaho and Georgia, for example, Benjamin found that many white people emigrate to these predominantly white communities not necessarily because they’re racist, but for “friendliness, comfort, security, safety—reasons that they implicitly associate to whiteness in itself.” But these qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race and class—thereby letting discrimination and segregation thrive “even in the absence of any person’s prejudice or ill will.”
The first inklings of changing white attitudes came during the early years of the Barack Obama presidency, when a petition to stop white genocide made the news, even in the big liberal papers:
“Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY?” he writes. “White countries are being flooded with third world non-whites, and Whites are required by law to integrate with them so as to ‘assimilate,’ i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.”
He says that this is a violation of the United Nations Convention against genocide. Thus, he is petitioning President Obama to “end White Genocide in the United States, and to call for the end of White Genocide in Europe, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.”
And Albert ends with this. “Supporting White Genocide is not anti-racist. It’s anti-white!”
This means that white people no longer think of the threat of diversity as a threat from individual groups or individuals within those groups. If they did, they would have laughed off the white genocide petition instead of reading about it eagerly. Now they recognized that the threat is diversity itself, and that they will not be allowed to have whitopias; instead, they will be milked for tax money and then eliminated.
Here is where government understands nothing of the human mind. Diversity is strictly speaking not necessary; that is, if it went away, white people would resume doing the things they once did that are now served by a minority underclass, and costs would go up, but other costs — taxes, insurance, crime, riots — would go down and so things would equalize.
The problem for politicians with policies that are not strictly necessary is that people treat them as binaries. They either support them, or want them gone entirely. The politicians, smelling money and power, managed to sell diversity for many decades. But now that it has shown us its true nature, people want it gone. They are leaving it behind and have elected Donald Trump to prevent them from being obligated to it.
If Trump really wants to go down in history as the best American president, he will find a way to abolish “civil rights” style laws like affirmative action through a bill passed in Congress or an amendment to the Constitution. This way, his work cannot be undone when we have a few really good years and the voters go back to sleep and elect the next Leftist parasite.
Trump instead is taking a difficult path, probably moving indirectly to make immigration to the United States so uncertain and expensive that few will attempt it, while squeezing the illegals by going after those who hire them, thus strengthening his government with an infusion of fines. Currently his attempt is to reinforce the “proposition nation”, but add qualifiers that amount to being obstacles for most immigrants worldwide:
Trump espoused his worldview in remarkably few words. He is a vituperative critic of the post-Cold War international system. Where the architects of that system see it as a bulwark of stability and global prosperity, Trump sees it as diminishing the United States in favor of foreign countries and an international class of wealthy political and financial elites. Washington has been serving its own interests, he said, and not the people’s. That ends now. His America will turn inward, focusing on domestic stability, education, infrastructure, and jobs. The one exception will be the fight against Islamic terrorism, where Trump is prepared to join with autocracies in pursuit of common goals.
Trump forcefully rejected identity politics. Racial and ethnic identities, he said, are less important than our status as American citizens. “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.” There are no hyphenated Americans in this worldview, only Americans and outsiders. And Americans are to be privileged over outsiders. It’s been said that American presidents are replaced by their opposites. What a contrast to Barack Obama’s second inaugural address, where he called for a “world without walls.”
As others have observed, this is dangerously close to JFK’s policy. We know Trump admires both JFK and Reagan, both of whom were moderates to a realistic person but are far-right to mob rule crazed egalitarians, but his spin on the JFK rule is to stop accepting lower-value immigrants. This defers the diversity problem, legally, but may have ripple effects by making an application for citizenship the opposite of a sure thing, encouraging would-be immigrants to look elsewhere. Watch Europe adopt similar rules in the coming months.
When asked by Jamie Weinstein, senior editor and columnist for The Daily Caller, whether a Jew could be elected mayor of Ramallah in an independent Palestinian state, Areikat said, “after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”
Areikat added that “Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future.”
The die is cast. Americans and Europeans want escape from diversity. This is not limited to opposing immigration; they want diversity to end, at least as a compulsory policy, and if the mood is consistent, as a policy at all. They want us to go back to the order before diversity, having recognized that we have been misled by feelings of guilt, but that any obligation we have to other groups lies in the past, not the future.
Mr Hague said he was not alive when the then prime minister Harold Macmillan made his famous “wind of change” speech in 1960 – acknowledging independence movements across Africa.
…”Britain in seen in a different light. We have to get out of this post-colonial guilt. Be confident in ourselves. The lessons we should take from the admitted need for austerity, saving money, is that we actually need to be more ambitious, not less.”
The UK, he suggested, should “just relax” about its role as an imperial power and the legacy of that period in its history, adding that “it is a long time ago, the retreat from empire”.
If history is any guide, the pendulum of Hegel has swung one way and then the other, and has settled in the middle. We tried colonialism, then we tried inverse colonialism by inviting everyone here, and neither contributed to our well-being, so it is time to try something new and yet time-proven, namely nationalism, the idea that each nation consists of one ethnic group only and that it belongs to whatever group founded that society.
If you think equality is wonderful, study some thermodynamics. Learn it on a truly philosophical level and you’ll have to turn yourself inside out like a Texas Chainsaw Massacre victim in order to remain a dedicated Leftist. You see thermodynamics works remorselessly towards equality. It sucks the life and vitality out of any dynamic system until it gets there. And it mathematically has to arrive there, like the trainwreck you can’t stop or look away from. Equality always occurs at the zero.
Amazingly, physics frequently imitates life. It’s almost as if they were trying for that effect. In thermodynamics, this point of equality from which you’ll never recover is absolute zero. It represents the temperature at which all molecular motion stops. In political economy, it could soon be Venezuela under Chavista Socialismo.
Only 230,000 companies remain of the 800,000 that opened in Venezuela during Hugo Chavez’s regime, meaning 570,000 have shut down.
Seventy-Four Percent of them have failed. The rest are exploitive capitalist running dogs that must be sent to the gulags. Just keep going. Raid everyone’s stash. Bogart everyone else’s stash and hork all their twelve-packs. There’s never a cost later. Never any consequence. Until there is…
Eventually, Venezuela will get their LePen. They will get their #PresidentTrump. There’s another set of physical laws that tell us that. Newton’s Laws. Especially the one that espouces that every action provokes an equal and opposite reaction.
That reaction is occurring in America, France, Great Britain and will spread throughout Latin America. Venezuela cannot continue to wind this spring. The more they tension it, the harder it will snap back. You control the extent of the reaction by stopping before the spring gets too wound. People are getting set on fire and burned for skipping ahead in food lines. It is probably too late to prevent hell in Chavezland. It may still remain possible to avoid this in the US. Over to you, Amerika. Fail, and we achieve equlity. We will be equally screwed.