Posts Tagged ‘responsibility’

Leftism Replaces Responsibility With Conformity

Thursday, February 9th, 2017

Conformity has two parts: first, do whatever everyone else is doing; second, avoid offending anyone but those that you can rebel against because they are in power and therefore, whatever you do will not actually harm them. This allows the attention whoring individual to both have his cake and eat it too, being a rebel who is not actually a threat, and as a covert conformist, to be rewarded for his obedience.

To disguise his utter conformity, the individualist disclaims responsibility. To be cool is to be indifferent to the world around you and the consequences of your own actions, which every rebel acts out by thwarting or attacking the dominant powers, but never directly, instead spreading around the damage as externalized socialized cost.

Being cool however means being sociable in a way that makes everyone feel accepted. Indifference conveys this by asserting the absence of standards and purpose, which means that no one can be doing wrong. This takes on another dimension because the assertion of indifference becomes important in order to make people feel comfortable, and so even contentious acrimony has its place, if it supports the right ideas.

That in turn adjusts the meaning of “responsibility” from a duty to be accurate in what one does to a duty to not offend others while advocating indifference, which in turn requires obliterating any information which does not support the indifference narrative:

“Academics must understand that they are utterly responsible to [sic] whatever they post on their social media channels just as they are for the words they say in a classroom, and such reckless tweeting, clearly made by this lecturer is a prime example that some may be unaware, or indeed neglect their duties of responsibility when expressing one’s views.

“[We] would appreciate that ALL lecturers understood that whatever their comments, they will be held responsible for their remarks given their position of authority and trust.

Basically, be cool — avoid being right — so that everyone feels content and therefore, you can benefit from the advantages of civilization without the risks. That is the point of the petit rebel: take all that you can, and give nothing back, while justifying it with some vague sense of goodwill so that you fool all the other monkeys into defending you.

That mental virus destroys society as surely as Communism but slower because it is of a less intense degree. When standards are lowered, those who take on higher standards also make themselves inefficient in that they have assumed a burden which will not reward them. At that point, the rest become de facto free riders who argue that the lowered standards are in fact a moral good. This puts the onus on those who want higher standards to “prove” that those are necessary, which cannot be proven of course, and so the free riders reap the marginal difference between the minimum required for the illusion of civilization and the minimum required to maintain civilization by adopting the former. Their “cool” is a way of suppressing those who want higher standards.

When writers on this site endorse elitism, it means this: if you want civilization, you must constantly fight back against those who erode standards and justify the difference with socially popular illusions. That is the eternal death of humanity, and Leftism is one of its many faces. Where normal and sane people are responsible, Leftists are responsible to public image, and this is why they leave ruined civilizations in their wake.

Why Gun Control Is A Failed Agenda

Monday, September 19th, 2016


A former CIA agent reveals some of the secrets of self-protection, and in doing so, makes a profound argument about gun control and its futility:

Taking guns away from people and making it harder to get them obviously does no good, because it only keeps honest people from having guns … criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what laws are made.

The more technology for machining guns in small workshops spreads, the more likely this is to be an issue. The real game-changer is not 3D printers, but machine tools that accept designs from CAD programs, which means that great firearms of the past can be replicated from free designs.

Those who have read this blog for some time know that for every Leftist agenda like gun control, there is another problem they are trying to conceal, distract and deflect from. In this case, the problem is dysgenics and class warfare, which has resulted in legions of people too mentally incompetent to use guns:

I carry a gun on a daily basis and I believe guns would save lives if every responsible person carried one. (The key word being “responsible” people.)

How many responsible people do we have left in the West? For someone to be responsible, they need to have the physical wiring to anticipate the results of their actions (highish IQ) and the moral fortitude to care about those consequences, plus the incentive to do so, which does not exist under diversity, because no one can say that those who will be affected by a stray shot are necessarily “their” people.

While the Leftist agenda of gun control seems designed to aid tyranny, and it may well be, its fundamental goal is pacifism. It wants to make all people equal by removing the ability of any individual to resist the herd by force. In so doing, like most Leftist programs, it ends up creating a new criminal elite who rule because they are not befuddled by the lies, distractions and concealments (maskirovka).

Was The Death Of Harambe “Peak Irresponsibility”?

Friday, September 16th, 2016


Harambe (1999-2016) was a western lowland silverback gorilla who lived at the Cincinnati Zoo. He was killed on May 28, 2016, after a small child was able to gain entrance to the enclosure. Because of the humanist idea that human lives are most important, Harambe was killed, even if the widespread perception was that the ineptitude and laziness of the child’s parents was the cause of the incident.

As Western Civilization has run itself down into collapse over the years, the degree of responsibility exercised by the individual citizen has declined. Individualism is the singular form of equality, and equality operates in inverse to responsibility because equality mandates that all be included regardless of the outcomes of their actions.

We can see this in other forms of Leftism. Socialism demands that workers be paid equally whether they add value or not. Welfare subsidizes non-contributors. Unions reward the least competent alongside the most competent. In each case, a disincentive is created to do more than the minimum, which makes everyone feel good because lowered standards mean that no one will fail to do what is required to be included in the group.

This “managerial” nature of modernity suggests a loss of purpose. When a group has purpose, the leaders can measure citizens by their ability to achieve that purpose; when it discards purpose, its only goal is to “keep the group together” which means including everyone regardless of achievements. That is the nature of Leftism: a replacement of purpose with control, or keeping the group together through ideological reward and punishment.

Irresponsibility reached its peak in the years 2012-2015. The second Obama presidency meant that the idiots had well and truly won, because the least qualified president in American history was enthusiastically affirmed by a large group of voters who apparently did not understand or care about the damage being done by that presidency. SJWs raged across the internet, destroying lives at a whim. The EU seemed to laugh at its own citizens while sponsoring their doom.

With the death of Harambe, a powerful symbol was created: human irresponsibility resulting in the death of something rare and precious. There are not many gorillas left, and those that do exist are threatened by the encroachment of human civilization caused by our quantity-not-quality expansion to reckless levels. On the other hand, idiotic and apathetic parents are plentiful, as are stupid children. We shot the wrong party in Cincinnati.

2016 has brought us massive pushback against the irresponsibility not so much of our leaders, but of “our” people. They keep voting morons into office, fail to notice how dire our situation has become, deny actual problems and chase symbolic ones, and engage in other behavior that Harambe would recognize as belonging to lesser monkeys and lacking the gravitas of a powerful silverback.

The pushback has rise to full power with Donald Trump not so much as a candidate, but as a symbol for the refusal to apologize, grovel, pacify and compensate. In other words, he is a rebellion against the type of thinking that led to the shooting of Harambe because of the irresponsibility of a family. Those who are responsible, this symbol says, are not responsible for the actions of the irresponsible.

We see this across a wide range of sources. For example, previously impossible pushback in South Africa:

The racist tirade started after a student, who has not responded to News24 requests for comment, posted a message on the Third Year Civil Engineering students WhatsApp group in Afrikaans. Other students on the group asked if all communications could be in English as others did not understand Afrikaans.

The request sparked a flurry of responses with the student, Lourens Van Niekerk, taking it a step further.

“Omg all the blacks who agree with that potato who thinks everything should be English are a cancer to this society…This is why Trump is the God Emperor of mankind. He sees right through you. Stop taking everything for granted and blaming whites. Our privileges have been earned.”

In other words, we made ours; get your own.

This is part of an ongoing realization by people in the first-world, especially the competent, that most of humanity is parasitic and failure-bound. Only a few percent of any human population manage to have lives of relative sanity, and the rest are neurotic and manic monkeys, flailing around by chasing symbols and being distracted by shiny objects, unable to focus on the reality in front of them.

Going down this path of thinking leads to two realizations: first, diversity cannot ever work, because our interests are separate from those of all other groups, and therefore our interests are contradictory when placed in the same society; second, that democracy cannot work because most people are mentally lazy, and in any group, the mentally lazy will win out over the others.

The book The Bell Curve created no end of media ire because it dared to mention racial differences in intelligence. But the bigger point was missed by the crowd: every group experiences the same pattern of intelligence distribution, with a few radically dumber and a few very smart, and most on a slope in the middle.

What this means is that even among smart people, the very smart will be marginalized; add to this the “committee mentality” that favors convenience and lack of risk over strong action, and therefore always makes short-term compromises instead of long-term solutions, and the social nature of human thinking, and democracy is a disaster.

This scares our elites, because they depend on democracy — and its slothful, distracted, vapid thinking — in order to stay in power. The Alt Right scares them because it shows conservatives returning to the field with a lack of belief in irresponsibility, rejecting both diversity and democracy in favor of recognition of the genetic hierarchy in all human groups, and the genetic roots of culture.

For example, the panic is well-hidden in this article from The Economist:

Some, such as Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent, another website, think “democracy can become a tool of oppression”, and that monarchy or dictatorship might be better;

That is the real fear. The other boilerplate stuff, about how terrible it is to be racist and how wacky and irresponsible if not outright mean the Alt Right is, serves only for framing, because people have heard it all before and tend to skim over it. But the authors want to lump anti-democratic thought in with this other stuff and proclaim it all bad, because their actual target is that anti-democratic thought.

Without democracy, leaders would have to be responsible. They would have to tell the Cincinnati zoo to ignore the cries of the irresponsible parents who allow their children to self-destruct. They would have to tell idiots that they are, in fact, idiots, and do not deserve high rank. And so on. The social nature of human politics would be upended, and replaced with a realistic one.

Peak irresponsibility shows people tiring of having to tolerate stupidity and ineptitude on a daily basis in order to uphold sacred bovines like equality and pluralism. We want results. As one saying on the internet goes, apropos of Harambe, “This is why we can’t have nice things,” referring to the tendency of idiots to show up and leave behind dead gorillas and litter as a result of their own irresponsibility.

Humanity may well be entering a new age. If the motto of the old one was We Must All Get Along, the new age will be Put The Non-Idiots In Charge, because equality has favored the idiot and marginalized the intelligent. When society descends to the level of murdering rare animals for our own pretense of equality, such a shift is long overdue.

We have no one to blame but ourselves

Friday, January 8th, 2016


We live in a time where victimhood is king. Once we declared that equality was the law of the land, or at least what the crowd would chant for in rage, it became clear that we must raise up the less-than-equal and if it happened at the expense of the more-than-equal, that was too bad, because they had enough.

In wealth, this means that “the Rich™” gave up some of their wealth to “help” the rest, and in socialization, it means that we stop looking at A-average football players and pay attention to the nerds (and hey, I was one once… or maybe still partially am). It appeals to our inner humanity, our sense that if we are not included in the group regardless of our failures, the group is somehow bad: the enemy.

With an egalitarian society, only the victims become King. Society owes them something and those who do not hand it over are bad and evil. Through this, we are trained to justify — or argue for after the fact, according to our intent as consistent with the dominant paradigm — our positions as those of victims. With victimhood, we can force others to recognize us.

A side-effect of this is that those who want realistic leadership in the West have started framing their viewpoints through the victimhood narrative. In order to partake of this, we must portray ourselves as victims unjustly persecuted by some easily-eliminated foe, which like The Rich™ can be simply executed or fined and then justice magically prevails.

Among people who have recognized the displacement of indigenous Western European peoples, this takes the form of:

Democracy? Equality? We didn’t do this. The Jews™ did it to us; either them, or the banksters. They manipulated us with their news programs, entertaining movies and newspapers. We are innocent victims of corrupt controllers!

The problem with this is that it misses the point. In its urge to appeal to the sensibilities of the Crowd, it bypasses the actual causes. In addition, it emasculates us by forcing us to portray ourselves as victims on bended knee. And possibly worse, by the nature of scapegoating, which is what it is actually doing, it makes us likely to do horrible things in the name of justice while ignoring actual justice.

Even more, it puts us in a passive position, like sitting to pee. We deny our own responsibility to act responsibly, such as by assessing media and ignoring the insane and acting on the realistic. Instead, we portray ourselves as children, acting foolishly just because the glowing box tells us it’s OK to do so. We remove from ourselves the responsibility to shape our own destiny, and to make rational decisions to that end. That neuters us and makes us weak.

As often is the case, the grim reality behind the decline of our society is that it is mundane. There are no exotic causes; human weakness outweighed common sense, and then power was handed to the democratic herd which proceeded to ruin everything through its tendency to project wishful thinking over reality. When democracy seems like a good option, your society is already exhausted of energy and is merely looking for a compromise.

There is no complexity to this. Our society grew, it prospered, and then it faced disasters. The Mongol invasion. The Black Plague. But mostly, it faced its own prosperity. People no longer had to prove they knew what they were doing in reality. They only had to become popular enough that others would nod and say, sure, he’s a good fellow.

We need look no further than that. We succeeded, and as is the nature of success, we were challenged by others. While our best fought off the threats, our worst gathered and plotted. Then they had their revenge, and took over, and although it took them two centuries, by the 1990s they had control, and since then, they’ve run our society into the ground.

Our response to this should not be to try to compete with them on the basis of victimhood. Those who cannot succeed in reality and depend upon group approval to thrive will always be bigger victims. They will offer a Devil’s Bargain: join us, and get free stuff from our betters; you cannot match that for no-accountability all-reward deals! Nor can we beat them by being more egalitarian; they have no standards — what is more egalitarian than that?

Instead, we should take responsibility for our past. We made a boo-boo. We accepted the equality of all people in lieu of demanding that people prove themselves through creativity, loyalty and real-world results. As a result, we were overrun by incompetents.

All of the people blaming The Jew&trade, The Rich™ or other scapegoats are concealing this fundamental truth: we did this to ourselves by accepting equality as a notion. Even if we destroy all of those scapegoats, our problem remains. We have to fix the problem, or it ends us.

Victimhood is the opposite of responsibility because victimhood necessitates scapegoating. We cannot simply say, “The gods screwed us,” as William S. Burroughs suggests is healthier. We must blame someone for our own failings. This leads us away from the obvious, which is to look at where we went wrong and to correct it.

Amerika the blog will never be as popular as those blogs which say, “There, there, little Caucasian. Some horrible Other did this to you, and you do not need to change yourself, at all.” Those blogs offer a scapegoat and an emotionally-satisfying story of the white victim versus the other.

But that mentality puts us in the position of meek underlings, not conquerors. We need to instead regain our role as leaders and conquerors. We can only do that by identifying our bad decision, sucking it up and admitting our mistake, and then choosing a new direction. Let us finally escape the past of error. But first, we must become accountable for our mistakes, and for the duty to overcome them.

Passing the Buck

Monday, September 8th, 2014


Everyone recognizes the gross violation when a guy is driving a car that bellows smoke like a mobile chimney. His car isn’t maintained and he knows it, but does nothing about it. His life is likely the same mess of moving wreckage everywhere he goes.

Politicians recognize the specific offense of pollution, as if it is unusual and isolated from a mindset and spirit, rather than the general problem of disorganization and its wider consequences. They then attempt to limit its harm by winnowing the population through mandated periodic emissions tests administered at the time of vehicle registration renewal.

Offenders aren’t even 1% of the population, but everyone else becomes engulfed in a dragnet of implied guilt that requires all to prove that even new and well maintained cars are innocent of pollution. This process involves going to a service station to pay a worker to inspect and approve the car, and then visiting a government office to wait among a large crowd to eventually pay for a sticker proving lack of violation. Everyone is required to waste hours of waiting in order to be legal, and then repeat this dreadful process every year or two.

Garages are pleased to have state mandated emission inspections. They are guaranteed a generous fee for a few minutes of work, and can open garages that run exclusively on the long lines of people who need to be certified as innocent of pollution. When run efficiently, a single garage bay can earn several hundred dollars an hour. The emission tests can be easily faked and their steps skipped to maximize the number of cars processed. If your car is in violation, you can pass with a small bribe.

Citizens just want to get through the exam. They see it as ludicrous and don’t care if the check is faked and skipped. They want to minimize the amount of their time wasted by government policies.

Garages want to take advantage of government policies that guarantee them customers and healthy margins. Individual garage employees see how the mandate annoys citizens and that bribes to speed the process and pass defective vehicles are a good way to earn a side income.

Governments don’t care about the practical costs of their policies or their lack of correspondence with stated purpose. They earn money from mandatory obedience, expand their breadth of authority, and can claim to have solved the problem despite it continuing to appear.

By not going after observed offenders and instead creating a thoughtless system mandating everyone prove compliance, government has created a gap so distant from reality that it was almost immediately filled by innovative bribe takers and resentful citizens, somewhat reducing the new imposition on their lives but utterly failing to solve the original problem.

So it is with democratic policies decided upon by diverse committees seeking popular appeal and not actual solutions. Those who had a hand in the law will use it to promote themselves in the next election as protectors of the people and the fragile earth.

They would be best remembered as big talking hucksters who promised to fix problems, weren’t sufficiently concerned or smart enough to figure them out, and instead left behind a maze of new obstacles and a cloud of smoke as the next snake oil salesman took the stage with a warm smile and an assortment of new offerings crafted for a credulous public.


Tuesday, December 27th, 2011

In a society where page views and sound bites count more than results, having any political viewpoint is difficult. No matter which political angle, someone in the crowd will dislike you for it.

People try to avoid this question by saying something like, “There’s no real difference between the Republicans and Democrats, because they work for the same people.” This is an apolitical view, because it endorses a lack of action.

Conveniently, that lack of action — which we might call pluralism — is the foundation of liberalism. All are equal; tolerate everything; since that in turn creates new problems, we need a strong centralized political (not cultural or social) force to Nanny State us into accepting it.

In other words, by not making a choice, you made a choice.

While being apolitical seems like a good plan when expounded upon at your favorite bar, it will destroy your spirit. It convinces you to stop working toward a goal, and instead to chase after false targets while ignoring the one convenient avenue for change, which is using democratic means.

Like saying, “I hate/love everyone equally,” this statement amounts to blaming your lack of choice on something a small group of others have done. You have said that they are both the problem, and that which prevents a solution.

This is parallel to what neo-Nazis do when they claim Jews control the earth and the only way to fix our problems is to wage war against the Jew, or what liberals do when they claim “the rich” or “the banksters” control our civilization. You have placed control of your future in the hands of your enemies.

A more intelligent way of handling this is to pick a direct solution. Your enemy is not the solution, nor is smiting your enemy the solution. Your enemy is the opposition because she stands in the way of what you want to achieve, which is your goal. Go for the goal instead.

This process is separate from diagnosis. When we say that liberalism is a mental delusion that destroys civilizations, our message is clear: avoid liberalism, and do find another way to rule ourselves. We are not saying that liberalism controls the earth. We are saying we need another option besides liberalism.

When people declare that both parties are the same, they tend to advocate two types of giving up. The first is to shrug and be “apolitical,” giving up any say in how we are ruled. The second type of giving up is to set an impossible goal, like inventing some third party that magically unites left and right.

As with most useless things, these apolitical options are popular because they let individuals off the hook. With a single statement, you have explained your lack of concern for politics, so it’s back to buying products, producing personal drama, and other activities of as much importance as a squirrel preening itself. Apoliticism is an excuse, not a goal or a diagnosis.

Instead of going down this path to hopelessness, realize that change is in your hands. If even a relatively small percentage of the population agrees on a political idea, it happens. When even 2% of the country form a political movement, they get results.

The real reason nothing happens is that very few people agree on much of anything, and so they make the polite/sociable decision to agree to disagree, which means that nothing happens. The result is that the status quo keeps on trucking, adding more government control and more commercial corruption to our society.

Our Republican party in this country is blighted. Most of the people there are essentially liberals. This makes them very close to Democrats.

However, they’re only in control because no one else has stepped forward to volunteer or seek employment in politics. If those people did, they would replace the liberal conservatives with actual conservatives and the party would take a different direction.

It’s tempting to throw up our hands and give up. But that is exactly what those who would destroy our society want you to do, and they’ll hide that end result in many forms in order to trick you into buying into it.

Recommended Reading