More From Amerika

Inequality

http://www.amerika.org/

The inequality of life troubles us. It does not seem fair that some have more, and others less. It also seems cruel that some are born good-looking, intelligent and healthy, and others not.

In our dark moments, we hope for an end to this state. We do not see a purpose in it; to a human individual who has lost faith in life, it seems insane and horrible.

We think that if we eliminated inequality, all conflict would cease. All people would be one; we would join hands and just do what needs to be done. We would be equal souls as well as equal beings.

However, this requires we ignore the causes of inequality. Some are born with great ability; some not — most of us fall in between. The effect is inequality; the cause is unequal ability.

Even more importantly, we all benefit from inequality. The best rise above the rest and yes, they get more stuff. They also get more power.

They also tend to use that power toward better ends. Their choices of stuff to buy forces higher standards on the stuff-providers, and so we all benefit from better stuff, eventually.

When we try to fix inequality, we are ignoring its real cause and instead making one up. This fake cause feels good to us because it explains us all as innocents. But it poisons our thought process.

After years — or even centuries — of crusading against inequality, the West has failed. We are still unequal. Even worse, the problem has expanded because we have undermined our economies and stopped rewarding people for being competent, which means we are ruled by incompetents.

Who suffers most? The poorest.

The wealth gap in the United States has grown wider in the wake of the Great Recession, with black and Hispanic American households faring much worse than white households, according to a study published Tuesday.

Based on data from the Census Bureau, the study highlights how blacks and Hispanics have been disproportionately affected by the collapse of the housing market, the financial crisis and the recession that marked the period from 2005 to 2009.

It found that the wealth gap between white households and their black or Hispanic counterparts was the widest it has been since the government began publishing such data by ethnicity in 1984. – CNN

Before we go into CNN’s explanations for this situation (which we won’t; their reasons are advertising, not logic) we should look at what has already been said:

Our attempts at making equality have failed and made greater inequality.

When we spend our money on those who need to be “brought up” to a higher standard, we wreck the system of the whole, and so damage all that we do.

This issue is larger than race. Inequality first and foremost occurs within a race, and then multiculturalism is invented to give those unequal people someone to feel above:

People in the HBD-blogosphere tend to group all whites together and say that they have a median IQ of 100 with a standard deviation of 15.

Let us divide whites into two groups.

Group 1 is prole whites. These are all whites with IQs of 104 and less. They comprise 62% of whites.

Group 2 is middle class and upper class whites. These are all whites with IQs of 105 and more. They comprise 38% of whites.

The median IQ of Group 1 is 92.5 (similar to the IQ of mestizo Mexican immigrants).

The median IQ of Group 2 is 113 (similar to the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews).

I assume that all of my white readers come from Group 2. What do we really have in common with the stupid people from Group 1 except a similarity of appearance? (Although I guarantee you that if I photographed a hundred white people with IQs of 113 and a 100 white people with IQs of 92.5, everyone would instantly be able to identify the smart group and the stupid group.)

Ironically, liberal HBD-denialists as well as white nationalists would group us all together. The liberal HBD-denialist would say that we are all beneficiaries of white privilege, and the reason that the whites from Group 1 don’t do well economically is because they were too lazy to go to college (ignoring the implausibility of someone with an IQ of 92.5 being able to learn college-level material). – Half Sigma

We are not all the same. Even within the group “white,” we are radically different.

No amount of government aid will fix a lower IQ; you don’t want your brain surgeon, lawyer, architect, general, president or economist to have an IQ that low.

Trying to make people equal with wealth redistribution sabotages our economy. The wealthier, appalled not so much at their tax rate but this vast waste of the money they do pay, tend to move on to greener pastures.

The impoverished are given what they don’t need — a temporary fix, a band-aid — in place of what they do, which is jobs that are tailored to their abilities, and some restraints on the habits of lower-IQ people that can sabotage them.

You need to stop Joe Bob from buying a $50,000 pickup truck when he makes $34,000 a year. If you give him welfare so that he makes $60,000 a year, the truck will start to cost $75,000 and the situation will be basically unchanged. When you devalue money by giving it away, prices go up.

Inequality is a complex moral topic. Simplistic answers do not work. As we go bravely into this new century (barely a tenth complete) we will be facing this problem in a clearer form than ever before.

We need to pick solutions that are logically correct, and provide for the best possible outcome, instead of letting our troubled emotions lead us someplace destructive.

The Tipping Point

Inertia is an odd thing. When an object is at rest, its tendency is to stay there. When enough pressure is applied, a certain inevitability takes over, and its tendency shifts toward the explosive.

The West has spent the past two centuries in inertia because it has never fully accepted the events of July 14, 1789. Liberalism split civilization in two: there was the social order, and then there was an entirely new way of living based on abstractions.

These abstractions justified themselves with morality, but at essence, were justifications. They were not forward-reaching reasons, but reasons-why that looked backward and dug around until they found reasoning that supported what individuals desired.

Since then, the West has been conquered in progressive stages by extreme individualism. In this, the individual creates rules that demand equality for all people — so the individual can always demand whatever is at hand. It is like a nagging mother not permitting locks on bedroom doors.

When individuals band together to enforce these rules — a state called Crowdism — they take over all politics, society, academia and even the very words we use to express ourselves. It is a pervasive, evangelical and paranoid movement that is convinced of its absolute moral correctness.

During the time it has been active, the West (Europe, USA and related societies) has declined like a cancer patient. Our technology has surged forward, but like doctors treating symptoms in an illness that is otherwise fatal, it’s a show of strength and not a cure.

In the meantime, our society has degenerated from within. We are now a bazaar-culture, having replaced national culture with commerce, advertising and government pamphlets. Our cities are ghettos covered in advertising. We commit ecocide through the selfishness of individuals. And yet we have no goal.

But of late, things have been changing. Words that once took an inconceivable amount of courage to utter are now being said. Questions that were once considered the domain of society’s rejects and assholes are now being asked. Inertia is reaching a tipping point when inaction becomes action.

[E]xperts say a frank debate about immigration may be the best way to prevent similar explosions of violence.

{…}

But experts argue overly aggressive political rhetoric and scare tactics have inflamed passions rather than address the many complex, underlying problems.

{…}

British Prime Minister David Cameron, Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy have all declared in recent months that multiculturalism has failed, in speeches that were otherwise careful to highlight the contribution of immigrants.

But critics say such statements at best do little to offer solutions to tackle the economic and societal pressures that stem from increasing immigration and globalization, and do even less to harness the benefits of a multi-ethnic society.

{…}

“What has clearly emerged from recent speeches and ensuing public national debates on multiculturalism is a sense of confusion, malaise and often contradictory messages,” said Sara Silvestri, lecturer in religion and international politics at London’s City University, in an article dated June 8. – Reuters

If you look carefully, you can see the tipping occurring. It’s like a see-saw.

First we are told how complex it is, how amazing multiculturalism is, how multi-ethnic societies have obvious benefits.

We’re also reminded that the far right are terrible Nazis, monarchists, elitists, Charlemagneists and probably fascists, but we get enough of that from our TVs that we’re actually ready for that be glossed over.

Finally, we start to get actual debate, and people ask the “Emperor has no clothes” questions: we assume there are benefits to diversity, so what are they? Are the problems we find on the way caused by irrational people, or a design flaw in diversity itself?

As you know when reading this blog, we’re fond of pointing out that diversity contains a design flaw. It is popular as a way to import voters, cheap labor and future consumers. But it requires that each person have no culture except mall culture and government pamphlets, or for us to have a society that replicates the order of the world — many Chinatowns, each one per nationality, religion, political inclination, sexual identity or lifestyle choice.

That type of society doesn’t hold together well because it has no unifying principle. Saying that our unifying principle is some abstract hoodoo-voodoo like “equality” only works so far, because that’s really a political concept and not a practical daily-life belief.

That type of society is guaranteed to have perpetual internal war, just like how the USA now has 150+ years of race riots under its belt with none in sight, and Ireland has several centuries of religious warfare continuing ad infinitum, and Pakistan and India will be at war covertly over the Muslim-Hindu fracture, etc.

Many of us do not want to live in such a society. We would rather give up some freedom — the right to do just about anything — in favor of a lesser number of permitted activities, and greater stability. This allows us to focus on what well-adjusted people: build things.

We build careers so we have interesting things to do to pay the bills. We build families and invest heavily in educating and rearing our young. We build religious centers, learning centers, community centers and interesting new technologies. This is the creative force of life at its finest.

But doing that requires an organic society. We don’t want a centralized authority enforcing rules on us, or a snitch culture where people cut us down for not following rules to the letter. We want a cooperative culture where people come together and work together based on mutually-held values, ideals, goals and notions about life.

The best examples of organic culture are the traditional ones. Hinduism for India; Judaism for Israel; England for the English; Germany for the Germans; Christianity or “Christian atheism” for Europe; Islam for the middle east.

But that offends people who are so unstable that they think having infinite options is a substitute for having a path.

For a long time, we’ve listened to such people. We are worried they might riot, or break out the guillotine (or gulag) again. They are like a capricious Crowd of houseguests we keep in the front room, always hinting we want them gone, but never brave enough to say “here, my need is greater than yours, so you need to leave.”

Until now. The cracks in the facade are widening.

Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society.

The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.

“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”

As an example, the ongoing events in Tunisia and Egypt appear to exhibit a similar process, according to Szymanski. “In those countries, dictators who were in power for decades were suddenly overthrown in just a few weeks.” – PhysOrg

As our society faces its tipping point, we’re going to climb back up the ladder of assumptions that we slowly descended to get to this state.

  1. Diversity.Also called multiculturalism, but more conventionally known as internationalism, diversity is the idea that heritage does not matter, that all people are biologically equal, and thus we can assemble a country of random people and — with the right laws, police force and economy — make it into a prosperous, Western-European style nation.

    However, we are seeing that diversity does not work on many levels. First, people are not biologically equal, not even within very specific ethnic groups. Some rise above others, which is why school is hard and not everyone is a neurosurgeon. Most people end up at where they are in life because of what their abilities are, including that nebulous ability called “judgment” which includes delayed gratification.

    Second, diversity requires people give up what they know to be necessary — culture, including values, religion and heritage. This their identity and how they know what will be valued and accepted in their social group. It is how they explain their lives, and understand their importance in the world. It is their role. With multiculturalism, they must either give it up (and adopt the generic mall culture) or retain it and be marginalized like Amerinds.

    Finally, having a consensus — a shared set of values, customs, languages and ideals — forms the most stable society. You need fewer laws, and fewer cops, when there’s a standard of behavior that isn’t written in legal language but understood as a form of common sense. Multiculturalism destroys this, as it destroys the identity that conveys it to people.

  2. Wealth redistribution.If we tell people that they are politically equal, they remember that as equal. We are all the same, they think. Well, then how did my neighbor end up rich and I end up poor? It cannot be a difference between their actions and my own; instead, it must be witchcraft, subterfuge or theft.

    This creates a social tsunami of people who want to redistribute wealth. The problem is that this takes money away from those who can earn more of it, and transfers it to those who are unable to do that. Several problems arise as a result: first, there is no longer incentive to exert oneself, which drives smart people away or into boredom and self-destruction. Second, you produce a large captive population who are not particularly good at anything, and more in subsequent generations. Finally, you remove your mechanism for picking those who are competent above those who are not. Mediocrity results.

  3. Equal freedom.Our favorite notion is that all people are equal in ability, so should be able to do whatever others are able to do. The problem with this is that people vary in competence, so putting them all in cars on the same road, for example, means that everyone waits longer. Putting them all in the same lines means that every person waits for the slowest person with the most convoluted issues.

    Even more, we are making the assumption that people given freedom will not abuse it, when they have never done anything to earn it. They view it as a right that they can then test through abuse. They know it cannot be taken away, so why bother applying it only to good things? Try some destruction.

    The final result here is that people become accustomed to moving in mass culture, where the presence of the slower and less capable forces everyone into a one-size-fits-all lowest common denominator. They adjust their expectations and behaviors accordingly. Society plummets downward as standards of behavior and competence fall.

  4. Equality.The last taboo to fall will be the one idea that the French Revolution in 1789 was based upon: the equality of all people, with none given any privileges or powers because of their greater degree of ability or moral character. Equality manifests itself as democracy, consumerism and endless competition for rising socioeconomic status.

    The result is chaos. Where people formerly had a guaranteed place, they now can be usurped by any other equal person — so they become controlling, territorial, manipulative and deceptive. Since the masses will throng anywhere they can, and seem to have less to do than they need, elitism of a nasty sort arises as some people try to insulate themselves from the mess with money.

    Even more, the notion of equality is psychologically destructive. People need to know that they fulfill a specific local place, a specific role in that place, and are valued for who they are. Saying we accept everyone equally sounds good until you realize it is also by extension saying that we deny what makes people exceptional, not in a linear sense, but in the sense of being great at being who they are.

We have held onto these sacred cows for too long. (And unlike real cows, they do not produce delicious milk.)

They make us miserable, but because we assume they are necessary, we put it out of our head and struggle onwards.

They make us psychologically unstable, and create an ugly and controlling society, which hides behind a facade of “freedom”,”justice”,”peace”,”love” and anything else it could put on a Hallmark Card.

Right now, people look at us as heretics when we oppose these things. That is nothing more than the sheep instinct: they perceive a threat to the group, and so react against it as individuals, without realizing that the group in which they are assembled is a false group.

However, we’re reaching that tipping point. It takes a few brave people to speak up, and to do so without emotion or drama, taking the argument away from being about them personally and their self interest. Instead, they focus the argument on what is best for society as a whole.

As this happens, people begin to see. A few at first, but each of them invites a friend to ride along. Soon the movement begins momentum.

For the first time in two centuries, we are moving closer to that magic 10% (probably more like 2-5% who are local experts and born leaders) and there is the hope of change.

If you close your eyes for a moment, and forget your vertigo, you might find something new: a sense of fear and joy intermingled, the rush of finding yourself again in charge of your future. The thrill of exploration and possibly, better things.

Any time dark thoughts visit you, remember that this universe for all the darkness it contains seems to be guiding itself toward ultimately a good and loving end. This tipping point is just one small step on that journey.

Politics: What use are they, anyway?

One of my more notorious sayings was:

“Politics: The most efficient means yet devised by man, to make enemies, and friends you don’t want.”

There’s truth in this. More than one might want.

I am slightly unusual, in that until fairly recently, I was blissfully unaware of politics, or even what politics were. I had never had a political thought in my life. At least none that I could recognize as such.

My first encounter with this mysterious thing was an egg-buying foray, across fields and through woods, to a local farm. The farmer enquired as to whether I was going to vote. Vote? I asked. For what, and why? He explained there was an upcoming election, and that I should vote for Party X. Oh, I said. Well no, I never voted, didn’t know who represented what, or what possible use my opinion would be to anybody, anyway.

He called me a moron.  And I never bought eggs from him again.

In fact it was not until I returned to England, after a quarter-century of absence, that I really started to become aware of politics…

I didn’t know where I was. The England I had left, was nowhere to be found. It was ugly, dirty, depressing, and pervaded with a sense of menace and mistrust. But let’s not get going on that one.

Tony Blair swept into power on a landslide of popular enthusiasm, and from already rather bad, England fell off the cliff of what once was, and into the abyss of what it is still in the process of becoming.

Nobody could say what they thought. Furtively glancing around before saying thoroughly harmless things, paranoia reigned. Those were the most normal ones. The rest would all say almost identical things, in almost identical ways, as if reading from some script that had not been passed out to me.

England had become un-English, to a shocking degree. I felt disconnected and confused.

Upon investigation, something called Politics had been turned loose upon the land, turning ordinary people into zombies who lurched around, at odds with their very bodies, and parroting gibberish.

I delved further. I became interested in the British National Party, even received an email from Nick Griffin, before deciding that England was already too far gone to ever be saved.

The BNP needed to be protected from itself, really, making some truly regrettable tactical blunders along the way, and losing most of its burgeoning support, as a result.

Incompetence, madness, out-and-out weirdness at every turn. After discovering that any attempt to exercise my patriotic instincts was highly likely to get me arrested, I abandoned my homeland, after a dozen years of attempted -and doomed – re-integration, and never looked back.

Politics.

More destructive than warfare. Mind-warping, delusion-making, nation-wrecking madness.

The art of minding everybody else’s business, and trying to run their lives for them.

It sort-of worked when nations had some common goal to head towards. Now that any such goal has been abandoned, politics is no more than a very efficient wrecking-ball.

The Inviolate Truth


It is some Postmodern supposition that quotes can’t speak for themselves because they are necessarily coloured, selective, etc. From this academic and blogging tradition it is seen as the author’s shortcoming when he doesn’t give his own spin to the material. This is of course, utter nonsense since arguments are Truth-claims.

I’m tired of arguing in terms of ideologies such as Socialist and Liberal, of conceiving the political world as a clash between Progressive and Conservative force. To be Progressive necessarily entails the question: “In progression towards what?” And a sane man will consult the words of Great men and traditions from his past, if he is to make sense of where he is going at all.

Another common supposition, surviving the Cold War, tells us that clashes between ideologies shape the policies and indirectly the futures of our nations. This is the mistake of the viewer who can’t tell the puppets from the puppeteer. Political identities are not bestowed upon the individual by an overarching ideology from above, but are largely self-constructed and thus assembled from a wide variety of topics.

Political identities were bestowed on people from above when political movements were like armies and religions, complete with flags, regiments and vows. However things have changed since the 30-40 period: Even on this website there’s never a full-blown agreement on anything, and when people feel like it they just stop frequenting. The contemporary world, united by the flows of digital currency, is no longer divided among ideological lines, and the conflicts of present and future are mostly ethnic in nature.

The influence of elections, and thus of political identities, on policy is insignificant, and this goes for both big and small countries. If you look at the Netherlands, you will see that the government has not been able to reduce immigration during the 80/90 period, despite the rule of Conservative parties, and the same goes for its current government, being unable to significantly reduce government spending or to increase the amount of police, contrary to electoral promises. The same goes for America – the Obama administration never managed to reduce the amount of wars, government debt or even torture in Guantanamo Bay. On the contrary everything has increased.

Ideology does not shape policy. A Hobbesian stability agenda drives everything. The State no longer serves a purpose, in the sense that its policies aim to establish this or that mode of living as a highest way of life – living devoutly for Conservatives, living in enlightened self-interest for Liberals, living for the common good for Socialists – such ideological disputes died with the Cold War. The State is a self-perpetuating thing which does whatever it takes to stabilize its own existence.

The most effective way of doing this is to have every citizen minding his own business, being occupied with paying loans, mortgages and coming home to drown our worries in entertainment. If there are religious people who have extra demands such as ritual slaughter of animals or Darwinism-free education, let them have these privileges. Not because this is good or just, but because it will prevent the zealous mind from rebelling.

It’s about time people wake up and start seeing through the smokescreen. Plato would say: “You’re watching the shades of the puppets.” This is all cognitive dissonance, trying to confuse you by setting you up against decoy targets. The bottom line really is that we have to cut ourselves loose from thinking in terms as “left versus right”.

We have to abandon the picture of rivaling schools and focus on arguments and Truth alone. ‘Right’ could mean anything from religious fundamentalists to secular Liberals/Libertarians, from young couples with promising futures who want to pay lower taxes to an industrial labourer who at home looks up respectfully to his poster of Adolf Hitler.

And the left? Anarchists versus Communists? Totalitarianism versus doing whatever comes up in you? Free sex and marihuana versus life in a Kolchoz? Kumbaya behind a campfire versus cleaning pig-poop with the tip of a rifle pressed between your shoulder blades? The anti-gun lobby is left you say? But I’m sure the Communists would love to get their hands on the guns and use them against their opponents.

If you look at a figure such as Pim Fortuyn, he was considered typically right because of his criticism towards Islam and immigration, then again he was also for public transport and gayrights, understood as items typically belonging to a left agenda. What about people advocating the abortion of mentally and physically handicapped people to strengthen the human race? Surely they are right-wingers. But then what about the anti-abortion activists? etc…

Anyway here’s some beautiful quotes by De Tocqueville:

“Religion can at times rely on the artificial strength of laws and the support of the material powers that direct society. There have been religions intimately linked to earthly governments, dominating men’s souls by terror and by faith . . . When a religion seeks to find its sway on the longing for immortality equally tormenting every human heart, it can aspire to universality; but when it comes to uniting itself with a government it must adopt maxims which apply only to certain nations . . . Religion thus increases its strength over some but forfeits the hope of reigning over all . . . So long as a religion derives its strength from sentiments, instincts, and passions, which are reborn in like fashion in all periods of history, it can brave the assaults of time, or at least it can only be destroyed by another religion. But when a religion chooses to rely on the interests of this world, it becomes almost as fragile as all earthly powers.” – Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ‘Causes Tending to Maintain a Democratic Republic’

“When kings feel their people’s hearts drawn toward them, they are merciful because they know they are strong; and they cultivate their subjects’ love, for that is the bulwark of the throne. Then the reciprocal feelings of king and people resemble the gracious intercourse of domestic life. The subjects, though they may complain about the king, are yet sorry to displease him, and the sovereign strikes his subjects with a light hand, as a father chastises his children.” – Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ‘Causes tending to Maintain a Democratic Republic’

“Democratic institutions awaken and flatter the passion for equality without ever being able to satisfy it entirely.” – Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ‘Government by Democracy in America’

(On a personal note: It seems I never have enough hours in a day. I set out to work on fragments of Plato for the project of Classic Texts, then I wanted to compare something to De Tocqueville, I start reading my books and I end up writing this post.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s