FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

White Undertow: The Cause of SWPL Hate?

Black societies can’t compete with white society even though there are many thousands of high IQ blacks.  There just aren’t enough of them relative to their population.  The distribution curve also means the smartest blacks aren’t as smart as the smartest whites.  Thus wherever groups of blacks move in, higher IQ groups observe an effect known as “black undertow” as the quality of life plummets in both obvious and subtle ways.

I recently wrote about how Jews get ahead even though there are high IQ whites at their level. Though small in numbers they have better teamwork.  A major reason for this is Jews have higher IQ on average and human affairs tend to be decided by group strategy over individual efforts.

On the individual level, there’s no shortage of failed and neurotic people with high IQ.  This is why no one cares when people say they have high scores.  They rightly look instead for demonstrated abilities, accomplishments, and personality.
IQ is just a rough proxy for someone’s ability to think abstractly and tells us little of how they’re most inclined to use it.

The meaning of this statistic expresses itself more readily in groups.  If you have an individual with 10 more strength points than average, it doesn’t really tell you much.
But if you take a group and give everyone 10 more strength points, you can make predictions about improvements in everything they do that requires strength.
Most importantly, their whole society would be organized on the assumption everyone has a requisite amount of strength.  A 90 lb weakling from another group might find themselves unable to open doors or twist caps on jars no one else has trouble with.

Raise the average IQ of a population by 1 point, it’s almost like heating up the ocean by 1 degree. All kinds of cascading, emergent effects result.
In a human society changing baseline expectations dramatically affects how people can be organized.

Low IQ societies have to be ruled with an iron fist because the average person can’t understand or act on an abstract appreciation of the law or future time orientation.  When a 3 year old child misbehaves, they aren’t going to listen to reason.  They won’t change what they’re doing unless they know they’ll get time-out or a spanking.  And if they ask why, you reply: “Because I said so.”

Middle IQ societies have to be ruled with elaborate rules and laws with strict attention to detail.  This is because people can understand constraints they can neither see nor touch, but they are unable to extrapolate the next step from a premise.  So as with programming a computer, every exigency must be thought of in advance.

High IQ societies trust most people can make judgments about what rules matter most in light of their intended spirit.  This creates high trust, highly efficient group dynamics.  It’s seldom necessary to coerce people with actual force because everyone understands the big-picture need for voluntary cooperation to enjoy the benefits of a healthy society.

White people as a whole fall squarely into the middle IQ bracket.
The most common complaint of even slightly clever whites about white society is all the law suits, regulations, HR departments, ordinances, the bureaucracy, the TPS reports.  These are all the hallmarks of a system that assumes the average person can follow instructions but has very little capacity for reflection or effective independent judgment.

Smart whites fight a constant battle against white undertow.  Everything they try to do is met with resistance and they seethe as they see all the extra steps everyone goes through that could be easily skipped.

The +1 SD revulsion for Christianity and literal interpretation of the bible is just another example of frustration with onerous rulebooks.  They aren’t quite bright enough to understand that for most people, the extra structure is healthy and necessary.

The worst disadvantage for people with above average IQ is fewer people they meet are like them, which means they have a much smaller pool of social capital to work with when trying to function in the general population.

Until they find a community of others near their level, they can’t exercise their full potential.  This, however, often doesn’t take place until young adulthood after the best years for cultural acquisition and learning are already wasted.
The politics, the law, the family, public signage and advertisements are all built for the benefit of the majority.  If you don’t fall in that category, you’re surrounded with reminders everyday: This society isn’t for you.

Jews, on the other hand, have superior social capital to nourish high IQ people from the day they are born.
Every one of them inherits a tradition of smart, literate people dating back thousands of years when most of the world was illiterate still until barely 200 years ago.
I sometimes think of rabbinical commentaries as the original blog comments and many of them date back to ancient to medieval times.  You can’t overstate the importance of having this mindset built into the very foundation of your identity as far back as you can remember.
Jews thereby deal in complex abstractions as naturally as they breathe, it’s their stock in trade as horsemanship and archery was for the Mongols.  We see smart Jews with community support easily outmatch smart whites who may even have more raw mental horsepower but have spent their lives struggling against a culture of lowbrow rigidity.

With just a glance at the high IQ vs. mid IQ society.  We can get an idea where “flyover country” resentment derives from.  Nerdy, clever whites with bean-counter temperaments remember how they were low ranked in childhood outside of their safe havens of marching band, choir, cross country, chess club, and debate club.  They aren’t clever enough, though, to recognize the roots of their problems or how it fits into the story of humanity as a whole.

So once they are urban professionals who hang out at the same wine bars and watercoolers, they share stories and form a culture and narrative.  They collectively remember what it was like to be outnumbered by proles with crass tastes.  For those that were born into urban areas and spent their youths in preppy feeder schools, these stories are all they know of the outside world.

Those that grew up in the suburban and rural culture suffer from class anxiety since the urban yuppie culture is higher status.  This makes signalling disapproval with the white heartlands an easy way to score points.  Say it often enough, finding each time your Dunbar group approves, you start to believe it.

The final deadly ingredient of SWPL resentment is aggressive indoctrination by the gatekeepers to Upper Middle Class America.  No one makes it into salary heaven without at least mouthing the right platitudes about gender and race.
But coercion alone isn’t enough.  Their professors and corporate handlers feed their resentment and jealousy for the middle IQ culture.  Without a seed already planted, white self-loathing among the professional class couldn’t take root.

With these powers combined, we have the right ingredients for a lesser aristocracy with no sense of noblesse oblige to a larger culture or a longer history but defined instead by rankling suspicion and fearful contempt for the lower orders they’re meant to protect.

Yesterday, an antifa rioter who smashed people’s heads with a steel bike lock was identified as a college philosophy professor who taught ethics!
It comes as no surprise he was a small and nerdy man with a reedy voice.  Though he had a nice job and a house, he couldn’t resist the opportunity to finally take out his rage on those he saw as the natural enemies of his tribe.

Now he’s thrown out his life of privilege, status, and ease so he could backstab his own people in the most juvenile way.  He will probably never understand that he was trying to smash the pedestal on which he stood.  His life is a microcosm of the ideologies that twisted his soul.

Feminism was a lobby to change the whole society in the interests of women with above average IQ and testosterone levels. But with most of them at +1 SD, they couldn’t understand society as a whole organism, let alone their place in it. They ended up destroying gender relations for everyone.

The cultural revolution of the 60s suffered from the same disastrous misunderstanding.  They attempted to make the whole society more welcoming for the slightly clever and have thereby nearly destroyed it for everyone.

Clearly white undertow has to be dealt with in a new social structure.  The mildly clever are much harder to control than proles while composing nearly 20% of the white population.
They have to be either given outlets they find rewarding in the caste system or else crushed ruthlessly.
They are the ones the lower orders see as most intelligent, because they are close enough in capability to somewhat relate to them.  A few equations on a white board or quotes from Einstein and the masses are impressed.  If we watch a few hollywood movies, we can see the average person thinks the intellectual is some kind of magician—the more abstruse and esoteric, the smarter.

The ability of the mildly clever to influence those immediately beneath them by putting on airs means they can muster mass movements to overthrow the culture and eventually the state.
This is exactly what happened in the 20th century and the source of much of the damage we must repair.  To live together, the different castes must be governed by rules appropriate to their station.

The SWPL Paradox: Why Rule By High IQ Fails Miserably

All around the world, the development of nations correlates pretty well with a population’s average IQ.   Therefore, we could designate a ruling caste based on IQ, right, and be better off?  Easy enough.

In real life, though, the high IQ upper middle class and above already has great power just by being high status trend-setters congregating in the center of big cities where all the machinery of influence lies.

Yet rather than bringing in an age of enlightened rule, the SWPLs have consistently collaborated against their own people and tried to destroy their nation, from misguided feel-good idealism and putting their short-term gains first.

We need only imagine for a moment what the USA would look like if the yuppie intelligentsia seized total control and enacted their agenda in full.

The USA would become a temperate zone version of Brazil with no borders, no concept of unity, and crushingly low wages.  Poverty, strife, and tribal warfare would run rampant.  Just like the rest of the third world the SWPL elite would live in walled-off compounds where they would shop at Whole Foods and sip frappuccinos in peace, forgetting the rest of society exists while donating money to Somalia with crocodile tears of signalled virtue streaming down their faces—just like they do already.

Actually, I’m sure they’d ruthlessly “gentrify” any areas they moved into, relying on their armed enforcers to force out anyone who couldn’t be removed by skyrocketing rents so they could have another cute shopping district where they could buy organic dog biscuits for their toy pets.

Total rule by educated urban professionals would have been more violent, unjust, impoverished, and oppressive than Central American dictatorships.  Already, they have long since lost the mandate of heaven through their gross negligence and incompetence, a fact even they are becoming dimly aware of as national politics steadily slips out of their control.

Why were they as a group worse at ruling than any Joe Sixpack taken off the street would have been?  At least average Joe might not have been actively malicious and contemptuous towards the people he’s ruling.

The first, most obvious flaw, is lack of skin in the game.  Rule from provincial capitals encourages disconnection.  However smart someone may be, you have to have experience.  You can’t become a doctor or a pilot by reading books. Having a culture that spreads equalist propaganda to people who don’t have the experience to know otherwise just makes it even worse and assures terrible leadership and government.  Yet, they chose to accept what they were taught without critical thinking and swallowed the scam hook, line, and sinker.  This fact is perhaps more significant.

While IQ predicts the performance of population as a whole, it’s clear we need further criteria to determine who should rule.  Clearly, personality traits, neurotype, thinking style matter just as much.

A good example is the massive under-performance of East Asian people relative to their IQ and huge populations for many centuries even though they are objectively smarter than Europeans.

Elite US universities have to include special subjective rules to ensure model minority students don’t become a majority.  Chinese and upper-caste Indians outcompete whites without too much difficulty.  Yet in spite of this, their homelands have been stagnant fiefdoms of foreign powers until recently.

From what I’ve observed, they have the same problem as the SWPL lesser aristocracy.  Their high levels of organization and extreme conscientiousness and work ethic makes them the perfect cubicle workers.  But they are incapable of independent thought and action.

Every friend I’ve had who’s been in academia says the same things about students from Asia: They cram and memorize stuff for when they need it, but don’t really understand the material. What’s more, many of them had to be in good favor with their government’s brainless indoctrination to get selected for foreign study in the first place.

As far as I can tell, upper middle class whites are those most compatible with the Asian mindset and probably originate from similar selective pressures.  Their neurotype and phenotype is just not as widespread.
I recall watching League of Legends championships and noticed the few whites were as weedy, gracile, and diminutive as their Asian counterparts.  Both the white and Asian players exhibited these traits to a greater extreme than an average Asian would.  What we call “nerds” in the West simply became more normal in densely populated rice civilizations.

Another test is necessary, then, besides IQ to determine a ruling caste.  While autistic bean-counters are put to good use within the low to middle ranks of bureaucracy, they are incapable of rule.  It is not even in their temperament to rule themselves, let alone others.

There has to be a way to test for genuine curiosity and understanding as opposed to just manipulating symbols.  Even more so, a barbaric penchant for internal locus of control rather than civilized unquestioning conformity.

From my own experience and reading history, it seems humans come up with new ideas and conquer when they have good IQ and teamwork combined with just the right amount of barbarian wildness and individualism.

It seems otherwise hard to explain how the rocky tip of the Balkan peninsula or a small and rainy island might have created the most enduring ideas and inventions while having the greatest military might and empires of their times.

When I was in Korea sometime back, I thought their society very much superior in many ways.  High IQ made itself obvious in everything from monumentally more effective city planning to more subtle signs like having a whole TV channel devoted to the game of go.
But watching crowds stand patiently at crosswalks, almost in rank and file, even when no cars were nearby told me in one instant why they’ve never conquered the world and why their cousins in the North consent to be ruled by one of the world’s worst governments.
A nation of Africans with 100 average IQ would have potential to become far more dangerous than they are.  Neurotype and temperament matters in people just like it does in breeds of dogs—it’s just considered very impolite to notice.

Syrian Strike, North Korea: A Formative Moment For the Alt-Sphere

For months factions have quarelled about what the alt-right is, who are its leaders, if anybody, and what it believes with only wavering ground of agreement. Then President Trump fired missiles on Syria and the reaction from these disparate groups was overwhelming.

The anti-establishment internet has come out in force against the attack, and especially against any further moves towards intervention.  For the first time, red pill PUAs, white nationalists, alt-lite civic nationalists, neo-reactionaries, alt-left former Bernie supporters find themselves all on the same page.

Meanwhile, a faction of optimate neocons begins to solidify with warhawk republicans and SJW libs alike coming out in favor of new Middle Eastern wars.  Even progressive-leaning politicians like Elizabeth Warren were agreeing something must be done about Syria.

What to think when even the president’s sworn political enemies want to “hold accountable” the leaders of far-away lands over their own domestic policy—and for no clear US gain?  Actually, the clear US gain is to simply allow Assad to finish crushing ISIS!

Even Rand Paul, a republican known for some anti-establishment leanings, seems to disapprove but draws things out and chooses his words very carefully.

While many Trump supporters are disappointed or even disillusioned by the attack, it becomes increasingly clear that no one, whatever their professed beliefs, would have brought significant change to American foreign policy.

The flimsy excuse of “chemical attacks” that’s been recycled for decades now only hammers in the point.  We have established beyond a doubt that the problem is systemic.

The best move is not to panic and run, but to stay firmly in the Trump camp for now making our presence felt.  The Syria attack may have been one of Trump’s trial balloons which may well have just been shot down with all the firepower the anti-establishment can bring to bear.

The alt-right is actually pretty small, but it’s so easy to overestimate its size because that’s where the new growth and the energy is at.  Audacious Epigone aptly describes them as the “trench warriors” who got Trump into office.

Dissidents have made unimaginable progress since the beginning of the 2016 election entering into mainstream visibility as a political force for the first time.  But now the limits of that influence become clear.

The next obvious step is the rise of politicians who don’t just smile and wink at the dissidents from time to time while “disavowing” but profess their beliefs outright.

We’ll know we’re on the right track when there are leaders who unequivocally and unreservedly denounce pointless foreign interventions, sappy globalist claptrap, and traitorous open-border cuckery while saving the majority of their energy for domestic policy.

It’s time to figure out how to make neo-populists a force in their own right if it turns out the present order is impermeable and unchangeable.

At this moment, we are seeing a new standoff over North Korea, this time possibly with Chinese cooperation.  If that’s so, Trump’s maneuvering may actually have paid off impressively.

However cleverly done, though, nuclear brinksmanship isn’t the reason people put Trump in office.  It would be a big accomplishment if North Korea comes out of this confrontation chastened, but America’s real problems right now are internal.

I understand arguments that Trump wants to reassure his allies after Obama showed weakness and that North Korea is trying to develop missiles that can reach the USA.

The problem with this policy is eventually, most nations will have their house atomics.  North Korea’s boss, China, already is a major nuclear power.  What’s next, unilaterally blowing up Iranian reactors?
It’s 1940s technology and most nations that want to will be able to eventually find the materials and expertise.  
If that’s not something humanity can cope with, perhaps we have the answer to Fermi’s paradox(not yet finding signs of other sentient life).

The alt-sphere finds itself facing its first big challenges as a visible political influence. Like all politics there is a delicate line to walk.  Too strident, you lose your place at the bargaining table.  Too docile, you get nothing anyway.  From now on it will be about finding that sweet spot.

A lot of objectives are already meeting with success:
-The TPP was killed almost immediately.
-Illegal immigration is plummeting.
-ICE has been far more active within US borders.
-Originalist Supreme Court Justice confirmed.
-Some encouraging initial reports that corporations may be returning operations to the US.

However, the re-emergence of neocon foreign policy is profoundly worrying and the rustlings and shufflings of power struggles within the administration are ominous to say the least.  

Critics like Hunter Wallace pointed out all along that a cabinet full of establishment generals, Wall Street bankers, corporate open-borders apologists, big party donors was bound to cause problems.

I guess many of us supposed Trump would somehow bend them all to his will but it seems the simple fact is, people are who they associate with the most.  So special attention must be paid to the last alt-right and nationalist figures in the cabinet.

Like elite classes throughout history, the present elite are unwilling to accept their decline.  If they back off, they will still have social status and their mansions in Potomac and Arlington for awhile living an easy life in an Edwardian twilight.  If they put all their chips down on keeping all the power they’ve got, it will start to get interesting.

Though vilified as a Nazi, Trump ran, for the most part, as a center-right moderate as he has been for most of his life.  I’ve said before:  Obama was the establishment’s last chance to fix the system.  Trump is the system’s last chance.  If this round fails to produce satisfactory solutions, it is possible that the door is opened to the spread of more radical sympathies.

Why the Attack on Syria?

I won’t mince words: Trump’s decision to launch missiles into Syria is a disaster.  In reactions across the internet I am seeing justifications but in no way do the advantages come close to outweighing the costs.
I will address a few:

Trump wanted to intimidate China and North Korea
I doubt the Chinese president is easily frightened and making Kim Jong Un too nervous or desperate could turn Seoul and then the whole Korean peninsula into a smoking crater.

Russians and Syrians had time to evacuate/runways weren’t destroyed etc.
It’s still an act of war on another nation’s territory.  You don’t get brownie points or gold star stickers for playing nice at war.  These measures prevented immediate escalation to actual war but has worsened relations that were already pretty bad for no real reason.  If the goal was to get rid of ISIS why is the US attacking the people who were successully getting rid of ISIS?

That’ll Shut Up the Media About Russian Conspiracy Theories!
This didn’t stop Trump in the election when he was far more vulnerable, it certainly wasn’t going to stop his presidency. Wiretapping ploys and Rice unmaskings were already effectively countering the fake hysteria. Nothing about this relatively small problem required a risky foreign policy move.

Trump showed those pansies he’s not another wimpy Obama!
Trump got elected in part because his opponent was openly agitating for war with Russia and Syria that no one wants.   Obama and Hillary’s disastrous Syria policy helped ISIS form in the first place! Now we’re back to square one after spending nearly two years on the election?

The Syrians were gassing their own peoplez! Look at the cute dead kidz!
We all know this was just an excuse.  It’s irrelevant whether it’s fabricated or not. Trump’s whole America First campaign was a reaction to this kind of moralistic world policing.

The most rational possible reason I can think of for this idiocy is Trump has to make some concessions to the neocons or they would have just let the democrats filibuster Gorsuch indefinitely. 

Trump’s administration desperately depends on getting new justices into the supreme court.  For millions of American voters who did not like Trump, that’s the one issue that pushed them over the edge.  Furthermore, he desperately needs to break the impasse that is preventing him from acting decisively on immigration, the single biggest issue that put him in power.

I recognize it’s a tough situation, a sacrifice of some kind may have been necessary to grease the wheels, but I do not think this sacrifice was worth it.
The optics of attacking Syria right as Hillary came out and asked for it, with all the neocons celebrating afterwards is terrible.

It has just been openly demonstrated that no matter who you vote for, you still get pointless bombs and wars in the Middle East while the same old elites pat each other on the back.
Over $100 million dollars worth of cruise missiles just got dumped on a distant land most Americans could care less about for no real gain.
These conspicuous displays of waste while dams are crumbling and highways are burning down at home starts to sound a lot like just another chorus of “let them eat cake.”

So now Gorsuch is in, a key victory for Trump.  But the meta is even more important.
Now that Americans have seen appointed federal judges can block anything they don’t like…
Now that they’ve seen you get war and bombs in the Middle East no matter who you vote for…
The whole democracy really starts to look like a thinly veiled fiction.  And if that last veil gets stripped away, judges are just silly ugly old people in robes playing make-believe and all you have left is force.

From the start of his campaign, Trump shrewdly sought to curry favor with the military.  He understood if he was going to go against the entire political establishment, he would need solid backing to stay in power against contrived coups.

Unfortunately, we might be discovering a hard truth that neo-con politicians are just the political arm of the military top brass.  

Generals tend to be establishment to the core and incestuously in bed with military industrial contractors.  So perhaps we’ve found the limits of what voting can accomplish.  
Some grudging concessions on immigration and jobs perhaps, but the flow of trillions to contractors who pretend to design fighter planes and wars in the interests of the US’ biggest arms customers must continue.

The problem is the country is being bled dry and the farce is becoming obvious to millions.  Generals can’t really seize power directly until their troops are willing to fire on fellow citizens and if they tried that, they’d find their authority doesn’t go as far outside the beltway as they think.

So Trump still has considerable bargaining power even though he’s under a lot of pressure—if he wants to use it.  In retrospect perhaps we can now see the coils tightening.  Flynn replaced with someone more in line with the innermost circles and now possibly Bannon getting edged out of favor?
At this time all we can do is wait and see what happens next.

There’s No Such Thing As “Free Markets”

Whenever I hear someone start to toss around phrases like “free markets” and complain about “big government” and “regulations.” I know I’m likely talking to a libertarian or neo-conservative shill making excuses for crony capitalism.  

The idea that there can be “free markets” in an anarchic capitalist society is a clever joke—a reality that dawns at some point on idealistic anarcho-libertarian undergrads that want to say they believe in something that sounds cool to say.  One day in between bong hits, it hits them—who pays taxes if no one makes them pay?  If you have no taxes how do you stop military invasion from even the most mediocre states?
Anyone pushing these ideas after age 30 are likely either fools or just sociopaths who want less rules so they can try to screw over everyone else.

Markets cannot exist without a state that uses the threat of force to guarantee property, profits, and contracts.  Thus the state has the implicit prerogative and responsibility to control the market.

Imagine what would happen to the local grocery if all police and soldiers disappeared.  The grocery would be forced to hire the local gang to defend their merchandise and before long, that gang would become the new state getting protection money(taxes) in exchange for their services.  Then, the guys with the guns, of course, get to call the shots.  

If the grocery owners hatch schemes to bleed the rest of community dry for their own benefit, the gangsters start to lose out on their neighborhood protection rackets.  The furious gangsters respond by threatening to shoot the store owners if they don’t follow certain rules.  Thus, we get regulations, which no market lacks.  The market itself is regulated into existence by the gangsters’ guns.

Even most “free market” ideologues can’t claim to believe in actual completely free market.  They usually recognize the need to prevent monopolies and try to have a “level playing field.”  But they are slippery and try to blame the centralization of wealth into monopolies on “big government” ineptitude and corruption.  In fact, power tends to centralize over time whether we speak of political bodies or business enterprises.  In real life, big, powerful government is the only thing that keeps markets competitive.

The market is one of the most powerful and flexible tools known for organizing and channeling the creative power of humanity.  Used properly, it can give rise to prosperous nations.  But it is first a tool to improve society, not an end unto itself.  Business exists to serve the people and is fundamentally subordinate to the needs of the tribe.

When businesses are allowed to do whatever they wish while enjoying the protection of armed men, the state creates and aids the growth of competitors for its power to rule.  The market is a dangerous tool that must be handled with firm discipline.  

If the gangsters grow soft, the grocery store competes with them for money that would’ve gone into taxes and eventually has its own armed men.  If the gangsters lose the ensuing struggle, the grocery store becomes the new government.  Then the grocery store has to worry about staying in power just like the gangsters did.  

The worst possible state, actually, is when the market is let to grow out of control with no responsibility for governing.  Then business, which should be enriching the neighborhood becomes like a brood of writhing tapeworms bloating the collective body even as it starves from within.

There will always be corruption and ineptitude in government so long as governments are ran by people, or even by machines programmed by people—and therefore infused with human bias. It has been argued endlessly if government is good or bad.  What cannot be debated is whether government is necessary and those who try to say otherwise in favor of business are most likely traitors.

Extreme Individualism Is Why Whites Don’t Run Hollywood

Every day, message boards flare with rage and envy at successful groups like American Jews, blaming the situation always on conspiracies, never on their own shortcomings as a people.
Why, they wonder are half the supreme court justices, authors, famous scientists, all the movie studios Jewish?

Though Jews have an advantage in brains on average, there are so few of them, this alone can’t explain their dominance.  With tens of millions of whites to draw from, there’s no shortage of people who could compete with them, if they had decent teamwork.

Part of the formula for success is rich Jews identify members of their community with potential in the long term and get them the money and loans they need to focus completely on projects that interest them.

There’s no way the individually competitive white community would identify someone brainy and eloquent, then allow them sometimes to putter around into their 30s before there’s a payoff.  That’s pretty much the life story of Bernie Sanders.  He probably wouldn’t have become a US senator if he had to focus his energies on a 9-5 job instead. 

Extreme apex ventures like professional acting, writing, art, politics, academics, journalism are too risky and too expensive for atomized individuals to participate in.  That just leaves an open field for a group that backs each other up and makes investments in developing their own human capital.  

If a group doesn’t want to show up for the game, they can’t complain when they don’t win.  Then the cohesive team of people who took control of all the high risk/high reward ventures secure immense power over society.

What’s sad is white society didn’t always believe “every man is for himself,” “the world doesn’t owe you anything,” and “you have to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.”

Alexander Hamilton comes to mind as a good example.  He grew up in the Caribbean as an illegitimate kid.  His mother, strapped for cash, died when he was still young.  In our current society, he’d disappear into the foster system and dysfunctional public “education” never to be heard from again.

In an ironically less backwards 18th century, the local property owners noticed Hamilton was extremely bright, mature for his age, with an excellent work ethic.  They trained him in the sugar cane export business and then as he continued to show promise, pooled their money to send him to university in New York.

The community support that Hamilton benefited from would be unthinkable in modern white culture.  In fact, with jobs that pay even the simplest living now scarce, workers take perverse joy in someone like Hamilton falling through the cracks.

They love to waggle their fingers patronizingly and say  “Look how I pulled myself up while that smart guy turned out to be a loser.”  A quick glance at reality TV shows us how taking pleasure in watching others fail while we are safe serves as porn for both sexes.

A culture of extreme individualism devolves into the backstabbing and treachery of royal court politics until nothing gets done and no one cares anymore about real accomplishment, just “getting ahead” through “networking.”  The greatest object of scorn is the poor cuckold fool who gets things done and the most admired the clever manager who takes all the credit for it.
 
No wonder even the most popular fantasy story, Game of Thrones, takes place in a world where no one is good, everyone ruthlessly schemes in a royal court, and all things magical and fantastic lie dormant.

Meanwhile, the Jews see someone like Hamilton in their community and give him a chance.  Maybe he turns out to be a loser after all or just doesn’t quite make the cut for the big time.  But if the gamble pays, they have a US senator or an A list actor that’s from their own group and now owes them favors.

Success stories in developing human capital teach us apex ability at anything requires identifying talent early and giving it direction.

Alexander Hamilton was running businesses by the time he was a teenager.  David Farragut was responsible for ships by the time he was 12 years old.

By age 18 after 12 years of public school boredom, smart kids have already had much of their potential wasted and millions of them have already checked out from a senseless and stupid society that gleefully wastes their time.

Much of this stupidity comes from the failed religion of equalism.  In the 18th century most people had the common sense to understand that the most talented people have superior genes and surpass other people at an early age.

In some ways their society had more opportunity precisely because it didn’t buy into equality.  If a 12 year old could perform at an adult level, he just might get a chance to rise to his potential.

Until white society rejects its failed culture of atomized competition, they will always be the puppets of smarter groups who can work together and promote their own.

They can blame the Jews and pogrom them all tomorrow but the next day, someone else comes along to fill the vacuum and dominates them, again beating them bloody with a riding crop as they squeal in impotent rage through a ball gag.  
And there they stay trapped in humiliating servitude to more cohesive tribes until they change themselves.

It’s the Chinese handcuffs of culture.  As soon as white society finally examines and changes its attitudes, cultural autonomy suddenly becomes effortless.

Most Wealth is Wasted in Modern Society

Of the massive 15 trillion dollar per year US economy there is undoubtedly some millions that comprise the fake plant industry.  
Fake plants serve to accentuate the soullessness of your typical office or waiting area with a parody of nature.  The materials and labor that goes into them serves no essential purpose nor does it make anyone happier.  What then is the point?

Why not just have fake plant makers stay at home with basic income if they’re wasting time and resources?  The system works by most people being forced to sell their labor(not everyone can be entrepeneurs) so they have food to eat and rent for their landlords. Why do we assume all labor must be good when every other living thing rests when it can?

The other side of this equation is consumerism that operates on the Keynesian assumption that all economic activity is worthwhile, and the more of it the better, no matter what.  And if you ever doubt it, you’re a commie or worse, a socialist!
This encourages an economy based on make-work that gets people a paycheck so they can buy more stuff without anything of value getting done.

So if I were emperor I might outlaw the manufacture of fake plants.  Maybe there’d be a black market for them and maybe fake plant dealers from time to time would get a whipping in the public square or get pilloried and pelted with rotten eggs and tomatoes.  

At the very least it would make fake plants more expensive and lower quality so fewer people would bother.  Being  a worthless “good” that no one really likes, there would be no Al Capone of fake plants.

Growing up in the 90s, I saw the social order of consumerism at its absolute peak.  Even people of modest means lived in decent-sized houses and their garages were invariably full to bursting with thousands of dollars worth of frivolous toys they never used.
 
I remember getting taken to house parties with my parents and seeing whole collections of the brand new DVDs worth hundreds of dollars that just sat there in glass cabinets, never removed from their plastic in houses that were so fastidiously clean, they didn’t even seem lived in.

I would get a feeling of dread and black depression in the pit of my stomach.  I could sense it was signs of sickness and decay though I couldn’t articulate or explain, even if someone in the smugly triumphalist 90s would have listened to such talk.

I reflect on my childhood and remember how most people given more money than they need to live just blow it all on stupid fads and status signalling anyway and are just as miserable and greedy as they were before.

Actually I perceived a thinly veiled cynicism, viciousness, and jadedness pervading most everything, even in other kids, who would’ve slit a throat for more Abercrombie and Fitch apparel. There were no loyalties or values, just things.

I remember those times as the worst and darkest of my life even though I spent my 20s perilously close to going completely broke as I had to teach myself the laws of real world survival from scratch after getting a worthless degree.

For all the pain it has caused, I actually think the challenges of the 21st century have forced people to reflect again on what is really important in life—and discredited the corrupt 1960s cultural revolution.  In some ways, it would have been the true nightmare if that on-paper prosperity had gone on forever.

Giving the commoners excessive wealth through the labor market or by welfare is like inflating the college degree or home loan markets.

The trouble in understanding this lies in enlightenment delusions of “perfectly rational” human behavior.  Or in other words assuming that people will always strive to improve their situations in a stricly pragmatic material sense.

In reality, beyond getting basic necessities met, most people just care about attracting desirable mates, making friends, and starting families.  
Humans as social animals are hardwired to compete for social prestige by any means necessary.

Like many other animals we see in the wild, human males try to build bowers and put on courtship displays to impress females.  Females spend most of their time and money acquiring accessories and grooming their plumage to impress the best bower builders.

As the level of wealth rises in society, the bowers get bigger and the accessories get more elaborate.  The dark side of this is if you don’t jump on the fad wagon and compete with the Joneses, you get left behind or even cast out from society.

Eventually you have a society where social signalling with more expensive houses, cars, and credentials puts all the wealth in the world straight down the toilet.

Human status is relative to what other people have and that’s why those who say “But US poorz is better off than African Kingz cuz they’re fat and they’ve got microwave ovens.” are full of crap—and they know it.

So if I were emperor, I would put restrictions on what kinds of houses are legal to build.  No more oversized houses with shoddy architecture and cheap materials that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.  

I would insist on durable materials suitable for the climate at reasonable prices that are large enough to do what’s necessary, especially anywhere near the cities where land is scarce.  It wouldn’t even take that long to phase out the current generation of houses that are considered “old” after 30 years.

There would be no more luxury cars for commoners.  No more hummers and pickup trucks on the road(unless you live off-road, have a farm, or a small business).  Excessively big vehicles just force everyone else to get bigger, more expensive cars if they want to survive a collision and consume ridiculous amounts of gas.  For 99% of people it makes more sense to rent a uhaul for the day if they need to move some stuff.

The credential factory universities wouldn’t get free money anymore and would have to answer directly to market forces.  They would probably just go back to being a socialization service for the upper middle class and up.

I would also abolish all employment laws concerning race and sex, granting peoples complete freedom of association.

I would make it legal to use IQ tests or other aptitude tests for employment to make a huge chunk of the bloated credential economy obsolete overnight.

I’m sure some who read this will choke with indignation at this “infringement of individual property rights” etc. etc. But I really see it as more mundane than that.  No different than rules against business owners burning down their competitors’ shops or building codes that limit how high or prominent signs can be.

A clear basic duty of those who control the guys with guns is to keep competition at all levels of society within healthy limits so they in turn can compete with other groups of guys with guns.

Let’s imagine for a moment that we take away those building codes.  Overnight, restaurants would build ever larger, taller, more brightly flashing signs and decoration to get attention even as the quality of the burgers they’re selling plummets.

This is exactly what happens when a population has no rules of social competition.  It simply escalates out of control until the most fabulously wealthy society in history is mired in crushing debt and most people are living paycheck to paycheck.

The core problem is that we actually idolize the social order of endless escalation that is destroying us.  Like countless empires before us that squandered their inheritance, we will find ourselves suddenly vulnerable to barbarian incursions from every side and our ability to unite, fight, and trust in our fellow man utterly extinguished in the endless war of all against all that we worship.

Until we rethink our basic assumptions about wealth and human nature, we are like Tantalus doomed to be thirsty and hungry though surrounded by all the wealth of the world, satisfaction always just out of reach.

Perhaps, we may even begin to dream of heresies—would living in a basic mudbrick house and a basic car be bad if we didn’t have to worry about basics of life like healthcare?
If you can’t buy a McMansion or lame crap like fake plants, and you don’t have to worry about becoming a debt slave for life if you trip once on a flight of stairs or slip in the shower, suddenly the unthinkable might occur.  The urge to get more money even if it destroys your entire society, might just diminish and economic activity become limited to where it does the most good.

My Interview With Robert Stark

I was interviewed by Robert Stark of Stark Truth Radio earlier this month.

http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=4088
We spoke about:
-Singapore as an inspiration for alt-right government in a multi-ethnic country.
-The aesthetics of a post-Western social order.
-Mercantile ethnic groups from Southeast Asia and the Levant and its HBD implications.
-Trump’s political situation where both parties hate him and would get rid of him if given the chance.
-How the alt-right is limited mainly to the white working class and how a larger populist movement could attract progressive voters who have been neglected by the democrat coalition.

Post-Western Aesthetics post:
https://colonyofcommodus.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/what-might-a-post-western-aesthetic-look-like/

Military Juntas are Cool Again !

Look, the real story of those years is not told in the books.  The military never bothered anyone unless they were leftist agitators or were committing violence.  Even our president now [Dilma] was detained for participation in making bombs.  Why doesn’t the media talk about that?  They don’t, ever.  There were demonstrations all the time.  One day we woke up and there were tanks in the streets.  That’s how it was.

But I can tell you one thing:  the military in those days were actually less corrupt than the rats we have now.  They cared about power and order, not so much about getting rich.  And those stories about pregnant women in Argentina in detention centers?  Let me tell you that a lot of them deliberately got pregnant because they thought it would get them released.  So a lot of it is propaganda.

There was a real war there.  To win a war, you have to be ruthless.  It’s fashionable to hate the junta, to hate Pinochet, and our own dictators, but the economies we have now we owe to them.  And that is the reality.  The real mistake the junta in Argentina made is that they lost a war to Britain.  Nobody has anything good to say about those who lose wars.

Those rubber fascists with their helicopter taxis weren’t so bad after all, I mean they were fighting leftists, the very spawn of Satan!
Let us forget about all those clandestine torture centers, of the genital electrocutions and the Desaparecidos.

Fascists apologists…. Is the Alt-Right showing its true colors?

For the full article Why The Left Is Suppressing The Truth About Argentina’s Military Junta

Shelters From Planned Obsolescence

Here’s a blast from the past, an article I wrote in 2011, that illustrates how much things have changed in a very short time thanks to new communication technologies that have sped and grown the flow of information through non-elite channels by orders of magnitude. At the time planned obsolescence was somewhat of a fringe topic and now seems like it’s being talked about far more. I will be following this soon with some more musings on economies, this time written in the (present year).

6 Heretic's Way

Builds Upon:Living On A Keynesian Playground

Many an old aphorism tells us that human desire is limitless.
Yet not so many tell us that human imagination is quite limited.

Humans can desire only what they already know of or are capable of imagining.
Thus kings in ancient times never had any desire for personal computers or i-pads.

Markets are like a genie that grants the wishes of a collective—anything that people want tends to manifest—but like a typical Arabian Nights style narrative, the moral of the story is the banality and short-sightedness of the wish-maker.

Somehow, we never see the ‘experts’ factor in shortcomings in human knowledge and imagination when they discuss the workings of capitalism. The theoretical customer seems almost like a Laplace’s demon with perfect knowledge of the universe.

In real life, imperfect consumer knowledge and foresight plus the influence of emotion makes planned obsolescence a more…

View original post 830 more words

The Problem of Rent-Seeking

Money is in theory just a liquid means of exchange so every bit of it should represent real world wealth.
The core problem of a society based on financialization is everyone starts to believe money itself is wealth.  Then society rewards the manipulation of money more than it does the creation of real wealth that actually helps people.

Why would anyone of means do anything productive if they can just collect interest and rent?
Rent-seekers use property to extract wealth indefinitely, making their living from a distortion of reality.
In the world of material things, there is no such thing as a gold mine that never runs out.  There is a limit in value to all things.  Yet those who control property can extract rents in perpetuity.

Patent law recognizes a limit in the claim to the rights of an idea or invention.  In time, the patented material becomes the natural inheritance of those who benefit from it.  So by what principle then does rented property stay forever in the hands of an owner who never uses it for themselves and never produces anything?

In Cincinnati, where I currently live, I noticed there are small patches of land used as paid parking in downtown.  Someone bought a small lot, threw down some asphalt on it, installed a ticket machine and voila, they can rake in cash every day.
The person who provides the parking lot, I thought, provides a useful service.  Not to mention most of these lots are cheaper than the parking garages, so they can save people money too.
On the other hand, I noticed these lots were minimally maintained. The asphalt was worn down, cracked, with weeds growing through it.  I supposed other than checking for freeloaders every once in awhile, there was no incentive for the property owner to do anything else while they reaped their dividends forever.

So the problem here is we need people to develop property and provide services but the value they bring to the table must also be recognized as finite.
The property owner must make a reasonable profit if we want them to bother but it is unnatural and improper for them to bring in an indefinite and infinite harvest once they have long since ceased to contribute new value.

So would it not make sense if there were limits to ownership of property that collects rents?  Like patents, you profit for awhile, but eventually it passes on into the public domain.
This could be especially relevant where there is opportunity cost.
Those little flat, run-down parking lots in Cincinnati are surrounded by 10 story buildings.
So while the land is put to a use that creates some value, surely it would create far more value if it re-entered the market and was used for a multiple story building owned and used by a business that actively creates new value every day.

The total gain appropriate to a renter could be determined by a number of factors.

-Absolute quantity of wealth invested in the property.(Did someone spend millions or billions of dollars on it?)
-Percentage of personal wealth invested.(Did someone put a lot of their money into the property?)
-Riskiness of the investment.
-Amount of effort to develop and maintain.
-Value the property gives back to society.(Penalize houses that sit empty just to get flipped later and/or keep rents artifically high.)
-Opportunity cost to society based on the property’s location.
-Is the property a strategic chokepoint that people have to pay for and therefore easy to command unreasonably high prices for?

The point would be to impose especially harsh penalties against large, lazy property holders who try to be dogs in the manger using the state’s monopoly on force— without which they own nothing—to parasitize others.  Without the threat of armed enforcers, they would probably be shot in the head trying to impose their will.  Why do they deserve state backing that not only hurts society, but delegitimizes the state by association?

Money acquired through parasitism is heresy.  Not only is the sacred relationship of money and wealth desecrated and distorted, every penny of false money-as-wealth is real wealth stolen from those who are trying to help the social order.  Once a society rewards clever defectors, while punishing honest cooperators, it is doomed.  Society cannot exist without maintaining the integrity of its wealth.

A worthwhile society understands that money used as counterfeit real-world wealth is nothing but theft and fraud—not just against one person but against the entire social order.  There could be a generous grace period after implementing such rules after which, perpetrators would be regarded as far worse than mere murderers.

See Also: White Collar Criminals Are Worse Than Street Criminals

Searching For the Golden Mean of Government

Direct democracy is mob rule.  It is so unviable and volatile that no polity has ever had a completely direct democracy.  At best, popular referendums are used sparingly and mostly in local government.
The Ancient Athenian democracy was a disaster and it was even limited to an elite class of citizens.

The founders of the United States took note of history and used the Roman Republic as their model instead of Athens.  
Separation of powers and the use of representatives was far more stable because it could moderate the whims of the crowd and favor the power of one faction over another.

There are those who argue that having a King or Emperor is the best and most natural government.  Monarchy after all has been the most common and stable government for thousands of years.
Monarchists have a good argument that monarchs are effective executives able to make quick decisions when it matters most.  Because their entire lives and family are invested in the state  they have a built-in incentive to care about long-term problems whereas elected representatives just care to get re-elected.
In practice, of course, history has countless examples of incompetent monarchs.  A system that depends so heavily on one person can seesaw between being very well run to a complete nightmare.  

When power is more focused, major changes in policy can occur immediately. But those changes might prove to be disastrous and even bring about the collapse of the state.  
Republican government makes sudden changes in policy difficult to safeguard against any single person making fatal decisions.  It also avoids the ancient problem of being just 1 heartbeat away from wars of succession.  
However, problems that need to be boldly addressed tend to fester when there are safety rails everywhere.

So can we find some kind of balance between autocracy and the republic?
The USA in its current form has nearly universal suffrage and slips into the disaster of mob rule.  The early US republic had limited franchise.  Moderners obsess about suffrage being limited to evil white males but the important part was land ownership requirements.  This may not be exactly what we’d want now, but it gives us a useful principle.  

The idea behind this restriction was that voters had to have skin in the game and safeguard them against people with nothing to lose simply using the state to plunder everyone else.

There was a clear idea that some people were more invested in society as shareholders than others, an idea that’s totally alien to modern concepts of democracy where every warm body has a “right” to vote. 

We also ought to go all the way back to the principles of merit from Plato’s Republic.  Like any other job, those best qualified to rule should be the rulers.  In a republic that would mean we dismiss handwringing over “rights” and worry only about what results we get from bestowing the ballot.

We’d refine the electorate like consultants brought in to trim down a company.  Did we end up fighting wars for no reason?  Were there tax breaks for the rich while peasants starved?  Who voted for these things?  Does someone have the civic knowledge, basic literacy, and intelligence to competently wield the power of the vote? Do they have skin in the game and a reason to care about where society is 100 years from now or does it make no difference to them if they plunder the treasury now?

This is of course an imperfect process. Imagine if we had simply made the top 20% most educated people the only ones with the vote in the US.  Out-of-touch SWPL total rule would have been a disaster for everyone.  So clearly a formula for who gets ballots has to be worked out very carefully.

-Those with special knowledge on an issue get a more heavily weighted vote. (The challenge is this might end up benefiting parasitic insiders.  We’ve all seen where rule by “experts” has gotten us.)
-The whole society gets divided into castes based on capabilities and neurological temperament.  The best(with skin in the game) get to vote.

The basic idea is to use a republican or other system for collective decision-making to limit the potential for a single fool to destroy an empire or for one untimely heart attack to plunge the nation into a war of succession.
Yet there are also far fewer voters making decisions.  Enough so that nothing depends on just one person but so that major decisions and changes are possible.

The Roman Republic gradually fell apart as power had to be “temporarily” granted in crisis situations where political gridlock was simply not an option.  This inevitably led to generals who were more powerful than the state.  When a collective decision making system cannot adapt in real time, it is forced to gradually dismantle itself.

So the successful system of government has to walk a tightrope.
The trick is to benefit as much as possible from the acumen of great men while preventing and blunting the depredations of the worst.
And to benefit from the “wisdom of crowds” from the best crowds rather than an indiscriminate mob.
The use of computers and statistics would play a prominent role in figuring out what works best.

Look up strategies for any online game and we see the experiences of thousands of competent people who played countless hours compiled into build orders timed down to the second, or item builds categorized by victory percentage across an entire server.  It would take more than one person’s whole lifetime to figure all that out by themselves!

Surely these kinds of tools would help a republican oligarchy figure out who has the best judgment to run a health system and who is full of bullshit.

What Might A Post-Western Aesthetic Look Like?

High technology sparingly applied within a minimal zone to make harsh environment survival feasible for as long as possible.

Bleak yet beautiful.

Something about ice bases whether on earth or other planets always captured my imagination.

The universe of Dune hugely ignited my imagination as a kid and its influence stays with me. The ultimate example of a people getting more out of less. The opposite of the wasteful West. Think that guy’s life revolves around paying off auto loans and mortgage?

The aesthetics of Homeworld were genius.

Was always captivated by the way D’ni technology/architecture is integrated into its surroundings, has a rusty, used look to it.  D’ni creatively make use of local materials and energy sources, incorporating basic components like gears and pulleys into tech that’s often more sophisticated than ours.

Post-Western society will have to have something of a badass warrior culture if it is to survive against its predecessor. Martial elements will be pronounced.

Post-Western art will draw great inspiration from patterns in nature, including fractals. This will represent human will in partnership with the rest of the natural world rather than in opposition to it, a struggle represented in Western art by the straight line, the square, the rectangle.

As with the Ancient Persian drinking horn earlier, love this Mughal Indian dagger. Don’t know, I feel there’s something barbaric yet refined about adorning with animal heads.

Use of deliberate “imperfection” in certain schools of Asian ceramics creates the feel of natural patterns. Again, working with nature rather than against it.

Working with nature out of a sense of strategic laziness rather than trying to force it to the will of a separate man and his civilization. See a pattern yet?

Soft spot for weaponry that looks heavily used and clunky to where you can even see the individual bolts holding it together. Looks durable, unbreakable. Can imagine it firing huge rounds with huge muzzle flare maybe 1 every half second. Post-Westerners happily use “obsolete” but cheaper technology where it efficiently and effectively fills a role, especially where it means more independence in the field from traditional logistical limitations.

The fluid grace and natural-looking patterns, the combination of the written word and representation through imagery… Post-Westerners should do something in this vein.

Simple wood gives a warmth to interiors that drywall and stucco never can.

That’s all for now.  What platform is best for further image sharing? Tumblr? Pinterest?

Toward A Post-Western Aesthetic

At heart, the problem with Western Civilization is that it falls into the trap of the peacock’s tail striving for constant growth with flashy results but little thought of basic utility, sustainability, or resilience in the face of sudden shocks.

So great is the focus on competing for dominance now that no one has the time to think centuries ahead.

The truth is Western civilization and its philosophy was utterly discredited by the 20th century with its World Wars, Communist mega-states that killed off tens of millions, disasters like the Great Depression and Spanish Flu that the destruction and despair made possible.

Let’s face it, no one really believes in their hearts anymore that the future is good or meaningful and there’s no going back to the way it was.  The mood of the collective subconscious has been pre-apocalyptic since around the year 2000 and now among the most dominant symbols in the modern imagination are zombies that represent social alienation and atomization and evil clowns that represent mass sociopathy and chaos.

Symbol of a society where no one knows their neighbor and has to compete against everyone in a dehumanized rat race. Zombies originally a metaphor among Africans for how slavery took away one’s previous identity.

Symbol of a society where you have to adopt dark triad traits to survive. And our secret dissatisfaction with such a social order. Secretly many of us would just like to watch it all burn but can’t admit it even to ourselves.

The evolution of the West has produced impressive deer antlers but has created a society that is top-heavy and fragile.
The cost spiral started to get out of control with the rise of professional armies and the end of the feudal system until now it costs a trillion dollars to design a new weapon system, let alone manufacture, maintain, or deploy it and nearly a trillion every year to pay for old people and their medical care.  Soon, even all the wealth in the world can’t pay the basic bills and eventually even ever-growing loans can’t fill all the gaps.

Western civilization, with its stock markets, its winner-take-all economic systems and social status markets worships the growth pattern of short-lived weeds that choke the ground in a hurry before winter wipes them all away.  

I would rather worship the growth pattern of lichens that creep slowly, meticulously reinforcing each new growth area against hardship.
I would envision an ideal future civilization as being minimalistic, practical, and durable in its applications of technologies.
 
Extreme disparity in cost is why a single division worth of guerillas can challenge all the world’s great powers in the Middle East, why a guy with an ak-47 riding on a donkey beats a cruise missile or a drone, why a handful of men with boxcutters can shift the course of a nuclear superpower for decades, why an illegal immigrant Mexican roofer can have 3 kids while a salary striver that makes 70k a year can’t even afford 1 kid.
In future warfare, high technology will be limited to targets of appropriate value and low value forces will try to exert stategic pressure that forces cost-inefficient responses.

Much of the vanity of West is its stubborn insistence dating back to Christianity and reinforced by the Enlightenment that man inhabits a different universe than the rest of nature.  In truth the same laws that govern planets, rocks, animals, and bacteria bind humans just the same.

To set the tone for a society that works with the nature of the universe rather than try to defy it, we must begin to imagine what a Post-Western society might look and feel like.
In my next post I will begin to explore a possible aesthetic for such an order, according to my own sensibilities.  

My aesthetic will be austere, minimal, defensive, yet embrace a sort of stark beauty in contrast to a modern civilization of neon-bright advertisements that overload the eyes as high fructose corn syrup overwhelms the palate.

But it also won’t echo the old West cathedrals and row-houses with their straight lines and rigid rectangles, however pretty or pleasing they may be.
My aesthetic will try to appear more fluid, representing a lack of boundaries between man and nature, between intellect and the flesh.  For it’s precisely such dichotomies that gave rise to the West’s most debilitating neuroses.

The Trump Era And Iran

Iran hasn’t been a major expansionist power since the 17th century.  The modern state of Iran is a pale shadow compared to any of the empires across milennia based in the Persian homeland.
There frankly isn’t much reason for the United States to make Iran a top foreign policy priority.  They may eventually get nukes but Pakistan, a state infinitely worse than Iran already has nukes and the world hasn’t ended yet.

Aside from influence over Middle East client states, the US and Iran have no real conflicts of interest.  Rivalry with Iran was largely manufactured by US meddling in Iranian affairs.  For some bizarre reason the US establishment just can’t get over the fact that their Shah didn’t work out 40 years ago and that they need to move on.  It’s not unlike their inability to adjust to the fact that the USSR no longer exists.

President Trump, as of this writing, has just fired his national security advisor, Michael Flynn.  There are many flimsy-sounding official reasons for the dismissal but I suspect it is not without coincidence it comes shortly after Flynn put Iran “on notice” after the test launch of a missile.

Iran responded by launching more missiles and the US was again left looking foolish and impotent.
It looks like Trump took Flynn’s advice regarding Iran, but perhaps had his reservations because he made Flynn publicly own the announcement rather than doing it himself and taking the credit.

When Flynn’s sabre-rattling backfired, Trump may have decided to pull the plug even though he must understand that the optics are damaging to his administration.

 He acted similarly many times firing staff during his campaign with everyone saying he was finished and his organization falling apart.  These kinds of plays shouldn’t surprise us by now.

The open belligerence expressed by Flynn, when backed by no credible threat, makes no sense and makes the situation worse.  We need only reflect on how W Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ needlessly inflamed and encouraged his designated enemies.

Why on earth would anyone want to keep their enemies “on notice?”  Why not keep them guessing about their relationship with the US and always leave room for negotiation?  I remember how neocons and cuckservatives revolted when Obama merely said he would be willing to “talk to Iran.”  What kind of national leaders could express outrage at conducting diplomacy, a basic function of state?  This is the sort of childish idiocy an adult like Trump has to tear out by the roots.

Iran is a state with paranoid tendencies as one would expect of a land that has been under the influence of foreign powers for the last 200 years and invaded from every direction by every group for thousands of years.  Their nation lies at a natural geo-political crossroads so their government naturally has a hardliner temperament somewhat similar to that of Russia.  The key distinction that the US misunderstands is their outlook is primarily defensive in nature.
Beyond a buffer client zone in the Shia regions of Iraq along with its Shia holy cities, Iran really doesn’t seem to aspire to that much at the moment.  They have proxies all over the Middle East, but more to destabilize Sunni powers they fear than anything else.

I actually think Obama had the right general policy direction even if he was forced to by circumstance.  When his pet Syrian revolutionaries blew up into ISIS he went crawling on his knees to Tehran begging for them keep an independent Iraq in existence on paper at least.  The price was that he had to make humiliating concessions.

I think he still could have done a better job of playing the situation, though, considering he was paying the Iranians to do what they desperately wanted to do anyway.  I have to give him credit though for at least opening a dialogue when no one else in the establishment would.

The Western powers can’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact that Iran as the central power of Shi’ite Islam with its own great share of the petroleum market is the natural enemy of Sunni powers.  The potential for playing them off against each other should be obvious.

The US had its chance to take the Sunni side of that divide when they backed Saddam Hussein as a relatively secular Arab Nationalist leader of Iraq.  Had diplomacy been conducted with a more realpolitik understanding back then, perhaps Iraq would have been allowed to absorb Kuwait as an ally’s reward after their hard-fought war with Iran.
Perhaps that extra infusion of oil money would have enabled America’s then-ally to go back and pose a greater threat.

But that’s alternate history and now it actually makes more sense to play Iran against the Sunni Middle East and thereby have some leverage over them from behind the scenes.  At the very least, it makes sense to defuse decades of pointless hostility with Iran.  
If the US had wanted to pursue that route, it already could have with a strong ally before it invaded that ally twice, deposed its ruler, and left behind a yawning power vacuum that has caused endless headaches ever since.

At present, Iran aligns with Russia to the frustration of the establishment, but this connection need not exist.  Historically, Russian and Persian powers have been bitter enemies that have fought many wars.  Their co-operation is far from inevitable.  Theirs is an alliance made necessary by American intransigence.  As the US drove the Iranians into the arms of the Soviet Union, it now pushes them towards Russia.  If it were to become a foreign policy goal to divide them, it ought not to be that difficult.  Just encourage both to have more ambitions in the Caucasus.

For the time being, Iranian-Russian cooperation has been beneficial in keeping the Middle East from descending into complete chaos while for once the US can watch from afar as someone else puts in all the blood and sweat.

US establishment rhetoric toward Iran has frustrated me for years.  Their stupid heavy-handedness in all things has destroyed their credibility until even a non-politician TV billionaire can step in and push them aside.  Some inflammatory statements about Crimea aside, I am hoping Trump has the sense not to get drawn into the cult of unilateral, irrational belligerence.

Update 2/17/17: Was the Flynn firing also a ploy to draw out and expose enemies within the state and intelligence agencies?  Very intrigued to see what happens next.  Like in the election, Trump keeps people guessing, as he should.

Trump Foreign Policy: Post-Unilateralism

Coalition, or no, whether other nations were willing or not, the brand of America has been built on unilateral foreign policy.  The world’s only superpower was also the world’s policeman.
Power, however, is a tool and as with money even great amounts of it are easily squandered without clear objectives and a sensible strategy.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was seen as the ultimate legitimation of unilateral diplomacy, an eternal blank check for Wilsonian exceptional interventionism at the “end of history.”

Every president since Reagan doubled down on this nonsense until it reached a climax of absurdity under George W. Bush.  Obama finally toned it down a little bit, because he had to.  Meddling went on unabated, but with most of America’s once abundant international political capital finally frittered away there was only so much he could do.  By the end of his presidency he was a laughingstock openly mocked by the Chinese leadership, insulted by the leader of the Philippines, and regarded with thinly veiled contempt by Russia.

Trump leads a reaction to a political establishment that has been utterly discredited by its decades of relentless ineptitude and failure despite holding every possible strategic advantage.
It has been clear since Trump’s campaign he envisions a US that conducts foreign policy as a nation among nations, not as a bombastic world police that clumsily throws its weight around.

This will mean, thank goodness, far less meddling in the affairs of other nations and a restoration of balances of power.  By wielding power with a lighter hand, it will become possible to accomplish far more.

The US can begin to create a post-exceptionalist, post-unilateral world by simply withdrawing US military interference.
Having US bases while limiting the military power of the host countries has increased the burden on the US while merely infuriating neighboring powers needlessly.

If the US removes most of its troops and involvement in NATO it forces EU nations to spend far more of their wealth on defense.  If Europe insured itself against Russian aggression, Russia would possibly be more amenable to talking about its interests elsewhere…

With a stable balance of power between the EU bloc and Russia, the US could have more constructive conversations with Russia regarding its extremely long border with China.  China is the only world power with potential, besides a real United States of Europe, to be in the same league as the USA.
America and China are presently economic partners joined at the hip, but we must think towards the long game.  Even as the US-Chinese relationship exists now, why not encourage other powers to contain them, giving the US more bargaining leverage?
In light of this, the complete obsession of the USA’s establishment with the Middle East and anti-Russian sentiment is perplexing.  A major foreign policy coup of the 21st century will be to split Russia from China as Nixon once split China away from the Soviet Union.

America could also withdraw from Japan forming a new, more equal relationship and encouraging Japanese re-armament and cooperation with Taiwan to counterbalance Chinese naval ambitions.
Hopefully, a post-exceptional international order would see the US and Europe able to freely operate with the emerging great power of China hampered by its nervous neighbors.  Why meddle when we need only encourage them to do what serves themselves?  The Daoist maxim to “do without doing” will be very appropriate in coming years.

Regarding Korea, it is ironic that if the US renounced its military commitments in the South, it’s possible the Chinese would become suddenly more amenable to discussing phasing out a client state of North Korea they have no special love for, but have kept around as a buffer against a clumsily over-aggressive US.  Add some diplomatic pressure from  neighboring powers, and perhaps an understanding could be arrived at where none is possible now…

Much of the benefits of a post-unilateral foreign policy come from simply undoing the heavy-handed status quo that counter-productively plays at imperialism.  From now on we may see the US doing more with less or in other words, “under budget and ahead of schedule.”

The Human Life Bubble

The modern ideology supposes human lives to be infinitely and equally valuable.  They see their precious civilization and humans as being magically apart from the hard rules of the natural world. These childish delusions can lead to nothing but disaster in the grave and sober task of managing society.

In reality, life is a battlefield, we live another day in spite of, not because of, a hostile universe.  Casualties within reason are normal and to be expected.  In battle it is necessary to make decisions that require sacrifice and decisive value judgments.  A great lie of Utopian ideology is that the hard decisions can be avoided and no one gets offended or hurt.

A group that can’t accept reality can’t discuss what objectives are worth gaining or what positions are worth holding, only to seek to keep people merely alive at all in denial of the greater truth that our own lives mean little without continuity and purpose—a part to play in something greater than ourselves..  
At heart, we all wish to be a drop of water at the tip of a stalactite formed over eons, not a cog that performs its function for a short while before being tossed onto the scrap heap.
Even the winners in an individualist materialist system live out their days drinking fine wines or taking vacations to Iceland to see the aurora, but it doesn’t change the fact that when their time is up, they’re just used up greasy candy wrappers in the wind and so their every waking minute is devoted to distracting from the black and utter finality of their deaths.
This modern cowardice has spawned a multitude of problems that did not trouble peoples who lived with constant reminders of the basic impermanence of life.
When you have a society that would try to deny the turning of the seasons, the old devour the young and the universal laws are perverted.

We see a system of “healthcare” that spends enough resources to sustain 10 families keeping human vegetables on life support or buying the terminally ill another 6 months to live at the price of their children’s inheritance.

We see a prison system that spends more on an inmate than the average worker who follows the law earns in a year.

We see a compulsory school system where the brightest and most capable are disrupted by those who don’t want to learn.

We see a legal system under which no one can enjoy anything nice or share basic social trust because everyone lives in fear of being sued.

We see an electoral system where it’s harder to buy liquor than it is to vote in open invitation to the worst of mob rule.

We see a military that won’t win wars so long as it tries to substitute costly technology for troops, even in situations where human lives are far cheaper than machinery.  As we saw in Vietnam or the Eastern front in WW2, sometimes the enemy with the will to sacrifice division after division wins. 

We see a nation that can’t pursue its own interests or secure its borders because it cannot accept the lifeboat principle, that if you try to help everyone, everyone dies. They like to say “That’s not who we are.” when in truth no one can be anyone to them.

In every aspect we see these disciples of Lysenko trying to plant their seed crop in the dead of winter following the fundamental flaws of their ideology to the deadly end.
It is a law written in the starry fabric of the universe that those who refuse to shrewdly take measured losses end up losing all.

Trump vs. The Courts

They’re making the same mistake they did during the election.  Committing too much of their forces too early instead of picking their fights and keeping their powder dry for the right time.
In two weeks we’ve already seen endless protests, riots against free speech, and now political power plays from  the judiciary.  What unplayed cards will they still have up their sleeves in two months?

They can have media outrage over everything President Trump does or says.  They can try to hold up his confirmation hearings for his cabinet just ’cause.  They can have judges declare it’s unconstitutional for him to tie his own shoelaces.  They can never “normalize” him or examine the possibility that he’s anything other than Hitler or the devil incarnate.
The thing about effective use of power though is it needs to used like a tool, with precision and in the pursuit of decisive objectives.
Using a frantic scattershot approach is bound to lose.  Try winning at chess or go behaving like that!

If the opposition had chosen key times and places to block Trump spaced out over the next couple of years, they may have succeeded in sapping his momentum and the popular support he requires to stay in power when both parties hate his guts.  This indiscriminate shitshow though will backfire.  A hundred million Americans are watching this happen with shock and the quick succession of events is keeping their attention.

If the judiciary shows it is just another political body without any sense of impartiality or fair play then it loses its legitimacy.  Even if they succeeded in stopping Trump cold from now on, no one would take them seriously anymore as keepers of the law.
This corrosion would leave them vulnerable to a new wave of demagogues that would have them begging for the good old days of a center-right moderate like Trump.
Their total inability to keep the long game in mind or even to approach issues right in front of them with a coherent strategy reminds us why they are falling from power in the first place.  Their ineptitude is great enough, if Trump doesn’t clear them out, someone else far worse for them will.

Today, there will be a hearing in the 9th circuit court over a judge’s ruling that prohibits Trump to mandate the exercise of his most basic constitutional duties.  We are about to see how far they want to escalate this right now and whether they have any basic common sense.  If this goes to the Supreme Court we are entering Dredd Scott decision territory.  It wouldn’t be the first time the courts have been openly co-opted as a political weapon and once that is done, the rule of law itself is undermined.

Update 2/9/17: They really did it.  They ruled against the ban and this escalates further…

The Backwardness of Consumerism

Many of the same people that worship free markets and everlasting economic growth also express indignation at the arrival of millions of immigrants.
What they fail to understand is the immigrants are a natural result of their ideology. A system that just grows wealth and tries to speed up the circulation of wealth at any price cares nothing for peoples or their silly customs.

In its calculus, there are just countless individual consumers keeping the machine turning over.  It matters not where the consumers are from or whether they have friends or families unless, of course, it results in them buying more products or changes their commercial preferences.  The primary importance of a baby of course is that it consumes little jars of baby food and lots of cute outfits it soon grows out of.  If the baby’s food was made at home out of cheap basic ingredients and its wardrobe minimized, it would of course hurt the economy.  Someone somewhere would lose a job and upon learning of it, a free market acolyte somewhere else would quietly cry into his pillow at night.  What more heretical thing could such a man imagine than less movement of wealth actually benefiting society?

If banding together with others reduces their market expenditures, breaking them up into atomized individuals stimulates the economy on paper, producing like clockwork the greatest good for the greatest many in the best of all possible societies, happily ever after.

If the growth ever slackens, the collective mood darkens, politicians get voted out of office, and economic pundits look flustered over graphs of acronyms.  This happens every few years or so until a “stimulus” or the “exuberance” of the masses manages to get the gravy train of progress back on track up towards the sky.  That’s the fundamental problem with all schools of the progress religion.  Sound systems are first engineered to withstand the worst conditions, not just to stand up when the going is good.

The medieval European world could operate with some commonsense restrictions on finance, limiting the importance of loans in the economy, a mindset that would be unthinkable now.
A turning point may have been reached in Europe when a feudal military that could lay dormant when not needed was made obsolete by professional standing armies.  This is when the financialization of society really took off with monarchs locked in a competitive race to pay for their wars of economic attrition with each other, which ultimately destroyed their power.

In the real world we see groups with simpler economies based around tribal identities like the Amish, Hutterites, or Orthodox Jews effortlessly thriving while the average citizen of the empire they live in can’t afford a single child after rent and car payments, not to mention, the uncertainty of employment that allows them to sustain what they’ve already got.
You would think their closer participation in the growth economy with all its outstanding “financial products” would put them far ahead of such backwards folk.
It is perhaps the consumerists who live a backwards existence dominated by the caprices of the ticker tape.

The free market types understand very well that trust underpins the value, of money, bonds, pretty much all securities.  Yet they can’t comprehend that if you want people to raise the next generation they must feel secure and trust there is a future.  If you want anyone to care about a society they must feel invested in it somehow.  
When you have a nation of freelance mercenaries, the first storm to come along reveals its fatal structural weakness and sends it crumbling to the ground.

When we understand this basic problem we understand how Obama represented the established system getting one last chance to fix things.  They failed, so from now on, the reaction to consumerist dystopia dominates the discourse.
It is no longer enough to present charts and claim that x line went up by 1% to establish state legitimacy. No one cares. Until people see wealth that is effectively managed in their interests, they will not stop.

A Trumpist populist movement that begins with people who just want jobs and borders might end with people asking “What is the purpose of wealth and production?”
“Are some forms of wealth creation more valuable than others?”
As soon as people begin to face these questions, new frontiers fly open.

At present, the only alternative we can imagine is a disastrous centrally planned economy.  This example is used to brainwash us into submitting to a market machine that churns out things without any plan at all.  What if we considered that free markets are to economies as direct democracies run by mob rule are to governments?
What if we considered guiding society’s use of wealth with a larger vision rather than endless production and consumption for its own sake?

The Cancer of Consumer Capitalism

The United States is the wealthiest nation on Earth, perhaps even in the history of the world.  Yet if we go to the nearest grocery store we can see an endless flow of haggard, overworked people trying to make ends meet.  The culture of the US is one of lonely “individualism” with most people locked in desperate competition with each other, to the extent they interact with their fellow man at all in any meaningful way.  Despite  all the new clothes, cars, and houses, fewer people have children or see a worthwhile future every year.
The US is the ultimate example of how the way a society uses and stores wealth is more important than how much wealth it has.

The cause of America’s contradictions is its holy ideology of consumer capitalism, the ideas of the 18th century enlightenment with its worship of the rational individual, of Bentham, Marx, Smith taken down a slippery slope to their ultimate absurdity.
What we end up with is an entire society based around the principle that more is always better.
There are no questions of mission or purpose.  There are only hundreds of millions of rational interchangeable agents making decisions of pleasure and pain every day.  Whether the outcome is optimal or even desirable at all, is a question that cannot even be framed.
We are told relentlessly that it is the best of all possible systems and that the invisible hand always knows what’s really best for us.

If we read about 15 minutes of history common sense makes it clear that societies are organisms that compete and cooperate in complex ecosystems. Individual humans are rather like cells in these social bodies.  What one person does affects everyone else.  A society made of purely self-interested people is a body riddled with cancer cells.  Rapacious enlightened individuals, like cancer cells hungrily guzzle all the glucose they desire for a time, until the host expires, or in its weakened state is killed by an opportunistic rival.  Then the rational cancer that thought itself God unceremoniously dies along with the body.
Enduring societies have to consider the good of the body first.  For if it dies, all the concerns of the cells are rendered moot.
The insistence of consumerism on everlasting growth is to prescribe cancer as the remedy.

Nothing grows forever and ultimately lives within its finite bounds.  Working within these limits is the mandate of living things.
Resilient natural systems make the most of scarce resources while our system is devoted to getting as little benefit as possible from even the most unimaginable abundance.
A wasteful system like this one assumes the good times never end.  It has no goals and simply burns up what it gets.
A resilient system has set goals that it tries to achieve as effectively as possible with as little energy as possible.  Then it shores itself up against times of scarcity and disaster.  What energy isn’t spent supports rest and leisure, the reward for a job well done.

Living in a consumerist society is to live on a treadmill.  Since there is no purpose there are no tasks to be done, only endless work that can never be complete.  Worse, the work must be endless or else the entire system collapses overnight.  Millions of people live lives of desperate dependance on jobs they hate stuck most of the time with people they despise so they do not starve, become involuntary celibates, and become disowned by their fair-weather friends and family.  It’s a special kind of hell that favors the insane and this is what we think is normal.  It is a comfort that this sort of depraved system cannot last.

See Also: 
Lack of A Long Term is the Problem With Capitalism

Competition Between Societies: Desert Plants vs. Garden Plants

Civilization is Natural

Strategic Laziness

Our universe tends towards entropy and chaos.  As complexity of organization increases, resistance rises exponentially, like trying to force two opposing magnets together. (It’s always megafauna, T Rex or Mammoths that go extinct, not E. coli)  Looking at the natural world here on earth it’s quickly clear that every living thing expends as little energy as possible to persist.  Lions with full stomachs sleep most of the time, desert toads hibernate for years in between rains, birds with no predators lose the ability to fly over time. Nothing works harder than it must.  The more complex and energy-intensive the solution, the harder it is to sustain.

Trouble arises, though, when you’re a flightless, fearless dodo perfectly well adapted to your environment and suddenly humans show up. Or likewise, you’re a fit dinosaur species but prove unable to cope with a nuclear winter caused by asteroid impact possibly combining with volcanic eruptions to form a perfect disaster.  Evolution alone can’t plan ahead or anticipate rare catastrophic events.  This is why I think some living things have been pushed towards higher levels of awareness despite its massive costs, so they can be strategically lazy spending as little effort as possible while avoiding the dangers of only responding to constant, familiar stressors.

 The peacock’s tail is one of my favorite examples against the infallibility of nature.  It’s a natural pattern we see often in corporate, governmental, civilizational bloat.  All that sacred competition gets you something that maybe looks pretty but is a worse-than-useless burden sucking huge amounts of energy.  It teaches us that the patterns of civilizations and corporations are every bit as natural as the rippling of sand dunes.  Perhaps the most devastating doctrine of the enlightenment was to hubristically treat man and nature, not only as separate, but as opposites.

When I was about 12 years old, I was responsible for weeding the yard.  Trouble was, there were more seeds constantly blowing in from the desert and most of the lot was dirt and gravel that was perfect for them.  I well knew that even going over the whole yard with a hoe a couple times a week wouldn’t accomplish much.  In a few days, new sprouts were coming up everywhere.  In fact, killing everything just favored the worst sort of thorns that hugged the ground in choking vines, and dropped thousands of their sharp barbs that deflated basketballs and stuck in shoe soles by the dozens.
I noticed at the same time that a lot of the desert plants had pretty flowers, lacked thorns or sticky leaves, and had roots that were easy to pull up if I needed to.  I started what I then called “selective weeding” and let the desert weeds I liked flourish while punishing the thorn vines and the russian thistles that turn into tumbleweeds.
Before long, there was a colorful garden of desert flowers outside my bedroom window alive with the buzzing of bees.  The thorn plants were not even 1/10th of the problem they used to be once they had competition.
Of course my parents eventually asked me why I wasn’t doing my job.  I tried to explain what I was doing, but no one listens to a 7th grade kid trying to avoid work and I was told to take care of it.  So knowing full well what would happen next, I went out and uprooted my experiment.  Soon enough, the thorns were back in force despite our best efforts.
This was a formative experience that influenced my world view ever since.  I learned the futility of sustaining a vacuum against equilibrium.
I later saw the same problems I encountered doing childhood yard chores over and over again in 6000 years of failed human governments.  At some point there’s always well-intentioned policies that try to defy the equilibrium, end up favoring the thorns, and the rest is history.

I came to realize as I grew up in a frantically workaholic American society that nature in fact favors laziness.  An animal at leisure is well-fed and prosperous, a creature that must always work is failing at the game of survival.  It helped explain to me the widespread stress and misery of what should be by all rights a prosperous and happy land.  Constant labor tells us on a gut level that we are always on the brink of starvation, however many mansions and cars we may own.  Some of us become adrendaline junkies while others get ground down into burnouts that just go through the motions.  Whatever someone’s station, there’s just an interminable “job” never a tangible task that has a beginning and an end after which one enjoys the fruits of a job well done.  That I realized is the peculiar insanity of industrial civilization—a trap of Sisyphean futility most are stuck in until they’re dead.
As I approached adulthood I came to understand there was no luxury on earth greater than the power to simply do nothing.

The basic problem of modern civilization is that it favors extravagant solutions arrived at through extreme, specialized competition like the peacock’s tail.
A sense of minimalism, strategic laziness, yields simpler, more resilient, more adaptable solutions.  
Even when gatekeepers force peacock competition with a strategic bottleneck, the payoff for finding a low cost workaround or substitute is very high.

Forward Base B: The Official Soundtrack

I started thinking about an appropriate background music to represent the contents of this blog, my personality, and my personal history and got to work on it.
After all, one commenter set the post I wrote the day before the election to heavy metal music.
The idea is to move towards establishing an aesthetic that gives people and intuitive feel beyond ideas alone.  I see myself as a post-Western barbarian with a culture and values of my own in an age of fracture, a dark age.  I’m not the smash things up kind of barbarian, at least not until the time is right and the rewards of doing so are sufficient and outweigh the risks.  Until then, I prefer to blend in and bide my time.  I can be very passionate but am also patient.  So I had to think about how I might convey that kind of mood and world view with existing music.

As a kid, I was an awkward bookworm that didn’t share interests with other kids and the pop music they loved became a soundtrack of their identity that I developed a strong aversion to. I came to feel viscerally that it was the music of the enemy plus it was repetitive and just didn’t stimulate me.  The only music I heard that really moved me was in movies.  Star Wars and Lawrence of Arabia were among my favorite soundtracks.  A turning point came in my early teens when I got a chance to see Phantom of the Opera.  Finally I heard music that celebrated darkness and a story that was driven by a secretive misanthrope who I identified with.  I had long known myself to be a shadow creature even back then.
From there, I started learning about classical music and never looked back.  I found composers I liked in each period, but I found I liked romantic era Slavic composers, French impressionists, and 20th century Soviet composers the best.
From studying history, I could well understand the stormy moodiness of Slavic music.  I identified with the cultural expressions of people who had always been surrounded by powerful enemies and for whom the fight for the right to survive was just daily life.  That’s how I had felt for as long as I could remember.  I could not relate to the superficially upbeat, carelessly optimistic American culture I had grown up in.
I also thrived on solitude and loved times of peace and contemplation.  This is where the French impressionists spoke to me better than anyone else.

It is raining as I write, just as I like it.  I love cold, grey, misty weather, the tap of raindrops and the whistling of cold winds on the windows with only a dim lamp on, a dark beer or a warming whiskey by my side and perhaps an aged cheese and/or dark chocolate on a small plate.  I count such slow times of leisure among the best joys of life.

Playlist can be put on shuffle if you go to the youtube site.  I also have a couple of other playlists for the fun of it, Silly Catchy and Epic Classic.  I am by the way, potentially open to recommendations for additions to any of these lists.

Somewhat unrelated: One of my favorite league of legends champions is Kassadin.  When you pick him, his line is “The balance of power must be preserved,” most appropriate.
He wanders another dimension called the void on his mission, again it works for me.
His strategy as an assassin champ(Shaco is also a favorite) is an exercise in controlled aggression.  If you jump in at the wrong time, you get vaporized, if you get it right, you can disrupt a fight, kill their highest damage squishy champs and turn the tide.  And with his teleport, he’s excellent for chasing them down when they try to flee.
In real life, I can spend weeks at a time in no hurry to do very much but spring into action when I see something I think will be a decisive objective.  I like thinking decades ahead and often about after I’m dead.  I watch worker bees emotionally investing in jobs where no one really cares about them in the long run and wonder what motivates such loyalty.  If I am to imagine myself as an animal, I used to think a falcon or a crow.  But over time, I’ve come to see myself more like a vulture or a moray eel.  I like to think I am strategically lazy in imitation of the ways of the natural world.

kassadin

No Going Back to the 1950s – And What Lies Ahead

Some who celebrate (or mourn) Trump’s victory seem to think we will return to the 1950s status quo.
That won’t happen as never in history has any other historical period been revived despite the best efforts of thousands of years of reformers.  Erasmus always loses and even a successful Diocletian or Constantine end up creating something new rather than bringing back the old.
What we are left with is to figure out where we’re at and where the forces in play will take us.

To begin with, a majority of marriage age adults are now single and I do not foresee the trend away from matrimony will change anytime soon.  In practice a society of “free love” leaves a majority of males making free love to their hands but everyone dreams of having multiple desirable partners, the fulfillment of which always seems to be just a few clicks away.  Though most people will mathematically end up losers, the lure of being a winner is just too good to pass up.  Besides, the old system just isn’t cool.
Customs of matrimony require centuries, if not millennia of traditional reinforcement to establish and once undone require the right forces to coalesce once more.  Matrimony is reinforced by a pre-industrial world where resources are much scarcer and the long term pooling of resources between males, females, and their families is necessary for survival.  Marriage isn’t fun and it never was for fun.  It’s all about preserving resources in hard times and providing support for offspring whose survival was uncertain even with the best possible care.  So long as most people feel confident they’ll at least be able to eat and that their illegitimate kids will survive, it won’t change.  The combination of a steady basic food supply with low hopes of property acquisition, and social atomization that discourages pooling of family resources is an especially potent combination of disincentives.
Marriage will become much like it used to be, an institution that mostly serves the needs of the propertied classes.

The religion of the 1950s is not coming back either.  Even back then, it had been going steadily downhill in influence for centuries.  Christian religion requires faith in abstractions that is difficult to maintain in a world where information on every subject is abundant.  From now on, Christianity will only be useful as a value system for the prole classes, never again as the ruling ideology of a society with mass modern communications.
From now on, spiritual feeling will revolve around symbols and symbolic people that make abstract social concepts tangible.  We are seeing already a return to idolatry.  As people once imagined earthly human hierarchies in heaven and hell, they will return to a more primitive mindset of regarding earthly human hierarchies as heavenly.  Many only somewhat ironically refer to President Trump as God-Emperor.  They all know he is just a man, but they associate the idea of God-Emperor with the social and political forces he represents, just as Zeus represents lightning storms and leadership of his pantheon, or Hades stands for the land of the dead and riches mined from the earth.  
It may seem absurd at first but for human minds that cannot rightly grasp the magnitude of a million people any more than the size of a galaxy, godhood is the best concept to describe those humans whose barest whims affect the lives of millions.
The primary purpose of spirituality will not be to legitimize a moral philosophy but as in the days of cavemen to usefully describe the ethereal social sphere through concrete metaphor.

The economy of the 1950s is not coming back either.  Trump will be doing the right thing by at least removing policies that make the problem even worse and buy us some time, but no one can change the underlying forces. Human labor will be ever less in demand as world economic growth becomes static.  The seemingly endless easy gains of the industrial revolution are coming to an end and we have been entering a sort of new dark age.
I have a saying “diversity is easy in times of plenty” because once you have a pie that’s either static or actually shrinking the need to survive combined with the extreme competitive pressures in a free sexual market reduces the whole world into two categories.
-People who increase your chances of securing scarce resources and social status.
-Everybody else.

The forces in play are pushing humanity back towards tight tribal associations.  We now see widening fault lines along ethnicity and class and that will continue—but ultimately determining allegiances will be complicated.  Especially as it becomes more permissible to analyze humans by intelligence and temperament just as if they were breeds of dogs, so will humans divide up by neurotype and form the basis of the tribe-state.

The basis of sovereignty will no longer be primarily by geographical territory, but by the existence of a group, the culture it shares, the wealth it controls, the political power it wields.  In any given state or city in the West there are representatives of every type of person we can imagine.  Secession as we once would have imagined it is impossible.  What we will end up with is nation-tribes doing business, making treaties, and when that fails making war, as often by buying up real estate and businesses or setting the doctrine in schools as by outright violence.

Right now, Trump is among the first generation of leaders of the Neo-Tribal dark ages.  He rose to power on class and ethnic loyalties with a persona of stripped of pleasantries appropriate to the norms of our more barbaric times.  He gives us a template of what leaders will look like from now on.  In a dark age, people believe leaders should have the biggest winning rather than the finest principles.  So from now on the people in charge will be aggressive, generous desert sheikhs flaunting the money and harems everyone else admires.  The most honorable man will be he who has many children, has slain many men in battle, and delivered bounties of plunder to his followers.  With the old social contract shredded to pieces the people will have no more patience for staid married family men who are frightened of saying anything mean.

The tears and screaming of Hillary supporters is not irrational.  They sense in their guts, correctly, that their social universe is going through the apocalypse.  The system they have devoted their entire lives to as virtuous cooperator acolytes with all its ritual jumping through credentialist hoops and saying the right things for status is beginning to crumble all around them.  They have massive investment and sunk costs all up in flames.  They do not even know of, cannot even begin to understand anything else.  Learning in one cataclysmic event that history does not always favor “progress” is like a sheltered true believer hearing someone say “God doesn’t exist” for the first time.  It is to face a horrifying void.  Against every doctrine they were ever taught once-invincible civilization is actually regressing.

We return to primitive norms because only the extreme pressures of civilization ever made us otherwise.  This is why civilizations always change overnight the moment people have enough wealth to have any alternative whatsoever.  Civilizations persist by keeping people secure enough but at bare subsistence enough that they cannot dream too far and therein lies its fatal weakness when confronted with the slightest taste of prosperity.  The real change this time, though, is the access individuals have to information—far more agile and orders of magnitude beyond what even the printing press could offer.  Societies both primitive and civilized require most people to be ignorant so they can be indoctrinated into irrational beliefs that hurt the individual while benefiting the whole.  The result of millions empowered to advocate in their own interests is a recipe for upheaval, and so we go forward into uncertain territory.

21st Century Nationalism Is Not The Nation-State

As we witness the rise of populist-nationalist reformers all around the world, there is much confusion about what this nationalism actually means.  I get the impression that many think they are going back to the nationalism of an earlier time, but there is no resurrecting the past.
What we have called nationalism is the philosophy of the nation-state that arose in the 1860s.  Whether in Italy, Japan, or America we saw a vast expansion of state power and centralization enabled by the industrial revolution era technologies like the railroad and the telegraph.  The basic idea was that the country was divided up into departments handled by groups of bureaucrats in the capital city.  Mass public education inculcated all the nation’s children in the same values and eradicated local dialects and languages in favor of the speech of the capital province.  Germany hadn’t been united in any meaningful way for about 1000 years, Italy not since the Roman Empire. Regions had distinct cultures and often spoke tongues that were not even mutually intelligible.  All those differences had to go so humanity itself could be reduced to standardized parts in the machine.  The 20th century with radio, television and its mass mindless herd wars marked the high tide of centralization.  What people like to call “globalism” is just a worldwide version of the 19th century style nation-state.  The present nationalism is actually a reaction to what they see themselves as continuing in some way!  No wonder they are confused about their identity!  

The personal computer followed by internet has decentralized networks at a furious pace.  The 21st century is about unraveling the monoculture that has grown ever more uniform and dreary over the last 150 years.
Until modern communications, large clumsy bureaucracies always won.  Maybe 2 million men died because rubber stamps were put on the wrong forms, but the other 18 million would overwhelm the enemy.  In a world of telegraph and then radio there was no real counter to this zerg swarming strategy.
Now though, it is possible for even small, poorly equipped forces to outmaneuver clumsy centralized states indefinitely while inflicting a thousand paper cuts and letting the nation-state waste its energy throwing slow, painfully telegraphed punches at gnats until it gases out.  It’s like a claymation giant monster flailing around in vain to kill the heroes or Captain Kirk vs. the Gorn.  It’s a simple concept often called 4GW(4th generation warfare) to sound hip.  
By the early 2000s poor Arabs with home-made road bombs could outmaneuver the richest empire in history.  In the 2010s smartphones lead to the Arab Spring and Occupy followed by the Islamic State.
What we are seeing is an increase in the size of 4G organizations until we are looking at something on the scale of nation state with the flexibility of a small organization.  As it matures, this kind of system obsoletes the 19th century bureaucracy-bound nation-state.
The nationalist vs. globalist struggle we see across the developed world is the clash of established nation-states with 21st century decentralized networks.  As soon as we understand this it’s clear why the establishment is on the wrong side of history and why in spite of their overhwelming power they can only flap about in furious teary rage as their world falls apart.  There is a Tao of the universe and those who try to fight it, no matter how mighty, only exhaust themselves.
The election of Trump is only the beginning of their woes as his momentum carries over and they find themselves under siege in Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, France, and even Germany.

There is a new age upon us but it will not be a peaceful age.  While steadily dwindling wealth remained above a certain line and there was a USSR to scare people, unity went without serious challenge.  Since the year 2000 or so we’ve sunk towards the next dark age with rapidly shrinking wealth, low trust, low innovation, and stringent orthodox persecution of heretical ideas. Furthermore, in a nation-state that treats everyone like replaceable parts from cradle to grave no one feels like they really belong or really matter.  They plug into an economy to crank out production points for most of their waking time alive with no purpose in sight.  This purpose vacuum was waiting for something to fill it and modern communication brought down a Berlin Wall built from bricks of mechanistic nihilism.

It comes as no surprise then that the new organizations arising are very much like tribes.  What others call nationalism I call neo-tribalism.  As always some will benefit from change while others perish.  An age of tribes promises to be a savage one defined by groups fighting over scarce resources in a world where most niches are already over-saturated.

The main discussion between allied emerging tribes right now is what uniting principles will define the new nation-tribe.  Some believe it is about a civic polity, those who can participate at a net benefit for the whole.  Others believe that ethnicity will be the core.
I think both are right about some things but neither grasps the whole truth.  Disembodied communication allows humans to associate by natural predisposition and neurotype.  Some tribes will form coalitions of mutually beneficial types and in those coalitions there will be hierarchies of tribes.  In time, the tribal coalition becomes a caste system.

Above all, this means the end is coming for enlightenment philosophy that reduces all questions of society to the individual.  In the future, society will not be treated as a machine made of atoms, but as an organism made of cells. Societies themselves will finally be seen correctly as competing organisms in the wild rather than lifeless structures that interchangeable atoms happen to occupy.

Relaxing Music Part 1

One of my favourite musical tracks by an overlooked author, if you have any of your favourites to share, please post the links in the comment section.

%d bloggers like this: