Posts Tagged ‘socialism’

True Minimum Wage

Friday, May 19th, 2017

It is the considered editorial opinion* at Amerika that work, yea verily, doth suck. It kills the soul and sucks the marrow out its bones. It keeps you in your shaved monkey pen, off the streets and out of trouble for eight to ten hours of the day. It kills time. In the words of The Great Henry David Thoreau; this wounds eternity. Please be friendly and don’t wound eternity.

Another aspect of work is that it is both randomly and deterministically unfair. It is randomly unfair because you can prepare all day long for the interview, the sales pitch or the bigshot briefing and then get railed by the nefarious forces with which Murphy rides to war. The game never ends when your whole world depends on the turn of a friendly card.

Work also sucks because the deck can be deterministically stacked against you. Ask the Asian American High School Valedictorian applying to Harvard what I mean by that. It doesn’t matter how good you are, how hard you work how badly you want it. If you are not the Government’s kind, then you succeeding, you getting ahead, you affording that dream home, or you bringing home the bacon to momma has a disparate impact and must be prevented.

Afterall, no matter how hard you bust that @$$, ¡YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT! The pathetic, envying socialist grubs will never let you enjoy the just rewards of your efforts or achievements. They hate your guts for having that will to power and that drive to succeed.

Do well at work and the ankle-biters will tax you, defame you, steal your ideas and work products and then drive that shiv hard between your vertabrae. The Post-Modern workplace is the vile, hive-infested anus of Amerikan social interaction. Work is where they tell you to do your d@mn job and then secretly fear and detest you if you are better at it than them.

And finally, after all of that, the economic world we live in is governed by unpitying, unbreakable laws that care as much for your existence as gravitation or the natural environment of The Great Plains. You are nothing in the economic world, just as you would be quickly obliterated if you were dumb enough to hike the surface of the moon in your Bermuda Shorts. And if you make like a weedy Dungeons and Dragons nerd and roll to disbelieve it gets worse. Way worse.

In an industry notorious for its “tight margins,” restaurants in San Francisco are closing their doors in record numbers thanks to the minimum wage hike. The minimum wage in San Francisco now stands at $13 per hour for low-skilled workers. Compare that to the $7.25 per hour federal minimum wage, or even the rest of California, which is at a $10.50 per hour minimum wage, and you can already start to see the problem.

There is a simple economic law here. You set your own minimum wage. It is based on your own skills and abilities. If you can’t get it done, they aren’t paying you for nothing. Senator Lieawatha approached it as a social problem and even wasted the time and electrons of the US Senate to ponder why the US Minimum Wage wasn’t $30/hour yet.

She needed to approach it as a sort of statistical mechanics problem instead. Within any given population, different members will have different personal characteristics. These characteristics will determine their suitability to the world of work. This will drive each individual to some minimum wage they are worthy of being hired at.

Artificially setting the minimum wage above the level of any percentage of this population will eventually tend to exclude them from the opportunity to consistently work. The businesses that would have previously hired them will either go under or replace human capital with robots or more efficient processing. At that juncture, the minimum wage for anyone in the working population below that artificial cut line will equal $0.00.

So we should hate the workplace. You are not just a slacker or a Leftard for feeling that way. You should hate war too. Particularly when they use live ammo. Your feelings are totally rational. On to question two: So what?

Let that question marinate in your minds and work towards developing the post-work society. We are going to get there eventually. I recommend we travel a different path to that destination than the one being undertaken in Venezuela or North Korea.


* — To the extent that we tolerate such things at Amerika

Equality Means That Society Owns You

Thursday, May 18th, 2017

The endless quest to drain the wealth of the nation and spend it on socialist-style social benefits expands in California:

Republicans says budget cuts should be made to fund road maintenance. A failed GOP plan proposed last year would have tapped into cap-and-trade money used to lower greenhouse gas emissions, cut Caltrans positions and eliminated other positions that have been vacant. It identifies other funding sources, but doesn’t specify what programs would be cut if that money was diverted to roads.

Brown said the plan is unrealistic.

“The freeloaders — I’ve had enough of them,” Brown said, adding that the approved tax and fee hikes bring those charges to the level they were 30 years ago if adjusted for inflation.

Human minds are like computers. If you tell them something is true, they will act on that and adjust all data to fit. So when we say that all people are “equal,” and results turn out far from equal, the mob of equal people — each acting individualistically, or with short-term self interest above all else — demands to be made equal.

After all, if they are equal, the only way inequality could come about would be through cheating, theft, or criminality.

In the meantime, the real criminals take office by promising more of the unrealistic goal of equality, at which point they make social programs which then hire more bureaucrats like them. Since the goal is illogical, the results are bad, but people will not let go — they just can’t stop themselves! — of that shining image of equality, so they double down.

Rinse, repeat. Eternally.

Now your money — the result of your work, and your irreplaceable time you sacrificed doing that work — belongs to the herd. They feel that you have stolen money from them, you freeloader, if you demand to keep more of your money and to cut some of the massive socialist welfare, benefits and entitlements programs instead.

California could have cut diversity programs, immigrant aid, free healthcare, welfare, free cell phones, civil rights or any of a few thousand other programs that take from all and give to some. But that is not a winning mental image for the equal voters.

Ever notice that the roads are terrible in most third world countries? The same will be true of the USA: a rotted infrastructure, corrupt politicians and a compliant media presiding over a vast mass of zombies.

A Sad, Sick Comedy Of “People Power”

Saturday, May 13th, 2017

As time goes on, the more it becomes clear that we are not fighting against an ideology, but typical human behavior shielded by an ideological justification.

Normally humans do nothing but screw up. This is why the world is most impoverished, violent, dramatic and corrupt. If not guided by quality leaders, people not only passively screw up by failing to do things, but actively screw up by inventing bizarre theories and activities.

The comedic downfall of Venezuela provides us with a shining example of this as a play in three parts. Keep in mind that Venezuela was starting from behind because although it has many Spanish-descended citizens, many of those were already racially hybridized and further mixing occurred with the new world Asians and imported African slaves.

Act I: People Power

Compared to its neighbors, Venezuela was a place of relative harmony. It was less important to the Spanish who colonized it than other places of greater mineral wealth. However, it was decided by the Revolutionary Simon Bolivar that it needed liberation, and he set most of South America “free” with the help of British mercenaries. This launched a century of unmitigated corruption and instability.

After the dust settled, the country “liberalized” itself in 1947 and then went back to the same banana republic politics. Oil money eventually drove that out in 1963, and the country found prosperity, but that collapsed in the 1980s with oil prices and it fell back into its old ways.

Act II: Taking It For Granted

In the late 1990s, a Communist revolutionary named Hugo Chavez rose to power with a program of socialist policies fueled by high oil prices. At this point, to the short-attention-span voters, it seemed like the good days had come again.

However, Chavez pushed for further economic reforms that suspiciously resembled wealth transfer and land redistribution. The voters, reeling from several natural disasters, apparently shrugged and approved of this.

With each new reform, Chavez — who died a billionaire — confiscates more land and centralizes more power to his government, building ties with Cuba and Russia. Violence breaks out frequently.

Money pours into social programs. The population becomes even more dependent. Then, as had happened several times before, oil prices crashed. The unstable economy, surviving on the fat oil wealth, collapses, and soon so does the country.

Act III: People Power

It is hoped, dear readers, that you like repetition, because here is what is happening in Venezuela today:

Nine other people have been killed in violence associated with a wave of anti-Government demonstrations in the past three weeks, in which protesters have clashed with security forces in melees lasting well into the night that culminated in the “mother of all marches” on Wednesday.

Protesters accuse Mr Maduro of trying to create a dictatorship.

“Yesterday around 9 or 10 (Thursday evening) things got pretty scary, a group of people carrying weapons came down … and started looting,” said Hane Mustafa, owner of a small supermarket in El Valle, where broken bottles of soy and tomato sauce littered the floor between bare shelves.

Over and over and over again.

This is the same pattern we see in the past: revolution, tyrant, revolution, tyrant. Those who attempt to play nice are usually eliminated early. Whenever things get tough for the tyrant, he just stokes up the population and they destroy everything, forming a pretext for more exciting tyranny.

If you wonder why the Alt Right says that genetics is upstream of politics, here is the point: Venezuela will never do any differently than this, because the “people power” of a mixed-race population always favors tyrants. They cannot control themselves.

For example, when the going gets tough, they steal from each other and loot instead of achieving an actual regime change. They have revolutions which get them even worse tyrants. They will blame anyone but themselves, and they will all have sob stories.

At this point, it is tempting to declare it a failed state and drop the nerve gas just to let something better take its place. The world would sail on unimpeded.

All of Latin America is this way: mixed-race, revolutionary, Leftist, and failing time and time again. People power betrays the people every time. Yet they keep at it, pathologically hoping for a different outcome to the same dysfunctional behavior, like gamblers addicted to the roulette wheel.

The same is true of people power in the US and EU, but on a slightly more functional level. At each election, we decide we will overthrow the system… by using the system. It betrays us time and time again.

The only way out is out of the system, and all systems like it. We have spent two centuries trying to “fix” the same democracy that failed Athens, choosing varieties of the modern system including National Socialism and Communism. But they reflect the individualistic character of democracy.

Soon we will resemble Venezuela, and enter into the phase of most nations, where government is the weak abusing the strong, enforced by “people power” that fears the awakening of something other than individualism, as smart people tend to do. There is no escape from that.

Anti-Pope Tells Venezuelan Christians To Be Nice and Behave While In Hell

Monday, May 8th, 2017

Anti-Pope Francis is the first Latin American Anti-Pope. He is watching a Latin American government that openly supports a doctrine of state-supreme atheism* rain down fire on the peasants in the street. Naturally, Pope Francis blames the people for being such poor Christians. He goes Full-on Jimmy Carter in his despicable sanctimony below.

Francis told faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square that, united in sorrow with the families of victims, he was making a heartfelt appeal to “the government and all the components of the Venezuelan society so that every further form of violence is avoided, human rights are respected and negotiated solutions are sought.” The comments came a day after Francis, the first Latin American pope, expressed frustration that Vatican-sponsored negotiations to resolve Venezuela’s political impasse had not succeeded, in part because of what he cited as divisions within the opposition.

So as Pope Francis dithers, President Maduro reprises an old query first posited by Josef Stalin. “How many divisions has the Pope?” The supposedly divided opposition is being systematically sliced and diced.

A Venezuelan national guard armored vehicle careened into a crowd of anti-government demonstrators in Caracas on a day of furious protests that left more than 300 people injured. The newspaper El Nacional published videos Wednesday showing the vehicle backing up as a gasoline bomb burst on its windshield. Crowds raced toward the vehicle and then suddenly fled as it advanced, and masked soldiers battled protesters in a chaotic melee. Rocks, bottles, shots and tear gas filled the air. One person was confirmed dead in Caracas.

The answer is obvious. The Pope has no divisions if he provides no inspiration. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter how many divisions he has if he will not simply and unabashedly field them athwart the evil. The man is a moral nullity. ISIS openly slaughters the Christians in Egypt with no consequence. Pope John Paul II never allowed the communists in Poland to do anything similar to his followers there without repercusions. He stood tall when the Kremlin sent an assassin after him.

As the believers die in the streets of Caracas and are reaped like the grain by the hateful, godless, detestable Socialist scumbags; Francis Cucks in muted protest. He just wishes Maduro could be more gentle with the sex. Certainly both sides could be more reasonable. It’s not like The Venezuelan meat-packing glitterati believes anything that philosophically bothers Anti-Pope Francis.

We’ll hear all about how Jesus said “Love your enemy.” He didn’t tell us to forget the fact that they were, in fact an enemy. He didn’t tell us to be more like them in order to be nice. He mourned the souls left to despoil in Hell. He never told them to shut up and like it. That would be Anti-Pope Francis’ schtick. He wants the you to be reasonable and render unto Caesar – far beyond anything that should be Caesar’s. He is the Statist Left’s evil joke on Christianity and will remain such until the Catholic Church holds a condign exorcism.


*

It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Karl Marx from “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”

Remembering The Origins Of May Day

Monday, May 1st, 2017

USA Today gives a polite hint to the ideological origins of the protests sweeping the nation today by pointing out that May Day originated as International Worker’s Day:

May Day — also known as International Worker’s Day — has spawned protests around the globe in past years highlighting workers’ rights. But on Monday, the impetus for the U.S. marches span from immigrants’ rights to LGBT awareness to police misconduct.

What they do not tell you is that “International Worker’s Day” is in fact a Communist holiday. But we have to peel another couple layers from the onion. First, we see what the International Workers of the World have to say:

As early as the 1860’s, working people agitated to shorten the workday without a cut in pay, but it wasn’t until the late 1880’s that organized labor was able to garner enough strength to declare the 8-hour workday. This proclamation was without consent of employers, yet demanded by many of the working class.

At this time, socialism was a new and attractive idea to working people, many of whom were drawn to its ideology of working class control over the production and distribution of all goods and services…Tens of thousands of socialists broke ranks from their parties, rebuffed the entire political process, which was seen as nothing more than protection for the wealthy, and created anarchist groups throughout the country. Literally thousands of working people embraced the ideals of anarchism, which sought to put an end to all hierarchical structures (including government), emphasized worker controlled industry, and valued direct action over the bureaucratic political process. It is inaccurate to say that labor unions were “taken over” by anarchists and socialists, but rather anarchists and socialist made up the labor unions.

…At its national convention in Chicago, held in 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (which later became the American Federation of Labor), proclaimed that “eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s labor from and after May 1, 1886.”

If you believe this narrative, the Americans came up with May Day on their own. However, if we dig a little bit deeper, we can see what the Marxists have to say, which is that its origins were in Europe in what would become the Communist movement:

The decision for the 8-hour day was made by the National Labor Union in August, 1866. In September of the same year the Geneva Congress of the First International went on record for the same demand in the following words:

The legal limitation of the working day is a preliminary condition without which all further attempts at improvements and emancipation of the working class must prove abortive….The Congress proposes 8 hours as the legal limit of the working day.

In the chapter on “The Working Day” in the first volume of Capital, published in 1867, Marx calls attention to the inauguration of the 8-hour movement by the National Labor Union. In the passage, famous especially because it contains Marx’s telling reference to the solidarity of class interests between the Negro and white workers, he wrote:

In the United States of America, any sort of independent labor movement was paralyzed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the republic. Labor with a white skin cannot emancipate itself where labor with a black skin is branded. But out of the death of slavery a new vigorous life sprang. The first fruit of the Civil War was an agitation for the 8-hour day – a movement which ran with express speed from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from New England to California.

And so what was this “First International”? Fellow travelers of the Communists give us the Communist history of this worker’s movement:

Yet remarkably it was Karl Marx, a marginal German émigré, who was at the time deeply engaged with serious research for what would become the first volume of his magnum opus, Capital, who would become the guiding spirit of this new organisation. At the IWMA launch it was decided to elect a 34-strong provisional organising committee, later known as the general council, and Marx became a representative of Germany.

There is a still popular myth that Marx was primarily simply a great thinker and philosopher who wrote great analytical works such as Capital without ever leaving archives and libraries. Yet as his lifelong collaborator Engels noted, Marx was “before all else a revolutionist” who had in the past like Engels been a leading member of the Communist League during the 1848-50 revolution in Germany.

From the start, we see the Communists agitating. The Napoleonic Wars ended in the revolutions across Europe that Marx and others hoped to shift from Equality 1.0 (political and social equality) to Equality 2.0 (the subsidy state). And forty years before the Americans designated the holiday of May Day, the Communists made it a cornerstone of their agenda.

In addition, we see the classic combination of political values designed to support the notion of class warfare. The Left supports diversity, so that it has a weapon against the ruling caste and the culture — something that emerges from heritage — supporting it. Fair treatment of workers, based on criticism of a few exceptional wrongs which were at least partially rooted in the inconsistency of labor itself, i.e. the flakiness of people that we all know as normal for humanity, became tied (magically!) to socialism and from that, to the establishment of a super-powerful State to administer it.

Anarchists, in theory opposed to such things, justified them as necessary and joined the group, such that unionists, Communists, anarchists, Socialists, liberals and Leftists marched together for the same thing. This always happens; the difference between French Revolutionaries and Communists is a matter of degree, much as this last election has revealed that the difference between a Democrat and a Communist is that a Communist is an emboldened Democrat with college debt.

What is most interesting about this whole scenario is that May Day was originally a pagan fertility rite, and the Communists wanted to re-style it as a Leftist holiday. While the Christians are often criticized for having replaced pagan holy days with their own, it is more likely that the real erasure was by those who wished to destroy culture, and the Christians did their best to maintain it nonetheless.

USA Today gave us the start of the thread of understanding what May Day is in actuality, but would not go to the full extreme and tell us its Communist origins. The very fact that such things are kept hush-hush tells us exactly who is in charge of the American government — Leftists — and why we must overthrow them if we want sanity to return.

How Franklin Delano Roosevelt Invented Modern Leftism

Wednesday, April 19th, 2017

When we look at Leftism, it makes sense to analyze it as a series of road forks and straightaways. It continues on its inertial path until interrupted, then adapts to the new reality, and continues onward, gaining momentum. These points both reveal to us the great villains of our age, and how their ideas are inevitable extrapolations from the original concept of “equality.”

Consider, perhaps, the case of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He presided over a war against the quasi-Right, partnered with the far Left, and despite his own elitist outlook, defined the next several generations of Leftism with one incendiary speech:

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Although the precious darlings in the cosmopolitan cities refused to recognize this, Roosevelt has essentially demanded that Leftism move from its first step — political equality, a result of equality under the law being interpreted pre-emptively — to its second step, in which a wealthy but dying society assumes that economic subsidies are required to give people political equality.

Those who have read this blog for some time know that we have a hardline anti-work attitude because jobs are jails. This does not mean we are against requiring all to contribute, because a civilization is made of contributors. Some will do so without jobs, and these are usually the best among us. For most, all that they know how to do is pitch in where others give them direction.

American conservatives in particular hammer out the “work hard, go to church, and have a family” line that keeps conservatives neutralized and paying taxes to fund the Leftist state. An anti-work conservative sees this, and transmutes “work hard” — nonsense language designed to mean “spend all your time at work” — into an intersection of be effective and contribute.

For example, some live impoverished lives but care for a patch of forest or aspect of culture. These are contributors, too, even if they get paid little. Others, such as homemakers, contribute more than their fair share by perpetuating the tribe and raising children to be morally alert, mentally perceptive and physically healthy.

This means that for a thinking person, there is a middle path between “work hard” and “subsidize everyone.” This path is to reduce the amount of time people spend working, to make jobs less odious, and to recognize that not all contributions come from jobs. With the advances in efficiency from technology, we should be working a few hours a day, but instead work far longer to pay for the free riders, government, irrelevant “experts” and do-gooder social programs that benefit no one.

Socialism destroys the chance of this path by taking from the contributors and giving to non-contributors. This ensures that contributors work longer hours and the group of non-contributors grows. Instead of fixing a problem by limiting it, by subsidizing the source of the problem, socialism makes it permanent and prone to take over a society.

With the above, Roosevelt set out an argument for socialism by going back to the root of idea of America, which is that people must be politically equal without a hierarchy of caste or aristocrats. This gives in to the weakest impulses of human nature and guarantees that people will, instead of cooperating, go in many different directions and compete against one another, creating internal friction.

He justifies it by appealing to our prosperity and saying, essentially, that since we can afford it, it is a good idea. In doing so he created the modern “big government” which uses a justification of egalitarianism to argue for its endless expansion and debt spending. But most interesting was this:

In the plain down-to-earth talks that I had with the Generalissimo and Marshal Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill, it was abundantly clear that they are all most deeply interested in the resumption of peaceful progress by their own peoples — progress toward a better life. All our allies want freedom to develop their lands and resources, to build up industry, to increase education and individual opportunity, and to raise standards of living.

The argument for “progress” arises again, which amounts to the increase of the personal wealth of the individual and using “education” as an excuse for how we will make rabble into wise decision-makers, a power they will exercise with the vote. This disease was spreading across the civilized world, much as egalitarianism had after the French Revolution.

Almost a century on, we can see that Roosevelt was wrong. Instead of increasing wealth, this pattern of policies reduces it by increasing the cost of every detail of the process through the taxes and costs imposed by the welfare state. Even worse, it has made citizens into entitled, destructive people.

We like to think that all people are good and like us, if just left to their own devices will do the right thing. History shows us otherwise: without a strong social order and hierarchy, people devolve into a mob in which each pursues his own interest at the expense of all others. Egalitarianism does not work.

In that context, we can see the history of Leftism as a series of failures:

  1. Legal equality. The idea of all people being equal under the law seems intelligent, until we realize that this means that wrongdoers have their bad deeds expunged and good people are unable to point to their history of positive contributions. This results in penalization of the good, which causes them to retreat from public life as much as possible in order to avoid conflict with the wrongdoers who will use the courts against them. This creates the apathy and rootlessness common to modern societies.
  2. Political equality. Notions of all people having the same contribution to the political process appeal to the same portion of our minds that finds pacifism appealing; if we remove the source of contention, we “reason,” then people have no cause to act irrationally. This denies the fact that most people act in illogical ways much of the time, and when they can cancel out the few votes of the sane with their number, they do so every time, which makes the illogical into policy and then into ideal. This causes the most intelligent in society to essentially give up on it and its future and act for themselves only, creating a predatory mindset.
  3. Economic equality. In order to defend against the “winner takes all” mentality created by political equality, Leftists then demand economic subsidies, taking the form of socialism or the welfare state, in order to keep people from being ground under by the resulting highly competitive and violent socioeconomic battle. This further penalizes the most intelligent, driving them into retreat from success, while enabling those whose intent is to deceive and profit at the expense of others to the fore, effectively corrupting the social structure of society.

Where does it go after this? Let us revisit the original endgame of Leftism, which we might call The Napoleonic Cycle. Revolutionaries overthrow the more-intelligent upper castes, establish subsidies, and promptly end up in a greater plight economically than they had experienced before.

Their solution is to throw out more subsidies and go to an authoritarian state in order to force people to do what is necessary for the nation to survive. When this fails, they mobilize the nation by non-economic means, usually warfare. This creates a cycle where there must be constant warfare and so the wars expand in scope until the world is absorbed in them.

The same pattern happened with the Soviet Union. When it struggled economically, it was at its most militant, and when that failed, it collapsed inward and dissolved into third world kleptocracy and chaos. Its satellite republics suffered the same fate, leaving behind failed states.

When we embarked on the Roosevelt path, the West began to suffer The Napoleonic Cycle. The modern West, comprised of welfare states like the EU and USA, devoted itself to the welfare state, and now has no option but to expand the state while keeping the population in a state of terror through constant warfare, crisis, crime and instability.

As history churns on, we see — yet again, as these little wake-up calls happen every few millennia — that there is one right way to have a rising civilization, and that as we have deviated from this, living off the wealth of the past, we have decline both as individuals and as cultures. If we do not fully escape egalitarianism, it will consume us.

Socializing And Socialism: Not Really Different

Tuesday, April 18th, 2017

When confronted with a truly penetrating analysis, most people run away. Any thought that looks deeply into the human condition will be inherently offensive to most because it will reveal their fears and failings. This creates a comedy of error where whatever is prized in society, is a lie, and whatever is not mentioned, leads to the truth.

The primary case in which this symptom appears is the question of socializing. Being around people is fun; we are “social animals” who depend on others for feedback, like intelligent mirrors; we seek other people to work with us, mate with us, spend free time with us and provide things to us. Human individuals are cells in the body known as civilization.

Socializing creates a problem however: to socialize well, one must approach the situation with a minimum threshold, meaning that all communications are tailored so that all or most people can understand them. Similarly, one cannot appear to be elitist, so everything must be communicated.

The opposite of this would be a maximum threshold, or exclusive group that requires people to meet certain standards and tailors the communication to those instead of a lowest common denominator. Maximum threshold groups are inherently anti-social, yet sit at the top of all social systems, because people need something to struggle toward and herds need some kind of shepherds.

Nick Land talks about how Northern Europeans are afflicted with a desire to be “nice,” and he is not wrong. Fred Nietzsche writes that Europeans were infested with a virus of altruism. Both of those things are perverted however; the root is socializing, as demonstrating that minimum threshold through being nice, altruistic or otherwise inclusive of everyone.

This inverts the original hunter-gatherer rule. What all the Leftists who are lying when they write that hunter-gatherers were pleasant socialists forget is that hunter-gatherers were mobile, and the rule of a mobile group is that anyone who holds back the group gets left behind. Sure, they were “socialists” in regard to giving food to their own families, but when it comes time to move to a new patch of forest or escape a forest fire, grandma in the wheelchair and the retarded kids get left behind.

For that reason, socializing in intelligent populations arose as an inversion of the general rule. Friendship was signified by the intent not to leave someone behind, and for each of the friends to view themselves as in the debt of the other and therefore prone to save them even when manifestly inconvenient.

This brings up the “prisoner’s dilemma,” however, which we see is the same as the “free rider” problem. If a friend is tested, will he stick to the arrangement, or make short-term profit by escaping that burden, after already receiving the benefits in advance? In another way of putting this, if you are crossing a chasm by rope, make sure that the person who goes across first will actually toss the rope back!

If taken to its extreme, the free rider problem becomes a condition like socialism, where people are automatically included in the wealth of society and therefore, have no incentive to do much; the work then falls entirely on the backs of the 5% or so who struggle to be effective because they are “nice.” We are in that situation in America today because our social feelings led to universal inclusion.

All human populations suffer this dilemma but it only afflicts the intelligent ones. Simpler populations default to an all-or-nothing rule; they never help anyone unless it is to their advantage. Intelligent mixed-race populations demonstrate a more discriminating and effective version of this, and when they are dropped into more social populations, quickly dominate them. This is why some people hate Jews and Asians in the West: they win fair and square by playing by their rules, not ours, and this makes us realize we need to rethink our rules because they are nonsensical.

However, intelligent populations like their niceness and socializing. The only solution here is to have a strong morality not of inclusion, as Christianity does, but of exclusion, as the hunter-gatherers and warriors do, and to recognize it as “nice” because it works best in the face of constant threats. Our ancestors did this, but then conquered the threats for the time being, and all fell apart.

Socialism Fails Because All It Ever Leads To Is Death

Monday, April 10th, 2017

Leftists are never truly and properly atheist. They may reject the religions they see around them and may well recoil from Christianity in particular as the Nosferatu recoils in the face of a crucifix or a coruscating blast from the sun. However, they will bow their heads and proclaim their adoration of equality.

But the worship of equality is a false idol intended to suck in the gullible. We are all created equally and then are equivalent just one more time: when they chuck us in the dirt. Thus to sucvessfully seek equality is to bring forth The Grim Reaper and embrace the end of all goodness and health.

Equality is never, ever a good thing. It is at best a neutral — but for the absolute worst in our midst. People never advance to equality with those who do it better. The betters are only brutally stripped and then forced into a sham of equality with and those unfit to lick their very boots.

It never occurs in nature. The very laws of nature, set forth by God; will not tolerate such idolatrous profanity. Even Absolute Zero is now believed to be a non-existent mathematical ideal beset and confounded by physical contradiction. Equality can never be real. Only one thing can happen to you while trying for it. You die. Leftism kills you. It’s what Leftism ultimately does. It’s all Leftism ever ultimately does.

Detroit, Newark, Birmingham, Baltimore, Havana, Moscow, Pyongyang, Phnom Penh, and now Caracas. All of these places are burned-over charnel houses where the hopes of the multitudes burn on a pyre of ineluctible existentential despite and despair. Venezuela is the latest place to take up the flag of International Socialism from the grave where Pol-Pot dropped it and serve as the perfect exemplar of evil. No, you cannot haz brownies!

Venezuela this week arrested four bakers making illegal brownies and other pastries as President Nicolás Maduro’s socialist government threatens to take over bakeries in Caracas as part of a new “bread war”. Maduro has sent inspectors and soldiers into more than 700 bakeries around the capital this week to enforce a rule that 90% of wheat must be destined to loaves rather than more expensive pastries and cakes.

In 2001, Venezuela was the richest country per capita in South America. They verily floated on a lake of oil. They now have to ration what little gasoline that still remains on the market. They cannot feed their people. They cannot even power the tractors to plant next year’s crops. No, you cannot haz brownies without the flour to bake them!

Venezuela then foolishly believed that it had to choose between Socialism and death. No, it’s not “socialismo o muerte.” It’s socialismo y muerte. It has to be. That is the only place Socialism ever leads. Everyone under Socialism eventually starves equally. They die. It is your destiny under Leftism. It is an eternal quest for the zero. The Zero that these supposed atheists worship as devoutly as Ignatius of Loyola or The Buddha ever prayed.

Those Who Fail The Lessons of History Don’t Exactly Dominate Algebra II/Trig Either

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017

Take the consequences away, and make the world into a pink and puffy safe space, and the morons get to moron.

Boy #PresidentTrump is an ignoramus. He doesn’t know anything about what goes on in the world today. His remarks regarding Sweden were horrible. Just wrong. How could he possibly assume Sweden was experiencing violence? According to our former ambassador to Sweden, it’s all just the same prejudice we saw in Shakespeare’s Othello The Moor.

Gosh people who doubted the positive aspects of Socialism in Venezuela should eat some crow. The average Venezuelan has lost nineteen pounds in just one year! The calories are not just burned — they’re Holodomored! Exciting details of the weight loss magic follow below.

Prime Source: ¿El resultado? Una dieta insuficiente que no alcanza las 2.000 calorías diarias que cada venezolano debería consumir. Por esta razón, de acuerdo con la Encuesta Condiciones de Vida 2016 (Encovi), 74,3% de la población ha perdido al menos 8,7 kilos de peso de forma no controlada en el último año. Los pobres extremos afirman que han bajado más de 9 kilos.

English:In a new sign that Venezuela’s financial crisis is morphing dangerously into a humanitarian one, a new nationwide survey shows that in the past year nearly 75 percent of the population lost an average of 19 pounds for lack of food. The extreme poor said they dropped even more weight than that.

And then there was A Day Without Immigrants (following up on the equally unsuccessful A Day Without A Mexican). It was supposed to bring down the Iron Cuck on all who dared to support the idea that a sovereign nation should control its borders. The idea that Freedom of Association also has a negative component fries the circuitry of religious believers in equality above all other values. They therefore decided to take back their labor.

Diners in cities nationwide were greeted by locked doors at many of their favorite restaurants on Thursday, along with signs in the window expressing solidarity with striking workers participating in a #daywithoutimmigrants protest. Immigrants stayed away from work to show their impact on the economy, and some restaurants showed solidarity by shutting down their kitchens, or even their entire business.

Apparantly, these idiot Marxists didn’t even take the time to read thier own Marxism. St. Karl The Collectivist makes clear why Leftists really like lower status immigrants. You bring in the Reserve Army of The Unemployed so that you can ditch any individual soldier who pops off with a ‘tude in the middle of formation. Thus, a funny thing happened when these particular vendors failed to show up at the forum.

The 18 employees at Bradley Coatings, Incorporated in Nolensville, Tennessee told their supervisors on Wednesday they’d be taking part in the nationwide movement. Then, on Thursday, they were told they no longer had jobs. “We are the team leaders directly under the supervisors and they informed us last night that we could not go back to work and the boss said we were fired,” one employee said.

Now none of these similarly unrelated events seem connected, but they each are the result of a certain logic. They are a result of Progressive Logic – a logic that requires you to see the world as the world is not. Progressives remind me of the Pentecostal, snake-handling congregation that pass around Water Moccasins and Timber Rattlers and then wonder why Jethro had to leave the service on a stretcher and get filled full of anti-venom shots. Just because you want to reenact St. Paul’s night of being shipwrecked on Malta, doesn’t mean that God will give you a similar immunity to reptilian venom. An old proverb readeth: “He who playeth the games of the stupid shall winneth to him likewise unintelligent prizes.”

But the ignorant Progressive seems to think that consequences don’t matter if it feels right. That’s why they feel good telling people in Sweden to hold up the Rapefugees Welcome signs. That’s why they still tell us that Communism and its associated Kim Jung Il dietary proscriptions are humane and decent ideas. They can’t understand that when an employer sends you notification that you are expected to work tomorrow if you want to stay employed, you might just want to show up. Nope, the Proggie takes the day off to protest then can’t believe that some mean, old capitalist would fire them.

I personally blame Evil Amerikan Emperor Lyndon Baines Johnson for such continued stupid. In a consequentialist world, morons like these would get murder-raped, fired or go very, very hungry. Take the consequences away, and make the world into a pink and puffy safe space, and the morons get to moron. So what then is the issue?

The issue is that this is like putting life on the plastic. At some point the waiter shows up with the stupid tab and somebody’s wallet can no longer underwrite their fundamental dysfunction. This is where evil cascades from short-sighted pleasure-seeking to civilization failure. The raped Swedish women are stuck with a neurosis and a pregnancy resulting from being raped by at least five different guys who are now nowhere to be found, much less DNA tested. Someone else gets stuck with the stupid tab. The protesting workers get canned, the US Treasury sells more debt to put them on Gubbermint Life Support. The poor Third Worlders starve too much, the UN gets sad. Thousands of perfectly good, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines get turned into hamburger meat or potted vegetables to save them from a government that the Wogs themselves helped put into power.

It happens so often that people are acting in stupid and self-destructive manners with the implicit assumption that they will always get bailed out. At some point, I question whether these people have figured out a reality hack. That would make them evil rather than stupid. Thus, if I find the situations I described above to be stupid, then it may not be me that is standing next to stupid.

Who has the agency to allow this history to repeat itself in iterative fashion? Again and again. We seem doomed to eternally repeat this self-defeating history. That probably implies that we aren’t going to kick ass in Algebra II/Trig either. I’m not so sure the true weapon of the Cloward-Piven Strategy was the weight of the poor. It may just be the weight of the hidebound and the stupid. The relentless pressure to give more and more to bail out failure will be the end of us all unless we sober up and rebel.

How World War II Destroyed Western Civilization In America

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017

The Atlantic writes — via Slashdot, because who wants to support a Leftist hive mind — that inequality is reduced by catastrophe and apparently misses the irony. But they do make an interesting sub-point:

The pressures of total war became a uniquely powerful catalyst of equalizing reform, spurring unionization, extensions of voting rights, and the creation of the welfare state. During and after wartime, aggressive government intervention in the private sector and disruptions to capital holdings wiped out upper-class wealth and funneled resources to workers; even in countries that escaped physical devastation and crippling inflation, marginal tax rates surged upward.

Concentrated for the most part between 1914 and 1945, this ‘Great Compression’ (as economists call it) of inequality took several more decades to fully run its course across the developed world until the 1970s and 1980s, when it stalled and began to go into reverse. This equalizing was a rare outcome in modern times but by no means unique over the long run of history. Inequality has been written into the DNA of civilization ever since humans first settled down to farm the land. Throughout history, only massive, violent shocks that upended the established order proved powerful enough to flatten disparities in income and wealth.

They appeared in four different guises: mass-mobilization warfare, violent and transformative revolutions, state collapse, and catastrophic epidemics. Hundreds of millions perished in their wake, and by the time these crises had passed, the gap between rich and poor had shrunk.

By this token, we might refer to looting after a hurricane as “reducing inequality.” When society faces a great crisis, all normal concerns become secondary, and everyone who survives gets wealthy by reclaiming the wealth that is taken by society to fight the crisis. As the excerpt above makes clear, wealth transfer in exchange for ideological obedience was the method: “aggressive government intervention in the private sector and disruptions to capital holdings wiped out upper-class wealth and funneled resources to workers.”

If we want a reason for the Leftward shift of the postwar era, this provides a firm foundation. The middle and upper classes of WASP Americans were displaced by their own government in order to fight its war for democracy, and what replaced them was a substrate of mixed outer Europeans, mostly from Southern and Eastern Europe. That was the price America paid for winning the war.

Where those who actually fought the war wanted most to get back to normal, for those who stayed behind the war was essentially an excuse to loot and dominate while the sleeping round-headed voters, concerned most of all about “fascism” and not pragmatism, panicked over a conflict that never would have touched the USA had it not provoked Japanese entry.

Twenty years after the war ended — or in other words when those who were young during the war hit their 40s and inherited positions of power — America swung radically Leftward with Civil Rights, immigration acts, and even highly Leftist presidents like John F. [[[ Kennedy ]]] who wanted to adopt the socialist style state that FDR had envisioned.

This of course brings us to a vital point, which is that the existence of FDR indicates that the crucial event was not the war, but the Great Depression, after which the New Deal programs (later echoed in Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society programs) which were essentially European socialism were unveiled.

The Great Depression, in turn, might be viewed as a consequence of the loss of social standards and hope in the West that followed the Great War, which essentially left everyone in the West existentially depressed because it signaled that our civilization had fallen. The war was fought for dubious causes, yet no one seemed to be able to prevent it, even as the appalling slaughter went on, like a form of arranged ritual suicide. People utterly lost faith in their civilization after that war and, in the ensuing social decay, obscene and ill-advised forms of investment were encouraged because without culture, money was all that was left. These eventually collapsed and vaulted us into the Great Depression from which the only exit was war.

Very few people will point to these events as extensions of the French Revolution, which kicked off a series of wars for domination of Europe that set up the conditions responsible for WWI and which were recapitulated in WWII. And yet, in the world of history, we see that it takes centuries for an idea to manifest, and that in the meantime, we all live in the pocket between implementation and the visibility of consequences, and so even with our most futuristic thoughts, we are merely addressing the concerns of our great-to-the-fifth grandfathers.