Sunday, March 26, 2017

The Big Lie Is Not a 20th Century Technique

Shilling--the practice of advocating a position without openly acknowledging one's status as an agent of the position's beneficiary--is not new. It's old, damn old, and it is long past time to dig into the past to see where the big ideas of the past come from.

When I went to graduate school, I focused on the origins of John Locke's philosophy. What I'm putting into this post is the TL/DR version, necessarily abbreviated for length and summarized accordingly. There's enough here for a proper book; I read several (and a bunch of letters) in making this M.A. thesis happen.

The summary is this: Locke was a poor kid who had just enough scratch to buy a proper education, got it, got status anxiety as the price for it, and decided that life as a non-clerical academic in an academia dominated by clerics was a sureshot for dealing with his life. It wasn't; got tossed when he ran afoul of the orthodoxy due to his own efforts ands got tossed out after a youth and early adulthood in the Ivory Tower of academia.

Using what few connections outside academia he made, he got into contact with the first Earl Shaftsbury and moved into his house. Over the next two or so years, everything he'd spend the rest of his life publishing and promoting got stuck into his brain by his patron. Aside from some clerical work in officialdom and tutoring the Second & Third Earls, that's what he did- he wrote down, revised, etc. the political, social, economic, and cultural philosophies that directly and immediately benefited his patron and allies thereof. The man even published using allied printers.

Why does this matter? Because the 1st Shaftsbury was the head of the liberals of the day, the Whig Party, and at one time had control of the state- a power used as one expects, to benefit themselves at the expense of enemies and rivals. Shaftsbury also had business interests that directly benefited from the very economic and political positions that Locke advocated, and the Earl (and his son and grandson) rewarded their pet intellectual for his efforts properly.

This is not to say Locke is wrong per se, but it does mean that Locke is suspect and therefore every claim he made after coming under Shaftsbury's patronage must be audited, interrogated, and either confirmed or denied. All of you that are skeptical of Modernity, you've got good reason for your doubts now.

As I said above, there's enough here for a book to properly investigate this; I'd adapt and expand my M.A. thesis into such if I could focus on it full-time.

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Utopia Is Impossible. Stop Trying.

Christians, and those that know their Bible, will remember the Tower of Babel. They will remember that this a utopian scheme, meant to bind all the nations together with a common tongue under a common rule as that elite sought to unseat God by breaching Heaven to do so. Well before that could happen, God smote the Tower. He scattered the nations and confused their language.

That's a parable, folks, and far too few took the lesson. Utopia is impossible, and it is impossible because Natural Law will never allow for it.

That makes Utopia a lie, a big lie, and it is no surprise that Utopia is often found hand-in-hand with Empire. Why? Because to achieve and sustain a utopia, especially over time, you need an imperial regime to enforce it. Imperial regimes require the yoking of disparate nations under the same authority, and all of the emergent behaviors that always occur when diverse nations are put into close proximity are part-and-parcel with utopian schemes. If Empire is the hardcore junky strung out on smack, Utopia is the sloppy lush that talks nice but can't keep herself together.

Every utopia fails. They fail because the consequences of their contradictions finally hollow them out and cause them to collapse, which is exactly how empires falls, and often by the same ultimate event: insiders turn traitors and throw open the gates to hostile outsiders.

And yes, I do mean every utopia. The excuse is irrelevant; the results are the same: oppression, poverty, misery, and death- lots and lots of easily preventable, avoidable, and often deliberately-inflicted death. Its psychology is that of a willful child, insisting that it has to work despite how many times it previously failed. The politics that demand that Big Daddy handle it all, and make the meanies go away, stems from every last damned utopian scheme and scam ever attempted- and the solution is also the same: Let. It. Fall.

There is no substitution for the Father. Not in the family. Not in the household. Not in the community. Not in the culture. Not in the nation. Not in the state. Not in the individual human heart and soul. Utopia is fundamentally the psychology of a deluded woman, thinking that everything will be all right with just enough magical thinking to go with magical economics, and then going "How did this happen?!" when Natural Law--God's rod of smiting--comes up to say "NOPE!" and once more restore the lawful order of Mankind's existence.

Stop trying. It won't happen. It won't because it can't happen. It can't because Natural Law does not allow it. Stop falling for this scam. Stop being Utopia's cuck and sucker, using you for Empire's gain. Empire must fall, and so must Utopia.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

No Place for Rabbits

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."

Never has this been more obvious to me than in looking at my own side in the culture war. Both that those of my allies are not (and, I am certain, some cannot be) perfect examples of what needs to be to win, and that some are willing to do what they can here and now to make victory happen. They can't have their cake and eat it too; this is a world for wolves, not rabbits.

Empire, like any addict, is inherently rabbit-like in its psychology. When it cannot satisfy its insatiable hunger, it turns violent in an attempt to do so in the hope that the sudden spasm will terrorize the others into compliance. Why? Because it cannot avoid believing that any disruption of supply is the result of either incompetence or hostile action resulting in supply being withheld. Unable to see that there are other explanations, it presumes ill intent and acts to quash that threat by any means at its disposal.

The result, when it works, is the start of a downward spiral to ruin. It is the psychology that we see arise time and again in declines and collapses. (Which means that rabbit-thinking is addict-thinking, because the processes are the same and so are the results if left unchecked.) However, there is another aspect to this that can be and should be considered: when provided with an out, once conditions become intolerable the rabbit flees for easier conditions- and so will addicts. Empire will do likewise.

The good here is to attack the things that produce the easy conditions that Empire desires to feed its gluttonous lusts. A free people does entirely for themselves; what aid exists is entirely private, comes with eu-civic conditions, and exists solely for the purpose of rehabilitating rescues while repurposing the broken- and then, it is only for one's nation. Never for aliens or foreigners.

The perfect is to create a parallel structure and then break away from the rabbit warren to live apart until the warren collapses, and then break out to finish off the survivors. This is necessary, but not sufficient. Focusing on this alone isn't enough; attacking the sources of the rabbit-friendly conditions is required, and that means undoing all of the things done in a mistaken pursuit of compassion for parties that have proven to be incompatible with Civilization.

Star Trek will never happen because of evolutionary psychology, so stop trying to flout Natural Law. This is a world for wolves. Civilization is built by wolves for wolves, and not for rabbits. Empire is a rabbit- and rabbits are for eating.

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Predators Piss On Pacifists

Pacifism.

I understand the appeal of pacifism. Refusing to do violence, as a matter of principle, to resolve your conflicts isn't that out of line. While violence--raw, naked force--is the universal solvent, that doesn't mean that it's the best tool for the job. That said, the reason that pacifism gets the bad reputation is that it takes the general good idea of restraint and irrationally pushes that restraint to the point of being maladaptive to the threat at hand.

In short, pacifism is for prey and it signals to predators great and small that here stands a meal for the taking- and that is exactly what becomes of any unit who so embraces pacifism that it ceases to know when to stop refraining from using force and start using it good and hard to best possible effect.

Empire is a predator. It sees pacifists as fools, fuckwits, and food- as prey. A thing to consume and crap out, not something at all worthy of respect or consideration. If someone or some group refuses to defend itself and its own, so much the better; feast on their flesh, rest easy on their bones, and move on to the next prey.

That's not how this world works. It has not been, is not now, nor shall it ever be how this world works. As the old saying goes, If you want peace, prepare for war.

The same goes for cultural warfare as for physical warfare. Predators will use whatever means work to sucker prey into lower their guard; predators, by their nature, are not interested in fair fights for anything and if they can sucker you into pacifism they'll do it- and then they'll eat you. Dead is dead- how you die is not relevant.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Without the Father, Nothing Endures

I've spent some time recently renewing my acquaintance with The Godfather and its sequels. The reason I did so was that a recurring theme came to mind, that of loyalty to the family (and Family), with the attendant duty to refrain from behavior that outsiders are not to witness. This behavior serves to undermine the Godfather--the patriarch--as he executes his supreme duty to safeguard and pursue the family's interests, making him seem other than capable and powerful- and thus not to be preyed upon (i.e. disrespected). It is also what drives Michael's sister, Connie, to push his son to supersede him in the third film.

These dynamics are not purely fictional. Change the context, and it becomes the story of a political dynasty navigating the treachery seas of dynastic politics. Change it again, and you get House of Cards. The reason that context merely changes the trappings without changing the behaviors is because of this: the family is the natural unit of Mankind, and all else that is lawful in Mankind's existence is an outgrowth of it.

We are now, globally, observing that this is true. We call this "identity politics", but it is really the reality of Mankind's existence in all of recorded history and most of the current world. The West's deviation is an aberration, and renewed exposure is going to put an end to this heresy--and it is a heresy--soon enough, because if it does not then the West shall cease to exist. The nations currently exploiting the West (with the help of traitors in the states of the West) have no qualms about putting the West to the sword for no other reason than that they are not Westerners and shall not preserve it.

Nations arise as outgrowths of families, through the mechanisms of extended kinship in clans and tribes, and kingdoms emerge when a single father-figure must emerge for the smooth execution of the duty to preserve the nation-family from predators without as well as fools within. (There is such a thing as too much talk at the wrong time.) The issue thereafter is the formalization and ossification of an emergent lawful hierarchy into artifice that does not reflect the shifting circumstances that life imposes; who is king must change when the circumstances shift too severely for the current crown to meet them, something ordinarily done with the simple passage of time and encounters with hostiles taking their toll.

The limit of an authority to respond effectively to predatory threats is the actual boundary condition for any authority, be it the lawful authority of a family (at any scale) or the artifice of a state (similarly, or subset thereof, such as a military). The question of legitimacy turns on this capacity, and people will accept many hardships and restrictions on individual agency so long as their father-figure is seen to effectively execute the duties put to him. It is no accident that political thought equates the people to children, for without the wisdom of the father too many too often are little more than children- and this very well-known phenomenon is proof of a fundamental quality of Mankind's nature, one that cannot be changed.

The answer to the matter of Empire is to acknowledge this as Natural Law, and to abandon everything that denies it in favor of reforming one's communities and societies into lawful reflections of this fact. Patriarchy is Natural Law.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Life is a Solved Problem

I have reason to believe that all of life is a solved problem.

The reason I say so is that all of the issues Mankind faces today are problems faced before, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. The causes are the same, the phenomena through which these problems arise and proceed are the same, and therefore so are the solutions. We already know what to do to solve the problem. This is the definition of a solved problem.

So we are dealing with a lack of will coupled with a lack of clarity caused by deliberate deception. Those pushing the problem (for whatever reasons) are lying to the rest of us for their own benefit, which makes what they are doing fraud and thus inherently predatory. The problems are solved; all that needs be done is to apply the solution.

Ultimately, what this means is simple: to declare clearly what the problem is, who is responsible for it, and execute them all for their predatory behavior. Zombies, et. al., are not real: corpses cannot (and therefore do not) reoffend, so killing those who do you or yours harm is not wrong, not a crime, and not even offensive. It is laudable, necessary, and expected of anyone seeking to get and remain free from Empire.

Apply the solutions. Empire cannot withstand Natural Law, which is what that means. Empire must fall.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

The Rules That Exist Are Those Enforced

(Note: This post follows on from last week's post.)

The thing that distinguishes the Law of Nature from the Law of Man is that the latter does not enforce itself. Even children grasp this fact, summarized so brilliantly in this playground retort: "Make me."

Government is about control. You can proclaim all the rules you want, but if you cannot compel compliance then your words are senseless blather and what respect you have soon drains away. When speaking of self-government, starting with the individual, we term this "discipline" and rightly regard a lack of it as a mark of poor character. Individuals do what they do not want to secure benefits or necessities they want or need. As it is for individuals, so it is for groups of any size.

The difference is that enforcement externalizes in groups. The rule-maker relies on enforcers to compel compliance. This is true when the rule is reasonable, right, and proper as when it is not; the reason it is so is because the power to compel compliance means removing the power to act from those one seeks compliance from.

This is why competent rule creation rests upon shaping the ability of those targeted to comply, instead of relying upon argument of any kind; if the capacity to disobey is crippled, depreciated, or eliminated then you need not rely on enforcers as often or as severely to gain compliance. Use technical means over other options whenever you can, because their opinion of the rules is irrelevant is they lack the means to defy it.

Go back to that retort: "Make me". That's what has to be kept in mind when you go about making rules; if you can't make them comply, then your rule will be defied. It is the same if the defiance is reasonable or not, because you lack the means to enforce your will. Control over others necessarily requires possessing the means to destroy what they value most, for otherwise you have nothing to negotiate with.

Make no mistake; enforcement is negotiation. You're using violence (actual or the threat thereof) to say "Compliance is your better option." If you are unable to do this, then your rules--for all intents and purposes--do not exist. Being unwilling is the same as being unable, with the sole difference being the speed of remedy.

This is the practical part of power being in the ability to act, and never in deliberation or judgement. There are plenty of people deliberating on anything and everything; they lack the ability to act, so their opinions can be (and often are) ignored as they can't act on them. Plenty of people make judgments, but also cannot act on them, and are just as impotent so they too get ignored. The open hand and the closed fist matter far more than tomes of law or the councils of the wise, as every man whose dealt with the unruly and predatory knows to his cost.

And it is because human predators exist that the rules must be enforced--and seen to be enforced; invisible enforcement is no enforcement--for them to have their desired effect. The unruly can be cowed; predators must be exterminated without mercy or hesitation, as they brook no other limit to their predation, and they regard non-resistance as weakness (and weakness as consent to their predations).

Fortunately, this is a solved problem. The issue now is the unwillingness to apply the solution.