Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘liberalism’

Liberal Democracy Enters Its Endgame

Monday, July 10th, 2017

In the 1980s, someone came up with the concept of “cheese food,” essentially a legal fiction that enabled them to mark flavored vegetable fats as cheese. Most of us saw this on packages in the grocery store and immediately knew that we were in a bad time because no one sane would attempt to make more money by causing food to be fake.

And yet, fakery is an old American tradition. When the Founding Fathers were setting up America 2.0 in 1789, coincidentally the same year that the French Revolution began its murderfest, democracy was the de rigueur theory of government. The kings had to go, because the rising middle class demanded it. Oligarchy was passé. Timarchy was terrifying. So that left… democracy.

Those founders were clever however. “Democracy? Heck, no. This is here’s a Republic. It means that we keep mob rule contained, like the fire in a boiler under a steam engine, by all these rules and laws and procedures, and stuff.” Two hundred years later, the same rationale would be used with cheese food, which otherwise would have been waste product for the compōst heap.

And so liberal democracy took over the world. The American version was generally regarded as being more conservative than the European version, which quickly undertook social benefits as a way to replicate the cradle-to-grave system experienced by serfs there, but not by Americans, whose equivalent system “sharecropping” presented itself a financial relationship and not an in loco parentis stewardship.

228 years after the French Revolution, however, liberal democracy has entered its endgame. The problems which have piled up over the years are too big to be solved; the citizens lack anything in common, and care nothing for anything; everything is ridden with crass commercialism and legal corruption; environmental destruction has reached peak insanity; terms and institutions have become inverted; daily life is existentially miserable and morally bleak; and as world population explodes out of control, it is clear that soon this will all detonate in our faces.

In other words, we are the doomed.

Liberal democracy has already died in the hearts and minds of the citizens of Earth. It promised a Utopia and delivered a dystopia, so it not only failed but did worse than other means of governing ourselves. Perhaps even less forgivably, it also expanded humanity to the point of crisis for nature and humankind alike. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Worst of all is its tendency to make dark organizations within every human institution by setting up a “meritocracy” based on external traits, instead of looking at who people are, because recognizing differences between people is taboo since it contradicts the notion of equality. Everywhere democracy goes, it sets up games, and those who win the games take the prize.

This has manifested in citizens who are zombie narcissists specialized toward test-taking but alien to real life:

The blame doesn’t lie entirely with digital technology. How we educate young people could also be behind the dwindling priority placed on life skills.

Teaching students how to pass exams and standardised tests is favoured more and more.

“As a result, we’ve created a generation of doctors, lawyers and accountants who don’t know how to cook dinner. The disconnect is stark — minds capable of advanced calculus that are unfamiliar with creating a monthly budget,” the Huffington Post noted.

This process has been going on for some time. Instead of having good leaders, who want someone who can get the most votes, we get charming liars who give us what we want without letting us know that, like most humans, we are mildly delusional as individuals and ravingly delusional as groups. Instead of geniuses, we get expert test-takers. Instead of real human beings, we get people who specialize in obedience, not breaking laws, and socializing with each other.

School is just one aspect of this. It is ironic that our solipsism has manifested itself in such an evident form, because solipsism is the root of democracy. Individuals do not want to have to adapt to the world, because they might end up getting it wrong; therefore, they become individualists, and demand that what they want or feel be more important than its consequences in external reality, which puts them into a solipsistic state of mind; to avoid being penalized for this unrealistic perspective, they form cultlike gangs or “collectives” of other individualists, who gain power and then make unreality into official reality, making society solipsistic; these cause the specifically human form of entropy, a “me too” type of behavior, where anything good gets mobbed by people who use it for their own purposes and not its natural purpose, effectively destroying it from within as it adapts to this new need.

As the consequences of this individualism manifest themselves, liberal democracy is disintegrating around us. Individualism causes unrealistic decisions, and under democracy, we have been engaging in a centuries-long prole party which has culminated in such unrealistic actions that our governments are now going broke, a crisis which will precipitate the end of liberal democracy.

For starters, state governments are spending themselves into oblivion on pensions, entitlements and other benefits to citizens:

Government workers marched outside the State House here chanting, “Do your job!” on Monday as Maine kept children’s caseworkers at home and shut down other offices deemed nonessential, and lawmakers worked on a deal late into the night.

A standoff over a tax increase left Illinois teetering on the edge of a potentially devastating credit downgrade. And a deadlock over a raid on the funds of New Jersey’s largest health insurer kept the state’s parks and beaches closed for a third straight day, though lawmakers reached a settlement late Monday.

Stalled negotiations have left at least eight states without budgets several days into a new fiscal year.

This has reached the point where almost a dozen states are near shutdown because their only option is to raise taxes or cut programs, and the voters — never wise — do not wish to cut all those positive-sounding benefits.

Even more, the entrenched industry which is government has become parasitic, leading to a mass of entitlement debt to pay for pensions for public servants, mainly because society could never afford these insanely high costs and as a result, politicians refused to fund them because doing so would have shut down every other activity of government. The voters however seem not to care.

Police pensions are among the worst-funded in the nation. Retirement systems for police and firefighters have just a median 71 cents for every dollar needed to cover future liabilities, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data provided by Merritt Research Services for cities of 30,000 or more.

The combined shortfall in the plans, which are the responsibility of municipal governments, is more than $80 billion, nearly equal to New York City’s annual budget.

Broader municipal pension plans have a median 78 cents of every dollar needed to cover future liabilities, according to data from Merritt.

Some will say we could have funded these plans adequately before the Recession, or otherwise could have made it all work. But there is a pattern here. The federal government is deep in debt. The consumers are deep in debt. The states and localities are all deep in debt. Clearly, we vote for more than we can pay for.

On to another aspect: there is no longer any sense of national unity. Under liberal democracy, we have lost the sense of what defines a nation:

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as “one united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…”

If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people?

A multicultural mishmash of people is not a nation; it is at best a financial arrangement, sort of like Homeowners Associations (HOAs) make lots of really annoying rules for homeowners but do not actually lead them toward any direction. We coexist because we have jobs and own property, but other than an overblown patriotism from the useless mainstream Right, there is no sense of unity.

This is what happens when democracy takes over. But democracy itself is an agent of decline, just like Leftism, the Renaissance™ and The Enlightenment.™ All of these prioritize the individual over the order of civilization, nature or the divine. They are the takeover of reality by the crowd of individualists, and they form a permanent dark organization within civilization that consumes it voraciously.

At the root of it is the idea that the individual human being deserves to be more important than the order of nature, and should be protected against anyone else telling him that his actions, ideas or desires are bad, even if their consequences are bad. It is the human ego rising above the world, like a new bizarre moon, exerting the sway of its gravity on the tides of history, covering the world in human-ness.

Awareness Of Your American Indoctrination

Tuesday, May 30th, 2017


by D.A.R.G.

I. Learning that the U.S.A. is perceived as one of the most heavily indoctrinated countries on the face of the planet

It is a customary practice for Americans to refer to the indoctrination seen in other states, but seldom to realize how heavily indoctrinated his own people are. Outside of the U.S.A. and around the whole world, however, Americans are seen as some of the most fanatic, brainwashed zombies on the face of the planet.

Chanting nonsensical slogans about freedom and greatness, most Americans appear conspicuously ignorant of history (regurgitating simplistic propaganda in its stead, whether Right-leaning or Left-leaning) and, most importantly, generally incapable of enough logical analytic thought and common sense to circumvent the unquestionable political and moral dogma etched through otherwise lacking schooling.

These, if anything else, are the hallmarks of political indoctrination. What is worse, while in many countries where heavy indoctrination occurs people’s mental balance is somewhat maintained by the fact that their culture and customs procure an alternate point of view, modern American culture is itself a product of political indoctrination that replaces organic cultures. Objectively speaking, the difference between an American citizen and a Cold-War era Soviet citizen is only the set of principles they were purposely fed through every aspect of their lives.

Americans intelligent enough to become properly aware of their own indoctrination, and concerned enough to attempt an escape have a greater challenge to surmount than they can imagine. The effects of brainwashing are no laughing matter, and the mind which has been subjected to it is so constrained that it is too difficult for most people to simply step outside of the bars of their prison. The emotional chains of their indoctrination can be so pervasive, that the American mind cannot fathom a kind of mentality that does not amount to something like propaganda.

To build culture requires generations of natural interactions with an environment, and an in-group uniformity that Americans were never able to properly enjoyed because of a strongly propagandizing federal government and invasive entertainment media which always spread a superficial mantle of pseudo-culture that stifles the growth of any actual culture. This American pseudo-culture, the culture of the “American dream,” amounts to being able to “you are here free to work, and free to get money for that work, and so you will be happy”. Sadly, that is the sum of “American freedom” and its promise.

This is how we see the rise of the Social Justice Warrior, and how Americans attempting to liberate themselves from the mental cancer of Patriotism easily jump into Marxist scientism. A simple replacement of the cartoon cult of Captain America with Che-Guevara fetishism ensues, and instead of chanting nonsensical American Patriotic slogans, Americans most easily adopt Soviet propaganda (as seen most clearly among liberal university professors). It is easy to see that the reason for this is that, at the root of their mechanics and bare natures, these two are most compatible because they are the main variations of the dehumanized and demos-inciting modernist spirit.

One may observe that the simple-minded, almost mentally-retarded, gorilla-like chest-pounding of the typical post-Soviet Slav is most clearly reflected in typical American pride. But Americans trying to walk away from that must think towards growth instead of simple nullification, which easily leads them to false answers in opposite mirror reflections of what they are attempting to dispel.

II. The false dichotomy of liberalism and conservatism

Something that impresses us, educated people from third world countries, is how the average “educated” American displays the same political and (ir)rational behaviors of the most ignorant and easily-duped people in our countries (usually a confabulation of lower IQ and poverty). While it is common, undisputed knowledge in Latin America that the system is rigged and that the two-party system is an excuse for companies and wealthy people to keep churning away while the masses are given a peaceful way to think they can directly affect higher economic powers, in U.S.A. this is a “conspiracy theory,” and the average American has a rather stubborn faith in their “democracy.”

A false dichotomy extends to the ideas of “conservatism” and “liberalism,” which are a simplistic ways of entrenching the host of problems that life as a whole present us under the idea of ultra-simplistic concepts. This is not only anti-realist, but is deeply religious. Such a tag would not be rejected by the average conservative, but the modern liberal will also be dumb-founded at being called religious. Liberals should start by understanding that while being one (that is, being a liberal) at the beginning of the 19th century, implied independent thinking, anti-status quo positioning that required balanced assessment of many situations, current-day liberalism is the status quo and amounts to dogmatic propagandization of its own.

This mention of the original liberal idea, which was already flawed in its dogmatic humanism, leads us to a memory of 19th century European education and its advantages. The historical positioning of such an education lends it a particular objectivity, because it was rife with strife between such common adversaries as nationalism and internationalism, monarchism and democratic ideas, feminism and traditionalist sexism, and others. Because at that time they were in an almost equal footing, teaching institutions could boast being fortresses of knowledge and open discussion. Today, sadly, they have become propaganda and indoctrination centers for the Left, and the only response which non-Leftists seem to find, is running towards the Right in the most stupidest of ways by picking up anything they can find along the way in their depleated pseudo-culture.

Usually, this desperate clutch for air away from the claws of liberal pseudo-science zombification leads many original Americans (Germanics and Anglo-Saxons) towards the poor excuse of a religion called Protestantism, a baseless American Patriotism and the idiocy of White Nationalism. It is not their fault, in a way, as they can only work with what they have, which is mostly cartoons, empty slogans and a false history. What I would suggest, instead, is that each of these ethnic European groups try its best to reach for the remnant of the memory of its last actual culture. Let German-descended communities reach out for their German heritage, let Anglo-Saxons do the same. Let this reaching out go as far back as it can, so that your being “American” means being a new breed of Germans and Anglo-Saxons, and not the mentally-stripped inverted/disguised Soviet workers/office clerks that the bankers and industrialists wish them to be (and which situation is already a sad, depressing reality in modern Germany).

The road to take is not conservatism or liberalism, but rather a third way the highest expression of a European scientific learning and philosophical exploration that has been the beacon of human actual enlightenment for more than two thousand years, in spite of the cancer of monotheistic religions.

III. The Myth of the American War Hero

There are two things to be said here: the first is that only Americans think that they are doing any good when they invade other parts of the world in order to “help”; the second is that Americans are the only ones who actually think that every soldier is a “hero.” I disagree with Brett Stevens’ idea that the U.S.A. will get blamed, for instance, for genocides that happen “on their watch.”

First of all, only Americans think that the world is “on their watch,” it is an essential part of the basic dogma Americans are taught as kids, and nobody else around the world believes that. In fact, the contrary is true, and it that entrenched idea that Americans seem to have of themselves is the base of countless jokes among many different cultures and countries in the rest of the world. And Americans should be reminded that the rest of the world is actually pretty big, and that it is not a savage wasteland where only oppression, tyranny and hunger exists. Americans need to become aware of the fact that many other modern, highly-educated (often better than American education) societies outside the U.S.A. regard them as barbarians, and not as the enlightened saviors of humanity their merchant-masters have convinced them of being so that they march into death convinced they are helping.

Nowhere else do you find a population so easily propagandized-to and manipulated than in the U.S.A. Because while Europeans have been castrated and beaten down with Marxist clubs into silent submission and their newer generations poisoned with simplistic nice-sounding lies, Middle-Easterners can be lured in through their greed, and Far-Easterners can be mobilized through their collective need to fit in, Americans need simply be pandered to with a few key trigger-words (such as “freedom” or “racism”) and boogie men (such as “Hitler.”, “NEVER FORGET”) in order for them to fall in line and be ready to main, torture and kill anyone their merchant-masters tell them to be deserving of such a treatment.

Second, plenty of genocides have happened in the last hundred years in which the U.S.A. did not intervene and it did not occur to anybody to blame Americans for them when they had no hand in them (with the exception of American Leftists trying to use anything to attack non-Leftist camps of opinion). Nobody blames the U.S.A. for not stopping China’s and Russia’s progroms, nor were they blamed when a Jewish elite were exterminating German communities in Russia before Hitler even came to power, or when Brazil persecuted and murdered tribes of aboriginals throughout the twentieth century to have fuller control of the land. Furthermore, the U.S.A. never even cared about those things, particularly, and they washed their hands of them without consequence, because, in fact, they had no obligation to intervene.

The only criticism for American lack of action in those cases comes when and only when Americans want to intervene in other cases when their merchant-masters have investment ambitions and so genocides and threats are staged or made up to justify their interventions. That is, when Americans were invading Iraq under certain (lack of actual) pretenses, many of us asked each other why they were not intervening inside China to save Tibet, or in North Korea to actually liberate a suffering population. The answer is that it is all bullshit, and the sooner Americans understand this, the sooner they will start to cut the indoctrination chains they are accustomed to and which are so deep-seated by now that they cannot think without.

The idea that every soldier that sprains his ankle while in service is a war hero devalues the term itself to a joke. Achilles was a war hero, John Smith who stepped on a landmine while shooting his superior-technology riffle and wearing his Robocop/Gundam outfit at Afghan dress-wearing dissidents was not a war hero, but simply another casualty of war. German soldiers killed by French insurgents in World War II were about as heroic as the average American jarhead killed while patrolling an American-terrorized Iraq. Which brings us to the following, anybody who actually has talked to Iraqi people would know that the average Iraqi feels violated by the American Army, not “liberated.” At least Germans had the decency of calling an enemy by its name. Can you imagine Hitler’s propaganda ministry referring to the liberation of the French people from the clutches of their actually imperialistic, colonialist genocidal French government?

There are two concepts at work here, and they both serve to cuddle the emptiness of American pseudo-culture. Americans seem to need to be praised excessively about anything they do, and the false, cartoonish mental world of good-versus-evil in which they were raised requires they be told and convinced that they are the the good guys in everything they do. The obvious result is that the only way deaths are “justified” is if they are assuaged with the idea that the dead soldier is given the title of a hero fighting for justice. It is easy to see here how the archetypes of Captain America and Superman are at work in the collective unconscious of the American people, while all other, deeper and older symbols are suppressed by the oceans of commercialism and propaganda they are drowned in.

IV. The Myth of American Freedom

Under all of these lies the unshatterable (or hopefully not) dogma of American Freedom. The American idea of Freedom is at the very heart of what being an American is, although there is no philosophical base for it, nor does the system in which they live actually justifies a particular application of the definition of freedom. We write it with a capital ‘F,’ to denote its status as one more esoteric term in the system of American indoctrination. American Freedom is not actually human freedom, because such a freedom implies that one is conscious and free to actually choose a destiny, which by logical extension must include knowledge of what and how to reach these different states.

Americans are distinctly uniform and unoriginal in their opinions, even when extremely conflicting with each other. This is not just the “average American”, but even smart and educated ones have been crucified with the propaganda of “Democracy,” “Equality,” and “Freedom,” accompanied with adamant faith in the accompanying mythical stories they are raised in of World War II, arguably the basis of modern Americanism. And before anyone raises a voice about “the most documented event in history” or other similar-sounding bullshit, let me say that a Jewish-American historian on the “facts” of World War II is about as reliable as a Christian Theologian on the “facts” supporting Biblical stories. Let that sink in and actually think about it, or prove me right about your Freedom.

Americans on the Left and Right are not that different from each other, stemming from the fact that for all their ideological pandering, they remain all-too-American for their own good. Both camps will claim to be in favor of Freedom, to be fighting for it and each will have arguments why the other is wrong. And while we may generally say that the Right tends to be more honest, though simple minded, and the Left tends to be cunningly dishonest about its egotistic, cowardly individualism (of which the average leftist individual seems unaware, used to justifying himself with Judeo-Christian derived humanist dogma), they both dance around those key concepts etched into their unconscious by constant brainwashing. These are the keys to controlling most Americans, politicians know it and pull those strings.

On the myth of Freedom the lies of American culture are built, and around the myth of Freedom are their conflicting ideologies spun; all the while I wonder if any of them has ever questioned this Freedom of theirs, and whether any ever asked if this Freedom was real or even possible. Perhaps it is in the questioning of all such basic belief that actual freedom begins… but it is simply a beginning.

Remembering The Origins Of May Day

Monday, May 1st, 2017

USA Today gives a polite hint to the ideological origins of the protests sweeping the nation today by pointing out that May Day originated as International Worker’s Day:

May Day — also known as International Worker’s Day — has spawned protests around the globe in past years highlighting workers’ rights. But on Monday, the impetus for the U.S. marches span from immigrants’ rights to LGBT awareness to police misconduct.

What they do not tell you is that “International Worker’s Day” is in fact a Communist holiday. But we have to peel another couple layers from the onion. First, we see what the International Workers of the World have to say:

As early as the 1860’s, working people agitated to shorten the workday without a cut in pay, but it wasn’t until the late 1880’s that organized labor was able to garner enough strength to declare the 8-hour workday. This proclamation was without consent of employers, yet demanded by many of the working class.

At this time, socialism was a new and attractive idea to working people, many of whom were drawn to its ideology of working class control over the production and distribution of all goods and services…Tens of thousands of socialists broke ranks from their parties, rebuffed the entire political process, which was seen as nothing more than protection for the wealthy, and created anarchist groups throughout the country. Literally thousands of working people embraced the ideals of anarchism, which sought to put an end to all hierarchical structures (including government), emphasized worker controlled industry, and valued direct action over the bureaucratic political process. It is inaccurate to say that labor unions were “taken over” by anarchists and socialists, but rather anarchists and socialist made up the labor unions.

…At its national convention in Chicago, held in 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (which later became the American Federation of Labor), proclaimed that “eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s labor from and after May 1, 1886.”

If you believe this narrative, the Americans came up with May Day on their own. However, if we dig a little bit deeper, we can see what the Marxists have to say, which is that its origins were in Europe in what would become the Communist movement:

The decision for the 8-hour day was made by the National Labor Union in August, 1866. In September of the same year the Geneva Congress of the First International went on record for the same demand in the following words:

The legal limitation of the working day is a preliminary condition without which all further attempts at improvements and emancipation of the working class must prove abortive….The Congress proposes 8 hours as the legal limit of the working day.

In the chapter on “The Working Day” in the first volume of Capital, published in 1867, Marx calls attention to the inauguration of the 8-hour movement by the National Labor Union. In the passage, famous especially because it contains Marx’s telling reference to the solidarity of class interests between the Negro and white workers, he wrote:

In the United States of America, any sort of independent labor movement was paralyzed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the republic. Labor with a white skin cannot emancipate itself where labor with a black skin is branded. But out of the death of slavery a new vigorous life sprang. The first fruit of the Civil War was an agitation for the 8-hour day – a movement which ran with express speed from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from New England to California.

And so what was this “First International”? Fellow travelers of the Communists give us the Communist history of this worker’s movement:

Yet remarkably it was Karl Marx, a marginal German émigré, who was at the time deeply engaged with serious research for what would become the first volume of his magnum opus, Capital, who would become the guiding spirit of this new organisation. At the IWMA launch it was decided to elect a 34-strong provisional organising committee, later known as the general council, and Marx became a representative of Germany.

There is a still popular myth that Marx was primarily simply a great thinker and philosopher who wrote great analytical works such as Capital without ever leaving archives and libraries. Yet as his lifelong collaborator Engels noted, Marx was “before all else a revolutionist” who had in the past like Engels been a leading member of the Communist League during the 1848-50 revolution in Germany.

From the start, we see the Communists agitating. The Napoleonic Wars ended in the revolutions across Europe that Marx and others hoped to shift from Equality 1.0 (political and social equality) to Equality 2.0 (the subsidy state). And forty years before the Americans designated the holiday of May Day, the Communists made it a cornerstone of their agenda.

In addition, we see the classic combination of political values designed to support the notion of class warfare. The Left supports diversity, so that it has a weapon against the ruling caste and the culture — something that emerges from heritage — supporting it. Fair treatment of workers, based on criticism of a few exceptional wrongs which were at least partially rooted in the inconsistency of labor itself, i.e. the flakiness of people that we all know as normal for humanity, became tied (magically!) to socialism and from that, to the establishment of a super-powerful State to administer it.

Anarchists, in theory opposed to such things, justified them as necessary and joined the group, such that unionists, Communists, anarchists, Socialists, liberals and Leftists marched together for the same thing. This always happens; the difference between French Revolutionaries and Communists is a matter of degree, much as this last election has revealed that the difference between a Democrat and a Communist is that a Communist is an emboldened Democrat with college debt.

What is most interesting about this whole scenario is that May Day was originally a pagan fertility rite, and the Communists wanted to re-style it as a Leftist holiday. While the Christians are often criticized for having replaced pagan holy days with their own, it is more likely that the real erasure was by those who wished to destroy culture, and the Christians did their best to maintain it nonetheless.

USA Today gave us the start of the thread of understanding what May Day is in actuality, but would not go to the full extreme and tell us its Communist origins. The very fact that such things are kept hush-hush tells us exactly who is in charge of the American government — Leftists — and why we must overthrow them if we want sanity to return.

What is Ideology?

Monday, April 3rd, 2017


by Jack White

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?

All Of The Pundits Are Wrong On Trump / Brexit

Sunday, November 27th, 2016

nationalism_zionism_secession

The professional media class is in clueless disarray because it insists on finding an economic reason for the Trump and Brexit revolts. In doing so, it (as usual) cherry-picks data to support its own assumptions.

As one commentator writes, picking up on about half of what is going on and then rationalizing this as an economic revolt, this is pushback against an abusive ideological system and its elites:

The election was a complete repudiation of Barack Obama: his fantasy world of political correctness, the politicization of the Justice Department and the I.R.S., an out-of-control E.P.A., his neutering of the military, his nonsupport of the police and his fixation on things like transgender bathrooms. Since he became president, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 14 governorships.

The country had signaled strongly in the last two midterms that they were not happy. The Dems’ answer was to give them more of the same from a person they did not like or trust.

Preaching — and pandering — with a message of inclusion, the Democrats have instead become a party where incivility and bad manners are taken for granted, rudeness is routine, religion is mocked and there is absolutely no respect for a differing opinion.

Not surprisingly, that attitude met raised middle fingers in the UK and US after only seven decades of its present form. These middle fingers to business-as-usual are a revolution against civilization decay brought on by allowing a criminal class to seize power. They are a desire to get out of the scam that is liberal democracy, equality and diversity.

People have tolerance for new policies. They are willing to give them a chance. When you tell them that immigration is good for the economy, they may believe you. But then when they see that immigration tanks the economy and also destroys social order, they turn on you. Why? — because you either (a) lied or (b) are so incorrect as to be delusional. That means it is time to remove you from power and also rip out anyone who supported you, because all of you are de facto insane.

Europe and the USA are currently in the process of removing the Leftists who have ruled us for the past 200 years, and we are heading toward the fork in the road where we chose to give Leftism a chance. This time, we are sure that Leftism is 100% fail and so we need something that is, first and foremost, not Leftism.

Witness the delicious confusion:

That already feels like a different era. The winds of change in western democracies have since whipped up into a storm and, as the Brexit vote and the election of Trump demonstrated, voters have stopped giving the answers their politicians expect.

…On the hard right, Matteo Salvini, leader of the anti-migrant Lega Nord, is also surfing the wave, describing Trump’s triumph as a strike against globalisation: “It’s the revenge of the people, of courage, of pride, of the desire for work and security; and it’s one in the eye for the bankers, the speculators and the journalists.”

In other words, for exactly the same reason the Soviet Union fell: nothing was working, and those in power were not subject to recall when things were not working.

Even more, as in the Soviet Union, they were guided by a social ideology: an idea that is so appealing to human brains — equality — that like lab test monkeys on crack, they sacrifice everything for it.

This is the core of Western decline. When civilization succeeds, it simultaneously loses its inherent mission and gains a kind of “algal bloom” of people who could not succeed without the safety of civilization. This increases unrealistic thinking as a factor, and causes people to rationalize the lack of mission instead of doing the hard work of finding a new one. From this comes individualism, which in its collectivized form is Crowdism, which in turn manifests in Leftism which is a spectrum from classical liberalism through Communism that inevitably advances toward the latter stage, a tendency called “Progress.”

Those who rationalize the decline are “goodwhites.” These double down on their ideology because it makes them feel good about the transition to third-world status, and they are vicious to anyone who fail to join them in denial, illusion and fantasy:

Goodwhites pose as our moral superiors: so-o-o-o tolerant, open-minded, progressive, humane… But they are in fact, though, nasty pieces of work: vindictive, self-righteous, cruel, contemptuous of their fellow citizens.

The correct response to all that is not niceness, it’s a good hard kick in the crotch.

This is what voters have realized. The goodwhites will never stop because they are reality-averse. They do not care about the consequences of their actions. They do not seek to be responsible. All they care about is feeling good through the crack-like drug of social ideology, and they want to destroy — not just defeat, but crush and kill — all of us who resist.

If you wonder why they are such fanatics, consider the parallel information that Liberal political ideology [is] significantly associated with crime cross-sectionally and longitudinally. The type of person to become a Leftist is more likely to be a reality denier, which overlaps in the group of impractical people who try to work around real-world obstacles by committing crimes, effectively externalizing the cost of their actions to the rest of society. It is not surprising that the Leftist ideology does the same.

Trump/Brexit is more than a series of political events. It is a cultural revolution against the class of criminal parasites who have dominated the West for the past seventy years by demonizing any potential alternatives as Literally Hitler. Those in turn are merely the farthest advance of the same group that has corrupted the West since at least the French Revolution.

This group is made of our own people, the “goodwhites.” They are either mental defectives themselves, or socially weak — low self-esteem — people who are easily cowed by the stronger, clearer “philosophy” of the defectives. But now a revolution is underway to throw them out, and in so doing, to begin the renovation of Western Civilization.

The Rotherham Election

Friday, November 25th, 2016

nazi_cosplay

Trump/Brexit — and they are so similar that we should see them as the same event, along with (hopefully) Italian exit from the EU and Marine Le Pen winning in France — were a defensive election, not democracy as usual.

Democracy had failed. Since Ronald Reagan, we in America have had a non-stop sequence of terrible leaders who succeed at “the game” of politics, law, and bureaucracy but were unfit to rule.

Eventually, we were forced to defend ourselves. No symbol is clearer than what happened in Rotherham in the UK, where hundreds of girls were molested by immigrants and no one would report it for fear of being seen as racism.

This election was a self-defense election. The Left would never stop, and the end result of their advancement is completely illogical situations like Rotherham, because by choosing ideology the Left has rejected reality in favor of human feelings, judgments and emotions. That leads to bad results, as all “closing-in” of humans into their own little worlds tends to.

In the Leftist world, you cannot defend yourself or you will be called racist, sexist, homophobic and Islamophobic. Your children are raped; what is your complaint? To the Left, victory is at hand, because those rapes lead to the erosion of natural things like heritage, culture, sex roles and the family. That means those can be replaced by the State.

Do you see the Leftist endgame yet? It is a world of cultureless mixed-race people, subservient to ideology, who live in a wasteland and yet claim to be proud of it because of its material wealth. The Leftist endgame is emptiness and misery.

Rotherham is one aspect of the Leftist endgame. With nothing in common, civilization becomes predatory, and if someone can get away with molesting nubile young girls, that is viewed as a benefit to them. There is no purpose in common.

Our future under Leftism is a void comprised of endless Rotherhams. In the Leftist mind, nothing is more important than the ideology, and therefore everything else must be consumed to feed that ideology.

The only way out of that future is to get out of Leftism. Reject egalitarianism, and seek a reality-based path instead of an ideological one. For now, this is unpopular, but as the victims pile up, that is beginning to change.

This election was the Rotherham election. People wanted a way out of the inevitable insanity if we continued the current course, and, for once, sanity won out over the herd. If we keep pushing, we can make Rotherham a sad memory and nothing more.

Leftism Is A Business

Monday, November 14th, 2016

leftism_is_a_business

Uber-skeptics like the people who will survive this dark era in history tend to view all human interactions as businesses. This is not because they like business, but because they are realists: all people act in self-interest, and in civilization, since the primary skill required is to induce others to do things for us, self-interest requires acting for personal gain usually through deception.

In this mindset, we can debunk ideology by pointing out that it is a business, specifically a variation of the entertainment business. In entertainment, one creates images that makes consumers feel safe and content, and in order to experience that feeling again, they buy the product. However, in order to make the product appealing, the sellers must ensure that it never appears to be a product.

One notices over time that successful products center around a few themes. These involve what humans wish were true, including eternal youth, sudden wealth, narcotic romances, and other fantasies that involve the human being as the center of life, more important than its context, so that the brain feels safe in its significance as if that would hold back or at least diminish mortality and individuality. Essentially, entertainment fantasies focus on the individual being God or god-like,

If you wonder why Leftism resembles a religion, this is why: it is a replacement religion with human intent at its center instead of a divine being.

The central idea of Leftism is control, which one might describe as the replacement of structure with a linear centralized authority. Under control, the intent of this authority alone matters; it removes anything which competes with it by using the device of “equality,” which reduces those under its command to atomized beings who can be commanded with identical mandates.

This serves the convenience for control and in the case of people, isolates them in their own fears of offending control or missing its rewards, eliminating the structures of organic civilization which nurture it from within. Instead, they must become dependent on the controller and act as a mass that waits on control for commands.

Through this hybrid of religion and tyranny, Leftism, Inc. runs itself as a successful business that makes itself essential to the function of a civilization, but in so doing, removes any other option for order in a society. Like a parasitic worm, it enters through the heart, where people long for an end to risk, war, differences of ability and other sources of stress. Then it makes its way to the brain, where it rips out the nervous system and replaces it with a remote control that directly manipulates every part of the body to act in unison. This abolishes differences between the organs, turning the body to mush that responds jerkily and ineptly to commands, but the controller does not care. The zombie serves its intent, and therefore can be sacrificed, because only the intent matters.

This represents a different type of “game.” Normal healthy people seek to win the game of life by playing well and making themselves better in the process. Those who are dead inside instead quest for control, power and other tangible things they can manipulate. To do this, they destroy all order outside of themselves because it competes with their intent for importance. In fact, they adore having chaos and destruction all around because these only serve to emphasize the necessity of their intent, choices, whims, feelings and judgments. The ego sits in a blaze of glory formed by the incineration of everything good — because only good, not bad — competes with the self.

If you wonder why your world is a wasteland, with every normal function — jobs, government, art, culture, family and friends — perverted into a replica of the larger control structure, this is why. The West is a ruin because it is existential misery with excellent shopping. The soulless person says, “Hotdogs only a dollar! I love this country, such a bargain!” and then goes through life ignoring crises, and rationalizing the loss of time and autonomy as necessary for the highest value, which is then justified as being the shopping itself. This type of reversed order of thought is essential to surviving this time, but the most important parts of each person — the inner self — does not survive it, because it, too, is perverted into a control structure.

Leftism sells a highly successful product, equality, which makes every individual feel that they are safe even if they fail or do something degenerate. The Left sells acceptance, and this quickly morphs into a sense of being “good,” and this encourages people to feel good about themselves without needing to do anything to that end.

Since this product is eternally popular, Leftism sells it with a catch — a Devil’s bargain — in that in order to enjoy the product, users must pass it on to others like multi-level marketing, drug addiction or a street gang. The group defends itself and spreads benefits among its people, who are presumed to be “good,” and by the converse assumption, others must be “bad.”

This gives Leftists an identity: They take from the bad and give to the good. This suppresses both concerns over the inherent immorality of theft and gives people a new identity as Robin Hood styled social reformers, instead of merely neurotics who find life difficult and want to scapegoat others in order to force their way into society despite being fundamentally irrelevant to it.

As soon as it achieves traction, Leftism begins to resemble any other business, which is to say that it collects incompetence and weaponizes it by making each person fear for their own position, thus driving them into doing symbolic acts for the sake of appearing important, busy and competent.

If you wonder why Leftists are such fanatics, the basis of that psychology can be found in this development. They now feel accepted by society, but they must still demonstrate their place in the gang, and they compete among one another in a game of Who Is The Most Egalitarian. If one person liberates orphans, the next liberates retarded orphans, and the winner grants freedom and welfare to gay minority retarded disabled orphans. Whoever shows the most pity is the champion.

At the same time, this Office Space like dimension to Leftism — and indeed, to all control — creates a situation where all other political actors become coworkers. People trade favors, and prioritize “getting along with” one another above whatever job they are doing. This serves to further Leftism by co-opting normal people in because the Leftist will approach them as a colleague, trade favors, and then expect loyalty. This is how conservative movements are quickly absorbed into the Leftist morass.

When the Leftist empire reaches monopoly status, it tends to do whatever any business does when its productive years are over, which is sell out to a wealthier but directionless concern that will absorb its assets as a type of long term cash cow. The Leftists have held their competitions, and those who rose to the top make off with the funds, and then everyone else goes home to their bleak apartments in what are now Venezuelan-Soviet conditions. The civilization they parasitized is now effectively destroyed, but this does not stop each new generation from rising up to see what it can steal.

The only way to stop Leftism is to recognize it for what it is: tyranny by the unimportant, miserable, unhappy, neurotic and obsessive. In other words, those who are not the productive contributors and creators in a civilization have become a growth within it that hopes to take over. The rest oppress the best, which causes the best to drop out or leave, and renders that civilization into a wasteland of incompetence and solipsism.

That allows us to see what the true opposite of Leftism is, which is oppression of the rest by the best. When the best gain the upper hand, they tend to filter people into two groups, “useful” and “less useful or useless.” They then give positions of power to the former, and either disenfranchise or eject the latter. This creates a competence surge which can restore civilization.

It also puts people into stable positions within a hierarchy, eliminating the profit through social mobility gambit of the Leftist. Social mobility sounds good until one realizes that all but a handful of us every generation belong doing roughly what our fathers did. The exceptions can be promoted on an individual basis, but what the rest of us need are roles where we can excel without being destabilized.

Along those lines, creating an aristocracy and giving it wealth and power removes the motive to conquer within civilization by its leaders. They have everything they need, and did not receive it because of their expertise and thieving it, but for their expertise in making the best of imperfect situations. This indicates a moral inclination to do the best and avoid the type of small-minded, predatory and defensive behavior that Leftist leaders exhibit.

Our aristocrats were destabilized by events such as the Magna Carta, which limited their power and forced compromise with the commercial class. This in turn commercialized a great deal of the aristocracy, and gave rise to the shopkeeper class, who treated government as a business and not a quest to improve civilization in a gradual basis by rewarding its best and ejecting its worst. This created a mentality of treating society in a utilitarian manner, which naturally gave rise to the business-like thinking of the proletariat revolutionaries.

The rise of the shopkeeper class was unfortunate because while these were clever, especially with “making” money, they were not intelligent in the sense of being able to see a dozen moves ahead in the game. As a result, they specialized in short term decisions which created long-term problems, destabilizing society and allowing the ideologues to take over.

As usually happens, the rise of ideologues brought about instability because now, in addition to the task of being a good person and performing a role, people had to defend against ideological suspicion which was like a constant witch-hunt. This in turn made people inauthentic and driven by appearance, which pushed them further toward the ideologues in the search for a protector.

This type of “defensive personality” afflicts all societies where authority and power are not closely tied to realistic and long-term thinking such as the aristocrats display. This is the root of control: by making all people isolated and afraid, it compels them to obey, but in such a way that they rationalize it as their own choice.

As we see in the world of commerce, the best products do this as well. People go to the store and buy the bread that is always there because it is the convenient option, then rationalize the purchase by convincing themselves that they like it. Eventually the company realizes it will profit even further if it buys up or drives out all other brands. Leftism behaves in the same manner.

If the realization became widespread among the thinking people of our society that Leftism is a business, it would remove the aura of holiness which Leftism uses to induce people to believe in it. That mantle is how Leftism grows without its true nature being noticed, and when it falls, the raw profit motive will reveal itself.

How The Left Misunderstands Conservatism

Thursday, November 10th, 2016

leftists_are_unhappy_people

The Left has never understood conservatism because the Left has never wanted to. To them, their ideology of egalitarianism leads directly to Utopia, at which point there will no longer be conflict between humans and everyone will be accepted. Any deviation from this is a moral sin punishable by death, in their view.

That explains why the Left does not want to understand conservatism: they have zero room for it in their pantheon of ideologically-tinted symbolic representations of reality. This is because while conservatism is voiced as an ideology, fundamentally it is anti-ideological because it bases its perceptions on reality.

Conservatism comes from the term “to conserve,” which means that we preserve successful means of achieving excellence. In human terms, nothing can be preserved in a static sense, but must be regenerated anew in each generation, so “conservation” means not physical things but principles, methods and ideas.

As written here before, that means that conservatism has two attributes:

  1. Consequentialism. We judge success by end results and side-effects, not by human intent, feelings, judgments, universal symbols and emotions. Reality is external to us; internal focus is solipsistic.

  2. Transcendence. There must be some goal higher than material reaction, like excellence, beauty, goodness and truth, and we discover it through intuition, which is within but not personal.

This contrasts with Leftism, which has only one attribute: egalitarianism, or the equality of people, which is presumed to lead to pacifism and universal acceptance, and from there to Utopia. Leftism works through negative actions, or things it wishes to remove; conservatism requires restructuring society around positive goals, or things we want to achieve.

For this reason, in our Leftist time, our Leftist media has trouble understanding why conservatism does not translate into Leftist terms. First they want to make it an ideology; then, they try to import egalitarianism — the core and principle of Leftism — into it, despite for conservatism, egalitarianism being at most a means to an end and not an end in itself.

As a recent article demonstrate, our society is now struggling to understand conservatism which is as distant as a foreign land to a society brainwashed in two centuries of Leftism:

Nash presented an influential portrait of conservatism as a river fed by three tributaries of thought: Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism). Although each could be rendered as a popular impulse or unthinking reflex of the mass mind, Nash insisted that all three were fundamentally intellectual traditions, nourished by a cast of characters who deserved both respect and extended study, among them James Burnham, the former socialist turned anti-Communist; Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian classical economist; and Russell Kirk, America’s answer to Edmund Burke. In Nash’s telling, these were the men (and they were almost all men) who created conservatism in the postwar years.

This article is patent nonsense. Conservatism is not a material ideology, but a timeless principle. It can be found in “Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism)” but they are not its constituent components. Rather, as a principle, it is found many places, and those are the ones we recognize — “observer bias” — because of their recent relevance.

A conservative is someone who likes what works. Because the question then arises “How well does it have to work?” he has to pick either bare minimums (utilitarianism) or best case scenarios, and that latter leads him to the goal of excellence. That in turn picks out the principle of nature: all works to produce a hierarchy that advances the best over the rest, and this extends to metaphysical principle.

For all that modern people know of conservatism, the above passage might as well be in ancient Greek. However, as we enter into a conservative area with Brexit rippling across the USA and Europe, we might want to understand the path out of the Leftist mental ghetto and how we can use it to save ourselves from the moribund inertia of liberalism.

When Humorous Trolls Become Lugubrious Reality

Saturday, November 5th, 2016

how_white_people_plagued_society

Back in 2005, a troll named “Shaun Goldstein” posted the following satire of Leftism, figuring that what he wrote was too insane to be anything but a parody:

Are you a Marxist Universalist Democrat (M.U.D.)?

Preamble

WE, the Marxist Universalist Democracy Party, understand the importance of freedom in the modern world. We choose to uphold equality and respect for our fellow man. We believe that the individual is the prime focus of any goal, and cherishment of our collective individuality is important in natural balance.

M.U.D. Manifesto

Freedom:

  • Measures will be taken to ensure no minority has his or her right trampled upon by the majority.

  • Freedom of speech will be held sacred, except for those who wish to use freedom of speech to destroy such freedoms.

  • Fascists, Racists, and Bigots will not have the opportunity of freedom of speech. Any violators of hate laws, especially laws breaking anti-Semitism codes, will be beaten, thrown into jail, and have their property confiscated.

  • All people have the right to practice whatever religion they so choose, as long as it is deemed inoffensive to minorities.

  • There will be a minimum of government interference in the lives of The People.

  • Ideas are to be communicated in respectable ways. People must adhere to politeness laws when speaking publicly.

  • There will be more freedom in the individuals’ life.

Drugs:

  • All drugs will be legalized for public consumption. Because the government will have full control of the economy, the government will be in charge of drug vendors.

  • Convicted felons of violent (words can be considered violent) acts involving racial hatred will be forcibly administered ecstasy. Ecstasy is a known empathogen which raises a user’s level of tolerance.

  • All people convicted and currently incarcerated of drug charges will be released, regardless of any additional unrelated convictions.

  • Welfare programs will ensure the elderly access to prescription drugs. Especially elderly minorities.

Racial Policy:

  • The government will grant certain benefits to interracial couples, as part of the Multicultural Initiative.

  • Any and all acts of racial injustice will be dealt with by the police with maximum efficiency.

  • All history books will have any mention of race erased, except for certain events such as the Holocaust and slavery in America’s history.

  • Race is a social construction, and racial homogenization will be required to destroy the very abstract and false notion of race/ethnicity. If we are all the same color then racism cannot exist.

  • Affirmative Action programs will be implemented to ensure an equal number of minorities participate in various government run programs (such as jobs).

Social Policy:

  • Health care will be for all citizens, save felons and the previously wealthy.

  • We will create a pluralistic society that is based on subjectivity and freedom.

  • The individual will be the highest point of focus.

  • While we respect the woman’s right to choose, abortion might be necessary in culling an excess of one racial group. This is to prevent an elite class of a certain race from emerging.

  • Marriage between any members of any race, creed, or genders will be allowed. Special benefits will go to homosexual couples previously discriminated against by the prior capitalist regime.

  • All victims of hate crimes will be given reparations as a gesture of the M.U.D.s humanity.

  • Guns will be banned. There will be no need for them as revolution under our revolutionary government can only be started by the racist factional groups seeking dominance. Criminals will also have no access to guns, so crime will be nonexistent.

  • All people will participate in the democratic system. Racists, not being human, will be expelled.

  • Democracy will be put into the hands of the people and the nation of Earth will directly elect a president of Earth.

The Economy:

  • The Government and The People will be fully inseperable. This allows for a complete nationalisation of the economy.

  • All people, being equals having equally important functions in society, will earn the same amount of pay.

  • Pay will be in the form of cattle, chickens, grain, and berries. Money will be abolished as it directly leads to a capitalist system.

  • As there will be no borders after the simultaneous worldwide revolution, the value of the various items of barter (such as chickens) will retain a constant value in every sector of land.

Animal Rights:

  • Animals must be treated with upmost respect, even those that are meant for feeding. Anyone found disrespecting an animal’s right to a humane existence will be branded a bigot and the courts will proceed as normal.

  • Certain species of animals with proven higher cognitive abilities will not be exempt from the democratic process. Chimpanzees and Dolphins are two such animals; Bonobos are primarily in mind because they form natural Marxist communities.

  • Animals may be killed for the only purpose of consumption.

  • Vegetarianism will be government sponsored and vegetarians will recieve extra benefits in berries.

Education:

  • Education will be open to all individuals, regardless of age, sex, or any other personal attribute.

  • All pictures of people in school text books will be of minorities. This is to counterreact the racist notion of Whites being the only achievers in the arts and sciences.

  • Homosexuality will be introduced to children at a young age to ensure normalization.

  • Personal skills classes will be compulsory for all elementary school children. These classes will introduce concepts in speaking to other humans that minimize conflict and impoliteness.

  • The following books will be banned from High School libraries: The Turner Diaries, Mein Kampf, Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Wealth of Nations, Industrial Society and Its Future, and The Antichrist.

  • Children will be introduced to highly imaginative art such as abstract art at an early age.

  • Philosophy will be a compulsory course. Students will be expected to understand the concept of the categorical imperative upon completion. Naturally, works by Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, and Plato will be verboten.

Globalization:

  • A worldwide revolution will occur to amalgamate the planet into one nation: Earth.

  • All borders will be opened and all suburbs will be populated by asylum seekers. This is the opposite of “white flight.”

  • A Racial Homogenization program will be started to ensure equality in all sectors (formerly known as regions).

  • There will be funding for technology with the purpose of searching for extraterrestrial lifeforms. Once contact is made, attempts to institute intergalatic Communism will take place under the unlikely occurance of it not happening already.

Punishment:

  • All felons (those convicted of violating hate codes) will be forced to work into internment camps with 15 hour work days and in maximum security facilities.

  • Rehabilitiation will be more important than punishment, still. Ecstasy will be given to violent offenders of hate crimes and mandatory reeducation classes utilizing negative reinforcement will be used.

  • There will be much less crime in a tolerant world.

  • Those convicted of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial will be extradited to the world capital of Tel-Aviv for punishment.

Arms, Military, Militia:

  • There will be a large military compromised of a few billion people. The main focus is to quell any intolerant militia groups from popping up. We need to stamp them out or else we’ll have another Hitler.

  • A secondary purpose will be to defend the nation of Earth from any extraterrestrial attacks.

Conclusion

People and fellow humans, realize this: as long as we are unequal, we cannot be friends. Vote Marxist Universalist Democracy Party in your next election.

It would be hard to spot substantial differences between this Jolt Cola and marijuana-fueled mockery and the current policies of the European Union, the opinions of Hillary Clinton voters, or the witty opinions expressed by celebrities or late-night comedians.

There interesting thing is that not much deviated from the standard Leftist ideas of 1789 or even the peasant revolts of the 1500. This hyperbolic satire merely turned them all up to eleven, revealing the insanity that has always been lurking behind Leftist opinions but only now is becoming visible.

Obamacare is How Leftists Flunk Math

Thursday, October 27th, 2016

liberalism-find_a_cure

Social systems operate on principles that roughly approximate physical systems described by physical laws. The mathematics used to model these systems approximate the mathematics used to solve physical problems.

Like the fictional Theory of Psychohistory proposed by Hari Seldon, physical analogs can be used to predict future events. One example of this is the actuarial mathematics used by insurers to predict the future state of human populations. This can be seen as the application of statistical mechanics to a human rather than a molecular population.

These populations consist of their customers. These customers of health insurers may or may not experience unfortunate life events at certain intervals of time. These events cost the health insurer money. The health insurer establishes prices to cover these events. The prices are a combination of the likelihood of an event and the cost to the insurer should any event occur. So what happens if by fiat you suddenly increase the number of people insured, the number of events covered and the likelihood of an individual member of the population suffering a covered event? Obviously, if you are Barack Obama, the cost curve bends in the right direction from sheer will to power. In nations outside the Magic Kingdom of Equestria, this simply isn’t the case. Even Bill Clinton, bless his heart, accurately describes the Desert of The Real.

“So you’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half,” he said, describing a long-time conservative appraisal of the law.

In other words, covering more people, who get sick more often for a greater number of conditions can only do one thing to the price of a health insurance policy. It can only increase that price. In Liberal Wonderland, this becomes a problem Republicans must solve. Liberals typically say that when the people rebel against their pet schemes. It’s then that the people get told not to believe their lying eyes.

Famous Physicist Enrico Fermi taught at The University of Chicago. He would rather see a fool suffer rather than suffer one in silence. He once famously told a student “That was so bad that it isn’t even wrong.” The HHS has just released a report which deserves a similarly harsh condemnation. Amerikans can now check out all the options, as they tell us below.

“Thanks to financial assistance, most Marketplace consumers this year will find plan options with premiums between $50 and $100 per month,” said HHS Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell. “Millions of uninsured Americans qualify for financial assistance, and so could as many as 2.5 million Americans currently paying full price for off-Marketplace coverage. I encourage anyone who might need 2017 coverage to visit HealthCare.gov and check out this year’s options for yourself.” Thanks in large part to the Marketplace, in early 2016, the share of Americans without health insurance fell to 8.6 percent, the lowest level in our nation’s history. This year’s Open Enrollment offers the chance to build on that progress and further improve access to care and financial security.

I’m going to do the lovely and talented Sylvia M. Burwell a favor and assume that this content was dishonest rather than wrong. You see, people don’t enter the Obamacare marketplace during open enrollment to improve access to care and financial security. They go in the marketplace to avoid paying fines. Put a gun to the consumer’s head and he’ll tell you loves Egg McMuffins if that is the answer you came seeking. There is a technical name for an insurance policy that you have to buy or else. These are known as protection rackets. They are famously unavailable from reputable firms. The jail sentences combined with the power of the RICO statutes make them a suboptimal marketing strategy. Government suffers no such impediment thanks to the Supreme Court.

There are some logical solutions to this. The nice guy one involves paring this disaster back and limiting the stealth public option to catastrophic events. Cut the Obamacare requirements back to events that cost above some threshold that most average Amerikans could never afford and only cover events that are more expensive. Then there is the condign human desire to teach these rat bastards a lesson on why the USSR was dumb not just wrong.

So how does this work? The GOP tells the Dems they are expected to write a repeal law that will get rid of Obamacare and the GOP will not bother discussing it with the Dems until they produce a repeal bill that meets the GOP criterion as good enough. Cucks exist. That won’t happen in my lifetime. What a shame.

The solution we’ll get made to eat in a #Hillary administration is the bailout. Something is done to make insurers continue to participate and the individual mandate remains in place. The losses are made up via taxation and the fines for non-participation are ramped up so that enough healthy people get tossed into the parasite pool. In effect, the number of sham policies that “compete” to be “chosen” is irrelevant. It will be single payer by a much goofier name.

Obamacare is how the left flunks math. A significant number of these people actually believed “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” All of the basic logic I laid out about how actuaries price insurance is mumbo jumbo to them. If Jedi Obama promises to bend the cost curve today is the day the levels of the ocean will no longer rise. Magic fails in math class. It does so in reality. The man behind the curtain knows this well.

Recommended Reading