Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘leftism’

Fundamental Transformation

Monday, October 23rd, 2017

Very few people understand what a fundamental transformation has occurred in the USA and EU over the past seventy years. Society has become inverted, meaning that it is the opposite of what it set out to be, simply because we have adopted egalitarianism in its raw form, which is a mental virus that seemingly overcomes all human resistance.

This fundamental transformation involved social engineering which was commanded by the ideology we adopted starting in the Renaissance™ but formalized with The Enlightenment™ where we decided that the human individual was more important than natural order or social order, kicking off centuries of egalitarian thought, or thinking which assumes the equality of all humans so that the individual cannot be excluded or judged.

Most deceived themselves into thinking that the core of an idea could expand so much. In reality, however, related ideas expand to fill all available space and conquer any competing ideas, so the situation more resembled the proverb:

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of the shoe, the horse was lost;
For want of the horse, the rider was lost;
For want of the rider, the battle was lost;
For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost;
And all from the want of a horseshoe nail.

We started with a simple idea: instead of giving credit to those of higher social rank, we would treat everyone equally before courts of law. Some cautioned against this because, while you may have some higher rank people who are bad, in general the ranks reflect what each has contributed, and so the productive need to be protected against the rest.

But we inverted that, and instead protected the rest against the productive by removing any positive claims that the productive could make. This gave the advantage to those without any positive claims about past history to make.

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;

With equality, we suddenly had the notion that people should be treated equally, but this led to a converse assumption: if results differed, it was because of unequal treatment, not unequal aptitudes. Worse, saying anything against this was considered cruel. As a result, we began to consider any outcomes which differed from our expectations to be the result of racism, through the American “disparate impact” doctrine.

These began at first in respect to caste and class, which were the sources of great tension in the UK. Our society was outraged that once, we had aristocrats who were considered above others. In order to gratify our pretense, we began to systematically remove any distinctions between people. At first, this seemed to pacify the herd which felt ready for revolution, but then decay began.

For want of the shoe, the horse was lost;

In order to justify this affirmative action, our society began to work around uncomfortable clashes of difference. It does not matter, in the big accounting, what caused them or what they were. Just let it suffice to say that different ethnic groups are different for a reason, having evolved apart and for different regions and goals, and so incompatibilities arose.

Instead of admitting these, which would require backtracking on both diversity and equality, we lied. We covered up the clashes, hid the bad statistics, re-categorized certain crimes as not-crimes and certain events as non-existent, and basically forged our way until we got to the point where the whole system seemed to be working.

In addition, a gap in wealth persisted, so we adopted a social welfare program for the Other among us so that we could claim to be a fair, generous and equitable state. Instead we simply bankrupted ourselves, but we covered that up, too. In order to make diversity work, we shifted our economy toward a socialist model and taxed everyone more.

Precedent really crushed us here. Once you accept one lie, you must either (1) admit it was a lie or (2) build everything else on the basis of that lie. This is one of those truly binary areas in life. Once we accepted that “all people are equal,” it naturally flowed from that idea that caste was obsolete, diversity was good, socialism was fair and mob rule was intelligent. All unraveled from that point.

For want of the horse, the rider was lost;

This in turn produced problems because the socialist order took from ordinary people in order to subsidize the permanent minority underclass (PMUC). That in turn made people wary of government, which meant that government had to demonstrate its day-to-day relevance and importance in the lives of ordinary people, which in turn made government grow more powerful.

Throughout the next decade, well-meaning government reached into every area of human life, creating rules and people to administer them. Soon government became one of the biggest industries in the land, since a government job meant an end to financial troubles. The government borrowed itself into debt. Since there was no point doing anything else, the people did the same.

At this point, reality had drifted far away. All of the money was monopoly money and when you wanted more, you borrowed it. The social welfare programs that make up nearly 60% of the budget resulted in a massive debt, and any attempt to reduce it would raise cries of “racism” so was immediately discounted.

People began to experience the neo-Communist nature of this society when they accidentally spoke out in some way that contradicted the official explanation of how everything was going well and diversity was our strength. Widely-known truths from fifty years prior became thought-crimes, investigated by the police and ending with firings, massive news coverage, destruction of reputations, loss of home and income, and the shattering of families.

It became mandatory to praise diversity, equality and pluralism (“tolerance”) at every juncture, and those who did not risked having their careers and fortunes destroyed if any complaint surface against them; the only way to fend off these attacks, most of which were spurious and destroyed their targets before the facts came out, was to have a longstanding record of pro-diversity activity.

At this point, diversity had become the pro-Party sign of Vaclav Havel’s greengrocer:

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence.

At this point, the diversity agenda took on an inertia of its own and essentially rolled over everything else. To succeed, you had to have the right opinions, and in the post affirmative action employment market, this meant that one would not hear a word of dissent. Society had become acephalous (headless) and was careening onward purely on momentum, without any way of checking itself.

For want of the rider, the battle was lost;

Now it was agreed that society must be transformed, and the election of a black president to the most powerful nation on Earth was a guilt-offering and sacrifice to the voracious monster of political correctness. However, this merely intensified feelings because there is no such thing as null bias; one acts in favor of a group at all times, even if it is the group of not having a clear group.

The disgruntled assembled a group of themselves and others with an interest in taking over our civilization, namely ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, angry single women, large corporations, megalomaniac billionaires and media empires. They then summoned a new group, formed of SJWs or “Soviet Jurisdiction Workers,” and SWPLs, which is shorthand for “Stuff White People Like” and refers to white people who draw attention to themselves and show off their presumed inner goodness by being excessively, tritely and painfully politically correct.

At this point, the culture war that had been brewing for a century reached its apex and the revolutionaries clearly won. All of media, entertainment, academia and government was in lock step with the “new” and “innovative” methods of the neo-Communists. No one dared speak out in resistance because their lives would be destroyed.

For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost;

Revolutionary thought has an Achilles Heel: it is essentially a bribe that promises no loss of status for being unrealistic or crass, offers power to be seized from a hierarchy, and beckons with the thought that instead of spending our energy and money on building civilization — which must be done on a regular basis to stave off entropy — we can spend it directly on citizens.

This bribe holds the attention of the crowd as long as the economy is in good shape; when the economy goes sideways, people have less confidence in democracy because it has failed to deliver on its dual promise of prosperity and individualism at a more anarchic level than social order will allow:

In 19 countries, people who say their national economies are in bad shape are less likely to believe representative democracy is good for the country.

In 23 nations, the belief that representative democracy is good is less common among people who think life is worse today than it was 50 years ago. In Spain, for example, just 63% of those who believe life is worse than before consider representative democracy a good thing for their country, compared with 80% who support representative democracy among those who say life is better than it was a half century ago.

Similarly, pessimism about the next generation is related to negative views about representative democracy. In roughly half the nations surveyed those who think today’s children will be worse off financially than their parents are less likely than others to say representative democracy is a good form of government. Among Mexicans who believe the next generation will be worse off, only 52% say representative democracy is good for the country. Backing for government by elected representatives is at 72% among those who say children will be better off than their parents.

When the neo-Communist years came, away went the wealth. The currency fell in value; people noticed that real wages had been stagnant for a long time; taxes, including the new 0bamacare tax, savaged the middle classes; sexual tension reached an apex of false rape accusations; people had nothing in common because every interaction was highly politicized, and so soon we saw the future of America: the destruction of its population, everyone lonely and enslaved to pointless jobs while living in apartments that, if you scratched off the facades, were decidedly Soviet in their layout.

And all from the want of a horseshoe nail.

And so we come down to the cause of it all: the proliferation of people who both do not understand what is needed to have civilization and are stunted enough in self-actualization to be individualists, a condition the ancients called hubris. This was legitimized by The Renaissance™ and The Enlightenment,™ both of which shifted focus from natural law, divine hierarchy and social order to the glory of the human individual.

Our only useful metaphor for this process is obesity. When we are prosperous and have more than enough food, we get fat unless we take conscious steps to avoid that process. In the West, our wealth allowed a vast breeding program of those who are naturally “drones” as Plato calls them, or people oriented toward a mentality of parasitic dependency.

At first, it did not seem that it would unravel so fast or go down this dark path. But humans suffer for their big brains which allow them to rationalize, and in so doing, to alter their knowledge of what is true in order to make it fit a human narrative. This causes inversion of our thinking, which is then mirrored when society inverts the meaning of words and ideas by filtering out what contradicts the human narrative.

We see also that the differences between “types” of Leftism are inconsequential. They share the same philosophy and, more importantly, the belief that everything else is a means-to-the-end of achieving that condition, such that we are all expendable. Leftism starts with the idea of equality, an addicting mental virus, and as it grows in power, it becomes closer to full Communism, even if it hides that fact behind decentralized structures as used in neo-Communist states across the West.

When all is a means-to-an-end, we engage in “social engineering” which really means the destruction of anything which does not fit the narrative so that the narrative can be converted into ideology and used to control the masses. This only happens when equality has already taken over, so that mass opinion can be used as a substitute for fact or logic, and then the takeover is complete.

At some point, humanity will have to face the fact that all of our best intentions are destructive, and that what matters is a cold logical look at how to adapt and what has worked in the past. Then, we can broach the qualitative dimension, and choose the methods and principles which worked best in the past, avoiding the spiral of decline in which we now find ourselves.

We Reach Peak SJW As Equality Includes Obesity

Wednesday, October 18th, 2017

Very few realize that the modern “social justice” movement has its roots centuries ago, in the French Revolution or The Enlightenment™ and The Renaissance™ before it. The idea is simple: do not focus on external order (society, God/gods, nature, logic) but instead look at the individual and its desires.

This came to a demi-peak in the “Me Generation,” otherwise known as the [expletive deleted] Baby Boomers, who insisted that only what flattered them as individuals was true, and they would act on that, and ignore the rest of reality. This of course causes isolation and paranoia because most of the world is filtered out, and so random events can occur without being anticipated, at any time.

But the Leftists got their hooks into the West after the 1960s, brought on mainly by how boring and corporate the 1950s were, causing anyone with spirit to revolt against our commercialized, democratized, and simplified mass culture. Unfortunately, as is almost always the case, the Revolution was a case of the cure being worse than the disease, as often happens.

And so for Generation X and others, we grew up in a time where adults insisted on what obviously was not true and denied what obviously was. Even to a child, this signals hopelessness: your civilization has opted to commit suicide, rather than looking deeply enough to see its actual problems, even though those are not that complicated. We were abandoned children.

The generation after us, the Millennials, they grew up believing the lies because they had never seen anything different. They never knew a time when people were honest, had culture, and managed to stay married without divorce or stay in love without a bribe. They had never seen pre-multicultural America, a place of trust and easy normal socialization, and were entirely lost and thus dependent on what their 1960s-style instructors told them.

Eventually, these cordycepted toxoplasma zombies gained enough power to elect a president, and then they assumed Utopia was near; it turned out that all their ideas failed, and so instead, we entered dystopia. But before that became apparent, because most people are incapable of analysis or thought beyond one level deep, we would see “peak Leftism” or “peak SJW” as the long tail whipped around. Witness the genius of obesity as a human right:

Following online backlash, Google is removing a planned feature in Maps that shows you how many calories you’d burn when in walking mode. Google’s attempt to promote a healthy lifestyle caused a number of people to lambast the feature on Twitter, claiming it would “shame” and even “trigger” those with eating disorders. Engadget reports:

Taking note of the negative reaction, Google is now dumping the experiment. It confirmed to Engadget that the update was briefly tested on iOS, and has been abandoned based on user feedback. As The Hill’s Taylor Lorenz noted in her tweets, there was no way to turn off the feature. Lorenz also claimed that using pink cupcakes as the unit of measurement was “lowkey aimed at women.” Others pointed out that Maps wasn’t the appropriate place for the update. After all, there are plenty of fitness and calorie counting apps that keep track of your activity and consumption — again emphasizing how misplaced the feature was.

The point of equality, although egalitarians will not tell you this, is to save the individual from being judged wrong for their opinions. Each of us tries to understand the world, and acts on our mental image of it, and when we screw up, it means that we were too neurotic, delusional, dysfunctional or otherwise less-than-superior to handle that simple task. Sneers and scorn rise like locusts from a field of dead corn.

As a result, egalitarians try a simple formula, which might be said to be “good = bad” or at least that good and bad are arbitrary, relativistic and irrelevant, so we might as well approve of everyone at the same social level. Their great fear is losing social position by being inept, and so they have banished judgment for ineptitude, at least in the public forums where it once kept our leaders competent.

We can extend this to any choice by the individual. No one should lose social status, or be punished, or be made to feel bad, for any choice. Being obese, on drugs, metrosexual, incompetent or anything else is just an arbitrary choice, you see, because everything is relative. It is not that we have a purpose, or a world to which we can objectively derive adaptive strategies, but a question of what the individual wants.

If you wanted greater proof that egalitarianism is individualism, and collectivism is merely a shield for the individual to use others to advance his own agenda, it cannot be found than in this great panic over criticism of obesity. Not even criticism; Google simply wanted to help us all stay fit. Maybe now they are reconsidering the monster they have been supporting.

A Brave New Homosexual World

Friday, October 6th, 2017

Today the total earth population is hovering around eight billion, most of whom are not very bright and show minimal concern for the future of nature, humanity or common sense. We know that the fuse is lit, and at some point, this bomb will go off and destroy us. At the back of our minds, we hope for some deliverance from this inevitable disaster.

Imagine that a new and extremely popular leader emerges today who is so persuasive and charismatic that he convinces the voters that we must cut the world population in half. This leader has Colgate teeth, a benevolent face, the most soothing voice and the most handsome face you could ever imagine, combined with poise, swag and a posture which embodies every archetype you hold in awe. And yet, he is talking about eliminating four billion people. What might we call this person? Stalin 2.0, or Hitler, the sequel? Maybe Satan. Take your pick.

But he is merely advocating homosexuality.

If enough of humanity accepts homosexuality, and it becomes massively trendy, we can successfully negate the human breeding colossus. Men cannot breed with men, nor with with other women, so each person converted means two people taken out of circulation. And it might just succeed. With enough manipulative advertising, you can brand any poison into the latest fad, getting people to wait in line for it. Homosexuality is the most celebrated fad in today’s decadent world, thanks to smart branding: love, rainbows, freedom to choose, all-inclusiveness, forward-thinking, progress… the perfect formula for a new gay planet.

The opposite sex has no place in a homosexual world. Humanity is thus effectively divided in two perfect halves, each wanting to be independent of the other, disgusted by the other, repulsed by the other, but don’t forget, it’s all under the aegis of freedom to choose whom you want to love! A trifle to pay for all the progress that lies in wait.

It takes Adam and Eve to create humanity. Adam and Steve will have to borrow someone else’s kid to fake a family. They can also use “science” to turn them into freaks that can get pregnant, give birth and lactate, and if they can’t afford it, the state will happily oblige. But nonetheless, they want to exist away from the opposite sex. Not quite the all-inclusiveness that’s advertised, but think of the ecological impact: fewer people means less pollution and more grass to munch upon. More job opportunities and higher wages too!

It’s really a win-win situation. Families and reproduction lead to overpopulation. Homosexuality means open-mindedness and lower population. Even more, it allows each person to exist without the burden of family, which could restrict their pursuit of their own ideas and urges. One more nail in the coffin of the outdated heterosexual model!

In the case of a homosexual Earth scenario, someone — most likely the state — needs to take things in charge to avoid a complete extinction of humanity. It can factory-farm foetuses to keep economies running, providing them with the needed amount of cattle. This way, the homosexual utopia can finally become a reality, and the state can manage our lives from cradle to grade in its infinite benevolence. 

Reminder That The New York Times Has Always Been A Communist Rag

Wednesday, October 4th, 2017

We forged ourselves, Americans, both in the sense of being produced by fire and having created an ersatz self-image. We came from English culture, heavily infused with other Western European cultures, but succeeded because of the DNA minted in Europe and not our Constitution or “exceptional” status. To conceal that, we had to invent a myth of ourselves, and it was a forgery.

To forge a myth, you come up with a story that is more symbolism than reality, then shroud it in mystery and invent institutions to support it. One of those is The New York Times, which if you listen to our pundits is a bastion of wisdom, and often has really powerful articles, but works the propaganda in among them. This has been going on for eight decades.

Recall, if you will, how The New York Times defended Communism and Stalin by denying a genocide in progress:

I would like to add another Duranty quote, not in his dispatches, which is reported in a memoir by Zara Witkin, a Los Angeles architect, who lived in the Soviet Union during the 1930s. (“An American Engineer in Stalin’s Russia: The Memoirs of Zara Witkin, 1932-1934,” University of California Press ). The memoirist describes an evening during which the Moscow correspondents were discussing how to get out the story about the Stalin-made Russian famine. To get around the censorship, the UP’s Eugene Lyons was telephoning the dire news of the famine to his New York office but the was ordered to stop because it was antagonizing the Kremlin. Ralph Barnes, the New York Herald Tribune reporter, turned to Duranty and asked him what he was going to write. Duranty replied:

Nothing. What are a few million dead Russians in a situation like this? Quite unimportant. This is just an incident in the sweeping historical changes here. I think the entire matter is exaggerated.

And this was at a time when peasants in Ukraine were dying of starvation at the rate of 25,000 a day.

In other words: the human cost is inconsequential when compared to the ideological gains we are making. The “we” is important: American Leftists have never really been critical of Communism, and still aspire to a situation where the group subsidizes all of its members and everyone lives in identical apartments, eats state-approved food and is told what to do.

Some of that is practical; most people need to be told at least generally what to do, most of the time. When left to their own devices, the opportunism and selfishness takes over society, and people like Communism because it promises to do away with that, even if it makes it much worse in reality. But the rest is designed from a simple human individualistic need: do not let anyone get ahead of me.

For this reason, Leftists are not only willing to sacrifice anything for the goal of equality, but will also rationalize this not just as good but as the only possible good. This is what Walter Duranty and The New York Times did for years with the atrocities of Communism and Josef Stalin, and what that newspaper continues to do to this day with the ravages of Leftism.

Leftists Finally Admit That They Hate White People

Monday, October 2nd, 2017

Leftists waited only a few hours after the Vegas massacre to announce two things: first, they want gun control, and second, they hate white people.

While I find it ridiculous to fire people for their opinions, the first real salvo of the second prong was a CBS executive who wanted Republicans dead in the shooting:

A top legal executive at CBS, Hayley Geftman-Gold, said she “is not even sympathetic” for the victims of the shooting at a country music festival at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas Sunday night.

“If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing,” wrote Geftman-Gold on Facebook, perhaps referring to Sandy Hook. “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”

Since Republicans are the only party that marginally stands up for majority interests, the coded message here is clear: get rid of the white people and their political interests.

This coincides with what research tells us, which is that Leftists are oriented toward minority interests at the expense of the majority (and here is the full paper):

Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra. In both scenarios the individual decides to throw the person onto the trolley tracks.

…While self-described conservatives more readily accepted the sacrifice of Tyrone than they did killing Chip, the liberals were easier about seeing Chip sacrificed than Tyrone.

…So we went in Orange County out to a mall and we got people who are actually Republicans and actually Democrats, not wishy-washy college students. The effect just got stronger.

…If you’re wondering whether this is just because conservatives are racist—well, it may well be that conservatives are more racist. But it appears in these studies that the effect is driven [primarily] by liberals saying that they’re more likely to agree with pushing the white man and [more likely to] disagree with pushing the black man.

So we used to refer to this as the “kill whitey” study.

Leftism requires that people rationalize equality of human beings despite evident inequality in abilities and quality of character. In order to do this, they must mentally construct a victimhood saga where those who need equality — those below the average — have been oppressed and held back by those above. This causes them to visualize the above-average as stupid, cruel and evil.

In the same way, Leftists when witnessing a mass shooting decide that the majority are to blame for the situation, and reason that it must be not just fair but good if that majority is killed off.

Egalitarian movements all have this duality: because equality is not real, they must invent a narrative in which they can justify the belief despite its delusional quality. In so doing, they separate the world into that which supports the narrative and that which does not, and while they hide this in social settings, fervently wish for and work toward the death of the non-narrative elements.

At this point in the West, our people have divided into these two groups. Not all of the non-narrative are conservative, but all of the narrative are Leftist, and their desire to destroy the other group is pushing us toward open civil war. We no longer have anything in common, and therefore the center cannot hold, making such war inevitable.

Gaining Clarity On The Ethnic / Racial Question

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

No discussion about politics can avoid mentioning race. This becomes further complicated, because “race” means not just the four root races but all of the ethnic groups formed from them, like Germans or Maori. It gets more complex because the races are genetically different and therefore have different average abilities and tendencies, which implicates class and caste as well as ethnic origin.

Politics in fact is inherently tribal. “Tribe” proves to be a complicated term, but to be trendy, we should use it as an intersectional term, meaning the overlap of race, ethnic group, caste, region, and political orientation. Your tribe are people like you. There are many levels at which that determination is made.

Competing with tribe is ideology, or the notion that life “should” be different than it is according to natural order, and that humans should force a human-only pattern onto the world. Ideology is a way of holding together a group of people and motivating them, and so it naturally competes with religion, culture, and heritage.

At the end of the day, political thinking divides into two camps: the ideologists and the naturalists. Naturalists think that we should use the mathematical and informational patterns of nature to guide us, and so tend to see race as a prerequisite — a necessary element, but not the complete set of necessary elements — for a healthy society, where ideologists want to abolish race and replace it with ideology.

***

This division means that we will discuss race from two angles. The Left (ideologists) will argue that we should not have a majority race, which fits their single philosophy, egalitarianism, or that all people should be equal, which requires reducing or removing inner traits like caste, race, class, ethnicity, sex, religion and family. The Right (naturalists) will argue that we should either preserve the majority or at least allow it to preserve itself.

Since America birthed itself with some degree of ideological direction toward egalitarianism, even if as a means of affirming it in order to limit it and avoid a situation like what destroyed Athens, a hybrid approach was adopted: classical liberalism, or the idea that individuals would have freedom and liberty to pursue their own course in life. This is a form of the pluralism inherent in equality, which means that people do not have to work together toward a goal, but each tries to survive as in nature, and we see what comes out on top, even though civilization is the opposite of nature in terms of order and what it rewards. The “freedom” approach of classical liberalism, now called libertarianism, seemed to work, but the ideas that take time to fail are the most deadly, and by the 1960s, a combination of wartime propaganda (Cultural Marxism) and American individualism led to an increasingly Leftward drift.

As this Leftward drift manifests, it demonstrates an increasingly Communist-like attitude toward race which it views as its primary method of smashing the majority and removing the religion, culture, heritage, caste, ethnic, class and sex distinctions which impede the imposition of total ideology:

We may call Trump dumb but he figured out this country while we never did, understanding as the black militant H. Rap Brown put it 50 years ago, when he said that “racism is as American as apple pie.” And 46 percent of Americans voted for him, not in spite of that racism but because of it.

He misses the fact that throughout most of human history, “racism” has been what saves societies from dissolution. We know that diversity destroys formerly-thriving civilizations, but to our knowledge we can add the recognition that ethnic diversity just as toxic as racial diversity; the presence of diversity itself — and not the presence of specific racial or ethnic groups — is what causes civilizations to fall apart. Demography is destiny, and diversity destroys that, with ethnic diversity opening the door to racial diversity which then finishes the job of destruction, including ethnic erasure through miscegenation.

In fact, most traditional societies used “racism” and “classism” — based on caste, or inner traits, more than class, which is an intersection of caste, education and income — to create social order that avoided the problem which destroys all civilizations, namely revolt by the more numerous lower castes against the less numerous people of greater intellectual and moral competence. We can see how the Aztecs created social order using caste:

The Aztec civilization was also highly developed socially, intellectually and artistically. It was a highly structured society with a strict caste system; at the top were nobles, while at the bottom were serfs, indentured servants and slaves.

Strong nationalism — the idea that every nation is composed of only one ethnic group — enabled the Aztecs and other ancient civilizations to remove themselves from the genetic chaos blowing around, and focus instead on refining their traits so that they preserved desired abilities, which they then distributed to the rest of the population by elevating those who bore those traits to the level of nobility, at which point others emulated them, and they were prosperous, causing gradual genetic influence in the direction toward which that society aspired. Caste and nationalism supported one another; for example, look at ancient India:

Under the caste system, Indian society was divided into four hereditary divisions. The highest is the Brahmans (priests and teachers). Second was the Kshatriyas (rulers and warriors). Followed by the Vaishyas (merchants and traders) and finally was the Sudras (workers and peasants). In additional to these four castes, there were the Harijans or Untouchables, which were not in the social order. The Indian caste was hereditary and marriage was only permitted within the same caste. Each caste had its own occupation and any contacts with another caste was strictly regulated and prohibited.

We can only make sense of this by looking into the genetics of caste in ancient India:

Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

…Moorjani’s past research revealed that all people in India trace their heritage to two genetic groups: An ancestral North Indian group originally from the Near East and the Caucasus region, and another South Indian group that was more closely related to people on the Andaman Islands.

Today, everyone in India has DNA from both groups. “It’s just the proportion of ancestry that you have that varies across India,” Moorjani told LiveScience.

…Archaeological evidence indicates that the groups began intermarrying during a time of great upheaval. The Indus Valley civilization, which spanned much of modern-day North India and Pakistan, was waning, and huge migrations were occurring across North India.

In fact, Western civilization famously had similar caste systems, designed to separate people by role and heritage, as was seen in the Nordic countries:

The jarls were the upper echelon of the freeman in ancient Norse society, either noblemen or wealthy landowners, merchants or traders.

…The karls were considered what is known as ‘freemen’, meaning they were free to own land, build property and start a family or business.

…Slaves in ancient Norse times were known as thralls, and they were the lowest rung on the Viking social ladder. Thralls had little to no rights in Norse times, they were not able to own land and they would perform jobs and chores for their owners. With all this considered however its important to note that the bad treatment of a slave was looked down on.

This paralleled the social order created in English society nearly a thousand years later, as remnants of caste were present during the Victorian era:

The Victorian Upper Class consisted of the Aristocrats, Nobles, Dukes, other wealthy families working in the Victorian courts…The Upper Class was by inheritance a Royal Class. Many Aristocrats did not work as for centuries together their families had been gathering enough money for each generation to live a luxurious life.

…The Middle class was the next in social ranking. The Victorian period was very prosperous for the middle class. Middle-class people also owned and managed vast business empires.

…The lowest among the social hierarchy were the working class. This class remained aloof to the political progress of the country and was hostile to the other two classes.

These castes were genetically different, and the pattern resembled that of India. Modern Europe was formed when nomadic hunters mingled with a farming population that was closely related to them, but the higher echelons of Europe came from the root of Western European society, the Nordic-Germanic element. These took up positions in the higher castes, and managed the darker, smaller people who worked for them.

Over time, every civilization succumbs to entropy which occurs when the more numerous lower echelons overpower those above them, who understand things they do not. These things are then lost, and the society loses a degree of internal complexity and becomes essentially an open-air shopping mall where some people have money and others do not.

This is why caste revolt is so important to the Left: their goal is to rationalize this decline and instead, view it as positive, and to make it come about by creating the conditions that cause the imposition of caste and then thwart those conditions, allowing the society to become totally “equal” by losing all structure and standards, including heritage.

By the converse, diversity causes racial conflict and in turn accelerates class conflict, because without a sense of shared unity that comes from being a homogeneous population, groups fragment into internally competing sub-groups. We can see how this process happened in American history:

Let’s back up to the early 1600s. This was a time where racism didn’t exist. People didn’t call themselves Black or White. Back then it was all regional. We’re Irish, we’re Greek, or we’re African and so on. Fast forward to the colonization of what would become the United States of America. This is about 1640. You basically had two groups of people. There were the rich and the workers. There were a few slaves but most people were indentured servants or free labor.

In this way, we can see how questions of race and caste are intermingled, and how the Left has used racial and ethnic diversity to force caste revolt, while the Right attempts to suppress caste revolt by preserving ethnic homogeneity, which confers a sense of shared identity and purpose.

***

Interestingly, the revolts against traditional social order are initiated by those who seek to expand their profit motive, giving in to the individualism that says they can take civilization for granted, and should be concerned only with the immediate effects on themselves and their profits when making decisions. This bourgeois mentality arises from those with enough mental power to be clever, but not smart, leading to a fragmentation of the power of the higher echelons:

Drawing with varying degrees of conviction and plausibility on Marx’s ideas and insights, the class-based account of modern British history begins with the social origins of the bourgeois revolution of the mid-seventeenth century–otherwise known as the Civil War or the Great Rebellion–that witnessed the transition from feudalism to capitalism and thus from late medieval to early modern times. The victims and beneficiaries of these changes were, respectively, the declining aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie (or, in other versions, the rising gentry), and it was during the Civil War that these two classes, set on very different historical trajectories, first clashed directly. But although in the short term the bourgeoisie vanquished the monarchy, the peerage, and the established church, its revolutionary movement was curiously incomplete. By the late seventeenth century, after the Restoration and the “Glorious Revolution,” the traditional forces of authority were back in control, and for much of the eighteenth century the aristocracy, by now transformed into a quasi-bourgeois elite of agrarian capitalists, reasserted themselves.

If you wonder why so many celebrities, business leaders, professors, shopowners and union bosses lean Left, this is why: they want to destroy the power of anyone who is naturally superior to them in intellectual, morality or wealth. We are in the grips of the final parts of that process now, after it won the upper hand during the turbulent 1960s.

“Amerika” the nation, as we might describe the nu-America that manifested after the racial policies of the 1960s went into effect, replacing America, which was deliberately designed as a Western European nation, as the American Nativists argued, because ethnic diversity is as toxic as racial diversity and leads to a Leftist European-style total State where a Western European only society — as opposed to one including other “white” ethnic groups like Southern Europeans, the Irish who are Iberian/Mediterranean-infused, Eastern Europeans and Jews, who are at this point about at the same level of admixture as Italians or Irish — would be internally self-consistent, and therefore able to overcome the problems of social distrust, trace miscegenation, lack of social standards and caste revolt.

As a result, at this point, racial politics of the ideologist variety have won out, and since they are being used to shatter natural social order as manifested in caste, they are exclusively obsessed with race, to the point where the Right wants to have freedom of association — which would allow it all-white suburbs and offices — just to escape the vast horde of predator-parasites who hate our majority here in the United States and Europe, but want to be here for the socialist style welfare state benefits and also, to conquer us by outbreeding us.


They hate you. They always will hate you. Every group acts in self-interest, and theirs is to conquer you.

The grim fact of racial politics is that it is based in self-interest. Every group has a self-interest, which is in having control of its destiny and then becoming the best version of itself that it can. In order to act on that, it must not exist in the situation that produced the Indian caste system; any situation that is “diverse” threatens the ethnic group.

For that reason, it must win by beating down all other ethnic groups. This somewhat Machiavellian view is borne out by history. The groups that conquered others and drove them away lasted longer than those who attempted to co-exist, producing centuries of ethnic conflict until both groups, exhausted, were destroyed or hybridized.

This is not the fault of other groups, nor does it vary with the group. Any immigration above tiny levels, which is also a bad idea as it obliterates the original group through trace admixture, brings about a conflict between groups, no matter who they are. Simpler groups fight back with crime; smarter groups attempt to conquer by gaining education, wealth and power in law and business.

Ironically, the solution to this problem is for a majority group to double down on its identity and assert that identity positively in a stronger sense, which causes the groups that wish to overthrow it to reveal their nature as aggressors. The more that the majority group focuses on “racism,” instead of strengthening its culture and opposing diversity, the more it plays into the win scenario for its opposition.

Perhaps a greater step further is to oppose equality — the philosophy of lower caste revolt — itself, and by doing so, to assert a strong social order which in turn also broadcasts the importance and solidity of racial and ethnic identity.

Identity must be both racial and ethnic, as when it is racial alone, it allows itself to be adulterated by other ethnic groups from the same race, which ends up then creating a generic racial group which has no particular claim to any identity.

Already the signs are on the wall that this is happening. During the 1990s, “diversity” was a magic word for that bright cosmopolitan future where we ruled the world by inviting them here. Europeans, who both are less accustomed to diversity and are seeing its effects more immediately, have led the way in visualizing how destructive diversity is:

The most common view among the 10 European countries surveyed is that cultural diversity is neither a plus nor a minus in terms of quality of life. In no nation does a majority say increasing diversity is a positive for their country. At most, roughly a third in Sweden (36%), the UK (33%) and Spain (31%) describe growing racial, ethnic and national diversity in favorable terms.

This antipathy can be seen in events in Germany and Israel. In Israel, the victims of the nationalist powers in WW2 have now come around and are endorsing National Socialist levels of ethnic solidarity in order to deal with the third-world population (“Palestinians”) in their own homeland that threatens to take over at the ballot box; several years later, Germany has awoken as well, shattering the postwar political order:

It was the worst performance for her Christian Democrats (CDU) since 1949. They got less than a third of the vote and lost ground in all 16 of the country’s states​—​this for a party that used to dominate the right of German politics and was capable of winning absolute majorities. The old party of the left, the Social Democrats (SPD), did worse, barely scraping 20 percent. Coming in third with 13 percent of the vote was the brand-new Alternative for Germany (AfD), an anti-immigration party that will send 93 members to the 709-seat Bundestag, the parliament in Berlin.

Leftism is caste revolt. Racial and ethnic diversity are the weapon that Leftism uses to bring about caste revolt. When one part of this structure fails, the whole thing goes down in flames, and is replaced by sentiments of tribalist unity as the basis of nations, renewed identitarian awareness, greater trust in caste and tradition, and finally, a hearty cynicism for Leftism as it joins other ruins on the junkpile of history.

We are seeing a massive shift here. For the first time since the French Revolution in 1789, Leftism is actively losing ground; for the first time since The Enlightenment,™ the idea of human equality — a form of individualism — is also losing ground. But first, we are going to go through a period of great upheaval.

As with many bad ideas, Leftism seemed hip and refreshing when it was untried, but once it was applied, it made a mess of things. Multiple failures of Leftist programs — overpopulation, diversity, collapse of the family, debt, command economies, ignoring third world warlords, nuclear proliferation, pollution and widespread ineptitude — are now coming due. Liberal democracy and Leftism have fallen, and the furious activity we see of late is an attempt to hold on to the franchise granted to those who were allowed to succeed because they were good Leftists or fit the Leftist ideal.

What matters for us, then, is to understand race and caste so that we can reverse the process by which race became the dominant issue of our time, which is the Leftist agenda of caste revolt that is now shattering in ungraceful decay around us.

“American Nationalism” Is Civic Nationalism Rebranded

Saturday, September 30th, 2017

All of human history has played out through cycles: a truth is found, then people complain about how difficult it is, so they invent “truths” that explain why the truth is the opposite of the plain reality, and then everyone gradually goes insane as the anti-truths seep into every area of society, discourse and even the psychological makeup of individuals.

You might think that infiltration events of this nature are rare, but in fact, they are the norm, which is why every organization ultimately drifts Leftward, even when it tries to be Right-wing. When the raw material coming into an organization is indoctrinated in Leftism, they will simply arrange their Right-wing beliefs around that core, which forces all those beliefs to be re-interpreted in a Leftist context.

If everyone thinks the sky is green and the grass is blue, and you set up an organization dedicated to the principle of blue skies and green grass, then you will immediately suffer a flood of people who insist the sky is “green-blue” and the fields are “blue-green,” at which point it is an easy step to full subversion.

In the same way, American mainstream conservatives found themselves, over time, becoming dedicated to “equality” by spreading democracy and capitalism worldwide, and underground conservatives found themselves fighting for white ethnic equality instead of nationalism. They were subverted not by deliberate act, but by the entropy of individual bias as people coming into the groups re-made them into what people were indoctrinated to expect.

Few modern people think about the word, but inversion destroys all meaning. Inversion occurs when people start banning certain accurate ideas. This can be as simple as excluding them through social means, like saying that it is impolite to notice something or another. Inversion changes the definition of words to be their opposite, since something in the original meaning was taboo.

Right now, the Alt Right is under assault by people who want to re-make it as “American Nationalism,” despite the contradiction in terms that this phrase implies. They argue that by adopting the flag, we can further radicalize the Left into revealing itself as anti-American:

Over the past several months, as anti-White condemnation of Confederate monuments and memorials has spilled over to a hatred of all “old, dead, White guys” in American history, we now see the Left equating Americanism with racism in the most vitriolic and bombastic fashion. The recent NFL controversy has attempted—and is succeeding—in painting both the National Anthem and the American flag as naked symbols of White oppression over non-Whites and the systemic White racism inherent in all White-constructed systems. The Left is attempting to complete a final rout of the already gutted late American cultural form-world.

…We need to say that “yes,” America was founded as a racist country. We need to say, “yes,” the flag is a symbol of White conquest and murder. And as our enemies stare confused, we declare the fact that all peoples that have ever lived were just as ruthless. We must move the dialogue beyond moralism, beyond Christianity, beyond right and wrong, good and evil. We need to affirm the right of a people to fight for their existence, putting others under the boot or sword when necessary, as being as natural as a flower stretching towards the sunlight. We need to declare: I am a White American and my people built this country—now get out of my way!

…So, yes, let’s join the liberals in calling America a racist White country. Let’s concede that the American flag is a hate symbol and rally behind it. Let’s be quick to point out to conservative normies whenever we can about just how brutal us Whites were to others, why we were right to do so, and why others will do it to us the moment we become a vulnerable minority. Nice guys always lose. Well, we aren’t nice guys anymore, and we should brag about what bad boys we really were. And our ancestors really were the baddest, most brutal men the world has ever known.

So what could be wrong with this? It sounds strong, bold… visionary. It seems to turn the initiatives of the Left back onto them like captured cannon. It appears to give us a unique identity and goal. But it does none of those things.

Let us look at the many ways that this “American Nationalism” is totally wrong.

  • No New Tale To Tell. Leftists have never hid the fact that they are against America. They do not admit this in public when asked the question directly, but allude to it and flaunt it many different ways. The ultimate goal of Leftism is international, or equality and unity of all the workers of the world.
  • It’s Anti-Nationalism. Nationalism means that one ethnic group equals one nation. Mixed-ethnic “nations” are not nations, but nation-states, unified by political and economic systems alone. Patriotism, sometimes called “civic nationalism,” is the idea that we can unite the nation-state using those abstractions, and replaces the goal of nationalism, which is not just race but ethnic group, which in the case of America is Western Europeans. We have seen this reliance on civic nationalism in the guise of racism before, and it was just as wrong-headed then. Adopt this “American Nationalism,” and invert everything you stand for.
  • It Denies Reality. Modernity is defined by its denial of any facts or truths but those that humans in large groups want to believe are true. The reality denied by equality is that genetics determines our abilities and inclinations, and this is relevant to nationalism because it means that groups of people who are genetically similar are best matched and disparate groups will have problems. Homogeneity works; heterogeneity, only really a thing for the past sixty years, has produced nothing but problems. Genetics defines us at many levels, including race, ethnicity, family and individual traits, with those creating naturally unequal populations that require a hierarchy to make use of their different abilities.
  • Pragmatism Is Not Realism. In a time where nearly everything is unreal, the only strength can be found in asserting reality loudly and clearly at every opportunity. We are fighting the human tendency toward pleasant illusion. Pragmatism states that we should achieve what is most easily achieved in the present system, but it obscures the need for realism. Only radical accuracy in thinking will win in the next era, so pragmatism is dead. We need to say what we want and not play clever games in order to manipulate others with symbols.
  • You Are Taking On The Lesser Symbol. The Left does this time and again, and the Right falls for it: they demonize an accurate symbol so that you will embrace another symbol that is easier for them to subvert. When you endorse the American flag, the Left cheers. They will wait for you to lose momentum, then quickly point out that America has always been mixed-race, and then they will steal away your audience and they will find themselves cheering for diversity and equality. Typical inversion.
  • We Are Not “Racists.” Racism, as it makes sense to define it, is contempt for other races and a desire to subjugate them and keep them as inferiors. Racism is ethnic cruelty. We are both race realists and nationalists, but not “racists.” Race realism means that we recognize that genetics is the root of ability and culture, and therefore that homogeneity works and heterogeneity does not; nationalism means that we believe that each nation should be comprised of only one ethnic group, because that way, the ethnic group is preserved and culture — not laws, economics or government propaganda — guides that population. Nationalism is a way beyond the “money first” and ideological dogma of modern societies.

“American Nationalism” is a meme or trope instead of sensible policy. It sounds good to those who want an easy symbol to unite lots of people, but because it loses meaning in doing so, it defeats itself. Our real goal is the restoration of Western Civilization and since America is only part of that, America is a means to that end.

Keep the Alt Right. It is a good brand, and it has withstood many challenges. It stands for those who are both conservative and realist, which means that we embrace the roots of conservatism including traditionalism, monarchy, hierarchy, nationalism and social order. It is the only force that can challenge modernity, and that is what we need to escape this thoroughly stupid and evil age.

An Outrage Bubble Forms and Dissipates

Saturday, September 16th, 2017

Imagine your favorite football or rugby squad force-walking the opposition down the field in a manner that reminds you of an angry Tiger Mom “suggesting” that her bratty offspring make it to the darn bus stop on time to go away to school. Imagine they look unstoppable, ticking over the scoreboard every time they touch the ball, while you sit there bloated on lite beer and chips, thinking you don’t even stand a chance.

You might fall into manic depression because of this, but really you are the victim of a classic bluff. Somebody comes up with ideas so simple that even the products of contemporary public schools can understand them or at least chant them out as slogans. Like terrorism, this works like hell. The Left has been applying this formula for decades:

  1. Identify someone you don’t like.
  2. Find some pretext under which to call him a Nazi.
  3. Remind everyone that Nazis are evil.
  4. Summon the crowd to destroy evil, starting with him.

Then, you push your luck even further by expanding the target group to include not just actual Nazis, or even people who actually disagree with you, but all who fail to agree with you.

Everyone who supports free market capitalism is a rich jerk who looks down on poor people? Check. Anyone who complains about political correctness just wants to be a sexist boor? Check. Anyone who talks hawkishly about Islamic terrorism must be driven by a neurotic need to prove his masculinity? Check. Anyone who doesn’t sign up for the latest iteration of the “diversity” agenda must harbor some kind of implicit sympathy for white nationalists? Yeah, well, check.

Like all forms of corruption, this works at first and in fact works better than its opposition because it is simpler. It is like the coach who intimidates his opposition by running the biggest, ugliest and dumbest players down the field like bowling balls: he will triumph until someone gets the guts to stand up to these clowns and depose them. In the same way, the Leftist bluff got called when Sam Huntington wrote about the “clash of civilizations.”

It takes a rare event to knock over this bluff. Someone refuses to get chucked into the bonfire. Somebody won’t dutifully yell “Sieg Heil!” when someone unjustly calls them a Nazi. Those someones stop arguing. They get quiet and start dropping out instead of yelling, like serial killers acting systematically and with emotionless logicality instead of the fat, blubbery and bloated sentiment of our current system.

Leftism fails when reality responds in a way that the SJWs, SWPLs and Cucks have in no way considered possible when they made the series of increasingly bad and tragic decisions that their ideology commands them to make:

In their self-satisfied hubris, time and time again, they underestimate those who disagree with them. They don’t seem to learn from experience. All this has happened before. For my part, I am done with the left. There are many like me. Our numbers are growing. You know, intelligent, well-read, well-armed guys who are tired of being mocked and belittled and shrilled at by their intellectual, moral and almost always physical inferiors. Guys who are increasingly political.

This “outrage bubble” that is the Left’s bluff only works when we sit back and take it or, like abused children, lash out against our tormentors, who have hidden their ill deeds, and therefore the public only sees our reaction, and assumes that we are as described. Here’s how we truly know that the left has inflated an outrage bubble.

Is this even real life anymore? This might even be worse than MSESPN apologizing for the fantasy football slave draft a couple of weeks ago. To avoid offending left wing idiots Robert Lee, the Asian college football announcer, not the Confederate General who died in 1870 and shares a name with him, was switched to the Youngstown State at Pittsburgh game and Dave Weekley will now call the William and Mary at University of Virginia game. Unless someone tries to take down Dave Weekley statues between now and kickoff. In which case ESPN will be royally fucked.

The outrage bubble on the Left has become competitive — they are trying to be more offended and more victimized than one another — and as a result has completely divorced from reality. At this point, people see the Leftist threat for the proto-Communist “soft totalitarianism” that it is, and instead of fighting it, they take a vital first step: they simply stop supporting it. They no longer listen. They are not impressed by its screeds and studies. They ignore its Pravda-esque media.

In AD 2017, there is no reason to enter into any dialogue with a Leftist. It doesn’t matter if you are Alt-Right, Alt-Light or Bud-Light. The Left seeks only an excuse to deplatform you, get you fired from your profession and to make your life miserable. The right way to handle this is to cut them out of the loop entirely, because at this point, if you fail to agree with them enough, you’re a secret Nazi!

We should not commend Republican party elected officials who claim outrage on social media at Trump’s remarks, often without daring to mention his name. The phony claimed outrage becomes dangerous if it convinces anyone that there is a distinction between Trump’s abhorrent comments and the Republican Party agenda. The lesson from Charlottesville is not how dangerous the neo-Nazis are. It is the unmasking of the Republican party leadership. In the wake of last weekend’s horror and tragedy, let us finally, finally rip off the veneer that Trump’s affinity for white supremacy is distinct from the Republican agenda of voter suppression, renewed mass incarceration and the expulsion of immigrants.

So if everyone to the Right of Yuri Andropov is just a BBQ-The-Jew Nazi, then anything goes in fighting you and shutting you down. You can fight back by rejecting this, mocking it, and then counteracting it. Here are some easy methods:

  1. Personally divest. If you are still on cable, walk away. I assure you that the next Game of Thrones Episode or Dallas Cowboys game will be online within 36 hours of completion. They have no way of stopping you from watching much, if not all; of their content for free. Advertisers are very happy to support any online outlet that gets them 100K non-robot ad views. You’re just a !NAZI! They should just expect it out of you.
  2. Form Your Own Groups and Communities. Stop being dependent upon the toxic lifestyle septic tank we have as a culture. Find your own groups for recreation, trade, social interaction and ultimately everything you need to survive. Begin a gradual process of getting off the system. Grow your own, make your own, earn passive income and don’t associate or support anyone that goes #SJW. Your Mannerbund should be your community as much as possible. Pull away from Cuck Churches, converged corporations, et cetra. Your money supports more things that you detest than you could imagine. List a few of them and cut them off.
  3. Do Not Forgive and Forget Easily. #SJWs, #SWPLs and #CUCKS will begin to notice the size of the crowd that has withdrawn from their spaces. They will notice the loss of retail foot traffic, the reduction in page views and, most importantly, the disappearance of your money. The Left is both Dialectic and very Materialist(ic). Russ Feingold knows in his wormy, rotten heart that he and those like him cannot produce what they need to continue in a dominant position. #Facebook will always email you back if it isn’t getting enough of your information to sell to asshole telemarketers. Blow them off and keep blowing them off until a few of them begin to economically suffer.
  4. Ridicule Them. Nothing they say is true; nothing they portray is real. That which is not real, or true, which means our human assessment of how it normally works for us, is useless. Not only is it useless, but it’s in power. This means that it’s back to high school, where all adults were obvious idiots and us kids ran circles around them and made fun of them for insisting on stuffy old rules and stupid dogmas. Leftism is centuries old. Make it look as old, calcified and pointless as it is.

The end goal is to make the Left so ludicrous that everyone writes them off as the losers that they are, as happened to Hillary “Ask Me Where the Bodies Are Buried” Clinton in the 2016 election. Nobody will want to get caught watching these losers. Any organization that caters to the Left is like a walking punchline waiting to happen. When it happens, the Left will eat its own. All we need to do is shatter their image of importance and moral rightness. This is how we short the Leftist Outrage Bubble and win this battle in the eternal ideological war.

Flat Earth Theory

Monday, September 4th, 2017

Knowing that the internet has reached the point where sincerity is indistinguishable from trolling, simply because we allowed The Masses to access it, one takes new trends with a grain of salt, and so when a Flat Earth Theory starts making the rounds, the response is to shrug and figure that it is 50% trolls and 50% morons who cancel out your vote in every election.

But the thing about the Flat Earth Theory is that it works as a metaphor. Its appeal is that very few of us have seen enough of the world to claim that it is round, and we do not trust our “official” sources of information. In this sense, the Flat Earth Theory becomes a mental virus, a symbol representing our distrust of the human world around us.

We cannot be unaware of this human world, because it is broadcast to us from televisions, the internet, books, schools, movies, music and the conversation of others. But sometimes, the narrative cracks and we see that it was wrong all along:

Researchers have found 5.7 million-year-old, human-like footprints in Crete, complicating the story of human evolution.

A significant body of paleontological evidence suggests early humans diverged from their ape ancestors in Africa. A set of footprints found in Tanzania suggest hominins, the earliest human relatives, were walking upright some 3.7 million years ago.

…Until recently, no hominin fossils older than 1.8 million years had been discovered outside of Africa.

Modernity is being proven wrong across the board. We are told that humans evolved a certain way; it turns out that this is wrong. We are told that racial differences are not genetic, and then that too is disproven. We are told that educated people support only a certain political view, and then that, too fails.

All of not just Leftist ideas, but Leftist policies, are failing at once. The “fast money” doctrine of the Clinton years has brought us increasingly speculative industry and ever-larger bubbles, while diversity has ended in a terror of political correctness and rape gangs, and globalist policies have reduced our economies to dependents on a worldwide market that swings wildly out of control.

Emboldened by years of weak authority under Obama, crazy leaders and groups are rising worldwide. Climate change didn’t happen, but the ecocidal effects of a population swollen with immigration in the name of “diversity” has made life miserable. Adapting our cultures to accept every culture, and thus to be non-cultures, has made our lands alien places populated with angry foreigners.

The result is nothing short of a sea change in how people view our future, which means that we are rejecting old theories and seizing upon time-proven alternatives instead:

When Francis Fukuyama published his “End of History” thesis in 1989, around the time the Berlin Wall fell, we could see through his simplifications on behalf of a kind of capitalism we were weary of. No one among my cohort actually expected history to end, but it did fit into the tenor of the times, when thinkers reached for the universal. We were proud inheritors of the Enlightenment: That was the intellectual legacy we had to improve on, it was to be our perpetual lodestar, if we were not to be trapped in particularistic thought that could have no good results for anyone. True, Allan Bloom had rung the alarm bells not long ago over the new conformity, but we felt sure that intellectual prowess would reign supreme in the end.

When, a little later, the Bosnian slaughter occurred, we framed it not as Muslims versus the rest, but as a direct attack on the human rights principles we had tried to hold on to in the midst of late Cold War paranoia, which was often ridiculously transparent. Around the same time in the early 1990s, Samuel Huntington came out with his “Clash of Civilizations” thesis, a direct riposte to Fukuyama, a template for a re-energized worldwide conflict of irresoluble identities that has only grown in intensity with each passing year.

I go over this material because I realize that those who are in their 20s and 30s today have not known any other ideological order. Identity politics — the brand of communalism it flows from, i.e., multiculturalism, and the brand of expression it leads to, i.e., political correctness — is existentially unassailable for the young. They know no other means of self-understanding, artistic expression or personal solidarity. They can only be organized around this principle. They see the world strictly through this framework, not through some Enlightenment perspective of universal human rights irrespective of one’s biological identity.

If you read outside the carefully-constructed verbiage, you see that what this author is bemoaning is the rise of particularism or the idea that universalism — the notion that all people are the same, e.g. equal, and can be treated as a fungible commodity — is in fact wrong, and that there is no “we are all one,” but instead a world of many parallels, where each is as tribe that has to find its own path to what works for it, and the two are not comparable.

The difference between these two ideas, particularism and universalism, is night and day. Universalism might be referred to as the philosophy of robots, since it focuses on the minimums of what makes people human, and assumes that these are the most important things. Particularism is essentially localism and nationalism wrapped into one, where people say, “I dunno about this universal human robot you guys are designing, but I can tell you what works in this valley for my people, because here’s our history of what we tried and how well it worked out each time.”

We are transitioning from a millennium of universalism to a new era of particularism. Universalism is seductive because it makes everyone feel important just for being human, and by protecting them from criticism by arguing that they have a “right” to be however they want to be, it is inherently against culture, morality, heritage, values and any other standard which can make a person appear to fall short of what is desired.

The great power of universalism is its simplicity, which makes it seductive: you do whatever you want, and I do whatever I want, and the only cost is that we agree to support this system of mutual anarchy. By ignoring all larger issues of civilization, it reduces the question of society to socializing, and to the not-that-bright average human, seems like a complete solution in one easy idea!

What none of them realize is that they have been fooled, because universalism exists for one purpose, which is to force the sharing of wealth and power. Instead of realizing that wealth and power are not like toys in kindergarten, and should be entrusted only to those who can wield them well, more like Excalibur than the One True Ring, universalists demand that those who produce give to those who do not.

The nature of ideology is that it promises “a better way” through some means other than self-discipline. Individualism, or the notion that the individual is fine just the way they are and should be equally respected even if not a net producer, demands that people be excused from the need for self-discipline, especially adaptation to reality and social standards.

Ironically, this individualism replaces the individuality of a person by forcing them to engage in a cult-like behavior which replaces their inner traits — personality, abilities, moral character — with obedience to dogma:

“People don’t really understand how strong ideology can be,” she says. “I think sometimes of that group and that feminism as being close to a cult. I feel I had to de-programme myself in order to have independent thought. It’s been an ongoing struggle. When you have a cult, you have a cult leader who demands a certain conformity . . . And when you have a celebrity who has cultural-icon status, economic power beyond what you can imagine, you can’t resist that person — if you want to stay in their realm. Because once you start challenging them, they kick you out.”

Cults are based on people adopting an optional or arbitrary idea which they then rely on as part of their personality construct, which in turn allows the cult to control them. Those who do not exhibit enough of the ideal of the cult are excluded, and this creates competition to demonstrate the greatest obedience.

This replaces the identity of the individual with that of the cult, and makes their self-confidence and sense of well-being contingent upon being approved by the cult, much like an abusive social group or family. Those who do not do what the cult wants become the enemy. Total control is achieved by making people desire to be obedient.

A good cult is inconsistent and vindictive, which forces people to be even more aggressive in demonstrating their allegiance by widening the window of forbidden behavior and crowding people into the narrower space remaining. The most successful cults make people believe they have achieved freedom or another Utopian ideal, and they then preemptively retaliate against anyone with a different ideal, which enables them to spread rapidly by demanding that everyone around them be either part of the cult, or an enemy. Once they gain critical mass, everyone within their reach quickly converts or flees.

Egalitarianism may be the most successful cult of all time. People instinctively want to believe that they are equal, so that they do not feel an obligation to use self-discipline to meet any kind of social standard. Instead, they choose to believe that they need to do nothing to understand and adapt to reality, and the freedom from that Darwinian standard makes them feel safe and valuable.

What is most interesting about cults is that they are self-destructive. As if a metaphorical analogue to a cyst, the cult traps the weak in society and bundles them together into a group that destroys them. This happens because a cult at some point either realizes its ambitions, and they fall short, or commits itself to permanent warfare against those it presumes are its opposition, at which point the scapegoat becomes the master and the cult dedicates itself to understanding this contrary view and is absorbed by it.

Modernity has been one giant cult. Since the Renaissance/Enlightenment (PBUH) adoption of individualism as the new and now old form of the West, people have been indoctrinated into defending equality before all else. Equality however requires universalism, which took political form in globalism, and as this reveals itself to be unstable, minds turn elsewhere for archetypes of the future.

Folk Heroes Of The Apocalypse

Monday, August 28th, 2017

Many people are currently telling you that the Alt Right is doomed, but they are only partially correct. The Alt Right is growing, and will become the Right, because it finally beat the civil rights warriors of the 1960s. It did that by assuming the position that those social warriors took: as the victims of an Establishment, and the folk heroes who would liberate us all.

In 2017, European-descended peoples are really tired of the diversity gig. It always works out that a few white people end up paying for a vast horde of third world people at the same time that diversity, by lowering social trust, destroys the white society by making it paranoid. This means that on an individual level, at an existential level, white people live in fear and uncertainty for the future.

They are now tired of this. We have seen where Leftist programs like diversity, social benefits and equality lead, which is to a Soviet-style society, and so we are fighting back. The only problem is that now we are the revolutionaries against a system filled with dimwitted bureaucrats who are making a good living by being Leftism, Inc. and they do not want to cede that role. This applies whether they are Democrats (socialists) or Republicans (liberals).

You can see that the tide has turned because today, in normally Left-leaning “Pravda on the Potomac” newsrag The Washington Post, there is an article entitled “Black-clad antifa attack peaceful right wing demonstrators in Berkeley,” which is notable for several major reasons:

  1. They noted that Antifa were the attackers.
  2. They acknowledged the Right-wing demonstrators as peaceful.
  3. They called them “right wing demonstrators” instead of “white supremacists” or another dogwhistle term.

Holy mackerel, this is unbelievable. The above changes represent either the longest typo in the history of the world, or the media hedging its bets because it has seen how popular the Alt Right has become. The latter makes more sense because in the 1990s, anyone demonstrating along neo-Nazis would have been written off immediately. In the 2010s, people are less bothered by the Nazis

And although the anti-hate and left-wing protesters largely drowned out the smaller clutch of far-right marchers attending a planned “No to Marxism in America” rally, Sunday’s confrontation marked another street brawl between opposing ends of the political spectrum — violence that has become a regular feature of the Trump years and gives signs of spiraling upward, particularly in the wake of the violence in Charlottesville.

“I applaud the more than 7,000 people who came out today to peacefully oppose bigotry, hatred and racism that we saw on display in Charlottesville,” Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín said in a statement. ” … However, the violence that small group of protesters engaged in against residents and the police, including throwing smoke bombs, is unacceptable. Fighting hate with hate does not work and only makes each side more entrenched in their ideological camps.”

Last May, 150 similarly black-clad agitators caused $100,000 worth of damage when they smashed through Berkeley protesting a University of California Berkeley speech by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Portland, Ore., has been the scene of street battles between antifa and white nationalists this summer. White nationalist Richard Spencer was sucker-punched by a protester in a January video that went viral. And Inauguration Day 2017 in Washington, D.C., was marked by violence when masked protesters burned vehicles, smashed windows and clashed with police, leading to 231 arrests.

Unbelievable. Amazing. Stunning. This shows the media reporting what they absolutely refused to in the past, which is the possibility that more than one side exists. Granted, they like to get the core message in there — “Fighting hate with hate does not work and only makes each side more entrenched in their ideological camps” — because their hope is for a return to centrist politics, so that over time as the voters go to sleep again, the Left can resume its steady infiltration and takeover of everything to the left of Charlemagne.

Public opinion is shifting toward the Right. The last eight years just showed us what all those nice people really intended to do in the 1930s and 1960s, which is make us into the Soviet Union. This caused people to lose faith in freedoms, civil rights, liberties and pluralism as a means of protecting them from the insanity of human social collapse. They no longer want democracy; they want order, and only the Right delivers order, because only the Right believes in an organizational level above the atomized individual.

In part, the reason opinion is shifting is that the Baby Boomers are retiring, and people who grew up under the disaster that the 1960s created are rising. Skipping the Millennials, most of whom seem to have taken what they were taught in school and Wikipedia as gospel, Generation X and Generation Z are appalled by the adult world they were expected to enter, because they realize that in this world, nothing good wins, ever, and most people are crazy and most of what we do is merely for show and has no value.

This is not a political revolt, but a social one inspired by the fact that the existential experience of European-descended peoples — how we think about the future, the meaning we find in life, the hope we have of being relevant — has declined radically over the past two centuries, and the situation now is too bad to endure. We are turning to politics because the crazy people who run our society have made daily life (jobs, marriages, dating, socializing, public life) into a uniquely placid and pacifistic form of Hell, and we want out. But the only way out is to overthrow the crazy Leftist regime ruling over us.

Among other things, the brightest of these generations have turned toward the Alt Right:

Among many anti-racists, there has long been a naïve hope that racism is handed down from one generation to the next. If that cycle is broken, this view goes, then racial harmony can finally prevail.

…Far from defending the ideas and institutions they inherited, the alt-right—which is overwhelmingly a movement of white millennials—forcefully condemns their parents’ generation. They do so because they do not believe their parents are racist enough.

…To complicate matters further, many people in the alt-right were radicalized while in college. Not only that, but the efforts to inoculate the next generation of America’s social and economic leaders against racism were, in some cases, a catalyst for racist radicalization. Although academic seminars that explain the reality of white privilege may reduce feelings of prejudice among most young whites exposed to them, they have the opposite effect on other young whites.

In other words, the Alt Right is not the ancient specter of racism rearing its head, but the result of people who are not racist but then encounter diversity and the half-socialist hybrid of a Leftist society that we live in, and decide that both are broken. This is why the Alt Right so heavily embraces social issues like chastity, discipline, morality, cleanliness and most of all, order. We grew up in the disorder of failed marriages, clandestine affairs, soulless jobs, constant ethnic resentment, high taxes paid to subsidize parasites, heart-crushing dating, urban blight and crass mass culture, and we hate all of it. We want something that works instead.

A recent poll by ABC News and the Washington Post revealed that attitudes are changing toward the far-Right in gradual but steady steps:

Additionally, 9 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll call it acceptable to hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views, equivalent to about 22 million Americans. A similar number, 10 percent, say they support the so-called alt-right movement, while 50 percent oppose it.

Twenty years ago, the numbers of those who outright oppose the Alt Right would have been much higher, and few who have admitted that neo-Nazi or white supremacist views were acceptable in any form.

The poll reveals the separation of views along ethnic and ideological lines, which makes sense given how we see Leftist whites and minorities forming the bulk of the Antifa who vandalize and riot their way across America, and protesters against Alt Right events:

Trump has 44 percent overall approval among whites vs. 22 percent among nonwhites, including just 11 percent among blacks. On Charlottesville the pattern also is similar – 35 percent approval from whites, 14 percent among nonwhites and a single-digit 8 percent among blacks.

…Trump’s approval rating overall drops from 80 percent among Republicans to 34 percent among independents and 12 percent among Democrats; it’s 67-27-16 percent moving from conservatives to moderates to liberals.

The country is divided: on one side, white Democrats who are still hammering on the 1960s message of inclusiveness, and minorities; on the other, Republicans and a new audience who have realized that if each group gets to have “identity politics,” European-descended people need an identity too, and this means divorcing themselves entirely from those who are not European-descended.

Unfortunately for the Left, they are now in the place that conservatives have been since the French Revolution, which is the unenviable role of defending the wisdom of the past against the trends of the moment, and arguing for the preservation of an imperfect society against those who damaged it and now want to finish the job. The Left, after having made themselves powerful enough to alter society, pointed to the results of failing Leftist ideas and claimed that those failures were the result of capitalism and conservatism, and so were able to style themselves as revolutionaries attempting to overthrow a failing system.

Now the shoe is on the other foot; it is obvious even to outside observers that Leftism ideals dominate academia, the lower levels of government, the media, every non-white group, and even many of our largest corporations. The Alt Right are the underdogs, the little guys, the brave few who dare to say that the Emperor has no new clothes after all, and this makes people sympathize with them, especially since the Leftist system is achieving bad results across the board which are hidden by a lap-dog media, and has no intention of changing course, which makes it an old calcified geezer ranting about ideological purity while everyone around him starves.

In another strangely sympathetic article in the mainstream press, the idea behind the Alt Right is revealed in its simplest form:

…”[The Alt Right] think that liberalism and diversity have led to the decline of Western civilization.”

What people are starting to realize is that Leftism — the notion of human equality — naturally leads to diversity. “Workers of the world, unite!” as the unions used to say. The Left views race through the filter of class, and to them the goal is class warfare which puts the proles on top and the natural elites on bottom (we have seen this in Obama’s America through relentless pro-diversity affirmative action styled programs) and this requires accepting all as equal, and using diversity to shatter any culture or heritage that people have in common.

Culture limits class warfare. You might see someone with more money than you, but think, “He’s one of us, and he’s not a bad guy, so I’m not against him.” If he is also a positive contributor to your community, you can see it as not just fair but intelligent that he has more money and power. Diversity erodes that.

The Alt Right takes a different approach to anti-Leftism, which is to create a cultural wave like the Polish Dissident movement which helped overthrow Communism. It combines all things that existed before the Left — order, hierarchy, culture/nationalism, civilizational morality, family focus, spirituality — and champions those while mercilessly mocking the gap between what Leftists promise and what they deliver.

It is this mockery which has inspired a wave of censorship against the Alt Right, but most Americans values free speech over safe places, and so the Left is driving a wedge between those who desire a normal, healthy and organic society and its own SJWs and SWPLs, who want an anarchic State-sponsored perpetual lynch mob.

From this division, people are starting to reject those things which came before the current Left and enabled it, because they realize that these were not accidental correlations. Any Leftist — egalitarian — ideas lead to full Leftism, which now we see revealed as something like Full Communism. The only solution is to rip out any idea or practice based on the notion of “equality,” which exists in mathematics but not reality, and apparently is the opposite of “quality.”

Even relatively staid paleoconservative Pat Buchanan has noted the link between equality, democracy and crazed Antifa Leftism. As he writes, faith in democracy is falling as the Left gains power, and proves to be a worse Establishment than any before it:

To another slice of America, much of the celebrated social and moral “progress” of recent decades induces a sense of nausea, summarized in the lament, “This isn’t the country we grew up in.”

Hillary Clinton famously described this segment of America as a “basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic…bigots,” and altogether “irredeemable.”

So, what still unites us? What holds us together into the indefinite future? What makes us one nation and one people? What do we offer mankind, as nations seem to recoil from what we are becoming, and are instead eager to build their futures on the basis of ethnonationalism and fundamentalist faith?

If advanced democracy has produced the disintegration of a nation that we see around us, what is the compelling case for it?

The answer of course is that America is gone. Leftism killed another one. “This isn’t the country we grew up in,” is beyond obvious, but the real story is that the old America is not coming back because it was based on an illusion, which is that we can all get along if we just adopt the same Constitution, sing the same songs, speak the same language, and use the same economic system. 2017 answers with a definitive “Nope.”

As everything fails at once, with a debt-ridden government presiding over a herd of selfish and oblivious citizens, those who are not products of the decay are uniting to oppose it. We want escape, but know that it will not leave us alone, so we are rising to take power and drive out the bad and replace it with the good. The Alt Right are folk heroes of this movement, even as all seems lost and the future uncertain.

Recommended Reading