The General Strategy Of Globalists For Gaining Dominion

People ask why certain phenomena, usually social and political, are now being observed. Take for example the apparently eroding state of relations between the sexes: men and women. There are a number of results that are precipitating in the wake of so-called "third- (or even fourth-) wave feminism", none of them anything a rational, learned, and honest individual would label as "good". Consider the so-called "MGTOW" (Men Going Their Own Way) movement, which has been growing in numbers and, apparently, determination, over the past several years with no signs of leveling off any time soon. An increasing number of men have become fed up with the strident and often dangerous nonsense of "feminism", choosing to avoid the traditional avenues of relations between men and women such as marriage, opting instead for single life such that they not become the victims of the profoundly unfeminine (i.e., greatly masculinized) females, the attitudes of which bring absolutely nothing attractive to the table of male-female relations.

Even in the workplace, men are now backing strongly away from women because of all the perilous nonsense with which so many females now threaten, including but not limited to false accusations of sexual harassment that most often ends badly for the accused; often without the courtesy of due process.

Such divisions do not limit to relations between men and women. Strife between differing groups such as religious persuasions and virtually any other popular subdivision you might care to name is now not only as common as dirt, but punctuated with a bitter stridency across nearly every such partition to a degree that may well be unprecedented, the scale being truly global.

We now return to the initial question: why is this happening in an era of such technological advancement where, supposedly, human understanding of so many things is claimed to have reached new and heady heights? How is it that despite all our advancements, rather than coming together in relations that should seemingly be more cordial than ever, humans are at each others' throats more widely and bitterly?

The reason is crystal clear: the objective is the destruction of the naturally extant relational cohesion between individuals. This can be readily observed on virtually any front you care to consider: relations between the two sexes, so-called "races", religions, ethnicities, orientations of philosophy, politics, sexuality, and so on down a very long list of the ways in which people might be seen as differing from one another.

Amid the shrieks and gnashing of teeth by those who ID as "left/progressive" for forced "tolerance" and "diversity", the theoretical result being a loving, tolerant, and diverse world of human relations, one runs face-first into the practical results to which all this wild tantrum-pitching points: a world of hateful, resentment-filled, deeply intolerant monoculture. In such a world the consequences for not cheering the politically correct bandwagon with sufficient enthusiasm stand to be grim. Do not even think of what will happen to you were you to be so foolish as to even appear to dissent in such a world, for to wander even near those high walls surrounding the plantation would carry great risk because such appearances would run headlong into what would doubtlessly be a zero-tolerance policy for "thought crime".

The goal of this dismantling of the cohesive bonds that have united people through nature for millennia is to weaken the en-bloc power of populations, ranging from pairs of friends and couples, to major popular subdivisions and entire national populations.

You are bearing first-hand witness to globalist activity pursuant to the establishment of Theire so-called "one world" hegemony through the agency of weakening what I call "super-organisms", the wholes of which are effectively far greater than the mere sums of the parts (individual human beings). Superorganization is one of the cornerstones of human power with direct implications for those who would reign over their fellows, as well as those who would remain as Freemen.
We are being effectively subjugated through the elimination of the power that the cohesion of VOLUNTARY agreement between individuals brings to entire populations. The simple and age-old trick of "divide and conquer", augmented with our contemporary information technologies, is working like a charm, right out in the blatant open under the noses of virtually every man, woman, and child on the planet. Its intent is to weaken you by eliminating the power your relations lend you as an individual and effectively as a group of family, friends, and willfully cooperating associates.

Further to the goal of undermining individual power is the imposition of forced cooperation between individuals who would likely otherwise choose not associate with one another. Such arrangements maintain tensions between individuals, which prevents them from coming together in natural cooperation, leading thereby to more powerful social structures in the form of friendships and group efforts toward commonly agreed goals and objectives. This is precisely what Theye do not want happening, for no matter how reduced a generation of men may become in terms of intellect and smarts, the risk always remains that someone will "twig" to an idea that stands as anathema to the desires of those in power, and that can never be tolerated by tyrants.
Therefore, the reduction of general knowledge is insufficient to the maintenance and further cultivation of ever broader and deeper political power. The bonds that naturally arise between people when they come together through individual accord carry with them an inherent threat to the standing power. Such bonds must, therefore, be eliminated and prevented from reestablishment. The way to do this is to bring people into an environment of perpetual, low-intensity warfare with each other, where nobody trusts others sufficiently to allow such bonds to form. This is why we see groups of people who are fundamentally incompatible with each other, whether ethnically, morally, philosophically, or however you care to consider, FORCED into proximity with each other, all in the name of much vaunted "diversity".  
Some would attempt to countervail the implications of this by asserting that those groups would eventually get over their initial discomfort with each other because such tensions cannot possibly endure for very long. Yet, our history readily demonstrates just how false this assertion truly is. Mutual group hatreds of the most stridently bitter timbre have endured for centuries and even millennia.

A good example of such violent disagreement between groups can be found in the Balkans, where Croats and Serbs have despised one another for centuries, requiring precisely zero outside interference to keep the fires of hatred well stoked to the extent that they have remained in states of material warfare with each other during the entire period, save the handful of decades in which the iron hand of Tito kept them at bay during Yugoslavia's brief tenure as a barbaric totalitarian nation-state. Tito's body was not yet cold before Serbs and Croats were back at the old hatreds, murdering each other by the tens of thousands.

Consider the animus between Christians and Jews which held for nearly two thousand years as the Roman Church egged the faithful on to hate the people they deemed guilty of murdering their Messiah. In like fashion, Jews eagerly regarded Christians as "goyim", no better than common cattle, unworthy of the least consideration save that they had to be approached with cautious respect because they were dangerous creatures, mere empty-headed animals with swords.

We could skip, traipse, and dance merrily down a drearily long litany of similar examples that demonstrate the gross and prosperity-sapping inefficiencies of such degraded human relations where people invest their precious resources toward their mutual suspicions and hatreds. What a sad, tragic, and shameful waste of our most precious commodities! Consider that the vast and overwhelming majority of human technological advancements have come to us in our frenzied search for military advantage over those for whom we hold little better than suspicion and contempt because they are not us. Contrary to the almost universally accepted false dichotomy, one group of humans can in fact live and let live. One group is under no obligation to love another. Two populations may readily find the other repulsive in virtually every way and still choose and actively endeavor to leave each other alone and in peace. But no; we actively endeavor to interfere with one another up to and including the point of mass, mechanized slaughter.

And why? It is decidedly not perforce due to "human nature" but almost always the result of an agitating outside force, most often "government" though not universally so, that whips people into frenzies of fear, paranoia, and blind hatred such that the respective populations, so primed, become eager to go at each other, as if it were all a grand cock fight. At the very least, the petty suspicions cultivated by the muck-raking tyrant can serve to establish and maintain a virtually perpetual state of low-intensity stress upon the populations in question that tax away much of the vitality that would otherwise be devoted as matters of natural course toward far more profitable enterprises. But such endeavors turn eyes away from the vainglorious Fearless Leader, whose deep mental pathologies render him wholly incapable of tolerating such slights to his self-assessed magnificence. Furthermore, the eyes that turn away from the despot today, become the backs that turn toward him tomorrow, and that simply cannot be allowed.

Natural social cohesion, born of men's broadly inherent propensity for mutual and cordial cooperation in reciprocally profitable endeavors, brings power to individuals that the tyrant would pathologically covet as his own, often by any means with which he feels he can get away. Modern scientific method, as well as ascendant technologies, have been adeptly employed pursuant to the goal of perfecting one man's craft for subjugating and lording over the rest. Little is left to chance anymore, the dregs of loose ends shrinking in number and significance with every passing year.

"Divide and conquer", with the aid of science and technology, has finally come into its own as a political weapon for the destruction of freedom, the effects of application being readily detectable by anyone willing to see.

I wish I had better news for humanity, but alas, this is the woeful pass to which we have allowed ourselves to be corralled. Whether hope remains that Theye might be removed as threats to the human prospect may not be clear at this time, but regardless, I believe it behooves us to become aware of Themme, what they are doing, and to adopt a warrior's attitude of resolute non-compliance. Perhaps ninety percent and more or Theire efficacy stems from the willful compliance of those over whom they presume to lord. Remove cooperation in sufficiency and suddenly Theye become faced with the decision of pressing their force upon us, or backing down.

Honestly folks, I see us as having absolutely nothing to lose by resisting tyrants at every turn because submitting to Themme is tantamount to a long and drawn out act of suicide, not much unlike that of the alcoholic who drinks himself to death over the course of thirty years of imbibing. Is that the future into which you wish to be thrust; to which you would relegate your children and their issue, going down the generations into the blue future? May I gently suggest you think about that carefully before choosing inaction?

The world teeters this day on the brink of a deep and dark abyss. Are we really so corrupted with fear, grasping, and lassitude that we would relegate our presumably beloved posterity to lives of blank sameness, poverty, servitude, and timid misery? Or will we rise to the challenges of the tyrant with the objective of driving him from his throne, to the gallows? But that requires much of one. The question is whether it demands too much.

What say ye?

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

The Implications Of Rights

Greetings and felicitations!

As we inch our ways into yet another holiday season, I find myself moved to address a fundamental truth about human Rights.  It can be expressed in two axioms that follow directly and apodictically from the fundamental premise of the "inherent rights" of each individual human being:

1. A Right, regardless of its nature, directly implies the Right to exercise it.
2. The Right to exercise directly implies the Right to validly obtain the means of exercise.

Were we to put this into a somewhat loose notation of symbolic logic, we would have this:

Definitions:

R = Right

Re = Right to exercise

Rm = Right to means of exercise

-> = "implies" or "leads to" 

∴ = "therefore"

QED = "thus it is demonstrated" 

Logic chain:

R -> Re

Re -> Rm 

∴ R -> Rm

 QED

This "proof" is not complete by any means, but I include it just for clarity's sake.  A proper formal proof would require additional steps not immediately relevant to the purposes of this work.

These axioms have, to my limited knowledge, never been addressed publicly by anyone in any fashion that might be credibly termed "common".  It is my purpose here to correct that most perilously egregious misstep on the part of humanity, to date.

Returning to essays past, specifically "What Are Rights?", we find the definition of a "right" includes:

Right, n.  ...

2.  That to which one has a just claim

We may perhaps then agree that each of us has a right to life, for example.  That is, we each claim our lives as our own; our "property", if you will.  I further believe we may also agree that those claims are indeed just and valid.  After all, what would it imply were we to say that our claims to life were invalid?  Nothing good, I suspect.

Let me once again use the Second Amendment of the American Bill of Rights (BoR) as an example.  If I hold the right to keep and bear arms, then by direct implication I hold the right to exercise the right.  After all, if I claim the right but disavow the right to exercise, have I not engaged in contradictory reasoning?  It makes no whit of sense to claim the right, yet to deny that I also possess the valid authority of exercise.  In the very best case, the denial of the latter reduces the former from Right to privilege, and here I am being very generous and optimistic.  The more likely case is that it would reduce it to nothing at all, beyond mere utterances.

Therefore, we can see clearly that a right, sans the right of exercise, is in fact no right at all, but an empty claim and nothing more.  Noises.

We have now established through the simplest sufficient means the chain of implication from the right to keep and bear arms to the inseparable and unavoidable corollary right to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms.  In the language of contracts and legislation, these are non-severable.  Remove one, the other disappears into the vapors.  Violating one perforce violates the other.

If one holds the right to keep and bear arms, directly leading to the right of exercise, then the final link in the logic chain that makes a Right precisely what it is, is the right to validly obtain the means of exercise.

I claim the right to keep and bear arms.  This means I also reserve the right to exercise the right.  In order for me to be able to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, I must be able to obtain armaments of whatever nature and quantities for which my morally valid means may provide.  To clarify that last bit, it means that I am entitled to obtain arms by whatever noncriminal means are available to me, such as through purchase, barter, or begging.

If a spear is for sale for $5 and I have at least that much cash in hand, I am entitled to purchase and take possession of that spear in exchange for the sum in question under conditions of mutual agreement between seller and buyer.  The same may be said in the case of barter.  The man at the flea market is free to trade his .50 caliber Barrett for my  3/4-ton pickup truck if we are each in agreement to the exchange.  Nobody outside of the immediacy of the circumstance of the agreement holds the least right to interfere in any way whatsoever with the transaction, all else equal.

What this does not imply, however, is any right to be provided with the means of exercise by others at no apparent cost to oneself.  Therefore, if I want that Winchester '97 shotgun for household defense, but have no money, I am not entitled to obtain the weapon by force of expropriation because that is what we normally call "theft" or worse, "robbery" when backed with threats of harm.  And so it is with all taxation, but I digress.

One holds the right to obtain instrumentality, but only by valid and noncriminal means.  The application of force or other means of coercion do not qualify as valid, but only as criminal.

And so it may be extrapolated to any right whatever.

One more basic example for completeness' sake, our esteemed First Amendment, free speech clause.

I claim the right to speak freely as my conscience may move me.  If I indeed hold that right, and it would be most monumental an endeavor for anyone in denial of it to prove otherwise, then it would appear quite intuitively and forcefully obvious that I also hold the right to exercise, which is to say, to speak my mind freely without fear of retribution or other danger, all else equal.  How, pray anyone tell, could I be said to reserve a right to free speech whilst being denied the right to exercise?  Once again, it is a senseless contradiction, the invalidity of which shouts at us in shrill timbre.

Having again established the link between the right in question and its derivative, the right to exercise, we move to the third: the right to obtain the means of exercise.  This example is in some cases slightly difference from that of keeping and bearing arms in that we are born with voices, which constitutes a means of expression.  Well, most of us are.  But what of those who have no anatomical ability to speak?  As the logic runs, they are by all means entitled to pursue, for example, medical remedies that would endow them with a speaking voice.  Would anyone deny that this is so; that a congenital mute has no right to pursue endowment with the power of vocal speech?  I surely hope not, as that would prove most disturbing.

In the absence of medical remedies, would such an individual not hold the right to pursue other avenues of speech, such as a laptop computer?  Pen and paper?  Learning sign language?  Is there anyone on the planet who could credibly deny that such people hold the right to endow themselves with such means?

The very same applies to the vocally intact, as well.  Spoken language is but one form of speech, the most direct form.  But there are more oblique forms as well.  There is written language, for one.  And what of "art"?  Is that not a form of expression?  Our courts seem to think so.

If I choose to exercise my right to free speech through paintings or sculpture, for example, have I not the right to obtain the materials by which to engage in these forms?  Would anyone deny my right to purchase pen and ink?  Paint, canvas, and brushes?  Marble, chisels, and mallet?

This may all seem very basic - perhaps even silly for its obvious evidence - yet I maintain that it is of supreme importance that every man consider it, understand it completely, and accept it as apodictic truth.  In addition, it behooves the intelligent man to develop the habit of thinking in these terms where rights are concerned and to raise the points any time a fellow human being suggests a course of action, whether personal or legislative for examples, that would in any way thwart, infringe, limit, disrespect, circumvent, or otherwise trespass upon the inherent and sovereign rights of any man, no matter the purport of the necessity or authority to do so.

When people come to a sufficient understanding of not only what defines a Right, but what is implied by the general concept, along with developing the proper habits of regard for them, as well as that of challenging any and all who would trespass, the world will become that quantum improved.  I will suggest that the quantum in question stands to be massive.

Along with your word as your bond of trust with your fellows, as well as your relationships therewith, your Rights are the remaining fundamental possessions that shape and hold the most basic effect in terms of Proper Human Relations.  Additionally, they are the only ones with which you were born, the others being learned, accumulated, and cultivated over the course of our lives.  They are part and parcel of who and what you are as a living being, in no way less than are your heart, hands, brain, etc.

Would you suffer another to cut away your hands?  Your liver?  Eyes?  Your soul?

If not, then why your Rights?

I would implore you take the time to think on this for as long as it takes for the twig of understanding to snap loudly in your thoughts, for it is of an importance so central to the condition of human existence, that it cannot be overstated.  Not only your existence, your life, but that of everyone around you including those for whom you care and love.

Spread this knowledge as broadly as you are able, for this is the deepest and most important of all human legacies, for they are the pillars of the very freedom that defines the creature that you are, more than any other.  Without your rights, you are as nothing more than a lump of flesh, rightly subject to the whims and arbitrary powers of other lumps of flesh, to do with you as those powers and whims might decree at any given moment.  Is that the status to which you wish to be relegated?  Your friends?  Your family?  Your children?

If you wish to be more than that, then change yourself and your ways of thinking about such things.  Change your habits and make of yourself a formidable force for goodness and rectitude; for freedom.  It is possible, requiring of you nothing more than the will do make it so and the belief that the goal is attainable and worth the effort.  Would I go a step too cheesy-far to implore you do it "for the children"?  Even I have to laugh at that bit, and yet there is a seed of serious truth in it.

The future, the very soul of humanity hangs in the balance.  It it that important.

Be well, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Are We Being Set Up Yet Again?

Despite long experience as a witness to the stupidity of the so-called "left", my normalcy bias remains strong in that I still find it difficult to believe that they are quite as stupid as they now appear, judging by what is reported in media, or that they are not themselves being centrally controlled by forces of which they are unaware.

If we are to believe even one percent of that which we are fed via broadcast and network media, that Democrats (for example) keep doubling down on their bankrupt stupidities at every nexus, then truly the world is going mad in the most dangerously literal sense. Take the bloviations of Fauxcahontas, Lizzy Bord... erm... Warren, going on about 50% tax rates if Democrats retake the House. How can they not see that this is going to avail them nothing good in terms of retaining what power they still hold, much less gaining more? It seems somehow too convenient.

While I know that a great many people tend to be this utterly stupid on the average, I cannot quite accept what we are seeing as "organic". It all seems too perfect - too conveniently that which we want to see from the "left". Do liberty-oriented people not wish to see the "left" some flying apart at the seams unto its complete destruction as a political force? That we appear to be seeing this happen with nary so much as a hint of question from voices on the so-called "left" - it has become for me impossible to not remain suspicious that this is all political theater with a very definite purpose, rather than the usual haphazard variety of black comedy to which we have been daily treated for more decades than one cares to contemplate.

While it appears that Trump is doing good things, could it all be a smokescreen for sinister things to come? I do not want to go off the edge of morbid paranoia, but I find myself unable, or at least unwilling, to dismiss the possibility that we are all being lead into a tight and ultimately perilous corner.

More specifically, what if this is all truly a show such that Theye (those in truer, deeper political power) have decided to sacrifice the "left" for the sake of delivering the fatal blow to human freedom from the "right"?

Imagine it is a setup where lefties go so far off the rails that even many on the "left" do double-takes and jump ship for the insanity issuing from that quarter. There's the thesis in the Hegelian dialectic I hope is not at work.

The antithesis is Trump - the strongman who sweeps in to save the day, and does so... at least at first. Taxes down; economy recovering; dismantling of some of our enemies. Yay!, right? Maybe. 

And, of course, the synthesis would be a new tyranny having the strong support of the people; a tyranny for which the people have come to clamor for the false promises it makes of safety, security, prosperity, and most ironically of all, freedom. What if all this is designed to get the gross majority so deeply on board with the Trump juggernaut for the purposes of ringing in a new era of tyranny, colored and flavored differently?

This does not have to be the child of Trump, either. In fact, I would deeply doubt that even a man such as Trump could pull it off without Theire blessing. But it is as readily likely, more so actually, that Trump is just a useful pawn to whom Theye are paying out the rope, letting him run as he might; that is, until he has corralled the people into the precise position in which Theye wish them maneuvered, intentionally or otherwise. At that point, perhaps Theye could squash Trump like a bug, or pull out (please forgive the unintentional pun) the trump cards by which the president would be reeled back to heel such that he would be denied any escape from having to make the choice of toeing Theire lines or facing utter filial destruction.

I suppose it is all a long-shot and not very likely, but can we afford not to at least keep the possibility in the backs of our minds awhile, remaining vigilant for signs?

What if, rather than 1984-style tyranny, which is the way of the "left" and which is now utterly discredited as a sound and reliable mechanism for maintaining control over vast populations, Theye have decided to switch BACK (American-style) to "Brave New World", where just enough candy coating is slathered over the dark, leaden, and stench-rotten core such that people clamor for more, rather than resist?

Brave New World was always the more frightening vision for me ever since I was required to read it in high school. 1984's vision left the enemy openly visible, identifiable, and hated, whereas that of Huxley's story concealed the tyrant in a vaseline halo as the beneficent provider of all things essential, from soma to birth control and all manner of idiocies specifically designed to render people dumber than posts, and keep them that way through their own wills. No guns necessary, nor open and obvious threats, but only those of the most subtle and seemingly innocuous sorts.

Huxley was smarter than Orwell in that his tyranny employed stick and carrot methods, mostly carrot, whereas Orwell's tyrant used naught but the stick, and with great profligacy. Why beat a man into submission if you can entice him of his own free will? It is less costly, less risky-laden, and self-reinforcing.

So what if this is the case in the here and now? In comes the Messiah and the people cleave to him as to a god. Just look at how the cult of personality sucked in the hapless German people in the 1930s - so much so that Hitler and his bully boys no longer felt the restraint of Law that would otherwise have limited their prerogatives. The result was tens of millions murdered and nearly an entire continent destroyed both physically, economically, and I daresay culturally as well, even if that last bit was not made immediately obvious.

Clearly, this is a possibility. But how likely is it? I cannot say with any certainty at all, but I can say that it has happened in the past, that it happened not that long ago, and that humanity has a frighteningly short and faulty memory where such issues are concerned. I see this possibility as very strong.

So you tell me how likely it might be that this sort of thing is afoot yet again. If not very, then upon what basis do you come to such a conclusion? Before deciding, bear in mind that this is big-league politics of which we speak and that the wad of humanity has been set up time and again by clever men bent upon achieving some political objective. Is there any positive basis for rejecting this possibility out of hand?

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Taxation Is Robbery

Taking that which is not yours without consent of the owner is theft, regardless of what other label you may place upon it.   Theft under the threat of bodily harm is robbery.

No magic attaches to the label "taxation".  It is, in fact, a rather weak euphemism for robbery.  There is no getting past this, regardless of the justifications forwarded by those who seek to benefit from the fruits of the labor of others, regardless of consent and irrespective of any purport of the authority to do so.   The only magic of the term evidences in the fact that it has been so effective.

The arguments in favor this legitimized robbery are many, all hopelessly rotten lies.  Roads, schools, police, and so forth are used as bludgeons by which free men are subjugated and left poorer in the wake of the taxman.

The only correct "government" is that of the individual. But we are become a race rife with corruption, wanting something for nothing. We want safety, but refuse to make ourselves safe, all the while expecting someone else to provide it for us, preferably at no charge. We want, yet are unwilling to do the work required to have. Rather, we are content to let men with guns threaten our fellows with violence if they fail to fork it over so that yet others will take up their shovels and provide everything nice and shiny while we sit on our well-fed duffs down to a giant feast at the dinner table on the nickels of our neighbors.

We are becoming a race of thieves, so many of us, and it is disgusting.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Introducing the Social Justice Crusader

To the term "social justice warrior" I take great exception as to its validity in terms of the connotations that "warrior" tends to evoke.  Having trained in warrior culture for forty seven years to date, I can say without equivocation that the "social justice warrior" is not.

In objection to the abusively false nature of the use of "warrior" that this case represents, I propose a substitution to yield a new term, "social justice crusader".  Those who are knowledgeable of the relevant history of the crusades may chafe at this, and I fully understand why.  However, in the minds of the sorts of people who fancy themselves warriors, "crusader" is about as pejorative a term and they might imagine.  Therefore, I find "crusader" a very appropriate appellation for the sorts of people who think they are something that they so clearly are not.

It is not my purpose to insult such people, but to expose them for what they are and apply a moniker more closely a fit to their truer nature and status.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Socapalism

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce you to "socapalism", the comparatively recent twist on slavery and servitude gussied up to make the serfs think they are something better than base chattel. It's what we may call an "enlightened" form of socialism - one where the tyrants allow the dregs to keep just enough of their honestly earned fruits to keep them quiet. Some of the proles even become wealthy enough to gain them entry into the ruling class, their gilt cages being expansive, abundantly radiating an illusion of freedom that doesn't actually exist.
The funny bit in this is that it's not a new idea. America is a socapalist state and has been for over a century in ever growing degree, at least until recent years where those who presume to lord over the people appear to have lost Theire way, now hammering on the vast middle class as if to reduce it to ash.  
The up and coming socapalist state, of course, is China. The question there is whether Theye will keep their wits about them and not make the error they have made with America. Only time will tell.
Europe is sort of socapalist, but the Europeans are so utterly defeated a race that Theye have no longer have a need to treat them with any great consideration. After all, the Euros have eagerly allowed for their own disarmament and can do little against their respective governments beyond harsh words, grimacing, and maybe spitting a little.
As socapalism grows in China, so it wanes in America, devolving into a tyranny whose mask grows thinner and more transparent by the year. The only saving grace in that land is the fact that the people hold more arms than the rest of the world put together, and by a significant margin. Now if only they would cut the crap with internal division and get to the proper work of hanging from Theire necks those who so richly deserve it.
The election of Donald Trump, however, appears to constitute a fly in the political ointment that has been driving America toward that precipice that drops straight downward into the abyss of unvarnished servitude. It shall be interesting to see how things pan out with this president.
The primary features of socapalism is the thin illusion of a free state where economic opportunity is sufficiently abundant to lure people into thinking they are actually free and in command of their own destinies. Not could be farther from the truth, of course. Socapalism is an ultimate stick-and-carrot act, the carrot being those opportunities to earn large fortunes through diligent and smart effort. The stick, of course, is the state which issues all manner of fiat with the strong expectation of full and unquestioning compliance. Make all the money you can while abiding by our rules, but do not dare transgress against the "State", for ye shalt be swatted flat as a fly on a windshield.
Socapalism is a system of deceptively draconian tyranny. It is the practical realization of Huxley's "Brave New World" on the candy-coated surface with the rotten heart of 1984 just beneath the paper-thin façade. It is precisely this stick-and-carrot architecture that renders it so effective, for it plays on every human weakness, demanding nothing of virtue in the individual, but only that his most base attributes come to bloom just to the point of his unswerving obedience, beyond which he will taste the cruel and brutish lash of the Whipmaster.
It is a very well considered scheme and it would have served Themme very well in America for a long time, perhaps even perpetually, which is why I cannot quite understand why Theye seem to be abandoning it in favor of ever more thinly veiled forms of tyranny in what appears to be a quantum shift in the direction of a "you in a heap'a trouble, boy" system of open brutality. It makes no sense to me and leaves me questioning whether Theye have been a little too busily preoccupied with in-breeding.
So there you have it, socapalism in a nutshell.
Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

What's Happened With Red And Blue?

Long ago the colors blue and red were used in political discourse to denote "right" or "conservative" bents and those commonly referred to as "left" or "progressive", respectively.  Some of us will recall terms such as "true blue American" to denote a "good" American.  A "red" mostly referred to a communist or socialist, and similar types of "bad" people.

Today the tables have been turned with "blue", a cool and calm color, is associated with the "left" and hot red, the "right".

I find it interesting that this inversion has occurred.  But to what end?  I suspect there is a cognitive scientific reason behind it - perhaps just as a matter of blurring lines that were once clear in the minds of most people.

What do you think?

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Progressivism

The "philolitical"† war between "progressives" and the rest of the world, raging for decades, is now heating up to a potential not seen in a very long time. Furthermore, the acceptance of "progressive values" appears to be greatly on the rise.  The great absence of understanding of what progressivism is, broken down into identifiable, distinct, and readily assessable elements which, has done humanity no favors.  Were people cognizant of them, many would likely run from it, screaming.

Let us begin by making it clear that progressives cannot be truthfully said to be wrong in all ways and on all points; and yet the sting of disagreement by some is of such a pitch that they lose sight of the clear picture of their opponents, usually zeroing-in on one or two single issues and ignoring all else. While perhaps understandable from a purely emotional point of view, this is ought not be acceptable for any Freeman, one characteristic of whom is his personal integrity, which implies his honesty in intellectual matters, as well as his patience. Being honest, he gives credit where due, even to those with whom he may bitterly disagree. Being patient, he takes the time necessary to get what he needs to paint himself a proper and accurate picture of his opponent.  He does this not for the sake if his foes, though they may benefit in some measure from it, but for himself.

Ideals aside, there is a practical value in such practice of intellectual honesty: knowing thy enemy  in sufficient truth. It is one of the great errors of human beings to mistakenly measure one's opponents, whether due to blinding hatred, lassitude, or any of the other sundry reasons people do so. And as a matter of pure strategic and tactical utility, finding points of commonality also serves well in the battle for hearts and minds.  Holding a partial or otherwise inaccurate picture of one's opponent has proven the downfall of many a man in humanity's long and checkered history of mutual conflict.  It is high time that we, as men with amply available examples of our long history and presumably good intelligence, choose the path of learning, holding close those lessons from which we stand to best benefit as Freemen and as strategists seeking victory over those who would subdue us, and to maintain our practical abilities to live as such without uninvited interference.

To such ends, a sufficient analysis of the statistically mean progressive becomes a valuable tool in understanding how they think, perhaps why, and how to use such knowledge to one's advantage in showing them the better way which we call "freedom". It is to such ends I write in the hope of modeling the progressive pursuant to that improved understanding, giving credit where due as well as objective criticism.  It shall therefore be our goal today to give progressivism a good analytic scrubbing.

In order to begin, we must have a definition. Perhaps unsurprisingly, finding a suitable one is not quite as straightforward as one might hope. For instance, one source†† defines it as follows:

Progressivism is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.

Stretch as one may, this definition does no justice of truth to the political reality of the contemporary progressive, however boldly they might protest otherwise, which brings us to one of the key characteristics generally present in such people: they tend to lie about, or are of such mangled perceptions that they actually believe their protests to this effect. As we shall see, progressives tend to have deep perceptual troubles, as well as those relating to honesty and personal integrity.

The same source also carries an entry††† for "Progressivism in the United States", to wit:

Progressivism in the United States is a broadly based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century and is generally considered to be middle class and reformist in nature. It arose as a response to the vast changes brought by modernization, such as the growth of large corporations and railroads, and fears of corruption in American politics. In the 21st century, progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice. Social progressivism, the view that governmental practices [sic] ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives.

This hits closer to apparent truth, yet still falls short of the reality we find. However, the reference above to so-called "social justice" is a key element of contemporary progressivism.

As with "progressivism", definitions of "social justice" are vague, greatly unsatisfying to thinking men, and for the same people most likely to give rise to the need for an air-sickness bag.  To wit, from wikipedia.org:

Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society. In the current global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets and economic justice."

They ways in which this definitions fails are numerous and in some places spectacular.  Since it is not our purpose to tackle social justice, we shall leave things at that for now, perhaps to be addressed in its own rite at a later date.

Another source defines progressivism in equally vague terms:

Progressivists believe that individuality, progress, and change are fundamental to one's education.

This definition is either an outright lie or the vast majority of people who identify as "progressive" either fail to understand the basic concept of "individuality", or are being dishonest in calling themselves "progressive" when in fact they are anything but. As may be readily observed, progressives are staunchly set against actual individualism in strong favor of a hive-like mentality where dank and mercilessly banal uniformity are the cornerstones of the altar of progressive virtue at which they worship. That which they label "individualism", in those minority cases where they are not cursing the very word, is but a mangled and maimed shadow of that which constitutes true human individuality.

And so it goes down the line of definitions, all to one's great dissatisfaction. But if this is the best we can expect, then let us work with it and see where the road leads.

We shall work primarily from the definitions cited, but may bring in others ideas as necessity requires. We will not slavishly devote this discussion to the definitions, but rather to the actual practices and other behaviors of those who self-identify as "progressive".




Self-identification is one of the first places where one finds trouble in many individual human beings. Where the moniker "progressive" is concerned, those adopting it appear to be particularly stricken with an apparent absence of understanding of the term.  For example, in may cases it appears that the individual describing himself as "progressive" has little to no understanding of the meaning of the term as political or philosophical jargon.  Many people stridently proclaim, "I'm a PROGRESSIVE!" where continued discourse with them reveals an almost complete absence of understanding of the specific sense of the term.  It seems that they get hooked by the more general notion of "progressive", relating it very naturally to the notion of progress, or advancement.  The tacit bit there, of course, it the idea that we as a species should advance and evolve, the further and far more deeply tacit implication being that such evolution should yield better people - improved people.

And there you have the core of so-called "progressivism": the notion that we can make people better.  This concept was explored with some depth in the film "Serenity", where a drug had been put into the air purification systems on a colonized planet.  The fictional drug was called "G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate", or "Pax" from the Latin for "peace".  The intention behind the act of foisting the compound upon the people was superficially noble enough: to reduce aggression in the population - to pacify them.

In the film, the drug worked.  It worked so well, in fact, that people stopped doing anything, including eating, and simply laid down and died of inactivity.  The link to progressivism is this: all acts have consequences, many of which are unintended and ultimately unwanted.  Human history is befouled with endless examples of this, the example of the Pax being one from a fictional, yet not far-fetched, story.

The two central messages of Serenity were these: people want to be free, at least in the ways in which they conceive freedom, and humans cannot be improved by such external and forced means.  Yet, the latter is precisely the tack that virtually all progressives take, in one form and degree, or another.

One other very important point made in the film is that, given enough time, despite the spectacular failure on the planet "Miranda" to the tune of over 30 million lives, someone, somewhere will almost certainly try again in the belief that they will succeed where all others had failed prior.  This is a predictably repetitive habit of humans.  The immediacy and depth of effect of first-hand knowledge is invariably lost over time.  This is why women in labor, screaming and calling for the gore-laden deaths of their husbands as they experience the agony of pressing new life into the world, soon forget the immediacy of the experience.  Without this, no woman would agree to doing that beyond the first time and the human race would steadily extinguish itself through the attrition of "no way, buddy".

Unfortunately, this characteristic of fading immediacy appears to occupy a front and center position in all human experience.  While very useful in helping us cope with tough events, it would appear to have gone somewhat wrong with us such that we forget the lessons of our mistakes and go right back to making them over and over again, often by the same people in the same lifetimes, and always from one generation to another.

The progressive tends to display another characteristic in vast common: the inability, unwillingness, or other basis of failure to found his opinions and the desires that arise therefrom upon any definite principles of proper human relations, his idea of the latter being a grossly mangled notion of it.  His opinions and demands appear to issue from a basis of unchecked emotionalism.  Proper logic and reason have no apparent place in the world of the progressive.  The reason for this is clear to any man with an inclination toward observable truth: the adept and proper application of logic to one's emotions often dictates that the kibosh be applied in cases where said emotions stand to lead one into trouble or other forms of error.

When a man is overwrought with emotion, his decision making process is often impacted in some undesirable manner and degree.  Being overwrought, the man often either cannot see his compromised state, or has no inclination to it.  This is where reason and logic can very often save the day.  This is also precisely why the progressive hates, despises, and vehemently rejects correct logic and reason: they interfere with the narratives of their raw and unbridled emotions which dictate their opinions, desires, accessions, and physical actions.

One final aspect of progressivism that must be grasped well and recognized for its unparalleled power over men: appeal to the base impulses of every human being walking the earth.

Being a Freeman is very difficult, for freedom demands much of the individual; everything, in fact.  Contrariwise, being a Weakman, of which the progressive is perhaps the ultimate and most common example, is relatively very easy.  Where freedom demands great strength, fortitude, intellect, sensibility, and integrity, the peddlers of progressivism demand only fealty to them, the carrots including lots of "free" things like education, medical coverage, being able to copulate with anyone or anything and in any manner dictated by impulse or fashion, do whatever drugs fit the bill and so forth, all without any call for personal responsibility.

Little Johnny uncaringly impregnates little Janey, for example, and it is no problem at all because abortions are freely available, neither party to the event to be called to account for their actions, or to pay the costs, even if dear little Janey puts it off until late in her eighth month.  Don't worry, be happy.

This is all an appeal to entropy - to the path of least resistance and decay in one's day to day routines of life.  There is no judgment of the actions of others, just so long as they minimally adhere to the orthodoxy, such as it may be from one day to another.  The other virtue of the progressive orthodoxy in terms of its appeal to young people, is that it is easy to be compliant because it demands so little of one.

Why, prithee tell, would a child choose the path difficult over the way of sliding by without effort or accountability, especially when stupidity is awarded with praise, free stuff, and freedom from consequences?  In the vast majority of cases, they would not.  This is where parents must come in and force things a bit - not to the point of being abusive tyrants, but only to that of getting a child over that initial hump of difficulty for seeing the virtues of the Freeman's path.  There are rewards no child is able to see due in part to the fact that their minds have not developed to that capacity, and in part due to the lack of ever having been exposed to such virtues before.  They need our help and they want it.  But if we fail as the adults to guide them through what no reasonable man would deny are great difficulties for them, then we relegate the children to a doomed and mere existence of always just getting by, forever hatefully aversive to the joys of true accomplishment, which almost always come only with great effort.  This is what some have called the "tyranny of low expectations".

We now hold in hand the basic architecture of the average progressive:

1. Progressives tend to be possessed of an unrealistic, and in many cases infantile idealism that drives a deep and relentless determination to "fix" the race of men in order that all individuals adhere to and comport themselves in faithful accord with what is usually an ill-defined ideal of social order.
2. Progressives are notoriously weak-minded, overly sensitive, and eager to find offense in even the most innocuous expressions of others, especially non-progressives.  They seek things out over which to make loud and objectionable noises.
3. Progressives are, ironically, some of the most intensely parochial people in existence.
4. Progressives accept and advocate for the application of forced measures to compel individual behavior in accord with the approved schedule of improvements as dictated by the vaporous ideal-du-jour.
5. Progressives tend to manifest an out-of-hand and intensely vehement rejection of anything that would constrain their thought, opinion, and ambitions.  Logic and reason are at the top of this list.
6. Progressives are ultimate pragmatists.  The only principle to which they seem to adhere is the attainment of that which they demand of others.  Everything else is negotiable, but only on their terms and under their conditions, all of which appear to follow no rhyme or reason beyond their mood at any given moment.
7. Progressives tend to form their opinions based upon very selectively flawed [re]definitions of terms.  The gross and flagrant abuse of language is a hallmark of progressive behavior, the apparent purpose being to bolster their goals and other desires.
8. Progressivism founds upon an orthodoxy of low expectations of the individual.  This standard is, therefore, comparatively very easy to hold and is correspondingly very attractive because it promises free things with very little accountability, asking little or nothing in return beyond minimal compliance.

In short, the progressive is an individual of ostensibly good intentions.  Those intentions are, however, based upon deeply flawed ideals of human social order, which issue from a place of what are apparently profoundly troubled emotions and where the guiding restraint of logic and reason is unwelcome.  They reject positivism out of hand completely anywhere that it fails to accord in even the least measure with progressive ideals.  Progressives are particularly fanatical and obsessive/compulsive about this.  The progressive world-view issues from typically narrow and grievously flawed normative ideals of human relations.  Far worse, progressives make zero allowance for variance with their views, which is particularly ironic in the face of the endlessly strident and unceasing emphasis on "diversity" for which they are notorious.

The typical progressive is a mass of apparently conflicting impulses, driven to force the goals he deems fitting for him upon the entire world, not content to realize them for himself or a circle of like-minded individuals in voluntary cooperation.  Despite his incessant rantings about diversity, he rejects it any time anything offends his hyper-delicate sensibilities, at which point a monster of a truly epic and frightening cast arises such that it will, if possible, see the greatest and most draconian punishments meted to those who offend.  An example this brand of venom and vitriol may be seen in the recent fad of wishing cancer upon those with whom they disagree.  No decent human being would wish such a thing upon another, no matter how deeply and bitterly he may dislike or even hate the other.  This phenomenon demonstrates just how perfectly the progressive is willing to cut himself free of any restraint where his unbridled and apparently pathological emotions are concerned.

History, particularly that of the early twentieth century, reinforces these assertions.  Consider the Soviet Union and Communist China, both having been bastions of progressivism as it is known today.  As many as 200 million people were butchered in the various purges, and possibly more.  Those people were not killed with the neutrality of the just man who undertakes such action with deep reticence and sadness at the necessity and only to the degree absolutely necessary under a circumstance.  Those people were murdered with the heat and glee of a base form of hatred that wishes to see others destroyed in the most cruel and hideous ways possible precisely because they are perceived as "other"; as not on board with the agenda at hand.  In many cases, simple personal hatred underpinned the acts, masquerading as the likes of concern about "counter-revolutionary acts".

Progressivism tends to be many things at once, few of them good.  On the one hand, it stands as an appeal to all that is base in the human animal, though almost exclusively in manners tacit or otherwise oblique.  On the other, it founds in a very real human desire to see good triumph over evil in the world.  The problem lies in the gross and dangerous distortion of the definitions of "good" and "evil".

Progressivism makes no allowance for degree.  One of the central policies of the typical progressive is that of so-called "zero tolerance", which they appear to believe represents a moral high ground of some sort, taking into no account basic human nature both in terms of impulse, belief, and the simple fact that we are prone to transient error.  The progressive demands ultimate punishment for even the least infraction of one of their lofty, better-than-thou ideals.  The average progressive represents an ultimate poster boy for unvarnished, ravaging, rampaging, murderous tyranny over those of his fellows who fail to accept his mandates to the world.

It is a woeful thing to think that we have lost entire generations to the soft and often quiet horrors of progressivism - having tempted our young people with the pathetic standards of virtue that is represented by the high entropy of low expectations.  Few things can I see as matching this degree of spectacle in human failure.  Where with a little effort even the average man could fly high and achieve heaven only knows what, we instead cripple our children by asking so little of them.

What, then, is the upshot?  Awareness and understanding first and foremost.  These should serve as gateways and guides to recognition of this terrible affliction in others, as well as in the formation of one's own views, and as a means of motivating oneself against being so stricken.  May it also help Freemen in devising the will and the means to fight the spread of this corrosive mindset that leaves little more than destruction, poverty, and misery in its presence and wake.

Understanding the essence of progressivism is the first step in driving it back from making further inroads to acceptance.


† Contraction of "philosophical-political"
†† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

††† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States