Posts Tagged ‘virtue signaling’

Standards Kill Parasites

Friday, July 21st, 2017

Do you believe in miracles? I believe they are possible, but I’ve studied just enough about quantum physics to learn how bloody (expletive) unlikely that is. I can accept God acting outside all physical law, but within the realm of the material, I squint double-hard at miracles.

Thus, I think National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd is exaggerating a tad when he says that morale is at a 20-year high. In the grand tradition of recent American politics, this sounds more like he is “showing results” by showing emotional effects on others.

I did not vote for Donald J. Trump in expectation of miracles, or even few solid and amusing plagues straight from the Book of Exodus. I expected him to get results because he understands what a standard is, and how enforcing those standards prevents exploitation of what the standards protect. He has established a standard that our laws are real, and foreigners can enter the country only in accordance with those laws.

He is securing our borders in order to ensure that those laws are enforced and in turn, is putting pressure on the citizens to change those laws if the results are bad. It turns out that his approach works spectacularly. Here is what happens when you set a standard.

The large drop in apprehensions of people illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border is “nothing short of miraculous,” National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd said on Monday. “If you look at the rhetoric that President Trump has given, it has caused a number of illegal border crossings to go down,” Judd told C-SPAN. “We have never seen such a drop that we currently have.”

Standards kill parasites. Standards make people actually put some skin in the game and commit before they get gimmedats. When people think they can use a resource free of consequence, you get the Tragedy of The Commons. When a good or service comes at a price, the ones too lazy or too dysfunctional to pay are excluded from depleting it. If there are no standards, each person exploits what is there and everyone suffers as a result.

This observation repeats with regard to SNAP enrollment in Georgia as well. Make people work and the ones allergic to that sort of thing will dissipate. They move to places where the pickings are easier.

Work requirements have halved the number of single adults receiving food stamps in Hall County and in 23 other counties. The number of able-bodied adults without dependents getting food stamps in Hall County fell from 529 people in 2016 to 264 at the start of 2017, according to the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services.

If you don’t want your peace, your finances and your environment destroyed by a horde of parasites, commit to standards. Commit to demanding something out of everyone that comes to feed. Apply the John Smith Rule. “He who does not work, does not eat.” States under budgetary pressure are looking to expand it to Medicaid as well as SNAP.

Indiana could become the first state to require some Medicaid recipients to work but it is facing a flood of opposition from health groups, advocates for the poor and others. Public comments filed with the federal government have been overwhelmingly against the idea even as Congress debates whether to give states more leeway in running their Medicaid programs, along with a lot less funding. Other states in various stages of pursuing permission for work requirements include Kentucky, Arizona, Arkansas, Wisconsin and Maine

Standards are the answer to the weight of the poor. Demand more than other, more socialistic places, and the worst of humanity will leave you. This means that the people in your society who are actually contributing are the ones who stay, which means that everyone benefits as contributions increase. Defend the normal, healthy and sane and you get more of it; focus on pitying those who are failing, and you get more of that at the expense of the normal, healthy and sane.

Compassion means saying “No.” Compassion means rewarding those who contribute to a community and banishing those who do not. Standards are the cure to Modernity. Is it any reason why they are so frequently condemned as “Racist,” “Classist,” or just plain “Evil”? Standards threaten the Left, which wants to destroy the normal, healthy and sane so that the insanity will be accepted as normal.

The hordes of parasites that empower the Left are not sustainable without unconditional altruism, which if you decode it is really a type of advertising for individual called “virtue signaling.” The people who talk loudest about The Poor™ care the least about them; what they care about is appearing to be more virtuous than you, while not investing the hard work in actually being, you know, virtuous.

When you think about it, the opposite of good is not “evil” per se, but everything that insists good is not necessary. When we give up on standards in favor of the appearance of altruism, we are relying on a miracle. When instead we demand standards, we are acting from sanity and will achieve the best results possible on this Earth.

Our Problem Is Not “Pathological Altruism”

Thursday, July 13th, 2017

For years, nationalists wrote about pathological altruism as the root of our dysfunction as a race and ethnic groups:

I don’t like the idea of “Pathological Altruism” as an explanation for what is occurring in the White world. The suicide can be explained in many ways, however the theory that White people are just too damn nice and that the further north you go, the more altruistic people are does not pass the sniff test.

Proponents of this theory say that White people are so naive about the nature of other peoples that they just welcome them into their country out of a misplaced sense of love to thy distant neighbor.

Exponents of this theory like to cite the Eskimos as an example. (No, not the Jews, but the actual Eskimos.) In theory, they’re super nice to one another because they have no enemies other than the harsh elements so far up north..

As covered on this blog, the actual problem is simpler but has more complex implications. People are controlled by social appearance, and are using their virtue signaling as a means to advance themselves. It is like writing essays in high school: find some way that whatever you are arguing for helps “the poor,” minorities, gays, women, or any other pitied group, and you get an A.

More accurately, our problem is individualism, or people deciding that no one can say “no” to them and as a result, social order, values, standards, heritage, religion and all other systems of order above the level of the individual go out the window. From this, people invent altruism, because it is a way to show they are “good” without having to do good except in a symbolic role.

Think of politicians kissing babies, or public donations to charities. Your older brother getting you ice cream once to make up for all the times he pounded you flat in the last few weeks. Cubicle workers showing up on the weekend to demonstrate loyalty after screwing off all month. This is symbolism, which like language can be used to manipulate, in lieu of doing the deed the symbolism refers to.

In a broader sense, altruism does not exist. We help others because it helps us, either in anticipated future results or by making us feel better about life because our actions help it all make sense. When we help others, we feel important, and that we have perpetuated an order in which we can succeed, because good is rewarded independent of random circumstance.

Our problem with diversity is that one side — the fake-misfits and fake-outcasts united — wants to replace all semblance of social order so that they can rule, and parasitize what is left of civilization. They use virtue signaling and other forms of attention whoring to make themselves seem important.

Much of this arises from egalitarianism itself. When everyone is equal, the bar has been raised from zero to an arbitrary minimum, but that means that anyone who does not rise above that arbitrary minimum is forgotten. And so, people engage in stunts, drama, and attention whoring in order to not be forgotten. Virtue signaling is one form of this attention-getting behavior.

When we remove egalitarianism, and have social order instead, people are not forced to constantly compete for attention. Instead, they have stable roles in which they fit and can excel, which means that they are stable and comfortable. That however makes for citizens who are not needy and therefore easily manipulated, so government and the herd hate it.

We are now exiting the age of ideology, in which symbolic appearance was more important than innate or inner traits. In that age, advertising and social signaling were more important than reality. In the future, people are looking toward what is real, and distrust the rest as the witchcraft of those who are doomed. With that will die false altruism.

Why Democracy Always Fails

Wednesday, May 31st, 2017

Human behavior boils down to only a few things. On the plus side, there is transcendence and ego-death; on the negative side, there is projection, transference and tunnel vision arising from solipsism, or the process of staying confined within our minds and the minds of those who share our immediate fascinations.

The grim truth of this is that it may not be all that human so much as the result of cognitive limits. People need to be able to come to decisions quickly that, while not perfect, form a working model upon which more can be built and greater detail ascertained. This requires avoiding imminent pitfalls while keeping as many options open as possible.

Unfortunately, that kind of thinking works poorly for leadership, aesthetics and moral questions. Its speed and simplicity makes it an ethic of convenience which evades entirely larger questions and long-term needs. In this way, our evolution which is so brilliant defeats us.

Some are able to escape this trap. They tend to have higher intelligence and be concerned with accuracy, namely how closely the impressions and predictions in their minds match the working of reality outside of the mind. They also have a moral sense which is not, in the herd style, a defensive morality aimed at avoiding loss of life, but a creative morality which strives to improve the quality of life as an existential experience.

Those are rare, however, and when the vote is taken, there are fewer of them than homeless guys voting for free toilet paper in every election, and so they are statistically eliminated early in the process. On top of that, however, we can see another reason why democracy always fails: voters choose appearance over reality.

One of the successful metaphors describing the mind is a ‘cognitive miser’. When we need to make a decision, particularly when we have little knowledge, we rely on shortcuts: hunches, ‘gut’ responses, stereotypes. We use shortcuts because it is easy. We are ready to leap to conclusions, especially when we are too lazy or busy to look for hard evidence. And most of us are cognitively lazy or busy some of the time. When it comes to decisions about strangers, the easiest, most accessible shortcut is our first impression. Unknowledgeable voters go for this shortcut.

Do the effects obtained in contrived lab demonstrations make a difference in the real world? In close races, unknowledgeable or ‘appearance-based’ voters can sway the outcome of the races. Lenz and Lawson estimated that candidates who appear slightly more competent than their opponents can get as much as 5 per cent more votes from unknowledgeable, TV-loving voters. Recently, Lenz and his students conducted experiments with voters in California and 18 other states. In the two weeks before an election day, voters were shown the ballots either with pictures of the candidates or without pictures, and asked to express their intention to vote. Depending on the race – primary or general – when the voters saw the pictures, the best-looking candidates got a boost between 10 per cent and 20 per cent over the appearance-disadvantaged candidates.

Attractive people and interesting, charismatic actors will always win over competent but less exciting candidates. This is no surprise to those of us who are lifelong democracy foes, because we realize that voters choose appearance every time in a more fundamental way: they pick the candidates whose platforms virtue signal, promise pacifism, or give the voters a feeling of confidence or the sensation that society is sympathetic to them (this is what modern people call “empathy”: the thought that if society cares for its most miserable, it also cares for everyone else, especially the individual talking about “empathy”).

Voters follow a hedonistic imperative when it comes to voting. They want to feel good. Things that make them feel good are forms of compassion that make them feel powerful, much as the guy handing a dollar to a homeless person feels a sense of wealth, power and moral superiority. They like pacifism because it makes them feel safe since it promises to neuter the powerful, even if on their own side, mainly because that is the only group of powerful people that voters have control over.

They like to act generous and tolerant because they are LARPing at being kings, even if they do not understand the root of constructive generosity. And so on: a group of talking monkeys with car keys posing and preening chooses whatever candidate it feels makes the best adornment for its personal narratives. People choose candidates like they buy clothing or movies.

For example, a person will select a romantic comedy (ugh) because they want to “feel good” about their position in the world. They watch sad movies when they are sad, goofy comedies when they want to be happy, and “serious” documentaries when they want to impress their friends with how deep they are. Everywhere, monkeys are acting out their emotional needs on the world, and seem not to care that their votes have effect.

As the bloom fades from liberal democracy in the West, and we tally the dead and destroyed from our campaign to make it work by squashing anyone who disagreed with it, people are speaking out more about the failures of democracy. These failures occur at such a fundamental level that there is no way to fix them, as the failure of the US Constitution to belay mob rule indicates.

Against Free Speech

Saturday, May 27th, 2017

What does “free speech” mean?  Like any “human right,” it is only vaguely defined: people should be allowed to say whatever they want, and should not be prevented from doing so.  

The definition immediately raises questions.  What about screaming “fire” in a crowded theater?  That has obvious immediate harmful effects, and so everyone is comfortable marring the clean absolute freedom with caveats to the effect that it only applies in reasonable situations.  A crack in the clarity of the freedom appears, and soon a gang of subsequent exceptions crowd in, widening the rend until the whole thing collapses and leaves behind a garish rubble heap of political correctness and hate speech.  

Now the new and improved definition of free speech goes as follows: people should be allowed to say whatever conforms to the prevailing narratives, and the government shouldn’t stop them in an obvious way, unless it’s hate speech, and in that case they should go to jail.”

This colossal failure gives us a chance to reassess.

What is our intent with free speech?  What state are we aiming towards, what is our goal?  What is it about free speech that we like, and is free speech the best vessel for that?

What we want is an absence of restrictions while pursuing and creating truth, virtue, and beauty.

Free speech is an absence of restrictions for anyone while pursuing anything.

When stated this way, the indiscriminate egalitarian nature of free speech becomes obvious.  Egalitarianism is so deeply ingrained and reinforced at nearly every moment in the modern environment that it takes us deliberate effort to even recognize its presence.  Since it is inherently false–humans are not equal; equality is a concept outside of the natural world and only makes sense in a purely abstract setting like mathematics–its presence will always confuse, misdirect, and corrupt.

In this case, defending the right of anyone to say anything is not the best path towards truth, virtue, and goodness.  At best, it’s an awkward, flawed method of sneaking in true, good, and beautiful speech along with a torrent of what is effectively noise.  It’s an inherently egalitarian strategy for overcoming or holding back the more obviously destructive excesses of egalitarianism, and so ensures its own failure by having a foundation upon the force that it is meant to oppose.

Let’s cut to the point.  The best path towards truth, virtue, and goodness is simply to uphold those directly.  Since these are not recognizable to all, and some can recognize them better than others, this requires hierarchy.  In the egalitarian mindset, this is seen as unfair, because some are treated differently than others, but once human differences are taken into account and egalitarianism is rejected, it becomes clear that in fact the only way to be fair is to treat some differently than others in accordance with their differing natures.

When “speech” is not treated as a singular, indivisible abstract concept we become able to separate signal from noise because different subsets of society will have different criteria for what is considered noise.  Some will hear a Bach fugue as a meaningless jumble of frantic notes and others will hear a pop song with as much interest as a washing machine, but this only becomes a problem when there’s only one radio station.

Similarly, when the task of governing is justly assigned to those who are most suited to perform the task well, whose traits include a greater ability to recognize truth, there is less noise amongst the group than there would be if it included everyone, some of whom are less able to recognize truth.  And when this latter group is not burdened unjustly with reigns of power it is not suited to hold, there is less cause for concern when it produces speech that strays from truth.  Overall, as a side-effect, this allows for greater freedom of speech for all because there is less need to police speech.

Under current conditions, free speech is often a useful tool that can overcome restrictions against true speech, virtuous speech, and beautiful speech.  Let us not mistake the method for the ultimate goal.

You Cannot Afford Democracy

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2017

You think you can afford it, but it will bury you. Democracy is what happens when selfish people gather in a group so that they will not be held accountable for their actions. “There’s strength in numbers” — ever hear that one? How do you punish a mob? You do not, and so people form little groups to enable individualists to act out without blame: gangs, cults, cliques, mobs, herds, crowds, stampedes.

Democracy is just a formalized form of the mob. By writing down rules and laws, they think they have legitimized what is basically anti-leadership and anti-values which we pretend are somehow morally superior because everyone gets an (insignificant) voice. The truth of democracy is that whatever is simplest and most distracting — bread and circuses — wins, and everyone loses.

This week shows us the peak of Liberal democracy heading into the downfall as California proves how entitlement programs will swallow up society itself because costs are infinite while resources are not:

It would cost $400 billion to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.

California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.

This is a state with a $171 billion budget in total, and now they will need to find another $200 billion in addition to their current outlays for healthcare, and what feds and local communities throw in.

If you want a cosmic metaphor, healthcare is a black hole. In that way, it is like all socialist programs: society has a few really productive members and a whole lot of “me too” type people, and when you enact wealth transfer from the productive in order to destroy a caste structure to society, you kill the goose that laid golden eggs and your society starves.

Just like in Venezuela. Cuba. The Soviet Union. Post-Revolutionary France. Cambodia. Zimbabwe. North Korea. Socialism is not so much a “command economy” as it is a demand that wealth be distributed to the Crowd, which discriminates against those who are more productive, and as a result, creates a society of minimal contributors that cannot sustain itself.

In any group of humans, “let’s divide up what we have equally” is the most popular topic of conversation, and in the same group, one in twenty people produce most of that wealth. When you tell them that they are in effect slaves to the rest and must work to support them, they make a simple calculus: produce, and give up my life for idiots, or join the line of expectant mouths and have time to myself?

Socialism does not work. Egalitarianism does not work for the same reason: when you divide up power, those who know better stop contributing, and then idiots rule you. Looking around at politics in the US/EU, it is clear that the end result of liberal democracy is permanent leadership by indistinguishable idiots. Who really can tell the difference between Francois Hollande and Immanuel Macron, or Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel, or Theresa May and Tony Blair?

As the world is reeling from the notice that in California, one government program will cost more than twice the entire government budget, Donald Trump has launched an ambitious attack on the entitlement spending integral to democracy, which since the 1930s has taken over most of the US budget:

President Donald Trump would dramatically reduce the U.S. government’s role in society with $3.6 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years in a budget plan that shrinks the safety net for the poor, recent college graduates and farmers.

…The plan would slash Medicaid payments, increase monthly student loan payments and cut food stamps and agricultural subsidies, each backed by powerful constituencies.

…He’s also proposing severe cuts to foreign aid and tighter eligibility for tax cuts that benefit the working poor. He also seeks cuts in food stamps and disability insurance.

Trump’s budget recognizes the truth: entitlements and civil rights programs make government into a huge powerful monster, and if we cut those, people will become self-reliant and stop stealing from each other under the guise of tax and spend and wealth redistribution. This rewards the productive and forces the unproductive to either become useful or face Darwinian consequences.

With the Trump budget, the Republicans have become the party of science once again, instead of denying Darwinism like the Left.

If government slashed its entitlement programs, it would eliminate up to 60% of its budget.

Looking further, Trump wants to downsize the bureaucracy and provide incentives for people to leave behind dependency programs like entitlements:

…would cut domestic agencies by 10 percent in 2018 and by 40 percent in 2027…

…Medicaid cuts of $610 billion would come alongside $250 billion savings — partly fueled by limiting expanded Medicaid — from repealing Obamacare. Food stamps would be cut by $193 billion.

Federal workers would see much less generous retirement benefits under the budget. Eliminating cost-of-living adjustments for retirees would save $42 billion while increasing required employee retirement contributions would save $72 billion. And the budget would save $72 billion through cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance.

Part of what keeps the system going is that it rewards people for mere participation. This creates legions of bureaucrats and clerks who expect to work easy jobs and then retire with massive benefits. Once that practice is legitimized, those in private industry will expect the same, and demand government pay for it. They will rob tomorrow to pay for today.

This mentality — participation, subsidies, entitlements, benefits — is like a path through a forest. Once you start going down the path, it is hard to see where it branched off, so you make the best of the path, but as time passes, you go further down it. Until you repudiate the decision to take the path in the first place, the path itself becomes your purpose, and you cannot change.

Democracy always goes down this path. Democracy starts with the idea of equality. Once that seems to work, people assume that whatever the herd votes for is good. At that point, the herd realizes that it can write checks on tomorrow’s account with impunity, and begins to award itself little freebies here and there.

At first, this is always done in the name of “the poor,” referring to a group of natural selection failures who seem to never do well no matter what is done for them. This group is a perfect symbol because all of the armchair voters imagine themselves impoverished, and react emotionally by approving whatever is done in the name of the poor.

But democracy is not finished. It finds other groups to add to the list, because each time it comes up with a justification that voters will knee-jerk approve, its power grows, as does the wealth going to all those bureaucrats, politicians, clerks and public servants. The trough is full, and they will belly up and feast until beaten back.

To pay for all this, government introduces little methods of making wealth. New taxes, especially on products that not everyone uses. Speeding tickets, fines, service fees. Once these are on the books, they expand every few years when someone notices that government cannot pay its bills. The take always expands, and people work less efficiently in retaliation.

Eventually this creates the system in which we find ourselves: ruled by fools, chasing after symbolic victories, ignoring real problems and living in a Potemkin economy where most jobs are make-work to keep the tax-and-spend empire going, in which we claim to be an important economy because we give people free money and they spend it on plastic junk to amuse themselves before they toss it in the landfill.

In such a system, people have two choices: they can either signal that they are good obedient citizens by repeating the dogma heaped on them, or they can resist it and risk becoming social outcasts. This creates a system that is a more effective form of totalitarianism because it is invisible and enforced by the citizens on each other.

Do not say you were not warned! If the crisis of democracy was not apparent to you from the way ancient Athens just dropped out of history, then consider the lesson of the French Revolution: claiming to be unjustly impoverished, “we the people” revolted and made themselves more impoverished, but not before killing off the smartest and best ten percent of their society, dropping the average IQ by ten points.

That event, called The Terror, seems to be in history books but is explained as an unfortunate necessity for the People’s Victory. In our modern era, we have made The Terror into a daily event, where instead of killing people we simply destroy the best among us with boring jobs, ugly repetitive life, disgusting mass culture, millions of petit tyrants in middle management and endless red tape.

Anyone with any brains would bail out, and most of them have, which conveniently clears the field for those who are insane, neurotic or simply rationalizing the decline — that first option above of being good obedient citizens — to take over and do even more damage. The death spiral has been reached and there is no way out.

The West has killed itself with democracy, which was its response to instability. Instead of working toward the difficult solution of fixing root problems, people opted instead to divide up the wealth and live easy on the momentum of the past.

Democracy will not stop terrorism. People who succeed in democracy do so by being obedient, which means repeating egalitarian dogma no matter what happens. They will not divide us. Muh freedom. Muh rights. Muh diversity. All of these things stem from egalitarianism, or the idea that all people “should” be equal, so we will make it so with government force, taxes and welfare.

Any who deviate from the dogma are punished, and only those who approve of the dogma succeed in the system, so most people just go along with the forced march to doom. They cleverly blame everyone but themselves, since if they were to reject the dogma, they might give up some of what they have today in exchange for a better tomorrow. We cannot have that; we would feel like we bought losing lottery tickets!

This leads us to the current day, where anything resembling common sense is demonized for being disobedient to the dogma of equality, and Godwin’s law is always enforced:

Katie Hopkins has been reported to police for calling for a “final solution” following the terror attack at Manchester Arena.

The Mail Online columnist swiftly deleted the tweet, which echoed the Nazi term for the Holocaust, amid widespread condemnation for the “despicable” post.

The herd objects to anyone who fails to affirm the dogma of our time. They are terrified of change, but more than that, they resent and hate any suggestion that herd rule has failed us. Even though they acknowledge that they have the power of the vote, they will always blame someone else for their own bad decisions. This is how it goes in a democracy.

The fact is that we have not left behind our glorious Simian heritage at all. As William S. Burroughs once wrote:

Spot of bother there. Scalpel fight with a colleague in the operating room. And my baboon assistant jumped on the patient and tore him to pieces. Baboons always attack the weakest party in an altercation. Quite right too. We must never forget our glorious simian heritage.

In human tribes, we always attack the person who is socially weakest, because we are creatures of the Word and not the body entirely. Whoever offers up an opinion that unsettles the group is immediately attacked; civilization was possible while this urge was suppressed by maintaining a focus on transcendental goals, but now, we have settled back into monkey dynamics.

Democracy always shifts Leftward, but before that point, unless stopped by those who have more wisdom, civilization always shifts Leftward because people want to believe that they are immune to criticism, and equality delivers on that promise. If we are all equal, no one can be seen as wrong and therefore lose status in the group.

In this way, the principle behind a monkey troupe is the same as behind a union, gang, cult, clique or other “dark organization” within a larger organization. They value stability of the group over getting anything done. When someone acts in any way that is smarter than what everyone else is doing, they attack.

This is the built-in self-destruct feature on human civilizations. Unless humans are actively oppressed, or at least the majority of them are, they form a riot mob and tear down everything good. This is because good things insult them, while mediocrity makes them feel comfortable because it does not reveal them to be lower.

As a result, when you see Leftists or other Crowdist groups out there, keep in mind that they want to see you die. They want to tear down everything good, beautiful and true. They want to sabotage anything more than subsistence, third-world-style living. They will try to destroy you unless you force them to heel. They are driven by a mixture of envy, fear, scapegoating, resentment, narcissism and opportunism.

Human living becomes simple when you view us as a biological species that behaves like other animals. If we want to be more than a third world ruin, we must install and perpetuate a social order based on putting the intelligent and good in charge, and taking care of everyone else by restraining their power. This is what it means to be anti-egalitarian.

Regarding the situation at hand, we will continue to have terrorism until we get rid of democracy because the herd is actually just fine with terrorism. To them, it is like a lottery: we all played, and they won by not dying, and in the meantime, they are going to virtue signal and attention whore about how great diversity is because it asserts their desired order of mediocrity winning over excellence.

Democracy wants you dead, at least if you are above the only true “equality” that exists, which is a lack of any exceptional ability. Inside every human being lurks the potential for this kind of vindictive and petty behavior. And so, despite knowing that it means more terrorism, voters go into those booths and pull the levers for what gratifies this impulse to destroy. And so it goes, over and over again.

The Roper Report Links Balkanization And Nihilism

Wednesday, May 17th, 2017

Billy Roper (interview) stands out among nationalists because he has been active in promoting sensible ideas for a long time, and during that time, has developed and refined his philosophy to combine history and politics into a vision of the inevitable future and how we can redirect the failing of Western civilization into its rebirth.

In other words, he accepts all of the dark and bad, and instead of becoming depressive and self-destructive, points to the opportunity that this gives us: when a rotted order falls, we can create in its place a healthier Western Civilization than can exist at all under the current form of society that we have chosen over the years of decay.

On the most recent edition of The Roper Report, Mr. Roper talks about “the black pill,” or nihilism, and how it is useful for us to accept the enormity of our situation and the corresponding intensity of what we are called on to do. This is “do or die” territory, and most people are looking for a reason to choose a “good enough” placebo solution instead of the good solution that is actually required.

From there, Mr. Roper and his guest Cantankerous Ordo — a well-spoken fellow with depth of insight — investigate the Alt Right and how it navigates between virtue signaling and purity spiraling in an attempt to enforce internal integrity and prevent “frenemy entryism,” which is what I call the situation when people who want to take part end up accidentally bringing their Leftist ideas or broken behaviors into the wider cultural wave, corrupting it and eventually inverting it.

The whole thing is worth listening to, complete with a mixture of music and commentary. It includes a discussion of how the fragmentation of the West guarantees that Balkanization, or the break-up of nation states into individual ethnic and cultural groups, will end the travesty that is the fallen West.

For those who enjoy what they hear, the book by Mr. Roper entitled The Big Picture provides more essential thinking material. Thank you to Messrs. Roper and Ordo for discussing the Black Pill and presenting such an interesting podcast!

Our Pretense Prohibits Noticing That Desegregation Was A Disaster

Monday, April 17th, 2017

Groups operate by unity and exclusion of outsiders. This is applied through rituals where a belief of the tribe is ritually challenged and then affirmed; we see this pattern in adventure movies, mystery novels and politics. The point is for everyone in the tribe to feel a sense of unity in beating back the enemy and affirming what they hold in common.

In America, however, what we have in common is nearly nothing since we left our Western European roots, and so our rituals are entirely political, such as the recurring two minutes hate against those who deny equality:

The woman was referring to Maurice’s Piggie Park, a small chain of barbecue restaurants, established in West Columbia, South Carolina, in 1953. The original restaurant occupies a barnlike building on a busy intersection and is presided over by a regionally famous electric marquee that features the boast “world’s best bar-b-q,” along with a grinning piglet named Little Joe. The Piggie Park is important in the history of barbecue, which is more or less the history of America. One reason is that its founder, Maurice Bessinger, popularized the yellow, mustard-based sauce that typifies the barbecue of South Carolina’s Midlands area. Another is that Bessinger was a white supremacist who, in 1968, went to the Supreme Court in an unsuccessful fight against desegregation, and, in 1974, ran a losing gubernatorial campaign, wearing a white suit and riding a white horse.

In 2000, when the Confederate flag was removed from the South Carolina statehouse dome, Bessinger raised Confederate flags over all his restaurants. (By then, there were nine.) A king-sheet-size version went up over the West Columbia location, where he had long distributed tracts alleging, for example, that “African slaves blessed the Lord for allowing them to be enslaved and sent to America.”

If we live in a free society, what is the problem with this? Outside of the law, which obviously should tolerate it, we should ask ourselves why we are such pretentious primates that we cannot simply accept the difference of opinion, and eat there much as we eat at any other restaurant, knowing that some of the proprietor’s beliefs are alien and threatening to us.

The answer is that the panic here has nothing to do with what the fellow believes, and everything to do with people demonstrating obedience to the group. This outrage is a conversation point that allows them to affirm to everyone else how they are in fact totally obedient to the idea of equality; race is the symbol, class warfare — removal of hierarchy — is the goal that white people actually have.

And so we roll on, ignoring the fact that we are divided. We deny the obvious reality that people are different in ability and need different roles. We use the symbol of “racism” to show how we would never agree with those evil people who think that people are different, or that most people might in fact be feckless little monkeys who are exclusively self-interested.

This “virtue signaling” or “pathological altruism” is designed to offer oneself to the group as a sacrifice, in exchange for the support of the group. This is the nature of Control: the group accepts those who flatter it, instead of choosing people based on their contributions in reality. Its only goal is to make everyone obey its vision of reality, which needs obedience because it denies reality.

Our mental virus of denial serves to keep us from noticing that desegregation was a disaster for both whites and blacks, depriving each of a strong identity in their own community. It also keeps us from looking deeper to see that diversity, including slavery, is a disaster because it creates a society without a uniform standard toward which all can strive, and feel rewarded for partially attaining.

We can get out of this loop if we want, but first it requires that we view free speech as more than a rule. We need to see it is a method of living. In a sane society, people are not destroyed for their opinions, and we recognize that others always differ with us on key issues, but we can still eat their barbecue, enjoy their company and not dehumanize them like Communists do to all dissidents.

Death Spirals, Red Tide And Virtue Signaling

Thursday, March 23rd, 2017

Life is mathematical. Every organism faces a series of challenges which are defined more by numerical factors than anything else. For example, how much food is there? How many offspring must be produced? All of these calculations determine outcome more than doing one specific task so well that it overcomes the numeric limitations imposed upon it.

The mathematics of life determine survival. A parasitic disease, like a flu, that takes too many resources will kill the host and be less successful as quarantine kicks in; a rapidly-reproducing organism, like yeast, is most likely to reproduce too fast, consume all of its nutrition and die in a bloom of excess.

We see these events happen in nature all of the time. The dreaded “red tide” is one type of population bloom that occurs through algae which reproduce too much and then deprive the water of oxygen, killing off all sea life in the area. If not whacked back, crabgrass takes over lawns and chokes out every other species.

These extreme examples conceal the fact that these mathematical limits apply to every species. If there are too many deer, they will destroy enough trees that next season, they will starve. Too many squirrels means starving squirrels. But the same is even true of human attempts to form groups; if the group cannot limit its natural impulses, it implodes.

Let us look at an entertaining episode where human impulse control failures coordinated with natural over-population and created an ecocidal disaster that destroyed the overgrown species as well:

In August 1944, the Coast Guard released 29 reindeer on the island as a backup food source for the men. Barged over from Nunivak Island, the animals landed in an ungulate paradise: lichen mats four inches thick carpeted areas of the island, and the men of the Coast Guard station were the reindeer’s only potential predators.

…[thirteen years later the] herd was then at a staggering density of 47 reindeer per square mile. Klein noted the animals’ body size decreased since his last visit, as had the ratio of yearling reindeer to adults. All signs pointed to a crash ahead.

…in summer of 1966, he, another biologist and a botanist found the island covered with skeletons; they counted only 42 live reindeer, no fawns, 41 females and one male with abnormal antlers that probably wasn’t able to reproduce. During a few months, the reindeer population of St. Matthew had dropped by 99 percent.

Let us look at the mathematics of the situation:

St. Matthew then had the classic ingredients for a population explosion—a group of healthy large herbivores with a limited food supply and no creature above them in the food chain.

In other words, there is a mathematical threshold here imposed by the ratio of animals to resources given the need for the resources to replenish themselves. With few enough animals, the food source is able to renew itself; with too many, a situation like “eating the seed corn” occurs and there is no crop in the following year.

These thresholds are invisible because they are not formed of anything tangible or evident, only a prediction based on the mathematics of the situation. For this reason, human groups routinely stumble over these and self-destruct through a process known as a death spiral.

In a death spiral, a human group engages in a pathology based on what has worked in the past. They do this because of social factors, which ties into the same type of neurosis that causes “cargo cults” among human groups:

Cargo cult, any of the religious movements chiefly, but not solely, in Melanesia that exhibit belief in the imminence of a new age of blessing, to be initiated by the arrival of a special “cargo” of goods from supernatural sources—based on the observation by local residents of the delivery of supplies to colonial officials.

In these, people confuse what they were doing at the moment an event occurred with the cause of that event. This leads to groups engaging in religious rituals to bring back the cargo, even though the delivery of the cargo was initiated by events entirely unremoved from the group. This provides a good metaphor for human pathology.

A small village has a few dozen farmers. One of them has an abundant crop. “I didn’t do anything different, except sacrifice this fish to the god Ba-El,” he says. The other farmers face a difficult choice: if they fail to sacrifice a fish to Ba-El, and they do not have a good crop, they will appear incompetent to others. Whereas if they do, they are merely out one fish.

The economics of pathology unfold from this moment. The symbolic task does not represent a risk in itself directly, but will cause a “sin of omission” where those busy with the symbolic will miss actual problems. But the social cost of not doing the symbolic task could be much higher, especially if something goes wrong and then no one wants to aid the guy who did not conform.

As a result, economics dictate that people follow the socially acceptable path even though it requires the adoption of what is essentially a lie, which is the idea that the fish sacrifice made the abundant crop. The lie unites the social group. Through this method, the human group starts its equivalent of a yeast bloom or red tide, which is a virtue signaling death spiral.

In a death spiral of this type, appearance is more important than reality and simultaneously, is detached from reality much like the symbolic fish sacrifice mentioned above. This means to social success, and success in terms of realistic results, rapidly become opposites. Symbols and their referents even more widely diverge. And so, the civilization becomes dedicated to lying.

For example, the fish sacrifices may have never worked, but those farmers who were conscientious enough to plough, plant and irrigate correctly are also those prone to make fish sacrifices. And so, it appears that the talisman works; everyone does it and those who do not are not trusted, cannot get loans or sell their product, and are marginalized.

The result is that to be a successful farmer, one must make the fish sacrifice, because social factors mediate reality through the actions of other people needed by farmers. At this point, something fascinating happens.

Clearly the fish sacrifices are not working. Normally, we would conclude that the method either never worked, only partially worked or has stopped working, and place less emphasis on it. But because of social factors, we must double down and place more emphasis on it.

Through this runaway acceleration feedback loop, more fish sacrifices will be performed. They may happen daily or require more or bigger fish. Farmers will spend themselves bankrupt buying fish because to do otherwise is to lose social approval, and so to be unable to get help (loans, sales, labor) from others. Insanity replaces sanity.

A virtual signaling death spiral of this sort adds to the natural conditions for a sudden extinction: unlimited growth plus finite resources reaches a threshold, but now, the added wrinkle is that resources are being expended for symbolic and not realistic ends. This does not cause sudden failure, which is why it is deadly.

Instead, it causes a gradual slowdown. For every dollar made from a farm, ten cents go to fish. This cost is passed on to consumers, who now pass it on to others. Lawyers, teachers, and repairmen all charge ten percent more. This in turn raises costs to farmers, so they raise their costs in turn. This feedback loop continues until the economy is near collapse.

Human groups of all types fail through this process. Symbolic and social behaviors replace practical ones. Then, the group both divides itself internally over the issue of symbolic behaviors and how to interpret them, and bleeds itself dry pursuing non-issues instead of the obvious and massive actual threats.

We see these patterns time and again in human society:

  1. Communism. Being Leftist meant social success, so people went far Leftist and then destroyed their society. At the time when they needed to be fixing real problems like a lack of food in grocery stores, they were instead fighting over ideological issues.
  2. Greenland. This Nordic colony thrived on hunting ivory from walruses, but then the market discovered elephant ivory. Instead of admitting the failure of this market, the colony continued hunting walrus with the energy it should have spent relocating or finding new industry.
  3. South Africa. This colony made itself rich on natural resources until other sources were found. At that point, it could no longer support its underclasses, and mass revolt resulted in a typical diversity death spiral where two groups fight each other instead of looking toward a new source of income.
  4. Immigration. The West experienced a huge population boom after World War II and started looking for ways to fund the social benefits it had appointed to those people. Instead of admitting that it could not pay these benefits, it began importing immigrants, only to find the tax revenues from these were not what were hoped for.

Future human leaders will be more concerned with feedback loops that produce death cycles than we are now. Failure of organization to respond to changing resource needs, including to slow growth before a crisis, destroys civilizations. Instead of adapting, the dying organization relies on proxies which increase its free rider and tragedy of the commons crises.

Those looking for rules that can prevent this situation will be disappointed. Humans are biological organisms that vary in ability; those with low ability, even in the presence of enlightened rules, will only misinterpret those rules. Without perceptive leaders with the power to act decisively before a crisis, that group will fall into a virtue signaling death spiral and perish.

What Really Killed Those Cute Bahamian Swimming Piggies

Friday, March 17th, 2017

There is a predictable pattern to the way that mass media news outlets report on events.  First reports tend to be highly sensational, and either due to ignorance, bias that favors an ideological narrative, or bias towards the popular (“clickbait”), also tend to leave out or misreport important facts.  This departure from truth is further amplified by social media, which promotes simple explanations that point the blame solely at a guilty few who can be satisfyingly hated due to presumed malicious motivation.  We have explicated the steps in this cycle previously.

So it is with the Bahamian swimming pigs.  After seven of these beloved creatures were found dead on their tiny home island, the first, biggest, wave of mass exposure this event received cast the blame onto a few reckless tourists who through cruel stupidity fed the pigs alcohol.  This was a popular framing, first because it allowed people to indulge in feel-good hate against an unfair oppressor, and second because it allows advertisement of an easily achieved personal moral superiority: look at these pig murderers, I would never murder a pig for laughs, and therefore I am good, even though that’s a very low standard for good.

Now, after the Internet outrage mobs have dispersed to new distractions, National Geographic reports that there may not be any malicious oppressors at all:

Though initial reports suggested that tourists had given the pigs fatal doses of alcohol, Humane Society inspector Ventoi Bethune told National Geographic that the dead swine had likely ingested sand.

Veterinarians who visited the site found large quantities of sand in the deceased animals’ stomachs, which Bethune says may have been caused by a recent influx of visitors throwing small amounts of food on the beach.

“The pigs have been on the island so long, they are used to foraging for natural food,” Bethune says. The pigs would only go the beach for an occasional treat.

But with the increase in tourism, the pigs are relying on humans more than ever.

Though the modern mindset is shaped from an early age to expect harm from intentionally evil agents–like comic book super villains–in reality those threats are not so great, because they’re rare, easy to spot, and easy to deal with.  If the pig murderers had been a few malicious individuals, we could imprison, exile, or execute the culprits and the problem would be completely solved; at least until another set of this rare type of person appeared.

What is in fact far more dangerous is carelessness and well-meaning naiveté.  This is commonplace; its negative effects are far more difficult to spot, and there is no obvious solution.

None of the individuals responsible for the pigs’ deaths intended to kill the pigs.  None of them expected it to happen, and most likely the vast majority don’t even realize that it happened.  If we wanted to assign blame, we would have to hand out a large number of fractional pig murder sentences, which is absurdly impractical and ineffective.  And to hate those responsible, to declare ourselves morally superior, we would need to pass a higher standard than the cartoonish modern conceptions of morality such as “don’t be a dick”.  Those who fed the pigs probably thought they were being nice, friendly, and good.

But we are able to sketch out some direction that a solution would take if we leave behind the need to blame as the most important component of a solution.  Assigning blame is important when it means holding people responsible for their failures, but becomes a distraction from solutions when punishment and retribution take the place of identifying causes.

In this case we see that the pigs died because they ate too many bits of food left in the sand, which was the result of a combination of too careless humans, and too many humans.  From there we can propose either making the human visitors less careless (good luck), or reducing the number of human visitors to the island.

Though this is less satisfying than beating a few assholes, it would mean the remaining cute swimming piggies would be less likely to die — and that is what really matters.

Why The Left Adores Pacifism

Monday, February 20th, 2017

Robert Stacy McCain observes the loser psychology of the Left:

Feminists refuse to confront the reality that there are evil forces in the world which wish us harm.

…Feminists can denounce the president as a “fascist,” and suffer no harm, but what would become of these fools if America was not protected by brave troops obedient to our Commander in Chief?

The Left makes zero sense until you understand them as individualists. They want to be free from any risk in decision-making, of the Darwinian kind including a loss of social status, while they are still able to enjoy the benefits of society, and are empowered to game the system by being able to make public, symbolic gestures of goodness that obscure the moral level of their other acts.

They hide this philosophy in egalitarianism because the plural of “I can do anything I want” is “we can do anything we want” and this type of collectivized individualism compels all of the members of the gang to defend each other, and so is the most effective method of building a cult-like revolutionary movement within a thriving society.

It makes sense to note this: Leftists do not create civilizations; they attach to them, or rise up within them, and then act as all parasites do. They siphon off nutrition and as they get more numerous, clog the internal motion necessary for homeostasis and gradually weaken and then kill the civilization. Leftists want you to see them as independent; a better comparison is the mosquito or cholera.

The thing about parasites is that if the host dies, all they need is another host nearby. For this reason, it is important for Leftists to encourage the host civilization to embark on any wars it cannot win. Once it is conquered, the Leftists will be there to collaborate with the enemy in exchange for a position in the enemy where they can continue their parasitism.

One reason that theories about The Rich™, The Masons™ or The Jews™ taking over our civilization are silly is that these theories are designed to conceal the actual parasite, which is the Leftist. Maybe the others are also parasites… evidence suggests they are varied, like any other human group. But what they do pales in comparison to the damage Leftism does.

A parasite needs to be like a good snake oil salesman or celebrity. It must constantly draw attention to itself in a way that displays its moral goodness through symbolic acts, because these are a cover for its immoral acts like parasitism itself. Think of it like a businessman: it is more efficient to give 10% a year than spend 20% of every deal ensuring it is ethical and constructive.

This “virtue signaling” is the hallmark of the Leftist and shows us that their ideology is not a philosophy but a pathology. They have zero interest in whether their words are true; what matters is — like the salesman, again — how their words are perceived by others in terms of making the Leftist look good.

If you wonder why Leftist politicians can approve obviously insane and non-working policies and laws, here is your answer. They do not care whether the policy works; in fact, it serves them better if it does not, and creates more social chaos which in turn engenders more unhappy, neurotic and rootless people that can be recruited into the Leftist gang.

Pacifism appeals to the Left because it is part of their stable of “reality is not reality” thinking. Leftists realize they do not have to be radical innovators in order to look like profound inventors, which they do by acting out the script of an inventor.

The inventor is remember by the group for having essentially said “reality is not reality” in a specific area; the way everyone was thinking about a problem was wrong, and some guy beat it, so it turns out that what most people think of reality is not reality… in that specific area. Leftists want this power more generally, and so they act out the script of claiming most people are wrong in order to appear to be radical innovators.

Conventional knowledge, common sense, logical fact and history hold that the best way to achieve peace is to have a deterrent to aggression. If you can cost the enemy more than he can likely gain, and create uncertainty that he can win, then you are as safe from him as you can be. If you declare pacifism, he will roll in and conquer you, at which point the parasites transfer to him.

Conquerors like the Romans and Genghis Khan experienced this in their own adventures. Whenever they conquered a state or city, there were people there waiting to be of service to the new regime. These people had been highly powerful before and so, it stood to reason, they were competent. Instead they were often parasites, which increased the viral load for Rome while healing some of its territories.

The “reality is not reality” approach of the Leftist recognizes the truth of the need for a military. In fact, if Leftists consistently oppose something, it is a good idea to reconsider it as it usually will be something good. Leftists want to virtue signal their independence from need and their moral supremacy, and humans — especially women — respond to pacifism as if it were good.

In reality, this “good” is just rationalization of a problem to the point of explaining it away. No hippie ever had a good answer for what would happen if the Soviets charged through the American heartland. But, a good salesman makes people feel better by explaining away actual problems so that instead the victims of his con focus on what he wants them to see, which is his virtue.

Feminism — entirely a subset of Leftism — opposes the military because it wants to weaken the nation around it and conquer that nation for its own purposes. Like any other viral thought, feminism “seems” intelligent, good, moral, etc. but turns out to be a deception. Its pacifism is a ruse to the end of that deception, and can safely be considered insane like the rest of feminism.

Recommended Reading