Social Isolation Effects
In keeping with my resolve to shift the content of this web site toward the task of providing a bit of practical utility in your everyday lives, I have decided to talk about one of the most powerful forces in our society, namely social isolation and its predictable consequences. And of course my use of the term “society” in the singular is, I admit, wildly inaccurate precisely because social isolation produces dozens of different societies and thousands of sub-societies within the United States – and provides the ultimate cause of the lack of trust that leads to “bowling alone” and “The Big Sort” as coping mechanisms.
At the urging of a friend who is a hedge fund manager I sat down to watch the documentary “Page One, Inside the New York Times”. At about 30 minutes into this movie – after watching the morning editor's meeting – you begin to see clearly that every reporter and section editor carries with him a shared set of unspoken beliefs and assumptions about politics, the newspaper business, and the importance of “journalism”, which, of course, makes the process of selecting “all the news that fits” those assumptions very quick and efficient. The vast and far reaching sub-texts left unmentioned by the participants at the meeting were glaringly obvious. But the signal that runs much deeper than that visible subtext is the central point that truly important shared beliefs and assumptions are never to be mentioned, much less questioned.
You will never land a job at the New York Times, much less get to the page one editors meeting, unless you share all of those assumptions. But even more important, you must also have the ability to channel the social signal that the shared assumptions and beliefs are so important that they must not only never be questioned, but they must never even be mentioned. After all, to mention an assumption or belief is to topple it down from the pantheon of received truth and place it in contention with other beliefs and assumptions that are up for grabs in “the market place of ideas.” Thus the mere mention of a shared belief, even to defend that belief, has the inevitable effect of demoting the belief and assumptions that underlie it down to the level playing field of equality with other contenting beliefs. Thus, “debate” decides nothing, because the truly important ideas and values are utterly beyond debate.
In truth, they are beyond being named.
And that is a fundamental reality of the world of employment at every large company or institution in the United States. The interview process will be designed primarily to detect those who carry with them the belief systems and assumptions of the rest of the existing work force and thus present, as the HR people like to say, “a good fit”.
The hedge fund manager friend and I often debate and disagree about the consumer fad stocks or “cocktail party” stocks – broadly defined as the stocks yuppies buy because the company produces whatever new gadget that fills yuppie hands – or his or her coffee cup – or wastes the most yuppie time surfing the internet at the moment.
Recently, perhaps as a sign of a bullish psychological extreme in the markets, the phenomenon has moved downscale to decidedly middle class and lower middle class pursuits such as Harley Davidson (HOG), Sturm Ruger (RGR) and Smith and Wesson (SWHC) for the middle, and most stunning and surprising, Dollar Tree (DLTR) and Ross Stores (ROST) for the very bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. These stocks are all moon shots that will make boat loads of money for those smart enough to “get the hell out of Dodge” before the inevitable carnage begins. With the exception of DLTR and ROST, they all have very large pools of “fan boys” who will keep buying as the institutional managers distribute stock to them. The moon shots of DLTR and ROST are bets on a metastasizing welfare class in the U.S., and exponential growth of federal deficits to fund the transfer payments to keep them shopping and off the streets.
Of course, my friend and I talk about and debate these stocks a great deal, largely because we don't understand the psychological drivers that move them and thus are unable to peg tops and bottoms based on valuation. And DLTR and ROST are fundamental bets against collapse and for uninterrupted growth in federal deficits – bets that we both think are foolish. Naturally we spend no time at all debating the “BTUs in the ground” theme that we do invest in. We do spend time analyzing those “BTUs in the ground” investments, and in particular gathering information on the expectations of the major investment players in that market and their propensity to herd and get the timing wrong.
But most important, these companies are all in a despised “goy” commodity industry with no sex appeal or irrational fan boy crowds pushing prices beyond relatively predictable extremes. And because they are commodity businesses, they do not purchase retail advertising from the media, which means that they are constantly open to media attacks which can produce bargain prices.
But the unifying characteristic of all of these fad stocks we enjoy friendly arguments about is the social isolation of those who participate in the fad. For example, my friend and I love to debate Apple (AAPL). Of course he owns the iPhone, and as he waxes euphoric over ” the tremendous quality of Apple products” I chuckle. Like my hedge fund friend, my daughters all own iPhones and tablets. They all have professional jobs and these devices allow them to monitor their portfolios, send and receive emails while they are commuting or tending to other daily chores such as shopping or eating out. On weekends these devices allow them to put to productive use those intermittent 20 minute slices of time between errands or the kids soccer practice. In short, the smart phone and the tablet are quintessential time savers for busy yuppies – manna from heaven for recouping some of the commuting time lost to suburban White flight and the loss of the traditional sexual division of labor when both spouses must join the labor force.
My wife and I are both cell phone Neanderthals. We need only mobile phone capability, and I prefer older technology which cannot be tracked passively when the phone is turned off.
But several weeks ago my wife's phone entered its death throes, and she decided to go to the AT&T store and get a new iPhone 4 advertised for less than $100. However, when the clerk began processing the order my wife discovered that between the added data charge and the added texting charge, the bill for our family would increase $60 per month or $720 per year. She walked out of the store. I refrained from cheering and high-fiving her until we were safely out of view of the store. My daughters who all have iPhones tell me their service plans cost $1,200 per year. As retirees, the iPhone doesn't free up time worth an additional $720 per year above what we now pay and its “entertainment” potential which seems to attract morons with money to burn is entirely irrelevant. It is that simple.
Note to all Apple fan boys! There is a limit to how many people on this planet can afford $1200 per year for a cell phone.
In his latest weekly missive, John Hussman delivers a profound and very valuable metric for judging consumer fad stocks under the title “Notes on exponential revenue growth” in the following post.
Hussman is spot on with his conclusion that unit sales growth slows once a new product has penetrated 30% of the ultimate market. Revenue and earnings misses are sure to follow.
He is also spot on about Apple, factoring in not only a demand curve related to market size but also a curve representing the rate of change in the average rate of replacement – or upgrades to the next version of the product. In this respect the “quality” of the Apple product is a liability for the stock price, because the rapid replacement cycle caused by the fan boys lining up over night to participate in the street theater of buying the latest iPhone or iPad at an Apple store nearby – and to revel in the sensation that an overpriced consumer purchase can produce social connection – however fleeting – creates a huge aftermarket of used product – an aftermarket that will more than satisfy demand from those who are not reliant on the latest iPhone for status display, but only for the time saved by the ability to conduct business while doing daily chores and eating meals.
The truth is that smart phone users tend to interact almost exclusively with other smart phone users. They are likely to fall victim to the idea that the entire world is just like them, and therein lies the danger of social reinforcement for fan-boy investing and overestimation of ultimate market size. And in this respect we of the WN persuasion have a significant edge.
My hedge fund managing friend tells me that a Jewish hedge fund manager he met told him that Blacks in South Central L.A. could easily teach themselves physics and the nuances of Shakespeare if we would just give them all laptops.
I had always believed that most liberals – and certainly Jews – were far too smart to actually believe nonsense about human equality. After all, intelligence – being the product of a physical organ – is as heritable as lifting power or running speed, which are also products of physical organs. I have this tendency to assume that they must be lying to us about something so obvious for political reasons, but that when their own money is on the line, they must recognize reality and adjust world wide market size expectations by subtracting the vast populations with IQs below 85 in Africa, Latin America, and South East Asia (Malasia, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, the Phillipines and much of India) who will not have the capacity to add enough value to their economies to afford $1,200 per annum for an iPhone.
But my hedge fund managing friend assures me that only one out of about 60 or so fund managers he has spoken with is even aware of the low IQ issue as a limiting factor in economic performance. The overwhelming majority have never heard such a thing mentioned or even thought about the possibility.
Time to clam up about the issue among the investoriat if we wish to keep our advantage!
As I was finishing up the movie “Page One” it occurred to me that the vast subtext of unmentioned and unmentionable belief has a significant bearing on our own outreach to our fellow Whites.
What if the “Implicit Whiteness” that is so glaringly obvious in White flight to the suburbs, The Big Sort, the Tea Party and the racial composition of the Republican Party is – like the beliefs and values the infuse the New York Times – beyond debate and beyond mention?
What if, in the minds of our liberal, integrationist Whites, explicit mention of what we can all plainly see with our own eyes, namely race differences, merely topples what we all see and know “down from the pantheon of received truth and places it in contention with other beliefs and assumptions that are up for grabs in the market place of ideas.”
Stop and think about it! Think for a moment about the fundamental unspoken assumption undergirding the 1950's and 1960's Supreme Court decisions on busing and racial integration of schools and neighborhoods from the perspective of the White justices who rendered those decisions. Isn't the subtext underlying these decisions a belief that Whites are so wonderful, so smart, so beautiful, so caring and good, and so vastly superior that extensive contact with Whites will have a transformative effect on the blacks and browns once Whites are forced to associate with them? Seriously, how could the liberal, integrationist White justices possibly have believed or felt anything else – or entertained any other subtext that could justify such a decision?
Liberal judges are just like any other professional group. They tend to associate almost exclusively with other liberal attorneys. After all, the legal professions is, from a pure economic perspective, a parasitic trade primarily engaged in wealth transfers from those that have to those that have not. It stands to reason that most attorneys will need to escape the tawdry economic reality of what their trade actually accomplishes and create for themselves, as much as for the public, an elaborate mythos about “justice” and “fairness” all of which will serve to justify their position and power. Is this any different from the remarkably arrogant and elitist mythos on display at the New York Times? – their mantra of the overarching public importance of “professional journalism” which is ever so evenhandedly neutral and so essential for informing the public and so diligent in suppressing error and misinformation?
The public does not need the myths and most likely does not take them at face value. It is the employees of the New York Times who need to feel good about themselves and their work that is the source of the myths.
And isn't a second and much deeper unmentionable subtext that liberal Whites are so superior that they are justified in imposing the burden of the supposedly ennobling and transformative contact with blacks and browns upon on the lower orders of their fellow Whites?
Isn't the unspoken premise behind the notion that extensive contact with Whites will transform the black and brown races really the one and only true White Supremacy? How could one wade through Arnold Toynbee's “The World and the West” without realizing that the suffocatingly sentimental sense of noblesse oblige oozing from every page could lead othe
ey online”>make money onlinerwise than to the unspoken and unspeakable subtext that we are so superior that the poor wogs must envy and hate us.
Look at the social isolation of policemen, of university professors and indeed of most of the working population that now tends to socialize almost exclusively with those they meet at work.
We tend to think of the racial agenda of liberals and of globalists as anti white because the practical effect of these agendas has been anti White. We tend to infer that the practical effect is intended and that the subjective intent of liberals and globalists must be malevolent. In effect they are conspiring to destroy the White race.
But their reality is quite different.
Virtually all people conspire. They do it all the time.
But they conspire to craft and adopt belief systems that will make them feel good about themselves.
University professors feel that they are saving the world. Employees of the New York Times feel that they are saving the world. Lawyers feel that they are saving the world. Police and Judges feel that they are the last bulwark against social breakdown and chaos. The management of international corporations believe that they are raising living standards all across the planet. Jews feel that their control of the media and entertainment has allowed them to benefit us goyim by freeing us from a sexually repressive and tyrannical religion, namely Christianity. By and large, they sincerely believe that through their benign guidance they have improved our lives.
And like all socially isolated groups, destructive effects and negative outcomes are attributed to chance or are ignored entirely.
The employees of DHS cannot imagine where right wing Americans could possibly get the idea that they were preparing concentration camps for the purpose of imprisoning defenders of the black letter text of the Constitution. Nevertheless the camps are being built and DHS along with NSA is actively spying on them (and us), saving and analyzing every electronic communication.
Similarly, the employees of TSA are going to believe that they are protecting Americans by the airport searches, xray scans and crotch groping. They can't imagine why anyone would be opposed.
The fact that these measures have not caught a single terrorist does not alter the view of employees on the inside about the vital importance of their “services”. Given the fundamental disconnect between the population being searched and the stated purpose of the searches, is it any surprise that outsiders naturally will look for alternative malevolent motivations? Could the real purpose of the sociopaths that very often rise to the top of such organizations be to condition the upper middle class to routinely submit to searches absent probable cause, or even statistically reasonable suspicion?
But you protect American citizens by spying on their enemies, not by spying on Americans. By definition, Americans cannot possibly be enemies of the state even as they disagree about what the state ought to be doing.
The internal rationale is that many Americans are “anti-government” and must be watched. But then democracy cannot possibly work unless large numbers of Americans are vehemently opposed to what the government is doing. After all, the fact that all the special interest legislation coming out of Congress concentrates the benefits on the few but diffuses the costs by imposing them on the many does not alter the fact that a multitude of diffused costs and burdens are being imposed on the citizenry who are not organized to defend themselves through the political process.
Rather than spying on citizen discontent, it is the duty of these police forces and security agencies to concentrate their resources on disrupting the flow of special favors and thus minimizing the burdens being imposed on the disorganized citizenry. Thousands of such opportunities presented themselves during the financial crisis but were never pursued.
The broad point here is that the delusions that arise out of the need of most humans to feel good about themselves and their work will, in the majority of cases, to be objectively wrong and thus appear venal to outsiders. The wrong-headedness of such internal rationalizations will be particularly strong when the insiders paychecks and economic security are at stake.
This universal human tendency has significance for us in the movement.
First, offering a benighted institution a new mission or a new focus will be infinitely easier than attacking it as evil and driven by bad motives. The latter course will provoke the maximum opposition from the institution, its employees and any outside constituencies that it serves.
But a more important danger that can arise from our own social isolation – beyond the obvious limits it will impose upon our opportunities to convert those outside our circle – is the tendency to craft ideologies and intellectual abstractions that will make us feel good about ourselves and thus “sell” within the group, even though they have no practical utility for conversion and growth outside our group.
There is within our movement an intellectual recognition of the need for the “metapolitical project” which means a broad scale undertaking to rework of the popular culture of White people world wide. The theory behind the metapolitical project or “meta-politics” as it is called, is that the culture must change first and that the desirable political outcomes will then follow.
But when viewed in terms of allocation of currently available human and financial resources within our movement, the meta-political project is so vastly beyond our means as to appear whimsical. To the extent that the meta-political project is an implied criticism of what I call the “conference model” – an essentially 1930s model of giving motivational speeches to crowds – I tend to agree that discussion of the idea and the fleshing out of proposed details of implementation might be useful.
But I should note that none of those wishing for a transformational meta-politics seems to have a clear view of evolving external reality outside of our movement.
None seem to have noticed that the project has already begun in fits and starts in response to external market demand. In movies, the trend is unmistakeable. For example BBC has clearly learned that if you want to make money, you must provide a White, middle class audience with an escape from the tension, stress and aesthetic ugliness of multiculturalism. One need only look at the fabulously successful series Downton Abbey for a classic example of a period piece escape from the stress of multiculturalism. Other recent examples are the new film versions of the Jane Austin novels, all of which were profitable. For a film which goes beyond the aesthetic that we crave and delivers a conditioning message consistent with our view of group conflict, rent or stream the movie “An Education.” Another in the same genre is “Water for Elephants” which features a remarkably unflattering image of the Jewish boss.
For further confirmation, all you need do is review and watch the filmography of Robert Pattinson, the young Brit who has vaulted into the rarified atmosphere of the $20 million a year actor. While the Jewish talent agents in Beverly Hills are unlikely ever to admit it, if you want to get rich as a White actor, turn down all scripts that will include black actors in roles other than dangerous enemies and turn down scripts that are heavily laden with Queer or explicitly Jewish themes. Pattinson's films routinely gross over $700 million and routinely get bad reviews from the critics.
Rather than playing “inside pool” within the movement, anyone interested in the meta-political project needs to find the head of a studio that is in financial trouble (as was RKO Pictures back in the 1930s) and find a modern day equivalent of Pandro Berman and give him a script that will offer the audience an hour and 40 minutes of pleasing escape from the stress of multiculturalism – the stress of having your eyes always diverted to the potentially threatening and unpredictable black squares on the black and white checkerboard that is the multicultural film.
While at financially struggling RKO, Pandro Berman produced a number of films that contain outstandingly constructive conditioning messages for Whites. If you haven't seen “Allegheny Uprising” – the ultimate militia movie – you have really missed out. If you have not watched the entire Fred Astaire – Ginger Rogers set of films that kept RKO financially afloat throughout the 1930's you cannot be serious about your WN aesthetic.
While movies from the 1930's take a bit of getting used to, there is no question that Fred and Ginger, under the direction and financing from Pandro, introduced the American middle and working class to images of elegance and grace in a way that has never been equaled, and produced such classics as “Top Hat” and “Swing Time”. I defy anyone to find a movie scene with more grace and charm than the Fred and Ginger dance number “Lets Face the Music and Dance” in the movie “Follow the Fleet.”
In fact, there are hundreds of films already in existence that condition White audiences in ways that we find agreeable.
But to get in on the game now, one need never announce that one's politics are WN. You just need to prepare and sell a script that will make money and find an agent or a studio willing to produce it.
One need only join an existing trend.
But beyond culture we need smart political organization.
For over 20 years we have been herding relatively large numbers of middle aged men who could afford to spend upwards of $800 into gatherings in which they spent most of the day as a captive audience listening to motivational speeches. The implied assumption behind this activity was that the attendees, after being so motivated, would somehow spontaneously go out and set up the necessary political structures to change our society and our laws.
Similarly a huge volume of internet posts have come online in the past 15 years that seem to have the same underlying assumption, namely, that if enough people accept the ideology, that they will go out and spontaneously establish the necessary political, social and economic structures to improve our society.
The propagation of ideas is important, and the internet has been a godsend to us, as has the crippling of the print media. But a lot of difficult and tedious work is required in order to convert ideological enthusiasm into political and economic muscle in the real world. Far more work, effort and skill is required than one should expect to see flower spontaneously from the aftermath of a speech.
But at those many conferences the uniform message of the attendees during the breaks and around the bar in the evenings was that they came for the social contact and the opportunity to network and make friends among normal people.
We have learned over the years that gathering resources through anonymous direct snail mail, email and web based appeals is like pulling teeth. However there were a few visionaries who did listen to our “customers” in the corridors of those conferences and have, after a decade of trial and error, produced a real world social model of face to face contact that, if cloned throughout the country, could realistically produce human, organizational and financial resources sufficient to reverse the legislation and court decisions that now threaten our collective survival, and in the process, provide participants with an opportunity to enjoy life in the company of like minded friends at the same time and at modest expense.
The beauty of this effort is that we do not have to “convert” all 180 million whites and then hope that they organize themselves to accomplish something useful. All we need to do is find and identify those who agree with us. And – setting aside for the moment the significance of some infrastructure investments that will speed the process – the identification process is remarkably easy.
All you need do is ask “Are you worried about how your grandchildren will be treated 40 years from now when they become a minority in America?” If the answer is yes, they are with us. If the answer is “Of course, they will be fine,” or “I don't know, haven't given it much thought” pass and go on to the next contact.
And the beauty of the social model is that, unlike anonymous appeals from strangers for money or volunteer effort, we get nearly a 100 percent response rate within the social model.
DHS and Mossad-Amdocs have built a list of from 10 to 20 million whites who agree with us, more or less, based on profiling and mapping the neural networks of who communicates with whom. All we need do is a) find the 1 or 2 million of them that seek social interaction with realistic people and b) promise security to those who need anonymity, and we can can easily control Congress on our issues and then begin to work on reforming the political complexion of the Federal judiciary (the second legislative branch of our government).
Of course highly articulated ideologies that have the effect of making us feel remarkably good about ourselves and increase our social isolation at the same time will only slow down or halt the effort.
We must learn to identify the basic and very simple impulse behind group survival and organize around that impulse.