This unverified image shows a Leftist professor coordinating students as a shill attack force against 4chan’s /pol/, widely regarded as one of the last communities of independent (i.e. non-Leftist) thought on the internet.
As is typical in academia, Leftists got into power and hired only other Leftists, who now hire only other Leftists in turn, resulting in a massive echo chamber in all of academia. As a result, professors who go “extreme” get a wink and a nod, and if they get fired, quickly get rehired.
For this reason, and the fact that academia was oversold by politicians as a magic entrance to the middle class, professors face almost no oversight so long as they are preaching the good progressive dogma. This results in do-nothing classroom activities like those in the image above.
If the West is to shrug off Leftism, it must get the parasitic fingers of government out of education, which it uses to create the next generation of True Believers.
There is a reason why you never give in to ¡DEMANDS! It harkens back to Kipling and the paying of Danegeld. If it works once, you never get rid of them. Thugs always go back and bully a patsy once they find one.
Extortion offers a much greater marginal return on their thuggishness. Here we see #BLM attempt to thug on Dr. Taylor Reveley:
I notice several things from listening to these over-entitled brats with a domineering agenda. They can’t really believe the following demands will end all racial dislike on any particular college campus.
The demands included a tenured diversity position, a required social justice course, an Africana Studies department, a zero-tolerance policy for racism, the hiring of more staff for W&M’s Center for Student Diversity, an emphasis on recruiting black students, and more employment and retention of black faculty.
This caterwauling is, of course, appalling. The constant accusations of these people are pathetic. I can’t make someone commemorate their own history and it should not ever be my job to do this for them. They constantly complain about a lack of inclusion. How do they raise this as a valid point? The College of William and Mary has a higher proportional minority population than the country as a whole. The only reason they are not included is because they are personally obnoxious.
But let’s not be stupid or ingenuous here. These people know that nobody wants them around. They expect that and it is already factored in. When you effectively make your living as a highwayman, it shouldn’t come as a shock that nobody really wants to share the road with you. #BLM expects to threaten, badger and scare the crap out of people. So having Dr. Taylor Reveley tell them he doesn’t deal in demands was a shot across the bow.
“I don’t deal in demands,” said College of William & Mary President W. Taylor Reveley III. “I don’t make demands of other people. I don’t expect to receive demands from people. I love to get suggestions, recommendations, strong arguments. When you approach other people with a demand, instead of their ears opening and their spirit being unusually receptive, you get defensive walls erected,” he continued in the live video streamed on Facebook. “So, I think you all need to think about it.”
And then Dr. Reveley, very nicely albeit, told them to put up or shut up.
“No, no, no, that’s not the way the world works,” Reveley retorted. “It is not effective, in my opinion, to approach other people and say ‘we demand’ unless you have the capacity to demand.”
And this is the key factor here. Leftism falls flat on its face without the sanction of the victim to make it possible. You cannot receive entitlements if nobody accepts the illusion that you are actually entitled. People attending a university are there at that institution’s invitation and sufferance. People holding a State of Alabama Driver’s License hold it by the good graces of the state government. People have no standing to make demands without a certain level of actual skin in the game. Otherwise, they are waghalters, beggars, and louts.
If The College of William and Mary was totally built on the backs of African Americans as #BLM alleges, there is nothing in the world that the e-vil face of bastardly ¡WHITE SUPREMACY! Dr. Reveley could do to stop them from building a bigger, better and blacker William and Mary that put that boring, old stodgy place in Colonial Williamsburg to absolute shame. I just don’t see why these poor, aggrieved people of color haven’t gone forth and done so already. Unless, of course, the entire attitude and belief system of the people in that YouTube video explains it far better than anything else I could blog on the subject.
Over cocktails with Leftists, the most extraordinary thing was said: “You either give to the top or you give to the bottom, and Republicans choose to give to the top.”
This statement was striking in its simplicity. Is that all? It shapes the mind to think about giving, instead of creating, and this shows the difference between Left and Right.
The Left, defined by its only idea, egalitarianism, seeks to redistribute wealth. On the Right, where we recognize the necessity of deciding issues on a case-by-case basis and recognize the particularity of solutions as superior to general theory, the question is not redistribution, but the production of wealth, because we realize that without affirmative acts to produce wealth, it dissipates.
This leads in turn to the realization that the Left does not recognize that civilization requires ongoing and regular acts to maintain. To them, it is there and can be taken for granted, and thus the only question is carving up the wealth that exists to make sure everyone feels included, because this is the way to win at the game of socializing and peer pressure.
They exist in a perpetual present tense where what we have today exists as if by a divine hand, and did not require the work of yesterday to create, and will exist tomorrow without the work of today. In this, we see a disconnect in cause-effect reasoning caused by the proximate intermediary of socializing, which tells that all things exist by human intention alone.
In other words, humans intend for no one to go hungry, so they write a check from the Treasury and the problem goes away. Or they intend for all people to be equal, so they proclaim it and execute dissidents on the guillotine. Maybe they want everyone to be accepted, so they force acceptance of all people, no matter how much they deviate from social norms.
What they forget is that civilization as we know it comes from the affirmative acts of our people. It takes work to make food, shelter, and an economy. Social norms keep people moving in the same direction, and enable civilization to function in the first place. Inequality drives people to rise above others and therefore, to put the competent at the top of our hierarchy.
Leftists do not recognize these needs, and as a result, are entirely blind to the task of maintaining civilization. This means that to them, the questions of leadership are as simple as how to spread money and power around. Conservatives aim to create that wealth and power, and to them, division of it is done so that more is produced.
This is why conservatives emphasize giving money and power to the competent. It is not a question of making everyone feel accepted, but ensuring that the people who are most likely to make more wealth and power are in a position to do so. This is entirely lost on the Left, who do not exist outside of a perpetual present tense where these things already exist.
Inertia drives the Left. Finding themselves in a civilization where benefits are present, they assume these are perpetual and given by heaven. This inertia may reflect a fear of the passage of time, including aging and mortality. It manifests in a denial of the cyclic nature of reality and our part in it.
It also provides a rationalization and decline and justification for profiting from it. If civilization “just exists,” without requiring us to be means to the end of its perpetuation, there is nothing wrong with taking everything that one can and giving nothing back. One is freed from the guilt of watching another labor for shared benefit while taking for personal benefit only.
This inertia and rationalization provides the individual with the ability to act selfishly without guilt, while simultaneously not worrying about the future. In this view, what existed at the birth of the individual will exist in perpetuity regardless of the actions of the individual. They view themselves as having no effect and no obligations.
From this comes the “bourgeois” mentality or the view of the successful middle class, which is that society is a competition for resources and the only political involvement required is to “virtue signal” or demonstrate moral goodness through transferring wealth to those with less success. Politics is a means of symbolic gestures that lead to personal success.
When we view Leftism through this filter, its origins as an adaptive pathology become clear. It seems to be an ideology, but really, it is a defensive rationalization for the individual to disclaim obligation to maintain civilization. This explains its enduring popularity as well as its incoherence.
Once it is visualized this way, Leftism becomes defeatable. It is no longer an active philosophy that has actual goals. Instead, it is a pathology of people seeking to accept and deny the decline. They perceive it as a way of making themselves more important in a shrinking pond. If this power is removed, Leftism becomes inert and thus unrewarding, and will be discarded.
When we look at Leftism, it makes sense to analyze it as a series of road forks and straightaways. It continues on its inertial path until interrupted, then adapts to the new reality, and continues onward, gaining momentum. These points both reveal to us the great villains of our age, and how their ideas are inevitable extrapolations from the original concept of “equality.”
Consider, perhaps, the case of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He presided over a war against the quasi-Right, partnered with the far Left, and despite his own elitist outlook, defined the next several generations of Leftism with one incendiary speech:
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Although the precious darlings in the cosmopolitan cities refused to recognize this, Roosevelt has essentially demanded that Leftism move from its first step — political equality, a result of equality under the law being interpreted pre-emptively — to its second step, in which a wealthy but dying society assumes that economic subsidies are required to give people political equality.
Those who have read this blog for some time know that we have a hardline anti-work attitude because jobs are jails. This does not mean we are against requiring all to contribute, because a civilization is made of contributors. Some will do so without jobs, and these are usually the best among us. For most, all that they know how to do is pitch in where others give them direction.
American conservatives in particular hammer out the “work hard, go to church, and have a family” line that keeps conservatives neutralized and paying taxes to fund the Leftist state. An anti-work conservative sees this, and transmutes “work hard” — nonsense language designed to mean “spend all your time at work” — into an intersection of be effective and contribute.
For example, some live impoverished lives but care for a patch of forest or aspect of culture. These are contributors, too, even if they get paid little. Others, such as homemakers, contribute more than their fair share by perpetuating the tribe and raising children to be morally alert, mentally perceptive and physically healthy.
This means that for a thinking person, there is a middle path between “work hard” and “subsidize everyone.” This path is to reduce the amount of time people spend working, to make jobs less odious, and to recognize that not all contributions come from jobs. With the advances in efficiency from technology, we should be working a few hours a day, but instead work far longer to pay for the free riders, government, irrelevant “experts” and do-gooder social programs that benefit no one.
Socialism destroys the chance of this path by taking from the contributors and giving to non-contributors. This ensures that contributors work longer hours and the group of non-contributors grows. Instead of fixing a problem by limiting it, by subsidizing the source of the problem, socialism makes it permanent and prone to take over a society.
With the above, Roosevelt set out an argument for socialism by going back to the root of idea of America, which is that people must be politically equal without a hierarchy of caste or aristocrats. This gives in to the weakest impulses of human nature and guarantees that people will, instead of cooperating, go in many different directions and compete against one another, creating internal friction.
He justifies it by appealing to our prosperity and saying, essentially, that since we can afford it, it is a good idea. In doing so he created the modern “big government” which uses a justification of egalitarianism to argue for its endless expansion and debt spending. But most interesting was this:
In the plain down-to-earth talks that I had with the Generalissimo and Marshal Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill, it was abundantly clear that they are all most deeply interested in the resumption of peaceful progress by their own peoples — progress toward a better life. All our allies want freedom to develop their lands and resources, to build up industry, to increase education and individual opportunity, and to raise standards of living.
The argument for “progress” arises again, which amounts to the increase of the personal wealth of the individual and using “education” as an excuse for how we will make rabble into wise decision-makers, a power they will exercise with the vote. This disease was spreading across the civilized world, much as egalitarianism had after the French Revolution.
Almost a century on, we can see that Roosevelt was wrong. Instead of increasing wealth, this pattern of policies reduces it by increasing the cost of every detail of the process through the taxes and costs imposed by the welfare state. Even worse, it has made citizens into entitled, destructive people.
We like to think that all people are good and like us, if just left to their own devices will do the right thing. History shows us otherwise: without a strong social order and hierarchy, people devolve into a mob in which each pursues his own interest at the expense of all others. Egalitarianism does not work.
In that context, we can see the history of Leftism as a series of failures:
Legal equality. The idea of all people being equal under the law seems intelligent, until we realize that this means that wrongdoers have their bad deeds expunged and good people are unable to point to their history of positive contributions. This results in penalization of the good, which causes them to retreat from public life as much as possible in order to avoid conflict with the wrongdoers who will use the courts against them. This creates the apathy and rootlessness common to modern societies.
Political equality. Notions of all people having the same contribution to the political process appeal to the same portion of our minds that finds pacifism appealing; if we remove the source of contention, we “reason,” then people have no cause to act irrationally. This denies the fact that most people act in illogical ways much of the time, and when they can cancel out the few votes of the sane with their number, they do so every time, which makes the illogical into policy and then into ideal. This causes the most intelligent in society to essentially give up on it and its future and act for themselves only, creating a predatory mindset.
Economic equality. In order to defend against the “winner takes all” mentality created by political equality, Leftists then demand economic subsidies, taking the form of socialism or the welfare state, in order to keep people from being ground under by the resulting highly competitive and violent socioeconomic battle. This further penalizes the most intelligent, driving them into retreat from success, while enabling those whose intent is to deceive and profit at the expense of others to the fore, effectively corrupting the social structure of society.
Where does it go after this? Let us revisit the original endgame of Leftism, which we might call The Napoleonic Cycle. Revolutionaries overthrow the more-intelligent upper castes, establish subsidies, and promptly end up in a greater plight economically than they had experienced before.
Their solution is to throw out more subsidies and go to an authoritarian state in order to force people to do what is necessary for the nation to survive. When this fails, they mobilize the nation by non-economic means, usually warfare. This creates a cycle where there must be constant warfare and so the wars expand in scope until the world is absorbed in them.
The same pattern happened with the Soviet Union. When it struggled economically, it was at its most militant, and when that failed, it collapsed inward and dissolved into third world kleptocracy and chaos. Its satellite republics suffered the same fate, leaving behind failed states.
When we embarked on the Roosevelt path, the West began to suffer The Napoleonic Cycle. The modern West, comprised of welfare states like the EU and USA, devoted itself to the welfare state, and now has no option but to expand the state while keeping the population in a state of terror through constant warfare, crisis, crime and instability.
As history churns on, we see — yet again, as these little wake-up calls happen every few millennia — that there is one right way to have a rising civilization, and that as we have deviated from this, living off the wealth of the past, we have decline both as individuals and as cultures. If we do not fully escape egalitarianism, it will consume us.
Today in Berkeley, California — home of many American conflicts — we saw open battle on the streets. Antifa attacked, the police backed off, and then a group of alt right, pro-Trump and free speech advocates beat down the Antifa. This leads many to wonder if there is any future for the USA as a group of disparate groups united at all.
Physical removal remains a controversial topic. It seems unjust to displace those who merely disagree, until one realizes that they disagree with the concept of civilization to such a degree that they are inherently toxic and parasitic to it, and will destroy it unless removed.
The key to understanding this dilemma lies in understanding that people behave as they do in order to justify their position. There is a cause for their outlook, and usually it consists of defending life choices or lack of attainment. The best find a place in the world, get comfortable and enjoy it; the worst, no matter what they have, agitate for more.
Leftists are those who see an opportunity to take over society using the justification of egalitarianism. They cannot stop doing this; it is in their nature to do so, much as it is in the nature of a wild animal to attack those who might be trying to capture it. The Leftist has one goal, and it is found in the self, not civilization, from which the context in which the self can thrive is established.
We also should not forget the French Revolution where Leftists killed off ten percent of their population and reduced the average IQ of the nation by ten points.
For this reason, we need to realize that Leftists will not stop until they achieve Full Communism. Even the people now who claim loudly that they want moderate solutions, on both Right and Left, are fundamentally Leftist, and when their moderate solutions fail, they will demand more authoritarian ones. For the Leftist, there is only ideology, and anything else is death, so they are on a mission to destroy everything but Leftism so that they can “win.”
We have to recognize that we who are more Realist than individualistic cannot coexist with the Leftist. We are incompatible and from different worlds, and we desire different worlds. They want an ideological state with a third world society; we want to restore Western Civilization and raise it to new levels of greatness. These two different desires cannot be reconciled
Their behavior is incompatible with what we need, and ours is incompatible with everything they hold dear. History shows us that Leftism wins every time at first, but then when its plans are implemented, it gradually fails. This sometimes takes centuries. But with all of Europe unable to pay for its social welfare programs and importing immigrants to fill the gap, and the USA in chaos, this has changed.
Physical removal of Leftists — and neurotics, criminals, and other permanently miserable people; this is separate from repatriation of those outside the founding group — does not need to involve death, violence, misery and bloodshed. It involves cutting off their lifeline of social welfare programs, and a cultural wave pushing them to other types of societies, elsewhere. The helicopters can be replaced by one-way plane tickets.
Last century may have belonged to the slow but steady advance of Leftism in politics, through the “long march” that ate up our institutions, and in mass culture and media. However, we have seen the society that creates, and it is an ugly one. A wasteland of empty people, selfish and oblivious, covered in graffiti and advertising, with no life but a cube to sleep in and a cube to work in.
In the 21st century, a great awakening has occurred. We trusted in the egalitarian idea for so long to bring about the best for everyone, but it has not delivered on that promise, and has instead shown us the type of dystopian Utopian future that it always had in mind. For those who glimpse that abyss, the more natural — and less egalitarian — ways of the past come alive again.
In any group, there are some who do well and some who do less well. Like a teenage movie — say, Napoleon Dynamite or Revenge Of The Nerds — all of those who are not doing so well make excuses for their failures, then bond together to form a group that can through superior numbers overthrow the people doing well.
Leftists come from the group that does less well. Even when materially successful, they are enraged at their inability to control reality to fit the vision in their minds, which is not so much about that vision but the sense of power it conveys. Something has made them insatiable and powerless, and so anything good, beautiful or realistic must be destroyed to make way for their egotism.
Unfortunately for them, they steadily gained power last century, and when National Socialism collapsed they shifted the world Left, and were able to shift it further when Communism collapsed and removed barriers to going farther Left. Once their dreams were realized in the 1980s, they laid the seeds of disaster. Those seeds are now sturdy samplings of misery.
The Left demanded globalism; this destroyed the economic independence of nations worldwide. They wanted sexual liberation, which destroyed the family. They screamed for universal education, which removed the value of education. They wanted socialized medicine, and radically increased costs and decreased quality. And they demanded diversity, which has ended in a flurry of Bataclans and Fergusons.
For many years, those on the Right have pointed out that diversity does not work, and that those who desire diversity want a servile beige race to make into perfect Leftist voters, and then to erase the majority group through outbreeding by convenience. In other words, diversity is genocide and the destruction of the nation, but this excites the Left.
If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.
At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism. A period of twenty years without white men in the world’s parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world’s wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.
A familiar trope with the Left is the idea that capitalism is the enemy or that somehow capitalism destroyed our world. This is offered because capitalism is inherently unequal, and its success contradicts the ideology of the Left, so they wish it destroyed even if they do not have a working substitute. Competition must be beaten, no matter what the cost.
In the article above, they reveal their strategy as being what they accuse white men of doing. The Left wants to “use the imposition of Western legal systems around the world” to “allow legislation to be passed which could see the world’s wealth far more equitably shared.” In other words, white males are the last barrier to world Communism and must be destroyed. Remember, the Soviets loved diversity, too.
A man and his wife had the good fortune to possess a goose which laid a golden egg every day. Lucky though they were, they soon began to think they were not getting rich fast enough, and, imagining the bird must be made of gold inside, they decided to kill it in order to secure the whole store of precious metal at once. But when they cut it open they found it was just like any other goose. Thus, they neither got rich all at once, as they had hoped, nor enjoyed any longer the daily addition to their wealth.
Much wants more and loses all.
Gold is not the source of itself. A goose that lays golden eggs is not full of gold, but of what causes that gold, and this is beyond the control of humans. The same is true of civilization: there are known ways to make civilization work, but these require sacrifice from individuals mainly through committing themselves to acting morally, all of the time. They want civilization without that burden.
And so, they cut civilization open. They rip out market competition and replace it with subsidies; they tear apart social order and replace it with conformity; they destroy heritage and religion and replace them with ideology; finally, they obliterate the family and individuality and replace them with coarse self-interest. Then, civilization collapses because its functions are demolished.
Contrary to what egalitarians will tell you, the distribution of wealth across the world reflects the fact that humanity is unequal. Groups are not equal, castes are not equal, sexes are not equal, and individuals are not equal. Some deserve more because they will put it to a better use, and in sane times, they have it.
What the Left has done for the past centuries is, in the name of redistributing wealth and power, grant those to people who are not good and do not use them wisely. When that causes a crisis, the Left demands redistribution again. They are pathological, unable to see that their actions do not produce the results they desire. But all they really want is to win by destroying those with more than themselves.
Witness the foaming hatred of a Leftist celebrating the self-harm and death of white males:
What charming people, these Leftists! They claim to bring us peace and love, and instead they bring thinly-concealed hatred, envy and anger.
Cluster B personality disorders are characterized by dramatic, overly emotional or unpredictable thinking or behavior. They include antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder.
Antisocial personality disorder
Disregard for others’ needs or feelings
Persistent lying, stealing, using aliases, conning others
Recurring problems with the law
Repeated violation of the rights of others
Aggressive, often violent behavior
Disregard for the safety of self or others
Lack of remorse for behavior
Borderline personality disorder
Impulsive and risky behavior, such as having unsafe sex, gambling or binge eating
Unstable or fragile self-image
Unstable and intense relationships
Up and down moods, often as a reaction to interpersonal stress
Suicidal behavior or threats of self-injury
Intense fear of being alone or abandoned
Ongoing feelings of emptiness
Frequent, intense displays of anger
Stress-related paranoia that comes and goes
Histrionic personality disorder
Constantly seeking attention
Excessively emotional, dramatic or sexually provocative to gain attention
Speaks dramatically with strong opinions, but few facts or details to back them up
Easily influenced by others
Shallow, rapidly changing emotions
Excessive concern with physical appearance
Thinks relationships with others are closer than they really are
Narcissistic personality disorder
Belief that you’re special and more important than others
Fantasies about power, success and attractiveness
Failure to recognize others’ needs and feelings
Exaggeration of achievements or talents
Expectation of constant praise and admiration
Unreasonable expectations of favors and advantages, often taking advantage of others
Envy of others or belief that others envy you
The root of Leftism is an inner discontent that is not quelled by material needs, so they attempt to salve it with material needs (of course). Like greedy people or drug addicts, they think that having more will raise the quality of their experience, when the real problem is that they have no purpose.
Much as the people in the tale of the goose that laid golden eggs had enough, Leftists today have enough. They have comfortable apartments, cars, entertainment and perhaps a lot more. But for them, like Captain Ahab chasing his white whale, it is never enough. They want to be “in Control” and they will destroy anything in their way — which is everything else — to achieve that sensation.
What we should do now is to pass these ideas onto Leftists: yes, whites are your enemies. Yes, you want to destroy religion, culture, heritage, caste, sex roles and the family. Go ahead and embrace your inner demons, degeneracy and decay. Force everyone else to obey. You are victims, and now it is your age to destroy.
Then we can finally get this quiet war — a thousand-year sitzkrieg — to kick off and shortly after that, we can get it resolved.
Leftism specializes in the negation of reality. This allows it to inject its viral payload, which is programming toward egalitarianism, which removes social structure and replaces it with conformity that is easily manipulated by cynical leaders. As part of this, it seeks to negate or explain as “social constructs” all inherent parts of humanity.
This means that the truer something is, the more Leftism and Leftists want to destroy it.
As part of this, there has recently been a push to identify people as “transgender” or “transracial.” We fail if we take these categories seriously; the people adopting them are social suicide bombers who are there not because the category matters, but because their goal is to shatter the nature and true identifications that people have.
When there are two extremes — say, male and female — to choose from, most people choose which feels more natural. To the Leftist, however, the goal is to use this choice to negate the idea of naturalness itself. For that reason, they choose neither and proclaim themselves the opposite of what they are.
The fundamental statement of “transgender” then is not that there is a new gender, or that gender is fluid, but that gender is denied. The sex of the animal becomes arbitrary in this view, which helps Leftists remove any importance that sexual type or gender orientation have. The only reason LGBTQ+ are praised is that they help destroy normal, family-oriented sexuality.
This is the same reason that Leftist art has been praising prostitutes for centuries. The “whore with a heart of gold” does not exist because it is real, but because it tears down commonsense knowledge about prostitution.
When the Left is flinging around the term “transracial,” what they are doing is saying that race is arbitrary and therefore can be destroyed, which means destroying the racial identity of the majority. Minorities, like LGBTQ+, are used as pawns in this game.
The Leftist approach is what was once called “the California method” of dealing with conflict, which is to proclaim that it does not matter to person speaking. “Oh, I don’t care about that” translates into “I have no allegiance to my race” which then becomes what the Leftist wants: there is no social order except Leftism.
In the meantime, the labrador retriever conservatives hear “transgender” or “transracial” and fall for the trick. They attack the new race or gender identity as if it were real, which it is not. In doing so, they affirm it, and give power to the Leftist assertion that race and sex do not exist.
The only way to beat this trick is to stop focusing on the enemy and start focusing on what is sane. When the Left asserts its new weird non-reality, ignore the language. Instead nod and go about doing what you do, but instead of using language, act the role. Assert a strong identity but do not verbalize it, because then they will have something to attack.
This will bring you into conflict, but not directly, and forces the Leftist into a more defensive role. In the bigger picture, it makes sense to look at all politically correct terms as negations and realize that the entire game is to destroy what is true. The truer it is, the more they hate it. And whatever they hate is a weapon that can be used to defeat them.
The Jacobins instituted the General Maximum, a regime of price controls that eventually covered all foodstuffs and a long list of other basic goods. Violating the Maximum was punishable by death. This of course caused widespread shortages and famines. The Republic responded by sending troops into the countryside to seize crops from farmers to feed the capital. The people’s state that had freed the peasantry from their parasitic feudal masters had itself become for them, in a few short years, an even more voracious parasite.
The new Committee of Public Safety, under Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre, then initiated the Reign of Terror: a wave of political violence, including prison massacres and thousands of beheadings, that made the political repression of the overthrown regime look tame in comparison.
…The Republic’s worst single atrocity was the War in the Vendee. An anti-revolutionary rural population revolted against Paris’s attempt to conscript their sons into war. In crushing the insurrection, the Republican government killed as many as over a quarter of a million peasants. Rebel prisoners — men, women, and children — were executed in mass crowds by gunfire and drowning. A state massacring its own people at such a scale was at that time almost unprecedented.
This essay is flawed because the writer goes on to repeat the tired Leftist lie that nationalism arose with the French Revolution. What the fools mean is that nationalism was formalized at that time in defense of the nation-state, but they do not mention that nationalism was a natural instinct and common practice among tribes who saw themselves as bonded in larger groupings such as “the German tribes” or “the Frankish tribes,” all of which were seen a lesser parts of the general idea of European-ness, which even back then divided them into West, South and East clusters of tribes.
However, he points out handily the problem with Leftism: it is unstable, namely because it is based on what the Crowd wants, and what the Crowd wants is the sum of what its individuals want, which can roughly be described as acceptance into society without having to contribute more than obedient behavior; they want freedom from the obligation to behave in a constructive, moral way all of the time.
This is what equality means. The person who does ill is equal to the person who does good, which makes doing ill more efficient and profitable. The serf is equal to the noble. This basically creates a prole holiday where no one is responsible for anything beyond transactions and the pursuit of personal pleasure, which turns people against each other and makes them resentful.
In turn, this naturally makes an unstable society. People do the minimum and act according to ideology through a process known as conformity, but their participation is half-hearted and they do only exactly what they are obligated to; in the meantime, they have no need to do right and good, so when their participation is done, they feel justified in taking or exploiting anything else.
Society at that point deepens its engagement in what we call The Napoleonic Cycle: first, a violent revolution on some pretext; next, a purging of the dissenters and those whose assets can be taken; then, new rules which intensify old problems; finally, as society crumbles, permanent warfare as a means of keeping everyone in line and scared for their lives.
This is the face of Control. Leadership brings people together toward a goal; with Control, the only goal is more Control, and it uses pleasant illusions as a justification to keep itself in power. The end result is that people are forced into equality and conformity so that they can all do the same exact things, day after day, as a means of maintaining order.
Leadership on the other hand is cooperative. Leaders have more power because they have no need to justify themselves. They act as they think is best. They have beneath them a hierarchy of many levels, instead of the two-stage elites and masses model of Control. In this hierarchy, people act as individuals, participating unequally toward the same ultimate goal using different methods.
Nature resembles Leadership more than Control. Aristocracy is a form of leadership; military rule can be. Democracy always starts on a positive note and then, as the lack of standards encourages each person to go their own way, becomes more authoritarian as the society fragments from within. It always ends in a tyranny because democracy is unstable and cannot function for long.
Control creates a bad psychology of self-deception in order to accept that Narrative advanced by those in control, and in doing so, it twists people by making them obedient to the formal system of rules and simultaneously oblivious to the evident and commonsense truth of what they are doing. It steals their ability to have purpose. Witness how this self-deception works:
In one experiment Trivers and his team asked 306 online participants to write a persuasive speech about a fictional man named Mark. They were told they would receive a bonus depending on how effective it was. Some were told to present Mark as likable, others were instructed to depict him as unlikable, the remaining subjects were directed to convey whatever impression they formed. To gather information about Mark, the participants watched a series of short videos, which they could stop observing at any intermission. For some viewers, most of the early videos presented Mark in a good light (recycling, returning a wallet), and they grew gradually darker (catcalling, punching a friend). For others, the videos went from dark to light.
When incentivized to present Mark as likable, people who watched the likable videos first stopped watching sooner than those who saw unlikable videos first. The former did not wait for a complete picture as long as they got the information they needed to convince themselves, and others, of Mark’s goodness. In turn, their own opinions about Mark were more positive, which led their essays about his good nature to be more convincing, as rated by other participants. (A complementary process occurred for those paid to present Mark as bad.) “What’s so interesting is that we seem to intuitively understand that if we can get ourselves to believe something first, we’ll be more effective at getting others to believe it,” says William von Hippel, a psychologist at The University of Queensland, who co-authored the study. “So we process information in a biased fashion, we convince ourselves, and we convince others. The beauty is, those are the steps Trivers outlined—and they all lined up in one study.”
In real life you are not being paid to talk about Mark but you may be selling a used car or debating a tax policy or arguing for a promotion—cases in which you benefit not from gaining and presenting an accurate picture of reality but from convincing someone of a particular point of view.
When people are given public rules, they obey those rules by filtering out everything else they must do, which makes them insincere and prone to believe in illusions. When they are then rewarded for those illusions, they internalize them. This is how societies die, by cherry-picking data and filtering out the non-conforming information, then imitating the illusion in round-robin until the system collapses.
The dysfunctional behavior of government is explained by this as well. Under Control systems, people are told what to do and that if they fulfill that and do not violate the narrative, everything else is acceptable. For this reason, they view their role as conformity to ideology and not generalized morality, which creates a permissive situation that is prone to abuse:
Investigators showed the children more than 1,000 photographs that included pictures of Sri Lankan troops and locations of where the children had sex with the soldiers.
“The evidence shows that from late 2004 to mid-October 2007, at least 134 military members of the current and previous Sri Lankan contingents sexually exploited and abused at least nine Haitian children,” the report said.
After the report was filed, 114 Sri Lanka peacekeepers were sent home, putting an end to the sex ring.
Some of this may merely be third world sexual ethics. Practices that appall us in the West are commonplace in most of the world, and may serve as a necessary social control mechanism. There is no universal sexual morality, but more advanced moral standards offer certain benefits that may not be visible to all people (call it “sociological esotericism”).
However, more likely the situation is that you give people power and then identify a task for them, and so long as they are doing that task, they will use their power in abusive ways. The same practice is true of bicycle riders in the US who are given right-of-way and use it in a passive-aggressive manner, or even hall monitors in high school. Power without responsibility to morality invites abuse, and Control systems replace morality (in addition to: heritage, culture, family, integrity, chastity and eventually sanity).
Congressional Democrats are demanding that key ObamaCare payments be included in the next spending bill, raising the possibility of a government shutdown if they are not.
The calls come a day after President Trump on Wednesday threatened to cancel insurer reimbursements in an effort to force Democrats to negotiate on healthcare reform.
Around here, when the Prole Holiday flag is flying proudly from the pole, people behave badly because there is no responsibility. They are more anonymous people in the industrial city, and can behave like selfish ingrates because they “gave at the office,” or in other words, they have performed their Control function and everything else is now fair game, with no moral standard.
People avoid looking you in the eyes as they cut in line in front of you, block aisles in the grocery store, drive in blithe ignorance of others, throw litter directly into national parks, urinate on monuments and engage in potentially thousands of other low-grade antisocial behaviors. Prole Holiday means you do not have to say you are sorry.
During the last government shutdown, this changed. Prole Holiday was suspended; the normal masses of people milling about the streets vanished, probably because they decided they should do something functional for a change. The passive-aggressive people stayed home. The remaining people started greeting each other, engaging in courtesy, and looking each other in the eyes again.
Leftists are playing a dangerous game with government shutdown, and Trump may force them to it. He wins the longer the government stays shut down, not so much because he can golf and spin-kick alligators at his Mar-a-Lago retreat, but because people will start doing things for themselves and others again.
Charities become the source of what welfare displaced, and they have standards, so even the guy who mumbles about alien abduction and probing non-stop will comb his hair and stop molesting kids so he can get his daily soup. Neighbors get to know each other, and start neighborhood watch groups. People interact informally, naturally and with the intent of making society work again.
If this went on for, say, three months, it is possible that people would begin to snap to and question how much of this government thing we actually need. Normal functional people benefit from none of this stuff, but work more than twice as long to pay for it and because of its myriad rules, laws, regulations, advisories, intercessions and the threat of intervention.
As a result, the people who do nearly everything in society would do just fine without government, and the others would be forced to make themselves useful or go hang out at the soup kitchen over at Our Virgin Of The Holy Legume. This would invert the inverted order we have now, where the strong work for the weak, and would be more pleasant for those who get just about everything accomplished.
A government shutdown would also break the Control structure. Instead of the combination of apathy and deference that comes with micromanaging authority, people would take responsibility for having not a rule-abiding society, but a moral and qualitatively good one. It would more resemble the America of old and might even improve upon it.
Leftists are never truly and properly atheist. They may reject the religions they see around them and may well recoil from Christianity in particular as the Nosferatu recoils in the face of a crucifix or a coruscating blast from the sun. However, they will bow their heads and proclaim their adoration of equality.
But the worship of equality is a false idol intended to suck in the gullible. We are all created equally and then are equivalent just one more time: when they chuck us in the dirt. Thus to sucvessfully seek equality is to bring forth The Grim Reaper and embrace the end of all goodness and health.
Equality is never, ever a good thing. It is at best a neutral — but for the absolute worst in our midst. People never advance to equality with those who do it better. The betters are only brutally stripped and then forced into a sham of equality with and those unfit to lick their very boots.
It never occurs in nature. The very laws of nature, set forth by God; will not tolerate such idolatrous profanity. Even Absolute Zero is now believed to be a non-existent mathematical ideal beset and confounded by physical contradiction. Equality can never be real. Only one thing can happen to you while trying for it. You die. Leftism kills you. It’s what Leftism ultimately does. It’s all Leftism ever ultimately does.
Detroit, Newark, Birmingham, Baltimore, Havana, Moscow, Pyongyang, Phnom Penh, and now Caracas. All of these places are burned-over charnel houses where the hopes of the multitudes burn on a pyre of ineluctible existentential despite and despair. Venezuela is the latest place to take up the flag of International Socialism from the grave where Pol-Pot dropped it and serve as the perfect exemplar of evil. No, you cannot haz brownies!
Venezuela this week arrested four bakers making illegal brownies and other pastries as President Nicolás Maduro’s socialist government threatens to take over bakeries in Caracas as part of a new “bread war”. Maduro has sent inspectors and soldiers into more than 700 bakeries around the capital this week to enforce a rule that 90% of wheat must be destined to loaves rather than more expensive pastries and cakes.
In 2001, Venezuela was the richest country per capita in South America. They verily floated on a lake of oil. They now have to ration what little gasoline that still remains on the market. They cannot feed their people. They cannot even power the tractors to plant next year’s crops. No, you cannot haz brownies without the flour to bake them!
Venezuela then foolishly believed that it had to choose between Socialism and death. No, it’s not “socialismo o muerte.” It’s socialismo y muerte. It has to be. That is the only place Socialism ever leads. Everyone under Socialism eventually starves equally. They die. It is your destiny under Leftism. It is an eternal quest for the zero. The Zero that these supposed atheists worship as devoutly as Ignatius of Loyola or The Buddha ever prayed.
Ideology has destroyed our sense of what civilization can be. It does this by creating politics, or the science of optics and mass appearance, which forces people to negotiate between unrealistic and unyielding forces, essentially replacing the question of life itself with the question of how to manipulate others through symbols. In ideology, the symbol and the word become the masters of their creators, and until we learn how to make ideology serve us again, it will do nothing but erode our remaining social order.
A brief history of ideology.
Feudal societies in the middle age Europe were organized into a hierarchy of king, nobility, knights, clergy, tradesmen and peasants. The Catholic church, and the rulings and advice of its highest ranks, profoundly influenced all classes. Feudal relationships included reciprocal exchanges of services, labor, produce, money / taxes, protection, and counsel. Societies were to a relatively large extent autarkical, except for some special and luxury items. The nobility was fairly independent and the feudal system was decentralized despite the central figure of the king.
During the middle ages, Renaissance and approaching enlightenment period entrepreneurship and companies developed gradually, and entrepreneurs power increased. Relationships and transactions connected to power and the economy became increasingly impersonal, changing, relatively short-term and monetary. Collecting taxes via nobility became inefficient vis-a-vis the growing private economy because collecting taxes was only one of the many tasks of nobility.
The nobility had their own interests and wills which often differed from the objectives of the king, the tax collection of the nobility was idiosyncratic and non-systematic and it became increasingly obvious that there were alternative methods of tax collecting in which the monetary input-output profile is better. For this reason, and the ongoing rise of the middle class, kings established the first bureaucracies to collect more taxes to finance their growing professional and salaried armies.
When bureaucracies grew and developed, bureaucrats and people close or sympathetic to bureaucrats formed their own growing body of political thinking. What the kings had not understood was that under the post-Magna Carta order they were vestiges of former ages similar to nobility, and under a more democratic regime, in the same way increasingly susceptible to replacement or overthrow.
Bureaucratic thinkers started to question the purpose and usefulness of king. Their thinking progressed approximately along the following lines:
The king is said to be the father of the nation, to have the same kind of role, but real father of family knows every member of his family personally, he knows their personalities, life stories, activities, needs, propensities, interests, etc. A father of a family supervises his family members every day, and gives personal support, advice, encouragement, security and orders to them. Father is personally invested in the welfare, security and success of his family members. Father loves his family members concretely, not abstractly. If the king is the father of the nation, then he is blind, ignorant and indifferent father, or in other words he is not the father of nation at all.
Nobody is the father of the nation, but if the governing body is named which most resembles such an entity, then it is bureaucracy. Bureaucrats know in relatively fine details and large mass aggregates about the life and actions of their subjects. They are personally and collectively invested in the welfare and success of their subjects and the nation. Bureaucrats govern and regulate their subjects rationally, systematically and efficiently, and they increase their knowledge and improve their methods constantly. Bureaucrats are educated to be specialized professionals in their respective fields. Together bureaucrats form a much more powerful and efficient governing body than a king.
A king is not only useless to bureaucracy and rational governing, he is actively harmful or threatening to it. He creates an irrational, capricious, unpredictable and dangerous element above the bureaucracy. King must be deposed or his power must be reduced significantly.
These kinds of goals fused with the similar goals of rising entrepreneurs, disaffected working class, and radicalized members of nobility, although they had different reasons for their goals, and they envisioned different kinds of societies after revolution or other changes to the power structure.
These intellectual streams and the resulting revolutions and societal changes did not really kill the kings. Kings just went through Deleuzian transformation. The role of the king was purged from the person of the king, and replaced with socially constructed and “standardized” ideology, and the governing principles and political philosophies connected to it. Ideology was hoped to be the new rational, supposedly eternal, stable and predictable automatic “king,” the suitable leader for the relatively new bureaucracies. Ideology is amenable to versatile uses of the powerful people and groups, but it still has a life of its own, which exerts often irresistible effects on society and people. When everybody have to follow the basic principles of ideology, and one, even a powerful person, talks or acts against them, then everybody is obliged in theory and to varying extent in practice to oppose him.
What are the general qualities and uses of ideology?
Ideology is a simplified, pruned and adapted morality of traditional religious communities, a political morality. Some aspects of traditional morality are magnified, and others are made almost invisible, although power always uses them all in one form or another. Ideology focuses attention, thinking, choices and activity to certain directions, and reduces or prevents it from other directions. Ideology is an universal template, to which thousands and millions of different interests, thoughts, dreams, goals, motivations, and emotions can attach, and this includes both people in power and the subjects. Ideology has to be an incomplete “story” so that every subject can complete it by dreaming or imaging it to fulfill his special needs and goals.
People in power attach to ideology their needs, goals and interests, and make it work for them. People in power are more likely to achieve their goals through ideology than subjects, and their goals are more grandiose to begin with. Ideology is used as organizing, encouraging, motivating and inciting tool in society in general and in politics in particular. Ideology and its offshoots are used to intimidate, persuade, extort, convert, inactivate, flatter and disparage opponents according to situations and needs. Ideology’s basic function vis-a-vis opponents is to rationalize and emotionally persuade opponents compliance or submission for them.
Ideology forms a foundation for secular culture. Ideology is always tied to many existing laws and points the direction to many future laws. Ideology outlines implicitly or explicitly the distribution of privileges, power, rewards and social positions. Ideology separates political ingroup from political outgroups. Ideology adumbrates implicitly or explicitly where legal and extra-legal punishments, shaming, expulsions, exclusions, and violence are directed. Ideology separates future from history, and defines what is wrong or lacking in present time and what is needed in the future. Ideology at minimum hints how the public communication and representations of ingroup and outgroups will be distorted, magnified or prevented.
People in power try to create national and international reality distortion fields according to their ideology. Ideology legitimates the governing group and its power. Ideology defines to varying extent what is good, true and beautiful. Science is often constructed around the ideological “truth.” Science tries to expand ideology and its consequences to all societal areas, and tries to prove ideology is good, just, true and efficient. Education and governing organizations are constructed more or less from the foundation of ideology. Ideology defines the unattainable enticing ideals, visions and utopias, which are said to be attainable, and towards which society is said to strive.
Ideology has to be internally fairly logically coherent, but less in relation to the real world. However it must have important correspondences to real things, to important and selected social and political problems, conflicts and disagreements. Ideological philosophy must be complex and abstruse enough, so that it seems intelligent, challenging and meaningful enough to university students and intellectuals who are studying and developing it.
Some practical qualities, applications and consequences of liberal ideology
Liberal and conservative ideologies are different in more ways than what can be deduced directly from their public verbal interfaces. Conservatism is less of a political ideology and more a full spectrum morality of people and communities than liberalism, hence conservatism can cover a larger array of possibilities, freedom of actions, entities, social arrangements and moral relations in people’s lives. Equality is the central value in liberalism, but it lacks hierarchy and authority as values, whereas conservatism has all those values at its disposal, which can be used as necessary. When both political groups have many kinds of hierarchies and authorities, liberals have more discrepancy between their ideology and reality, so they have to distort and manipulate communication more than conservatives. This same difference applies in general to the level honesty and dishonesty of liberals and conservatives, ie. liberals have to lie more.
Conservatism is less suited than liberalism to equality oriented democratic politics; international politics which is based largely on flattery; national and international large complex organizations which would like to see their employees and clients as interchangeable units, and which mostly govern modern societies; unbridled global markets, where money and power are the deciding values. The logic of large complex organizations (LCO) sees ethnic, racial, cultural, religious and caste differences as problems and complications in their personnel and in the populations they manage. LCOs need mostly certain standardized knowledge and skills from people, and if there are racial, religious or other fundamental differences among vital personnel, it can create conflicts, resentments, incompatibilities, barriers, non-cooperation, and resistance which make the operations of LCOs more difficult and less efficient. Hence LCOs try to reduce or remove such differences, or make them such that they do not matter, like turning Christianity into a few personal beliefs that resemble liberal ideology instead of being a comprehensive social religion of congregations and communities, which affects ultimately all aspects of individual life, and social cooperation and interactions.
LCOs are information processing units. LCOs gather, select and process a lot of information about the surrounding society, organizations and population, but they know very little compared to the whole information contained in their operation environment. The processing task becomes more complex when analyzing different units, and their endless relations and interactions. In other words LCOs are relatively stupid and inadequate vis-a-vis their human and non-human environments, and hence they have strong motive to simplify them. If racial, religious, cultural and caste differences are removed from populations, it makes the tasks of LCOs easier and increase their efficiency. For example an international company is planning a global advertising campaign. If there would be no racial, cultural, language, religious and caste differences, one universal advertisement would be enough. Now they may have to produce over hundred variations of the ad to conform to local differences. This consumes resources which are taken away from other goals. The company is in profitability competition with other companies, and any reduction of costs and efforts is pursued intensely. Because of this the many CEOs of LCOs would like to see their global customers as homogenous units. Most of the CEOs of LCOs are likely to believe optimistically they could reduce the costs and increase the profits the most in that situation.
Race, ethnicity, culture and religion are potentially powerful organizing factors, which can be used in political and economic competition. LCOs do not want such competitors from outside their framework of power. As present threats are more important to LCOs than long term universal homogeneity goals, they are ready to make the necessary political exceptions to equality, which was selective to begin with. Racial, ethnic, cultural and religious minorities are allowed, encouraged and supported to organize and advocate their group interests, while Whites are discouraged and prevented from such.
Minorities are promoted above their qualities in education and job market, and Whites are vilified and discriminated against. These policies increase minority coalition’s power and influence closer to the Whites comparable ones, leaving the deciding power in the political scale to the LCOs. LCOs support for the minorities should not be confused with “love” of minorities, but a pathology that furthers their interests by using compassionate treatment of minorities as symbols and demonstrations of altruism. It is useful that minority coalition loses now and then, so that they are reminded they are dependent on LCOs, liberal media, liberal NGOs, etc. support. LCOs interests are secured whatever coalition wins over, although LCOs support is more on the side of liberals than conservatives. These combined goals of LCOs are directly connected to liberal ideology, especially equality and diversity politics.
Restoration requires restoration of little inefficiencies, where good and important things thrive.
Because conservatives are politically more honest and open than liberals, they do not understand all the uses of liberal ideology. Conservatives know that liberals lie more than themselves, yes. But liberal ideology serves also as a psycho-political shield of negative things. A woman may be dependent on social security, and she would be ashamed to reveal that publicly. If she would advocate social security policies generally, people would likely guess that she receives social security money and is dependent on it. Because diversity is liberal coalition’s common and most important rallying point, which tows all other liberal policies in its wake, the woman can advocate her interests by supporting liberal diversity and open immigration policies, instead of mentioning directly what she wants in her own individual case. Liberal media has created a widespread mental image that almost all educated, morally good and well-to-do people support liberal diversity policies. By advocating them the woman seems to others to be higher status and more intelligent than she is, and hides her dependencies and true interests at the same time.
Many US tech companies replace large part of their more productive, creative and intelligent American workers with cheaper foreign workers. But why do they support so open immigration policies, which includes the most problematic immigration, and the compulsory ideological worshipping and whitewashing of the most problematic immigrants? Why not support only more selective immigration which would cause less problems and political opposition? Selective immigration would be enough for them. We can deduce several reasons for this: (a) liberals have made immigration as much as possible universally inviolable policy, so that opponents of immigration do not acquire any footholds in their policy fortress, do not get any political precedents, which could lead to expansive further victories; (b) supporters of immigration have formed reciprocal coalition, which is based on mutual silent deal, according to which nobody opposes anybody else’s immigration goals, and everybody supports everybody else’ s immigration goals — the sum effect of this is mass immigration, from which large portion belong to the most harmful types; (c) Paradoxically the most harmful immigration (criminals, terrorists, welfare dependent people, culturally and religiously incompatible people, etc.) is useful to declining industry, for example technology companies. Technology companies H-1B visa cheap labor immigration is relatively rarely noticed, when it is drowned out by the news and stories of the most harmful immigrants. Thus the true drivers of immigration policies achieve relative peace and invisibility under the veil of immigration catastrophes. When attention, emotions and thinking is directed elsewhere, opposition against the true drivers of immigration policies is harder to form. If effective opposition to immigration finally forms, it is more likely to be directed against the the most harmful immigration, leaving the true drivers of immigration policies largely intact. Hence the most harmful immigration and liberal ideology which enables and supports it, serve in many ways as a protective shield to tech companies and other companies utilizing cheap immigrant labor.
Capitalism is increasingly in the process of a slowly developing crisis in all other forms of social order. The free market constantly erodes the high status markers it produces, which drives a need for new status markers. Striving toward higher status is one of the main motivators of work in free markets. Golf was once an almost exclusive hobby of upper classes. You had to be a member of an expensive golf club to be able to play, and a certain upper class attire, vocabulary and manners were expected from members. As time passed, (fairly) free markets and to some extent the state and municipalities produce these kinds of services increasingly cheaply and to a wider customer base. Now even lower class people can afford to play golf, and they can dress and talk as they like while playing golf. Sailing was once an exclusively upper class pursuit with all the additional luxuries. Now even lower class people can rent sailing boats, and sail to most of the same harbors where upper class people anchor. The boats of lower class are smaller and plainer than upper class boats, they do not have Rolex Seamaster watches on their wrists, they lack expensive sailing clothes and top-notch gear, but they ruin the former exclusive achievement of upper classes all the same.
Almost only the upper classes can afford the most expensive luxury vehicles, but middle class people can relatively easily buy mid-priced sports cars, which looks quite similar to upper class vehicles but are designed more for regular road conditions. The speed limits on roads, increasing speed bumps and winter weather remove most of the exclusive advantages or experiences upper class sports cars could offer. In the same way classes that are underneath have tendency to “invade” everything that is higher, including the high culture. At the same time mass produced and marketed culture, services and products creates homogenizing pressures, which make the tastes and orientations of higher classes coarser and lower. Capitalism and free markets have strong proclivity to equalize everybody to the general mass consumer level. In response to this the middle and upper classes try to differentiate themselves from the classes under them in increasingly contrived ways. They may go to modern art exhibition, where lower classes do not desire to be, and then stare at presented bare urinal, pretending to find deeper meaning and enjoyment from it, trying to show to people around them how intellectually advanced they are in their understanding, but this kind of status differentiation is ultimately unsatisfying.
At the same time that traditional hard working culture, social morals and habits are deteriorating, life easing machines and services are colonizing every aspect of life, ubiquitous entertainment and unimportant information keeps us constantly distracted and drugged, mind numbing medications, which make the world around matter less, are used by large part of the population. People are becoming more lazier, and more comfort seeking, hedonistic, self-centered, and narcissistic. These kinds of things often reduce the motivations of people from the high competitive levels global free market competition would require. We could say that free market produces constantly the destruction of its own foundations too.
Cheap labor from immigration, and criminal and dysfunctional immigration introduces correcting and motivating factors to the problems of free markets. They create double threats to motivate people to escape the dysfunction which combine with the motivating incentives already present in the market. Threat of loss or damage is higher motivating force than the equal possibility of gain. If a person is presented with choices of a loss of one dollar and gain of one dollar, the loss of one dollar is two times higher motivating force. As the stakes become higher, the relative multiplier of motivation increases on the side of threats and problems. Motivation correction was not originally an important policy factor when the present long phase of open mass immigration started, but it has become increasingly important in proportion to the progression of liberal morality, mentality and life styles.
Cheap labor immediately reduces the costs of labor of companies and impels natives to work harder and longer, bargain their salaries and work related benefits to a lower level, and accept temporary or part-time jobs. If natives fail to do this, they are displaced from work and thus, social status. Cheap labor immigration threatens lower and middle classes, but relatively little the upper classes. As the price of any wanted good on the market, including labor, is decided mostly by scarcity, and only lower and middle class job markets are flooded with immigrant labor, the upper class jobs are relatively over-priced. We could easily import cheap labor bankers from China. It is hard to imagine how they could do worse than our “own” bankers, and they would do the jobs many times cheaper. Somehow we do not import cheap labor bankers, and so the bankers knowledge and skills are scarce and overpriced. The same applies to CEOs of large corporations. From these kinds of things we see from which direction the most significant impetus for immigration policies comes.
Anti-racist liberal ideology divides possible opposition to immigration on racial, cultural and religious grounds. For example, African-Americans have even more reasons to oppose immigration than Whites, but because the flattery, welfare payments, liberal black identity constructed mostly around opposing whites, and straw man demonization of whites ties them to all liberal policies, they mostly cannot oppose immigration together with Whites, on the contrary, they have to unequivocally support mass immigration to be logically consistent with their other positions.
The crisis of state and federal bureaucracies resembles to some extent the crisis of capitalism, but it is worse. Bureaucracies and the number of their dependents have grown considerably since the 1960s, and this requires increasing tax burdens. People have mostly relatively little or no motivation to pay taxes, but if they are forced to work harder by the surrounding worsening societal and job market situation, then they produce also the necessary increasing taxes for bureaucracies and their dependents. In free markets exchanges are based voluntary choices from multiple options and mutual benefit, but in bureaucratic “markets” citizens and interest groups compete to gain maximum benefits with minimum effort and investment, at the expense of others. Bureaucratic “markets” are based on compulsory exchanges, which are backed by punishments, mostly choiceless supply of services, and often unfitting and discouraging standardized benefits. Bureaucratic services and benefits hamper or prevent exchanges and work in free markets. Most people in the bureaucratic “market” end up unsatisfied about the taxes they pay, the services and benefits they receive, and the long term consequences of services and benefits.
Open mass immigration started in the United States in 1965 with the Hart-Celler Act, and from that time forward the relative incomes and wealth of the highest part of upper classes have increased rapidly, and and the relative incomes and wealth of lower and middle classes have declined.
The most harmful immigration, like criminals, religious fanatics, culturally incompatible people, dysfunctional people, and loafers, in a method similar to that of problematic domestic minorities, are versatile implements of the liberal elites. These imports destroy or worsen the living areas and everyday life of lower and middle classes. They increase tax burdens, the number of bureaucratic clients, sizes of bureaucracies and the pool of leftist voters. In bad areas everything is often foul, the blocks of flats, streets, schools, shopping centers, recreational and sport areas. Lower and middle classes have strong motive to work harder and longer with reduced salaries and benefits, because they want either to get out of bad area or away from near a bad area, or they fear that they or their children end up in such an area if they do not do everything possible to avoid it. Would there be such excess demand for overpriced university education, preparing courses, special educative kindergartens, and competition for residential areas with the best schools if there would be no threat that “My baby will end up in a slum area, if I do not…”? As a consequence too large part of the intelligence bell curve distribution has gone through higher education. Many of them cannot contribute anything to science because of insufficient IQs, and there is already oversupply of potential middle level managerial workers, and oversupply of bureaucracies in general. The lesser candidates end up in jobs that do not correspond to their education and abilities, they are constantly unsatisfied, and their biggest contribution in life is often to agitate for more extreme liberal policies because of their discontent with their social status. This has contributed to the political insanity we see in universities. The most harmful immigration, other immigration and residential transfers of problematic domestic minorities also breaks up the social and political togetherness of whites, helps to atomize them. This makes it harder for Whites to oppose anti-White and immigration liberal policies.
Middle class whites could establish in some ways almost comparable and in some ways better living areas than those of the upper classes by forming all white living areas, where ingroup boundaries, cooperation standards, reciprocal voluntary work and help are explicitly upheld as a condition of membership. This cooperation can be expanded to many important areas of life, such as in Mormon communities that have cooperatively built relatively inexpensive single family homes from ready elements in one day, excluding the foundations. Houses and apartments are one of the most important and time consuming reasons people have to run in liberal work and money hamster wheels. Mormon communities also cooperatively produce many other benefits. Community construction and production would reduce the dependency of people from liberal elites. Liberals try to prevent, minimize or destroy all other avenues to livelihood, family, good living, social acceptance, social status, goods, and housing than money and power, and they want to govern, control and regulate all things related to money and power.
The increasing class, residential area, social, cultural, security, and educational degradation, and the consequent social immobility which mass immigration and domestic problem minority transfers produce among lower and middle classes creates exclusive social status markers for upper classes, who can evade the negative consequences of immigration or ignore them. From the upper class point of view those who oppose immigration are harmful if they reach the political upper hand, but if they can be kept in subordinate position, they are useful, because they define, demarcate and proclaim publicly their lower distressed social position. This lifts the upper class relative social status without them to have to do anything. When they say costless and untrue liberal banalities, like “I love everybody in the world,” “Opposing immigration is racism and hatred,” “All the people in the world are equal,” “Saying that there are differences between people is Fascism,” “Mass immigration is our greatest strength” and similar liberal platitudes, they are proclaiming status signaling that opponents of immigration cant say and lift their social status higher still. If white lower and middle classes espouse liberal immigration and anti-white ideology, and advocate it publicly, then they work against their own interests and subdue themselves to the will of upper classes. Hence from the perspective of upper classes ineffective or repressed opponents of immigration and the white middle class liberals are lower than them, submissive to them and work for them, albeit in different ways.
The remaining sense of togetherness of whites after all sorts of mass immigration, liberal elites strive to eliminate with anti-white elements of liberal ideology and their practical manifestations, which are designed to inhibit or ruin fellow feeling; cooperation; race / ethnicity; political, group and personal self-defense; identity; self-esteem; self-confidence; traditions; and culture of whites. Whites are the most capable and the greatest potential rival and threat to the liberal power. Cooperative and self-confident whites could, among other things, fairly easily stop key liberal ideological manifestations like immigration, “political correctness” and anti-white policies.
Liberal ideology has four main politico-moral parts, which are in hierarchical order, from the most important to the least important: diversity, equality / justice, care and freedom of choice. Of these freedom of choice is limited mostly to personal choices, which might be vivid, and socially and culturally disruptive, but for liberal elites politically insignificant, except as neutralizing outlets for individuals pressures and desires, which are directed to harmless creations of personal spheres. Highly individualized, mutually incompatible and commercialized life styles serve also as obstacles to enduring social and political organization. People have some collective political and societal freedoms, but these are in many ways regulated and controlled by elites. If people are made to make choices between freedom and other important factors like health care, work and security, freedom have a propensity to lose, i.e. freedom is more important to people in mental images and dreams, and as an inspiration than in real life situations. Care is important ideological bedrock of liberals. Liberal state and other liberal actors would like to take care of almost all the needs of all people. The more they take care of the needs of the people, the more indispensable and important they are to people. This increases liberal power and control over people. As liberals overextend their care and make it in many ways mandatory, their care is often of low quality, overconsumed, patronizing, choice limiting, oppressive, surreptitiously expensive and meddlesome.
The liberal concept of justice is heavily informed by equality. Liberal equality is intertwined with ethnicities/races, sex, sexual orientations, religious orientations, cultures, and age, and liberal policies and judgments are defended and explained on the grounds of equality. Liberals are rigid on things related to equality, because like justice it presents binary choices where there is little or no gray areas between, justice / injustice, right / wrong, progressive / regressive, good / evil, caring / cold, understanding / ignorant, generous and altruistic / selfish and self-centered, socially acceptable / non-acceptable, etc. Liberals often throw their whole political power to further liberal equality goals. Liberals want court rulings in favor of their equality goals, so that they can bypass legislature, political balances of power, and general opinion, and make their equality policies binding to all people in society from individual ordinary citizens to all kinds of organizations and the highest elites. Liberals political goals are often formed from the foundation of equality or equality is taken in one way or another to be part of their policy goals. Liberals dreams and utopias and cultural products are often infused with equality. Because of ingrained equality thinking and emotions, it is harder for liberals than to conservatives to recognize and react appropriately to enemies and dangerous people, because there is extreme inequality between our fighters and enemies, and good people and criminals.
Conservatives accept hierarchy, so it is easy for them to make those differentiations and act accordingly. Although diversity cannot be wholly separated from equality, it has significant life of its own. Diversity is the most important moral value of liberals, because diversity forms the most important social, societal, political, organizational, economical and international frameworks and goals of liberals. Diversity as the highest value implies that liberal power can and must expand to cover the whole diversity of the world, or at least as much as possible. If diversity and equality are in contradiction, e.g. Muslim treatment of women is not according to equality of the sexes, then equality mostly must step aside, and we should tolerate diversity according to the virtues of liberal diversity morals. Liberals celebrate diversity and to lesser extent equality, so it means that the most positive emotions, the most vigorous defense and the greatest attachments of liberals should be directed to them.
Liberal ideology has of course real and substantial real world consequences, and we can say that it is in many respects honest, but as ideologies are reality distortion fields, we must ask what is the greatest reality distortion of liberal ideology? From this perspective liberal ideology is for liberal elites means to ends. The underlying deep goals of liberal elites are money, power, social status and authority, and liberal ideology has been more efficient means in realizing, expanding and securing those goals than conservatism. What is the greatest danger to liberal elites money, power, social status and authority? Any actual competition which strives to take the said entities away from liberal elites and redistribute them presents the greatest threat, and while it is tempting to call this “meritocracy” or “equality,” it is in fact the opposite, namely a recognition of the unequal abilities of human individuals, which dethrones the liberal elites who are chosen for obedience to the system instead of natural abilities. Classical liberalism was too close to those targets, so it was relegated by liberal elites to marginal positions and replaced with liberal ideology; this always happens, which is why old Leftism is in fact the new Leftism, and all Leftism constitutes varying degrees of the same idea, egalitarianism, which increasing demands control and ideological enforcement because it is unstable. Economic equality was replaced with diversity equality.
Psychologically you cannot generally oppose someone verbally, and make the opposing position to diminish or disappear, on the contrary, it has propensity to strengthen the more the opposing party defends its position and invests time, energy and emotions in it. Jewish Talmudic rabbis knew this already over 1500 years ago, and it has been confirmed by psychological studies. The best general way to weaken opposition is to direct its attention away from its target, to some secondary thing, which still consumes its attention, emotions and energy as fully as the original thing. Diversity, immigrants, immigration, sexual orientations, terrorism, minority criminals and the strife connected to them direct equalizing attention, energy and emotions away from the money, power and social status of liberal elites. Liberal elites created these problems and quarrels intentionally, and then incited and exacerbated them with anti-white policies and general vilification of whites; by favoring and flattering ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities; by political correctness and free speech suppression; by preventing organizing opposition; by purging dissidents out of large complex organizations, political power and important jobs in general, or preventing them from entering in the first place; by turning liberal medias into constant liars; by making education almost exclusively liberally biased. To lower and middle classes the said problems are real and important, to liberal elites less so. These problems have enabled at the same time the great accumulation of wealth, power and social status to liberal elites, and secured them from appropriation and challenges. Hence liberal elites really do love diversity because of these things, but less otherwise, as can be seen from their attraction to gated and exclusive residential areas.
When liberal ideology becomes increasingly extreme in its practical manifestations, how do liberals maintain their attachment to it in light of their general opposition to authority? Liberals tie their ideology to many incentives, punishments, dependencies and manipulation, and these lead to self-policing of thoughts, emotions and behavior, but people have to motivate themselves also endogenously. When eg. diversity industry and its demands and consequences become disturbing and oppressive in universities, academics can refer their thinking to those parts of liberal ideology, which are reasonable. Academics have to interact regularly with foreign academics, and there is diversity in their home countries too. They have to get along professionally with diversity, and they may feel that it is important that there is ideological support for this. The liberal ideology creates its own version of ideological support. When academics see diversity industry causing problems, they may say to themselves, “We have to tolerate those people, because basically they promote get along -policies like myself, they cannot be so evil they seem to be, their motives must be good…” They have become a little carried away, but I would probably be as agitated as they are if I would have the same experiences and history than they, I guess we need that energy, I hope they are our political protectors, protectors of our welfare policies” and similar sentiments. In other words people explain away (or “rationalize”) ideological problems, make bad things milder, better or non-existent in their minds, promote willful blindness, which means they use self-deception and manipulate themselves through a process known as “self-policing.”
Self-policing is more about suppressing those parts of the self that are contrary to the surrounding political climate, whereas self-deception is more about adjusting ones thoughts, emotions and behavior gradually to cohere with the surrounding political climate, also when that climate is turning to extremes. People who have adjusted them well to the extreme political climate, often feel that it is reasonable, moderate (at least in relation to the threats, risks and challenges the political group faces) and fair. Those who have contrary impulses inside and suppress them, often feel guilt feelings. To atone the guilt they have propensity to attack people who have similar contrary thinking and emotions, and express them publicly, through which they serve as self-appointed polices or “mind guards” for the ideology. Hence people who have contrarian thoughts and feelings can be useful to the system, but they are to some extent a risk too. If the surrounding political constraints weaken, or are challenged or changed significantly, these contrarian people could give their inner impulses free reign and turn against the system.
There are no enduring, idealized and larger-than-life statesmen, heroes and role models connected to liberal ideology, let alone supreme idealized leaders like Hitler or Stalin. Their role models come and go. Liberals role models are transient and relatively small, connected to touching and personal little emotion regulation stories of refugees, achieving Blacks, family developments of Latinos, and other Leftist policies. Like all secular ideological groups, liberals worship themselves, but their ideological view of themselves and their role models is not captivating and mesmerizing. Nationalists and communists worship themselves too, and their constant collective mobilization can last effectively about 20-30 years. Their self-worship requires regular imposing collective shows of force, parades, military style gatherings, synchronized artistic movements of masses and secular semi-god leader. All this is meant to create transcendent and larger than life collective feelings and motivations. But like the effect of pleasure giving drugs, the effect of collective shows of force wears away after some time.
When in the beginning people melted into force of the collective mass, 20 – 30 years later they start to see people around them, “Yes, there is that always funny Joe, who has been forced to participate in this collective parade like me, and there is my neighbor, carpenter Jack …” It loses the feeling of being transcendent and almost divine like before. The rapture connected to the supreme leader wears off too. People start to compare the utopian visions, incendiary speeches and promises of the leader to their horrible, less than satisfactory or ordinary daily life. They notice that the leader is not a he-can-do-everything superman he was said to be. Liberals emotion regulation style -ideology is more enduring than the intense and quickly burning nationalist and communist ideologies, because it corresponds more to the ordinary lives of people, little smile and happiness here, little sadness there, nice surprise, little disappointment, little anger, little forgiveness. But because liberal ideology lacks transcendent elements, it is ultimately empty, unsatisfying, unmotivating, boring and meaningless. We even have to deduce their official ultimate goals from where the arrows of their policies point, not from their stated visions.
But there are two transcendent and metaphysical things that are inextricably connected to liberal ideology, Hitler and Nazis. In the liberal worldview, Hitler is evil superman, who never dies and whose power does not wane. No, it grows, or at least threatens to grow. To have meaning and purpose in their lives, to truly feel that they live, liberals need the thrilling “supernatural” Nazis and Nazi witch hunts. And when they witch hunt non-existent Nazis, they become something like Nazis, and the forbidden fruit tastes so good. Nazis, or to be more precise, the mental images of Nazis are so much more powerful than the lame, emasculating and feminine liberalism. Liberals could be vitalist superhumans at last, but it has to be done together in bullying mobs to get truly something like that transcendent feeling when sea of Nazis stand in endless straight rows and then de facto worship and idealize themselves. Almost anything can serve as a “Nazi” prey, a little meme picture of Pepe, a drunken, badly written comment on a YouTube video, slightly ambiguously worded speech of politician interpreted through witch hunt -glasses, a researcher who does not fully follow the latest constricted liberal speech codes. Anger has a proclivity to increase the intensity with which person wants the object of his anger, his qualities or his belongings to himself. Anger is connected among other things to usurping thinking and behavior.
Many liberals are angry at imaginary Nazis, and many of them want Nazi qualities to themselves without the name or the moral baggage liberals have heaped on Nazis, the “good” sides without the downsides. The paradox of it all increases the intensity of their bigotry, and blindness about themselves and their actions. Conservatives tend to think that when liberals say some conservative or other person is a Nazi, that liberals are name calling, but do not actually believe in those epithets. In reality liberals believe much more in their Nazi epithets.
Without sensible religion life becomes slowly unreasonable.
According to the studies of Linda Lai and other power researchers, if people are given power to influence or govern other people’s behavior, 70 – 80% either misuse power or use it otherwise suspiciously. The misuse is mostly relatively mild, because people have a tendency to see and want to see themselves as moral persons, and people have propensity to balance the misuse with their moral self-image. Human emotionally-hued rationalizations for the misuse often goes approximately as follows, “I have had such difficulties in my life (thinks about some salient difficulties) that I deserve a little head start. Not much, just a little justified compensation. I do not want to abuse my power, I am a good person. I could really abuse these people badly, but I avoid doing it, because I am responsible, good and moral person. Just a little thing, nobody even notices, it is so tiny.” The longer and the more times people use power, the greater their misuse of power tend to become. The more people have power, the greater tend to be the misuse of power.
In Western countries elites have great power. They compete for power intensely individually and in groups. People in the elites, like others, have limited lifetimes, and when they go from goal to goal, from deadline to deadline, from requirement to requirement in the fast paced power environment, they are time pressured. Modern power has long accumulative history, more of it has again and again built on top of the former power. Those who strive for power, encounter an entrenched and complex power environment, and they have limited ability to change it. They have to mostly play by its accumulated rules, attitudes, practices, relationship networks, and habits. In a way power, such as the state, lives in the eternal now; its redemption is always in the present tense.
Even if the state would exhibited general competence for the last 150 years, but today a large number of people suffered from its ineptitude of the state, the power of the state becomes immediately questionable from many directions. Also in the middle of the crisis or some other compelling situation it is useless to explain to people and interest groups that you have good plans which will likely materialize 10 – 20 years from now. Although elites and states have in principle the ability to plan ahead and be long termish, the pressure of the eternal now have inclination to make power relatively shortsighted and its understanding limited. Even worse, in this situation realistic and well designed long term plans tend to become replaced with utopian visions, wishful thinking and unfounded optimism, leaving a gaping void between those and the eternal now.
These kinds of things and the concrete manifestations of liberal power point to the inadequacy of liberal elites. They are mostly not psychologically diffident or have low self-confidence, but they see society, pressures, politics, groups, economy, opponents, and competitive demands as too uncontrollable, complex, threatening and difficult, as things which exceed their capabilities and resources, so they have to try control and govern them with excessive lies and manipulation, wishful thinking and unfounded optimism, extra-legal violence, every aspect of life colonizing soft totalitarianism, ideological extremism, abuses of power, and harmful or destructive policies. Even the swollen selfishness, narcissism, greed, hatred and hunger for power are largely manifestations of inadequacy. “This society demands too much from me, so I am entitled to take too much money as a compensation for my services.” “If I do not take everything I can lay my hands on, others will take it, and I lose the competition.” “These oppressive laws will gradually break the back of our unruly opponents.” “Let us smear our opponents face to so much diversity, that they lose control of the situation (like we have).” “We can implement these devil-may-care immigration policies, because I believe, I wish so much that our liberal ideology and vision will take care of all problems. And we need new voters for our party. Now. Without them we lose election, with them we win far into the future, so far that we can finally realize our visions, which our opponents have prevented thus far.” “We are so much more intelligent, so advanced, cutting edge pioneers, sophisticated. We are rich or well to do. We are good and caring. We are morally higher. Our opponents are stupid rubes, ignorant idiots with no skills. Nothing. Vile subhumans. Raggedy poor people. They do not really deserve to live, let alone to speak publicly.” These statements amount to a proactive defense of privilege conferred by ideology and a natural attempt at rationalization, which is conveyed through narcissistic boasting view of the self and own reference group, and slandering demonization and put-down of opponents, motivated by fear of shame, humiliation and loss; shame; fear; guilt; inner and outer demands of perfection, winning and success; and/or feelings of inadequacy. This is the only allowed or in de facto mandatory “racism” for liberals.
There are not enough countervailing forces to these ideological consequences. Connections to traditions and undistorted history have been severed. People are unaware that there are viable alternatives to the present system. Virtues are virtually unknown to people, and vain self-centeredness has replaced them. Ethnic loyalties are kept at a low level, and religious beliefs come to resemble liberalism. There are no statesmen that are high above the rest. Establishment conservatives are backward liberals. When everything is done by the rules, conditions, knowledge and methods of liberal system, then opposition too mostly ends up just amplifying the liberal streams.
Is it then any wonder that the liberal ideology is so inextricably intertwined with harmful policies, lies and manipulations?