Shoot the Moon

In the game of Hearts, there are two, completely opposite, ways to win. The normal route is to avoid as many hearts as possible and end up with the lowest score. The other way to win is to collect all the hearts and 'shoot the moon' for a come from behind turnaround victory.

In order to succeed in shooting the moon, one must abandon any hope of avoiding hearts and winning through the normal route. The two courses are mutually exclusive, even though they have equally joyous results.

Generally it is best to give up on winning through the lowest heart score when you're the player with the most hearts already accrued. Though there's no firm line after which it is impossible to win via 'lowest heart' score, it becomes so infinitely unlikely that at a certain point the asymptote crosses the asymptote for likelihood of success via 'shooting the moon.'

Someone who abandons his original strategy in favor of shooting the moon when he sees these asymptotes cross is not a defeatist. Actually, people who stubbornly cling to the ever remoter chance of victory via 'lowest heart score' on principle are the defeatists. The person who decides to shoot the moon is the only one realistically trying to win remaining.

With this in mind, nationalists need to ask themselves -- at what point will the asymptotes cross? There are two ways to solve every problem, after all. One is to reverse any negative change back to its positive default. The second is to turn a negative change into a positive change by changing even further. This second strategy is the 'shoot the moon' strategy that becomes ever more relevant the longer a negative change trend continues and the more solidified said negative change becomes in the psyche of the public.

Saying a negative change is lamentable and we would be better off defaulting to an earlier state is all well and good, but it's like complaining we were better off when we had the lowest heart score. Maybe we were, but that has nothing to do with today, where we have the heart score we have, and can only ask what is our best strategy from here? More often than not, it is easier to shoot the moon -- adapt to the negative change and turn it into a harmless or beneficial result -- than to somehow reverse time and avoid the fact that we have too many hearts to ever win normally anymore.

Perhaps someday a giant convulsion will run through our nation and everyone will spontaneously rally around a white secessionist state with all sorts of draconian laws. But relying on that as the only hope is the same as praying to God for miracles. The odds are astronomically low, and nothing in the world today lends any evidence towards credence in such a future.

Let's give a short run down of unchangeable realities. The white birthrate is below replacement and shows no signs of going up. Immigration from the third world shows no signs of stopping. Babies born in the United States are majority non-white. 40% of children born today in the USA are illegitimate. We have a black liberal president and a large democrat majority congress. Due to ethnic voting patterns, democrats are destined to dominate the politics of America eternally as demographics in America shift and old whites die off. Generations of American children have been raised in a liberal, anti-racist, anti-discrimination mindset that has formed a sort of secular religion it is taboo to question or resist. The population of the Earth was 6 billion in 2000 but is nearly 7 billion today, just ten years later. This insupportable mass of human flesh has shown no interest in stopping its geometric growth, and has shown a high interest in invading our countries via mass immigration, despoiling the Earth's environment, and committing terrorist attacks/crime against us. Women have on average 11 sexual partners during their lifetime. Divorce rates are around 50%. Other couples are separated even if not divorced technically. The gay lifestyle is portrayed positively and equally to the straight one, driving down the chance of healthy, happy relationships even further.

The gap between the rich and the poor has grown astronomically since the 1980's. Since 1970, the poor have actually gotten poorer, though the measures are disputable enough that it would be safer to say they just haven't done very well these days. Unemployment for young adults is at an all-time high. Leading economists have told us the jobs 'aren't coming back' and it is unknown how exactly poor people are meant to support themselves given this fact. The poor are not some ghetto class of the bottom 10% or so of the country. More accurately, they would encompass 80% of the population of the United States. This is because even if you include the entire bottom 80% of the United States, they make less than half of US income per year, and hold a pitiful 15% of the USA's aggregate wealth. They are simply non-actors in this economy. Whether they worked or not, died or not, succeeded or failed, are happy or miserable, is all inconsequential to the market.

The US Debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ has each American citizen 'owing' $180,468 to pay off the USA's public debt. $53,774 to pay off their own private debt. And $350,154 to pay off the promises government has made to pay people in the future. No ordinary mortal could possibly pay off all of these debts. The public is therefore trapped in a cycle of debt slavery with no release from birth until death, eternally paying interest on debts they never agreed to and never received any benefit from. The USA is not alone. The whole world is seemingly drowned in debt, from Europe to Japan to the 3rd world. No one can balance their budgets and everywhere a tiny few profit off the woes of the great many.

The environment is composed of finite resources, many of which we are burning through at a frightful pace. It is unknown just how many people, and just how high a living standard, mother Nature can really support. Whatever the number, it is finite and our ever increasing populations and consumption levels cannot be good for her.

The average IQ of the world is decreasing, and with it, our potential for successful and prosperous societies.

Perhaps there are other issues I haven't listed, but no matter. These are the unchangeable facts on the ground, the nettle of reality we must grasp in our hands.

The question 'What now?' presents itself. If someone were king of the world and would be obeyed without question, he could probably resolve all these issues in a couple days. But the world does not work like this. People have to operate within reasonable bounds set by public consensus, approval by the money power, approval by the press, approval by religious bodies, approval by the military, and so on. Various groups have a great deal of power and influence and all will have to be mollified no matter what course you take.

So the question isn't "What is to be done?" but "What can be done to help offset these damaging trends?"

Anyone who can view all these statistics and imagine we can still win by 'holding the fewest hearts,' ie, somehow pretending we're still fine and can return to some sort of 1950's norman rockwell world -- bring back the middle class, restore the family, preserve virginity until marriage, raise the birth rate, deport all non-whites from historically white countries, grant full employment, repay or renege on all debts, ostracize gays and other pernicious cultural behavior (like drug use or tattoos), implement eugenics, reduce the world population back to the 3 billion of 1950, have conservatives in firm control of the government, etc, is blessed with a great deal of optimism. I for one cannot see any remote chance of any of this happening.

Wouldn't it be better to shoot for the moon?

Let's look at this as a sort of table:

Problem: Debt. Solution #1 (traditional): Pay it back. Solution #2 (shoot the moon) Renege.

Problem: Breakdown of the family. Solution #1: Restore it. Solution #2: Give people the means/upbringing to be happy even without a family.

Problem: Overpopulation. Solution #1: Lower world population. Solution #2: Go into space.

Problem: Modern sexual norms. Solution #1: Rein in everyone's libido. Solution #2: Give people the means/upbringing to be happy regardless of their sex lives.

Problem: Unemployment/poverty. Solution #1: Give everyone a useful job that pays well. Solution #2: Give everyone a citizen's dividend so it doesn't matter if they can find a job or not.

Problem: Non-white demographics. Solution #1: Deport all non-whites. Solution #2: Genetic engineering that makes race irrelevant.

Problem: Liberal Dominance in Culture and Politics. Solution #1: Replace it with conservative dominance. Solution #2: Find solutions to our other problems that fit within liberal approved thought.

Problem: Uppity women. Solution #1: Put them in their place. Solution #2: Robots, virtual reality, artificial wombs, etc that give men true independence and happiness without having to rely on women anymore.

I'm being partially facetious here. Our problems are obviously worrisome and the solutions will not come easily, no matter what we attempt. But the larger point remains. We would be better off trying to shoot the moon -- accept that we have a hand full of hearts, that we can't get rid of said hand, and find a way to turn this into a positive that leads towards victory, than to just keep bashing our heads against the wall of public opinion and unchangeable liberal/globalist full-spectrum dominance. Each entry in this table, I have a great deal more hope for the second solution than the first. The first sounds simple and easy, until you ask how on Earth we could possibly garner the political will to accomplish these tasks. Whereas the second solution is difficult from a technical standpoint, but has the immeasurable advantage of not offending public opinion and having the potential to generate broad consensus and support.

As time goes by, evolution organically adapts an organism to its environment. In the same way, I predict societies will gradually, and inevitably, evolve into a non-poisonous, non-lethal solution to our current problems. Therefore problems that seem fatal and poisonous today will gradually, through a series of accommodating steps, become less damaging and less fatal in the future. For instance, children will gradually come to expect living in single parent homes and not think it's a big deal. Society will gradually come to accept the need for a citizen's dividend to replace the old failed welfare policies of the past. Relationships will be accepted as temporary and unimportant so that no one's heart is broken when they end anymore. So on and so forth. One of my favorite quotes from David Zindell's Ea saga is this: "There's always a way." Another is this: "How is it possible that the impossible becomes not only possible but inevitable?"

The insight to be found in these quotes isn't blind optimism, but a studied appreciation in the strength of human endurance and ingenuity. Humans have faced all sorts of hostile and painful environments, but always somehow prevail. Humans have overcome greater challenges than these, like world war, the black plague, the ice ages and the dark ages. They did not survive by turning an ice age 'back into a warming period,' or a dark age 'back into the Roman Empire,' or push the black plague 'back into Asia.' Every time they accepted the reality of their problems, and adapted to live in their midst all the same. They endured them all, and transformed themselves into beings who could endure them. They didn't have to repulse them once they had learned how to embrace them. In this way, there are always two solutions to every problem. If a problem can no longer be repulsed, it can still be embraced and adapted to. If we can't change the world, we can still change ourselves.

Amren has been protesting the reality of America for the last 20 years and continuously yearning to bring back the past, but what good has it done them? Nothing has changed. What if they had spent those twenty years instead finding ways to be happy even in the middle of America's reality, despite anything the world can throw at them? What if they had spent 20 years teaching people how to be happy and successful in a reality such as ours? Wouldn't it have helped others, and themselves, far more? What if these intellectuals had spent 20 years working on just one single invention that could have provided a technical way out of one or our existential crises, that could be implemented the moment it was invented, with the full approval of liberal consensus? Wouldn't that have been more helpful to the cause than twenty years of advocacy for a solution that will never be implemented no matter how well made your arguments are?

Happiness is a state of mind. No matter how bad our physical states become, we could still be happy if our minds were just equipped correctly. If nationalists want to help save the world, equip as many minds as possible with the tools necessary to be in this world -- in this reality -- exactly as it stands. What are those tools? Who knows. I suspect adherence to love, truth, and beauty as absolute and redeeming, value-giving goods are one of them. And I suspect thinking about these things, instead of the woes of the world, is another.