Over at the Washington Post (Pravda-On-The-Potomac), Robert Samuelson — who is a talented columnist — opines about nostalgia for the 1990s:
But it was not to be. The stock market bubble burst in early 2000. Then 9/11 exposed our vulnerability to terrorism. The 2008-2009 financial crisis and accompanying Great Recession gave the lie to our presumed control of the business cycle. Both Russia and China emerged as geopolitical rivals and, possibly, military foes.
We had paradise for a fleeting moment — and then it was lost. It is the subconscious comparison between the imperfect present and the idealized past (of the late 1990s) that feeds our disappointment. Otherwise, our situation might seem less desperate. After all, the economy has created more than 14 million jobs since the employment low point. What’s missing is the sense of boundless optimism and national superiority that characterized the boom years.
Americans are now said to be “angry” and to demand “change.” This is misleading. In the past two decades, Americans have had more change than they’ve wanted. What they’d really like is to repeal the changes — the economic uncertainties, the physical threats, the geopolitical challenges — and revert to the romanticized world of the late 1990s, when the outlook seemed more tranquil.
However, he does not understand cause and effect. The world of the 1990s was a creation of the 1980s, much as the world of the 2000s and 2010s is a creation of the Clinton years. The 1980s pushed the Soviet Union to collapse, and then the “peace dividend” was reaped, in addition to cheap Chinese and Mexican labor and agriculture.
But to continue that, America would have had to continue Reagan-era programs, which worked unlike Clinton-era programs. Leftists were quick to claim victory for the Clinton programs, ignoring the fact that it would take decades to see their consequences. In reality, they were laying the landmines that exploded a decade or more later, especially the housing bubble.
The fact is that most people want to go back to the 1980s or early 1990s. What made that time different? — we had not embarked on the Great Leap Forward for diversity and multiculturalism, and were focused not on Leftist ideology but practical survival.
When Trump tries to be Reagan II, he is tapping into the unconscious realization by Americans that we took a massive wrong turn by going Leftist in the 1990s, letting the crazy Baby Boomer 1968er neurotic ideological zombies re-shape this nation according to their controlling desires, instead of paying attention to reality.
The only further step is to realize that Western Civilization has not been civilization for some time, since we embraced equal inclusion and thus neurotic individualism during the Renaissance and Enlightenment™ era. We do not need to fix the EU and the USA; we need to replace them with something that works.
While this is scary, and will involve relocating 150 million people, it is preferable to becoming Brazil II, which under the Leftist regime is our only option.
Those of us who take up the pen, if we are honest, never advocate that which is destructive, but we often must speak favorably of that which seems destructive because it goes against the assumptions of our time. Keep in mind that the Crowd is always wrong, or at least looking in the wrong places, so what it insists is true is in fact a deception.
However, on the Right and associated “movements,” there a number of people who do not advocate win-win solutions where every group comes out ahead. Instead, the us-versus-them narrative replaces a reasonable take on reality, as is the case with the Left, which in the future — if there is one — will be seen as a type of mental disease.
The grim fact is that what is spoken of here will benefit everyone. African-Americans, Orientals/Hispanics, Indic Asians and others would benefit from being sent back to their home continents with new knowledge — and more importantly, new expectations. A whole lot of people in India demanding American-style functional institutions would advance conditions there quite a bit, much as Americans coming back from Europe and Asia demanded higher standards during our frontier days, and by creating a market, ensured they would occur.
Nationalism works. Aristocracy works. Socialism does not work; positive reward does. Transcendental outlook, duty and naturalism work. Hierarchy works. Everything else fails: we have had 6,000 years of human civilization, and it is clear what works for producing higher civilization, and what does not. Our only enemy is our fear.
This fear is understandable. Radicals — even the intelligent and realistic ones — demand that we abandon what we know and launch off into new territory, even if it is only new to us and not new to history. But what we have now is not working; people are miserable and not breeding, becoming degenerate and apathetic, often simply self-hating.
Thus we have a world to gain beyond the barrier of fear, and by continuing with the present, only a slow road to decay.
This decision is thrust upon all of us whether we want it or not, and at some point, we must choose one of the two directions. Do we wish to rise or continue falling? The solutions will be scary at first, but as the logic behind them is revealed, we will see better results.
Our only obstacle is our fear.
We toss around terms, and assume they mean what we want them to mean, and then the tool becomes the master, and by language we are all enslaved…
What does “free will” mean? Most people use it to mean choice, or that with the options in front of us and a little bit of analytical creativity, we can find an option we like more than the others.
But “free will” implies something else: that we know all of the options, and choose the best one. This is problematic because our knowledge is limited to our experience and ability to conceptualize, which is (mathematically) a smaller set than the set of all possibilities.
Emphasizing choice makes sense. Among the options before us, we pick the best one and hack on it or modify it as possible. But to assume we have “free will” is to equate ourselves to the perspective of the gods, or at least omnipotence, and this is not only foolish but logically impossible.
Although most of the people living in Austin, Texas are parasites living off easy government jobs or moronic carny culture, it is disturbing to see a mass shooting in the midst of its blithe-vapid party nexus:
He said the Sixth Street incident was believed to have begun after a disturbance between two individuals led one of them to shoot into the crowd.
A woman, believed to be in her 20s, died on the scene. Four other people were shot, three of them women believed to be in their 30s, who were taken to University Medical Center Brackenridge. The other person injured, a man, refused to be taken to hospital. Commander Mike Benavides of Austin-Travis County emergency services said the women had serious but non-life threatening injuries.
The gunman, believed to be a light-skinned black or Hispanic male, escaped,Manley said.
Other than the occasional white school or workplace shooter, the violent crime in America is generally pepetrated by minorities and minority-admixed whites like the Irish (Middle Eastern), Italians/Greeks (Middle Eastern), Slavs (Asiatic). Remove those, and leave the original Western European mix, and you have a low-crime environment like Scandinavia before it opened its borders to Americans and every other kind of immigrant.
Others go into their reasoning for why this disparity exists, but a simpler and more direct analysis is to point out that in a society designed by Western Europeans for Western Europeans, those who are not Western European will never feel at home and in control of their destiny. They are always a conquered, captive and subjugated population by virtue of the fact that their people did not design and create the society in which they live. The natural human tendency is to lash out.
Instead of blaming these groups for their crimes, it makes sense to see the crime as an effect of an underlying cause, which is the psychological, moral and social instability of diversity as a policy. Remove diversity, and all of this madness goes away, and Western Europeans can stop enslaving themselves to the futile task of keeping the multiculture barely functional and subsidizing it.
Every Western European who spends his days as a police officer, a public servant or a business person takes on the burden of making many exceptions to the obvious and necessary so that the multiculture can survive within a society where it otherwise has zero relevance. The reason that political correctness is so strong is that this task is thankless and perpetually incomplete, so requires people to go into a psychotic level of denial in order not to feel that their civilization is collapsing around them.
Our lax response to terrorism arises from this state. We are accustomed to everyday violence and to living by being in denial of it, so the fact that the terrorist attacks are slightly more intense — usually a factor of three times your average ghetto gun battle — does not faze us. We are already worn down by the constant violent crime that has fractured our society since the late 1950s.
Despite that, until the great push for massive integration in the 1970s, there were still many areas entirely separate from this dysfunction. These pleasant enclaves were not all wealthy, merely of a single ethnicity, and not all of them were white, either. When we see photos of these places now, they look naïve to us because every single object in them is not designed to resist theft, vandalism, public defecation and other signs of our decline.
Since that time, and especially in the 1990s with the Great Leap Forward on diversity, that America has vanished, replaced by a place that looks like we turned a prison inside-out and painted the normal areas with it. Safety glass, bollards, chains, alarm systems and private security are everywhere as diversity tears us apart, much as it has done to every group of people foolish enough to make it policy.
The problem: people may be able to read, and think they understand what they read, while missing the full understanding. Another way to phrase this, consistent with Dunning-Kruger, is that people read for what they can understand.
As an article in The Week points out, that can lead to partial understanding just like any filter that excludes all but what supports the thesis of the reader would do:
“Fiction might be the mind’s flight simulator,” Keith Oatley wrote in a recent review of the research on reading and mental health, published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Research into the psychological impact of literature suggests that when we read stories in which characters are rich and developed, we actually slip into those characters ourselves. By taking on these other personalities, we learn what it’s like to be someone else, and improve our own social skills.
The type of reading matters, Oatley and his colleagues at the University of Toronto have found. Books that emphasize plot do not have the same benefits as those that focus on character development, and fiction provides more of a boost than nonfiction.
By taking on these other personalities, we venture into a world of insanity: we are not those people, and pretending to be them is a mental model that functions more like drugs than literature.
In a great book, each character represents a curve. The character is faced with a conundrum, and makes a decision, and then we see the results of that decision not in yes|no/good|bad, but in terms of granular degree of many different factors.
This is why pop fiction quickly separates from classic literature; pop fiction focuses on the ego of the reader, and gives them something to project themselves into (Fifty Shades of Grey or Twilight) with the usual emotional appeal of victimhood, lust, tragedy, being needed, being alone, and the like.
In literature, one does not project into a character because each character is an argument for a certain moral and realistic approach to the philosophical problems posed by certain situations, and the point of the book is to compare outcomes not cheerlead for one side like propaganda or advertising.
Pop fiction is closer to propaganda and advertising than literature.
The writer of this piece misunderstands empathy. Empathy does not mean approval, validation or inclusion, but being able to see the limitations of a person and the challenge before them as if through their eyes, and to recognize the difficulties they face in making choices. The way the writer of that article uses it, empathy means something akin to egalitarianism, i.e. “approval and inclusion of everyone.”
In reality, empathy includes a recognition that our acts are literal in a literal world, and so results are as one would expect. We may feel the struggle of a character, and even wish them well, but not to the level of excluding them from the group of us who face the consequences of our actions.
This leads us to wonder if universal literacy was a mistake. We have people reading (and writing) books who do not understand what literature is, or what can actually be communicated, and instead are coming away from these books with the kind of robotic logic one might get from a TV commercial or WWII propaganda film.
In result, this means that our bookstores and libraries and minds are being submerged under a vast wave of disguised ineptitude, encouraging us to become schizophrenic and deny reality at the same time.
Some insight into why majority groups rarely defend themselves:
The only thing holding back Whites from consolidating is fear of the unknown, not reprisal by the federal government. White nationalists are afraid of the hard work needed to build an economy in an isolated place from scratch. So they live in parts of the country that are 80 percent White — at most— and enjoy the salaries that come from experiencing life in an area with a pre-established economy.
Let us expand this further: a majority, under an assault by a minority, fragments because trust is lost. It becomes “every man for himself,” which is conveniently what most people want anyway, i.e. anarchy with grocery stores and fat paychecks. This is the default tendency in humans, which is to unmake civilization and go back to our monkey roots.
At this point, people are offered a choice: embark on a risky course of action that most people will oppose, or blow off the problem until it is cataclysmic and keep the easy living coming. This is why Barack Obama was more successful at creating white self-interest than ten generations of white malcontents. He showed us the future under diversity, and people finally started to figure out that it would be bad.
The only thing that can motivate us is not self-interest, but a sense of duty to do what is right because it has better results than self-interest, which creates many isolated people hiding in their homes, completely alienated and forced to be oblivious to that fact. As American Renaissance CEO Jared Taylor wrote in a recent Q&A:
There is still much to enjoy in a declining society that is declining from a position of great wealth. If I wanted to spend my days in pleasure it would certainly be possible. However, I have a duty, and that duty does not permit me to remain silent.
If a majority wants to save itself, its first task must be to recapture duty from jobs, government, and ideology and return it to a sense of acting for the best outcome of one’s unbroken line to the past.
The diversity are killing each other. Or rather, the same tensions that exist between diverse minorities and the majority also exist between ethnic minorities. Witness this event from Texas’ bog city:
The controversy began after Sethi posted, “Forget #BlackLivesMatter; more like #AllLivesMatter” in a now deleted Facebook status.
…Vice President Rohini Sethi’s five sanctions include a 50-day suspension beginning Aug. 1, mandatory attendance of the Libra Project diversity workshop, mandatory attendance of three cultural events per month, a reflection letter and a public presentation in the Senate Meeting on Sep. 28.
Rohini Sethi is not white, and appears to be of Indian subcontinent descent. Her comment was probably intended in a gentle way to remind us that other minorities need to be spared too. But when she confronts a cop, what will it be? Chinese, Mexican, El Salvadorian, African-American, Korean, Vietnamese? All of these ethnicities are common in Houston, and clashes between Hispanics, African-Americans and Vietnamese with Indian subcontinent descended people are common.
The future of diversity warfare was revealed over twenty years ago with the Los Angeles Riots and the time afterwards. Most of the violence against blacks came from Hispanics, who are indios and thus Asian, not “white” as the FBI database records them. And vice-versa.
Now that we have many ethnic groups together, they are all competing for a simple thing: control of the narrative so their cultural values and needs can predominate. Nationalists argue that this can only be solved by self-determination which requires exclusion of all other groups, like a more extreme form of segregation where we all stay in our homelands. But democracy and diversity want to force us to live together by a standard and culture formed of the lowest common denominator of all groups, which translates to “Everyone should eat/shop/work and not criticize each other,” and which never works.
What happened to Sethi was an injustice. She did not say “go ahead and shoot black people”; she said, in effect, “include my people too.” Yet another tragedy of diversity, this time a rare enforcement on someone who is not white, but with the same injustice and resentment generated.
Writing about Nigel Farage, Peter Osbourne describes the Cathedral:
When he first emerged as a national figure, more than ten years ago, Britain was governed by a cosy cartel. Labour and the Tories may have been separate parties, but they had both been hijacked by a modernising clique who shared many of the same values and beliefs.
Peter Mandelson for Labour and George Osborne for the Tories were the high priests of these modernisers. For them, politics was a game, played for the benefit of a social and economic elite. Both men seemed to disdain the views of voters.
Indeed, together with a group of London-based strategists, they ignored the vast majority of the population and concentrated their efforts on wooing a very small number of voters in key marginal constituencies.
This perfectly describes the ideal of liberal government: equality/anarchy ruled by a powerful state in which each participant is acting to further a political career by cleverness, not goodness or realism.
Its opposite is organicism, which is the type of order described by Burke and Plato: people agree on a few principles which are applied in varying ways in specific situations. The Cathedral rejects organicism and instead creates an elite based on having politically correct opinions.
This mirrors the idea of Cathedralism itself, which is that human intent and control produces better results than organic development:
Linux overturned much of what I thought I knew. I had been preaching the Unix gospel of small tools, rapid prototyping and evolutionary programming for years. But I also believed there was a certain critical complexity above which a more centralized, a priori approach was required. I believed that the most important software (operating systems and really large tools like the Emacs programming editor) needed to be built like cathedrals, carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation, with no beta to be released before its time.
Linus Torvalds’s style of development—release early and often, delegate everything you can, be open to the point of promiscuity—came as a surprise. No quiet, reverent cathedral-building here—rather, the Linux community seemed to resemble a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches (aptly symbolized by the Linux archive sites, who’d take submissions from anyone) out of which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by a succession of miracles.
The above is not quite true, of course: Torvalds developed his system based on thirty years of growth in a highly architected 1960 operating system. Linux is a UNIX clone, and not the first one, either (Minix predated it, among others).
Cathedralism then is not the centralized intent, but the centralized intent to control, or to force people to en masse follow an agenda with identical motions. Control is a zombie horde; organicism involves people agreeing on goals and taking their own paths there, perhaps with a Darwinistic shaving off of those who repeatedly fail.
Wherever human societies thrive, the dark specter of human decay follows them, in the form of a happy hive-mind that wants to feel everyone is accepted so that this pacifism can be used to eliminate conflicts, freeing up the individual to pursue only what it wants. Unfortunately the overhead of enforcing this illogical scheme then enslaves the intelligent but foolish people who demanded it, at which point everyone becomes miserable and stops reproducing.
The only way around this problem is (literally) to avoid it: instead of embarking on the anarchy-plus-control method, go with organicism, or the hierarchy-with-flexibility that makes no promises of peace but avoids destroying everything good in the name of what is ultimately a human illusion based in emotional reactivity.
Greg Johnson writes an interesting point here:
White Nationalism has only one message for homosexuals: white homosexuals have more important interests in common with other whites than they do with non-white homosexuals.
I agree with him, both for the reasons he asserts, and for another.
It is a human tendency to find scapegoats instead of tackling difficult problems, especially those within us which require self-discipline, which is the basis of all human success.
Our problem is that our civilization is declining. If you see a gay pride parade and find it repellent, ask yourself which of these elements is most important:
- That people are homosexual.
- That they like to demonstrate this.
- That they demonstrate in groups.
- That government supports them.
- That voters support government.
At the base of our problem tree is the honest glitch: voters support insane ideas which cause society to drift ever Leftward, which is a necessary consequence of the egalitarian ideology.
People are gay. People have always been gay. A sane approach is to let them be gay in a way that does not harm others, which is quietly in their own districts where they are safe from pogroms (backward baseball cap frat boys on a testosterone rampage) and the rest of society is left alone from their influence. This is neither tolerance nor intolerance, but coexistence: we recognize them as a different tribe which nonetheless is related to their own, and give them a place to be what they are in safety, so that they are not forced into marriage and breeding to cover up the obvious.
In this view, if someone is gay in the Alternative Right, we kind of shrug and say, “Well, as long as it is kept quiet, we’re okay with it.” This is the same attitude we adopt toward heterosexuals, by the way. We do not want to see your public displays of affection, and loathe promiscuity, so we encourage social institutions that separate the normal, chaste, conservative and naturalistic from the ragingly promiscuous. By the same token, we do not wish to see heterosexual behavior in public beyond the very innocent, which teaches our children that family, faith and love are the only questions in the sphere of sex, relationships and gender.
That is our need. It is our bottom line. Homosexuals can be a “co-tribe” where they support this goal also, but that requires some quid pro quo. To that end, we protect them from scapegoating, and give them spaces where they can do what they need to and the rest of us do not have to see it.
On the Right, there are often attempts to “scene police” by beating up on deviants. This misses the point. The real threat of entryism comes from people who are Right-wing in appearance, but Leftist in underlying ideas. You can scene police only on this basis, and finding scapegoats reduces the likelihood of doing so.
(Open thread plus links.)
Equality. Hatefacts. White Knights. Deverminate. Identity. Intuition. Democracy (as usual). Moldbuggery. Liberalism. Psychology (of Leftism). Faustian. Poseurs. Altruism. Tyler Durden. 45. Weekly rounds: here, here and there.
Carnates dream. Hollow. Lies. Ghostbusted. Coherence. NRX introduction. Iconoclasm. Condolences. Not rotten in Denmark. Rock star. Austria.
There is a serpent in every Eden
Slick as grease and cold as ice
There is a lie in every meaning
Rest assured to fool you twice
In this age of utter madness
We maintain we are in control
And ending life before deliverance
While countries are both bought and sold1
I dream of demons. Redrum. Therapy. Love. Civilization.
Also of note: Neoreaction Conference in London.
|
