Posts Tagged ‘marine le pen’

Avoiding The Fate Of The Know-Nothings

Sunday, August 27th, 2017

The Alt-Right is in the process of taking over the Republican Party. It’s a hostile takeover to be sure. We’re making inroads with Americans and the Identitarians are shifting the debate on immigration in Europe. However, if the Alt Right is to truly become the mainstream political movement that the Left fears it can become, we must look to history to understand how to avoid the fate of the America Party, otherwise known as the Know-Nothings.

We must develop a coherent message beyond just immigration reform and white identity. Indeed if we are to fully engage white Americans we must understand that much of what concerns them isn’t just immigration, but the effects of immigration. We need to engage with them in terms of economics, as in, we need something to present beyond basic bitch conservative “lower taxes” and “fiscal responsibility,” as if those are anything more than marketing buzzwords. We need to engage with whites when it comes to education, both primary and secondary. We need to have a coherent healthcare solution, or at least the beginning of one. And ultimately, we need some kind of foreign policy for dealing with the Middle East, China, India (the rising power that’s often forgotten) and we need to be ready for a multipolar world where the United States is not the lone superpower.

To make this clearer, look at the difference in the success of President Trump and the failures of Wilders and Le Pen. Trump tied immigration to jobs in the rust belt states and to the need to control our borders. He did not win with immigration alone, but instead made it a part of a comprehensive strategy to “MAGA.” On the other hand Le Pen and Wilders were seen in their respective countries as immigration-only candidates and while it should be noted that Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) did quite well, he did not win his election. Perhaps it will take a second election cycle in Europe for Europeans to embrace anti-immigration and anti-migration platforms, but it won’t happen without incorporating plans for other aspects of the population’s concerns.

White identity will be the defining issue of the next generation of Americans. We cannot afford to lose potential voters, many of whom will be former Democrats or libertarians, because we failed to make a comprehensive and coherent platform centered on issues of practical, real-world importance to whites.

So let’s look at the history of the Know-Nothing Party in the United States to make sure we can avoid their fate. First, they operated as an independent party. That was a little more feasible in the nineteenth century, but America was still effectively controlled by two major parties. The Know-Nothings were the response to rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the 1840s centering on the influx of Catholic Germans and Irish. This is what earned the party the label of anti-Catholic. And indeed this helped them do very well in the 1850s.

But their success was short lived.

The Know-Nothings broke along predictably geographic lines due to the issue of slavery. Anti-slavery members went Republican while pro-slavery members joined the Democrats. But is there an issue such as slavery that defines the twenty-first century? At first glance not really. It would seem the Alt-Right is situated in such a position that no major issue will destroy it. However, this isn’t necessarily true. The Second American New Right, a composite of Alt Right and Alt Lite, is fracturing as we’ve seen at the recent free speech rally in Washington DC, as well as at other rallies around the country.

The Alt Lite seems hell-bent on not only distancing themselves from the Alt Right, but by eliminating it from public spaces. The reason though is clear: the Alt Lite isn’t a right wing movement at all. They’re really no different than liberals. In fact you’ll often hear them claiming that they are classical liberals or that they are defending “Western values” but without mentioning that those values are the product of the European people.

The division will come and is in my opinion, already here. The Alt Right is rooted philosophically in a rejection of Enlightenment values such as democracy, equality, universalism, and “human rights.” By contrast, the Alt Lite struggles to hold on to anything other than a pro-Trump vision for the future. The breakup of the New Right will come as soon as the Alt Lite realizes they must either side with the liberals or side with the Alt Right. Civic Nationalism, the proposition nation, and other comfortable compromises are untenable.

As the breakup comes the Alt Right must be prepared to address issues of interest to whites across geographic, economic, and the social spectrum. If we fail to create meaningful policies centered on keeping whites as the majority in America we will find ourselves confined to the dustbin of history. We will find ourselves defending Spanish language debates between the GOP candidate and the Democratic candidate. Or we will find ourselves looking for ways to repatriate to the few countries in Europe that are, for now, resisting demographic replacement.

Marine Le Pen Aftermath

Monday, May 8th, 2017

It was a bit much to hope for, that idea that Marine Le Pen would win the French presidency. It appealed because many of us want the populist (anti-System) wave that is sweeping the world to chalk up more victories.

The concept also appalled in that, if the populist wave is captured by any elected official or movement, it will quickly be corrupted, as many allege has happened to Donald J. Trump, and seems to be happening at least partially to Brexit in the hands of the professionals.

The professionals learn how to survive. If not before election, after election. To survive, one must keep all the special interest groups in balance, or at least off-guard. The result is that policy does not occur directly, but through many tiny maneuvers.

With 34% of the vote going to an inexperienced politician, Le Pen demonstrates that many of the French people are willing to roll the dice on anything but the continuity of the status quo. However, these tend to be those who have personally experienced the disaster:

Ms. Le Pen was strongest in areas with high unemployment and low wages, where she campaigned on pledges to stop immigration and renegotiate France’s relationship with the European Union.

But Mr. Macron, a political newcomer who campaigned on a centrist, pro-Europe platform, gained widespread support from voters who rejected him in the first round. The vote preserved a French political tradition of mainstream parties working together to bar candidates from the far right, known as the Republican Front. Many voters said they saw him as the lesser of two evils.

The problem with dying systems is that their strength remains, which makes it easy to just adapt instead of risking change, which especially as people get older and look forward to their pensions, becomes a huge problem. The European welfare state took money from people and gave it to the state, and now they are dependent on the state for their later years survival.

In addition, for most people, the problems of the modern state are not yet visible. Sure, some hicks somewhere are starving because the industrial jobs went away. So what? In the cities, one can still stagger through education and slump into a job, and make enough money for a decent way of life, especially since they can rely on social benefits to lower costs during their early years.

The Leftist strategy of robbing tomorrow to pay for today works out as long as there is a tomorrow, which has been defined in solely economic terms because people rely on those pensions and benefits. This is why most of Europe still approves of immigration: they are hoping to bring these people in, brainwash them into working for a living, and then retire on their taxes.

Le Pen tapped into those who realized that at some point in the future this system will fail. This however is a small group, sort of like those who buy classical music or can run a top-notch small business. Democracy weights the bottom and opposes the top.

She might have broadened her appeal if, like Trump, she had run on a broader plan of cutting taxes and revitalizing the economy. Everyone shares in that. But only some are victims of terror or unemployment, and that alone was not enough of an audience.

It will probably take time for Central Europe to accept the new Right-wing shift, even if it was born in part of New Right thinkers in France. Europe is addicted to its social welfare and terrified of change, mainly because people are living in terror because of the instability of society as it is, and they will vote for whoever will continue the status quo plus donate new benefits.

Her loss is fortunate for the underground Right because it must stay underground. Right now, its candidates are too easily co-opted by the System. In the future, a cultural wave will start in localities and begin the rebellion against the center, and not through political means only.

Boycotts in America have shown to be effective when practiced even by one in twenty customers of a business. If the French start turning off their sports televisions, buying less from big companies, and focusing on local living, those nice easy city jobs that Macron voters have will start going away.

At that point, they can bring the pain home to the enemy.

The Alt Right faces a choice between being a political wave or a cultural wave, and smart money favors the cultural wave. Attitudes need to change at a lower level or those energized by resentment will elect a dissident candidate only to insist that this candidate do what every other candidate has done, except this time favoring their special interest group. That happens simultaneously with the attack by the System itself, and guarantees the candidate will see his or her support demanding unrealistic things at the same time colleagues demand compromise with “the way things are always done around here.”

In the United States, it has become clear that a president cannot do much with a Congress that opposes him, even if his intent is good. The result is a death of a thousand cuts for any bill, slowly adjusting it from what it once was into a version of what is normally done, through a process called “inversion.”

Inversion happens any time an idea is handed to the herd. You may have experienced this with The Secret Game as a child: at one end of the room, a child whispers a phrase to another, and this is then passed person-to-person to the other end. It always arrives in mangled form, in part because people forget bits of the phrase, and in part because they project into it what they want to hear.

It is the same way in the System. Any idea must go through room after room full of people who represent special interests. Each one represents his own special interest group, and takes a bit off here and there. When it reaches the other side, it tends to mean the exact opposite of what it originally did.

Voters amplify this process by “demanding” results on very specific topics, not realizing that policy must be general and not act directly in most cases, but let a generally sane rule (or absence thereof) result in specific implementations that work out the details later. The more clear the voters are about what they want, the more they distort any possibilities for getting it.

We might say that this is because voters see the surface, or effects of, hidden causes. For example, cutting taxes ends up in economic success, or lowered regulation makes housing cheaper. Directly demanding cheaper housing causes politicians to run off and write rules enabling subsidies, knowing that more money will be taken in than paid out, so the politicians win.

For some time in the West, our best people have been in hiding. They take simple jobs out of the way and try to go unnoticed. They do this because they know that the System will destroy them, and in addition, they will not be able to make positive changes. It will turn them into monsters.

We need a cultural revolution because we need to start rewarding our best people again instead of our worst. This can only come through policy change at the highest levels, including dismantling of the System. The same institutions that once saved us are now working against us, sort of like government intervention at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Our problem stands revealed as not the elites themselves, but those who are the cause of these elites. The group to blame are the voters. They want more benefits, make-work jobs and legal protections for their own dubious practices. Like the Baby Boomers, their goal is to take as much from the system, retire and die without witnessing the downfall they have created.

The System rewards itself and gives us no choice not because it deliberately does so, but because it can do no differently. Our cultural revolt is against the System itself, but that tells only part of the story. The System, like in the Soviet Union, is the result of Leftist policies which because they favor the individual, divide societies against themselves.

Alexander Dugin writes of the nature of this struggle as global insurgency against globalist supremacy:

Life – including political life, and political life in the first place – is a war. The battle is lost, but the war is not. Everything is ahead. The world’s scum will not give up and try to drag the whole of humanity into the abyss. But we do not lose our hands. Now it is clear that Resistance with necessity must be global. After all, the enemy is global.

The old parties are virtually destroyed. There are neither right nor left. There are the People and Elites, Europeans and the global financial oligarchy.

The only modifier that must be inserted here is that the parties are not “neither right nor left,” but Leftist to the core, because our society has shifted in a Leftist direction. Very few know this, but historically and philosophically, the Left consists of one idea, egalitarianism, which has one commandment: equality.

Everything the Left does is designed to break down social order — heritage, caste, religion, customs — and replace it with a strong central government which takes much of the money in exchange for administering Leftism. It does this through wealth transfer programs like welfare and social benefits, as well as through immigration, which helps break down each nation for digestion by government.

We have been fighting this Establishment for years. It seemed conservative in the 1950s because it used an early form of neoconservatism as its guide, arguing for economic equality of opportunity — classical liberalism — instead of outright Leftism. But it was merely biding its time. It knew that if it reduced humanity to a selfish herd, the bickering would start and culture would die.

Cultural revolution addresses this by mocking not just the visible Left, but the invisible Left in the form of the assumptions of the System. Every time people speak up against equality and social welfare, the way things are done changes, just a little bit. While candidates are important, the real war is won in the hearts and minds of our people, and it carries on.

France Chooses Death

Sunday, May 7th, 2017

And so it seems that Marine Le Pen did not win in France:

Initial estimates showed Macron winning between 65.5 percent and 66.1 percent of ballots ahead of Le Pen on between 33.9 percent and 34.5 percent.

Unknown three years ago, Macron is now poised to become one of Europe’s most powerful leaders, bringing with him a hugely ambitious agenda of political and economic reform for France and the European Union.

The result will resonate worldwide and particularly in Brussels and Berlin where leaders will breathe a sigh of relief that Le Pen’s anti-EU, anti-globalisation programme has been defeated.

We are getting closer to the truth of modernity: the voters always choose wrong, except when panicked, because voters make their choices based on mouths and stomachs, not brains and eyes.

If someone promises more to the individual voters, regardless of long-term consequences, the voters go into the gambler’s mania or the psychosis of the lottery player: they role those dice and hope for the best. In six months they will have forgotten anyway.

This tells us that we cannot hope for much from democracy. Either the voters will choose the “safe” candidate who promises them the status quo plus some free stuff, or the candidate will become enmired in the bureaucracy of the Establishment, and their pre-election promises will become inverted, or come to mean the exact opposite of what was originally promised.

In the case of France, the voters were bedazzled by Macron’s campaign of “political and economic reform” and underwhelmed by Le Pen’s promise of long-term greatness. The question for the voter is who pays for rent this month, and who makes his paycheck fatter by the end of the year.

That the money will be worth significantly less because of bad decisions escapes these voters.

Fortunately, this election allows us to put to an end the illusion of a few elites versus the wisdom of crowds. The crowd is dumb because its members are focused on themselves in the near term.

For the Right to attract voters, it will have to get radical. Do not promise income tax cuts; promise abolishing all but a single tax to pay for the military. Do not promise new healthcare, promise cheaper healthcare because government will pay for none of it and will not make laws and regulations in favor of the insurance industry.

The Right abhors lies, and it is right to do so, but democracy is won by lies. A middle path is to promise the achievable, which is to dismantle government except for the bare minimum, resulting in more money to each voter. “Wouldn’t you like to pay ten percent in taxes?” is a winning platform. Greatness, the future, wisdom, etc., do not win over masses. Democracy was designed to take advantage of that.

Of course, the voters are so clever — but not intelligent — that they outsmarted themselves. They voted for the safe candidate, which the voters think means to keep things roughly as they are with a few more giveaways. What it actually means is an even more deeply entrenched power structure.

So far, in Europe, the Angela Merkel contingent are winning because they know they can count on the voters to be more scared of change than they are of the risk of a still relatively rare incident. By rejecting Le Pen, voters in France like those in Germany have chosen death. Instead of taking a chance on fixing the problem, they have sold themselves out for a handful of social welfare benefits.

It is probable that voters would still vote this way even if an Islamic terror brigade nuked Paris. After all, most of them do not live in Paris, and with all those Parisians dead, there is more social welfare for the rest of them.

The Right failed because its campaign was focused too much on abstractions and on the threat of Islamic terror, which does not afflict everyone. Only some people have the wit to worry about the future, but the rest see the world entirely in the time between now and then next paycheck. If Islam invades, but salaries are paid, they will be complacent and cheerful, and will kiss their doomed children goodnight with the same carelessness that they go through the motions at their make-work jobs.

Democracy will never offer a way out. It is the system that occurs when people have given up on leadership entirely, and instead want to sacrifice the nation in order to have slightly better lifestyle for themselves. If costs go up, but salaries go up, they do not care; they will simply work slower at their jobs, cheat on their taxes, and find clever ways of acquiring the goods they need on the side market.

With each election like this, the system grows stronger. We The People will not oppose it. They support it. Only when they are literally headed toward economic obliteration, as in the USA before Trump, do the voters wake up briefly and then, they fail to be radical enough.

For our people to survive, we must escape democracy entirely. The People are incompetent. The leaders they choose are correspondingly sociopathic in order to scam the herd, which by being memoryless and blithely oblivious, invites such fleecing. Our only survival consists in escaping this system entirely.

Democracy Always Converges On The Same Mediocrity

Saturday, May 6th, 2017

With any luck and bravery by the French people, we will be celebrating a different victory than predicted by polls — which do not reflect the socially unacceptable opinions of voters who cannot openly speak what they think — and Marine Le Pen will become the next president of France, continuing the “populist” wave of reactionary nationalist/traditionalist thought into the home of modern democracy.

The talking heads predict otherwise:

The National Front’s Le Pen would close borders and quit the euro currency, while independent Macron, who has never held elected office, wants closer European cooperation and an open economy. The candidates of France’s two mainstream parties were both eliminated in the first round on April 23.

Four new polls showed Macron on track to win 62 percent of the votes in the second round compared to 38 percent for Le Pen, his best score in a voting survey by a major polling organisation since nine other candidates were eliminated in the first round on April 23. A fifth poll showed him on 61.5 percent.

Certainly, conventional wisdom is on their side because of two forces: the Establishment, and the tendency by voters to enact compromise in order to avoid risk. Voters and institutions both suffer from an inertial fallacy, which holds that if what has been working badly has not yet exploded like Communism or National Socialism, the safest bet is to keep voting for it and try to fix the details later.

Of course, like the conservative pacifier of “patriotism, religion and working hard,” the bovine complacency of an inertial vote has not worked at any time in history. Since the Establishment is not rebuked, it takes that as a mandate to double-down on its power and further marginalize its opposition while locking people further into a web of laws, rules, debts, obligations and ideological dogmas.

In fact, we can see how the Establishment controls the outcome of elections in advance through controlling the narrative, relying on the fear of the average person to “step out of line” to keep them voting in an inertial arc:

The French media and public have been warned not to spread details about a hacking attack on presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron.

Strict election rules are now in place and breaching them could bring criminal charges, the election commission said.

A trove of documents – said to mix genuine files with fake ones – was released online shortly before campaigning ended on Friday.

Notice the anonymous assertion that there are “fake files” in with the “genuine ones,” which seems like it affirms the validity of the leak but by asserting that some files are fake without identifying them, casts doubt as to the veracity of any given item.

We can tell that the modern West has been dominated by the stupefactive for many centuries because it replicates fundamental aspects of the failed democracies in ancient Athens and Rome. All democracies end the same way: government becomes the target of all actions, instead of results in reality, so the society simultaneously spaces out and works itself to death for nonsense objectives.

The failure of the French Revolution, which ended in Napoleon, and the Soviet Union, which produced Stalin, follow an identical arc. We might call this “the Napoleonic Arc” because it starts with a revolution against perceived oppression, escalates to actual oppression of a far greater degree, and then ends with fanatical ideological warfare in order to keep the failing nation together.

As part of this arc, government perpetually consolidates its power so that it can keep society together despite the increasing chaos of its population caused by policies of that government. Leftism is popular, but it does not work, even if it takes centuries to see just how bad the problem will become.

Any time humans create a false target like ideology, an elite is produced. These succeed not just in politics, but in the consumer market, because they have adapted to creating products for those who think according to the ideology. Fast food starves in a healthy society, but in one afflicted by ideology, it succeeds because it is more efficient for those living according to that ideology.

This political-financial elite then takes over control of society, aided by government, and dispossesses those who are sane enough to want a normal life instead of craving power and wealth for their own sake. This divides the society into its nu-elites and its remnant of realists:

At the same time, Fukuyama argues that class divisions are primary and come before all other sources of identity. To be sure, Fukuyama is not Marxist. In an essay last year in the Financial Times, Fukuyama writes,” Social class, defined today by one’s level of education, appears to have become the single most important social fracture in countless industrialized and emerging market countries.”

Class, which is the education level, determines the way people think about politics, according to Fukuyama. He imagines that it is the poorly educated who have not done well economically who have become passionately anti-elitist. He recognizes that they do not see themselves in economic terms, but rather racial, ethnicity or nationality terms.

The people in the cities define themselves in economic terms and see themselves as an upper class, even though most of them have come from lower castes. Everyone else defines themselves in terms outside of the terms of this new elite, and focuses on things that have maintained civilization for time immemorial: identity, spirituality, culture, nature and position in community.

In other words, it is the artificial versus the real. The nu-elites are the product of government and ideology; the remnant are the functional people who do not need the nu-elites.

This leads to a radical backlash called “reaction”:

Reactionary thought begins, usually, with acute despair at the present moment and a memory of a previous golden age. It then posits a moment in the past when everything went to hell and proposes to turn things back to what they once were. It is not simply a conservative preference for things as they are, with a few nudges back, but a passionate loathing of the status quo and a desire to return to the past in one emotionally cathartic revolt. If conservatives are pessimistic, reactionaries are apocalyptic. If conservatives value elites, reactionaries seethe with contempt for them. If conservatives believe in institutions, reactionaries want to blow them up. If conservatives tend to resist too radical a change, reactionaries want a revolution.

It is simpler than this journalist makes it out to be: reactionaries are conservatives who refuse to constrain their desires to what “seems possible” in the status quo. They realize there is one ideal state for humanity, and it more resembles something out of The Lord Of The Rings than Brave New World. The $current_year does not matter; one order works, and everything else decays.

This is the environment in which we find ourselves now. Democracy is the political capture of society by ideology; the remnant are realists who want no part of ideology, and focus instead on what has worked through history to produce the best human society, or a Golden Age.

Now that more people have seen what Leftism looks like in practice, since Barack Obama and Angela Merkel took it to its logical extreme, the reactionary movement is gaining force. We realize we do not need our nu-elites, and that we are better off without the political system that put them in power, because it is a crooked game that will produce the same results every time.

Leftism Destroys The Environment

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2017

Voicing a sentiment often felt but rarely expressed among the Right, French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen blamed globalization for the environmental crisis in which humanity now finds itself:

The plant, with a workforce of some 400 as well as around 300 sub-contractors, is controversial for dumping toxic waste known as “red mud” into a Mediterranean nature reserve for decades.

…The plant “is a symbol because they want us to believe that the choice is between jobs and health and the environment,” Le Pen told a handful of reporters outside the plant during her previously unannounced stop.

“I’m here to say that… there would not be such a choice to make” under a Le Pen presidency, said the candidate, who blames environmental degradation — and many other woes — on “unbridled globalisation”.

She touches a toe into the wider issue, which is that Leftism is an environmental disaster. Egalitarianism — or “everyone do whatever they want” — is perpetually popular, but it creates the conditions for runaway growth.

With egalitarianism, unity of purpose such as having a healthy civilization is erased and replaced with individual self-interest. In addition, because egalitarianism removes responsibility, it encourages transfer of socialized cost to the group through a process known as “externalization.”

This produces a runaway economy where each person, in a desire to acquire individual wealth, creates a unique business or concern that they own and then extracts wealth from it. This produces incentive to cut corners in order to widen margins, encouraging the habits of bad businesses like dumping “red mud” into the sea.

At the same time, because this creates massive social instability, it puts workers on the defensive because they can no longer rely on jobs to endure through the decades. Terrified of going bankrupt, they become dependent on society for jobs, which ensures that politicians can always win votes by claiming to “create jobs.”

This system can only keep going through constant growth, which branches eventually into immigration and social welfare programs as a means of producing more and more buyers. It will never stop until it consumes all resources because the need of individuals, taken as a group, demands more wealth without limits.

During the past two centuries and change during which Leftism has been steadily gaining dominance as the political system of the industrialized world, old businesses have been “disrupted” so that new people can seek wealth, resulting in a turbulent economy which produces mountains of landfills as it opens and closes temporary businesses.

Since any product which sells is considered a positive thing, the economy simultaneously barfs out any number of worthless junk objects for consumption and discarding by the herd, generating more waste. Governments encourage this through entitlement payments, which give citizens more money to spend on personal items.

Globalization accelerates this process by exporting the runaway Leftist economy to the world, necessitating constant new markets and new sources of cheap labor to keep feeding the growth spiral.

A society with a healthy view of environmentalism would have less individual freedom because that way, people would have roles they could count on for a lifetime, be economically secure and not be caught in this constant whirlwind of growth as a means of sustaining individuals. As always, the enemy is us.

You Will Not Get What You Want With Democracy

Tuesday, May 2nd, 2017

The Washington Post opines on the reason for Donald Trump’s victory:

The poll found that Obama-Trump voters, many of whom are working class whites and were pivotal to Trump’s victory, are economically losing ground and are skeptical of Democratic solutions to their problems. Among the findings:

  • 50 percent of Obama-Trump voters say their incomes are falling behind the cost of living, and another 31 percent say their incomes are merely keeping pace with the cost of living.
  • A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30 percent — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump. Remember, these voters backed Obama four years earlier.
  • 42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, versus only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (40 percent say that about Congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about Congressional Democrats.

Taking this with a grain of salt, since it comes from the mouth of the enemy, we can see a pattern here: voters were dismayed by the direction the country was taking under George W. Bush, so they ran to Barack Obama; when the health of the country became even worse, they then ran to Donald J. Trump.

This is expressed in economic terms because these are the only questions that Leftist academics tend to ask. They are afraid to ask about anything else, as they will encounter a mire of discontent about social issues, racial issues, corruption and other things that will reflect badly on Leftist policy.

Voters are facing the grim fact that Amerika is buried under so many flawed assumptions, bad laws, Leftist ideals and corrupt practices that now it will take three decades of strong Right-wing leaders to remove the damage. This is typical Leftist strategy: poison the well by damaging government so much it is crippled, then call for its replacement with an even more Leftist model.

Even worse, voters are prone to act illogically. They vote with their emotions, as individuals, and in groups fall prey to “the committee mentality” and vote for what they think is the least worst option because in their view, others will support it. Voting becomes a game like pro sports where everyone wants to bet on the winning team.

This produces the mass conformist behavior that has voters putting people like Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande into office. They are ruled by fear, and compromise in order to not lose what they have, forgetting that slow death is still death. This creates an intractable Establishment which colludes with voters to pick consistently bad candidates instead of taking a risk:

Across the board, politicians and other former candidates have urgently counseled their supporters to vote for Mr. Macron to block Ms. Le Pen’s path to the Élysée Palace.

The French call this the “Republican Front,” and it has proved effective at preventing the National Front — perceived by many in France as a threat to democracy — from taking power before.

Those who get into office do so by making voters have happy feelings. They do this with words by putting ideas in the heads of voters that salve their greatest fears. Voters fear first for the economy, next for stability, and finally really enjoy demonstrations of strength including, oddly, those where a politician asserts pacifism as a higher value. All of these make them feel like their lives are succeeding with this person, and six months later when the results do not materialize, they will have forgotten.

People who are specialists at making voters have happy feelings form a professional Establishment that zeroes in on working with each other. They quickly stop caring about whatever the voters wanted, and deliver instead what the system wants, or in other words what is convenient to do within it, has minimal risk (read: minimal deviation from the norm), and creates positive feelings.

When someone comes in who wants to do something differently, all of the people in the Establishment unite against this new person because changing the order of business threatens the stability of all of the people who have been elected before. Thus things never change, even when a Trump or Farage comes along. The Establishment just trots out a Paul Ryan or Theresa May.

The process of asserting business-as-usual eventually creates a runaway virtue spiral where politicians, seeking the reward of public approval, take ideas well beyond their logical point of application:

Alexander Van der Bellen, the left-wing former Green Party leader who narrowly beat a far-right candidate to take office in January, said freedom of expression was a fundamental right.

“It is every woman’s right to always dress how she wants, that is my opinion on the matter,” he told an audience of school pupils.

“And it is not only Muslim women, all women can wear a headscarf, and if this real and rampant Islamaphobia continues, there will come a day where we must ask all women to wear a headscarf – all – out of solidarity to those who do it for religious reasons.”

Under the rules of the Establishment, voters need to have happy feelings, and they always get these from defense of the perceived underdog. For this reason, those who want to stay in the Establishment always double down on these insane policies, which project the kind of perverted strength mentioned above. Pacifism and tolerance make people feel that their society is strong enough to do the paradoxical, and therefore that their pensions, jobs and money market funds are safe. Most people have short-range goals exclusively.

You will not get what you want with democracy. You will get what is convenient for democracy. Like all things, it serves only itself. Governments are no different than corporations cutting corners in order to deliver a greater bottom line to the shareholders. Nothing will ever change until democracy is removed and logical, forward-thinking action can take its place.

What Is The Trump / Brexit / LePen Wave Of “Populism”?

Sunday, April 23rd, 2017

The Left uses the term “populism” to refer to political sentiments which arises outside the control of the Establishment. This leads to confusion, because to populists, their attitude seems to be an unpopular complex truth beset by pleasant illusions.

Foreign Affairs takes a stab at a definition of “populism” and comes up with a reasonable summary:

It can be hard to pin down the meaning of “populism,” but its crucial identifying mark is the belief that each country has an authentic “people” who are held back by the collusion of foreign forces and self-serving elites at home. A populist leader claims to represent the people and seeks to weaken or destroy institutions such as legislatures, judiciaries, and the press and to cast off external restraints in defense of national sovereignty. Populism comes in a range of ideological flavors. Left-wing populists want to “soak the rich” in the name of equality; right-wing populists want to remove constraints on wealth in the name of growth. Populism is therefore defined not by a particular view of economic distribution but by a faith in strong leaders and a dislike of limits on sovereignty and of powerful institutions.

In other words, populism recognizes the nature of power, which is to use institutions to limit the organic nation and parasitize it for the benefit of international elites and home-grown toadies.

It is “populist” only in that it is meta-democracy, or a popular sentiment created outside the controlled confines of courts, voting and public discourse. It is a cultural wave pushing back against how politics frames the narrative and artificially limits choices based on the pretense of people in groups.

Donald J. Trump may have been elected by the Tea Party, which did not die, but went underground and infiltrated other groups. In the same way, the Alt Right arose when those who were disgusted by both mainstream conservatism and narrow minded HitLARPing nationalist groups came up with a more comprehensive platform that rejected Leftism instead of merely rejecting certain types of diversity.

Where conservatives think we can import people from the third world, “educate” them in our ways and have them live among us, the Alt Right realizes that diversity as a whole fails. Where Nazis single out African-Americans and Jews, the Alt Right points out that every group acts in its own self-interest alone, and in the Machiavellian realpolitik and so ideas like “we are all one” and diversity can never work no matter what groups are involved.

Populists also recognize the nation as an organic entity, or a people. This means that it only lasts so long as its founding group remains unmixed and with its traditions intact. To a populist, social standards must be enforced by culture, and having government step in the way makes government into a parasitic and corrupting force.

Since the adoption of liberalism in the West, a process that took over a thousand years, we have become materialistic or focused on material goals instead of doing what is right. That includes deference to institutions like law and politics, a facilitative society that aims at empowering individual choice over commonality of purpose, and the mentality that whatever is profitable, popular or socially trending is more important that doing what is good, beautiful and true according to the order of nature.

The pushback began once it became clear that Leftists had buried our society in so many rules and precedents that any action except moar Leftism was demonized, ostracized and made politically incorrect. As a result, people have realized that we are now inverted as a society: all of our institutions are corrupt and cannot be saved, and anything done to “improve” society strengthens the evil. Instead, we turn back to the organic nation, and focus on saving that instead.

White People Are Their Own Worst Enemy

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

As usual, white people demonstrate that cleverness is the enemy of intelligence just as “good enough” is the enemy of lasting good.

In The Netherlands, which by any sane estimation is one of the loveliest places on planet earth, the voters decided to avoid electing Geert Wilders and to choose an Establishment candidate instead. This is typical of voters: avoid risk by sticking with what fails slowly and inevitably, basically postponing the issue until it gets worse.

Wilders may not have been perfect but he offered a hope for avoiding the fate of Germany and Sweden for the Dutch, who may consider themselves so unique and special that the problems which repeat elsewhere do not apply to them. This is also a typical human failure of reasoning by which people assume that the rules do not apply to them because they intend for other results than usually happen.

Glitches in his platform were few but vital. Among other things, Wilders took an approach recommended against on Amerika: he targeted a specific group instead of pointing out that diversity will erase the national population and, as a form of suicide, is psychologically destructive.

In addition, he could have broached the broader topic that diversity does not work because every group possesses its own direction of self-interest, including strong identity, and these cannot avoid conflicting when the groups are put together. Nationalism, or separating each group into its own nation, works, but diversity guarantees perpetual conflict followed by erasure through outbreeding.

White people however are too clever to accept that. For them, voting and politics are questions of what makes them look cool to their friends. People who deny obvious problems are cool. So white people pose and posture, swimming in pretense and denial, and project their intention onto the world to obscure the cause-effect relationships that are scary.

Through this process, inversion occurs. The sane becomes the insane, and the formerly insane becomes the norm. Every word comes to mean the opposite of what it once did, and every institution acts against its goals. As a result, society becomes pathological and dedicated to its own destruction. People either rationalize that to feel good and succeed, or fight it and are marginalized.

In this way, the very process of socializing destroys human societies. In the name of “getting along with others,” truth is destroyed, and yet this is the most common human event. When having everyone feel good is more important than getting to the truth, every meaning gets inverted and all goals become suicidal, just at a slow enough level for each individual to profit and look cool.

Wilders and others are fighting upstream against the tendency of humans to go straight into denial. The United States got a break because Barack Obama, by creating his program of wealth transfer to Baby Boomers and illegal Amerind aliens known as Obamacare, crashed the economy so soundly that people actually snapped to attention from their pretense for a few moments and voted against him.

If the West wants to survive, as it looks toward its future, it will realize that the decision-making of humans in large groups is not just poor but suicidal, and so democracy must go:

Americans use the word “democracy” as a shorthand to define their system. Yet democracy as Americans know it only functions when an independent judiciary monitors the executive and legislative branches. The relationship among the branches certainly changes over time, but an open attack by the executive upon the judiciary is something new – at least in the contemporary US.

The president’s tweet recalls how authoritarianism has triumphed in other places. Modern tyrants grasp that their real target are rival institutions and legality, not voting as such. They often attack the judiciary first, assuming that the legislature will go along.

Anyone sane will agree on abolishing democracy, but not on tyranny, which is a word referring to any rule where the rulers prioritize their own interests over those of the citizens. We have tyranny right now through the permanent Establishment which has figured out that the voters are pretentious and how to manipulate them so that this “Cathedral” stays in power indefinitely.

Instead of tyranny, we need leadership not by the people — people in groups quickly revert to pretense and mob rule — but for the people, by the best among us. We need the best to oppress the rest, because our current condition of the rest oppressing the best has led to collapse from within.

Wilders, Le Pen, Orban, Farage and Trump are part of the movement against the inevitable entropy of democracy. They have stood up for difficult truths and framed them in such a way that the remaining functional people can grasp the simple core of the issue, which is that any civilization must assert its self-interest through identity or become dedicated to self destruction.

In the meantime, it is time for binary thinking: whatever the herd likes is wrong, and whatever the herd fears is where we can find actual realistic assessments of our situation. Otherwise, as if by gravity or the passage of time, the Establishment always chooses suicidal policies and the herd, afraid to look uncool, support them:

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party proposed using the €6.2 billion surplus to pay off debts, while the Social Democrats (SPD) wanted to spend it on digital infrastructure projects. As a compromise the money has gone solely to migrant projects instead, Der Spiegel reports.

The present funds allocated toward migrant programmes is already €12 billion, which is thought to be more than enough to handle the needs of the over one million migrants in Germany. The budget surplus would take the money up to over 18 billion – far more than required.

Any time there is a “surplus,” it means money is taken away from vital long-term needs and dedicated to short-term needs that make the headlines. This allows people a chance to virtue signal and pose and otherwise demonstrate how cool they are for ignoring real problems and focusing on symbolic problems instead.

Despite the Wilders loss, the writing is on the wall: liberal democracy, once given enough power, becomes the same kind of insanity that the Soviet Union was. The Left blames this on “capitalism,” but in reality, it was bad leadership through the tendency of people — especially white people — to make cleverly stupid decisions.

For those of us on the Right, the necessary agenda of our future is to push back against the tide of liberalization that has swept the West since The Enlightenment.™ We must recognize that Samuel Huntington was right, and that the liberal democratic age has ended, replaced by one in which tribalism is again the norm, as it is outside of the W.E.I.R.D. countries today.

For this, we must go further than what Wilders did. Our problem is not Islam, nor is it illegal Amerind aliens. It is diversity itself and, since accepting diversity requires reality-denial, the reality-denying system of democracy that allows our people to demonstrate how clever they are by adopting stupid viewpoints. Until we rip out this evil by the roots, it will continue to destroy us.

What Comes After Donald Trump

Friday, February 24th, 2017

Europe, the UK and the United States are now in a feedback loop: postwar Leftism peaked in globalism, then revealed the horrors it had in store for us, and so a cultural sea change has rejected it. Now each of these powers is advancing in response to the others. Brexit came first, then the rise of Donald Trump, and now Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage are advancing the developing history.

The United States is undergoing what might be called a great house-cleaning to reduce the powerful Leftist institutions created over the past seventy years, following the lead of the UK in separating itself from the globalist apparatus. Emboldened by this change, the UK and Europe are now moving to the next stage, showing the US what will come after the present.

CPAC this year brought many surprises. Richard Spencer was ejected for reasons unrelated to anything but pretense, and Milo was disinvited after an artificially inflated scandal brought on by “Reaganite” conservatives and Leftists working together. Trump revealed more of his plan, but Farage hints at the next evolution of this ongoing change, to the delight of all who want the West restored.

Recommended Reading