Amerika

Our take on this site is different from all other sources on the internet: the source of human problems comes from basic psychology, not evil controllers, and the way to fix it is to become more sane through having a transcendent purpose again.

In particular, we write about The Human Problem and The Committee Mentality. The first is that human groups, if left to their own devices, will naturally arrive at something like Communism, a.k.a. free stuff enforced at gunpoint. The second is that Committees tend to “buy off” small visible problems and ignore big harder-to-understand but vital issues.

These occur through social/peer means. In groups, people feel good when everyone else feels good; this, they think, removes legitimate causes for conflict such as inequality, and therefore everyone is safe. In the same way, a committee feels good when no specific critiques of it can be leveled, only general grumbling, since that is a constant.

In short, through conflict avoidance, both individuals and groups invert themselves, or avoid any of the necessary things in order to chase after warm feelings from pleasant illusions.

Elites face a different challenge. First, they become accustomed to buying off problems, i.e. paying people to fix things for them, and this becomes so regular it resembles parasitism. Second, they start using this parasitism as a means of control, freely giving money but demanding loyalty in return.

They distance themselves from the working and lower half of middle classes because these new elites want to rise above their origins and be important; this, they reason, is a fair trade for all they give away. Every dollar they spend in taxes simply affirms that they are above those who do not pay taxes.

Over time, they become cynical. They see anyone below them as a potential criminal; they see their own role not as achieving anything, but as avoiding the type of complaints that could cause them to lose their positions. They reject the idea of goals or actual improvement and focus on symbolism instead.

Similarly, pagans had living nature gods when they were vital, but as soon as they lost purpose, they adopted passive gods who give them things in exchange for loyalty. The concept of good/evil as something other than luck/misfortune arose from this era of the Age of Symbolism.

The problem with power is that the more it is exercised, whether to prohibit things, rank people with tests, or to give free gifts like the welfare state, the less the population can fend for itself. Through degeneration, over generations they lose the ability for independent thought and action.

Elites during these times become so accustomed to being the committee that “just writes checks” and buys off every special interest group, victim, or failure that they eventually want to become the dispensers of money to everyone, because then they will have total allegiance. This is why intellectuals love Socialism.

As it turns out, the dual forces of diversity and socialism — these seem to always be paired — have changed our electorate so that the Bobos are running the show, for the Democrats:

A simple and intuitive view of democratic politics holds that political parties exist to advance the material self-interest of the coalitions that support them. If this were true, then as the Democrats became the party of high-earning college graduates, they would have abandoned economic policies that would threaten those voters’ pocketbooks. A version of this essentially Marxist analysis has become standard fare on the right, where the phrase woke capital has become a slur to describe the Democrats’ supposed fealty to corporate America; the Republican vice-presidential candidate, J. D. Vance, has argued that the Democratic Party is now the party of Wall Street.

But as wealthier and better-educated voters have shifted toward the Democrats, the party and its constituents have become more economically progressive, not less. They have largely united around an economic agenda that emphasizes aiding the poor and middle class, and around messaging that places that agenda front and center. The very richest Democrats have become just as left-wing on economics as their less affluent party members, and far more economically progressive than low- and middle-income Republicans. U.S. politics seems to have decisively entered what you might call a post-Marxist or post-materialist phase.

This refered to the group of trace admixture Europeans — Southern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans, and the Irish — who replaced WASPs as the ruling caste in America:

The WASPs may have been racist and elitist. They may have been the establishment that we Bobos destroyed. But at least they weren’t consumed by ambition. So when we look at those calm beautiful faces in the Ralph Lauren ads, we can’t help feeling that they have something we long for. (97)

Change the genetics and you change the politics. Funny how that is, since changing the genetics also changes the culture, average IQ, abilities, and attitude toward fair play and the law. Not surprisingly, the group in charge now is heavily invested in bringing other diversity into the nation to further destroy what is left of the WASPs.

Arguably, on top of that, our nü-elites make their money from the government and therefore depend on Keynesian socialism to produce the consumer base that buys their products and keeps their stocks at a high value; our elites are the product of LBJ socialism in the vein of FDR socialism:

The Pittsburgh campaign speech that Harris’s actually resembles is one made by President Lyndon Baines Johnson at the city’s Civic Center Arena just days before the 1964 election. To a crowd of more than 10,000 “happy shouting Democrats—with some Republicans,” as the press politely described it, Johnson made a full-throated case for his own version of “bold, persistent experimentation,” his open-ended Great Society program. After all, as Johnson allowed cheerily, here in America, “we’re as big as our ideas.”

The same year, the president also launched his War on Poverty, to cure — “cure,” not alleviate — poverty. Such commitments secured Johnson both victory and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate that he required to experiment to his heart’s content.

Johnson continued to churn out laws and programs by the dozen. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Voting Rights Act of 1965 were only the beginning; there were social-welfare benefits and a vast variety of programs tailored to specific groups that live on today: Head Start for preschoolers, food stamps, Medicare. Few of these programs were carefully defined, and few devoted resources to measuring their own success.

Johnson transformed our government by dedicating it to fighting poverty and “racism” instead of aiming to be prosperous and creative. Not surprisingly, jobs became jails, the sexes became alienated, diversity riots broke out frequently, and infrastructure crumbled as people became hopeless and bitter.

Our only remaining solution is to go back to the WASP elite. Racial nationalism does not work, nor does civic nationalism, but ethno-nationalism does, and the ethnic Western European Cro-Magnid/Nordic-Germanic ethnic group was the last one to make America into a place we could be proud of, without socialism or diversity either.

Tags: age of symbolism, civil rights, crowdism, diversity, lyndon baines johnson, socialism, the committee mentality, the human problem