When tourism destroys the destination

Tourism is the consumption of other cultures. Why do you want to travel to some country? Because it is unique, because it is different because it is special. It's people are special and they have unique ways of doing things, unique language and unique dress. You are going there to look at them like you go to the zoo to look at the animals. The tourist is a cultural consumer.

But these animals know you are looking at them. You don't just see them, they see you. They see how you dress pretty soon they start dressing like you, talking like you, snapping pictures like you. The zoo animals have become the tourists. 

It is much more comfortable to be the one looking than the one looked at. The tourist is always more comfortable than the native, than the zoo animal. Imagine a parade of strangers who paid admission walking through your house gawking at you and taking pictures. Tourism destroys a place. 

A mall is a zoo where everyone is the animal and the spectator at the same time, and we all look at each other, we all look to see how each other are dressed, what each other are buying, and who is more fashionable. But in a fashion show the zoo animal walks the runway and because the spectator is seated rather than walking, and the zoo animal walking rather than seated, power is inverted. The zoo animal now dominates the spectator. A simple change in who gets to move freely changes the power dynamic. The zoo animal, by walking the runway, asserts dominance over the spectator who is obligated to sit quietly, remain silent, and watch. 

It is more comfortable to be the one in motion than the one who is forced to remain seated. Motion and gaze are freedom, sitting stationary and being observed are oppressive. This harkens back to fundamental instincts of prey and predator. 

Uniqueness is what is consumed, and blandness is what does the consuming. Femaleness is what is flashy, and maleness is what is drab. The act of going to a place makes the place like every other place, makes the place drab. By consuming the uniqueness of a culture tourism drains the culture of uniqueness, creating sameness everywhere. To invite tourism is to make yourself the zoo animal. 

Immigration is just a more permanent form of tourism. Motion is empowering while being stationary is disempowering and so being an immigrant is empowering over the natives, who are made powerless by the imposition of weird foreigners in their presence. They gaze at each other making each other uncomfortable, but only the immigrant is to blame for that situation.

When everyone immigrates and visits everywhere then everywhere will become like everywhere else and everywhere will become the same. When every place is both a source of tourism and a destination no more uniqueness will exist in the world and everything will be bland and globalist. When the tourism and immigration you all fetishize so much completes its process there will be nothing left to visit and everywhere will look like everywhere else.

The tourist and immigrant are destroying what they consume.

Why sophisticated people are often idiots

Reality is more crass than the sophisticated mind wants to admit. If you remove the back of a chair it comes a stool. If you lower the stool it becomes a step stool. If you widen the step stool it becomes a coffee table. If you raise the stool it becomes a bar stool. If you take a dining room table and shrink it and lower it it becomes a coffee table.

A social worker with a gun is a cop. A cop without a gun is a social worker in the field. Cop without a gun who is not in the field is a government office worker.

There are no magical third cases or categories. The "educated" mind is constantly searching for invisible categories in order to defeat hard problems, but that is not how you defeat hard problems. To actually defeat problems you brainstorm every possible configuration of a solution, you simulate every possible result, you realize that every solution will create one or more problems, that the solutions may create problems that are worse than the original problem, and you choose from all these possible configurations the configuration of all possible solutions that creates the fewest problems of smallest total magnitude. 

Or to put it in fewer words, you solve the problem by creating the least possible problem with your solution. 

Every problem demands a solution from the public, and every solution creates a problem. The goal is not to "solve"  problems but have the least bad configuration. Government solutions don't exist, only various configurations of problems.

Most of what politicians do is solve the problems created by their predecessors. For example, the corn subsidy and the interstate highway system have no doubt massively contributed to America's obesity epidemic by discouraging walking and giving everyone cheep soda to drink. Both were created as solutions to other problems. The United States needed an interstate highway system so it can move troops, and the court subsidy was created solve malnutrition. 

Well corn definitely solved malnutrition and created obesity, and cheap corn syrup is in everything. Having highways everywhere didn't help either since it encouraged auto-dependence, created the very auto lobby that then lobbied to have trams removed, and destroyed our walkable cities.

Or take Social Security, which disincentivizes people to have children (since having children used to be your retirement but now Social Security takes care of it), thus causing its own collapse in the long term, since children are needed to pay for Social Security.

Or the fact that the welfare state subsidizes the birth rates of the very degenerates and poor that is trying to solve. Obviously you cannot reduce the level of poverty if you are subsidizing the poor to have more children they cannot afford.

Every government and every society has a chain of causality like this, where innumerable government "solutions" are actually causing problems that other government "solutions" are trying to solve.

The temptation is to throw your hands up in the air and take a libertarian approach and say "well we will do nothing," but this is wrong because (a) midwits won't allow you to do nothing, and (b) there is probably a "solution" (by which I mean an optimum configuration of problems that reduces total entropy). And the government can probably achieve that optimum with a few very well crafted regulations. 

It is actually not that hard to govern and a sentient AI could probably do it better than humans. It is basically a search function followed by a vast number of simulations. First, you search for every possible configuration of a solution, meaning you brainstorm. Second, you simulate every possible  outcome of your solutions and the problems they create. Third, you choose the least problem creating solution from the range of all possible solutions. 

If you're really smart you killed two birds with one stone by having your small solutions that create as few problems as possible solve many different problems at the same time. All this requires a vast amount of thinking, far more than any human is prepared to do, and humans are an emotionally volatile species uniquely bad at this type of thinking because we get mired in our own emotional knee-jerk reactions. Any human in theory could do it, I sometimes do it, but it wears me out, and as far as I can tell I'm the only one who's done it, and the answer is I come up with are still not that great. 

There's a lot more to unpack here, a lot more work to do, we need a system that gets groups of people to somehow do this, to somehow go through the process of searching for every possible solution and critiquing their results. We need a system that gets people to operate at a level of IQ that is higher than they naturally do. That is more level-headed than they naturally are. I am working on this. But for now, to circle back to my original assertion, reality is a lot more crass than the educated want to believe, and that is why crass minds often do a better job at governing, specially when they listen to experts and simplify things before making a decision.

Outsourcing the globalist empire through a United City States

Prior to the atomic bomb the incentive of nations, like fish, was to get bigger and eat your neighbors. The book 1984 predicted the inevitable outcome of this material force. The era prior to the bomb is an endless catastrophe of waring states, and this “get big or get conquered” problem was supercharged by endless population growth and the need for a constantly expanding resource base that brings. This is why paranoia about the second coming of Hitler is so annoying: because the forces of mass starvation are no present in the modern world, or at least not to the degree they existed before. It is easy to convince people to conquer land in the east and put those land into food production when their kids are starving. Nothing makes people crazy like having a child to protect, and a world of constant population growth is one where 1. everyone is a parent, 2. everyone has the capacity of violence that parents have, 3. there are periods of periodic starvation that threaten one's children, and 4. you can always get more food by conquering and enslaving the neighbors.

Everyone in the past practiced some combination of (a) conquest, (b) slavery, (c) genocide, (d) cannibalism, and (e) human sacrifice. The Aztecs did all of these and Europeans are remarkable for mostly only doing a, b, and occasionally c.

Paranoia about the second coming of Hitler is intentionally ignorant of historical forces in order to drive justification for a certain globalist agenda. I use the term globalist as a place holder here for a nebulous concept that describes a collection of economic and Zionist forces and persons with machinations of a certain kind of bug eating world. It is promoted to demoralize whites and the discussion of the atrocities of other races is intentionally left out to create a lie of omission to enger useful white guilt, guilt that can be exploited.

Political-moral messaging is nearly always an attempt to exploit someone for status, sex, money, or power. When ever you are addressed with a political message that commands you to support ___ you must ask yourself, “does this benefit me?” It sounds sociopathic but the only thing worse than modeling how a sociopath thinks is obeying the moral commands of one. “Good” normal people obey moral messaging while evil ones invent it. This does not mean at all that real morality does not exist; we are talking about that special circumstance where the political is mixed with the moral, when you are told slogans like “America is a nation of immigrants,” “work hard and you will succeed,” “unproductive people are useless,” “age gap relationships are predatory.” Real morality is universally applicable and benefits everyone at some point in their lives but political-moral commands only benefit some special group of people. Real morality says “murder is wrong,” while political-morality says “not serving our interests is wrong.”

Thus when you are told “support globalism or you are a racist”you should be suspicious. You have been fed a false version of history by people stupid enough to believe the return of someone like Hitler is possible. Oh yes dictatorship in America is possible, but the constant shrill whine that this would be a Hitler-like character, that Trump is Hitler, or George W Bush, or Putin, belies the fact that we no longer live in a world of desperate parents and the material forces that let you convince a whole population that genocide is good and we should do it don't exist anymore.

Credit where credit is due: you can think Oppenheimer and his Jewish team for the bomb and Gregory Pincus, John Rock, and Katharine McCormick for the pill, without which the world of get big or get eaten would not have been abolished.

Ostensibly we now live in world of war by proxy empires, meaning, that nuclear armed nations use proxies like Ukraine to fight each other. This is going to be the case until some other technology or organizational system comes along and changes the configuration of material forces in this regard. There is interesting work by about AP Markets that might render all war a thing of the past, but that is a digression from our subject.

We are talking about globalism and it's empire, and specifically the maintenance of it by the United States and it's fleet of super carriers. This power and the world stability it is supposed to bring (jury is out on that) is onerous to the US, and other powers for better and probably worse are eager to challenge that power and create a multi-polar world. The libertarian theory is that trade creates peace, the globalist theory is that America bossing the world around with its military, and buying all the world's goods also creates peace. I do not know how much is true and suspect that only the military part matters but if the trade benefits are gone or America no longer perceives a benefit then military draw down is probably happening eventually.

Globalism needs to outsource itself. Everyone like being governed by white men when they permit themselves to think, though admitting it is humiliating, so they prefer immigration over imperialism and cope with the contradiction using wokeness. Unlike other business where an ethnic group are allowed to monopolize things: Jains in Indian Banking, Chinese in manufacturing, Jews in media and Finance, Blacks in sports, Whites are not allowed to admit it – too much historical baggage, but there is a way to pull this off that saves face for minorities and avoids immigration. A way to give everyone what they secretly want with a plausible deniability that keeps them sane, and a way to give globalists what they want in order to free America from the burden of it's own empire. Ever heard of a franchise?

We have several hundred military bases around the world and many of them have the potential to either be transformed into city states or build cities in the unused land along their edges. A specific example that comes to mind is Al Udeid Air Base, a place I have been, and a place with vast stretches of undeveloped land along the edges and within the gaps. out of the hundreds of bases and naval stations you can scrounge up several dozen to develop? 100 would be a nice round number, and if they were spread all over the world on every continent and close to major shipping lanes that would be ideal. Each of these could be a democracy, and they could be collectively be run by a separate and parallel parliament whose prime minister is under POTUS. Basically the President of the United States is the head of state of the United City States (UCS) while the Prime Minister is Head of Government. the thing makes it's own laws, is outside the jurisdiction of onerous America rules, but is militarily subordinate to the US. The roles of Head of Government and Commander in Chief are also separate with POTUS having that role for the USC and the Join Chiefs working in co-operation with the Prime Minister.

Imagine traveling on a single passport and needing no green card to work. The UCS would straddle the world with cities on every continent except Antarctica. The UCS would use the American dollar, patents and trademarks would not exist within its borders, and it's close proximity to dictatorships would allow people to experience freedom. It would take in a billion immigrants and peoples fleeing persecution. Vast amounts of cheep labor for globalists to exploit. It would have it's own stock market. There would be a capitol whose location would travel, moving from continent to continent around the world from East to West. Every city state would have a parliament building with an identical layout so city state Senators can always find their office. Every two years Parliament would move to another one of it's city states. The benefits would be immense and it would create a true global community, for whatever that's worth.

One that could take over the globalist dream so that America can pursue a nationalist dream. The UCS would even have an official libertarian ideology which would be taught by the very progressives the US re-educates and deports! We could dump millions of insufferable shitlibs on a new nation! Imagine the US with no liberals in positions of power. Imagine the libs living cheek by jowl with their new African friends. What better place to put city states than Africa? Of course unlimited immigration is a one way proposition here. Being a citizen of the UCS does NOT make you a citizen of the US, but being a citizen of the US automatically grants you UCS residency.

Imagine the tax revenue from a global nation, imagine placing city states adjacent to shipping lanes to extract global rents from the Chinese. The Strait of Malacca would be an ideal place for a new democracy. We might buy some land in The Philippines too. Let us count the benefits:

1. Travel the world using your US passport without restriction

2. A place to deport libs to

3. No currency barrier

4. No need for Green Card to work

5. Unlimited immigration to the UCS

6. Real estate sales

7. Low cost labor

8. American universities abroad

9. Benefits of living in the US without living in the US

10. US military protection

11. Taxes for the US military

12. Potentially extract global rents

13. Build and own ports in other countries

14. Spread a global libertarian ideology

15. Weaken the world with libertarianism while strengthening ourselves with nationalism

16. Free America from global obligations

17. Have our own cheep manufacturing

18. Fuck over China

19. The new nation might eventually conquer territory

And mostly white liberals would be forced to take on the role of administrating minority populations while protecting their own survival from them.

x

Proper human farm management

I was watching the 2021 miniseries The Stand, itself a remake of the much better 1994 miniseries of the same name, and both of which are adaptions of the Steven King novel. As usual in the second episode there was what Stonetoss might call a "tasty" moment, the kind of moment that occurs every time one of the executive producers are part of God's very special chosen people.

Heather Graham is required to debase herself with an interracial sex scene to satisfy the hey Goyim watch us cuck your women! / power trip / fetish of the producers massive religiously motivated hate-ego. It reminds me that religion is the perfect vehicle for passing on neuroticism even while it shreds the genes of it's adherents on the altar of relentless purges induced by the very arrogance the religion breeds. First they are taught the are special and chosen, then that they are perfect, blameless and everyone is against them. Then they subvert everyone, then get purged, then learn nothing from the experience. Judaism is the original gene shredder, relentlessly provoking hostility. It is possible that the current Jews are not even the original ones. What if it acts like a sponge sucking in all the people in the world with a certain personality type: arrogant, self-righteous, neurotic, and weird; in short the kind of people who get shoved in lockers. Then it promotes their genes for a few generations before shredding them with the next holocaust, keeping them unnaturally around just long enough before the next batch of punchables is sucked in. Even worse it cross breeds them, creating new hybrids of super-punchables. The new convert to Judaism would probably been better off staying out of the religion and marrying a nice Asian girl or something, his genes might have even survived, melting into that great Han genetic river, but instead he chooses a path of eternal torment and genetic bottle neck.

The sex scene makes no sense and even the black guy looks put off by it. Maybe at this point actors have actually developed some self-awareness that their masters are requiring them to put on this performance to satisfy their Jewish porn addict boss or whatever. These writers and actors know they have to push "the message" and we bad writing and a lack of convincing performances in the result.

But I don't really want to talk about that.

There is a much deeper process at work here, one alluded to when I talked about genetics, and that is the need for constant pruning.

Civilization is a farm, ya? And there is a tendency for a certain kind of hyper-domesticated animal to come out of this process, one that has all the primitive rage of a monkey that wants to destroy while also having the high level of intelligence of a fully domesticated being, not a sociopath exactly but an anti-social subversive. “Spiteful mutant” does not really do the concept justice. It is a certain something, a certain je ne sais quo of a creature that is fundamentally orientated towards not just its own death but everyone else's. Let us call it the rage-domesticated.

The problem with holocaust is not just it's moral implications, not just the evil of committing genocide, but also the demoralizing destruction of national will that affects the people who perpetuate such a crime. Even today the Germans are a cucked race of self-haters, as Israelis might be in the future after leveling the Gaza strip.

Then there is the simple fact that you will never get all of your target and some will always remain alive. These people will be horribly genetically bottle necked and probably very neurotic and even more subversive. Genocide has the disturbing implication of manufacturing spiteful mutants since the survivors, (with their bottle necked genes) will create a founder effect. In fact it is possible there is a cycle here when repeated purgers of Jews have actually created subversives, who then subvert and get their people killed.

You want less subversion and from a technical standpoint the most effective means is “pruning.” This means every generation removing a very small fraction of the most subversive individuals and since rage-domestication is not limited to Jews this pruning need not be limited only to them. "Pruning" relentlessly pushes the gene pool towards compliance without triggering founder effects. Have you seen these white libs at your local antifa? To be clear I only condone violence when it is done by the United States Government. After all, it is not terrorism when Uncle Sam does it. Never challange power from outside the state. Get state power and always be legitimate.