Posts Tagged ‘third-world’
Monday, January 9th, 2017
Whenever a large group of people seems to enjoy talking about something, back yourself up and stop to think: it is a lie. Whatever the Crowd likes is always a lie, usually a paired distraction from the real problem and scapegoating of an easier target so we can beat up wimps and feel like we have done something epic.
But it is always a lie because the Crowd always chooses based on what is mentally convenient for individuals in groups, not for someone who cares about the results of his actions and therefore needs a realistic read on the world. That person, the lone “individualist,” is in fact not an individualist but a unitivist, or someone who has bonded with his world by beating down his own solipsism.
Human perception is usually defined by psychological need, not realistic adaptation. In the way of nature, a few adapt while the rest live in illusion, and over time, the adapted gradually predominate over the rest. Human civilization reverses this, of course, because the rest have more votes than the adapted.
We refer to people engaging in fantasy-as-reality behavior as LARPing, autism or sperging but in reality, it is just a nerdy version of what humanity normally does. In the ghetto, everyone is an undiscovered star; in the third world, everyone is a king; in modern America, each person is a precious snowflake. This psychology is more consistent among humans than varied.
The biggest LARP these days is talk about “The Collapse” or the coming apocalypse. The delusional people come in several flavors: some think it will be climate change, others economic collapse, still others WWIII, and the really crazy think that the Rapture will come and Satan will rule this world while the righteous get beamed to the moon for free french fries. None of these are wholly wrong, but they are minimally right, meaning that they are ingredients not end products.
For example: Climate change is the effect of too many people and too much concrete displacing our forests, which is why the usual idiots are raving on about automobiles instead of looking at the actual problem; economic collapse is the result of a circular Ponzi scheme made by our liberal leaders to keep demand-side economics afloat; WWIII will happen when multiple bankrupt nations look at each other and realize war is the only way that their presidents get to stay in power; the truth of Satan ruling this world is that people are liars and the Lord of Lies wins whenever they are not oppressed by the small minority who are not habitually dishonest to themselves and others.
In contrast to all of these Hollywood fantasies, we have a pretty good idea of what collapse looks like, because it has happened many times before. In fact, collapse is the destination to which 99% of societies go, with a lucky 1% escaping for longer than a few hundred years, mainly because humans are pathological reality-deniers and reality denial destroys societies. It is not difficult to make an enduring society once one accepts that what most people “think” is true and “intend” is in fact the usual brew of impulse control problems, disguised cleverly.
When a society collapses, it just begins to fade away. Social organizations stop being effective but retain their power, which enables them to extract money from the population like cops taking bribes. People get stupider because the intelligent, tasking with keeping the herd in hand, have become exhausted and died out from too much babysitting of idiot monkeys. Soon, disorder becomes the norm, and the true nature of humanity comes out: individualists doing whatever they want and ignoring the consequences so they have more time to feel powerful inside their minds.
At that point, a former first-world societies resembles any of the majority of third-world societies that make up human civilization. People will live on little, have no future, and produce nothing lasting. Instead they will simply exist, in a timeless fashion that demands almost nothing from the individual and so is popular, with the trade-off that nothing can be done because nothing really works.
A few wealthy mostly-whites will rule over a vast horde of Caucasian-Asian-African hybrids. Mindless tedium will become the norm, and idiots will rule because the voters will have an average IQ in the high 80s or low 90s and be completely incapable of making even moderately complex decisions. The SHFT is LARP. Instead, it is a long slow decline into irrelevance.
Wednesday, January 4th, 2017
To live in the third world is to be oblivious. Not just to people around you, but to the world around you. You know what you have and where it can get you in the short term, and anything else is occult science that you cannot comprehend.
As written in a story of third-world exodus:
Jonice was the second to come to New York. She was dazzled. “It was when I arrived here that I realised Brazil was Third World,” she says. “We knew nothing.”
This only makes sense. You know what you grew up in as normal, and anything better than that is unknown to you unless (1) you can access it with imagination, which few can or (2) you experience it. This woman experienced it, and suddenly realized that in relative measurement, her home country was backward and moribund.
Such behavior implies a great apathy. It is not so much an obliviousness toward the world as a focus on the self, assuming that what is there in front of the individual is the most important thing in the world and therefore… it cannot be better anywhere else. Think of Russians seeing American grocery stores for the first time, or the French when Napoleon was defeated. An illusion washes away.
Third world apathy finds its root in individualism. No societies more individualistic than the third world; in the third world, all of the focus goes toward the self, and almost none toward the world, which allows the individual to live in a bubble of his own ego.
In contrast, societies that rise do so by suppressing individuality by substituting a goal or series of goals for the individual. Hierarchy, reverence and cultural values relegate the individual to its proper role, as a means to the end of doing right and having an intense experience of life. Failure to have these things reverses that, so that the whole world is the means to the end of the individual.
From that viewpoint, only corruption comes. When everything in life is disposable, it soon all becomes destroyed, and then, only the individual remains: isolated, lonely, meaningless, pointless and ultimately sick of itself.
Tuesday, September 6th, 2016
As the media machine struggles to make sense of what is happening, it repeats the old tropes. Conservative and liberal writers have taken to their keyboards to write about how leftism is good, and anything else is bad. They claim the opposite, that they are attacking specific movements, but only non-Leftist movements are attacked.
That leads to the kind of schoolyard name calling that we see in this article from Leftist voicebox The New York Times:
The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the alt-right “a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.” Most Americans hadn’t heard about the alt-right until this election, and some not until last month, when Hillary Clinton gave a speech in Reno, Nev., linking Donald Trump to it.
The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute says it is “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.” Through his online writings and YouTube channel, Mr. Spencer is a key player in the social-media universe where this core group of Trump supporters get their “news,” from sources with which most people aren’t familiar. A quick scan shows that immigration is not only their most important issue, it’s pretty much their only issue.
“Immigration is a kind of proxy war — and maybe a last stand — for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile,” Mr. Spencer wrote in a National Policy Institute column.
The Left bemoans this as identity politics, which means voting according to your tribe’s self-interest. It is acceptable for homosexuals, Jews, African-Americans, Mexicans, Japenese, Muslims, etc. to act in their own self-interest, but not Europeans. Why? Because the goal of Leftism is to destroy the majority culture and replace it with an ideology.
We know this because history shows it to us. The Soviet Union bragged about how diversity was its strength. Rome became increasingly diverse in its final years, as did Athens, by the account of Plato. In each case, the rulers imported new people to shatter the culture, heritage and traditions of the society so that the people could be made a means to the end of that ruler’s power.
That is the decision before us at this time: be not racist, so that our leaders can replace enough of us to have permanent control, or be called racists and say out loud that diversity does not and cannot function as a positive policy, therefore it should be replaced. That means America for its founding group, the Western Europeans.
Across all continents settled by Western Europeans, the elites have had one super-weapon which they use liberally (no pun intended) and that is the epithet ¡RACIST!. Starting even before the Civil War, the elites decided they wanted to replace our people with others, first Southern and Eastern Europeans, and later, other racial groups. This made the job of being an elite leader easier, because no cultural consensus conflicted with the power of the State.
Since WWII, it has been easy — too easy — for the elites, since Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini were all nationalists, or those who believe a nation should be defined by its founding ethnic group only. This opposed the agenda of the ever-expanding Leftist State, and thwarted its power, so it needed to be destroyed.
This agenda was enforced by the social perception that “everybody knows” and “everybody agrees” what is true, and therefore, those who think differently are not just wrong, but wrong because they are bad or stupid and ignorant. This is a fundamentally social method of controlling the thinking of the masses, a type of hive-mind imposed by an appeal to the weakness and pretense of individuals.
Except that now, people are willing to be called ¡RACIST! and ignorant because they realize that this is it: this is our last shot and preventing the takeover of our civilization by the Left.
Next stop, Venezuela. Or Brazil. But it will not be the future we have been told that we have. Nope, all the wealth and technology is slowly going away as social order further disintegrates, and then we have nothing but the type of third-world strongmen we are familiar with from the news, ruling over a banana republic where everyone is corrupt, that never produces anything important ever again.
This is why events like the Donald Trump candidacy, and Brexit, have shaken the establishment to its core, but more importantly, have shocked its supporters, who are counting on riding the coattails of the “right side of history” to personal success, and being thoughtless like people who litter in national parks, care not for the consequences of their actions. Witness history being made:
The first was an almost universal surprise, since it was a truism that Leavers were a tiny handful of fruitcakes. A defeat for Remain was thus unthinkable. In fact there had always been widespread opposition to the EU among voters at all social levels, even though political parties, the media, and most national institutions had treated the idea with contempt and its adherents as eccentric at best. Suddenly the referendum rules meant that Leavers were on television making the case for Brexit nightly and, contrary to their caricature, they seemed quite reasonable. They persuaded some voters to switch to Leave, and Leave voters to be more confident of their own opinions. As the campaign developed, the polls swung towards Leave and many late polls showed the two sides as neck-and-neck. A Leave victory, though by no means inevitable, should have been seen as pretty likely.
In fact the reaction that followed surprise was a set of variations on horror, outrage, indignation, anguish and a desire for revenge. That was on the Remain side; the Leave side was pleased but not extravagantly so. For a while it simply pocketed its unexpected success and watched, bemused, from the wings while Remainers rioted angrily stage-centre. They plainly wanted the referendum result annulled but they were never quite able to explain why. Obviously they couldn’t say simply that they wanted a different result. So they had to invent a series of specious reasons that in their eyes cast doubt on its validity—that the Leave campaign was xenophobic and racist, that its voters (though not Remain voters) had not understood what they were voting for, that it had “told lies” (uniquely so in political campaigns, apparently), and so on and so forth. But the argument advanced with most passion by Remainers and repeated most often in the left-wing press ran as follows: because old uneducated people supporting Leave had outvoted young people with degrees voting Remain, these miserable old geezers had “robbed the young of their future” and, well, it wasn’t right.
We are on a precipice. The past seventy years of conservatism, 227 years of democracy, and thousand years of steadily marching toward egalitarianism have betrayed us; every year, more problems occur and our society is less the beautiful, hopeful, ambitious and excellent place it once was. Instead, we accept inferior substitutes, and are forced by social pressure into denying that oblivion threatens us.
And yet, slowly it dawns on people. This is not just another election, after which things continue as normal. Normal is terrible: our governments are broke, our jobs are slavery, our cities are cesspools and our future is worse. It will be a long, slow, painful slide down to third-world levels of oblivion. And what can we do?
The first step — the most difficult, they say — is admitting that we have a problem:
One of the paradoxes—there are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate it.
Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?
What is the future of post-Enlightenment Western Civilization? If we search our hearts, we know the answer: going out like Rome or Athens, leaving behind a civilization which is thoroughly dysfunctional and produces nothing. We are not choosing which of these relatively inconsequential platforms to adopt, but fighting for survival, starting by reserving the ability to choose to beat down our potential tyrants in the future.
In the EU and the USA, the governments are basically the same: heavy regulations, social welfare programs, Leftist agenda, and a desire to replace their citizens with third-world people or “minority” groups, who always vote Leftist. They never vote right-wing, because it is against their instinct, since it would require admitting that their homelands did it wrong and that is why they are third-world, not because of colonialism or sunspots or whatever they’re claiming this week. And so, with a few statistically-insignificant exceptions, they will never do it.
That is what globalism means, when you distill down the meaning: worldwide trade because the Leftist empire has worldwide control, at least of the first world. Globalism = Leftism. Multiculturalism/diversity is the inevitable result of Leftism as it seeks to gain this global control. All else is noise and fantasy; we either destroy this, or it destroys us.
Monday, August 1st, 2016
An outside observer who treads into this corner of the Internet might find himself wondering what could possibly draw reasonable and contemplative people to the far right. The brand of Tea party style conservatism they see in the media is easier for them to understand than the far right, that is never allowed to speak for itself, but always depicted as a cartoonishly evil set of ideas, grounded in little other than cruelty and hatred.
The first and foremost thing that anyone who wishes to understand the far right must come to realize is that the majority of human existence today is characterized by mediocrity and pointless suffering. We should do whatever lies within our means to maintain the blessing of being the exception to that rule. This is not by any means an exaggeration and those who think otherwise are hopelessly naive, sheltered from this brutal reality by their own pollyannaism and the kindness of others. The vast majority of people today fail to comprehend what we stand to lose.
It is the tendency of men to shelter those they care about from the endless horrors they encounter on their journeys. Veterans generally did not speak of what they saw in the trenches to their wives and children. Similarly, those who have witnessed firsthand the fruits of what Margaret Sanger once referred to as “stupidly cruel sentimentalism” tend not to speak of what they have seen, out of fear of adding insult to the injury of its victims and alienating their peers.
The West has a habit of blaming itself for the suffering it sees throughout the third world, out of fear of the more troublesome reality that the biggest burden that has befallen the third world is its own people. It can’t be hard to puncture through this myth for anyone who doesn’t wish to close his eyes to what he sees. The third world creates its own suffering.
Consider the recent news that came out of Malawi. Parents there hire adult men to have sex with their adolescent daughters, to bring “good fortune” to their family. The government decided to arrest a man who had admitted in a news article that despite being HIV positive he continues to go around abusing young girls in exchange for payment from their parents.
My imagination fails to come up with any means through which capitalism, white supremacy, imperialism, orientalism or any of the other white sins taught to gullible students in colleges around the world could ever have pursuaded parents to pay adult men to rape their own children. It seems to me a product of little other than the third world ways that characterize third world people.
It would be nice if this type of pointless suffering were unique to Malawi, but we all know it isn’t. In South Africa we witness infants who are raped by adult men, convinced that this could cure their HIV. In Tanzania albinos are hacked to pieces by witch doctors who believe their body parts to contain magic powers. In the jungle of Congo, marauding bands of soldiers slaughter pygmies and eat their flesh with similar motives.
In Cameroon and most of Western Africa, mothers use hard stones heated in fires to mutilate the budding breasts of their daughters, to make them look unattractive to men and teenage boys who would otherwise go out to rape them. From the coast of Guinea to the coast of Somalia, millions of parents every year take their daughters, press their limbs against the floor so they can not flee, take a knife or a piece of broken glass and begin to remove their genitalia until they gaze with satisfaction at the bloody remnants.
In Yemen, eight year old girls die of internal injuries on wedding nights with their adult husbands. In Iraq, elderly widows order teenage girls to be raped by men, so that they become unwanted as wives and willing to serve as suicide bombers against rival tribes. In Syria, young girls in refugee camps are sold by their families to wealthy Saudis looking for a bride.
In Bangladesh, criminal gangs pay doctors to amputate the limbs of young children they have abducted. Without their limbs, the children receive more money through begging and thus prove to be a better source of income. In Europe today, a nomadic underclass of illiterate beggars that arrived here from the Indian subcontinent hundreds of years ago throws their newborn children at passerby, so that their accomplices can steal their wallets. Third world people are keen to keep their third world habits.
I have the fortune of having a friend who worked in a medical clinic in Senegal. In 1985, this country had 6 million people, by 2010 it had twice as many. Today the average woman there has five children. Parents give birth to children they can not provide for and send them to Marabouts, Sufi Imams who are the spiritual successors to animist witch doctors who were converted to Islam in the 19th century. They believe Quranic texts to have magical powers and sell amulets with Quranic texts.
They teach these children to recite the verses, but any ability to understand the Arab words they pronounce is irrelevant. Instead the children are made to beg on the streets, where they recite the verses for passerby. If they do not earn enough money through begging, the Marabout beats them. My friend worked in a clinic in Senegal, where an abundance of young children were regularly brought in, beaten senseless by their Marabout. He had the image engraved in his mind of one young girl in particular, who had her upper legs beaten to a bloody pulp beyond recognition.
It is these nations, where suffering is greatest, that amplify their populations most rapidly. In Niger, the population has grown from 2.5 million in 1950, to around 20 million today, projected to expand to an estimated 210 million by 2100 according to the United Nations. The women in this nation are monopolized by a small group of men, who give favors to those who deliver them the most children.
This is what characterizes the third world: A perpetually expanding cycle of cruelty and violence to which there seems to be no end. The people there have nothing that could enrich Western civilization, no habits, inventions or philosophies that we are missing out on. There is no deeper meaning their suffering serves, no lesson they could learn from it, no spiritual growth that could emerge from it. There is nothing they have to deliver, except for the frightening prospect that they might one day succeed at dragging the rest of the world down to their mode of existence.
On top of this immeasurably deep ocean of misery and ceaseless mediocrity floats a little lifeboat known as Europe, that shines a beacon of light upon the whole world. Providence has ordained that its passengers shall be burdened with the challenge of ensuring they do not sink into this deep dark void of nothingness that lies beneath them. If they choose to give up on this struggle and let their humble little vessel be consumed by the vast waves now traveling in their direction, all hope is lost.
Sunday, May 15th, 2016
Most of us by now have heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where every person does not understand his limitations and will not comprehend anything more complex than his mind can grasp, thus will assume it’s nonsense and he is right.
But let us look at the flip side: to anyone smarter than certain person, the actions of that person will be mistaken for the actions of a smarter person, and misinterpreted.
The simplest way to see this in action is to watch Leftist and third-world grievance groups. These people are not the brightest even among their own ethnic groups. They come up with a stream of theories, perceived slights and injuries, and the like, and smart people sit down with a cup of tea and try to figure out what they are on about.
Smarter people — in degrees, depending on intelligence — look at a situation, come up with a theory, test it and act on it. They are generally driven by honesty because dishonesty leads to bad data, confusion and screwup.
Dumber people — also in degrees — know only what they personally want, and so when they encounter a situation, they find something in it they can manipulate to their advantage. They are driven by de facto dishonesty because they think of nothing but themselves.
Thus when Islamists take over a school and demand “respect,” or Black Lives Matter demands “justice,” or even white Democrats start hive-mind fetishizing about transgender bathrooms, there is no factual or logical underpinning to what they do. They are simply emoting from the Ego.
The sooner we learn to recognize and ignore this stupidity, the better off all of us — including liberals and third-world peoples — will be.
Friday, July 3rd, 2015
Pluralism, or the idea that multiple standards of values and behavior can co-exist within the same society, carries a high cost that takes years to visualize. If this cost popped up immediately, people would recognize it, but because it hides behind years and complexity it is worse than invisible to them; they actively deny any symptoms of it that they do happen to observe.
In a mono-cultural society, each citizen faces the day with the question of how to do what is right. Since whatever gods may exist left us no writing on the walls, we must infer what is right from what has worked for us in the past. This raises questions of “who is us?” and “what does ‘worked’ mean?” The former addresses both cultural group and divisions within it like class, and the latter addresses standards of values that are unique to each culture. For a German, “success” has more to do with efficiency and architectural elegance than an Italian, for whom success involves a greater degree of leisure and aesthetic beauty. Either way, a standard of values and behavior is defined.
In a pluralistic society, multiple standards of values and behavior co-exist, which means in theory that people would act according to the intersection of those. In reality, it means that people obey the level of performance held in common between them, which creates a bias toward the lowest standard because anything higher is not shared, so the weakest link in the chain defines the chain. When put into practice, this means that people do the absolute minimum possible and achieve mediocre results while attempting to avoid offending all of the groups in the pluralistic society, each of which is struggling to preserve its own values by asserting taboos and rituals. Taboos reflect things that “offend” or disturb, and rituals are activities which affirm the importance of the group.
As a result, people in a pluralistic society act not toward what is right but what is most convenient that avoids offending others. This creates a negative standard of behavior where people are not reaching for any positive result, only trying to avoid offending others or wasting time rising above the mediocre minimum. For this reason, all pluralistic societies tend to be places with low standards, but many bickering enclaves, which causes internal friction that further lowers the common standard until the society is barely a society at all. This is the condition in which most of the world exists and to which most people wish to be lowered, because it places so few restrictions on them that they can indulge in self-aggrandizing egomania and “feel” better about themselves without having to achieve anything of note.
Wednesday, May 27th, 2015
At its founding, America was a WASP nation. This acronym, originally meaning “White Anglo-Saxon Protestants,” generally included those of indigenous Western European heritage regardless of religion. English, Scots, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians, northern French and Austrians fell under this banner. Genetic outlier and admixed groups like Greeks, Italians, southern French, Slavs, Jews, Poles and Irish did not.
As industry boomed in the northeast, it needed more menial laborers: unskilled, repetitive task-doers who could be paid minimal wages which would, relativistically, be seen as a great step up in condition of life. The importation began with a flood of Irish, then Italians, Greeks and Poles. The WASP establishment disliked this process but rather than fight it, retreated behind a wall of money and exclusivity. The fuse was lit however, and during the Civil War it became clear how useful these “New Americans” were: they could be counted on to wage war on those more prosperous or simply more selective than themselves. With the advent of massed infantry charges and repeating rifles, the skill of warriors became less important than having a willing mass which would charge forward when the horn blew.
When the new century dawned, the world wars required that the West — ironically like both Napoleon and Genghis Khan — adopt a pose of being accepting of all as a means of differentiating itself from those nasty, exclusive nationalist and monarchist states. Each war increased the propaganda for acceptance and solidarity based on position, such as political stance or economic position as workers, and this enabled the West to produce the human wave it needed to win its wars. Unfortunately, in a pattern that would repeat time and again, most of the casualties were from the original WASP contingent. When you read the names in the old 13 colonies churches, you see mostly English, German and Scots names with a smattering of Dutch and French. When you read the casualties from the first two world wars, the same pattern prevails.
During the second world war American propaganda reached new intensity. Not only did it set the stage for the future of “perpetual war,” or constant definition of our purpose as struggle against impediments to ideological objectives such as democracy, but it also established egalitarian dogma as the basis of why we considered ourselves exceptional. No longer was America the “city on the hill” for its morality of doing the right thing, but for its morality of inclusivity. Not surprisingly, the so-called Greatest Generation — with non-WASPs more prevalent because of their lower casualties — voted for a series of disastrous immigration acts, first in 1958 and then in 1965, which guaranteed that the new population of the country would be mostly non-WASP.
Liberals rejoiced. Their line for years had been that the snooty WASPs, who retreated from the Irish/Italian/Polish immigration waves to gated communities, were the source of our misery and injustice. In their thinking, if the WASPs were removed, a new Utopia would reign. That event happened in the 1990s, when the work-ethic of the 1950s combined with the politics of 1968 as the Baby Boomers assumed positions of authority across the board, and the immigration that had been nascent even when Ronald Reagan made his 1987 compromise became a flood. The new rules had been posted: liberals are now in control, and everyone is welcome to come get a slice of the American pie. What occurred was predictable, since people act both in their own interests and through the path of least resistance. The third world fled its homelands and poured into the West, both America and Europe. Unable to attack the flood politically for fear of being seen as Hitler or the antiquated WASP establishment, conservatives retreated.
No one called the liberals on the failure of their plan. They promised a new land of peace, justice and equality with the demise of the WASPs. Instead what they produced was a faddish land where the new elites, generally of the former immigrant stock, chased after trends and clickbait statements to make to the press, while the newest immigrant groups joined in the civil rights experience by using the same justification that achieved affirmative action and federal benefits for African-Americans. This resulted in a society dedicated to taking from its founders and giving to new warm bodies, and no one could criticize it, or they would be branded as racist in the media and lose their jobs, homes, spouses, friends and legal protection.
Fast-forward twenty years from that point and the Rainbow Nation is in chaos. Race riots are a regular occurrence to which the only solution seems to be not to police non-white groups, who still have disproportionate rates of crime and victimization compared to WASP groups. Affirmative action has not resulted in widespread equality, but it has resulted in widespread expense, since the law does not recognize the difference between a qualified minority candidate and an unqualified one. Even more, as Robert Putnam discovered in his landmark study, diversity increases alienation and distrust even within ethnic groups. As our presidential candidates openly admit to treasonous scandals, our military is embroiled in corruption, and control by moneyed interests reaches a new peak, we might ask the role that our lack of cooperation with each other plays in those developments.
Our choice is clear: we either go back to what worked, which was a Western European only nation, or we continue down the path of diversity which is the policy that produced most third world nations. As Ann Coulter clarified for us all, this is not only a “clash of civilizations” but clash of civilization-models. In particular, our method works better; the third world method works less well; by merging our method with the third world method, we will end up with the third world method, and no one will benefit:
You fled that culture. Because it is a — there are a lot of problems with that culture. Hopefully, it can be changed. But we can share our culture with other nations without bringing all of their people here. When you bring the people here, you bring those cultures here. That includes honor killings, it includes uncles raping their nieces, it includes dumping litter all over, it includes not paying your taxes, it includes paying bribes to government officials. That isn’t our culture.
You can see the successful cultures in the world. They have been studied ad infinitum, America is about — it is the best in the world and we are about to lose it. And everyone who lives here is going to lose that. And the people who are going to suffer the most are the weakest ones. It’s the women. It’s the children. … No country has ever had the sort of respect for women that Anglo America does and that is going out the door.
Ann might as well have extrapolated to Western European culture in general: no society has had so much reverence for learning, for excellence instead of mere participation, for sacredness and sacred roles to the genders, for respect for nature, and for caring for children. Compared to us the rest of the world is a cold, dark and unforgiving place, and yet in our best of days, we were also the most warlike, vigorously squashing whatever offended our values. There is a connection: among other things, Western Europe is the culture of the hard rule. We know what we like, and what we do not, and we eject the bad and multiply the good, while being skeptical of the unknowns. At least, that is how we were during the best of our days. Since the rise of liberalism, these positive attributes have been attenuated.
The facts of this complex dilemma take two dimensions. Our society makes the first taboo, which is noticing that genetic differences result from societies which take the path we did not. The second is more complex, and relates more closely to Putnam’s revelations: homogenous societies, with a strong cultural and ethnic identity, provide the best basis for working together and therefore thrive in a lack of internal friction. Even more important is the notion of identity, and having pride in who you are and your history, so that you want to continue this beyond the threshold of personal convenience. Identity turns our method into a way of life and a tendency imbued deep within every soul. It means we do not need constant government to prevent third-world style chaos, but have high-trust societies where cooperation is more prevalent than coercion. We might call this the “first world method” because all first-world societies became that way under its rule.
In contrast, third world societies are the most individualistic, “free,” autonomous, cheerful, tolerant places on earth. There, you do whatever you want. In exchange, you have less social order and fewer functional institutions. In other words, they are closer to the state before civilization. This is why the vast majority of third-world societies are low on social standards; the focus is on the autonomy of the individual, and the unintended secondary consequences are the lack of social order, rule by warlords and gangs, corruption and high crime. But to a true individualist, this is a benefit not a curse. The individual is restrained by nothing and can do whatever he or she wants with no negative feedback from society and no enforcement of standards. These societies have more freedom than the first world, and their tolerance is such that they admit any newcomers, which is why almost all of them are mixed-race. They are also highly sexually liberated for the most part, with no tedious social standards forcing boys and girls to wait until long-term commitment for sex (even in countries with strong putative sexual morality, the reality is more liberated). The third world is the liberal ideal, although liberals want to hang on to first-world conveniences and will attempt to do so through totalitarianism, which as we see in the Russian, Venezuelan, Cuban and East German experiments, does not quite work out as expected.
In the West, the first-world method resulted in our meteoric rise to the top of the world. We then colonized it, bringing with us technology in exchange for what the left calls “oppression” but was more likely the grim process of beating radical individualists into conformity so they could actually achieve something. Where we have retreated, technology remains, but it has now become a tool of the corrupt warlords and gangs rather than a means of restraining them. In other words, the third-world method has absorbed the first-world one. The same is being attempted in the United States and European Union, but even now the writing on the wall suggests this will lead to more of what the rest of the world is doing. Nine out of ten humans live in third-world conditions or near to them, with the Western Europeans in the US and EU as the outliers. Naturally the rest of the group wants us to conform, and stop rising above their level, so that no one feels challenged by the possibility of life being better. Mediocrity loves company.
How can we pull out of this tailspin? The germ of it lies in accepting Western European exceptionalism: our method works better, but we cannot share it with others by inviting them here, only by succeeding and making them jealous and angry to the point where they implement it in their home countries. Diversity does not work. It cannot work because it is paradoxical. It assumes that all people are the same and that beating the same rules into them will achieve the same results. Yet the lesson that colonialism taught was that this approach does not work either. Each group must develop the “first-world method” on its own; it cannot be taught. Western Europeans must withdraw to our own spaces in America and Europe, and eject everyone else to take our lessons home to their countries, which badly need improvement. It is not our responsibility to fix them, because if we assume that, it takes the burden off of those countries to improve themselves. And then we would live in a WASP world with one vital change, which is that we will remove the “gated communities” plus cheap labor formula of the early WASP decline. That would look more like this promising vision from South Africa:
But in the midst of a sinking South Africa, there is one beacon of hope: the Afrikaner self-governed town of Orania.
Orania in today’s South Africa is a bit like Asterix’s village in conquered Gaul. The town is a private entity that has striven since its founding in 1991 to provide a self-determined homeland for Afrikaners. Here Afrikaans is the official language. All work, even manual labour, is done by Afrikaners. In that way, jobs for poor Afrikaners are created. There is no interference from government in how Oranians run their businesses, and there are many one-man enterprises. Apart from having to pay a low yearly registration tax, we are left alone.
Crime is virtually non-existent in Orania. Here is no violent crime, and rare incidents of theft, committed by fellow Afrikaners, are quickly resolved; in such cases, the transgressor has to do community work for minor offences, or otherwise has to leave town.
Notice the vital difference: this community requires affirmative and constructive participation, and it wields a great threat to those who do not conform, which is exile. Much as Europeans sent their unwanted to Tripoli and Americans sent them into Mexico, this population can eject those who commit crimes. The point is that being in this society is a privilege, not a “right,” and that only those who uphold the first-world method get to stay there. This makes it something to reach for by its citizens, and something to emulate by the third world. It also ends the tedious duality of importing third-worlders to do our cheap unskilled jobs, then a generation later noticing the vast social impact of creating a third world within the first. Send the Irish, Italians and Poles back; send the Mexicans, Chinese and Africans back. Restore America and Europe to their Western European roots, because that is when we were not just barely functional but great, and it gave us the pride to have the will to work together.
Wednesday, March 18th, 2015
As I predicted, the rehabilitation of nationalism has begun starting with the Jewish people. When the presumptive victims of nationalism find that, in order to avoid the genocide their enemies desired, they must turn to nationalism, the idea of nationalism itself becomes a viable political option again.
In Israel Benjamin Netanyahu swept to victory in an election that the mainstream media said he was likely to lose, surprising pundits and world leaders, but not the citizens affected by the problems he, unlike others, would approach. After his victory, he warned of a typical leftist tactic, which is to use multiculturalism to obliterate the majority culture of a land:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sounded an alarm about a large turnout of Arab Israeli voters who he said endangered his rule, comments the Arab bloc denounced as racist.
The prime minister, who had fallen behind his main center-left challenger in polling days before Tuesday’s election, accused Arab parties of benefiting from funding by foreigners who sought to topple him.
Leftists in the United States use the same tactic. Starting in 1965 with the Hart-Cellar act, they began importing third-world labor, but this law was only the latest in a pattern of expanding the American franchise from “Anglo-Saxon” — German, English, Scots, Dutch, Scandinavian and other related populations with Nordic-Germanic roots — to include those of different traditions, from Greek, Italian, and Jewish to Irish and quarter-Asian Eastern Europeans.
Their goal is simple: to destroy.
Leftism parades itself as a group philosophy based on altruism, but its actual roots lie in narcissistic individualism. The underconfident and mediocre individual fears social judgment much like he fears natural selection, being aware of his weakness. He knows he can play the human game, whether social or credentialist, and succeed, but he fears being put up against a non-humanity reality. A night in the forest, or writing a novel of actual depth, or even understanding himself, puts such a person in a panic. He formulates a goal: remove social standards, so that his behavior can never be compared to an ideal, and through that contrast it cannot be revealed how far short he falls.
When groups of these people come together, they invent endless new theories. Their goal with this is to be a moving target. If you use last year’s term for their issues, or ideals, they will look at you with blank stares. They have moved on. The point is to manifest themselves under as many different names as possible so they are never recognized. This is why leftists have a mania for news and theories.
They also tend toward using justification-based logic. That is, instead of arguing that x action will produce y result, they find a presumed universal good — equality, helping the poor, racial justice — and use it to argue for their plan. On that level, x action is good because it falls under accepted justification y, and whether it achieves that result is irrelevant. This conceals the fact that their goal is not actually to achieve results, but to keep perpetual war going. They want goals that are impossible and paradoxical, because this allows them to force people to accept nonsense, and easily sort the sheep from the goats by letting in only those who zombie-like have accepted the nonsense.
Altruism works because a justification needs an object which is big and unassailable. Once upon a time, it was “the children,” orphans if you could and poor orphans if you were really lucky. After that it was the right of women to vote and do everything else a man could do. Then it was the American Indian, whose empire collapsed before Columbus but whose misfortunes could easily be assigned as a whole (instead of, correctly, in part) to European colonization. Then it was the African-American — formerly “colored” and then “Negro” and finally “Black” — who could be brought along to any party to shock the parents and show how open-minded you were. Then it was the great Hispanic gold rush of 2005-2008, and lately we’ve been on varieties of gays and other sexually non-conforming people. The object of justification must be someone who can be pitied, making the altruist feel both the frenetic strength of righteous conviction and an inner glow at how they are helping the “disadvantaged,” “less fortunate” or “oppressed.” It is a simple psychology.
The goal of the mediocritists — leftists and other Crowdists fit within this category — was to put the majority of Anglo-Saxon America on the defensive by invertedly accusing them of being unfair, cruel and horrible. Like a child lashing out at its parents, this reaction was calculated to invalidate the assumed benevolence behind authority itself: “But you haven’t included everyone!” they shriek, implying that therefore, the authority is favoritist for one party alone. Authority responds to this because without its validity, it looks like an oppressor… and we all remember that ugly situation in France and Russia that ended in streets red with blood (and Reds) and men, women and children being killed for the crime of being more equal than the rest.
The leftist goal is not what they say it is; they in fact, have no goal, only an impulse to destroy. The reason for this destruction is simple. They want to remove authority that can make them look bad. For that reason, they favor big government, which will tell them what to do with millions of little rules but transgressing against those never makes people look bad in a social context. Rather, they get sympathy from others for having been so oppressed. What they fear are social standards like morality, heritage, comportment and most of all self-discipline. What leftists desire is acceptance of all mediocrity, tolerance of all venality, and endorsement of all behaviors so that whatever they are doing goes unnoticed. It is like the classroom when the teacher is gone, where every child is glad to see another child doing something worse than they are. If what the other guy is doing is bad, then lesser offenses will not be noticed or if they are, not punished. This is why leftists want to destroy the majority and replace its standards of behavior with non-standards and a bunch of rules which ostensibly fill the gap.
Since the French Revolution, leftists have been trying to do away with majorities. Anti-nationalism — otherwise known as internationalism, and also: diversity, multiculturalism, multiracialism — became their tin drum to hammer during WWII and they have been beating it since. Whenever someone suggested nationalism, the leftists trotted out pictures of Holocaust victims. Not because they gave a fig about the Jews, but because the Jews could then be pitied. With pity comes altruism, and with altruism comes the magic sword that liberals can use to drive away authority: call it racist and mean and compare it to Hitler. In an instant, it fades away, and the leftists can assume power and hand out lucrative appointments to their cronies, ensuring that their behavior will never come to light. This is the leftist personal goal. They want no oversight, and they want the ability to profit from society by obeying its many frustrating roles that no sane person would tolerate, and being well-paid for their forbearance.
In Israel, the left predicted that Netanyahu could not win without a diverse constituency. In the United States, they now predict the same thing for Republicans:
Ninety-five percent of self-identified Republican primary voters are white. That’s among the findings of the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, as well as that 74% of all Americans age 18 and older are white, a figure that tracks with census data. This means that heading into 2016, the Republican primary electorate is dramatically less diverse than the country overall. The GOP primary electorate is even less diverse than the country was in 1916, when 91% of the voting-age population was white, according to historical census data.
All of this is a smokescreen. The leftists do not actually care about Palestinians or they would be over there taking up arms. They similarly do not care about the African-American, or they would be inviting said people into their elite city condos and gated suburb communities. They could care less on all fronts. What they want is power. They achieve it in the same way every parasite does, which is by destroying the brain of a people — its culture, its best leaders, and its moral standards — and replacing them with oblivion. In oblivion, the host does not notice the parasite, much like a spider with its brain paralyzed by a wasp sting that as a zombie does the bidding of its new master, to its doom.
This leads us to consideration of the future of nationalism. In France with the Front National, in the UK with UKIP, and in Israel with Likud we see that nationalism is rising. With Israel accepting it, we see the pity-justification of the left collapsing. The time is now for nationalists everywhere because people have realized that diversity is a sham, that leftist government is the same kleptocracy it was in the Soviet Union, and that the endgame will be the same as in Venezuela, with people starving while secret police catch those who whisper the wrong slogan. Leftism is death; multiculturalism and egalitarianism are the weapons of leftism. People everywhere are ready to remove the absolute nature of those weapons and replace them with former concerns thought lost: culture, results, responsibilities and moral standards.
World leftism is unraveling much as our kings and philosophers told us it would. It has taken over two centuries, but that is the blink of an eye to history. It takes at least a century to see the impact of any policy in full. In Europe and the United States, people are looking at the chaos that is Brazil and Venezuela and realizing that through leftism and diversity — even if we like and admire the groups being mixed into us — we will be replaced. What comes with replacement is strong leftist government and shortly after that, a series of ongoing collapses resulting in third world levels of disorganization, corruption, poor hygiene and social disorder. Anyone with a brain wishes to avoid this future, while liberals want us to accept it adn go along with because they, as individuals, do not care for the future. They are concerned only with their power right now. What happens in fifty years when they are dead bothers them not at all, and like any true parasite, they are sociopathic in outlook if not in tendency.
Netanyahu was told by all of the “authorities” and “elites” that he could not win with a nationalist platform. He won. Similarly they tell the GOP in the US that it cannot win by appealing to the white people who are 74% of the population, and yet it can win. The majority can and will defend itself once it emerges from the fog of the constant lies issued by leftists and the terms they change every few months to keep observers befuddled. Despite the best efforts of leftists, nationalism is rising and liberalism is falling. No matter how many lies they tell, remember that now is the time to push not for less but more, and to encourage the failed idea of leftism to fall into the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Monday, October 20th, 2014
Dear third world,
It’s time for us to revise our relationship. Much as we treat our own poor like perpetual gelded children, we have been treating you as the same. That not only keeps us both in a bad relationship from which we do not progress, but also holds you up by keeping you dependent on us when you should be launching into the world on your own.
Our well-intentioned aid, designed to make up for years of abusive colonialism, turns out to have retarded development of the third world across the globe. Not only that, it was given mistakenly. We see now how the technology, learning and structure given to your societies by Western occupation has enabled you to even participate in a globalist system. The net benefit was yours, even if a few million were enslaved. The smallpox epidemic we feel bad about, but it was not intentional. We can see how it is time to stop the myths of our perpetual guilt and your perpetual dependency simultaneously, because they are the same myth. The image of a cruel parent and sobbing child comes to mind and, like that relationship, implies a future of each party hurting the other.
Bad parent relationships involve a parent being both in control and guilty of excessive control, and a child being both dependent and wanting to set themselves free. Our liberals act like children who are rebelling against their parents. This means they both push back against, and yet depend upon the parent figure, which makes them perfect candidates to support large totalitarian governments. This is why tyrannies tend to follow democracies: democracies make people into self-centered perpetual children who want more benefits and guidance from government, which creates an electorate of useless people who must then receive total guidance via complete control. In the same way, you gladly accept our aid and ask more from it, but also want us to accept you as our own:
Ebola now functions in popular discourse as a not-so-subtle, almost completely rhetorical stand-in for any combination of “African-ness”, “blackness”, “foreign-ness” and “infestation” – a nebulous but powerful threat, poised to ruin the perceived purity of western borders and bodies. Dead African bodies are the nameless placeholders for (unwarranted, racist) “panic”, a conversation topic too heavy for the dinner table yet light enough for supermarket aisles.
…To be black – African or otherwise – is to be born into a world that anticipates your death with bated breath (or botched execution cocktail, or vigilante bullet, or syphilis needle). It is to occupy a position of social death, to exist in a liminal space that guarantees neither rights nor recognition under the law. It is to be a perpetual contaminant in the body of the western world.
Although our conservatives will dismiss this for its ingratitude and liberals will agree but note its lack of friendliness to trendy Western issues like gay marriage and transsexual equality, what is being said is essentially true: you will never be us. We have our own path, and it is different from yours. However, my solution is different than that of the writer. She wants more aid to the third world; I suggest total separation. We will go our path and like every other group in the world, be selfish and see only our own interests; Africa will see only its own. Then no one depends on anyone else and we can stop this neurotic, sado-masochistic, broken home of a relationship between the third world and the first.