Homogeneity is our strength

1. The 'Naturalistic fallacy' or Hume's Is-out problem. It is not a fallacy.  It has never been proven to be a fallacy. The contrary has never been proven true. A fallacy is not a fallacy unless it is proven false. The Naturalistic fallacy is an example of the 'Fallacy fallacy.' Naturalism has much more explanatory effectiveness and coherence than any other alternative. Why do intellectuals poo-poo naturalistic explanations? Because frankly they would have nothing else to say otherwise, no idealistic BS to win the praise of others. 2. Devaluing freedom of association, usually in favour of freedom of speech by Right-liberals, or forced anti-discrimination/integration by Left-liberals. Freedom of association has been greatly undermined in the West with the manufactured ideology of 'racism', 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism'. Both of these errors are killing the West. I will explain how later.

Shelley makes Liberalism sounds as idealistic and Utopian as any religion. I even see some parallels with the Sermon on the Mount. What is the relation between 'equality' and the 'individual'. (I don't think we are equal and my reification of the 'individual' has become weaker lately). Must one have a strong view of equality to have a strong view of the individual and their 'rights'? I think so, although those regimes pushing equality the strongest - the Communists - have ended up being the most hierarchical and totalitarian of all, with the State on top and the plebs below. Equality ends ups sacrificing individual 'rights' for the sake of whatever new set of individual 'rights' are trendy at the time. e.g. we need to pretend that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones therefore our 'free speech' right is sacrificed so as to protect the new 'freedom from hurt feelings' right of another. New indiv...

Aristotle, the Stoics and other ancient Greco-Roman moralists posit a very different idea of 'freedom' that involves combating the tendencies that divert us from human flourishing and contributing to our community as social animals. It is naturalistic, albeit pre-Darwinist, but it is not dogmatic like Liberalism, Leftism, etc. This ancient teach us what freedom really is, and Stoic practices in particular can inculcate an honest sense of autonomy. Liberalism claims to grant people autonomy but it only gives them a false sense of it. It effectively enslaves people to denial of their biology, hedonistic consumerism, keeping up with the Jones', seeking celebrity, lower quality social and family relations, workplace and other forms of alienation, pursuit of happiness in all the wrong places: career, travel, shiny things, sleeping around, taking drugs, etc. Liberalism won't necessarily lead to all these things, but it makes people vulnerable to their marketing, and being h...

It's curious to see how LVO of MacroBusiness seeks to oppose mass immigration. He is highly concerned about not appearing racist and will loosely labels others who oppose mass immigration, like Hanson, as 'racist', 'far right' and 'dog whistling.'  LVO is great in terms of facts and figures; there is no one better. I can understand why he is keen to avoid being called racist/xenophobic himself, because it could affect his business and genuine advocacy. But at the end of the day, one has to ask: "LVO, on what moral basis do you wish to exclude foreigners from our country's fruits?" To which, the only answer is personal and in-group/tribal preference -- which to be sure, isn't 'racism' but is interpreted as such by much of the mainstream Left nowadays. LVO is a crypto-identitarian, even though he would profusely deny the label. There is no such thing as racism per say, though there is an aspect of some tribalisms that will ma...

on the personal agency thing, I recommend Stoicism - or rather - Stoic practice (not being a philosophologist). Most people have a superficial, stereotypical view of Stoicism, but this view is misleading. It is *not* grit or stiff upper-lip or enduring pain without emotion, or coping. It actually makes you see the world differently and understand agency properly to effect positive change in your life and community. Stoicism is not an 'add-on' or utility to be employed only when you're upset about something, or facing hardship. To counter this view and get value and a proper sense of agency from Stoic practice, all I can say is actually read the words, entertain and reflect on the ideas -- rather than try to win an argument about it. Epictetus directly chastises people who want to argue *about* philosophy, rather than live it in practice. Epictetus' Enchiridion or Seneca's moral letters are good starting points: texts and audiobook can be found online. William B ...

people informally segregate all the time. You will find various ethnic enclaves in Melbourne and Sydney. Ethnocentric in-group preference is also seen in choice of friends and communication levels among work colleagues of different ethnic backgrounds. While there may be enough tolerance to allow semi-deracinated individuals to participate in capitalism and consumerism, the reality is that in-group preference is innate and Multiculturalism/diversity should be avoided a much as possible, because it breaks down social cohesion and trust. Diversity is our greatest weakness - an observable, scientific reality (footnote: Robert Putnam). Remember that forced integration has lead to many conflicts in the 20th and 21st century. WWI and Hitler would not have happened if various ethnic groups had sovereignty rather than being under the thumb of oppressive empires. Iraq and Israel/Palestine are two current examples of Multicultural conflicts. There is widespread revolt against forced integrati...

I've always had a more Marxist view of Cosmopolitanism, i.e. Cosmopolitanism is an ideology that comes from economic relations, rather than being a separate 'thing'. Ideology (ruling ideas) always serve the ruling class and it is distributed through the media, academia, education (indoctrination), politicians and HR departments. Cosmopolitan Liberalism is perfectly suited to consumption and increasing overall, equal-opportunity participation in the consumption market. It encourages female consumption via Feminism. It rejoices when new, foreign participants enter the consumption and labour markets via immigration. Homosexuality is celebrated because gays have a lot of disposable income and are great consumers. All of this serves the financial interests of the elites. Equal-opportunity participation in the consumption market is the highest virtue. Humanism is a fake morality that comes with little or no personal cost and high conformity. It encourages feel-good sentiments...

Liberalism doesn't work because it presumes people are equal/born equal when they are not (e.g. average African IQ is well below that of East Asians). Given the false premise that people are equal, the only concern of Liberalism is merit and equality of opportunity. Given equal effort and training in a particular role, two individuals should achieve equal financial outcomes: this often is not the case due largely to differences in individuals. e.g. one person may be more assertive or have more self-esteem, despite their work outcomes being the same as another, and therefore ask for and negotiate a pay rise -- either with the same employer, or a new one. If a man achieves the pay rise, rather than the female who didn't ask for one, the female may falsely assume some sort of discrimination or oppression, when it is only their more agreeable/less aggressive nature to blame. Socialism arose because it assumed Liberalism's false premises and attributed the disparity of outcomes ...

How do we return people to a more traditional, natural way of being? I honestly don't think a return to the Church will help. It led us astray by basing our idea of how the world should be morally ordered in metaphysics and myth, rather than the all too human and biological. The Church has become corrupted by Liberalism and cannot be salvaged. I think a new breed of 'Personal Development' (PD) gurus may be the vehicle we need, e.g. Jordan Peterson but more 'hardcore' and philosophical. I don't like Peterson generally, but he does bring intellectual depth to some rather trite PD themes that were popular in the 90s and early noughties. Of course PD is individualistic, but Peterson does preach social obligation also. I think he balances the self/social aspects fairly well given our current age and ruling Liberalism. The self-referential, reflective aspect is absolutely crucial if you want to really appeal to people and change their moral behaviour, rather tha...