A New Western Code Base

Critics of the modern age usually start from the assumption that the way in which the West is organized is fine. The problem is either the people, as in we have a rotten ruling class, or some set of defects that have been introduced into the system. The lament is often some form of “if we had only not done X.” This is usually accompanied by fingering some point in the recent past, like the 60’s. Recency bias has always been a major part of right-wing criticism of left-wing politics.

The underlying assumption is that liberal democracy will work just fine, if we can just get rid of those terrible liberals or go back and correct some mistake from the past. No one ever stops to wonder if maybe those nasty liberals and errors in judgement are a feature of liberal democracy, rather than a defect. Like Marxists or libertarians, the right has worked from the assumption that the right sort of citizen can be conjured or created, in order to make liberal democracy function as intended.

The truth is, the results we see around us, whether it is spasms of radical self-destruction or the suicidal flood of migrants, are all the natural result of liberal democracy. The troubles facing the West are not the result of some defect or shabby operators at the top. This is what you get from liberal democracy. As a wise once man said, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

The reason, of course, is the underlying assumption of democracy. That is, all men possess the same set of talents. After all, if every man’s say in the running of society is equal to the rest, if it carries the same weight at decision time, then all men must truly be equal. Otherwise, it is a system that deliberately vests the incompetent with the safety and security of others. In other words, the democrat must either be suicidal or sincerely believe men are of equal talent in this important task.

This is the fundamental faith of modern liberal democracy. It assumes and demands that all people are equally capable of making decisions about public policy. This is why noticing any differences in people has become a crime. To note that the retarded, for example, lack the necessary agency to care for themselves, raises the question of who else may lack the necessary qualities to care for themselves. If you cannot care for yourself, how can you be trusted to judge what is in the best interest of others?

This is why we see campaigns by radicals to expand the ballot to children, criminals and the mentally feeble. They couch their cause in fairness, but ultimately what is driving them is absolute egalitarianism. To acknowledge that people are not equally capable of being citizens, means debating where the line is drawn between those capable and those incapable of citizenship. This is a slippery slope that can only lead to the upending of the assumptions of modern liberal democracy.

That is where any alternative right, or alternative anything, must start, as it is the only way to arrive at an alternative outcome. Democracy starts and ends with egalitarianism, which is a binary issue. Either all men are equally capable of active participation is society or they are not. There is no middle ground. Democracy chooses the former and must relentlessly work to make it manifest. This is the root of the current madness that has gripped the West. It is a denial of biological reality.

This is the place to start when contemplating an alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy, whether it is in the narrow domain of politics or the larger one of culture. If all people are not the same in the particular sense, then it follows that all people are not the same in the general sense either. Since a “people” is the sum of the traits and abilities of the individual components, then what we observe as national character is the result of those individual differences peculiar to the people of that nation.

This brings us to the other face of democracy, which is universalism. Every democracy, from the Greeks to the present, assumes that the only legitimate and moral form of government is democracy. After all, if all men in the democracy are equal, it must mean all men in every society are equal. The social contract instantly becomes portable, applicable everywhere. Therefore, anything but liberal democracy is an immoral and inauthentic form of human organization.

The Peloponnesian War was a defensive struggle to resist the rapacious aggression of the Athenians, versus the natural hierarchy of the Spartans. The Great War that devastated Europe was ultimately to impose liberal democracy. The Second World War was a follow on to defend liberal democracy from fascism, which was followed by a 70 year war to defend it against Bolshevism. The history of democracy is a blood bath to prove it works everywhere for all people.

If what we observe is true, that people are not all the same in the wholesale or the retail level, then the question is why? The egalitarians point to various forms of magic like racism, the environment and the tides of history, but all of these collapse under the least bit of scrutiny. If any of these claims were true, we would see evidence of it in the West, where tens of millions of non-Europeans have been imported. Instead, the evidence revels the opposite. The differences in people are natural.

It is these natural differences in people that must be the starting place for any alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy. That sounds easy, but it is the great struggle of this age. It not only means standing outside the moral order, it requires questioning everything we inherited from the Enlightenment. That is what will divide Right and Left in the coming age. On the one side will be the defenders of the Enlightenment, and its egalitarian pretensions, while on the other will be biological realists.

Just as the Enlightenment struggled to escape the cocoon of the Middle Ages, biological realism is struggling for life today. Even sober minded critics of liberal democracy struggle to embrace it. Paul Gottfried, in his first post back at the venerable paleocon outlet Chronicles, makes this point about himself. He can acknowledge some of the points from biological realists, but ultimately he prefers to hug the shore of nurture, rather than sail into the sea of nature.

Yoram Hazony, the Israeli philosopher, wrote a book in which he wrestled with biological reality in his defense of nationalism. Chapter after chapter relied on accurate observations about human diversity. In fact, the foundation of his argument is that nations are different, because they are composed of people, different from the people of other nations. Yet every time he reached the obvious end point of his logic, he pulled back and started flapping his arms and howling about equality.

Hazony and Gottfried are realists, when it comes to ethnicity. Hazony is an ethno-nationalist, while Gottfried is a paleo-conservative. Neither man is naive about the realities of the human condition. Both struggle, however, to transcend their conditioning, which shows how powerful the egalitarian ethic is in the West. It can overcome not only facts and reason, it can make you question your own observations. The project to build a metaphysics around biological reality, therefore, is daunting.

The human diversity we see all around us, the diversity of outcomes, within regions and nations, as well as between them, is not an accident of fate. It is not the result of some dark magic or a conspiracy of one people at the expense of another. These differences are rooted in our nature. Human biological diversity is a real thing that describes who we are as a species. Man is not man without this great diversity, because we are the result of a long natural process of regional trial and error.

Because biology is real, that means sex is real, race is real and ethnicity is real. These are all real things, coming into sharper focus every day through the study of the human genome. The long journey from the dawn of modern man to the first civilization was not the same for all people. The resulting nations of people reflect the long biological journey made by each people. It also represents the natural division of labor, for creating life and for living it, between the sexes and between the talents.

The Enlightenment was the software needed to take Western man out of the Middle Ages, through the age of sail and the industrial age, into the technological age. Like all legacy code, it has reached the end of its time. The demographic age, in which Western man finds himself a minority in a sea of diversity, all creeping up on his natural habitat, will require new code. We need a new moral framework and to do that means deposing the current one and everything that it entails.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

173 thoughts on “A New Western Code Base

  1. Anent the Enlightenment, here’s a perspective which is ….ahhh…enlightening!!

    ….good science always invokes, often albeit unconsciously, the Aristotelian/Thomistic four causes – material, formal, efficient and final. But once you believe in the four causes, the existence of God is as forceful a conclusion, nay more so, than the empirical conclusions you make in your respective science. This is shown in the arguments of Aquinas – the five proofs. (See Feser “Aquinas” inter alia.)

    The Enlightenment (Hume, etc) famously abandoned efficient and final causality. (Hume said that the fact that a brick causes the smashing of a window is a false conclusion from the “constant conjunction” I observe of a brick hitting the glass and windows smashing. There is no “causation”, says Hume … it’s just that a constant correlation of observed events leads me to the false idea of causation. So there goes efficient causality, and, on the other side of the coin, final causality, in the sense that there’s no innate tendency for a clay brick to smash a thin glass window if hurled at it or for the glass to break with the impact of the brick.)

    <b?But modern, post-Enlightenment scientists, in the actual act of research, constantly invoke the four Aristotelian causes. A zoologist, coming on a new species, will dissect the specimen, ask what is it made of (material cause) how the various parts of the organism are shaped and fit together (formal cause), and then take the individual parts (organs, etc) and ask what they do and how they all work together to make the organism live (efficient and final causes). His or her paper will be written up in these terms, even if the precise Aristotelian/Thomistic terms are not used.

    Granted, that’s only one aspect of Enlightenment “thought.” But the disorder espoused by Hume in ‘science’ is parallel to the disorder brought to philosophy and theology by other Enlightenment thinkers–culminating in Nietzsche’s “God is dead/Will to Power.”

  2. “No one ever stops to wonder if maybe those nasty liberals and errors in judgement are a feature of liberal democracy, rather than a defect.”

    Isn’t the first third of Mein Kampf someone doing exactly that, and then coming up with a solution?

  3. In my opinion, this is the best essay of Z-man I have seen. Followed by one of the best comment threads I have seen. I hope Z-man will revisit this topic in the future.

    I was unable to join it due to work deadlines, but finally got to read it all. No one has claimed to be “high IQ” but there has been much wisdom posted here on this thread. Bravo.

    No one has claimed, like the stupid elsewhere, that one generation is the cause of all our troubles. This is a multifaceted problem.

  4. The author cites only the Enlightenment as the fount of the egalitarian impulse in the West. He neglects to mention its equally influential twin, Christianity, which promulgates equality among men as essential. Question: are Christian nations and empires inevitably doomed to failure in this world by following the admonition to love thy neighbor as thyself? It currently appears to be the case.

  5. Here’s the problem you’ve got, and I’ll use a non HBD example to illustrate it. I used to teach math. As a math student, you might be asked to solve an equation. Well, there are several ways to do this, but that list of ways is finite. In other words, once you list all all the possible solutions, you really cannot go hunting for a new way because there isn’t one. You’re stuck with the available choices. Or, another example, I worked with nuclear weapons for several years. My deputies would always get freaked out by evaluations because, to them, there was an infinite number of ways the evaluators could mess with you. I would make them write down every possible scenario for a given weapon function. After an hour or so, they’d come back with 4-5 possible scenarios. I might add a 6th, but again, the list was finite. They’d study for the evaluation, and when one of the 6 scenarios was presented, we’d literally look at each other and smile because once you know the possible solutions, there are no surprises.

    So, the problem you’ve got is that the ways humans can organize is finite and they exist on a spectrum ranging from pure anarchy on one side – no organization no government no controls on individuals – to pure totalitarianism on the other – total organization all government all the time no controls on government. In either case, there are no boundaries or limits on either end. The anarchist can murder you simply because he feels like it, and the Government can murder you because the people who run it feel like it.

    Does democracy always end in suicide? History says yes. OK, but so did Bolshevism and Fascism. So I would argue there is no large-scale organizing principle for human beings that does not eventually lead to collapse and murder. Democracy due to factionalism. The authoritarian models because the ruling classes cannot maintain order in a system where a tiny few benefit from the enslavement of the majority, or, eventually somebody is able to shoot the king in the head and in the scramble to grab power the murdering starts. Smaller scale, sort of “community” models like the lords and vassals of old, implode over wars for resources or the local monarch dies and there is a mad scramble to take those resources either by the monarch’s heirs or an outside power.

    To avoid the suicide, what we’re seeing America evolve into is a “democracy” where the trappings exist, but there really is not a democracy in any real sense of the world. We see this already: an election is held, the ruling class does not agree on the outcome, and so they set about undoing the election results. Trump, Brexit, etc. Or, somebody like Obama wins, but a lot of the policies do not change – he drone-bombed arabs from one side of the Middle East to the other in a continuation of the Permanent War Coalition’s nebulous objectives. So, it’s fair to say that our “democracy” is not going through the suicidal collapse, but is instead evolving into a police state. Anybody paying attention since 9/11 has seen the foundations of the police state getting built up. They’re now at a point where some invisible CIA agent with the help of a fleet of CIA lawyers can write a totally-fictitious “whistleblower” report designed to overthrow the elected official. They’re literally |this close| to being able to grab power permanently.

    I don’t think the debate is over whatever new morality code we’re gonna follow into the short list of available human organizing possibilities. Where we are at is whether or not we are going to allow the Government Party to turn the USA into a police state, and who are we prepared to arrest and hang to prevent it.

    • “Where we are at is whether or not we are going to allow the Government Party to turn the USA into a police state, and who are we prepared to arrest and hang to prevent it.”

      That’s the existential problem up front right now.

    • I kinda lean towards Kurt Hofmann’s approach.
      “Evil exists because good men don’t kill the government officials committing it.”

  6. “[I]f every man’s say in the running of society is equal to the rest, if it carries the same weight at decision time, then all men must truly be equal”

    Robert Heinlein had an idea in this regard which bears examination. In Heinlein’s mind only citizens would be afforded the privilege – AND burden – of participating in governance. So there were two “classes” of people – “citizens” and “residents”. Now “residents” had pretty much all the same civil rights as “citizens” with one major exception – they could not vote (any more than non-citizens may lawfully vote today), nor could they hold ANY public office – elective or appointive. While non-citizens could sit on a jury judging a non-citizen, only citizens could judge another citizen. Since all Judges are either elected or appointed to the bench only citizens could be judges. A “resident”could obtain a law degree and be licensed to practice law but all cases would be tried before a citizen. Also, only a citizen could work in law enforcement. It would not do to have citizens being arrested by non-citizens.

    How would Mr Anson have one BECOME a citizen? Simple, they would “purchase” their citizenship – not with money (so the Rockefellers or Chases or Kennedys – OR TRUMPS – could not purchase their children’s franchise) but with the dearest coin of all – years of their lives spent in service to the Republic of which they wished to be citizens. If a person had the wit to desire to become a citizen, regardless of any physical or mental “challenges” they might have, a place would be found where they could serve the Republic for the required time.

    • Heinlein was right. We might have to adjust how suffrage is “earned”, but the concept that by dint of birth you have a say in the affairs of State simply isn’t working in today’s society and we can see that all around us. The trick of course is how to put the genie back into the bottle. That of course brings up the dreaded word, “disenfranchisement”. And of course discussion implies a political solution through a political establishment that will never relinquish power. But as long as we recognize such, a discourse now and then may be a useful distraction.

      • Well, in a way, we already have what you suggest, just not in the way you might hope. Do we have pretty much universal suffrage for adults today, other than felons? Yes. Do the elections really matter in the grand scheme of things? No, the Government Party just does whatever it wants.

        So, who actually is a citizen today? Apparently, you’re only a true citizen if you’re a government employee in the courts, the legislature, or the federal bureaucracy. If you’re in those arenas as an employee, you get to invent new laws through regulations, dictate personal behaviors (courts), openly resist the will of the elected officials (and even impeach them if they really don’t like you), and operate with open contempt of the voters.

        Everybody else? You’re just there to participate in the national public opinion polls every 2 and 4 years, after which the true citizens decide what will actually be done. Or not.

        • Damned if you’re not right! So my version of the old maxim about “those who can” – “Those who can, do. Those who cannot go into government (civil service or public office, it matters not) so they do not have to do anything but breathe.” The reason I never applied for a government job after getting out of the USAF was because I would have HAD to have grown a beard since I wouldn’t have been able to look myself in the mirror and was too poor to afford to go to a barber for a shave.

          Sidebar: Have you ever met a “civil servant” who was either?

  7. “[T}he underlying assumption of democracy . . . is [that] all men possess the same set of talents.”

    The biggest mistake I see so very many making about “equality” is that people totally fail to understand what Jefferson meant by that word in the Declaration. The very first of Jefferson’s self-evident truths was that “all men are created equal”. On the face of it that statement is patently absurd. People are taller, shorter, stronger, weaker, smarter, dumber and that is just some of the ways people are UNequal. They are of (at least) 2 genders and come in a range of colors. It must be totally obvious to anyone who takes the time to look that all human beings (I use the phrase because I believe that is how Jefferson was using the word “men”) are created anything BUT “equal”.

    So what DID he intend by that phrase? I am convinced that the equality Jefferson saw as being self-evident was equality BEFORE THE LAW! He had witnessed the European class system and was appalled that mere accident of birth could make one person more important or of more worth than another. Under a legal code such as existed in the British Empire at the time, the word of a member of the “nobility” or the “landed gentry” was worth more than that of a longshoreman. Nobles could get away with a whole lot because the evidence need to indict one of them had to meet an enormously higher than that needed to indict a “commoner”. I believe that when Jefferson penned those words he meant that all men stood equal before the bar of justice and it didn’t MATTER who their Daddy was. Now we all know that there never has been NOR WILL THERE EVER BE a system of justice where it doesn’t matter who a person’s Daddy is/was. But at least “equal justice before the law” is the goal; the standard.

  8. The Enlightenment was the software needed to take Western man out of the Middle Ages, through the age of sail and the industrial age, into the technological age.

    There are a lot of smart people who don’t agree with that statement. The “enlightenment” introduced Leftism, not ‘scientific discoveries.’ BIG difference.

    Science was doing just fine and (although contra-factuals are only guesswork) it’s likely that we’d have all the goodies without the disruption of the Left.

  9. I find it strange that the “Enlightenment” was the code, which supposedly worked under Monarchy, through various revolutions, before women could vote, during the slave trade, and even after the 17th and 19th amendments here as “all the same thng”.

    (Aside: Communism/socialism assumes human beings are malleable to an extent greater than the worst cuckservative or SJW).

    The very first question is whether to attempt “legacy support” and try to come up with something that would work in a heterogenious multicultural setting, or if the first thing is to reestablish homogenity and then seek the governing framework.

    The least common denominator is a nightmarish tyranny for mult culti because it has to address the least common denominator – low impulse control, high time preference, low trust.

    That is the only reason white demographics can be a problem (though even Europeans vary as to their measures of the above). China was always a highly populated country, but it – and Japan generally didn’t try for global empire before the 20th century. Technology created virtual proximity for the “diversity”.

    You can build a wall around a people with these socio-civic virtues, but it needs to be a wall. The ants can store for the winter, but you don’t want the army of locusts coming in for the winter.

  10. After re-reading the Paul Gottfried piece, my short takeaway is he incorrectly blames the social dysfunction caused by low IQ on a lack of morals, while not correctly blaming the social dysfunction of high IQ white eletes on a lack of morals. He also depends on one ridiculously false dichotomy, that preventing the country from filling up with low IQ third worlders contradicts reigning in the high IQ liberal elite that’s wrecking our morality. His list of credentials makes it a little hard for me to believe he doesn’t realize that’s nonsense.

  11. I doubt the new morality can come about until the limit to population is found. We’re currently too big to manage and certainly too big to be an actual nation even if only white people are counted. No real change can happen in such an anonymous society where nobody knows or trusts each other.

    • The “too big to manage” is addressed by a reduction in centralization. I understand where you are coming from, but reducing the total size of the nation’s population probably won’t do much when a centralized government wishes to control every aspect of “economic man”’s life—for his own good of course.

      • My opinion is an oversized, anonymous society necessitates a strong central government. Its authority fills the void left when personal contact is replaced by suspicion and competition in the body politic.

  12. Here’s how I read the situation of liberalism: If liberalism had been able to succeed *without* enfranchising the masses, I think it would have done so. But the chief *political* successes of liberalism were always tied to expanding ‘the franchise’, whether electoral or economic. It seems to me that the Right’s position is that one *earns* the right to political power (franchise) by contributing to the ‘nation’ in some Right-approved manner, such as being a soldier or a mother.

    Liberalism got its *financial* backing by supporting private property and the accumulation of wealth. This created a moneyed elite whose *political* power has, for all practical purposes, undermined the franchise of the ordinary person. Further more, the elite have decided to hire a new electorate in the form of immigrants and diluted the *singular benefit* that liberalism promised the common man: political power in the form of electoral franchise.

    This is why, I believe, that immigration was the straw that broke the Liberal camel’s back.

    The job of an ascendant Right will be to *sell* the notion of limited franchise while positioning itself as the guardian of ‘the people’. This is a very similar project to the Italian Fascists and one which is worthy of further investigation by anyone trying to craft a message for an ascendant Right.

    What the People need to be comfortable with is the notion that — even without the franchise — they will still have power and influence and that their concerns will be listened to and given due weight.

  13. Great article, Zman. In a number of articles you’ve succinctly diagnosed the problem with liberal democracy. But I’m waiting for an article or podcast in where you detail your thoughts on what should replace the current orthodoxy, that is how a society that recognizes biological realities should be organized and structured. It’s one thing to diagnose the disease, which you’ve done well. But what medications and cures do you propose?

    • Amen, RH. I’m ready for some framework, even with blanks left TBD. For now, I’m focused on the sphere around me. Durable systems and supplies, and now expanding to geography. I want to contribute to our side along the way, however. What is the Next?

  14. The steam engine took us into the industrial age, not some gobbledygook from gassy European philosophers. Without that discovery by Watt and other hard nosed engineering types there would be no industrial age.

    As to what has destroyed our society, you’re wrong. You seem to believe that we have a functioning republic when we actually don’t. It’s been a oligarchy for quite a while.

    Most of our woes stems from our business community. The business community in America has always been in love with cheap labor. The Cold War put a kibosh on declaring war against the American worker for about 50 years. When the Soviets collapsed they were free to declare war on the American worker and by extension America itself. We saw this under Clinton when he opened the flood gates to globalization, de-industrialization,importing foreign workers to replace Americans, etc. Bush the Lesser and Obama continued and added to these policies of destruction and demographic replacement.

    The MSM helped by deliberately keeping most Americans in the dark as to the true extent of the damage being inflicted on the country and by dangling wedge issues in front of them to keep them distracted and alienated.

    And in the space of 24 years managed to utterly ruin our country economically and demographically. it doesn’t even resemble what the country looked like 30 years earlier. And the American people had no say so. It was done by a cabal of unelected elites sitting in board rooms and legislative chambers deciding what was best for the elite.

    • Add to that the cheap credit that entices the business community to always build out for growth, not sustainability in a zero economic growth environment. Then one has to get the growth through immigration and/or exporting the jobs. So business gets on the growth treadmill, and then has to buy into all the liberal pablum to keep the treadmill going.

      • Also the “financialization” of the economy that happened during the 80s. “Let’s package up this bad debt in the form of ‘securities’ and let the next sucker worry about it!”

    • “And in the space of 24 years managed to utterly ruin our country economically and demographically. it doesn’t even resemble what the country looked like 30 years earlier.”

      This is what I find so shocking. It doesn’t even resemble the country from 15 years ago.

      I am young. I can look at videos of my city from 1985, 1995, 2005… and it is almost 100% white people walking around. What happened? Even in my childhood during the early 2000s, there was barely a non-white person to be seen. In the center of a large urban city.

      And now, you go to the grocery store (any neighborhood) and it absolutely packed with blacks, Arabs, Pakis, Indians, Chinese, etc. I would be okay with the demographics from 2005 FFS! I believe the governments are lying to us about the rapidity of the demographic changes taking place.

      I am thankful that I have those memories of a white childhood… they are constantly lying that “Canada has always been diverse” etc… But I know the truth and I will never forgive, nor forget TPTB for stealing my future and my country from me.

      • Same where I live here in the high desert of Southern California. In 1985 my town with almost all white,very low crime to the point you didn’t have to lock your door at night. The public schools were safe and good as well.

        By 1989 we started getting low income apartments and black trash from Los Angeles to inhabit them. And then came the crime increase. The city parks became drug dealing and gang hang outs no longer fit for children

        By 2005 the town was getting very brown thanks to our open borders.Our public schools became unfit for whites as Mexicans took them over.

        By 2009 when the CA GOP collapsed all hell broke loose. The Left started dominating state politics like crazy. At that point whites lost any representation at the state level

        By 2015 half the population was Mexican and mostly illegal at that another 12% was black. Whites are now a minority.The local hospital;s all have security guards and metal detectors in the ER because of the gang problem.

        Today my town is loaded to the gills with illegal aliens some barely pass muster as human and they are as dumb as rocks. You see them in grocery stores prowling the isles for things to steal. The medical clinics are loaded to the gills with them. Most so stupid they are unable to take medications without a helper.

        Crime is much worse since the last governor turned a many felonies into misdemeanors. Now the police won’t even respond anymore since all they can issue is a ticket instead of doing a arrest.

        Then there is the homeless problem which didn’t even exist 3 years ago.

        • Been in SoCal for 10 years. Coastal blue collar city of HB. Was mostly white in schools. Now, not so much – only 23% of students in CA are Caucasian, and this really happened virtually overnight (in the span of 10 years). It is noticeable and real. In most of the interactions within my company and other settings, often times I am the only white – which makes me a minorty in those settings. Dispossessed majority – yes the pols have been lying to us. California is the model. Demographics are destiny. It should be no surprise though, this has been planned since the Hart Celler Act of 1965.

  15. I think the embrace of radical egalitarianism, at least on the surface, was intended as a sort of drug for the masses. It’s like a controlled train-wreck that can no longer be controlled. If the lumpenproletariat think they are equal, they are more likely to remain quiet and enjoy the bread and circuses. But once they detect the Great Lie, they become “disquieted”.

  16. The founders created a republic instead of a democracy because they knew about the biological distinctions spoken of throughout this essay. They were influenced by the Enlightenment but not wholly controlled by it????? I dunno, Mr. Z; I do suffer from Dunning-Krueger Effect, but I have two cents and I keep spending it. I haven’t read you long enough but I wonder where religion fits in your thinking.

    I liked how you pointed out the possible events which might explain how we got here: The Sixties; Obama; WWII; Obama; One-Worlders Post WWII; Obama; 1913 the Fed; Obama; the amendments creating income taxes; Obama; and direct election of senators; Obama; John Dewey; Obama; FDR, etc. etc. etc.

    You write interesting stuff. But I don’t know if we need a new code when we keep re-discovering what the founders knew, that our hearts are evil — so evil that if we get just a little bit of power we become very dangerous. They didn’t want consolidation but that’s what happened right after Washington stepped down and tried to set the example.

    I really hate lawyers. They thrive on our misery.

  17. This is a heady essay – much food for thought. Maybe I’m unimaginative but I still think some of our Founders got a lot of things right, but they unfortunately didn’t take the conspiracies of their day seriously enough. The Anti-Federalists saw it but were sidelined; this was a regrettable turning point in our history.

    Today’s progressives work to build their brave new world with a wrecking ball to history. But dissidents need to go back to workable foundations – realistic assumptions – and stand on the shoulders of ancestral truth. This was the formula of Jefferson and Paine. In American history I contrast the right-thinking of Jefferson and his desire for a natural aristocracy, essentially a meritocracy. I still think this concept is workable in the modern world.

    Another truth lost through modern conditioning is that smaller and decentralized is better than bigger and centralized. So the old Civil War question of state sovereignty needs to be revisited. “Bigger is better” is also under the auspices of the Monroe Doctrine, which hasn’t been seriously questioned for 2 centuries. Assuming that radical change can come about peaceably (huge assumption), we should be considering a return to Articles of Confederation rather than an amended Constitution. The Constitution and its black-robed wordsmiths is what got us into this mess. Shred it and start over. Another big conditioning statement is “all men are created equal;” this statement needs to either go away or have several qualifying clauses attached.

    Essentially we need to go through the entirety of American lexicon and dissect all the memes and cliches and judicial findings we just assume to be true. Start with just about everything that Lincoln said about the Union and flip it 180-degrees.

  18. Everybody gangsta til the shoe on the other foot, yo.

    It’s easy for people to say their race is better, or [insert X characteristic] is superior, but people seem to have a hard time squaring the moral bankruptcy of the elite with their superiority in other domains. It’s hard to acknowledge your own inferiority, and that undermines the ability of people to believe in hierarchy.

  19. “The history of democracy is a blood bath to prove it works everywhere for all people.” succinct.

    • The interesting thing is the average American has no interest in forcing democracy on foreign nations. Our people had to be goaded into various foreign ventures ranging from the Spanish-American war to WWI and WWII. Same with Iraq 1.0 and 2.0. All the other current wars in Africa and ME were started by our elites not by the American people.

      However what we do find is that corporate and political interests hide behind so-called politicization efforts like the Arab Spring and the color revolutions in the old Soviet empire.

  20. New best post ever!

    It is frustrating to listen to Dissident Right types talk as though we just need to tweak the system a little bit and all will be well. They just want Liberalism circa 1980. Liberalism without foreigners. Liberalism is the problem. it has to go. However, that is very scary for many people, even those on the Right.

    • I’m all for tweaking the system (short-term) if it doesn’t harm us in the long-term.

  21. I read that Gottfried piece, and there were some revealing passages:

    1) Despite his nod to dissident Right ideas like “the limits of pluralism [and] genetic influences on social behavior,” he is really just a another “creedal conservative.” He’s just offering a slightly different flavor from the one on offer from other “creedals” like Benny Shapiro and Yoram Hazony. Anyone can join who is “concerned with social morality, a sane non-interventionist foreign policy, and the taming of the egalitarian madness that is now subverting most Western societies.” He wants to “stand for something” rather than stand (and live) with someones.
    2) He decries the anathematizing with the labels “racists and anti-Semites” of various heterodox conservatives towards whom he is sympathetic, but he accepts as legitimate the smears these same people use against the members of the dissident Right with whom he disagrees. Those people, says Gottfried, must “free themselves entirely from white nationalist and even neo-Nazi associations.” He even goes as low as the classic “guilt by association” route, by mentioning the lunatic mass murderer in El Paso, Texas.
    3) While he avers that he has “benefited from reading…miscellaneous independent Alt-Rightists,” he chooses to mention only one: Richard Spencer. Regardless of what one things of Spencer, it is inarguable that the establishment, Left and Right (as well as Gottfried), have done their best to beclown him, and as a result mentioning him will motivate few people outside the dissident Right to search the web for his writings. If Gottfried truly believed that one could “benefit” from reading at least some on the alt/dissident Right he would have named them. But he didn’t.
    4) Gottfried repeatedly refers to elite Leftist “whites” in academia, the media, etc. There are without a doubt many, but to paraphrase the character in the Princess Bride, “you keep using that word, but I do not think it (usually) means who you think it means.”

    Conclusion: Gottfried is an opponent not a friend of this thing of ours.

  22. In response to UFO from yesterday:
    “You had multiple children and not a single one gave birth to children? Are they past the child-bearing age now?
    Goodness, America is effed.”

    UFO….We are effed. My folks were Commies. They were only children. I am an only child. I had 1 child. This is your upsidedown pyramid of the Left. My girl had endless miscarriages. Life is relentless. So make up for my lack. Please be aware I made a long trek across the desert to get to this side of the divide. Children or not.

    • Yeah, I wasn’t blaming you for a lack of grand children or anything, it just struck me as sad to see the end of your genetic line.

      I plan to have ten or more white children, ideally.

      Living without children seems attractive when you’re young – more free time, more time to work, way more money saved… BUT in every scenario I run in my head, it’s awfully grim once you crest middle age and are staring down the last 20-30 years of your life, alone. High future time orientation, as the HBD crowd says. So sad to see young women who don’t have this trait, thinking they will stay young and ride the carousel their entire lives.

      If for whatever reason I end up not getting married, I will become a sperm donor and impregnate white women. It sounds like a joke but it’s not.

      Production of new racial kin (white children) is the number one goal of my existence, there is not a chance I will fail this task.

      • Oh Lordy! I’m still laughing! You go man! Horse before the cart….find a good compatible gal and enjoy a gaggle of kids. You don’t have to end up like the donor bulls.

        As for being the end of my line, Eh…the way it is. Somebody has to be the end of the line. Might as well be me. After I croak, I won’t even care.

      • If for whatever reason I end up not getting married, I will become a sperm donor and impregnate white women. It sounds like a joke but it’s not.

        Don’t do it. When your children think of their father, they will visualize some loser in a clinic cubicle, whacking off to Stormy Daniels for fifty bucks a squirt.

        Fighting with wombs is the strategy of barbarians, the strategy of vermin. Quality, not quantity, will determine the outcome of the coming conflict.

      • Have the 10 kids, but then devote yourself to homeschooling, and then buy a farm. Those kids need to be separated from government propaganda and a peer group of fools … then they need labors to grow and thrive, and lessons that will allow them to survive/thrive through crisis. Just my 2 cents. I had 6 kids (4 not yet out of the home) … the farm came along 10 years ago and cemented every relationship in our family. Tell the 10 kids 10 times a day that they are each others’ best friend … it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy if you make that a centerpoint of parenting.

        Rooting yourself and family on a productive piece of American land is a good way to churn out great Americans. And another side benefit – my kids haven’t needed a doctor for 10 years, thanks to my oldest daughter becoming a master herbalist and the diet that goes along with raising our own food.

        Bottom Line – don’t just have the 10 kids and then raise them like everyone else, else you’ll be miserable 10-times over.

    • My parents tried for years and years to have kids. By the time they gave up they no longer qualified to adopt an infant (too old). They were pushing fifty when we came along. I wish people would think twice before making assumptions (which are none of their business, anyway) about why some folks are childless or have only one child.

    • Fifty-plus years’ ago I grew up with schoolmates we now call “red diaper babies”; then, in my super-liberal then-women’s college, lots of the same. I have not changed my political “spots” and either have they, many continuing in prosperous professional careers. I would say that 85% or more of the women I grew up with are either divorced or never married. A few pioneered doing odd things like trans-racial adoptions — but they still ended up getting divorced! One classmate has a trans child, with a much younger 2nd husband, from female to now male and a Ph.D. in trans studies at some university. What kind of child rearing produces that sort of thing? An unhappy one IMO. Sad. But don’t you even try to engage in any criticism. They will eat you alive and blame Donald Trump. These are screwed-up people, upper middle class as well as scions of “old” money.

      To get a real flavor for how the latter think, read The Bishop’s Daughter by Honor Moore. She lays it all out in black and white! She is writing about a world that no longer exists. We can be thankful for that in a way, as those from this upper crust milieu have certainly done enormous damage to our country while blithely operating as its saviors, but there was a certain ORDER to their way of life, showing the rest of us how things were done properly. This is the critique that’s currently used to vilify white males. Horribly, women and other angry clots of humanity are smashing this incomparable legacy as we speak!

      The girls I knew who had abortions, some even getting married to the “boyfriend” eventually with big weddings — all divorced, say after 15-20 yrs. I can only think of one truly “brainy” woman — one of the first at Yale LS — who was both conservative and a mother — of one child. Yes, she got divorced, too, but remarried an old guy, head of her big law firm. Now she’s a rich widow;-) I would love to do a statistical analysis of my classmates to see how many offspring we actually produced. My husband (50+ yrs married) and I had two and now have four grands. Not really impressive, but we are glad to carry on our solid genetic posterity.

  23. Reality is on our side, but the problem is that reality doesn’t win hearts and minds; propaganda does.

    And the fact is that if we want to win, we’re going to have narrativize, romanticize, and emotionalize (i.e., propagandize) our thing. Because the average person’s mind only receives information in these forms.

    Normie hears the unwieldy term “human biodiversity” and starts becoming comatose.

    Reality needs help. So, strange to say, we’ll have to be “propagandists for truth.” We have to tell people a simple and compelling (and, indeed, flattering) story.

    • Yes, people understand their world as a series of stories, internalized. We need to be compelling storytellers.

      • Very nice, Babe & Dutch. You can do it without propaganda, you can use mythology. Bring the old myths forward by using modern metaphors, to cut thru the intellect and reach the awareness.

        Bring forward the retold myths that teach what it is to live a human life regardless of circumstances. That inform the individual they stand on a ground of being. That they are a part of something, a member of tribe with honor and duty to participate with their peoples. That ultimately they are something beyond the objectified apparent world.

    • Yep, you don’t win with the truth, at least in the short run. Z correctly says that we need a positive identity, but I’d argue that before we can present Joe and Jane Normie with an alternative, we need to get them to stop believing in the current system; otherwise, they’ll never be open to even listening to an alternative.

      And to get them to doubt the current system, we need to show them its hypocrisy, immorality and hatred of whites. That may be negative, but it’ll work. Interestingly, Asians are the wedge into whites’ minds because whites can look at them as a group and not feel like Hitler.

      “Why are poor whites and Asians discriminated against in college admissions?”

      “If whites have white privilege, then Asians must have Asian privilege because they do better than whites.”

      “Why can a black man say that he’s proud to be black, but a white man can’t?”

      Etc., etc.

      Show whites that the system is corrupt, then give an alternative.

      • As discussed before, there is a new generation of Whites growing up in a far harsher environment now arrayed against them than any previous generation. They will be the natural recruits when the Boomers die off in the next 20 years and Generation X is found to have no solutions, but rather been basically complicate in the current breakdown of society.

        The trick now would seem to survive the current onslaught of repressive measures being arrayed against us and researchers in the field of HBD.

        • As discussed before, there is a new generation of Whites growing up in a far harsher environment now arrayed against them than any previous generation.


          As someone said above, our generation is living a life of material superabundance – we are the Knights of Summer. Nothing more illustrates this than Youtubers who complain about Youtube censorship: they take the shekel but whine about the lack of lube when they get assraped by their chosen masters.

          The next generation will be less concerned about making money and more concerned about securing the existence of our people and a future for white children

    • I think for most people esp the ones that think emotionally it comes down to two things: Does position ‘x’ on this issue ensure that I fit in to the group. Does it also make me a good person. In that case I shall support position ‘x’.

  24. Over and over, a central thesis reappears and becomes inexorable: the moral high ground is the lynchpin to all arguments regarding culture, politics and everything that issues from these. If your moral axiom (egalitarianism in this instance) rests upon observably false conclusions about human nature, all deductions subsequent will fail you eventually. This may be why for we dissidents the bread and butter of mainstream politics and cultural arguments has become so meaningless and irrelevant.

    Sitting in an airport, overhearing the rank hysteria over impeach orange bad man on CNN, one wonders at the at the impotent hours spent by so many minds on fruitless gyrations about events that change nothing. The dissident thinks about how to live in a society that toils every day to lie to itself in desperate haste, clinging to pretty deceits that prop up an insupportable view of man. All men are created equal sounds so noble. However because this ultimately means any and all discrimination must be evil, even observing that a surgically mutilated woman is not a man is a grievous sin. Soon, observing that children are not adults will be considered taboo. Even in tv shows about dogs we receive lectures that all dogs are good, yet pit bulls are not poodles and have been deliberately bred to be different.

    The only useful arguments regarding our dilemma must center on shifting the moral lynchpin away from Rouseauvian fantasies to a view of man that recognizes our differences. Bears and sea anemones are both animals yet it is ludicrous to pretend that their differences merely reflect arbitrary mental constructs. Until we understand that man, with all his complex behaviors and society, far more complex than those of lower animals, contains within his species differences more intractable than those between poodle and pit bull, nothing will change.

    • Now that even “equality under the law” has fallen by the wayside, the equality farce becomes a more and more difficult sell.

    • “…one wonders at the impotent hours spent by so many minds on fruitless gyrations about events that change nothing…”

      George, I know you are being somewhat rhetorical in your response here, but you answered the question yourself. The average joker rants and raves because he knows no better—and more importantly, is incapable of knowing better. Hell, the average joker wouldn’t even understand your posting with its references to Rousseau, and you want to discuss “mental constructs”?

      That’s democracy for you in the 21st century.

    • As an example of the topic. I just watched “the five” on FOX. It is really a third rate talk talk show, of course they all are now, but I watched. You have Donna Brazile attempting to make a point about something and it is obvious that she is a total moron. No serious person should pay any attention to her at all.

      Yet you have the other members of the panel listening attentively, or pretending to listen, to her sub 90 IQ logic. They must act like she has something worth saying because “equality”.

  25. The Enlightenment was a consequence of the decay of a naturally evolved nobility. This decay was caused by the Reformation. Not its theological battle but by the collapse of the temporal authority of the altar. Throne AND Altar maintained a balance in how a natural nobility carried out their respective rights and duties. The Throne protected its charge from predatory outsiders and malicious insiders…The Altar saw to the needs and rights of the non noble castes and kept in check the overreach of the worst of the nobles. (The Reformation was the result of 3 centuries of steady rot within the ranks of the clergy).

    The Reformation destroyed that balance. An unchecked Throne and landed nobility wielded too much power and became predatory and avaricious. The symbiotic relationship among the castes that had evolved and ruled the West since our ancestors had been wandering through the Holocene grasslands could no longer function.

    And here we are. 12,000 years of slow complex social-bio evolution rotted out from the inside and so battered from without during the past few centuries…that little of it is even recognizable. Never mind recognizable to men of a few centuries ago…it would not even be recognizable to men born 3 or 4 generations ago.

    • I think the enlightenment was more the result of excess human capital. The stock of smart people increased to a point where the West had extra to focus on esoteric topics. We appear to be heading in the reverse now, compounded by the flood of stupid people from over the horizon.

      • Reminds me of Pascal’s,
        “All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”

      • In that case, why didn’t the Enlightenment kick off during the Roman Empire? As some dude on the internet observed, the Romans had all the tools at their disposal to start the Industrial Revolution, yet they barely evolved, scientifically or philosophically, from the Greeks.

        For a people that ruled the world for almost a thousand years, it’s pretty condemning that you’d be hard pressed to name one Roman invention or original philosopher. They didn’t even invent their own gods, for heaven’s sake, they appropriated the Greeks’.

        • These sorts of paradoxes are common. Why did it take modern humans ~50,000 years to figure out farming? Why did it take so long to master the lever? The modern plow?

          Technological advance is cumulative.

          • These sorts of paradoxes are common

            Yes. And lots of other European societies had an abundance of idle upper-crusters, so unless you can explain why these societies didn’t enlighten while 17th c. Northern Europe did, your explanation isn’t very helpful.

            If I were to guess, I’d say the typeset press gave the necessary kick. Not only did it allow mass distribution of text, but it allowed authors the anonymity to express heretical thoughts.

            Much like the internet today, if you’ll excuse the sidetrack. I figure online anonymity was the single most important factor in the 2016 election result. Shortly after his victory, Trump said: “I’m just a messenger” – the election was all about social media and only marginally about Trump as a candidate.

            And that’s where I get my white pills: I believe we’re at the dawn of a new age, facing a revolution comparable to the enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution combined.

          • Felix. There is a book (too lazy to look it up) that discusses IR—“Son Also Rises”?—in which there was one thing noted of pertinence to your comment. Most all of Europe was primed for the advent of the IR. It had to start somewhere, and it started in England, big deal. But the spread to the rest of Europe (sans the more backward Eastern) was quick, which the author cited as proof that the seeds were sown. Again, perhaps culture with a strong dash of religion is involved for those European nations lagging behind.

          • I figure a reply to the Needham Question would be the same as to the Roman Question. Nobody ever accused the Romans of being dumb; they achieved astonishing accomplishments with the intellectual tools at their disposal, but they were not very creative.

            Like the Chinese, the Mediterranean cultures seem to have had a ceiling at about Renaissance-level of intellectual growth.

            Whether China can progress beyond the Renaissance on their own, remains to be seen, but as they’ve been stuck in the Renaissance for almost a millennium, I wouldn’t hold my breath. In the eighties, the Yellow Peril was coming from Japan, but as it turned out, the Japanese were unable to overtake the West – which is to say the civilization of North-Western Europe.

        • Felix, perhaps the Romans had other interests/priorities/proclivities? They sure as hell had a f$3kload of slaves to do things we would now try to automate via technology. Slave abundance grew to a point such that the working class Roman citizen had few to no employment possibilities. Octavius was a hero when he took power and passed laws to limit slave labor and require the hiring of a specific percentage of Romans.

          The Chinese had gun powder for centuries, but used it for firecrackers and perhaps a crude weapon or two. Europeans got it and viola, instant carnage and worldwide conquest. Culture?

          My suspicion is that Z-man is much closer to right than wrong, an abundance of smart people in the upper classes, a Western European culture/religion that promoted self interest, a bending of the Malthusian curve so that fewer folk were needed on the farm and were available for industry. Viola, Industrial Revolution.

          • They sure as hell had a f$3kload of slaves to do things we would now try to automate via technology.

            Good point, but while that would explain the lack of inventions, it doesn’t explain the dearth of philosophers and scientists. The Carthaginians had slaves too, but they produced Archimedes, arguably the greatest scientist in antiquity and the greatest mathematician in all of history.

      • Your point goes hand in glove with mine…

        People were forced to develop their temporal abilities to survive because the old order which had once protected their interests no longer functioned properly.

        The breakdown in group dynamics forced an increase in individual actions to meet needs and desires. Skills and abilities increased to pursue those needs and desires. The pursuit of wealth and the rise in the abilities to do so replaced older pieties as ideals.(Max Weber).

        This became the pivot point that differentiated the West from the East. In the East the old aristocratic order continued to function normally. Men remained part of a polis and weren’t forced into becoming “their own priest-politician”. If everyone needs to become their own priest- politician they do so at increasingly levels of decadence. Today it is all driven by a bum’s rush for mammon and orgasm.

        Man has made a Faustian bargain not with Mephistopheles but with himself: he lives as something he is not: a sovereign individualist…in the pursuit of tangible wealth: a substitution for a supportive multigenerational family that is entwined within a community.

        Offsetting the delicate balance between the the temporal and the spiritual in human affairs is often the root of most of our problems.

  26. Yes, as long as the trapdoor of equality remains underfoot, the debates over how ‘our democracy’ should function are merely forks colliding over pie crumbs.

    The other dangerous aspect of equality baked into democracy is that it undermines the social mechanisms that an honest reckoning with hierarchy provides.

    Instead of people building communities around the reality of their fellow man, we get the Government lording down the Law that all men (and women!) are equal.

    Because the Govt is at once the official handicapper of the more capable and the caretaker of the less capable, communities can no longer function freely to sort out not just their hierarchy, but also the care and utilization of the lesser able.

    The social and religious structures either crumble beneath the weight of the lies or succumb to them and become agents of the orthodoxy.

    The inherent entropy of igoring reality must be be held together. Instability is camouflaged through motion – so we must continue to evolve toward the perfect union. All that is left is more progress. That is, until there are no more pie crumbs.

  27. “Both struggle, however, to transcend their conditioning, which shows how powerful the egalitarian ethic is in the West. It can overcome not only facts and reason, it can make you question your own observations.”

    I have not read them, but is it possible Hazony and Gottfried are faking a compromise with egalitarianism to avoid being crushed by backlash?

  28. This brings us back to the problems of “intelligence”, which no one adequately understands, and perhaps no one truly can.

    There are many kinds of intelligence, but no “intelligent people” in an absolute sense. Ask yourself this: if you had a major physics or mathematics problem would you not want Einstein to solve it for you? Of course. But does that mean Einstein is intelligent? Not necessarily. Would you want Einstein managing your retirement portfolio? Or running the country?

    Not so obvious now, is it? Speaking for himself the Booby would love to have Einstein tackle his physics problems (if the Booby had physics problems to tackle), but don’t put that semi-retarded savant in charge of the Booby’s investments, or let him make decisions on the geopolitical balance of power. No way.

    People see some idiot musician compose a complex tune and even throw in a few clever lyrics, and people think “ooooo, he must be smart”. What you don’t see is that same musician can’t manage his own life, money, personal relationships, or what have you. Yet people swoon whenever some idiot rock star makes a declaration about how the country ought to be run.

    No two people in the world are “equal” (whatever that even means). Does that mean democracy is bad or can’t work? Not necessarily. Every political systems seems to self-destruct given enough time. Has Western democracy finally failed. Probably, but that doesn’t mean the last 50 years or so would have been better under a hereditary monarch. Or maybe it would have. Would a king have looked at the dwindling demographics and concluded that boatloads of immigrants were needed. Quite possibly. We just don’t know.

    • Can’t upvote this enough, someone is not fully red pilled on HBD until they understand both the importance AND the limitations of “intelligence”.

      Many progs have a reasonably high IQ…but this just makes them better at learning the rules of progressivism and navigating its complexities.

      Similarly, the equality meme has certainly had disastrous effects, but that does not necessarily mean we must create a society which seeks to maximize inequality.

    • “Would you want Einstein managing your retirement portfolio? Or running the country?” That depends on the alternative. If it’s Biden/Warren/Harris, or anyone in the general population with an IQ below 90, I would choose Einstein every time.

    • There are many kinds of intelligence, but no “intelligent people” in an absolute sense.

      Intelligence – as measured by IQ tests – is a general quality: if you score high on an IQ test, you’re academically competent across the board. Idiots savants – people who are brilliant at one thing and incompetent at others – do exist, but they’re a tiny minority. Chance is, if you’re good at math, you’re good at most other stuff too.

      The trope about “multiple intelligences” is Commie nonsense, no actual scientist believe in it. There’s one intelligence: “g-factor”, as the boffins call it, or “smarts”.

      Next to your parents’ income, IQ is the best predictor for success in life. I’d quite confidently let Einstein manage my stock portfolio, if I knew he was actually paying attention, doing a serious and dedicated job of it.

      • “Next to your parents’ income, IQ is the best predictor for success in life.”

        Even that might be understating the IQ effect, as IQ and parental income are themselves highly correlated. In da fense of da booby, I would also list judgement and self control as two lesser predictors of success that are not necessarily highly correlated to IQ, though the ability to delay gratification does tend to correlate to both success and IQ.

        • Even that might be understating the IQ effect, as IQ and parental income are themselves highly correlated.

          True, but with proper sample sizes and statistical methods, the two factors can be separated.

          IQ is perhaps the most useful metric in psychology, if for no other reason that it’s the only psychological trait that can be quantified in any meaningful sense; you have a cold, hard numbers to compare.

          • It might if we were able to exclude the “nepotism factor.”

            A fairly simple exercise, provided you have access to data on the social networks of your samples, and in all likelihood it is an intermediate factor of parental income.

            Just as IQ is the most useful metric in psychology by virtue of being the ONLY reliable metric, statistics is the most useful tool because it’s the only scientific tool in the psychologist’s box. You can do near-miraculous things with statistics, if you have sound data.

      • Felix, correct. I don’t subscribe, nor do I understand there are many in the field who still do, to “multiple intelligences”. However, we often seem to dwell on intelligence as the singular entity in the puzzle of “success in life”. The early researchers (IIRC) like Galton, discussed two important aspects wrt success: IQ or intelligence (IQ measures being in their infancy) and “Character”. Character being a quaint term for certain personality characteristics like attentiveness, openness, agreeableness, etc. All correlated with IQ, yes, but nonetheless important to success in life. Dutton discusses these in his new book, “The Genius Famine”, under the new term for character, “conscientiousness”. He has a YouTube video on such as well.

        So yes, if I knew Einstein had as high an “attentiveness” score as his Spacial Reasoning/Math IQ score, he might indeed be allowed to manage my stock portfolio. On the other hand, an old saw has it that he was a mess with his own financial affairs, so perhaps not. 😉

        • Character being a quaint term for certain personality characteristics like attentiveness, openness, agreeableness

          Yes, social intelligence. I would’ve inserted a caveat about that, but thought “fukkit, just stick to the main point,” but it seems social intelligence is less correlated to IQ than the other skills. The problem is that social intelligence isn’t quantifiable like IQ is, so it’s difficult to say anything analytical about it, except that it definitely to exists, and that it definitely influence your success in life. As for conscientiousness, that’s even harder to measure, and I suspect it is more of a cultural trait than a genetic one.

          I am not convinced by the Genius Famine argument, if by that you refer to the idea that the number of smart people is diminishing. There are more white people in the world than ever before, and more of them than ever before, are economically free to pursue intellectual inquiries.

          And yes, the quality of education may have devolved on average, but that’s because we ram the lower 98% down the universities’ gullets, whereas the universities of yore only admitted the cream of the cream. I bet there are more 2%’ers that there were a hundred years ago.

  29. “This is why we see campaigns by radicals to expand the ballot to children, criminals and the mentally feeble. They couch their cause in fairness, but ultimately what is driving them is absolute egalitarianism.”

    I don’t think it’s that noble. The Left wants to expand the ballot for the cold, hard reason that children, criminals and the mentally feeble can be vote-harvested. Fairness and egalitarianism are the red herrings.

  30. A fine work on the ridiculousness of egalitarianism is Martin van Creveld’s _Equality: The Impossible Quest_.

    It is an antidote to one’s notions of egalitarianism.

    Intellectual efforts to envision an egalitarian society require supremely asinine prerequisites: children do not exist, territorial integrity is assumed, no privation, etc.

    Practical efforts to impose egalitarianism result in spilled blood. The volume dependent on how vigorously egalitarianism is pursued and how out of line with reality are egalitarians’ objectives.

    • That’s where women come in, because they generally aim for an “egalitarian” system, to ensure their independent place at the table (whether or not this is true at the granular, micro level can be easily debated, but that is a conversation for another day). They see men of color, gay men, and transsexuals as allies in their quest. The evil white heterosexual male is the enemy here, because he insists on hierarchy, generally by force and the pecking order. Three things come from this. The first is that many mothers encourage this gay male, gender fluid thing with their male children, fearing that they will grow up to be some of those evil white males. The second is that they truly feel uncomfortable around white males, waiting to be dissed by them, while in the company of white males. The third is that they are accepting of other males, of color, and of gender and sexual orientation anomalies, as situational allies. They aren’t really comfortable with them, either, but seek to use them to help pull down the strongest male group in our society, the white males. Women are very clever and tactical in their social connections, generally moreso than men. We establish a social pecking order, and then get on with things. Women like to tinker with it all.

      • Here’s the paradox: In their own world, women are rigidly hierarchical. In my very first week in school, I noticed the chicken pecking order and the dominant lead female and the other girls fawning around her. I didn’t get it…didn’t make sense. Therefore I was excluded. Update to now, I dropped the big local fiber arts women group because it got taken over by the dominant organizationally prone women who set the agenda and the tone that all women should be producing artworks, active and volunteering according to the lead females. I like small groups and don’t like being moved like a chess piece, so I quit.

        Lefty women do hate men. Saw it develop 20 years ago. Couldn’t go to a grocery story without the clerk bitching about “Men!” I’d counter the argument and got sullen silence in return.

        Dutch, is this egalitarian socialist streak in women the same noticed by Aristophanes in 391 BC when he wrote The Assemblywoman? That makes me an outlier with women if this is hardwired. See, I have a tough time with many women and can’t un-see the women pecking order and their version of mean girls as enforcement.

        As I stated yesterday to Ursula, The fallacy is we were told we could do it all. You make a decision, you go in that direction, and you take the consequences of that decision. The feminists and the culture fooled us into thinking we could reap the benefits of going North-South-East-West all at the same time. It was a lie and goes against nature. Women have been brainwashed.

        Women have too much free time…..seriously. Life is not now about survival and avoiding hunger anymore. When things fall apart and our lives are up against the survival wall, I’ll bet you see Wammyn crawling on their lips through busted glass to men again to take care of them. There needs to be a few casualties by deprivation for the tables to turn.

        Basic Husband despises these women and states when will men wise up and quit fixing womens’ cars, painting their houses and doing chores for them. Let them suffer. He says they want to shite on men….then let them fix their s*** themselves.

      • Women have been so brainwashed, we have forgotten, not taught, common sense in men-women relationships. “Until we understand the real differences in what compels our behavior, especially under stress, we’ll keep bringing out the worst in each other. And never experience the real beauty of both men and women.” Men are now viewed as adversaries. There is a woman teaching common sense ways to understand both men and women. Just an idea…..


        Firstly, I don’t look at my husband as a girlfriend. That’s what girlfriends are for. I look at him more as a space alien then set out to learn his communication mode. Believe he thinks the same of me.

        Example: When I need to talk and unload about something that has agitated me, I ask him to put me on his dance card when it’s convenient. Then he doesn’t have to drop everything. He’s much more responsive to talking. When we talk, if it’s going to be animated with my emotion, I give him a set up by saying….I’ll be done in 10 minutes. If I’m not finished we’ll talk later or I’ll ask if he’s up to more. Then I accept his answer. Period. I don’t need him to offer a “Fix” to whatever I’m yammering about. I’m just blowing off steam. Just roll eyes and shrug now and then.” We’ve done this for so long, I rarely have to state the structure….I accept that 10-15 minutes of intensity is the limit for him. Because I have grown love for him, I don’t wish to see him melt. I don’t get even. I don’t set traps. Women seek gay guy friends so they can yap endlessly and exchange recipes.

        That’s the old joke: “Honey….do I look fat in this? Or substitute, “Honey, I need to talk ad infinitum about life, the universe and everything!” He responds, “I just drew an elk tag, it’s up and I’m out of here on the hunt. Bye!”

        • In my wife’s line of work, she has to deal with women, squidgy men, and occasionally real men. We work together to get it right for her as the real men relationships are concerned. Similarly, I work with female subordinates and, occasionally, superiors. She guides me away from the counterproductive actions and traps I might fall into. We are a team, as far as that goes. Venus and Mars.

          There are two “between the wars” British shows out there. Mrs. Dutch loves Downton Abbey, and I steel myself to sit through it. I like Peaky Blinders, and she is fascinated. In Downton Abbey, the patriarch is relatively uninvolved, pays for everything, and the women upstairs and downstairs scheme over everything. He is comfortable and totally bored with it all. In Peaky Blinders, the men run an extended gypsy family gang in Birmingham, complete with mob hits, teaming up and betraying other gangs, and preying on others. Brutal. The men fully live their lives, but often end up maimed or dead, and the wives and other women sometimes have to pick up the pieces (occasionally literally). So does one want to fully live, but on the edge, or comfortable but bored, waiting for it all to end? Somewhere in the middle seems about right. The Mrs. is now figuring this all out, watching the shows, as her starting point is comfort.

          • Happy on you for a team marriage!

            Are you referencing BBC 2013 Peaky Blinders? Confused it with John Thaw’s The Sweeney. I’m much like your wife…..too much mayhem and suspense and I pick up a book or drift out of the room. Couldn’t make it through Band of Brothers. Good stuff but too much stress for me. Are gals hardwired this way? Couldn’t watch Bluebloods when the PC Vibrant riots and chicanery popped up, triggered my working in downtown Oakland horror show anxiety.

            As for Downton Abbey, I’m done for now after seeing that Thomas the Underbutler plants a big sloppy wet one on his new hump. Phoooooooyuck! Will miss the dowager dutchess.

        • Certain women seek gay guy friends so that their own promiscuity doesn’t look bad by comparison!

  31. “Just as the Enlightenment struggled to escape the cocoon of the Middle Ages, biological realism is struggling for life today.” —- It’s not struggling, it’s just dormant. It’s dormant because enough people are paid to not see this reality. A mass bribery system, involving millions of people is in place to not see this stark reality. Trillions in deficits are run to NOT pay attention to this reality. Between governments, Federal state and local, , massive university systems, government contractors, tech unicorns, welfare spending, WIC payments, nonprofit grants, etc, the number of people who actually “make a living” is in the minority. Half the population is not employed in reality, so how should they know reality? I know I’m a broken record on this but the tide will turn quickly and violently when the government, forced with a big enough debt has to turn to the people and say Groups X, Y and Z we can no longer fund you. This will only happen when interest rates escape their control. Everyone will feel mugged at once when this happens, which will be reality coming back to town. The same will happen in the Eurozone, just with less black people starting grocery stores on fire.

    • Which if you are in a true Community when it happens it will affect you far less than if you’re not…The tech is out there right now that will let a Community that wants to be prepared be totally self sufficient if you’re in the right area…

      • JR and Lineman. While revealing about my lack of intellectual breadth, it seems governance tracks value exchange (bottom up) better than “experiments” in democracy. I’m intrigued by the challenges of scale in systems.
        Lineman, finding such a resilient community (or one that can be stood back up quickly) is what I’m after…or invest in it’s development. I’m a polymath, which means I’m not really good at anything, but I get relational commerce. Proximity to producers of my needs is where I’m starting the hunt for said community. If you have other indicators, please let me know.

        • Self sufficiency is absolutely important. If you’re not self sufficient you would be a net drain on any community that accepts you. Everyone needs to bring something to the table. And there will be a lot of people on the side of the road with hands out. The good thing about where Lineman lives is that the cold weather would sweep away the worst ones. Where I live we don’t quite get the cold snaps to move people along, hence CA already has half the homeless in the country before we even have our big economic blowup. I’m going to need a plow on the front of my car just to move the zombies away. And talk about break-ins that will happen. I already have a panic room upstairs.

          • A plow! Grim humor based on truth.
            Agreed that skills will be demanded, and I have a bit of that across several trades. My comment was specific to lofty forensic discussions and plans for government of the “next”. We have an eye on surviving the Next. While I’d love to see the plan for governing those that do survive, there is too much road between here and there for this brain.

          • Between this setup and the next setup you will have a bad set of years. I’m focused on being okay (no one will be doing well) during that bad set of years (the 2020s) before something positive emerges on the horizon. Think of 1990s Russia. That’s what we will have to get through. People selling shoes on the side of the road (that they stole from a UPS truck) to survive.

        • Moshammer,

          A the risk of reaching into Lineman’s recruiting pitch and getting decked… if the Bitterroots seem too harsh an environment, consider northwest Arkansas” Ozark area. Gentler clime, suitable economy, friendly right leaning (mostly) people, ample water, inexpensive land, church oriented groups and defensible hills and mountains.

          Lineman, don’t get angry Brother, where we can gather anywhere in safety we are stronger as a whole. And you Lineman Sir, have a friendly safehouse if you are ever traveling through Ozarkia. All will be in full swing in three years.

          As an aside, Cascadia in northern Washington, aside from the blemish of Bellingham, is growing in both dissatisfaction and preparedness-minded inhabitants. Another place to consider.

          • Thanks, PM. I have seen good data on AK…drove through once, it’s beautiful. Lake of the Ozarks are amazing. As a 8th gen Southern man, it’s hard to look outside this dirt…but pragmatism may win the day.

          • Oh no Brother I want that very thing to happen all over this country where it’s feasible…I love the Ozarks by the way and looked at locations there as well…I just love the cold more than the heat and bug situation 😉

        • Proximity to producers of my needs is where I’m starting the hunt for said community. If you have other indicators, please let me know.
          That is a good place to start but look too at what potential the place has for the future as well…If it can be defended easily, if it can be cut off from outside support and still survive, if it can feed it’s inhabitants by what it produces etc…Which I have done which is why I chose where I did…

          • Lineman…excellent. Thank you. Defense was lower on my list but you’ve reminded me of physical security beyond a property line. I think I’ll start a Best Practices list for dissident outlooks…Thank you (all of you) for offering excellent perspectives on this blog.

  32. The future of humanity is the clan.

    This is evident no matter where you go or who you talk to.

    The Kazakhs have an interesting system, where several families make a tribe, several tribes a clan, and several clans a horde. Each step up has less authority over the individual but more authority over their race in general. It organizes the mass of people while still keeping most control at the local, indeed blood level.

    It is not as valuable for political purposes now, but is a key social stabilizer/safety net in that part of the world.

    I’ve not had coffee yet so this isn’t as well laid out as I’d like.

    • I’ve had some coffee, so here’s background on what I posted earlier.

      I’ve been to Kazakhstan twice this year,
      about seven weeks in total, and despite my sincerest efforts the intricacies of clan law are not to be revealed to outsiders.

      Nonetheless, I can describe the effects of it.

      It prevented inbreeding in small, isolated populations for millennia.

      It changed Islam far more than Islam changed it, to the point that the Muslim missionaries stopped bothering.

      More interesting is how it dealt with the USSR. Stalin, a man for whom the ends always justified the means, had no qualms about testing his shiny new atomic warheads on Kazakh peasants. That said, even he was entirely unwilling to interfere with the clan structure. He desperately needed the mines in Kazakhstan, and committing cultural genocide would open a can of worms he didn’t think he could handle. In the 30s he tried the tried and true famine system to bring them to heel, and it proved to be far more trouble than it was worth. He learned he could simply bribe them with industrial developments, which left the culture intact.

      Interestingly, worshippers in the Russian Orthodox Church sometimes moved to Kazakhstan, as it was one of the very few places in the Soviet Union where they could worship openly.

      Even more fascinating is that Kazakhs have an extremely high opinion of Americans, as they credit us with knocking over the USSR for them.

      We have an ally there most don’t know even exist. They call themselves the forgotten people for good reason.

      • Nathaniel
        I hear you Brother and agree with what you stated and my proposal is based on that for suffrage where the closer the issue is that you are voting on the more power you have to control it and the further away the issue is the less control you have in voting for it but also the issue that is further away will have way less affect on you…

    • Amen. Tribe is truth

      The future belongs to the religious, fertile and tough just as it always does, If you want a truly powerful tribe, add brains. Start forming your tribe now and beat the rush.

  33. The checks and balances built into the governmental plumbing of our republic were supposed to serve to check the individual human ambitions to dominate and plunder. It turns out that this assumption was false. Ambition does prevail, and ambitious people will organize, tribally, to lord it over others and steal their stuff. Case in point, the current crop of Democrat politicians and their Republican sidekicks. Realism about the human condition needs to incorporate this phenomenon, and to brush it away as an anomaly is a certain sort of willful ignorance for what is right in front of your eyes.

    • Indeed. I was rubbernecking on Twitter this am (not a member) and the NT cucks are positively salivating for impeachment so their “dream team” of Pence-Haley can start a war with Iran. What the hell is wrong with these people?

  34. Against my better judgment, I just looked at Gottfried’s article. Yet again he rails against the “grotesque” charges of racism and antisemitism he and others have been the target of for however long. Like most of his writing, it is inspired by personal animus. He is bitter – not merely at the broken system, which we all are – but at how his own career has been harmed and limited by the liberal right. He epitomizes the “but what about meeeee?” type that Vox Day so cruelly but accurately satirizes. And for Gottfried to claim identitarianism (what he refers to as White nationalism) is a result of a “misdiagnosed pathology” again epitomizes what you wrote about. He doesn’t like how HBD makes him feel (as a Jew), so acknowledging human differences must go. He equates us to a mere pep squad, attempting to raise White self esteem. Finally, he boils all HBD down to intelligence, or “g,” like the IQ but race-blind fetishists over at Sailer (or your other soft spot John Derbyshire). When it comes to the critically important truth of Biology>culture>politics, Gottfried fails. He needs to shut up and retire and nurse his grievances in private.

  35. The idea that the checks and balances of our republic will be honored, has been shown to have failed spectacularly. Argue the various reasons for that, if you want to. But the fact of the matter is that people will ultimately be ruled over, not governed by fair democratic representation, every time. The trick is to make sure that the ruler somehow represents your personal interests, even if contrary to the interests of others, not the other way around. That is why I suggested no partitions yesterday. This is a one-side-wins-all game, even if there are three or four or ten sides to the game. It is in our interest that our side is the prevailing one. Not for any generous or egalitarian reasons, but for clearly selfish ones. Every other group is nakedly selfish in its demands, why not us? If we don’t look out for our own interests, who will look out for them on our behalf?

    • Dutch, agreed. We win, they lose…but even within our group, the majority of us are not capable of self government via democracy as implemented with universal suffrage. Suffrage must be earned and kept a prize that is worth striving for. So as we embrace HBD truths, we must realize that we as an ethnocentric group are also subject to such “laws”.

      • Amen to you both…When we get a chance to talk f2f I would like you to look over my proposal about suffrage and see where it can be improved…

        • Albeit abstract, the discussion of “rules for suffrage” comes up regularly here. However, the discussion would take a Z-man posting and entire comment section to even scratch the surface, so I tend to stay out of it—but rather content myself with the mention of the concept of a political organization sans universal suffrage. Hell, I’d just like to see a reasonable scheme for changing balloting and choosing of political candidates for office. It could do a lot to open up the current “2 party” system.

  36. “The Enlightenment was the software needed to take Western man out of the Middle Ages, through the age of sail and the industrial age, into the technological age.”

    This statement is simply false. Your essay is quite insightful about how hard it is to overcome the biases that we’ve been brainwashed with, Clockwork Orange-style.

    Then you make the statement I quote above, which has no real basis in reality. The Enlightenment ™ was the pseudo-philosophy of the philosophes, who were just publicity-hungry middling intellects. The fact is that hierarchical societies, including monarchies and fascist states, are just as able to implement technological societies. France under Louis XIV made huge strides, and was an absolute monarchy.

    The Enlightenment, in toto, was nothing but egalitarian bullshit that slowly but surely destroyed the West. It has nothing to do with the success of the technological age.

    Newton – even Descartes, and certainly the real scientists, such as Lavoisier etc., did not participate in lightweight, facile theorizing about equality.

    • There may be a little bit of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” in Z-man’s alliteration wrt the enlightenment and technological progress. But the main points remain solid. As you note one of the most tyrannical societies of modern times, USSR under Stalin, went from an agrarian backwater to 1st world nuclear power orbiting satellites in a space of time breathtakingly short.

    • You either don’t know the definition of hierarchy or you don’t know anything about software. My guess is the latter.

  37. Brilliant, Zman. As you note, this is where so many quail – and fail – refusing to accept the true social and political ramifications of HBD. Too many acknowledge some of its points but turn away in distress at others. Reality IS. Human differences ARE. No one’s feelings change this, but denial of these differences condemn us to the societal and civilizational destruction we live among today.

    I don’t share your soft spot for Gottfried – a huge part of his political makeup is insisting that only the eastern, peasant Jews were radicals, but the German Jews in America and Europe caused no issues. This is part and parcel of his denial of some aspects of HBD – just as TruCons’ favorite Negroes like Thomas Sowell cannot face the reality of overall Negro genetic differences. Women can moan and shriek but will thus merely reconfirm the reality of the root of the word “hysteria.” I don’t care whose ox is being gored. All the tinkering around the edges of the current system – even if it were to exist in a White ethnostate – will not change the reality that not all are equally fit to govern – not even themselves let alone others.

    • “…the reality that not all are equally fit to govern…”

      Our Founders realized that. The next generation, which included Jefferson, were swept up in the emotion of the French Revolution.

      • “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”

        And yet some Monarchs were better than others. And individuals corrupt at different rates.

  38. “The Great War that devastated Europe was ultimately to impose liberal democracy. “

    Had to stop reading after that, this was not a motivation for the war in any way.

    • Did you have a stroke at the point? Get clubbed over the head? What caused you to stop reading at that point?

      • He saw your badthink against the Cult of Whig history, and he wanted to stop reading before he became complicit in your thoughtcrimes, Zman.

        I have seen cultists in the comment sections of other blogs declaring, with some kind of stupid pride, at what point the cultist “stopped reading” the piece in question. I think that the situation is analogous to the way the Japanese Shogunate used to demand that visiting Europeans stomp on a small statute of the Virgin Mary, in order to make sure that the white visitors weren’t proselytizing Catholics. Like those Roman Catholics, some readers will not allow themselves even one moment of blasphemy.

        • During one of the Crusades, in the midst of the horrific siege of Damietta, Saint Francis of Assisi (what an outrage that the present fake pope desecrates the great man’s name) resolved to visit the Sultan of Egypt, in order to preach the Gospel to him but also to seek out a diplomatic end to the siege.

          The Sultan graciously granted an audience to St. Francis. But the Sultan’s religious advisers, in order to undermine the mission, caused a carpet woven with crosses to be placed on the pathway to the Sultan’s throne.

          St. Francis blithely trod on the carpet to approach the Sultan, heedless of stepping on the crosses.

          Aha! cried the imams. You have blasphemed your faith by treading on your holy cross!

          Francis shrugged. Not so, he replied: these are obviously the crosses of the two thieves who were crucified alongside Our Lord.

          Now that’s what you call a man with a mission.

      • Liberal democracy was neither the cause nor the result of the war.

        Parroting the propaganda used to sell war bonds and motivate the cannon fodder is not interesting.

      • Which one of Woodrow’s 14 points was “Liberal Democracy”?

        Regardless, American involvement in WW1 was of secondary importance.

        The claim that the Great War was for “Liberal Democracy” is a propaganda poster slogan at best.

    • Really, Buck? Read the sentence again. It does not state/mean that the cause was to “impose” democracy, but the “result of” was. In support of this conclusion, I submit how any number of the governments of those European countries participating in WW1 exchanged their heritable monarchies for parliamentary governments. I include Russia as well, as they initially had committees of the people in charge, but that of course was undercut after Lenin died.

      • The participants in the peace treaties that ended the war were far more concerned breaking up the multi national central powers and establishing national sovereignty for the various ethnic groups rather than concern for the types of government each nation was governed by.

        • Agreed. Nobody in charge anywhere at that time believed in the “make the world safe for democracy” hokum. That sort of propaganda kept the suckers willing to get killed. The war started with each of the belligerents scheming to grab more stuff and protect what they already had. After the war, Lloyd George and Clemenceau kept Wilson busy prattling about his ideals while they were busy quibbling over how to divide the spoils left by the losers.

        • Buck, that was precisely my point. The result of WWII was an increase in number of European nations using some form of democratic government. But the cause of the war was never to transform non-democratic governments into democratic governments per se, nor was nation building.

    • Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, 1876-1925
      When two augurs of the west are met together, they both know what liberalism is: a political trick: the trick with which the upstart society of the tiers état was able to swindle the tiresome, remaining plebs out of the promises of 1789. The augurs know what “liberty” means, that most seductive of the three catchwords with which the champions of the rights of man lured the deluded masses away from their dangerous barricades and shepherded them to the innocuous ballot box. When the Germans decry themselves as backward, they overlook the fact that this is what gives them in Europe their strength, their advantage, their future. An illusion used to pervade Germany that we must introduce all the new western ideas as well as all the new western institutions before we should deserve to share on equal terms in civilized history and be received in the society of liberalized nations. So we also set foot on the path of liberalism, not to our advantage, not to our credit, but to our doom—as the consequences of our collapse have shown. The westerners triumphed once more. England has got rid of her rival. France lives at our expense. Instead of “progress” we reaped ruin. Could we ask, simpletons that we are, a more terrible proof that the ways of liberalism are not ours? But we took the path, logically, inevitably, in harmony as we imagined, with the general trend of human civilization: we took it with German thoroughness. It seemed the only path for a man of the twentieth century—or even of the nineteenth. Socialists and liberals alike, turned their eyes to the west—not perceiving that socialism and liberalism are mutually exclusive—and even allied themselves in common opposition to the German state. For over a century we strayed amongst the errors, illusions and fallacies of democracy, under the impression that whatever a people wanted must be for its good as a nation—not realizing the danger that it might be the nation’s death warrant.

  39. “We need a new moral framework and to do that means deposing the current one and everything that it entails.”

    One thing I think should be kept in mind when trying to come up with new moral frameworks, codes, and replacements for our current system is:

    Would I be wiling to be at the bottom of this new system/society/framework?

    No wanna-be communist sees themselves as Tractor Factory Worker #3385, but a commissar or someone in the Inner Party. So if democracy, with ‘one man, one vote’ would have to go, would I be willing to give up my vote, as I’m currently unmarried, no kids, non-property owning; not much stake in the system? If it means a roll-back of the insanity and reorganization into a better society, that might be a sacrifice worth making.

    • Agree. What I think you seek, and many who dance with the idea of moving to a farm to just be left alone, is the dignity that liberalism has stolen from us. Replaced with a vote, which in most accounts is rather meaningless anyhow.

      The thing with living in a society arranged under the truth, is that however unfair or harsh it is at times, it still affords us a chance at human dignity.

      For all their talk of dignity, liberalism’s first move is to steal that from you and replace it with the kernel of the lie: that justice and equality are to be forged out of nature by man, instead of honoring the infinite ways in which natures solves for order on its own.

      That first lie, to the self, when amplified by egalitarian entitlement is a destructive force that requires ever greater lies to survive.

      The result is that the system can never provide the dignity that one gets from living the truth of his own station in life and how it conforms with his environs.

      Bear with me.

      When I was an athlete in college, our coach, fearing that the graduation of our big man in the middle would handicap us, began coaching toward a convoluted set of plays and plans to make up for this perceived deficit.

      The result was a demoralizing and humiliating display of weakness disguised as strategy that ended up playing directly into the hands of the enemy.

      He stole from us the dignity of competing as men, head to head, as the game was meant to be played.

      In a furious fit one game early in the season, I let him have it: “If we are going to lose anyhow, at least let us lose as men, to better men, so we can at least say that we gave it our best.”

      To his credit, he cut us loose. Free to play as the game was intended, we wreaked havoc on the bigger, faster, stronger team.

      So much pent-up desire to compete was released that we scared the other team with a tie game after 3Q. They eventually beat us by a fair margin, but it took them all they had.

      We earned their respect. More importantly, we had our own self-respect back.

      We ended the season nationally ranked in the top 20, one win shy of the final four.

      Still without a big man in the middle. Which meant we could only go so far, the laws of nature and all. But we went as far as we could, with out dignity intact.

      I would gladly retire my vote (the convoluted weakness dressed as strategy) if it meant the opportunity to live in reality with fellow man, wherever I might fall in that stack.

  40. Before the ink was dry on the Constitution are demise was certain. The founders knew it but what the hell can you do. Hope.

    Now look at that freak show of candidates running for president. It is awfully hard to grasp how low we have descended. What is the expression, that politics is downstream from culture. Look how bad our culture was for decades and no in full decadent mode.

    Well, out of the ashes something may come for the better. The other side of history.

    • Exactly. The anti-Federalists prophesied much of the demise, although they never could foresee the abject stupidity of trying out the E Pluribus Unum concept with barbarian hordes.

      • Whatever. Guess what? If she wins we’ll still have open borders, no E-verify, no visa tracking, ever-increasing legal immigration, endless wars and unprecedented censorship.. The money-printers will be doing overtime. Wages won’t keep pace with the ever-increasing price of housing and health care. A pox on both (“D”/”R”) their houses.

    • Every time I see the Dem candidates talking, I get an overwhelming urge to buy a farm somewhere very remote, stock up on livestock, non-hybrid seeds, guns, and ammo. And I am really not the prepper type, but they are what the end of a civilization looks like.

        • I’ve been to the Bitteroot Valley, and it’s on my short list of favorite places in America, and a place my wife and I would love to call home. And the cold doesn’t bother me since I’m in Chicago.

    • As the guy put it, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”. And people weren’t vigilant and here we are.

  41. This essay is fantastic. The metaphysics of reality indeed. We have spent decades denying the real in defense of the democratic egalitarian ideal. I’m not sure this accurately summarizes the entirety of the Enlightenment, but it does demonstrate quite succinctly where we are now. That pervasive cognitive dissonance that makes many of us so uneasy is nothing less than the sense that reality is still out there, waiting to reassert itself as it always has and always will. How brutal and destructive the reassertion of reality is going to be is what I have nightmares about.

    • It is too bad that we cannot calmly, scientifically, and objectively discuss racial differences in public forums, much as a group of horsemen would calmly, scientifically, and objectively discuss the difference between breeds of horses.

      • Or breeds of dog, an even more common example people understand and accept. (Though there is a lot of nature/nurture debate about pit bulls)

      • In all fairness if yours was the breed biting people when it was not shitting on itself you might not want to discuss things calmly either.

    • With all due respect i think this misses the point. Labelling it as “noble” is the exact conditioning Zman was talking about.

          • The Whiskey Rebellion, against the corrupt Hamilton’s tax policy to favor bankers, was quite successful–the tax was withdrawn….

          • We seem to always get back to ragging on the Founders. Perhaps a better tack is to explain how else they should have organized the nascent USA via the Constitution? I hold that the people of the US (future generations) failed the Constitution and the principles that the Founder left us both in writing and example. Prove me wrong. 😉

        • No, it didn’t…The West was a howling success because of its limited franchise and hierarchical structure until the late 19th, early 20th century when an expanded male electorate and extension of the franchise to women, caused one disaster after another…Prior to 1860, the West was anything but egalitarian, and so functioned well.

          • I was thinking about how to reduce the franchise but without denying it to women and certain men directly. The easiest way that I can see at the moment is to only allow net tax payers in each electoral cycle to vote.

    • Seeing as how we raised commoners to the level of the nobility, and vice-versa, I’m not sure how much your statement stands.

    • Yes, but it did NOT at first embrace radical egalitarian principles. That arrived four score and seven years later.

      • The original framing was not completely egalitarian in form. Voting was very limited – property owners, males, etc., not slaves, etc. The original form of democratic republicanism may have contained seeds of destruction, but the maturation of those seeds included a very bloody civil war and 250 years of constant pressure by “elitists”. Ergo, I disagree that Western democracy cannot survive because of its “egalitarianism.” Modern western democracy must die when the populace can not or will not reject the machinations of the elitists.

Comments are closed.