Hiljaista Pohdintaa

Hiljaista Pohdintaa

keskiviikko 15. maaliskuuta 2017

What is Ideology?

Feudal societies in the middle age Europe were organized into a hierarchy of king, nobility, knights, clergy, tradesmen and peasants. Catholic church, and the rulings and advice of it's highest ranks influenced profoundly all classes. Feudal relationships included reciprocal exchanges of services, labor, produce, money / taxes, protection, counsel, etc. Societies were to a relatively large extent autarkical, except for some special and luxury items. Nobility was fairly independent and the feudal system was decentralized despite the central figure of king.

During middle ages, renaissance and approaching enlightenment period entrepreneurship and companies developed gradually, and entrepreneurs power increased. Relationships and transactions connected to power and economy became increasingly impersonal, changing, relatively short-term and monetary. Collecting taxes via nobility became inefficient vis-a-vis the growing private economy because collecting taxes was only one of the many tasks of nobility. Nobility had their own interests and wills which often differed from the kings interests and will, the tax collection of nobility was varying and non-systematic and it became increasingly obvious that there are alternative methods of tax collecting in which the monetary input-output profile is better. Hence kings established the first bureaucracies to collect more taxes to finance their growing professional and salaried armies.

When bureaucracies grew and developed, bureaucrats and people close or sympathetic to bureauacrats formed their own growing body of political thinking. What the kings had not understood was that they were similar vestiges of former ages than nobility, and in the end in the same way increasingly susceptible to replacement or overthrow. Bureaucratic thinkers started to question the purpose and usefulness of king. Their thinking progressed approximately along the following lines: "King is said to be the father of nation, to have the same kind of role, but real father of family knows every member of his family personally, he knows their personalities, life stories, activities, needs, propensities, interests, etc. Father of a family supervises his family members every day, and gives personal support, advice, encouragement, security and orders to them. Father is personally invested in the welfare, security and success of his family members. Father loves his family members concretely, not abstractly. If the king is the father of the nation, then he is blind, ignorant and indifferent father, or in other words he is not the father of nation at all. There is nobody who is the father of the nation, but if the governing body is named which most resembles such an entity, then it is bureaucracy. Bureaucrats know in relatively fine individual details and large mass aggregates about the life and actions of their subjects. They are personally and collectively invested in the welfare and success of their subjects and the nation. Bureaucrats govern and regulate their subjects rationally, systematically and efficiently, and they increase their knowledge and improve their methods constantly. Bureaucrats are educated to be specialized professionals in their respective fields. Together bureaucrats form a much more powerful and efficient governing body than a king. A king is not only useless to bureaucracy and rational governing, he is actively harmful or threatening to it. He creates an ignorant, irrational, capricious and dangerous element above the bureaucracy. King must be deposed or his power must be reduced significantly." These kinds of goals fused with the similar goals of rising entrepreneurs, disaffected working class, radicalized members of nobility, etc., although they had different reasons for their goals, and they envisioned different kinds of societies after revolution or other changes to the power structure.

These intellectual streams and the resulting revolutions and societal changes did not really kill the kings. Kings just went through Deleuzian transformation. The role of the king was purged from the person of the king, and replaced with socially constructed and "standardized" ideology, and the governing principles and political philosophies connected to it. Ideology was hoped to be the new rational, supposedly eternal, stable and predictable 'king', the suitable leader for the relatively new bureaucracies. Ideology is amenable to versatile uses of the powerful people and groups, but it still has a life of its own, which exerts often irresistible effects on society and people. When everybody have to follow the basic principles of ideology, and one, even a powerful person, talks or acts against them, then everybody is obliged in theory and to varying extent in practice to oppose him.

What are the general qualities and uses of ideology?

Ideology is simplified, pruned and adapted morality of traditional religious communities, a political morality. Some aspects of traditional morality are magnified, and others are made almost invisible, although power always uses them all in one form or another. Ideology focuses attention, thinking, choices and activity to certain directions, and reduces or prevents it from other directions. Ideology is an universal template, to which thousands and millions of different interests, thoughts, dreams, goals, motivations, emotions, etc. can attach, and this includes both people in power and the subjects. Ideology has to be incomplete "story" so that every subject can complete it by dreaming or imaging it to fulfill his special needs and goals. People in power attach to ideology their needs, goals and interests, and make it work for them. People in power are more likely to achieve their goals through ideology than subjects, and their goals are more grandiose to begin with. Ideology is used as organizing, encouraging, motivating and inciting tool in society in general and in politics in particular. Ideology and its offshoots are used to intimidate, persuade, extort, convert, inactivate, flatter and disparage opponents according to situations and needs. Ideologys basic function vis-a-vis opponents is to rationalize and emotionally persuade opponents compliance or submission for them.

Ideology forms a foundation for secular culture. Ideology is always tied to many existing laws and points the direction to many future laws. Ideology outlines implicitly or explicitly the distribution of priviledges, power, rewards and social positions. Ideology separates political ingroup from political outgroups. Ideology adumbrates implicitly or explicitly where legal and extra-legal punishments, shaming, expulsions, exclusions, violence, etc. are directed. Ideology separates future from history, and defines what is wrong or lacking in present time and what is needed in the future. Ideology at minimum hints how the public communication and representations of ingroup and outgroups will be distorted, magnified or prevented. People in power try to create national and international reality distortion fields according to their ideology. Ideology legitimates the governing group and its power. Ideology defines to varying extent what is good, true and beautiful. Science is often constructed around the ideological "truth". Science tries to expand ideology and its consequences to all societal areas, and tries to prove ideology is good, just, true and efficient. Education and governing organizations are constructed more or less from the foundation of ideology. Ideology defines the unattainable enticing ideals, visions and utopias, which are said to be attainable, and towards which society is said to strive.

Ideology has to be internally fairly logically coherent, but less in relation to the real world. However it must have important correspondences to real things, to important and selected social and political problems, conflicts and disagreements. Ideological philosophy must be complex and abstruse enough, so that it seems intelligent, challenging and meaningful enough to university students and intellectuals who are studying and developing it.

Some practical qualities, applications and consequences of liberal ideology

Liberal and conservative ideologies are different in more ways than what can be deduced directly from their public verbal interfaces. Conservatism is less of a political ideology and more a full spectrum morality of people and communities than liberalism, hence conservatism can cover a larger array of possibilities, freedom of actions, entities, social arrangements and moral relations in peoples lives. Eg. equality is central value in liberalism, but it lacks hierarchy and authority as values, whereas conservatism have all those values at its disposal, which can be used as necessary. When both political groups have many kinds of hierarchies and authorities, liberals have more discrepancy between their ideology and reality, so they have to distort and manipulate communication more than conservatives. This same difference applies in general to the level honesty and dishonesty of liberals and conservatives, ie. liberals have to lie more.

Conservatism is less suited than liberalism to equality oriented democratic politics; international politics which is based largely on flattery; national and international large complex organizations which would like to see their employees and clients as interchangeable units, and which mostly govern modern societies; unbridled global markets, where money and power are the deciding values; etc. Eg. the logic of large complex organizations (LCO) sees ethnic, racial, cultural, religious, etc differences as problems and complications in their personnel and in the populations they manage. LCOs need mostly certain standardized knowledge and skills from people, and if there are racial, religious, etc. differences among the personnel which matter, it can create conflicts, resentments, incompatibilities, barriers, non-cooperation, etc., which make the operations of LCOs more difficult and less efficient. Hence LCOs try to reduce or remove such differences, or make them such that they dont matter, like turning Christianity into a few personal liberalism resembling beliefs instead of being comprehensive social religion of congregations and communities, which affects ultimately all aspects of individual life, and social cooperation and interactions.

LCOs are information processing units. LCOs gather, select and process a lot of information about the surrounding society, organizations and population, but they know very little compared to the whole information contained in their operation environment. The processing task becomes more complex when analysing different units, and their endless relations and interactions. In other words LCOs are relatively stupid and inadequate vis-a-vis their human and non-human environments, and hence they have strong motive to simplify them. If racial, religious, cultural, etc. differences are removed from populations, it makes the tasks of LCOs easier and increase their efficiency. Lets say an international company is planning a global advertising campaing. If there would be no racial, cultural, language, religious, etc. differences, one universal ad would be enough. Now they may have to produce over hundred variations of the ad to conform to local differences. This consumes resources which are away from other things. The company is in profitability competition with other companies, and any reduction of costs and efforts is pursued intensely. Because of this the many CEOs of LCOs would like to see their global customers as homogenous units. Most of the CEOs of LCOs are likely to believe optimistically they could reduce the costs and increase the profits the most in that situation.

Race, ethnicity, culture and religion are potentially powerful organizing factors, which can be used in political and economical competition. LCOs dont want such competitors from outside their framework of power. As present threats are more important to LCOs than long term universal homogenity goals, they are ready to make the necessary political exceptions to equality, which was selective to begin with. Racial, ethnic, cultural and religious minorities are allowed, encouraged and supported to organize and advocate their group interests, while Whites are discouraged and prevented from such. Minorities are promoted above their qualities in education and job market, and Whites are vilified and discriminated against. These policies increase minority coalition's power and influence closer to the Whites comparable ones, leaving the deciding power in the political scale to the LCOs. LCOs support for the minorities should not be confused with "love" of minorities, they just further their interests that way. It is useful that minority coalition loses now and then, so that they are reminded they are dependent on LCOs, liberal media, liberal NGOs, etc. support. LCOs interests are secured whatever coalition wins, although LCOs support is more on the side of liberals than conservatives. These combined goals of LCOs are directly connected to liberal ideology, especially equality and diversity politics.

Restoration requires restoration of little inefficiencies, where good and important things thrive.

Because conservatives are politically more honest and open than liberals, they dont understand all the uses of liberal ideology. Conservatives know that liberals lie more than themselves, yes. But liberal ideology serves also as a psycho-political shield against negative things. A woman may be dependent on social security, and she would be ashamed if she would have to tell it publicly in real life or in internet forums. If she would advocate social security policies generally, people would likely guess that she receives social security money and is dependent on it. Because diversity is liberal coalition's common and most important rallying point, which tows all other liberal policies in its wake, the woman can advocate her interests by supporting liberal diversity and open immigration policies. Liberal medias have created a widespread mental image that almost all educated, morally good and well to do people support liberal diversity policies. By advocating them the woman seems to others to be higher status and more intelligent than she is, and hides her dependencies and true interests.

Many US tech companies replace large part of their more productive, creative and intelligent American workers with cheaper foreign workers, Indians, Chinese, Pakistanis, etc. But why do they support so open immigration policies, which includes the most problematic immigration, and the compulsory ideological worshipping and whitewashing of the most problematic immigrants? Why they dont support only more selective higher quality immigration which would cause less problems and political opposition? Selective immigration would be enough for them. We can deduce several reasons for this a) Liberals have made immigration as much as possible universally inviolable policy, so that opponents of immigration dont get any footholds in their policy fortress, dont get any political precedents, which could lead to expansive further victories. b) Supporters of immigration have formed reciprocal coalition, which is based on mutual silent deal, according to which nobody opposes anybody elses immigration goals, and everybody supports everybody elses immigration goals. The sum effect of this is mass immigration, from which large portion belong to the most harmful types. c) The most harmful immigration (criminals, terrorists, welfare dependent people, culturally and religiously incompatible people, etc.) is useful to eg. technology companies. Technology companies H-1B visa cheap labor immigration is relatively rarely noticed, when it is drowned out by the news and stories of the most harmful immigrants. Thus the true drivers of immigration policies achieve relative peace and invisibility under the veil of immigration catastrophes. When attention, emotions and thinking is directed elsewhere, opposition against the true drivers of immigration policies is harder to form. If effective opposition to immigration finally forms, it is more likely to be directed against the the most harmful immigration, leaving the true drivers of immigration policies largely intact. Hence the most harmful immigration and liberal ideology which enables and supports it, serve in many ways as a protective shield to tech companies and other companies utilizing cheap immigrant labor.

Capitalism is increasingly in the process of slowly developing crisis. Free market constantly erodes the high status markers it produces. Striving toward higher status is one of the main motivators of work in free markets. Eg. golf was once an almost exclusive hobby of upper classes. You had to be a member of an expensive golf club to be able to play, and certain upper class dressing, way of talking and manners were expected from members. As time passed, (fairly) free markets and to some extent the state and municipalities produce these kinds of services increasingly cheaply and to a wider customer base. Now even lower class people can afford to play golf, and they can dress and talk as they like while playing golf. Sailing was once an exclusively upper class pursuit with all the additional luxuries. Now even lower class people can rent sailing boats, and sail to most of the same harbors where upper class people anchor. The boats of lower class are smaller and plainer than upper class boats, they dont have Rolex Seamaster watches on their wrists, they dont wear expensive sailing clothes, use the costly sailing apparatus, etc., but they ruin the former exlusive achievement of upper classes all the same. Almost only the upper classes can afford the most expensive sports cars, but middle class people can relatively easily buy 220 kilowatt cheaper sports cars, which look quite similar to upper class sport cars. The speed limits on roads, increasing speed bumps and winter weather remove most of the exclusive advantages or experiences upper class sports cars could offer. Etc. In the same way classes that are underneath have tendency to "invade" everything that is higher, including the high culture. At the same time mass produced and marketed culture, services and products creates homogenizing pressures, which make the tastes and orientations of higher classes coarser and lower. Capitalism and free markets have strong proclivity to equalize everybody to the general mass consumer level. In response to this the middle and upper classes try to differentiate themselves from the classes under them in increasingly contrived ways. They may eg. go to modern art exhibition, where lower classes dont want to come, and then stare at presented bare urinal, pretending to find deeper meaning and enjoyment from it, trying to show to people around them how intellectually advanced they are in their understanding, but this kind of status differentiation is ultimately unsatisfying.

At the same time peoples traditional hard working culture, social morals and habits are deteriorating, life easing machines and services are colonizing every aspect of life, ubiquitous entertainment and unimportant information keeps us constanly distracted and drugged, mind numbing medications, which make the world around matter less, are used by large part of the population. People are becoming lazier, and more comfort seeking, hedonistic, self-centered, narcissistic, etc. These kinds of things often reduce the motivations of people from the high competitive levels global free market competition would require. We could say that free market produces constantly the destruction of its own foundations too.

Cheap labor immigration, and criminal and dysfunctional immigration introduces correcting and motivating factors to the problems of free markets. They create double threaths to motivate people, and they combine with the motivating incentives already present in the market. Threat of loss or damage is higher motivating force than the equal possibility of gain. If a person is presented with choices of a loss of one dollar and gain of one dollar, the loss of one dollar is two times higher motivating force. As the stakes become higher, the relative multiplier of motivation increases on the side of threats and problems. Motivation correction was not an important policy factor when the present long phase of open mass immigration started, but it has become increasingly important in proportion to the progression of liberal morality, mentality and life styles.

Cheap labor reduces immeadiately the costs of labor of companies, and impels natives to work harder and longer, bargain their salaries and work related benefits to a lower level, accept more temporary and part-time jobs, etc. If natives dont do this, they are displaced from work more. Cheap labor immigration threatens lower and middle classes, but relatively little the upper classes. As the price of any wanted good on the market, including labor, is decided mostly by scarcity, and only lower and middle class job markets are flooded with immigrant labor, the upper class jobs are relatively over-priced. We could easily import cheap labor bankers from China. It is hard to imagine how they could do worse than our "own" bankers, and they would do the jobs many times cheaper. Somehow we dont import cheap labor bankers, and so the bankers knowledge and skills are scarce and overpriced. Same applies to eg. CEOs of large corporations. From these kinds of things we see from which direction the most significant impetus for immigration policies comes. Anti-racist liberal ideology divides possible opposition to immigration on racial, cultural and religious grounds. Eg. Blacks have even more reasons to oppose immigration than Whites, but because the flattery, welfare payments, liberal black identity constructed mostly on opposing whites, and straw man demonization of whites ties them to all liberal policies, they mostly cannot oppose immigration together with Whites, on the contrary, they have to support unequivocally mass immigration.

The crisis of state and federal bureaucracies resembles to some extent the crisis of capitalism, but it is worse. Bureaucacies and the number of their dependents have grown considerably since 1960s, and they require increasing tax burdens. People have mostly relatively little or no motivation to pay taxes, but if they are forced to work harder by the surrounding worsening societal and job market situation, then they produce also the necessary increasing taxes for bureaucracies and their dependents. In free markets exchanges are based on voluntary choices from multiple options and to mutual benefit, but in bureaucratic "market" citizens and interest groups compete to gain maximum benefits with minimum effort and investment, at the expense of others. Bureuacratic "market" is based on compulsory exchanges, which are backed by punishments, mostly choiceless supply of services, and often unfitting and discouraging standardized benefits. Bureuacratic services and benefits hamper or prevent exchanges and work in free market. Most people in bureaucratic "market" end up unsatisfied about the taxes they pay, the services and benefits they receive, and the long term consequences of services and benefits.

Open mass immigration started in the United States in 1965, and from that time forward the relative incomes and wealth of the highest part of upper classes have increased rapidly, and and the relative incomes and wealth of lower and middle classes have declined.

The most harmful immigration, like criminals, religious fanatics, culturally incompatible people, dysfunctional people, loafers, etc., like problematic domestic minorities, are versatilely useful to liberal elites. They destroy or worsen the living areas and everyday life of lower and middle classes. They increase tax burdens, the number of bureaucratic clients, sizes of bureaucracies and the pool of leftist voters. In bad areas everything is often foul, the blocks of flats, streets, schools, shopping centers, recreational and sport areas, etc. Lower and middle classes have strong motive to work harder and longer with reduced salaries and benefits, because they want either to get out of bad area or away from near a bad area, or they fear that they and their children end up in such an area if they dont do everything possible to avoid it. Would there be eg. such excess demand for overpriced university education, preparing courses, special educative kindergardens, residential area selection because of best schools, etc., if there would be no threat that "My baby will end up in a slum area, if I dont do everything ..." This has contributed to the fact that too large part of intelligence bell curve distribution has gone through higher education. Many of them cant contribute to science, because they have too low IQs, and there is already oversupply of potential middle level managerial workers, and oversupply of bureaucracies in general. They end up in jobs that dont correspond to their nominal education, they are constantly unsatisfied, and their biggest contribution in life is often to agitate for more extreme liberal policies. They have increased the political insanity we see in universities. The most harmful immigration, other immigration and residential transfers of problematic domestic minorities also breaks up the social and political togetherness of Whites, helps to atomize them. This makes it harder for Whites to oppose anti-White liberal policies and liberal immigration.

Middle class Whites could eg. establish in some ways almost as good and in some ways better living areas than upper class have by forming all White living areas, where ingroup boundaries, cooperation standards, reciprocal voluntary work and help, etc. are explicitly upheld. This cooperation can be expanded to many important areas of life, eg. Mormon communities have cooperatively built very cheaply single family homes from ready elements in one day, exluding the foundations. Houses and apartments are one of the most important and time consuming reasons people have to run in liberal work and money hamster wheels. Mormon communities produce cooperatively also many other things. Community construction and production would reduce the dependency of people from liberal elites. Liberals try to prevent, minimize or destroy all other avenues to livelihood, family, good living, social acceptance, social status, goods, housing, etc. than money and power, and they want to govern, control and regulate all things related to money and power.

The increasing class, residential area, social, cultural, security, educational, etc. degradation, and the consequent social immobility which mass immigration and domestic problem minority transfers produce among lower and middle classes create hard to imitate and invade social status markers for upper classes, who can evade the negative consequences of diversity or ignore them. From the upper classes point of view those who oppose immigration are harmful if they reach political upper hand, but if they can be kept in subordinate position, they are useful, because they define, demarcate and proclaim publicly their lower distressed social position. This lifts upper classes relative social status without them having to do anything. When they say costless and untrue liberal banalities, like "I love everybody in the world", "Opposing immigration is racism and hatred", "All the people in the world are equal", "Saying that there are differences between people is fascism", "Mass immigration is our greatest strength" etc., they say something, which opponents of immigration cant say and lift their social status higher still. If white lower and middle classes espouse liberal immigration and anti-white ideology, and advocate it publicly, then they work against their own interests and subdue themselves to the will of upper classes. Hence from the perspective of upper classes ineffective or repressed opponents of immigration, and the White middle class liberals are lower than them, submissive to them and work for them, albeit in different ways.

Whats left of the togetherness of Whites after all sorts of mass immigration, liberal elites strive to eliminate with anti-White elements of liberal ideology and their practical manifestations, which are designed to inhibit or ruin fellow feeling; cooperation; race / ethnicity; political, group and personal self-defense; identity; self-esteem; self-confidence; traditions; and culture of Whites. Whites are the most capable and the greatest potential rival and threat to the liberal power. Cooperative and self-confident Whites could, among other things, fairly easily stop key liberal ideological manifestations like immigration, 'political correctness' and anti-White policies.

Liberal ideology have four main politico-moral parts, which are in hierarchical order from the most important to the least important; diversity, equality / justice, care and freedom of choice. Of these freedom of choice is limited mostly to personal choices, which might be vivid, and socially and culturally disruptive, but for liberal elites politically insignificant, except as neutralizing outlets for individuals pressures and desires, which are directed to harmless creations of personal spheres. Highly individualized, mutually incompatible and commercialized life styles serve also as obstacles to enduring social and political organization. People have some collective political and societal freedoms, but these are in many ways regulated and controlled by elites. If people are made to make choices between freedom and other important factors like health care, work and security, freedom have a propensity to lose, ie. freedom is more important to people in mental images and dreams, and as an inspiration than in real life situations. Care is important ideological bedrock of liberals. Liberal state and other liberal actors would like to take care of almost all the needs of all people. The more they take care of the needs of the people, the more indispensable and important they are to people. This increases liberals power and control over people. As liberals overextend their care and make it in many ways mandatory, their care is often of low quality, overconsumed, patronizing, choice limiting, oppressive, surreptitiously expensive and meddlesome.

Liberals concept of justice is heavily informed by equality. Liberals equality is intertwined with ethnicities/races, sex, sexual orientations, religious orientations, cultures, age, etc. and liberal policies and judgments are defended and explained on the grounds of equality. Liberals are rigid on things related to equality, because like justice it presents binary choices where there is little or no gray areas between justice / injustice, right / wrong, progressive / regressive, good / evil, caring / cold, understanding / ignorant, generous and altruistic / selfish and self-centered, socially acceptable / non-acceptable, etc. Liberals often throw their whole political power to further liberal equality goals. Liberals want court rulings in favor of their equality goals, so that they can bypass legislature, political balances of power, general opion, etc., and make their equality policies binding to all people in society from individual ordinary citizens to all kinds of organizations and the highest elites. Liberals political goals are often formed from the foundation of equality or equality is taken in one way or another to be part of their policy goals. Liberals dreams and utopias and cultural products are often infused with equality. Because of ingrained equality thinking and emotions, it is harder for liberals than to conservatives to recognize and react approriately to enemies, dangerous people and outsiders, because there are relatively large inequalities between our fighters and enemies, good people and criminals, and our people and distant foreigners. Conservatives accept hierarchy, so it is easier for them to make those differentiations and act accordingly. Although diversity cannot be wholly separated from equality, it has significant life of its own. Diversity is the most important moral value of liberals, because diversity forms the most important social, societal, political, organizational, economical and international frameworks and goals of liberals. Diversity as the highest value implies that liberal power can and must expand to cover the whole diversity of the world, or at least as much as possible. If diversity and equality are in contradiction, eg. Muslim mens treatment of women is not according to equality of the sexes, then equality mostly must step aside, and we should tolerate diversity according to the virtues of liberal diversity morals. Liberals celebrate diversity and to lesser extent equality, so it means that the most positive emotions, the most vigorous defense and the greatest attachments of liberals should be directed to them.

Liberal ideology has substantial real world consequences, and we can say that it is in some respects honest too, but as ideologies are reality distortion fields, we must ask what is the greatest reality distortion of liberal ideology? From this perspective liberal ideology is for liberal elites means to ends. Liberal elites underlying deep goals are money, power, social status and authority, and liberal ideology has been more efficient means in realizing, expanding and securing those goals than conservatism. What is the greatest danger to liberal elites money, power, social status and authority? Equality, or to be more specific equality, which strives to take the said entities away from liberal elites and redistribute them. Old leftism was too close to those targets, so it was relegated by liberal elites to marginal positions and replaced with liberal ideology. Economic equality was replaced with diversity equality. Psychologically you cannot generally oppose someone verbally, and make the opposing position to diminish or disappear, on the contrary, it has propensity to strenghten the more the opposing party defends its position and invests time, energy and emotions in it. Jewish Talmudic rabbis knew this already over 1500 years ago, and it has been confirmed by psychological studies. The best general way to weaken opposition is to direct its attention away from its target, to some secondary thing, which still consumes its attention, emotions and energy as fully as the original thing. Diversity, immigrants, immigration, sexual orientations, terrorism, minority criminals, etc. and the strifes connected to them direct attention and equalizing attention, energy and emotions away from the money, power and social status of liberal elites. Liberal elites created these problems and quarrels intentionally, and then incited and exacerbated them with anti-White policies and general vilification of Whites; by favoring and flattering ethnic, sexual, religious, etc. minorities; by political correctness and free speech suppression; by preventing organizing opposition; by purging dissidents out of large complex organizations, political power and important jobs in general, or preventing them from entering in the first place; by turning liberal medias into constant liars; by making education almost exclusively liberally biased; etc. To lower and middle classes the said problems are real and important, to liberal elites less so. These problems have enabled at the same time the great accumulation of wealth, power and social status to liberal elites, and secured them from approriation and challenges. Hence liberal elites really do love diversity because of these things, but less otherwise, like can be seen from eg. their gated and exclusive residential areas and schools.

When liberal ideology becomes increasingly extreme in its practical manifestations, how liberals maintain their attachment to it? Liberals tie their ideology to many incentives, punishments, dependencies and manipulation, and these lead to self-policing of thoughts, emotions and behavior, but people have to motivate themselves also endogenously. When eg. diversity industry and its demands and consequences become disturbing and oppressive in universities, academics can refer their thinking to those parts of liberal ideology, which are reasonable. Academics have to interact regularly with foreign academics, and there is diversity in their home countries too. They have to get along professionally with diversity, and they may feel that it is important that there is ideological support for this. Liberal ideology gives its own version of ideological get along -support. When academics see diversity industry causing problems, they may say to themselves, "We have to tolerate those people, because basically they promote get along -policies like myself, they cannot be so evil they seem to be, their motives must be good ... "They have become a little carried away, but I would probably be as agitated as they are if I would have the same experiences and history than they, I guess we need that energy, I hope they are our political allies, protectors of our get along -policies" ... Etc. In other words people explain away ideological problems, make bad things milder, better or non-existent in their minds, promote willful blindness, ie. use self-deception and manipulate themselves. Self-policing is more about suppressing those parts of the self that are contrary to the surrounding political climate, whereas self-deception is more about adjusting ones thoughts, emotions and behavior gradually to cohere with the surrounding political climate, also when that climate is turning to extremes. People who have adjusted them well to the extreme political climate, often feel that it is reasonable, moderate (at least in relation to the threats, risks and challenges the political group faces) and fair. Those who have anti-liberal impulses inside and suppress them, often feel guilt feelings. To atone the guilt they have propensity to attack people who have similar contrary thinking and emotions, and express them publicly, ie. they serve as self-appointed polices or 'mind guards' for the ideology. Hence people who have contrarian thoughts and feelings can be useful to the system, but they are to some extent a risk too. If the surrounding political constrains weaken, or are challenged or changed significantly, these contrarian people could give their inner impulses free reign and turn against the system.

There are no enduring, idealized and larger than life statesmen, heroes and role models connected to liberal ideology, let alone supreme idealized leaders like Hitler or Stalin. Their role models mostly come and go. Liberal role models are relatively small, connected to touching and personal little emotion regulation stories of refugees, achieving Blacks, family developments of Latinos, etc. Like all secular ideological groups, liberals worhip themselves, but their ideological view of themselves and their role models is not captivating and mesmerizing. Nationalists and communists worship themselves too, and their constant collective mobilization can last effectively about 20-30 years. Their self-worship requires regular imposing collective shows of force, parades, military style gatherings, synchronized artistic movements of masses, etc., and secular worshipped leader. All this is meant to create transcendent and larger than life collective feelings and motivations. But like the effect of pleasure giving drugs, the effect of collective shows of force wears away after some time. When in the beginning people melted into the force of collective mass, 20 - 30 years later they start to see people around them, "Yes, there is that funny Joe, who has been forced to participate in this collective parade like me, and there is my neighbor, carpenter Jack ..." It doesnt feel transcendent and almost divine like before. The rapture connected to the supreme leader wears off too. People start to compare the utopian visions, incendiary speeches and promises of the leader to their horrible, less than satisfactory or ordinary daily life. They notice that the leader is not a he-can-do-everything superman he was said to be. Liberals emotion regulation style -ideology is more enduring than the intense and quickly burning nationalist and communist ideologies, because it corresponds more to the ordinary lives of people, little smile and happiness here, little sadness there, nice suprise, little disappointment, little anger, little forgiveness, etc. But because liberal ideology lacks transcendent elements, it is ultimately empty, unsatisfying, unmotivating, boring and meaningless. We even have to deduce their official ultimate goals from where the arrows of their policies point, not from their stated visions.

But there are two transcendent and metaphysical things that are inextricably connected to liberal ideology, Hitler and Nazis. In liberal worldview, Hitler is evil superman, who never dies and whose power doesnt wane. No, it grows, or at least threatens to grow. To have meaning and purpose in their lives, to truly feel that they live, liberals need the thrilling 'supernatural' Nazis and Nazi witch hunts. And when they witch hunt non-existent Nazis, they become something like Nazis, and the forbidden fruit tastes so good. Nazis, or to be more precise, the mental images of Nazis are so much more powerful than the lame, emasculating and feminine liberalism. Liberals could be vitalist superhumans at last, but it has to be done together in bullying mobs to get truly something like that transcendent feeling when sea of nazis stand in endless straight rows and then de facto worship and idealize themselves. Almost anything can serve as a "nazi" prey, a little meme picture of Pepe, a drunken, badly written comment on a YouTube video, slightly ambiguously worded speech of politician interpreted through witch hunt -glasses, a researcher, who doesnt fully follow the latest constricted liberal speech codes, etc. Anger has a proclivity to increase the intensity with which person wants the object of his anger, his qualities or his belongings to himself. Anger is connected among other things to usurping thinking and behavior. Many liberals are angry at imaginary nazis, and many of them want nazi qualities to themselves without the name or the moral baggage liberals have heaped on them, the "good" sides without the downsides. The paradox of it all increases the intensity of their bigotry, and blindness about themselves and their actions. Conservatives tend to think that when liberals say some conservative or other person is a nazi that liberals are calling them names, but dont really believe in those epithets. In reality liberals believe much more in their nazi epithets.

Without sensible religion life becomes slowly unreasonable.

According to the studies of Linda Lai and other power researchers, if people are given power to influence or govern other peoples behavior, 70 - 80% either misuse power or use it otherwise suspiciously. The misuse is mostly relatively mild, because people have a tendency to see and want to see themselves as moral persons. People have propensity to balance the misuse of power with their moral self-image. Peoples emotionally hued rationalizations for the misuse often goes appromixately as follows, "I have had such difficulties in my life (thinks about some salient difficulties) that I deserve a little head start. Not much, just a little justified compensation. I dont want to abuse my power, I am a good person. I could really abuse these people badly, but I dont do it, because I am responsible, good and moral person. Just a little thing, nobody even notices, it is so tiny." The longer and the more times people use power, the greater their misuse of power tend to become. The more people have power, the greater tend to be the misuse of power.

In Western countries elites have great power. They compete for power intensely individually and in groups. People in the elites, like others, have limited lifetimes, and when they go from goal to goal, from deadline to deadline, from requirement to requirement, etc., in the fast paced power environment, they are often time pressured. Modern power has long accumulative history, more of it has again and again built on top of the former power. Those who strive for power, encounter an entrenched and complex power environment, and they have limited ability to change it. They have to mostly play by its accumulated rules, attitudes, practices, relationship networks, habits, etc. In a way power, eg. state, lives in eternal now, its redemption is always now. Even if state would have done things generally in a good way for the last 50 years, but today large number of people start to die because of incapability of the state, the power of the state becomes immediately questionable from many directions. Also in the middle of the crisis or some other compelling situation it is useless to explain to people and interest groups that you have good plans, which will likely materialize 10 - 20 years from now. Although elites and states have in principle the ability to plan ahead and be long term planners, the pressure of the eternal now have inclination to make power relatively shortsighted and its understanding more limited. Whats worse, in this setting realistic and well designed long term plans tend to become replaced with utopian visions, wishful thinking and unfounded optimism, leaving a gaping void between those and the eternal now. Etc.

These kinds of things and the concrete manifestations of liberal power point to the inadequacy of liberal elites. They are mostly not psychologically diffident or dont have low self-confidence, but they see society, pressures, politics, groups, economy, opponents, competitive demands, etc. too uncontrollable, complex, threatening and difficult, as things which exceed their capabilities and resources, so they have to try to control and govern them with excessive lies and manipulation, wishful thinking and unfounded optimism, extra-legal violence, life colonizing soft totalitarianism, ideological extremism, abuses of power, harmful or destructive policies, etc. Even the swollen selfishness, narcissism, greed, hatred and hunger for power are largely manifestations of inadequacy. "This society demands too much from me, so I am entitled to take too much money as a compensation for my services." "If I dont take everything I can lay my hands on, others will take it, and I lose the competition." "These oppressive laws will gradually break the back of our unruly opponents." "Lets smear our opponents face to so much diversity, that they lose control of the situation (like we have)." "We can implement these devil may care -immigration policies, because I believe, I wish so much that our liberal ideology and vision will take care of all problems. And we need new voters for our party. Now. Without them we lose election, with them we win far into the future, so far that we can finally realize our visions, which our opponents have prevented thus far." "We are so much more intelligent, so advanced, cutting edge pioneers, sophisticated. We are rich. We are good and caring. We are morally higher. Our opponents are stupid rubes, ignorant idiots with no skills. Nothing. Vile subhumans. Raggedy poor people. They dont really deserve to live, let alone to speak publicly. (Narcissistic boasting view of the self and own reference group, and slandering put-down of opponents, motivated by fear of shame, humiliation and loss; shame; fear; guilt; inner and outer demands of perfection, winning and success; and/or feelings of inadequacy. This is the only allowed or in matter of fact demanded "racism" for liberals.)" Etc.

There are not enough countervailing forces to these ideological consequences. Connections to traditions and undistorted history has been severed. People dont know that there are viable alternatives to the present system. Virtues are virtually unknown to people, and vain self-centeredness has replaced them. Ethnic loyalties are at too low level, and religious beliefs mostly resemble liberalism. There are few statesmen who are high above the rest. Establishment conservatives are backward liberals. When everything is done by the rules, conditions, knowledge and methods of liberal system, then opposition too mostly ends up just amplifying the liberal streams.

Is it then any wonder that liberal ideology is so inextricably intertwined with harmful policies, lies and manipulations?

sunnuntai 24. huhtikuuta 2016

Etnosentrisen ryhmän periaatteita ja muita aiheita

Seuraavassa on kokoelma kommenttejani eri yhteyksistä.


Evola makes some good points about race, but I modify his views.

I see race and ethnicity as baselines. This means is that give freely "unearned privileges" to e.g. European-Americans. "Unearned privileges" resemble love of relatives. I see European-Americans in principle positively. I more easily cooperate with them; I am more interested about them and their well-being than outsiders; I support and help them more; I trust them more; I forgive them more;  I am more easily loyal with them; I empathize more with them; I more easily feel belonging to their groups; etc. You can see that many dogs are uninterested when people go by, as if people didnt exist, but when dogs go by they become wildly alive. In the same way I am fairly uninterested about outsiders, but I feel fully alive among Europeans.

This love cannot be abused. If I see that you are a flaming liberal, you despise Europeans, you hate me, you abuse my positive attitude, etc., then I punish and exclude you more than outsiders, although I may forgive you more readily, if you repent and change your ways.

I am writing here because of these reasons, I want to help Europeans around the world, to give them the intellectual tools they need to survive, multiply and prosper. I never write in east-Asian sites, black sites, middle-eastern sites, etc.

This positive attitude towards Europeans also requires reciprocity and exhorts to virtue, ethnocentrism, religiosity, self-development, education, loyalty, cooperation, etc.

I disagree with Evola on e.g. his views on nobility and always striving higher. Higher striving people strive to the top, and top is like mountaintop, downhill follows upward slope, downhill is the natural consequence of the blind scramble to get to the top, blind striving to get always forward. Also when these people are striving their impulse is often to stamp down on their people, to leave them behind, to exclude their people from themselves, to disparage their people, to raise their stocks by pressing down their people, etc. Blind striving higher is short term strategy, and long term strategists win out in long term. Liberalism and the civilizational and group decline it causes is a natural consequence of individualist people always striving higher without any moderating principles.

So how to make striving better? By combining group striving  inseparably with personal striving. By making group sacrifice higher principle than personal striving, by always moderating personal striving with group sacrifice.  By excluding without mercy those who dont make the necessary group sacrifices. By demarcating clearly the boundaries of the group. By desisting forever from some avenues of striving higher, whatever personal or group advantages they may give along with the disadvantages.

So maybe some European noble man sees that some highly intelligent, highly cultural and beautiful Japanese noble princess gives some advantages in some striving higher purposes, but abandoning this avenue is exactly the sacrifice that is necessary to make for the group. The Japanese princess, whatever she is, is an outsider. We can at the same time acknowledge that the Japanese princess is an excellent human being and still desist from marrying him, desisting in matter of fact more vigorously because she is a higher enticement.

Personal and group sacrifices are more important than striving higher. Sacrifices are the beginning and the foundation of the group.

Note that there untold millions of ways and people outside our groups, that could be avenues of striving higher, and which would dissolve and destroy Europeans and European ethnicities. Europeans dont have monopoly on highly intelligent people, noble and virtuous people, good people, religious people, brave people, creative people, diligent people, disease resistant people, strong people, beautiful people, etc. There are always countless utilitarian striving higher reasons to break down the ingroup.

Fish rottens mostly from the head down, so it is especially important what the noble Europeans do. If noble European marries Japanese princess, he sets example to the others. "If he can marry that Japanese princess, why cant I marry this Nigerian woman?" When noble European marries Japanese princess, the boundaries inside his own mind weakens. He had forbidden intermarriage before, but now he doesnt dare to forbid others of doing so, when he himself does it. If he would do it, people would accuse him of double standards and hypocrisy, "Do as I tell you, not as I do". Maybe he didnt care about ingroup boundaries at all to begin with, and intermarriage is just  the practical consequence of that. Etc.

We Europeans have many good qualities, but we are weak group competitors, we are one of the weakest group competitors in the world, dilettantes in ethnocentrism. The Jews have survived as an endogamous group (most communities) more than three thousand years in the most difficult and varying societal environments. We can learn a lot from them. I disagree with Kevin MacDonalds  general thesis about Jews in his trilogy, but he has a good chapter on what good endogamy requires in "People that Shall Dwell Alone" (good endogamy is a foundation of group strategy), and other important information needed in group competition, good functioning of group and everlasting longevity of group.


Pride is both social and anti-social emotion. Proud person wants to be seen, noticed, appreciated, respected, feared, viewed as awesome, liked, treated with deference etc. Pride is mostly generated by positive social comparisons (i.e. proud person needs positive social comparing), but may also be generated by positive developments or achievements of the self. Pride has tendency to be to some extent anti-social emotion, because it might lead to contemptuous, belittling, disparaging, devaluing, etc. feelings towards others; and because it might increase (false) feelings of self-sufficiency, separation from others, differentiation from others and perhaps unbridgeable chasm between self and others. Pride may reduce empathy towards others, pro-social behavior, voluntary work and giving to charity. Pride may increase selfishness, arrogance, hostility/anger, quick temper, self-deception, my side bias, feelings of entitlement, exaggerated beliefs about the self, overconfidence, etc.

The negative counterpart of pride is shame. The difference between pride and shame is steep. Proud person is often on the highest mountain, shamed proud person is often in the deepest ravine. The shamed person is often despised, rejected and held in contempt by both himself and others. Shamed person is wholly bad, not just one or some of his features. Proud person is often only one loss away from total shame. Thus pride is often tinged with fear. Pride is brittle, not robust. People who have narcissistic personality disorder, reside in psychopathic spectrum. They feel on average less fear than average person, but more than psychopaths. If fast words related to shame, challenge, disparagement or loss are shown to narcissists, fast subliminal or conscious fear shoots through their brains. Proud person often has high expectations for himself, and often his environment too, so this may mean he loses or fails easily or often according to his expectations. To counteract this tendency, proud person may use self-deception, pretending, lies, hiding the lossess, avoiding or fleeing shame-inducing social contexts, etc. In shame cultures winning often means narcissistic or dictatorship mindset, defeat might mean boot kissing obsequiousness, i.e. anyway the contrast is large. Because pride is showy self-confidence, it is often attractive to women. Pride could be said to be high cost signalling mating strategy, and protection strategy (protection of wealth, family, territory, etc.), because showy self-confidence, arrogance and easily aroused anger may repel challengers, robbers, attackers, etc.

Humility is generally the positive opposite of pride. Humble person generally lacks proud persons vanity, boasting, arrogance, selfishness, anti-social attitude, etc. Because of the contrast between humility and showy self-confidence of pride, some people think erroneously that humility means lack of self-confidence, but humble persons mostly have good self-confidence. Humility also doesnt mean submissiveness, humble person is just more socially oriented and doesnt have negativistic attitude towards accepted hierarchies, if there are no special reasons for opposing them. Because humble persons often have modest expectations for himself and others, they have tendency to succeed and win easily. Humility has tendency to be robust and it withstand problems well. If humble person with good self-confidence would fight with proud person with equally good self-confidence, humble person could smile and say, "The pleasure is all mine." To the proud person the fight would be more serious, excluding easy and calm mind, let alone smiling attitude.

In the Bible three types of pride is forbidden; pride which separates man from God; pride which is anti-social, which separates man from his community; and narcissistic boasting. Normal pride arising from person's or his community's accomplishments, abilities, victories, qualities, etc. is accepted. The Bible doesnt forbid emotions, nor force compulsory emotions on people. Bible accepts the full range of emotions, but it sets certain standards on how to beat in the seas of emotions. If Bible in some location opposes certain emotion without definitions, it is important to understand the larger context of the Bible to understand what parts or consequences of that emotion Bible opposes. Also it is important to understand that generally what is not forbidden, is allowed or accepted, although it is mostly not mentioned that it is allowed or accepted. According to Jewish teachings, emotions should not be prevented or smothered, but they should always be modified in varying extent by rationality before they are expressed, by rationality which has learned the Biblical virtues. This modifying could be small or bigger check, small or bigger increase, small or bigger redirection, small or bigger reform, small or bigger temperance, small or bigger contemplation, etc., depending on the situation, possibilities and requirements.


Ressentiment means envy and hatred which cant be acted upon, or only through long indirect routes, leading often to frustration. That is how liberal democracy has been planned to be.

Influence in democracy is slow, goes through several indirect filters and modifiers, and never gets all goals accomplished, if any. Citizens are always pleading or influencing bureaucracies, politicians and other people to do this or that, or think this way or that way, pleading those they think have agency to accomplish things, or have capability to assist in making changes. This kind of psychological action structure in liberal democracy is an indirect acceptance of low pleading social status, which is dependent on the good will or lending of the ear of higher status people, higher status collective massess or higher status organizations. This process most of the time consumes extra 'political' energy and emotions left over by work and other daily tasks, so almost nothing is left to other avenues of influence.

 To make matters worse, every political coalition that is painstakingly gathered, lets say during four, eight or twelve years, can be lost in days by the whims of the massess, corruption of politicians, biased media influence or changes in the societal situation.  These kinds of lossess are inevitable in democracy, nothing is permanent, almost nothing and nobody can be fully relied on or trusted, leading to more frustration and anger.

Democracy functions together with consumer society and consumer mindset, and these penetrate everything, including marriages and family life. In the earlier times people saw families, among other things, as units of production, where inadequate and imperfect persons complement each other for the sake of children. Now people take their personal standards from the media, the richest billionaire, the best whatever athlete, the most handsome movie star, the most beautiful model or singer, the most intelligent scientist, etc. Many feel that they are in global competition with every person in the world, "I have to be competitive in the global marketplace for jobs, marriages, social status, wealth, etc." It doesnt necessarily help if one is, say the most intelligent person in the world. He maybe physically weak, not handsome, not self-confident, etc. People have a tendency to concentrate more on missing things than what they already have, so the most intelligent person in the world may well feel he is inadequate and bad. To counteract this kind inherent inadequacy, liberalized people create false narcissistic facades of perfection, self-confidence, pomposity,  popularity, skills, knowledge, intelligence, physical perfection (cosmetic surgeries, cosmetic implants, excessive make-up, etc.), etc. Men fear and feel shame most about weaknesses in any area, women about not being effortlessly perfect. Narcissistic facade means in reality that people demand too much from themselves, and so they will not demand any less from others. This is complemented by the fact that they are accustomed to demand, want and need excessively in democratic processes and consumer transactions. Hence in dating ordinary and average people demand that their spouse is 10+ perfect, more than perfect, and this makes marriages less likely. They see marriages as hedonistic and selfish consumer alliances. They want to know where the potential spouse would like to travel, what kind of restaurants and foods he likes, what kind of car he has, does he enjoy more sunrises or sunsets, etc. These kinds of hedonistic items must be in harmony and mutually fulfilling. If they end up marrying, the novelty and excitement of new allied consuming soon wears out. Like consumers, they become first dissatisfied with the present product, break up the marriage and start to look for a new product, new exciting partner to consume. The cycle begins again and repeats until they are so old and ugly that that they cannot compete in the consumer dating marketplace.

So this person so many Nietzscheans and others find contemptible, this ressentimenting person, is none other than your ordinary person in liberal democratic consumer society. Nietzsche had psychological problems, so he dismissed his own weaknesses, among others envy, nervousness, fears and hatred, and fantasized about superhuman prideful, narcissistic and calmly superior psychological qualities and capabilities, his childish comic book version of them.

Envy tells us that we have too little something valuable, and we must do something about. If it is moderated by temperance and channeled properly, it can be a positive feeling. It can be a strong good motivation to improve oneself and own community. If it becomes overbearing, and it is channeled to malevolent actions inside the community, like throwing round sticks to the wheels of others, stealing, sabotage, spreading false rumors, making a person a target of violence, etc., then it becomes a problem. Ten commandments of Bible dont forbid envy, but they forbid the possible malevolent products of it in your community.

Hatred, if it is moderated by suitable temperance, protects us from violence, exploitation, domination, etc. and it is often requirement in the realization of justice. Again the ten Commandments dont forbid hatred, but they forbid the malevolent products of it in your community.

So what to do?

Start to build an enduring ethnic community, on which you can rely on, and which makes you more than you can be alone. Dont put all your eggs to the fleeting basket of democracy. Follow inside your community the advice and commandments of Bible. Have self-compassion, be temperate, lower the excess expectations for yourself and others. Accept imperfection in imperfect world. Reject consumer lifestyle and mindset. Develop a mindset, which allows you to form lasting marriages, and have many children.


envy is a feeling that you lack something important, which other person has. Coveting is envy directed to that which the other person has in such a way that you want it for yourself, so you may end up stealing it, robbing it, misappropriating it by using stratagems, etc. Envy is not recommended in the Bible, nor it is a virtue, but it is not forbidden to envy, unless it leads to coveting, which is a prerequisite for a crime or infraction. Properly controlled and directed envy can lead to good things and often does.

Same kind of logic applies to hatred.


Envy is not automatically “willing evil”. Envious person can say, “Oh my goodness, Harry has so good X, I need that too”, and then go on to improve himself, or work harder, or redirect his attention and work in a new way, so that he gets the X. This is willing good. There are of course ways in which envy can lead to willing bad. Envy is one of the automatically occurring emotional results of social comparisons, i.e. it means that there first must be rational evolution of social differences, which then arouses envy (or some other emotion connected to social comparisons). People have inborn tendency to make social comparisons. Hierarchy is essential conservative value. Hierarchies need social comparisons to exist and to be maintained. Leveling hierarchies with force and laws doesnt remove social comparisons or hierarchical tendencies, on the contrary, it mostly intensifies them.

All this means that envy cannot be prevented or forbidden anymore than say anger or love, nor should we try. We can learn to live with envy, control it, modify it and direct it on good and constructive purposes. Ten commandments are a good guide on how to direct envy to good purposes by telling what to trim away.


You are of course right, but egalitarians are just as hierarchical as those who advocate hierarchy openly. Egalitarians would like to lift themselves to the top or nearer to the top, and drop the top to the bottom, but they cant say this openly, because:

1) Egalitarians want the largest coalition possible, and they want everybody on the bottom to feel that they will get equally large share when the hierarchy is turned upside down.

 2) If they would openly advocate turning the hierarchy upside down, then they would be open to the same accusations which they hurl against the present hierarchy. Egalitarianism is hence under the surface projective blaming (i.e. they accuse the present top about the same thing that they themselves want) and a form of blame avoidance.

3) Egalitarianism is an attempt to make the turning of the hierarchy upside down palatable and acceptable to everyone, even to the people at the top of hierarchy. Egalitarians try to appeal with their egalitarianism to the elites sense of justice, saying in essence that justice and righteousness = egalitarianism. Egalitarians want the people at the top to lay down their defenses and resistance because of the appealing nature of egalitarian ideology.

This is the reality in the present societal situation. But in more psychologically and socially healthy situations the egalitarian impulse can be honest, real, healthy and reasonable, especially in good communities. Of course in egalitarian communities there are hierarchies too, but they are not steep, they are gentle. People at the bottom of such hierarchies almost always have satisfying fast and concrete influence in the community. People at the top share the burdens and risks others share, i.e they cant charge others burdens and risks, and live themselves in ease, luxury, safety and idleness at the expense of others. To enable this kind of community to function, the members must be similar ethnically, religiously, intellectually, in values and morals, in cooperative spirit, in individual responsibility, etc.

The liberal elites know the political power of egalitarianism as an attack ideology against them, so they have co-opted egalitarianism to their power structure, not only making it harmless, but turning it to an essential tool to bolster their power and wealth. The more people demand equality, the higher the liberal elites will rise, and thus the higher the inequality. The more "equal" the masses become, the more atomized and interchangeable individuals become, hence the more worthless and less independently capable they become. Thus they become less able to form independent social structures, which could challenge the elites, and hence the more they can be used, controlled and exploited by the elites, and hence the higher elites rise, both in absolute terms and relative to the masses. This said the masses must get something for their egalitarian demands to keep them in their place, thus the little spoils dealing system of the liberal socialist state.

keskiviikko 6. huhtikuuta 2016

Miksi Paavi pesee maahanmuuttajien jalkoja, mutta Jeesus pesee opetuslastensa jalkoja?

Paavi pesee ja suutelee kuvassa muslimien ja muiden turvapaikkaturistien jalkoja. Paavin tarkoituksena on jäljitellä Jeesuksen toimia:

(Johanneksen evankeliumi) "1 Pääsiäisjuhla oli jo tulossa, ja Jeesus tiesi, että oli tullut se hetki, jolloin hänen oli määrä siirtyä tästä maailmasta Isän luo. Hän oli rakastanut omiaan, jotka olivat tässä maailmassa, ja hän osoitti heille täydellistä rakkautta loppuun asti.

2 He olivat kokoontuneet aterialle, ja Paholainen oli jo pannut Juudaksen, Simon Iskariotin pojan, sydämeen ajatuksen, että tämä kavaltaisi Jeesuksen. 3 Jeesus tiesi, että Isä oli antanut kaiken hänen valtaansa ja että hän oli tullut Jumalan luota ja oli nyt palaamassa hänen luokseen. 4 Niinpä hän nousi aterialta, riisui viittansa ja kietoi vyötäisilleen pellavaliinan. 5 Sitten hän kaatoi vettä pesuastiaan, rupesi pesemään opetuslasten jalkoja ja kuivasi ne vyötäisillään olevalla liinalla.

6 Kun Jeesus tuli Simon Pietarin kohdalle, tämä sanoi: "Herra, sinäkö peset minun jalkani?" 7 Jeesus vastasi: "Tätä, minkä nyt teen, sinä et vielä käsitä, mutta myöhemmin sinä sen ymmärrät." 8 Pietari sanoi hänelle: "Sinä et ikinä saa pestä minun jalkojani!" Jeesus vastasi: "Jos minä en pese sinua, ei sinulla ole sijaa minun luonani." 9 Silloin Simon Pietari sanoi: "Herra, älä pese vain jalkojani, pese myös kädet ja pää." 10 Tähän Jeesus vastasi: "Se, joka on kylpenyt, ei tarvitse pesua, hän on jo puhdas.* Ja te olette puhtaita, ette kuitenkaan kaikki." 11 Jeesus tiesi, kuka hänet kavaltaisi, ja siksi hän sanoi, etteivät he kaikki olleet puhtaita. 12 Pestyään heidän jalkansa Jeesus puki viitan ylleen ja asettui taas aterialle. Hän sanoi heille: "Ymmärrättekö te, mitä teille tein? 13 Te puhuttelette minua opettajaksi ja herraksi, ja oikein teette: sehän minä olen. 14 Jos nyt minä, teidän herranne ja opettajanne, olen pessyt teidän jalkanne, tulee myös teidän pestä toistenne jalat. 15 Minä annoin teille esimerkin, jotta tekisitte saman minkä minä tein teille. 16 Totisesti, totisesti: ei palvelija ole herraansa suurempi eikä lähettiläs lähettäjäänsä suurempi. 17 Kun te tämän tiedätte ja myös toimitte sen mukaisesti, te olette autuaat."

Jalkojen pesu on erityinen opettavainen teko, joka on osoitettu omalle etniselle ryhmälle, oman juutalaisen yhteisön lähimmille jäsenille. Sen tarkoitus on opettaa opetuslapsille se, että ryhmän johtajat eivät saa erottautua ryhmästä omaksi erilliseksi ryhmäkseen, jonka intressit alkavat erottautua muusta ryhmästä. Ryhmän johtajien on siksi samanaikaisesti oltava hiukan parakdoksaalisesti johtajia ja opettajia, ja ryhmän palvelijoita. Näin oma etninen yhteisö säilyy tiiviinä, yhtenäisenä ja voimakkaana. Jeesus oli nähnyt juutalaisten keskuudessa sen minkälaiseen turmiolliseen tilanteeseen johtajien, fariseusten, eriytyminen muista juutalaisista johtaa:

(Matteuksen evankeliumi) " Sitten Jeesus puhui väkijoukolle ja opetuslapsilleen: 2 "Mooseksen istuin on nyt lainopettajien ja fariseusten hallussa. 3 Tehkää siis niin kuin he sanovat ja noudattakaa heidän opetustaan. Älkää kuitenkaan ottako oppia heidän teoistaan, sillä he puhuvat yhtä ja tekevät toista. 4 He köyttävät kokoon raskaita ja hankalia taakkoja ja sälyttävät ne ihmisten kannettaviksi, mutta itse he eivät halua niitä sormellaankaan liikauttaa. 5 Kaiken minkä tekevät he tekevät vain siksi, että heidät huomattaisiin. He käyttävät leveitä raamatunlausekoteloita ja panevat viittaansa isot tupsut, 6 he istuvat pidoissa mielellään kunniapaikalla ja synagogassa etumaisilla istuimilla 7 ja ovat hyvillään, kun ihmiset toreilla tervehtivät heitä ja kutsuvat heitä rabbiksi.

8 "Älkää te antako kutsua itseänne rabbiksi, sillä teillä on vain yksi opettaja ja te olette kaikki veljiä. 9 Älkää myöskään kutsuko isäksi ketään, joka on maan päällä, sillä vain yksi on teille isä, hän, joka on taivaissa. 10 Älkää antako kutsua itseänne oppimestariksi, sillä teillä on vain yksi mestari, Kristus. 11 Joka teistä on suurin, se olkoon toisten palvelija. 12 Sillä joka itsensä korottaa, se alennetaan, mutta joka itsensä alentaa, se korotetaan."

Tämä kohta toistaa saman opetuksen kuin jalkojen pesu. Jeesuksen tarkoituksena ei ole poistaa tai kumota hierarkioita tai johtajien asemaa. Hänen tarkoituksenaan on modifioida johtajien toimintaa, suhtautumista ja intressejä, modifioida suhtautumista oman yhteisön jäseniin yleisesti ja suhtautumista toisiin johtajiin (johtajien välinen statuskilpailu on usein kovaa ja armotonta).

Vuorisaarnassa Jeesus sanoo:

1. "Älkää tuomitko, ettei teitä tuomittaisi; 2. sillä millä tuomiolla te tuomitsette, sillä teidät tuomitaan; ja millä mitalla te mittaatte, sillä teille mitataan. 3. Kuinka näet rikan, joka on veljesi silmässä, mutta et huomaa malkaa omassa silmässäsi? 4. Taikka kuinka saatat sanoa veljellesi: 'Annas, minä otan rikan silmästäsi', ja katso, malka on omassa silmässäsi? 5. Sinä ulkokullattu, ota ensin malka omasta silmästäsi, ja sitten sinä näet ottaa rikan veljesi silmästä. 6. Älkää antako pyhää koirille, älkääkä heittäkö helmiänne sikojen eteen, etteivät ne tallaisi niitä jalkoihinsa ja kääntyisi ja repisi teitä.
7. Anokaa, niin teille annetaan; etsikää, niin te löydätte; kolkuttakaa, niin teille avataan.
8. Sillä jokainen anova saa, ja etsivä löytää, ja kolkuttavalle avataan. 9. Vai kuka teistä on se ihminen, joka antaa pojallensa kiven, kun tämä pyytää häneltä leipää, 10. taikka, kun hän pyytää kalaa, antaa hänelle käärmeen? 11. Jos siis te, jotka olette pahoja, osaatte antaa lapsillenne hyviä lahjoja, kuinka paljoa ennemmin teidän Isänne, joka on taivaissa, antaa sitä, mikä hyvää on, niille, jotka sitä häneltä anovat! 12. Sen tähden, kaikki, mitä te tahdotte ihmisten teille tekevän, tehkää myös te samoin heille; sillä tämä on laki ja profeetat. 13. Menkää ahtaasta portista sisälle. Sillä se portti on avara ja tie lavea, joka vie kadotukseen, ja monta on, jotka siitä sisälle menevät; 14. mutta se portti on ahdas ja tie kaita, joka vie elämään, ja harvat ovat ne, jotka sen löytävät. 15. Kavahtakaa vääriä profeettoja, jotka tulevat teidän luoksenne lammastenvaatteissa, mutta sisältä ovat raatelevaisia susia. 16. Heidän hedelmistään te tunnette heidät. Eihän orjantappuroista koota viinirypäleitä eikä ohdakkeista viikunoita? 17. Näin jokainen hyvä puu tekee hyviä hedelmiä, mutta huono puu tekee pahoja hedelmiä. 18. Ei saata hyvä puu kasvaa pahoja hedelmiä eikä huono puu kasvaa hyviä hedelmiä.
19. Jokainen puu, joka ei tee hyvää hedelmää, hakataan pois ja heitetään tuleen.
20. Niin te siis tunnette heidät heidän hedelmistään.

21. Ei jokainen, joka sanoo minulle: 'Herra, Herra!', pääse taivasten valtakuntaan, vaan se, joka tekee minun taivaallisen Isäni tahdon. 22. Moni sanoo minulle sinä päivänä: 'Herra, Herra, emmekö me sinun nimesi kautta ennustaneet ja sinun nimesi kautta ajaneet ulos riivaajia ja sinun nimesi kautta tehneet monta voimallista tekoa?' 23. Ja silloin minä lausun heille julki: 'Minä en ole koskaan teitä tuntenut; menkää pois minun tyköäni, te laittomuuden tekijät'. 24. Sen tähden on jokainen, joka kuulee nämä minun sanani ja tekee niiden mukaan, verrattava ymmärtäväiseen mieheen, joka rakensi huoneensa kalliolle. 25. Ja rankkasade lankesi, ja virrat tulvivat, ja tuulet puhalsivat ja syöksyivät sitä huonetta vastaan, mutta se ei sortunut, sillä se oli kalliolle perustettu. 26. Ja jokainen, joka kuulee nämä minun sanani eikä tee niiden mukaan, on verrattava tyhmään mieheen, joka rakensi huoneensa hiekalle. 27. Ja rankkasade lankesi, ja virrat tulvivat, ja tuulet puhalsivat ja syöksähtivät sitä huonetta vastaan, ja se sortui, ja sen sortuminen oli suuri." 28. Ja kun Jeesus lopetti nämä puheet, olivat kansanjoukot hämmästyksissään hänen opetuksestansa, 29. sillä hän opetti heitä niinkuin se, jolla valta on, eikä niinkuin heidän kirjanoppineensa."

Jeesus siis sanoi: "Älkää antako pyhää koirille, älkääkä heittäkö helmiänne sikojen eteen, etteivät ne tallaisi niitä jalkoihinsa ja kääntyisi ja repisi teitä." Jeesus kieltää juutalaisia kohdistamasta  opetuksiaan, hyväntekeväisyyttä, anteeksiantoa, oikeudenmukaisuutta, jne., juutalaisen yhteisön ulkopuolisiin. Jeesus käytti ei-juutalaisista vertauskuvallisia nimityksiä koira ja sika, kuten voimme havaita kanaanilaisnaisen tapauksesta. Vain oman yhteisön tähteitä saa antaa riittävän oikeamielisille ja hyväntahtoisille ulkopuolisille:

"21 Lähdettyään sieltä Jeesus meni Tyroksen ja Sidonin seudulle. 22 Siellä muuan kanaanilainen nainen, sen seudun asukas, tuli ja huusi: "Herra, Daavidin Poika, armahda minua! Paha henki vaivaa kauheasti tytärtäni." 23 Mutta hän ei vastannut naiselle mitään.

Opetuslapset tulivat Jeesuksen luo ja pyysivät: "Tee hänelle jotakin. Hän kulkee perässämme ja huutaa." 24 Mutta Jeesus vastasi: "Ei minua ole lähetetty muita kuin Israelin kansan kadonneita lampaita varten." 25 Silti nainen tuli lähemmäs, heittäytyi maahan Jeesuksen eteen ja sanoi: "Herra, auta minua!" 26 Mutta Jeesus sanoi hänelle: "Ei ole oikein ottaa lapsilta leipä ja heittää se koiranpenikoille." 27 "Ei olekaan, Herra", vastasi nainen, "mutta saavathan koiratkin syödä isäntänsä pöydältä putoilevia palasia." 28 Silloin Jeesus sanoi hänelle: "Suuri on sinun uskosi, nainen! Tapahtukoon niin kuin tahdot." Siitä hetkestä tytär oli terve."

Paavi toimii vastoin Jeesuksen opetuksia ja esimerkkiä. Suurin osa maahanmuuttajista tulkitsee Paavin teon heikkouden ja tyhmyyden osoituksena. Monissa maahanmuuttajien kulttuureissa heikkouteen ja tyhmyyteen suhtaudutaan halveksien ja inhoten, ja niitä hyväksikäytetään niin kauan kuin ne jatkuvat. Paavi heikentää teollaan kristittyjä ja kristinuskoa. Jalkojen pesu voidaan tulkita oikein vain oikeanlaisessa kristityssä kontekstissa, tiiviin kristillisen yhteisön sisällä. Paavi osoittaa teoillaan, että hän ei ole kristitty. Paavi kuuluu samaan maallistuneiden liberaalien joukkoon kuin Suomen luterilaisen valtionkirkon edustajat. Paavi on juuri sellainen omasta yhteisöstään ja kristityistä eriytynyt johtaja, joista Jeesus varoitti.

Kun kaikenlaiset liberaalit johtajat ovat eriytyneet kansoistaan ja toimivat niitä vastaan, on vahvistettava omia yhteisöjä kaikilla tasoilla, ruohonjuuritason yhteisöistä kansallisiin yhteisöihin saakka, toisin sanoen on toimittava samalla tavalla kuin Jeesus samassa tilanteessa.

maanantai 28. maaliskuuta 2016

Naisten rooli poliittisen korrektiuden synnyssä (edit)

Kommentoin toisaalla seuraavasti:

There are important differences in political orthodoxies. The liberal political correctness is a special case. It is a propagandistic and manipulative attempt to establish utopia on earth with words, speech, pictures and moving pictures. According to it almost nothing bad can happen inside the liberal favored "universe", inside liberal favored policies, inside liberal favored groups. Almost all significant bad happens outside liberal spheres, in non-liberal circles or by non-liberal circles. Everything is heavily distorted, to the point of ridiculousness. Even large terrorist attacks are explained away in such a way, to such an extent and in such a force, that if one is stupid or pliable enough to believe them, it is as if the terrorist attacks never really happened, or if they happened, it was all non-favored groups fault, which had nothing to do with the attack (racism; not accepting enough; bad habits, which they imitated; discrimination; etc.). It started as manipulation of all the massess, regardless of political orientation, but they are increasingly incredulous, and mock liberal stupidity. The political correctness has, without liberal elites noticing it, started to distort increasingly their own view of reality, it has turned increasingly into a manipulation of liberal elites themselves, thus the liberal information bubble / liberal bubble. Because of this it sometimes feels like mentally handicapped people rule us. Why liberal elites dont notice this? Because they still think they are manipulating only the massess. They think that the alternative to constant lies and manipulation is collapse of society into chaos and violence, ultimately universal violence. They have narcissistic bombastic and inflated view of themselves as the only line, only force that separates civilized society from chaos and barbarism. And the illusion that they are doing the manipulation and not manipulated themselves is worsened by the fact that they separate to some extent their view of reality from the propaganda, but it is far from enough. This inadequate separation allows them to think behind the scenes that they are hard nosed realists, when outsiders notice they are in reality deluded dreamwalkers.

Whatever is the purpose of political orthodoxy, its purpose should not be that elites and massess lose self-destructively their grip on reality, like is happening with political correctness, or that elites entrench themselves to bunkers of their lies and mistakes, like Hitler in his last days, when happenings in the real world and realism start to reassert themselves.

This is exacerbated by the fact that liberal political correctness is a feminine, nurturing, caring, kind, etc. ideology, as if cold bureaucracy could care. Political correctness has a strong feminine input from women, and liberals favor this input. So what is womans nature? In ancestral families womans central task was reproduction and child caring, and all kinds of smaller related tasks. Mans task was to protect his  woman and community together with other men, and to hunt, fish, or otherwise gather resources to his family, mostly this too together with other men. Pregnancy and child caring are delicate things. If woman and unborn child and children are too often or too constantly stessed or fearful, these may damage the unborn childs and childrens development. Thus mans important function is to protect his woman from the outside stresses and fears, to function as a protective buffer between hard reality and family. If man doesnt do this, if man doesnt create relatively stress free environment, woman has natural tendency to complain and be unsatisfied. Woman is bit more accepting to the stresses that originate from the inside of family, because they are more controllable, but not infinitely. So lets say woman is pregnant, and at the same time mens community has received information that enemy tribe has done some moves which could lead to a war in 6 months, maybe in a year, but it is not such an immediate problem, that women must be informed. Men must prepare, but women are not needed in these preparations. Should the man tell his woman? If man tells his woman, woman becomes stressed, maybe the whole six months or years time, and the pregnancy is already stressful. Additional stresses may cause problems to pregnancy, developmental problems to the fetus. Woman would complain and be unsatisfied. This would increase mans stresses and distract his attention from more important things. If woman is stressed that whole time there is only downsides to it, no advantages. It is better that men take care of war preparations among themselves. So the man says to his woman, "Everything is alright, honey, I have all things under control, you dont have to worry, relax honey." And the woman hums satisfied, smiles and kisses his man.

Here we can see proto political correctness. Man lies by omission to his woman, and maybe tells some soothing lies on top of that. These same psychological tendencies function today, so every time women are accepted into politics they create tendencies toward political correctness, tendencies to transform political communication into soothing lies. And when women are accepted into politics, men try to cater to their tastes, and uphold this false, unrealistic, harmful and self-destructive communication environment.

In Finland, over 2/3 of Finnish Green party supporters are women. Most conspicuous leaders are men. This party has the most rigid political correctness, and they communicate inside the party almost exclusively about things like furry animals with the excuse of animal rights or some such reason; non-stressful and non-violent 'emergencies', like climate change and hunger in some far away country, which allow them to feel like important benefactors by saying something nice about it publicly or sending 5 euros there; supporting some "helping" state and municipal projects, from which they get perhaps support too; etc. The supporters communicate with each other by saying nice things and sending pictures of beautiful sceneries, cute animals and such; debates, let alone conflicts between people or saying something negative about somebody or some group are a big no-no in their public spaces. When a man like me with rough intelligent words from the real world lands into their public space, the effect is like wolf landing to a henhouse. They are unprepared, and descend almost into a panic like state. Their leaders advocate all kinds universal holding hands, global friendship, total acceptance, niceness, etc. causes, and open borders of course. When the pressure from the real world becomes too great, and their leaders are finally compelled to say something against evil, like when muslim hordes harassed, raped, robbed and battered thousands of women in Cologne and all over Europe around new year, it is a tortured and stressful process. So the saying leader sinks the small 'against' somewhere in the middle of torrents of human rights, friendships between, we must understand, they are good people, etc. The Greens can uphold this mental image of liberal utopia by insulating themselves almost wholly from non-liberal sources, and receiving information about them through green and other liberal filters.

Our True Finns party's communication style is preponderantly mens communication, and most of the supporters are men. We have many good women too, like the following Laura Huhtasaari:


Notice that in our hunter gatherer example womans and mans behavior was approriate. It is only when womens impulses become collective in politics, when it becomes harmful. Collectives of women are not the only or original cause of political correctness, but it is the reason that pushed us over the edge of a high cliff. Thus one of the means to reduce the harmful effect of political correctness is to reduce specifically and consciously womens communication and influence in politics, if they are politically correct, and increase specifically and consciously mens communication and influence in politics, if they are realists.

tiistai 23. helmikuuta 2016

Yliopistot ja media heimoaffiliaatioina ja todellisuuden suodattimina (edit)

Lainaus Scott Alexanderilta (liberaali):

"People naturally divide into ingroups and outgroups. Although the traditional way of doing this is by race or religion (leading to racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, etc), in modern America this is gradually being replaced by a more complicated division based on social class and political affiliation. Rural working-class people have become a very different tribe (“Red Tribe”) than college-educated urban people in gated professions (“Blue Tribe”), with different food preferences, sport preferences, entertainment preferences, dialects, religions, mores, and politics. These two groups are vehemently opposed.

(if you only read one link in this piece, read that vehemently opposed one. The rest are just citations; that one contains an important piece of the story that’s hard to summarize).
While politics is about equally split between them, the media and academia are almost entirely Blue Tribe.
To make the point about the media: a 2008 study found that 88% of contributions by people in the media went to Democrats; a 2004 study with slightly different methodology that limited itself to journalists found an even larger bias. Here’s a survey that finds that if journalists were their own congressional district, they would be the most liberal district in the country, much further left even than Berkeley, California.
To make the point about academia: a recent analysis found that 91% of Harvard professors who donated to a presidential campaign donated to Hillary (with the remainder divided between Sanders and all eight GOP candidates). Jon Haidt’s does a lot of work on this at heterodoxacademy and finds that there’s a 14:1 ration of liberals to conservatives in the non-economics social sciences. Meta-analyses in psychology, psychiatry, and economics all find that the personal views of experimenters affect what results they get; the psychology study, which quantifies the results, finds a very large effect size – larger than most effect sizes actually discovered in social science, meaning we have no idea how much of what we know is real effect and how much is experimenter political bias. On a related note, only 30% to 50% of experiments in psychology persist after replication attempts (other academic disciplines are as bad or worse). On a related note, meta-analyses observe clear evidence of publication bias in politically charged domains – for example, this meta-analysis finds that papers are more likely to be published as opposed to file-drawered if they support the liberal position rather than the conservative one. Also, lots and lots of people in academia, even the very liberal people, will admit this is true if you ask them directly. Haidt, Tetlock, et al (see previously cited paper) have found lots of horrifying things like journal editors saying explicitly and proudly they’d refuse to publish articles that support conservative ideas, or professors saying that other academics whose research implies conservative ideas shouldn’t be hired or given tenture.
So given the fact that our knowledge of the world is coming from a 90-percent-plus liberal group that’s working hard to enforce orthodoxy, and then being filtered and broadcast to us by another 90-percent-plus liberal group that’s working hard to enforce orthodoxy, our knowledge of the world is … about as skewed as you would expect from this process. To give just one example, every number and line of evidence we have suggests that the police do not disproportionately target or kill black people compared to the encounter rate (see Part D here and this study) but the conventional wisdom is absolutely 100% certain they do and anybody who questions it is likely to sound like some kind of lunatic.
Once again, I think of these political differences as secondary to (and proxy for) more complicated tribal/class differences, and these tribes/classes really really hate each other and are trying to destroy each other (remember, multiple experiements – 1, 2, 3 – find that people’s party/class/tribe prejudices are stronger than their racial/religious prejudices). So imagine an institution that’s 90% Klansmen, with all its findings interpreted by and transmitted through a second institution that’s 90% Klansmen, and consider how useful (or not) the information about black people that eventually reaches you through the conjunction of those two institutions will be.
Because the Blue Tribe’s base is in education and the opinion-setting parts of the media, their class interest is to increase the power of these areas. I don’t want to sound too conspiratorial by making it sound like this is organized (it’s not), but classes tend to evolve distributed ways to pursue their class interests without organization. In this case, that means to enforce credentialism (ie a system where the officialness of your education matters more than your ability) and orthodoxy (whether you hold the right opinions is more important than ability). We see the credentialism in for example the metastatic spread of degree requirements. You need a college degree to have the same opportunities as you’d have gotten from a high school degree in 1960. This isn’t because jobs require more knowledge today; there are thousands of jobs that will take you if you’ve got an Art History degree, not because Art History is relevant to the job, but because they insist on candidates having some, any, college degree. The Blue Tribe protects its own and wants to impoverish anyone who doesn’t kowtow to their institutions. For the same reason, we get bizarre occupational licensing restrictions like needing two years of training to braid people’s hair, which have been proven time and time again not to work or improve quality, but which effectively lock poor people (and people who just don’t do well with structure) out of getting liveable jobs.
The opposite of credentialism is meritocracy – the belief that the best person should get the job whether or not they’ve given $200,000 to Yale. In my crazy conspiracy theory, social justice is the attack arm of the educated/urban/sophisticated/academic Blue Tribe, which works by constantly insisting all competing tribes are racist and sexist and therefore need to be dismantled/taken over/put under Blue Tribe supervision for their own good. So we get told that meritocracy is racist and sexist. Colleges have pronounced talking about meritocracy to be a microaggression, and the media has declared that supporting meritocracy is inherently racist. Likewise, we are all told that standardized tests and especially IQ are racist and hurt minorities, even though in reality this testing helps advance minorities better than the current system. For the same reason, colleges are moving away from the SATs (an actual measure of student intelligence), to how well students do in interviews, how well they write essays, and other things which are obvious proxies for social class and tribal affiliation.
STEM culture and nerd culture is (was?) this weird alternative domain that had Blue Tribe advantages like education and wealth, but also wasn’t drinking their Kool-Aid – they took pride in being meritocratic, they didn’t care what college you went to as long as you were smart, and they were okay enjoying their own weird culture instead of following sophisticated trend-setters. The Blue Tribe was spooked, so they called in their attack arm, and soon enough we started hearing these constant calls in Blue-affiliated media and circles to destroy nerd culture (2, 3, etc, etc) because it is inherently misogynistic, racist, etc. It’s why we’re told that Silicon Valley is full of “brogrammers” and “techbros” (compare “Berniebro”, which everyone now agrees was a Hillarysphere attempt to smear Sanders supporters). It’s why we’re told that tech is “incredibly white and male” and “needs to get less white” and just generally has this huge and unique diversity problem – even though in reality it’s possibly the most racially diverse industry in the country, at a full 60% non-white. It’s why we’re told that there is terrible bias against women in science academia, when in fact anyone can read the studies showing that controlling for all other factors, women are twice as likely to be hired for tenure-track STEM positions as men [bad link] and academic science is not sexist at all. It’s why we’re told women fear for their lives in Silicon Valley because of endemic sexual harassment, even though nobody’s ever formally investigated if it’s worse than anywhere else, and the only informal survey I’ve ever seen shows harrassment in STEM to be well-below the average harrassment rate.
What’s happening at GitHub itself right now is actually a pretty good example. The old CEO was fired because of various accusations (later investigated and found to be false; the firing was not revoked). The new CEO has banned the term “meritocracy”, replaced workers managing their own affairs with a system of no-doubt-well-credentialled middle managers, and given lots of power to a “diversity team” that declares all remnants of the old company culture racist and sexist. According to Business Insider, there’s now a “culture of fear” and a lot of the most talented employees are leaving. People are saying GitHub made some kind of mistake, but I suspect all is going according to plan, the talented employees will be replaced with better-credentialled ones, the media will call everybody who left “techbros” who were suffering from “aggrieved entitlement”, GitHub will join the general Silicon Valley 2.0 landscape of open-plan offices and Pointy Haired Bosses, lather, rinse, repeat, and ten years from now bright-but-lower-class unsophisticated people without college degrees won’t be able to find a job in Silicon Valley any more than they can on Wall Street or anywhere else."

Sivun näyttöjä yhteensä