Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘liberal democracy’

Americans Figure Out That Their Defense Contractors Are Compromised By Chinese Labor

Monday, November 13th, 2017

Liberal democracy is like anaesthesia. When applied to the victim, it makes them oblivious to obvious facts of their surroundings and therefore easy to manipulate. For years, America has sleep-walked through life, ignoring the fact that China is communist and wants to conquer us, and we keep hiring Chinese labor in our defense firms only to see them spy on us.

This should surprise no one because loyalty to blood is always greater than loyalty to ideological nation-state like the USA. However, our ideology of liberal democracy requires us to think that everyone is equal and motivated only by a desire to provide protection for that equality to their fellow citizens, so we are oblivious to the desire of other nations to conquer us.

Even worse, we have hamstrung ourselves with laws that demand we hire minority candidates in preference to white ones, which means that Chinese get to the head of the line in hiring for our most sensitive projects. Since they can sue for discrimination, they also have a powerful weapon against anything that even looks like suspicion of them for spying.

However, it seems like the defense industry is starting to catch on with new security restrictions that will make it easier to keep out those who are likely to leak secrets to their home countries:

The B-21 program is not just secret but “special access,” setting a much higher bar on who can get a clearance and how data are stored, among much else. An executive conference room at the plant is actually a high security windowless vault, where a massive conference table is surrounded by three dozen leather chairs and the walls are adorned with large photographs of the company’s long line of weapons. No cellphones are allowed in the room.

This allows the contractor and government to deny access to those who, despite having been hired and vetted with access to secret information, might be suspicious for any reason. This has zero impact on their job prospects but enables the employer to keep actual secrets safe instead of opening them up to a general pool.

We will probably never find out why they opted for these additional security precautions, officially, but given the large number of busts of Chinese-descended people working in the defense and internet industries over the last decade, supposing that they are the target of this action has grounding. Perhaps Americans are finally awakening from the stupor of liberal democracy.

Why The Alt Right Is Winning

Monday, October 23rd, 2017

Across the media, mass bloviation has broken out. They dislike the Alt Right and want to explain it away as a fluke or a dark gesture of primeval hatred from the unrefined portions of the human psyche. And yet, it and similar movements continue to grow, mainly because they are an organic alternative to the plastic world in which we live.

Humans have a pathology — at least if you pay attention to the stuff written on the outside of boxes of home and body care products — for the “natural.” We like 100% natural ingredients, natural methods, and ancient Indian recipes for hemorrhoid care because we distrust the scented, artificially-flavored, plastic wrapped, safe, corporate and sugar-added world of slick products designed to appeal to our lowest desires and worst impulses.

Implicit in this desire is the idea that somehow, everything wrong with our society is the opposite of the “natural”: the fake, contrived, flavored, over-produced, and deceptive human world common to both extensively-advertised products and human social groups, where little white lies and euphemisms quickly adulterate and divide any logical perspective into mental goo reflecting our simian weaknesses.

We have become accustomed, brave moderns that we are, to a society that is mostly toxic in the guise of being safe and sterile. Pasteurizing milk was a great success, so we pasteurized our brains. We know that most of the products in the grocery store are nearly poisonous fodder for morons, that commuting is a giant waste of time, and that 90% of what we do at our jobs is unnecessary.

We are aware that commercial districts grow like a fungus, that advertising is lies, that newspapers are written to flatter advertisers and dazzle us with addictive nonsense so we want to know more. We know that movies are fake, that anything said in public is probably a lie, that most of our taxes are wasted on counterproductive or outright destructive activity.

When we seek out “natural” products or experiences, we are trying to escape the common experience of an artificially-constructed society, starting with the opinion of the herd that everyone is good and therefore whatever they think is right probably is. If we are honest, we admit that we hate our society, but that it is popular with most people, so we do not expect it to go away.

Countering that notion, the Alt Right shows us a group of people who are intelligent, well-spoken and determined to execute a plan of saving this civilization from itself by reversing that artificiality. They want to restore Western Civilization and to get rid of the pervasive hopelessness that we all have, watching insanity happen and knowing it will never change because “most people” want it that way.

The Alt Right has us asking why every European civilization starts out blonde-haired, blue-eyed, long-faced and high-IQ, and ends up with lots of short dark-haired and dark-eyed people who are good at making money. It asks us why every civilization in human history has self-destructed. It looks deeply into our motivations and finds a dark plastic void.

This ties in to what we have observed about our world: we are run by the wrong group of wealthy people, meaning that we got the scumbag exploiters instead of the noble aristocrats. And they, as a means of keeping the herd pacified, have spun a pack of lies which are as insincere as advertising or any other talk in public:

In the world of the wealthy, liberalism is something you do to offset your rapacious behavior in other spheres.

…Most people on the left think of themselves as resisters of authority, but for certain of their leaders, modern-day liberalism is a way of rationalizing and exercising class power. Specifically, the power of what some like to call the “creative class”, by which they mean well-heeled executives in industries like Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

…This is a form of liberalism that routinely blends self-righteousness with upper-class entitlement. That makes its great pronouncements from Martha’s Vineyard and the Hamptons.

People figured out centuries ago, or maybe always knew, that it is easier to make a large public donation than to do the right thing in every case. Similarly, Leftism teaches that there is one area where one must be moral — making everyone equal — and this, too, is easier to implement than it is to do the right thing in every moment. These are shortcuts, a part standing for the whole.

There are great profits in lying, cheating and stealing. If all it takes is to give a tenth of your income to a church or NGO, but you are able to go from making millions to making billions, then it is all worth it. Consider the Sackler family, who donate lavishly to charity but got their money from hooking America on Valium and Oxycontin.

One of the big stories about the West over the past few decades has been the concentration of wealth. This is not so much a story of people being more competent, but of our tax systems: we zap anyone who realizes income as salary, while those who are able to own companies find themselves able to pay a lot less because they do not take anything more than a nominal salary; their wealth is in the firm itself.

For example, consider Bill Gates and his billions. When people first started talking about him being “worth $60 billion,” that conjured up an image to most people of a man with a huge bank account. In reality, his wealth was almost entirely all Microsoft stock, and while he took a high CEO salary, it was relatively small compared to his holdings.

The average American or European voter understands economics about as well as history, so is oblivious to the fact that over the past four decades, the middle class has been eroding:

Over the same period, however, the nation’s aggregate household income has substantially shifted from middle-income to upper-income households, driven by the growing size of the upper-income tier and more rapid gains in income at the top. Fully 49% of U.S. aggregate income went to upper-income households in 2014, up from 29% in 1970.

When presented in the standard narrative, this makes it sound like those evil rich people just took all the income for themselves. What it really means is that the middle class is being squeezed by taxes to pay for a growing underclass, higher expenses due to taxes and regulations, and pressure from below as a steady flood of immigrants depress wages.

This becomes clear when we look at the fact that real wages have not budged since the mid-1960s, at about the same time we changed our immigration policy, began our welfare state and started shuffling women into the workforce.

It is relatively simple economics: whatever you have more of is less valuable; compare tin to gold, for example. And when you have a workforce, and raise the costs of each worker through unions, taxes, regulations and lawsuits, you will then create a situation where business wants cheaper labor, but providing that cheaper labor will shatter salaries, with all of the money still being frittered away in taxes, union fees, legal costs and hiring of endless bureaucrats within companies to deal with regulatory compliance. In other words, we took the money from the middle class and gave it to government and those who, by working with government, have made themselves quite wealthy. This is the same mistake that humans always make, because of defective wiring apparently, which is that they want government to protect them, so they give it power, forgetting that it is self-interested and provides income opportunities to many who will then enlarge those opportunities. Soon government is an industry in itself, and this takes money out of the functional economy and puts it into the political fantasyland economy.

Your middle class person now has seen their fortunes fall. They are working longer hours for less, in part because the increase in taxes has come not through income tax but through withholding, property taxes, healthcare taxes, sales taxes and other ancillary taxes which increase the total load. In Europe, they rely on the social benefits system to get them through, which it does, but increasingly this means they will enter retirement later and still have a nation in deep debt when they leave the workforce.

In addition, they have seen the fundamental transformation of their nation by liberal social engineering, have been excluded from many opportunities by affirmative action, realize there is a runaway altruism spiral that is propelling big government, have witnessed the rise in existential misery, have become accustomed to political violence as a norm, are waking up to demographic replacement and the failure of liberal democracy, and now they are ready to leave behind liberal democracy so that they can leave the “liberal” part, that seems inextricable from the rest, behind.

The Alt Right appeals to the middle class because it addresses these issues instead of explaining them away with moral justifications. It sees that the fundamental problem of humanity is herd behavior, and that when this takes over, people engage in some kind of group-think that always favors the simplistic, so we find ourselves applying increasing amounts of force to change effects instead of addressing their underlying causes. Across the West, “populist” parties are winning for the same reason.

People have tired of The Age of Ideology, which is based on the idea that we can create a human-only order which is superior to nature. This human order invariably involves the notion of removing differences, akin to pacifism, through equality or other universal acceptance for all humans instead of ranking humans in a hierarchy by how realistic they are, as measured by whether their actions turn out to have positive consequences instead of negative ones. This naturally implicates qualitative thinking, or measuring how much better one result of actions was than another.

After the age of ideology comes The Age of Organicism. In this age, people desire civilization again; they want to have human social order, instead of rampant individualism producing greed and obliviousness to the consequences of our actions. They see a wisdom in the natural order that we abandoned long ago, when we became confident that our pacifism was better than the terrifying Darwinism of nature and its social component, where doing something stupid, selfish or unrealistic marked us as being of lower status. That confidence is gone now, and natural order has returned, bringing with it an inherent desire to restore Western Civilization and recognize that its roots are genetic, not ideological. Ideology springs up from that desire toward pacifism so that a purely human world can exist, where our individual desires and their counterparts in what the social group wants are more important than consequences in reality, which are regulated by the rules of natural law, logic, history and common sense.

Part of this impetus comes from realizing that other groups have an agenda contrary to our own because each group has its own identity and seeks to make itself powerful by conquering other groups. Diversity is a prescription for constant conflict followed by genetic degradation, at which point we have as little hope of restoring civilization as ethnically-mixed groups like Italians, South Americans, Eastern Europeans or the Irish. We need to take a stand for Western identity, which has its roots in the Western European people, the same group that left mummies in the Tarim basin, founded Greece and Rome, invaded or originated in India, and then created the modern nations of Northern and Western Europe which share that Nordic-Germanic genetic root.

The Left has begun to notice this when it realizes belatedly that, by embracing identity politics, it opened the door to European identity politics, which had been suppressed since they were a primary part of the nationalist message in WWII:

“They’re targeting white male students,” said Lecia Brooks, Southern Poverty Law Center’s director of outreach, who worked on a guide about how to deal with the “alt-right” on campus. “For the young white men who feel excluded from the diversity of campus culture — these groups offer an alternative. It’s a counter to the popular culture that they think doesn’t include them.”

Spencer and his allies all claim to be working toward the preservation of “white American culture” — a culture they view as threatened existentially by multiculturalism…Spencer advocates only for creating a whites-only ethnostate.

Naturally, the question of this whites-only ethnostate invokes the question of nationalism, which is generally ethnic (“Germany for Germans”) and not racial (“Germany for all whites”). This issue further threatens the break-up of the modern state, which embraced multi-ethnicism before multiculturalism or multi-racialism, as it might be properly described, possibly causing it. This issue appears tangentially on a regular basis:

“Actually, he probably hates me,” Spencer added, half joking. “Because I’m a WASP and he’s Scots Irish.” I tell him that the Scots Irish didn’t get along with Irish Catholics either—they didn’t even consider us white for a while—so he probably hates me too. Finally, we’re interrupted by his fans, and only later I think to ask Spencer: Does he consider me white?

And yet, if one is to escape the artificial modern world, half-measures will not really work; only going to the roots of organic society and identity will. People do not want imposed identity, like ideology, and they are skeptical of elective identity, like being a Star Trek fan or a radical Christian. They want innate identity, such as only comes with an ethnically-isolated civilization.

The Left has counter-attacked this movement by claiming that, instead of demanding equal rights for European-descended groups, this new movement exists to subjugate other groups. Like all Leftist claims, this is a begging-the-question fallacy: the Left assumes that a multicultural, liberal democratic, and sexually tolerant society is the only acceptable form of civilization, when it is merely a test hypothesis that we have acted out, in increasing degrees, for the last two centuries.

As Leftist commentators gather to try to defuse the situation, they have come up with only one plan: to argue that liberal democracy is the end of history, and therefore, that we are stuck with it and need to make it work. For people who talk about change and progress, they get awfully shifty when the arc of history bends away from their preferred humanistic assumptions, all based in the liberal ideology of equality.

For example, The New York Times wants you to think that our problem is not that our society is falling apart, but that some people have noticed this and begun criticizing the multicultural republic as the ultimate model of human society, because this harms the sensation of well-being that we have in the midst of this decay:

As an ideology, white nationalism poses a significantly greater threat to Western democracies; its proponents and sympathizers have proved, historically and recently, that they can win a sizable share of the vote — as they did this year in France, Germany and the Netherlands — and even win power, as they have in the United States.

Far-right leaders are correct that immigration creates problems; what they miss is that they are the primary problem. The greatest threat to liberal democracies does not come from immigrants and refugees but from the backlash against them by those on the inside who are exploiting fear of outsiders to chip away at the values and institutions that make our societies liberal.

Anti-Semitic and xenophobic movements did not disappear from Europe after the liberation of Auschwitz, just as white supremacist groups have lurked beneath the surface of American politics ever since the Emancipation Proclamation. What has changed is that these groups have now been stirred from their slumber by savvy politicians seeking to stoke anger toward immigrants, refugees and racial minorities for their own benefit. Leaders from Donald Trump to France’s Marine Le Pen have validated the worldview of these groups, implicitly or explicitly encouraging them to promote their hateful opinions openly. As a result, ideas that were once marginal have now gone mainstream.

Left and Right are different things, but in a Leftist time — one originating in democratic, humanist, Enlightenment,™ or Renaissance™ thought — the Right-wing party is part Left-wing. And so you can hear essentially the same message from conservatives, which is that what matters are our rules, not our people, nor continuation of the past through heritage as a repository of values:

Bush’s speech deserves our attention.

Here’s what he said: “Our identity as a nation . . . is not determined by geography or ethnicity, by soil or blood. Being an American involves the embrace of high ideals and civic responsibility. We become the heirs of Thomas Jefferson by accepting the ideal of human dignity found in the Declaration of Independence.”

That’s exactly what Abraham Lincoln said in 1858. What makes us Americans is our allegiance to a creed.

Both of these Left- and Right-wing commentators are saying the same thing: the institution of democracy is our only hope, and so we must reason backward to figure out how to support democracy, instead of thinking toward what we need as a civilization. In other words, civilization itself is a means to an end of democracy and the ideas it enshrines in rules, like equality.

The Age of Ideology has ended, however, and so these fellows are barking at the tail-end of a receding trend. Democracy brought with it many great promises, but what it really meant was that the lowest common denominator always won out over any kind of sensible realistic thinking, and so we are constantly in crisis, with our civilization in decay.

They must think it is normal to turn on the news and read of political, social, economic, military, environmental, and diplomatic crises every day. In reality, this is a sign of our dysfunction, as are the subjugating careers we undertake in order to pay high taxes and fund the permanent underclass, the debt of our national governments, and the ugliness of our cities.

Modernity is a failure. Modernity results upon the Renaissance™ idea of the human individual, not social order or natural law, being the primary focus of humanity. It appeals to a desire in all of us to stop struggling against the endless illogicality, parasitism, venality, and stupidity of the herd, and instead to just be tolerant and retreat to our suburban homes while the madness rages outside.

That has not worked. What you tolerate, you get more of. And so, when we retreated from trying to have a sane and virtuous society, we let the chaos monkeys run free, and they have managed to steal, vandalize, adulterate and bowdlerize every single aspect of our world. It has been a fundamental transformation indeed.

The Alt Right points out a brutal reality, which is that the medium is the message. In other words, how we live is more important than the words we use to rationalize our lives, and we are seeing the failure of that rationalization.

We have also noticed the agenda to replace us, much as equality was a hidden agenda to overthrow higher echelons and replace them with mercantile middle classes:

For Taylor, the endgame of the “alt-right” is create an “ethno-state” for people of European heritage.

“If there is no territory that white Americans can call their own, we will ultimately be shoved aside,” he said. “If that is not done, are what point are white Americans allowed to say it has gone too far? When we’re 20 percent of the population? When we’re five percent of the population?”

He feels that this goal has been misrepresented by the media – and that it is a peaceful movement. He said it is a fundamentally different ethos than white supremacy.

“I’m not even sure what white supremacy means,” he said. “If it means anything it means whites are supposed to be ruling over other races. I don’t think anyone in the ‘alt-right’ wants that.”

He makes a point that any other ethnic or racial group could easily do, but when spoken by a European person, is seen as taboo. This occurs because Europeans, as a strong and creative group, threaten the idea of the worldwide herd being equal. Those who rise above must be cut down in order for equality to occur, and the Left are a neurotic bunch who are driven by the parasitic mental virus that demands they always push for equality and see it as the only form of “good” in our world.

The Alt Right is winning because we have chosen to reject The Age of Ideology, with its creeds and demands for the destruction of quality in order to have equality, and have embraced The Age of Organicism, in which results and traditions matter more than conjectural ideologies and their promises. Those promises have failed. And so now, we venture bravely forth into a new era.

Liberal Democracy Ends In Collapse Conditions

Friday, July 14th, 2017

Those on the right who are not fascinated by having an emotional reaction to perceived injustices, but instead are asking about the future of civilization, realize that we do not have to fight liberal democracy. It has ended itself, and everyone in power knows this, which is why they are stealing whatever they can carry and headed for rich people enclaves buried in peaceful parts of the third world.

For most people, this future seems remote. Our technology works — sort of — and seems to banish nature away, so we humans can do whatever we want. But the truth is that nature is more like mathematics, an inherent order to how events turn out in reality, and so it is within us and rules whatever we do, and if we deny this order, our actions simply end in comical disaster.

Amerika might be seen as a conditional doomsayer: our articles point out that ideas have consequences in that actions based on those ideas lead to predictable conclusions. When we as a species make bad choices, we can expect doom. That doom has demographic, racial, cultural, economic, military, environmental and survival implications:

A recent article in New Scientist…argues that decreasing fertility rates are indicative of the world’s population slowly imploding rather than exponentially rising — a trend that will continue until we reach some form of crisis point. As it stands, half of the world’s countries have fallen below the replacement rate for developed nations (which is, on average, 2 children per woman). If this trend continues on, countries like Germany and Italy will see their populations decrease by half over the next 60 years.

This is not the first time Elon Musk has discussed overpopulation: in March he warned that we face a “demographic implosion,” because in many countries “you have a very high dependency ratio, where the number of people who are retired is very high relative to the number of people who are net producers.”

Musk raises the point that we are facing dual crises: the producers are declining, while the dependents are increasing.

This follows the path of every egalitarian society every attempted. Technically, equality cannot be implemented because those who are less successful are limited by biology; they cannot be made smarter, healthier, wiser or more noble. Therefore, the only method of implementing equality is to penalize the successful by removing some of their wealth and power, and giving it to the masses.

In turn, that creates a perverse incentive structure and dark organization. Those who are naturally adept are penalized, but those who are incompetent are subsidize, so the adept stop engaging in the system. Eventually, they drop out and have difficulty finding mates. As the incompetents take over, daily life becomes insane, and so the adept stop reproducing entirely because, being competent, they recognize that in an insane world, their offspring have no future. Equality means that the incompetents take over and the competent are killed off.

Where do we see this pattern all the time? In the third world, those who attempt to do more than the average are often seen as witch doctors or cheaters and beaten down. As a result, natural selection kicks in that selects against competence, and soon you have a society of self-focused, incompetent people who not surprisingly, make horrible decisions regarding government and culture, leading to a non-civilization in civilization form.

The incompetence of liberal democracy has become visible because of the sheer stupidity of human decision-making over the past 228 years. This leads to a series of simultaneous crises working together to doom us, meaning that we will experience — much as with the rise in incompetents and loss of competent people — a simultaneous intensified need at the same time our options are limited. A good partial list:

1. Habitats are being destroyed at record rates.

2. Wild foods, especially fish stocks, are being destroyed; trawling is damaging the sea-bed.

3. Biodiversity is being lost at record rates.

4. The area of land available for food production, and the remaining land’s productivity, is decreasing due to:

  • Soil lost to erosion;
  • Fertility lost following declining levels of plant nutrients and soil carbon;
  • Soil productivity is being destroyed by salinisation due to the build-up of natural salts from irrigation water and reclaimed sewage water;
  • Land is being taken out of production for the construction of housing and roads, etc.
  • Productivity in a number of areas is declining because of declining rainfall (with climate change), in some areas previously productive land is turning to desert;
  • Coastal land is being lost due to rising sea levels, this is particularly important in the world’s great river deltas (which have some of the world’s most fertile land);
  • Land-use is being changed from food production to fuel production.

…6. Fresh water resources are greatly over-committed, and in many areas are declining due to climate change. Water is being drawn from many of the world’s major aquifers at rates much greater than they are being recharged by natural processes; many are failing or will begin failing in the near future. Much of the world’s food production depends on irrigation, but the water available for irrigation is decreasing.

7. Humanity is approaching the ‘photosynthetic ceiling’. Soon there will be little photosynthetic capacity on earth that is not dedicated to man’s direct use.

…8. A huge range of chemicals are being released into natural environments with unknown long-term effects.

…9. Plastic wastes are being released into natural environments with unknown long-term effects. It has been forecast that by 2050, 95% of seabirds will have plastic in their gut.

…15. The oceans are becoming polluted, apart from floating plastic waste, there are high levels of pollution even in the deepest parts of the oceans.

…18. Phosphate supplies for the production of fertiliser are running out. Phosphorus is one of the three most important plant nutrients; without phosphorus fertilisers the “Green Revolution” in agriculture would not have been possible.

…21. Pollinating insects are in decline. Honeybees, in particular, are suffering badly in many countries from colony collapse disorder.

…22. Man is now artificially producing more nitrates (as fertilisers) than are produced naturally, with the result that the natural nitrogen cycle has become unbalanced. Nitrates and phosphate being washed off farmland and from sewage are causing algal blooms and consequent ‘dead zones’ in the coastal waters of many parts of the world.

This list, taken from an excellent list which unfortunately contains Leftist non-issues alongside real issues, shows the tip of the iceberg. We are living out of balance not just with nature, but with logic; we are seeing that nature, shaped by aeons of evolution, is more logical than we are.

If you had asked an aristocrat back in 1788 what would happen if the masses took over leadership, he or she would probably have said that the proles would not recognize the difference between want and need, and would therefore consume everything recklessly, forgetting that there is a cause behind every effect, and that the cause of our success is our environment and our living in balance within natural order.

The prole holiday has wrecked the planet and set into motion forces it cannot control. These will not end catastrophically, but through a steady increase in the cost of everything good — real food, clean air, safe water — with those who have no money ending up with cancers and other degenerative diseases which will limit their lifespans.

In other words, the world will resemble Brazil: a few nice areas surrounded by unruly favelas who have to be fought with armed police and bought off with social welfare otherwise they will revolt, with the classic attribute of prole revolutions being that the revolutionaries seem unconcerned with the losses they take or the damage they do. These are gangster raids, not political evolutions.

However, the sources of wealth for the powerful will decrease. Consumer markets are less relevant when the proles can no longer afford gasoline or much in the way of consumer goods, and productivity itself will decline when the cheap resources that propel agriculture and industry are no longer easily available. Wealth will decline as well.

This means that in the future, business models like Facebook, Amazon, Google, Walmart and Costco will decline. With the end of the age of cheap consumer goods, the vast consumerist group that makes these businesses wealthy will decline, and margins will narrow in industry and agriculture as natural resources thin.

At the same time, we will have produced “exponential revolutions,” or those in which vast numbers of impoverished and purposeless people band together into giant gangs to take whatever wealth remains, including genetic wealth from smarter populations. This leads to a situation like the one described by Jean Raspail in Camp of the Saints, where the third world invades the first world:

In an interview with Il Messagero newspaper, Mr Tajani said there would be an exodus “of biblical proportions that would be impossible to stop if we don’t confront the problem now”.

…”When people lose hope, they risk crossing the Sahara and the Mediterranean because it is worse to stay at home, where they run enormous risks. If we don’t confront this soon, we will find ourselves with millions of people on our doorstep within five years.

“Today we are trying to solve a problem of a few thousand people, but we need to have a strategy for millions of people.”

His solution of investment in Africa is actually the wrong approach. At this point, the die is cast. There are too many people, and most of them would rather go to a nice new place than try to fix their homes, which means that the nice places will be destroyed just like the goose that laid golden eggs in the fables of yore.

This follows a pattern that is as old as liberalism: lower castes reproduce recklessly, then blame those above them for having failed to stop them, and this triggers a revolution which replaces the higher castes with lower ones, resulting in even worse decisions that amplify the original problems.

Now that this has happened in the West, we have people at the top who are so brain-locked on Leftism that they think immigration is healthy and viable. This is the same process that destroyed many classic civilizations across the world, including Angkor Wat, Greece, Aztecs, Maya and most likely many more. Societies die by caste revolt.

In other words, our colonization of the third world merely exported our own revolutions, and now those revolutions have come back to visit us, which is a consequence of the incompetence of our leaders and most people in our society, which was also brought on by our revolutions. As long as we remain in thrall to chasing the mythical god of Equality, we will self-destruct no matter what methods we try.

The proof of this can be found in the collapse conditions which we are now facing. Sure, climate change is nonsense, but what about pollution, overfishing, land overuse, erosion, and other signs of how we have thoroughly abused our world to the point that we are threatening our own future? Equality creates a tragedy of the commons by rewarding people simply for being human, which creates an incentive to arrive, absorb social benefits, and then take over the political apparatus so those benefits never end.

As Western democracies collapse from within in a fog of bad decisions, very few voices will point to the obvious culprit. They will blame the Rich,™ the Anglos, the Jews,™ the Christians, the atheists, the Leftists. They will not realize that it is our notion of equality that has killed us, and until we discard it, everything we do will fail while destroying us.

Huntington Triumphant: Tribalism Rising As Ideology Dies

Thursday, July 13th, 2017

Samuel P. Huntington might be seen as the prophet of the Alt Right. In the 1990s, he wrote a paper entitled “The Clash of Civilizations” (later developed into a book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order) which posited that ideology had lost its ability to hold societies together, and as a result, liberal democracy was collapsing while tribalism was rising.

He was engaged in an indirect debate with scholar Francis Fukuyama, who had argued that liberal democracy was the endpoint of human history, a conclusion he seemed to dislike but accepted as rational. Fukuyama argued for a permanent era; Huntington saw this era as ending.

In a broader sense, the two men were each arguing for a different type of civilization. Fukuyama believed in one unified by ideology and organized through rules and laws; Huntington saw civilizations as being united by physical, moral, religious and intellectual similarity, and predicted a future that relied more on gut instinct and identity than rules.

We can see this conflict playing out in the “populist” (really: upper half of middle class) wave that has propelled Brexit and Trump to the tops of the political heap by acknowledging that Huntington was right:

The central remark in Mr Trump’s Warsaw speech was this: “The fundamental question of our time is whether the west has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilisation in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

Interestingly, the Financial Times included the following image with the article:

To the author of the article, it represents a reason to be afraid of “America first” actions, in that those might alienate and cut out those rising markets. But another way to see it is that it represents a declining first world with others taking up the slack. At that point, other nations rise to fill the gap, and the first world recedes into a rationalizing mindset which allows them to praise “the information economy” and “the service economy.”

Voters can be counted on to be oblivious as a group, but individual people start to snap out of their stupor when they realize that the thread is not some far-fetched prediction, but a certainty. Liberal democracy has chosen to self-destruct through thirdworlding and low reproduction rates which fit within its endgame, which is to destroy everything so that a few government employees can escape to enclaves for the rich and corrupt. This will come about through a consumer economy which will gut itself as the fake value it has generated collapses.

As this system hits rock bottom and it becomes clear that not only will it be a sure path to doom unless interrupted, but also that it was always a fake design just like the fake news, fake food, fake architecture, fake nationhood, fake love and fake friendship of modernity, the era of ideology will end and be replaced by real things which are innate to the human experience and not projections of the human ego. This will fortunate as unless we escape the modern lifestyle, we will likely die out from low reproduction rates.

Between its economic failures, the existential misery of its citizens leading to low investment in family and children, and the instability of the societies it has administered, liberal democracy no longer looks like a better option than strong authority and nationalism:

With global growth continuing at roughly 4 percent a year, the link between income and democracy isn’t actually so strong these days.

…It is again time for the West to learn from China. The emotional force of nationalism is stronger than we had thought, stability is not guaranteed, and the Western democratic status quo ex ante is less of a strong attractor than many of us had believed or at least hoped for.

If you asked the average person what was more important, order or freedom, and no one else was listen to virtue police them, you will probably see someone struggling with the fact that what they crave now is order. The great quest to make everything equal turned society into a wasteland and, while this was survivable for some time, it eventually became a great burden. Now they want the bottom line: make stuff work, and leave people alone who are productive and healthy.

The age of tolerance is over. The average American middle class European-descended person has finally gotten it through their skulls that diversity itself is the problem, so it cannot be fixed with more education, law enforcement or welfare. Diversity causes us to hate each other. They are “over it” and want to see it go away. If the Right-wing “populist” wave continues, by 2030 the average American voter will be interested in repatriation with reparations and other schemes for a soft landing for the disaster that diversity built.

Much like people have simply come to view ideology itself, like all of our news which seems to be fake, as a deceptive and threatening thing. If anyone who imbibes even a little ideology ends up in the Full Soviet state to which the EU and US have sunk, then the path of ideology is completely fatal and needs to be avoided. In their gut instinct, people know this.

Even more, it has sunk in that the great war against inequality has simply ended up making other people wealthy who are not as competent as the original group, so most people have stopped caring, unless they are personally having trouble making a decent living. This is why people care less about equality than social order, despite what they claim in social situations when asked about politics:

Researchers found that 77% of participants were willing to redistribute income from rich to poor—so long as it didn’t make person A poorer than person B. Just 45% accepted the redistribution when it changed the hierarchy. The results showed people are both interested in equality and preserving the status quo, but if these two inclinations clashed, most participants would maintain the inequality.

…Researchers could only speculate as to why people are reluctant to upend the status quo. They suggest that it might come down to survival: We may want to maintain hierarchies for fear of sparking anarchy. Researchers note, “Evolutionary theory suggests that groups with stable hierarchies have a fitness advantage.”

As liberal democracy lowers itself into collapse by its own ineptitude, people are turning to what is innate and what works. Heritage, gut instinct, making the trains run on time, and keeping happy families together have become more important than any words on paper or abstract ideological concepts. This represents a human return to sanity so that it can move upward, instead of “forward” to a dead Utopia.

White People Need To Realize That “The Enemy Is Within”

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

Is It "Facism" To Send All Leftists To The Third World?

We live in a time of great upheaval and thus, great opportunity. Liberal democracy has died from an inability to govern. Our leaders and media say things that are obviously insane, but are not recognized as such by the herd, and so they are accepted.

But over time, claiming that “everyone thinks this is true” — rule by consensus, instead of rule by realistic thinking — falls apart when the results of those claims being put into action are consistently bad. In Europe and the US, not only are the results bad, but they are getting worse and accelerating.

We are seeing the failure of liberal democracy around us every day. Soon it will be replaced. If we are intelligent, we will skip over tyranny and move to a more sensible option.

In the meantime, however, we have to face our enemy: ourselves. If we are honest — and if we could be realistic about other races, we can do the same to our own — we will admit that most of us are incapable of making the complex decisions required for leadership. Most make bad decisions, the “educated” frequently make irrelevant choices, and in groups, the committee effect dominates and we act like domesticated cattle, shuttling between stampede-level panic and bovine-level insouciance. Committees make compromises based not on a realistic goal, but on the pragmatic choices required to keep every member happy, and so the compromises pile up until no one can act because all of our objectives are paradoxical and we have many, many illusions to uphold.

Right now, many people are talking about populism and how “we the people” are going to take back our countries from the governments… err… that we elected. Let us set the record straight: populism is not the people defending themselves against a monster. It is buyer’s remorse for having gone along with the liberal democracy sham and, upon seeing exactly where it was heading, realizing that it was a bad choice all along. People feel this in their guts, but will never admit it. To admit it would be to affirm the obvious truth that the voters screwed it up for centuries, that they did so because they got greedy, and that this is typical human behavior in groups — think of attendees at a carnival, all the litter on our roadsides, graffiti on every wall — because in groups, people do not face the consequences of their actions. They externalize or socialize the cost to the rest of society. When given power with no responsibility for the results, people tend to do just whatever, because we have replaced the goal of power with the need to maintain that power itself. Democracy, consumerism and social popularity are all manifestations of that transition.

The thing that ties these together is human social behavior. In a group, the way to win the game is to make everyone feel comfortable by including them. It is more important to have everyone get along than it is to reach any certain conclusion. In this way, the committee mentality arrives. When everyone at the table is invited to participate, someone balances all of their concerns and comes up with a solution that avoids inconveniencing anyone terribly. The result is that the original goal is long forgotten, and in the name of pacifism and making everyone feel included, a non-solution is erected. Repeat this by tens of thousands of times — in congresses, boardrooms, voting booths, bars and churches — and you get a civilization dedicated to keeping everyone together instead of cooperating toward any kind of sensible behavior. The problem is us because in groups, we behave like nitwits, no matter how educated or intelligent we are. The situation itself creates the bad results.

Human thinking is comprised of these two prongs: wishful thinking at the individual level, and socializing at the group level. The West encountered this problem not because — as the scientists say — the West is particularly altruistic, open or introspective, but because when a civilization gets powerful enough that it can forget its natural constraints and get by for awhile while ignoring its goals, people fall back on this type of social thinking and then use it to make their wishful thinking be accepted as real. We wish we were all equal, so we make it a taboo to deny equality, even though equality does not exist in reality. We then enforce that on each other, and out of pragmatism, it is accepted, and any who rise up and point out that this is insane are smashed, in the name of protecting the group consensus and the “good feelings” it depends on to keep everyone feeling chipper enough to continue their contributions. Such smart monkeys, we have manipulated ourselves into oblivion!

This disaster is not unique to Western Europeans, but a consequence of their success plus high IQ and a tendency to be social, since the more powerful a human is, the more benevolent and sociable they tend to be. In addition, it is lonelier at the top because with dominion over nature and want, there is no longer a need to cooperate as closely with others. The system does that. People know their roles, and do their tasks, and somehow everyone turns out okay. For the past couple millennia, the West has been in this state for the most part, especially relative to other groups.

Bad decisions however have a way of coming back to haunt us. With each compromise, our options decreased. The voters, concerned only about the time between the day of the voting and the next paycheck, kept electing people who went along with the system. Over time, the system began to strengthen itself because it had not been rebuked. But even more, it was popular. Barack Obama was elected. Ruby Ridge and Waco did not lead to massive outcry. Nor did the increasing pollution, crime, racial antagonism, corruption, and unsustainable programs like the entitlements that make up 60% of our budgets. The voters kept rubber-stamping these bad ideas, or at least not opposing them enough. And so finally liberal democracy came to its endgame. Bankrupt, purposeless, self-interested and apparently clueless, our governments doubled down on their agenda again and again. This culminated in an attempt to replace the citizens themselves with third world newcomers who were designed to be permanent Leftist voters, keeping the system in power.

What is Leftism, however, but people power? The United States was founded on some Leftist ideas and some Rightist ones. But over time, the Leftist ideas always won out because they were simpler and they made “we the people” feel good about the free stuff we would be getting, how Mother Theresa like we looked for being open-minded about immigration and class warfare, and how we were all going to have good jobs and fat pensions by using the system for our own gain. The voters were greedy, and this made them select leaders who were greedy, and those promptly created greedy governments which came to want power for its own sake so that the graft could continue unabated. At that point, there was nothing left but failure.

If our time has heroes, history will find them in men like Anders Breivik and Timothy McVeigh. Instead of committing callow acts of violence against the newcomers, these men targeted the governments and the Leftists behind them. They recognized that what went wrong was that the voters had lost their moral compass, as most people tend to do when given power without responsibility, and had created this monster and sustained it with their interest. Left-leaning cinema, news, entertainment and academia remained wildly popular. People were only too glad to inform on others for having the wrong (Right) opinions. The herd wanted to believe that it was good, and so it chose poor options every time instead of tackling problems head on. People ran from looking at the actual needs and solutions that stood before them. Pretense ruled over common sense. These men knew that the government was not a thing of its own creation, but entirely created by the voters and the illusions of people acting in groups.

At this point, nothing remains but separation. Leftists — up to 40% of the population — want a different type of civilization than the rest of us do. We cannot coexist.

Breivik made his point by forcing people to be accountable. Those who agitated for communism and immigration were killed in order to show that them supporting these destructive ideas might have costs for them, personally, which had never happened before. McVeigh showed people that just because the system was there and paid good wages, there are costs for supporting that which is immoral and an abomination to logic. That spirit can be carried on without violence by physically removing Leftists. Half of our people are mental children, foolish and selfish, intellectually and morally broken, and the only solution is to move them on and work with the rest.

Since a big shakeup is coming, and the collapse of a system as surely as Communism and National Socialism collapsed, we will have this opportunity. Relocating all of those who are not of the founding group in the USA will leave us with maybe 150 million people, and removing the committed Leftists from among them will result in an America of 80 million people. This leaves us with enough competent people to do whatever we need to, but without the constant chatter and chaos from the Left. In fact, it will be a more productive nation, and there will be more room for nature, so our environmental problems will relax and so will the pressures of life. Jobs will no longer be a lifeline and jail sentence but places where people are rewarded for performance instead of attendance. Natural species that have been crowded out by the endless suburbs, roads, strip malls, warehouses and parking lots will come back to life. Oxygen will rise from our forests and our water will be cleaner. We will be able to actually live again, instead of subsisting at virtual gunpoint in order to subsidize a system that has been failing for a long time.

We the people are not good people. Some of us are good, and many are mixed degrees of good and bad, but in groups we make bad decisions. The individual and group act in parallel because both use social thinking, or the assumption that we the people are good and therefore that we must include everyone through the mental acrobatics required to support egalitarianism. People choose easy answers over complex truths. As a result, whatever is popular is a lie: the disgusting mass culture and pop art, the glib explanations of media, the details turned into grand theories of science and academia, and at the root, the idea that we the people have any legitimacy as rulers at all. Mob rule is still mob rule. Mob rule extends beyond the voting box to what people buy, the mental viruses they repeat as truth in order to seem intelligent to others, and the behaviors that are enabled by a permissive society and so become more degenerate, generation after generation. We the people prefer lies.

This tendency for human groups to self-delude is called Crowdism, and it forms naturally wherever success enables people to take their eyes off the ball for even a second. The only thing that opposes it is a hard realism that denies our human impulses to consider ourselves good and to be sociable by assuming the same of others. Under the illusion of the goodness of we the people, we have created an idiocratic society where the stupidest and most blatant lies triumph over everything else. And so now, a purge is coming. For society to survive, it must remove those who thrive in an environment of chaos and degeneracy, and replace it with those who want a realistic order that improves itself qualitatively so that it always has a goal, and never falls back into the self-congratulatory and self-referential circular reasoning of the herd.

Like a garden, a civilization can be renewed. The necrotic tissue must be cut off and burned, the unhealthy plants removed, and the health ones nurtured. If any plants are in the garden that do not belong, they must be relocated. This makes the garden healthier this year, healthy the next, and progressively healthier each year that we repeat the process. There is no other solution.

Right now most of our fellow citizens are busy looking for excuses and scapegoats. They want someone to blame for our failure, anyone but us. They complain about capitalism, government, the Rich and shadowy conspiracies, but really we have no one to blame but ourselves. The sooner we grow up, accept that fact and act on it, the sooner we can stop being failures and start doing something fun again.

Why The Right Always Loses

Friday, June 16th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Entryism and Assimilation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. It is Not Enough to be Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. We need an agenda outside of modernity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rise Of The Trump Doctrine

Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

As Samuel Huntington noted back in the 1990s, liberal democracy has entered its final stages. It seems to be at the peak of its power, but these are really its dying throes; no longer having any competition to the Left, it has followed the Soviet Union in the pursuit of a total managed economy and society and by doing so, has strangled its host civilizations.

That is the good news. That which has peaked has nowhere to go but down, and in the case of unrealistic beliefs like Leftism, coming into power means that it demonstrates its unworthiness to hold power. The only difficulty is that here we are not deposing a single dictator, but as many tyrants are there are voters.

The first signs of its failure came with the rise of the Tea Party. This group wanted a libertarian revolution, or a removal of government from as much of everyday life as possible, but also paired this with more extreme social conservatism than mainstream politicians would accept. The Tea Party wanted to end the role of government as enforcer of civil rights, tolerance and other “blank checks” for more government power and money.

Out of that movement came the force that catapulted Donald J. Trump into the presidency, along with more extreme social conservatives like the Alt Right. These groups realized that ideological government, or government that enforces civil rights, quickly becomes even worse than the Soviets. It turns genocidal and manipulative, and will deplete a civilization and leave behind ruins.

In doing so, Trump developed a new doctrine: the role of government should be to enable business and culture to exist together, and it should replace ideology with commonsense functionality. That requires removing the power of many layers of government, displacing the people who benefit from them, and liberating business from excessive regulation.

As part of that, he is setting the stage for the next act in the drama, which is the downfall of liberal democracy itself once it becomes clear that (a) these governments always spend themselves into bankruptcy and (b) the voters will always support them in doing so because voting encourages people to spend the wealth of a society on special interests. Democracy has failed because it cannot succeed.

It seemed to succeed, at first, but then again, so did the Soviet Union and the French Revolution. Almost anything can succeed in the short term because it rides the inertia of the past by benefiting from the wealth, institutions and functional people left behind from the previous stage in society. But inevitably, it raids and displaces those, causing them to fail.

The Trump Doctrine begins with a simple observation: the herd is wrong, and the herd always wants one-step solutions that involve stronger government. Trump made his career out of finding properties that “everyone who knows anything” agreed were not wanted, and then turning those into success stories. It did not always work, but it worked more often than it did not.

The herd hates Trump, but the perceived consensus is fading:

Is it possible that we’re wrong about Donald Trump? …I ask because when there’s a stampede of critics headed in one direction, maybe it’s time to stand back from the herd. When an overwhelming consensus builds in serious academic, media, and political circles, and when comedians can make a good living mocking the man in the Oval Office, it makes sense to wonder if perhaps everyone is wrong. Because it wouldn’t be the first time people have been wrong about a president.

Our academics, media and politicians know how to be popular. They follow whatever the herd decides. This is measured not by what everyone actually thinks, but what they will admit in social situations, and the group influences each other and comes to compromises. These involve fond dreams of free government benefits, world peace, racial reconciliation and other emotional pursuits.

This is why they are always successful, but also always wrong. We knew that some day the gig would be up. That day is now.

In their quest to make everything perfect and safe, the voters unleashed a government that has shattered the middle class by destroying their sources of income:

Then, as commentators as diverse as Pat Buchanan and Ed Schultz have noted, more than 50,000 factories closed over the years.

This is why President Trump in his statement about the Paris Accords talked about “lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.”

…Most of the businesses that closed were small or medium-sized businesses that were killed in large part due to environmental regulations and/or foreign competition, both of which the president mentioned in his Paris statement.

In the mind of a voter, a one-step solution is the only one that will work. Indirect solutions like markets and culture just do not “feel” solid enough. So instead, they approve more power for those in charge, forgetting that they are handing this authority not to geniuses but to mid-level bureaucrats, most of whom have Napoleon complexes.

Those people in turn write millions of words of rules, sign hundreds of treaties, establish law through the judiciary, and do anything else to increase their power in pursuits of blank check goals like civil rights or environmentalism. They do this because they perceive that it will increase their power and make their careers successful. It is a tragedy of the commons.

This in turn creates a huge cost burden to the taxpayer, which is passed on to those working for government and those receiving entitlement payments, effecting a wealth transfer away from the productive to the parasitic. Note how bureaucrats get paid more than you do to do a whole lot of nothing constructive:

The village manager in my hometown will be paid $221,375 this year and is in line to receive a $33,000 pay increase next year. He also gets a $6,000 car allowance, according to the village. At least 16 other Village Hall employees make more than $100,000 in base salary.

My local township appears to be so flush with cash that every season I receive a full-color, glossy newsletter that boasts all the programs I don’t use and never asked for. The newsletter advertises critical services such as a workshop about choosing between a tablet or PC.

…Similar situations are playing out all across the state. Government pay isn’t just higher than what the rest of us make — it’s more than we can afford.

With this change, America is following the Soviet Union pattern: only the people in government do well; everyone else suffers. And the solution to that will be more government as well.

The Trump Doctrine has shown a willingness to change this. He wants to cut the size of government, end the regulations, restart industry and pay off the deficit. He hopes to have a trickle-down effect as local governments imitate the success of this. However, he cannot do enough, and he knows it. He just needs to do enough to demonstrate that he is right.

Even if he were given free rein to do whatever he wanted, Trump — one man — could not reverse the past century of horrible decisions, nor could he fully displace the toxic government. Luckily for us, he will not achieve victory directly. Instead he will show us that democratic government has become just as abusive as dictatorships, and pave the way for the next phase of humanity.

Much as Francis Fukuyama argued for “the end of history” with liberal democracy as the final stage of humankind, Trump believes that history has ended, which means it has been restarted. All of the assumptions of the past 228 years have gone out the window. Instead, we will be looking for a way out of this system, which has now failed just as surely as Communism and National Socialism did.

Our time is the “Berlin 1945 moment” for liberal democracy. It has failed by creating a monster in the form of our national government, the EU and the UN. This monster threatens to destroy us and replace us with foreigners so that it can remain in power forever, but its plan is not working. The new occupants are not generating the wealth, knowledge and quality judgment that secured our success in the past. As a result, civilization is failing.

If the Trump Doctrine has a core, it is a rejection of ideology and its replacement by real-world, commonsense thinking. That in turn is a precursor toward replacing democracy and equality with known methods of thriving, and directing ourselves toward transcendent goals instead of human ones. The future is bright, even if it must get worse before it gets better.

Watch The World Burn

Monday, February 27th, 2017

Currently, the world blazes on as Left and Right alienate each other and separate. This is not a new development, so much as the finally visible effect of a development that has long been intensifying, so subtly it went unnoticed for the most part.

This development is the knowledge that Right and Left are incompatible. They want equality; we want order. Their method is a single big theory; we use many observations of a nature we assume is ultimately inscrutable to us. They want freedom; we want purpose, meaning and significance.

Nothing can knit those two together.

As a result, the world is burning. The system which we thought was solid has fallen apart, and revealed its essence as ideas which to most of us are broken and useless. Even more, it has shown us our future, and it looks like a new Soviet Union with consumerism grafted on. We want out, both for practical reasons and reasons of the soul.

It is time to enjoy watching the world burn. As it existed before, it was a horror living on the accomplishments of the past as it bastardized each one into fast food, reality television and special snowflake politics. All that was good at its core was gone, leaving a cash cow milked by cynical leaders who knew they could control a crowd with emotionally appealing lies.

That old world needs to go up in smoke. It failed. It failed first by losing its sense of yearning and potential, and second by killing off all in our spirit that made us great as a people. The intelligent, no longer rewarded and aware of the disaster around them, faded into history. The neurotic prole mob surged forward.

Watching this world burn is fun and gratifying. This is the world that has for so long oppressed the best so that the mad horde can indulge its fantasies. It elevated proles to kings, and liars to leaders, and shattered our faith in ourselves and our future. It threw us into pointless jobs of unparalleled tedium, bureaucracies of cruel indifference, and “education” of rote misery.

Its age has passed and we are into a new age in which we will “re-de-centralize” humanity. That is: instead of trying to create a global community of one population moving toward progress/Utopia through Leftist ideals, we will become many small groups who do not interact much with each other. People will focus on life more than politics or economics.

Humans have a built in self-destruct mechanism. The more we do what we think is good, the more we destroy ourselves. We do not need safety and guaranteed acceptance, the two things that people desire; we need purpose, fairness and a sense of who we are. That cannot occur to humanity as a whole, or even large political blocs. It happens to tribes, communities, ethnic nations and regions.

What we tend to think of as good — peace, equality, plenty, uniformity — are the things that destroy us. They eliminate our striving and subjugate us with low standards. They take away our need for conquest, creation and dreaming. The things we fear are in fact good because the save us from falling into the void of ourselves.

War is good. Intolerance is good. Elitism is good. Struggle is good. Exclusion of those who fail to meet standards is good. We only feel a sense of existential pleasure when our time is given for something worth sacrificing for, and not when we are merely striving for increase in material capacity. We need meaning, and meaning comes from struggle.

All that we thought was good was human projection designed to make us feel “safe,” which is a word for not needing to adapt and being accepted as we are, therefore not needing to strive. That in turn replaces all legitimate goals with standardized ones, like a manual for climbing Mount Everest instead of discovery. We have made ourselves bored, and that has made us hate ourselves.

As the world order of liberal democracy collapses in itself in a chorus cacophony of wailing parasites, our minds turn toward the future. We are not interested in saving the old, and in fact want to see it ablaze. That fire can then fuel our hearts as we race toward things we actually desire in our souls, giving us a sense of something worth doing again and the seed of our regeneration.

Donald J. Trump Becomes The 45th President Of The United States

Friday, January 20th, 2017

Official White House live cam here:

As far as the usual profound “out with the old, in with the new” commentary that you expect from websites today — and remember, consumer expectation defines the product — there is only this to say: the election of Donald J. Trump was a strong rebuke to Leftism and the ideals of liberal democracy, which places equality above realistic competence on its list of demands, and the crest of a wave which is the people of the West reacting to the gradual Leftist takeover since the French Revolution.

Leftism is rationalization of decline. Our civilization has been in decline for a thousand years, but decline is a gradual process, and its final stage is liberal democracy and Leftism, including disastrous programs like gender equality, normalizing perversity, diversity, socialism and pacifism. Leftism is insanity. The election of Donald J. Trump is the first of many “baby steps” toward reversing and choosing a new direction not just away from Leftism, but from civilization decline itself.

Turnaround For The West

Thursday, December 8th, 2016

From the Huntington-was-right department, Patrick J. Buchanan on the revocation of legitimacy for liberal democracy and Leftism seen with the Trump revolution:

What we seem to be seeing is a rejection, and a counterreformation against the views and values that came out of the social and political revolutions of the 1960s.

…Across the West, establishments have lost credibility.

The proliferation of minority parties, tearing off pieces of the traditional ruling parties, points to a growing distrust in ruling regimes and a return to identifying with the nation and tribe whence one came.

A concomitant of this is a growing disbelief in egalitarianism and in the equality of all races, creeds, nations, cultures and peoples.

From the end of WWII to the present day, world Leftism was given essentially a blank check to avoid (1) the Great Depression and (2) Hitler (with a possible footnote mentioning “and Stalin too”).

Instead, it delivered us into a soft totalitarian system where ideology is more important than reality, and consequently, everything is falling apart. It managed to do worse than Hitler and the Great Depression by threatening to extinguish all of us.

As a result, people see the Leftist system as failed just as much as the Soviets, and are rehabilitating some ideas from the Hitler era, namely that diversity does not work — minus the slave labor, genocide, and epic wars that made Hitlerism a failure.

With the election of Barack Obama, the Left thought it had won, when in reality, it was in its final probation period. Being unrealistic, it chose not to improve life, but to tell all of us that we were Hitlerians while advancing a suicidal Utopian agenda.

Recommended Reading