Furthest Right

Outliers (#23)


In France, Nick Sarkozy broke a taboo when he rejected “climate change” and instead spoke about the real problem: overpopulation.

Sarkozy, acknowledging on a late night TV talk show that climate change was “a very serious challenge” said that: “the real challenge is that of demographic change.”

…”The first cause of environmental degradation… is the number of people on the planet,” Sarkozy said.

Climate change was invented to avoid talking about overpopulation. Instead of looking at the sheer number of people out there, we target consumption by those who are thriving, which allows us to pretend that we can just keep on as we have been with only a few lifestyle changes. In reality, every person added takes up more space — usually for secondary stuff like food production, roads, government, schools, etc. — on a planet of finite space resources, crowding out nature which needs about 50% of the land, air and sea for its own use alone.

Others are noticing the WASP or Western European origins of America, and feeling is rising that we were better as a Western European nation, and not a mixed-ethnic or even mixed-white one:

Coulter has described her opposition to immigration as being driven by “cultural” rather than “racial” reasons; in short, she believes Latino and Muslim immigrants come from countries with cultures that advocate rape, murder, homophobia, and drug use, and therefore pose a threat to both US security and America’s cultural identity. In practice, of course, her ideas are vaguely racial—and as some liberal commentators have argued, outwardly racist—calling for the preservation of American culture as defined by decidedly white British and Dutch settlers.

The Alt Right has fixed this mistaken notion: culture is the result of genetics, and politics is the result of culture. Thus politics is genetics. Demography is destiny. If you keep your population isolated, you can improve it; if you do not, you become the same ol’ genetic trail mix that is present throughout the third world, and you fail just like them. Coulter is at heart a gentle soul who does not want to bring up really hurtful realities — she is a WASP after all, from the finger bowls and salad spoons set — but the truth is that any immigration other than Western European is toxic for America and will turn it into Latin America.

From the Our-Ancestors-Were-Right-Again Department, a brief observation on the male influence on female sexuality:

Males have an invisible chemical ‘essence’ that helps prime females for reproduction, according to a new study.

But this invisible trigger has an unfortunate side-effect – the chemicals also speed up the females’ ageing process, the researchers have said.

‘One signal causes an earlier onset of puberty in juvenile females. The other slows down aging of the reproductive system in mature females, keeping them fertile longer. However, it also speeds up aging of the body.’

The point is this: our ancestors separated children by sex before puberty for a reason. This delayed the onset of sexual awareness and prolonged childhood, allowing the brain to develop before being overwhelmed by the gonads. Traditional society also allowed for men and women to spend a lot of time separated, something that is not possible without a strong culture enforcement of chastity on both sexes.

From the Why-Not-The-Obvious Department, a paranoid concern that we live in a simulacrum controlled by hostile aliens:

Top bank analysts claim there’s a 50% chance our world is a computer simulation and we’re all plugged into a Matrix-style virtual reality.

And they also reckon if it’s true – then there’s no way we’ll ever find out about it.

Our ancestors, who were not wimps or nitwits, would have immediately picked up on this and translated it into theological terms. Of course things appear managed; they are managed! And data in the world respond as if they were created by an external force and stored in memory, used as if by code, and rendered by algorithm. What else would you expect, if you thought materiality had a divine origin?

A look into the past by Peter Hitchens reveals the Soviet nature of modern American and Western European social conditions:

Family life, once begun, was precarious and fraught. Divorce had been made very easy by the family-hating Bolsheviks. One wedge-shaped Wedding Palace was known as “the Bermuda Triangle” because all the marriages contracted in it disappeared so quickly. I do not think I ever met a Soviet couple with two children who were full brothers and sisters. Invariably, it was a merger of two broken marriages into one new one. And no wonder. All the things that keep families together were absent or weak. Rents and prices were devised to ensure that even the educated middle class needed two full-time salaries to pay the bills. Unless there was a retired grandmother around, children were inevitably abandoned in early infancy to state nurseries and became the state’s charges. By the time I was there, the hideous state-sponsored cult of Pavlik Morozov, a young traitor to his family, was fading, but friends of mine remembered, sometimes with a shudder, being marched to pay respects to statues of this little monster, and to sing songs in his praise at Soviet youth gatherings.

Remember, the Soviets thought diversity was their strength, too.

From the All-English-Are-Leftists department, an example of how not to conduct analysis of anything, much less market conditions:

These examples could be multiplied endlessly, and not as the result of a selective choice of reports. A Google search on terms like “PFI hospital” or “private vocational training” will produce dozens more reports, nearly all describing financial and human disasters.

Yet despite this string of disasters, the push for market-oriented reform goes on. In the US, the Obama administration continues to promote the failed idea of charter schools, and Obama allies like Rahm Emanuel have carried on the war against teacher unions. The conservatives in Britain have backed away from the worst failures of the PFI. However, they are still enamoured of other Blair ideas like converting local authority schools into “academies” despite the absence of any evidence of improved performance.

The most obvious rebuttal here is that we do not have a free market system, but a system managed by many layers of regulation. Clever monkey Leftist (CLM) who wrote the article wants you to forget that and blame capitalism. Second point is that trusting any economic system to run a society is stupid; you need leadership. Leadership is demonized however by democracy, which cannot false the harsh truths necessary for leadership, so it elects actors who pass on difficult problems and let economic constraints “solve” them.

Do you want quality education? Remove all government funding for it and regulations on it. Let people hire teachers for their kids. You want quality healthcare? Remove all regulations and insurance. Let people find the care that fits their needs. You want good prisons? Actually, I have no solution here, since the real answer to prisons is to reduce all punishments to either (1) death, (2) exile or (3) restitution. That takes more sanity than our low-IQ society can manage however.

Are large corporations what ruined our democracy? Or was it… the Jeeeews? History shows us that instead, it was most likely democracy itself, because democracy ruins the ability of people to think clearly:

Say then, my friend, in what manner does tyranny arise? –that it has a democratic origin is evident.

And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy –I mean, after a sort?

The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which it was maintained was excess of wealth –am I not right?

And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy?

And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?

What good?
Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State –and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell.

Yes; the saying is in everybody’s mouth.
I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny.

How so?
When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cupbearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.

Tags: , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn