Blog Archive

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Superior vs. Inferior is not Just About Conquering Foreigners:

It's obvious to anyone who the best nations are.  Just check corruption indexes, crime indexes, per capita gdp measures, median household income measures, average length of life, how many nobel prizes the countries win, what artistic and scientific and athletic accomplishments they've made in the World Cup and the Olymipcs, etc, etc, etc.  We have endless data compiled on all these issues.  The same top twenty or so countries keep appearing in every single data set, centered around Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, etc.  So it should be obvious to anyone who the 'superior' people on Earth are.  It's also obvious to anyone who the most inferior people are on Earth, due to the giant cesspool of the Earth known as Africa, the Middle East with its constant internecine purposeless violence, and South Asia with its insane population density plus poverty levels.  We know who the problem nations are too, because we have endless compiled data on their quality of life as well.

It isn't rocket science to realize these countries would be better off if people from Australia, Canada, Denmark, and Iceland conquered these regions and put into place their own law codes, institutions, regulations, education regimes, etc.  But liberals refuse to allow colonialism or imperialism to be reestablished over the world's worst human rights abusers and most backward countries.  Why?  They insist that we can civilize the third world just by asking them nicely to imitate what we do, and their brightest idea is to send charity over to make sure 'everyone has enough to eat,' never mind their population is currently in the process of quadrupling so there's never going to be enough food no matter how much we send.

Though liberals often spout bullshit like all cultures are equal and life as a spear chucker is just as noble and worthwhile as life in New York City, they don't actually believe that.  They also are bent on civilizing and uplifting the third world, but they're cowards who refuse to do the actual heavy lifting that actually accomplishes these facts.  Instead they shower trillions of dollars of foreign aid on corrupt dictators, give them all sorts of loans and bailout deals, hold parties in their honor, and hope through some sort of cultural osmosis that someday the third world will civilize itself, educate itself, and rise to our own level through an act of pure spontaneous generation.  This is despite the successful track record of colonialism leading to all the best parts of the world -- Australia, the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan -- and free third world nations falling into nothing but corruption, civil war and superstition the moment they're left alone -- like South Sudan, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Iraq, Syria, etc.  In fact, not a single country has ever been improved by the liberal leftist formula for nation building.  They still cling to this unscientific, unfounded formula, however, because it suits them.  It makes life easy to say 'oh we'll just wait until they civilize themselves,' despite the paradoxical nature of the statement, since part of being uncivilized is not recognizing why civilization is superior to barbarism, and therefore they have no motive or desire to civilize themselves in the first place, so waiting for them to do so will never occur even in a million years.

You can feel morally superior if you consign most of the world to poverty and ruin and oblivion, billions of people suffering on insufficient diets and soul crushing philosophies and mauling levels of arbitrary violence like 50% of women getting raped sometime in their lives, because you didn't pull the trigger.  Colonialism, Imperialism, conquered foes by force and required they obey the strictures of civilization by force.  They shot a lot of people who wouldn't get with the program.  But at the end of the day, we had cities in Africa that couldn't be distinguished from Boston or Miami.  Furthermore, if the country did not have a large enough smart fraction that could be brought over to work as the administrators in these Empires, they were simply sent by boat from the homeland to become the smart fraction themselves.  In India, we found plenty of smart strivers who wanted to improve India by working with the British administration, so there were virtually no British there ruling over one of the most populous nations on Earth.  Whites rule in Mexico as a live-in smart fraction, and the same is true over most of Latin America.  But when it comes to Africa, you'll never get anywhere unless you run the place yourself.  Rhodesia only had a small upper crust of white people in it, but even with that small administrative presence, they managed to make the place look no different from any other modern European state.  It was the breadbasket of Africa, peaceful, prosperous, with fine architecture and decent dress codes, etc.  It had all the trappings of a European state with a European way of life.

The same is true in the Middle East.  While we ran Iraq, things worked fine.  But the moment we left the Iraqi army fled like cowards and ISIS took over.  This is because there are no decent people in the Middle East, no smart fraction we can work through as puppet masters.  If you want to civilize the Middle East you have to provide that smart fraction yourself and the military to enforce its decisions.  You do not negotiate with the natives, you do not plead with them to change their minds, you point guns at them and tell them to obey or die.  Nor is this some sort of temporary measure until you get a new constitution passed and found a democracy.  There is no one in the Middle East capable of leading a civilized existence under their own initiative, except maybe the Kurds.  Everything must be done for them, permanently, because they will never, ever get it themselves.  And yet, if we think civilization is superior to barbarism, we cannot just leave them alone solely because they can't maintain civilization themselves.  For people without a smart fraction (like Hong Kong or South Korea has) that can do it themselves once shown the ropes, your colonialism must become a permanent Empire, or else you're leaving most of the world's population into the abyss of anarchy that we find the Middle East currently is and always has been.

Most of the third world is so hot, dry and/or disease ridden that no first worlders want to inhabit it anyway.  Simply administering it, rather than completely eradicating and replacing the natives, is the most we can hope for.  There is little value in just straight land these days, as the knowledge economy has replaced the natural resources economy and provides the bulk of our GDP these days.  Even if we wanted to double the white population on Earth, just by administering Africa we could implement modern agricultural reforms on their farmland and reap the added value wheat or yams or whatever we want to plant there without ever actually having to live there and farm the fields ourselves.  We'd much rather live in Canada or Montana or other nice cool places that are still basically unsettled and empty to this day.  Colonialism doesn't equal genocide of the natives.  In fact, it never did, but that's another story.

There are basic minimum floors to human behavior, which if gone below people become net negatives and are better off dead.  North Korea, for instance, is beneath this minimum floor.  It would be better for the world, and for North Koreans themselves, if they were all dead, instead of in the giant open air gulag under the maniacal dictator they live under today.  Large portions of India are beneath this minimum floor due to unbelievable levels of poverty.  The entire Muslim world is beneath this floor because they are a menace to the outside world and a continuously civil war terrorist bombing mess among each other.  Likewise, all of Africa is beneath this minimum floor (except maybe Botswana or other minor exceptions not worth mentioning) due to their crime, poverty, and abuse of human rights.  Though it would be fine to just kill all of these groups off and be done with it, as one giant mercy killing, the examples of Rhodesia and Portuguese Angola and French Algeria, etc, show that this isn't necessary.  If run well, these countries can turn out all right.  Everything worked fine under colonialism.  There were no incessant wars or power struggles between dictators.  Crime was kept under control.  Muslims fanaticism was squelched out.  Corruption was put down, the freedom index was kept high, and people were allowed to prosper and thrive in commerce and industry.  We need to go back in there and run everything ourselves as one giant charity program.  Otherwise we end up with billions of children born into a world that offers nothing but pain, abuse, and misery until they die again, an affront against God if there ever was one.

Which leads to my next point.  Superior vs. inferior isn't just about colonialism.  It's about birth control and eugenics.  If we went in there, we could in one swoop require a 'one child law' in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.  Just imagine how many impoverished hungry mouths could be stopped from entering the world with just that one law change.  There is absolutely no reason for these women in these regions to be having children, they have no economic opportunity and no reason to live.  They will never be able to contribute anything to the world.  Currently we have this freak show that is Niger, one of the poorest places on Earth, with an average fertility rate of 7 children per woman.  This makes no sense.  We aren't talking about Ben Franklin's family born on a virgin frontier ripe for settlement here.  We're talking about a backwards wasteland with no prospects and no hope, and yet the women are still going at it like rabbits.  How much better could we make Africa just by stopping their reproduction?  And this isn't just a matter of academic curiosity, but a matter of life and death, because if we don't go in there and stop their reproduction, all those babies aren't going to be content to stay in Africa.  They will be immigrating here, demanding their welfare checks of $40,000 a piece a year, and they will vote for it and they will be the majority, because there's freaking 4 billion of them due to their freaking 7 children per woman average, and they will take over the world and then devour and destroy the world if we do nothing.

We can't just watch Africa's fertility rate as some sort of interesting sideshow.  It's a dagger held at our necks.  Just look at the flotillas of Africans pouring across the Mediterranean into Europe.  They're coming for us, and it won't be long before those thousands turn into millions and then billions.

People in the past understood the superior supplanting the inferior wasn't just about conquering foreign lands though.  It meant the nobility supplanting the peasantry and thereby improving the general intelligence and manners of your own country.  This effect is well documented in a recent book by Greg Cochran or Harpending or whoever, who showed that the entire British peasantry was effectively exterminated during the Medieval era and replaced with the descendants of the nobility.  As a result, they were eugenically suited to be the brave, smart, reliable and determined men who invented the Industrial Revolution and settled the New World.  This project of national self improvement was maintained by the Nazis last, but it wasn't originally a Nazi concept.  It was practiced by all the rational countries on Earth across all time.  They always favored the nobility over the peasantry, and fertility rates always favored the rich over the poor, until yet again that strange transition in the 1900's which reversed all previous habits across all time.

The smartest, most productive, and most virtuous people in every country form a natural aristocracy.  It is obvious that any state worth its salt would put into place a legal structure which allows this group to get ahead at the expense of all other groups.  This has a two fold purpose -- one, it encourages people who could go either way to shape up and belong to the superior group.  Two, it gives people who have made the effort to belong to the superior group better chances at affordable family formation and higher fertility, which will help out our nations in the long run to be descended from heroes instead of losers.

For thousands of years the state always supported the aristocracy over the rabble.  However, in the last century we instead have chosen to support the rabble at the expense of the aristocracy.  The result has been a general degradation in our overall intelligence, morals, and economy.  Most of this is masked over by rapid technological progress, but it can still be seen in books written by Theodore Dalrymple "Life at the Bottom" and other basic facts like our 40% single motherhood rate.

There should be absolutely zero benefits for leading a bad life.  No rewards to single mothers.  No child support.  No welfare.  Nothing.  If you are a single mother I hope you and your child starve to death homeless on the streets.

Monogamous married couples are superior to single mothers.  This is well known for thousands of years across all civilized history, but inscrutably we turned our back on this well known truth in the 1900's as well.  Are you seeing a pattern here?  Even though all the studies, all the data, all the science shows that children are better off when raised by a married couple than a single mom, we continue to subsidize and support morally single motherhood as some sort of wonderful thing.  To make matters worse, we're even handing children over to be raised by two unrelated pedophile gay men, or one lesbian transgender and one normal mom, or God knows what the media will come up with next.  We have all the science in on perversion too.  It's physically unhealthy, it's mentally unhealthy, and it's spiritually unhealthy.  Gays, transgenders, and all that ilk have way higher poverty rates, crime rates, promiscuity rates, suicide rates, drug and alcohol abuse rates, etc, etc, etc.  They're just no good, and it used to be understood that social pressure should keep their type down, which would encourage them to imitate virtuous good people instead of chasing their wildest fantasy hedonist dreams of self destruction, another instance of the superior (monogamous married couples) supplanting the inferior (perverted freak shows), that has been overturned starting in the 1900's.

None of it makes any sense.  In the 1950's, crime was virtually non-existent.  Everyone had a married mother and father.  The schools churned out well educated, well behaved workers who all easily found a job.  Everything was great.  So why did we turn our backs on a successful, working formula and institute the exact opposite policy instead?  Why do we now prefer high crime and no policing because that's too brutal?  Why do we now prefer single motherhood and transgenders to Mitt Romney's family which is considered hideously white?  Why do white mothers feel the compulsive need to adopt black babies from abroad to prove how full of empathy they are?  Why do we give trillions of dollars of support to bottom feeders who just smoke crack and eat giant tubs of ice cream at home while shouting at their kids to shut up and hitting them if they ever give their parents any lip?

At the same time we gave up civilizing the outside world, we gave up civilizing our own domestic citizens.  We stopped trying to raise future generations, but just abandoned them to themselves while selfishly pursuing our own goals, like a new romance and a new sex partner every five years.

We gave up supplanting the inferior with the supeior, and now we are ambitiously supplanting the superior with the inferior.  The same is true in our immigration policy.  From 1924-1965, we had in place an immigration policy that allowed in only the highest quality nordic whites into America.  You can tell nordic whites are higher quality by the fact that all human accomplishment was achieved by them, as documented in Charles Murray's book Human Accomplishment.  Nordic whites continue to have the best economies, the best athletes (guess who won the World Cup last year -- Germany), the best scientific achievements, the best run governments with the least corruption, and so on to this day.  Remember all those datasets that always put Scandinavia at the top of the best countries on Earth?  Yeah, those are the nordic whites our immigration policy was designed for.  In the past we collected all the Germans, Swedes, British and French we could get our hands on.  Now we collect Guatemalans and Salvadorans, Somalis and Ethiopians, and bunches and bunches of Muslims who openly want to kill or enslave us all and make our women into rape harems like they already have done to the blonde blue eyed women of Sweden.

Our immigration policy was deliberately changed to exclude high quality immigrants like Nordic whites or at least East Asians.  Instead we aimed for the very bottom of the barrel, intentionally, with things like refugee resettlement, diversity visa lotteries, and other products of sheer inverted madness.

We actively decided, in 1965, to supplant the superior native USA white population, a country that was 90% white at the time, to make it a majority hispanic with a sprinkling of Africans and Muslims just to get us to maximal violence levels nation by 2065.  This obviously makes no sense, but then again what has ever since the beginning of the 1900's?  When have we made even a single decision that wasn't intentionally bent on destroying ourselves since then?

What we have done on a global level is the equivalent of what that drunkard in the Louvre did by punching a hole in a Monet.  We took the collected works of our ancestors and pissed all over them, set them on fire, and had a cavorting dance of ecstasy around the fact that we can destroy that which we ourselves could never manage to create ourselves, and are satisfied with the pleasure of spite and jealousy as opposed to real accomplishment and glory like all the previous generations managed to burnish themselves with.

All the previous generations managed to get by with monogamous marriage.  We are the first people too licentious to abide by Nature's system for having and raising the next generation.  All the previous generations made sure the rich, the intelligent and the powerful had pride of place in the determining of state affairs.  We are the first people who are trying to give felon convicts and illegal aliens the vote to determine our affairs for us.  All the previous generations used their military might to expand their borders and incorporate more land and people under their benevolent strictures.  We are the first to lose our empires and hand over large landmasses to our inveterate enemies, rain money down on terror organizations openly declaring their intent to kill us, and hand over trillions of dollars to corrupt dictators and 7 children per mother indigent African peasants.  We are the first to shove gays in the face of all our children and educate them to celebrate gayness and transgender freaks in school and the media.  We are the first people to ever call ramming a dick in someone's ass marriage.  Rather than trying to guide children towards productive and stable marriages with a single member of the opposite sex while remaining a virgin until that date, we encourage them to experiment, take drugs, and have a grand old time with their 11 sex partners on average and, if you're gay, 1,000 sex partners on average and your inevitable AIDS virus at the end of it all.

Nothing makes sense.  None of the liberal programs are trying to make people better, or make nations better, or make the world better.  All liberal programs are bent on championing the most broken, the poorest, the most vile people on Earth and giving them better lives instead.

It's like an immune system that doesn't get enough foreign shocks and challenges.  The immune system, if it doesn't have anything to fight, just grows more and more powerful until it starts attacking itself -- autoimmune disorders are rife among too healthy groups, which is why we have such high allergy and arthritis rates.  Precisely because the world was perfect in 1930, precisely because America was perfect in 1950, all of those healthy instincts and customs and practices that told us to just keep doing the same thing that was working became 'boring' and 'stilted' and the new generations demanded dramatic changes that could 'liven things up' and 'make things more vibrant.'

What's the use in just having a bunch of well behaved well educated well spoken ladies?  Shouldn't we smash it all and introduce a tattoo parlor instead?

Once you reach a certain level of complacency about the quality of your life and/or your civilization's progress, this sort of thinking actually starts to make sense to these sorts of people.  Wouldn't it be fun to just smash it all?  Wouldn't it be funny if I punched a hole in that Monet painting?  Having never experienced the horrors of a life without western civilization and loving parents, these selfish brats think imposing mere anarchy on the world has to be better than their current status because at least it's new and interesting and challenging again.  Even if they themselves stay in normal boring married couple life, they can at least get the vicarious thrill of championing the causes of the most outrageous and freakish behavior around them.  They get to participate vicariously in all of the sins and mistakes of others by letting them do it and arguing vociferously for it, while actually still living safely behind a gated community and a lily white school and a lily white neighborhood and a normal monogamous marriage themselves.  Isn't it all just so precious?

This isn't to say that all Americans or all Europeans think this way.  The problem is they have no opponents in the arts, media, or schools.  This is the one and only poisonous message actually spread to others.  This virulent epidemic of nihilism has taken over because no one argued anything back in places where they could actually have been heard.  I suspect the vast majority of Americans and Europeans don't want to destroy things just to liven the world up.  They aren't like the liberals who thrill in things precisely because they're forbidden, dangerous or destructive.  They aren't a bunch of freaking cutters who think the blood that drips from their arms is so very pretty.

The vast majority of people are ambitious strivers who want to, individually, get the girl, land the corner office, get the medal in their field of endeavor, win a sports meet, earn more than their neighbors, and so on.  They are completely apathetic about what happens to others.  In fact, the more people self destruct by acting like total freaks, the better, it just means less competition for them.  They tune out what the media and schools and everyone else is saying and doing, and shrug, saying 'it has nothing to do with my life.'  And of course it does have something to do with their lives, but they're just too myopic to see the connection, because they're just too damn dumb to look at the larger picture and see where this world is heading.

Imagine a kid looming over an ant hill.  Whenever the ants finish repairing the ant hill, the kid delights in kicking it down again, and then watching the ants scurry as they try to repair their homes once more.  Liberals are those obnoxious sadistic kids who just like destruction for the sake of destruction.  The ants are the vast majority of Americans, who continue working hard and striving ambitiously even though everything they ever do is destroyed every time they try to do it.  They never get it.  They never get that what they are working hard to accomplish is fruitless because everything they are building is being destroyed or will be destroyed in the near future anyway.  They just think that being a good ant means doing the same formulaic mechanical things that have always gotten ants ahead, and they'd rather not make waves by upsetting the rest of the ant community, etc.

I'm smart, so I saw through the liberal program long ago.  I realized that marriage was pointless because the adultery and divorce rates were so high that inevitably any family you tried to produce would just be destroyed later anyway.  I realized reproduction was pointless because inevitably your kids would be taken from you by divorce, or they wouldn't even be your kids because your wife cheated on you and you're raising a freaking cuckoo bird, or even if all of that didn't happen your kids could be poisoned against you by the liberal schools and media to either turn into more liberals or degenerate druggees, or even if that didn't happen my kids would be born into a majority non-white America and a majority non-white world with living standards far below the acceptable minimum threshold for human life.  As such, I didn't become one of these myopic ambitious strivers who's building a personal ant hill just to watch the liberals smash it over and over again.

I realized that becoming rich was pointless because your money would just be taxed from you and given to the people you hate and despise, thus becoming a mockery of all your hard work which is now your own worst enemy.

I realized that getting a job was pointless because jobs are just a tool of social control used to scare people into submission via the threat of firing.  You can't tell the truth if you have a job.  Therefore, all jobs are worse than useless as a utility equation -- because life is meant to be for the production of Truth, and jobs are just the material production of money at Truth's expense.

It turns out that anything you strive for is pointless in the modern age and all ambition is pointless because nothing can be secured and nothing is safe from the anthill kicking liberals.  The whole world is about to go down the drain.  It's no different from if a meteor were inevitably barreling towards us and destined to hit in the year 2100.  What's the point of building anything up in the face of that death sentence set to tear it all back down again?

The ants are all so pitiful.  They invest so much emotion into fragile things which are all just shattered one after the other and die regretting all of their losses while having nothing permanent they can be proud of that they gained.

The only thing we control in this modern liberal age is the contents of our own interior brains.  Therefore, lay not up treasure in outward things, which will just be blackmailed or confiscated from you or will just run away while still suing you for child support.  Rather, lay up your treasures inside your own head, where only you can reach them, and they remain as rigid and permanent and fixed as your will desires them to be.  What are these treasures?

A sense of self worth because you don't bow down to anyone, don't humiliate yourself by repeating obvious falsehoods, and don't compromise on your positions just to get ahead.

A sense of wonder and marvel in all the good things of the past and present that you truly believe are good because you still have a firm sense of right and wrong, good and evil, superior and inferior at the root of your judgment system.

A jewelbox of artistic experiences because you have the leisure time to search them all out and experience them and the intellectual breadth and curiosity and wisdom to understand them.

Memories and hopes.

That moment where you get to say 'I told you so' with a sneer to the outside world every time it destroys itself for not following your advice.

The freedom and individuality to have a voice and be heard because you're willing to say things no one else ever has before.

Liberals can't tax these things.  Women can't divorce you and take half of them away.  Children can't become rebellious and refuse to listen to them anymore.  Your boss can't fire you and take them away from your desk.  This is the one thing liberals have not yet found a way to destroy, so it's the only thing left in the world that has any value, and the only thing enlightened people should bother pursuing anymore.

In the past the monastic life was alluring, the life of contemplation was always fruitful, but there were alternatives.  You could be a knight who battled the Saracens, and know you were productive.  You could be a farmer who tilled the land and raised a family, and know you were productive.  You could be an engineer who designed steam engines and know you were advancing the state of the world.  You could be many things and see visible progress as a result of your efforts.  In the past ambition and hard work were rewarded.  If you liked your family, you could keep it.  If you liked your country, you could keep it.  If you liked your culture, ethnicity, traditions, language, or race, you could keep it.  Ambition is not innately a bad idea, so long as it actually produces a return on investment.

But now?  Here?  In a world like this?  Give me a break.  The people who will suffer the most will be the ones who built up the most, because they're the ones with the most to lose.  And they're definitely going to lose it all.  No one's safe anymore.  The Black Death is coming for us all.

No comments: