Homogeneity is our strength

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...

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2018/12/14/identity-politics-is-reactionary/comment-page-1/#comment-2886030 In-group preference is a scientific reality. It is not a moral defect AKA "racism". If you think it is a defect you have been brainwashed. To say that 'identity politics' (pejorative for in-group preference) is reactionary, even though everyone has been doing it for the entirety of history, is retarded. Libertarians are retarded. People who complain about 'identity politics' are always white or echoing whites. A smart person would question why that is, but not a Libertarian - because they are retarded. Whites restraining their natural in-group preference is not working out for them. Other ethnic groups are pursuing their in-group preference and it is benefiting them. Two solutions: 1. whites embrace ethnocentrism (like for all of human history, except the last 50 years) 2. undermine ethnocentricism in non-whites and broader society. e.g. by labeling it pejo...

What is the psychological nature or drivers of someone who proffers socialist or cultural Marxist viewpoints? Is it psychologically comforting to have someone else to blame for your problems? (feeling the 'warm blanket' of victimhood) Externalisation and projection of one's envy and resentment onto an evil other? (i am envious of the wealth of the bad capitalist; that's 'unfair' and he should give some of his wealth to me, because he exploited me) Is it a rationalisation for being in a parasitic, non-contributory position in society? (e.g. academic, NGO rent-seeker) Virtue-signalling? Gibs-seeking? Mostly likely all of the above, at different times and circumstances. But what if it is also a cry for help, or a symptom of a repressed cry for help. What do I mean by 'repressed cry for help'? The socialist is saying they are not happy with their circumstances. They are not content with what they have materialistically, especially when they comp...

Another semi-trollish comment of mine on a Libertarian blog: The only way not to have ‘identity politics’, as defined as conflict between competing collective identities, is to enforce a singular, homogeneous identity. However, Libertardianism is opposed to the imposition of homogeneity in favour of personal autonomy and non-discrimination. Libertards don’t really believe in freedom of association because they don’t believe in unfettered discrimination (based on gender, race, etc.) and national identity politics for the majority. The paradox is that this results in more identity politics and fracturing, not less, because, against all evidence, Libertards pretend that people can suspend their natural in-group preference and tribalism when exposed to Libertard ideology. Such a belief is stupendously ridiculous and contrary to all empirical evidence and human history. You either have a homogeneous society based on a singular, discriminating, identity, or you have mul...

he's was an escapist - worse than most he criticises for the same. like an ascetic, he threw himself into his writing to escape the world.  his personal life was pathetic, but he tries to boost his ego by transforming himself into an intellectual legend and shitting on others. he was full of resentment! he fails to see his aesthetic imaginations and emotions generally as escape behaviour (interestingly, Sartre doesn't make the same mistake).  his enthusiasm is not convincing at all.  he was a loser.  but being a loser, he also knew what losers were like, so his critique is insightful.

Not every news article is defamation, of course, but the most of the popular articles shared by politically-engaged people are. The defamation is not blatant enough to risk legal action, which is exactly the point. Journalist are part of new priesthood who control the public ideology in subservience to the elite.