In those decades after the second world war, Keynes seemed to have the better of the argument. As productivity rose across the rich world, hourly wages for typical workers kept rising and hours worked per week kept falling – to the mid-30s, by the 1970s. But then something went wrong. Less-skilled workers found themselves forced to accept ever-smaller pay rises to stay in work. The bargaining power of the typical blue-collar worker eroded as technology and globalisation handed bosses a whole toolkit of ways to squeeze labour costs.
When did both unions and immigration begin their dominance? Oh, right: the 1970s. And the market reacted, by importing more labor and driving out the natives, who had made themselves ludicrously expensive through unions and the resulting lawsuits. The result is that everyone works more.
Enjoy your slavery, morons. In the name of the defense of those who cannot be protected, you brought this on yourselves. Like most things democracy, people paid attention to the trigger pull, not where the gun was pointed, and now that the bullet has landed, things have turned out “less than ideal.” As predicted, but ignored.
Way back in the 1930s, people like myself saw the truth of benefits states: while it is cheaper per individual to distribute the cost among many, the imbalance between takers and makers quickly raises costs. The distribution also amounts to a reduction of value, which raises costs and reduces the purchasing power of money.
This is true of democratization in general, because by spreading a franchise it reduces its effectiveness to act in any given situation, resulting in a decrease in value. When you democratize steak, you end up with the half-soy McBurger.
But of course, the Crowd specializes in thinking in the short term, and declaring that because its policies have not caused the apocalypse right now, they are good and should be expanded. The great rush was on to spend money on entitlements, or payments directly to citizens, which are now the majority of Western budgets.
The solution dreamed up by the Leftists who took over during 1968, themselves part of the “Me Generation”/”Baby Boomer” gold rush brought on by the population boom at the end of the Second World War? Import new labor and hope they work their little tails off to pay for Baby Boomer retirement.
The demographic squeeze could be eased by the influx of more than a million migrants in the past year. If many of them eventually join the working population, the result could be increased tax revenue to keep the pension model afloat. Before migrants are even given the right to work, however, they require housing, food, education and medical treatment. Their arrival will have effects on public finances that officials have only started to assess.
There are many problems with the immigration plan. First, it stimulates overpopulation by creating an escape valve from the already-overburdened third world, which in turn causes people to breed more because the cause of that overpopulation is a Tragedy of the Commons style need to have a large enough family to subsidize each person in old age, so when that family leaves, they make more of them. Second, it destroys Western civilization entirely by ethnically replacing its one unique component, namely its people and their genetics. Third, it assumes that people from third world countries will produce at the level needed, when if they could have done that, they would have back at home where living is cheaper.
Generation X and Millennials are already looking at working until they die. What if, instead of paying 50% total taxes, they paid only 25% of their total income into taxes? They would be able to save that remaining about. What could you do, if you saved half of your tax payments every year in a retirement fund? Retire early, probably, and that is what they fear. They need to keep milking you for cash until they are all dead, which will take at least another half-century.
So go to those jobs and endure those rapefugee sexual assaults with a smile on your faces! After all, you are paying for the Me Generation — who destroyed everything with their Leftism fanaticism, and saved nothing — to live out their dying years in luxury. Now, don’t waste any more time reading this article — back to work!
Meet Bosko Pavlovic. From Serbia, he is accused of being part of a rape gang in Germany. The Daily Mailreports:
A 14-year-old schoolgirl was allegedly raped by a Serbian gang of migrants in Germany who also reportedly filmed the horrific act.
The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had been invited back home by another older Serbian girl, 15, who was allegedly part of the group.
Instead of helping her, the 15-year-old girl filmed the sickening ordeal for the Serbian gang, whose ages ranged from 14 to 21.
This girl may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this assault illustrates a fact of life that was once accepted as common sense: other groups, no matter who they are, want to kill you and take your stuff because you are Other to them.
It has zero to do with how nice you are, how much welfare or foreign aid you give them, or your own socioeconomic status. You are Other; that makes you a threat to Us, whoever Us is, and therefore you must be conquered by any means necessary. That includes war, but also crime, politics, corruption, and rape.
Too much of our focus in the West is taken up with Arabs and, in the USA, African-Americans. The reason for this is that people want to believe our diverse internationalist liberal democratic oligarchy (D.I.L.D.O.) is actually a functional system, except for those nasty ghetto-dwellers and Islamic fundamentalists.
The reality is that diversity does not work because every group is threatened by the Other and wants to destroy the Other and take its place. It just seems to work at first when the diversity numbers are low and so each group is not empowered to act as a bloc. But once the minorities are majorities, wow, watch the crisis fly.
If anything, African-Americans show restraint in America because they’ve grown up around friendly white people who help out when they can, and African-Americans share some political identity with other Americans. While ethnic tensions are rising, our liberal media finds it acceptable to cover these in order to cover up the bigger problem which is that there are many minority groups, and to each of them we white Americans are Other.
In addition, to them all other groups are Other, too. In my city, Hispanics and African-Americans war on each other, which is not news; I saw this in California years ago, where the press suppressed it as well. But you can also find Hispanics at war with Indians, Orientals and Arabs. And those groups with each other. In fact, thanks to diversity, every known pairing of ethnic antagonism has played out here, mainly because different groups are incompatible.
If you ask a Leftist to name diversity success stories, they will always mention places with low actual diversity: London, for example. They do this because when diversity means a few individuals, the inherent and unavoidable problems of diversity remain invisible. Once populations are large enough to be in conflict, the true nature emerges.
The truth of it is that diversity fails for obvious reasons: groups need identity and the ability to have their own standards and self-determination. This is why nations, ethnies and races formed in the first place, and why most people stay in their home countries even when impoverished. Only Western liberal democracy, which demands that we demonstrate how people are equal by engaging in sociopathic and suicidal failed policies like diversity, denies this reality.
The ugly pathology behind diversity is that Leftists adore the idea of regression to the lowest common denominator. In fact, it is the goal of egalitarianism to do so. That way, individual Leftists cannot be seen as mediocre, and in the social chaos that it has created, Leftist individualists can do whatever they want and not come into conflict with pesky social mores, cultural standards, morals and values. Leftists want anarchy because as individuals they want to transgress civilizational norms of behavior.
As a result, they keep pushing democracy on us. When it fails, they find a group to throw under the bus. At first it was whites, but now the Left is increasingly willing to toss African-Americans and Arabs under the wheels so that the Left can keep importing Orientals (high Asians), Vietnamese/Thai (low Asians), North Africans and Indians (Caucasian mixes), Central and South Americans (low Asians: Siberians), and any other group that will adulterate our population. They do not care who the group is, only that they can use this group to destroy us and remove those social standards.
Leftists are insane because they ignore the destruction of civilization their policies will accelerate, not because they are not deliberate. There is a plan. The target is Us, and the implement is any Other group that can be found. The goal is to abolish civilization so Leftists can run amok and engage in whatever crass, venal, greedy, perverse and neurotic behaviors they desire. And in the end, only a ruin will remain.
What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and only one lifeboat, with room for only ten people, has been launched? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat.
These are the translated words of Pentti Linkola. We can dispute the truth of what he says as much as we want, but at some point, technology will fail to deliver solutions that enable us to continually further expand our population density to levels far above our carrying capacity. This is when we find ourselves forced to make difficult decisions.
Eventually, like every other species, we deplete a resource faster than it can renew itself. Even as the resource is gradually depleted our growth will continue, a phenomenon referred to as overshoot. Gradually, the depletion renders the resource unable to provide all of us with our basic necessities. The population has to contract as a consequence.
However, long before we run out of food and water, our standard of living will decline because of the depletion of other resources. Oil depletion reduces our standard of living drastically, triggering a process that can only be described as the collapse of global industrial civilization. Billions of people will die as a consequence.
Before we arrive at this point however, decline expresses itself in various other forms. People can flee, from places that are further along the path of collapse than other places. Syria would be an example. Millions of people are now fleeing a nation that has been ravaged by a severe drought and a simultaneous decline in oil production. These factors helped tip a naturally fragile nation into a state of chronic civil war.
Most people now know that 2015 was the warmest year in recorded history. It’s expected that 2016 will prove to be even warmer. So far, January of 2016 has been the most abnormally warm month in human history. It’s inevitable that we will witness more droughts similar to the one seen in Syria. Consider the case of Ethiopia, which is expected to witness the worst drought in fifty years a few months from now. It’s thought that ten million people there will need emergency aid.
Above the Mediterranean sea, an enormous lifeboat is struggling to stay afloat. Its passengers debate whether or not they can take in the people clinging onto the side of the boat. What’s taboo to mention however, is that the sinking cruise liner they left is about to capsize, throwing a thousand more people into the sea, all of them desperately trying not to drown.
We can judge our actions based on our intent, or on their outcome. If the passengers in the lifeboat wish to think of themselves as good people, they can peddle back in the direction of the cruise liner and sink their vessel by trying to fill it with all the passengers who will fall off. If they wish to keep their vessel floating on the other hand, it would be prudent for them to leave.
The point to understand here is that what is known in Europe as a “refugee crisis” is not a phenomenon that’s going to come to an end anytime soon. Whether or not all of the migrants are fleeing wars and genocide is a red herring, because for every economic migrant now hoping to strike it big, numerous genuine refugees will soon flee their destroyed nations.
Politicians seem wary of admitting to impotence, but it’s important for us to recognize that not every problem we encounter can be solved. Whether or not these people fleeing to our continent are good people and whether or not they deserve to receive help will be irrelevant, if we will prove incapable of helping them.
We don’t know when this point will arrive. It might happen this summer, if hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians decide to flee in our direction. It might happen ten years from now, when the third world’s population has risen further, along with the mercury in our thermometers.
Anyone who thinks that Europe can cope with the refugee streams that are about to come our way fails to understand the severity of the global climatic upheavals we have brought upon ourselves. A new age of mass migrations is now upon us. Instead of preparing ourselves for the problem, our politicians make decisions in the middle of the crisis, based on emotional rhetoric and feelings of guilt.
It’s sadly too late for solutions, an era of severe suffering is ahead of us. Politicians came together in Paris and declared that the global temperature rise has to be kept below 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial average. As Michael Mann explained however, this is not a goal that can still be achieved. Politicians were forced to choose between addressing ecological overshoot or sedating the public with short-term economic growth and most of them chose the latter.
What can be achieved however, is to ease the pain. It is not too late for palliative care. The refugee camps in Europe and the Middle East are places infested with rape, suicide and child abuse. In many places it’s common for family members to sell daughters as young as twelve to middle-aged Saudi men for use as sex slaves. Not so long ago, asylum seekers in Sweden rioted, because staff were trying to take away a ten year old boy who was repeatedly raped by older men.
In light of the situation we face, the most merciful option is to proceed with mass euthanasia. Merkel’s promise was a cruel joke. There is no chance whatsoever that Europe can deliver lives worth living to the millions of people who seek to migrate to the continent. The suffering of many refugees in Europe and especially in the Middle East is worse than that of many elderly individuals in Europe who are regularly given the means by which to end their lives.
It should be perfectly possible for European nations to send volunteers to refugee camps in Greece, Italy, Turkey, Jordan and other nations. Their task would be to distribute pills by which refugees are given the means to end their lives in a humane and dignified fashion. This would help prevent a lot of pointless suffering. It is the best outcome we can realistically hope for, an expression of genuine empathy, rather than the disingenuous public displays of altruism we see on train stations across Germany. A bottle of water might quench your thirst, but it does not help you to forget.
Recently an economist asked whether American productivity was actually in decline as reported, because there was some suggestion that measurement criteria may be faulty. In theory, since US competitiveness has “improved,” productivity should also have improved. But this takes us into the woolly world of globalist economics.
The World Economic Forum defines competitiveness as follows:
…the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country.
The World Competitiveness Report is actually a very interesting, intensive document and I would appreciate philosopher kings reading it. Apart from our paradoxical world where economic modelling of productivity contradicts with competitive measures, it appears that quality itself is also deteriorating. Measurements simply do not tally up anymore because of a lack of Quality Assurance and Control.
For example, take how Donald Trump polls before Iowa differed from the actual vote outcome. In addition Trump’s non-PC approach seems to contradict the generally accepted norms of the GOP; in fact, it exposed the lies of the some incumbents currently supporting the same party. Clearly there is a total lack of quality control in how polling and political parties work.
his has even gone so far that people accept “fact-checking” as the “norm.” In other words, independent fact checking has now been accepted as the “new” quality norm obviating the need for politicians to apply their own quality policies. This sad state of affairs can be seen in companies too –- despite companies having registered their ISO standards –- it has become a marketing tool only.
Another aspect of competitiveness can be seen in the changing assessment of Syrian competitiveness. According to the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) of 2007 and 2011, Syria fell from its position at 80 (out of approximately 150 countries participating, with lower scores being more competitive) to 98. This is clearly a serious drop requiring further evaluation.
The GCI process measures and allocates all participating countries into three competitive groups as follows:
All together there are 12 pillars distributed between these three groups which allows the “judges” to fairly accurately allocate a country; for example, Syria was allocated to the “Basic Requirements” group because of its good merits in the first four pillars and bad merits in the other eight pillars. Obviously it is not a problem but in fact is intended to provide assistance (free of charge) to politicians in Syria to bite the bullet as it were.
In the 2016 report Syria appeared to have disappeared, most likely caused by their inability to even participate. This is where things become interesting. Clearly the World would benefit by encouraging Syria to improve (as it were), so why drop them from the GCI Report?
Before I answer that, let’s take a detour to what the GCI Report thought about 9/11.
From the above, three interesting paragraphs emerge:
“This Report makes a key implicit assumption that economic integration will continue in the years ahead”
“In the longer term, the terrorist attacks will have a lasting negative impact if the policy responses trigger a reversal of the global economic integration that has characterized the past twenty years”
“market uncertainty have the potential to raise costs of cross-border business to levels not seen in decades”
Despite enormous losses suffered from the 9/11 terror attacks, globalists really want to have an integrated economic system in the world with no borders because it will reduce their costs. Even a two trillion dollar loss is unimportant to achieve this goal. This is why Bush never killed Osama –- (it is unimportant) and Obama killed him (because it’s unimportant).
This is only one aspect we learn from Syria and Competitiveness. Syria fell off the report because cross-border trade to/from Syria is not an issue anymore.
Another aspect from the GCI report assesses the migrant world. Migrants appear to like moving to Germany and France as a lot of people have noticed. In other words, people from number 98 are moving to live with people at number six or 18. If one considers that Syria only performs well in four out of 12 pillars, imagine the re-education Germany will have to implement in order to educate Syrian adults and children on the additional eight pillars.
The last jewel the GCI report provides in this short evaluation relates to debt. Based on the latest trend to incur debt by simply flooding the marketplace (banks) with money (this is undoubtedly good for Globalists), it points out quite emphatically the following:
The accrual of public debt can enhance competitiveness if it is used to finance investments that raise productivity, such as upgrading schools or supporting research. However, if debt is used to finance present consumption, it burdens the economy in the long run with little tangible benefit.
General feedback regarding quantitative easing is that banks did not lend it to borrowers. They apparently used it via stock exchanges across the world to make money.
If one takes how much was spent to “fix Iraq” or Afghanistan, then one can imagine what it will cost to fix Syria. However, since that investment did not come from Syrians themselves, but from “across” the “cheap” border, the productivity of Syria will not improve, and neither will the economy of America because it is all a bubble.
Clearly globalists do not want quality measures because those increase costs (e.g. Iraqi buildings were never even finished), they do not want borders because those increase costs, but they do want countries with taxpayers to socialize those costs because that will be very productive for the globalists.
The contradiction is that having quality processes and borders is actually good for the middle-class. We have to instruct our elected representatives to represent their electorate (or get prosecuted) and not their donors, simply because it improves competitiveness (the correct way). This is important because bad economy correlates with increased mortality (Syria and Zimbabwe).
One simple improvement may be proposed here (for evaluation): Implement a system manager in each country to perform the necessary loss-benefit analysis of any national policy for its own tax-payers and then implement an enforced quality assurance process that will follow that investment through to its predicted outcome.
This is what Trump intends doing IMO: like a good manager, to run America with its own quality-assured, competitive system. No more “competitive or productive measurements from foreigners” will be necessary after that. They can keep all of that for themselves (especially the incorrect measurement parts).
Few consider how much ideology serves as a substitute for reality because, in their view, reality is a physical thing and ideology consists of choices made about how “we” should correct reality. In that however is a germ of truth: ideology inevitably requires deposing what is natural, logical and true for what is emotionally satisfying.
Ideology also replaces reality by placing itself between the world and our knowledge of it. To be correct in reality, you act so that the outcome you intend occurs; to be correct in ideology, you act in such a way that you do not transgress that ideology. This means that every action you take is filtered by a desire to conform, before you even act, and that you are granted permission to act in any way that you can get away with by justifying your intentions with the ideology.
This means that whenever a question of how a proposed action will work out, we do not think in terms of how it will actually turn out. We think about how it looks when we tell others what we intend, and how that reflects on us, and whether it will please the group. Witness this mentality in action:
When someone says a refugee might be a terrorist, we can respond with the idea that yes, he/she might be trying to sneak in to Canada to do some harm. But that same person might be a doctor, an engineer, a teacher, or have any other number of useful skills. Someone might even be a social worker who’s already found the solution to chronic homelessness in rural and remote communities. We don’t know. These refugees could be the perfect fit for our community. But we won’t know till we let them in.
Two interesting points arise from this excerpt. First, the writer argues that we must act as if ideology is true regardless of the outcome. Second, the writer demands that we ignore secondary consequences, affirming that the true decision is what to say and not outcome in reality. Result: complete denial of fact and likely consequences in favor of looking good in the moment.
This is how ideology programs our brains to replace reality with this strange world of human intent, social pressures and appearances. This also has the effect of reframing the debate. A sensible person might ask, “What kind of society do we want to be?” and point out that heterogenous societies have throughout history consistently suffered more problems, internal division and eventual collapse to a third-world state.
But none of that is mentioned here. The only topic is applying ideology, and the only measurement is what other people think. This is conformity and control in their raw form, but no one is to blame but the social group. Without strong leaders to point back toward reality, people always retreat into their own minds and emotions, and when given power, reality replacement — and its dire consequences — is the inevitable result.
The inhabitants welcomed them with gifts, celebrations and good cheer. The narrative went this way: fleeing war-torn countries, they had come to Europe for a better life, and since all people are equal the Europeans obviously got this better life by accident of birth and should share it with the less fortunate.
Some of us sounded warnings. Much as creatures in nature are as they must be to live as they do, people in third world countries have been shaped by their surroundings for many generations. Just like natural selection chooses those who have adapted to their environment to survive, the third world keeps only those for whom third world behavior is normal.
The media, celebrities and politicians brought out the usual magic words — racism, bigotry, intolerance, selfishness — and so they beat back the doubters. A People’s Victory! And yet, over New Year’s Eve, Europe was home to mass rape and sexual assault events perpetrated by the new refugees.
If we accept the narrative, the cause of this orgy of violation was a lack of knowledge. Being equal, the third worlders simply did not know that rape and molestation are wrong, and the more revealing attire and friendly manners of European women provoked them. The politicians tried that at first, too. But the narrative collapsed there as well when other incidents of contempt for the European hosts came out. Lots of young men, surging over the border, to a place whose inhabitants they despise — this sounds more like a crypto-invasion than escape from poverty.
And so, now, European rings with recriminations. How would these immigrants be so ungrateful? Do they not realize that Europe is the land of tolerance, pluralism, openness and compassion? It is almost as if these “rapefugees” want to ruin the socialist white Utopia and replace it with more conditions like those they were in theory escaping. These refugees are bad. And yet that, too, is within the narrative.
The narrative says that all people are equal, but in reality, every society is composed of the people who fit in it. Third world people have third world ways. Put them in suits, teach them English and email, and they will still be the same inside. This is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence who has observed world history and current events. However, that contradicts the narrative, and anyone who does that loses their job, so natural selection has chosen as leaders only those who will — regardless of consequences — welcome the refugees and ignore the dangers.
When only those who succeed are those who blindly repeat the orthodoxy, there are no dissenting views by anyone with the public status to get noticed by anyone but dropouts, malcontents and dissidents. This localizes and contains disagreement. The leaders, media and public figures continue parroting the same insane nonsense and everyone is afraid to mention that the Emperor has no new clothes, because to do so is to lose their own social power.
This reveals to us that the rapefugees are just the tip of the iceberg, and below the water there is a vast structure of leaders, obedience and conformity which created that tip. But then, we must ask, what are the conditions that allowed the ice to form? Somehow, public image rewards those who speak the narrative. This means it is popular. This means that at the root of the problem is the popularity of the idea of admitting third worlders to the West, which requires denying the obvious and then being “surprised” by the bad results.
Democracy creates a coercive form of social power. When we declared all people equal, we made it taboo to say otherwise, because with the assumption that equal=good, it becomes clear that anything else is bad. This means that a slow grinding process occurs by which society removes the bad, or that which fails to confirm the narrative of equality, and soon, opinions have intensified as people try to demonstrate how “good” they are. When all people are equal, all opinions are equal, and so people choose what they want to hear. This reality-optional approach ensures that only pleasant illusions are voiced.
The problem with refugees is not that they are rapists. It is that they will end up replacing native European culture and creating in its place a typical third-world civilization. It does not make sense to blame the refugees, since the leaders of the West know that this will be the outcome, and the people of the West — by voting for these leaders — show they approve of it. Similarly, it is not even the destructive effects of democracy that is its problem. It is that democracy conditions us to think in fantasy, and then act without regard to consequences.
Europe grew to its height of greatness not through natural luck but through the simple principle of rewarding only those who achieved. When a knight slays a dragon, he returns home a hero and wealth is heaped upon him. This ensures that the best natural leaders rise to the top, and that those opinions push aside the usual contents of the human mind, which is nattering neurosis, self-flattery and fantasies about what should be. In reversing that through democracy, we have not only brought physical doom upon ourselves, but first have doomed our minds to servitude to an illusion.
So imagine it’s your daughter’s first day of college. She is on campus for her Freshman Orientation. Dean IP Freely stands up and announces that all freshmen girls have to stay at least one arm length away from co-eds because there is no other way to prevent the guys on campus from raping them at random. If they dress too provocatively, they’re asking for it good, long and hard. But you don’t want to question the behavior or origins of these men committing all of these sexual assaults, you will be guilty of ¡HATE SPEECH! Once found guilty of ¡HATE SPEECH! You will be cast forth into the void with wailing and gnashing of teeth. What would be the response?
Can you imagine how generations of American Feminists starting with Camille Paglia and going all down the line to Jessica Valenti would respond? The Huffington Post would demand I.P. Freely’s head in a basket within the day. But what if the rapists were diverse? Let’s suppose their perversions were multicultural even? What if they were poor, suffering, down-trodden Syrian refugees? You could either be a ¡RACIST! or a ¡RAPIST! As IBM used to put it in the commercials: You make the call.
The German city of Cologne gives us the chance to see this seemingly unlikely dynamic actually play out.ABC News gives us gory details.
A string of sex assaults and robberies during New Year’s celebrations in Germany has fuelled debate about the country’s ability to integrate large numbers of migrants, after police said that men who targeted dozens of women in the western city of Cologne appeared to be of “Arab or North African origin.” Political leaders including Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the attacks, though many also warned against hasty conclusions about the perpetrators. But to some Germans already uneasy about the one million asylum-seekers their country took in last year the incident seemed to confirm simmering fears.
But since the rapists are multicultural, since they are diverse, since they are refugees, we have to be humane about it. The charming examples of necessary diversity are helpfully explaining this to anyone who will engage in properly constructive dialogue once they’ve wiped their mentullae off after the gang-bang.
But the leaked police report, published in Bild newspaper and Spiegel, a news magazine, claims that one of those involved told officers: “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me.” Another tore up his residence permit before the eyes of police, and told them: “You can’t do anything to me, I can get a new one tomorrow.”
In this case, we get a news blackout* worthy of a Colin Flaherty book. What happens when the rapists are diverse? White Girl ends up bleeding a lot. We get clear and shocking details from Rotherham, England. The term “grooming” gets introduced. It’s like they are training horses.
What this obvious double standard accomplishes is to specifically clarify what feminism now consists of. Feminism has less and less of anything to do with Women’s Liberation. It is now a targeted method of violence used to wreck the lives and career prospects of men that the wielder of the feminism does not like. If an “Asian Gang” can drug, beat, terrorize, rape and then peddle the pudendae of 1,400 underage sexual slaves, than who can take the recent uproars over guys named Bill all that seriously? The people who peddle feminism could give a rat’s rear-end less whether the average woman on the street gets raped and left for the maggots. Their only question is whether or not the perpetrator is someone they’d like to take down a peg.
The collision of feminism and multiculturalism is going to prove fatal to one movement or the other. You can’t simultaneously weep for Lena Dunham and ignore the rape conga lines of Cologne. Or maybe you can, but not if an aversion to rape is your genuine reason to sympathize with Dunham. Or if you do actually believe that women are singled out far too often for sexual assaults, than you can’t continue to give diverse rapists a pass on their criminality because they are diverse.
At some point the fundamental contradiction we are seeing today from the Progressive Elite is going to be resolved. The voting calculus, the economic incentives and the cultural zeitgeist are all going against Sandra Fluke. Population replacement is a far more important goal to the Cathedral than Feminism. In a head-on collision between feminism and weaponized diversity, feminism will end up being totally destroyed.
* – ¡RACIST! – news dimming of illumination is a more socially acceptable term.
What should be a standard, bland assumption — that a nation should determine who gets in, that open borders are incompatible with nationhood — is treated like the vile guttural grunts of zombie Hitler. That sounds silly (and it is), but when you adhere to an ideology as fundamentally intellectually bankrupt as liberalism, using cookie cutter arguments is pretty much all you have.
The formula for all liberal outrage: designate a few historical figures as simply bad, then comb through their ten second quotes and their actions as filtered through politically correct revisionist history until superficial similarities to the present political enemy is found, and boom, you’re done. If you blur your eyes and inhale some of the dankest ideologies, Trump does kinda look like Hitler because he doesn’t want America to become Muslim. Political analysis for dummies.
In true junkie fashion, addicted to the social feelgood of righteous outrage in defense of the socially popular, everyone impulsively rushed to jump on Trump. Wait, that’s not right; let’s not mistake the artificial echo chamber of mass media for reality. Not everyone, but every media personality immediately whined about the pain in their rump from listening to Trump.
A White House spokesman said Trump’s comments “disqualified him for President.” It should be no surprise to anyone reading this that the current regime actually believes that Presidents aren’t allowed to act in their nation’s interest. Maybe if we’re charitable we can find some practical reasoning behind this judgement. Looking at past presidential enthusiasm for Muslim ingenuity, perhaps what was intended was the observation that without Muslims, who will build our clocks? Ouch, I think I just pulled my mental psoas from those mental gymnastics.
Hillary Clinton says it’s “extremist,” and “both a shameless and a dangerous idea.” It’s certainly dangerous to plans to undermine America, and there’s no shame in that. Again, no surprise here–she wants power, Trump is a threat to that, and so she attacks. But she followed this meaningless invective with rhetoric that would make me concerned for her mental psoas were she not an Olympic level mental gymnast (it’s an event in the special Olympics):
[Republican candidates] are all driving the exact narrative that jihadists want to advance. That we are at war, not with barberist, violent murderers, but with an entire religion. This is a grave mistake. I know very well that the fight against these radical jihadists is one we must win. It is a fight against a brutal enemy who twists religion, twists Islam to justify mass murder. They must be defeated. But in order to accomplish that goal, we have to work with Muslims, in our country and around the world.
Ah yes, the people who want to establish a worldwide Muslim caliphate win if we restrict Muslim immigration. They want everyone to be Muslim, so naturally limiting the number of Muslims here plays right into their hands! Of course, Trump didn’t say anything about a war. He didn’t say anything about an entire religion. He simply made a very reasonable statement about not risking the security of our nation for nothing.
Why are all these liberals and cuckservatives so obsessed about basing their actions on some interpretation of what their enemies want instead of just doing what’s right? Poor Jeb is confused about how getting elected works, for sure. He thinks voters want to hear an accountant talk about how if we all just work a bit harder and a bit longer, we’ll be able to sustain this behemoth system. We don’t want this behemoth system, Jeb — do you need that explained en Español so your wife can understand it too? Trump may be a loudmouthed clown, but the content of his policies is realistic. Jeb is the anti-Trump: a low-energy personality bloviating boringly about how “serious” he is while pushing hilariously bad propositions as solutions. Jeb is the ideological clown.
Lindsey Graham chimes in with a soft-spoken angsty attempt subversive sloganeering: “You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell.” Very clever way to demonstrate your irrelevance, Mr. Graham.
That’s enough; we don’t have to seek out these stupid outbursts, they’re all around us. What’s unfortunately uncommon is avoiding the bickering internal squabbles and focusing on instituting good policy. Ted Cruz stands alone in not vilifying his fellow party member with what he calls “Republican-on-Republican violence.” While partly disagreeing with Trump in favor of his own half-way good plan on immigration (which is almost as good as it gets on illegal immigration, but will merely “halt increases” on legal immigration), Cruz maintained tact, giving us presentiments of a 2016 Trump/Cruz ticket:
“Look, I like and respect Donald Trump. I don’t anticipate that changing at all,” Cruz said. “The reason why I won’t get engaged in personal insults and attacks, I don’t think the American people care about a bunch of politicians bickering like school children.”
“I’m grateful Donald Trump is running,” he added, saying the mogul has focused the national conversation on border security.
Indeed, many have commented on Trump’s success at Overton window shifting, despite the frequent stump attempts. We look forward to the day when the national conversation shifts further to the yet more important issues of existence and identity.
A young woman attended a rock concert in Paris and terrorist guerrillas attacked the civilians inside. She wrote her thoughts on the event in James Joyce style stream of consciousness, and the media picked it up. It seemed to express something that others also wanted to express.
Here is her text:
You never think it will happen to you. It was just a Friday night at a rock show. The atmosphere was so happy and everyone was dancing and smiling. And then when the men came through the front entrance and began the shooting, we naively believed it was all part of the show.
It wasn’t just a terrorist attack, it was a massacre. Dozens of people were shot right in front of me. Pools of blood filled the floor. Cries of grown men who held their girlfriends’ dead bodies pierced the small music venue. Futures demolished, families heartbroken. In an instant.
Shocked and alone, I pretended to be dead for over an hour, lying among people who could not see their loved ones motionless. Holding my breath, trying to not move, not cry — not giving those men the fear they longed to see.
I was incredibly lucky to survive. But so many didn’t. the people who had been there for the exact same reasons as I — to have a fun Friday night — were innocent. This world is cruel. And acts like this are supposed to highly the depravity of humans and the images of those men circling us like vultures will haunt me for the rest of my life.
The way they meticulously aimed at and shot people around the standing area I was in the center of without any consideration for human life. It didn’t feel real. I expected any moment for someone to say it was just a nightmare.
But being a survivor of this horror lets me shed light on the heroes. To the man who reassured me and put his life on the line to try and cover my brain whilst I whimpered, to the couple whose last words of love kept me believing in the good in the world, to the police who succeeded in rescuing hundreds of people, to the complete strangers who picked me up from the road and consoled me during the 45 minutes I truly believed the boy I loved was dead, to the injured man who I had mistaken for him and then on my recognition that he was not Amaury, held me and told me everything was going to be fine despite being all alone adn scared himself, to the woman who opened her doors to the survivors, to the friend who offered me shelter and went out to buy new clothes so I wouldn’t have to wear this blood stained top, to all of you who have sent caring messages of support — you make me believe this world has the potential to be better, to never let this happen again.
But most of this is to the 80 people who were murdered inside that venue, who weren’t as lucky, who didn’t get to wake up today and to all the pain that their friends and families are going through. I am so sorry. There’s nothing that will fix the pain. I feel privileged to be there for their last breaths. And truly believing that I would join them, I promise that their last thoughts were not on the animals who caused all this. It was thinking of the people they loved. As I lay down in the blood of strangers and lay waiting for my bullet to end my mere 22 years, I envisioned every face that I have ever loved and whispered “I love you” over and over again reflecting on the highlights of my life. Wishing that those I love knew just how much, wishing that they knew that no matter what happened to me, to keep believing in the good in people. To not let those men win.
Last night, the lives of many were forever changed and it is up to us to be better people, to live lives that the innocent victims of this tragedy dreamt about but sadly now will never be able to fulfill. RIP angels. You will never be forgotten.
You don’t come to Amerika for the usual tripe and drivel that is designed to make you feel better about your society failing by blaming scapegoats and inventing unicorn crusades to “fix” the wrong problems. You come here for the skinny.
There’s one word to describe the above:
This is not an attack on Ms. Isobel Bowdery, who realized her career was about to get a huge bump if she caught some fame, so she wrote down the right clichés in the right order expressing the right sentiments, illusions and pretenses. She is no different than a good student writing down what his teachers want to hear and handing it in.
But still the same, this is comical. It’s someone writing from Teletubby World where everyone is a happy little bubble, dedicated only to their own introspective personal drama, and the world is just a backdrop for that which never changes. It is the typical effete, narcissistic and oblivious outlook of late civilizations.
In Isobel-Teletubby World, society is not a struggle for anything. It exists for the citizens to do — to do whatever they want, of course! There are good people, and bad people, and the good people never hurt anyone or stop anyone else from doing anything. Nope, even when attacked in a theater where they outnumber the attackers 400 to 1, they will never step on someone else’s dream. No, it’s better to die in clumps and then engage in emotional self-expression on Facebook.
No one wants to use such strong language, but people in the West today are spoiled brats. They think the world exists for them to make the choices they want on an arbitrary basis, and that if it it does not, it is just mean. Upside-down frown goes here. They have a strong moral commitment to the idea that it should be a nice place where everyone nice can do whatever is nice and everything will be fine and maybe we will never die.
But that’s not real, or even all that interesting.
Nietzsche tells you to blame Christianity, and surely the good/mean fantasy dichotomy could come from that. Others blame commerce, and definitely the idea of life being like a shelf of products with arbitrary appeal fits in there. I tell you that what you see here is what happens when people no longer have a goal and have taken society for granted: the narcissism which is always lurking in each one of us comes out. This narcissism predates our passage from ape to human. It is the oldest sin, which is for an animal to assume that because he conceives of the world through his mind, it exists in his mind. If sin is error, this is the grandaddy of errors: a denial of reality.
And yet that denial is the idealized behavior in the modern West. For Isobel, the world does nothing but exist as a support structure for personal drama. It is a world of feelings that can be shared with other people (if they’re “good” — meanies don’t have feelings). It is brutally human to use our ego as a counter-attack against our smallness, and to not claim but treat the world as if it is a giant buffet for us to sample, which requires we imagine it has no significant consequences. Sure, we cannot murder or rape, and we must go to work and pay taxes, but most people avoid those crimes and do those activities anyway so that is not an imposition. To someone in that frame of mind, an act of terrorism seems like the hand of Satan reaching in to paradise for no purpose other than cruelty.
Most voters not only live in this nonsense world, but they created it by refusing to listen to any candidate who does not endorse it. Intellectually, it is baby food; like the half-lies of a salesperson who just needs to make enough fools buy his product for him to have that house in the suburbs. Morally, it is deceptive. We all know the world cannot be this simple, but we want it to be. As soon as we have the wealth and power, we insist that everyone else agree it is this way, so that we “feel” safe even if we are not.
What Isobel expresses is a consequence of this control, or the forcing of everyone else to act as if reality is not real and the fantasy world is the ultimate reality. Like domesticated animals, they do not fight back, but go trembling to their doom. They blame the instrument of their demise, not the illusion that led them to this point. Control creates a mirror image in citizens, much like their mirror neurons learn the world around them by mimicking its structure. People who are controlled come to rely on that control, in the Stockholm system way, but also blame that control for all their problems, which is why they like it. People enjoyed the Soviet Union because no one was ever accountable for their own behavior; the State was, because it had total control. That was why individualists supported it in the first place: much like regulation of an industry removes the onus from that industry to act responsibly, since they only need to comply to laws, total control removes responsibility for one’s actions and accountability for the motivation behind them. Under total control, everyone is a rodent acting in self-interest and no one ever is to blame.
Our method of control in the West is what Isobel expresses in her message: socialization, or people getting along with others. Teachers love it when everyone gets along, as do housewives and Republicans. They don’t want to see conflict, because conflict is “bad” because it interrupts our perfect solipsistic paradise. They want everyone to be nice and to exclude those who are “mean,” which translates to conflict never arising because we are in good conformity. No one will raise a controversial issue for risk of being not-nice. Everyone will agree everything is fine because they want other people to like them. The only things that can be attacked are those that people universally agree are mean, and those are uncontroversial, so people use them merely to signal their own nice-ness. It is a perfect world, a perfect illusion, and it is how societies generally self-destruct: they domesticate themselves, lose their ability to respond to reality, and then fall apart when reality intrudes.
Let us look at the big point that Isobel makes:
It didn’t feel real.
I’m sorry, is this planet earth? The one that has been wracked by wars from its earliest days, where Barbary Pirates roamed the seas and bandits lurked in wait throughout the countryside? The one where various ethnic groups are always murdering each other, frequently successfully, and the globe is a map of bones? Or even the place where drive-by shootings and knife fights are common? What about the periodic outbreaks of disease, the huge hurricanes, or the asteroid that will eventually, statistically speaking, eliminate all life here? The only way one can have such an outlook is to exist in a constant state of denial.
Hollande said the nation will honor its commitment to take in 30,000 refugees over the next two years, assuring the mayors, “France will remain a country of freedom.”
…“Some have wanted to link the influx of refugees to Friday’s acts of terror,” Hollande said, evoking calls by French and American conservatives to close the borders to fleeing refugees. But he declared the nation has a “humanitarian duty” to help migrants escape war-torn Syria.
Whatever happens, we must be nice. And if our policy is completely nonsense and stupidity, we’ll generate a whole lot of rules to bind it so that people feel better about it. Reality? That’s on another planet, man, no one is paying attention here anymore.
But this is typical. As Richard Fernandez points out, people would rather save the pleasant illusion that feel a small amount of pain by facing reality and acting on it:
The dilemma the West now faces is that it cannot survive on the basis of the platform which its elites have carefully constructed since WW2. They are being beaten to death with their own lofty statements. They must either continue to uphold the vision of open borders, multiculturalism, declining birthrates, unilateral disarmament and a growing state sector at all costs — in other words continue on the road to suicide — or retreat. As recent events at American campuses have shown, when faced with the choice of saving the Left and saving the actual world, the odds are that “the world” goes over the side first.
What needs to be done? This isn’t rocket science. It’s clear that cultures do not mix, but can only assimilate each other after a long period of conflict, which means that diversity is both suicide and genocide. The solution is to shut the borders, deport anyone who is not indigenous genetically to each country, and then resume what worked before the mass appeal madness of the liberal century, namely building up culture and the moral and intellectual quality of individuals instead of relying on liberalism and its illusions to be our substitute.
Our world is formed of three forces — diversity, democracy and pluralism — that are different faces of a single force, individualism. Individualism is the oldest evil of humankind because it always leads to narcissism; first, the individual says that his needs come before all else; second, when he is protected from accountability and consequences for his actions by the first postulate, he becomes narcissistic. Imagine a Hollywood star living alone in a vast mansion, with enough money that he must never face society, and you see the kind of spoiled, bored, empty and miserable brat that modern society creates out of its people. It does so with diversity, democracy and pluralism as methods of isolating the individual from accountability to reality.
As others have pointed out, reality-denial is a sin, and like all sins, it eventually becomes deadly, because like the asteroid it is statistically certain that over time, the piper will have to be paid — it is just not clear when. Like Malthus and other dire predictions of our illusion, its date of impact is unclear, but the inevitably is clear and just makes us more nervous and defensively vapid as time goes on.
Europe’s embrace of secular humanist multiculturalism as a belief system in place of religion and nationalism will not go away anytime soon, if ever. If it persists as the dominant Weltanschauung Europe is likely doomed. Change, if it comes, will emerge from popular opinion among the non-Islamic European masses, and the movements and parties that represent them, like the National Front in France, or Pegida in Germany. This is something that the elites will battle vigorously, possibly with both police and military forces. Civil unrest and the repressive measures that they may provoke may weaken Europe further, undermine democratic principles, and possibly make things even easier for Islamic radicals. But if European elites will tolerate popular change without imposing authoritarian crackdowns, Europe has a chance in this regard.
What no one will tackle is that this is a two-way relationship. Establish democracy, and the voters will demand illusion. Establish illusion, and you force people to engage in it exclusively. At that point they become domesticated animals, shaped by the hand that disciplines them, and when the control illusion fails, they simply fragment because they know no other way of life. This means that no one can even discuss the issue honestly because they are too busy emulating the past, and even that past is not what they think it is:
In the last two hundred years, there have been periods during which there were no immigration laws at all, and periods during which those laws were complex, and even evil. There have been periods during which outsiders flooded in, and periods during which the borders were all but closed. The system has been unpredictable: A Japanese expat heading for California in 1885 would have been welcomed with just an inspection; his grandson, applying in 1933, would have been summarily turned away. Romanticize it as we may, this area is just not as simple as we pretend it is. When a free-speech or Second Amendment advocate notes in absolute terms that this is a nation founded upon certain political precepts, he is correctly reminding his audience that the government is legally allowed to restrict his liberty in only a small number of ways. When an immigration advocate appeals to history, he is doing little more than begging the question.
What he doesn’t say here is that history runs in cycles, as de Tocqueville and Huntington noted, because democracy consists of pleasant-sounding ideas that unite people, but when they are applied, it turns out that reality is more complex than the universal homilies that attracted democracy. Mob rule is based on feelings, and then when those feelings produce disaster, there is a backlash. American immigration consists of repeated attempts to let in everyone, followed by disasters, at which point American law allowed people to either remove the immigrants or exclude them, at which point they self-deported. Europe has a similar history marked more by pogroms than democracy natterings, but the cycle remains the same. The domesticated sheep lunge after their feelings in order to show everyone how nice they are, and then it explodes in their faces and the remaining adults — a dwindling group over the years — take over and fix the mess.
The latest terrorist drama in Europe represents just another iteration of this pattern. In Isobel-Teletubby World, everyone is nice and pleasant and just wants to have a good time. But then some meanies appeared, and they have done something terrible and it is very sad, but that does not mean we should change what we are doing, because — unlike them — we are nice. Nice is sociable and should be rewarded through more socialization, and if another terrorist attack comes, it will feel just as unreal because we have shut it out of our minds, eyes slammed tight shut as we distract with mindless self-indulgence and hope for painless deaths.