Posts Tagged ‘george soros’

Twilight of the Republic

Sunday, August 27th, 2017

My, what a magnificent spectacle the fall of a republic truly provides!  

In the United States of America, we’re seeing the liberal left lob bottles of urine at police at free speech protests. We’re seeing a terrorist organization being praised by news networks located steps away from the attacks of September 11th.  And we’re watching mainstream media fill their programs with outrageous conspiracy theories while ignoring long-elusive foreign policy victories.  

Now that the corruption in American government and media is as obvious as that of Brazil, it has become clear that the republic we’ve grown to know and love is not likely to survive the next generation. The battle lines for the next civil war are being drawn, the alliances between various political factions are beginning to solidify, and it’s becoming clear how this war is likely to play out.

Much like prelude to World War I, multiple micro-conflicts are escalating in America.  The Trump administration is at war with Obama loyalists, the mainstream media, the old guard of the intelligence agencies, and neoconservative Republicans.  Antifa is at war with both the extreme nationalist right and the moderates defending free speech. Black lives matter is at war with the police. The well-funded tech platforms are at war with the alt-tech and the cyber armies of the darkweb. But just as World War I saw multiple alliances forge two solid armies, we will likely see the same here in the United States. All that we’re missing at this point is a hair trigger moment like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand to set the bullets flying.

One that moment arrives, a likely scenario would play out as follows…

The conservative side — let’s call them the “American Republican Army” — will be led by Trump and will be comprised of his loyalists, the military, most of the police, private militias, and civilians of states with less-restrictive gun laws.  The multitude of conservative factions will align with this side. This means the Alt Right, Alt-Lite, moderates, constitutionalists, libertarians, and some neo-cons will set aside their differences and stand shoulder to shoulder. Most of the nation’s centrists will also join this group, as the left is far more radical and far more intolerant. This group will be supported most of the working and middle class of America and nearly all of its veterans.

The opposing side — let’s call them the “Socialists for a Democratic Society” — will be led by George Soros (with Bernie Sanders or Mark Zuckerberg as the face of the movement) and will be comprised of private military contractors (PMCs), Antifa, civilian anarchists, and some traitor state/city military loyal to democrat mayors, senators, and donors. This side will have the mainstream media, celebrities, and social media platforms radicalizing much of the population in Democrat states and large cities and will also include progressives, socialists, radicalized colleges, and some of the more donor-owned neoconservative Republicans.  This group will represent the upper class and will unfortunately convince the lower class that it represents them as well.

The war will be short-lived and vicious. The SDS, heavy on cash, will rely on mostly private military contractors and guerrilla tactics.  Operations will be similar to that of the Islamic State, with unthinkable acts of violence to which the media will turn a blind eye. The superior training and sheer size of the ARA, however, will be swift and decisive in eliminating this foe. The civilian Antifa and anarchists will be armed, but untrained and undisciplined, and quickly picked off by gun wielding conservative citizens in battles fought in open territory. The untrained SDS soldiers will succeed only in terrorizing civilians to stay loyal to their cause, until their numbers are brutalized. Throughout the conflict, Russia will keep NATO loyal to Trump’s America.  Mexico may throw its support behind the Democratic Socialists, but will be partially or fully annexed either way.

It will be urban warfare throughout most of the campaign with New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. being the site of the decisive battles. Once the ARA knocks the mainstream media and social media outlets offline and executes the celebrities and celebrity reporters, the sensitive citizens supporting the Democratic Socialist army will pressure them to surrender. The private contractor armies will eventually betray the men funding them. Riots will be short lived, and the billionaire class will flee the United States in droves.

Trump’s army will emerge victorious, and all of his adversaries will be vanquished. The country will be unified into the first American Empire, and the nation will see a more authoritarian version of the America of the 1950s. For the first time the media will be controlled by the state, as well as the flow of information, and law will be aligned firmly with Christianity.

As a constitutionalist, and as a man of my word, I will continue to support the republic I have pledged my allegiance to.  But as an intellectual, a free thinker,  and a realist, I recognize that the American republic that we know is not likely to survive for much longer.

As Leftist Anti-Majority Thought Rises, Other Groups Join the Resistance to It

Monday, July 17th, 2017

The Left operates through a underdog-versus-oppressor mentality: in their view, the individual should never lose or be told they cannot do something, so any form of social order is anathema.

This comes from the idea of the Left itself, which is that reality is oppressive to the individual because, in the great Darwinian dice-roll of interacting with external reality, they can lose. They can be excluded. They can be forced to take lower social status. This makes them angry because with humans, the dumber they get, the greater they think they are.

All societies perish from caste warfare, and this always comes from the Dunning-Kruger cases in the lower castes, who just do not understand why they could not be kings. They overthrow the kings, screw it all up, and then rationalize the decline as “progress,” essentially ruining good things and replacing them with third-world equivalents.

It is basically a prolonged tantrum by those who fear the power and responsibility — these are always paired, unless you are a sociopath — of adulthood. As one source wrote, unlike people like me who are stuck in perpetual adolescence, Leftists are stuck in perpetual childhood:

This is what children do: play make believe games, like GI Joe, or cops and robbers.

The Left has tried to portray Donald Trump as the second coming of Adolf Hitler.

Children create bogeymen whom they can be afraid of.

The more you think about it, the clearer it becomes that many on the Left simply got stuck in infantile mode.

He ruins it by suggesting they grow up. That’s sort of like saying, “they should think for themselves,” when we all know that they cannot because they lack the biological circuits to come up with sane answers. Them thinking for themselves is like putting a distortion box on reality. In the same way, them growing up will only ruin growing up.

Leftism is the social stance taken by people for whom life did not work out well. They can either believe that they have failed as individuals, and then pick up their toys and try again, which takes some guts, or they can just blame life itself, which is easier. This creates the underdog-oppressor narrative; in their view, the primal archetype is that life oppresses them.

Unfortunately, this makes them paranoid, because if your narrative is that you are oppressed, you must always find an oppressor. This usually leads to scapegoating, and produces a society obsessed with ideological purity in that it hopes to weed out the bad and leave only the good, instead of making everyone head toward the same purpose in unequal roles as are common to all human ventures.

This quest for purity — confused with Puritanism by those who do not understand the philosophical implications of The Enlightenment™ — leads to a tendency to punish non-conformists instead of admitting that the potential for evil dwells within each of us, which ruins the underdog-oppressor narrative. From that comes very silly things:

In its 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment, the FBI referred to Juggalos – fans of Insane Clown Posse who often wear black and white clown-type face paint to demonstrate their allegiance and are named after the song The Juggla – as a “loosely-organized hybrid gang”.

…The ACLU and Insane Clown Posse have an appeal pending before the US court of appeals for the sixth circuit. In the meantime, 3,000 Juggalos will march down the National Mall on Saturday 16 September before attending a concert in Virginia that evening.

…The ACLU and Insane Clown Posse say that designation has had negative consequences for Juggalos and other fans of the band. At the culmination of the September march, a number of Juggalos will share personal testimonies of how they have been profiled by police or otherwise suffered because of their allegiance.

In this, Juggalos are discovering what those on the Right have long known: if you are not going along with the herd agenda of Leftism, you become a target, and they will take you out.

Juggalo crime is overstated, but Juggalo identity is a threat to the mainstream, which wants your identity to be a patriotic fusion of socialism, capitalism and pluralism. Any higher ideals than that, or culture and religion, is taboo because it threatens the control of the leadership elites and the clueless hive mind of voters who support them.

The point here is that you do not need to do anything wrong to be persecuted by the Left. If you fail to agree with them, you will be smashed down.

Leftism reacts with fear, like a small child, to that which is different, which in this case means not Leftist. They then retaliate and try to destroy any group that breaks away from the Leftist clique. Misery loves company, and if we all go down together, it is no one’s fault.

This even extends to groups who formerly received protection from Leftists, back when Leftists could use them as a wedge to divide others:

The Israeli ambassador to Hungary invoked WW2 during which Britain led the European resistance against Nazi Germany to save the lives of millions of Jews.

He said the criticism of Soros “evokes sad memories but also sows hatred and fear”.

But just hours after the release of the ambassador’s statement a “clarification” was issued by the Israeli foreign ministry reading:

“In no way was the statement (by the ambassador) meant to delegitimize criticism of George Soros, who continuously undermines Israel’s democratically elected governments.”

Shove aside that boilerplate about “democratically elected governments.” The fact is that Soros, a Jew, is acting against Jewish interests because he is acting to subvert Israel.

Why would ((( Soros ))) do this, if he was part of an international Jewish conspiracy? More likely, it is as Ben Shapiro has said: you cannot be both a good Leftist and a good Jew, so Jewish Leftists are more Leftist than Jewish.

The herd will never forgive those who betray it by failing to support it. That circular reasoning is part of the Leftist begging-the-question fallacy approach to political logic.

For the Left, there must always be an underdog, and for that victim to be blameless, there must be an oppressor to blame. This scapegoating allows them to continue to indulge their nonsensical view of reality despite the gnawing doubt eating them away from within.

George Soros: A Walking Case Study For Formalism

Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

When a smart person thinks of a really new and cutting-edge idea that person can be described as brilliant or deranged. The person is brilliant if a lot of people can actually understand and genuinely like the idea. If either or both forks of the and conditional above go unmet, the smart person gets tagged as eccentric if the mob is in a good mood. So naturally, the smart person will do some lobbying on behalf of the new and cutting-edge idea.

One way to lawyer on behalf of the brilliant idea in a manner that seems detached and scholarly is the case study. The case study is designed to look fact-based, impartial, erudite and a whole bunch of other things it isn’t. A clear and well-written case study is typically a masterpiece of card-stacking propaganda. It should be long enough so that nobody is willing to out-lawyer you and blunt enough so that average readers get the point like a 2×4 squarely across their balding pates.

The truly smart person we’ll discuss today is none other than Good Old Moldbug. The new idea, formalism, is almost a decade old. Thanks to recent events, it’s worth dusting off and oiling like a loyal, old shotgun. And we’ll even cut him some slack on the case study. He could write the heck out of one, and you won’t be any younger chronologically by the time you get done reading it. Plus, he doesn’t need to write one. Pointing to George Soros and his Orwellian Open Society makes the case in favor of formalism for him.

I won’t point to George. It’s impolite and George is evil. If I pointed to him, he’d find out who I was. It would then probably suck to be me. So I’ll just remind folks of what Moldbugian Formalism was exactly and then demonstrate why George Soros makes it a commendable idea.

Formalism is a way of unifying power, authority and responsibility. Owners are in charge of their property, enjoy all the gains and losses thereunto accruing and every Tom, Dick and Harriet knows exactly who the boss is. Think of it as a giant industrial-standard burn-barrel in which to fry all the subversive political bull feces that currently lends pungency to our political and social order. It would shine a giant light on to all the K Street, Wall Street and any other cabal of wire pullers controlling the puppets holding office in your typical corrupted Democracy.

To a formalist, the way to fix the US is to dispense with the ancient mystical horseradish, the corporate prayers and war chants, figure out who owns this monstrosity, and let them decide what in the heck they are going to do with it. I don’t think it’s too crazy to say that all options – including restructuring and liquidation – should be on the table. Whether we’re talking about the US, Baltimore, or your wallet, a formalist is only happy when ownership and control are one and the same. To reformalize, therefore, we need to figure out who has actual power in the US, and assign shares in such a way as to reproduce this distribution as closely as possible.

Thus sayeth Moldbug. Anyone worth a monkey’s buttwipe gets a few stock certificates with which to wipe his hind parts if he so chooses to endeavor. Do that, the theory goes, and you get an Open Society. George Soros should throw a party and spring for all the Singapore Slings. But he wouldn’t, because he is a corrupt offspring of Belial who would fare about as well in the sunlight as any other typical Nosferatu. He recently pinged the progressosphere with a whinge-a-thon worthy of Grima Wormtongue the day Gandalf and Aragorn paid Rohan a visit. He gets straight into the lying below.

I distinguished between two kinds of political regimes: those in which people elected their leaders, who were then supposed to look after the interests of the electorate, and others where the rulers sought to manipulate their subjects to serve the rulers’ interests. Under Popper’s influence, I called the first kind of society open, the second, closed.

So far, so good. You could just openly designate Occupy Wall Street and BLM as your corporate holdings and Warren Buffett could just openly oppose The Keystone Pipeline in order to boost his railroad monopoly. And while we are at it, Twitter could just openly ban all points of view that give Jack Dorsey ideological heartburn. Stalin and Beria would be fine; poor, old Trotsky would still get it with a meat axe. But that would be too simple and honest for a guy who made his killing arbitraging the Thai Bhat.

I find the current moment in history very painful. Open societies are in crisis, and various forms of closed societies – from fascist dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise. How could this happen? …. Quite simply, many people felt that the elites had stolen their democracy.

Well yes, George. Elites had stolen their Democracy. Turned loose mobs on it in Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago,…But that didn’t just happen at random. It had to be directed by very powerful people from behind more than a few veils of secrecy. It was a job for either the Evil League of Evil or The Tides Foundation. Essentially, elites arbitraged these democracies the way you used to turn on currencies.

They arbitraged them via information monopolies known as Dark Organizations. Dark Organizations, whether they are the KKK at the height of its powers, the MSM before Wikileaks, or just a dishonest cabal of real estate and banking swindlers all make their money and instill terror in others through information asymmetry. They all flourish in closed societies. Like the current university campus for example.

In an open society, every bum on the Soros plush would be known. BLM would bear the Soros corporate logo. Exxon would have its banner flying proudly over anti-frakking environmentalist propaganda. The game powerful corporatists like Soros play in such an oleaginous fashion would crash and burn. Dark Organizations would have a hard time existing under formalism the way The Mafia, The Hells Angels and The KKK all have trouble doing business in a legal code with RICO statutes.

In a society violently pried open via the imposition of formalism throughout its legal and social institutions, Soros would be defanged. In the absence of an information asymmetry, the man is useless and unable to produce anything. He is thus the perfect case study for why methods of instituting greater formalism in modern Amerika should be seriously studied and pursued.

Blood Treasure

Saturday, July 23rd, 2016


George W. Bush noted in his book Decision Points that he is a “big picture” guy. From a creative perspective it means he agrees with right brain people that a picture is worth a thousand words.  This incidentally motivates also his sometimes incoherent response to questions.

With hindsight one can say that he had a big picture view, not just because he was a right brain person, but also that he was a third generation senior politician raised to perpetuate the Bush Dynasty. He was literally taught how things worked and what “the right thing” to do would be in future. For example, from this book, it became clear that he was gunning for Saddam Hussein in Iraq without really saying why. Another lesson from hindsight is that the Bush Dynasty supported the Washington uni-party Regime, which he openly claimed as his “base.” Therefore, despite his having very experienced “first-hand” training, the outcome of his presidential evaluation has a high probability of being classified a failure (not to be repeated in future).

This puts pressure on the notion that top-down management and leadership is ideal. Top-down management involves a centralized authority above others that sets standards for them to follow down to the level of the man in the street.

The alternative to top-down management is bottom-up management. This can be described by using the legend of the King that donned his servant’s clothes to mix undetected with his subjects. A metaphor is watching all those stars in the night sky. When your feet are on the ground, you are more prone to see potential rather than failures (because of ideas and respect), especially if you happen to see a shooting star.

A top-down guy only has his own ideas, whereas a bottom-up guy gets many ideas. A guy with limited ideas can be influenced with the “next best thing” from Google, whereas the guy with many ideas will distill that to develop proper requirements for what he needs. A bottom-up guy also needs to understand himself a lot better through introspection while the top-down guy can easier live in a simulated world of his choosing.

A recent local newspaper article of a group of white emergency services medics working in the third world country of South Africa support bottom-up leadership. As one medic remarked:

In a situation like this you have to know what your strengths, and what the strengths of the group is. If you need to step back and let someone else take over, you do so. You cannot allow your ego to come before patient care. Afterwards any achievements or concerns must be noted. It is cardinal that you know how you did, what you did and where you can improve. You must know yourself before you can even think, about helping others.

Who says career politicians can’t learn from their insufferable voters? The question rather, is:

Why can’t politicians just care for their voters, instead of stealing their blood?

American blood used to be important, but recent history may prove different. The advent of President Obama transfixing his voters with a vision of American transformation and hope culminated in his trademark socialized medicine scheme. His vision of hope can indeed be described as “big picture” and the ensuing top-down “Obamacare” was to be exemplar of this. As it turned out the big picture was flawed and American blood has been sold as a result of the multi-cultural ideal. It’s not about blood “and” treasure anymore, it’s blood “for” treasure.

In a recent Health (wellness) Study of the Twin Cities, their Advisory Group made the mistake of identifying “Culture as a Protective Factor.” In typical Leftist style it marveled at how strong and resilient young migrants were as a result of their strong “culture,” while Americans are obese and sick because of America’s apparently deficient culture. In other words migrant “culture” is good and we should learn from them. However, common sense indicates that migrant “cultures” of Africans, Indians and Arabs are two centuries behind American culture, so there are obviously a few things wrong with such an excellent “advisory” big picture:

  1. Migrants come from disease-ridden countries, bringing tuberculosis and HIV as free gifts.
  2. Migrant culture is better described as “tribal” and even collective. In fact, there is doubt whether their “civilization” is a true reflection of such civility. After all, why would they send their best “soldiers” away from their own warzones, leaving their women behind to fight?
  3. Migrants come from countries where American blood and treasure is being squandered ostensibly to keep terror away from the Homeland? That’s a ruse, right?

However, the fact is that culture is indeed a protective factor. A renewed grassroots push for realism is affirming real American Culture and whether Trump is a proponent or not is not the issue. What has been proven though is that an enormous amount of people have voted for him in the primaries. Some commentators slam this as populism, but they are wrong because the people that voted from him are the middle-class, not the common street peddler. In fact there is some suggestion that the top 10% (except the top 1%) may support Trump rather than Hillary. This is not populism, it’s culture.

Culture is therefore protective and a resource, not only in politics but in health and in community development and actualization. In attempting to address the problems caused by top-down management, it would be wise to consider drawing on the bottom-up cultural traditions of Americans. Not the open society top-down version of Bush and Obama (and George Soros’ Open Society Foundation) but the culturally protective bottom-up negotiating Trump.

Culture drives politics and blood pumps in the hearts of millions of American men, bringing tears to the eyes of American women. This is my kind of civilization and that is my treasure, learn from us, but don’t destroy the blood that enables us to be what we are.

Recommended Reading