At that point, inversion occurs: since the wrong is off the table, people limit their options to the list of methods designated as “right,” and consequently end up in a mental mode of justification/rationalization, or choosing a method that they can argue they are using because it is good.

Logic goes out the window in that moment. Instead of thinking from problem a to solution b, people think from solution set c via a process of deduction and see what they can apply to a because it will be socially acceptable, and therefore succeed within society even if not in reality.

This presents a problem because reality is not a place or a thing; it is a series of patterns which arise from logic itself, much like the laws of thermodynamics or information. Reality exists even within society, and the more we deny it, the more it pushes back inside our protective barrier of illusions.

Inversion leads to Crowdism since at this stage, people must either be denialists who refuse to see what is wrong or realists who suggest there is a world beyond society. Denialists seek to assert their power over nature, where realists argue for the supremacy of nature. There is no compromise possible.

At the end, the denialists win out because in the short term, they succeed in the system set up by that society. This makes the system hostile to both reality and anyone who notices it, so it purges those and replaces them with incompetents. At that point, society consumes itself.

Through this process we see how human social nature transforms the best intentions of humans into weapons to be used against them. The few who can create a society do so, and then the many who cannot take over because they naturally take to systems and use them better than the creators.

America shows us yet another case where having a system has backfired and our civilization has conquered itself with stupidity, insanity, neurosis, and blithe oblivion.

Obviously, if possible, a civilization should remain as simple and informal as possible, as it does under early and Nordic-style aristocratic rule. When we deviate from that, replacing quality of human beings with complexity of rules, the idiots and sociopaths are sure to take over.

The modern West, after the Magna Carta through Peasant Revolts to the Enlightenment™ and French Revolution, decided to replace a hierarchy of the competent with a labyrinth of rules, economic incentives, social penalties, and legal consequences.

At that point, this carefully-artificed system began to turn against its creators. Those who wish to manipulate a system use the power of deduction, and rationalize from a method on the approved list, and use it to take over.

Since our society allowed its Leftists and industrialists to import foreigners, first the Irish and later the third world, diversity and civil rights have become the universal justifications that are being used to turn this system against us.

Instead of admitting that the system — a necessary part of democracy and equality — is the problem, our people go firmly into denial and double down on democracy and equality. Instead of rejecting the precepts of their system because it has turned against them, they hope to recapture it.

However, it serves only itself, because at this point people have figured out how to hack it and turn it against iself, which ironically strengthens the system because it is the implement they are using. Laws designed for democracy and equality will never make us stronger, only weaker.

Steve Sailer, an insightful writer about race and heritage, makes this mistake in my view when he advocates for strengthening civil rights laws (enforced equality, essentially) in the hope of making White civil rights:

The first principle must be that whites have civil rights. All antidiscrimination laws must protect whites as fully as nonwhites. The courts must articulate explicitly that whites are a protected class, same as any other race.

This will only backfire. Once you establish civil rights, which are different from natural rights in that they give government a mandate to enforce equality, these pro-White rules will quickly fall to competition with the needs of those who are not White.

In the time-honored tradition of egalitarian systems, whoever is poorer, weaker, less powerful, uglier, stupider, less sane, and more perverse will be favored by the system because it achieves greater power by catering to them.

The denialists who support it will relish this process because, having had their purpose in life removed because equality destroys all considerations but the individual and his desires, they see nothing but themselves. Equality removes context and makes people into solipsistic narcissists.

Denialists adore anything which weakens, damages, subverts, sabotages, perverts, corrupts, and compromises the world around them; doing so makes them, the individual, stronger. At the root of all revolutions, we find individualism, specifically that coming from the middle classes.

Such people design systems to destroy anything above the individual — nature, culture, heritage, faith, family, history, wisdom — so that the individual can be stronger and therefore, that each denialist can reap his share of the looting produced by “liberalization” of rules.

Liberalization of rules, if you translate it correctly, means no consequences for bad decisions, which has two parts: first, no one may enforce realism or sanity on another; second, society absorbs the costs of these behaviors, either before the event (socialism) or afterwards (bailouts, stimulus, welfare).

Civil rights establishes the first of these through “equality,” which inevitably and with zero exceptions becomes “equity,” since if you proclaim equal treatment but get unequal results, the presumption of equality dictates that you must assume that the treatment was in fact not equal.

If equal people achieve unequal results, the reasoning goes, something went wrong in the middle, not that the people are in fact not equal and even more than that, are nowhere near equal in terms of intellect, ability, and tendencies.

Civil rights are the opposite of natural rights.

• Natural rights consist of abilities you had in nature — before civilization — that government is prohibited from impeding, such as free thought, speech, choice, motion, and worship.
• Civil rights refer to rights created through government and enforced by law, usually the ability to contravene the natural rights of another by forcing them to share resources with other groups.

From a bureaucratic perspective, civil rights make sense because they make government more powerful and reduce society to fungible individuals who can be manipulated with all they have left, namely the profit motive and fear of being ostracized socially.

Civil rights force you to interact with, sell to, live near, rent to, hire, and contract with those from Other groups. If White civil rights were adopted, this would merely accelerate integration and force White people to bring Others into their midst.

Natural rights on the other hand would allow Whites to have White-only neighborhoods, businesses, clubs, churches, events, states, and even nations. Natural rights would allow the WASP heritage American population to withdraw from the rest and focus on itself.

Even more, natural rights do not support socialism, or the redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producers. Rightists keep making this mistake, trying to find a way to cash in on the popularity of the Left by joining the class warfare of many poor against the few wealthy.

Although I enjoy Matt Heimbach and have interacted pleasantly with him in the past and found him to be an intelligent fellow, he makes this mistake — possibly as a subterfuge — with his new prole revenge organization:

Heimbach says he now supports violence and killings in what he says is a revolution against rich corporate executives, global elites and even those who have caused global warming.

“These people have names and addresses. Their kids have names and addresses, and the capitalist class, by hook or by crook, has to be liquidated. You know that it’s called class war for a reason. ” Heimbach said. “Any violence the proletariat brings is simply in self-defense. ”

As hinted above, he may be using this as a cover to allow him to restart his Right-wing organization as a Leftist one, but in my view Left-Right hybrids — libertarians, National Socialists, neoconservatives, communitarians, distributists — all get absorbed by the simplest concept in their contradictory mix, namely equality, and consequently begin to act like Communists even if their goals are good.

The deductive philosophies of the Left begin with assuming equality, or that a peasant has the same capabilities as a king. These kill society and turn it into a carcass upon which everyone can feast. We can see egalitarianism in its raw form with vaccine inequality:

Even at 96, my Kenyan grandmother was among hundreds of millions in the developing world who was not vaccinated until recently because rich nations have hoarded most of the available shots. Though I’m more than 60 years younger than her, I was fully inoculated by April because I was living in the United States, where anybody over 12 can get a vaccine if they want one.

In other words:

• If anyone has anything I do not, they owe it to me and if not they are greedy and mean.
• I have no responsibility to fix my own problems, but can pass them on to someone wealthier.
• Whatever someone else produces is owed to me, even if it sacrifices them.

Most of us here are cynical about this particular vaccine even if not vaccines in general, so this particular event seems like a non-issue. In fact, if we think the vaccine will weaken us, it should be given to every other group so that they do not dominate us with relative strength.

However, in a bigger sense, this fellow despite meaning well has disclaimed his responsibility and replaced it with a responsibility of society to him, which in turn means that he will get an all-powerful government that will, in the classic egalitarian way, take from the strong to give to the weak.

Taking from the strong and giving to the weak makes a society weak, as we see with the collapses of various Leftist Utopias from the past, including the French Revolutionary governments and the Soviet Union. You need to harness the strong to do good, not take from them, which gives them a grievance against your society.

The following was portrayed as a civil rights suit, and technically under current law it may be, but in reality it defends the natural rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. While well-intentioned, it will also backfire, despite being a first amendment lawsuit:

“This is a free country – there’s this thing called the First Amendment,” said attorney Christine Svenson, who is assisting Judicial Watch with the case. “A person has the right to speak about matters of public concern on their personal Facebook post, and that has absolutely nothing to do with his or her job.”

The first amendment says that government cannot stop you from speaking. It does not force everyone to accept you afterwards, with good reason: doing so inverts the meaning of the rule so that instead of keeping government out of speech policing, it places government in charge of it.

Consider this. If we got some White civil rights bill that said that all Whites have freedom of speech and no one can fire them, who decides? Government. That means that if a case is deliberately botched or not prosecuted, or worse rejected in civil court, you are out of luck but government gets stronger.

The more we try to make “the System” work for us, the more it will enslave us. What we need now is rules that allow the strong to disconnect from the weak, because there will always be few strong and they are our greatest resource.

People think of Jeff Bezos and other rich men when someone says “the strong,” but really what is meant is the rightward fifth of the bell curve where people with higher IQ resides. All of your rich, but also all of your thinkers, warriors, inventors, and artists come from this segment.

If we do not defend them by letting them cut free, the other eighty percent of the bell curve will consume them, then sit around wondering why it is still poor, as happened after the French and Bolshevik revolutions.

For Whites to survive, we have to stop depending on the system to save us, and start engineering our independence from the system. We can produce everything we need and, in a sane society, only the good become wealthy and powerful, where with a System, only the defenders of the weak do.

White civil rights will not save us, nor will class warfare, or even making the Bill of Rights into civil rights. We need to be able to cut ourselves free from the rest of humanity, to be self-sufficient, and for our strongest to rise above the rest.

We need competence. That does not come through systems, which reward incompetence and weakness. There is no legal solution here, only an escape from the mental ghetto of legal systems and the atomized, individualistic, materialistic, and self-centered lifestyle they create.