Posts Tagged ‘social darwinism’

A Morality Of Nationalism

Monday, May 8th, 2017

The standard Leftist response to nationalism is to claim that it is immoral because it excludes people. They do this through a stream of pidgin language including terms like “racist” and “classist.”

At the root of their view is the idea that humanity is universal, or that we can be treated like interchangeable parts in machines, made to do the will of whoever owns the machine.

That sentiment arises in egalitarianism, which seeks to eliminate differences between people as a way of producing “class pacifism,” or an end to hierarchy that ranks individuals by their actual utility in decision-making.

Pacifism however leaves problems unresolved so that people can get along; it is essentially an extension of compromise, committee thinking and “agree to disagree” mentalities. While “live and let live” sounds like an appealing vision when spoken in social circumstances, it produces the slow decay of indecision that erodes democratic societies from within.

Conclusions are reached by allowing different ideas to be tested against reality itself. This requires separating out the threads and seeing what succeeds and what fails, as happens during natural selection.

The morality of nationalism can be seen as a recognition of this fact. We cannot simply write laws and make educational propaganda that shapes every person on earth into an ideal citizen. People are different. Not only as groups, but as individuals. Each group must pursue its own goals, rule itself and history will judge what works and what does not.

For the West, we already know what works, because we have the histories of Athens and Rome. Obviously democracy does not work, but it is eternally popular, along with a host of other intellectual vices. Those among us who understand that have always sought the ability to break away from the herd and form our own nations where we can exclude them.

This presents a higher morality than including everyone because it allows each group to fail or succeed on its own merits. In the universe of Star Trek, this idea is expressed as the Prime Directive:

The Prime Directive (officially Starfleet Order 1) is a prohibition on interference with the other cultures and civilizations representatives of Starfleet encounter in their exploration of the universe. In particular, the Prime Directive is aimed at preventing interference with the internal development of civilizations that are less technologically advanced. The executive summary of the order given in the 1968 episode “Bread and Circuses” is:

no identification of self or mission; no interference with the social development of said planet; no references to space, other worlds, or advanced civilizations.

…The Prime Directive reflects both a consequentialist commitment to reducing harm and a Kantian commitment to respecting the autonomy of others. Built into the Prime Directive is an assumption that cultures are better off if left to their own devices (whether those “devices” are social practices or concrete technologies). Interference by Starfleet, even if well-intentioned, is judged likely to mess things up in unanticipated ways — and if the culture in question is to deal with unintended harms, it would be better if they result from the culture’s own free choices. This embodies a kind of anti-colonialist ethos, a commitment to respecting a civilization’s own values, beliefs, and practices rather than imposing “better” ones upon them.

At its most basic, the Prime Directive is a revolt against universalism, or that there is one standard that works for all people and that we can install it in them through a bureaucratic, managerial, administrative or industrial process. Universalism itself was a rebellion against the founding beliefs of ancient times, namely aristocracy and esotericism, which state that people are unequal and that knowledge is cumulative with each stage only revealing itself when the past has been mastered, and that not many are capable of getting past the basic stages of any discipline.

Others have noticed that, despite the somewhat “Communist lite” world of Star Trek that resembles modern liberal democracy with unlimited technology, the Prime Directive has Right-wing elements, in that it is essentially the primary idea of Nationalism: Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews, Japan for Japanese.

However, the Prime Directive is the Theodor Herzl style of nationalism, which recognizes that independence from other groups provides benefits for all. The minority group does not become a scapegoat under diversity, and racism only exists in diverse societies. The point is parallel evolution, where each group pursues its own destiny (as I wrote about in Parallelism).

In our modern time, the Prime Directive moves two ways. Colonialism — which brought organized government and technology to the third world more than “belief systems,” despite the best attempts by pathologically self-destructive Priests — would not fit within the Prime Directive, but neither would immigration. Both are disrupting autonomous societies.

Were we to extend the Prime Directive to recognize the innate biological differences between castes, the Prime Directive would also prohibit all social welfare systems and laws made for the good of the proles. This would be more like how the aristocracy ruled, which was by leading without adopting the functions of “government,” namely assuming responsibility for the care of its citizens and facilitation of their desires. Aristocrats did what was necessary for the organic nation and left responsibility for self-care to individuals, which strengthened the importance of family, church, friends and culture.

Taking it even further and we end up with Nietzschean social Darwinism: the Prime Directive prohibits charity, or even public institutions that attempt to educate and raise up the rest, because they must figure it out on their own in order to be in control of their destiny.

Given that we live in a world where many people have mastered mechanics of a task without understanding its relevance or how to do it so that the results are highly positive instead of just “competitive,” it seems this Nietzschean Prime Directive — the basis behind classical liberalism, which Plato described as an attempt for natural elites to escape the extortionate herd — proves itself to have been a better method than including everyone and subsidizing them as seems to happen in the Star Trek universe.

From this, we see not just a morality of Nationalism but of Traditional society: a natural hierarchy is maintained at all times, giving each person a place, but leaving the burden of survival with the individual, which avoids the dependency mentality that aging civilizations tend to create. In addition, it avoids the curse of civilization itself, which is a tendency to create an internal system to manage its population which then becomes a target in itself, and so gains so much inertia it cannot be stopped except for a Soviet-style crash. Through that, we can see how aristocracy forever provides a better way of life than “freedom” and democracy.

Star Trek of course is only fiction, albeit highly addictive television. But it asks a question for us that we should explore. If under our current system, everything goes not only right but seems to find an intermediate sanity, how will that shape future beliefs? The answer seems to be that allowing each individual and group to find its own balance, and live or die by its own hand alone, avoids the universalism that tries to shape us all into perfect citizens only to find out that it changed the surface, but not the substance, of these people, creating a surge of incompetence at decision-making that then destroys those societies.

For Nationalists, we see an echo of our morality in the Prime Directive. We want independence from other groups as a society and the ability to have internal hierarchy instead of equality, mostly so that we can maintain quality control. This is the philosophy of the future and not one belonging to the failed past, like egalitarianism and democracy.

What Prompted The Rise Of The Alt Right?

Tuesday, March 28th, 2017

We know a movement not so much by its statements but by its aspirations. These are difficult to articulate, and group dynamics do not reward exact specificity so much as generating interest and emotional connection. As a movement groups, however — whether artistic, political, social or religious — it finds a need to clarify itself in order to avoid assimilation by entryists.

Such is the case as the Alt Right attempts to explain itself:

As the alt-right has grown, though, mainstream conservatives have loudly shot down suggestions that its rise has anything to do with them. “They are anti-Semites, they are racists, they are sexists, they hate the Constitution, they hate free markets, they hate pluralism, they despise everything we believe in,” American Conservative Union executive director Dan Schneider told Conservative Political Action Conference attendees last month. “They are not an extension of conservatism. …”

If memory serves, the Alt-Right emerged in the 2000s and defined itself against George W. Bush and “mainstream conservatism.” National Review was our foil at the time. In our eyes, it represented everything we were not: pro-immigration, pro-war, pro-free trade, politically correct, indifferent to White interests and submissive to the mainstream media.

We know the fundamental idea of the Alt Right was to serve as an alternative to existing Right-wing movements. While it is clear that it rebelled against mainstream conservatism, it also implicitly rebelled against the capture of the underground Right by National Socialist and other Leftist hybrids. This does not mean it rejected all of their ideas, only the totality of their ideas.

The Alt Right emerged from several strains of anti-egalitarian thought — social Darwinism through libertarianism, nationalism through human biodiversity, anti-democracy through Neoreaction, and a smattering of influences from the Old Right and underground Right — which came together into a simple framework: oppose equality and diversity, and strive for a society more like the West before the fall.

In this way, it unknowingly rejected modernity itself. The idea of equality gives rise to the notion of democracy and the idea of legitimized class warfare that is the basis of modern politics, as well as to the ideation behind diversity and feminism. While most Alt Righters recognize those movements as opposition, it has not yet dug deeply enough to see its anti-modern tendencies.

The Alt Right is beginning to recognize its actual mission which is to restore Western Civilization. We are starting to see that we live in a totally fallen time, and that to get back on track, we will have to reverse course and start over.

In this way, the only contribution that mainstream conservatism made was to turn itself into an ideological movement like Leftism, and thus unconsciously adopt Leftist assumptions. Conservatism is a means to an end, and that end is having a thriving and not simply utilitarian society so that we can achieve greatness again. Without that, all movements fail among the ruins.

The Echo Chamber Of Equality

Wednesday, September 21st, 2016


Philosophy enables us to see life not as objects bumping into one another, but the concepts that cause us to act in certain ways as resembling a Matryoshka doll: one inside of the other, until you get to the smallest one, which is the original assumption that set off the chain.

When we look at modernity, at first we see technology. But then it becomes clear that technology is only as good as how it is implemented, and that our present implementation reflects mass tastes through purchasing (consumerism) and popularity (democracy). On to the next layer by removing the outer doll layer with a floop sound.

When we look at consumerism and democracy, we see that both are unified by a belief in the equality of the individual. Floop! goes another layer.

When we look at equality, we see that it is based in the idea of equal consequences for unequal actions, or that the person who achieves good results by his actions, and the person who achieves poor results, both being rewarded for that. In other words, people want insulation from consequences. Floop!

When we look at insulation from consequences, we see that this benefits the individual and not the group. In fact, the “collectivism” of equality is based in individualism, or the idea that the choices of the individual are more important than anything else — including, and starting with, the results and consequences of those choices. Floop!

When we look at individualism, we see that the motivating force behind it is an Ego which wishes to be free of consequences and their potential Darwinian effects, which in civilization means exclusion from the group. Individualism therefore uses universal inclusion as its primary goal. Floop!

When we look at universal inclusion, we see a desire to make understanding the world optional. That is: people cannot be judged as good or bad based on how well they understand the world, which is what determines the actions they take and thus their results. They want their own thoughts to be accepted whether real or not. Floop!

And finally, we are at the smallest doll. People want their thoughts to be accepted so that what they intend, wish, desire, feel or judge is real, not reality itself. “What I perceive or want must be real,” stands revealed as the core psychology behind this whole mess.

That mentally unstable state is the origin of modernity. Or rather: it is a perpetual pitfall of human thinking, but it won out. Why? Probably because society succeeded, which caused a proliferation of people who could not exist except for society, who were able to reproduce because the institutions and social order of civilization protected them.

Perhaps there is a final Floop! here, if only in our minds. Civilization replaces nature as the arbiter of who lives and who dies; we need a replacement for Darwinism, or the process which filters out the insane, unfit, deranged, retarded, criminal and pathological.

Modernity arises from an echo chamber produced by the social collaboration of those who are individualists. They demand equality, and filter out any ideas which contradict that emotional vision, which rises from individual fear of insufficiency.

Where the Alt Right nods to Nietzsche and Plato is in its recognition of the Jack London style quest for adaptation that needs to be at the heart of our societies. Our hearts are too big and our methods too good; our intelligence and morality is what produces a surplus of those who will destroy civilization.

Naturally, none of this is politically correct, but — Floop! — it is more fundamentally not socially correct. It upsets people. And yet, it is the only path to survival for an advanced civilization.

Unions Are Parasitic By The Nature Of Collective Bargaining

Saturday, August 6th, 2016

Yet another view to how parasites have burned down a once-prosperous nation:

American Airlines (NASDAQ:AAL) and the TWU-IAM Association announced in a joint statement that they have reached an agreement in a deal that affects 30,000 unionized ground workers, effective immediately. American Airlines currently estimates the pay hike will increase pre-tax costs by $75 million in the third fiscal quarter and $120 million in the fourth fiscal quarter.

The deal covers 12 organized groups of workers in maintenance, fleet service, and other related jobs. The terms of the deal include: raises ranging from 15% to 36% for maintenance and other related employees, 24% for fleet service employees, 31% for tower planners, and 55% for weight and balance planners. Union officials claim the pay raises will net an average of a 22% increase for the unionized employees.

Executives at American Airlines said that employees in the organized groups will hold the highest hourly wages when compared with others working for rival carriers in the industry.

We are conditioned to think this is acceptable, but it is not. Collective bargaining is a strike against quality and ensures that better workers will not be rewarded. With a union action, the worst worker is rewarded as much as the best, which reduces incentives to improve and creates a disincentive to the better workers. The best can no longer pull ahead of the pack because the worst have been brought up to their level.

In the meantime, the costs are passed along to the consumers, who apparently are oblivious to both quality and cost and blithely wave it aside. When the elections come around, they have either forgotten outrages like this, or are thinking of their own unions and their hope of being “guaranteed” more money without having to do anything for it.

Economies work like decentralized calculators. For healthy results, ensure that economic Darwinism is present: reward the best, and give nothing or pink slips to the rest. For bad results, ensure that the people you should fire and the people you should promote get exactly the same reward.

Unions are like pacifism, communism and lynch mobs based on the principle of “equality” which is the opposite of quality, health, sanity, reality and every other good thing.


Friday, January 22nd, 2016


You can have one of two types of society: (1) where the strong eat the weak, and (2) where the weak eat the strong.

The first is Darwinism. The second is egalitarianism.

We can moralize about these, or talk about how they make us feel, but there are advantages to each. In the first, competence gradually increases. In the second, diversity and plurality and tolerance all increase, but competence declines. Think of your favorite tropical island paradise as described by National Public Radio.

“The villagers spend their days picking fruit, resting in the sun, swimming and hunting for fish and crabs in the tidal pools which line the white-sand beaches. Wearing colorful clothing, they dedicate most of their time to socializing, and are known as the friendliest and most open people on earth. Visitors are surprised to find themselves gifted with prized possessions and even family members by these generous, gregarious people whose lives are governed by the pursuit of pleasure more than efficiency.”

On the surface, it sounds very peaceful and comfortable. A little more analysis shows that for anyone with the ability to have more out of life than fruit salad and crab cakes, this life must be maddening. A society without the impulse to learn, grow, conquer, develop, evolve and improve. In other words, a stagnant place in the grips of entropy, made comfortable and colorful because it has given up on everything else.

Europeans grew strong when we valued excellence and supremacy. That is: we applied high standards, based in real-world consequences, across the board, and in so doing, taught our people vigorously in the ways of reality and how to discover it. The strong ate the weak, yes, meaning that those with no excellence to offer had a hard time of it, but in turn, they had a more stable society.

With democracy we switched to the third world system, weak-eat-strong, in which whoever can successfully conjure up the image of himself as a victim will get priority over everyone else. As a result, our standards have fallen and our mass culture now produces utter garbage, our government incompetents, and our business, trivial amusements. Maybe having the weaker get eaten was not such a bad idea after all.


Saturday, August 1st, 2015


A potent liberal mode of attack is to accuse conservatives of a lack of compassion. This occurs because liberals and conservatives have different definitions of compassion. For liberals, it is an emotion and an intent; for conservatives, compassion is measured in terms of results both immediately and in the future.

For example, we see people starving in the street in a city.

The liberal says that we must have compassion for these people and feed them, house them and give them medical care. Even more, we should set up institutions dedicated to helping them, and systems of welfare to subsidize them if they are unable or unwilling to work. This method appeals to our emotions: we see ourselves starving on the street, because humans project themselves into every other living being they see, and we become afraid. We ally our fears for ourselves with policy regarding the starving.

A conservative will ask what the cause->effect relationship is, and tend to shy away from broad categorical declarations in favor of looking at individual cases. If a person is starving because of a single sudden incident that was not of their own doing, we tend to think that local charities should address this, and conservatives — who give more than liberals on average — have no problem opening their wallets and donating their time to help.

Conservatives oppose the direction solution of finding everyone who can claim to be starving and giving them food and care. This is not from fear of cheaters so much as it arises from the knowledge that, without finding the actual cause, we are setting up a feedback loop that rewards poverty. Be starving, get money. This encourages society toward a role where survival and happiness are not duties of the individual, but a duty of society which it can never fill. Human misery is infinite; when this task is passed on to society, it will extinguish itself trying to meet an infinite need.

Further, society can never really address that need, because a chronically starving human is that way because of some underlying cause: depression, insanity, incapacity, or some other dysfunction. At least until society becomes so dysfunctional that being homeless is preferable to a “normal” life. A conservative would aim to address that root problem rather than its symptoms. Liberal compassionate care reminds me of palliative care for terminal patients: keep them comfortable, drug them with television and alcohol, and wait for the inevitable end.

In my mind, the greatest question would arise from this one: is society fair? That is, does it give good things to good people and bad things to bad people? This is both Darwinian and compatible with religious morality, which hold that the good should be something we all aim toward and the bad sent away. Society needs to establish a feedback loop where good receives good or it has created a negative influence which rewards badness and thus, will get much more of that instead of good. Liberal compassion tends to, by being a projection of the emotion of the liberal and not a reflection of the situation out there in the world, increase badness.

The end of obligation

Tuesday, May 26th, 2015


Now that the ashes are cooling in Baltimore, every party has to inject its own post-mortem to try to spin the dialogue to its advantage. The left bangs the old poverty-did-it tin drum, the right rages about the death of the family, and the community blames everyone but itself. The truth, as often is the case, lies elsewhere than convenient scapegoats.

Some draw outrage from the refusal of police to stand up and be punching bags for first the violence, and second the blame when the inevitable glitches arises. They see it as a lose-lose situation: when you make 1000 arrests, by the nature of human error, one or more will go bad. The media and community will seize on that one and use it to implicate the rest, when in fact it is exactly what it seems to be, a screwup. Just like not every package reaches its destination, some cars have bad brakes, and sometimes your cheeseburger is small, some arrests go wrong. This happens in every situation. The problem is that when police fear that one arrest more than the consequences of letting the other incidents go free, you end up with no police force.

Witness the meltdown:

Residents tell reporters they see officers driving right past street fights and disturbances.

Officers turned their backs to De Blasio as he visited injured officers in the hospital and at the officer’s funerals.

But officers in Baltimore, according to at least one of their own, are turning their backs on not only the Mayor but also the citizens they’re sworn to protect.

While the media spin on this one leads you to think it is the end of the world, it in fact represents something else entirely:

A good idea.

I suggest that all of us follow a simple principle: we work for people who work with us. That is, let the cops patrol the nice white neighborhoods where people do not attack them on a daily basis, and let businesses sell to the people who are not vandalizing, stealing, open defecating or whatever other non-desirable behaviors are occurring. Let our taxes go toward services for us.

And the rest? The ghettos, the homeless, the impoverished, and the victimized? Let them follow the law of nature, which is that they either improve their own circumstances or vanish from this earth. They will blame anyone foolish enough to take stewardship of their communities and do it less than 100% perfectly, which we all know is a number achieved in theory only. A sensible response would be to skip out on the blame, and on the risk, and to go police where people pay your salary — most of the income paying for police comes from those white suburbs — and where they do not rage out and riot over a one in a thousand mistake.

Even more, let us the nice white people from the suburbs stop taking responsibility for African, Asian and mixed-race inhabitants of America. Their communities are their own responsibility. We will pay our taxes, work with our police, and keep our own streets safe. They can do the same in their communities.

Since the end of the Civil War, the narrative of liberal America has been that white people are oppressors and therefore are responsible for the well-being of others. That encourages the others to disregard their own well-being, do whatever is convenient, and blame white America when things go wrong. That can stop. We are not obligated to these people: we do not owe them a living, or policing. We do not owe them welfare, benefits, or social programs. We can pay for those for ourselves if we want, but if we have any brains, we will respect Darwin and get rid of all of those programs.

Our society has made itself miserable by creating obligation to those who are failing. Let nature take her path. End the obligation, and focus on success and how to achieve it instead of on failure. The ghetto will never be happy with its policing, so abandon it to its own fate. Its citizens will determine whether it lives or dies. We are responsible to ourselves alone, and our only obligation is our own well-being.

The cause of rising inequality is liberalism

Friday, May 8th, 2015


The left operates like a bad codependent relationship, constantly generating new crusades to keep its membership base together. Like a fish without active gills, it must keep moving forward in order to stay afloat.

Of the most recent crusades, the most interesting is the War on Inequality. It has not yet begun, but is waiting in the wings especially in the USA were an out-of-the-closet socialist, Bernie Sanders, is running for President. Right now, we have the early stages of the war, which is the victimhood narrative requirement of mourning and self-questioning over “rising inequality.”

Assuming that we take these figures at face value — and we should not, since the liberal method is to choose anecdotal examples, cherry-pick data to avoid contrary viewpoints, and then declare broad conclusions from a tiny sample size — America is becoming a place where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

More interestingly, the middle class appears to be eroding.


Many will point out that, since liberals are the party of egalitarianism and conservatives the party of results, the two will differ. Indeed, both care about inequality, but conservatives see it as a Darwinistic method while liberals see it as The Enemy, as this article discusses:

Inequality is the major theme of the American political debate because inequality is the major theme of the policy debate between the two major parties. The conservative economic agenda at the federal level is built around reducing the portions of the tax code that fall most heavily on the rich and spending that flows most heavily to the poor, and at the state level, to shift the financing structure of government onto the most regressive tax base. The liberal agenda has pushed in the opposite direction.

It is true that liberals talk explicitly about inequality much more than conservatives do. But to conclude that inequality is simply an issue that liberals care about far more than conservatives do (like greenhouse gas emissions, say) is mistaken. The agenda of both American parties is centered on firm beliefs about inequality. The main difference is that Democrats are more prone to frame their inequality-reducing policies as such, while Republicans (understandably) prefer not to frame their inequality-increasing policies in those terms.

Ignoring the obvious fallacy — that allowing a natural process to occur by not instituting “progressive” taxation is not increasing inequality but revealing its actuality — the summation is roughly correct. Liberals want wealth transfer to create equality, conservatives do not.

As said earlier in the article:

In 1972, the neoconservative intellectual Irving Kristol defended existing income inequality on the ground that it simply reflected the natural distribution of human ability. “Human talents and abilities, as measured, do tend to distribute themselves along a bell-shaped curve, with most people clustered around the middle, and with much smaller percentages at the lower and higher ends …” he argued. “This explains one of the most extraordinary (and little-noticed) features of 20th-century societies: how relatively invulnerable the distribution of income is to the efforts of politicians and ideologues to manipulate it. In all the Western nations — the United States, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Germany — despite the varieties of social and economic policies of their governments, the distribution of income is strikingly similar.” This was a comforting story for the right. The level of inequality in the United States happened to be a perfectly optimal reflection of the talent of the populace.

In other words, because our media no longer uses complex terms, Social Darwinism: the idea that income should reflect ability and the best should rise, and that others will do better — a broad tide will raise all boats — if power, wealth and culture are in the hands of the more competent. This idea offends liberals to their core because it points out the contradiction in egalitarianism, which is that there will always be disparate results because there are differing abilities, and thus that attempts to create “equality” amount to parasitism on the more competent in order to subsidize the less, in reversal of evolution itself.

Now that we see where the different sides stand, let us look at the two questions before us, namely whether inequality is rising and whether the middle class is disappearing. As with all writings on this site, I will use a combination of pure logic and unfiltered history. Pure logic means that we analyze a situation by its causes and effects alone, using what we know of logic to point out where some preclude others. Unfiltered history means that we remove the politicized conclusions from the events of the past and look at what actions caused what results. The two, pure logic and unfiltered history, work in parallel because they use essentially the same method, which is the scientific method outside of the linearizing analysis of a laboratory which looks at a single factor of thousands and invents reasons why it should ignore the rest of that context, thus rendering itself fallacious for social, political and cultural discussions.

To an observer a thousand years from now, it will be clear that “rising inequality” is a case of focusing on a detail and missing the background. What has happened in the United States is not that inequality has risen, but that the population has changed in two ways. First, it has shifted from majority Western European (“WASP” in the vernacular) toward majority third world and fringe European under liberal immigration policy, and second, it has been altered by liberal social policy, which has changed focus from a K-strategy focused on strong families to an r-strategy focused on third-world style mass subsidy and absence of stable family, religion and culture.

Since the end of the second World War, which completed the arc of European wars beginning with the French Revolution and ensuing Napoleonic wars, the West has turned down an increasingly liberal path. Unlike previous liberal incarnations however, its liberalism has been of an economic rather than ideological nature, meaning that it follows a financial guideline instead of a purely moral one. Thus unlike the Soviets it does not dive into pure socialism, but funds socialism through capitalism, and unlike the French it does not regulate social mores directly, but relies on the free market media industry to make conservative notions taboo. This is probably what Francis Fukuyama called “the end of history” simply because it is the most effective form of authoritarianism ever created.

During the French Revolution, one of the cries of the Revolutionaries was for “internationalism,” or the idea that all workers worldwide were in solidarity by social class and not national origin, so national boundaries should be abolished. This idea lives on as multiculturalism, diversity and other synonyms for what is essentially racial pluralism. It appeals because it tears down social standards, and for no other reason. Revolutionaries always destroy social standards because their goal is to replace multi-tiered hierarchy with a giant mob following ideology and a strong leader to keep that mob pointed in the right path. There is no other term for what they do than “breakdown,” and liberals spend most of their time denying that (for the purposes of this article, “liberal” and “leftist” mean the same thing, just as Communist and Socialist are differences of degree not different philosophies — a Communist is merely a Socialist who recognizes that in order for People’s Utopia to come about, it must have strong authoritarian power).

In the United States, starting with the Hart-Cellar act in 1965, immigration has shifted toward third world populations. These are different from first-world populations not in “skin color,” as the popular media alleges, but culture and biological abilities. If the third world could have produced what the first world did, it would have done so, and colonized the first world instead. This is pure logic: every species struggles for supremacy, and every population aims to be as powerful as possible, with those who cannot do so being ground down under their wheels, part of the process we call “evolution” or “Darwinism.” There was no lack of trying in the third world to reach military supremacy, as the Mongol invasions and Muslim raids that provoked the Crusades show us. The West achieved stability of society and higher average IQs and beat them out, despite being severely threatened by them, especially by the Mongol raids which may have several centuries later provoked colonialism as a means of avoiding a repeat of those brutal years.

The people coming into the United States now are almost all already of mixed-race as most third-world populations are, and generally of lower IQ. Not surprisingly, IQs in the West have dropped 14 points in the last century. Those figures do not tell us when IQs fell, but a logical inference is that recent immigration has something to do with it. That alone explains inequality, which is that if you take a thriving first-world population and import a third-world population which lacks the ability to achieve what that first world population did, the third-world population will remain poor and thus statistically inequality will rise. Factor into that cultures based on endurance of dysfunction rather than fixing it, and you see a society where only a few will have any wealth but they will have many customers for whom what they do is witchcraft or magic.

Leaving that aside, as it is politically taboo to mention, it is worth mentioning what has happened since 1965 under liberal social programs. Casual sex has become the norm; stable families the rarity. This means that people are more neurotic, less able to commit and less likely to be stable themselves. In other words: they are more dysfunctional (or “less functional”). This also explains inequality. Add to this the rising tax burden to support Great Society and New Deal programs which like zombies rise from the dead because it is seen as gauche, ignorant and uncultured to vote against them, and we can see where the situation has broadened. Even worse is what we have done to education, which is taking it from “competitive” to “participative,” such that any degree except a graduate or professional school degree is officially worthless. To have a $70k job now the average person must be extraordinarily lucky, or put down $200k for schooling through age 27.

Let us also mention rising costs. As social disorder increases, the comfortable middle class subdivisions of the past vanish. Instead, one must buy into a gated community. In the past, people could simply buy homes; now they must buy luxury homes to escape the roiling violence of the permanent social underclasses. In the past, grocery store food was safe and local; now you must go to Whole Foods to get eggs that taste like eggs or bread with fewer than 1500 ingredients. Water was once safe, but now it is Mexico City water, so you must buy filters. Living as a normal human being has become more expensive than middle class salaries can afford, which explains the second question being asked here, which is whether “rising inequality” is a cover story for elimination of the middle class by dysfunctional liberal programs.

I rest my case. The distinction remains obvious: we are engaged in a war of narratives. The left argues we are victims of some external force, whether the shadowy the RichTM or favorite scapegoats like The Jews or The Racists, but on the right, we see the problem as degeneration or the breakdown of our culture, people and individual abilities. This is the real inequality occurring: we are converting the West into another third-world remnant of a once-great civilization, and therefore, the few competent and realistic people are becoming radically wealthy, along with the corrupt of course. The rest are just trying to hang on and are being eliminated by replacement DNA and lifestyles which reward idiotic obedience in order to afford escape from the rising third-world society within our society, which will eliminate them, leaving a vast horde of low-IQ people ruled by a handful of smart plutocrats, as is the case in almost every third-world society. Eventually, the herd will rise up and eliminate even those, leaving only a vast equal mass of mid-80s average IQ and no prospects beyond living in filth, corruption and dysfunction.

Esoteric Social Darwinism

Monday, August 25th, 2014


Conventional wisdom, science and ancient religion seem to agree on the necessity for humans to overcome their lower impulses and discipline their minds in order to become functional as human beings.

Our lowest impulses are formed of innate motivations to point us toward activities we need to do, like eating, fighting, fleeing and reproduction. Once civilization is formed however these become misdirected because those basic needs are taken care of.

Under a health system of self-rule, we reward those who rise above the basic impulse and instead use self-discipline to make their acts deliberate. These people use an understanding of cause->effect logic to use experience to predict how different actions will change a situation, and thus to choose actions by past results.

For 6,000 years or more the rules of humanity have not changed because not only are humans unchanged, but the situation for intelligent animals is universal. Our animal selves must be controlled by our wisdom, and our emotions must correspond to logic and study of cause->effect. Without that, we act on impulse without a plan and while we seem to do so with impunity thanks to the wealth of civilization, the resulting chaos ultimately dooms that civilization.

Esoteric Social Darwinism holds that we refine ourselves in such a way and thus become competent to make decisions about our future. Until we do that, we are headed downward away from higher civilization toward the anarchy of the wild. However, a paradox exists within this idea, which is that only a few tend to rise above. Those are then ruled by the rest, who herd together into a mob and use their superior numbers to enforce a “no standards” standard of behavior.

Democracy provides an opposite to esoteric Social Darwinism. Democracy is exoteric, or based on entry alone. If you are human, you are equal, and therefore you are presumed to be able to make decisions; this entire line of thought is a ruse to disguise the impulse toward the standard of no standards. With equality we remove the incentive to rise above impulse and thus encourage people to be more perverse, selfish, manipulative, passive-aggressive, cruel, oafish, pretentious and ever other mental disorder of humanity.

What happens with democracy is that instead of society being led by those who have overcome their human pitfalls, society expands to fit all of those who have not. The result is the ultimate inversion of both natural selection and any sense of religious or philosophical “overcoming” of the animal half of our condition: society favors the lower over the higher and quickly abolishes itself. All societies die this way. Tail wags dog.

Don’t “adapt”

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014


That something is true or good does not mean its opposite is false or bad. Humility is good and so is pride. Being adaptable is good and so is being steadfast or resolute.

Today, the concept of adaptation is well-spoken for. However, the opposite, steadfastness or resoluteness, is just as vital. In fact, given the context of the here and now, I believe it is much more vital. If you think about it, the words ‘steadfast’ or ‘resolute,’ are not words we hear often. I actually had trouble thinking of what the opposite of adaptation is. I believe that says something about the social environment we have created for ourselves. Steadfastness, resoluteness, and faith have become slandered as stubborn, obstinate, and lazy. We have become carried away with adaptation and change.

I’ll never forget when they explained in middle school why we had to learn a foreign language. I had no interest in learning a foreign language. But this will look good on a resume. There were going to be a lot more Mexicans in our future and communicating with them was an opportunity we wouldn’t want to miss. We could all be translators, apparently. Imagine a world full of translators. It would be like a commercial for Apple products come to life.

If I was an evil genius, and I wanted to manipulate someone, demoralize them, and keep them malleable, I would constantly be shifting their environment and landscape, so that they constantly had to adapt to it. They could never relax or get comfortable. They could never master a skill or body of knowledge deeply. They would have to dance to my tune. If they objected, I would claim that they were stubborn, they were going to be left behind, this is the future, adapt or die.

The rhetoric of adaptation is often nothing more than manipulation. He who adapts to the other is weak, he who forces the other to adapt is strong. A translator only has a job because someone more important than them has something interesting to say.

I think people give in to adaptation because not adapting is the bigger gamble. They can’t wait that long and they crack under the pressure. They now spread the word of adaptation so that others will join them and so they don’t have to second guess themselves that maybe they gave in too soon.

When we tell people to adapt, we are not telling people to adapt to reality. In fact, we insult reality when our best advice to each other is to adapt to our own man-made social environments. Biology and millennia of evolution have already adapted us to reality in the most important sense of reality, the work has been done for us, and there’s hardly any way we could improve upon it.

I suppose it is all a matter of strategy. A good coach will have two strategies, the long term strategy, and the short term strategy. The short term should be flexible, like a coach making adjustments at half time; it can “adapt.” But it is absolutely a mistaken strategy to easily lose faith, and constantly change and “adapt” at the drop of a hat. That is exactly what your opponent wants you to do; you are putty in their hands at that point. They are leading the discourse, not you. You don’t game plan for an entire week only to throw it out the window at the first sign of a hiccup. It makes you the weaker party.

We should not teach people to get with the program; we should teach them to understand how reality works fundamentally. One word can be translated into many languages, but the meaning of the word is always the same. This “sameness” is what reality truly is.

Understand those aspects of communication that are universal, not the mechanics, but the meaning behind the language. Adaptation is like translation, it has its use, but the real substance of reality is not moved by it. We should encourage our children to write the masterpiece that must be translated, not to be the translator of someone else’s masterpiece. While everyone else is adapting in a panic, he who does not adapt, stands out from the crowd and signals confidence and strength.

Recommended Reading