Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘Globalism’

Crowdism Corrupts Society Through Its Follow-The-Leader Elites

Sunday, January 21st, 2018

At some point, if you have red blood, you have to ask yourself what went wrong with this world, and how on Earth could we fix it?

You know that whatever you do will be limited by the options offered in your civilization. This one offers you jobs where 90% of what you do is unnecessary and tedious, ruled by petit tyrants whose only concern is making themselves look good, as part of a circular Ponzi scheme comprised of a consumer economy and socialist welfare state, in a civilization which has not made any good decisions for at least 229 years.

I mean, the technology is great. Having a phone that beams me emails, maps, and video is amazing. The internet — a 1960s project — is also wonderful, or was, until giant monopolies swallowed it up and turned it into the pureed sweetened good that resembles those weird jars of baby food on the shelves. Now it is just 1980s daytime TV — the most inane stuff ever — in clickable form.

Many entry points to this problem present themselves. Maybe you came in because you noticed that your race or ethnic group was getting exterminated, or because you saw that industrial “progress” was eating the landscape and leaving behind zombie people. Maybe you are concerned about the ongoing ecocide, or the Darwinistic decline of humanity. All lead to the same place.

If you go out there to a bookstore or the internet, you will find as many theories as there are people about what has gone wrong and what “we” should do. This tells you exactly what the problem is: each person is competing to be noticed so that they can afford to live outside of the drudgery of jobs, and so they are coming up with theories they do not even believe in, just to be noticed.

This conforms to what you will see in social settings as well. The people who become active personalities known to all are the ones who get the power and the money, and this keeps them both out of the ghetto and ahead of the curve relative to their neighbors. It is not the marketplace, but the social marketplace that defines success.

And then you can look at our “leadership.” Anyone who does not follow the established pattern gets filtered out, with rare exceptions for billionaires like Donald Trump who enter the system late and win big on the basis of what they did outside of it. Politicians make their careers by saying what most people want to hear, and people in groups are usually delusional.

With this in mind, we can start to see our political problem as one form of The Human Problem, which is our tendency to self-destruct after organizing ourselves in groups, with the most brilliant plans failing harder even than the primitive ones. Civilization is like a series of rocket tests where all of the prototypes keep blowing up on the launch pad.

In a nutshell, humans form groups and then adjust their goal to what pleases the group, instead of their purpose in forming the group. Purpose, after all, is transcendent or something we aspire to that is intangible and never fully realized; it also requires an understanding of how reality works. This means that only very few in a group know what is going on.

As a group grows, the number of people who are willing to trade loss of purpose in exchange for temporary power also increases. These are individualists who want to be able to rise in the ranks for social reasons, instead of by contributing toward achievement of the purpose of the group. They band together around a single principle: that no one can make them less important for being individualistic.

When this band forms, it acts like a cancer or parasite on the larger group, turning it away from its actual goals toward the social goal of making everyone — or at least most — feel comfortable, safe, happy, and accepted. This causes a process known as inversion, where anything that does not make people feel safe and equal becomes taboo.

That taboo in turn limits what can be discussed to only that which flatters the pretense of the group that they are all good and important, because that way no one is not good and important, which appeals to the individualist who fears being penalized for his selfish behavior. The inverted group becomes ruled by its worst, and not its best.

This process than cannibalizes the group by becoming a “mental virus” that infects all areas of thought and excludes anything but itself. Soon the group becomes delusional, and it chases symbolic victories instead of pursuing transcendent success in reality, dooming itself by becoming unresponsive to actual threats.

During those years of delusion before the crash, society moves further toward what is destroying it because, through inversion, it has removed the possibility of talking about anything else. Death taboos and political correctness are both examples of inversion.

As it approaches the end, the society resembles a game of “follow-the-leader” in that most people pursue whatever is trendy at the moment — usually a variant of the egalitarian narrative of the noble many ganging up on the authoritarian few — because to fail to do so is to become irrelevant, and therefore see social, economic, and political fortunes waver.

This follow-the-leader game becomes tiresome because it ensures that society only moves further in the direction of egalitarian thought, which is actually disguised individualism, or “everybody do whatever they want without consequences and no one can penalize them for doing so, no matter what the outcome is.”

If you wonder why the last days of Rome seemed like a mixture of hedonism, desperation, insanity, and narcissism, the individualist arc explains this. Every group that has been taken over first seems to pursue rugged individualism, then infighting over power and wealth, and finally a giant conformist herd rushing from one fascinating to the next, having been made thoroughly neurotic by the process.

We can see this tendency in our financial elites, who are playing follow-the-leader and are completely oblivious to actual risks and needs:

Financiers, industrialists and regulators at Davos on any given year are generally success stories under current policies, and see near-term concerns as threats to their position, and arguably ignore larger systemic problems on the horizon.

Elites, by definition, have done well out of the status quo. They have wealth and power that they seek to preserve. It should not surprise us then to see the World Economic Forum now pushes articles about how to “deal” with supposed populism. Conventional elite wisdom worldwide is social democratic — that political fissures have arisen because of economic anxieties and inequalities.

So the lazy “solution” is for more government investment or more redistribution to keep the populists at bay. It just so happens bigger government will inevitably mean politicians dealing with and buying goods and services from existing major businesses — the very sort that appear at the World Economic Forum every January.

Once a human group becomes self-referential, all that matters is doing and saying what other people want to see and hear. That is how you succeed in such a group, and those who do not do it are not just marginalized but entirely excluded from the debate. If Donald Trump had said early in his career what he says now, he would be much less wealthy because others would shun him.

The sickening clique feeling of modern society owes its presence to this process. When a society becomes overtaken by its tumor, people spend all of their time rationalizing away the problem of the tumor by explaining its presence as good. Only those who are willing to adopt this insane attitude are accepted in its industries, government, academia, art, literature, entertainment, and social groups.

At that point, civilization is fleeing reality and those who dare point out that the emperor has no new clothes will be scapegoated and destroyed. They are sacrifices so that the group can continue living in happy oblivion to its doom, mainly because at this point, everyone is individualistic and does not want to suffer for the betterment of the group.

They will participate in non-consequential things like helping the poor, planting a few trees, fighting “racism,” or re-arranging the way government pays benefits so that people are more equal. They will not address the root of the problem, which is that their group cannot control itself because it is inverted, and it is spiraling into total dysfunction.

Since language was the first casualty of this incursion, the people involved in the group will congratulate themselves on being “good” for rationalizing the decay, and will use their fear of people who want to stop the decay — thus ending the individualism of “everybody do whatever they want” — to claim the people who are trying to fix the situation are actually bad.

We can see this in politics most clearly where the voters adore and politicians pursue increasingly suicidal policies, because to not pursue those policies would be to admit that egalitarianism — democracy, equality, diversity, and pluralism — has failed yet again. Instead we get mental gymnasts who specialize in rationalizing the bad as good for votes, purchases, and social feelings:

He urged the SPD to seize the chance to help drive deeper EU integration and counter the rise of right-wing populists across the continent.

“Only a strong and united SPD can make our country and Europe stronger,” he said.

The European Commission hailed the SPD’s “yes” vote, with EU Economic Affairs Commissioner Pierre Moscovici praising the “sense of responsibility” shown by the Social Democrats.

People no longer speak about what is right in terms of the effects it will have in reality; instead, they think categorically, with some things listed as good and some as bad, which enables them to sidestep the question of effects, which is how we actually measure what is good and what is bad.

These people, voters and politicians alike, are not thinking about reality at all. For them, what matters is flattering each other long enough to keep the game going so that each person can get their pile of wealth and move out, because in their minds, civilization is no longer worth believing in.

That attitude clashes with that of those on the Right, who are united by a belief in looking to history for what worked best and to use that in our pursuit of transcendental excellence, usually in the form of “the good, the beautiful, and the true” applied through “good to the good, and bad to the bad.” We believe in civilization and want it to succeed, which at this point, requires rebooting it.

Once we see the argument this way — between those who want civilization, and those who want popularity points — the impending divide across the West becomes much clearer. We are living in two different nations, Leftists and Rightists, and this guarantees that we increasingly have nothing in common:

The climate on the right had been sharpening for a few days. On Thursday evening, on Fox News, Tucker Carlson had assumed a look of urgent concern while his guest, the hard-right radio host Mark Steyn (an “actual thinker,” Carlson had noted in his introduction), warned against the “cultural transformation” that immigration would bring. “A majority of grade-school children in Arizona are now Hispanic,” Steyn warned. “The border has moved north,” he said, but the real line he was etching was an ethnic one, between Americans—Hispanics on one side, the rest on the other.

…For liberals, much of the escalating menace of the past two years has followed the same line—the President’s insistence that America is less an idea than a specific heritage, that a judge of “Mexican” heritage is less than equal, that Haitian-Americans and African-Americans came from “shithole nations,” and that more Norwegian-Americans would be preferable.

…Trump also tweeted, “#AMERICA FIRST!” The question is, which #America?

To someone who pays attention to history, philosophy, civilization, and even common sense, it becomes clear that the past of mixed-ethnic and mixed-race societies has been troublesome; even mixed-religion and class conflict societies have more trouble than one where everything is in parallel: all people heading toward roughly the same purpose, religion and culture and government in unison, and a clear shared heritage — customs, beliefs, language, and genetics — pointing to a continuity between and past and a future where a people keeps improving what they have always been without altering it.

If we are in civil war conditions, it is a cold civil war. Right now, the Left controls the media and language, but those who have escaped the “mental virus” are fighting back after having seen its endgame with the rise of globalism, minority identity politics, and Leftist managerial society as the proposed solutions to perpetual problems fail time and again. We need a reboot and re-ordering.

Our future on the Right consists of more debunking of the Establishment mythos that enables people to play follow-the-leader by bleating it and attracting support from a wide audience. Every doubt that we sew which is also true helps reveal that we are living under a system every bit as controlling and inept as Soviet Communism, but its failure is happening slowly as it did in Russia.

We must also continue gently hinting at certain directions we need to take in order to survive. Democracy makes bad decisions; diversity creates instability; sexual revolutions destroy the family; lack of a caste-structure and aristocracy creates an inverted society consumed by infighting over wealth and power. Inject reality and insanity eventually flees.

In a broader sense, however, what it all means is that the mass culture mob of individualists have failed. They promised a Utopia, and delivered an abyss. It is time to not just reject our false elites, but also to refute the method — appeal to the masses, or “Crowdism” — that they used to get in power. We have no division to fear; we are already permanently divided.

Becoming A Shithole Country

Friday, January 12th, 2018

Donald Trump again demonstrates why he is the master of the media: even with a simple leaked comment, he has characterized the issue in a way that is both practical and iconic, infecting our minds with the idea. Seemingly minutes after he shrugged in approval of a lazy deal on DACA, then killed it, he has created the “covfefe” meme of human differences that subtly shifts our thinking.

According to those who are willing to leak information, Trump said something that was not politically correct regarding immigration:

The lawmakers were describing how certain immigration programs operate, including one to give safe haven in the United States to people from countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife.

One of the sources who was briefed on the conversation said that Trump said, “Why do we want all these people from Africa here? They’re shithole countries … We should have more people from Norway.”

The second source familiar with the conversation, said Trump, who has vowed to clamp down on illegal immigration, also questioned the need for Haitians in the United States.

If we dig into our inner selves, where we can be honest before we clamp down with the fear of social disapproval, all of us will recognize the truth of what he has said: the countries in Africa tend to be impoverished, disorganized, corrupt, chaotic, violent, and filled with people who want to emigrate to the West to take advantage of the wealth there, instead of producing it at home.

Some claim his comments were “racist,” which is nonsense of the first order not only because racial preference is part of “freedom” and something every human has, but also because he did not actually speak of the ethnic groups involved. He simply pointed out that destitute and dysfunctional third world countries are less preferable than taking in people from, say, Norway.

For us to even claim that his comments were “racist,” we would need to sit him down with a list of every country on Earth and have him rank them on a binary scale of hole/not-hole, and then ask him why all the non-white countries were holes, if he ranked them so. If then he said, “It’s because they are full of hole people,” and tied that to their race, then it might be “racist.”

In the context of our thought on his comments, however, the racial angle does not matter so much as the practical angle: why is America the sponge of the world, absorbing anyone who has experienced a tragedy, instead of thinking of our interests in who we take in?

Our politicians posture by giving “safe haven” to people from around the world, but this is an act merely intended to make the politicians look good and feel good about themselves. No one has thought about the consequences of such an act, which makes it a sociopathic act, not a victory for empathy, charity and the human soul. It is the opposite of how it is sold.

The bigger accidental truth involving immigration came from the Left, actually, and takes the form of a leaked memo that in turn leaks the real reason for Leftist support of third world (hole) immigration, which is that it enables them to buy votes and permanent smash the healthy, normal, Western European family-oriented people who tend to vote conservative, even though that group is the source of American success:

A leaked memo from the left-wing organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, admits that passing an amnesty for the nearly 800,000 illegal aliens shielded from deportation by the President Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is “a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”

…The leaked memo comes as the Trump administration has endorsed a DACA amnesty plan that trades legalizing the nearly 800,000 illegal aliens in exchange for mandatory E-Verify, which bars employers from hiring illegal aliens, ending chain migration, where newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. with them, ending the Diversity Visa Lottery program, which randomly imports 50,000 foreign nationals a year, and authorizing the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Pew Research Center found in 2012 that a plurality of Hispanic illegal aliens are Democrats, while only 4 percent said they identified with the Republican Party.

In other words, Leftists are deliberately importing people from impoverished and dysfunctional (“shithole”) countries so that these people vote against the people who made this country not a third world wasteland, which it easily could have been like Mexico to the south or in fact, most of the Americas.

As Plato noted, tyrants import foreigners as a means of establishing their power, which the Democrats have confirmed with the memo above. People who are in a country only because one person or party is in power will support that entity not out of gratitude, but fear of being sent away.

Over time, this effectively obliterates the original population through outbreeding, and guarantees a permanent majority for the symbol of one party over all else. However, that symbol presides over a wasteland, and so has lost its value and meaning, which is something that apparently the original tyrants never think about.

We can see this happen throughout history. Great empires form and then, just as they hit their peak, they become absorbed by whatever imported labor they were using. Centuries later, all that remains are the mixed descendants of the original group, and these are unable to achieve their former greatness. Egypt, Mexico, Iraq, India, Russia, Cambodia, Peru, Greece, and Italy all show us this pattern.

That tells us that the people make the country, and not the other way around. It does not matter if they carry forth the symbols, laws, language, and other “outer culture” of the original population; when the founding genetic group is gone, the civilization is gone, and what replaces it is an approximation of the original just like fast food vaguely resembles real food.

People are not equal, by class, race, ethnic group, sex, and caste. Only when an ethnic group stands on its own, and has a hierarchy both of leadership and of social rank, is it able to function. All of Leftism is a revolution against that social rank, which affirms that some do, indeed, know more than others and are better than those at leadership.

Leftists follow a mental process of scapegoating: irate at their own lack of power, and not realizing that this is because they will abuse it if given it, they prove that point by becoming abusive in their quest for power, perhaps raging at a primal angst of not being immortal gods instead of mortal peasants and merchants. They blame the leaders for the dysfunction of the Leftists themselves.

Scapegoating however is mentally addictive. Once the scapegoat is in place, it explains away all of the personal failings and fears of the people, so they chase that symbol like addicts in a religion dedicated to heroin. Eventually it destroys them, and everything around them, but they do not care because they had those moments of “if it feels good, do it.”

They use the importation of foreigners as a means to this end. It crushes the native population, who are made to feel guilty and inferior. It creates a permanent power base for the Leftists. Then, they invert the society. Good becomes bad so that bad can become good; the lesser become the elites, so that the actual natural elites cannot stop the looting of a once-great society.

We can see the effectiveness of this policy in the unity through hatred of the Left and minority groups who now openly admit that they wish to erase the founding population of America and Europe and replace them:

“As long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, the problem is not solved,” she said, adding,“There are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it – in that prejudice and racism – and they just have to die.”

Diversity is white genocide. Leftists want white genocide. Even some groups of whites — the “near whites” from Ireland, Southern Europe, the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe — want genocide, but they want to destroy the genetic group necessary for Western Civilization, the Western Europeans. Everyone wants to be on top.

Clearly this policy of diversity, both ethnic and racial, is not functional. That is why the Left loves it: they plunge the nation into chaos, and thrive in the center of it, since they no longer lose social rank for being incompetent, venal, or dysfunctional. The rest of us need to realize that we are their target and they aim to eliminate us and erect a shithole nation in our place.

Refuting The Latest Media Lie About Racial Purity

Friday, November 10th, 2017

As the Left regroups after experiencing political rejection in the UK, US and EU it has begun constructing the next wave of assumptions it will use in order to justify its arguments. Most of these are simply updated versions of the old; as part of this, the Left has moved from “race does not exist” to “everyone is mixed-race” as seen in this bit of silliness arguing for mass migration:

But one self-described neo-Nazi on the district council told The New York Times that by allowing the influx, the German people faced “the destruction of our genetic heritage” and risked becoming “a gray mishmash.”

In fact, the German people have no unique genetic heritage to protect. They—and all other Europeans—are already a mishmash, the children of repeated ancient migrations, according to scientists who study ancient human origins. New studies show that almost all indigenous Europeans descend from at least three major migrations in the past 15,000 years, including two from the Middle East. Those migrants swept across Europe, mingled with previous immigrants, and then remixed to create the peoples of today.

First, we need not argue for racial “purity” so much as racial “consistency.” Whoever the Germans are, they are a consistent continuum of genetics, as are other Europeans, which we can see through genetic maps of the distances between European ethnic groups:

These maps also reveal where admixture has occurred, and it stands out in contrast to the native European.

Then, we should revisit history. Europeans were wandering tribes who colonized many areas throughout Europe, Asia and the middle east. These were fundamentally the same people, but at some point, they migrated back into Europe, probably related to changes in climate and politics.

We can tell the difference between a German and a Somali by looking, and now we can do so with genetic evidence. But this offends the Left, so they concocted an updated version of Lewontin’s fallacy, which argued that because there was no single gene for race, race did not exist.

Instead, they argue that because European groups may have come from multiple groups, even from the same root, race does not exist and therefore you might as well mix Germans with Somalis because you will have the same people. As always, the Left reveals a willingness to lie in addition to their multiple mental health issues.

The answer is to this new idiocy is that European groups are consistent, have been so for some time, and are more similar to each other than they are to foreigners. The Left wishes to conceal that truth so that they can invert the definition of race, and leave you helpless to object to their importation of many extremely foreign people into your lands. Laugh at it, because it is ludicrous.

Lessons for Socialization

Tuesday, October 17th, 2017

The recent emergence of the BBC international news service in pidgin English reminds us that our mode of communication determines what we can successfully express. If we render ourselves in simplistic language, we will make incomplete and misleading points.

This spurs the large question of how to talk to one another, which must consider a few vital challenges:

  1. The emergence of “populism” effectively ruptured media communications in the entire Western hemisphere. The old language is dead, and the two sides are polarizing and withdrawing.
  2. Introspection revealed that a different mindset is required because our biggest risk is in fact not Iran, but our social organization.
  3. In the feverish attempt to do good, people on the right refer to “not punching right” or even debating “differently.”

Talking while using the wrong words can cause serious reputational and financial losses, which means that we should establish a new framework for discourse, starting with standard language, instead of emulating the Left and applying “community standards” as a means of making language simplistic in ways that exclude certain “problematic” viewpoints.

S.C. Hickman reminds us that societies have always struggled with this, and to address it, have created not safe spaces from expression, but spaces where expression can safely tackle difficult and normally contentious issues:

Remember invective and satiric wit or jibes came out of the traditions of Athenian aristocrats rather than commoners. Athenian prohibitions on slander were curtailed by the licensed freedom of speech (parrhesia) of a religious festival. So that both Comedy and Satyr plays arose and emerged out of traditional religious festivals where political invective and humor could be assayed whereas in real life it was deemed anathema and would entail slander and ultimately banishment or worse, death against any and all who used it.

…Those like Ann Coulter are effective and best sellers: biting humor and scathing farce triumph, where serious candor of political intelligence are at best filtered through academic spinsters.

Freedom of speech in the purest form entails a shouting contest or competition for the wittiest put-down, so many societies curtail it. To avoid losing what might be said, they instead raise the bar, and force it to be inserted into a political oration, theatrical production or lengthy treatise.

This was in fact the original idea behind American freedom of speech, which was designed to protect political, social and philosophical critiques written in newspapers or declaimed from street corners. Only recently has it come to mean the ability to publish pornography, nearly libelous insinuations of the media, rants filled with obscenities and cretinous modern art.

But what is acceptable depends on the nature of the society. Nick Land made a few observations of this nature:

  • High-trust societies are even more repulsive than low-trust societies
  • Which disgusts you more, Somalia or Sweden? The scorpion or the scorpion-licker?
  • Better to dwell among cannibals than Cathedral-zombies
  • When science collides with sacred values, it’s howled down (and if possible) suppressed.

For a society to work, it must have both wealth/production and some form of cooperation. Different structures can provide this in varying degrees. We can see this process unfolding in Africa today.

Liberal democracies of a diverse nature require that the local population, in order for cooperation to work, forfeit some of its traditions including its standards of safety. As seen in South Africa under Nelson Mandela, or in Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe, this model prioritizes cooperation of all groups which sacrifices the standard of whatever group has higher or more complex traditions.

In contrast, the China colonization of Africa promotes “normalization” which instead of focusing on diversity, looks to whatever tribe is dominant in a region and channels wealth and power to them. This tends to strengthen local safety and stability instead of prioritizing defense of the rights of minority tribes.

The former model is failing in part because of its high cost of administration, but mostly because it forces normalization to a minimum instead of emphasizing striving for a maximum as exhibited by the most successful group in the region. An old African proverb holds that when fish and crabs are caught in a net, the crabs pull the fish down, because if the crabs are trapped and doomed, they feel that no one should escape that same fate.

Looking into these two examples, we see an axis between acceptance and intrusion. Acceptance is a sense of belonging to an environment; we know that in order to develop potential among children, each child must feel innately and irrevocably accepted, something only made possible through a friendly, tolerant and somewhat mandatory environment.

In contrast, adulthood shows us intrusion. The child must graduate school and enter the less-than-friendly job market where extroverted people have a better chance of survival because they crave and seek a way of finding personal — not universal — acceptance in the previously unknown territory of the workplace.

Introverted people, because they are self-guided, seek acceptance when they are young because they know that if left alone, they will learn what they need to and grow at their own pace. Extroverts, on the other hand, perceive a sense of harm and injustice if they are not allowed to participate, which when they are young and socially inept is a possibility, so they want a system which cannot demote them for being wrong or selfish.

Extroverts constantly seek social acceptance on an individual level into adulthood. If there is a workplace problem, the extrovert will seek out the parties involved to negotiate a resolution, where the introvert will engage in avoidance or confrontation of a legalistic nature, as we see with whistle-blowers who choose to detonate a situation rather than attempt to impose a solution internal to the organization.

In traditional society, this was addressed by having different roles for introverts and extroverts. Introverts handle analysis and principles well; extroverts handle other people well. Talented introverts drifted toward the top because they were less likely to compromise, work around, patch up or ignore systemic problems.

Globalism requires different social skills than traditional society. When the entire world becomes a combination of workplace and shopping mall, then extroverts benefit from this acceptance-type society because they inherently do not take it at face value, but work around its little glitches and exploit it for their own gain. Since they are granted acceptance, they do not worry about whether their acts will have good or bad results, because they are accepted just the same.

In this way we see how socialization, or the process of having social factors dominate over others, can be destructive and leads to the type of civilization that globalism creates: individuals entirely isolated, lowest common denominator prevailing over more complex ideas, unpopular truths ignored, weak eating the strong, and corruption at every level.

We all want a friendly discussion. However, if we make that the goal, we compromise everything else in order to be friendly. For that reason, we need to assist ourselves in order to understand how intrusion, not feelings and acceptance, forms the basis of a logical interaction between the individual and the organization, a category which includes not just corporations but civilizations as well.

Diversity Never Works

Monday, October 16th, 2017

History runs in cycles because human behavior follows a cyclic pattern. A truth is discovered, and then the only way to make a name for yourself is to assert the anti-truth, so people pursue the anti-truth as a way to succeed socially, and eventually it takes over and then is realized to be not true, so people begin the long process of crawling past convention, conformity and denial to reach the truth again.

Our ancestors knew that diversity never works because it cannot work. For us to believe in diversity, we must convince ourselves that different groups do not have different aims. Other than people giving up on their culture and heritage entirely, and agreeing to become generic citizens motivated by ideology and paycheck alone, there is no possibility of this happening, because culture is central to how humans understand their world and socialize within it.

Culture sets down a series of values, rules, and customs which are unique to a specific group. This enables them to both keep outsiders away, and police themselves for those who — probably through the rise of deleterious mutations leading to pathologies — are not going to be able to act in the best interests of the group. Culture is knowing what actions will be approved of by the group, and which will be censured, and enables people to understand how to find a place in their society.

On the other hand, diversity represents anti-culture. When you have multiple cultures in the same place, there can be no commonality except at levels that are both extremely simplified and very abstract. Anti-culture replaces culture with ideology, legal systems, economic systems, political systems and most of all, socializing, which now occurs without a sense of shared values except those of the abstract “systems” mentioned earlier in the list. Diversity destroys culture and to fully succeed in that, it has to destroy the genetic roots of culture.

Genetics underlies culture because culture is how human groups replace natural selection. Culture rewards those who uphold the values and ideals of the group; by definition, it excludes those who do not. People enjoy the idea of anti-culture because it frees them from the task of having to understand reality and their culture, and act according to it; without culture, they can do anything and as long as they follow the abstract and thus loose rules of the systems, they will be fine. But in reality, culture is both shaped by genetics and shapes genetics as Jonathan Haidt writes:

Cultural and genetic evolution are intertwined. The human capacity for culture — a strong tendency to learn from each other, to teach each other, and to build upon what we have learned — is itself a genetic evolution that happened in stages over the last few million years. But once our brains reached a critical threshold, perhaps 80,000 to 100,000 years ago, cultural innovation began to accelerate; a strong evolutionary pressure then shaped brains to take further advantage of culture. Individuals who could best learn from others were more successful than their less “cultured” brethren, and as brains became more cultural, cultures became more elaborate, further increasing the advantage of having a more cultural brain. All human beings today are the products of the co-evolution of a set of genes (which is almost identical across cultures) and a set of cultural elements (which is diverse across cultures, but still constrained by the capacities and predispositions of the human mind). For example, the genetic evolution of the emotion of disgust made it possible (but not inevitable) for cultures to develop caste systems based on occupation and strongly supported by disgust toward those who perform “polluting” activities. A caste system then restricts marriage to within-caste pairings, which in turn alters the course of genetic evolution. After a thousand years of inbreeding within castes, castes will diverge slightly on a few genetic traits — for example, shades of skin color — which might in turn lead to growing cultural association of caste with color rather than with occupation. (It only takes twenty generations of selective breeding to create large differences of appearance and behavior in other mammals.) In this way, genes and cultures co-evolve; they mutually affect each other, and neither process can be studied in isolation for human beings.

Diversity never works. It requires us to believe that different groups, each seeking to establish its own standards and genetics, can co-exist through the singular fact of dependence on a shared economic, political and social system. In doing so, it denies what makes each group unique, which is its system of values, its heritage, and its identity, or self-conception as a unit moving toward autonomy.

Since culture is encoded in genetics, and designed to accommodate those genetics thus effectively encoding them in culture, diversity necessarily possesses the ultimate goal of genocide: it seeks to replace a population or populations by mixing them, destroying the original genetic groups and their unique clusters of traits.

We might refer to diversity as a form of ethnic vandalism which has already failed, like liberal democracy, as once-strong faith in it has evaporated. Now that we have seen what is on the end of the fork, we realize that diversity will do nothing but replace us, no matter what race we are, and because of that, we have thought about identity and intuited that it is important.

Without social order, civilization becomes a giant shopping mall ruled by security guards in which your money is taken to subsidize a huge group of impoverished and angry people hidden behind the parking center. In fact, diversity is a tactic for seizing power, as we have known for longer than Christianity has been around. It is simply a dead-end policy enacted by dying nations in the hands of parasitic mercantile classes and mass culture.

We can easily end diversity and can see examples of the end of diversity in our world today. Those who experience it, dislike it; those who have suffered under it want it to end. Since the early 1990s, I have differed from the rest of the Right in that instead of criticizing specific ethnic groups, I have pointed out that diversity itself is the problem. We cannot place multiple groups together and not either destroy them, destroy ourselves, or as is most likely, both. This is true even with “nice” ethnic groups like Asians. Even ethnic diversity is destructive but allows the Left to seize power, so it is popular on the Left, of course.

You will often hear people argue something ill-advised like, “All this diversity stuff is really just special privileges. What we need instead is to just treat everyone equally.” However, this is a variation of DR3: we are claiming that we are more egalitarian than the Left, which forgets that egalitarianism is the philosophical root of diversity. A better path is to realize that diversity never works, and diversity has failed again, and so now we are headed toward balkanization as a path to tribal/ethnic separation, an idea once known as nationalism. The people who argue for meritocracy miss the point, which is that homogeneity creates stable nations, and heterogeneity — diversity, multiculturalism, internationalism, and globalism; these mean roughly the same thing — creates unstable, self-destructing nation-states. We cannot use equality to get out of the problems created by equality; we have to reject equality, and embrace hierarchy instead, which requires a single value system and therefore cannot happen under any form of diversity.

Diversity is the direct result of egalitarianism, or the idea that all people are equal. Humans tend to rationalize future decisions based on their current situation, and in the 1940s-1960s, Americans became concerned about the fact that our founding documents claimed that “all men are created equal” and that our country provided “liberty and justice for all,” when in reality African-Americans, Hispanics, Chinese and Amerinds were relegated to the back of the bus. Since we were at the time fighting a Cold War against the Soviet Union, we decided to beat them by being more liberal than they were, and in so doing, sacrificed our social order. Starting in the early 1960s, diversity became a core tenet of the Left and, once they had successfully demonized any racial preference as “racism” and equated it with Adolf Hitler, the Left was able to batter down any resistance to its multicultural vision. This then spread to Europe and accelerated after the fall of Communism as the ruined West tried to re-define itself — rationalize itself — in some way that explained its decline as a positive thing.

Egalitarianism is a form of individualism. Individualism defends the individual against obligations outside of the self-interest, or in a utilitarian sense the desires, of the individual. Individualism is the belief that the individual should do what the individual wants without regard for impact on society, nature, other people, culture, heritage, values, and religion. This form of atomization, or separating the individual from any context except itself, creates a society where the largest possible group is a unit of one person. This addresses the fundamental concern of individualists, which is that they will be judged by their actions, which can fall short of either social standards or how reality works, reflecting an inability to understand reality on the part of the individual. Individuals know that every time they act, they can reveal an inability to understand reality, or a failing according to the values of culture, and so they advocate for equality, which defends the individual against the needs of nature, logic, history and the larger social group. This atomized approach appears to benefit the individual, but in fact it cuts them off from participation in anything larger than themselves, and so it creates empty, depressed, alcoholic, and frustrated people. The futility is crushing like gravity inside of a black hole.

Individualism, equality, hubris, solipsism, diversity, and democracy have made the West a living hell on an existential level. We expend ourselves at jobs that are mostly pointless, as if designed by a mocking demon, and then wait in lines for mediocre products and endless red tape. We are alienated from our community, and even from our own families, because everyone acts in the individualist style of working toward their own immediate desires by using everything else, including love and family, as a means to that end. Thanks to diversity, we have no culture, and therefore can have no purpose, so there is no way to restrain the mercantile takeover of our society, which spirals into oblivion because we have nothing in common except paychecks and staying on the side that won the Cold War. Even worse, we have committed ourselves to a series of illusions beginning with equality and ending in diversity, so most people are offered the unappetizing choice between admitting that we have massively failed and rationalizing the present, doubling down on the same ideals, and trying again because that way our egos can remain intact.

Contemporary people suffer by being forced to hover at the moment of transition between parts of the cycle. This is a gradual transition, so we are left with the assumptions of the past, but realizing that those are empty and deceptive, while waiting for them to fully fail so that we can move on to the next part of the cycle. The sooner we realize that diversity never works because it is paradoxical and designed as a control method, a means-to-the-end of power and nothing more, the sooner we can reject it and then start peeling back the ideas that justify it, throwing out the illusions and replacing them with wisdom, so that we can restore Western Civilization and escape this evil, tedious, and narcissistic era.

How Unions Created Globalism

Tuesday, June 20th, 2017

Over at the Claremont Review of Books, a sensible analysis of the origins of globalism:

That goal is to flee high Western wages. Almost all “global value chains” were set up to acquire the same good—a waiver from accumulated obligations to Western workers. In the work of Thomas Friedman and other boosters you find value chains described as kaleidoscopic, complex, operating in a dozen different countries. Those are rare. There is less to “global value chains” than meets the eye. Most of them, Baldwin shows, are actually regional value chains. As noted, they exist on the periphery of the United States, Europe, or Japan. In this, offshoring resembles the elaborate international transactions that Florentine bankers under the Medicis engaged in for the sole purpose of avoiding church strictures on moneylending. Their purpose is not to seek value in the earth’s far corners but to get across the border to where the customs, expectations, and regulations that arose in the industrial age regarding compensation of the workforce don’t apply.

…Global value chains are extraordinarily delicate. They are vulnerable to shocks. Terrorists have discovered this. In order to work, free-trade systems must be frictionless and immune to interruption, forever.

This means a program of intellectual property protection, zero tariffs, and cross-border traffic in everything, including migrants.

If you are wondering why your nation has been assimilated into a global village of large corporations and compliant governments who act mostly through NGOs, this is why: costs of labor rose, thanks to unions, and so American and European industry began departing those shores in the 1980s, when union action almost destroyed the automobile industry.

Unions drive up costs not only by collective bargaining, but by threatening shutdowns, as were common in the 1980s. This means the company cannot derive any income from its products while its debt keeps getting more expensive, and threatens the company.

Unions today are mostly neutered because of two factors: (1) the government adopted regulations that covered most of their complaints, and (2) offshoring and outsourcing so broke their power that it became recognized that if a strike were threatened, the company would simply close the plant and ship production overseas.

For example, look at some of the data on how unions drive companies to offshore:

The model shows that, when there is imperfect competition on the product market, firms that face strong unions should outsource more of their production of final goods because such offshoring causes a decrease of their quasi-rent and disciplines workers. However, offshoring does not necessarily decrease wages. Then, estimation results show that, indeed, offshoring decreases the size of quasi-rents. A regression discontinuity approach shows that bargaining institutions affect outsourcing. Employment is also shown to decrease when offshoring increases.

How epic was the effect? Quite:

It’s unclear how many jobs were offshored between 1979 and 2001, but data shows there were 398,887 private manufacturing establishments of all sizes in the United States during the first quarter of 2001, and by the end of 2010, the number had declined to 342,647 — a loss of 56,190 factories.

Unions wreck not just profits, but productivity and work quality. They leave behind obligations that no one can pay, and a workforce which is bloated, spoiled, selfish, and vindictive.

This is why companies outsourced and got away from unions. Regulations, which at some level make sense, took on a political dimension and began to involve more than health and safety, raising costs further. More companies went away then as well.

Like socialism, unions are a form of a collective, insisting that people be rewarded before performance instead of after performance. This means that bad is rewarded along with good, and counteracts the necessary principle of competition. Individuals join in collectives in order to advance their own interests at the expense of the larger group, dooming themselves to eventual replacement.

The same principle drives immigration. When domestic workers get too expensive, firms look for workers with a lower cost curve and externalize their costs to government social programs. As long as the West pursues its policy of collectivism, it will always lose productivity and gain outsiders who, realizing they are not vested, then agitate for power.

Where All These Black Bloc Protesters Came From

Tuesday, May 9th, 2017

You may have noticed a proliferation of angry, destructive and violent protesters who alternatingly style themselves as anarchists, anti-Fascists, “Black Bloc” Leftists and regular Democrats. You may wonder where these people came from.

The first part of the answer lies in the educational system. It not only produces people steeped in Leftist dogma, but also rewards only the top ten percent of each class because it is producing too many graduates. As a result, there are many college-educated people floating around with few prospects.

In addition, modern Amerika has become unbearable. Its consumer vapidity matches a stringent ideology, and yet nothing seems to work very well, even while everyone is spending longer and longer at work and prices are rising higher and higher. As a result, many have checked out.

This produces a seething mass of people with a reason to hate the society around them and an impulse to destroy.

Not surprisingly, they have been weaponized by billionaires and large Leftist organizations who want to disrupt America so that they can cow the population, and by promising an end to the chaos, seize power.

Throughout history, change has been accomplished by small dedicated groups of individuals who basically bluff the others into submission with the threat of instability. To preserve what they do have, or reclaim that which went away, the population then goes along with them without being True Believers.

Large financial interests want to overthrow governments, culture, heritage, values and traditions so that they can convert the world into an unbroken marketplace. Their goal is to make the world into a consumer paradise that they control, thus remaining in power forever:

My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.

The abolition of nations has always been the goal of those who want power, because excessive power is found by making large centralized entities and then subjecting everyone to the same pressures. This process is called “Control,” and every leader whose intent is tyrannical seeks this because they are addicted to the sense of being self-important and having their will be enacted on the world, which is what one does when fear of death, insignificance and the lack of meaning eat away the soul.

There stands revealed that “new world order” and “globalism”: a worldwide superstate, run by those who are savvy at earning money, ruled by an ideology which punishes dissent and enforces uniformity and obedience, so that some of our species can pursue its vainglorious dreams of temporary immortality.

It may be time to change our species slogan from “Humanity: We’re #1!” to “Humanity: We Have Some Work To Do.”

Your Modern Economy Is Based On Socialist Debt

Sunday, February 26th, 2017

An informative post on Reddit conveys the basics:

Below are workings for my claim that most GDP growth since 1980 has been the result of increased financial engineering and credit expansion.

Over the last 30+ years, we’ve taken on 51,893 billions in new credit expansion. On top of that, we’ve increased the money supply from about 2,000 billions to 10,000 billons (in 2006, when the Fed stopped tracking this number), adding an additional 8,000 billions of money to the economy, for a total of about 60,000 billions in new credit or real money created since 1980.

That’s a total of 361,377 billions. If we had of had no growth, the 1980 rate carried forward would be 105,912 billions. That indicates we have increased the product of the country, not annualized, a total of 255,465 billions since 1980.

Of course, that’s almost five times the amount of the expansion of credit since 1980, so I’m obviously wrong, right? Almost. The 1980 GDP of 2862.5 billions in 2016 money is.. 8293.48 billions, and increase of almost three times.

So, I’m still wrong, right? Almost. The other form of “debt” the US has incurred is unfunded Federal and State liabilities, which don’t count as debt, but are future promised spending. If you ran a business and promised to spend money in the future on something, and that promise was binding, that would be listed a liability on your GAAP balance sheet. However, for the US government, that’s not the case.

The Treasury estimates the Federal government has unfunded liabilities in the amount of 55000 billions, due over the next 30 years. It’s impossible to say which of those were “incurred’ during which years from 1980 to 2016, excepting that in 1980 that number was zero, since the primary drivers of this huge unbooked debt – social security, Medicaid, Medicare were all fully funded at that time.

So, between private, public, corporate and consumer debt and unfunded unrealized Federal liabilities which are really debt, the data clearly indicates to me that we have increased our GDP only through the use of increase leverage.

This is borne out by the empirical data which in a wide variety of metrics shows that the average US worker hasn’t made really any gains in quality of life or living standards in that time period, and for many workers, that standard of living has gone down dramatically. Living standard are hard to hide, and the standard of living in the US has improved largely because of technology, not because of increased earnings, buying power, or financial stability.

As noted before, modern government formed itself from mating socialism and capitalism into a circular Ponzi scheme that works by taxing its population, dumping the money on an underclass, and then using their spending to justify a demand-side economic model in which “fast money” bases its value on the sale of debt and loans.

With schemes of this nature, all costs rise because money is skimmed at every level and redirected into the perpetual “pump priming” Keynesian welfare state, and this then subsidizes itself by selling debt and increasing the face value of the money by encouraging borrowing. This results in higher costs and lower quality, but salaries stay stagnant because money is peeled off before it trickles down to the end user, in this case the middle class salary earner and consumer.

When Leftists rage on about the failure of “capitalism,” they are trying to conceal the fact that it is Leftist programs that have engineered this failure, driven by the tendency of democracies to spend Other People’s Money (OPM) until it runs out, then extinguishing themselves in a default or collapse.

How The French Revolution Created The Proposition Nation That Created Globalization

Saturday, January 14th, 2017

Our leaders tell us that America is a proposition nation, or one formed of political and economic bonds but not ethnic ones, as revealed by this George W. Bush speech made from late in his presidency:

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen must uphold them; and every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.

In postwar America and Europe, the proposition nation was a principle accepted as fact. It seemed the ultimate extension of the democratic ideal: all people are equal, and therefore, it does not matter which people you have in a nation, so long as you have indoctrinated them with the right political and economic ideals. This was contrary to the founding ideas of these nations:

It’s a cliché of contemporary debate that America is a unique “Proposition Nation,” not one of those nasty ethnically-specific nation-states in Europe. Anyone can become an American by subscribing to a set of abstract principles, etc. etc. Quack quack.

In Alien Nation, I pointed out that this would have been news to the Founders, and indeed to pretty well all Americans before World War II. They were highly conscious of America`s specific ethnic and cultural heritage, i.e. national identity. And they thought it was very important—the reason, Jay said in The Federalist Papers, why the experiment of federal government could be made to work at all.

I also pointed out that, in fact, many European intellectuals had similar delusions of “Universal Nation”-hood. The most obvious example: France, where assimilating Africans and Arabs to French “culture” was actually official policy for a while. And not without some misleading signs of success, as in the American case.

When looking for the origin of an idea, it makes sense to go back to its earliest incarnation, which can be found in the idea of Leftism, or equality, itself. This is one of those notions that is so close to a basic human pathology, which is the desire to mandate inclusion of all so the individual cannot be excluded from the group, that it probably does not have a single source, but as with a fatal disease, is normally kept in check but gains strength in moribund patients.

This decay found its voice however in the French Revolution which, owing to the evangelical nature of Leftism, quickly became a war for control of Europe that would define the next two centuries. As observed by academics, the need of Leftism to expand created a type of “internationalism” that was the fore-runner of ideas such as diversity and globalism today:

In France, war initially encouraged national solidarity as the entire country mobilized. As the war persisted this solidarity broke down and a chasm developed between civilians and soldiers. The latter were increasingly motivated by a cult of honour that found its ultimate expression in Napoleon Bonaparte. He seized control of France in 1799, and then built up an empire in which the national element was increasingly diluted with each new conquest. Napoleonic imperialism in turn triggered reactions in other parts of Europe where opposition to French exploitation manifested itself amongst ordinary people. Intellectuals and some politicians sought to harness popular sentiment by preaching national hatred, and to some extent this assisted the massive mobilization effort necessary to defeat Napoleon.

The historian Julius Brauthal, in his 1967 epic History of the International (Vol. 2) noted that internationalism was a value of the French Revolution and that was the origin of its modern form. The Leftist form of internationalism consists of the idea that national borders can be erased by ideology through the cooperation of Leftists worldwide to advance a world order based on Leftism, not realism:

Liberal internationalism, cluster of ideas derived from the belief that international progress is possible, where progress is defined as movement toward increasing levels of harmonious cooperation between political communities.

Liberal internationalist theories address how best to organize and reform the international system. In general, liberal internationalists regard violence as the policy of last resort, advocate diplomacy and multilateralism as the most-appropriate strategies for states to pursue, and tend to champion supranational political structures (such as the European Union) and international organizations (especially the United Nations).

Liberal internationalism is typically contrasted with realism, and during the final decades of the 20th century the academic field of international relations came to be characterized as a clash between variants of those two traditions. Realists accuse internationalists of being naive and even dangerously utopian, and internationalists accuse realists of being overly fatalistic.

Internationalism takes the basic form of the idea that natural order is bad, and must be “corrected” by human intent, which consists of the idea that all people are equal; this arises whenever societies succeed because they lose a sense of shared purpose, which previously had existed through the need to succeed. At that point, civilization becomes more complex and requires new direction, but usually moneyed interests and peasant revolts have weakened the aristocracy to the point where they no longer have the unadulterated power required to set it on a new course.

In the case of Europe, this was compounded by two factors: first, many nations in Europe became successful at roughly the same time; second, their successes resulted in population booms which seemed at first like an appropriate way to rebuild after the losses to Mongol wars and plagues only a few centuries before. In this way, Europe entered an arms race where each population expanded in order to become powerful.

By the time of the French Revolution, Europe was already flirting with proto-Leftism as a way to keep its people together. First, the royal houses had been weakened by their dependency on moneyed interests to keep up with military expenditures, and second, the expanding population created a necessity for new ways to motivate people to work together as people increasingly took civilization for granted and wanted more personal power. When The Enlightenment™ came about, intellectuals granted this new rising herd a cerebral justification through the belief in human reason which was found equally and universally in all people.

The French Revolution left France a ruined nation. The food crisis which precipitated it but was not its cause could not have been resolved, and after that Revolution, was made worse by disorder and increasing mobility to those needed for harvests. To avoid the political destabilization of the crisis, France mobilized toward war, leading to a series of Napoleonic Wars where the new Leftist state attempted to dominate Europe, which in turn provoked the other European nations into forming defensive alliances.

These alliances in turn became a means of political competition, and so, after the Leftist revolutions of the preceding century, by the time of the First World War, Europe was dangerously unstable and in the hands of weak democratic leadership which refused to address politically sensitive policy time bombs which then detonated in that devastating war. After WWI, Leftist leadership was strengthened by the near-destruction of Germany and its defense of more traditional forms of society and values.

This led to a re-formalization of internationalism in a new form which became the modern proposition nation. As Theodore Roosevelt wrote, expanding on some of the concepts of Woodrow Wilson, the new order was based on political and economic obedience rather than national origin:

There can be no sagging back in the fight for Americanism, merely because the war is over. There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which most directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people.

Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple. In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.

But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American.

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile.

We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

In this, we see the origin of the confusion that became modern conservatism: defending the political principles of the old, but doing so by accepting the Leftist concept of world order by converting conservative methods into goals. For conservatives, the purpose was to retain all that has made civilization excellent since the dawn of time, and ideas like “liberty” and “freedom” were methods to that end. With the rise of Leftist concepts, the original goal had to be displaced, and replaced by Leftist ideas grafted on to conservative methods.

This process of “Americanization” lives on through globalism and the proposition nation. Globalism believes that since people are presumed equal, they can be indoctrinated with the American democratic ideals and will then recreate the success of America worldwide; the proposition nation consists of destroying national heritage through assembling people into political groups, echoing the sentiments of liberal internationalism.

As it turned out, Roosevelt was wrong about the nature of America, which was designed by its founders to be a Western European nation, which was made explicit through legislation passed in the same year as the Bill of Rights:

This article of legislation allowed an individual to apply for citizenship if they were a free white person, being of good character, and living in the United States for two years.

At that time, the term “white” applied exclusively to those of Western European heritage, excluding those from Eastern and Southern Europe, including the Iberian offshoot population in Ireland.

The idea that being a citizen of a European-descended nation is a political construct and not a racial one is one of the core beliefs of the cordycepted cucks who currently rule the Republican party, and descends from the Leftist idea of equality and a worldwide union of workers.

It reveals the primary reason for conservative failure, which is that they have adopted the fundamental assumptions of the Left, and therefore have no resistance to intensification of those beliefs, which leads to a gradual Leftward shift as we have seen during the era since Roosevelt made his speech.

The only way to resist this is to explicitly reject the proposition nation and the internationalist — or “globalist” — ideas behind it, mainly by affirming nationalism. With nationalism, civilization is a racial and ethnic construct, and instead of government, each society uses its cultural values enforced by citizens on each other to maintain order.

This alone refutes the delusional ideas of The Enlightenment™ and the French Revolution that have divided Western Europeans for centuries and turned us against each other through a series of futile, fratricidal wars.

The Benefit Of Organizations

Wednesday, December 7th, 2016

the_benefit_of_organizations

The enormous benefit of organizations is ignored (full stop). However, globalists get it, so why don’t the rest of us simpletons?

Here is an example of organizational benefit as demonstrated by Siemens AG, in Germany. A casual evaluation of the Company’s website reveals that the organization produces engineering equipment and is the biggest of its kind in Europe.

What the man in the street may notice (from time to time) is the name “Siemens” labeled on road construction equipment or even medical equipment. But what this poor creature will not see, is all the other things Siemens managers keep themselves busy with.

According to the website, Siemens are actively busy producing a wide variety of machinery for a wide variety of markets. But what is less visible is the following list of activities:

  • Press. The company is about to celebrate its founding 200 years ago, with a Gala event that includes Angela Merkel and 100 (prominent) guests, to be opened by the President and CEO of Siemens Joe Kaeser.
  • Employment. The company recruits on a full-time basis with promises of a meaningful life by making a difference, improving lives and protecting the environment.
  • Innovation. The company constantly looks ahead by acknowledging its designers, identifying research topics, determining strategy for the future and presenting pictures of the future.
  • Magazine. The company produces its own hardcopy for distribution to employees and clients alike, containing fascinating articles on possible applications in almost any market.
  • Events. The company currently participates in three trade fairs, one career event and one webinar.
  • Future. The company proposes a sustainable future by supporting “ingenuity for life,” “Intelligent Infrastructure,” “Sustainable Energy,” “Future of Manufacturing,” “Digitalization” and “Financial Services.”
  • Growth. The company is as follows: “As of September 30, 2016, we had around 351,000 employees in more than 200 countries. In fiscal 2016, they generated revenues of €79.6 billion.”

The above activities consume insurmountable resources for small to medium size companies, but are only a small indication of the force-multiplier effect of a multi-national organization. An in-depth investigation will reveal much more power to maneuver where financial experts will detect gob-smacking financial channeling only called wasteful expenditure if it was detected, which would only happen when politically expedient for another board member or senior manager.

But it is more than money because this particular CEO is planning on sitting next to Angela Merkel at the gala event, where they will not talk about engineering products, but the cozy reduction of cross-border impediments such as exchange rates and border control, i.e. the perpetuation of the “sustainable”(sic) Globalist World Order.

Imagine, knowing the extent of added capacity organizations possess, that instead of applying it in a negative, manipulative way, that same organization could apply it in a constructive way towards cooperative nationalism i.e. Germany First (not EU First).

Imagine, knowing the extent of added capacity Siemens possesses, that it was applied towards improving Real Politik in support of the resurgence of conservatism. For example, with a standard overhead of 10%, Siemens would be able to spend about $10 billion on conserving the future of civilization. Trump only spent about $100 million to get elected.

That would put Hillary’s donors to shame, not because they donated less, but because they donated to a single person. The person on its own is useless as was shown in the 2016 election.

On the other hand, Trump did not win the election because of himself; he cooperated with a “movement” as he affirmed in his speeches. But now there is a good probability that he is going to destroy this movement by forcefully “uniting” with mentally ill individuals in the name of compromise with the existing system, which is an organization of vast power.

This insistence on “individual” unity will destroy the force-multiplier effect generated within the organizational movement. Even Trump does not realize that the strength of the organization has surpassed his own.

While Trump focuses on trade deals with other countries, he should also look at on internal coordination between his “movement” and other “organizations” in America. That would have made America great because its own civilization would improve, creating an organization to multiply the force of his insight far beyond one man.

Recommended Reading