Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘rationalization’

As Democracy-Created Problems Mount, The Thin Veneer Of The First World Cracks

Tuesday, September 12th, 2017

We, the citizens of the air conditioning and the infomercial, of the the fast food joint at the corner and the Wal-mart in the middle of town, like to think that we have attained a status where the problems of humanity — namely that 99% of us are screwing up most of the time, producing miserable societies — are as far away in time as they are in space.

Any time you see something denied, look quickly to see the truth that is being concealed and know it is true. The more we insist on equality, the more we know we are unequal; the more that we talk about our first world lifestyles, the more we should know that these are disappearing, replaced by a life completely controlled by democracy, consumerism and neurosis.

Hurricane Irma is currently ravaging Florida, but Hurricane Harvey changed America. It was not the story hidden within the story — that a city flooded itself by draining its reservoirs, after relatively minimal storm damage — but that normal people everywhere are waking up to the fact that we live in a fake society.

The media was quick to run a narrative of “Texans helping Texans, regardless of race, color or creed.” You know what this is: emphasize the dominant paradigm, so that people can go back to comfortable oblivion instead of being forced to face the fact that our society is in collapse.

Alone that tells you that our civilization is in collapse. If people have to actively deny and conceal something, it means the opposite is true. So Texans did not come together, regardless of race, color and creed; instead, minority-majority rule meant that the mayor was content to treat the relatively wealthy flooded suburbs as subject populations, knowing that his voter base would approve. Looting was widespread and generally ran across the color line. And we are not back to business as usual, because people have realized that our current civilization is dysfunctional and hostile to those who have the ability to fix it. Government hates competence in its constituency because the competence of certain individuals is a threat to control that is enforced by shepherding the masses of the brainwashed. The masses, voting for individualistic benefit, create a parasitic government that then promises to take care of them, and in the process, becomes a system of wealth transfer from the productive to those whose only commodity of value is their vote. They then form a loose cartel based on insisting that this way of life is the best and only option, and that anyone who dissents is guilty of anti-social behavior. Usually, this quiets the herd, including the dangerous tip of those who are intelligent, thoughtful, analytical and alert.

This time however, it did not work. As part of the growing alienation between Americans who support the equality agenda and those who do not, people are rebelling against the narrative. They realize that things would not be concealed unless they contained a grain of truth, and that the truth is that once you look behind the curtain, you see that everything about our government, equality and diversity is a lie.

A natural disaster shows you how much you depend on civilization. The first layer is the obvious stuff: electricity, water, sewer, grocery stores and cops on the streets. Then, you want a basic sense of stability, such as that there are those who will help you and people in power who will do their best to minimize the impact of events like this. You also want more than cops on the street, but a justice system which cannot be bought and puts the bad guys away or sends them away. You also want leaders that you can believe in who you think will replicate the world you grew up in, maybe a little improved, but not greatly diminished. And finally, there is the existential level: you want a civilization that has a purpose, so that life has a point, and that recognizes reality and adapts to it, so you do not encounter unpleasant surprises, and ideally that aims for excellence, so that we are creating meaning together by striving to not just subsist, and not just adapt, but even more than thrive, to ascend and therefore, to have something worth sacrificing for. People will go to work for the paycheck, but they are only really motivated when they believe there is something larger and more important than them which is being honored, perpetuated, refined and improved by the group participation of which they are part. The existential level comes out more than anything else during a natural disaster because people need an answer to the question, “Why rebuild? Why keep going? Why strive at all?”

Right now in the West we have the parasite dark organization that arises in any human group as the basis for our government, industry and cultural institutions. To understand this, we must first define terms: “organization” used in an adjectival or adverbial sense means the state of being organized, or having a plan, separated functions, tools and materials in place, hierarchy, delegation and the like; an “organization” in a noun sense means a group of humans united by certain principles and goals, from three friends up through a large corporation, government, tribe or centralized religion. Dark organizations happen when the goals of individuals conflict with the goals of the organization, and those individuals begin using the organization as a vehicle for their own goals instead of the goals of the organization, and the hierarchy or leadership within is not strong enough — or is disempowered by internal conflicts, including revolt by lower ranks — to resist it.

This happened in the West when we overthrew our monarchs to divide power so that the mercantile middle classes could expand their own power. First they removed the absolute authority of the monarchs and then, blaming them for the problems caused by that lack of absolute authority, removed them entirely. Since then we have had mob rule, but it keeps going because people believe in it and rationalize its failures because of their need for that belief, mainly because they cannot conceive of anything different. So they shrug off the insanity, wait in the lines, sit in entirely avoidable traffic jams that we treat like an odd kind of weather event, endure pointless make-work activities and moronic socialization, pay taxes that increase every year, support both criminal underclasses that contribute nothing and parasitic fake culture and fake leadership that actively steals from them, and cut off their brains from thinking about all the productive things they could do with the money, time and energy wasted on the parasites.

Government seems like it can keep going indefinitely. But it has a weakness: it depends on lots of nice white guys showing up, willing to carry out its insane orders, believing in its justifications and purpose. This is eroding, and events like Hurricane Harvey are accelerating it. When your local government makes disastrous decisions, and the number of people who want to take from the till increases, and bloat also swells, then you know that you are headed toward a crash. You are in a bubble, trading on the wealth and power of the past so that useless people can take “their fair share” despite offering nothing that contributes to improvement.

Our thinking went backward when we insisted on equality. Before equality, there was the idea of hierarchy, or that each person had a place in the structure of society, but unequally; we all gave according to our ability, and received according to our actual need in order to serve our purpose, which meant that many were poor because their roles were small. If they died, they were easily replaced, and so they received lower levels of funding. After equality, the assumption was different: we basically said that x + y = 1 for all values of x, so choose any arbitrary values that make you feel good. This is why people are fanatical about believing lies; they must make all choices good so that no one can be assessed according to their level of contribution. This is a type of pacifism that says we do not need to struggle for position, or even to use self-discipline to improve our contributions, but in a backward interpretation of the original formula, we are assumed to be contributors and then the system makes room for us and approves of whatever weird behaviors we indulge in. That is an anti-reality formula; instead of rewarding those who adapt to reality, we assume that the reward goes to everyone, and find an argument that says that whatever they were doing was useful after all, in contradiction of how things appear.

The reversal of thinking — instead of seeing what the result is, assuming that the result is good and therefore approving of anything on the left side of the equation — creates warm and fuzzy feelings among human beings. They no longer must struggle to get a good result (the right side of the equation) but can focus entirely on the left side of the equation, which is where they project their feelings, drama, emotions, judgements and sentiments. To them, their notions appear real if other people treat them as real, and it is this affirmation (or validation) that they want. They want other people to rubber-stamp the unrealistic as the real, because then they are blameless if a Darwinistic Event occurs and they are eliminated or humiliated.

Politics arises from that reversal. It is no longer important to show that an idea, when implemented, produces the right results; all results are the same. Instead, you merely have to excite 51% or more of the population about it, and it becomes law. Democracy is the expression of the social sensation of going along with the crowd because it is easier and less risky than standing out. Whoever produces the simplest idea wins, but that idea needs to not only be simple in itself, but appeal to the basic desires of humanity. Free stuff, blaming someone else for our problems, and feeling that nice warm togetherness that lets a hive mind buzz in unison are all perpetually popular themes. Politics occurs as a result with having to deal with a society without hierarchy, where other than the leaders, everyone is an equal, which means that in order to get anything done you need to get them all roaring at the same time. Because of equality, leadership becomes a question of politics, which is more like the work of an actor on stage or the phenomenon of a football game or even the choice of which television commercial is most effective, than some kind of reasoned decision based on facts, logic and context!

Equality creates nerds. The point of equality is to create a human-only world where all that matters is what other humans think; reality itself is deprecated and obsolete, but mass sentiment determines who wins and who dies. This produces nerds, or those who are experts in deductive reasoning based on human sources. A nerd can read an instruction manual or scientific study, and from it make conclusions about how reality is, focusing on broad and square logical statements instead of the finely nuanced, coordinated detail-oriented, logic-intensive and depth-focused world of nature. A nerd loves machines and rules, references and orthogonal logic patterns, and shies away from the complexity of a forest, ecosystem, weather pattern or philosophical argument. They are products of the system. They are the ones who rule in any democracy because they understand the mechanisms of both technology and the herd. When your society goes nerd, it becomes entirely self-referential, and misses out on the broader world outside of the human-centric logic used by social interaction and politics. Where nature demands results, politics and nerds focus on methods and procedures. This makes them powerful within human society, but unable to predict the consequences of nature, which turns out not to be “some thing out there” but a pattern order that pervades us all, and dooms the best-laid plans of nerds and politicians because those schema are too simple to take account of the nuance, detail and subtlety of nature.

This in turn creates neurosis because there are no actual rules, only responses to whatever the herd is doing at that moment. Modern people are attention whores because with equality, no one has any actual place, and everyone starts from square one. As a result, they are all trying to prove their importance by competing for money or ideological purity, because either makes them noteworthy and then they can start cultivating their personal Crowd which will ensure their popularity and thus, newsworthiness and from that, profitability. Equality makes everyone into a prostitute for social influence points, or status. This leads them to become entirely self-serving independent of their actual role in civilization, and this leads to a mixture of arrogance, pretense, narcissism and solipsism which is the defining feature of the person in the egalitarian society. The more equal we are, the more we have nothing, and must seek out some position of importance in order to avoid becoming simply generic human containers who die alone in irrelevance. Human attention is the only thing between us and the voracious void, so we pursue it like a drug, feeling good about ourselves only when we glow in the eyes of others, and feeling awful when we are deprived of this socializing influence. We are dependent on others for our own sense of identity and worth, and this is how we are controlled, not by a centralized force but by the instinct to form a herd that lurks in every human soul.

This leads us to the dirty secret of humanity: we think we are all so very individualistic, distinct and important, when in truth, most people are the same, being simply feral atavistic animals seeking to become important through using others in order to survive. Civilization becomes addictive like sex or skydiving, a feeling of well-being we seek before anything else because it temporarily ceases the emptiness we feel from having been made equal. Humans pursue ideas like “equality” and “diversity” because these reflect individualism, but since the individualist is beholden to the Crowd for his power, individualism corrupts and reduces individuality, creating empty people. We are more similar than we think in that there are only a few functions known as the “4 Fs” — feeding, fighting, fleeing and reproduction — which humans focus on, although our versions are more abstracted than those literal ideas. For example, people posture at being important in order to feed better thanks to higher salaries; they fight through sports, business, socializing and culture; they flee from any idea which invalidates what they have achieved; and they seek mates by showing off whenever they can. We are biology, no matter how much we deny it.

Our contemporary narrative takes advantage of this. The Leftist idea, which is egalitarianism, makes us feel like the adversity we face has been removed by the collective action of humanity. This in turn makes us believe that we are somehow breaking new ground for humanity when in reality we are denying fundamentals that we need for civilization. Like a bad business, we are cutting corners by refusing to put energy into civilization so that we can instead devote it to short-term enjoyments. The only way to rationalize this behavior is through the nebulous and emotional world of social morality, which follows the utilitarian idea that whatever most people will vocalize approval of must then be what is right, even when it is not — or especially when it is not. This rationalization enables us to live in a solipsistic bubble where we pretend that we are unique, different, iconoclastic and special by using the same logic that allows us to claim that decay is progress. To those caught in the addiction to being unique and special that comes with trying to rise to a state above the mere equality that is granted to everyone, and therefore is worthless, “diversity” seems a natural way to decrease the amount of standards in a society, and therefore allows us to get more freaky, weird, eccentric, eclectic, and dramatic, which in turn allows us to engage in stunts and attention whoring and raise our own status, since “equality” actually pushes us downward by eliminating any innate identity or position we would have if we were living in a hierarchical society.

Our behavior thus is compensatory in that since we are not getting what we need, we focus instead on short-term temporary wants as a means of feeling compensated for what has been taken from us that we cannot identify. That makes us dependent on our compensatory behavior because we feel that it is all we have, and we have a vague sense of being victimized, but since the person doing the victimizing is ourselves, since we have unknowingly become pathological in our cult-like pursuit of equality, we cannot lash out, and instead target those around us by becoming parasitic to our own civilization. This takes us full circle: people feel a lack of power, so they demand equality, which in turn makes them powerless, so they sabotage their society, but this makes them complicit in a dark organization like a gang, cult, cartel or mob which then demands allegiance, so they cannot stop the cycle. Endless cries for equality are met by endless degradation of conditions, while those savvy and cynical enough to see through the whole thing promise the mewling mob what it demands, and then abscond with the profits because they know that only disaster lies ahead. Whether that is Hugo Chavez dying a billionaire as his countrymen starved, Soviet apparatchiks in their dachas, Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren becoming millionaires in office, or simply your average rank-and-file bureaucrat making six figures to administer civil rights, affirmative action, sexual assault protection or any of the other voter hot button programs, equality means theft.

People generally recognize that this is the case, and it makes them hopeless. Anyone with a brain in the West has been morbidly depressed since at least the 1920s, with the most perceptive beginning to feel the queasiness in the 1820s or earlier. However, they know that a transition to anything else will involve massive carnage and possibly failure, so they hang on, patching up society like a leaky boat and hoping for the best instead of letting it sink while they build a new boat. These people, who are complicit in continuing the decline because they have rationalized the decay as positive and are afraid of anything else, collaborate with the government and other captive industries to further the narrative: We Can Fix This. They want us to think that Houston flooding is merely an aberration, a glitch, or a deviation from the norm, instead of the norm itself. The truth is that we cannot fix this and even if we could, it would be doom for us, a slow death by a thousand cuts that makes us existentially miserable and prone to abuse our families, friends and coworkers as it drives us mad. We are locked in a train heading toward a ravine where the bridge is out, keeping ourselves distracted by fighting over the distribution of food in the restaurant car while the abyss grows steadily nearer. We all want off the train, but there is no way to jump from a speeding train without risk of death or serious injury, so we huddle closer, in public keeping up the charade by focusing on any issue other than the one real issue of civilization collapse, and in private always wondering exactly when the crash will come.

Houston shows us our future. The minority-majority city will never act in a sane way because it is divided by racial politics. Every group votes for what benefits them, with only the Western European group voting for what will make the local civilization there work for everyone. Who wants to pay for a billion-dollar aqueduct when there are pensions, benefits, diversity programs, more schools for the children of illegal aliens, and more helpful government programs that hire the bureaucrats who get those pensions, to be funded? Houston has known since Tropical Storm Allision in 2001 that an epic flood disaster was going to occur, and the :

What’s at stake is the safety of the nation’s fourth-largest city. If the dams failed, half of Houston would be underwater.

…Addicks and Barker were six decades old, with a long history of seepage and erosion, when the Corps evaluated their condition in 2007. Once positioned far from downtown, they were now surrounded by houses and highways. Some residences sat within the reservoirs, which straddle the Energy Corridor along Interstate 10 and west of Beltway 8.

Development upstream was sending more runoff into the reservoirs, which were filling faster and storing water for longer. Nine out of the top 10 pools for both reservoirs have occurred since 1990.

“Every piece of concrete that’s poured upstream is going to have an impact on these reservoirs. Every square inch,” Long said

…The deadliest scenario for Addicks involves the outlets failing as the pool rises to 106 feet, producing the staggering loss of billions in property and thousands of lives after water submerges downtown, west and south Houston and the Texas Medical Center. 

You can see the growth of Houston over time, and how that growth coincides with the mostly-Hispanic immigration that transformed a once white-run city into a Democrat-run, mostly non-white city. Houstonians who grew up after 1982 found themselves in a minority-majority city with street signs in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean and other languages corresponding to the 145 languages that people speak there. White people make up 24.9% of the population of Houston, and 38.8% of the population of the Houston metropolitan area.

As Houston grew, it lost a vital resource: the wide flood plain that enabled the reservoirs to dump water outside of the city, instead of having to release it into the mainly white neighborhoods surrounding the bayous, into which the reservoirs drain as outlets.

It was not to be. On April 18, during the height of the storm, when the dam gates were closed, the flow in Buffalo Bayou reached nearly 7,000 cfs, as measured by the gauge at Piney Point. (The Memorial Day flood on May 26, 2015, exceeded 7,000 cfs and reached 8,500 cfs, according to the Harris County Flood Control District, page 9.) As of this writing, combined releases from the dams, measured by the Piney Point gauge, have exceeded 3,000 cubic feet per second for longer than even after the Memorial Day flood, the first time the Corps deliberately raised the release rate to 3,000 cfs, and frequently have reached 3,700 cfs. Homes downstream are expected to flood above 4,000 cfs.

Consistently, Houston has rejected any plan for addressing the problem of huge amounts of rain, namely that such amounts would necessitate a release above 4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) in order to drain the reservoirs in anticipation of future rain, as it indeed did, destroying many neighborhoods. Hurricane Harvey called Houston’s bluff, which mayors Lanier, Brown, Parker and Turner — all Democrats, two black — had been ignoring as a possibility by not acting on any plan to increase drainage. The growth of Houston, coupled with its refusal to upgrade its drainage, created this flood.

In fact, there were two floods: the initial storm surge, which flooded areas that normally flooded during storms like Allison, and the reservoir release, which produced the really devastating damage that destroyed homes along the bayous two days after the storm hit. This flood has provoked a class action lawsuit from homeowners who observed the correlation between the reservoir release and the destruction of their homes. In their view, the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Houston essentially used some of its oldest and wealthiest neighborhoods as a giant retention pond, instead of venting the reservoirs outside the city, which created a flood of epic proportions:

The controlled releases, which topped out with the dams gushing a combined 13,000 cubic feet per second, sent water surging into homes along Buffalo Bayou in neighborhoods, outlined by I-10 to the north, Gessner to the east, Briar Forest to the south and the reservoir to the west. Mayor Sylvester Turner ordered a mandatory evacuation for all homes that had flooded once it became clear the water would not recede anytime soon.

…This comes as people are looking back at the years of warnings that this kind of event could happen, about developing rice fields and wetlands that used to sop up storm water, about how Addicks and Barker were aging, about how another plan was needed to be put in place before a major storm like Harvey hit.

…After all, in 1996 a report from engineers with the Harris County Flood Control District found that Harris County’s reservoir system was not cutting it, a problem that put thousands of home in jeopardy. At that time the proposed solution was a $400 million underground system that would pipe water from the reservoirs to the Houston Ship Channel.

And so it comes down to money. Spend on benefits for the diversity, or spend it on protecting the mostly white and Jewish neighborhoods threatened by reservoir-induced flooding? The 1996 report warned that Houston had expanded to cover the floodplain once used to drain the reservoirs:

The report was filed away without action, then last week Harvey struck. The usually dry Addicks and Barker reservoirs quickly filled until, on Aug. 28, they were nearly full and water had spread to their surrounding neighborhoods. The Army Corps of Engineers opened the floodgates to let a controlled amount escape. But instead of the normal 4,000 cubic feet per second, Corps officials opened the gates wide enough to release more than 13,000 cubic feet per second to keep the rising reservoir levels from overtopping the dams. They did so knowing it would flood neighborhoods downstream.

And just as the 1996 report predicted, water in many of the flooded homes would not drain for days or even weeks.

Despite this warning, the coalition of housing developers who wield the power of campaign financing and the minority voters who make up the largest voting bloc, would not support any changes, especially since the new homes in the floodplain were providing affordable housing for the new population, which was mostly non-white which was accelerated by the Obama policy of relocating Section 8 housing to the suburbs. As in Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles and other cities where the minority vote decides every election, people vote for what benefits their own tribes, and leave the costs to be absorbed by others, in this case mostly white, longer-term residents of Houston. Minorities never vote conservative, and Democrats win elections by promising benefits, not addressing infrastructural or structural problems. The more benefits we pay out, the more our wealth declines along with our motivation and hope, in parallel to what we saw in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries; benefits, like labor unions, are a socialist idea. The Balkanization begins in Houston.

Every plan that has promised to address the potential superfloods has been voted down, including some that took the reasonable step of limiting development:

Harris County Flood Control District, Texas Water Development Board and others released a study in August that looked at a key problem area: the overflow of Cypress Creek into Addicks Reservoir. One plan listed in the study, known as “Alternative Five,” proposes the acquisition of land along Cypress Creek to act as a sponge or reservoir for floodwaters. The more land that soaks up floodwater, the less likely the dams are to be breached: That’s just common sense. Area officials, nonprofit organizations and developers should unite to take the steps necessary to implement this plan now.

This alternative, which will provide a host of benefits to residents in addition to flood protection, is garnering support from groups that want to use natural resources as a primary defense against flooding as well as groups that support conventional infrastructure projects. Not only will the plan help relieve the pressure on the dams, as the area grows more populated, Houstonians also will be grateful for the green space. The mixed-use floodways will provide recreational amenities and will benefit the biodiversity of the area by maintaining a home for quail, dove, rabbits and a large variety of songbirds and ducks.

There’s no time to waste. Nearby land is being developed and concrete is being poured at a rapid pace.

However, displacing this land by making it a floodplain would frustrate both the developers, who see money in building neighborhoods closer to the city, and minority voters, who are increasingly located in suburbs and want this new housing. While people from the coasts — seemingly to a man knowing zero about the situation in Houston, yet willing to opine on it with the pretense of authority — suggest that Houston’s lack of zoning is the problem, the reality is far simpler: even with zoning, new neighborhoods are springing up anywhere land can be bought in order to accommodate the flood of newcomers, most of whom are from Central America and Asia and vote consistently Democrat. Zoning will raise the costs of housing, but will not stop the growth of the city. And Texas’ famously high property taxes, required to maintain the school system under the “Robin Hood” policy of redistributing money from wealthy areas to poorer ones, keep going up as bilingual schools are built to take on the flood of new children, 91% of whom are non-white. This means that anyone who owns land that could be kept in a natural state is driven out when they receive the astronomical bill based on the new value of their land, since development nearby raises its estimated sales price, which is the metric by which taxes are calculated. And whites? They are the prosperous tax base that also accurately reports its income, in contrast to some newer successful groups who have already for cheating in schools and, by reputation, on their taxes. In Asian and many Hispanic countries, cheating on taxes and exams is part of the national culture.

It is not global warming that brought about this flood, but over-development to support a rising minority-majority population:

Other researchers argue that poor urban infrastructure and the rapid, unchecked sprawl of cities on to marshlands and other places that usually absorb excess rainwater have led to flooding.

“We know climate change is influencing the capacity of the atmosphere to hold water but it is hard to attribute this to individual [flooding] events,” says Paolo Ruti, head of the global weather research division of the UN’s World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in Geneva.

Those marshlands refer to the areas West, Northwest and South of Houston that in the past absorbed the extra water.

Television coverage of this event was interesting, since it focused mostly on what appeared to be obese people from minority groups getting rescued from homes in the outer suburbs like Cypress. This both affirms the narrative of equality (less capable = victims; more capable = tax base and evildoers) but also plays to popular stereotypes in the cruelest manner of bigots, so that the standard low-information white voter can sit back and quietly mutter ethnic slurs, which focuses his attention on specific minority groups instead of the problem of diversity, which is that his interests will never win in an election again. Hating black people plays into the hands of the pro-diversity crowd because it redirects focus to a false event, which is the behavior of minorities, and away from the actual question, which is that diversity is a government-sponsored event which can be ended by changing our laws, unleashing a wave of similar lawsuits, or, if necessary, open revolution.

White Houstonians are held hostage by the minority vote just as white voters are in Detroit or Baltimore. The third world strategy is to arrive en masse in clueless Western-style democracies, and then produce many offspring, so that soon, the minority population controls the vote and can turn the government against the people who created it. This demonstrates a classic conflict between r– and K-strategic populations — something I have been writing about since 2009 — which is that poorer and dumber populations have many more children, and eventually overwhelm those who are more competent at making leadership decisions, at which point the society collapses into a third-world state. Couple this with the fact that, to dumber people, more intelligent ideas than they are capable of generating in fact appear to be unintelligent ideas, and you have a perfect political storm where the incompetent swarm the gates and take over, only to create a failed state which makes successively worse decisions, as happened with the French Revolution and Russian Revolution, and arguably, the Obama revolution which wrecked America economically, culturally and structurally, paving the way for the populist backlash, which wanted an end to “globalism” or the advance of worldwide Leftism with its diversity initiative, after noticing the Soviet-style transformation unable to respond to actual risk. These people want their countries back and distrust the permanent political class running those countries. They are united against the toxic coalition of Leftists, minorities and large corporations that has transformed America and Europe by following the Leftist agenda.

We have seen this pattern before outside America, where minority-majority voters pair with Leftists and corporate interests to pursue an internationalist agenda instead of focusing on the health of the civilization and its founding group:

It is no exaggeration to say that this myth of the “moral high ground” was sustained only by sheer denialism, by a studied aversion of the eyes from these well-known faults. This held true even as the first signs of a new corruption became clear as one ANC leader after another quickly developed wealthy white “godfathers”. I asked Anton Harber, then editor of the Mail and Guardian, why his paper was paying so little attention to this alarming new phenomenon. He replied indignantly that having campaigned so strongly for liberation they had no wish to embarrass the new black elite. This sort of attitude was widespread. There was a rush among white opinion-makers to befriend the ANC and anyone who brought up such matters, let alone things like the use of torture in the MK camps, was thought to be churlish, perhaps even pro-apartheid.

The new ANC elite could not have hoped for such luck: a key newspaper deciding that news of budding corruption should be treated as non-news. They were not slow to take advantage. Even before 1994 Joe Modise, the putative defence minister, had made contact with various large arms manufacturers, had established contact with many old apartheid security apparatchiks and was a frequent attender at European air shows and the like: everything was ready to go.

This follows a pattern we see worldwide throughout history, which is that diversity is not a friend, but a challenge that no society has successfully navigated. Thomas Sowell lays out the basic problem with diversity:

If there is any place in the Guinness Book of World Records for words repeated the most often, over the most years, without one speck of evidence, “diversity” should be a prime candidate.

Is diversity our strength? Or anybody’s strength, anywhere in the world? Does Japan’s homogeneous population cause the Japanese to suffer? Have the Balkans been blessed by their heterogeneity — or does the very word “Balkanization” remind us of centuries of strife, bloodshed and unspeakable atrocities, extending into our own times?

Has Europe become a safer place after importing vast numbers of people from the Middle East, with cultures hostile to the fundamental values of Western civilization?

To which Ann Coulter adds the unpopular truth that diversity causes permanent political division that endangers societies:

Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the “beautiful mosaic” — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”

On top of that, research data shows that diversity destroys social order and therefore is a dysfunctional form of civilization that will eradicate the host population. By contrast, homogeneity provides a firm basis for civilization, as a landmark study that demonstrates the superiority of ethnocentric civilizations in holding back both groupthink and selfishness:

Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.

For now, people are vested in the system — it pays their wages, provides their security, and threatens to destroy them if they say something that is not politically correct — and so they feel clever for partaking in it and believing that it functions. They like the thought that they are represented by something, that they have freedom, and that no matter what they do, society cannot eject them or judge them as lower because they have equality. In order to have these, they select utilitarianism, or the idea that whatever most people think is “good” actually is good, and in order to have a society where most people disagree on most things, they adopt pluralism or the idea that we can “agree to disagree” and still have some semblance of functional order. From that, the step to diversity is not a long one, and it brings the eternal crisis of egalitarianism (equality): if you have a group of people who are fundamentally different in ability, the only way to make them all the same — how our brains interpret the word “equality” — is to take from those at the top, and give to those at the bottom, which means that the worst slowly consume the best, in a metaphorical relationship similar to that of biological parasites in nature. This happens without diversity, but diversity accelerates it, and soon we get the white=bad/non-white=good narrative that we saw in the early news stories about the Hurricane Harvey floods in Houston.

Even more, during a natural disaster, we see the need for civilization, which is not a generic thing but comes in different types, of which first world, third world, totalitarian, democratic, and nationalistic are potentially overlapping descriptors. All nice things end when you set up your civilization incorrectly; homogeneity is a pre-requisite for having a nice civilization. You cannot shape people into being like you with laws and incentives; to have nice places, you must have nice people, which means people like you on a biological level, as expressed both in genetics and outward appearance (phenotype). Even more, you need a leadership system that ensures that instead of having the worst slowly consume the best, you both empower the best to rule, and remove incentives for the best to victimize the rest, which requires vesting most of the wealth — usually through land, without insane property taxes — with the best. Without people of genius for leadership curating civilization at every step and every level, idiocy intervenes, and idiocy is subversive because it appeals to the broadest number of people since anything less idiotic is incomprehensible and offensive to them, so they will demand that those higher ideas go away and are replaced by idiotic ones. We have nothing now but pro-idiot policies.

The mayor of Houston is a man named Sylvester Turner who has a glowing résumé. He is not of the majority, so experience has taught me that this means that his experience and deeds have been vastly inflated by well-meaning but self-hating which means neurotic members of the majority group. He works for those who vote for him, which in a city that is three-quarters minority, means that he works against the interests of the white people and in favor of the Left-leaning, benefits-inclined minorities. Before him came Annise Parker, who was also an outsider, being a lesbian. She, too, worked for her tribe at the expense of the founders of this city, who were Western Europeans. She achieved the minority vote because she was not of the majority. Before her was Bill White, a member of the majority who was popular with the business community and progressives for his mixture of libertarian business policy and Leftist social policy. Previous to him was Lee Brown, also not of the majority ethnic group, who was universally recognized as lazy and incompetent but made Houston look “progressive” at a time when it was trying to expand. Before him was Bob Lanier, an old-school Democrat who was cozy with industry. He was of the majority group and should have known better, but apparently wanted power more than he wanted to be right, and the citizens of this city voted enthusiastically for them because he promised to make it grow by bringing in lots of outside people and industry. All of these people had a chance to make this flood problem go away, perhaps only for $400 million — a tiny fraction of the damage done by Harvey — and blew it off, because the coalition of minority voters and voracious industry did not want to spend the money on anything but benefits and new roads to the suburbs they were perpetually building around the city, many of which became homes for those minority voters. These people were mostly white, but under the non-white mayor Brown, the time was right because of Tropical Storm Allison, which flooded the city to the point that it was clear that something needed to be done. None acted.

Houston is a blue city. Most of the whites are faced with a grim choice: admit they are living in a third world nightmare with a pile of white wealth on top, or rationalize the problem, which means finding a way to argue to their own minds that bad=good, which they do through enthusiastic support of diversity, high taxes, immigration, gay rights and a slough of other Leftist issues that make people feel that nice warm sense of one-ness that comes with a buzzing hive mind. Rationalizers follow the mental policy that inevitable disaster can be postponed for long enough to forget about it, and that in the meantime, it is best to explain away the bad as good and tilt at windmills that are unrelated to actual problems. Most of us are familiar with the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

They came for the Communists, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn’t
object – For I wasn’t a Jew;
Then they came for me –
And there was no one left to object.

Rationalization means recognizing that there is an incoming and ongoing problem and choosing to re-style it as a victory. Obviously Niemöller had some issues, because removal of labor leaders, Socialists and Communists is never a bad thing, but the point he makes is a good one. Rationalization is a sickness of the mind. It takes many forms, some of them on the right. “Work hard, pray hard” and the Benedict Option are one form; another is anti-Semitism, which blames Jews for the problems created by Aryans through caste revolt, in which our r-strategy serfs overwhelmed our K-strategy aristocrats with the help of the mercantile bourgeois middle class. The so-called “Jewish Question” or JQ is a form of rationalization that avoids the real issue — civilization decline brought on by egalitarian sentiments, and a resulting lack of hierarchy and social order — while pursuing a symbolic issue, namely the scapegoat of the Jews, who for whatever wrongs they have done, did not create our decline, because we did it ourselves. The JQ is “we wuz kangs” for white people, or an explanation of how we were once great until someone else stole it from us, and an easy answer in that if we destroy that other, then the good times can resume. Leftism is another rationalization; instead of admitting that people are unequal and we want the best on top, Leftism says that it is positive that ineptitude and chaos rule because otherwise, we would have to face the morally and emotionally difficult task of recognizing hierarchy and the need for purpose. Leftism is just like the JQ: a pathology of blaming someone else for our cognitive incompetence.

Turner is obviously a bad guy here, in his participation in encouraging the reservoir release that created the flood, but he is not the source. Neither are the poor Jewish people who got flooded out in Meyerland. Democracy and diversity did this to you, and they happened because you voted for them, tolerated them and were afraid to speak up while you still had a chance. Now that Leftism has momentum, it is squashing all dissent aggressively, and so the only response is to confront it head-on as Trump and Brexit voters have done, but we must go further. The problem with democracy is that it cultivates helplessness and neurosis in us, much as socialism does, and so it must be removed; the problem of diversity is easily removed by sacking our Civil Rights laws and affirmative action, then beginning the reparations-with-repatriation process for all who are not of our founding group, who are Western Europeans. This means that Irish-Americans go back as well as Mexicans, Africans, Asians and Arabs. Modernity is the era defined by equality and individualism, and we now see that its end result is that all nice things get destroyed and are in turn replaced by third-world ruins.

It is hard — intellectually, morally, and emotionally — to face these truths. The sociable thing to do in any situation is to insist that everyone is good, we are all one, and all are welcome. People perennially desire to give in to this pathology, which like pacifism is a desire to avoid conflict by sacrificing what is accurate, good and right. It must be opposed, if you want a functional civilization, without regard to level of detail. Any egalitarianism is toxic; not one drop can be permitted. Any pluralism is toxic; not one drop can be allowed. Any democracy is toxic; not one drop can be sustained. All of those little drops come together to make a trickle, and that wears down the levee, and then they multiply, and soon those drops are a flood, submerging everything good while the bad feasts on the remains.

Nonsense Leftists Say

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

“He’s hungry, and I have food,” said the man being devoured by a rabid dog. “I have no more right to my flesh than he does.”

“We must not give in to fear,” said the man calmly being pummeled by a drunk. “Fighting back is exactly what the he wants.”

“All men are potential rapists,” said the woman to the men who would die to defend her.

“It is a grave injustice to be ruled over with no voice in governance; we demand a share of the power,” cried the gonads to the brain.

“We simply want to live, grow, and reproduce, just like every other cell,” said the bacterium.  “It’s xenophobic to create supremacist definitions such as ‘host’ and ‘infection’.”

“I feel like a bird,” said the rabbit as he jumped off a cliff.

“Look at all these beautiful, vibrantly colored paints,” said the artist.  “I will mix them all together uniformly and spread the mixture evenly across my canvas.”

“Love is love,” said the man to the boy as he opened a bottle of lubricant.

“Your appetites are unsustainable,” said the cat lady to her multiplying clowder.  “You’re just going to have to learn to live together with less.”

“Violence never solved anything,” said the man as he watched raiders take his harvest again.  “We simply need to educate them and open a dialog.”

“I’m not an extremist, don’t lump me in in together with them,” said the new leader installed by the occupying force.  “I didn’t participate in the invasion, and I denounce violence in all its forms.”

***

They call it an “awakening” because in a relatively short span of time, you come to realize that everything you have been told is not only wrong but designed to conceal the real problem: our civilization is in decline and just about everyone is lying, crazy or otherwise delusional. Nothing can be trusted.

Our society fell years ago, and those of us who still believe in the idea of civilization are under assault. What remains of a once-great civilization is being steered into oblivion by the dizzyingly insane and malicious.  If not stopped, they will continue to recklessly destroy, disintegrate, and grind up into meaningless shreds anything of value. 

The longer this continues, the uglier our options for survival become. We are not yet at the end.  We are far from the end. The end is not even an end, just a greater slow slide into irrelevance and third world style subsistence living. Those of us who are fighting are struggling for the ability to exist on a better level than the majority of humanity who live in poverty, corruption, disorder and filth.

Destroyers of civilization have disordered minds ruled by their appetites. They know only their own desires, and are constantly stewing with reality-denying nonsense. Those with clear minds who glare back unfazed at realty, those with an innate desire to know and understand truth, will reject this nonsense and join our ranks. But they are an eternal minority, not just here but in all of humanity.

Those who do not quietly shrink back when danger approaches but stand erect with feet firmly planted in the ground, eager for glory — these will fight with us. Those who have enough love in their hearts to imagine a civilization that is not constantly in decline, and to look instead toward the possibilities of greatness and beauty which this abundant life offers us, they will come to understand us.

Be patient. This crisis has taken centuries to become visible to the normal above-average intelligence person. Most are afraid of what is required and so will make excuses, rationalize and bow out. They will go back to their televisions, political platitudes, jobs and shopping as a way to silence the fears in their minds. This is a miserable way to live, but it is morally and intellectually easier than facing the problem head on.

Humanity has survived many bottlenecks, or events where most of us died or faded away, in the past. Ultimately, this horrific era of modernity may become a great filter through which our people will pass, leaving only the most honest, most courageous, strongest, and noblest. The future is dark but through it shines a luminosity that tells us that beyond this layer, greatness awaits.

Into The Leftist Mind

Saturday, May 13th, 2017

Humans fail when we allow our big brains to become substitutes for reality. More than our brains, it is our fear of a Darwinian event that causes us to desire a place without hierarchy or right and wrong, so that we never face being wrong or failing.

This mentality is similar to that of the heroin addict: on the drug, everything feels all right. The drug suspends the challenge of life itself. It freezes time. And so, they come back for more, because the heroin drives away self-doubt and fear.

Leftists, as those who embrace the human-only world of social and emotional thinking, are people of the lie that says we can avoid making choices and having some win and some lose. This makes them masters of scapegoating, or finding someone else to blame for failure.

This can be seen nowhere better than in the response by head dingaling Hillary Clinton to her failed presidential campaign, which ironically was the biggest political failure in history because it cost more than any previous campaign:

Alas, there seems to have been precious little of this self-reflection since her defeat. The authors report that Clinton blames Trump’s victory on “the FBI, the KGB and KKK” — referring to the investig­ation of her secret email server, Russian interference and racist voters.

But the secret email server was her own doing, the product of her paranoia so deep that after her 2008 defeat, the authors recount, she downloaded tens of thousands of her staff’s emails and had them scoured for evidence of disloyalty.

The Leftist psychology rejects the idea that individual humans must adapt to reality, and replaces it with the idea that reality has a moral obligation — according to a herd of humans — to adapt to that individual human. It produces a comical mental state.

As a result, whenever Leftism fails, the Left finds someone else to blame. This is why Leftism is an apocalyptic ideology: it begins by rationalizing one bad decision, and then in order to keep that rationalization alive, justifies going further down the rabbit trail of the psychology of that bad decision, and then blames others instead of noticing its own failure, making it pathological and unable to check its own momentum.

For this reason, Leftist societies always self-destruct if given enough time, money and power.

In the meantime, Hillary announced the agenda of the Left for the next four years: blame racism/sexism, non-Leftists in government, and the Russians. We will hear of little else, and they will use these dramatic issues to unite a group for protest and vandalism to try to force abdication by D.J. Trump.

This also illustrates the fundamental incompatibility of democracy with realism. A realist requires accurate feedback; a democrat filters out data that is inconsistent with the narrative before even considering what decision to make.

For the past century or two, Leftists have gained increasing power and through that, governed progressively more with this method. During that time, our fortunes have also declined, because reality-denial always produces bad results eventually.

Understanding Leftism As Inertia And Rationalization

Thursday, April 20th, 2017

Over cocktails with Leftists, the most extraordinary thing was said: “You either give to the top or you give to the bottom, and Republicans choose to give to the top.”

This statement was striking in its simplicity. Is that all? It shapes the mind to think about giving, instead of creating, and this shows the difference between Left and Right.

The Left, defined by its only idea, egalitarianism, seeks to redistribute wealth. On the Right, where we recognize the necessity of deciding issues on a case-by-case basis and recognize the particularity of solutions as superior to general theory, the question is not redistribution, but the production of wealth, because we realize that without affirmative acts to produce wealth, it dissipates.

This leads in turn to the realization that the Left does not recognize that civilization requires ongoing and regular acts to maintain. To them, it is there and can be taken for granted, and thus the only question is carving up the wealth that exists to make sure everyone feels included, because this is the way to win at the game of socializing and peer pressure.

They exist in a perpetual present tense where what we have today exists as if by a divine hand, and did not require the work of yesterday to create, and will exist tomorrow without the work of today. In this, we see a disconnect in cause-effect reasoning caused by the proximate intermediary of socializing, which tells that all things exist by human intention alone.

In other words, humans intend for no one to go hungry, so they write a check from the Treasury and the problem goes away. Or they intend for all people to be equal, so they proclaim it and execute dissidents on the guillotine. Maybe they want everyone to be accepted, so they force acceptance of all people, no matter how much they deviate from social norms.

What they forget is that civilization as we know it comes from the affirmative acts of our people. It takes work to make food, shelter, and an economy. Social norms keep people moving in the same direction, and enable civilization to function in the first place. Inequality drives people to rise above others and therefore, to put the competent at the top of our hierarchy.

Leftists do not recognize these needs, and as a result, are entirely blind to the task of maintaining civilization. This means that to them, the questions of leadership are as simple as how to spread money and power around. Conservatives aim to create that wealth and power, and to them, division of it is done so that more is produced.

This is why conservatives emphasize giving money and power to the competent. It is not a question of making everyone feel accepted, but ensuring that the people who are most likely to make more wealth and power are in a position to do so. This is entirely lost on the Left, who do not exist outside of a perpetual present tense where these things already exist.

Inertia drives the Left. Finding themselves in a civilization where benefits are present, they assume these are perpetual and given by heaven. This inertia may reflect a fear of the passage of time, including aging and mortality. It manifests in a denial of the cyclic nature of reality and our part in it.

It also provides a rationalization and decline and justification for profiting from it. If civilization “just exists,” without requiring us to be means to the end of its perpetuation, there is nothing wrong with taking everything that one can and giving nothing back. One is freed from the guilt of watching another labor for shared benefit while taking for personal benefit only.

This inertia and rationalization provides the individual with the ability to act selfishly without guilt, while simultaneously not worrying about the future. In this view, what existed at the birth of the individual will exist in perpetuity regardless of the actions of the individual. They view themselves as having no effect and no obligations.

From this comes the “bourgeois” mentality or the view of the successful middle class, which is that society is a competition for resources and the only political involvement required is to “virtue signal” or demonstrate moral goodness through transferring wealth to those with less success. Politics is a means of symbolic gestures that lead to personal success.

When we view Leftism through this filter, its origins as an adaptive pathology become clear. It seems to be an ideology, but really, it is a defensive rationalization for the individual to disclaim obligation to maintain civilization. This explains its enduring popularity as well as its incoherence.

Once it is visualized this way, Leftism becomes defeatable. It is no longer an active philosophy that has actual goals. Instead, it is a pathology of people seeking to accept and deny the decline. They perceive it as a way of making themselves more important in a shrinking pond. If this power is removed, Leftism becomes inert and thus unrewarding, and will be discarded.

Relevant Heresies

Saturday, April 1st, 2017

Among human groups, a tendency arises to use the power of the group to suppress disturbing ideas. The origin of this arises in the fear of the individual of not being included, and so the group criminalizes exclusion. This creates a society of tolerance, acceptance, low standards and entropy, because by not rising to a standard above themselves, the group declines to a mediocre standard.

Think of every coddled and protected entity you can: this is what group tendencies do. Dodo Birds lose the ability to fly or flee; the children of rich celebrities become entirely inert; people in government bureaucracies where they are shielded from the consequences of their actions lose all sense of being efficacious or efficient. This is entropy.

In every age, there are those who stand against the group and point to the duality of reality and principle — the former what arbitrates results, the latter how we know what to aspire to — as what should replace the group. We recognize that human social groups converge on what is convenient, not what is real, and as a result are as toxic and poisonous as an epidemic.

These individuals against the herd tend to find themselves branded heretics, pariahs and evil, hateful people. Of course, we must note that to evil, good is evil, and therefore that much as to the insane the sane are insane, the herd will oppose any healthy ideas.

This means that a celebration of honest heresy is in order. Let us list a few, for your enjoyment and contemplation, that turn reality against the herd:

  • What is popular, is wrong. Most people pursue what is popular as a means of choosing an option which is “safe,” meaning that it works for others and is safe from social criticism or censure. They are motivated more by fear of doing wrong in a social context than desire to do right in terms of end results in reality. In addition, they choose what is simplified and convenient for them to do. This is why short-term solutions and easy answers win out, even with an intelligent group. The “committee mentality” prevails wherever people are trying to get along with each other because interpersonal politics become more important to individuals than finding a solid and clear answer.
  • People are self-deluding. Humans like to think of themselves as good people who exist in a state of equilibrium. Instead, the mind rapidly flits between ideas, desperately trying to hold on to a sense of order, and so most decisions are made from the perspective of doing what makes the individual feel most stable. For this reason, individuals tend to reject difficult and complex problems and replace them with simple emotional reactions. This in turn makes them hostile to clear solutions and explanations.
  • Evil is real. Looking at existence from the prospect of its continuity and improvement, we might view “good” as that which is connected to the whole and responsive to it, thus interacting with it and improving it qualitatively. Evil, on the other hand, would be that which withdraws from the whole and focuses on a subset of the whole in order to increase its own power. Where good encourages reflection, or meditation on our own acts and their consequences as well as potential actions and goals, evil short-circuits this process and disconnects from the wider world in order to be more focused on the individual and what it can possess or control. Whether or not there is a Satan lurking below us in a demonic underworld — although we are thankful for this notion, as it brought us some of the best Slayer lyrics — something like “evil” exists around us and within us, and is a temptation of every second of every day and in every action that we take or fail to take.
  • Our goal is organization. Most efforts fail because they are disorganized, which means that parts are not assembled in a pattern that enables them to interact to produce the end goal. Our enemy is disorganization, which is the process by which chaotic individuals create disorder among the parts, sabotaging the end goal in order to engage in some self-interest of their own. Even thoughts need to be organized. Where disorder persists, dysfunction becomes the accepted norm and thus people act toward further dysfunction, much as we see in the modern fallen West.
  • Morality is size-independent. A society has a moral standard like surface tension of a body of water: once pierced, chaos results. Any immoral acts work toward piercing this moral standard, and all moral acts strengthen it. In this view, whether one steals a billion dollars or a candy bar, the result is the same. People become accustomed to immorality, then become corrupt, and by accepting this as the norm, destroy anything good and replace it with a corrupt alternative. This is how values are inverted.
  • The only solution is quality people. Rules do not ensure good outcomes, only that the interpretation of the rules will be changed. Market forces and political censure can be dodged. Bureaucrats and police cannot restrain an unruly populace. The only solution is to have good people, both in competence and moral character, in power in all places where decisions are required. The farm with a good owner prospers; the farm with a bad owner, or no owner, does not.
  • Elitism is compassion. When we establish hierarchy by elevating the best and demoting the worst, we create a more competent and functional structure. This in turn leads to better results and all benefit from these, even if they were demoted from higher degrees of wealth, power and status.
  • Rationalization destroys purpose. Most people, when a sub-optimal outcome is achieved, do not agitate to press toward a better outcome. Instead, they accept the mediocre and rationalize or justify it as being what they wanted all along. For this reason, asking a group of people if they are “happy” is a pointless endeavor; they do not know, and will make themselves happy with even bad results.
  • These heresies are taboo because they invert the usual human way of thinking, which is that if we find a way to unite the group and get everyone or most everyone to agree on something, we have achieved a good result. This is normally described as peace, happiness, love, equality, oneness, tolerance or any of the other brain-negating concepts used by those who prefer short-term absence of conflict — driven by their individual fear — to finding a working answer. People would rather patch a leaky boat than rebuild it, even if it still leaks.

    Currently, we are in the midst of a change of orders. The old order was created over the past thousand years as power was divided from a central hierarchy into increasing degrees of mob rule. It found its ultimate expression in liberal democracy as a global order, and since that entity reached power, the failure of that approach has become clear. Now the old order fades away, and we look toward something new, which introduces fear and trembling among the herd.

    As part of this transition, it is imperative that we remove social pretense and other illusions so that we can see the actual task before us. What was heresy under the old order will be common sense under the new, and while this provokes fear among much of the popular, it is important to remember that they fear risk out of concern for their personal self-interest, and any ideologies or protestations they offer are merely camouflage for that fear.

    Our new path as a species, as nations and as individuals lies in defeating fear. We must face the truth, no matter how cold and sharp it seems, in order to achieve greatness again. Only through this can we escape the falling order of the old and learn the wisdom of embracing the new.

#FakeAmerican: Separating The Opportunists From The Creators

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

Perhaps the single most irritating aspect of the dead West is that everything is fake. The food is fake, made of low cost ingredients tricked out with flavorings and preservatives. The leaders are fake, acting out roles they do not understand. And the community is fake, comprised of people angry with each other over their irresponsible, selfish behavior.

In addition, most people are pursuing fake justifications for their behavior, which consists of scapegoating symbolically important issues and ignoring real ones. This enables them to manipulate other people with appearance instead of doing the hard, invisible work of actually fixing problems. In a social situation, one loses by taking risks and wins by acting out symbols.

However, the good news is that at some level people are aware of this and afraid of it being noticed. It is the dirty little secret, that we are living in the ersatz West, and so when you notice and illustrate it, panic results. This suggests that in fact we should be calling people “fake Americans” for acting out the image and not the reality:

So I walked away from that conversation not really realizing I had stumbled onto something. I told my based wife and she laughed at his meltdown. Then, I told my cucked mother-in-law, who I also have a really good relationship with, and she got very upset over that term “fake.” “You can’t just throw that word around.”

Huh? So this got me scratching my head. I don’t watch CNN so maybe somehow they’ve poisoned the minds of the masses to believe that “fake” is an evil word.

So I started dropping the label “fake American” every chance I got when I knew I was talking to a leftie, in a very casual sarcastic joking manner. And you know what? Sure as shit, each and every one of them had a strong visceral response – they were TRIGGERED!

When a scam is afoot, the scammer fears having the scam revealed. In the modern West, or post-death fake West as we might call it, everyone is a scammer. We know there is no future in democracy, equality and consumerism; we intuit, at some level, that the West has died and we are trading on its good name from past centuries.

But to call out the scam is to reveal the failure of the West in its entirety, and thus to end the scam, and this means that every person out there will be inconvenienced from their meaningless middle-class lives and forced to confront existential questions as well as knotty pragmatic ones, such as how we will survive and rule ourselves in the future.

Our people have become brats in the hands of a sociopathic system and a corrupt culture based on each person demanding what they want out of society without being willing to do the work to maintain civilization. As such, everything they do is fake, including whatever is popular, and recognizing this scam ends its power over us to prevent the renewal of our civilization.

Political Correctness: An Extension Of Archetypal Leftist Psychology

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016

ableism_and_saneism

The Left rose through a singular power: a simple idea that made people feel comfortable in their social group, binding them together into a band to conquer all so that it would serve this idea.

For that reason, it makes sense not to say that Leftists are individually totalitarian, but that the thinking of Leftism is inherently totalitarian and individual Leftists will not be satisfied until they achieve a state that is both totalitarian and reality-denying.

The nature of ideology, after all, is to replace reality. It is the anti-reality. It tells you not how things work, but how they should according to human social logic. Leftism is at war with reality.

As a variant of Crowdism, Leftism is based in individualism. Every individual in the group wants guaranteed acceptance by the group. For this reason, they form a gang to make this so, but while their method is collectivism, their motivation is individualism.

What gives Crowdism power is the transfer of society from cooperative — where all people work unequally toward a goal that all understand — to control-based structures, where a formal goal is set up and applied equally to all in order to maintain power structures despite the fragmentation of society into many special interest groups, with individualists being one of these.

This gives rise to dark organization or a counter-current within society, formed of the individualist gang, that operates against its goals. Special interest groups do not share the goal of society as a whole, and therefore become parasitic: they take from the whole to support their own agendas.

For these reasons, the gang/cult of the parasite is always in motion. Its agenda never rests because it has hacked the human brain with a simple pleasing concept that short-cuts everything else. “If everyone is accepted, no one is at risk, and there will be no conflict,” is its underlying appeal, and the very fact of this simplification makes the meme powerful. It appeals to fear.

Since its motive is always conquest from within, the Crowd uses a number of hooks to short-circuit the psychology of others, and these in turn shape its own thinking into a pathological (repetitive without regard for results) obsession. This mental state can be recognized by the following internal cycles:

  • Begging the Question. To advance itself, Leftism uses this fallacy to transition political ideas to perceived social morality ideas. As we see with political correctness, the basic form is to assert that certain things are universally good, and therefore that in the converse, anyone who opposes those ideas is bad. The basic form of the fallacy is as follows:

    The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (“begging the question”), occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated (example: “Gregory always votes wisely.” “But how do you know?” “Because he always votes Libertarian.”).

    A special form of this fallacy, called a vicious circle, or circulus in probando (“arguing in a circle”), occurs in a course of reasoning typified by the complex argument in which a premise p1 is used to prove p2; p2 is used to prove p3; and so on, until pn − 1 is used to prove pn; then pn is subsequently used in a proof of p1, and the whole series p1, p2, . . . , pn is taken as established (example: “McKinley College’s baseball team is the best in the association [ pn = p3]; they are the best because of their strong batting potential [ p2]; they have this potential because of the ability of Jones, Crawford, and Randolph at the bat [ p1].” “But how do you know that Jones, Crawford, and Randolph are such good batters?” “Well, after all, these men are the backbone of the best team in the association [ p3 again].”).

    Strictly speaking, petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction, since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise.

    The final line may be the most important: this argument type is a linguistic sleight-of-hand, and the only reason it works is that the premise is associated with universal moral good, a concept that itself is an assumption. But because of its appearance in a social setting, the argument seems convincing because universal acceptance is a necessary basic attribute of socializing in large and thus broad groups. This is how the Crowd forms.

    For example, consider the Leftist argument for diversity: variety is good, therefore we need ethnic variety. The only way to oppose this seems to be to criticize the conclusion of the argument, when the real solution is to attack the assumption and the inexact language that allows it to seem relevant. Variety is good in certain contexts, and only certain types of variety, and these do not analogize to civilizations very well.

    The Left moves into circulus in probando by stacking its assumptions: “Because (we assume that) morality is universal, (we assume that) diversity is good, and since (we assume that) diversity is working so well, we need to expand the program.” In fact, all of Leftism can be seen as a circulus in probando starting with the idea that personal intent is more important than reality — the core of individualism and The Enlightenment™ — and moving to universalism, democratization and finally, to the extension of those principles to other areas. Diversity might be viewed as ethnic democracy, welfare as subsidized universalism, and strong state control as democratization of power.

  • Rationalism. Humans like to think that reason alone will bring them to correct answers, but they forget that our reasoning is shaped by our minds and must correspond to a reality more complex than our minds. Reason is thus not a singular thing, but many grades of an idea, and in addition to that, it varies with the individual.

    For those reasons, saying that reason will guide us to correct answers necessarily overloads our minds with the imposition of the idea that all people are the same, and that reason works like a calculator, when in fact it is more varied. That in turn creates the curse of rationalism which is that it enables people to have tunnel vision by identifying a plausible answer and then finding facts to support it, instead of assessing all facts and finding a model which fits all of the known data.

    Rationalism in this sense is not essentially distinct from rationalization, or developing a way of visualizing an unfortunate event as a positive one. In this case, the unfortunate event is civilization collapse, and so instead of fighting it, the Left rationalizes it and directs its attention away from fixing the problem to finding a way to feel good about the problem. Both rationalism and rationalization start by accepting a perception and then altering facts by filtering out those that do not conform to the thesis so that the perception appears not just true but inevitable.

  • Control. When cooperation can no longer exist because society is pulling itself apart into special interest groups, control appears: force everyone to go through the same procedures, or “means” versus “ends” or goals, equally or in the same way, so that details can be managed from central control or through a centralized narrative, even if independently interpreted as is the case with egalitarianism, the founding idea of the Left.

    The modern method can be seen as Social Control, or use of the threat of ostracism and reward for making people feel good as dual pincers of the control mechanism. Guilt is the primary weapon there: those who are not ideologically conforming become aware that others will be “upset” or “offended” by their acts, and are made to feel bad not about the consequences of their actions in reality, but in the perceptions of others.

    This process of regulating people through public appearance proves deadly effective because humans — like our Simian forebears — are social creatures. Alienation does not require government intervention, and because it causes others to fear for themselves if they are associated with the alienated person, spreads like a disease. It is more effective than any other means of punishment because the consequences are all-pervasive.

    When noticed by humans, social control is referred to as peer pressure with all the implications of collective punishment that this indicates. A small group, like a local community, fears being associated with bad ideas, so it punishes those who have them. In addition, this group will punish a group within it for deviation from the norm. This means that the individual is totally dependent on the group for behavioral cues and must follow whatever is decided, in an inversion of democracy but an extension of democratization. When all people have a voice, conformity results, and then it is made mandatory.

  • Crybullying. To advance a petitio principii fallacy, one must act as if the assumption therein is normal and universally liked. This requires playing the role of an innocent, benevolent and passive party. However, when someone refuses the assumption, this requires the fallacy advocate to act the role of wounded victim, which then justifies (synonyms: rationalizes; excuses) retaliation.

    This produces a type of weaponized passive aggression or indirect bullying. The Leftist needs to appear somewhere, insist on a Leftist method, and then act wounded while summoning the troops — the rest of the gang/cult — to attack. This enables Leftists to infiltrate any area of society and, by using their passive aggressive “victimhood” narrative, force others to conform to what the Leftist desires.

The psychology created by the above cannot be properly viewed as a philosophy, but an inversion of philosophy: instead of finding reasons to act in certain ways, it assumes basic human impulses — which like most undisciplined things, are usually wrong — are correct and then invents explanations for those that make them seem reasonable.

That however implicates a philosophy with two branches:

  • Means Over Ends. Leftism embraces a classic “means over ends” analysis. In that view, the goal does not matter so much as behaving in a correct way, in this case for social approval. That allows necessarily goals to be ignored if the methods needed are upsetting or inconvenient to the group, which “wags the dog” because then instead of thinking toward purpose, people think away from purpose and let methods become a substitute for goals. This rationalizes the lack of purpose inherent to a dying civilization and creates an imitative society where people repeat past successful acts without knowledge of what made them successful, simply by placing trust in the method and being afraid to contemplate goals.
  • Cause And Effect. Normally, we see our actions as the cause of an event which had certain effects, or outcomes. In the inverted world of Leftism, cause is removed by the assumption of moral goodness to methods, which signifies that the methods are both effect and cause. This removes the human ability to see cause, and by declaring the irrelevance of ends or effects, obliterates our ability to formulate independent goals. This creates atomized, infantilized, and domesticated people who depend on strong authority for guidance, as their acts otherwise are goalless and therefore become self-destructive in addition to pointless.

The root of this philosophy is a resistance to life itself: people would prefer to be gods in their own minds than to realize their place in an order — structure, hierarchy, flow of events — that makes life what it is. This is the essence of control within the human mind. It rejects all that is natural and replaces it with a world composed entirely of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. This is comforting to the under-confident and neurotic.

All high-level societies die through some form of Crowdism, which is usually Leftist. When a civilization is forming, its purpose is clear: create civilization, beat back nature and disease, and organize so that the pleasures of life are possible. After that point, civilization is taken for granted because most people cannot see the reason to choose a new purpose, since they have the effects of the work that created that civilization.

Dysgenics factor in here as well, especially in cities large enough to be anonymous. People need only to find a job, rent a place to live, and purchase food from street vendors. Everything else is optional. It is not surprising that modern Leftists are enamored of the job/rent/restaurant lifestyle. This, and the advances in institutionalized hygiene and safety that save people from their own bad choices, create people who are living but have no will to live other than the mechanical and material process of survival itself. With this, purpose and bravery die.

Anti-goals afflict successful civilizations only. One mode of thought, embraced by primitivists and Nietzscheans to varying degrees, is that civilization — if it wishes to survive — needs to back off of “perfecting” everyday life, and should preserve dangers. The idea of social Darwinism that is not in love with jobs and money holds that there should be no externalized costs to individual actions, such that each individual faces the consequences of his actions including potential death. This means strict punishment for any costs incurred to society by the individual, a lack of things like insurance and uniform methods of survival, and daily challenges so that the clueless weed themselves out.

Another possibility for civilization survival is to design it such that every action must have a purpose, and the results are compared to that purpose, with those who achieve parity between intention and reality being promoted in a hierarchy. This creates constant internal evolution and at the very least disenfranchises those who are inept at everything but collecting social approval. In other words, society must be less “social” and more purpose-driven.

Diversity presents a fundamental problem in any society because with the presence of a single person from the Other group, either social standards must be widened to include the standards of both self and Other, or those who are Other will be at a disadvantage and appear to be victims. That in turn jump-starts the begging-the-question fallacy by making it easily observed that the Other is failing, and assuming that this is bad, and therefore that “change” must occur.

Above all else, we must remember what Walt Kelley told us years ago: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Inside of each of us is a monkey. This monkey reacts to life out of fear and lives in a miasma of superstition, projection and denial through filtering out inconvenient and upsetting information. This monkey is driven by impulse, which leads to rationalization of that impulse, and reverts thought. The healthiest civilizations are disciplined more in terms of private thoughts than public behavior, but not through Control; instead, they aim for realism and other methods of refining the spirit to be rigid about its thinking and to push down the monkey impulses.

Our inner monkey resents life for not being equal to our intent as individuals. That choice forces us to either accept reality as it is (nihilism) or to accept only ourselves, then rationalize that denial as good, and in turn blot out reality without a consensual hallucination of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. Since this has its root in the monkey impulse toward self-importance in defiance of a reality structured otherwise, it is also a regression and the source of the dark organization that is Crowdism.

We have come to recognize Typical Leftist Behavior (TLB) with increasing frequency as the achievement of Leftist goals (diversity, equality, democratization, globalism) has made reality totally unknown to most people, resulting in terrible consequences when their ideas are put into practice, as usually happens with reality-denial. TLB takes many forms but all are based in the schema above.

The threats in front of us — Leftism, The Enlightenment,&trade civilization collapse — are themselves effects of this inner transformation of human beings. We no longer intend to achieve good results; we focus instead on making our feelings happy despite the darkness around us, but this deprives us of a sense that life can be a joy and a pleasure. That in turn pushes us toward more dark thoughts and behaviors.

Salvation for Western Civilization begins when we not just reverse this process, but commit ourselves instead toward a purpose which replaces the original purpose of survival that kept our civilization united in its early years. We also must protect ourselves genetically, so that we are not replaced with the Other, even in traces, as those alter what we were and through atavisms of that, what we must be again.

The Left won because it had a simple idea that dominated all other thinking. The solution is not to try to replicate that, but to understand that simple ideas which dominate are in themselves a terrible notion, and that instead, we need a more nuanced, purpose-driven and realistic view of life. As Leftist society crashes in chaos around us, more are turning toward this idea or something like it.

An Inspection Of Evil

Monday, November 7th, 2016

the_freezing_northern_sky_alive

Bruce Charlton writes an analysis of Evil, which he identifies as the cause of the decline of the West:

In other words, the evil can only imagine others as being as evil as themselves. In other words, we can recognise evil by the way of thinking, by the fact that their world view is constrained by imputing evil intentions to others.

The evil cannot even imagine that others may be different from themselves, may not be evil.

…My guess is that although everyone is a mixture of Good and evil; the evil are blinded to Good, while the Good are not blind to evil. It is not the special virtues of the Good which make them wiser; it is the malformation of thought which is induced by evil intent.

This restores the Greek version of moral evil, or hubris, to the definition. Hubris is to act outside of one’s place in the natural hierarchy of things. This requires a misunderstanding or denial of that order and the reasons for its existence, removing cause from effect as people usually do when they want society to subsidize them for their illogical decisions. In doing so, reason itself is perverted and made malformed.

With this vision, we see that evil has two parts: first, error on a level so fundamental that it corrupts all understanding of cause and effect by distorting a primal concept of cause and effect, or how the world came to be and the source of its order; second, an individualistic, narcissistic and egotistic rejection of all order larger than the individual in order to make the individual feel justified in selfish or illogical choices.

Individualism alone will do this. In order to prioritize the individual and its intent over results in reality, the person afflicted must reject the idea of natural order entirely, including any sense of cause and effect, also including primal causes such as the origin of the universe or the reason for its order. Individualism creates a pathology of denying sanity so that the individual can appear to be the cause of the world.

In turn, this makes the individual unstable, because that which was not intended by the individual thus appears as a variety of evil, which is unfortunate since all but a very small part of the world is not guided by intent of the individual. This inverts good and evil; natural order becomes “evil,” and individual pretense and reality-denial becomes “good.”

This shows us the root of our modern time. Civilization became successful and therefore could preserve those who normally required high mortality to keep their numbers in check, like mice or birds. As a result, the insane outnumbered the sane, and eventually took over through the mechanism of democracy through its philosophical justification (or perhaps rationalization) of “equality.” Since that time, our fortunes have increasingly gone ill.

Sour Grapes

Saturday, October 1st, 2016

confrontation_between_nihilism_and_religion

We are always looking for a word for what ails us.

This world works by cause and effect. Each effect has exactly one cause; however, it is not true that because an effect has a cause, that cause is the only source of that effect. This means that for every ill of our modern time, there is a cause in the past.

It is no longer controversial that democracy is in decline worldwide. Everywhere it is tried, the fundamental bigotry of the human mind toward illusion and against reality comes out. And, as anyone who has ever sat through a decision by a committee knows, groups make terrible choices because they are fundamentally indecisive, timorous and influenced by social pressure more than knowledge of what worked in the past.

But somehow we got to this current phase, which is the result of a previous phase, and a long line of bad — or at least mediocre — decisions stretch back over decades, centuries, millennia.

Where did we go wrong?

We can identify individualism, or the eternal human temptation to make the ego more important than reality, as the mechanism of our decline. Many Rightists point to what they call “nihilism,” but might more properly be called pessimism, defeatism or fatalism, as the cause of that.

What they call nihilism is in fact something simpler: sour grapes. You may remember the old fairy tale. A fox wants some grapes, and cannot leap high enough to get them, so he declares that he never wanted them. They are sour, he says, and so he is better off not having them. This type of rationalization is the root of human error.

For starters, it makes us think backward. Instead of looking toward goals, and then making events happen in order to achieve those, we content ourselves with what is convenient, and then backward-justify or “rationalize” it as good. Good is redefined to be convenient; this means more than physically convenient, mentally convenient.

Individualism and rationalization have a symbiotic relationship. When we assume the individual is the source of all good, we rationalize every act as necessary based on the desires of the individual. When we think clearly, we see the individual as a means to an end, which is the experience of life and moral rightness, which is (believe it or not) needed for a good experience of life.

What the right calls nihilism is in fact fatalism, which is in fact “sour grapes.” In humans, it takes on a virulent form: if people cannot have reality in the way they desire, they seek to destroy what is there for having insulted them and oppressed them by depriving them of the belief in their own cleverness and goodness. It inspires rage, a consumptive and destructive rage.

This is why many Rightists are taking The Black Pill. We deny the importance of self, the ability to communicate with others, and the presence of universal value systems. Instead, we see only reality, and the esoteric prospect that it is perceived unequally on a biological level, therefore we need people like us around us and we need a hierarchy which puts the best perceivers at the top.

Even more, nihilism tells us exactly how venal and short-sighted most people are, because it explains how they are trapped in the self and unable to connect to the world beyond. Whether they become materialists or religious fanatics, they embrace the same dysfunction, which is idealizing the mental model of reality more than the quest to refine that model.

In so doing, they make themselves agents of the anti-real. Instead of a study of life, we have a study of the self, but only on the surface, because to look deep within — at the level of existential, moral, spiritual and intellectual growth — is to discover the necessity of reality. To avoid that, they fetishize the trivial as a means of aggrandizing the personal, and the result is a steady flow of mental spam and social demands.

Nihilism acts like a paint stripper, removing the false external and the herdist social control instinct, replacing it with a raw emptiness which will devour the personality unless a purpose related to reality intervenes:

The passage evokes a kind of impersonal awe, a cold rationalism, a null-state. In the late 1940s, the Japanese philosopher Keiji Nishitani would summarize Nietzsche’s fable in different terms. “The anthropomorphic view of the world,” he writes, “according to which the intention or will of someone lies behind events in the external world, has been totally refuted by science. Nietzsche wanted to erase the last vestiges of this anthropomorphism by applying the critique to the inner world as well.”

Both Nietzsche and Nishitani point to the horizon of nihilism – the granularity of the human.

Most people do not act except with a social target, which in turn flatters the ego because other minds like their own seem like extensions of their own minds at that point. The goal of the individual in this case is not to make the most of life, but to control what is convenient for them, so they can continue to think backward via rationalism.

In this sense, modern people are like Ahab in Moby-Dick: obsessed by the need to control that which refuses to bend to their will. This process is addiction like masochism or heroin, and it gradually destroys them, much as it eats up a society when it is weaponized in collectivized individualism, or Crowdism.

We can see two alternatives to this that do not work. The first is the raw unselfconscious impulsive behavior of third world societies; the other, the impassive solipsism of the Oriental religions. The former removes all function of the conscious mind in order to avoid the possibility of error, and the latter craftily confuses the mind with the world in the name of doing the opposite.

The Asiatic method renders the quest for reality as an entirely personal endeavor, at which point it takes on the aspects of backward rationalization: instead of pushing the individual to accept more of reality, it selects those parts of reality which are convenient, creating a “cherry-picking” effect. This is similar to Western dualism, which erects a false secondary “world” of theological symbolism that is designed to placate the individual.

The Black Pill is the only alternative. It removes the various crutches — material, ego, emotion — used by the individual, and renders the individual as a means to the end of perceiving reality and doing right by it. This de-emphasizes the individual and moves thought forward once again.

Recommended Reading