Posts Tagged ‘leftism’

Understanding Feedback And Feedback Loops

Wednesday, June 28th, 2017

Some insight into feedback loops

The advantage of capitalism v. central planning, is that information is sent through prices, supply and demand. This information feedback, however, is still gameable by power blocs. The exact strategies are different than in a command economy, but the end result is the same. The West and America are currently undergoing this exact problem. The entire financial crisis was about inaccurate feedback, and broken feedback loops: it was about the financial and housing industries deliberately damaging the feedback system.

…In a hundred years, when historians and whoever deals with economic issues look back (hopefully not economists as we understand them), they aren’t going to be that impressed that Western Capitalism outlasted Soviet Communism by forty or fifty years. Instead they are going to look back and say that both were doomed, in large part, by inability to manage the exact same problem. In both cases the feedback systems which controlled economic production were so perverted by various internal power blocs that the societies were unable to reproduce the material circumstances necessary for their continuance.

This is why many of us oppose formal organization, because it creates rules which are de facto centralized power, as opposed to what conservatism favors, which is informal, particularized, localized and case-by-case basis decisions.

Leftism is the religion of the rule, and the rule involves the word “all,” which leads to control as it naturally creates a centralized power structure. All people must drive 35 MPH; all applications must be filed in triplicate; all people must go through the door on the right. This forces obedience by making people equal in the rule of the law.

The natural opposite to the religion of the rule is cooperation, which requires inequality, because not everyone can do the same thing. Instead of a rule saying that all people must do the same thing, which means they have equal obligation to the centralized control, cooperation says that each has different importance, we do not all do the same thing, and thus we have unequal obligations and rewards.

This thwarts the internal power structures which arise in human organizations to attempt to take control, such as dark organizations or crowdist cult-gangs.

Feedback is a vital part of the cooperative system. In it, power resembles a cascading hierarchy, which means that each level delegates to the level below and does not intervene on the basis of method. Instead, they assign tasks and say, “Use best judgment always” or “by any means necessary,” both of which are ends-over-means analyses.

Control on the other hand is means-over-ends. It requires that each person use the same method so that it can filter out methods that it believes weaken its power. The classic example is demanding that each person repeat back dogma on a regular basis, effectively programming their thoughts. Think of someone saying, “Diversity is our strength.” You either accept it and pass the test, or are identified as an enemy.

Feedback loops happen when something is wrong at the level above the one to which it has been delegated; you see this in the form of jury nullification, for example. The person to whom the task is delegated needs to report back that the task is wrongly framed, unintended consequences have arisen, or that a new type of problem has occurred.

The classic feedback loop is what William Gibson observed when he saw a young boy playing a video game. The boy moved the cursor, the computer responded, and the boy responded to that and then the cycle repeated. His inspiration William S. Burroughs saw feedback loops using naturalistic metaphors: monkeys attack the weakest participant in any altercation, so some monkeys play fey, which is a covert form of attack.

You can see feedback in your hand. You intend to grasp something, so you pick it up, and the hand radiates back that it is hot, so you do something else with it. A feedback loop might be a man adjusting a sluice: he fiddles with it, the water goes in a different direction, so he responds to that and the cycle repeats.

The importance of feedback loops is that they recognize what most humans deny: time, and the cyclic nature of history. Our moments are not unique, because they exhibit patterns that others can experience. And, the changes we want to make to the world must be interpreted not in the instant they are performed, but how the world will react, like thinking ten moves ahead in chess.

Classic human informal order recognizes the need for feedback with lattices of power, and for feedback loops with informal power. Lattices of power are hierarchies that are both vertical and horizontal, like the classic aristocratic model, and informal power avoids the rule as much as possible, relying on a case-by-case basis that avoids precedent and therefore can be negotiated not only unequally but specifically.

You can see conservative-style informal power anywhere leadership employs localized, particularized and case-by-case decisions made by culture, wise elders, a caste system where higher castes have social power, religious leaders, local respected voices, and the like. All of these systems are more flexible and resilient that rules, resolutions, laws, regulations, treaties, and command economies.

Liberalism Is In Collapse Because Liberal Democracy Has Collapsed

Friday, June 23rd, 2017

These articles are hilarious: equal parts apology, excuse and attempt to rally the troops. From the LA Review Of Books, a postmortem and call to battle:

It was all going so well just a moment ago. History was over. The technocratic order was globalizing the world; people were becoming accustomed to the permanent triumph of a slightly kinder exploitation. What happened? All they can recall is a loud thump in the undercarriage, an abrupt loss of control. Was it Brexit? Trump?

…The most significant development in the past 30 years of liberal self-conception was the replacement of politics understood as an ideological conflict with politics understood as a struggle against idiots unwilling to recognize liberalism’s monopoly on empirical reason.

…For 60 years, liberal managers believed that their political authority was derived from their intellectual authority. When their political authority was suddenly and violently ripped away, they tried to reestablish it by reminding the world that they still knew better than the rest of us. But they got the order of their power backward: without political power, there is no power to assert the boundaries of the normal.

In other words, Leftist like everything has a life cycle. It is a different animal when it is trying to take control than it is when it has control. And since the 1990s, Leftism has had control in the West, a combination of the 1968ers growing old enough to take the reins and the failure of the Soviet Union, removing our last warning that Leftist is an insane mental virus that causes mental health disorders.

Nonetheless, as the cordycepted stagger on, the Left is playing a new game which involves trying to mentally separate the concepts of “neoliberalism” from the rest of the Left. They do not want to own the disaster they created, so they came up with a scapegoat: capitalism. In Leftist symbolic reality, capitalism took over the Left and created “neoliberalism,” where True Leftists resisted.

Perhaps the bigger story is that they do not want to point out that they created a managerial society, applying the tactics of business and the military toward ordering people around. This is what the Left do, because they are oriented toward control, or everyone doing the same things all the time so that those in power are secure.

This is typical of the one-dimensional categorical order in which Leftists think. To them, there are the True Believers who know what is right and must be done, and then the masses who must be ordered around. Instead of a hierarchy with multiple levels, for them there are only the controllers and the controlled.

Their strategy is utilitarianism, which is the opposite of having purpose. Utilitarians ask people what will make them happy, and people respond with short-term answers, scapegoats, justifications and the other products of the usual flow of neurotic insanity. They never connect the dots and see that having a thriving, stable civilization is what they need, and everything else are personal problems that they as individuals need to fix. Government cannot do that.

We live at an interesting time in history. Leftism and liberal democracy are falling together: when “business as usual” that “everyone agrees” is true fails utterly and provokes a populist revolt, the system has lost legitimacy and can no longer lecture to us like expert managers.

The bigger collapse is that the ideas of Leftism have failed. When those ideas were new to us, we accepted them, but now that we see that no matter how we try to insist that it stay within the bounds of sanity, Leftism breaks free and heads toward fully insanity like the Soviet Union, we want out. The theory is wrong and the ideas are deceptive. This the world has learned.

As a popular television series uses for its tagline, “Winter is coming.” Indeed. The illusions of the past 228 years since the French Revolution have cratered, and with them, we see the death of ideas that never worked but that we were forced — by the popularity of those ideas — to accept anyway. Now the counteraction begins.

What Are “Left” And “Right,” Or, Why To Avoid National Socialism

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017

It is a popular thing to say that one is neither Left nor Right, because the public parties of both have done nothing to save us from the fate that has been obvious and inevitable for so long.

Few know what these terms mean, so it makes sense to revisit them through history. The Left arose when people in France, inspired by The Enlightenment™ and its predecessor The Renaissance,™ overthrew the monarchy in France and established a new system. Those who supported it sat on the left side of the French senate.

On the right sat those who opposed the “new” — only if one had missed what happened in Athens and Rome were these new — order, but were concerned enough for the future of their country that they wanted to work with it. They wanted to preserve as much of the old way as possible, but were hampered by the need to compromise with the democratic regime.

It is not a stretch to call it a “regime,” either, since the time after the Revolution brought changes we might associate today with Stalin-era Communism. Whole families were executed for being aristocrats; secret police were established, and people sentenced to death for hearsay evidence that they had denied the regime or supported the aristocracy. The new nation quickly impoverished itself with egalitarian social roles, since people no longer had to be productive in order to be supported, and quickly launched on a disastrous series of wars to conquer Europe so that it, too, could be democratic. Some of us refer to this process as “the Napoleonic Arc,” referencing how revolts by the people quickly produce tyrants who launch impossible ideological wars in order to keep the disintegrating society together.

All of those Left wing ideas had a single root: egalitarianism, or the idea that everyone is equal. Equal how? However they want to interpret it. They start by asking for legal equality, which means that an intelligent contributor to society for fifty years has the same rights and treatment as a criminal who has never given anything. From that the demands expand to equal participation and subsidies, or “socialism,” in which every citizen is a stockholder of the industry owned by the state, and receives dividends in the form of social benefits or entitlements paid directly to them.

The Right, on the other hand, did not have a single idea except for the notion of classical civilization, which was more a spirit and moral code than a method. Ideology like the Left has is much simpler and easier to understand. The Right wanted to preserve a society that can only be described as “Tolkienesque”: kings, lords, a feudal caste system, code of honor instead of laws, a clear ethnic identity for each group and benevolent xenophobia toward all others, customs, folkways, calendar, cuisine, and an intense reverence for nature and the gods they saw within it. This put the Rightists at a disadvantage, in addition to the “first mover” advantage the Left already had by acting first and changing the dialogue to follow their actions. We can summarize the Right as a perception that there is a kind of natural order to humanity, found in parallel in nature and the divine, where each person has an unequal place that allows them to cooperate toward the goal of civilization by contributing what they can, and being limited in contribution where their abilities are not appropriate to the task.

In our contemporary era, these terms have lost most meaning because of the political parties that represent them. Most conservatives today are a variety of Leftist, a consequence of both their necessary compromise with the Leftist regime, and the fact of democracy, which requires them to say things which appeal to the broadest section of the population. This mass culture has no awareness of history, future or the principles of civilization. It cares about tangible things, like checks in the mail from the government or displays of patriotic fervor. As a result, both parties have been made simplistic relative to their original beliefs.

No sane person can support Leftist, which resembles a fanatical cult or a mental health disorder. It is a pathology that serves individualism, or the idea of “me first” that is supported by discarding the need to maintain civilization, and spending that effort on the individual instead. This institutionalized selfishness naturally leads to the kind of social breakdown that causes the Napoleonic Arc to run its course. The era of modernity is defined by its support of individualism, naturally arising from the ideas of The Enlightenment™ and The Renaissance.™

During the early twentieth century, after the disastrous and fratricidal first world war, several movements arose to try to stop the Napoleonic Arc. Two of these, fascism and National Socialism, are commonly identified as Right-wing. However, these movements were both fundamentally modernist, in that they did not want the Old Order, but to make out of the Leftist regime something with Right-wing values. However, as history shows us, the form of the civilization outweighs its stated values, and so even those extreme forms of government led back to the same problems experienced by Leftism. Both supported some degree of socialism, a lack of caste system, suppression of the aristocracy, and the replacement of culture by ideology, even when they did not intend it according to their public statements.

Some argue that National Socialism was a different type of socialism, but the problem remains that it is a state instead of an organic civilization comprised of aristocratic leaders and different castes, and as such it is still stuck within the modern framework of egalitarianism. Any attempt to distribute wealth makes the focus of the nation the state instead of the culture, and while it is within the realm of good leadership to remove threats — relocating Others and exiling defectives — any step into socialism makes the state the replacement for the nation. This is why such arguments are unconvincing:

In our time the traditional left wing is predominantly Marxist — even to such a degree that the very term “left wing” is thought to be synonymous with the word “Marxist.” This, of course, has no basis in reality. Any revolutionary is a left-winger — it is just that the Marxists have had so little competition that they have been able to appropriate the term.

On the other side of the political spectrum we have the right wing, consisting of reactionaries who want to preserve the present society and the so-called Christian civilization of the West with its materialism and capitalism. The rightwingers stand up for traditional patriotic values: they are good Christians and good citizens who defend the Constitution and are loyal to their country and their monarch, if they have one.

…National Socialism seeks to build an entirely New Order based on idealism and a profound respect for the laws of Nature in all aspects of life. This, definitely, is the most revolutionary idea of this century — and thus very much left-wing! — and it certainly is not Marxist! Compared to National Socialism, Marxism is nothing but a pseudo-revolutionary idea, invented by Christianity and upheld by Liberal Democracy: If all people are created equal, why should not all wealth be distributed equally among all people? Seen in this light, Marxism is simply part of the Old Order we want to destroy.

The mistake here is not going far back enough. The Old Order to which he refers is in fact the “New Order” which was formalized with the French Revolution. To be Rightist is to want not just nationalism — the definition of nation by its founding stock and exclusion of all Others — but an entire civilization built around eternal principles. Some compare it to Tolkien, others look to the middle ages, and still others of us look at the “golden age” described by Plato, which was contra-materialist. Those early idealist times involved acting toward consequences which fit within an order of nature and the divine, an ends-over-means analysis, in contrast to materialism, which is a means-over-ends analysis designed to protect the participants from having to face consequences or exert themselves, contra their own individualism, toward goals higher than themselves. When we say we live in materialist times, it is to this distinction that we refer.

European Aristocracy guided the core of our civilization, which is the genetic strata of Indo-European people, through many tragedies and challenges. They eventually succumbed after being weakened by Mongol invasions, plagues, Muslim conflicts and inter-national conflict but what really took them out was the rise of the middle class. The middle class make their living not with their hands but their ledgers and calculators, and while they may be more natively intelligent than the lower classes, they are not intelligent enough to rule for anything but the type of sphere in which they interact. And so they like laws, rules, fines, taxes, punishments and other short-term solutions that cause long-term chaos. They overthrew the monarchy by pooling their money and dividing the power structure of Europe against itself, essentially allowing their short-sighted greed to predominate over more complex thinking and benevolent visions for the qualitative improvement of Western Civilization.

A middle class person, essentially a glorified clerk, distinguishes himself by his literacy. He knows words and texts. He then remakes the world in his image, thinking “if this, then that,” and reasoning deductively from physical facts. His interpretations of those facts go no further than the sphere in which he operates, and so he thinks exclusively in terms of money, safety, gaining customers and flattering others. “Middle class” or “bourgeois” values are the values of the advancement of the individual in the middle class, and run contrary to what civilization needs, which is for the smartest and most morally excellent people to be in command, thinking about the long term. In the centuries of middle class rule, the West has gone from greatness to mediocrity.

Leftism and National Socialism both come from the middle class tradition. They are short-sighted and focused on people, and convincing others to act in a mass like customers flocking to a new product, and so they miss both the natural and eternal in their thought process. For this reason, they are both things to be avoided. We must be extreme — so extreme that we avoid modernist thinking entirely — and escape this system of ideologies, rules and formal control. Instead, we desire unity through culture, with its roots in race and caste, which requires a denial of egalitarianism in all of its forms, no matter how surfactively nationalist they are.

Nonsense Leftists Say

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

“He’s hungry, and I have food,” said the man being devoured by a rabid dog. “I have no more right to my flesh than he does.”

“We must not give in to fear,” said the man calmly being pummeled by a drunk. “Fighting back is exactly what the he wants.”

“All men are potential rapists,” said the woman to the men who would die to defend her.

“It is a grave injustice to be ruled over with no voice in governance; we demand a share of the power,” cried the gonads to the brain.

“We simply want to live, grow, and reproduce, just like every other cell,” said the bacterium.  “It’s xenophobic to create supremacist definitions such as ‘host’ and ‘infection’.”

“I feel like a bird,” said the rabbit as he jumped off a cliff.

“Look at all these beautiful, vibrantly colored paints,” said the artist.  “I will mix them all together uniformly and spread the mixture evenly across my canvas.”

“Love is love,” said the man to the boy as he opened a bottle of lubricant.

“Your appetites are unsustainable,” said the cat lady to her multiplying clowder.  “You’re just going to have to learn to live together with less.”

“Violence never solved anything,” said the man as he watched raiders take his harvest again.  “We simply need to educate them and open a dialog.”

“I’m not an extremist, don’t lump me in in together with them,” said the new leader installed by the occupying force.  “I didn’t participate in the invasion, and I denounce violence in all its forms.”


They call it an “awakening” because in a relatively short span of time, you come to realize that everything you have been told is not only wrong but designed to conceal the real problem: our civilization is in decline and just about everyone is lying, crazy or otherwise delusional. Nothing can be trusted.

Our society fell years ago, and those of us who still believe in the idea of civilization are under assault. What remains of a once-great civilization is being steered into oblivion by the dizzyingly insane and malicious.  If not stopped, they will continue to recklessly destroy, disintegrate, and grind up into meaningless shreds anything of value. 

The longer this continues, the uglier our options for survival become. We are not yet at the end.  We are far from the end. The end is not even an end, just a greater slow slide into irrelevance and third world style subsistence living. Those of us who are fighting are struggling for the ability to exist on a better level than the majority of humanity who live in poverty, corruption, disorder and filth.

Destroyers of civilization have disordered minds ruled by their appetites. They know only their own desires, and are constantly stewing with reality-denying nonsense. Those with clear minds who glare back unfazed at realty, those with an innate desire to know and understand truth, will reject this nonsense and join our ranks. But they are an eternal minority, not just here but in all of humanity.

Those who do not quietly shrink back when danger approaches but stand erect with feet firmly planted in the ground, eager for glory — these will fight with us. Those who have enough love in their hearts to imagine a civilization that is not constantly in decline, and to look instead toward the possibilities of greatness and beauty which this abundant life offers us, they will come to understand us.

Be patient. This crisis has taken centuries to become visible to the normal above-average intelligence person. Most are afraid of what is required and so will make excuses, rationalize and bow out. They will go back to their televisions, political platitudes, jobs and shopping as a way to silence the fears in their minds. This is a miserable way to live, but it is morally and intellectually easier than facing the problem head on.

Humanity has survived many bottlenecks, or events where most of us died or faded away, in the past. Ultimately, this horrific era of modernity may become a great filter through which our people will pass, leaving only the most honest, most courageous, strongest, and noblest. The future is dark but through it shines a luminosity that tells us that beyond this layer, greatness awaits.

Corporate Virtue Signaling

Saturday, June 17th, 2017

Corporate America — considered the far side of stodgy, capitalist and unhip — has embraced Leftist ideals during the past two decades. Since corporations never do anything except for profit, this tells us something about the changing nature of profit in the Left-leaning West.

The new model for profit involves selling products to an entertainment audience. Originally, companies pitched themselves to the middle class through an appeal to durability, value and efficiency.

Now, they are selling to an entirely transient audience based on image alone. They can do this because, under the wealth redistribution programs of the Left, the rootless manchildren and impoverished underclass are the people with disposable income to spend. The middle class is busy spending on housing, insurance, food, energy and education.

Probably the archetype of this genre was the Apple “Mac Guy Versus PC Guy” ads from the early 2000s:

These showed the components of the new audience: it wanted to be hip and it was focused mostly on entertainment and appearance. That made it easy to market to these people because their demand for function was limited to a very narrow area and a few basic tasks. In addition, these people had already been educated in personal morality by the State.

Personal morality is an old, old con. It is a means-over-ends analysis which states that no matter what you are trying to do, you have to use only methods that others approve of. That list invariably strips out anything really effective and replaces it with the non-controversial. The end result is a neutered person who is concerned with how “moral” they appear to others more than the consequences of his actions.

Herein is the root of egalitarianism. It triumphs because to oppose it is to appear elitist, cruel and exclusive. That bothers the individualists in the crowd, who are afraid that they will not be of sufficient social status, that their ego cannot bear to be told the magic word NO, and that they will not be admitted into the club of cool kids.

You can see this in just about every movie or book created in the last three decades or longer: everywhere there is a natural elite, and our everyman hero wants to break into that but cannot, so he destroys it instead. Call it the Napoleon Dynamite/Revenge Of The Nerds theory of politics. It re-states the complaints of the French Revolution in a digestible form.

The point of these movies is not that the natural elite were bad; they are usually competent and necessary. It is that they look bad for excluding the poor nerds, geeks, hipsters, dweebs, stoners and others who are not succeeding in a broken system. Instead of focusing on fixing that system, it is easier to include everyone and further follow its path of decline.

With personal morality, all is about appearance. You must look inclusive. You must also look hip. The two of these combined mean that the traditional masculine aesthetic is out the window, or even any morality that is based on standards. Instead, there is the social standard: do people like you? do you unite them? And of course, do you include everyone and threaten no one?

From this we get ad campaigns which feature nerdy hipsters — another 90s mash-up — who are obviously useless except for doing hip things. Like all the hippies and bohemians for the past five centuries, they insist on being artists, philosophers, spiritualists and musicians. It is a way for them to become important by pretending to be important. Plato notes it best:

Yes, I said, he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he-is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.

With this appearance-based morality, considerations of effect (“ends”) are entirely replaced by appearance, which is derived from method (“means”). In the West, after the triumph of 1968, this became the underlying approach of industry: be cool, look good, and so on. But it had not yet entered the final passive stage until the dual assault of affirmative action and entitlements of the 1990s.

Those created a permanent group of people who were purchasers of mostly consumer products. They tended to rent apartments, be very faithful to their jobs, and spend any money they had on gadgets in order to feel hip, cool and relevant. Cultureless, and essentially futureless, they were an advertising dream.

Corporate America finally found a way to address these people through consumerism mated with bohemianism and Leftist politics, as noted by David Brooks in his crushing study of the hippie generation in mid-life, Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class And How They Got There. It was the votes of these people that paved the way for the Clinton Revolution and the entitlement programs that created the new consumer mass.

Most of us thought that corporations would behave like people on the conservative side of things, but they did not, instead converging on the type of behavior we might expect from anarchists, bohemians or third world countries. This provokes in the mind a metaphorical comparison to the Horseshoe Effect:

This trope is when two groups who are ostensibly ideologically opposed to each other actually have a lot of ideology in common.

Conventional political theory holds that all political ideologies sit on a linear spectrum from left to right: communism on the far left, fascism on the far right, and everything else somewhere in between. This theory implies that the further away an ideology is from the centre, the more different it is from a corresponding ideology on the opposite side of the spectrum: centre-left and centre-right political parties are distinct but still fairly similar, but communist and fascist political parties are dramatically different from one another, as they sit on opposite extremes of the spectrum.

Notwithstanding that there are some problems with the theory — namely that fascist and National Socialist parties are still modernists, thus Left-derived where not Left-leaning, and thus prone to converge on Leftism once threats and scapegoats are removed — this theory can also be applied to corporate America. And there is another glitch: it discusses methods, not goals.

We can restate the theory this way: when any group becomes powerful through mass obedience, it shifts towards a means-over-ends calculus as a means of enacting control. Control is a complex thing to define, but basically it means a centralized force which micromanages all other parts of civilization equally, or uses them as a means to its ends in a way that specifies the desired outcome from a central command viewpoint, as opposed to agreeing on goals and allowing people to cooperate unequally toward achieving them. It is the theory that we can make society into a factory, or like a factory.

For this reason, when corporations get powerful enough and face an audience made homogeneous in thought pattern even if not homogeneous in composition, they tend to act just like Communist states would. This is one of the many reasons that one cannot escape modernity by using modernistic thinking, but must find an entirely different path, such as ends-over-means style barbarian reasoning.

Why The Right Always Loses

Friday, June 16th, 2017

For the past millennium, being conservative-minded — valuing realism over human notions — has been a losing proposition.

Even more, it feels like supporting the idea of the good itself is also a path to constantly being disappointed. It has even become a cultural icon: we refer to people who rationalize losing as “being philosophical about it” and acknowledge the trope of the conservative, fists tightly clutched around whatever truth they were trying to save, going down with the ship. Or the lonely intellectual retreating from society.

Evil always wins, or at least mediocrity. Everything always gets worse and when a chance to fix it comes along, someone snaps up that opportunity, seizes the attention and redirects it to something profitable. No wonder people are exhausted. Modernity is hell to which we are sentenced to live out our terms as Cassandras howling into the wind.

Rightists have lost any expectation of winning and so, naturally, they do not win. Instead they make prosperous homes for their families, retreat into work and religion, but can be counted on to come out of the woodwork any time that their nation-state needs saving. They have entered into an unhealthy symbiotic codependency with the Left. This shatters them inside and makes them unstable.

The Left, of course, will insist on something like “the arc of history” or another fiction that supports their founding myth. In the Leftist view, nature is bad and egalitarianism is good, so any movement away from natural order and toward an order based on egalitarianism, in which human preference is more important than its results when applied, is good. To them, decay is good and so they insist on celebrating it.

But on more practical terms, it becomes clear that the Right has failed because it is unprepared to deal with the new reality of civilization during times of decay. All of its failings come back to that misunderstanding. Let us look at three key areas where the Right simply cannot grasp the task before it:

1. Entryism and Assimilation

Bruce Charlton gives us the clearest picture of how the Right inevitably gives way to the Left:

Because even when a genuinely non-Left (i.e. religious) group speaks in the public sphere, that aspect is filtered; such that what appears has moved the debate onto the core secular Left ground of ‘utilitarianism’ – the calculus of human pleasure or suffering in this mortal life.

…Therefore all supposed ‘victories’ of the ‘Right’ are merely reinforcing the deep-Left agenda.

The point here is that if you get faked out into using the language of your opposition, you will program yourself with their assumptions, and will then re-interpret your own political outlook as if it were a variant of theirs. At that point, you defeat yourself not by losing but by winning, and only later finding out that you carried the virus of the enemy with you.

In its most virulent form, this process can be seen through conservatives who endorse equality in any form. Conservatism does not support individualism, equality, freedom, liberty, feminism or anti-racism; it is an entirely different thought process than Leftism, based in recognizing an order bigger than the individual human rather than wanting the whims and wishful thinking of that individual to take precedence over reality.

The only way to understand the Left is to understand the Right, which is based in the idea of order, form, principle and purpose in unity with the world instead of as a human counterpoint to it:

The view of politics which the average person has come to possess, delineates things primarily according to economic policies – with communists and socialists on ‘the Left’; and laissez-faire capitalists or economic liberals on ‘the Right.’ This would leave the true – historical – Right out of it altogether, or leave it with a false position vaguely off the centre. Some modern Rightists helpfully compound this problem by terming themselves ‘Third Position’, and claiming to be ‘neither Left nor Right.’

A far more accurate way of understanding the above would be to put The True Right on one side (representing as it does; hierarchy, spirituality, organic unity…) and position both communism and laissez-faire capitalism on the other side as two different forms of the Left (valuing: equality, materialism, individualism – socialism is still essentially individualism; it is the banding together of individual egos for mutual benefit. Laissez-faire capitalism / economic liberalism literally arose out of the historical Left against the Right.)

This is what is being referred to by the schizoid nature of the Left. The Left arises out of an inversion of the Right, but it has at its disposal many different means of negating the ideals of the Right. These often appear to be the complete opposite of one another. Consequently many of the ideological oppositions of our time are in reality different versions of the Left squaring off against one another.

For those wanting to understand the Right, which most Rightists do not, it is worth looking into some writings on conservative theory and application.

The goal of the Right is to have an order based around the best that life has to offer, instead of what the Leftists want, which is an exclusively human order. The Right recognizes the importance of history, customs, heritage, beliefs, values, future, hierarchy, social order, organization, culture, philosophy, nature and other qualitative intangibles. The Left recognizes on the tangible, which is the individual and those it socializes with that make it feel more important than the natural world around it.

Whenever the Right gets sidetracked to intermediates — patriotism, equality, liberty, freedom, diversity — that may be important on their own but are not a whole plan for achieving the goal of the Right, it becomes weak. Each of these things is inherently Leftist because they are the assumptions that trigger an egalitarian viewpoint. If you accept that our goal is freedom, your next thought will be that then we need to abolish all things that stand in the way of freedom, including heritage and values. Next thought: culture must die, and wealth must be redistributed, so that everyone has “freedom.”

Rightists continually fail on this front because they get trolled into doing the footwork of the Left. “Well, we both agree that we want freedom, right?” says the Leftist. “Well, then, the best way to have freedom is to make everyone equal.” The conservative, outgunned because he never thinks along these lines, agrees, and only figures out that he was conned twenty years later.

2. It is Not Enough to be Correct.

Many a Rightist has consoled himself, after watching the herd boot away another chance to do good and rush headlong into the embrace of evil which dangled tantalizing illusions before their noses, with the idea, “Oh well, I’m right anyway and they’re just big poopyheads out there for not getting it.”

However, being right is not enough; you have to be both right in the correct context, and then put your plans into action instead of (like 99% of conservatives) staying home and working on your own stuff.

First let us examine a statement by a cynical writer. He knows what his audience wants to hear. He tells them that they are victims, and that someone else has ruined their future, so the obvious conclusion is to go smash down that Other. Like most good writers who are bad thinkers, he is doing it for the popularity points and not because he believes he is right.

His statement is correct in isolation, but off-the-mark when interpreted in the context of the broader question to which it points:

Of course one might ask why blacks would have any interest in most of what has been taught in American schools. Europeans trace their intellectual lineage from the invention of writing in Sumeria in the mid-Fourth Millennium BC through Greece, Rome, the Renaissance, their literary heritage from the Gilgamesh Epic through Tolkien. Blacks had no connection with this and did none of these things. It isn’t of their culture.

Cities have been the heart of the intellectual and artistic in all civilizations, as for example Athens, Rome, Florence, Vienna, New York. By contrast, blacks have destroyed city after American city after American city. Trenton, Camden, Newark, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Gary, Flint, St. Louis, New Orleans, Milwaukee. At one time in all of these one could live, walk at will, send one’s children to the schools. Now, no. Violence, crime, racial attacks, and illiteracy drive the civilized to remote suburbs. This is not my culture and I see no reason to apologize for it.

Massive popularity blast. White people are tired of being told how bad they are because they oppressed Africans. At the same time, Africans seem to be present in a whole lot of cases where pointless violent crimes occurred. On top of that, white America has felt that it was held hostage to black America during race riots, Ferguson effects and constant payouts for affirmative action and civil rights guilt.

White America wants to hear about how black people are not good, and how they should probably be sent far away, because they are a threat and have humiliated white America.

At the same time, this misses the broader point. No two ethnic groups can live in the same nation without absorbing one another. That means no more white Americans, only white-Asian hybrids, assuming you sent the Africans away of course. And what will the future of that nation be? It will not recapture the past.

Of course, that writer has already taken the first step because he has a Mexican wife. For him, diversity is not a problem; Africans are. However, as history shows us, it is diversity itself that is a problem even among groups from within the same race, as in Northern Ireland. So he is both correct, and not correct, because he offers a false solution.

Even if he were to upgrade his solution, the question then becomes, what are you going to do about it? As one writer opines, the Right is not ready for action:

Righties who like to build churches will build a church and worship in it. Lefties who like to build churches will build a church, write a book telling people how to build churches, go out and convince people church-building is the thing to do, run workshops on how to finance, build, and register churches, and then they’ll offer to arrange church guest speakers who’ll come preach the Lefty line.

Righties like hierarchy, so often think of the Lefties as taking marching orders from George Soros or whoever in a very hierarchical fashion. Not so much. A lot of left-wing organization is very decentralized, and they negotiate with other lefty groups as to exactly how they’ll do things and time things to not hurt each others’ work, so the labor movement’s march is not derailed by black-bloc window-smashing.

While this article has some dodgy data in it — the problem with the Confederates, for example, was resource and industry shortage, not disorganization — the truth of it is this: Leftists are fanatics and they are committed 24-7 to making things happen. Conservatives are not individualists, nor are they group-directed like the Left, but this makes them weak.

Conservatives engage in the perpetual fiction that, because if each person did the right thing, civilization would work out better, they will do the right thing in their personal lives and hope everyone else does the same. This is why people call the conservatives “the stupid party,” because there is no other word for this than stupid.

People do not do what they are not forced to do. Conservatives do not want to be forced to do anything, and because they have already accepted certain forces as sunk costs, do not notice that they are already being forced to do most of what they do. And so, doing “the right thing” at home amounts to nothing.

The Left understands force. They realize that unless people are scared to do otherwise than join the protests and work like fiends to make it all happen, they will sit at home and commit petty crimes. When the Left wins, it has no problem wielding totalitarian threats of violence, public shaming, destroying of lives and friendships, and even mobilizing the masses into a human wave that takes 50% casualties and has the machine guns mounted at the rear of the army, not the front like armies that are actually fighting for something.

Conservatives are broken in their outlook. They know that they live under a Leftist myth, equality, and with a Leftist system of government, democracy, at some level. They have shattered their own consistency of thought in order to accept defeat and declare it victory, and since they have accepted that they cannot control the future of their society, they naturally give up on everything except themselves.

Leftists are individualists, but they sacrifice greatly for the ability to be individualistic. What do conservatives sacrifice for, except wasting their time at jobs, paying taxes and dying for democracy in foreign wars? Conservatives are more competent than the Left but never put it into action because people volunteer, do what is convenient, and then go home, leaving the task to fail.

I have seen it time and again. Every now and then you get an issue that fires up conservatives. But nothing makes them as fanatical as ideology makes Leftists, and for this reason conservatives lose because they are not committed enough nor disciplined enough. While the Left organizes to take over cities, the Right are out there lifting weighs, filing taxes, buying stocks and mowing their lawns.

This is why it is not enough to be right. You have to address the actual issue and come up with a working plan, not just an emotional judgment. And then, you have to put it into action not as a hobby but as a full-time obsession. If you are not willing to do that, you are just posing at being a conservative because it makes you feel good to blame someone else for your life failures.

3. We need an agenda outside of modernity.

Modernity began with The Enlightement™ and has steadily won victory after victory since that time. It is the religion of progress, or making humanity more powerful even when this is a bad idea, and of the individual. It will not end until every tree is dead and converted into a fast food joint so the sons of housemaids can be rich men for a generation.

The only way to escape modernity is to reverse the changes made to our philosophy with The Enlightenment,™ which means discarding ideas like equality, democracy and diversity. Until we get rid of the ideas themselves, we will lead ourselves back into repeating them because our fundamental assumptions will be the same as they are now.

It also helps to recognize what Leftists are: a spectrum from Anarchist through Communist, believing in the same ideology of equality, who differ only in degree. That is important: all Leftists are the same, just with varying degrees of boldness. The “normal” Democrat, given enough power, is a Communist; the teenage anarchist, facing challenges in his Utopia, will also go to full Communism.

Their ideas — which they insist are radically different, deep, complex and difficult — are in fact all variations of the same idea, egalitarianism. This philosophy insists that all people must be included in society and that society must thus dedicate itself to them and their whims and desires, instead of having a social order, values and purpose of its own.

Leftism is a mental virus which produces fanatics. To the bored, neurotic or failed person Leftism gives a sense of meaning to life and an excuse for all that has gone wrong. It is addictive, and creates a pathology in these people because it only makes them feel good for a short while, requiring them to engage in more of it to feel good again.

Leftists and conservatives desire different types of societies and are incompatible with one another. Leftists are concerned with equality; conservatives like order and context. This fits with the idea of conservation, or keeping what works, instead of a focus on human desires.

Until we escape the Leftist mentality, we will forever repeat the last two centuries of Western history. Even if we create a pro-white dictatorship, it will still be formed of the basic idea of modernity, which is accepting everyone and turning them into a mass to use to impose ideas externally onto others. Maybe they accept fewer people, but the idea remains the same.

People type their fingers bloody wondering how all of this happened. The answer is simple: it was entropy brought on by our success. A society that succeeds suddenly loses its purpose, which previously was to succeed. Now it must answer the existential questions, such as what it can do to make life meaningful and good. That is heady territory, fit for philosophers perhaps but not democracies.

Expanding on that, human masses are entropy and they always follow evil, unless they give power to someone intelligent and generous who will work against the flow of nature, which is an inertia that leads to breakdown. Nature destroys everything except that which actively resists by reaching toward a positive future distinct to itself.

Humans are evil because they are aware only of themselves. Many grow out of this as part of the maturation process, but others — probably about 40% of our people at this point — do not, and so they become de facto low grade sociopaths who act for their own whims at the expense of everyone else and the mission they share in common, which is having a civilization which thrives.

Conservatives recognize this evil in humanity which is why they emphasize context, reality, order, hierarchy, values, principles and purpose over what people wish were true or want to be accepted just because they want to do it. This is why conservatism is so compatible with religion: to both, the primary question is avoiding evil by establishing a good order/organization instead.

Unfortunately conservatives suffer from a lack of unity. They are too individualistic, mainly because they see the herd conformity of the Left and attempt to rebel against it by going the opposite direction, not recognizing that the Leftist collective is powered by individualists who want to mandate their own inclusion despite whatever unproductive or degenerate behavior they engage in.

Instead of reacting, conservatives could analyze Leftism itself and understand its psychology. At that point they would see that the only defense is not retreating into individualism, but reforming the line and counter-attacking by pointing out that Leftism is wholly illegitimate, its practitioners are sociopaths, and its end result is deceit and destruction. Every time.

When conservatives overcome their infection with individualism, they will see the importance of order and become fanatical like Leftists. That day will also bring ultra-intolerance, meaning that anyone who wants any form of equality will become suddenly not welcome.

As liberal democracy winds down and craters, and the ruling Leftist parties on two continents steer their countries into polymorphic disaster, the light on the horizon appears. This light is the end of the dark era of Enlightenment,™ and a return to raw realism and a search for meaning in the world instead of navel-gazing within our social selves.


Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

Why do those of us who care about maintaining civilization need to be on the Right? And why maintain civilization at all?

Humans are inherently social beings. Born weak, we depend on tools; those make life more complicated. As a result, we exist in a symbiotic relationship with other humans so we can specialize some functions or at least cooperate toward group goals like building, hunting, agriculture and learning. Civilization is necessary for us.

To maintain civilization, humans need to keep the society sane and individuals sane. Sane in this case means aware of reality, or how our actions will play out in the world, and therefore prone to pick actions which achieve what we need to do. Deviation from this means that we will become unrealistic, chase symbolic challenges and ignore the real, and fail after that.

The Left consists of a single idea: equality. This notion protects the individual because equality translates into mandatory universal inclusion, or that every individual is kept within a civilization regardless of their behavior or contributions. This guarantees every individual a place at the table, which means that individuals cannot fail or die because their actions were unrealistic.

We know this through history. Much as happened in Athens, first there was The Enlightenment™ which proclaimed “man as the measure of all things.” From that came human self-worship, which deprecated ideas like a natural hierarchy of human beings mirroring the world of the divine or even of logic. Instead of natural order, we got a human order.

After that, all that remained was to put this into practice, which was done through democracy. Democracy proclaims that the vote of an insane homeless person is equal to that of a genius with superior leadership capabilities. Whatever the largest number of people want, they get, which is the type of utilitarian thinking that arises when people stop trying to find realistic answers and focus on what is popular.

Democracy is the political system of egalitarianism, which is the philosophy of equality:

An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative view expands on this last-mentioned option: People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. So far as the Western European and Anglo-American philosophical tradition is concerned, one significant source of this thought is the Christian notion that God loves all human souls equally. Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different types of equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, or might relate as equals, that might be thought desirable. In modern democratic societies, the term “egalitarian” is often used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of reasons, a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than currently exists.

The Right is that which did not adopt equality because we prefer a non-human order, or one based on things larger than the individual like culture, heritage, religion, values, natural order and hierarchy. To be conservative, one must care about the world beyond oneself on a longer time scale than an individual life. The Right are those who build civilizations; the Left tear them down.

Most conservatives do not know this because they are focused on individual fascinations — patriotism, religion, race and economics foremost among them — and so they do not look at the big picture in the long term as one must when designing a civilization. They think that we can have equality plus racial awareness, or that if everyone just finds Jesus everything will work out okay.

In reality, civilization is defined by its goals. When we focus on ourselves, which we do because the signals from our egos and social groups are in our heads and therefore stronger than perceptions of reality, we lose sight of our actual goal and replace it with human goals. These are largely symbolic, like other people liking us or an idea being popular, and innately deny reality.

The future belongs to those who want to build civilization. Under Leftism, our civilization has collapsed. We can only rebuild it by abandoning equality and focusing on the task of civilization — starting with the notion of understanding reality — itself.

Third Worldism

Saturday, June 10th, 2017

Most people exist in a comfortable bubble created by their ability to ignore long-term problems. This enables them to live in the midst of insanity and incompetence and still function, mainly because to them, events farther away than the next paycheck are as mystical as Zeus and as distant as Mars.

As a result, few of them recognize that their society has already collapsed, and that we are living in the stage after a social system breaks, where it slowly declines into third world status through disorder, corruption and incompetence.

If one understands history to be cyclic, it becomes clear that a cycle only arises when there is some starting point of sanity, from which events diverge, ultimately bottoming out and forcing a return to the start of that cycle. We know what works in the West:

  1. Ascendancy. We aspire to what is both realistic and “good,” in the sense of ongoing immutable goals like the transcendentals (“the good, the beautiful, and the true” plus “excellence”). Instead of looking backward and seeing what is convenient, popular and profitable, we look forward to what we can achieve, as seen by the best natural leaders among us. We put the intelligent and morally good on top instead of allowing the herd to rule through its numbers, because the herd always chooses short-term thinking. This prioritizes inner thought, such as moral and realistic reasoning, over external thought, or deference to what is already succeeding on a social and economic level.
  2. Tradition. The traditional society consists of a few core principles instead of a single idea like “equality.” It features a caste system, so that the best among us command culture; an aristocracy, so we have leaders instead of salesmen and actors; a hierarchy with internal competition, including open markets without a subsidy system based in government or a command economy; and finally, rule by culture itself, which requires strong nationalism or ethnic tribalism.

Those are the conditions of a Golden Age, and as we have deviated from them, our fortunes have waned. It has taken many centuries to fully visualize this mainly because we were cruising on the inertia of the past, most notably the vast number of talented and morally good people among us, but also our technology and military might.

Until we start heading back in that direction, not necessarily fully achieving it but moving toward it our hearts and minds and therefore gradually implementing it, we will head in the other direction, which is toward the bottom of the cycle, or a third world mentality that produces a society known for low levels of social order, hygiene, principles, wisdom, integrity and efficacy.

We can glimpse the nature of a third world society by observing attributes of it in already fallen societies:

Examining Arab warfare in this century leads to the conclusion that Arabs remain more successful in insurgent, or political warfare13—what T. E. Lawrence termed “winning wars without battles.”

…The barrage of criticism leveled at Samuel Huntington’s notion of a “clash of civilizations” in no way lessens the vital point he made—that however much the grouping of peoples by religion and culture rather than political or economic divisions offends academics who propound a world defined by class, race, and gender, it is a reality, one not diminished by modern communications.

Third world cultures reward those who are individualistic, or concerned with themselves first before others or principles. This leads to a mentality that pervades all levels of their activity:

In every society information is a means of making a living or wielding power, but Arabs husband information and hold it especially tightly. U.S. trainers have often been surprised over the years by the fact that information provided to key personnel does not get much further than them. Having learned to perform some complicated procedure, an Arab technician knows that he is invaluable so long as he is the only one in a unit to have that knowledge; once he dispenses it to others he no longer is the only font of knowledge and his power dissipates.

In an individualistic culture, there is no reason to share information because the goal is not to win the war, but for the individual to retain or expand his position of power. Comparisons to tyranny are apt here: the goal of power is power itself when power is not directed toward purpose and principle.

Through natural selection, this creates a population who excel at tasks that are defined for them, but are unable to reason:

Because the Arab educational system is predicated on rote memorization, officers have a phenomenal ability to commit vast amounts of knowledge to memory. The learning system tends to consist of on-high lectures, with students taking voluminous notes and being examined on what they were told. (It also has interesting implications for foreign instructors; for example, his credibility is diminished if he must resort to a book.) The emphasis on memorization has a price, and that is in diminished ability to reason or engage in analysis based upon general principles.

For this reason, third world societies tend to be “crab buckets” where people scramble for positions of power and wealth, and then treat these as sinecures, or entitlements through status, and ignore the task at hand. This leads them to use other people as means-to-an-end of not a goal, but of personal power, a condition known as “control” that is the mental state of tyranny.

Because of that, social order is impossible:

This is primarily a function of the fact that the enlisted soldiers simply do not trust their officers. Once officers depart the training areas, training begins to fall apart as soldiers begin drifting off. An Egyptian officer once explained to me that the Egyptian army’s catastrophic defeat in 1967 resulted from a lack of cohesion within units. The situation, he said, had only marginally improved in 1973. Iraqi prisoners in 1991 showed a remarkable fear and enmity toward their officers.

We see similar conditions in third world politics and policing. Politicians make promises and enrich themselves through corruption instead of delivering on those; police forces tend to view their role as a chance for bribes rather than a function in itself. Government and companies fall apart because of lack of cohesion, and quality is low across the board, mirroring the problems seen in their militaries.

This creates a society of obedient and conformist people who are oblivious to the consequences of their actions or the possible benefits to be obtained for society at large through fulfillment of their roles:

Decisions are made and delivered from on high, with very little lateral communication. This leads to a highly centralized system, with authority hardly ever delegated. Rarely does an officer make a critical decision on his own; instead, he prefers the safe course of being identified as industrious, intelligent, loyal—and compliant. Bringing attention to oneself as an innovator or someone prone to make unilateral decisions is a recipe for trouble. As in civilian life, conformism is the overwhelming societal norm; the nail that stands up gets hammered down. Orders and information flow from top to bottom; they are not to be reinterpreted, amended, or modified in any way.

I have excerpted the portions of this article that reflect widespread third world behaviors, and left out some specifics which belong to Arab cultures.

The broader point is that in highly individualistic societies, external factors matter more than internal factors. This is how they got to a third world state: their society advanced to the point where playing the game and working the system became more important than efficacy in the real world. All civilizations create these false targets and die by them.

We can see similar things happening in the postwar West:

Buchanan’s assessment of the impact of the defeat in Vietnam on American society has real power to it: “The American establishment that led us to victory in World War II … would never recover from Vietnam, never regain the confidence of the nation. For Vietnam was not an unwinnable war for a country that had reduced the Japanese empire to smoldering ruins in four years. … The simple truth is the American establishment lost the war in Vietnam because it lacked the will to win it.”

This is where Buchanan’s philosophy begins. The country that Nixon inherited in 1969 was “no longer one nation and one people, but a land divided by war and race and culture and politics.” The Establishment was feckless, guilt-driven, hypocritical.

In third world systems, this domination by external thought creates people more interested in advancing themselves within the system than in achieving results in the world outside of the system. This is why the Americans lacked the will to fight complex wars: there was too much infighting as individuals tried to rise above others by using the existing (false) hierarchy.

The doorway to third worldism begins with the creation of a system that prioritizes the individual over purpose, and therefore, incentivizes people to work against each other, eventually destroying the idea of purpose and goal itself. This mentality exists within a cluster of traits and methods: democracy, egalitarianism, Crowdism, solipsism, Leftism, individualism (DECSLI).

In the grips of these, the West collapsed. World War Two was its last attempt to solve its problems before giving in to the inertia of the philosophies which had become socially popular in a wave starting with The Enlightenment™ and formalized during the French Revolution.

While Hollywood spins us collapse fantasies based on single terrifying events, like nuclear war or giant storms, the reality is that collapse of the West is easy to predict: we will become Brazil.

Collapse means the loss of higher civilization and the return to the natural default state of humanity, which is third world style subsistence living while being ruled by self-interested (individualistic) overlords.

There will be strong corporations, limited by their ability to find talented people among the new pool of mixed race, beige, mid-90s average IQ people. These will thus be profitable but bloated and ineffective, hampered by corruption which will take 30% of every deal right off the top.

That will eliminate the ability to invest in the future, and so innovation will stagnate and basically die off.

The rich will have enclaves protected by private security. This will usually work, until someone figures out how to bribe private security and then kill the rich and take their wealth. Governments will do their best to milk the rich until they run into crisis, at which point they will liquidate them and take their stuff as happened during the French Revolution and its Terror, which will leave the civilization with fewer capable people and continue the slow grind into irrelevance.

Places like Brazil are eternal. Everything always gets worse, but at such a low level, this has little effect on daily life. People will still have jobs. Most of them will not lose their lives in violent crime, but all will be victimized. As a result, people will become extraordinarily selfish, and the grinding will continue.

Societies like this can continue indefinitely. If a stronger force comes along, they will be conquered. Otherwise, they will exist in mediocrity and steadily breed out anyone who can tell the difference, creating a vast population of selfish oblivious incompetents whose only salvation is that they are not mentally equipped to notice how bad things are or how much easily they could be better.

Third worlding is part of the civilization cycle, and the only stable points of this cycle are at the top in a Golden Age or at the bottom in the default state of humankind, which is selfish mediocrity.

Leftism is a rationalization of decline that also furthers decline. Like most diseases, it is both its own cause and the force that makes it grow in power. It shapes people to make them ready for existing in a third world state where they will spend all of their energy focused on themselves, and be unaware of what goes on around them. People revert to a yeastlike state of mind.

These societies are the most individualistic places on earth. Individuals have jobs and almost no other obligations. Most of them will report being happy with life, until told that they can have more through redistribution. Then they enthusiastically vote Leftist, furthering the hold that mediocrity has on the society.

If the West is to resist this process, it must accept that it is already well on this path, and needs to fundamentally change from its egalitarian assumptions if it is to restore itself.

Class Warfare

Wednesday, June 7th, 2017

What prompted the downfall of the West? It shifted from the idea of a natural hierarchy to that of a flat human hierarchy, based not in degrees of accuracy, excellence and goodness but in the equality of all people.

From this came the idea of egalitarianism, or equal inclusion of all people, as a means of removing hierarchy. Part of that hierarchy was the caste system, a part of feudalism, in which people had hereditary social rank.

Since that time, for the Left, most activity has involved attacks against those with more money, power or genetic abilities. The Left wants to invert the hierarchy, with the good people on bottom and the parasitic and corrupt on top.

The Left has never understood social hierarchy because they interpret it in terms of themselves. To them, some people have money because they were in the right place at the right time; this makes sense to Leftists because this is how they succeed in their chosen fields of entertainment, consumerism, media and government.

In reality, caste reflects genetic ability. Some people are smarter and more adept than others, and the correct response to this is to put them in positions of power so we all benefit from their greater ability which translates to better results.

But, for the Left, they have only one path, which means conquest of all that is through ideology so that their members stay motivated and keep the Leftist franchise afloat, so class warfare must always continue and expand.

It is important to note that, as with all people dedicated to paradoxical paths, the Left will accuse you of what they are doing. Therefore, if you produce income and buy yourself a nice house, they will accuse you of class warfare to conceal their desire to take it from you.

Consider this Leftist jeremiad in favor of class warfare:

The upper middle class are “opportunity hoarding” – making it harder for others less economically privileged to rise to the top; a situation that Reeves says places stress on the efficiency of the US economic system and creates dynastic wealth and privilege of the kind the nation’s fathers sought to avoid.

The fellow writing this, Richard V. Reeves, is a crypto-Communist. He ignores the fact that what holds those who are less “economically privileged,” which is Leftist-speak for those who are not as capable, from rising to the top is their own actions.

In the meantime, the upper middle class are doing what any genetically gifted group should do, which is to keep power in their hands so it does not fall into the grasp of the less capable. After all, this upper middle class has already proved itself capable, or at least was able to do so before consumerism supported by the welfare state took over our economy.

Forgetting the nouveau riche created by Leftist government, the wealthier tend to be good at getting things done. Their children, because all traits are mostly determined by heritage, tend to be more competent along the same lines. This is why the Founding Fathers of the United States did not oppose the accumulation of inherited wealth; it makes for a healthier nation.

Notice that in addition to “raising awareness,” a favorite Leftist activity is “reform”:

Reeves believes we have to think much earlier about equality of opportunity, including the way the education system, labor and housing markets work. Without reform, society continues with a system that replicates inequality, he argues.

In other words, he wants to enforce equality by penalizing those who are more-than-equal so that those who are less-than-equal — if we define equal as a median — can rise above in the new environment, which will be less competent and farther from excellence.

This is how civilizations end: in order to placate people, standards are adjusted downward, which makes “everyone just get along” and promotes peace in the eyes of the neurotic people who find this goal appealing, but in the long term excludes the thoughtful and transfers power to the insane and parasitic, producing results like we see now.

He claims that society “replicates inequality” which is a ridiculous term considering that inequality is innate. Some are born with more aptitude for some tasks than others.

“One of the silver linings of Trump’s victory is some introspection among the upper middle class. There’s a growing willingness to accept that some advantages are not the result of purely meritocratic society and are the result of a rigged system and people have a right to be angry. It’s a difficult conversation but until we have it, there’s no chance of a solution.”

The toxic assumptions keep flowing. The “rigged system” causes inequality, in his view, not genetic advantages. Instead, he posits a “meritocracy,” which because it will be dumbed down will consist of more boring education, mind-numbing tests, and proving loyalty by wasting time at pro forma jobs, just to keep the intelligent excluded.

Conservatives never quite realize exactly how deranged the Left is until they see these things acted out. The Leftist agenda has always been and always will be to take from those who are gifted in order to give to the less able, creating a standard of mediocrity that in turn destroys the host civilization. Leftists are pathological and there is no compromise with them.

Why No One Should Commemorate D-Day

Tuesday, June 6th, 2017

Every June 6th, the media and patriotic brain-dead conservatives fawn over D-Day, the event that occurred 73 years ago when the Allied forces invaded Fortress Europe. Instead of celebrating reputable holidays, we commemorate a People’s Holiday for a war no one won.

It does not require us to be National Socialists, or even to have felt that the National Socialists offered a better alternate because on the whole they did not, to notice that World War Two was a war for democracy, which is essentially the antechamber to Communism.

As Plato wrote 2400 years ago, democracy naturally leads to tyranny of the sort promised by Communism: a revolt of the plebes, overthrow of social order and caste structure, and its replacement with many equal people dependent on government. When this happens, the intelligent and good die out and are replaced by the kind of thoughtless, short-term, high time preference and low foresight people found in the third world.

Democracy arises from a long chain of events that occur with the pitfall of success. When one task is vanquished, another one arises, and this one is invisible because it is intangible. A society that thrives must find a long-term purpose other than its citizens and their individualistic wants, or it falls prey to egalitarian thinking.

The West succeeded beyond all other civilizations in recent history, but by doing so, it bred and attracted people who wanted simply to participate instead of participating in an active culture. These went into cities, started businesses and became prosperous, and quickly — i league with the Church, foreign groups and secret societies — began agitating for power over those above them in the hierarchy.

With prole revolt, the West overthrew the social order that had worked so well for it, and began a thousand-year fall into Leftism, which triumphed with the end of WWII and since that time has ravaged this society so thoroughly it is unrecognizable. Leftism is egalitarianism, which arises from individualism, which comes from hubris or the “me first” attitude that denies the natural hierarchy of ability.

On D-Day, democracy won its greatest victory since the French Revolution, and a mere twenty years later the people of the West — drugged on postwar economic booms and Leftist self-congratulatory rhetoric — voted for their own ethnic replacement. They were not aware that this was what they were doing, but this is the failing of democracy: voters are not personally accountable, nor do they experience direct consequences, so they treat voting like going to the circus and choose whatever they think makes them appear to be wise, compassionate, generous and most of all, egalitarian. Democracy always goes Leftward for this reason.

As happened in World War One, the West sacrificed many of its best to destroy those who opposed democracy, and drugged itself with talk of freedom, equality, liberty, tolerance, pluralism, justice and peace as a way to explain away the obvious collapse of civilization. Generations despaired. Culture faded away. Religious faith died, and the family was hollowed out.

After 1945, the West still had Communism to keep it in check. Leftism cannot advance when there is an example of how bad Leftism will inevitably become if not opposed, and the rampant murders and genocide of the Stalinist years made it clear that the Soviets had to fall for the Leftist mental virus to continue unchecked. As the 1980s closed and the Soviets fell, Leftism flew free like a pandemic.

Since that point, the West has gone so far democratic and Leftist that it would be unrecognizable and hated by those who stormed the beaches on that first D-Day. As usual, what the politicians promise is an illusion, but like all victims of scams, the voters delude themselves. WWII was a slaughterhouse like the war before it, and we all lost for what the West has become.

For that reason, there is no point celebrating D-Day; it is a tomb, both for those on all sides who lost life and limb in the conflict, and for the West itself. No one won, and the West will never win again until it abandons the arrogant and greedy prole revolt that is democracy.

Recommended Reading