Posts Tagged ‘guilt’

Harmless Non-Hateful Comment Triggers Panicked, Hateful Response

Thursday, November 2nd, 2017

Leftism fooled everyone with the idea of equality. To most of us, that meant that everyone got treated according to the standard. But because that does not result in equality, it inevitably means that the more successful must be penalized in order to subsidize the less-successful.

Based in this form of wealth transfer and dissolution of power, all modern politics follows this model: entitlements, the welfare state, socialized medicine/single-payer healthcare, affirmative action, progressive taxes, feminism, diversity, pluralism. Each involves savagely taking from the majority in order to give to ethnic, racial, religious, political and sexual minorities.

Our refusal to see ourselves as part of the same natural world of animals and plants that thrives around us blinds us to the obvious: we have been beset by parasites. In the human world, they prey on our sense of self-pity and social good feelings, and use guilt to induce us to subsidize them.

We are familiar with natural parasites: AIDS, mosquitoes, the black plague, Ebola, leeches, ticks, lampreys, fleas, rats, lice and bedbugs. Parasites are one of the most successful categories of species on Earth, from the vines that choke out trees to the viruses which live in us for the duration of our lifetimes.

So indoctrinated are we that when someone speaks up for the majority in a positive way, even that triggers a faux horror and dramatized panic by the parasites, who declare it to be “hate” to desire an end to the parasitism:

There’s a manhunt on – or womanhunt, if that’s your gender preference – for “racists” in Massachusetts, Ohio, Louisiana, Washington, Alabama and Canada who had the audacity to terrorize by posting signs and stickers that read, “It’s OK to be white.”

It all started out as an idea on the 4chan and endchan online forums to troll the left, universities and the media and demonstrate a double standard when the issue of discrimination is involved.

…Police were called out to Boston’s Cambridge Common and Harvard Square Wednesday morning to investigate approximately 20 stickers with the “racist” message stuck to light poles and electrical boxes. The Department of Public Works was tasked with removing them with putty knives, reported the Boston Globe.

To recap: someone posted fliers that said it is just fine to be a member of an ethnic group. The media, police and academia lost their minds.

In the view of the parasites and those who rationalize the decay of civilization by supporting them, white is bad. The victim must be made to hate itself, and to feel guilt, so that it not only fails to rise to power again, but keeps handing over those payments.

Lawsuit winnings. Welfare. Affirmative action. Free housing. Free medicine. This does not just go to ethnic or racial minorities, but to any group which can argue it is a minority group, therefore not thriving as well as the majority, and therefore, presumably since everyone is “equal,” the only explanation can be that this group is victimized.

For that reason, they claim they deserve wealth transfer for their benefit, even though a mosquito or Epstein-Barr virus — if they could talk — would say the same thing.

The assumption runs so deep, mainly because succeed socially by taking on a pose of being benevolent and strong, that even a neutral mention of white people provokes a hysterical reaction:

Irfan said instigators create these posters to highlight what they see as a double standard around who is affected by discrimination.

“[They think that] if it happens to white people it doesn’t really count, that’s the underlying theme that some of these groups are trying to highlight,” he said.

The issue with this? The lack of historical context, he says.

He said it’s important to acknowledge that inequality still exists between racial groups in Canada, often based on historical reasons.

In other words, if other groups are not succeeding, we must scapegoat whites. This is the backward reasoning of equality-think: we proclaim that all people are equal, but then notice that results do not bear this out, so we take on the mantle of righteous moral superiority and whip out our social engineering to “fix” the problem, with plenty of parasite-bucks for all.

In fact, this innocuous message of anti-discrimination is styled as vicious ethnic hatred:

In a statement posted to the university website Tuesday afternoon, President David Turpin said “the university is aware of several incidents of racism that have occurred on north campus in recent days.”

For those who are new to this game, you are now seeing the nature of “equality”: if we are not all equal, someone must be made to pay and to feel horrible about themselves, essentially draining them of life so the parasite can grow.

Our solution should begin with ending the parasitism. Get rid of any program that takes wealth from the many and gives to the few. End the progressive taxes; make everyone pay a flat tax. Throw out welfare and affirmative action. Cut out all of the government freebies and the easy grades, fame and promotions to anyone who bleats out the equality mantra in public.

Instead we should hit them with what we might call the post-ideology mantra:

Your article proves something that most people don’t want to face: diversity doesn’t work.

We are all tribal people who want what’s best for our people. There is nothing wrong with that. I’ve tired of being expected to put another group of people ahead of my own. You don’t want to do it and neither do I, which is why diversity will always fail, just as it has done for millennia.

For equality to work, those who are thriving must put another group of people ahead of their own, and essentially die on the cross in order to feed this group and attempt against nature to make them successful. Like the Soviet Union, this penalizes the productive in order to subsidize the unproductive.

This parasite has its hooks into us because it uses guilt. We must detach ourselves from the guilt. Most of humanity has always been starving, ignorant, violent, diseased, primitive and savage. This is not our fault. We owe nothing to any of them, and everything to ourselves so that we can rise above the rest and give the others an example to follow.

It’s OK to be white, indeed.

Trump Evaporated White Guilt

Sunday, November 13th, 2016


The 2016 US election was remarkable in so many ways, but none more so than this statement:

Watch for an increase in babies 9 months from now.

This statement exemplified the almost orgasmic emotional release felt by millions of people around the globe, even in Russia. Interestingly this was not the first time in history, because the following events resulted in the same:

  • After the Second World War peace was signed, a lot of (white) babies were born.
  • After the Mandela peace was signed, a lot of (white) babies were born.

Since this emotional release is a normal human characteristic, the same will happen in any tribe subjected to the same circumstances. However, this does not refer to conquering soldiers raping “slave” women; it refers to women being relieved at the prospect of peace to such an extent that they view it suitable for their “own” children.

The same can even be said for animals, where it is known that (some) antelope will only breed if they think it will rain.

Although this is a known phenomenon, nobody foresaw this “condition” in the current USA. The reason is quite simply that we have been drugged to such an extent that we missed the forest from the trees.

Therefore, assessing this “condition” can only take place in hindsight as follows:

Dilbert creator Scott Adams identified long ahead of time that Trump would win the election (by far). Adams trained as a hypnotist and persuasion is “his game.” The prediction that Trump would win was therefore not based on “data”, but on Trump’s ability to persuade people to vote for him. That persuasion was even possible, is based on the idea that Trump “heard” the guilt-ridden cry of his people.

From a different angle, liberals interpreted Trump’s “connection” with the people as populism. In hindsight this was a mistake because the term “people” conjured the wrong concept in the liberal mind. Liberals sell the idea of equality but secretly they abhor “the people.” At the same time though, they use those abhorrent “people” to destabilize entire countries.

Almost all countries in the world have been destabilized, except America. It is now possible (in hindsight) to confirm the utter stupidity of insider elites like the Bush and Clinton dynasties, that they would actually destabilize their own country. That this is a mental condition as described in “The Liberal Mind” is confirmed after reports that NATO mobilized 300,000 soldiers on 8 November 2016 in Europe in preparation for a Putin confrontation.

To get back to the term “people,” another aspect revealed in hindsight, is that American destabilization occurred via a two pronged liberal attack of “the Russians are coming” combined with immigration of migrants who are also classified as “people.”

Take note that all this is arranged by the uni-party liberal virus sitting in the Washington swamp. This is hindsight; it is not conjecture. The “people” are currently literally being pulled down into the swamp. But the liberal concept of people is (thankfully) incorrect, which is why Trump won the election.

In Roman times the “people” were Romans (not slaves) and in America the people were Americans. This was the status quo until liberals decided to “entitle” slaves/migrants as “people” in exchange for a bribe called “grants” in some form or fashion.

Democrats lost the 2016 election because they “assumed” that everybody (that vote) are “people”, but Trump knew that there is a big difference between Americans and other humans such as migrants/slaves. Therefore he “recognized” the American, who responded positively by voting for him.

The question now is: Why did the American taxpayer respond to this simple act of recognition?

This is where Scott Adams comes into play by identifying that liberal fear-mongering caused Americans to subdue themselves (for decades) and Trump overturning that same table of fear. Because as Adams stated quite categorically – “to oppose liberal politics of fear, requires (of Trump) to counter with a worse fear.”

The worse fear is not some external threat like “the Russians” or “political correctness”, it is the fear of self, the internal avoidance of “I was wrong”. This fear leads many people towards suicide and to nihilistic thoughts while it is this same fear that once it is recognized, will evaporate thereby opening the mind to internal peace and the jubilation of knowing that I was “not” wrong.

This internal fear has several examples such as:

  • After Soviet dismemberment, Russians drank themselves to death (I was wrong).
  • South African police suicides escalated after Mandela came to power (I was wrong).
  • American veteran suicides escalated under Obama (I was wrong).

But from a fear-of-politics point of view, America is not the only country with this retarded liberal problem. Canada, France, Scandinavia and Germany currently enjoy the same, whereas South African conservatives are still bending their knees (to this strange God) every day since 1991, when George H.W. Bush declared the New World Order who incidentally, is the same retarded Republican “God” that voted for Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s persuasive play at the American internal fear of self, overshadowed the Democratic externalized fear (of feelings).

This resulted in the evaporation of guilt causing Americans to revel in the possibility of rain and a subsequent expectation of growth where children can prosper. However, it must be noted that liberals did not evaporate at the same time, meaning they can now be openly shamed (which is their worst fear as was demonstrated by Chuck Johnson, when he emptied a rail road car.)

The Blank Check

Tuesday, October 11th, 2016

For a long time now, politicians and activists have possessed a blank check they can use to approve for themselves nearly unlimited money and power. That $20 trillion debt was caused by social programs, not normal government functions like defense and infrastructure.


This blank check consisted of a simple formula: if someone somewhere was experiencing “inequality” at some time, it was our obligation to help them, even if they had nothing in common with us. Nevermind that “inequality” is often indistinguishable from bad luck, bad choices or ineptitude.

Following on the successful propaganda of WWII which portrayed the US, UK and their Soviet allies as forces of freedom against the shadowy unequal regimes of the Axis, Leftist politicians in the US and reformed Europe used this blank check to march through the institutions and steal unprecedented amounts of money from the citizens of these states.

If anyone objected, it was assumed that he was in favor of “inequality” ¡just like Hitler! and voices joined in a chorus to destroy his good name, career, friendships, family and fortune.

Using this method, the Left was able to roll over a weakened Right which quickly became compliant because the pundits, politicians and executives involved with it chose to keep their lives instead of being sacrificed on the altar of guilt. Year after year, Leftist programs and laws passed with no more than token dissent.

Those who did make the brave and nearly suicidal choice to express disagreement found themselves sent to the social equivalent of concentration camps. They were ostracized, labeled “hate groups,” and filtered out of mainstream news, media, entertainment, academia and discussion.

Like all blank checks, this one invited abuse. While most people remained inert, dissent began in the 1980s when it was clear that popular media had become unified behind a Leftist agenda. Artists and writers began to write in praise of taboo topics like inequality, but used metaphors such as nature or ancient history.

As the 1990s accelerated, these voices became clearer and more strident about not only the failure of Leftism as policy, but its destructiveness toward normal lives and a sense of existential well-being. Wherever Leftism went, misery arrived also, but since its external causes could not be identified, it was chalked up to personal failings.

This played into a fundamental weakness of first world populations: as part of their adoption of civilization and social order, they instinctively want to be good. Hillary Clinton plays on this when she says that “America is great because we are good”; this uses the same loophole that let in fear of inequality in the first place.

First-world citizens do not like to see suffering. For them, having conquered the instability that prevented other groups from achieving their level of social order and technology, the fact of someone being unsuccessful — “unequal” — struck them as bizarre and ludicrous, but also sad and an affront to the idea that their civilization was good

In addition, the violence brought on by the attempts of Leftism to conquer Europe and America, for example Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan, gave their propaganda a heavy emotional balance. This cowed many of the remaining dissenters, because no one wants to be associated with cruelty and pointless violence, even though this was historically dubious at best.

With the rise of Brexit in the UK, Donald Trump in the USA, and anti-diversity sentiment throughout Europe, the blank check has failed. The grand plan to enforce it on all of us through globalization also failed. At the same time, the disastrous consequences of liberal policies and programs popped up simultaneously.

Without the blank check, Leftism is in trouble. Like anyone else, Leftists will need to demonstrate that their ideas work, not just sound good and bully everyone with guilt. This has caused panic on the Left because their ideas do not work, and they fear a “domino effect” of liberal ideas falling in succession.

Any movement or cultural impulse of Right-wing thought at this point needs to take advantage of this weak spot in Leftist armor. It is not enough to point out the failure of current programs; we must show that Leftist ideas themselves are realistically incorrect and damaging, and revoke all of them.

We live in interesting times. The order that has gripped Europe for centuries and brought it its worst crises is ending, and it is time to choose something else. While this much hanging in the balance is terrifying, it also brings the delicious vertigo that comes with finally having a choice, and a chance to be brave.

The “In” Crowd

Monday, September 19th, 2016


It is time we call the Left on what they are: peer pressure.

They are the same people who, as kids in high school, were telling us what we had to do to be one of the “in” crowd, as Baby Boomer slang has it. It was not that any of these things — how to dress, slang, little affectations — mattered at all; it was that they had control. By forcing us to be afraid and obey, they tasted power.

Power drives people who crave it, but those are limited to the people who lack it in the first place. The biggest bullies in your high school were kids with problems: bad home life, poor students, empty souls. The same is true of the people who make up the Left as adults.

They add a different spin to bullying however. First, they make it seem like a positive thing; “do x and you will be included,” instead of excluding people for having done something. However, this means that by the reflexive principle, those who do not do x are excluded. Second, they wage their bullying through passive-aggression.

This is the same way they invert language. They start to destroy a term by putting limits on it: “it can mean what it means, but not in these ways because they’re bad.” Then, the list of exclusions expands to include the original meaning. Only those who use the new term are cool. And if you refuse to, the liberals react as if you attacked them.

Liberalism takes the form of a begging-the-question fallacy:

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” typically has the following form.

  1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).

  2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: “X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”

In social terms, this takes the form of passive aggression. “Here is what I believe, and if you believe differently, you are attacking me.”

All of the liberal drama over being offended, triggered, etc. is designed to further this agenda. They want to style themselves as the victim and you as the aggressor, which causes their assumptions to be considered true.

In order to disguise their raw manipulation, they go seeking for cases of victimhood where they can identify with the victims, and use a presumption of guilt on the part of their targets — after all, they are not victims, so they must be victimizers — to bully the targets into accepting their nonsense.

The only known defense against this kind of attack is to have a strong social values system that excludes guilt and focuses instead on real solutions, which ends the victimhood presumption and dismantles the Leftist attack.

These people pretend to be your friends, but they are not. They are destroyers of other human beings who are emotionally stimulated by having power over other people. This allows them to become monsters.

This description applies to career Leftists for the most part. The average person supporting Leftism is both bullied into it and seduced by the idea of equality, which is actually individualism: everyone gets included, regardless of their abilities or contributions. It salves fears of social inadequacy.

All human societies tend toward too much influence of social control over time. Leftism, and its putrescent culture of guilt, is a natural consequence of this.

‘Whitey On The Moon’: Race, Politics, And The Death Of The U.S. Space Program, 1958-1972 by Paul Kersey

Thursday, August 18th, 2016

paul_kersey_-_whitey_on_the_moon_race_politics_and_the_death_of_the_u_s_space program_1958-1972

‘Whitey On The Moon’: Race, Politics, And The Death Of The U.S. Space Program, 1958-1972
by Paul Kersey
244 pages, SBPDL press, 2016

In the midst of the excellent documentary, In The Shadow Of The Moon, the viewer finds it impossible to suppress the question: “Why do we not do this anymore?”

The answer is both depressing and predictable: the United States shifted its goals from discovery to subsidy, mainly because of its WWII-induced guilt over its own ethnic strife. Its response was to introduce subsidies in the form of affirmative action, diversity programs, and public image requirements that forced American agencies like NASA to stop looking at goals in reality, and to look toward public image/political goals instead such as multiculturalism.

Paul Kersey writes the lugubriously fact-based blog Stuff Black People Don’t Like, but in my view, African-Americans have a lot to learn from him and this book. They are political pawns being used as much as the Kurdish female soldiers or dead babies during WWI; the point is that government is expanding its reach, and world Leftism its power, by using African-Americans as a justification for more money and more authority.

He traces this process through the space program, which even from its early days had political overtones which eventually boiled over in the need for the appointment of diversity czars and the hiring of more minorities and women in order to make the agency feel politically correct. Since that time, NASA has been in full retreat from its actual goals as it becomes more deeply enmeshed in political ones.

After 1972, those standards — once general operating procedure — were replaced with a mandate from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission to… scrub away the vestiges of whiteness and replace it with minorities.

You can have only one mandate: prior to 1972, NASA’s mandate was space exploration; post-1972, NASA’s mandate was pleasing the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. (220)

The autopsy of this tragedy focuses on our first minority president, John F. Kennedy who as the grandson of Prohibition-era smugglers and an Irish-American, was an affront to the WASP hierarchy of the day. JFK decided that black America needed a positive image, and instead of giving it to them on their own terms, he manufactured it from a public relations perspective. Thus came the quest for more black astronauts and NASA staff, which gradually expanded to include women and other minority groups.

Keep in mind the irony of this whole situation. The NASA diversity push came at a time when early memos talked about “Negroes” and Indians, and gradually grew to include the chaotic brew of ethnicities from post-1970s America. It arose from the Great Liberalization brought on by the Second World War, where the USA and UK defined themselves in opposition to the conservative empires of Germany and Japan (oh yes, and Italy… briefly). This was extended into the Cold War as a way of beating those evil Soviets… who happened to be pro-multiculturalism themselves!

In fact, what we were seeing was a typical Leftist game: pretend to be enemies. Two sides, claiming to be in a battle toward the death, were in fact carefully modifying each other to drift ever Leftward… while the clueless or dishonest media and voters looked on, as if they were watching an episode of Gilligan’s Island. The result is always more Leftism, which makes everyone happy except the 1-2% of the society which retains working brains.

By 1973, the federal government workforce was 20 percent nonwhite (primarily black, considering the demographic explosion of Hispanics and Asians was yet to occur), but (horror of horrors) NASA was roughly 95 percent white.

Remember: in 1972 NASA officially became just another federal (taxpayer funded) minority jobs program. (105)

His thesis reduces vast complexity to a simple principle, which is that in the aim of promoting Leftism, the federal government had to enforce equality amongst classes and races, and did so by hiring these people into jobs where useful activity was not only not expected, but not needed. They were there to be smiling black faces for the photographs and news stories. They were tokens, not people, in the eyes of Leftist government.

Kersey writes convincingly, passionately. He repeats himself frequently to keep focus on the topic, which makes this an easy read with many twists and turns at the end of which rest interesting revelations. He pulls out many primary sources as well as contemporary media sources to make the point that what happened to NASA occurred in plain sight, brought on by the best of intentions, and it still failed… and we are still earthbound, trying to solve the problems of diversity with more subsidies.

Where Kersey and I disagree is on the cause. I acknowledge all that he says about Africans, but see these problems as inherent to diversity itself, even if the groups are all high-IQ and low time-preference. Diversity ensures that one group takes the lead and must pay for the others, which leads to a sick dependency which resembles a bizarre sado-masochistic ritual. Africans and Western Europeans each want their own societies, but the pretense of equality does not allow this, so they destroy each other.

However, Kersey’s point is more that the pursuit of diversity, not diversity itself or African-Americans, brought down the space program. When you re-define the goal to be appearance, performance no longer matters. All other goals are destroyed. What replaces them is Big Brother ranting out a “humanistic” ideology through the loudspeakers, and all are enslaved to enforce this unrealistic goal.

In the meantime, as Kersey’s most eloquent writing reveals, the real world is out there, ready for exploration — and we will hate ourselves for wimping out on it.

Space flight and exploration isn’t an “inhuman priority” — it’s a priority of a civilization with the imagination and intelligence to explore the realms of existence.

A belief in our supremacy got us to the moon, propelled by the dreams of a better tomorrow for our posterity and our nation; but an insidious, counterfeit belief in our shared guilt gave us modern-day Detroit, propelled by false notions that we are responsible for the sins of our forefathers (and that Blacks are somehow deserving of “reparations” for those sins, even though not one Black today ever lived under American slavery). (136-137)

This book, a collection of essays with extensive quotations from mainstream sources, makes this point most brilliantly: we gave up on our dream for guilt, and even that has not solved the problem. Black people still face the same problems, and white people are burdened with a parasitic subsidy state that wishes to destroy them, and to further this goal, the seemingly frivolous but existentially essential practice of space exploration had to be sacrificed.

What else will be killed for guilt? Guilt is a vast black hole. It absorbs everything around it and destroys it, digests it into tiny bits from which nothing good can come. Our society is blighted when it decides to pursue these emotional gestures instead of solid accomplishment, and it makes us miserable and self-destructive.

But until we reject the guilt, we will never see anything but this path to death, and ‘Whitey On The Moon’: Race, Politics, And The Death Of The U.S. Space Program, 1958-1972 makes this point convincingly and without excessive feeling; it shows us our choice in two paths, one to space and one toward misery on earth in the name of pity.

Some Of My Best Friends Are Mutually Tolerant

Friday, April 15th, 2016

by Bill Waggoner

When somebody says, “Why, some of my best friends are _________,” it’s supposed to trigger automatic, contemptuous rejection. The objective of this suggestion-implanted-by-repetition — repetition is not the mother of learning; repetition is the mother of operant conditioning — is the unthinking, categorical dismissal of the idea that any other value system than the one being implanted might be fundamentally humane and decent.

In other words, it is mind control. This mind control does not require fancy sci-fi gadgets to control our minds. It works through social pressure, just like how teenagers con each other into doing dangerous and stupid things as groups. “You don’t want to smoke this tasty weed? What are you, afraid?” The setup is easy and known to any con-man: set up something people do not want to be, and then categorize avoidance of what you want as that bad thing.

Conditioning is central to democracy (“Remember the Maine!”). True Believers must dominate all discussion. That way they don’t risk people encountering anything that might get them thinking along other-than-prescribed lines and coming to unsanctioned conclusions. The point is to shepherd people in the same direction without them realizing that they are being herded. They think it was their own choice, and they feel good about it because they look good to others.

As it so happens, one of my best friends is a guy who “likes” guys. You know what I mean, because “likes” even gets the air quotes around it when you say it out loud. This was a later discovery for me. Big whoop. He could “like” goats for all I care. It’s his dime that I’ve got no nickel in, way off far away where I don’t have to concern myself with it.

What people do behind closed doors is their business; that’s what doors are for. Rabble-rousing demagogues notwithstanding, that’s pretty much the way it’s always been. People knew that James Buchanan (the president before Lincoln) was “that way.” When he lost his bosom buddy, his friends repeatedly tried to set him up with other guys they knew who shared his . . . whatever you’d call it. And in that age when women’s official options were either marriage or abstinence, there were a truly surprising number of ladies who spent their lives living with close lady friends. People even light-heartedly referred to these as “Boston Marriages.”

The difference was that these sexual minorities were not putting their preferences up in peoples’ faces, and those around them returned the favor by not taking it into account, let alone ostracizing them. Oscar Wilde, for Pete’s sake, with his “I won’t miss England, but I hate to leave my friends behind” double entendre was speaking the truth in plain sight: only those who already knew of his proclivities would get the joke, and to everyone else it was harmless.

But “out of sight, out of mind / live and let live” — a sound, fundamentally humane perspective — isn’t good enough for the Bolsheviks. Today we’re treated to unsolicited displays of flagrant, flamboyant, narcissistic exhibitionism. I’m here and I’m queer. Deal with it. And if your response is anything but enthusiastic, unfeigned acceptance, that means you’re a depraved hater of everything good and decent in the world. Because if you were NICE, you’d repudiate your inmost convictions and welcome me with open arms (megalomania much?). How could you not go along with that? “Everybody else” does! Don’t you watch (enough) TV?

I’ve got a great, new, even revolutionary idea: you get out of my face with your bedroom activities, and I won’t be on your case about it. Women have their secrets – make that one of yours. At least the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witness missionaries are polite and seem like decent people. Figure you could pull that off? If you can, the quality of both our lives will go up. A real win-win proposition. You cool it with the postmodernist penis nonsense and I’ll focus on your good points. Fair enough?

Stop Trying To Help

Sunday, April 10th, 2016


The thesis of this site is that social factors took over the West and led to its current liberalism and decline. When we mediate our decisions with reality, we do OK; when social factors take over, pleasant illusion is rewarded more than the less-exciting process of maintaining civilization.

In a socially-mediated society, the main goal is to sell yourself. You convince others that you are a good guy or gal by showing that you mean well and contribute. The best way to do this is not through the humdrum process of keeping the trains running or water clean, but through a gushing gesture of altruism and compassion for the less fortunate by “helping” those who are in desperate straits by their own choices.

This is why for the past centuries it has been clear to people that to get popular, you help The Poor™ which means finding any group of cashless people and doing something for them. Whatever happens once the news cameras leave, …well, who cares? The whole thing is advertising just like banks giving away free toasters and politicians kissing babies.

Conservatives in particular are afflicted with this disease. We recognize that most people are in dire straits through a consistent pattern of reality-denying decisions, resulting in a state of intertwined dysfunctional behaviors. This makes us social Darwinists who see self-interest as the path to rising above the rest who are, in fact, the ones keeping themselves down.

But then we feel guilt. How is it that I drive to work in this nice comfortable air-conditioned car, and go home to a beautiful wife and kids in the suburbs, while Treyshawn, Manuel and Yang live in miserable ghettos and eat junk food? We second-guess the order of nature and God, and it makes us even more pathetic than liberals, who know what they are doing is a lie. Conservatives are true believers in the church of trying to help

If anything we need a restoration of the morality of self-interest. If what you are doing advances your civilization, and in doing so you succeed, let everyone else face their own fate. They either chose it or were predestined for it and there is nothing you can do. Instead of feeling guilty for what you have, make sure you are using it wisely.

For instance, many conservatives live unnecessarily opulent lifestyles. It is not enough to have a nice 2,500 square foot house in the suburbs but because important to have 5,000 square feet in a tony neighborhood. That Honda or Volvo is not good enough; move up to BMW or Mercedes. Your neighbor bought an internet-connected stove that alerts Twitter when dinner is done? You’ll need one too, then — or not.

The reason people get on the false humility needle in the first place is that by dedicating some of their time to these absurd activities, they buy off their own guilt for the rest of their lifestyle. They can feel better about their ludicrous spending and the mountain of discarded gadgets and food packaging they leave behind. Guilt is salved by public acts of nice.

And yet, it is not. Those who are not thriving will always resent the thriving (with the exception of a one percent who will be busy working toward thriving; this is evolution, too). There will always be poor, drug-addicted and mentally scattered people. We cannot change this, except by not importing more of them. But the condition of suffering is the norm in most of the world.

All we can do instead is to lead with our own choices. Instead of acquiring mountains of plastic crap, pile up a few good things of high quality and use them for a lifetime. Spend your time on your family, friends and activities in which you can show mastery. Dedicate your former charity time to getting to know God and Nature.

Of course, this message is not convenient. Throwaway actions for The Poor™ will always be popular because they are isolated to a few instances and the rest of life remains untouched. What I suggest demands re-ordering our worlds around actual value instead of the appearance of it. But in the end, it is the only way to really satisfy oneself and drive away the snickering monster of guilt.

Public image and the battle for social control

Sunday, September 13th, 2015


No such thing as a “free society” exists. Every society has its rules and mores. Some try to pare that down to only direct intervention against others — theft, assault and murder — but this ignores the ability of people to change society itself and thus destroy the environment someone else wants to live in. The ideal of “freedom” is people living in little cubes where they have complete control, not communicating with one another because every action could lead to offense.

No one likes to hear that.

We like the idea of being able to make changes to society and then have it continue otherwise unchanged. Like people throwing rocks in a pond, we want the splash, but not the ripples that eventually rock our boat and make it hard to aim. When people talk about their political ideas, they mean as additions or deletions to the present, with no secondary consequences. That world exists nowhere but in the human mind.

As a result of needing to limit “freedom” — a word never defined — societies tend to impose forms of social control on their population. Some of this is through government, but as the great Communist and Nazi experiments showed us, this is less effective than buying up ad space in newspapers and co-scripting television shows. People emulate what they see. Even better, they use what they see as a means of moral superiority to enforce on each other. Every society no matter how “advanced” has these means of indirect control.

One of the most powerful of these is shame. When someone does something out of line, people gather together spontaneously to observe that person and comment or otherwise communicate displeasure. The difference between groups shaming people for transgressions, or merely one-upping them according to whatever paradigm is dominant, takes some effort to see. But shame and guilt rule us. As Ed West writes:

One possibility is that it is a reflection of the gap between shame and guilt cultures, a distinction suggested by anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict. It was Benedict who laid out the differences between America’s guilt culture, emphasising internal conscience, and Japan’s shame culture, which in contrast looked at how behaviour appears to outsiders.

…There are at least two theories as to what drove the creation of a guilt culture. One is that European societies tended to involve far more interaction with people to whom we are not related, and internalising one’s conscience was the only way of adapting from more clannish societies. The other, and more likely cause, is Christianity, which transformed shame-based societies, like that of Anglo-Saxon England, into guilt-based ones.

Here he is both insightful, and a bit confused. There are two axes here: guilt<->shame and internal<->external. The point he hits on that is worth our attention is that our culture has made itself sick with guilt; what he does not do is identify how cultures can be internally-directed shame cultures (Japan, Anglo-Saxon England) or externally-directed guilt cultures, like our present civilization in the West. Internally directed means that people feel a sense of unwellness when they are transgressing; externally-directed means that they are afraid of how they look to others. Our guilt over refugees comes from both our internal sense of fair play, which is dismayed at the mess that most of the world is, but also from our conditioning by external forces to feel awkward around anything that is not explicitly egalitarian. In this sense, the guilt/shame distinction is secondary to how that guilt/shame is judged, whether is internal from a desire to fit into social order, or external from a desire not to be excluded from a social order. As with all things egalitarian, equality operates by a negative quantum, removing those who are not egalitarian enough. That is where our modern Western guilt culture originates.

While he all but blames Christianity, it seems likely that another source has transformed us: public opinion. How we are seen by others, in an egalitarian time, determines our survival. Since we are all equal and free, people are free to abandon us if they think we are “bad,” and bad is conveniently defined as all that is not egalitarian. As a result, we are caught in a type of soft totalitarianism where we either act out egalitarian ideals, or we are punished; even more, those who become famous for being egalitarian — our politicians and elites — rise above the rest. This creates a squabbling herd determined on an individual level to out-do each other for asserting egalitarianism, and shaming those who do not live up to. Our public guilt is thus created externally by people competing out of fear that they will be found to be ideological enemies of our society.

A user named “1665averygoodyear” had the following commentary to add:

The reason that Europe is so in thrall to this new intolerance – namely the myth of multiculturalism – is because of the Nazis. The entirety of western history post 1945 is best viewed as an attempt to come to terms with, and atone for, the horrors of the Second World War, seeing their ghastly apotheosis in the fires of Belsen and Auschwitz.

A narrative that placed the blame firmly on the shoulders of White European Nationalism was formed. And the vehemence of the reaction was such that this narrative spread to include the basic concept of European society. The very idea of Europe and the West was fundamentally rejected. Not only that, but the hatred for anything to resembles traditional European culture is such that the Jews and Israel, being white and ethnocentric, ironically have also become subject to this rejection.

Almost every single left wing person in this country is walking around with a deep, deep sense of shame and internalised self hatred. It seeps from their pores and manifests itself in their all consuming desire to prostrate themselves (and our society) at the feet of anyone and anything that they feel is un-European. Everything that has been foisted on us as a result of multiculturalism is just a tiny tiny portion of what they deem to be adequate reparations for our colonial and ethnocentric histories.

The famous quip that it’s ‘too early to tell’ what to think of the French Revolution, could equally be applied to World War II. The entire basis of western society for the past two millennia has been fundamentally revoked and undermined, and the ramifications will be so far-reaching and profound that we are only just starting to appreciate them.

His or her comment about the “famous quip” refers to the fact that when looking at history one sees how consequences of actions take centuries or millennia to manifest. The laws of 1965 will still have massive impact in 2065 and 2965, but lawyers and politicians do not want you thinking about that, as then you would become more conservative and oppose all changes which did not have a thousand-year record of success, which rules out almost everything profitable. The point is that without precedent, we reversed our civilization with the French Revolution and then again by denying nationalism. Even liberal republics over time drift toward nationalism as a way of keeping their people together; however, liberals hate that idea because they fear differences between themselves and others, which means any social standard like culture — tied to heritage — must go. And so they war against nationalism and with World War II, got their excuse to declare it a bad psychology like drug addiction, crime and smoking in bed.

Another point of view on this topic comes from Megan McArdle:

The elevation of microaggressions into a social phenomenon with a specific name and increasingly public redress marks a dramatic social change, and two sociologists, Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning, have a fascinating paper exploring what this shift looks like, and what it means. (Jonathan Haidt has provided a very useful CliffsNotes version.)

Western society, they argue, has shifted from an honor culture — in which slights are taken very seriously, and avenged by the one slighted — to a dignity culture, in which personal revenge is discouraged, and justice is outsourced to third parties, primarily the law. The law being a cumbersome beast, people in dignity cultures are encouraged to ignore slights, or negotiate them privately by talking with the offender, rather than seeking some more punitive sanction.

Here we have another axis: honor/dignity. This explains more of the mechanism of control in our society, which is that “freedom” of speech trumps freedom of public integrity, which puts all of us on the defense against large mobs of people shouting nasty things about us. The only real winning strategy is total anonymity, which anecdotally seems to be the choice of successful people who work outside of public-facing jobs. But this dignity culture, like the guilt/shame culture of the modern West, is also externally-directed which means the definition and motivation behind guilt is public opinion, not an internal sense of right and wrong. The shift to dignity culture reflects that movement toward dictatorship by public opinion.

This brings to mind a fatal flaw in our society, which is that it has become an echo chamber formed of people who are afraid to contravene the public opinion, while they seek to enforce the dominant paradigm in new ways and through that novelty, to rise in social status. As John Faithful Hamer writes:

In Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America (2010), Barbara Ehrenreich maintains that getting rid of all of the “negative people” in your life is a recipe for disaster: “What would it mean in practice to eliminate all the ‘negative people’ from one’s life? It might be a good move to separate from a chronically carping spouse, but it is not so easy to abandon the whiny toddler, the colicky infant, or the sullen teenager. And at the workplace, while it’s probably advisable to detect and terminate those who show signs of becoming mass killers, there are other annoying people who might actually have something useful to say: the financial officer who keeps worrying about the bank’s subprime mortgage exposure or the auto executive who questions the company’s overinvestment in SUVs and trucks. Purge everyone who ‘brings you down,’ and you risk being very lonely or, what is worse, cut off from reality. The challenge of family life, or group life of any kind, is to keep gauging the moods of others, accommodating to their insights, and offering comfort when needed.”

Just as ecosystems become less resilient, and more fragile, when you reduce their biodiversity (by eradicating species), epistemic communities become less resilient, and more fragile, when you reduce their intellectual and ideological diversity (by eradicating radical ideas). Numerous studies have demonstrated that the only thing worse than thinking through important political matters alone, is thinking through important political matters amongst people who share all of your assumptions.

We are cruising to disaster because egalitarianism has made it impossible to express anything but an egalitarian opinion, and it rewards those who become more egalitarian than others. In addition, by its nature of being based in public opinion, the society dedicated toward equality shifts from a moral framework (internally-directed) to a appearance standard based in public opinion. This means that we have created a method of censorship more effective than those of the NSDAP and USSR; we have made ourselves into a howling mob that destroys any who deviate from the Official Story. If you wonder why our society cannot understand or address its own visibly evident but commonly denied problems, it is this shift toward externally-directed guilt, shame and dignity as a means of replacing their internal variants, which protected disagreement but were less convenient for purposes of social control.

When should you check your privilege? Never.

Wednesday, June 10th, 2015


One of the favorite presumptions of the left is that we should all be equal, therefore (magically) those with more than the average owe it to the rest of the herd.

A cynical observer might call this simply, “guilt.” It serves no purpose except to allow the person with less to demand a free subsidy from the person with more.

In doing so, the lesser people reveals themselves as inferior. No decent and useful person would ever demand a subsidy. They might ask for a loan, or a grant to do something, but it would be on the basis of what they would achieve, not their failure to achieve.

David Greenberg over at The College Conservative attempts to address this point:

Without first stopping to consider what is actually being charged, the person being accused of possessing a privilege can lose an opportunity to gain a better understanding about themselves and the opportunities that have been afforded to them.

The first step requires empathy. It requires you to look at the situation from that second person’s perspective and see what they mean when they are calling you privileged. If you are having trouble making this deduction on you own, ask them. Hopefully, they will give you a clear answer. (If they do not, then it may be simply a defense mechanism.)

You may come to the conclusion that the idea they are arguing is, in fact, true. Some privilege exists simply because we are different people. A world without privilege is a world where everyone is literally the same.

David writes well and is too polite to say what must be said here:

When should you check your privilege?


If you have “privilege,” it is because either you or your ancestors were more useful than the person asking about privilege. If it was your ancestors, you have most likely inherited those traits. If it was you, then these people are merely parasites who want to share your good fortune without having done a thing to achieve it, thus in the time-honored tradition of human herds dissolving the wealth and destroying the interest, then moving on to something else to parasitize.

Those who are more competent deserve more power, money and recognition for a simple reason: they have shown they can use it. Much like you graduate from school, and have more power than when you did not, or get promoted at a job, those who have shown aptitude are given a chance to use that aptitude for other means. We all benefit from well-run businesses, quality professional advice, and strong leadership. That is not privilege; it is service.

Inevitably, the inferior will complain about “un-earned wealth” and start talking about Paris Hilton when this argument is brought up. You can quickly brush that aside: those people are a minority of those with wealth and, if we believe they are a problem, the logical way to fix that is to stop allowing fools to become wealthy. Somehow you never hear the privilege-checkers talking about that.

The standard Crowdist attack, like all good cons, begins by finding common ground. We all agree that life should be fair, and we all want to have empathy. So why do you have more than others? It must be because you are bad (when in fact the converse is true: the bad have less because they are less good). The real empathy and fairness consists in giving more to the good and less to the bad, because that way we all play by the same rules. The privilege-checkers want to make an end-run around that and be given wealth just for being pitiable.

“Check your privilege” is one of those guilt-attacks that will not go down in history. Like every other political motivation, it departs from truth and becomes a mere seizure of power and wealthy by those who are too corrupt to generate it by other means. The correct response to it is not to, as most conservatives attempt, assess each request to see if it has merit. Deny them all. Never check your privilege. The whole thing is nonsense and the type of scam you find in circus yards. When someone starts talking about privilege, you know they are lying, and the correct response is to call them and a liar and depart before you give credence to their ideas with your attendance.

Reflections on MLK day

Saturday, January 24th, 2015


Mondays deserve their reputation as frenetic, disorganized days. I spent one Monday bewildered. The stock market was closed and when I called the DMV, no one answered. I turned to the internet and found threads in online forums where people were talking about Martin Luther King, Jr. and his legacy. At that moment I realized that this Monday was MLK day, but I had not even noticed because MLK and the cult that celebrates him not only have zero relevance to me but represent all that is hostile to what I am.

In the spirit of the holiday, I was put through mandatory diversity training for my profession. It could not be opted out of, objected to or ignored, it was mandatory. I was forced to check my privilege at socioeconomic gunpoint, as all of us whites routinely are. Several hours of tedium later which combined the worst aspects of American high school and Russian political re-education, I could go back to the world I knew to be real and leave the fantasties of the control-oriented political leaders far behind.

It’s curious how little people focus on the coercive nature of this diversity business. You aren’t “encouraged” to adopt leftist views on inclusiveness, you must — or else. It’s conversion at spearpoint, just like the Catholic cultural conquest of the Norse. If you do not obey, you will be destroyed by any means necessary. It is not enough to simply not oppose it, by the way. You must agree. Otherwise, you are an enemy of the State… errr, I mean of The People, comrade.

Everywhere I go, it’s the same story: white privilege this, white privilege that, holocaust, slavery, reparations. According to everybody on earth except me, I am expected to spend all day every day trying to apologize for my existence because others might be offended if I don’t. Their offense legitimizes incursion on my life with thousands of tiny deprivations and heaping loads of guilt, shame and thinly disguised hatred. They hate me for being what offends them, and even if I apologize constantly, there will be a need to humiliate and ostracize me.

I have one thought for these people: How about I don’t check my privilege, and how about you don’t act like I am obligated to care about anyone or anything? Instead of being a white person with privilege who needs to atone, how about you and everyone who thinks like you let me live my life in peace? How about you don’t tell me what to think? All I want is the freedom to live my life without caring about your needs.

Call it freedom of association. Just don’t bother me, don’t tell me I am guilty of some kind of original sin for my crime of being born with blue eyes and don’t you ever try to tell me I am “obligated” to care about this or that. That’s my business and I will care if I want to. I did nothing to you, but you want me to subsidize you for having been victims and choosing to continue to be victims. You want me to be always wrong, so that you are always right, and so that the train of money, power and influence flows your way just for snapping your fingers and saying “I’m offended.”

I don’t care about Martin Luther King, Jr. at all. I don’t hate him, and since he’s not relevant to me in any way, I don’t love him. I have no reason to celebrate his holiday nor to spend any time thinking about him or how you may be offended. I am busy living my life and doing things that I know to be good, instead of celebrating some guy who wants to enslave me with guilt for something my ancestors may or may not have done. I didn’t even know it was his holiday until an hour ago — and what business is it of yours that I don’t care?

Recommended Reading