Posts Tagged ‘eugenics’

At Some Point, We Will Have To Admit That The “Homeless” Are Parasites

Sunday, December 3rd, 2017

Back in the day, we used to have a term for what are now called in politically correct mincing verbiage “the homeless”: bums, winos, drifters, hobos, grifters, beggars, and thieves.

That is not politically correct to say these days because egalitarianism demands that we consider all lifestyles equal. If you want to live in a ditch off handouts from government and guys trying to impress girls on a first date, we consider that a “choice” and the fact of its stupidity is not particularly relevant, at least socially.

However, in realityland, we recognize that the homeless are those who choose to avoid participating in our system and tend to live off of charity and theft. This has always been the case, which is why they never were viewed as anything but blight and risk by our ancestors. Our view was that it was easy enough to live a subsistence life without being a hobo, so hobo-ness conveyed instability.

Maybe five percent of them are Diogenesian geniuses wandering a vacant landscape, penning scripts of incomparable brilliance while the world misses their inner essence for their outer appearance and scorns them. Maybe. More likely, it is only a few per generation, and the rest are merely thinly-disguised parasites.

One hysterical recent article shows us the criminal nature of the homeless and how society, by making itself impotent in response, encourages more criminality:

The county moved to clear the encampment, located between Warner and Edinger avenues, following months of complaints from neighbors that homeless people were trespassing, harassing residents and stealing from nearby homes. Some of the discoveries, officials said, add credence to those neighbors’ complaints and fears.

…Though makeshift chop shops where bicycles are taken apart, cleaned and reassembled are a common sight along several portions of the lengthy riverbed homeless encampments, Pucket said he’d never seen a collection as big as the 1,000 bicycles hidden in Santa Ana. The bikes were found just south of the river’s Fairview Street overpass.

Puckett wouldn’t speculate how many of the bikes were stolen, citing the ongoing investigation, saying “common sense would dictate that if you have 1,000 bikes in a tunnel… some of them were stolen.”

…But neighborhood residents offer a different story, saying they’ve noticed an increase in bike thefts and other crimes.

Government is blind to the homeless problem because it throws the cost back to the victims. You go to the police department, wait in line, file the reports, and then get the shrug and explanation that they just cannot do anything. After one experience like that, you will never report a theft again; you will either go get the bike back, or buy a new one and take it out of your taxes. Screw The Man.

In the meantime, because of our pretense of egalitarianism, we tolerate among us people who are outright criminals but smart enough to keep their activities to such a low level that our bloated civil servants will never notice. This makes us bitter toward life, and cynical toward ourselves, just so some hobos can keep drinking and being useless in a valley somewhere.

Fetus Football

Monday, October 16th, 2017

I’m now convinced that House Speaker Paul Ryan is losing this year’s game of swamp chess to the base elements of his own party. How so? Because he is endangering one of his sacred cows. Congressman Trent Franks has passed H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This bill would restrict abortion in the United States to the first twenty weeks of a pregnancy.

President Trump weighed in and approached the issue from a viewpoint that nobody on the political left or professional right wants it approached from. President Trump wants a compromise on this that is morally and legally acceptable enough to make pro- and anti-abortion nutjobs shut up and go home. He likes this bill as a way to end the divisiveness that cynical political swamp creatures depend on to fund their various PACs.

“The bill, if enacted into law, would help to facilitate the culture of life to which our Nation aspires,” the statement reads. “The United States is currently out of the mainstream in the family of nations, in which only seven out of 198 nations allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. America’s children deserve the stronger protections that H.R. 36 would advance,” the statement concludes.

Congressman Franks goes on to point out that political professional class (including the aforementioned Congressman Franks) has played political football with the lives of unborn children and the futures of their mothers in a manner that risks making The United States a human rights embarrassment in comparison to the rest of the world.

The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a bill that finds overwhelming support from all humane Americans. Very late term abortions are an extreme and barbaric practice. The United States is only one of seven countries on earth, including North Korea and China, which allow elective abortions after 20 weeks. For little babies to feel the crushing agony of the abortionist’s tools as they undergo “dismemberment abortion” in the land of the free and the home of the brave is a disgrace that defies human expression. Subjecting innocent babies, from the beginning of their six month of pregnancy and later, to this kind of insidious torture does not reflect the true character of America.

To determine if we really are as bad on this stuff as, say, North Korea, where the typical Communist food supply problems suffice to remove surplus people without the necessity of sadistic medical intervention, we need to look at how supposedly civilized, democratic countries like ours juggle this particular hot potato. The BBC took it upon themselves to examine abortion laws in 27 separate nations. In practical terms, they discovered a first trimester abortion is legal, upon demand, in just about any European Nation. After twelve weeks, the expecting mother will need a skilled lawyer, but perhaps still could terminate a pregnancy. As of 2007, the details by country closely resemble the chart below.

The Europeans have managed a sophisticated and humane compromise. A compromise that demands a certain level of mature intelligence on the part of the individual. The people involved in a pregnancy have twelve weeks — three months, a quarter of a year — to make a hard call. After that, one way or the other, they can suck up their regrets. It’s a just world rather than a fair one when sovereign citizens are expected to act like the adults they biologically have become. Congressman Franks fights a commendable fight to make Americans own their own sexual and financial decisions on this and it would a great way to legislate, regardless of whether or not the particular issue was abortion.

As for H.R. 36, it is a net positive and an imperfect but necessary step in the direction of a more decent and life-affirming society than we currently have in Amerika. It is good because of the sadistic and unmitigated acts of vile evil it will prevent. Take, for example, what happens during a Dilation and Extraction procedure procedure performed to terminate a pregnancy in the twenty-third week.

The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby’s head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a pure white gelatinous material issue from the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you.

On the other hand, abortion as eugenic hygiene remains on the table. Where the clinics are placed and who they advertise towards is a measure of who the society would rather not show up for the future. In the proud tradition of Planned Parenthood, abortion has traditionally been a sub rosa solution to Mordor Amerika’s Diversity Problem.

A cursory study comparing rates of abortion in America to our population demographics demonstrates which groups of people American society would obviously like to see comprise a smaller minority of the general population. Filtering out miscegenation, 63% of Americans were White Alone, while 12.4% were purely Black and 15.8% were at least partially Hispanic or Latin in Anno Domine 2009. The other 9% were either Asian or racially mixed.(Ht: Wikipedia). The New York State Department of Health reports that in 2008, almost 50,000 out of 118,000 abortions were performed on African-America unborn children. 54,000 out of the 118,000 pre-birth assassinations were directed at White unborn children. Assuming that New York State more or less “looks like America”, and that American demographics didn’t undergo watershed transformation in 2008, there is an obvious disparity between population proportion and numbers of abortions taking place in America today. 42.3% of New York State’s abortions involved a racial cohort representing 12.4% of the population. Less than ½ of the abortion procedures (46%) involved white children.

Some will read the above and reply. “I see. So what was the problem here?” Well, it involves Newton’s Third Law which seems to apply beyond physics without loss of generality. When really funny guys like Stephen Colbert and profoundly brilliant intellects like Ta-Nehisi Coates discuss whether America will be more beautiful with Whites as a minority, I can almost imagine John Lennon singing “Imagine” somewhere in the background. This is totally what the SJW wants to see happen in Amerika.

Once they get together and smoke the same dope pipe, the next questions involve means. Shooting Whitey leaves a big mess around The Mandalay Bay Casino. Wouldn’t it just be nicer if whiteness were to just sort of quietly go away? If Kermit Gosnell was a plague vector aimed at lower income blacks that higher income, liberal whites wanted off their welfare system, what would stop them for redirecting that vector at Gorbutt, New York? Certainly not Kevin Williamson of National Review.

In conclusion, a major source of the evilness that we experience in Amerika is the mechanized devaluation of life. Reading All Quiet on The Western Front drives this home like a nail. The Power Game by Hedrick Smith shows you how this became a driving vector of evil in our politics. It is abortion that has brought this ability to industrialize the elimination of inconvenient people down to a very personal and individual level. Our abortion industry — tissue McNuggets, crypto-genocide and all — is a byproduct of the dehumanization of man in contemporary society.

This is why Trent Franks has, perhaps unwittingly, just offered us an opportunity to throw sand in the gears of this awful machine. Taking a stand for the sanctity of life, in the name of a supreme God, beyond the ken and comprehension of human rulers is in direct opposition to the hateful Moldbuggian Cathedral. No, Trent Franks isn’t Alt-Right. He wouldn’t admit to it without truth sermon even if he secretly were. Yet still, despite himself and his political affiliations; Trent Franks has done what was right here.

If we want to avoid the moral evil of literally paying people to crush little babies and watch their brains run down the surgical instruments, tell The US Senate to pass this bill. If we want the societal peace that comes from putting a deliberately contentious and divisive issue to bed so that political hobbits like Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan can’t use it to control our lives, we need the US Senate to get this done.

If we want to play the long game here on behalf of our race and our tribe, support this bill and take a weapon out of the hands of those like Coates and Colbert. Our current abortion-industrial complex is part of what makes Amerika an increasingly dispicable place. H.R. 36 goes in the right direction by taking away a lot of its revenue and life blood. Now is the time for the US Senate to be put on record and made to either filibuster or vote. Let the cynical games played with lives of unborn children be brought to an end.

Origin Of The First Conservative

Monday, September 25th, 2017

Zak and Thak were sitting around the entrance to the cave, just shooting the breeze in a primitive language that we have translated here into an even more primitive language. It was 24,032 B.C. and the sky was blue, the plains around them green and populated with many animals.

Thak: Things have been getting worse lately.

Zak: What do you mean? The last hunt brought in many wildebeast. We won the recent tribal war. It has rained bountifully, and all of our plants are doing well.

Thak: The problems that I can see coming, those never bother me. It is easy enough to notice that there are storm clouds on the horizon, but harder to know when your organization is about to fall apart. Remember Beta Cave?

Zak: Yeah, what about them? They just — poof! — up and vanished.

Thak: It is that sudden invisible doom that worries me. What happened in Beta Cave was simple: they had a big hunt and abundant crop, so the hunters and workers decided they did not have to work anymore, which made their leaders mad because they know that a big win this year can mean that next year will be lean. This meant that the leaders had to spent all of their time pushing people back into line so they would do their duties, and that meant that they were blindsided when Omega Cave attacked. They threw off that assault easily, but then people started to get uneasy because it was a surprise, and all the workers were complaining. The assumed their leaders were bad, kicked them out the door, and then tried to lead themselves. Every decision was a mass of debate, and soon they started deciding that some choices were off the table. They abolished the distinction between seed and feed. They stopped scheduling hunts by the moon. They allowed people to live wherever they wanted in the cave, instead of having people live according to their rank, so that warriors and leaders were near the opening. From what I hear, it was a virtual comedy — a “clown world” as they might call it someday in 2017 A.D. — because anything that was true was forbidden to say, and so people spent their time working on what was not true, and while they had enough competent people to have abundant crops and hunts, the confusion drove everyone mad so they simply scattered to the four corners.

Zak: Yes, that is what I heard as well. It was a mass craziness, like when the apples ferment and the pigs go insane after eating them.

Thak: That is what I mean by an invisible threat. Almost all of our failings as hominids occur because we are acting crazy. Sometimes it is like the pigs who ate the fermented apples, and there are some who are just broken in the mind, but usually it is simply us acting on things that we think were true or wish were true, or at first appeared to be true, but then we have not updated our knowledge from the world around us, and so we are acting as if we were in a different world, one located in our minds.

Zak: True, too true.

Thak: As we evolve, it seems to me that our biggest challenge is trying to stay organized. Life is like the hunt, a question of how to adapt to a rapidly-changing situation, which includes the need for logistics, doing things in the right order, and a hierarchy of command so that no question goes unanswered and we do not fall into confusion about how and when to act, and in what order. Our spearmen line up to charge a mastodon, but if they all throw at once, they will probably collide their spears and miss, then have no weapons as the injured animal turns on them. Someone must bring water and food, and if a hunter is hurt, there needs to be someone who can tell which two hunters we can take out of the hunt to carry him between spears. There are some who are better scouts, others better trackers, and some who are only good in the beginning or finishing of the attack. To have a successful hunt, the hunt-leader must assemble enough hunters who are good at each of the duties needed, then assemble the supplies and weapons, then have a plan about how to encounter the prey and what we will do at that point, including what happens when things do not go according to plan. Even with excellent hunters, we have had bad hunts when we were not prepared. When we are not organized, we fail.

Zak: We could just hunt rabbits. One man can take a half-dozen in a day.

Thak: And that will feed, what? Four people. When we go on the big hunts, or tend to the plants that produce the roots and fruits that we need, we can feed many more, which allows us to have a cave that can defend itself, where we have people to make pottery for storing food, keep the fires tended, and even have a shrine and altar so that we can keep up our spirits when there are storms or famines. What drives us to the big hunt is the opportunity to be greater masters of our world.

Zak: And yet, as you point out, it is this mastery that caused Beta Cave to collapse.

Thak: Maybe so. But I think there was something else as well. They became masters, but forgot their purpose, and so they allowed lesser men to dwell among them, and this made their leaders into slaves who had to spend all of their time keeping others in line. On the hunt, a man who cannot keep up is allowed to fall behind, and he gets nothing of the take. In a prosperous cave, everyone may have some of the plenty, and so soon there are many people who do nothing but take. If you want your cave to succeed, you have to send away the people who can do nothing or who need to be constantly told what to do.

Zak: Not very sociable, though.

Thak: What is socializing but looking for ourselves in others? For that we have the surface of a still river before dusk or after dawn.

Zak: What you say is true, but I cannot trouble myself by it. I am doing well enough, this year, and I know that over time, all things fall apart. Trees age and die, even mountains collapse. If I struggle against the inevitable, I will be wasting my life on the hopeless and will in turn become miserable. It is better to enjoy what I have.

Thak: Remember the time we brought down that giant woolly mammoth?

Zak: Oh man, do I ever. That was a great hunt! We almost lost. That thing was huge.

Thak: And would you have enjoyed it more if the beast had been smaller, or less dangerous?

Zak: No. That was what made that hunt the hunt I will always remember. We took down a beast that stood a good chance of killing all of us.

Thak: So if there were a smaller, weaker beast, would you hunt that instead?

Zak: Of course not! This is what distinguishes hominids like us from animals. We need a spirit, a feeling, a reason to enjoy existence. You cannot have that by hunting weaker animals, despite it being smarter to hunt those.

Thak: Or rabbits.

Zak: At that point, we might as well just go back to gathering roots, mushrooms and berries.

Thak: I think we understand each other. For me, the cave is the hunt: there is a challenge there, and a chance for greatness, not just an easy meal and place to stay. I think you are the same way. We are not satisfied with comfort, safety and plenty. We need mountains to climb, wars to wage, and great hunts where the beast has the upper hand.

Zak: Definitely that is true.

Thak: Our societies are not like mountains or trees, but like whole forests. They can live forever, or as long as the stellar gods allow this world to live, if they are pruned and renewed. When we take firewood, we pare down the old and the weak trees, and new trees take their place, so that even if there is a fire or drought, there are enough strong trees to endure and restart the forest again.

Zak: Such a fragile thing. If even one generation fails…

Thak: Nature is designed of many fragile things, because that way, they are not corrupted. They are either strong or they cease to exist. Strength comes from fragility. The lion seeks mates, but can easily become lost, bit by a snake, fall off a cliff, or be beaten by other lions. This fragility ensures that what endures is the strong.

Zak: And yet, over time, all things decay.

Thak: Individual lions decay, but the species of lions does not. It renews itself through fragility and strength.

Zak: And you would do this to our cave?

Thak: Yes, because I have a different approach than our leaders. We need leaders who are fragile inside, full of sensitivity and wonder for this life. They need to be able to be harsh and lazy like the king lion. Their job is not to clean up after others; it is to conquer, and to lead, and then to make a new generation. They must be willing to let the weak die out, and to send away the useless, because the very sight of uselessness offends them. In a world with so much to do, and so much greatness to discover, weakness and uselessness are intolerable. Any one who does not understand that life is sacred in this way is unfit to be in our cave. That is the pruning. And then, the renewal. People must be full of life, seeking challenges always, not reveling in what they already have, or they become crazy and bored at the same time, and give up. That path leads to clown world.

Zak: Do you think it is possible that our cave could become a clown world?

Thak: Strength comes from fragility, and fragility comes from strength that does not judge its object. When we are strong, it is because we recognize that not all are strong, and we send away the defectives. When we are weak, it is because we include everyone under the assumption that they can carry our strength just by doing the same things that we do. Most caves become clown worlds and perish, like Beta Cave. They all went insane, but they did not realize it, because everyone else was insane too, so insanity seemed like power, until all fell apart.

Zak: Surely this was the work of some demon, or a god for whom they had fallen into ill-favor?

Thak: You and I are hunters who have roved many plains. We have seen many things, including invisible things like the organization of a cave. But we have never seen demons, and we realize those are just ways that people represent their fears. The demon is within. Things fall apart, and when they are weak inside, hominids desire that falling apart. They do not want to struggle anymore. They want to just let go, and stop interacting with life, but this is a weakness that a predator would smell downwind, so they hide this behind false strength. This strength consists of a lust for power and prosperity because those enable them to escape their role in the cave. A bad hunter becomes an important man, or a weak person has a group of hunters to order around, or a dumb man finds a way to pretend that he is smart because he knows things, even if they are not useful, or especially if they are not useful, because then no one else knows them and he can cleverly invent ways to make them seem more important than what is useful. The weakness within must be concealed with activity that seems like power. A man who can be invisible because his orders go out through others feels as if he has hidden his weakness, and so he will do selfish things, confident in his invisibility. A man who is weak will in private do weak things, but in public, show off his strength. They are not fragile, like nature, because they do not respond to the world around them or even the gods, but they do exactly the same thing no matter what happens. This makes them strong until, like Beta Cave, they find themselves in a different world than this one, and then this world takes its revenge.

Zak: I fear for my daughters, that they may marry such weak men.

Thak: And well you should, but the better question is why we suffer weakness to live around us? We can send them to Beta Cave… I suppose we cannot. We must send them away, that is for sure, because the hearts of young people are filled with passion, and passion comes from the self and not the world, so they make bad choices.

Zak: I can tell them not to be seen with such men.

Thak: But then they will see them secretly, because strong hearts rebel against that which they do not understand.

Zak: I see that this is quite a challenge.

Thak: Like the Great Hunt, it must be. We find meaning in this world because it is a challenge, and when we master it, we have become greater. When we are surrounded by weakness, we become depressed, and stop caring if we go greater or lesser. This is why we must remove the weak men before your daughters find them.

Zak: But our leaders will not do this. They, too, seek power, and in the many heads of our tribe, they find it.

Thak: This is true. But then they are not leaders, but what will someday be called “government,” or a type of control that cultivates weak people so that they can be made to do what it wills, instead of what is natural and sensible. This is why our leaders avoid war. They do not want to lose any of those heads, even if many of them should be lost. It is not that we are prosperous that makes us do this, only what enables us to do so. It is a loss of strength because they are not fragile enough within to understand the difference between a good idea and a better one.

Zak: If we took the daughters and sons of our best hunters, and led them to a new cave, we could start over and be greater.

Thak: And we should be secret in doing so, and appear weak whenever possible, so that we escape the notice of those possessed by vanity and the lust for power and prosperity. They will find and fight others like themselves, increasing their weakness which they believe is strength.

Zak: I am a man of the Great Hunt. So it shall be done.

Thak: And this is why I have this conversation with you, and not with just any person from our old cave.

Dusk settled onto the land, and lightning played through the clouds. A soft rain fell. Somewhere, a tree splintered and caught flame, struck with the bolts of the gods. Still the men sat, looking out over the beauty and mystery of their land.

Conservatives, Conserve Heritage; Miscegenation Is Death

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017

Conservatives are those who conserve, and because not all actions turn out as well, they conserve the best of what is offered. This is the opposite of a utilitarian standard: instead of whatever is “okay” by the lowest common denominator in a large herd, they choose what is best, even if most people are not clear in their understanding of that.

As part of this, conservatives are natural environmentalists, despite mainstream conservatives doing little along these lines. They are also defenders of culture, although mainstream conservatives have done nothing there. But even more, they conserve genetics, which means keeping the best of the past and bearing it forward into the future.

This is why miscegenation is death, as Jared Taylor notes:

There is one argument for anti-miscegenation laws that is stronger now than ever. Whites used to have eight or ten children, but now they are not even replacing themselves, and every out-marriage is a tiny step towards extinction.

…But why preserve a white majority? Is it not because whites have a legitimate yearning for societies that reflect their own nature and culture, and that only whites can build such societies? If, in every generation, 9 percent of whites are contributing to their own demographic dispossession, that alone will ensure that they eventually disappear.

And what about the victims of miscegenation whom Derbyshire himself writes about: the Chinese men who wanted to attack him when they saw him with a Chinese woman, and the black women who hate it when black men chase white women? (Derbyshire leaves out other combinations but they can produce resentments that are just as strong.)

Racial-sexual loyalty is a powerful emotion. Should we just ignore it?

Racial, and more importantly ethnic, loyalty is powerful because it protects something powerful: traits are not just heritable, but genes cluster together in groups to produce those traits, and so when miscegenation — mixing of races and ethnic groups — occurs, not only are some traits lost, but the overall makeup of the ethnic group, like a network of traits, is lost too.

When Germans are 1/4 Korean, they are no longer Germans. They are something new. In the same way, if Germany because 1/4 Polish or Irish, Germans would no longer be Germans, with the same habits and abilities of Germans, but something new that has through a process of genocide replaced the Germans.

Seen through sane eyes, avoiding miscegenation is how a population maintains its health, along with other breeding habits that we have denied because the individualists among us want to believe that what matters is what they intend, not who they are. As Billy Roper writes, ethnic preservation cannot be separated from other healthy breeding practices:

People understood that eugenics, or purposeful, conscious and selective breeding, is just as real for two legged animals as it is for any other variety. They strove for quality in their offspring, which meant that they strove for quality in their mates, whether they were selecting breeding partners for themselves, or as was often the case traditionally, for their children. Not any more, of course. People drag around their accidents of birth like proud badges of martyrdom, forcing them on everyone else, eliciting painfully awkward, nervous grins and tolerance. Or else. Hell, most of you probably think I’m the world’s biggest jerk already, for not wanting to group slobber hug the cast from ‘The Ringer’, which is a funny movie, by the way. Hold on, I get worse.

When people no longer care about the genetic quality of their offspring, when they actively deny that genetic inheritance plays a significant role in intelligence, personality, temperament, and jump shots, they get just what they deserve. When they fail to see that inherited psychological and cognitive characteristics cluster in racial groups, and pretend that “love” is blind to color and really all that matters is a person’s heart, Kumbaya, then they get what they pay for.

Not only did America’s Founding Fathers make it illegal for nonWhites to become citizens of the United States, they also made it illegal for different races to intermarry. A lot of people don’t know that until very recently, those laws were still on the books, too. Anti-miscegenation laws were a part of American law in some States since before the United States was established and remained so until ruled unConstitutional in 1967.

Why would someone care about the genetic health of their offspring, the level of pollution in their rivers, the future of their civilization, or the presence of great art, symphonies and novels? After all, we will all be dead relatively soon, and what happens after that is not directly relevant to us. However, that is not quite the full story either.

We find meaning in life through connection to things larger than us. These can be material things or spiritual things, but either way, by connecting to the world beyond ourselves, we have discovered beauty and importance to life. We cannot make life important on the basis of ourselves as individuals, because we are pursuing tiny pleasures, miniscule powers and transient wealth. We can however discover what is great in life and, through it, find what we value in ourselves.

That drive to virtue is the basis of dislike of miscegenation. It is beautiful that our people have existed for millennia, upholding their values and unique abilities, and conquering many obstacles in order to create great civilizations. It is amazing that all of us, no matter how small, can have a role in that if we choose to do so.

But, in order to do that, we must overcome our egos. This is what is meant by the idea from Toynbee that great civilizations are not killed, but commit suicide, when we pair that idea with another from Plato, which is that in order to know what is true, we must first want to be virtuous and take our place in a complex order where we each have a unique role, but we are not all the same, either as equal individuals or one mass hive-mind.

The ancient Greeks knew that hubris was the death of a civilization. Once people see themselves as more important than any external order — nature, logic, civilization, morality, or religion — they begin to act like squabbling monkeys, fighting over personal importance and temporary issues. The goal is forgotten, and the possibility of anything great is foreclosed.

You can see this individualistic outlook in some recent entertaining Communist propaganda from The New York Times:

Having lived her first 43 years under Communism, she often complained that the new free market hindered Bulgarians’ ability to develop healthy amorous relationships.

“Sure, some things were bad during that time, but my life was full of romance,” she said. “After my divorce, I had my job and my salary, and I didn’t need a man to support me. I could do as I pleased.”

Ms. Durcheva was a single mother for many years, but she insisted that her life before 1989 was more gratifying than the stressful existence of her daughter, who was born in the late 1970s.

“All she does is work and work,” Ms. Durcheva told me in 2013, “and when she comes home at night she is too tired to be with her husband. But it doesn’t matter, because he is tired, too. They sit together in front of the television like zombies. When I was her age, we had much more fun.”

Nevermind that the actual topic of this article is that people in “free” societies work too much. You can also ignore the fact that Communism failed to produce much of anything consistently, where the West built a great industry. The answer is somewhere in the middle, perhaps a capitalist state without any government entitlements or benefits, so that people could work less and have enough. But the real point is that Ms. Durcheva was proud of her days when she did not need a man to support her and could do whatever she wanted.

Whatever she wanted. That is the face of individualism: do not do what is right, or what is meaningful, but what you, the raging ego, decide that you want. Notice that there is no discussion of whether this activity was productive or filled her soul with joy. She was a king in her own little sphere, with her job where she was important and a personal life where she could be free from commitment. Life became not an activity with purpose, but a series of sensations, all dedicated to the individual. That is why we call hubris “individualism” now.

The New York Times only wants to draw more women to Leftism with the promise of being able to do whatever they want. It is the call of manipulation because every human responds to it: the idea that they do not need to struggle for meaning or sanity in life, but can become entirely self-sufficient, separate from nature and the logical results of their actions. They are in control, and no one can make them live up to standards, be good, or even be useful. It is all about the ego, which is both a warm feeling and an infinite abyss.

We face the same problem in explaining why miscegenation is destructive. Why care about anything but the self, my beautiful self? Even if that portends the death of meaning, people do not seek meaning because they do not understand it. When it is there, they appreciate it, but when it is not, they settle for egomania and hollow, simple pleasures.

Avoiding miscegenation is part of a path to meaning. Some of us naturally connect to something larger than ourselves; we are the producers and the civilization-builders. Others do not, and will pretend they are not miserable by rationalizing how much of “muh freedom” and independence they have. But in the end, that is a path to emptiness and death, even if the body lives on.

Jane Austen, Western Restorationist

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017

Some time ago, Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents wrote about women and someone brought up Jane Austen. Six years later, this provoked Leftist celebrity-academia to sperg out and get schooled by AltRight.

With that backstory out of the way, we can look at the actual appeal of Jane Austen, and then expand upon it. Luckily, you have a credible guide; I wrote extensively on Jane Austen while entrenched in academia, before realizing that academia was just as much a lie as the private sector and bailing out of both as much as possible. And so, there are some expansions that can be argued as well.

Austen writes books that many still consider “women’s novels” for their topic matter, which is fine as long as you think that Apocalypse Now was a war film and Repo Man was a film about cars, or that Naked Lunch was really about heroin, for that matter. Setting is not content; a good novel is like a virus, with an outer shell of setting and characters, and a payload of philosophy and detailed observation of life.

As revealed in one of our recent Austen reviews, her thinking as a writer extends beyond the concerns of her characters to human questions of morality, existential fulfillment and even civilization itself. She may write through the lens of women’s issues, but Austen belongs on the shelf with Nietzsche, Houellebecq and Céline.

Naturally, the Establishment is resisting the idea that Austen could be Alt Right, which tells you right away that some similarity between the two can be found, because otherwise they would not bother getting the hive-mind in a buzz about this issue. As Hannibal Bateman writes:

Indeed, the Jane Austen outrage didn’t just stop with The Chronicle but has now penetrated into other elite purveyors of liberal discourse via The New York Times and The Paris Review.

From The Times article “Jane Austen Has Alt-Right Fans? Heavens to Darcy!”:

But it has prompted the most sustained chatter among Austen scholars, a more reliably liberal bunch who, like Ms. Wright, emphatically reject white nationalist readings of her novels.

“No one who reads Jane Austen’s words with any attention and reflection can possibly be alt-right,” Elaine Bander, a retired professor and a former officer of the Jane Austen Society of North America, said in an email.

…Of course Jane Austen comes out of a White world. This is why the commentary on the original Counter Currents article were so relevant. Because Jane Austen as a European writer speaks to peculiar conditions of European man, the same way Langston Hughes and Chaim Potok speak to their respective black and Jewish readers. All of Austen’s work takes place in a world where European identity, and in particular, regency English countryside identity, were presupposed.

Austen not only touches on, but by arguing for certain attitudes within them, endorses some of the most taboo institutions to Leftists, including caste systems, eugenics and aristocracy. In the Austen world, people are either good or bad, and those that behave according to the psychology of Leftism are parasitic and threatening.

Click here for an imaging of what Jane Austen might have looked like. Just two centuries ago, and already so much is forgotten. But her vision lives on because it remains relevant for any sane and thinking person in this time, as well.

For example, her classic Pride And Prejudice melds eugenic theory with an intensely realistic morality. All of the bad men are slightly effete, harmless-looking and parasitic; all of the good ones are elitist, good-natured and generous. The self-deluding characters end up with other self-deluders and make themselves miserable, and realists find each other and escape.

In her book Emma, Austen describes the Leftist mentality as similar to a lonely over-disciplined child playing in a doll house. The people and consequences are not real, only symbolic, and this manifests in a profound and damaging loneliness. In the background, civilization chortles on, oblivious to these deeper issues, as if Austen is reminding us that most of humanity is inert.

For this reason, it is both a mistake to argue that Jane Austen is an Alt Right writer as it is to argue that her work does not contain some ideas which overlap with the Alt Right. She writes about a white world of a different era, in which social rank (caste distinctions) and personal qualities are more important than commerce. Her world is appalled by European foreigners, much less non-whites, whose presence she would find as awkward as she finds the concept of slavery.

In other words, like most literary superstars, Jane Austen was that odd mixture of intense Realism and a passionate sense that the idea is greater than the material, or Germanic-style Idealism. In her books, characters are practical, but also live for spirit and a strong sense of doing what is right not only by themselves, but by principle itself.

Claiming that her philosophy fits into the Alt Right world is thus both true and not the whole story. As The Chronicle writes:

On the popular blog of the alt-right publisher Counter-Currents, the world of Austen’s novels is extolled as a prototype for the “racial dictatorship” of tomorrow. One commenter wrote, “If, after the ethnostate is created, we revert back to an Austen-like world, we males ought to endure severe sacrifices as well. … If traditional marriage à la P&P [Pride and Prejudice] is going to be imposed, again, in an ethnostate, we must behave like gentlemen.”

In Jane Austen, the only reason the ethnostate works at all is the presence of an aristocracy. Austen’s work is intensely elitist, and she recognizes that most people are horrible and most human events are in fact failures. For example, witness this classic voicing by Elizabeth Bennet that expresses elitism and aristocracy at the same time:

There are few people whom I really love, and still fewer of whom I think well. The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of merit or sense.

Most things are garbage; most people are confused. The few who rise above merit attention, and this theme runs through Emma and Pride And Prejudice as well as other Austen works. In a foreshadowing of modern literature, most of her characters end up self-destructing or slotted into dead-end existences, while the few good ones struggle and then finally find a path of meaning for themselves.

This elitism is the core of hierarchy. When sorting out a human group, it makes sense to place the best above the rest, not just by external traits (wealth, power, status, popularity) but by internal traits (honor, intelligence, wisdom, pathos). Much of Austen’s work consists of filtering out the internal traits from the external image presented by characters, including slimy ones.

For those of us in the present day, this becomes essential because under democracy, everything is political. In Austen’s world we can see a comradeship of the gifted in which the political is recognized as a front, and the internal traits and motivations of individuals determine their quality and thus their relevance to that world. Austen may be as anti-democratic as she is insightful.

Her characters are — unlike modern “literary” protagonistas — not uncomfortable with their roles. Women want to get married and have families; men want to be men; proles want to prole, and elites are concerned with the abstract issues that are relevant to leadership. Each thing has its place, and the only remaining task is to sort them all by hierarchy.

That type of comfort only occurs in a strict hierarchy of both leadership and social status, demonstrated in her time by aristocracy and caste. Every person has a place, or zone of comfortable operation, paired to his or her characteristics. Scullery maids are not expected to be ladies, nor are footmen expected to be gentlemen. But all are accepted as they are and even seen through a kindly filter.

One reason that Austen remains popular is that she shows us a time before the neurotic existence occasioned by modernity, which has its roots in the removal of this leadership and hierarchy and their replacement with egalitarian mob rule. In Jane Austen’s time, being accurate in speech was still more important than flattering others, and discerning inner traits was permissible. Neither is true today.

This leads us to another uncomfortable recognition: the white world of Jane Austen could not exist without its other aspects such as aristocracy. The world she describes will never emerge from equality and democracy. It is an entirely different direction that we could have at any moment, were we willing to surrender our pretense of equality.

Aristocracy in turn could not exist without her elitism, or recognition that inner traits exist and are important, and that we need those with the best inner traits on top because if decisions are left up to lesser people, crisis and horror result. It is this realization, which reverses the logical framework for both the French Revolution and The Enlightenment,™ that really scares the Left.

If we read Austen as honest and alert people, we encounter a vision of human existence which directly refutes Leftism while simultaneously adopting and disciplining the emotional responses behind it, much as Elizabeth Bennet learns to discipline her emotions in Pride And Prejudice. While that vision includes the ethnostate, it is not limited to it.

That in turn normalizes the ethnostate as a concept. Instead of being a radical idea, it is an ingredient in the most sensible recipe for happiness; it is not chosen for its symbolic meaning or personal value, but because it works, like every other idea demonstrated positively in an Austen novel.

Her insight is to show us that the reason these policies work at the national level is because they work at the personal level. The question of civilization is not institutions, but individuals, and individuals follow the same framework and so can be predicted. Is Austen Alt Right? Perhaps neither yes nor no, but she attacks modernity the same way the Alt Right does, and we should heed her wisdom.

The Purge: Election Year (2016)

Saturday, January 14th, 2017

by Adam Rath

The Purge: Election Year was released thirteen months after President-Elect Trump’s announcement of his candidacy, giving the producers plenty of time to tap into the periodic emotional frenzy of democratic societies. The theatrical poster evoked the themes of Trump’s campaign, including the tagline “Keep America Great.”

For those unfamiliar with the Purge series, it portrays a near-future USA where a pseudo-fascist nationalist party rules with popular approval. Once a year, in an extreme hybrid of ancient Greek ostracism, eugenics, and Escape From New York, all laws are suspended for 24 hours. While most people with the means and organization (middle-class and above) seal up in their homes and wait it out, some venture out into the wild to enact some extra-legal justice or to unleash the beast within them in psychopathic violence. The more disorganized areas of the country, like urban ghettos, predictably devolve into a melee of chaos that leaves a good portion of the population dead.

Interestingly, in the movies’ internal history, this policy has resulted in a healthy economy and 1% unemployment rate, as well as widespread popular support. The movies portray the Purge as a time of fear where families cower in the fortress-like homes, but what would really happen if professional law and medical services were removed (with warning)? Look to the behavior of American pioneers: common citizens join together for protection in times of danger, such as savage redskin attacks. In this light, the Purge seems like a way to weed out those communities incapable of such basic organization.

In Election Year this becomes explicit, accompanied by the anti-majority ethnic animus which has reached a fever pitch over the past decade. The establishment — apparently all conservative white males of Anglo-Saxon heritage — are under threat by a new, exciting candidate in the form of a white woman with hipster glasses. After a failed assassination attempt, she and her gay-looking bodyguard end up with a group of various ethnic minorities from poor neighborhoods.

They fight their way back to safety against a cadre of stereotypical evilwhites including militia men with Confederate/Nazi flag patches and Russian tourists. Long story short, our oppressed heroes join up with the multicultural Rebellion ripped off from Star Wars for the millionth time, and win over the evil conservative white people in the end. The Purge is ended forever, and the incompetent are safe again.

Unlike the first Purge film, this fails even on the level of exploitation/thriller by wasting most of the screentime with its bloated moral message. It performed well at the box office due to the political tie-in, suggesting producers will attempt more such movies, but the surprise majoritarian electoral upset may have changed the cultural taste. Already the tropes trotted out in this movie seem like the tired cliches of a past age.

People That Tell You Not To Breed Are Your Enemies

Monday, December 26th, 2016

The reaction of a certain, cretinous subset of our chattering classes to Bristol Palin’s 3rd pregnancy reminds me of a fundamental rule of life. The future belongs to those who show up. Amerikans aren’t making it. CNN describes the situation below.

The general fertility rate is the number of births out of 1,000 women between the ages of 15 to 44. In the first three months of 2016, the fertility rate in the US fell to the lowest level. The rate was 59.8 births per 1,000 women.

So how does society treat those women who still assume the responsibility of bearing the next generation. Olivia Nuzzi shows us what a classy place Jack Dorsey has helped Twitter grow into.

At this rate it would be less work for Bristol Palin to announce when she is not pregnant.

— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) December 10, 2016

What inspires such total hatred of motherhood. If Amanda Marcotte is typical of anything other than the sordid steep-sided unreality of the blogosphere, I’d chalk it up to unabashed solipsism.

No matter how much free day care you throw at women, babies are still time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. No matter how flexible you make my work schedule, my entire life would be overturned by a baby. I like my life how it is, with my ability to do what I want when I want without having to arrange for a babysitter. I like being able to watch True Detective right now and not wait until baby is in bed. I like sex in any room of the house I please. I don’t want a baby. I’ve heard your pro-baby arguments. Glad those work for you, but they are unconvincing to me. Nothing will make me want a baby.

Feeling relieved that Marcotte’s badly mutated genetic material will be blessedly Star-Saned out of the gene pool is understandable. If you wonder what sort of son this harridan would raise, give the Pearl Jam song “Jeremy” a listen. If you personally hate the idea of children that much, don’t bear or father one. The problem comes when the Amanda Marcottes of the world inspire anything other than condign, loogie-hawking, disgust. If enough people follow her lead and dare to be selfish, not much else will follow.

So how does this news strike our enemies? They love it. People who cheer and encourage childlessness want your line to disappear. They want you off the face of the planet.

If you can’t empty that Basket of Deplorables in real time, you can fix them and by that process fix it so they don’t reproduce. It is no historical accident that the ideological offspring of Margaret Sanger resent it when those they disapprove of reproduce. This is negative rather than positive eugenics. People who criticize you for breeding are not your friends.

An Opportunity

Monday, December 12th, 2016

It is tempting to bemoan our time, but recently, our prospects for the future have improved. With the debunking of liberal democracy as the US and EU collapse in a flurry of convergent failures, people are seeing that Systems — networks of rules — are inferior to culture and organic civilization.

Those two things, culture and organic civilization, have been banned by the Left through the use of diversity. By insisting that society be mixed-ethnic, they prevent it from ever having a single origin and single people, which it needs to have social standards and cultural values.

We might view the Left as a social contract: it offers guaranteed inclusion in society, or “equality,” in exchange for political support of the Left. This creates a mass within society that consumes it, but because it is unstable, it tends toward direct authoritarian rule instead of decentralized rule by principle as occurs with social standards and cultural values.

The problem with this is that it works against itself. As social acceptance approaches 100%, people have no need for Leftism anymore. Leftists then tend toward authoritarianism, especially acts which are symbolic only.

For example, diversity is a symbolic-only act. Leftists import the third world, then carefully live apart from them. The point is to smash down symbols of majority culture, because that has a values standard and so some people can be “wrong” and not included by those rules.

When Leftism becomes irrelevant, the social contract evaporates, which is why Leftists must constantly invent new crusades to “unify their base.” Luckily this is easy as much of the appeal of the Left is that it justifies revenge on those more naturally gifted or successful. When the base is given a new target, like gay marriage, they sense the ability to smash down the sane and make insanity standard, which delights them.

The problem with this, as with all work in search of a purpose, is that it gradually becomes disorganized and paradoxical. The more people we make equal, the less they are to agree with one another, and more likely to fragment into nearly infinite special interest groups, at which point those will be at war with one another.

In addition to the failures of their leadership, which are many because ideology is inherently reality-denying, Leftist societies fail because they cannot achieve voluntarily cooperation. As soon as people have guaranteed acceptance, they start pulling away from ideology, and even whipping them up into a Two Minutes Hate with the ideological outrage of the day is less effective, lasting for shorter periods of time.

Leftist society in the US and EU resembles the Soviet Union for exactly this reason: as soon as it took over, Leftism became The Establishment and the same bratty human behavior that Leftism took advantage of to get into power began to work against it. This requires them to switch to “negative authority,” or punishment, to keep people in line.

Your average Leftist does not care a fig for transgender rights or gay marriage. They want these things because they are absurd and offensive and therefore can become shibboleths, or quick tests for who is a good obedient Leftist cog and who is not, with the latter group seen as The Enemy even when — especially when — they do not identify as such. This is the bullying mentality behind Leftism.

The combination of this bullying, the predictable failure of unrealistic Leftist policies, and the growing uneasy sensation that our society was heading down a path to doom from which there could be no recovery, together motivated a backlash that we see with the election of Donald J. Trump, Brexit and other anti-Government actions.

These are more than a rejection of the last eight years, or even the last seventy, but more importantly, reject the entire concept of the System as good and Modernity as a variety of Utopia. We have seen what is on the end of the fork, and we now realize that all modern paths lead to authoritarianism, entropy and breakdown to a third-world status.

As pragmatic people, we realize that when a certain action is failing, the best thing to do is to stop doing it — or at least do less of it. This is why the narrative we see now is more anti-government than anything else. We want fewer taxes, welfare, healthcare, immigration, political correctness, censorship and other government programs. We want more normal life without its intervention.

For the functional among us, very little is needed from government. We like roads, military and police, and beyond that, want very little. But this conflicts with a segment of our population that probably would have been eliminated by natural selection who are a biologically-determined drain on civilization:

After 35 years, the researchers found one fifth of the group was responsible for 81 per cent of the criminal convictions; three quarters of drug prescriptions; two thirds of welfare benefit payments and more than half of nights in hospital.

…“About 20 per cent of population is using the lion’s share of a wide array of public services,” said Prof Terrie Moffitt, of King’s College and Duke University in North Carolina. “The same people use most of the NHS, the criminal courts, insurance claims, for disabling injury, pharmaceutical prescriptions and special welfare benefits.

…“But we also went further back into their childhood and found that 20 per cent begin their lives with mild problems with brain function and brain health when they were very small children.

In other words, civilization has been hijacked by its least competent because its most competent are afraid of appearing non-compassionate.

Symbolically, these elections are about more than politics. They are a cultural shift against the religion of compassion, and in favor of the lifestyle of realism and common sense, applied knowledge.

This places the West at a juncture where it has never been before, and possibly at a chasm that no society has ever managed to cross: it is rejecting our monkey-instinct fear of social disapproval and instead, suggesting that self-discipline and logical prevail over the impulses we otherwise follow.

If we reject our fear, we can stop making our policy around those who need to be moved on, and instead focus on what makes us healthy, sane and experiencing existential pleasure in life.

The team began the project to test the ‘Pareto principle’ – also known as the ‘80-20 rule’ – which states that in the majority of systems, around 80 per cent of the effects come from about 20 per cent of the causes.

This principle has been found to work computer science, biology, physics, economics and many other fields.

The new research found that the law is also true for societal burden. As well as increased criminality and NHS use, the most-costly participants of the study also carried 40 per cent of the obese weight and filed 36 per cent of personal-injury insurance claims.

All of nature fits this pattern. There is a corresponding 20% who do most of the good, and by definition, 60% in the middle. Societies that succeed are those which push the good 20% to the top, chop off the bad 20%, and reward the 60% only when they act more like the good 20%.

Government and Systems move in the opposite direction, which is to design around a lowest common denominator so that they do not leave the bad 20% behind, thus avoiding the appearance of being bad and keeping the fear of the sheep from being inflamed. That way of living does not work.

Since the West went egalitarian, or believing that Good = Bad so that it could accept the bad 20%, it has steadily devolved into incompetence, corruption, stupidity and mass slavery to boring tasks that are designed to accommodate the lowest achievers. We have made life existentially miserable, and as a result, our people are self-destructing.

These elections are the first step, a symbolic gesture, in the reversal of this path toward the bad and, in order to avoid it, setting a path for the good instead.

Many civilizations have faced this fork in the road, and apparently they all chose wrong, because history is a graveyard of failed empires.

We have the possibility of fixing a thousand years of decay and to move past it, just by pushing forward toward a non-Government, non-System based society anchored in realism and moral attention, which requires denial of individualism. All of these things are present in nascent form in the existing cultural change.

Right now, we have a chance to do what no others have done, and by so doing, end the crisis of leadership that has afflicted humanity and allowed it to overpopulate, pollute and vandalize a planet with useless activity.

We may rise above all who have come before us, starting with these little baby steps.

Trump Sets The Stage For Deportation

Sunday, December 4th, 2016


In a recent statement, President-Elect Donald J. Trump stated the possibility of exile or deportation for those incompatible with American civilization:

‘Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!’ Trump said Tuesday morning on Twitter.

Essentially what he is saying here is that those who pursue the American way belong among us, but those who do not should endure “loss of citizenship.” He hedges that by offering jail instead for the relatively minor act of burning an American flag, but this still reserves deportation for those who commit more egregious violations.

This policy reverses centuries of egalitarian thought. Under egalitarianism, society is facilitative, or designed to support its citizens in their pursuit of their own interests, whether those end in good results or bad. Under this new idea, people belong among us only so far as they are able to offer something to the cooperative achievement of a collaborative goal.

Exile/deportation would solve many problems. Instead of trying to “reform” criminals, we could simply send them somewhere else and let nature or the gods deal with them as is appropriate. Where now we spend millions in keeping our society together, we could simply admit that not everyone belongs, and let those who belong elsewhere go to some other place.

The old way was based on wealth and entitlement. The new way is based on realism: we need a small group of people pulling in the right direction and those who support them, and those who hate this setup or want to go another direction belong somewhere else.

This is the return of Social Darwinism, not by wealth, but by direction.

Facing The Threshold

Sunday, December 4th, 2016


At this point, people in the West are becoming worried. This could really be our end, after all. The people predicting doom may not in fact be the equivalent of hairy men standing on streetcorners with THE END IS NEAR on placards.

It could be the whole thing is unraveling, and what scares us is that the stuff we consider “normal” may in fact be detrimental, but we were so busy adapting to it that we did not notice. Decay always sneaks up on you like that.

In fact, if we look over the recent centuries, we see nothing but decline. From symphonies to jingles made into pop songs. From great architecture to square boxes. From literature to neurosis tales. From leadership to pandering to the herd. We are in free-fall and have been for some time.

We are facing a threshold of change: we either choose to change direction, or we follow the path we are on into oblivion.

Civilizations are destroyed from within by social disruption which manifests as class revolt. It is socially unacceptable to admit that people are different and need to have different roles and rewards; however, in the realist model, it is imperative that people are sorted according to a hierarchy of ability (which is heritable).

The root of this decline is Crowdism which is known under another name in our time: peer pressure. Essentially, social pressures take over a civilization at the same time its initial purpose is achieved, causing it to need another purpose but having no idea how to formulate such an idea. It may take centuries to realize what has happened and look toward the next stage, or threshold.

The demise of civilization is inherent to civilization. As civilization advances, it protects the useless along with the good, and then when the useless act out, it attempts to protect them instead of exiling them into the nearby forests. The goal is to keep people together as a protection against external threats, but this requires universalism, or treating all people as identical utilitarian cogs.

We face an ugly moment in which we must decide that ends are more valuable than means, or that our goal is more important than the ways we achieve it. If our goal is a thriving civilization, we must be ready to exclude those who threaten it, which probably means about 20% of each generation, replicating the pattern of natural selection.

This thought is so taboo that it will probably crash your computer (unless it is an Apple, which is oblivious to anything but strong emotional response by blue-haired overweight Asiatic hipsters).

If we want a civilization, we must exclude those who are anti-civilization. This means that all of us are, if not “judged,” at least assessed for compatibility. This rejects individualism: people cannot be members of the civilization merely by wanting it, or through their intent, but most demonstrate some utility to it. How crass!

And yet, the question remains before us. Will we suppress the useless? The modern West is drowning in useless people who see nothing but what they desire. They are competent enough at their jobs, perhaps, but it is what they refuse to see that makes them dangerous. They accomplish the task as delegated to them and ignore the externalized cost to civilization and nature.

A future traditionalist society will be ruthless about removing the useless. In every generation, those who show no promise will be removed, probably exiled to a nearby province. The civilization will do this organically through a caste system, so that the best are always promoted, and then they make sure that the toxic presence of the useless is removed through exile.

A society of this nature requires clarity above all else. It can have no division of power; the king alone is absolute, but the choice of king rests in a spongy hierarchy of aristocrats, all motivated to do more than what is practical; they aim for what rises to excellence, in an irrational and impractical rejection of human limits on our own abilities.

There are no special interests in this society. People are either working collaboratively toward the purpose of the civilization or belong elsewhere. Grey areas are for interpreting literature and nothing else. The individual is valued, so long as that individual is compatible with the goal. Others must be discarded so that the civilization remains on a path to its purpose.

Individualism has wracked the West for too long. In this view, the purpose is the individual; civilizational purpose is subordinated so that each person can act out their own drama, whether for good or ill, and discriminating between the two is taboo.

If we are to survive, our future civilization will be based on utility toward a transcendent goal. Those who can achieve this will rise. The others will either remain in their limited roles, or be cast aside. Finally we will be free of the scourge of universalism.

This process occurs via thresholds. Growth is not linear, but staggered. After an expansion, it reaches a place at which decisions must be made, a fork in the road. At that point, the society must consider both its path and those who claim to be following along.

The past was comprised of victory by giving in to peer pressure and accepting everyone, or accepting everyone but promoting a few as very hip individuals deserving of special focus. The future will reward only those who achieve goals, reversing a millennium of illusion.

It will be most liberating!

Recommended Reading