Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘liberalism’

Why The Alt Right Is Winning

Monday, October 23rd, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush’s speech deserves our attention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Folk Heroes Of The Apocalypse

Monday, August 28th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Do “Right” and “Left” Mean?

Thursday, August 10th, 2017

The salient fact of modernity is that without a natural hierarchy in society, all actions must be accomplished through mass popularity. In order to gain approval of the herd, called consensus, leaders or commercial actors must mobilize a large army of warm bodies who claim to be excited about the idea.

Understanding hierarchy requires understanding the concept of order, or the idea that many unequal parts can work together in balance toward a purpose, guided by principles which ensure the evolution of that work. The opposite of this is mass culture, in which all are equal and are controlled by a force which manipulates them through images, bribes, terrors and guilt.

Mass culture therefore removes all meaning to terms by using them flexibly to argue for whatever is needed or desired. Any term like “Left” or “Right” will be abused, but that does not change the underlying meaning any more than an apple becomes a banana when referred to by the wrong term.

As written about before on this site, the nature of the Right is twofold and emerges from its primary goal, which is to conserve. This outlook recognizes that entropy and selfishness are the eternal enemies of humankind and also the pitfalls that are with us constantly in everything we do or fail to do, and so our goal becomes conservation of what works best.

While this is positive, it is also too backward-looking, and so we dig further into the historical and linguistic roots of conservatism, and find that it is conservation of order, arising from Plato’s “good to the good, and bad to the bad” statement, along the same lines as morality and Darwinism. It sorts people into a hierarchy from good to bad, and promotes the good while beating back the bad.

In this sense, conservatism is a folkway, or a time-honored tradition of choosing not just what works, but what produces the best possible results so that life is inspiring to our fellow citizens. It is the opposite of an ideology, which is a commandment about what “should” be true according human mass desires, instead of a revelation of what is true and how to maximize it.

When it manifests in politics, this way of life becomes the Right:

Historically, however, the famous terms “left” and “right” are around 300 years old. They have their roots in the “Assemblée des États”, the assemblies of the estates. Because of the belief of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God (the hand in which a man usually holds his sword in), the places right to the ruler were considered to be the more honorable seats. Therefore, aristocracy and clergy were sitting to the right hand of the king, the “lower” representatives of the free cities, the citizens, to his left.

This polarity carried on after the king was overthrown because those on the Right fundamentally wanted to restore the ancient order because they knew that aristocracy provided for greater stability than mob rule, and that while mob rule will always be popular with humans, so are many destructive things.

Naturally this created tension. It is impossible to work within a system you oppose without either compromising your principles, or being outright hostile to it and therefore unable to get anything done. The system selected for people who were willing to compromise, which explains why the West has steadily shifted Leftward since 1789 no matter what the Right seems to do.

Even worse, the fundamental conservative idea does not emphasize a change in direction because of its backward-looking desire to “conserve.” In this sense, backward-looking is not looking backward in time, but as a sense of retreat, where the conservatives try to defend a few vital institutions and ideals against a constant onslaught of Leftism. This strategy has not worked well either.

Most conservatives seem to accept society as a lost cause. To them, a society is born in a new state, rises to power, then becomes bloated with fools and parasites like every other human endeavor, and then lapses into a fallen state where conservatives just have to grin and bear it, keep paying taxes and supporting the military, and hope to silently pass into history, one presumes.

They rationalize their behavior with “work hard, pray hard” or The Benedict Option, but both are postures more than attempts to achieve anything. The modern conservative accepts defeat and, with his head held down low, trudges on through life, becoming bitter and passing that on to his family.

Launching a forward-looking conservative movement proves difficult because conservatives generally rationalize their way out of radical change. They also have no way to explain to people who are living the easy life why they should sacrifice and work hard in order to achieve a new system that looks like something from centuries before.

Any conservative party thus becomes a target for opportunists who are willing to cast aside the actual values of conservatism and replace them with pragmatic ones. They realize they can be the opposition party and still have power without having to do much of anything because they know and expect. To them, it is just another job, and they focus on the financial side of it.

Having given up on actually maintaining society, conservatives then treat politics as a business and try to compete, which dooms them because they are up against people who specialize in bribing voters with promises of free stuff. This is how conservatism ends up doing the work of the Left for them; by competing, it adopts Leftist methods, and soon becomes effectively Leftist:

The Progressive era of the West arrived by way of Bismarck and Germany. Otto, being a conservative, was, by that characteristic alone, a natural born progressive. He sought to stay the power and the rise of the Socialists in Germany. He did so thinking like a socialist, calculating as a socialist, and preempting socialist aims by providing what Socialists had not yet the wherewithal/power to dole out.

In the above, we see the classic pattern of conservatives “competing” by achieving socialism before the socialists. This way, the conservatives stay in power, but they also defeat themselves, much as American conservatives have by defending Leftist ideals and programs despite recognizing that these are anathema to their actual values.

This makes it clear as to why people are confused on “Right” and “Left.” When the Right acts like the Left, and the Left depends on the Right to keep the financial side of government operational, the dual parties seem like two heads of the same Hydra. In truth, the Hydra is the Left, and it maintains a public party as a means of forcing others to act out its agenda.

When considering this Hydra, it is worth realizing that it can take on many forms. The fundamental and only idea of the Left is egalitarianism, which means that bad and good alike can participate in society. This is their means of overthrowing any natural hierarchy and replacing it with a popularity contest so that the bad can seize power and profit from it.

In this way, the Left is an instance of both entropy and Crowdism, which is how all human endeavors fail by allowing everyone to participate, thus erasing hierarchy, at which point the Crowd demands the endeavor be made to fit its new audience, which inverts its meaning and adulterates its potency. That is what happened to conservatism as well: assimilation from within by people dedicated to nothing greater than themselves.

Humanity stands at a crossroads. We either find a way to beat this form of simian entropy, or we give on having advanced civilizations that can produce great art, literature and space travel. At that point, we will be assimilated from within by genetics, slowly introducing enough trace admixture to effect a soft genocide of our people, without whom civilization cannot be reborn.

The Alt Right shows promise by being willing to affirm the need to restore Western Civilization, which requires seizing power and driving out the parasites. In this way, it takes the ideals of the Right and the methods of the Left, uniting them toward a temporary force which can put civilization back on track, at which point it can develop naturally to its full potential.

Few will find it surprising that therefore the most intense appeal of the Alt Right comes from those who are existentially stranded in a boring modern existence and dreaming of exploring the stars.

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.

Recommended Reading