Posts Tagged ‘mob rule’

Why Democracy Always Fails

Wednesday, May 31st, 2017

Human behavior boils down to only a few things. On the plus side, there is transcendence and ego-death; on the negative side, there is projection, transference and tunnel vision arising from solipsism, or the process of staying confined within our minds and the minds of those who share our immediate fascinations.

The grim truth of this is that it may not be all that human so much as the result of cognitive limits. People need to be able to come to decisions quickly that, while not perfect, form a working model upon which more can be built and greater detail ascertained. This requires avoiding imminent pitfalls while keeping as many options open as possible.

Unfortunately, that kind of thinking works poorly for leadership, aesthetics and moral questions. Its speed and simplicity makes it an ethic of convenience which evades entirely larger questions and long-term needs. In this way, our evolution which is so brilliant defeats us.

Some are able to escape this trap. They tend to have higher intelligence and be concerned with accuracy, namely how closely the impressions and predictions in their minds match the working of reality outside of the mind. They also have a moral sense which is not, in the herd style, a defensive morality aimed at avoiding loss of life, but a creative morality which strives to improve the quality of life as an existential experience.

Those are rare, however, and when the vote is taken, there are fewer of them than homeless guys voting for free toilet paper in every election, and so they are statistically eliminated early in the process. On top of that, however, we can see another reason why democracy always fails: voters choose appearance over reality.

One of the successful metaphors describing the mind is a ‘cognitive miser’. When we need to make a decision, particularly when we have little knowledge, we rely on shortcuts: hunches, ‘gut’ responses, stereotypes. We use shortcuts because it is easy. We are ready to leap to conclusions, especially when we are too lazy or busy to look for hard evidence. And most of us are cognitively lazy or busy some of the time. When it comes to decisions about strangers, the easiest, most accessible shortcut is our first impression. Unknowledgeable voters go for this shortcut.

Do the effects obtained in contrived lab demonstrations make a difference in the real world? In close races, unknowledgeable or ‘appearance-based’ voters can sway the outcome of the races. Lenz and Lawson estimated that candidates who appear slightly more competent than their opponents can get as much as 5 per cent more votes from unknowledgeable, TV-loving voters. Recently, Lenz and his students conducted experiments with voters in California and 18 other states. In the two weeks before an election day, voters were shown the ballots either with pictures of the candidates or without pictures, and asked to express their intention to vote. Depending on the race – primary or general – when the voters saw the pictures, the best-looking candidates got a boost between 10 per cent and 20 per cent over the appearance-disadvantaged candidates.

Attractive people and interesting, charismatic actors will always win over competent but less exciting candidates. This is no surprise to those of us who are lifelong democracy foes, because we realize that voters choose appearance every time in a more fundamental way: they pick the candidates whose platforms virtue signal, promise pacifism, or give the voters a feeling of confidence or the sensation that society is sympathetic to them (this is what modern people call “empathy”: the thought that if society cares for its most miserable, it also cares for everyone else, especially the individual talking about “empathy”).

Voters follow a hedonistic imperative when it comes to voting. They want to feel good. Things that make them feel good are forms of compassion that make them feel powerful, much as the guy handing a dollar to a homeless person feels a sense of wealth, power and moral superiority. They like pacifism because it makes them feel safe since it promises to neuter the powerful, even if on their own side, mainly because that is the only group of powerful people that voters have control over.

They like to act generous and tolerant because they are LARPing at being kings, even if they do not understand the root of constructive generosity. And so on: a group of talking monkeys with car keys posing and preening chooses whatever candidate it feels makes the best adornment for its personal narratives. People choose candidates like they buy clothing or movies.

For example, a person will select a romantic comedy (ugh) because they want to “feel good” about their position in the world. They watch sad movies when they are sad, goofy comedies when they want to be happy, and “serious” documentaries when they want to impress their friends with how deep they are. Everywhere, monkeys are acting out their emotional needs on the world, and seem not to care that their votes have effect.

As the bloom fades from liberal democracy in the West, and we tally the dead and destroyed from our campaign to make it work by squashing anyone who disagreed with it, people are speaking out more about the failures of democracy. These failures occur at such a fundamental level that there is no way to fix them, as the failure of the US Constitution to belay mob rule indicates.

A Contradiction At The Heart Of Democracy

Friday, March 17th, 2017

As the era of the individual fades, liberal democracy finds itself collapsing. People in groups just make terrible decisions, and then individuals are afraid to stand out from the crowd, so they just go along with the insanity like teenagers succumbing to peer pressure. This is how democracy ends societies.

Another fundamental problem with democracy is that it is based on self-image. When we vote, we are not asked what we actually do, but what we think we might do, or want to do, or how we see ourselves through the mirror of others. This leads to pretentious, unrealistic decisions. Even lobotomized entertainment horde nexus Netflix is finding this out:

Switching to a binary thumbs-up / thumbs-down system might seem less granular than offering five stars, but Yellin said there’s an implicit understanding with thumbs-up / thumbs-down that people are doing it to improve their own experience rather than trying to rate it for the rest of the world. And at the end of the day, it’s really about just getting more people to rate things.

“What’s more powerful: you telling me you would give five stars to the documentary about unrest in the Ukraine; that you’d give three stars to the latest Adam Sandler movie; or that you’d watch the Adam Sandler movie 10 times more frequently?” Yellin said. “What you do versus what you say you like are different things.”

What you do is more important than what you say you do. In this sense, the best single factor Netflix could use would be to see what videos you watched again or recommended to friends. That reflects what people do, not how they view themselves. How many documentaries have been voted up because people think it makes them look cool, hip and profound to like “Last Flight Of The Dodo” in HD?

The last thousand years or so have seen us in the West trying to make a leaky boat sail. First we created a middle class, figuring that if we gave the clever-but-not-intelligent a voice, they might stop agitating on the national level. Then with The Enlightenment,™ we told everyone that their feelings were more real than social order, known truth or nature.

Finally we came to democracy, at which point it was clear that the West was dead and had been replaced by an angry mob of self-important little proles. Now everyone voted for what they thought would benefit them, spending the money of society as if it were theirs, and adopting policies that made them feel special. We see the results of that disaster every day.

The American Constitution was the most ambitious effort yet to plug up the leaky ship. It introduced many rules and concepts which people fought over until they beat them into an unrecognizable mass of lost meaning. Poll taxes, votes correlated to tax paying, local representatives and other schemes all failed as well.

There is no way to fix mob behavior. Even smart people, and especially clever-but-not-intelligent people, make terrible decisions in groups. There are only a few among us fit to lead, and they cannot be assessed with standardized tests, income statements and rules. You have to put them in small positions of leadership, and let them rise by succeeding in the real world, not the theater of public opinion.

Across Europe and the USA, “populist” movements are blooming, but these are more a reaction to hitting rock bottom than political movements in the usual sense. They are anti-populist at their core in that they aim to get us away from the politics of pretense, and to focus on the question of leadership, which demands strong gravitational forces like powerful leaders, tribalism and enduring culture.

Some people think we can fix democracy by having people vote on every issue in real time over the internet through their television sets. In reality, this would be nothing but an insanity amplifier, wrecking the remnants of a once-great civilization even faster than our current neurotic voting habits. Instead, we should do away with the votes entirely, and look at what actually works.

Waste Of Time

Friday, January 6th, 2017

The struggle of our time has become clear: realists, who want civilization, stand against ideologues, who want to rationalize the decline by directing our attention with the false metric of “progress,” which is essentially virtue signaling for social status.

Realists face a series of tough realizations. The first is how much recent politics was bungled; after that, the time scale and scope expands. Soon it becomes clear that our society has been afflicted with deep rot for many centuries.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is realizing that the decay runs deeper than politics. It has infested all aspects of life, including the “lifestyle” and daily experience of people, leading to existential misery. Worst of all of these realizations is the knowledge that modern society is a giant waste of time.

Most of what we do is completely unnecessary except that it allows individuals to claim they are important. Most products fail, but their launches allow ambitious little sociopaths to claim they are wizards, at least for long enough to get hired somewhere else. Most tasks at jobs are there to demonstrate the importance of the manager. Most red tape events involve bureaucrats asserting their power over you. Most social events are jockeying for positions in a hierarchy, and art, culture, literature and even friendship get used as means to that end.

In short, competition has created an infinite demand for ways to compete. As has been observed many times, every thing creates more of itself, and so when we make competition in specific areas part of our society, that takes over everything else. That we do it with money makes it mandatory that everyone join in and waste their time.

The average job could be done in a few hours a week, if we subtract out the activities done to demonstrate the importance of managers and employees, the red tape which solves no problems but creates work for everyone, the waiting around for people who are merely posing at being busy elsewhere, the pro forma meetings and emails. Jobs are mental spam for the most part, and they obscure the tasks which actually need doing.

Add to that the other great waste-of-time activities in modernity: returning the constant defective products, researching products to see which of the options are not corner cutting scams designed to get some idiot promoted to management somewhere, spending days or weeks filing paperwork which no one will see, arguing with self-important customer service representatives and waiting in line — endlessly — while someone in front struggles with understanding the simple nuances of the obvious solution to their avoidable problem.

Modern society is a trap. It will kill us off the same way every advanced civilization dies: it tolerates the stupid, who then gang up on the rest, take over and make a society designed for idiots. This exhausts the intelligent, who promptly die out, leaving the stupid in charge for a glorious generation or two before their corruption accrues and society plunges (slowly) into third-world status.

The intelligent are forced into a role by civilization that they feel obligates them to the rest. What this means in reality is that the smarter parts of our civilization are forced to babysit the rest. That group, essentially reckless proles hungry for power and wealth, is the most destructive force in any society, like a stomach that thinks it is a brain.

This exhausts the intelligent, and makes it easier for the proles to take over.

While this happens, those of mental ability are forced to either (1) stand against the ongoing decay and become marginalized, dying childless in small cabins in the woods or (2) rationalize the decline as good, make the right virtue signals and “succeed” despite it wasting all of their time and energy in the process of babysitting the insane and stupid herd.

Rationalization of a clearly sick and moribund society makes them crazy, and from these tormented souls we get our intellectuals and social elites. They tend to be corrupt because their minds are scrambled by having to accept the destruction of their civilization as a good thing, and to assuage their guilt, they tend to endorse ideas like “progress” and Utopia in order to avoid talking about the actual problem, the collapse of civilization, because it is hard to solve where Utopian plans are trivially easy.

The dying civilization of the West has tormented its intelligent people and driven them insane as they try to adapt to a world created for the crass tastes of the herd. They were aliens in their own society long before diversity, and now they are simply ghosts wandering among the others, with everyone waiting for them to die out so the prole party can kick into high gear.

As we come to grips with how utterly insane and corrupt our leaders have been for the past eight years, it is time to reflect on the fact that these acts did not occur in isolation. We The People voted for these idiots; we are the bigger idiots. But who is “we”? Our society has been hijacked by a mob which wants to destroy civilization and replace it with an endless carnival.

Until we start talking about that problem, we are merely putting band-aids on a sucking chest wound. Our civilization is dying. It has been dying for a long time, and its death will be a slow descend into third world chaos, crime, and corruption. The only way to fix it is to take power away from the proles, and restore it to the responsible people, which recent elections have indicated is a popular (enough) idea.

We Live On A Planet Of Liars

Tuesday, December 27th, 2016

Humanity is consistent in one thing: most people are degenerate liars, and in groups, people give in to the lowest common denominator, which is degenerate lying.

We have one real industry, which is the production of excuses, justifications, rationalizations and scapegoats to help us avoid the obvious conclusion that all human problems are caused by the dishonesty of individuals and the panicked impulse control problems of the herd.

People will flock to any explanation other than what is real simply because they do not want to face the really difficult question in human society, which is how we deal with the fact that most of us are essentially “talking monkeys with car keys” who lack impulse control.

This is why we have spent centuries chasing after the perfect political System, through endless war and millions of miles of ink spilled on laws and regulations. We have whole industries trying to explain away our failings. They all use the same mechanism:

“It’s not you, it’s your circumstances.”

In their view, it is not individual humans making bad decisions that causes our problems, but a long list of excuses: we have the wrong System; we need more laws; the Russians did it; the Rich did it; we do not have enough wealth; we were victims of something, so whatever we do is its fault. All of these amount to clever monkeys thinking up excuses that they can use as pretexts for bad behavior.

Here, for example, is stupidity in action from the bigoted legacy academia:

We citizens of a modern democracy claim to believe in equality, but our sense of equality is not even close that of hunter-gatherers. The hunter-gatherer version of equality meant that each person was equally entitled to food, regardless of his or her ability to find or capture it; so food was shared. It meant that nobody had more wealth than anyone else; so all material goods were shared. It meant that nobody had the right to tell others what to do; so each person made his or her own decisions. It meant that even parents didn’t have the right to order their children around; hence the non-directive childrearing methods that I have discussed in previous posts. It meant that group decisions had to be made by consensus; hence no boss, “big man,” or chief.

If just one anthropologist had reported all this, we might assume that he or she was a starry-eyed romantic who was seeing things that weren’t really there, or was a liar. But many anthropologists, of all political stripes, regarding many different hunter-gatherer cultures, have told the same general story. There are some variations from culture to culture, of course, and not all of the cultures are quite as peaceful and fully egalitarian as others, but the generalities are the same. One anthropologist after another has been amazed by the degree of equality, individual autonomy, indulgent treatment of children, cooperation, and sharing in the hunter-gatherer culture that he or she studied. When you read about “warlike primitive tribes,” or about indigenous people who held slaves, or about tribal cultures with gross inequalities between men and women, you are not reading about band hunter-gatherers.

If you were born yesterday, or merely in the mid-1990s, the above might sound convincing. The rest of us have heard this claptrap from the legacy academia since the 1970s. It translates to this:

“The problem is not that you are all lying nitwits, but that you are in a system that is unequal.”

You can note the lies inherent in the above quoted article by a few angles that are so obvious that they are boldly concealed:

  • Archaeology. From many digs and fossils, we find that most of the specimens have evidence of wounding. Since we do not have evidence of agriculture at the same time, these were by definition hunter-gatherer societies.
  • Contemporary evidence. Hunter-gatherer societies were more violent than even the State societies in recent memory.
  • Human consistency. Humans have always been violent and usually for reasons of territory, culture, and suppression of nearby people who act like idiots. Much of this is emotional. The notion that “egalitarian” societies make people peaceful is a fantasy.
  • Marxist bias. Academia is biased toward Leftism/Marxism and most of its research is fake, usually for reasons of political bias, which are in fact reasons of capitalism; that which has an audience gets paid for, and that which does not starves.
  • Genetic evidence. Peaceful, egalitarian societies would result in populations that accepted members from a wide range of competing tribes and had little internal hierarchy. Instead we see the exact opposite.

The primitivist argument, advanced most convincingly by John Zerzan, is popular because it blames something other than humanity for the problems of humanity. Like blaming The Rich, The Jews, The Elites, etc. it transfers culpability from the everyday behavior of people to a symbolic object and assumes that by banishing that, we are left with only “the good” in ourselves.

In reality, the exact opposite is true. Bad rich people are created by thoughtless idiots buying scammy products. The problem of Judaism is created by proles disabling kings so that immigration could occur. The Elites are formed of our thoughtless voting, buying and social notions as a group.

People have been fooled by this because it allows us to blame external problems for our collapse, which makes it seem that collapse will be external, which is a lot faster and easier to deal with than civilizational collapse, which occurs through cultural, political and genetic forces and is extremely difficult to counteract through any method that can be communicated by convincing others.

As always, politics dooms us. People want easy answers, and reject hard solutions. This means that they race after Marxist daydreams or totalitarian wet-dreams (or both) and miss the point: we are an unpunished herd, and we need our best people with absolute power, cracking the whip, while setting up a social order based on caste so every decision is made by personally-accountable, publicly-shameable intelligent people instead of an anonymous mob of people with zero responsibility or accountability.

This is why Amerika advocates the four pillars. Until we have those, we do not have civilization, and will be ruled by a succession of incompetent demagogues, religious fanatics, profiteer-parasites, lunatic New Agers and racial scapegoat-mongers of various stripes.

Leftism itself may be seen as a rationalization of decline in order to avoid pointing the finger at the failure of Systems, or rules designed to make the mob behave, because of the inherent attributes of a mob. We either have kings and social roles, or a mob, and the last five hundred years of history have shown us conclusively that mob rule does not work.

So, let us look at reality. Hunter-gatherers live miserable lives. Efficiency is found when you have big estates ruled by noble families in which all the people under 130 IQ points are told what to do, and no one cares about what they think outside of their specific domains. That model works and we know it does because it provided many centuries of positive living, and build the basis of our technology and advanced culture and institutions.

Nothing we have done since has been anywhere near as good, but our pretense will not allow us to admit that, because to admit that is to recognize that we, as individuals, are not kings, and that we need to be managed because we are barely in control of ourselves. Jordan Peterson points this out in a telling passage in a recent interview:

Skeptical neutrality is ‘you’re a bucket of snakes, just like me. However, if you’re willing to abide by your word, and I’m willing to abide by my word, then we’re able to engage in mutually beneficial interactions, so that’s what we’re going to do’. The reason I said courageous trust is to distinguish it from naiveté. Naive people think that everybody’s good. That’s false, everybody’s not good. But acting in a manner that’s hostile and sceptical and anti-social is completely counter-productive. So what you do if you’re a mature person is you say ‘well, yeah, you’ve got a dark side, so do I. That doesn’t mean we can’t engage in productive interactions’. We do that by sticking to our damned word. Honesty simplifies us to the point where we can engage in mutually beneficial interactions.

We need to acknowledge the dark side of humanity which is that most people not only do not have “free will” but they are in fact unstable egos trying to ride herd on a bag of raging impulses, many of which are animalistic and primitive in the sense of entirely driven by raw urges. The dark side is not a good thing; it is the reversion of evolution, and yet most people will favor tolerating it because they want socially-derived “freedom” from the risk of being rejected because their dark side traits are out of control.

Primitivism is nonsense because inherent within it is the idea that our human problem is our circumstances and not our behavior. That is scapegoating and the oldest form of rationalization which says that, instead of putting our best in charge and suppressing the insanity in all of us by that mechanism, we should accept the insanity (remember: Leftism means Good = Bad) and celebrate it.

Like all other forms of human nonsense, this one will always be the most popular, especially among middle-intelligence people (120-129) who find it comforting because it assuages their egos, which are both fragile because they are aware of more limitations to knowledge, and arrogant because they move among a herd of people without their intellectual advantages. But like all nonsense, accurately known as reality denial, it is a path to death.

Unpunished Herd

Sunday, October 16th, 2016


By the time democracy arrives, things are well and truly dead for a civilization and the only formalities remaining are the toe tag and the estate sale. Our ancestors knew that if you indulge the pretense of humans, or the defensive assumption that they are good, it will give them license to run amok, and that they have done.

What we have left of “civilization” is essentially an economy with cops, lawyers, judges and nagging nanny journalists riding herd on the chaos. This is predictable, because we can see that people without strong leadership behave like herd animals.

You can see the proof of my point if you work with any volunteer organization. Sit people down in a committee and they start making the same type of bad decisions that our nations are making. The cause is this bad decision-making, and the result is our terrible elites.

In cause-effect terms, the elites are the effect and our choices are the cause. They did not impose this on us; we imposed them on ourselves by selecting an unrealistic type of government, namely herd-based leadership which was inevitably capitalized on by a corrupt media, political class and lobbyist layer.

You can also see the same thing at a job, or even in personal lives. People in groups make terrible decisions. People are pretentious and selfish, generally. It is entirely logical that the end result of this process is awful government and its handmaidens, who will be massively corrupt.

The point is that, regarding leadership, we have a binary option:

  • The best oppress the rest. Some claw their way to the top, demonstrating exceptional ability. They then restrain the rest of the group because this restraint is needed for civilization. End result: more effective leadership, no runaway herd acting selfishly. — or:

  • The rest oppress the best. Strong leadership is feared, so society adopts weak leadership, which results in a slow but constant growth of many small problems which converge in a loss of social order and suicidal policies like endless war, immigration and quasi-legal corruption.

At the most abstract level, these are the choices we have in “government,” and every single possible type of leadership structure fits into one or the other of these categories. Either we put the best on top, or we have mob rule.

The Americans tried a middle ground. Their Constitution is as complicated as an Italian race car, and yet, it was dismantled in as few as a dozen years, depending on who you talk to. After a disastrous civil war, two world wars, and now endless war in the middle east as the American Leftist regime goes the way of the Soviets, the Constitution is effectively dead.

And so, like people lost in a maze, here we are again, back at the same crossroads we have been at before. Best, or rest? The last two hundred years have showed us what the rest can do, and it is ugly: horrible jobs based on attendance more than performance, cities that are wastelands, corrupt leaders, gross mass culture, and what seems to be a decline in genetic ability to think among even the upper echelons of our society.

We are not just in trouble because of our system of government, but because it is making us incompetent. First, it redirects our attention from actual issues to symbolic ones, like how popular something is or whether it plays the politics or law game well. Second, the system promotes only those who think this way.

The Brexit/Trump Revolution (BTR) has much going for it. The weak point in its armor is that it scapegoats our elites for the mess we are in. We are in a mess, but the elites are an effect of that mess, not its cause. The cause is our reliance on herd voting and buying to make decisions, instead of having actual leadership.

Francis Fukuyama told us that we have reached the end of history, which depressed everyone because while the West is wealthy, it is dead in its soul. People hate their daily existence because it is humiliating, menial and incompetent, even at the highest levels of career and social life.

What he meant to write, perhaps, was that liberal democracy had beaten down all of its competition. That does not mean it is the best system; it was fortunate in its choice of allies, and often what works in the short-term is the opposite of what is needed in the long-term.

The thought of resurrecting society from the degeneracy of the unpunished herd is daunting in itself. We are not, however, rescuing everyone. There will be a new civilization and only those who “get it” and are useful will be welcome. The rest can be cast aside. This is always how it is.

Once we wrap our minds around the enormity of this task, it becomes clear that we should not be afraid to make the decision to go all the way toward what we need, instead of taking halfway measures. We are at one of those nexus points in history where all that was considered established is now fluid. Vast change is upon us, like it or not.

As modern citizens, we have grown up listening to constant voices — television, teachers, politicians, parents, friends — telling us that certain things are cast in stone, and that as far as changing them, the ship has sailed. But now, all of these stonecast pillars are in the process of collapse. We can finally move on.

Potentially what we are seeing is the beginning of a great time to be alive. The twentieth century was mostly carnage and stupidity, and so far the twenty-first has been worst, but that means that the trend of the eighteenth century has finally peaked and is falling. We can cease repeating the mistakes of the past.

For now, the herd runs free. Its low standards, enforced through utilitarian policies, harm those who can tell the difference between mediocre and good. Its indecision has attracted all manner of manipulators and parasites. Its policies have produced horror and evil as handmaidens in everyday life, making us all complicit.

The rise of the Alt Right has shown a challenge to business as usual, which means a continuing slide into decay. People across the West are tired of living in failed states and a failed system. It is time to think the unthinkable, and move on from liberal democracy a.k.a. oppression by the rest.

Democracy Reveals Its Actual Identity As “Mob Rule” In San Jose

Wednesday, June 8th, 2016


San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo just called his constituents snot-picking mongoloids. He just branded them mentally unfit for participation in the People’s Democracy of Kanye which the country formerly known as The US of A is increasingly turning into.

“At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo told The Associated Press.

He didn’t actually say these vile, iniquitous probable hate truths, but if the quote he offered up above is true; this is the only reasonable conclusion I can reach. The poor, recently deceased gorilla in the Cincy Zoo displayed better public behavior than the mob of Anti-Trump protestors in San Jose.

Protesters waved Mexican flags and one could be seen burning an American flag, with another burning Trump’s “Make America Great Hat.” Some chanted “F— Donald Trump” and “Donald Trump has got to go” outside the San Jose Convention Center, where Trump held his rally…As Trump supporters exited the rally, protesters shouted insults at them and accused them of being racists.

This is not the first Donald Trump rally to be attacked by Leftist thugs. The following took place in San Diego.

Those awaiting Donald Trump’s arrival in San Diego on Friday were mostly peaceful. But once he gave his speech and left, small fights broke out in the streets outside the Convention Center among crowds of supporters and protesters, and police in riot gear ended up massing to drive the crowds from the area. In one clash near Harbor Drive, thrown items hit people in the head, and several small street fights erupted in the same area, as the environment outdoors became tense when anti-Trump crowds started to mix with his supporters just before 5 p.m…In total, police arrested 35 people. Eighteen people received medical attention at the site, officials said.

This brings me back to a theme I touched on earlier. If there are large numbers of people who can’t handle the responsibility of allowing dissenting speech and opinion, are they really a good crowd of people to have voting during important public elections? Are they people that you trust to make difficult decisions in a sober, analytic fashion?
If these people react the way they reacted to somebody like Donald Trump broadcasting a message they didn’t like or appreciate, do you have any doubt in your mind that they would gleefully vote for the candidate who promised to dispossess or guillotine anyone they didn’t agree with? Watching this ignorant mob do what ignorant Leftist mobs are typically prone to engage in is not even particularly surprising. It makes it plain and easy to see how Hitler and Hugo Chavez both rose to power on the ignorant backs of the people.

What makes it scary and also easy to see how Hindenburg conceded power to Hitler so easily, is to see how Mayor Liccardo reacted to the mob’s behavior. He excused it. He blamed Donald Trump for presenting a political message that he and his pseudo-sapient thugs cared to disagree with. He just told us that the Brown Shirts are in the right if they attack anyone in San Jose, CA who upsets them. This is no longer a civil society. It is a thugocracy of violent compulsion.

During The American Revolution, British Loyalists were asked why they put up with the king. They responded it was better to be ruled by one tyrant 3,000 miles away than by 3,000 tyrants just one block down the street. This is what they were talking about. The mob doesn’t have to beat you up personally to take away your rights. They have to A) present a valid, believable threat of violence, and B) they have to be excused from responsibility for their actions by the legitimate, elected authorities.

Once this becomes a quid-pro-quo, Democracy assumes its final (and truthful) form: a primitive rule of the mob. The mob supports Mayor X. In return, Mayor X gives the mob a “space to destroy”. I’m becoming too cynical to just view this as weakness. The mayors in question know exactly who and what these mobs are prone to destroy. They encourage this destruction as a method of enhancing their political powers. The higher up the food chain this practice occurs, the less and less free and prosperous our society will remain.

Democracy in recession as its true face is revealed

Thursday, February 26th, 2015


If you listen to the usual voices for (leftist-slanted) news, you will hear the beginnings of a disturbing refrain: democracy is in decline. Those voices are arguing this so that they may claim to be the underdog, because victimhood is the only justification for power recognized by liberalism, and so can return to the argument that worked for them so well from 1861-1969 which was that they were bringing democracy, freedom and equality to a world under the control of evil blue meanies who opposed such things from fear, hatred and other surrogates for inherent evil.

When we look past the inherent evil argument and deconstruct it, it falls apart rather quickly if we are able to consider how different regions demand different solutions because the people there are different. Not good/bad different, but different in the sense of having non-identical needs and responsibilities. Liberals pushed back against that idea hard and in order to prevent it from taking root, demonized any mention of innate differences as “racism.” That left no obstacles to the global application of liberalism, which would be the biggest power seizure in the history of humanity, dwarfing even Genghis Khan and Alexander, but somehow the narrative has cracked and buckled. As broken clock Thomas Friedman notes, democracy is in decline worldwide:

As the Stanford University democracy expert Larry Diamond argues in an essay entitled “Facing Up to the Democratic Recession” in the latest issue of the Journal of Democracy: “Around 2006, the expansion of freedom and democracy in the world came to a prolonged halt. Since 2006, there has been no net expansion in the number of electoral democracies, which has oscillated between 114 and 119 (about 60 percent of the world’s states). … The number of both electoral and liberal democracies began to decline after 2006 and then flattened out. Since 2006 the average level of freedom in the world has also deteriorated slightly.”

Since 2000, added Diamond, “I count 25 breakdowns of democracy in the world — not only through blatant military or executive coups, but also through subtle and incremental degradations of democratic rights and procedure. … Some of these breakdowns occurred in quite low-quality democracies; yet in each case, a system of reasonably free and fair multiparty electoral competition was either displaced or degraded to a point well below the minimal standards of democracy.”

Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Erdogan’s Turkey are the poster children for this trend, along with Venezuela, Thailand, Botswana, Bangladesh and Kenya.

One should be suspicious of studies for no reason other than that the left adores them, but the basic argument against them is this: they measure a single factor out of many and draw broad conclusions based ont heir results. In this case, 25 nations have either limited or abolished democracy. By itself this is not all that unusual. In context, it looks like a world less dedicated to freedom and all that jazz, and this concerns liberals as it might interrupt their seizure of power.

More likely what is happening is that the democracy brand — once assumed to be the reason for Europe’s success — has fallen prey to a bit of experience. People in third world nations are realizing that if you install democracy there, people vote for third world ideas. As scientists will tell you, every effect has a single cause, and there is some reason why third world nations are at third-world levels. Generally the reason is the same actual reason why people are poor: they have made poor decisions. They demand rule by a theocracy or dictator because the people around them are unhygenic, criminal, corrupt, disorganized and unable to make long-term plans, which is exactly why these nations ended up third-world and why people end up poor. That truth has been made taboo and yet it peeks out from behind the curtain at every chance since it is so consistent in its truthfulness.

Democracy resembles a product sold in the big box stores. At first, we all must have the iPad. The obedient press trots out the wild speculation disguised as fact: it will replace desktops! Everyone will have one! They do stuff ordinary machines cannot! At first, the rich buy. It takes a few years to figure out what you think of a gadget, so that starts their clocks ticking. A year and a half later, the gadget makes it to middle-class price levels, and so all of them buy it. A year and a half after that, it gets cheap enough for everyone. Was this deliberate? New audiences appear just as the old ones are discarding the new toy, having learned that while it is neato, it does not do what the press promised.

The same is true of democracy. The West adopted it in 1789 and promptly embarked upon an orgy of self-murder for two centuries, culminating in the fall of the last extreme leftist regime. This enabled the marketers to norm democracy and sell it to the world. It will renovate those starving people, restore those fallen cities, and make everything new again! Also, fresh breath. But while it did many of those things, the cost became apparent: democracy was the advance troop for globalism, itself a form of colonialism by which third-world labor is sold cheaply and then, as the third-world nation comes up in the world, it becomes an “emerging market” and gets sold the same products that the first world got a decade ago, made by people even poorer than its own citizens. The Ponzi scam unraveled.

Even more, democracy failed to deliver on its promises. It did not make the world into the strength of Europe; it made Europe weak and the rest of the world unstable. Liberals have worn themselves tired making excuses for every time “the voters” have chosen jihadi theocrats or blood-drenched dictators of their own free accord. What democracy does is standardize things by making choice difficult, since only pluralities can rule and they always rule in favor of fewer rules, which is good for business but externalizes its costs through the destruction of social order. As Europe falls into ruins, and the face of the disease becomes visible elsewhere as well, people are rethinking democracy, as well they should. Mob rule with a fancy name is still mob rule.

A default is the best thing that can happen to America right now.

Tuesday, October 8th, 2013

united_states_defaultEvery now and then history hits us with a clear sign that we must change course.

It’s usually surprising, since we think of history as something that happens to other people in other times. Black and white photos help us keep our distance. But history is what arises from decisions, and decisions are made every day.

However, it often takes centuries for their effects to be seen.

For example, World War II — itself a continuation of World War I, for maximal lugubrious tedium — was a fratricidal venture spurred on by another fratricidal venture, the French Revolution of 1789 which a century later spurred the Franco-Prussian war and by its breakdown of the traditional nation, ensured that countries would form politically unstable alliances for the next two centuries.

Right now in the USA, we’re seeing the 1960s explode all over us. The 1960s were when the post-WWII West decided to pursue liberalism instead of anything that might reek of Hitlerism or any other prewar order. After all, we won the war by being popular and pandering to people and making them feel good, so they built up our economy to crush German and even the Soviets.

Even more, we were caught in a Cold War with some honest leftists — honest meaning they laid out their whole agenda in a plan called Communism, instead of hiding behind gradualism — and many people couldn’t handle the stress. They sought appeasement, which is what herds of people always do because they’re faithless and heartless. (Only individuals are brave. Crowds are cowards by their nature as mass expressions of individual manipulation.)

Between the Useful Idiots in the press, the military wishing we had a more consolidated approach, and the politicians wanting a way to justify the kind of power they’d like to have to compete with the Soviets, America and Europe shifted toward leftism. In fact, they were repeating the goals of 1789’s French Revolution:

  • Internationalism: no or fewer borders.
  • Equality: every person equally valid.
  • Democracy: elections are popularity contests.
  • No social standards: hidden behind “freedom.”
  • Gender parity: get women working.
  • Solidarity: unity of workers worldwide.

We’ve heard those before. They are basically an individual’s wish list for privileges that a mob, using guilt for the appearance of not being generous, can manipulate out of its leaders.

However, since the 1960s the United States has been unable to control its spending in pursuit of those objectives, mainly because those objectives are black holes. You can throw infinite money at problems, but until you get to the root cause, the problems will remain.

For example, that the root cause of inequality is unequal ability. Or that the reason internationalism fails is that nations exist for self-preservation, identity and shared values. Or that women want to be mothers first and job-cogs second. Or that democracy is mob rule, and produces unrealistic results applied with religious fervor.

When Lyndon Johnson unveiled his “Great Society” programs, the United States was just picking up the pace of what it had done since the 1950s, which was to radically expand spending on “gifts” to its citizens. This area of growth represents the change in our budget since the 1950s.

We’ve never been able to afford it, but whenever the question comes up, the vote is deferred. Why? Because free stuff is popular, and giving away free stuff makes even our most impoverished and dysfunctional citizens feel magnanimous and altruistic. Like all things liberalism, this is a feel-good situation that resembles the friendly chatter of a salesman or drinking buddy.

In 2013, we’re finally facing the issue. By shutting down government instead of just voting in another dozen years of “free money” which we promise to pay back some time in the future, Republicans are acknowledging a few things. The first is that we’re out of people who are willing to lend to us, or will be soon. The second is that we’re digging this giant hole for ourselves in exchange for nothing of real benefit. We’re just buying votes.

The Democrats are warning us (and the mainstream media is helping them, shaking fingers at us) that if we don’t back down soon, the country will go into default. It will announce it cannot pay its debts and have to restructure. It won’t get its same “free money” loans as before. Democrats swear this is the worst thing ever, because it will slaughter their social programs which make up over 50% of the budget.

If we think clearly however, default is the best thing that can happen to the US right now. Cut the addict loose from its source of nearly-free heroin, and force it to re-evaluate all those Great Society programs which have failed to eradicate poverty. Let’s look hard at each government employee, at every program, and be skeptical about adding function to our government.

It’s time. Right now, Americans have no confidence in their economy because they recognize it’s built on paper foundations. Some writers are noticing the complete lack of accountability of American borrowing and pointing out its inevitable and imminent end.

Most Americans want substantial cuts to be made before we return to business as usual. Others have figured out that it’s not just the USA, but the West as a whole that has spent itself into oblivion chasing the chimera of Leftist social programs.

Others still are recognizing the dubious politics of the left which are based in class antagonism and fuel our “need” for these Great Society programs. However, those programs haven’t brought us peace; if anything, we’re more divided by class, race and ideology than ever before. Those Great Society programs have brought us to collapse.

For these reasons, there’s a lot of us out here who are telling Republicans not to back down. In fact, don’t even bother. Run the crazy train off the rails, finally, and end the out-of-control debt bomb that benefits only liberals as they buy votes with an entitlement state. It’s the only way we’re going to stop our addiction to easy credit and wasting money like there’s no tomorrow.

The Life and Death of Brandon Vedas

Sunday, January 12th, 2003


Suicide visits in unexpected ways. People — addicted to the pretense of everything they do being just fine, and no need to watch out for the grim reaper or other Darwinian ghosts — choose to ignore the cause->effect relationship of events. Thus to them suicide “just happens” and cannot be predicted.

A more sensible outlook provides that all events have causes, and that if a suicide comes about, an underlying discontent actually caused it to happen. In some cases, the discontent and the suicide merge, as was the case with Brandon “Ripper” Vedas, who overdosed on a mixture of drugs while friends in an online chatroom watched him die via video chat.

While other participants urged him to take more drugs of different kinds, Ripper kept up a brave face. His ultimate goal: to shoot down criticism and affirm his importance through social position, inverting peer pressure. As he told them:

[04:49] I told u I was hardcore

At the point he typed those words, Ripper had just consumed what many participants in the chat recognized as a dangerous cocktail of drugs. Apparently his mother only one room away had no idea what was going on and saw no reason to check on what he was doing. He rapidly lost consciousness.

During the time when Ripper slumped at the computer monitor but before his death, chat room participants debated what to do. Some encouraged calling emergency services; others, fearful of their own participation, encouraged no contact. They did not want to possibly face prosecution for their own drug use.

[05:23] i am on line with 911
[05:23] is this the right choice?
[05:23] NO
[05:23] ??
[05:23] mayb
[05:23] probably is
[05:23] just tell him for help
[05:23] or somehting
[05:24] NO
[05:24] NO
[05:24] NO

As the situation worsened, panic in the chatroom picked up, but most of it involved the fear of the members that they, too, would be somehow culpable for the drugs or the impending death. Self-interest trumped concern for the individual member of the group. And then it had become too late.

Before losing consciousness, Ripper typed his last words on this earth:

[05:04] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~shoa
[05:04] I’m fukcin

This and his famous lines “told you I was hardcore” and “I’ve got a grip of drugs” serve as his epitaph. When the body was discovered, recriminations began. And yet no one went to jail for drugs, or even for debating their fears of their own culpability as he died.

His death remains emblematic — moreso than his life, apparently — because it showed a person going along with the mob will to the point of self-destruction. Standing up to peer pressure is harder than survival because social coercion is so intense, even though social coercion is the basis of our morality, democracy and social interaction. We have the last moments of Brandon Vedas to remind us of that.

Recommended Reading