Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘france’

Homogeneity Works, Heterogeneity Does Not: Ethnic Diversity Is As Toxic As Racial Diversity

Friday, October 6th, 2017

We know that racial diversity does not work because any group that wishes to survive will seek to dominate others before they dominate it. It turns out that the same is true of ethnic groups, except that they hope to dominate other ethnic groups within their racial group, and use those greater numbers to win out.

However, within that race, there will still be internal conflict as each group attempts to maintain its own independence. This is even further intensified when there are ethnic groups within ethnic groups, such as Jews, which are white-hybrids with three major internal ethnic groups, causing internal division:

During the war, although the Vichy laws were theoretically applied in the French colonies, and although a minority of Jews from the Maghreb were indeed deported, Sephardic Jews from Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco were largely spared the worst of the Nazi terror. In the 1980s and 1990s, when the Shoah finally became an acceptable, even obsessive topic of conversation in France, many Sephardic Jews felt that their experiences of exile and suffering were marginalized. Many grew more observant as a result, a backlash of sorts to the Ashkenazi Jews’ strong secularism. Increasingly, then, Sephardic Jews came to see themselves as France’s “true Jews,” the redeemers of a French Judaism that was half-dead even before World War II. Some Sephardic French rabbis go further, flirting with the notion that European Jews had genocide coming because of their lack of piety and suggesting that secular Jews had doomed themselves long before Hitler appeared on the scene and that the Holocaust was an act of divine retribution. The question of whether or not a liberal rabbi woman should or shouldn’t say the Kaddish at the funeral of a secular, Ashkenazi, feminist hero is therefore also the question of to which kind of Jews does the Holocaust really belong.

This internal division arises from the larger question of identity. One group within the ethnic group will define it, and the others will fade into the background and eventually vanish. In life, all is competition, and when foolish people insist on pacifism and equality, they only ensure that all groups will be equally destroyed, as if looking for an excuse for their own failure.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode Eleven: France

Monday, May 15th, 2017

In response to the recent loss of Marine Le Pen in the national elections of France, the Nationalist Public Radio team — historian Everitt Foster, technologist James Price, scientist Roderick Kaine, and philosopher Brett Stevens — look into how the rising populist movement lost this election, what can be done to win elections in the future, and by extrapolation, the direction that populism should take to maintain its dual goal of winning modern elections and replacing modern society.


Download (48mb, 49mn)

 

 

France Chooses Death

Sunday, May 7th, 2017

And so it seems that Marine Le Pen did not win in France:

Initial estimates showed Macron winning between 65.5 percent and 66.1 percent of ballots ahead of Le Pen on between 33.9 percent and 34.5 percent.

Unknown three years ago, Macron is now poised to become one of Europe’s most powerful leaders, bringing with him a hugely ambitious agenda of political and economic reform for France and the European Union.

The result will resonate worldwide and particularly in Brussels and Berlin where leaders will breathe a sigh of relief that Le Pen’s anti-EU, anti-globalisation programme has been defeated.

We are getting closer to the truth of modernity: the voters always choose wrong, except when panicked, because voters make their choices based on mouths and stomachs, not brains and eyes.

If someone promises more to the individual voters, regardless of long-term consequences, the voters go into the gambler’s mania or the psychosis of the lottery player: they role those dice and hope for the best. In six months they will have forgotten anyway.

This tells us that we cannot hope for much from democracy. Either the voters will choose the “safe” candidate who promises them the status quo plus some free stuff, or the candidate will become enmired in the bureaucracy of the Establishment, and their pre-election promises will become inverted, or come to mean the exact opposite of what was originally promised.

In the case of France, the voters were bedazzled by Macron’s campaign of “political and economic reform” and underwhelmed by Le Pen’s promise of long-term greatness. The question for the voter is who pays for rent this month, and who makes his paycheck fatter by the end of the year.

That the money will be worth significantly less because of bad decisions escapes these voters.

Fortunately, this election allows us to put to an end the illusion of a few elites versus the wisdom of crowds. The crowd is dumb because its members are focused on themselves in the near term.

For the Right to attract voters, it will have to get radical. Do not promise income tax cuts; promise abolishing all but a single tax to pay for the military. Do not promise new healthcare, promise cheaper healthcare because government will pay for none of it and will not make laws and regulations in favor of the insurance industry.

The Right abhors lies, and it is right to do so, but democracy is won by lies. A middle path is to promise the achievable, which is to dismantle government except for the bare minimum, resulting in more money to each voter. “Wouldn’t you like to pay ten percent in taxes?” is a winning platform. Greatness, the future, wisdom, etc., do not win over masses. Democracy was designed to take advantage of that.

Of course, the voters are so clever — but not intelligent — that they outsmarted themselves. They voted for the safe candidate, which the voters think means to keep things roughly as they are with a few more giveaways. What it actually means is an even more deeply entrenched power structure.

So far, in Europe, the Angela Merkel contingent are winning because they know they can count on the voters to be more scared of change than they are of the risk of a still relatively rare incident. By rejecting Le Pen, voters in France like those in Germany have chosen death. Instead of taking a chance on fixing the problem, they have sold themselves out for a handful of social welfare benefits.

It is probable that voters would still vote this way even if an Islamic terror brigade nuked Paris. After all, most of them do not live in Paris, and with all those Parisians dead, there is more social welfare for the rest of them.

The Right failed because its campaign was focused too much on abstractions and on the threat of Islamic terror, which does not afflict everyone. Only some people have the wit to worry about the future, but the rest see the world entirely in the time between now and then next paycheck. If Islam invades, but salaries are paid, they will be complacent and cheerful, and will kiss their doomed children goodnight with the same carelessness that they go through the motions at their make-work jobs.

Democracy will never offer a way out. It is the system that occurs when people have given up on leadership entirely, and instead want to sacrifice the nation in order to have slightly better lifestyle for themselves. If costs go up, but salaries go up, they do not care; they will simply work slower at their jobs, cheat on their taxes, and find clever ways of acquiring the goods they need on the side market.

With each election like this, the system grows stronger. We The People will not oppose it. They support it. Only when they are literally headed toward economic obliteration, as in the USA before Trump, do the voters wake up briefly and then, they fail to be radical enough.

For our people to survive, we must escape democracy entirely. The People are incompetent. The leaders they choose are correspondingly sociopathic in order to scam the herd, which by being memoryless and blithely oblivious, invites such fleecing. Our only survival consists in escaping this system entirely.

Culture Is The New US Foreign Policy

Tuesday, January 24th, 2017

Over millennia mankind has adopted military conflict as a means of ending negotiation through extortion: “Hands up or I shoot.” The problem with this method is that it succeeds and thus, like a virus, replicates itself. Extortion becomes the norm.

The second world war, for example, was caused by the lack of extorted success after the first war. Nowadays people talk excitedly about WWIII because the winner wants more; it is hard to reject a method that has been successful in the past, and even harder to defend having done so when governments are bankrupt, the middle class hovers on the precipice of doom, and our citizens are disunified and adrift.

With the advent of the cold war, strategic efforts by the Pentagon to “win” included an article written by the Pentagon’s “Mr. X.” Apparently it was successful but while the end of the cold war caused the breakup of the Soviet Union, America also suffered because they did not know how to be the world leader, a position to which their status as the unitary superpower elected them.

Again the Pentagon came to the rescue with an article written by a duo calling themselves “Mr Y.” It proposed a competitive environment based on business instead of military superiority through technology. Instead, it leveraged technology to achieve business superiority, much as the Japanese had successfully accomplished their delayed invasion of the United States by making inexpensive, reliable cars in the 1980s.

This idea was probably the basis for the “new world order” announced by G.H.W. Bush in 1991: the US and its allies would form an economic bloc, dominate the world with financial power, and thus achieve indirect rule much like Havel’s concept of soft totalitarianism: people would want to be part of the regime for fear of being excluded, not from fear of extortion.

However, the Leftists intruded and bungled this as they do with everything they touch because their “ideology” is based on reality-denial disguised as reality-correction. This became the de facto policy of the Left from Clinton onward. Under recent Democrat leadership, America has inverted the old formula, and now is using war as a means of business.

Clearly the saying “business is war by other means” has unintended consequences. If business fails, it goes bankrupt. If military fails, people die. However, if the people who are dying are not of statistical concern to voters, this does not matter. This creates an American foreign policy biased toward war — in Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Syria — because this enables a “circular Ponzi scheme.”

In this circular Ponzi scheme, government dumps money on the military and more importantly, its contractors, who then generate economic activity with that money and cause the currency to be in greater demand (a classic Leftist demand-side economic concept) which then enables the government to borrow more to keep the cycle going. It is “Keynesian Socialism” by any other name, and the government does the same thing with welfare.

Having a foreign policy that defaults to war affects American society because it covertly structures that society towards supporting war. The economy, political system and social order all become dependent on having a war and people orient themselves relative to that war. Apparently this is a sensitive issue because when Donald Trump questioned it by asking “who is paying for it?” the Establishment panicked.

Trump backpedaled from the Democrat strategy to something more resembling the Mr. Y approach: by making the US into an economic powerhouse, he could induce cooperation rather than compel it. The difference for Trump is that he has detached foreign policy from ideological concerns, making it a practical issue and not a quest to spread certain ideas worldwide, so it can serve the cause of stability alone and thus aid business.

The Trump doctrine while have a massive influence not just on geopolitics, but on how government is organized and thus, the functions around which American society is structured. This means that economics will influence military functions and in turn influence politics and culture, creating a feedback loop with the idea of pragmatism at its center.

Defense and Economics are essentially single disciplinary functions in Government, but culture is a multi-disciplinary function for which there can be no single Secretary of Culture. Years ago managers were arguing about organizational structures being either project or line oriented.  But functional structures were overall quite effective.

However, discussions with Boeing revealed that value was added when an “integrative management function” was added.  Different words to describe this “function” could be “Systems or Function Integration” where the responsibility would be to test the combined team effort against a multidisciplinary framework.

This would be performed within the Organization’s defined framework, but in a Government, this framework will change to National Culture. The foreign policy ramifications are anticipated to strengthen cultural ties with France and Russia during the first phase based on this motivation as follows:

In order to stabilize cultures towards a new trading world as opposed to the new world order (NWO) directive, the cultures of the major players will be briefly assessed herewith. But first, the dimensions used to measure cultures require clarification as follows:

  • Power Distance: This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal; it expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us. Power Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
  • Individualism: The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people’s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “We.” In Individualist societies people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In collectivist societies people belong to in-groups (like cults, gangs or families) that take care of them in exchange for loyalty.
  • Masculinity: A high score (Masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner/best in field – a value system that starts in school and continues throughout organisational life. A low score (Feminine) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life. A Feminine society is one where quality of life is the sign of success and standing out from the crowd is not admirable. The fundamental issue here is what motivates people, wanting to be the best (Masculine) or liking what you do (Feminine).
  • Uncertainty Avoidance: The dimension Uncertainty Avoidance has to do with the way that a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? This ambiguity brings with it anxiety and different cultures have learnt to deal with this anxiety in different ways. The extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these is reflected in the score on Uncertainty Avoidance.
  • Long Term Orientation: This dimension describes how every society has to maintain some links with its own past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future, and societies prioritize these two existential goals differently. Normative societies. which score low on this dimension, for example, prefer to maintain time-honored traditions and norms while viewing societal change with suspicion. Those with a culture which scores high, on the other hand, take a more pragmatic approach: they encourage thrift and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for the future.
  • Indulgence: One challenge that confronts humanity, now and in the past, is the degree to which small children are socialized. Without socialization we do not become “human”. This dimension is defined as the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses, based on the way they were raised. Relatively weak control is called “Indulgence” and relatively strong control is called “Restraint.” Cultures can, therefore, be described as Indulgent or Restrained.

The current major Atlantic players (and supporters of Admiralty Law), is America and Britain while on the Europe mainland it is Germany. According to Geert Hofstede, their cultures are (briefly) compared herewith as follows (with all detail on the website available to the public):

Using America as the leading example, it is clear that for practical purposes its dimensions are similar to those of the United Kingdom. However, Germany deviates in the last three dimensions, meaning that they are more risk averse. This may explain their insistence on maintaining the EU monetary union, because if they don’t mitigate those risks, who (in Europe) will? America’s hold over Germany’s strong trade relations with China can be fruitfully used to the benefit of Atlanticists. The disadvantage of an Anglicized Germany is creeping Sharia and their resultant inability to even understand such a “minor external” threat.

The alternative French cultural comparison is as follows:

The difference with the French is that they find authority more acceptable, perhaps due to the influential longevity of their royal bloodlines. This allows easier relations with countries where Dictators operate. The French will as a result also be more pragmatic in their world view even encouraging criticisms of Islam as well as the resurgence of nationalist politics. They see themselves as speaking French and “being” different, which advances natural disruptive activity within the English NWO. These disruptions now include the idea that Islam is better engaged using the combined capacity of America and Russia. In other words, where Russia is sensationalized as the (military) World Enemy, France finds Islam (on a cultural basis), an existential threat. The question is which is the better American fit, Germany or France?

Using this line of thinking, the next comparison should be to determine Russia’s better fit. Herewith Germany:

Where Germany deviated in the last three dimensions with America, it now deviates in the first three dimensions (not by much, but still). The Russian acceptance of authority almost dwarfs the other dimensions. The surprising Russian collectivism points to German incompatibility despite being equally risk averse.

Here is France and Russia:

There is no question that France is a better cultural fit for Russia than (current) Germany in my opinion. However, it does not have the same trade benefit with China, but then Russia might be able to fill that gap (for America).

In order to address the Islam question, it would require of America to develop positive relations with Russia and France because it is not a question of firepower, it is a question of culture. That China may prefer such an arrangement is obvious.

A US – France – Russia cultural agreement could replace the militarized New World Order. The benefit will be a stable society better placed to improve relations with (other) cultures.

Why Modern Children Are Such Brats

Saturday, July 23rd, 2016

these_kids_are_cool_and_you_are_not

From now-classic article in the Wall Street Journal:

Yet the French have managed to be involved with their families without becoming obsessive. They assume that even good parents aren’t at the constant service of their children, and that there is no need to feel guilty about this. “For me, the evenings are for the parents,” one Parisian mother told me. “My daughter can be with us if she wants, but it’s adult time.” French parents want their kids to be stimulated, but not all the time. While some American toddlers are getting Mandarin tutors and preliteracy training, French kids are—by design—toddling around by themselves.

…The French, I found, seem to have a whole different framework for raising kids. When I asked French parents how they disciplined their children, it took them a few beats just to understand what I meant. “Ah, you mean how do we educate them?” they asked. “Discipline,” I soon realized, is a narrow, seldom-used notion that deals with punishment. Whereas “educating” (which has nothing to do with school) is something they imagined themselves to be doing all the time.

One of the keys to this education is the simple act of learning how to wait. It is why the French babies I meet mostly sleep through the night from two or three months old. Their parents don’t pick them up the second they start crying, allowing the babies to learn how to fall back asleep. It is also why French toddlers will sit happily at a restaurant. Rather than snacking all day like American children, they mostly have to wait until mealtime to eat.

What is really being discussed here?

A trio of related concepts: hierarchy, roles and purpose.

In non-cultured societies (a.k.a. multicultures) there is no culturally-defined purpose to the family, so the only purposes that are acceptable are individual self-interest and political collective goals.

But with culture, the family itself has meaning, like culture and sometimes religion, because there is an archetype of a higher goal than mere self. In particular, people want to find a place within the social hierarchy based not on money or politics, but on upholding the traditions of that culture.

From that comes the sense of roles, as in the idea that children serve the family. They are not the focus of the family which competes with the parents for attention and resources, as in America, but members of the family with a specific role: to grow up, do what is right, and uphold the traditions.

As multicultural liberal democratic society winds down into ruin, we have to consider that our most basic assumptions could be based in lies. The lie of individualism is the starting point: there can be no singular focus on the individual because the individual is always part of a larger group — family, local area, nation — and needs to believe in larger motivations than individual self-interest, such as culture, faith, values and honor.

Jihad Strikes Bastille Day

Thursday, July 14th, 2016

A developing story shows us the continued failures of multiculturalism:

Initial reports said a truck went careering into a mass of revellers partying for the French national day.

…Shocking images appearing on social media showed people lying motionless on the ground after the terrifying incident.

Can it be more ironic than that this happened on Bastille Day? Celebrate the murders of the last leaders who gave you some purpose to life, kept you as safe as possible, and made you proud to be French. You killed them off, and now you reap the consequences of your stupidity, France.

Recommended Reading