What are libertarians? Libertarians (sometimes called “lolberts”) are classical liberals: people who believe that everyone is competent, and therefore that what the market chooses will be the best solution. They tend to be rugged individualists who want as few rules as possible regulating their conduct, including use of drugs and gun ownership.
Naturally, realists find this kind of comical. What use is liberty, when most of the people on your planet will behave simply like selfish fools? We are back to the problem with utilitarianism and democracy, which is that there is no wisdom of crowds; the crowd is a plague of locusts who will devour everything, give nothing back, and leave a ruin which cannot regenerate.
Utilitarianism, after all, sounds good on paper. You do what brings happiness to the most. Well, how do you find out what makes them happy? Simple: you ask them. But then… but then we are into the realm of what humans think, not what they do, and this is an inherently superficial realm because we barely know ourselves.
The same is true of democracy. People vote in self-interest. How the heck do they know? They guess, or “estimate,” if we are being polite, but most of these people run out of money a week before the next paycheck. And they are supposed to understand financial policy, foreign affairs, domestic tranquility, human genetics and long-term survival?
People have an inner dimension and an outer one. The outer one is easily influenced; it is where socialization rests, their reactions and fears, desires and whims, and the narrative they tell themselves about their lives, why those are good, and what they are intending to do. The outer layer is inherently after-the-fact; we observe our world and make up stories about it that make it make sense.
The inner dimension is less easily influenced. This consists mostly of urges, like a primal will to assert oneself as independent and worthwhile, a desire to do good — in some — and any intuition, concept of spirit or soul, and basic instinct to a person. This is the part of us that is both extremely “animal” and most cerebral, not as material- and event-driven as the outer layer.
Ironically, an inversion occurs here, as it usually does when we cross layers. From the outside, the inner dimension looks like the outer dimension and the outer dimension looks like the inner. That is: the part of other people that is accessible to us — their outer dimension — appears to be their actual self. We re-order reality to be convenient for our minds.
For this reason, individualism deceives us. We think we are living for our true selves, but in fact, we are living through the outer dimension of ourselves and others. This means the most malleable, least personal and most conformist parts of ourselves. Individualism inverts individuality by making us justify our “me-first” attitude in the language of others, which then destroys that individuality.
As always with human “good intentions”: it’s a trap!
Now this requires us to revisit our ideas of equality and individualism. These things, instead of liberating us, create utilitarianism, or a society devoted to minimums shared by the largest group, which is in effect a suppression of individuality. While egalitarian ideas sound good to us at first, they really reduce us to our most trivial parts, ignoring who we are.
Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy that considers all people deserving of equal rights. In contrast, Spencer is a tribalist and collectivist whose personal commitment to identity politics vastly exceeds the left’s.
No, you are not individuals; you are conformists hiding behind “individualism” as a way of disguising the fact that you have no inner purpose or plan for civilization. You have retreated from the notion that humanity can succeed, and now all you want is your condominium and grocery store, and to hope the rest just goes away.
As people in horror movies inevitably find out, wishing the monster would go away never works. The monster here is our lack of purpose, as a species and as communities within that species; our lack of purpose arose from our dedication to mercantile matters, thanks to the rising middle class, instead of virtue or moral behavior that leads to the best results in the longest term.
We need a non-modern society. Modernity is the era of egalitarianism, which as shown above, is not about individuality but forming a superficial mass of people to mobilize toward one fascination or another. You can dress up egalitarianism in different costumes, like libertarians pretend to be frontier woodsmen, but in reality, all of it is the same.
And the term “collectivist” should cue you in that you are about to be subjected to utter stupidity. Collectivists are individuals because a mob is formed of selfish people each acting so that he gets what he wants, with the mob enforcing his right to do it. This is why mobs are known for lynchings, looting and turnstile jumping. They are formed of selfish individuals who want to avoid accountability.
On the other hand, tribalism offers us something that is not entrenched in our sick modern individualism. Tribes have an identity, which means a purpose and goal, and they have principles. Each person serves an unequal role in the tribe but so long as they help achieve this cooperative goal, they are accepted and respected as part of the community.
Tribalism requires us to reach down into those inner traits. What would we sacrifice for? What is worth dying for? At the end of the day, we rely on our intuition. Life is good, therefore something good created it. Other people can be good, so we care for them. We do not want to be placeless, identityless, and purposeless just so we can claim to be individualists. We want a place and purpose to bond us to life and make it worth living.
As usual, white people demonstrate that cleverness is the enemy of intelligence just as “good enough” is the enemy of lasting good.
In The Netherlands, which by any sane estimation is one of the loveliest places on planet earth, the voters decided to avoid electing Geert Wilders and to choose an Establishment candidate instead. This is typical of voters: avoid risk by sticking with what fails slowly and inevitably, basically postponing the issue until it gets worse.
Wilders may not have been perfect but he offered a hope for avoiding the fate of Germany and Sweden for the Dutch, who may consider themselves so unique and special that the problems which repeat elsewhere do not apply to them. This is also a typical human failure of reasoning by which people assume that the rules do not apply to them because they intend for other results than usually happen.
Glitches in his platform were few but vital. Among other things, Wilders took an approach recommended against on Amerika: he targeted a specific group instead of pointing out that diversity will erase the national population and, as a form of suicide, is psychologically destructive.
In addition, he could have broached the broader topic that diversity does not work because every group possesses its own direction of self-interest, including strong identity, and these cannot avoid conflicting when the groups are put together. Nationalism, or separating each group into its own nation, works, but diversity guarantees perpetual conflict followed by erasure through outbreeding.
White people however are too clever to accept that. For them, voting and politics are questions of what makes them look cool to their friends. People who deny obvious problems are cool. So white people pose and posture, swimming in pretense and denial, and project their intention onto the world to obscure the cause-effect relationships that are scary.
Through this process, inversion occurs. The sane becomes the insane, and the formerly insane becomes the norm. Every word comes to mean the opposite of what it once did, and every institution acts against its goals. As a result, society becomes pathological and dedicated to its own destruction. People either rationalize that to feel good and succeed, or fight it and are marginalized.
In this way, the very process of socializing destroys human societies. In the name of “getting along with others,” truth is destroyed, and yet this is the most common human event. When having everyone feel good is more important than getting to the truth, every meaning gets inverted and all goals become suicidal, just at a slow enough level for each individual to profit and look cool.
Wilders and others are fighting upstream against the tendency of humans to go straight into denial. The United States got a break because Barack Obama, by creating his program of wealth transfer to Baby Boomers and illegal Amerind aliens known as Obamacare, crashed the economy so soundly that people actually snapped to attention from their pretense for a few moments and voted against him.
If the West wants to survive, as it looks toward its future, it will realize that the decision-making of humans in large groups is not just poor but suicidal, and so democracy must go:
Americans use the word “democracy” as a shorthand to define their system. Yet democracy as Americans know it only functions when an independent judiciary monitors the executive and legislative branches. The relationship among the branches certainly changes over time, but an open attack by the executive upon the judiciary is something new – at least in the contemporary US.
The president’s tweet recalls how authoritarianism has triumphed in other places. Modern tyrants grasp that their real target are rival institutions and legality, not voting as such. They often attack the judiciary first, assuming that the legislature will go along.
Anyone sane will agree on abolishing democracy, but not on tyranny, which is a word referring to any rule where the rulers prioritize their own interests over those of the citizens. We have tyranny right now through the permanent Establishment which has figured out that the voters are pretentious and how to manipulate them so that this “Cathedral” stays in power indefinitely.
Instead of tyranny, we need leadership not by the people — people in groups quickly revert to pretense and mob rule — but for the people, by the best among us. We need the best to oppress the rest, because our current condition of the rest oppressing the best has led to collapse from within.
Wilders, Le Pen, Orban, Farage and Trump are part of the movement against the inevitable entropy of democracy. They have stood up for difficult truths and framed them in such a way that the remaining functional people can grasp the simple core of the issue, which is that any civilization must assert its self-interest through identity or become dedicated to self destruction.
In the meantime, it is time for binary thinking: whatever the herd likes is wrong, and whatever the herd fears is where we can find actual realistic assessments of our situation. Otherwise, as if by gravity or the passage of time, the Establishment always chooses suicidal policies and the herd, afraid to look uncool, support them:
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party proposed using the €6.2 billion surplus to pay off debts, while the Social Democrats (SPD) wanted to spend it on digital infrastructure projects. As a compromise the money has gone solely to migrant projects instead, Der Spiegel reports.
The present funds allocated toward migrant programmes is already €12 billion, which is thought to be more than enough to handle the needs of the over one million migrants in Germany. The budget surplus would take the money up to over 18 billion – far more than required.
Any time there is a “surplus,” it means money is taken away from vital long-term needs and dedicated to short-term needs that make the headlines. This allows people a chance to virtue signal and pose and otherwise demonstrate how cool they are for ignoring real problems and focusing on symbolic problems instead.
Despite the Wilders loss, the writing is on the wall: liberal democracy, once given enough power, becomes the same kind of insanity that the Soviet Union was. The Left blames this on “capitalism,” but in reality, it was bad leadership through the tendency of people — especially white people — to make cleverly stupid decisions.
For those of us on the Right, the necessary agenda of our future is to push back against the tide of liberalization that has swept the West since The Enlightenment.™ We must recognize that Samuel Huntington was right, and that the liberal democratic age has ended, replaced by one in which tribalism is again the norm, as it is outside of the W.E.I.R.D. countries today.
For this, we must go further than what Wilders did. Our problem is not Islam, nor is it illegal Amerind aliens. It is diversity itself and, since accepting diversity requires reality-denial, the reality-denying system of democracy that allows our people to demonstrate how clever they are by adopting stupid viewpoints. Until we rip out this evil by the roots, it will continue to destroy us.
Nationalism has become confused because we live in an anti-nationalist age. With the advent of equality, any constraints on the individual — culture, race, heritage, ethnic group, religion, values, family — were rejected in favor of the ideology of equality.
But, as we try to rediscover the methods that work in any age, including nationalism, we must rediscover what it means to be of a tribe. This leads to confusion: is our tribe our national group, or European-descended peoples generally, or “whites”?
The answer is simple. We are many identities, and the one we use depends on how close the question at hand is to our heart. That is, we will be part of many groups at once, but those which are smallest or most specific will be the ones we go to in times of confusion.
In this sense American nationalists, such as they are in their current historical and social context, deserve credit for attributing a lesser role, to say their German, Irish, or Italian heritage, and focus instead more intensely on the imperative to protect and preserve this common bio-cultural heritage. European small-time nationalisms, with a flurry of national identities of sorts, inherited from the 20th century, must no longer play a crucial role in our new identity building process.
…As witnessed in the artificial state of Yugoslavia, despite all the former academic paeans about the alleged romantic diversity of its former constituent peoples, this composite state made up of different peoples and religions ended in chaos and brutal civil war.
Here we see a duality: (1) national/tribal identity should surrender to racial identity, and (2) artificial states do not work. Another take might argue that the latter applies to the former, and as a result, we cannot create a binary decision tree regarding nationalism. Instead, we must accept that both are true.
Race alone is not enough to form unity; ethnic groups can fight for themselves, and fight for Europe, and in fact natively do this when not interrupted by democracy. This is why it makes sense to see a “cascading” identity, such that one can be first of a local group, next of an ethnic group, then of a type of European, then European, then white, then human and so on…
For example, someone from Southern France is first of his locality or tribe, then of his region, then of the ethnicity “French” which is also the nation, then of the Southern European meta-tribe, then finally of European heritage and more broadly, “white” or Caucasian, as the linguistic demands of the situation demand.
We cannot ask people to sacrifice any part of their identity, nor does it make sense to merge different groups instead the same identity. Work together without become a grey (but white!) mass.
In any debate, the party making the first move has the advantage because they define the terms and assumptions that will be used in the debate. They do this by introducing them first and “framing” them, or orienting them toward a certain goal and imposing specific boundaries, which then forces others to react to those terms instead of arguing for their own affirmative position. It forces others into passivity.
This is what the Left has done to the Right since the Great Division after the French Revolution. They define terms, and the Right reacts, trying to recapture the initiative while doing so only in the methods provided by Leftist terminology. No wonder they did not succeed.
We can see the Leftist term-framing attack — a passive-aggressive introduction to circular reasoning — in the wild with the book A Racial Program For The Twentieth Century, written by a Communist to urge others to attack:
We must realize that our Party’s most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races, that for centuries have been oppressed by the whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party … In America, we will aim for subtle victory.
While enflaming the Negro minority against the Whites, we will instill in the Whites a guilt complex for the exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise to prominence in every walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negroes will be able to intermarry with the Whites, and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.
The point of this move is classic Leftism: they are going to do something crazy so that non-Leftists will rush in to try to save the day, which will entrap them either as cucks (bipartisans, neoconservatives) or as spergs (reactionaries and other extremists) but either way, dominate the Right by forcing it to adopt a Leftist narrative.
A better way to view this is that we must redefine the narrative for ourselves. The Left says that this is Negroes-Versus-Whites, so by definition, that cannot be true. They will have defined the issue falsely narrowly so that we act to our disadvantage. This means that the issue is always wider than the Left portrays and so an instant losing move is to agree to their definitions.
This means that any variant of the Negroes-Versus-Whites narrative is by definition going to play into the hands of the Left, eventually.
Similarly, the Jews-Versus-Aryans narrative created a situation where whites could either be victims or victimizers, but not victors.
Our goal on the Alt Right is to throw away the rulebook and the Leftist definitions, framing and restrictions on our thought. We must look to the real issue: if nationalism makes thriving societies, why is it taboo in our own dwindling preserve?
Humans migrated out of Africa at least 50,000 years ago and occupied many different ecological and climatological niches. Because of this, they evolved slightly different anatomical and physiological traits. For example, Tibetans evolved various traits that help them cope with the rigors of altitude; similarly, the Inuit evolved various traits that help them cope with the challenges of a very cold environment. It is likely that humans also evolved slightly different psychological traits as a response to different selection pressures in different environments and niches. One possible example is the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jewish people.
This is nothing short of revolutionary: a respected publication and mainstream writers are endorsing what HBD writers have said for years. HBD was only controversial because it violates the idea of equality, or that all people are basically the same and that they make choices not based on genetics but instead because of their all-powerful intent and “free will.”
Instead we are now back to recognizing the basics of Darwinism: that genetic coding positively defines our traits, or abilities that we can develop, where environmental influences mostly negatively define traits, such as fetal alcohol syndrome making people slow and slightly crazy. This rejects every thought derived from The Enlightenment,™ including that people are “equal” on some level other than “roughly the same size.”
Naturally, there is fear of the big un-democratic bad guys being imported into science as a result of this — eugenics, nationalism and caste systems — so the researchers make some disclaimers about ethics:
Frank discussions of such differences among human groups have provoked strong ethical concerns in the past. We understand those ethical concerns and believe that it is important to address them. However, we also believe that the benefits of discussing possible human population differences outweigh the costs.
These are not nonsense however. Medicine has reached a brick wall because the “average” patient, especially in a multi-ethnic caste-mixed democracy, does not exist. Instead, targeted medicine is the future, and this requires being genetically literate about who the patient is, including about the risks that patient faces.
However, there are also political implications. When our ideology requires us to consider people as “equal” in fact as well as in political access, then certain ideas become taboo. Even the possibility of genetic differences — between class, which is most taboo, and sex, and race — constitutes a threat to the ideological narrative of the ruling order, and must be punished. The last 20 years have shown us that idea in full flower.
With a recognition of biological differences, Leftists fear that people will desire freedom of association again. This means roughly that “birds of a feather [can] flock together” and they are not required to subsidize each other. With this, the diversity empire fragments.
The problem for Leftists is that nature is racist because tribalism is more efficient than trying to vet every other organism one encounters. Nature is rife with predators and worse, parasites, and so the organism that is able to recognize its own is able to save massively on its energy budget for self-defense.
As science moves toward recognizing the possibility of human biodiversity, it is also inching toward recognition of an important update to Darwinism: the organisms that thrive are those which conserve energy to dedicate toward improvement of offspring, improving quality instead of quantity, and these are by nature tribal to avoid wasting energy on potential threats.
Sometimes, after years of education and successful business activities, your historical importance comes down to using a key term like “alt right” during a political campaign. In an interview with the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Trump presidency Chief Strategist Steven Bannon backpedaled on any association with nationalism:
“People are not going to buy this,” Bannon said. “The deplorables are not racist.”
Trump can win support among African-Americans and Hispanics, he said, if the new administration can deliver on a “unifying message” of strong schools, safe streets and jobs.
“And condemning any kind of form of racism or hatred that’s out there,” Bannon said.
The fears of those who think racist groups have been energized by Trump’s hard-line campaign stances against immigrants and Muslim refugees were heightened last weekend when the National Policy Institute, led by alt-right figure Richard Spencer, held a gathering in Washington that included Nazi salutes and shouts of “Hail Trump!”
The point that was missed is that the Trump voters are a massively mixed bag, but include — possibly as their largest majority — people who do want ethnic nationalism, or the meaning of “nationalism” that historically-aware people use by default.
The world order has shifted. In the 1990s, there were two competing voices: Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington. Fukuyama thought that human politics had reached their final evolution with liberal democracy; Huntington saw that as the calm before the storm, and predicted that increasing contact would lead to tribalism.
As it turns out, Huntington was decisively correct. Even Henry Kissinger is doing his best to re-state Huntington’s theory as his own. He speaks of a world order arising from regional identity instead of the organizing principle of the former world order, which was loyalty to a certain political and economic system:
In his most recent book World Order (2014), Kissinger argues that the world is in a parlous condition verging on international anarchy. This is not only because of shifts in the material balance of power from West to East, but also because the legitimacy of the postwar world order is being challenged. Four competing visions of world order—the European-Westphalian, the Islamic, the Chinese, and the American—are each in varying stages of metamorphosis, if not decay. Consequently, real legitimacy inheres broadly in none of these visions. The emergent properties of the new world disorder are the formation of “regional blocs” with incompatible worldviews.
In other words, the world is now divided into four orders which are remnants of the old order, irrelevant because they failed to predict the turning of the tide. What will remain is the general identity of these groups as they shift toward something less ideological and more practical.
The age of liberal democracy was a time of ideology when humans thought that having opinions which pleased others, like something out of a Dale Carnegie course, was more important than having those opinions when applied turn out to have positive results. This mentality allowed the postwar Left to seize power and then be condescending to all who did not follow its path, but that same inertia caused the Left to fail to notice that its fall of the Soviet Union moment had arrived.
Bannon has backed the wrong horse in this moment when he should be relishing victory. This is unfortunate for him and for Donald Trump, but will not affect their victory. They are part of the rising libertarian wing of Western leaders — part of what the above quoted article refers to as a backlash against “bureaucratic introspection” — which makes way for the transition to the Huntingtonian world order.
There is something hardwired in all of us that rages when we see a member of another Tribe acting defiant amongst us.
In this we find the origin of the Uppity Negro trope that afflicts the South: if someone is not of our Tribe, his duty is to act deferential and respectful, but if he starts acting jubilant and mocking us… then we know there is a problem.
The reason for this is as old as human evolution, and it has little to do with African-Americans, and everything to do with the fact of the Other. If someone is Other, and he is acting jaunty among us, it means we are conquered. Beaten. Unable to do anything. Cucked.
Much of the dark side of American history could have been avoided if this principle had been articulated. When among those of another tribe, behave respectfully. And yet, diversity did not allow this.
The fundamental principle of Nationalism is this: each Tribe acts in self-interest, and those self-interests are not compatible. Every group works toward its advantage, which is that it rises above others by pressing them down and raising itself up.
This knowledge is the origin of the Uppity Negro myth. Anyone from another Tribe who acts jubilant is celebrating a victory over the tribe around him. He has forced them to bow before him, and whether from their own neurosis or his military prowess, they are subservient to him.
This is why the presence of happy people from other Tribes drives people nuts. If a Hispanic man sees a celebratory African-American, his primal instinct calls for him to exterminate the Other. Same if an Oriental Asian sees an Arab or Indian. Or any combination thereof.
Diversity does not work at all. It interrupts power structures, and presents us with people who by their assertion of their own Tribal identity make us want to murder them, and every other tribe want to murder them and us. This is why violence erupts at random in diverse communities.
The solution, as always, is not so much “do this difficult thing” as “stop doing this insane thing.” But that is too much for the individualistic society because it denies the presence of anything above the individual — God, nature, Tribe, values, logic — and admitting the failure of diversity thus threatens the individual.
However, the fundamental fact does not change because we cannot articulate it. A happy member of another Tribe appears “uppity” to us, and we want to kill him, independent of his Tribe and who he is. It is simple evolutionary wiring.
In the past and present of humanity, each tribe has had a singular goal: break away. Only by removing itself from all Others and pursuing its own goals can it establish a standard to replace natural selection, and by so doing refine its population to be unified in characteristics. In other words, a sub-species.
When we think through all of this, it becomes clear that the Uppity Negro trope is not about African-Americans at all. It is about how diversity does not work, and how we need our own space, whatever our tribe. It is about the ability to pursue our destiny, which is better than freedom in any age.
Let us review what we have learned in sotto voce from the Orlando Pulse nightclub massacre:
The cops cannot help. Being a police officer was a calling, when we were a unified nation and had something to work together toward. Now it is just a job, chosen because it comes with good bennies, the ability to retire at 45 and “double-dip” by getting hired in another security-related field, and political respect. The careerists won out. And so, the cops defer to authority in order to make any action. They do not take unnecessary risks. Their job is to do the job as defined, not the job as it should be. They waited for three hours during a mass shooting before going in, allowing the shooter to tag over a hundred people, and to have possibly killed more had he locked exits and kept shooting instead of goofing off on social media.
The government cannot help. Across the Western world, governments turned on rainbow lights at their capital buildings. Every face glowed bright in the promise of the symbol, which allowed us all to feel morally superior for having supported the Correct side! And then, no one did anything else. Stop Islamic radicals? Make police more effective? Build a wall around gay communities? Step up profiling of terrorists? None of these have happened. Government was there to give the symbol that made happy feelings in the voters, and then its job was done, so back to taxing and spending.
There is no unity. Despite the vigils and people painting the names of the victims on their ’91 El Dorados, there was no sense of unity. People are not stepping up to say “we are in it together and we fight together.” Of course, the media implies this, but the groundswell of popular support — beyond the group of committed neurotics who believe what they see on the television — has not occurred. In fact, the general reply seems to be, “Not my tribe, so not my problem.” Blacks, white straights, Hispanics, and Asians are all just biding their time, knowing themselves to be competing with one another and so, de facto, at war.
As reported here a short while ago, the internal paradoxes of diversity have collided and abolished it except as a symbol. This means that practical people everywhere are reverting to tribal identities, which exist as one or more of the following: race, ethnicity, religion, caste, class and realist alignment (Leftists/Communists versus everyone else).
The homosexual tribe stands alone because every tribe stands alone. This means they can expect no unity with the rest of their globalized multicultural nation-state entity, and that they feel no guilt in acting in pure self-interest. Just as women are voting for Hillary Clinton for the sole reason that she also is a woman, homosexual tribalists will now act only for what benefits their tribe above all others. “Is it good for the homosexuals?” is the only question on the agenda. And if other tribes suffer, that is their problem.
Wise observers predicted that this would be the result of diversity. Self-interest is one of those behaviors which every creature must indulge in, or end up dead, and so self-interest may be concealed or transferred somewhat, but it is never removed. When the silly white Leftists announced diversity, the rest of the world said: “The morons have invited us onto the gravy train. Let us go there, drain them dry, and conquer them, these people who are too stupid to live.”
When you look at non-native ethnic groups in the USA — meaning those outside of the founding Western European population — you see two types. There are those who have bought into the symbolic reality offered by Leftism, and those who have recognized it as false. The latter group keep their language, customs and allegiances, even spying for their nation of origin. They know they are biding their time until the takeover can occur, and that their tribe will need them.
Some have noticed this seemingly suicidal side to Leftism, but the Leftist agenda is to avoid tribalism so that the individual can profit enough to escape with the loot. Leftists negate their tribe because their only tribe is the self. It is not surprising that so many of them show the results of generations-ago slight admixture — an Asiatic lift there, a middle Eastern nose there, some Amerind or Lapp around the eyes — because they have never felt allegiance to the group, or anything beyond their own immediate comfort. They are dead souls.
As the results of the plans of these dead souls unfold, it becomes clear that Western Civilization and Western Government — now recognized as egalitarian, and therefore a gradual path to Communism — will separate. The national groups are already breaking into tribes, and they will enforce street justice by always defending their own and fighting for territory above all else. As usually happens, the Leftists who made it at the career of being Leftist will be boarding private jets for Switzerland, and the rest of us will fight it out in the streets, wondering how it got so bad so fast.
There is no binary for intelligence, although there are different plateaus which operate in a method similar to a binary when a specific task is considered. At 120 IQ points, there is a threshold which determines the ability of people to understand complex political issues, and another exists at 125 IQ points.
But to see these issues clearly also depends on having a certain spirit that is capable of leadership. This is a warlike spirit, a gut instinct of what is right and the knowledge that without being forced to do otherwise, people drift back into the usual narcissistic oblivion and produce degenerative stupidity where they could have a truly great civilization.
People with this spirit tend to, when put in power, beat back the foolishness and leave everyone else alone. This terrifies your average person, who wants to face no consequences for his own bad behavior. If given the choice, he will select anti-leaders: people who herd together the group and make sure they all get along, at the high but long-term cost of ignoring the need for united action to constantly improve society, or it will be absorbed by stagnation and begin to crumble.
We are now seeing the full face of the crumbling in the West. With birth rates in free-fall, people miserable in jobs and broken marriages, the average person neurotic like a cat on meth, enemies both inside and outside our borders, record-breaking national debts and industries that are paper tigers, our elites — politicians, media, academia and other enfranchised “successful” people — are fiddling while Rome burns (or at least, the tinder is ready and soaked in kerosene).
Yesterday the big social media companies agreed to take on the public role of censors, and they were cheered for it by our elites because they need distractions. Look at this masterpiece of deflection:
Beyond national laws that criminalize hate speech, there is a need to ensure such activity by Internet users is “expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame,” the companies and the European Commission said in a joint statement on Tuesday.
The code of conduct arrives as Europe comes to terms with the bloody attacks in Paris and Brussels by Islamic State, which has used the Web and social media to spread its message of hate against its enemies.
…Twitter’s head of public policy for Europe, Karen White, [said] in the statement. “However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.”
“Hate speech” means, roughly, anti-egalitarian speech. It is a way of saying that none can claim the Emperor has no new clothes on at all, because then the herd would panic, and goal Number One is keeping the herd together at all costs. Even if that means we sacrifice our long-term future such that we are undergoing downfall like Rome and Athens did. Especially that.
The hype over ISIS possibly recruiting through social media is a red herring. These rules will actually be used to formalize the policy that Facebook, Twitter and Reddit have demonstrated of removing or suppressing non-Leftist speech. In other words, they are now controlled mouthpieces of the power structure just as much as Pravda or the Pyongyang Times. In fact, they are better mouthpieces.
The new model of censorship is here: saturate users in propaganda, then remove anything they post which does not confirm that propaganda, creating an echo chamber where it seems like there is only one safe opinion — with token variations to express your individualism, of course — and any substantively different view is considered to be hate speech or some other synonym for anti-narrative ideas.
This has effectively created information contraband and opened up a market for people who want not just free speech, but true and accurate speech, since much like citizens in the former Soviet Union, anyone with a working brain knows that if they see it on a big site, it is controlled propaganda. The alt-right might be the most famous information contraband network at this time.
But let us look into the near future, which by the inertia of time, is already part of the present:
Our leaders are committed to “fiddling while Rome burns,” or more accurately, inducing you to fiddle. That means that it is time for the Gladiators and a solid dose of panem et circenses to keep the voters infantilized, oblivious, stupefied and self-focused. The individualism of people is both a means of neutralizing them, and the reason that these leaders are in power in the first place; it grew like a disease among us, and then as it took over gave itself more justifications and power, so now it holds sway.
The elite have become sandbagged. They are hunkered down, having circled the wagons, and are in desperation mode trying to hang on to power. Since fixing the actual problems would invalidate the conditions on which they were elected, they will not do that, but instead will enforce in increasing degrees the necessity of agreeing with the Narrative to get anywhere in life. If you disagree, you will not have jobs, housing, friends or mates. You will be ostracized as an icky person that no one wants to get close to lest those ideological cooties rub off.
Globalism is not commerce itself, but the shared political system of Leftist liberal democracy which now controls the world. As a result, all nations are adopting the same laws, attitudes, products and other utilities for influencing their citizens. This means that the idea of “nations,” as in proposition nations united internally by ideology, is dead. Only ideology remains.
With the counter-revolution, other groups are setting up their own ideological global orders which operate within the Leftist world-nation. The Trump revolution is part of this: Leftists act like a hybrid between an organized gang, a cult and a union or guild. They beat up anyone who upsets their members. Now right-wing people and white people wants a tribe of this type for themselves. It will be open war on the streets.
The good thing about this is that when multiple gangs are powerful, the Leftist grip on media and government will collapse. Like the gay mafia, Jewish nepotism, the old Anglo-Saxon order and other special interest groups, Leftists specialized in promoting their own and excluding everyone else. No more: now multiple groups will be doing that, and by competing, they will keep the Leftists in check. They will probably also start taking their share of the excess wealth of the dying West.
This means that well-funded, highly organized tribes based on some inherent identity — race, culture, sexual preference, political and religious leanings — will each be protecting their members from other groups. To keep the peace, there will at first be mutual tolerance as each group tries to minimize external warfare in order to bulk itself up so that it can be the biggest and win. Ultimately this one will be decided by biology: the average middle-class person in America, whose tribe will be the Trump tribe or whatever follows it, still has a chance at a balanced, sane life and normal family. When the generations change over, those are the ones who will be left standing.
Progs (originally for “progressives” but some suspect, a la Robotron 2084, it stands for people reprogrammed into being fast-moving robot zombies) will at first fight a rearguard action — much like conservatives have for the past two centuries — to hold on to their dominance of the single-narrative society. But that idea has been dead for some time. Instead, people will go entirely into their own realities. They will work in different offices, socialize with different people, live in different communities, watch and read different things, including on the internet, and have entirely different lifestyles. It used to be that civil rights laws allowed any group to do this except whites, but now, every group will demand that right, and it will increasingly radicalize them.
A white liberal and a white conservative will not recognize each other on the street. Their attire, speech, vocabulary, behavior and activities will have entirely diverged. If a member of one tribe beats up on another, and it was not warranted (e.g. a personal matter), the gang will descend but now it will be total warfare in the way liberals already practice. People will be hounded out of jobs and homes, beaten up or killed on the street, and face punitive hacking and bullying. These groups will segregate quickly to avoid the risk of accidentally triggering a war. Territory will become more important than property value; what makes the property valuable is that it is in with your tribe.
The liberal college campus where when someone is “triggered” a great witch-hunt is launched shows us the beginnings of this trend. In the future, these groups will not attend the same colleges, but everyone will behave like SJWs, but as if those SJWs were Crips who read Machiavelli. “You disagree with me so you must be silenced” is the new “racism”: of course they disagree, and that is why they separate; they hate each other and the very existence of the other group is offensive. The degree of radicalization that is shortly coming will seem unreal to us, but it’s straight out of West Side Story: if you let the sun set on you in another group’s territory, you will wind up dead and no one will have seen anything or be willing to testify. Cameras and police cars will malfunction. It will be open war to hold territory, which means excluding everyone else.
Peter Thiel suing Gawker under the guise of Hulk Hogan is another foreshadowing event. Each group is going to assert itself like a violent revolutionary group that also knows how to manipulate the economy, politics and the legal system. It is one thing if Gawker reports on its own tribe, which we assume is a Left-tribe or gay-tribe, knowing that the more inherent outlook (sexual preference) will trump the lesser (political orientation), but if Gawker starts beating up on members of another tribe… all-out war. We have had bomb-throwing Communists and Anarchists, but now it will be tribal war for information space, too. Report on another tribe and your car may explode, and again, no one will have seen anything. Your plane might get forced down in a hostile community, and you will be removed at gunpoint and fed to the pigs.
This is the dawn of a new Dark Age. All aspects of each tribe will be fully radicalized. On the white Right, it will be total patriarchy, extreme nationalism, vigilant social hierarchy and strong values/philosophy — including religion, but even stronger than that bond — which will be enforced by all members, with those who drive off or kill off the Other gaining strong acclaim and the protection of their community. They are going to be looking at your 23andme results for hidden Asian, African or Middle Eastern ancestors; they will lock your doors from the outside and burn down your house if you are caught reading The New York Times. On the white Left, it will be much the same: public executions with a single 7.65mm bullet to the back of the head for even looking longingly at a copy of Bleak House or The Sun Also Rises.
Leftism seeks to militarize citizens. It has now done so. The tribes are diverging. The idea of America fighting a war as a unified force is comedic at this point. If war breaks out, the tribes will be shooting at each other on the battlefield, and open warfare will break out back at home as each group vies for dominance. Every citizen is a soldier for his own tribe and the only rule is to act in pure, unbridled, aggressive self-interest. If an Other drives through your town, and gets robbed and his body is never found, no one will care — they expect the same treatment in Other communities.
Right now, our faux elites have lost control of the narrative. This is not uncommon; in fact, it is the normal outcome of Leftist revolt. The French Revolutionaries started killing each other, kicked off the first truly world-war with Napoleon, and the Russians morphed into the antithesis of what they desired. Paradoxical belief systems like Leftism always go this way because their instability requires greater extremes of power to administer, which causes internal murderfests and totalitarian regime status. The Left-elites of the West are just trying to hold the lid on now:
Like many opinion leaders he’s noticed just now there are no brakes. “They” — the Ivy League, the Republican party, Bill Nye, the churches even — have lost the ability to impose consequences or respect the natural order of things. For years we’ve talked it down and until finally we’ve pulled the brake pedal from the floor and chucked it out the window. “A lioness hath whelped in the streets” has become no more remarkable than CGI dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. “And graves have yawn’d, and yielded up their dead” is just an episode in The Walking Dead. That “the heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes” is undoubtedly true. Too bad that he died last April in his Minnesota home.
They are hoping to do this with censorship, hate crime laws, media control and hiding any events which do not fit the narrative. Cops are already refusing to acknowledge that most crimes have been committed, up through assaults, because they do not want to end up in the political crosshairs when Black Lives Matter protests in their towns. Wait until other ethnic groups get in on that action too. The only crime that is safe to report is white kids stealing gum, and soon even that will be taboo for anyone but members of a white tribe. The more government hides, the less useful it is, which is why people will soon rely on local tribal warlords instead of anyone in Washington or their state capital.
Leftists were warned many times that their ideas were illusory. Crazed with power, they persisted in their folly because they wanted to eliminate the idea that any single standard could organize a society, like culture or an ethnic majority. This has backfired on them because as diversity fails from its internal paradox, it has made group identity more important, so that there can never be another single standard, least of all liberalism, which became what it hated by imitating its methods without the inner guiding purpose that made them legitimate. Now only warfare remains.
Switzerland is currently grappling with the issue of adopting a universal basic income, or a guarantee of $2500 a month per citizen whether working or not. Advocates claim this will reduce inequality, crime, and produce rainbows on every street corner.
While no one is fooled as to why the audience likes this — they like it for the same reason they like Communism and Socialism, which is that free stuff provided by the collective means they’re less accountable to anything but their own whims — the interesting question is why economists like it. In short, we have too many people working, and we need to find some way to furlough some of them.
Enlightened traditionalists will point out that tradition gave us several brilliant options for this need, the leading strain of which is to furlough women by making them full-time leaders of the home. Further, by having values outside the workplace, traditional societies created multiple roles that weren’t jobs, from religious staff to cultural and intellectual guardians.
The modern economy being what it is in the age of machines, economists reason, we have improved our productivity by tenfold at least. Why, then, do we have so many people working? And more importantly, is having so many people working clogging up the system with layers of semi-accountable peons?
It’s common sense that offices tend to be driven by the acts of a few people who may or may not have titles saying the same. As a matter of logic, the fewer people involved in making a decision, the more responsive it will be; this is the opposite of “committee logic” whereby the more people who can be included, the better, and the result is a creeping calcification and cowardice.
But let’s roll the dice and look into this future where there are fewer workers. Supposing we sent home the lowest-performing 60% of the workforce, and let the rest be more efficient, collaborative, interactive and all those good buzzwords. This would furlough a huge number of people on universal income.
In addition to swelling the rolls of the internet with more crazy people who should never have been in offices anyway, this act will force some hard decisions on who is a member of the community. It doesn’t play well with open borders. For example, if Switzerland offered UBI to every citizen of the world, the tiny Alpine country would soon have a population of five billion people looking for that handout.
If the history of welfare and socialism in the West has taught us anything, it’s that if you offer a benefit, people show up to claim it. They are not particularly concerned with whether this is logical or not. They know they’d like it and you’re handing it out, so they take it at face value and sign up for those bennies.
Thus the hidden conversation behind the debate over UBI is border control and thus, citizenship control. Who is in the tribe? If we’re going to hand out income, and those of us who work are going to have to pretend we’re cool with that, we should at least make sure it goes to our people.
And thus an old debate intensifies. During the nation-state era (1789-2009) it was considered a good thing to import anyone you could, because these people provided financial benefit. The hallmark of the nation-state era was monetarism, or the idea that you could control people with the flow of money. Immigration offered both workers and customers and so, the “wisdom” went, it meant your stake in the corporation of the nation-state went up.
Some painful learning years later, we know that’s not the case at all, and what immigration does is create social chaos, political division and a permanent welfare state. By separating welfare from need, UBI forces a single basic question. Instead of “Is this person suffering?” it’s “Is this person one of us?”
At that point however “one of us” is no longer a political determination since the political basis of that decision is participation in the economy. They’re not immigrants here to make money for you and buy your products; they’re members of your society that you’re supporting solely because they’re members of your society.
Because of that distinction, UBI will introduce the question of who you want around you. After all, you’re paying for it, and not out of some obligation from the past, such as guilt for colonialism or class warfare (“inequality”). There will be no inequality. There is only the question of who you sponsor, which tends to be answered with “people like me.”
Tribalism returns when we stop with the errand of pity and embark instead on the practical task of cleaning up from the great liberal democracy party of the late 20th century, and rebuilding civilization. UBI is one attempt to duck the hangover, but as with all sweeping changes, it will introduce a new debate, and one that will shake our basic assumptions about citizenship and obligation.