Posts Tagged ‘soviet union’

We Have Been Fighting The Wrong Enemy

Tuesday, December 12th, 2017

In telling stories to children about sea monsters and knights in shining armor, the adult creates a narrative of good and bad. Since these are binary opposites, we must choose one, and so when the child inevitably asks, we tell them that our nation is good and the “other” is bad.

Grownups play this game in real life, oblivious to reality and truth. They learned it as children and have never known anything else. For example, Hillary(ous) Clinton blamed the Russians for her loss of an election, as if trying to resurrect a Cold War trope — which was real back then — and make it into a contemporary scapegoat for the bad decisions made in her nation-state.

The narrative broke down during the Angolan War however. That conflict between Namibia and Angola was the centerpiece of the Communist total onslaught towards attaining the geopolitically important Cape sea route. The mainstream media assisted the propaganda with images of terror, terrorist training camps and terrorist weapons stashes of Russian manufacture.

South Africans proudly scrambled to defend their sovereignty and borrowed money from allies in the West as was required for such a wide-scaled war effort. These proud soldiers won every battle and despite heavy casualties in some, emerged with their heads held high. But slowly they realized that while they defeated the external bad, what was inside was not good, either, when Mandela became President.

We can fight many enemies, but these may simply be impediments, where the enemy we must beat is within the system that — following The Enlightenment™ and the adoption of individualistic egalitarianism — infects the West like a parasite too small to see which reprograms our brains for self-destruction.

For example, look at your school’s headmaster, at your city mayor, your police detective, your corner shop-owner, your corporate officers and your politicians and observe how the following happens:

  1. The politician does not represent you
  2. The Corporate officer channels money to overseas investors
  3. The corner shop closes due to theft
  4. The police detective loses your case files
  5. The city mayor is not elected/appointed based on merit
  6. The headmaster is appointed by some politically correct government official

South Africa is not following Zimbabwe down the drain because Russia drove it into the abyss. It is the parasite that infects the West and makes it decadent that has infected South Africa as well and is driving it into the abyss.

People like Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, and the ever-present “foundations” and NGOs wreaking havoc in western Society are destroying us by enforcing political correctness. Like the French Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks, they are chasing the ephemeral unicorn of an egalitarian Utopia to their doom, as happened in ancient Athens and Rome.

The entire West is addicted to this religion and will surely follow in this zombie madness, and the quicker it happens, the better. We can defeat any enemy but the enemy within. Fighting the Soviets was necessary, but we should have viewed them like a snake in the lawn, dangerous but not bad. The real evil bad lurks within, and until we shrug off this parasitic infection, we court our doom.

How The West Beat The Soviets: Consumerism

Sunday, November 12th, 2017

At this point, the Cold War has been mostly forgotten in the West thanks to Leftist teachers who preferred to teach social justice to actual history. However, its lessons remain with us because the order from which we are currently emerging was formed at the moment the Cold War ended, and as the larger Age of Ideology fails, we can see how the two ideas were linked.

From roughly the end of WW2 through the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the West and East (Eurasia and Asia) were engaged in a “Cold War,” or conflict which refused to go fully military but still resembled a military struggle. Ultimately, the Soviets could not make their economy work, overspent on weapons, and found themselves subverted by the Western lifestyle.

We will see, perhaps, the long lines outside the first McDonald’s in Moscow, or note how Russians saved up months of income for a precious pair of blue jeans, and perhaps also recall how scarce a commodity Western pop music was in Communist countries before the fall. But the real story was one of breadlines versus abundance in American grocery stores.

As the Houston Chronicle recalls, a visit by Boris Yeltsin to a Clear Lake grocery store may have set the stage for the collapse of Soviet confidence in their own system:

According to Houston Chronicle reporter Stefanie Asin, it wasn’t all the screens, dials, and wonder at NASA that blew up his skirt, it was the unscheduled trip inside a nearby Randall’s location.

Yeltsin, then 58, “roamed the aisles of Randall’s nodding his head in amazement,” wrote Asin. He told his fellow Russians in his entourage that if their people, who often must wait in line for most goods, saw the conditions of U.S. supermarkets, “there would be a revolution.”

…About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin’s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn’t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia.

In Yeltsin’s own autobiography, he wrote about the experience at Randall’s, which shattered his view of communism, according to pundits. Two years later, he left the Communist Party and began making reforms to turn the economic tide in Russia.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Left regrouped around an idea: it could hybridize consumerism with ideology, and use the fires of capitalism to drive its cultural revolution and ultimate takeover of the West. David Brooks chronicles this in his book about the new elites, BOBOS in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There.

Interestingly, as this new consumerism-communism hybrid rises, people are seeing the appeal in something much older: a touch of the Stalin era, maybe some overtones of Hitler, but mostly, a longing for the world before WW1, when there was still social order, a sense of purpose to the West, and democracy had not yet infested everything with a zombie-like obsession with furthering “equality.”

Perhaps our modern Clear Lake Randall’s is when we visit the countryside, or a society outside the West, and see that people are living with a sense of purpose and belief, and therefore, are a great deal happier than we can be. Somewhere, the good life is meaningful, and it is not found in consumerism, globalism, diversity or any other aspect of the toxic brew brought by egalitarianism.


Thursday, November 9th, 2017

The Age of Ideology slowly ends in the rising dust of its own failures. Our learning has been augmented by the knowledge that no matter what type of “system” we design, they all end in failure because they focus too much on making everyone get along, and not enough on real-world results.

Something called The Human Problem invades every human group. It consists of herd behavior brought on by a desire to get along with others, and that desire replaces goals, at which point the group is shaped by the demands of the individuals in it instead of the shared principles, mission or purpose that originally created it.

We thought we could avoid The Human Problem by avoiding the systems based on social engineering, like Communism and National Socialism. As it turns out, any system based on “equality” — a group-think term used to conceal the individualistic motivation of all involved — ends up in the same place through inversion, or the replacement of meaning with “safe” terms that flatter the group.

Consider the term “equality” itself. When originally designed, it meant that you did not commit an ad hominem and say to something, “You’re from another caste, family, tribe, region or religion, therefore your opinion is automatically wrong.” Instead, you listened to what he had to say, and if it was correct, treated it as closer to the truth.

However, most humans tend to think backward, since they think in terms of effects on themselves, which makes them think the effect was intended, and blinds them to the actual causes. These people therefore are oblivious to the causes of those effects, and so when unequal results occur, they blame the results instead of considering the actual cause, which is that people are unequal.

Over time, the term “equality” inevitably and without exception morphs from treating people fairly to ensuring that everyone has the same level of power, wealth, status and acceptance. To do this, since they cannot raise the lower above their own ability level, they have to tear down the higher and simplify every standard to the mediocre, because that way everyone feels accepted and important.

Through this method, “equality” comes to mean taking from the stronger and giving to the weaker. In the same way, morality has come to mean tolerance of the immoral; fairness has come to mean relativistic judgment; intelligence now means having the “right” opinions memorized. Any attempt to use social engineering to create a more equal, fair or just society seems to result in these inversions.

As such, we recognize now that we are have been living under an undiagnosed regime which we might call neo-Communism. In the years after WW2, it became clear in the West that whatever ideas appealed to the masses would win out over ideas that required sacrifice of personal freedoms in order to have social order, as the Axis powers required of their citizens.

In order to win these conflicts both real and imagined, the West adopted its Leftward tilt from after WW1 and accelerated it. This culminated in the 1960s, after which point Western Civilization — already heavily damaged by the crass commercialism of the 1950s, the French Revolution and the individualistic fallout of The Renaissance™ — really fell apart.

Neo-Communism resembles the old form of Communism, but has two changes: first, it is decentralized, meaning that it is enforced by citizens to show loyalty, instead of by secret police; second, it is grafted onto capitalism, which enables it to avoid the crisis that did in Communism, namely the ability to have any kind of functional economy.

Its decentralized nature means that it works through incentives toward personal reward or social popularity, both of which require the person in question to affirm the ideological narrative in some way. The recent #metoo frenzy of reporting of sexual assaults shows us this market for attention: anyone who can participate in the latest trends, affirming ideology, gets ahead.

In that provides a uniform series of incentives, such that members of all political parties behave roughly the same way, creating a “uniparty” of people who are working to affirm the narrative however they can while staying in the news as much as possible. Since ideology is what holds this society together, the media takes on far greater importance than in any other type of society.

Ideology thus provides both our motivation and a type of currency, in that those who wield ideology well will be rewarded in a society which is mobilized in the military style for perpetual war to enforce that belief system.

Neo-Communism specializes in making us appear “free” while finding ways to entrench us in the system. Simply surviving costs endless money, and jobs are the only way for most people to have that, making people dependent on their paychecks and in turn, on saying the “right” thing so that they do not get fired and end up in the poorhouse.

We can visualize Neo-Communism as a society centered around the idea of equality as enforced by a cultural revolution, as opposed to a political one, and having the following attributes:

  1. Political Correctness. Thoughts are pre-emptively censored for fear of what the neighbors, friends and co-workers might think; this requires establishing an absolute good by setting up an absolute bad, for example, “Hitler was racist, therefore anti-racism is good, and anything against Neo-Communism is racist.”
  2. Wealth Transfer. Neo-Communism synthesizes consumerism, which beat Communism in 1991, with the idea of the socialist-style welfare state, and so it specializes in creation of taxes to perpetually shift wealth from the top to the bottom. This also continually “primes the pump” by encouraging the least affluent to spend money that was given to them by government.
  3. Trend Culture. Neo-Communism specializes in using mass culture as a weapon of cultural revolution, but it must keep its weapon from being turned against it, so it generates constant distractions in the form of trends, or whatever “everyone is talking about” this news cycle, month, year or decade. These overlap and keep people chasing low-carb foods, small urban living, climate-friendly pollution, low-fat foods, collaborative working or whatever other paradoxical but consequently appealing idea they can spin to you to keep your mind fascinated, dazed and misdirected.
  4. Unofficial Nature. What has enabled Neo-Communism to survive for this long is that it is invisible because it consists of social incentives and fears; whatever is popular and trending will result in personal advancement for an individual in any field, and whatever touches the taboo line will destroy that same individual. As a result, you can declare yourself an anti-Communist and still be an agent of Neo-Communism.
  5. Replacement Culture. Like the Cymothoa exigua parasite, which sneaks into a fish through the gills and then replaces its tongue, Neo-Communism uses its cultural revolution to re-define what is “good,” and in doing so, replaces both culture and religion. Soon even all art and media products revolve around the ideas of Neo-Communism.
  6. Individualism. At its core, Neo-Communism appeals to the individualism of others in the form of, “Why do things the right way? You can get ahead by doing things our way,” which creates an attraction for those who do not fit in, uniting them. It also creates a “race to the bottom” as others then compete with this new and trendy mediocrity.

The rise of Neo-Communism came from attempts by the need to reconcile their Socialist leanings with the horrors of Communism, causing them to embrace market-driven communism:

But as evidence of communism’s horrors emerged over the decades, it rightly shocked liberals and leftists in the West, who shared many of the egalitarian aims of the revolutionaries.

…But if we’ve learned one lesson from the communist century, it is this: That to implement Marxist ideals is to betray them. Marx’s demand to “abolish private property” was a clarion call to action—and an inexorable path to the creation of an oppressive, unchecked state.

A few socialists began to recognize that there could be no freedom without markets and private property. When they made their peace with the existence of capitalism, hoping to regulate rather than to abolish it, they initially elicited denunciations as apostates. Over time, more socialists embraced the welfare state, or the market economy with redistribution.

Since then, we have learned that to adopt egalitarian ideals at all leads to the creation of a crowd, or a herd of people dedicated to the type of behavior we see at carnivals, sporting events and Black Friday sales at Wal-mart. The problem is not Communism; it is egalitarianism.

Neo-Communism was created to conceal that learning. The ideal of the Neo-Communist is to befuddle the population with consumerism while simultaneously indoctrinating them in egalitarian ideological dogma. The thinking is that, like political correctness, this will reprogram them so fundamentally that it fundamentally over-rides “human nature” and makes a working form of socialism.

The problem it faces is that human behavior is not so much “human nature” as it is a reflection of the mathematics of survival. People left unchecked will create a tragedy of the commons by which they exploit whatever they can; individualism is the rule of individuals except for the exceptional. It is why in nature, species tend to consume all resources and then die out. Nature imposes a test to see who can transcend raw individualism.

However, creating a perverse incentive by declaring reward-before-performance, or subsidy for simply being human and “equal” as egalitarian philosophies like classical liberalism and Communism demand, ensures that individualism will be rewarded. That in turn forces others to descend to that level, and herd behavior results, with the herd consuming everything it can and then running over cliffs like lemmings, which is how human societies throughout history have self-destructed.

As a result, Neo-Communism is failing just like Communism, democracy, and European Socialism are: it mutates people into selfish, morally nullified, anti-conscientious beings who are oblivious to everything around them because all of it is based on a lie. Democracy killed ancient Greece and Rome, and now it is killing the West because (apparently) people were so oblivious they were willing to try it again. Socialism, or “economic equality,” is a parallel to democracy, or “political equality,” and both lead to Communism and through it, Neo-Communism as the virus evolves.

If we look at the human condition, we see that in individuals, individualism — a denial of the reality of the inevitable consequences of our actions in preference for individual desires — causes lives to become self-destructive, and that in groups, individualism becomes herd behavior.

The herd ruins everything. Any time we have structure, purpose and principle, we succeed; when we descend into herd behavior, we fail.

We can see the effects of Neo-Communism on our current civilization through attitudes toward Communism:

According to the latest survey from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a D.C.-based nonprofit, one in two U.S. millennials say they would rather live in a socialist or communist country than a capitalist democracy.

What’s more, 22% of them have a favorable view of Karl Marx and a surprising number see Joseph Stalin and Kim Jong Un as “heroes.”

Leaving aside the impossibility of ignoring, as a young person, the prospect of trolling a survey by praising Kim Jong Un, this attitude shift shows the effects on the generation that directly received the wisdom of the 1960s because those who matured in the 1960s came into power in the 1990s and re-made the educational system to be Marxism lite. Communism is legitimate again, to them.

The survey, which was conducted by research and data firm YouGov, found that millennials are the least knowledgable generation on the subject, with 71% failing to identify the proper definition of communism.

Smith explained that this “troubling turn” highlights pervasive historical illiteracy across the country and “the systemic failure of our education system to teach students about the genocide, destruction, and misery caused by communism since the Bolshevik Revolution one hundred years ago.”

Perhaps we will find it less surprising that people think in this way when we look at the shift of our economy from capitalism to capitalism with lots of socialism, such that government has become an industry in itself and a part of the economy upon which most people, as under Communism, depend, to varying degrees:

The fastest growing component of household income since 1959 has been ‘transfer payments’ from government. By the turn of the 21st century, 20 per cent of all household income came from this source – from what is otherwise known as welfare or ‘entitlements’. Without this income supplement, half of the adults with full-time jobs would live below the poverty line, and most working Americans would be eligible for food stamps.

One influence on the drive toward full Communism is the shift of American society toward those who are from cultures that are more individualistic and thus more prone to collective subsidy, such as the Irish, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, and the vast number of third-world peoples imported since 1965.

Future historians will probably record that the closer a society gets to third world status, the more accepting it is of regimes like Communism because its people will understand nothing more complex than having someone take care of them. The quality of intelligence in a society determines what systems its population can understand, and simpler populations understand only strongmen.

As the West becomes more ethnically mixed and through that, racially mixed, its possibility of avoiding Communism approaches zero. Neo-Communism offers the West a way to fail gracefully by accepting a crypto-Communism rather than the branded, out-of-the-closet full form, and this enables the elites to continue sipping cocktails guilt-free as they watch their world fall around them.

Are Major Corporations The Right’s Friends?

Monday, June 19th, 2017

If you go to an Amerikan University, and get brainwashed in a Economics course; you’d walk away with the misapprehension that corporations were the enemies of the beneficent state. That major corporations sought to undermine governments and

Dating at least back to Nazi Germany, supplying the state monopoly has always been a boffo racket. Hugo Boss…No wonder the Nazis always looked better in the old war movies. And it wasn’t just the National Socialists. Armand Hammer was the Russian Connection long before that became a thing to Antifa.

Armand Hammer, the 87-year-old chief executive officer of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, was recently hailed by the editor of Pravda for his role in setting up the November summit meeting between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachov. Since his early- 1920s cavorting about Soviet Russia with the blessings of V.1. Lenin, Hammer, the “maverick” billionaire, has been the principal “back channel” for American access to the top levels of the Kremlin hierarchy.

And why was Hammer so able to set up meetings with Soviet Nomenklatura?

Who was Hammer? He was a personal friend of V.I. Lenin. He was known as Lenin’s “path” to America’s financial resources. He was the first of a long line of Western businessmen to participate in KGB-controlled joint ventures in the Soviet Union. He was the son of Julius Hammer, a founder of the Socialist Labor Party and later the Communist party USA and who served time in Sing Sing for performing illegal abortions. Armand Hammer was called the “Capitalist Prince” by the KGB. He dutifully served the Soviets for seven decades and became the first — and only — “American capitalist” to be awarded the Order of Lenin.

So how did this capitalist running dog make his fortune? Doing business with Man of The People Vladimir Lenin.

Journeying to Soviet Russia in 1921 to give medical aid to that country’s famine victims, he was personally persuaded by Vladimir Lenin to turn his business talents to account there instead. In 1925 he obtained a concession from the Bolsheviks to manufacture pencils for the Soviet Union, and his firm soon became the largest supplier of cheap, reliable pencils in the country. His business ventures were bought out by the Soviets in the late 1920s, and Hammer returned to the United States in 1930 laden with innumerable paintings, jewelry pieces, and other art objects formerly owned by the Romanov imperial family and sold to him by the cash-hungry Soviets. In the 1930s Hammer sold the majority of these valuables and embarked on such profitable post-Prohibition business ventures as whiskey making and the manufacture of whiskey barrels, as well as cattle raising.

Hammer retired in 1956 but was approached that year by a friend who suggested that he finance two wildcat oil wells being drilled in Bakersfield, Calif., by the near-bankrupt Occidental Petroleum Corporation. Hammer financed the wells, which unexpectedly struck oil, and he quickly increased his holdings in Occidental, becoming the firm’s chief executive officer and chairman of the board in 1957. By the mid-1960s, under Hammer’s management, Occidental’s gross annual income was more than $650,000,000, and profitable oil ventures in Libya (which were later nationalized) and diversifications into chemical manufacturing had boosted Occidental’s gross income to more than $2,000,000,000 by 1970.

Today, these people are not openly Soviet or Nazi in their business dealings. However, they are still not in favor of anything resembling a truly “Open Society.” They are buying into the governmental monopolies on force and natural resources the exact same way Hugo Boss and Armand Hammer did. They can strip a lot more surplus out of customer that has someone else’s money as a budget line. Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and Warren Buffett don’t want to compete any more than The Golden State Warriors or the New England Patriots want to compete. They are in the business of making the fight unfair.

Warren Buffett hates pipelines that ship oil because he owns a huge railroad full of railroad tankers. Elon Musk makes solar collectors for a portion of his living. The Paris Accord knocked conventional energy sources off the market in the US. Zuckerberg hates “fake news.” Other people’s “Fake News.” He loves fake news propagated by Faceberg. The Golden State Warriors didn’t lock up Kevin Durant to make the NBA more fun and competitive. His presence gave them a talent monopoly like land reform gave Stalin a land monopoly. The New England Patriots won’t trade their awesome back-up QB or stop illegally deflating footballs. They don’t give a rat’s rear end about his self-actualization. They don’t want to see him on the other sideline on Sunday afternoon. These business men are the same.

They hate capitalism when it pays capital to anybody other than them. They hate opportunity when someone other than them enjoys any of it. When Armand Hammer was a pencil-pusher, he loved how Lenin could erase all his competition. Hugo liked Hitler fine. He considered him, dare I say it; Like.A.Boss. The big shot tycoons that install Goldman Sachs Party Men throughout the USG are major league SJWs. Social Justus Warriors. Because they believe it should be Just Us that get the benefits. And when they think of Us, we on the Alt-Right are never going to be considered them.

The very rich are different from us. They already have built their wall. It is your wall that is immoral. They don’t want President Trump to ever cut someone like you in on the racket.

Why No One Should Commemorate D-Day

Tuesday, June 6th, 2017

Every June 6th, the media and patriotic brain-dead conservatives fawn over D-Day, the event that occurred 73 years ago when the Allied forces invaded Fortress Europe. Instead of celebrating reputable holidays, we commemorate a People’s Holiday for a war no one won.

It does not require us to be National Socialists, or even to have felt that the National Socialists offered a better alternate because on the whole they did not, to notice that World War Two was a war for democracy, which is essentially the antechamber to Communism.

As Plato wrote 2400 years ago, democracy naturally leads to tyranny of the sort promised by Communism: a revolt of the plebes, overthrow of social order and caste structure, and its replacement with many equal people dependent on government. When this happens, the intelligent and good die out and are replaced by the kind of thoughtless, short-term, high time preference and low foresight people found in the third world.

Democracy arises from a long chain of events that occur with the pitfall of success. When one task is vanquished, another one arises, and this one is invisible because it is intangible. A society that thrives must find a long-term purpose other than its citizens and their individualistic wants, or it falls prey to egalitarian thinking.

The West succeeded beyond all other civilizations in recent history, but by doing so, it bred and attracted people who wanted simply to participate instead of participating in an active culture. These went into cities, started businesses and became prosperous, and quickly — i league with the Church, foreign groups and secret societies — began agitating for power over those above them in the hierarchy.

With prole revolt, the West overthrew the social order that had worked so well for it, and began a thousand-year fall into Leftism, which triumphed with the end of WWII and since that time has ravaged this society so thoroughly it is unrecognizable. Leftism is egalitarianism, which arises from individualism, which comes from hubris or the “me first” attitude that denies the natural hierarchy of ability.

On D-Day, democracy won its greatest victory since the French Revolution, and a mere twenty years later the people of the West — drugged on postwar economic booms and Leftist self-congratulatory rhetoric — voted for their own ethnic replacement. They were not aware that this was what they were doing, but this is the failing of democracy: voters are not personally accountable, nor do they experience direct consequences, so they treat voting like going to the circus and choose whatever they think makes them appear to be wise, compassionate, generous and most of all, egalitarian. Democracy always goes Leftward for this reason.

As happened in World War One, the West sacrificed many of its best to destroy those who opposed democracy, and drugged itself with talk of freedom, equality, liberty, tolerance, pluralism, justice and peace as a way to explain away the obvious collapse of civilization. Generations despaired. Culture faded away. Religious faith died, and the family was hollowed out.

After 1945, the West still had Communism to keep it in check. Leftism cannot advance when there is an example of how bad Leftism will inevitably become if not opposed, and the rampant murders and genocide of the Stalinist years made it clear that the Soviets had to fall for the Leftist mental virus to continue unchecked. As the 1980s closed and the Soviets fell, Leftism flew free like a pandemic.

Since that point, the West has gone so far democratic and Leftist that it would be unrecognizable and hated by those who stormed the beaches on that first D-Day. As usual, what the politicians promise is an illusion, but like all victims of scams, the voters delude themselves. WWII was a slaughterhouse like the war before it, and we all lost for what the West has become.

For that reason, there is no point celebrating D-Day; it is a tomb, both for those on all sides who lost life and limb in the conflict, and for the West itself. No one won, and the West will never win again until it abandons the arrogant and greedy prole revolt that is democracy.

Vindicating Joseph McCarthy

Friday, June 2nd, 2017

America was maligned for her resistance to Communism mainly because the people working in media, academia and the arts had switched to full-blown Communism back in the 1930s, when the failures of democracy and greedy investment strategies of the herd resulted in a massive economic crash.

As usual, humans would rather run away from a working system to a non-working one instead of fixing the problems in the former. For those in the hip crowd, this meant not choosing something different, but something old: the egalitarian democratic impulse of 1789 combined with the demands for subsidies from the 1840s quickly became a new Communism lite, similar to how trendy Universal Basic Income (UBI) — a similar idea to Communism — is today.

Since the days of the first Bohemians, the way to gain social points in society has been to advocate what most people secretly hope will work, which is that everyone is accepted just as they are and paid just to survive. Parasitism means you can focus all of your time on yourself and pretend to be an artist, or a genius, or an innovator, or whatever strikes your fancy. It is a time for human monkeys to play dress up and fantasize that they are actually important, solely because they are not and thus need to compensate through projection and transference.

By the time the 1950s rolled around, American society was severely divided. Most of the “intellectuals” were radical socialists or Communists, the heartland was still caught in 1820s style nativism and traditionalism, and the cities were full of people indoctrinated in the WWII-era propaganda that took the idea of 1776 and make it into a radical Jacobin crusade.

Senator Joseph McCarthy went to war against the Communists who were working within the system, pretending to be normal, and yet coordinating with Communist parties worldwide — including in the Soviet Union — to bring about the end of the USA. For this, he was roundly condemned and his name made into a synonym for totalitarian, despite the fact that his methods were not extreme and he was mostly right.

Ann Coulter reveals how Joe McCarthy was unjustly judged by history through the voice of the Leftist press:

The true story of Joe McCarthy, told in meticulous, irrefutable detail in “Blacklisted by History,” is that from 1938 to 1946, the Democratic Party acquiesced in a monstrous conspiracy being run through the State Department, the military establishment, and even the White House to advance the Soviet cause within the U.S. government.

In the face of the Democrats’ absolute refusal to admit to their fecklessness, fatuity and recklessness in allowing known Soviet spies to penetrate the deepest levels of government, McCarthy demanded an accounting.

Even if one concedes to on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand whiners like Ronald Radosh that Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson didn’t like communism, his record is what it was. And that record was to treat Soviet spies like members of the Hasty Pudding Club.

Not only that, but McCarthy was right in many cases and the others remain unknown whether he was right or not for the most part, rather than having disproved him. History has vindicated McCarthy by showing that Washington, D.C. was rife with Communist double agents:

The materials that first made their way to the surface in the early 1990s — records from Moscow’s Russian Center for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Recent History — provided proof past peradventure that the Communist Party of the United States was subsidized by the Soviet government and used as a base for extensive espionage.

…In the 1940s, the NSA had a top-secret program called Venona which intercepted (and much later decoded) messages between Moscow and its American agents. The recent publication of a batch of Venona transcripts gives evidence that the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were rife with communist spies and political operatives who reported, directly or indirectly, to the Soviet government, much as their anti-communist opponents charged. The Age of McCarthyism, it turns out, was not the simple witch hunt of the innocent by the malevolent as two generations of high school and college students have been taught.

…The government was the workplace of perhaps 100 communist agents in 1943-45. He just didn’t know their names…The Venona transcripts contain the code names of about 200 persons, although some of these were clearly persons who had unwitting contact with Soviet agents. The Venona documents indicate that there were perhaps a dozen Soviet agents in the State Department alone. It is now clear that the Truman administration wasn’t looking very hard.

When the Leftists across media, government, academia and entertainment get together in their private groups and back-channels and agree to tell us all at once, as they usually do as part of their decentralized gaslighting strategy, that there is no threat from a certain quarter, beware: they are lying, just as they were lying about Joe McCarthy.

If you are a successful person, business or nation, there will be no shortage of people trying to weaken you so that they can take some of what you have. When they object that you are cracking down too hard on known threats against you, consider why someone would want to so thoroughly disarm you, and ask cui bono to find out what they get out of the deal.

Who Won The Vietnam War?

Wednesday, May 10th, 2017

Korea and Vietnam remaining the two most frustrating wars for Americans because they were proxy wars, which means that the actual fight was not the battle itself, but political objectives involving world powers jockeying for position.

In Korea, for example, we battle the recently-risen Chinese Communists, who took over China just the year before, in order to prevent them from expanding China to include the Korean peninsula, but the bigger fight was to discourage China and Russian from expanding further.

On paper, it is not clear who won because North Korea remains a Communist dictatorship to this day. But the real target, China, did not expand further.

In Vietnam, another proxy war was waged against China and the Soviet Union, both of whom supplied materiel and advisors to the Communist North Vietnamese, who then used that to sponsor a rebel group in the South know as the Viet Cong (or “Vietnamese Communists”).

As Peter Brimelow points out, political victory was achieved there as well by checking Communist expansion once again:

An odd feature of Sheehan`s book is that enough facts have survived his emotional selectivity and analytical ineptitude to refute his thesis completely. Thus he admits unhesitatingly that the Vietcong were always a wholly owned subsidiary of North Vietnam, contrary to ardent antiwar assertions at the time. He makes it clear that guerrilla warfare was not some new military magic, as David Halberstam implied in his influential 1965 book The Making of a Quagmire, and that it was quickly replaced by conventional main-force action; that Westmoreland`s approach, whatever its faults, was indeed wearing down the Communists even before the 1968 Tet Offensive; that Tet was a military disaster for them; that after Tet their grip on the countryside was broken; and that Nixon’s 1970 incursion into Cambodia achieved its objective in disrupting North Vietnam’s preparations for another offensive. He even notes that American bombing, which Vann originally criticized as too indiscriminate for the detailed war he wanted to fight, did indeed ultimately have the effect of driving the population into government-controlled areas where the Communist influence could not be sustained.

These battles resemble the way the West fought off the Mongols: we did not outright defeat them because they were numerous and fanatical, but we defeated their objective by putting up enough resistance that they went back to their homelands and shortly thereafter failed there.

In other Asiatic wars, a similar pattern has emerged. When fighting the American Indian (Amerind), the settlers did not achieve total domination for a long time, but broke the spirit of the Indians by making it clear that those Indians could not break the spirit of the settlers. The resistance wound them down and they over-extended their economies in order to fight, then experienced social upheaval as a result.

The Left, which hates anything good and successful with the acid bile of envy, teaches us that we lost those wars because we did not utterly conquer the proxies. A more advanced view is that we saved some from a disaster, and checked the further expansion of cancerous Communism, which was victory in itself.

How Western Governments Will Fall

Wednesday, May 10th, 2017

The French New Right author Guillaume Faye writes that the post-collapse democratic governments of the current era will fade away through a “convergence of catastrophes” which happen as all of their poor decision-making detonates simultaneously.

For many, this seems impossible because we perceive our societies as strong. The money flows, the media seems so informed and powerful, and we have these giant militaries which should be able to conquer anything short of Godzilla. And yet, doubts persist: how long can a society as indecisive and parasite-laden as ours continue to survive?

Most likely there will be a touchstone for this convergence of catastrophes which conveys to the ordinary inert and blithe person that things are really going wrong. If history is any guide, people will only really wake up and scream when their livelihoods are threatened. They can put up with the “death of a thousand cuts” of every product being worse, life being uglier, and work taking longer from year to year; after all, what else would they do with their time and money? They are mostly concerned with social factors, such as whether they appear likable to friends and neighbors, if they seem to be successful in comparison to their social group, and if they have something new to talk about. People live in small worlds, focused mostly on the biological imperatives of eating, reproducing, competing and dying.

This will go away when it finally sinks in that our governments are out of money because they spent it on entitlement programs, and that our future is to either default or go to some kind of managed economy like socialism, at which point the economic collapse will only accelerate. We got our first warning shots with the bankruptcy of Puerto Rico:

Puerto Rico announced a historic restructuring of its public debt on Wednesday, touching off what may be the biggest bankruptcy ever in the $3.8 trillion U.S. municipal bond market.

While it was not immediately clear just how much of Puerto Rico’s $70 billion of debt would be included in the bankruptcy filing, the case is sure to dwarf Detroit’s insolvency in 2013.

After years of dumping money on citizens to combat poverty and racism, Western governments are seeing death at the fringes. Those are happening in minority communities for now, but soon will spread to others as these governments recognize that they cannot raise enough revenues to pay for the obligations of yesterday with the taxpayers of today.

In particular, the first of the entitlements are starting to fail as the union-given, state-paid and taxpayer-financed pension system begins its fiery end with obligations that will crash the economy hard:

Federal Reserve data show that in 1952, the average public pension had 96 percent of its portfolio invested in bonds and cash equivalents. Assets matched future liabilities. But a loosening of state laws in the 1980s opened the door to riskier investments. In 1992, fixed income and cash had fallen to an average of 47 percent of holdings. By 2016, these safe investments had declined to 27 percent.

…By some estimates, unfunded liabilities would triple to upwards of $6 trillion if the prevailing yields on Treasuries were used. That would translate into much steeper funding requirements at a time when budgets are already severely constrained. Pockets of the country would face essential public service budgets being slashed to dangerous levels.

In other words, the pension system bet on the economy growing forever in the midst of the Baby Boomer years, and that growth has not been realized as economies across the West decline as their people decline, mostly from existential misery brought on by the utter tedium and ugliness of modern society.

There is no way out of obligations that large. Couple that with large national debts, political instability, and the end of various market booms that have seemed to sustain us, and we see that a huge crash is coming. It in fact may resemble a Soviet-style implosion:

But the deeper problem for the Soviet Union wasn’t the oil price collapse; it’s what came before. In his book Collapse of an Empire, Russia’s great post-Soviet reformer Yegor Gaidar pointed out that during the long preceding oil boom, Soviet policymakers thought that they could walk on water and that the usual laws of economic gravity did not apply to them. Soviet policymakers didn’t bother developing a theory to make sense of their spending. They didn’t even bother paying attention to their results. The math seemed to work out, so they just assumed there was a good reason.

This is as true of the current Venezuelan leaders as it was of the Soviet leaders. The Venezuelan government, though it doesn’t claim to be full-fledged in its devotion to Marxism-Leninism, has been pursuing as absurd an economic policy mix as its Soviet predecessor. It has insisted for years on maintaining drastic price controls on a wide range of basic goods, including food staples such as meat and bread, for which it pays enormous subsidies. Nonetheless the Venezuelan government, like the Soviet Union’s, has always felt it could afford these subsidies because of its oil revenues.

Substitute entitlements subsidies for food subsidies. Replace oil wealth with the productivity of American industry. Refocus the picture: while the situation is not yet as dire as in Venezuela or the Soviet Union, the United States and European Union are going down the same path, with the same predictable results.

This certainty of doom provides an opportunity to finally replace our failing political systems with something that works, hopefully a monarchy, since those have no need for constant growth or government-style social spending. The West died long ago; as the ruins of its substitute replacement come crashing down, there is an opportunity to finally bring the old West back to life.

Avoiding Future Holocausts

Friday, May 5th, 2017

Although this view is not shared by all on the Alt Right and by increasing many on the Left, a sane look at history sees the Holocaust as tragedy; worse, it was an avoidable tragedy.

It is tragic on many levels. First, it contradicts the nationalist ideal of relocating people to their countries of origin where they are the founding group. Second, it commits “un-Aryan” acts such as working people under bad conditions, which also led to low-quality labor.

Finally, it simply shows a misunderstanding of how the world works. Each group acts in its own interest, and so it is foolish and illogical to expect foreign groups to behave as the national group does.

None of these were mysteries to Theodor Herzl, who had witnessed the Dreyfuss Affair and realized that anti-Semitism was a product of diversity. He converted to nationalism as a result, and advocated a return to Israel in order to avoid future pogroms:

Herzl concluded that anti-Semitism was a stable and immutable factor in human society, which assimilation did not solve. He mulled over the idea of Jewish sovereignty, and, despite ridicule from Jewish leaders, published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State, 1896). Herzl argued that the essence of the Jewish problem was not individual but national. He declared that the Jews could gain acceptance in the world only if they ceased being a national anomaly. The Jews are one people, he said, and their plight could be transformed into a positive force by the establishment of a Jewish state with the consent of the great powers. He saw the Jewish question as an international political question to be dealt with in the arena of international politics.

Viewed in the context of history, the Holocaust was just another pogrom, but conducted with more efficiency thanks to state support as opposed to local authority or state unofficial approval of what were essentially lynch mobs.

The core of Herzl’s argument is that diversity pits groups against one another. National groups have a need to defend their values, genetics and culture. When another group is present, that group becomes a threat, and is scapegoated in times of instability.

To this we can add the symptoms of this problem, including that different cultures are naturally incompatible, which leads to alien groups participating in destructive activities without being fully aware of the negative backlash to come:

While in 1934 38.5% of the top officials in the NKVD were Jews, this number was decreased to 31.9% in July 1937, 3.9% in September 1938 and 3.5% in January 1940.

The NKVD was a Soviet secret police organization that removed ideological non-conformists and purged the Soviet Union of many of its best and brightest. For a group that comprised a small fraction of the Soviet population, 38.5% participation was huge, and resulted — in a gentler form of what happened in Nazi Germany — in a purge of Jewish participants in the system.

Jews were heavily active in far-Left organizations in general, leading to an association of these groups with Jewishness:

Jews were proportionately overrepresented in the RSDWP from the start. Apart from being active in the party’s Jewish faction, the Bund, which sought to mobilize the “Jewish street” by conducting propaganda activity in Yiddish, Jews comprised a significant proportion of the party’s “Russian” contingent. These acculturated Jews generally inclined toward the Mensheviks rather than the Bolsheviks, but even among the latter, there were not a few Jews. In early 1917, their numbers reached just under 1,000 out of a total of 23,600. Most important, they were highly overrepresented in the Bolshevik leadership. Significant figures included Iurii Kamenev, Maksim Litvinov, Karl Radek, Iakov Sverdlov, Leon Trotsky, and Grigorii Zinov’ev. This was so blatant that anti-Bolsheviks frequently associated the party with Jews in order to contaminate the party’s public image.

…Jews remained overrepresented in the party rank and file. Representing just 1.8 percent of the total population in the 1926 census, Jews comprised 5.2 percent of party members in 1922 and 4.3 percent in 1927; in Belorussia, they accounted for 24 percent of the party membership. The proportional decline did not signify an absolute decrease, as total membership rose in this period from slightly more than 400,000 to almost 800,000. Of the Jewish party members in Ukraine, 67.5 percent were classified as workers and 28.8 percent as white-collar employees; in Russia, 47.8 percent were workers and 48 percent were white collar. The size of the party continued to grow until 1933, when there were more than 2.2 million full members; it then fell, topping the 2 million mark again only in 1941. In both 1922 and in 1927, Jews were the sole ethnic group, with women comprising more than 20 percent of its membership (24.1% in 1922 and 23.0% in 1927).

…Extrapolation leads to the conclusion that Jews remained, into the 1960s at least, the most party-saturated nationality in the Soviet Union, and in terms of absolute numbers, the largest non-Slavic group of Communists, with the possible exception of the Tatars. At the same time, the party saturation of the Soviet Jewish community fell from about 300 percent of the national average in 1940 to between 140 and 180 percent in 1965. However, once the Jewish emigration movement gained momentum, and the Jewish population continued to drop as a result of both emigration and negative natural growth, the percentage of Jewish Communists among all party members nationwide fell progressively, although in certain areas their proportion in the Jewish community actually grew.

This showed Jews as over-represented in both the Revolution and the ruling parties that came in its aftermath until Stalin began his purges, most of which were apparently bloodless, that removed Jews from power and made anti-Semitism part of the official doctrine of the Soviet Union.

At that point, however, the idea had been cemented in European imagination that Jews were the driving force behind the Bolshevik revolution, and this idea remained consistent for some time, especially given high Jewish participation in Communist and Socialist organizations in the West.

Today we are beginning to see discussion of this portion of that segment of history, including an acknowledgement of the high number of Jews involved in war crimes in the Soviet Union:

An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.

…Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We’ll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD’s special department and the organization’s chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

Sever Plocker, the author of this piece, makes an important distinction here: Communism is a “messianic ideology” which converts Jewish tendencies toward trying to do good into apocalyptic visions. This appeal snared many in the West, such that in the 1930s most “intellectuals” had Communist sympathies.

In fact, in America, the composition of the Communist party was very similar to the frequency of Jewish participation as found in the Soviet Union:

The so-called “Old Left” was led by the Communist Party (CPUSA), and that organization almost collapsed after 1956, when its members learned, to their sorrow, that the Soviet state they had been worshiping for decades was, under Joseph Stalin, actually a murderous tyranny.

…In 1939, according to Professor Klehr, some 40 percent of the 39,000 CPUSA members were Jewish, and concentrated in big cities, New York in particular. Half of the party’s cultural apparatus, centered in New York, was Jewish, added Tony Michels.

When Henry Wallace ran for president on the Communist-inspired Progressive Party ticket in 1948, about one third of his vote came from Jews.

This furthered the view among Western leaders that Jews were associated with Communism, and was information that the Nazis were almost certainly aware of. Douglas Reed writes of the international opinion regarding Jewish participation in Bolshevism and Communism:

At the time, the facts were available. The British Government’s White Paper of 1919 (Russia, No. 1, a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism) quoted the report sent to Mr. Balfour in London in 1918 by the Netherlands Minister at Saint Petersburg, M. Oudendyke: “Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.” The United States Ambassador, Mr. David R. Francis, reported similarly: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.” M. Oudendyke’s report was deleted from later editions of the British official publication and all such authentic documents of that period are now difficult to obtain. Fortunately for the student, one witness preserved the official record.
This was Mr. Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times, who experienced the Bolshevik revolution. The French edition of his book included the official Bolshevik lists of the membership of the ruling revolutionary bodies (they were omitted from the English edition).
These records show that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprized 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919, were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly “Socialist” or other non-Communist parties (during that early period the semblance of “opposition” was permitted, to beguile the masses, accustomed under the Czar to opposition parties) were 55 Jews and 6 others. All the names are given in the original documents reproduced by Mr. Wilton.

Maybe all of these guys were anti-Semites; maybe they were not, or the truth was somewhere in the middle. It is important to avoid committing the fallacy of accidentally cherry-picking data, because as anyone can figure with some basic math, most Jews were not involved.

It may be that Jews have a higher rate of Leftism. There is an idealism in the Jewish faith and culture that always seeks a pacifism and balance, as one would expect from a mercantile and not warrior society, combined with an honest goodwill. In my experience, most people of Jewish heritage have been generous, thoughtful and highly opinionated, and these characteristics taken together lead toward a proclivity toward idealistic beliefs such as egalitarianism, and anyone who looks seriously at egalitarianism realizes that it is unstable without socialism, which in turn requires a strong state to protect it, much as we now have in the West.

These documents are not mentioned here to fuel the anti-Semites, but instead to do the exact opposite: to point out that wherever a group is foreign among a national culture, it will feel like an outsider, and thus be inclined toward political activity, at which point it will act out its own cultural mandate rather than that of the host culture. This is why diversity does not work: each group works in self-interest, and according to its own inclinations, as Herzl noted long ago.

To avoid future Holocausts, we need some clarity on this issue so that it can be fairly discussed without devolving into the kind of scapegoating that leads to pogromism. Then, we need a safe homeland for Jews, which means an Israel without rampaging Palestinians blowing themselves up on buses and at cafes. This assertion proves controversial for the West, which being Leftist has aligned itself with the underdog in the Palestinians instead of the more successful Jewish population in Israel.

It would also make sense for Jews in the West to right now start abandoning radical Leftism. With a Jewish candidate for president, Bernie Sanders, running on a socialist platform, and Jews making half of the donations to the Democrat party, Jewish visibility as a voice of the Left endangers them as cultural backlash collides with the Left. People have seen what our future would be like under the Obama-Clinton regime, and are starting to realize how much the Left has re-shaped American and European society over the past century, and the radical response seen with the election of Donald J. Trump and Brexit signifies that the pushback is still in its infancy but gaining strength rapidly.

As we transition from failed liberal democracy and the socialist state, we run a high risk of re-enacting old and bad patterns including pogroms. It is better to face this issue honestly now than to allow the possibility of violence to emerge unchanged and bloodthirsty as it does when a scapegoat is successfully created.

Internet Collapse May Be Consumerism Collapse

Friday, April 28th, 2017

Consumerism had a good thing going. We invented all of these cool gadgets for the home and personal care back in the 1950s, and as long as we had people, we could sell them and make a tidy profit.

But then consumerism took over the culture, as it always seems to do. Planned obsolescence became a thing; so did low-cost junk made abroad. And then people slowed down in buying because when everything is sort of worthless, why care much about what you buy?

No matter what option you choose — unless you have real luxury spending dollars like a billionaire — it will perform adequately and die within a few years, so there is no point investing much effort into the choice. Sort of like how the Soviet system faded away into heat death…

This follows a pattern we see in most business, and in fact everything in life: it starts out as a new idea that few understand, then gets accepted and the load of humans that it supports grows, which requires it to raise more money, which happens simultaneously with the acceptance of the new idea as part of normal life and thus a lowering of its margins. At that point, the business is in a death cycle.

As Plato pointed out, the same thing happens to civilizations. They start out idealistic, then deviate into materialism, at which point they cycle through aristocracy, military rule, business rule and finally democracy before self-destructing in tyranny. The point is that a new innovation cannot be expected to maintain itself, but requires an active pressure to enforce quality, in a Darwinian sense, or it bloats and self-destructs.

Consumerism has bloated and self-destructed. Refrigerators are so bad now that you need to purchase a ten-year warranty to get five years out of them; in the 1950s, they made refrigerators that lasted for decades. We have clearly degenerated, and the latest victim is the internet.

When the internet was new, it gave us all these new capabilities. But over the next twenty years, it became clear that some were actually useful and the rest hype. However, the hype got the most focus from the media, because it was most like their own business model.

Now ad payments are falling because the people watching the ads are not actual consumers but cube slaves time wasting at their McJobs. As a result, the internet economy is imploding. Today, Paul Joseph Watson sees his business model collapse; tomorrow, Twitter or Facebook will.

This collapse follows the same pattern as consumerism. An initially high-value product attracted the herd, got overburdened with expenses to support all those people, and then folded inward as its relevance declined with its novelty.

We are seeing the convergence of internet and consumerism collapses already:

In March, MarketWatch estimated that Amazon will destroy 1.5 million retail jobs in the next five years. And with its push into self-driving trucks, drone delivery, automated grocery stores and more, the site said the total number of lost jobs would likely be more than 2 million, concluding, “Could Amazon actually kill more American jobs than China did? It’s quite likely.”

…Critics are beginning to wonder if Amazon — with such control over retail sales, jobs, ad dollars and more — is good for America.

…“Retail always evolves and reflects society, and right now, consumers are getting more value for their money,” said Richard Kestenbaum, a partner in Triangle Capital. “That makes our society stronger and it forces other retailers to be more creative and competitive.”

In other words, Amazon has become more efficient, and so is displacing most of the rest of the market. However, this will cause collapse by crushing margins on these products, which will in turn mean that they will be of less quality in the future. Soviet-style.

The worst case scenario is that Amazon gobbles up a bunch of smaller industries and then finds its own margins falling, and then goes down with a mighty crash, leaving the consumers with no options.

Looking at this, it makes sense to advance a theory of economy inefficiency. In contrast to the idea that lower price is always better, this theory states that there is a “sweet spot” in cost where a product is cheap enough for the upper half of society to afford it, but still expensive enough that there is incentive to compete on the basis of quality.

Consumerism fails this test, and the internet has as well. In their greed to increase shareholder prices, these companies destroy more than they create, and leave behind mediocre substitutes. This cannot last, like Soviet product entropy, and will cascade in failure together, leaving a void.

Recommended Reading