Posts Tagged ‘equality’

Houellebecq On The Emptiness Of “Careers”

Saturday, May 20th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

As Democracy Fades, A “Fash Wave” Sweeps Western Thought

Sunday, May 14th, 2017

A new wave of awareness is spreading the West: the recognition that words are used to rationalize and justify choices, not to make them based on the logical capacities of the mind.

Politics, culture and academia show signs of massive discontent because people realize that words were used as weapons, to argue for what is convenient for the speaker, instead of as we think of them, which is a way to find truth, actuality and reality.

With the rise of the internet, it became clear that symbols not only are not reality, but create a false reality. People fight it out and then decide based on the symbols, not what they refer to. The map is not the territory.

One might see this as the culmination of postmodernism, a movement arguably launched by Fred Nietzsche’s “On Truth And Lies In A Non-Moral Sense.” This document cast doubt on the universal meaning of words, and saw them instead as gesture of human minds bent on controlling one another by inducing the mind to project inferred meaning onto the world.

With the fall of language comes the realization that our supposed goals, like “freedom” and “equality,” are in fact paths to internal sabotage. People use freedom to say anything they want, and equality to defend against accusations that their words are insane, and then bad together with others to support each other in insisting this replacement reality is actually true.

Along with this comes the realization that all civilizations fail the same way: when they get wealthy enough and big enough, they can no longer agree on purpose or what is good, so they set up a “proxy” or symbolic substitute, forgetting that good alone is the target.

Since this symbolic substitute is simpler than the real task, people work the system instead of working toward its goal. This quickly inverts meaning from purpose toward individual advancement, and people become parasitic and predatory, tearing society apart into as many directions as there are people.

As this realization settles in, people are becoming tired of tolerating others. They want another standard, which is to tolerate only what is accurate and real, because only that returns good results and allows us to have purpose, which every society needs.

They are tired of people acting selfishly, and offloading the costs to society at large. Civilization then suffers because it has always advanced through the talents and dedication of a small minority who are compelled to make realistic choices, even when those involve self-sacrifice.

After years of The Enlightenment™ philosophy, which is basically a highly ornamented version of “everyone do whatever you want, and no one can criticize you and they will all be forced to support you,” people are tired of dealing with unrealistic, selfish, solipsistic and emotional reasoning from others.

The catch is that there is no “we” in decision-making; there are only those who know, and everyone else. Knowing occurs in degrees. Among every population, there is a natural elite of people who are both realistic and capable of thinking toward the best possible outcome of the future. These are required to decide what is real because they are more accurate and honest in their thinking than the vast majority. Like all human traits, this follows a “bell curve” where only a small group have enough of the ability to be accurate instruments.

For centuries, the individualistic West has rebelled against the idea of natural leaders, preferring “equality” or the notion that “my ignorance (and inability) is as good as your knowledge (and ability).” We all benefit when the most competent are in charge, and suffer when they are not, least of all because of constant internal friction, competition and infighting.

From this comes a “fash wave,” or a backlash against equality and its political cohorts, democracy and socialism (“economic equality”). People want hard rules that force us back into line, a strict hierarchy, a clear purpose and utter intolerance for the swamp of parasites and predators that are draining our vitality.

This wave no longer fears the extreme; it desires it. It wants to bash down the bad and promote the good in their place. It wants to end the freeloading, free riders and counterproductive people who have had a field day under democracy. Our societies are broke and broken, and we want function again, which requires that we sacrifice our individualistic desire to be judged correct in whatever we do.

Standards, goals and principles are returning. The Bohemian idea that individual self-expression is more important than what is real is dying. This wave has begun at the bottom, namely the non-political individual not vested in the system, but has support from the small business owners and people of authority at the local level.

It is gratifying to see for those of us who have watched the parasites and predators devour everything good, and the bad guys always win, for decades personally and for centuries through our reading of history. We want to thrive again. We are tired of the utilitarian standard that whatever makes “most people” sit down, shut up and keep eating is the best idea.

With this fash wave comes a singular warning: much as proxies for the good lead to bad results, dictators are also a proxy for the good. We need to target the good and use our best people as means to that end. They serve not us, but civilization of past and future through its principles and ethnic group, no matter how wealthy and powerful they are.

The fash wave will first aim to destroy all that is rotten and in doing so, will create a vacuum of power. If we do not have an idea of what we will replace that vacuum with, we will get the default, which is strongmen who work within the idea of motivating masses of people toward arbitrary objectives.

A more sensible goal is to return to biology and to form a purpose based on survival: our subspecies is unique, and must adapt to and master its environment, aiming not for perfection (“Utopia”) but the best possible outcome for the longest possible duration. This requires a more nuanced, specific and heterogeneous solution than ideology and mass motivation will give us.

A Flag Under Which We Can All Unite

Monday, May 8th, 2017

We may not agree on the how, what or when. We may not even agree on why. But if the past 228 years have shown us anything, it is that we will get nowhere unless we reject the founding assumption of all these systems — consumerism, democracy, diversity, bureaucracy — which is that humans are interchangeable parts, made equal so they can follow the doctrine of humankind.

Under this flag we can unite. From that moment, we know we must do: alter our culture to see “equality” as comedic and toxic nonsense, and then start figuring out what that means.

Income Tax Is Totalitarian Slavery

Thursday, May 4th, 2017

Income tax seems normal. Except that it takes from the productive and gives to the non-functional. There is no way to make this parasitism seem normal:

The great essayist Frank Chodorov once described the income tax as the root of all evil. His target was not the tax itself, but the principle behind it. Since its implementation in 1913, he wrote, “The government says to the citizen: ‘Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide.”

He really does have a point. That’s evil. When Congress ratified the 16th Amendment on Feb. 3, 1913, there was a sense in which all private income in the U.S. was nationalized. What was not taxed from then on was a favor granted unto us, and continues to be so.

Income tax reverses the order of civilization: in a sane order, money flows from those who have produced excess, and is then re-invested by those to take advantage of their expertise. They can be kept in check by a caste system, which ensures that profits flow to those who will use them sensibly outside of an economic context, but otherwise, it allows those who are good at producing to keep producing and enhance that position.

On the other hand, income tax and other “progressive” (read: egalitarian, therefore wealth redistribution oriented) programs take from the productive and transfer to the unproductive, which gives the unproductive equal power. Since the unproductive are a large group, and the productive are not organized, this effects a transfer of power to those who are inept. Nonetheless, it is popular especially with young men and women because it is a form of pacifism, whereby we stop struggling for money and instead subsidize everyone.

When we find ourselves in a redistributionist state, it becomes clear that society is heading in a downward direction. In the name of equality, it penalizes the good and subsidizes the bad, which creates an advantage to the bad and quickly swells that group while diminishing the good.

Our only escape from this is to escape the ideal of redistribution itself, but this presents a problem. Redistribution is vital to the idea of equality, since nature does not make us equal and therefore humanity must enforce equality by “Robin Hood” measures. It must take from the thriving and give to the flailing.

Until equality fails, we will have an endless process of wealth transfer programs disguised as taxes, healthcare, pensions, benefits, unions, meritocracy, affirmative action and political tolerance. Our only escape is to smash the idea of equality itself.

Conservatism Pulling Away From Patriotism And Christianity

Monday, April 24th, 2017

Conservatism inevitably finds itself in conflict with its only real competition, which is the public form of conservatism. The root of conservatism is anti-social; conservatives recognize that most human ideas are pretense and vaingloriousness, and instead point to time-honored methods of achieving the best results.

In America, conservatives are additionally hampered by the fact of the founding of our nation-state in a modified version of Enlightenment™-era thought: individuals are assumed to be equal, which means that we have no social order like caste or hierarchy of aristocrats.

We bemoan our current state of affairs, but it is hard to see how it would turn out differently. When you begin a nation with the mistaken notion that all people are capable of guiding their own destiny, you end up with mob rule, no matter how many little rules — “checks and balances,” “accountability” — you tack on top.

What nihilists know that everyone else denies is that language has no inherent meaning. Only when two people are both using a word to mean the same thing can the word have shared meaning, and otherwise you have two people talking to themselves and hoping the other can intuit what is being gestured.

“There are no truths, only interpretations,” said a wise man, and this is true in that objects in the world are real, and we have only our impressions of them, which by the nature of our cognition are interpretations of fact patterns. This means that laws, like other facts, become adjusted to fit what the audience can understand, not just in a Dunning-Kruger sense but in all ways.

For this reason, checks and balances fail like other laws: instead of bending to the law, people bend the law and justify it however is convenient and popular. It took only a century and a half for the United States to completely invert the original ideal of its nation, which was an ethnically Western European agrarian nation with English-style social strata and a mostly absent government, and this change provoked the Civil War.

Since those who wanted a liberal-style modern government — also in vogue in Europe at the time — won that war, America successfully obliterated its Constitution and replaced it with a Leftist interpretation of the Constitution that emphasized more the emotional language of the Declaration of Independence than the substance of the law.

Americans talk about freedom, liberty, and independence, but these are surrogates for democracy. They represent the raging ego seeking to deny reality by saying “My intent and choices come first, and reality comes second,” because the smallest indivisible unit of society is now the individual. This leads to self-destruction and misery through social chaos, but the ego cares not about that.

People need guidance and hierarchy. A look at The Bell Curve reveals part of the reason why: most are not gifted with the IQs required to make complex decisions, and too many are given just enough intelligence to feel clever and make those decisions incorrectly. There are a few, maybe 5%, who do all the important thinking, and the rest oppose these because the rest will never understand the best.

Among that group, there are only some qualified to lead, which is a trait of moral character and personality as much as anything else. A leader is able to apply cold logic to filter out the normal human insanity, and to recognize that most people are self-deluding and pretentiously self-aggrandizing without falling into hatred for them. This group is at most 1% of any population.

For this reason, any form of demotism — democracy, equality, consumerism, social popularity — will lead to an inversion of the natural hierarchy such that the rest oppress the best, and this has predictably laughable results which we see around us daily: ugly architecture, garbage mass culture, insubstantial food, moronic leaders, tedious jobs, brain-dead moral interpretations.

Conservatism inherently recognizes this failing. We are realists who want the best qualitative degree of civilization and personal existence possible, and realize how those two are linked. Conservatism has never been pro-democracy, and with the collapse of the United States through the election of an outright Socialist charlatan like Barack Obama, we can now no longer be pro-America.

It is time to take the stars and stripes and set it on fire. Smash down all the American institutions. Blow up the Washington Monument, melt down all the statues, and consign the pitiful ruins of the United States to the dustbin of history. This experiment has failed, and from it we have learned that democracy cannot be successfully limited because it grows like a cancer since it appeals to the inherent self-deceptive tendency of human beings.

Patriotism at this point is the opposite of conservatism. If you become a patriot, you are fighting against conservative ideals like hierarchy, nationalism, moral goodness and transcendental purpose. The United States was not designed a Leftist republic, but ideas are measured not by their starting points or intentions, but what they become in the course of their natural life cycle. Any form of democracy quickly becomes something approximating Communism — roughly what we have now — and so there is no point setting even a toe on that path. It is a path to doom.

In the same way that patriotism has failed us, the idea of theocracy has run out on us too. Most conservatives embrace the mentally laziest path of least resistance, which is to insist that we cuck ourselves by following the “work hard, go to church and have a family” approach which enslaves all of us to paying taxes to our enemies and wasting our days in servitude. Obviously anyone advocating this has missed the point, which is to thwart this empire of death by dropping out of it.

As part of their desire to bond us to the failing regime, conservatives tend to say things like “we must follow the Bible first, and this must guide all that we do.” This destroys political activity by limiting its scope to the individual, which conveniently takes that individual out of circulation so that others can rule him. A more idiotic path would be hard to invent.

Unfortunately, this approach is inherent to the idea of a “personal God” as is found in Christianity. The ancients more correctly depicted the gods as uninterested in our affairs, which made it explicit and clear that we are in the driver’s seat and must save ourselves through cooperation. No amount of personal virtue overcomes a dying regime.

In addition, it is time that we mention the Otherness of Christianity. Although it is mostly Greek ideas — combined with the best of Babylonian, Hindu, Jewish, Nordic and Buddhist thought — Christianity consists of those restated in the personal and emotional methods of the Jewish cantors, instead of the more respectable Talmudic esoteric tradition. For this reason, like democracy, Christianity will always decay into a mass movement and adulterate any meaning into what the Crowd desires.

It does not make sense to, like Nietzsche, blame Christianity for the origin of Leftism. The dirty secret is that Leftism is merely the egoism of the herd, and it is an in-built flaw to humanity, especially among the smarter (but not genius) humans. We love to self-delude and this takes the form not of death-denial but solipsism, which is reality-denial, so that we feel like gods on earth. Crowdism took over Christianity just like it took over the West, by subverting and inverting it, but this means that Christianity is insufficiently resistant.

Part of this lack of resistance is its Otherness. We will always feel like a conquered people when our religion comes from lands other than our own, and when the symbols are not ours, but those of another culture. We obliterate our culture with Christianity by admiring its effectiveness in mobilizing others and forgetting that this means the Crowd will soon rule.

Many of us adore the European Christian traditions we know. We love the old churches, the hymns, the strong moral standards and the love of learning. Many good things happened under Christianity, but this does not mean that they are exclusive to Christianity. We need a new Bible, one that implies more than states rules which can be misinterpreted, that comes from our own lands.

Conservatives have faced a hopeless task for centuries. Leftism is always more popular and just as proportionately more wrong. Retreating to core values like purpose/work, religion and love of nation seems like a good idea, but when those things have been replaced by corrupt ersatz substitutes, this means you conservatives will be working for the enemy. Not a good idea.

I have dreaded writing this essay for years, but it needs to be out there. Reject patriotism and theocracy, and instead, let us look toward a future: we need a government by Us and for Us, and a religion that is the same, and we need to let failed institutions like the Church and Constitution slide into the abyss of failure toward which they will drag us, if we do not step off that treadmill.

Happy HitLARP Holiday!

Thursday, April 20th, 2017

April 20th brings with it many memories, including Columbine, teenage potheads, and of course, Adolf Hitler. This brings out the HitLARPers who want us to believe that if we just adopted National Socialism, everything would be fine, and they are going to act the part as defined by Hollywood to show us how.

My own opinion has long been that Hitler, like every other leader, was a mix of good and bad. The bad in his case seems traumatic because it invokes genocide and tyranny, but in reality, this pales in comparison to what, say, Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao did. The Left just LARPs on the anti-Hitler trip in order to conceal how much more their people have been committing murder, torture and oppression since the French Revolution at least, having become known for secret police, gulags, executions at dawn and guillotining whole families.

But Hitler had a few good points. He recognized that diversity cannot work. He wanted to restore an organic state based in the ethnic group. He knew that modernity was a failure and its aesthetics needed reversal. Unfortunately, he tried to do these from within a modern context, and so ended up with modern results, namely catastrophe. Not that he could have escaped it; the world was poised for downfall, and most people were suicidal after “the war to end all wars,” so it demanded a fratricidal and pointless war and got it. Did anyone win WWII?

We also have to wonder how much of The Official History™ is actually fake. After all, they’ve been lying to us for centuries.

The Left always lies, and the Left is the party of modernity, and modernity has turned out to be kind of boring, where we all live in bubble worlds and work in cubicles and no one is really happy but the money is OK so we carry on. Maybe we can finally escape the Left. It will require going farther Right than Hitler and rejecting modernity entirely. We need to restore Western Civilization, and since the dawn of time, there has been only one structure of civilization that has worked. It is not that we want to go back to that; we want to go forward to it, like moving from winter to spring even though spring was only six months ago.

In the meantime, the Alt Right needs to get over its HitLARPing. We are not White Nationalists; we are nationalists, but only as a part of a general program that wants a traditional society. That means rejecting modernity entirely, starting with the sacred cow (and mental crack for white people, apparently) of “equality.” If you want to celebrate Hitler, celebrate what he tried but could not do, which is abolish the idea of equality and with it, the State. We need nations, not nation-States. We want a traditional society because it works and everything else does not.

Hitler had his day, but he was more symbolic — resistance against modernity and racial erasure — than literal. To the (possibly inevitable) sadness of the Germans, they followed him literally and encountered a great defeat. This was not from their lack of prowess, but from the vast forces they faced, since illusion is always more popular than realism. And yet, we would be ultra-morons to make the same mistake twice.

To avoid making that mistake, we must revisit the core of modernity, individualism. Individualism makes people demand equality, so that all individuals are included, no matter what they have done in the past. But to an independent person, individualism is a crutch, a thing to be overcome. If you want to be more Hitler than Hitler, accept the nihilism of literal reality, and that you are a small part of a vast civilization, not a god-like consciousness to which civilization should be dedicated.

It is fascinating and lugubrious that we face the same challenges as we did during the First World War and the French Revolution. Nothing, really, has changed; we are still trying to advance the same dying ideas and they are failing as they always have. This Hitler Day, let us reject those ancient and moldy failures and move on to something more sustaining and cheerful!

An Economic Argument Against Equality

Tuesday, April 18th, 2017

We know that there are practical arguments for the failure of equality on a biological level, namely that it eliminates striving for improvement and creates a downward pressure — averaging — instead. If we look at equality on an economic level, we see that this problem replicates itself in a different form.

Equality means that mediocrity is equal to superiority in terms of social value. This makes mediocrity more efficient because it requires more work and attention to achieve superior results. If the outcome is the same, choose the approach that requires the least amount of work; through this mechanism, the mediocre becomes superior to the superior, at least as far as the individual is concerned.

This economic efficiency explains the soft drinks, fast food, junk mass culture, mediocre appliances, inept bureaucrats, mentally lazy voters and other aspects of the blighted modern landscape: when no one is interested in quality, people do not lose jobs or income for being mediocre, and since that gives them more time for themselves, they become active apathists who deny reality.

At a mathematical level, far below the delayed consequences to biology and social order, equality prioritizes the efficiently bad. Whatever is easiest to do wins out over quality; quality, in fact, becomes an impediment, because it is an unreturned cost. Equality is a bias against quality.

With this thinking in mind, it makes sense to replace food with rehydrated soy product, and to serve people carbonated sugar water instead of real beverages. The simple, repetitive song becomes more important than the symphony. Easy-to-understand lies are more effective than complex, less dramatic truths.

Our civilization has undone itself with the idea of equality. However, through this economic analysis, we also see why individuals choose equality: they are guaranteed acceptance, inclusion and validity without having to prove themselves, which means that for them they achieve greater efficiency through mediocrity. Do the minimum, and reap the full reward.

Over time the efficiency of this approach breaks down because it reduces the value of social participation. A dying society where every person is a selfish promoter of mediocrity has little to offer, but once it was a thriving civilization, and then its carnies, snake oil salesman, sycophants, priests, neurotics, parasites and enemies joined together to leach out its value.

Much of human activity for the past several centuries has involved concealment of this simple logical fact. When there is no distinction for doing things the right way, you get less done the right way and more — across the board — done to a minimum standard. This naturally causes social order to unravel and makes people bitter, hateful and prone to take all they can and give nothing back.

As we come out of the centuries of spaced-out delusion, we can again face these simple but prevalent truths about equality. At that point, our only decision is whether we want to encourage mediocrity or superiority. There is no other option.

Socialism Fails Because All It Ever Leads To Is Death

Monday, April 10th, 2017

Leftists are never truly and properly atheist. They may reject the religions they see around them and may well recoil from Christianity in particular as the Nosferatu recoils in the face of a crucifix or a coruscating blast from the sun. However, they will bow their heads and proclaim their adoration of equality.

But the worship of equality is a false idol intended to suck in the gullible. We are all created equally and then are equivalent just one more time: when they chuck us in the dirt. Thus to sucvessfully seek equality is to bring forth The Grim Reaper and embrace the end of all goodness and health.

Equality is never, ever a good thing. It is at best a neutral — but for the absolute worst in our midst. People never advance to equality with those who do it better. The betters are only brutally stripped and then forced into a sham of equality with and those unfit to lick their very boots.

It never occurs in nature. The very laws of nature, set forth by God; will not tolerate such idolatrous profanity. Even Absolute Zero is now believed to be a non-existent mathematical ideal beset and confounded by physical contradiction. Equality can never be real. Only one thing can happen to you while trying for it. You die. Leftism kills you. It’s what Leftism ultimately does. It’s all Leftism ever ultimately does.

Detroit, Newark, Birmingham, Baltimore, Havana, Moscow, Pyongyang, Phnom Penh, and now Caracas. All of these places are burned-over charnel houses where the hopes of the multitudes burn on a pyre of ineluctible existentential despite and despair. Venezuela is the latest place to take up the flag of International Socialism from the grave where Pol-Pot dropped it and serve as the perfect exemplar of evil. No, you cannot haz brownies!

Venezuela this week arrested four bakers making illegal brownies and other pastries as President Nicolás Maduro’s socialist government threatens to take over bakeries in Caracas as part of a new “bread war”. Maduro has sent inspectors and soldiers into more than 700 bakeries around the capital this week to enforce a rule that 90% of wheat must be destined to loaves rather than more expensive pastries and cakes.

In 2001, Venezuela was the richest country per capita in South America. They verily floated on a lake of oil. They now have to ration what little gasoline that still remains on the market. They cannot feed their people. They cannot even power the tractors to plant next year’s crops. No, you cannot haz brownies without the flour to bake them!

Venezuela then foolishly believed that it had to choose between Socialism and death. No, it’s not “socialismo o muerte.” It’s socialismo y muerte. It has to be. That is the only place Socialism ever leads. Everyone under Socialism eventually starves equally. They die. It is your destiny under Leftism. It is an eternal quest for the zero. The Zero that these supposed atheists worship as devoutly as Ignatius of Loyola or The Buddha ever prayed.

Few Understand How Radical Amerika Is

Monday, April 10th, 2017

In the world of the internet, people get famous for having strong and simple opinions. On the Right, this causes failure because what seems like the furthest extreme — the point one needs to reach to fully have solved the problem — gets confused with emotional and simplistic reasoning simply because that reasoning is more popular.

The writers on Amerika take the opposite approach: as Radical Realists, we aim for the clearest possible realistic thinking. This avoids having the audience shape the dialogue, and instead offers analytical solutions, with the idea of understanding each problem enough to reach a full solution.

This leads to a place that is more extreme than anything offered elsewhere without appearing so, which is why so many of them go out of their way to ignore Amerika, its writers and its influence.

The most extreme position is the one that produces the highest degree of quality in reality. The sane aim is quality: existential quality, civilizational quality, economic quality and artistic quality. We want life to be turned up to eleven as well, meaning that it should be pleasurable, stimulating, intense and beautiful in the most deeply soul-nourishing ways.

This leads to the notion of conservatism, or the idea that we should conserve that which reflects the best qualitative civilization we have achieved in our history as a species. Conservatism or Rightism has two planks: first, an uncompromising and anti-humanist realism; second, a search for transcendental purpose and meaning, an outlook called reflective in the lexicon of this site.

There is much interest in denying this simple but effective definition.

Conservatism has from the start been plagued by entryists of two types: those who want to convert it into Leftism, and those who want to use it as a vehicle for their personal social status and profit. These two groups fervently oppose any simple and clear definition of conservatism because it is best for them to obscure its meaning and twist it to benefit them.

What this means for conservatives is that the most radical act we can engage in is also the most moderate: express conservatism clearly in ways that cannot be co-opted for the profit of individuals, including Leftists. This means that we must be extremist moderates, or those who take a middle path but then take its interpretation to its logical extremes and zealously defend those.

Most do not understand how this viewpoint translates into reality. It avoids surface extremism, but underneath, focuses on core issues like the following:

  1. Equality is a lie.

    Equality originally meant “equality under the law,” which was intended to mean that if a nobleman and a serf were both injured, they got the same treatment in court.

    This in itself is a terrible idea since we know that most people are prone to be irresponsible, and so if a serf is run over, it is more likely than not that it is in part or in whole, the fault of the serf. Modern people begin their neurotic wailing at this point.

    The grim fact of reality is that people have different levels of intelligence and moral character. Every sane society ever created spent a good deal of effort ensuring that the higher levels were given special power, wealth and privilege so that they could keep the rest from destroying society through class revolt. We see the effects of class warfare in our current society, which is the skeletal carcass of a once-great empire.

    In those societies, the primary focus is to make sure that rank is correct. This way, if a nobleman runs over a serf, you have a reasonable assumption that the serf was mostly at fault. For example, the nobleman was racing off to stop a disaster somewhere and the serf got in his way. In that case, stopping the disaster is more important than the drama of the serf.

    Over time, “equality under the law” becomes the assumption that people are equal, or roughly the same in moral character. For this reason, if a serf and a nobleman crash their cars together, it is assumed that the nobleman is guilty because he and the serf were equally likely to avoid the collision because they were equally reasonable, but the nobleman having more wealth and power chose not to.

    That assumption — equivalent to the American legal doctrine of “disparate impact” — assumes that because all parties are equal, whoever comes out ahead is guilty. This in turn quickly morphs into the idea of equality of outcome, or that if someone gets ahead of the others, a wrong was done. This is a pervasive idea because it gives people an excuse for their failings; they can scapegoat the guy who won!

    A better procedure is fairness. No one except an infant comes to court innocent; all of us are balance sheets, adding up good and bad. If someone who has a record of mostly good collides with someone with a record of mostly-bad or indifferent, it is a reasonable assumption that the person who is mostly-good is more innocent.

    At that point, we recognize that much of humanity has a balance sheet of indifferent or mostly-bad, and that they are this way not because of poverty or lack of education, but for the same reason that we impute behavior to any animal: it is how they are wired, or a result of their genetics.

  2. Democracy always fails.

    With herd animals, herd behavior presents a challenge. When panicked, they stampede; when not panicked, they remain oblivious to slowly advancing threats.

    Democracy legitimizes herd behavior by asking groups of people to make decisions together. They throw in their vote and have no responsibility for the outcome, so soon voting becomes a sense of futility except on massively polarizing issues. At that point, it becomes easily manipulated by symbols and drives people to extremes.

    In addition, most do not understand the economics of democracy. Politicians are elected by saying things that people want to hear; they are image salespeople in this sense because they have no necessary obligation to carry out the promises they make, and are given a plausible excuse not to because “the other side” always opposes them. This creates a comfortable arrangement of “play fighting” where both sides pretend to war it out, then agree on whatever they are comfortable with. Elected officials are given a property to sell, which is power, and without accountability, they quickly become corrupt. When this corruption reaches a peak, candidates rise to oppose it, but they are then faced with the necessity of disassembling decades of bad law in only a term or two.

    Further, democracy encourages a toxic mentality of “it’s not my fault.” When the votes are tallied, voters can blame politicians or even “the voters,” but there is never a sense of each person being accountable for their choice. The consequences of that choice are distributed among the others, or “externalized” or “socialized” (this is the same idea behind Socialism). In addition, many who do not pay substantial or any taxes vote, which amounts to them being able to make the wealth and thus time (time = money) of others into a means-to-the-end of their own single issue desires. This causes a permanent schism in the population except during military threat from abroad.

    Over time, a society given to democracy can expect itself to become dominated by moneyed interests while the population fights over symbolic issues. At this point, the power structure is too divided to make any real changes in its direction, and the population will not abandon its symbols, so the politicians and people fall into infighting and cannot reverse direction even as it leads to collapse.

    Another problem is inherent in groups of people themselves. People tend to behave by “the committee effect” in groups, and as individuals, prefer pleasant illusions to complex truths. This means that every decision becomes what is easiest to achieve consensus on, instead of what is true, and so the society comes to pathologically prefer lies to realistic and accurate assessments of reality.

  3. Diversity destroys societies.

    The impulse to diversity arises from class warfare. People at the bottom of the hierarchy take civilization for granted, and want more power despite their inability to wield it.

    They form a herd within the herd, called a Crowd, which then advocates for collectivized individualism: equal rights for all people without equal responsibilities, especially without having to face the consequences of their choices. This Crowd then dissolves the power structure by making war on excellence, intelligence, the family, religion, culture, heritage and caste differences.

    As part of this, the new rulers — empowered by the angry Crowd — aim to destroy culture by destroying the genetics behind it. They decide on a path of slow genocide. First, they import foreigners (the more ethnically different, the better) to serve as a permanent political bloc; these always vote against majority interests, because their own interest in ethnic self-determination requires they crush and push aside the majority. Nature is conquest.

    Next, this foreign group is given special privileges such that the majority is disadvantaged. The purpose of this is to break the power of the majority and encourage inter-breeding, which destroys the ethnic group that is the majority and replaces it with a mixed-race grey or beige people who have no culture, and therefore depend on government, ideology, media and social factors for their values. They are much more easily manipulated than a group with a culture.

    This puts the leaders into permanent power as tyrants, or those who rule by their will alone, and not toward a goal larger than themselves such as the health of the civilization.

    What this means is that diversity can never work. Each distinct group has its own self-interest including self-determination and setting its own behavioral, moral and social standards. This means that groups compete to see who will dominate and then enforce those rules on the rest, making other ethnic and religious groups subjects of their rule.

    Acknowledging the failure of diversity in totality tells us a few other things that all nationalists know in their heart and gut even if they cannot articulate them: any diversity is toxic, and the only solution is to send them all back. This does not mean we have to hunt down people, as there will always be some visitors among us who keep to their own group. But it does mean zero diversity.

    This seems less extreme than declaring war on other ethnic groups and calling them names, but it gets to the root of the problem. We adopted a bad policy called diversity and it will destroy us unless we end it. So we end it, not other groups, and repatriate everyone to a place where it would be more appropriate for them to live.

  4. Hierarchy and decentralization are the same.

    Jobs are jails, so we should replace them with feudalism.

    People resent the fact that they are compelled to work, instead of having roles that reflect their natural abilities.
    When we converted roles into jobs, we essentially created a totalitarian state based on competition for money, and the result has naturally caused disorder.

    Instead of tackling that directly, people — remember the bell curve here — have chosen an easy illusion, which is that we can squeeze money from this magical thing called “the rich” and hand it out to make everyone happy. They will still have their terrible jobs, but it is their way of emotionally acting out against the misery of jobs and a society where every aspect of life is a financial transaction.
    So, while many of us are sympathetic to their position, their solution is suicidal and insane. This reflects the general neurotic outlook of the Left.

  5. Modernity has failed.

    Few know that modernity began with The Enlightenment,™ or the idea that the human form — body, mind, desires, ideals — came before any order of nature or the divine (monists such as myself include the divine in nature).

    From this emerged the notion of equality, or that if an individual desired to do something, they should not be limited by objections such as “that is unrealistic” or “that violates our social, moral or philosophical order.” Human individuals came first. This follows the ancient idea of evil, seen in the Greek description of hubris or the desire of man to be God in the garden of Eden, and legitimizes it as beneficial in a process of rationalizing or justifying decay rather than opposing it.

    Since that time, this idea has gained size and momentum because of its innate popularity among human individuals and human groups. Everyone in a group feels good if they are promised equal inclusion, which is what equality means. It does not matter whether they are deluded or insane, or even sociopathic or antisocial; so long as they are individuals, they are then included.

    Like most ideas, this took centuries to manifest and then more centuries for its downsides to be revealed. Its upside was that it was popular and like peer pressure could be used to make others obey our demands, rather than principles or actual needs in common; its downside was that it destroyed Western Civilization. “Oops.”

    The current rebellion against Leftism, which is one manifestation of this idea of individualism, represents the start of peeling back the layers of illusion upon which our present time is built. After this we will come to distrust Crowdism, or collectivized individualism by which individuals enforce their solipsism upon others as “reality” by using social pressures, and eventually, we will rediscover evil and how it erupts as individualism.

    We are in a new age. The well-intentioned and pro-human rules of the past have failed us; we now recognize that there is an order bigger than us in reality itself, and that any action must begin by understanding cause and effect in reality. The individual is no longer king.

  6. Overpopulation is the environmental problem.

    Leftists have consolidated their concerns about the environment into a single issue, climate change. This misses the point by targeting one aspect of a complex problem with a single origin.

    When we have a reasonable number of people, most of the land on earth remains natural or mostly natural. This enables Earth’s ecosystems to absorb the pollution we produce.

    When we have too many people, the pollution produced — of various kinds — exceeds the capacity of the surrounding land to absorb it. We can see this in microcosm in cities where smog hangs in the air because the trees have been mostly replaced with concrete.

    As we add more people, even if we reduce the burden each imposes, we generate too much pollution for our environment and by reducing the amount of undivided land, endanger species by limiting their territory, which causes inbreeding in those populations and eventually, population crash and inability to recover owing to too many recessive genes.

    No matter how much we try to limit ourselves, space on Earth is finite, and by expanding recklessly we cause not only environmental problems, but ecocide.

  7. Herd morality is dysgenics.

    Herd morality can be summarized as any belief system which defends the weakest against the strongest, assuming that people are equal and therefore, the stronger do not have greater competence or abilities.

    Rights are an inherent form of this: since all people are equal, each one is given certain absolute rights which prevents others from contradicting their intent. The problem with this is that the absolute nature of these rights creates an inflexibility and slowdown which reduces society to infighting over rights.

    A saner view recognizes that the more competent, morally more advanced and those of greater talent deserve more of a “right” than those who are beneath them. In addition, it asserts that no right comes without responsibilities, which means that those who contribute are given more of a voice than those who do not.

    At an even more basic level, this type of morality is evolutionary. It says, as Plato suggests, “good to the good, and bad to the bad.” It perpetually rewards those who do good as a result, instead of making them “equal” to those who do bad.

    In this way, natural selection and religious morality join and converge. Any civilization which desires to thrive will want to create upward pressure toward the good, instead of downward pressure away from fears of victimization.

    Not only is this more effective, but it provides greater clarity. Each person has a role. While all are treated fairly, it is recognized that some should be above others because of their greater ability, and that this translates into a more competent society and thus benefits for all.

  8. All we need to do is to stop doing certain things.

    Of all the things written in this document, the following may be the most radical: almost all of our problems are caused by doing the wrong things, which both sends us down a wrong track and uses up the energy and time required to do the right things. Scammers and other canny but unscrupulous types use this method of distraction as a means of occupying our focus so that we do not notice their parasitism.

    Nature provides a sensible framework in which we live. All produce, all share in the benefits of social order, and each accrues what he can within reason. Disputes, like trade, are often settled with money, which allows us to avoid a punitive justice system as well as overblown concepts of “rights.”

    Within our population, castes — divisions by ability — naturally form, and people move upward by emulating the best. Families are the basic building block of civilization. Leaders lead, and leave concerns of daily survival to the local area, which is where most people spend most of their focus anyway, which is why asking them to vote on national elections becomes comedy.

    Most of our laws exist because a politician needed to make a name for himself. Most of our social conventions are designed to avoid noticing plain but unsociable truths. Much of our activity is designed around self-importance. Almost all of our writing and cultural objects are there to aggrandize the individual.

    A sane society applies a rigid standard, excluding what is not useful, because it knows that people are at heart Simian and will preen, draw attention to themselves and otherwise introduce destabilizing chaos through too many alternatives where what we need is knowledge of what is real, actual and beneficial.

    To fix this problem, sane societies simply stop doing much of what people “think” is needed.

  9. Living a “good life” is not enough.

    Among contemporary conservatives, the illusion persists that in times of civilization downfall, the best thing to do is to get a good job, work hard, buy a house, have kids, and pay taxes to the parasitic government that is crushing you.

    While the above are important, they are also an excuse for doing nothing. The “Benedict option” amounts to making oneself a political non-entity, and always results in the insane taking over your civilization. Instead, the individual must affirmatively act not for the group but for the principle of civilization, which is usually unstable unless founded on conservative ideas.

    Most people are looking for an excuse to do nothing to stop the decline. Leftists rationalize it; Rightists engage in pretend activities like the Benedict option or voting vigorously on token issues like abortion. You have to tackle the whole of the problem, energize others to work on it, and submit a clear demand to the civilization around you.

    This will never be popular.

  10. {{{ They }}} hate you.

    Some Alt Righters use the ((( echo ))) to denote that Jewish people are speaking. On this site, we eschew that and instead use the [[[ echo ]]] for non Western but European-descended people, and more importantly, the {{{ echo }}} for people from our own tribe who are collaborators, traitors, betrayers or parasites.

    There is a group out there which occurs by mathematics in every organization or social group. We might call them the resentful, the parasitic, or even the criminal, but their behavior remains the same. They wish to subvert all good things and replace them with bad so that their personal bad behavior goes unnoticed.

    This herd will never admit what they are and, like any form of evil, will cloak themselves in whatever they think makes them look altruistic, kind and good instead of parasitic, selfish and bad. After all, it is easier to make a public donation once a month than to try to do right in all that one does.

    They hate you, this herd. They hate you for being better than them, or even for trying for a social order above chaos and self-centeredness. They will always hate you and anyone like you because you are a threat to their agenda, which is to withdraw power and wealth from society and heap it upon themselves, or at least, to escape censure for their non-contribution.

    Of all the ways to fight this group, only one works: a social hierarchy which rewards good behavior and punishes bad. This in turn requires a leadership hierarchy so that the social hierarchy has a purpose and responsibilities. That in turn requires having a homogeneous culture.

    While this is more complex than Leftist egalitarian society, it is also internally balanced and provides what ideology cannot. It confers peace of mind and a naturalistic existence upon a group, and by preventing parasitism, encourages people to give of themselves to improve anything they can without expecting excessive reward in return.

  11. The goal is parasitism.

    Every creature on earth acts to secure a living for itself. Humans are no exception, and those who appear fanatically ideological are in fact most focused on themselves. They want to steal away wealth and power, create a social group where they are important, and give themselves a surrogate for meaning through having an ideology that justifies their actions.

    In this context, the tyrants are dupes. These are figureheads who represent the interests of parasites within your society who are both homegrown and pernicious because of their knowledge of the inner workings of your society; outsiders do not have this vision, at least until diversity hits. The parasites profit while the tyrants obsess over power and renown.

    For the parasites, power is a means to an end, but not the end that they sell in public. The text or public “truth” for them is that they want power to do good; the subtext or private truth is that they want power so that they can stop anyone from stopping them from doing bad.

    Equality is a means to this end. Equality is required for centralization, because that way there is no tiered or cascading social structure. Instead there are military style leaders commanding a sea of equals. Centralization allows this high command to remove “inefficiencies” unrelated to its goal, and profit by absconding with the wealth that otherwise would go to necessary social functions.

    This is why Leftism and other Crowdist philosophies wage war against the good, natural, normal, healthy and beautiful. They want to destroy the need for those things and transfer the effort put into them into methods that reward the parasites instead. In a society of equal conformist droids, they can easily do this, and steal the best of that society for themselves.

  12. The opposition is “We The People.”

    Among human groups, a fiction inevitably arises that leaders are bad but that the social group, sometimes called “We The People,” is good. The people want good things and mean well. This, in their view, avoids the burden of doing right in terms of end results. It is good enough to have pleasant social feelings and good intentions.

    WTP will always pursue what will destroy it because good feelings are measured in terms of desired effects, not the causes necessary to produce these effects. WTP will talk about helping the poor, forgetting that the poor are usually poor because of limited abilities or poor decisions, and so the best help is lowered cost of living, not more free stuff.

    When given a choice, WTP always chooses pretense and illusion over reality. They will hang on to the illusion that WTP until the end. In doing so, they will oppose all positive choices that could end problems, and only succumb when the natural leaders of society — about 2-5% of the population — are enough shifted to the new way that WTP feels comfortable imitating it.

These are heretical ideas because they do not address issues on the surface, where they have already been molded by the herd to avoid facing any real problems, and instead look at the world beneath the level of what we are willing to publicly talk about as elements of human psychology.

All but a few Right-wing sites, and every Left-wing site, focus instead on the surface issues because they are specially crafted to be manipulative and to miss the big picture, which is that our civilization has fallen and some of us most rise up and restore it, even if we cannot “save” everyone and everything.

The average Right-wing site excites its audience through offering simple, emotional arguments to its audience so they can get inspired by an us-versus-them style activity, sort of like cheering on a sports game or becoming invested in one brand of automobile. This is what is popular in a dying time, but by definition, it is not what will solve the problem.

Our task is simpler than it seems, and will take less effort than imagined, but requires first that all of those who can wake up agree on the essential problem and basic agenda. The profit motive and attention-getting behavior of individual writers, magazines, blogs, and video programs demands the opposite, which is that each person come up with a “unique” theory that excites the herd.

As always, we have met the enemy — and he is us.

At The Core Of Cuck Pathology, A Stereotypical Middle Class Behavior

Tuesday, March 28th, 2017

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.