Libertarians are Rabbits:

   It is a necessity for ones political views to mature, to read publications, preferably in all forms, of other political schools. For most of my active political life libertarians were considered an allied group to a right winger. Certain events taking place in Europe and elsewhere, challenged the notion. Libertarian governments have proved themselves to be far more reliable at dealing with the right than left wing governments. Libertarian public administrators have brought higher numbers of illegal aliens than assertive left wing governments.

   This observation made the writer think on a few things regarding the r/K psychological evolutionary theory as presented by anonymous conservative. First it should be introduced as it is and then as it was presented:

   The r/K theory describes reproductive patterns and parental attention towards offspring. r selected organisms (rabbits) tend to be inattentive to their children and to reproduce in large numbers. Their strategy is to take advantage of a large amount of easily accessible resources in the least amount of time. For this reason their behaviour is generally cowardly, characterised also by low group cohesion. Children are raised by the one parent and they get emancipated at a younger age.

With K selected organisms (Wolves) the situation is different. High group cohesion high parental attentiveness, were both parents take place in rearing children, groups are tight and they number few loyal members. This strategy exists to take advantage of sparse resources in a highly competitive environment. Wolves also fight for the control of territory as losing it would lead to starvation.

Anonymous conservative, being more of libertarian due to American tradition, misunderstands the qualities of wolves and rabbits. While it is true that rabbits center on bigger groups they do that only to have lower chances as individuals to be picked off by wolves. Wolves gather in small groups to achieve feats otherwise not possible. He believed that when people show higher ingroup preference and lower individualism are characterised by rabbit behaviour while higher individualism is being seen as wolf behaviour. Both these statements are incorrect as we humans are a highly K selected species with tendencies to higher K (alternatively K weighted) or lower K (r weighted).

   His mistake was egregiously serious as it leads to vast misreadings of the surrounding world and of the daily experience. Two examples should suffice as a provision of logical thought to truthfinding.

   A good example is of a “rabbit” group of people, or wealth takers. Such a group will do anything to achieve,  as a group, higher recipiency of government handouts, while actively voting to marginalise wealth creation groups, from the political sphere. This group is not rabbitish but wolfish! It tries to take advantage of fewer resources while protecting political capital, in place of territory, in the example. The individuals are rabbitish but as a group they are wolfish.

   A “wolf” group would, of wealth creators would act differently. As a group they would not really participate in the fight for political capital as it would make them lose precious time for wealthmaking. Their way of thinking is that by working hard they ‘ll make themselves more rich. The group disregards also other groups attacking it as a group because it would lead to a loss of wealth on their part as a group. As individuals they appear wolfish as they create wealth, but as a group they are rabbitish as they respond by flight in front of an enemy and use numbers as a way to minimise losses.

   Libertarians for all their drivel against taxation live today in more heavily taxed societies, where more money are being removed from the coffers of productive citizens to non-producing individuals, than the time they appeared. As a group, the libertarians, took advantage of a specific environment, legal and political, that was made by late monarchies and empires 200-300 years ago (Note 1) in order to maximise the monarch’s wealth while keeping taxes relatively low. This environment was perfect for allowing individuals to bring, trade, or create by industry, more new wealth in a controlled and managed environment. It is not to be put to question that with the rise of the democratic state that specific state was put to question and redistribution started. The big thing to be noticed is that the group most inclined to stop redistribution does not only care for politics (public matters) but offers no tangible resistance to it.

Hence Libertarians only provide wealth to redistributors, while whining about the result and fighting against any person who might want to attack the current redistributors. The reason is that the current environment still provides with enough opportunities for wealth creation while flight or fight conditions would cost more to them. For anyone thinking the libertarian rabbit as an ally to right-wing wolf, anonymous conservative’s misunderstanding should suffice as blackpill. For others more read on economics there might be a Minsky moment (note 2) for the said rabbits.

A moment in which inaction will cause more than any action has already reached some states in both Europe and the United States. Californians have been noticed moving to Texas as their burden becomes bigger. The result is that libertarians or liberals will choose fleeing to greener pastures never fighting back. So even when they ‘ll suffer their Minsky moment they ‘ll never ally with an enemy of the left. The good news are that they can be by-passed by the right as they are being by-passed by the left while anybody could take advantage of their wealth making in a market environment, as long as they do not overdo it and trigger their flight response.

 

Note 1: Now this was said as such for reasons of extreme simplicity, libertarianism was the reaction to early socialism in the 20th century demanding a return to laissez faire capitalism, while the time approximation does not take into account capitalism’s enforcement, which could have a book written on it, economic and political thought, esp. in England was developing to that direction.

Note 2: Minsky’s moment is when financially a subsequent loan will NOT cover the expenses of previous loans, hence leading to illiquidity. The reason for that is bad risk valuation. i.e. Due to good times more people consider risk to be low while it is high and as a result predictions go foul and a financial crisis starts. Here it is used in behavioural way. It was formulated by Paul McCulley in honour of Hyman Minsky

Humanism… THAT CANCER!!!

Humanism… the mother ideology of all modern ideologies and the religion of our times. To humanism can be attributed the fact that no big novels or epics can be written anymore. The reason why we need to jeopardize our countries safety for the right of individuals. The reason why most lives of law-abiding citizens are put in danger for the benefit of, what some have called, the more beautiful human beings. Humanism is the basis of the ideology of communism, socialism, conservativism, libertarianism and yes even nationalism, traditionalism and national socialism! No ideology, even from the ones that can be to our benefit, is free from its touch.

But what is that ideology? The Baron says that it is not an ideology… but a religion! And a sacrilegious at that. This is true for one reason: its main thesis is not political or ideological but deeply philosophical to the point that it becomes a matter or theology. But to understand its rise one needs to see when and where it did arise.

Humanism was a worldview that started to appear sometime during the renaissance in Italy. Italy was the first place that started to see truly secular rulership in Europe at that time and the classic conceptions of the world at that time were all antithetical to it. The question at that time was how these rulers could legitimize themselves? The beliefs of the time saw the hegemon as the head to the whole societal structure, divinely connected to all its parts by the grace that was given to him by God. Instead the secular leader of the time was in it for himself and his family only. Humanism could give that much needed legitimacy.

Humanism concerns itself with the question of mans position on the cosmos. The cosmological make-up at that time considered everything stemming from God and all being under Him. This Theocentric point-of-view had to see every single thing as a part of a divine and holy construction that was connected to everything else by the grace of God. This belief was also transplanted to represent the structure of society. Humanism, as the name suggest, was a religion that basically put Man to the place of God, sporting and anthropocentric point-of-view, from which every thing had to be centered on pleasing Man.

This might sound well in its concept… but faces serious problem when analyzed a further. Notice that “Man” was put instead of “human”, by semantics, what is the difference? Quality! “Man” is a theoretic construct a divination of humans in the idea of a clearly perfect human. Applying a philosophy that wants to please the perfect human, and ascribes willingly or unwillingly this quality to all its adherents, while simultaneously giving the quality of a non-human to all its non-adherents, in the Baron’s book is a little bit problematic. Understand that the reason why modern liberals seek to dehumanise immediately all their opponents to the ultimate degree, is because they ascribe to this principle. This is needed because in the humanist book there can be no evil or bad man, if one is evil or bad he is not a human, while if one recognises one such in his own group… he must be mistaken.

Humanism though in its time managed to only bring a start to the slave trade from Africa, it proved very difficult for itself to spread to other countries or to wide societal strata. This changed during the enlightenment! During its time  humanist ideologies that could and today have managed to obtain popular support started to sprout left and right like mushrooms.

The Blues in France treated non-republicans as non-humans and proceeded to slaughter them all leading to the reign of terror and culminating to the events of the Vendee (google it)! By an even worse point the Enlighteners DID NOT see the shortcomings of their own ideologies! They saw human rights, democracy as gods that cannot be questioned and have no problem that is intrinsic to them. The reign of terror as was described by sir Edmund Burke was a time in which total chaos ruled. There was no law, just the complete domination of human rights and republican values. This meant that people used their human rights to refuse to pay rent or taxes and there was no way by which they could be challenged. The rise of man like Napoleon at that time was inevitable as not only the corruption of the Republicans was evident their ability to keep control of the country was clearly visible.

These results occured because Humanism has next to idea of the human condition, the innate qualities of humans and the differences between people! Humanism considers humans as equal and perfect beings in the flesh that are incorruptible by themselves! Rousseau managed to spindoctor his way on the idea that society and its values, pre-humanist at that time, were the corruptors of human nature! By this way more mores, values and constants were removed the result in our time being evident everywhere! Open borders, loose morals and in the end the inability for the average human in our societies to orient themselves in the dessert landscape that is the modern moral and thinking world!

Lastly these influences do not stop on the moral world but also the political: democracy is god and even finding its inefficiencies and pointing them out is anathema and the man who points these out is a non-human a fascist, to use the modern phraseology, who needs to be dealt with and swiftly at that. A Humanist-based system can NOT be ever put under question: liberty, equality and fraternity, no matter how they can be seen cannot be questioned and if they have problems it is your problem for noticing them!

The intrinsic problem of humanism is that it fails to notice extrinsic values and influences. The environment, the way-of-things and nature are not being put in consideration. It cares only what humans want and pinpoints them as gods. Unlike pre-humanistic conceptions of the world that saw  complex multi-parted structures, extrinsically connected to form the whole of their objects, humanism’s scope is too small for that and instead sees masses of blobs made of equal exchangeable parts that have no difference between themselves. Democracy, liberalism, socialism etc can work as long as everyone is a perfect construct that is interchangeable with the next one because these systems have daring problems inside them that are easily exploitable it is a matter of when this happens, not if. Glaringly Humanistic based ideologies fail to notice the points that are exploitable and the ways that these are exploitable.

The only way for the mistakes of the past not to happen again we need to throw humanism out of the window even gradually but it is something that is needed to be done.

Some Thoughts on the Modern Ideology of Sex Obsession:

A product of Degeneracy brought by Westernisation.

 

It is a personal need to crave to get in contact with things and ideas that are found to be repulsive, stupid and downright regressive. This is the result of a mental condition that the writer refers to as “Intellectual Masochism”. By the afforementioned condition that ails the Baron he has been watching lately vlogs on youtube, in constant, about the gay-pride parades that were held in Athens and Thessaloniki, the two major cities of Greece. It has to his own attention two things:

The disheartening fact that after two years of a leftist government the prides became substantially successful, teeming with “allies” and transformed into a carnival. Greeks have shifted to become more liberal in these last years but the change was sudden to the point that no warning was even given to the writer of his environment.

The fact that the vlogers and specifically one young woman that mostly does dress ups and makeup tutorials commented on the ideological meaning of… rainbow makeup and face paint. Something snapped in the annals of the mind when in an another video, of a mad monk, he started throwing anathemas to the people participating and becoming quite agitated at a very specific point. That point in the events of the day was the presence of Christian group that was praising the event, the group was evidently an Evangelical Church that was participating.

This brought personal shock as the Baron did not know of the existence of Protestant groups in the vastly Orthodox country. But that is not why this blog was reanimated. The thing that made the Baron snap was the similarity between the reactions of homosexuals and their allies to the semi-religius blabberings of that specific group. They were earilly similar to all their reactions. When the Evangelicals were accused of being heretics by the mad monk their reaction was to give blessings the homosexuals were giving air kisses to the protestors against them in Thessaloniki while the girls use of words was pretty close to that which was done by the Evangelical preacher on the spot of the pride.

Without wanting to alienate the Baron’s American audience it is time to move to the real thing, after narrating the Baron’s thing-posting life.

Why are people becoming obsessed with sex to the point that they make it into their own ideology, thus basing their lives around it? Most blogs explain HOW this happened, but what interests the Baron is what is being exploited by these people? Why in the end sex, both understood as “gender” and as copulation, is allowed to become the only point of interest in so many people, and why it becomes such a great ideological point? The worship of nature by the hippies and their mania with animals is understood more easily as a want to return to a pre-civilization stage at a time when nature ruled and everything was pure. The pursuit of purity. But what purity, can be found in sex? The umbrella term that is known by the name of “Freedom” is not enough to justify this.

The main thing that starts this sisyphean decline is the fact that society has changed to be image based rather than word based. We are seeing cases in which image based thinking minds are starting to be considered superior to the more common word based based thinking minds. In the near future, as long as a reversal does not occur, the former type of minds will be far more common. Image based thinking by its nature is more chaotic and far more primitive rather than word based thinking which also allows abstract thought. What has happened is that people are losing the ability to think on abstract terms and develop non-visual schemata in their minds and when visual based ideas are being formed and advanced to the point of them becoming into ideologies things go into a bad way.

The preachers of the image

Let the pride parade be analysed as a phenomenon: it is a combination of visual conundra that combine into a perplexed web of semi-naked, colourful bodies dancing and moving to and fro, while flamboyantly coloured carnival floats move with people partying on top of them dressed in their painted nakedness in a chaotic spiral of fake copulation, vanity and indignation. The cars that may exist and music act as chariots and the cheers of the proletariat of Rome’s public in what is a parody of a Roman triumph  parade. It is a celebration of victory by the abnormals for the fact that their constant and illicit sinning has been understood as one thing holy and from being a subject of shame that required atonement it changed to a required open air display of pride and vanity that has become normalised.

This explains partially why people suddenly became so “Allied” to the LGBTQIA agenda and personae, they want to be part of those that are triumphant for the moment and join the fun, of the celebration that the thriumphator leads and moves. Still this explains only a small portion not all and neither the necessities that lead here. What this does is show how image thinking people operate: they see a triumph parade that is full of bright colours, and chaotic movement which excites the brain, thus making this into something pleasurably in the same way that moving a colourful toy in front of baby or cat or dog excited them.

To humans though there is one thing that they cannot think in not visual terms: copulation. The reason that porn is so addictive is the fact that it feeds images into people, images that excite them in the moment and specifically images of sex in all its forms and media. That is the proof why optical based ideologies can spread faster than word based ones. They are addictive through seeing! Social Justice feeds images of people trying to escape persecution, images of inequality that the media of cinema, tv, the net and photography make sure to have a lot, followed by images of retaliation and winning and the better world that is to be made. In short they have their narrative in images without the need of text! This probably also the reason why such people have a difficulty to even define what they are fighting for… words don’t suffice because they didn’t help formulate the idea in the first place!

This happens not only with Porn but also with strong Image based stimuli.

On a side note here the meme is a synthesis of words and images and hence more precise than an image based narrative but still accessible to image based thinkers. A further addition to the side note the reason the alternative right had any success with its memes is only one: they promote the image of white only lawful and peaceful societies, something that is endangered. This is brought out in order to further proof the spreading of image based thinking among the modern society.

So the Images of triumphs, colour, movement and virility on something that is destructive, sterile and only postulates as being vivid, combined with image based thinking is enough to explain why people are becoming so fanatic with it? No. The thing though is that if all this is being combined with the knowledge that most people internalise imagery in order to construct an image based ideology the answer is yes. When someone thinks by terms of images there is no room for debate or logic as images are chaotic due to the fact that they are easily obtained, easily retrievable by the mind to the point of pervasiveness and the fact that they can stir emotions pretty fast excluding logos and inquiry it is becoming evident that these beliefs, formed by a web of linked imagery in the brain, are internalised to the degree of memories!

When memories are being put to question people are becoming too agitated and for no bad reason: it puts in question their own life. A thing that must be noticed is that memories are recorded mainly in audiovisual from. This means images, scenes or sounds. Other stimuli do add up, like smell, taste or feel, but the bulk is in the former ways. So the image based ideology is a memory, a feeling scenes that are vivid with sound and motion and then the triumph parades full of colour and the chaotic movement into them a reminder of life itself to the fanatic.

So all in all when we have people that only watch and don’t read, sex is easily becoming an ideology. It becomes one due to the fact that the brain is made to find imagery of it attractive and wanting and good and pleasurable to the point that the mind wants to explain why it needs more of it and in different forms! And when sex based ideologies that propagate through the medium of image are being put in question their memorial internalisation strikes back as the life of the person is put in question and all his choices with it! By that it can further be provided that in the psychological sphere identity is nothing else but memory, so the life, choices in and alienated world become the identity of the people.

The power of image propaganda is that after the links between images are being formed it is very easy for them to be put forward and in an instance as the inward look is not required to recall and further development requires new images! Furthermore it is a totally neurotic and subconscious process! The formulation on this propaganda completely removes the ability to think abstractly and rationally by terms and notions, which if it was allowed in the first place everything would have fallen down. This the reason also why debate is not allowed by these circles and they react with immediate emotional outbursts are being spewed the moment of question. It is a decline to “long words”, notions and terms all that beside a questioning of the people’s own memories, lives and even identities. That is something they cannot let to be shaken. This is what is being exploited. By that it is understood, hopefully, what is the answer to the “why” of the matter.

 

Now the Baron must find other ways to keep himself occupied to forget the heat of the summer… maybe he ‘ll read a book or just will run to colder shadier pastures…

How Did The Situation In Greece Get To Be So Bad?

Greece is the most surreal country in the world—its defying of logic can hardly be found anywhere else. It is a place where East meets West and the Greek people have adopted some of the worst qualities of both, but not even a single good one from each one. Greece is in no better situation than the rest of Europe, in fact under many cases it is in a much worse one.

The Ottoman Influence

This is the basis for the development of the modern Greek mind. Everything happened because the Ottoman Turks conquered the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium). That had a great impact because most scholars and a part of the nobility (from which most scholars came) fled to Europe. That meant that for the next 400 years there was no development of Greek thought and language—in truth, there was deterioration. The Greek language has lost many of its significant characteristics and most of its abilities in writing, even it’s highly articulated pronunciation that was fathered in the middle ages. The lack of competent scholars led to the not developing of the needed words for such conversation.

Political Apathy

Politically the problem was the influence of the devlet. The devlet is the oppressive Arabic state (dawlat in Arabic) that the Ottomans applied to their general governorship. The devlet created a servile, but unruly, character to any people that were ruled by it. In short the people have lost any political inclination, which made them expect only an economic relationship with the state. For this reason, Greeks politically are apathetic to any issue, except if it concerns their pockets, while having a tendency to rebel for any small issue but never for a serious one.

Phillo-Ottomanism

Surprisingly there was also the development of a Stockholm syndrome with the Ottomans by the neo-Orthodox school of thought in Greece. That was phillo-Ottomanism. The neo-Orthodox was a right-wing school with leanings to the church, whose most members were ex-socialist or ex-Marxists (or Trotskyists) or ex-communists (communism in Greece is Stalinist). These people believed that the Ottomans unwillingly helped the Greek people to develop their own culture on their own terms, making it unique! They consider that in the end it was a good thing that Greece was cut off from any European influence and developed a peasant culture. In conversations with commoners in the country, a simplified version of these beliefs is a frequent occurrence.

Greek Orientalism

This in time lead to Orientalism: In Greece people feel closer to Turks and Arabs than Europeans. In Greece culture was mostly imported: literature from France for a great part of the 20^th century, music from the middle east and India, series from Turkey now in modern times. This phenomenon has led to the eradication of reason from the Greek mind. Greeks have only emotional reactions and their vindication towards political folly remains verbal. Also it is the reason why most Greeks shout for communication and are easy to pick a fight with.

Greek Marxism

The only times when Greek scholars came to the right were in the beginning of the previous century, and all of them studied either in Germany, Russia, or Italy. The problem with them was that they did not write philosophy, only treatises on self-governorship or comments and funny articles on newspapers. Leftists though took complete control of academia and the culture in Greece. Everything had to be based upon their beliefs. In Greece public universities are geared to creating communists and anarchists from the 70’s, the Junta did not manage to remove them from these positions.

The only difference that has been noted from the 80’s is that the universities have become recruiting groundd for the two main parties, so they also produce Pasokists (now Syrizaists) and New Democratics (cuckconservatives) all in all it is mainly geared to leftism.

Feminized Culture

Literature in Greece survived in its Greek form by lowering its standards and mimicking the orient. Specifically it relied on overt expressions of emotion but with some sexual degeneracy to subsidize westernization. Series also took that road long before Turkish TV series appeared. Also, even the old Greek movies primarily based themselves on this formula. An interesting thing is that the 80’s were the last time Greece produced action oriented material through its cinema or its fledgling television. Later the complete takeover or sex-comedies and soap-operas dramatic series took place.

Far more importantly, in the country gun laws are some of the most restrictive in the world. For owning even a shotgun (a hunting gun here) a specific diploma is required, while self-defense is highly discouraged by the law. The problem though stands true even for the policemen, as they do not know when and how they are allowed to use their guns! Lastly in Greece the culture that surrounds the military is highly hostile. In fact, we do not want to have an army and many Greeks cannot even understand its use! This has led to its deterioration.

A Lack Of Seriousness

All these point to the fact that in Greece nothing is taken seriously. Our borders, our economy, our defense, our culture, our religion, our education, our policing, near nothing is taken seriously… ‘til the excrement hits the fan. This is a product of Orientalism in Greece, but also points to another great problem. In this country the education system has been deteriorating for the last 30 years at least. Greeks do not learn even how to avoid mistakes with their language, not even in the universities. Journalists make juvenile mistakes in grammar, syntax, even inflection (Greek is a fusional language like German, or Russian, or Italian)!

Literate Illiteracy

This is the most important part: here you’ve got no choice. That’s it. The schools do not teach anything right. The teaching of Greek and history in schools is so bad that some parents teach these subjects to their kids themselves, to alleviate the effects. I need to point out that homeschooling was never legal here and won’t be legalized. I also need to underline the fact that boarding schools do not exist, while private schools are forced to have the exact same curriculum as the public ones. The only reason they exist is that they better look after the kids and control the courtyard.

This brings to a situation in which most people younger than 50 have at least a diploma, and on paper they should be of the most literate people in the world. When literacy is being counted they try to find how many books one person has read in his life—half of Greeks have read only one. Most works of economy, self-improvement, philosophy and politics are just out of reach for the vast majority, as relatively few works are being translated.

Greek “Nihilism”

After the fall of the junta in the mid-70’s Greece started a transformation to its political game. The two main parties could not support the changing paradigm, as a man came that awoke Greeks from their apathy. That man was Andreas Papandreou and his nemesis was Konstantinos Karamanlis, the bringer of democracy. These men were so popular at their time that in some cases holy icons were replaced by their portraits. In the end though the truly influential was the first.

Papandreou made Greeks actively vote on the promise of them being put to work in the public sector (they cannot fire you from it) and on giving them money from the economic EU handouts. He promoted also all the lifestyle magazines, which changed Greek culture dramatically during the 90’s when they became influential. In the end the average Greek cannot comprehend anything but: money, food and sex. These magazines required 10 years to see any significant success in Greece, but when that happened, with the help of PASOK on their start, Greece ceased to be a traditional society. Even worse politically if one wants to rule over Greece he cannot have the votes if he doesn’t follow the political paradigm of Papandreou. This makes Greek politics totally unable to adapt to any developing situation!

Political Holy Relics And Prideful Misery

This has led to the creation of political blasphemy. In Greece one may not touch the public sector, except the army and the police, due to our culture of constant rebellion. One may never touch public businesses, or sell public land. That is a problem because the public sector rarely manages anything properly. A good example is the “Elliniko,” a vast amount of land that used to be an airport 20 years ago. It has been left to rot ever since, and even the idea of giving it to an entrepreneur to make resorts is preposterous to the Greek mind.

Last many Greeks have some sort of pride in misery. If a Greek takes any service from the public sector and does not have money for the private, for some reason he takes pride in it. But it is not the pride like “my country gives healthcare to everyone” but “public services are much better than private ones.” That occurrence is personally referred also the “public medallion.” It is needed to point that wealthy leftists work always on the public sector, or develop close ties to it, and take all their services from the private one. For the ones working in the public sector, many of them figuratively beg politicians for a job with no prospects with the basic salary (500€ and you cannot support a family with it) and are proud for it.

Fads As The Only Motivation

This leads the final observation: after the fall of the junta there appeared, like from nowhere, democratism. The democratists were people who believed in democracy but from an anti-junta perspective. The junta said it valued three things: Fatherland, Religion and Family. The democratists preached against these while their believers were called fascists. In the end it was not a serious movement and in time it passed. The problem is that even the ones following did not really lived up to their beliefs, they were only preaching them.

Today, that fad is anti-racism. While most “racists” will not suffer repercussions, as this will happen only if the incident goes to the news, it is a fad to support “refugees”. The fact is, no one wants to deal with them and everyone throws them to the next person, like a hot potato, so that he can deal with them.

This in time will pass, but it will leave many problems to be solved. Whether Greece is capable of solving them remains to be seen

 

The Article was first plublished in return of kings at: http://www.returnofkings.com/97813/how-did-the-situation-in-greece-get-to-be-so-bad