Posts Tagged ‘welfare’

In defense of self-interest

Saturday, September 26th, 2015


In an egalitarian time, the greatest sin is to withhold from someone else when you have more than they do.

While many people do this all the time, they carefully hide the fact. The most troubling circumstances resemble those in which I found myself yesterday.

At a convenience store, I purchased an item for my companion, and as we set out into the sun, a voice called out. “Sorry to bother you, sir, but I’m just trying to get something to eat…” called the plaintive soul.

Without hesitation, I said, “No.” He didn’t ask for an explanation — too many other marks coming out of the door, fattened on moon pies and Budweiser — but the reasoning is worth sharing.

Self-interest is the only moral course of action.

With self-interest, a direct correspondence occurs between the intent behind any action and its application. There are no proxies; the homeless-looking guy says he’s broke, but maybe not. The charities say the money goes to help people, but maybe not, and there may be secondary consequences. Those who give money are on a practical level chumps funding unknown evils in the name of the “good” whispered in their ear.

Further, Darwin winks at us. I use my money to the best of my judgment. Those who are poor at spending money wisely will end up being poor; those who are good, will rise. This benefits all of us by putting the most competent people both in charge of the money, and in a position to use it.

Next, I disagree with the idea of subsidy in any form. If I have to work, it is theft to allow others to skate by without it when they have need. I will spend my money on my family, and they will spend it on theirs. If an economic downturn comes, I want them starving so they bang on the doors of banks and investment houses and demand a fix. But do not steal from me. Karl Marx was right: time is money. When parasites show up and demand a handout, they are not just taking my money, but part of my irreplaceable life that I now have to work to pay for them, the parasitic bureaucrats who administer to them, and the businesses that crop up to take advantage of the free money handed out by the idiotic (apparently) voters.

There is only one legitimate use for collective income in society: toward things that benefit us all. We all take benefit from an opera, for example, pushing culture upward; we all benefit from roads, a military, courts and police. We do not all see any reward from charity, which takes from the successful and uses it to subsidize the unsuccessful like a crop no one wants to buy. And yet they grow. The more we give, the more of them there are.

This does not mean at all that I believe in Atomized Man, who owes no one a thing but himself. We all owe a debt to participate in society, and that is why we go to jobs and fund things like roads. The most important aspect of this however is the one no one mentions, which is supporting society itself — through labor. It takes work to maintain a culture, values, heritage, standards, customs and social order. These things do not show up on ledgers but they are more important than money. You can make it through a bad time with those, but not a rich time without, as our society is evidence daily.

One final reason exists for taking gleeful delight in self-interest: to do otherwise, to any degree, creates a victimhood mentality. If you give someone money, he must categorize it in his mind as either that he was wronged and is owed, or that he is a parasite. He will choose the former and the people handing out the money — all politeness — will do the same. This creates a mentality that spreads through society like an epidemic: first the poor feel wronged, then the middle class consider themselves victims, then the rich do. The problem is that victimhood is compensatory behavior. When someone feels wronged, they will “take it out” on other parties with the compensatory excuse and rationalization/justification that they were (actually) owed this, and did not receive it, so they are right in taking it. If you want to increase criminal mentation in your population, produce victims.

It is entertaining that our media is quick to defend various murderers and pedophiles with the excuse that they were abused when they were young. And yet, most abusers recreate their abuse trauma, so if possible, we should avoid abuse. Unfortunately for us, the perception of abuse — “I was wronged!” — functions exactly like abuse in the human mind. Handing out free subsidies is creating future abusers. It is immoral for the reasons stated above, as well as impractical, but it is downright suicidal for the reasons stated in this paragraph.

A victimhood mentality makes all of geared toward having non-goals. When they are at a job, and the stated goal is to make widgets, their actual goal becomes to do as little as possible to reclaim what was “stolen” from them. People pad bills, waste time, throw out working materials and otherwise sabotage society at large — which foots the bill through externalized costs — because they feel victimized. This quickly spreads to outright revenge, in which they would rather destroy everything everyone has than let another second go by without their “victimhood” being addressed.

Victim mentality creates a sluggish society. No one works toward task, but they also stop aspiring to anything beyond that theft of time and resources. They stop dreaming and hoping, and go into “resistance mode,” where like suicide bombers they simply hope to take down others with them when they go. They give up working toward anything and merely work against each other. Soon there is a giant mass of monkeys, each trying to rip all of the others off, with anyone who chooses to remain a decent person becoming the target of not just parasitism but outright violent crime. All of this arises from the welfare/socialist psychology.

White people got depressed and started dropping out of society at the point where it grew powerful governments. As the 1800s gave way to the 1900s, governments rose in power in replacement for monarchies and culture, and people became miserable. This occurred because government works through a victimhood Narrative which enables it to create victims, justify/rationalize the expansion of its power on their behalf, and then use that to force everyone else to obey and not notice its gross incompetence. When was the last time we had competent leadership? No one can remember, because it was not in our lifetimes, and in fact ended long before that.

Our current situation has us beset by parasites, most of whom do not intend to be predatory. They grow up in this society, get told they are victims, and then become addicted to the steady flow of benefits and welfare. On the other end, people become accustomed to easy jobs and stealing away whatever time and money they can, including by externalizing cost. Our current immigration crisis, as well as our constant class warfare, arises directly from the victimhood mentality created by our handouts because government wanted to be more powerful, and the voters approved it.

Self-interest includes that which benefits everyone, not just in the world of money and government, but things like the environment, natural species, clean air and preservation of culture and race. Without self-interest, those things are assumed to be someone else’s problem, and people work against them because they see any other costs as taking from what they are “owed.” Our society became hateful when we turned out back on these shared things for an endless cycle of finding pitiable peasants and trying to “lift them up” by giving them money, then finding out — it must be magic — that in the next generation there were more of them.

White people went into decline when we got into the government/welfare loop. Like bacteria or mosquitoes, our dependents multiply and drain us of energy. Soon good people stop caring, stop trying to get anything right, and finally stop reproducing and being moral. That is the condition white people were in by the time 1968 rolled around, like weakened patients watching helplessly as the host attaches. The parasite has sucked us dry and the only way to keep it at bay is to hold up the principle of self-interest rigorously in every area of life, all the time.

Freedom from parasites

Tuesday, August 25th, 2015


We are conditioned to think that allowing one person to starve is an injustice if we ourselves have any income whatsoever. Our society inculcates us in this idea of a “collective,” where all of us support everyone else to avoid being ideological and moral criminals.

This path leads not only to ruin as a civilization, but ruin as individuals. If one must work, all must work, or the few who succeed are penalized and the amount of work grows. Has anyone noticed that since the 1960s welfare programs kicked into high gear in the 1970s and 1980s, people have been divided into two camps? The people who work are spending more time at the job and sacrificing their families (and selves) as a result; the people who do not work do less every year and receive more.

Parasitism of this sort presents more than a utilitarian problem. It corrupts us within. It alters our morality from a sense of what is functional and right to a mentality of endless compromise and acceptance of mass injustice as a norm. It penalizes the good, breeds more of the bad, and reverses not only evolution but our ability to think. Our brains are so drenched in this dogma that we quiver at the thought of violating it.

But violating it is what we must do. No social health will befall us until we reverse this process of legitimizing parasitism. It may seem to benefit “the poor,” an amorphous definition kept obscure by government, but it makes them permanent dependents for the purchase price of their votes. By destroying those who attempt to do what is right, it converts us from healthy well-rounded people into desperate workers who spend most of their lives doing unnecessary and hated tasks, just to indulge the pretense of letting none starve.

Some must starve. Some do, no matter what we do. But there are few who are actually starving; in fact, most of our poor are quite rotund. Darwin says that if we do not reward good traits over bad, the bad will outbreed the good, and we can see this in the declining quality of our people. Even more, a society based on theft — from those who contribute, to those who do not — has legitimized theft itself. That spreads through all areas and creates the “greedy” me-first-at-all-costs mentality that was so shocking to see emerge in the 1980s. Gordon Gekko is not the opposite of the welfare state; he is a product of it.

Naturally people will accuse anyone who rejects parasitism as heartless, discompassionate, even cruel. The greatest cruelty however is found in results. If in the name of saving the non-contributors a society turns itself into a neurotic kleptocracy, a greater evil has been perpetuated than avoided. Our poor remain with us, and always will be, because they lack abilities or dedication. Bribing them with subsidies merely continues this state and sabotages the functional parts of society as its opportunity cost. Reversing parasitism should become a primary goal of the Right, if we want this civilization to not only persist but adjust its trajectory toward thriving instead of degeneration.

An alternative to socialism

Wednesday, August 5th, 2015


With the latest election looming, the economy is in the toilet and the voters are clamoring for lifelines. This means gimmes, giveaways, bennies (benefits) and subsidies. As usual, the voters are wrong and their choices will damage them in the future.

On one side of the fence sits what is basically socialism, the ideal that came about after the French Revolution showed that political equality alone was not enough, which is economic equality, or giving money to those with less to make a happy economy.

Socialism fails in much the same way it would expect you to: it punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive, which in the time-honored Darwinian ways of nature, produces a population of criminal slackers and drives out the good. Witness this recent experiment in socialism:

When Dan Price, founder and CEO of the Seattle-based credit-card-payment processing firm Gravity Payments, announced he was raising the company’s minimum salary to $70,000 a year, he was met with overwhelming enthusiasm.

But in the weeks since then, it’s become clear that not everyone is equally pleased. Among the critics? Some of Price’s own employees.

…”He gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn’t get much of a bump,” she told The Times. A fairer plan, she told the paper, would give newer employees smaller increases, along with the chance to earn a more substantial raise with more experience.

Most people think of this from the perspective of themselves if they were desperately poor: “but it’s not fair that some have so much more!” However, for a moment consider someone who has his or her act together. They do not want to spend their lives at a job either, but they are putting in the effort to make a difference. Why should they be paid less?

But, you say, they are not being paid less. They are being paid the same, you opine. True — in basic math. At higher levels, we live in a relative universe. If those at the bottom get more, it will be taken from the top. This means that we want high quality work out of the top performers for a lower percentage difference between themselves and the slackers. Being a slacker becomes an efficient solution because one gets most of the benefits with none of the risk or obligation.

The classic example of grades breaks down because there is future reward for higher grades. Imagine that were not so, and passing was all that was required. Then imagine that standards were lowered so every student showing minimal effort would pass. A student would have to be foolish, or simply love the material, to do more than the minimum. Now imagine that to rise above the minimum required twice as much effort as passing. Incentive falls and the students that thrive will be those who do the least the fastest.

History shows us a graveyard of socialist states. Some, like Canada and Europe, maintain hybrid systems, and like their diverse populations, are functional — for now. The cracks in the facade are there: existentially miserable people, decaying social order, gnarled masses of laws, and lack of actual productivity versus simply cruising on the wealth of the past. The countries that jump head-first into socialism end up impoverished third-world ruins; the quasi-socialist states seem to have found a slower way of getting there.

Despite all this, conservatives offer no concrete competition to socialism. This happens for two reasons: first, conservatives do not believe in single ideological principles as a solution for the varied needs and problems of a society; second, conservatives are mainly inarticulate about their beliefs except on specific points, which relates to the first reason. A conservative solution will not fit in a nice tidy package like socialism, which boils down to equality by subsidizing the less productive with the “excess” of the more productive.

Instead, the conservative solution relies on time-honored principles in the exact opposite direction from socialism. It might begin with the idea of abolishing all benefits, welfare, subsidies and unearned benefits, and then doing its best to reduce taxes, costs and barriers to productivity. Its aim would be a society where people could work fewer hours at their jobs and have their money go farther, instead of one where they work more for less reward. It would not crusade against inequality or The RichTM, but aim to support the people in the middle by reducing the unnecessary. Peel away miles of regulations, protections that do not work, and subsidies, and you end up with a climate where the worker knows exactly what to do and is rewarded appropriately, at which point his money and time stretch far farther than they do under our current hybrid systems.

And The PoorTM? A conservative recognizes that categorical thinking fools us if not applied very carefully. There is no group by that name. There are people with less income for a variety of reasons, and each needs a solution. In many cases, the answer is for them to become functional at whatever level they can, probably through menial labor where they are supervised. Others may be permanent wards of the state, but under the conservative regime, this is achieved through charity. Some others are simply parasites and can be told to shape up or ship out, instead of forcing every other person to pay out to both reduce the value of their currency and keep around sources of social decay. This is not as emotionally simple and rewarding as socialism, but it works better, and even more, it aims to protect the productive/normal/functional instead of penalizing them in order to create more permanent wards of the state.

If instead of half of our incomes in taxes, we paid less than a quarter — with all taxes, including sales and property, added — our lives would be immeasurably better because we would require less for the same lifestyle. If instead of millions of rules about who can be hired and when, we had a flexible system with no expectation that employers and government provide happiness for everyone, people would find more jobs out there and thus find it easier to get to a job that fits them, and spend less time at it. Conservatives would reduce the manic competition created by narrowing the slots for jobs and instead open up the field, allowing more flexibility. In addition, by removing needless complexity and bureaucracy, they would make life existentially better by reducing daily frustrations. People do not need benefits; they need saner, shorter jobs that do not make them miserable, and a society where living is not a matter of keeping your head above the rising floodwaters of social decay and neurotic complications.

There is no way to make this sound as easy as the emotional ideas of giving to all and having zero risk for anyone. Those are illusions however, and like most illusions — and the Canadian style of society — they will eventually crash into reality and collapse, although this can be postponed with a hybrid system. However, our real problem is not monetary inequality, but feeling like victims of society because it is insane, ugly, boring and rewards opportunists. The conservative solution fixes this instead of attack intermediates like “inequality” which do not actually deliver what people need, which history shows us is a far different quantity than what they think they want.

The knockout game isn’t what you think it is

Wednesday, November 27th, 2013

happy_turkey_day_turkeysPress and government are alike in that they act after the fact and tell us what to think about what happened. They aren’t there before the tragedy happens, because it isn’t news or a crime yet, technically. They live on the other side of that thin line.

You shouldn’t be surprised that they are late to the realization that “The Knockout Game” is a popular way to express racial antagonism in the USA. In this game, urban youths (usually black) sneak up on a passerby (usually white) and punch them unconscious.

The Knockout Game is part of something so old that it’s surprising these people don’t recognize it from their Bibles or history courses. In fact, it’s amazing that anyone does not see it. The Knockout Game is provocation and our response to it will determine our future.

It’s important first to take a note of race here on this blog. We don’t have opinions; we make predictions. One prediction, grounded in 6,000 years of history, is that diversity — of any form: ethnic, religious, cultural or caste — is non-functional and destroys civilizations as trying to make it work consumes them from within.

The important takeaway from our analysis of diversity is that the problem is not x group or y group, but diversity itself. Diversity destroys because it forces a removal of values systems so that different values systems can “tolerate” each other.

It also causes antagonism. Unless perfect equality is achieved, there’s always going to be tension between those at the top and those at the bottom. If that splits along racial lines, even if it’s perfectly fair, resentment will occur and will never go away.

Thus the Knockout Games of the world are invented to exploit this situation. The people with money and power fear the chaos possible in citizen revolt, and so they’re willing to buy off their underclasses with welfare, bread and circuses and so on.

The Knockout Game, like other forms of mau-mauing, then becomes a way to demand more from the people with money and power. It’s a way of saying that the existing benefits aren’t enough, so cough up more cash and maybe the beatings will not resume. However, this starts a cycle from which there is no escape.

The primary cause of this cycle is the nature of poverty itself. We like to describe it as a disease, but that’s social flattery. Poverty is caused by inability. In some cases, it’s intellectual; in others, it’s merely the time-honored saying being proven true: “Poor people have poor ways.”

Why is it that every ghetto on earth is the best place to find drugs, booze, hookers and card games? How is it that even the poorest seem to have money for cigarettes and lottery tickets? Or even televisions and video game consoles? Poverty results from poor life decisions more than anything else, with a tiny (1%) minority of poor people being the result of a temporary setback.

Even worse, poverty expands to fill the space allotted to it by society’s handouts. When society creates welfare, poor people are incentivized (as economists would say) to stay home and reproduce. The more mouths they have to feed, the more benefits. We make them into parasites to neutralize them.

If poverty is allowed to expand enough, which only happens in wealthy societies, it eventually leads to revolution. This is because of The Knockout Game: poor people are trained by such systems to keep making poor decisions, and then to keep rattling the cages for more cash. At some point, there isn’t more, usually because of a recession or war. Then there’s no choice but for the poor to back down and look weak, which they’ll never do, or push onward to full-blown revolution, at which point they have to invent a mythos of their own oppression to justify the orgy of theft, murder and destruction that inevitably follows.

We know The Knockout Game from international politics. The biggest player is North Korea. Any time they’re short of cash, they do something insane, usually involving nuclear weapons. The rich nations of the West show up and buy them off, in echoes of Neville Chamberlain, which helps the Norks feed their starving Communist masses for another season.

The Knockout Game is also being played in American politics. It’s a fascinating insight into who the actual target — the perceived rich and powerful — are. Obama’s decision to close embassy in Vatican is ‘slap in the face’ to Roman Catholics, say the headlines. But that’s the point. It’s the Knockout Game. He’s going to keep on slapping your face until you give in and buy him off. But if you buy him off, he’ll just demand more the next round.

Another article discusses the ugly synergy between liberal acts such as fake hate crimes reports, knockout games and the 50% of Greek HIV patients who have infected themselves in order to get government benefits. There’s a parasitism cycle here and it corresponds to the knockout game. Offer benefits; create resentment; then be forced to make even more buyouts to avoid revolution.

Humanity has faced this problem in all ages: what to do about the differences between the haves and have-nots. Leftists, who argue from the individual, think we should pay out if anyone has less than others; rightists, who argue from consequences, think we should set up some form of quasi-meritocratic system that exchanges reward for labor/risk. An even older point of view sees this as a moral issue.

In that view, to which I subscribe, it’s amoral to hand people things when they need to show some participation. The more we hand out, the more parasites we create. The less we encourage poor people to change their ways, the more they stay poor. This way each gets what he or she deserves, and none are penalized in order to appease others.

This viewpoint is entirely compatible with Darwinism. Evolution demands we set up standards and reward those who meet them, and do nothing for the rest. This is how nature slowly refines simple species into highly competent ones: it rewards competence and fails to reward incompetence or mediocrity.

If there’s a takeaway on The Knockout Game, it is that the game itself shows us who the targets are. Who’s rich and powerful in America? Not our media and financial elites, but our normal middle class white people. Why: we are the majority. We are presumed to be in control. But most importantly, we’re the ones who will actually foot the bill for more appeasement.

This isn’t changed from any other time in history. If you look at the upper half of the middle class, you see slim, attractive, healthy, athletic and intelligent people whose biology reflects their Norse-Germanic heritage. That’s the American majority, and it’s what most people on earth want to be. But there’s only one path there, which is through evolution.

Most of those who are wishfully wanting to take part realize that. They will not be able to be from this naturally-favored group. Their next response is to demand money from it, to try to control and dominate it, and when they bleed it dry, to destroy it.

This pattern plays itself out throughout history. The weaker masses envy the stronger and end up murdering them. Evolution is reversed, and the poor get even poorer, since the cash cow middle class has gone away. France, Russia, Latin America, Eastern Europe… what’s left afterwards is an impoverished warzone.

On this turkey day, when we give thanks for what we have, we should remember how to make the hardest decision, which is to not be turkeys. We should take a hard-line moral view and reward only those who contribute, and give nothing to the rest. Their threat of revolt will be empty if we never become their sugar daddies in the first place.

Recommended Reading