Posts Tagged ‘mercantilism’

Poland Laughs Last And Will Laugh Loudest

Wednesday, December 6th, 2017

You can’t be a Real Conservative and still like Poland. Let me tell you all why the latest Polish Joke will forever render them a laughingstock of retrograde, Christianist thinking.

Polish MPs have approved a bill that will phase out Sunday shopping by 2020. Initially proposed by trade unions, the idea received the support of the ruling conservative Law and Justice Party, who want to allow workers to spend more time with their families. The Sejm, the lower house of Poland’s parliament, passed the bill by 254 to 156 to restrict Sunday shopping to the first and last Sunday of the month until the end of 2018, only on the last Sunday in the month in 2019, and to ban it totally starting in 2020. It will still be permitted, however, on the Sundays before major holidays such as Christmas. Some bakeries and online shops will also be exempt.

You see Poland fails to worship ¡THE MARKET! You can’t be a Real Conservative and not worship money and work. If you take Sunday off, and are on your knees doing anything other than sucking a fat one, Modernity will teach you that it is a jealous god. Poland rebels. Poland looks at Black Friday and realizes, perhaps, that in Amerika NFL stands for Not For Long. A nation that tolerates this sort of garbage does not legitimately qualify as a nation. This Black Friday incident fairly close to where I live brings home what happens when ¡THE MARKET! gets prioritized over the culture.

Poland has priorities. The Poles get that a market is a distribution system. It is not a god. You do not worship Walmart. You buy your consumer non-durables there when it is convenient for the pervading and more important culture and religion to allow Wal-Mart to serve its necessary but limited function.

Nobody should feel that they have to take a third shift 11PM Sunday to 7AM Monday at minimum wage to avoid getting fired. Work should not be that important a part of a balanced and successful life. If that means The Rational Consumer loses marginal utility having to buy his baloney sandwich fixings at 9AM Monday or later, than maybe; just maybe, The Consumer should just damn well tie she/he/its guts to its shirt. Convenience is not the most important thing in life.

There are three things that can keep a nation unified at the end of any day ending in “Y”. They are all more important than the false and ultimately self-defeating whims of the market. A common cultural heritage, a common language and a common religious faith. Christianity provides Poland with two out of the three. That gives Poland a whole lot more to base itself upon than Germany, Great Britain and Amerika, whatever those things still are. Poland fights back against the rot of diversity, consumerism and robotic replacement of its people. Poland will ultimately laugh last and laugh loudest.

Those who tell dumb pollack jokes apparently lack the deeper understanding of life Poland and its government are putting on display. They get that Sunday shopping wasn’t just an option or a convenience. It was a destructive surjection of Modernity over a vital part of national identity. Jesus may have gathered sustenance on The Sabbath, but he also knew when it was time to chase the moneychangers out of the temple.

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

What we learn from both the Polish and the verses I’ve cited above is that the economy of a nation is a necessary but not sufficient condition to its greatness. That also the economy must exist on an Aristotelean balance between The Socialist Deathcult and the heresy of the soulless Homo Economicus. We need a functional economy to give us this day our daily bread. We cannot, however live by that daily bread alone.

The culture and the people are more important than the economy. The economical organization is merely a tool or an algorithm that must be controlled and maintained in proper proportion tot he greater societal good that it serves. Poland has chosen the greater societal good and managed to walk along the beam of proper Aristotelian Balance. Only the fools would make jokes about the dumb pollack today.

Batman vs. Superman, Social Justice and Anti-Semitism

Friday, April 29th, 2016


Surely the obituary for Western culture will include a footnote for the newish film Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice:

Not only did the subject matter — a fantasy designed for small boys — trigger concerns of an infantilized and out of touch population, but also as many commentators noted, the movie was terrible. Robotic script, wooden acting, surface emotional content and brain-degrading dialogue. And yet, audiences seemed not to care, and attended it happily in large groups, possibly so busy texting and chattering that they were unaware they were watching a movie.

When entertainment for adults becomes cartoons, it says something about the audience. They need to feel like heroes, and they want to watch something with the depth of a Soviet propaganda film that makes them feel good about their society and its direction. This tells us that they are not heroes, and they are not confident in our future.

This takes us to a study of the psychology of projection. People assert what they doubt. They do this fanatically because it is psychologically easier than facing what they are afraid is true. Primitive societies dress their warriors like terrors in the hope that this will protect them. Sophisticated societies create mythologies of morality to rationalize failure by explaining that, while all is destroyed, it was done in the name of being good sociable creatures who never harmed anyone.

Projection allows us to assign our own choices to external forces. This can make us feel heroic, as in a superhero movie or “Social Justice” where people assume that armchair activism makes them into Martin Luther King, Jr. It can also avoid the elephant in the room, which is our bad choices, by blaming external actors like The Jews™, the Rich, “poverty” or Satan himself for the results of our poor decisions. Scapegoats of this nature are always more popular because they are simpler and psychologically easier than facing the actual problem, which is usually denied because people are afraid of it.

And yet fixing this actual problem is our only hope. We made bad choices and got bad results. Allowing mercantile elements to take over our society from below was stupid, as was pacifying the masses to avoid revolts. Democracy was stupid — especially after the warning from ancient Athens — and now tolerance, social justice, diversity, transgender bathroom rights and other artifacts of democracy are stupid. Just as Communism in Russia was stupid, Liberalism in America and Europe is stupid and heading in the same direction.

What makes history fascinating is that it is a story of people looking in the wrong places because they were afraid of the underlying issues. Then some disobedient individual or non-conforming group takes a new look at the problem, sees the obvious common sense reality and acts on it, and gets ahead. Then everyone else slavishly imitates that group, just as they slavishly imitated one another in avoiding the problem previously. Until we get to that state, our existence will be much like the odious Batman vs. Superman: a simplistic cartoon on the screen, and our feet stuck to the floor where an unknown sticky substance accumulates gradually, eventually pulling us all down into its decay.

The Magna Carta (lives in infamy and soon will perish)

Tuesday, June 16th, 2015


This week most of the West celebrates the 800th birthday of the Magna Carta. No sane person would see this as a positive situation, because that document ushered in one of the foulest human creations: the determination of leadership through the relationship between financial interests and the masses. Previously money and power had been separated by removing its acquisition as a motivating factor, leaving wealth in the hands of aristocrats who did a much better job of minimizing its harms than the mercantilists to follow.

When the barons of England demanded rights which were universal and beyond the power of the kings, they created an alternate power structure which catered to commercial interests but, because those in turn relied on customers of the mass consumer variety, would quickly become a situation in which every plausible citizen no matter how uninvolved in keeping society afloat would have a vote. This created a channel to work around the question of leadership itself and replace it with a surrogate, namely utilitarianism, or what people think they want when asked in large groups with little in common.

The Magna Carta did more than just hijack power from the kings. It also changed the focus of power from the question of what should be done to create, develop and nurture civilization to the question of the individual, e.g. “What do I want right now?” Since the organizational principle of society has always been and always will be the trade-off of individual wants for what is necessary to do so that all may thrive, this short-circuits the impulse toward civilization itself and replaces it with a predatory self-interest motive, which in turn influences how people vote.

The new focus ignored civilization itself, which it took for granted, and focused on how citizens could maximize their own returns at the expense of that civilization. Although at first described as a method of allowing an equal voice for commercial interests, the new regime rapidly became a way for commercial interests to take over civilization itself. The entire question of leadership shifted from a shared goal of improving the nation and its habits, technology and values, to individual desires and individual profits. Each person became a contrary voice working against civilization itself, because now the two goals were at odds and reduced to a bargaining situation.

Once a society changes its focus from leadership to utilitarianism, or what the largest plurality of people think they want at a given time if phrased in A-or-B styled questions, it loses the ability to discuss improvement and maintenance of civilization itself because that goal contradicts what citizens will inevitably demand, which is more benefits to themselves. Self-interest, when not tied to a sense of communal dependency on common institutions and spaces, becomes as parasitic as crime but hides itself behind politeness, formality and politics.

This in turn corrupts the nature of the word “should,” as in, “What should we do about this?” Previously, the term should contained a notion of working toward an end, as in what should we do to preserve and develop our civilization. When the focus turned to the individual, “should” took on an air of universality, based on the lowest common denominator that all citizens have between each other, which is self-interest in the short-term and oblivious to the bigger picture of the long-term, consequences of actions and civilization itself. This removes any kind of cause-effect thinking where citizens are aware of what effects their actions have in the future, because the future is not even considered. Only demands now, and not how to achieve those demands.

As a result, civilizations which go down this path rapidly head toward becoming subsidy states where, instead of demanding performance before reward, the State rewards citizens simply for being alive and hopes to extract performance from them with a public ideology and the ability to shame them for non-compliance. As found out in the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba and many other places, this process does not lead to better results but to impoverishment of the nation and its domination by ideological fanatics with a tenuous grasp of reality. This is the long-term effect of removing focus on leadership and turning instead toward what pleases the citizens in the short term; of course they will eventually want free money, and very few of them understand or care what is required to produce it.

The ugly truth of humanity is that in large groups we revert to our simian state. We follow what seems to be the group opinion because we have delegated authority to the group on the assumption that individuals do not inherit the consequences of group decision. This is why a mob will attack viciously until its own members start paying the price, at which point its inherent cowardice takes over and the mob fragments. Creating a collective government of the nature that democracy demands produces a permanent version of this mob and, in order to preserve itself, it makes its perennial order of business the process of eliminating those who might make any single member face any consequences for his actions: the elimination of ideological enemies.

It is not surprising thus that, after achieving their own version of the rights provided by the Magna Carta, every civilization which experimented with this path followed a similar series of internal collapses that presaged the lapsing into irrelevance of the larger society. First there is a pleasant anarchy; then, a sense of obligation to subsidize others; finally, a mad and accelerating impulse to destroy all who have more than the average or who resist the dogma indoctrination. Societies go from celebrating freedom to a pathological desire to extinguish it within a handful of centuries.

Long before these results became visible, the Magna Carta started the West down this path to doom. Its ultimate effect would become a severing of action from responsibility, but the financial interests which motivated its adoption did not see it at the time. All they wanted was to enable themselves to have greater profit without performing the acts of leadership, as a king does, that consider the long-term effects of ever action on the health of the society as a social ecosystem, its citizens, their genetics and their long-term future. The kings were portrayed as bad evil no-fun guys, but perhaps they were simply more intelligent and saw what the financial types did not, which was that this path led to short-term rewards and long-term losses.

99% of human activity centers on distracting from the actual issues in life, such as the health of a civilization or the need for the individual to discipline themselves and find purpose. These are grim truths to life, like that one must eat one’s vegetables before pudding. These actual issues do not “exist” because they are based on consequences in the future, and every con man tries to create a mental wall between action (cause) and consequences (effect) by promising that during the time between the act and the result, so many good things will happen that the price seems inconsequential. Every time they fail to mention the many opportunity costs — what options were lost by picking one over the rest — and secondary effects of the act.

For that feel-good warm and damp modern sensation of uplifting symbols and religious faith in the safety from consequences provided by being in a crowd, the Magna Carta delivers a whopping blast of good times like those cocktails with the little umbrellas in them. Eventually however morning arrives, and in addition to the hangover, before us lies the wreckage of what we did when too drunk to consider the consequences of our actions. Such is the 800th birthday of the Magna Carta, and those who realize this see clearly the case for its repeal.

The Civil War never ended

Tuesday, April 7th, 2015


As we approach the sesquicentennial anniversary of the end of the American Civil War, the same divisions that caused that war remain.

These divisions take the form of intractable issues that spring up like dandelions, frustrating our comfortable narrative which indicates that society at large is heading in a good direction. Instead, like 3:00 AM visions of mortality, our Civil War doubts renew themselves with unsettling consistency and yet random timing.

It is not surprising this is so, because the Civil War was the first modern war in many senses. Unlike previous wars, it involved massive scale; industrial might and demographics, not talent, determined the victor. It was also the first of the truly “democratic” wars in that it was won by mobilizing a population toward total war through the use of propaganda that claimed the other side transgressed against the founding idea and most sacred belief of a society.

Through these claims, history was re-written. America changed from a practical escape from ideology into an ideological separation for moral reasons. Crowds are not mobilized by complex reasons or arguments to history involving many factors. The inner herd animal in the human being likes a good story: we came here to live a certain way, the bad guys hate us because they are bad, so we must destroy the utterly so that we reflexively define ourselves as good.

The heavy mental programming created by such story-telling changes a nation. It achieves its goal, which is to make people act paradoxically and step into line to go sacrifice themselves for ideals that do not benefit them. But when facing such binary definitions as good and evil, people cannot resist, because to refuse to defend one is seen as endorsing the other. This created a mythos that won the war, but changed the nation so much afterward that its present course was guaranteed. We have been ideological lunatics questing for pure moral goodness ever since.

Our history of the war denies its complex roots in favor of propaganda. In the textbooks and TV commercials, the South simply hated black people. They enslaved them because they liked to beat them and call them nasty names. In reality, the South was an attempt to break away from the society which had emerged in the North with the admission of non-Western Europeans, which was a proposition nation united equally by zombie ideology and commerce. In the South, social hierarchy and honor came before shekels and groupthink; the North was the opposite.

Slavery was only one in a series of touchstone issues that made the South pull away. But it was the one the North chose to make its justification for war, and via survivorship bias, we assume it was the only legitimate one. Much of the beef involved shady issues like States’ rights and interstate commerce, mainly because at two thousand miles away from New York city one can live in almost any style one prefers. The North and South only clashed over political questions, where the more populous North dominating by motivating its citizens with good-us-versus-bad-them ideology and won every time, and in trade, where the agricultural South was no match for the industrial North.

To pretend this issue was new is a fallacy (and to pretend that slavery was the cause or purpose of the war is a fraud). Slavery was a trouble during the time of the Constitution, with the agricultural states depending on it mainly because it represented much of their wealth, comparable to infrastructure and equipment in business today. The North, being essentially non-agricultural, had no need for it, and could make slavery into a touchstone issue which it did over the next century. With the removal of slavery, the South would lose most of its wealth and be permanently in hock to the North, ensuring total control over the whole nation-state by the Northeastern industrial powers. The industrialists wanted to eliminate the high costs of textiles and make further profit through the resale of those textiles, which is only possible when raw materials are cheap. As a result, the South resisted, in part knowing that slavery was about to be replaced by industry in any case much as forms of manual labor had been obsoleted in England starting two centuries prior.

Like most wars, then, the Civil War boils down to profit and control. The North wanted to control the entire nation and adapt it to its urban standard, where the South wanted to avoid that fate for itself. This war, like many others, was a coalition between populist moral notions and industry, against the areas which had not already succumbed:

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. – Declaration of Causes, State of Georgia

In this, the Civil War resembled the Napoleonic Wars, where liberal ideologues raged across Europe conquering any nation which did not adhere to liberal ideology.

The Civil War also presaged the coming ideology of Communism, where an international coalition of Communist nations made it their policy to subvert, defeat and occupy any nation that was not already Communist.

It also foreshadowed the World Wars, where the more-ideologically-leftist nations joined together to defeat the outliers.

If you are imagining a mob rushing at any who is different with the intent of subjugating them, you’re getting the picture.

But as we reach 150 years since the Civil War, we have to ask ourselves: what did we fight for, and what was actually won?

Slavery is more prevalent now than it was then and, as instability spreads through the world, only increasing. While African-Americans are technically “free,” most of them live under worse conditions than under slavery and are about to be replaced by Hispanic indios and Asian immigrants that are more convenient for industry.

The United States is still divided into North and South, with the North controlling government, economy and police, but the South having popular sentiment behind it. Most American presidents win because they become popular in the South and use that constituency as a launch platform.

We see the same pattern again and again. The War on Drugs, the crusade against Saddam Hussein, and the social justice jihad against all discrimination. These represent the force of social disorder which is convenient for both industry and the individual, in that it operates to remove social rules and hierarchy. This creates only a market, which is convenient for business, and lifts any expectations from the individual, enabling them to be more self-focused and less obligated to pay attention to reality.

Perhaps we will someday wake up and realize that democracy creates a vast horde of armchair moralists who are easily manipulated like “useful idiots” into calling for war, and that industry goes along with this because its goal is the same. We might even see that government by consensus creates the lowest common denominator, and that we have unleashed a cancer which will find some “moral” reason to make war on anyone who is different until it has total control of humanity and earth.

Since The EnlightenmentTM, where the preferences of the individual were made our guiding concept in replacement of natural law and social hierarchy, the West has been steadily deconstructing itself. When it reaches the lowest common denominator, all that remains is the angry mob and opportunistic industry. The Civil War showed us our future in microcosm, and since that time, no joy has truly existed in the West. Yes, we take pride in what we own and have our personal pursuits, but in each heart lurks the awareness that decay is upon us and, while industry and the mob rule, it has the upper hand.

Recommended Reading