Leftists are a variety of the Crowdist, or the person who decides that he desires no oversight by social standards and so joins others in a lynch mob to overthrow culture, hierarchy and morality.
Conservatives normally mistake these for nihilists, or people who believe in nothing, but the grim fact is that Crowdists believe very much in their new God: themselves, and the pretense that they have created which says their selfish power seizure is in fact “altruistic” or “egalitarian.” In reality, it is neither.
Like a scam artist caught in the act, a Crowdist will turn and attack when confronted. They will promptly accuse you of whatever they are doing. If they say you are stealing, then check their pockets because assuredly they are. In the same way, Crowdists pre-emptively attack by using an accusation to force you to relinquish control.
The pattern never changes, although most people cannot see it because it takes form with different issues and slogans. They find a person or group of persons who are in some way having a hard time in life, invent a story about how this is a systematic event — in other words a product of the culture, hierarchy and morality they wish to destroy — and then march up to their leaders and demand to know “what is being done” about this.
Usually, their leaders have nothing to say about it, because the people who are having a hard time, like most of us until we learn discipline, are victims of themselves and no one else. The winos and criminals of the world usually in the process of deceiving others come to deceive themselves and fall prey to their own illusions when they collide with reality. Think of the man who insists he does not have a gambling problem and can quit any time when the loansharks show up during dinner hour.
Back in 1789, the Crowdists stumbled into a perpetual “blank check” for all of their activities. This was equality, which was designed as a weapon for class warfare, in which those who are not succeeding demand that those who have succeeded redistribute the wealth and power on the basis of the non-succeeders being human too. This morphed into Civil Rights at the time of the American civil war when Crowdists realized that as long as they could find a black victim, they could seize power much as they did any time they found a group of starving peasants near the Bastille. From there they have expanded to other groups: women, other ethnic and religious minorities, gays/etc and even extreme sexually nonconforming people like polygamists, pedophiles and incest participants.
Their old refrain goes like this, courtesy of Peter Singer:
Why do racism, sexism and discrimination against people with disabilities still exist, despite the widespread acceptance that they are wrong? There are several reasons, but surely one is that many people act unthinkingly on the basis of their emotional impulses, without reflecting on the ethics of what they are doing. That, of course, invites us to discuss why some people have these negative emotional impulses toward people of other races, and that in turn leads to the old debate whether such prejudices are innate or are learned from one’s culture and environment. There is evidence that even babies are attracted to faces that look more like those of the people they see around them all the time, so there could be an evolved innate element, but culture certainly plays a very significant role.
The message in the above is an accusation: you do what is convenient for you, not what is right, because — see, here we have these people who are not succeeding. Since we are all equal (we assume) the only reason for their lack of success is that some horrible injustice has been done to them. Even more, the message above equates opposing miscegenation with knee-jerk responses and animal instincts, which makes us feel unsuccessful and un-evolved if we choose it. Yet our gut instincts often save us in time of stress and danger, and — as conservatives will note — those ideas which have succeeded longest are probably best.
But let us think strategically here. What might Singer and his liberal cohorts be concealing? In other words, what are they using to accuse us, while actually being guilty of it themselves? Discrimination, obviously, which was once a word for having high standards but now means failure to include anyone, no matter how broken or useless, in your activities. We mind wonder what they are actually discriminating against, except that it becomes clear: defense of the less-equal means penalizing the more-equal. As analyzed by one IQ researcher, the discriminated group is not a tangible ethnic or religious grouping, but intelligent people — those who might notice the flaws in our ideology — who rise above the “equal plus” standard of marginally talented that guarantees success in the herd:
By dividing the distribution function of the elite professions’ IQ by that of the general population, we can calculate the relative probability that a person of any given IQ will enter and remain in an intellectually elite profession. We find that the probability increases to about 133 and then begins to fall. By 140 it has fallen by about 1/3 and by 150 it has fallen by about 97%. In other words, for some reason, the 140s are really tough on one’s prospects for joining an intellectually elite profession. It seems that people with IQs over 140 are being systematically, and likely inappropriately, excluded.
All of recent history represents a vast conspiracy to avoid those who might notice. The intelligent, or those above 120, are most suspect; those who hover at 120 or just below are intelligent enough to be clever but fall short of genius. This makes them perfect drones because they will feel vastly accomplished for simple tasks, and cannot understand anything more complex, but are arrogant enough based on their superior status to the real doofuses that they will ignore anything they do not understand. They are the perfect zombies for an army united by ideology.
Most people fall to understand that Crowdism exists for a single reason, which is to avoid consequences of the actions of those in the Crowd. They fear any higher standard which will reveal them to be dumber, more shortsighted, less moral, or of deprecated utility compared to others. They want a zero standard which approximates the lowest possible so that they have no chance of failing. Their hope is to avoid any confrontation with reality, or those who notice reality, by discriminating against those of higher intelligence while simultaneously accusing that group of discriminating against the “disadvantaged,” a.k.a. anyone not doing so well under a reasonably realistic social system.
The goal of Crowdism — and by extension, of liberalism — is to avoid those who might notice that the Crowd ideal is out of line with reality. Crowdists work to make jobs into mind-numbing tedium, society into a series of bureaucratic tasks, and to ruin the family and any other honest attributes of society. This drives away the smarter people, who require more from life than bread and circuses, and allows the idiots to take over. This is the sole reason for their focus on discrimination; they are guilty of it themselves, and they want to distract from this so that no one notices the ongoing removal of the smart and their replacement with obedient near-dunces who, in the time-honored tradition of those smart enough to make fun of others but not understand their own failings, will proclaim themselves natural leaders and promptly push their civilization into ruin.
Very few people understand the conservative argument for “small government.” It takes this basic form: reduce government so that it no longer has an ideological goal, but acts only as a support/defense infrastructure for culture.
When government gets an ideological mandate, such as “enforce equality,” it becomes a self-guiding perpetually expanding entity with a blank check from the voters to do whatever it wants so long as it can justify those acts under the broad umbrella of its ideological objectives.
The same things that liberals feared with the government regarding terrorism — that fear of terror would be used to justify any number of intrusive acts — are also true of government objectives like civil rights, anti-poverty, gender equality, wealth redistribution and anti-discrimination. All of them create that blank check and make government grow like a tumor.
Odd as it seems, the point is not size of government per se, but size of government reach. In other words, if government focuses on defense, roads and space exploration, it presents no threat because it has a finite goal that does not submit to mission creep. How do you justify having military police in every city in the name of space exploration? (Actually, I am sorry I asked: bureaucrats have probably dispatched a fact-finding commission to find a way.)
If the citizens of a nation are so foolish as to give government an open mandate to do anything it can to achieve an ideological goal, they have opened the gates. Ideology reflects what people feel should be, not what is. There is no check for success in that feedback loop because it is based exclusively on feelings. Thus when ideological programs fail, the answer is to try even harder with the same idea. If the programs succeed, they are used to justify new objectives which are simply expanded versions of the old.
Imagine a department in your workplace. The owners decide that it is essential to be inclusive to fifth-dimensional beings. This requires redesigning the building to have M.C. Escher style recursive staircases, and to rethink the concept of “rooms” entirely. Ordinary people require velcro to stick to the ceilings because up is no longer up and down is no longer down. All drinks and food must be in paste form. Harmful parts of the color spectrum, and the light spectrum, must be filtered, requiring ordinary people to wear 3D glasses with one red and one blue lens each. Since fifth-dimensional beings do not experience time as we do, the office runs on a 24-hour rolling schedule and measures those hours in radians. Soon every aspect of the office has been entirely re-dedicated to first figuring out how to accommodate the fifth-dimensional beings, and only second (and optionally, if the first is not accomplished) act out its normal role. Quality and productivity plummet but management sees this as resistance to its grand plan, and doubles down on punishing those who do not comply. In five years, the only people left in the office are those who are good at one thing: making a comfortable environment for fifth-dimensional beings. Everyone else has been fired or fled.
The same has happened to American government, following in the footsteps of other governments. Let us look at the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. In the former case, ideology supplanted reality and made the nation unable to feed itself. In the latter, a fascination with Jews and racial purity led the nation toward military and political disaster. The problem in both cases was that a single principle took over from the multiple principles of quality government. Ideology tends toward a single principle because its goal is to focus people on one thing and have them hammer at it until they force it on others. This is why ideology is so devastatingly effective. Non-ideological governments, called “conservative” now, focus on multiple methods of achieving what is known as health, or a society that aims toward the excellent and has happy residents as a result.
When ideology takes over government, the bureaucracy swells and becomes self-important, and starts to view any criticism as treason. It then purges those critics and, more importantly, rewards only those who achieve ideology-first and reality-second. This drives away anyone who might know better. Like many human failures, this path to death is driven by our own inability to see the obvious because we have re-trained our minds on a single focus. When conservatives say they want small government, what they mean is to remove ideology from government and instead focus on real-world activities that create health, which are generally best administered by culture and natural selection while government takes care of defense, roads and space exploration.
At its founding, America was a WASP nation. This acronym, originally meaning “White Anglo-Saxon Protestants,” generally included those of indigenous Western European heritage regardless of religion. English, Scots, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians, northern French and Austrians fell under this banner. Genetic outlier and admixed groups like Greeks, Italians, southern French, Slavs, Jews, Poles and Irish did not.
As industry boomed in the northeast, it needed more menial laborers: unskilled, repetitive task-doers who could be paid minimal wages which would, relativistically, be seen as a great step up in condition of life. The importation began with a flood of Irish, then Italians, Greeks and Poles. The WASP establishment disliked this process but rather than fight it, retreated behind a wall of money and exclusivity. The fuse was lit however, and during the Civil War it became clear how useful these “New Americans” were: they could be counted on to wage war on those more prosperous or simply more selective than themselves. With the advent of massed infantry charges and repeating rifles, the skill of warriors became less important than having a willing mass which would charge forward when the horn blew.
When the new century dawned, the world wars required that the West — ironically like both Napoleon and Genghis Khan — adopt a pose of being accepting of all as a means of differentiating itself from those nasty, exclusive nationalist and monarchist states. Each war increased the propaganda for acceptance and solidarity based on position, such as political stance or economic position as workers, and this enabled the West to produce the human wave it needed to win its wars. Unfortunately, in a pattern that would repeat time and again, most of the casualties were from the original WASP contingent. When you read the names in the old 13 colonies churches, you see mostly English, German and Scots names with a smattering of Dutch and French. When you read the casualties from the first two world wars, the same pattern prevails.
During the second world war American propaganda reached new intensity. Not only did it set the stage for the future of “perpetual war,” or constant definition of our purpose as struggle against impediments to ideological objectives such as democracy, but it also established egalitarian dogma as the basis of why we considered ourselves exceptional. No longer was America the “city on the hill” for its morality of doing the right thing, but for its morality of inclusivity. Not surprisingly, the so-called Greatest Generation — with non-WASPs more prevalent because of their lower casualties — voted for a series of disastrous immigration acts, first in 1958 and then in 1965, which guaranteed that the new population of the country would be mostly non-WASP.
Liberals rejoiced. Their line for years had been that the snooty WASPs, who retreated from the Irish/Italian/Polish immigration waves to gated communities, were the source of our misery and injustice. In their thinking, if the WASPs were removed, a new Utopia would reign. That event happened in the 1990s, when the work-ethic of the 1950s combined with the politics of 1968 as the Baby Boomers assumed positions of authority across the board, and the immigration that had been nascent even when Ronald Reagan made his 1987 compromise became a flood. The new rules had been posted: liberals are now in control, and everyone is welcome to come get a slice of the American pie. What occurred was predictable, since people act both in their own interests and through the path of least resistance. The third world fled its homelands and poured into the West, both America and Europe. Unable to attack the flood politically for fear of being seen as Hitler or the antiquated WASP establishment, conservatives retreated.
No one called the liberals on the failure of their plan. They promised a new land of peace, justice and equality with the demise of the WASPs. Instead what they produced was a faddish land where the new elites, generally of the former immigrant stock, chased after trends and clickbait statements to make to the press, while the newest immigrant groups joined in the civil rights experience by using the same justification that achieved affirmative action and federal benefits for African-Americans. This resulted in a society dedicated to taking from its founders and giving to new warm bodies, and no one could criticize it, or they would be branded as racist in the media and lose their jobs, homes, spouses, friends and legal protection.
Fast-forward twenty years from that point and the Rainbow Nation is in chaos. Race riots are a regular occurrence to which the only solution seems to be not to police non-white groups, who still have disproportionate rates of crime and victimization compared to WASP groups. Affirmative action has not resulted in widespread equality, but it has resulted in widespread expense, since the law does not recognize the difference between a qualified minority candidate and an unqualified one. Even more, as Robert Putnam discovered in his landmark study, diversity increases alienation and distrust even within ethnic groups. As our presidential candidates openly admit to treasonous scandals, our military is embroiled in corruption, and control by moneyed interests reaches a new peak, we might ask the role that our lack of cooperation with each other plays in those developments.
Our choice is clear: we either go back to what worked, which was a Western European only nation, or we continue down the path of diversity which is the policy that produced most third world nations. As Ann Coulter clarified for us all, this is not only a “clash of civilizations” but clash of civilization-models. In particular, our method works better; the third world method works less well; by merging our method with the third world method, we will end up with the third world method, and no one will benefit:
You fled that culture. Because it is a — there are a lot of problems with that culture. Hopefully, it can be changed. But we can share our culture with other nations without bringing all of their people here. When you bring the people here, you bring those cultures here. That includes honor killings, it includes uncles raping their nieces, it includes dumping litter all over, it includes not paying your taxes, it includes paying bribes to government officials. That isn’t our culture.
You can see the successful cultures in the world. They have been studied ad infinitum, America is about — it is the best in the world and we are about to lose it. And everyone who lives here is going to lose that. And the people who are going to suffer the most are the weakest ones. It’s the women. It’s the children. … No country has ever had the sort of respect for women that Anglo America does and that is going out the door.
Ann might as well have extrapolated to Western European culture in general: no society has had so much reverence for learning, for excellence instead of mere participation, for sacredness and sacred roles to the genders, for respect for nature, and for caring for children. Compared to us the rest of the world is a cold, dark and unforgiving place, and yet in our best of days, we were also the most warlike, vigorously squashing whatever offended our values. There is a connection: among other things, Western Europe is the culture of the hard rule. We know what we like, and what we do not, and we eject the bad and multiply the good, while being skeptical of the unknowns. At least, that is how we were during the best of our days. Since the rise of liberalism, these positive attributes have been attenuated.
The facts of this complex dilemma take two dimensions. Our society makes the first taboo, which is noticing that genetic differences result from societies which take the path we did not. The second is more complex, and relates more closely to Putnam’s revelations: homogenous societies, with a strong cultural and ethnic identity, provide the best basis for working together and therefore thrive in a lack of internal friction. Even more important is the notion of identity, and having pride in who you are and your history, so that you want to continue this beyond the threshold of personal convenience. Identity turns our method into a way of life and a tendency imbued deep within every soul. It means we do not need constant government to prevent third-world style chaos, but have high-trust societies where cooperation is more prevalent than coercion. We might call this the “first world method” because all first-world societies became that way under its rule.
In contrast, third world societies are the most individualistic, “free,” autonomous, cheerful, tolerant places on earth. There, you do whatever you want. In exchange, you have less social order and fewer functional institutions. In other words, they are closer to the state before civilization. This is why the vast majority of third-world societies are low on social standards; the focus is on the autonomy of the individual, and the unintended secondary consequences are the lack of social order, rule by warlords and gangs, corruption and high crime. But to a true individualist, this is a benefit not a curse. The individual is restrained by nothing and can do whatever he or she wants with no negative feedback from society and no enforcement of standards. These societies have more freedom than the first world, and their tolerance is such that they admit any newcomers, which is why almost all of them are mixed-race. They are also highly sexually liberated for the most part, with no tedious social standards forcing boys and girls to wait until long-term commitment for sex (even in countries with strong putative sexual morality, the reality is more liberated). The third world is the liberal ideal, although liberals want to hang on to first-world conveniences and will attempt to do so through totalitarianism, which as we see in the Russian, Venezuelan, Cuban and East German experiments, does not quite work out as expected.
In the West, the first-world method resulted in our meteoric rise to the top of the world. We then colonized it, bringing with us technology in exchange for what the left calls “oppression” but was more likely the grim process of beating radical individualists into conformity so they could actually achieve something. Where we have retreated, technology remains, but it has now become a tool of the corrupt warlords and gangs rather than a means of restraining them. In other words, the third-world method has absorbed the first-world one. The same is being attempted in the United States and European Union, but even now the writing on the wall suggests this will lead to more of what the rest of the world is doing. Nine out of ten humans live in third-world conditions or near to them, with the Western Europeans in the US and EU as the outliers. Naturally the rest of the group wants us to conform, and stop rising above their level, so that no one feels challenged by the possibility of life being better. Mediocrity loves company.
How can we pull out of this tailspin? The germ of it lies in accepting Western European exceptionalism: our method works better, but we cannot share it with others by inviting them here, only by succeeding and making them jealous and angry to the point where they implement it in their home countries. Diversity does not work. It cannot work because it is paradoxical. It assumes that all people are the same and that beating the same rules into them will achieve the same results. Yet the lesson that colonialism taught was that this approach does not work either. Each group must develop the “first-world method” on its own; it cannot be taught. Western Europeans must withdraw to our own spaces in America and Europe, and eject everyone else to take our lessons home to their countries, which badly need improvement. It is not our responsibility to fix them, because if we assume that, it takes the burden off of those countries to improve themselves. And then we would live in a WASP world with one vital change, which is that we will remove the “gated communities” plus cheap labor formula of the early WASP decline. That would look more like this promising vision from South Africa:
But in the midst of a sinking South Africa, there is one beacon of hope: the Afrikaner self-governed town of Orania.
Orania in today’s South Africa is a bit like Asterix’s village in conquered Gaul. The town is a private entity that has striven since its founding in 1991 to provide a self-determined homeland for Afrikaners. Here Afrikaans is the official language. All work, even manual labour, is done by Afrikaners. In that way, jobs for poor Afrikaners are created. There is no interference from government in how Oranians run their businesses, and there are many one-man enterprises. Apart from having to pay a low yearly registration tax, we are left alone.
Crime is virtually non-existent in Orania. Here is no violent crime, and rare incidents of theft, committed by fellow Afrikaners, are quickly resolved; in such cases, the transgressor has to do community work for minor offences, or otherwise has to leave town.
Notice the vital difference: this community requires affirmative and constructive participation, and it wields a great threat to those who do not conform, which is exile. Much as Europeans sent their unwanted to Tripoli and Americans sent them into Mexico, this population can eject those who commit crimes. The point is that being in this society is a privilege, not a “right,” and that only those who uphold the first-world method get to stay there. This makes it something to reach for by its citizens, and something to emulate by the third world. It also ends the tedious duality of importing third-worlders to do our cheap unskilled jobs, then a generation later noticing the vast social impact of creating a third world within the first. Send the Irish, Italians and Poles back; send the Mexicans, Chinese and Africans back. Restore America and Europe to their Western European roots, because that is when we were not just barely functional but great, and it gave us the pride to have the will to work together.
Leftists are like the barbarians outside the gate of a prosperous city. They can attack from any angle at random, and the city must exhaust its resources defending itself. The advantage falls to the attackers who have nothing to defend and so can spend all their time inventing new ways of destroying their adversary.
In the same way, leftists chip away at the necessary parts of a civilization in a random order but systematic process, finding delight in whatever they can sabotage, vandalize or destroy. This occurs because leftists view civilization, which creates standards for success and failure, as the enemy of their own damaged egos. As a result, they view any damage done to society as a victory and ignore the consequences, since in their view, others will behave like them and enjoy the new liberation with zero bad results. This is human fantasy projected onto reality at its worst.
What keeps the leftists thriving is that their ideas never receive the time necessary to test them. They make one change, wait six weeks, and declare victory — then move on to the next. Systematically they attack and dismantle the support structure of the ideas of their enemies, like invading barbarians cutting off water, salting fields and killing game around a besieged city. Before one attack is over, the next has begun. Through this method the city is kept constantly reacting to the attack, instead of seizing the impetus and creating a battle plan of its own.
The latest leftist jihad is to attack the idea of the traditional family through praising working mothers. In the experience of my generation, working mothers produce an unparalleled disaster of a home-life where kids are essentially raised by wolves, drugged on a steady diet of television and media to keep them busy, and farmed out to a life of busy-work at schools and daycare. This turns the kids into zombies who not only are neurotic to their core, but believe the propaganda endlessly fed into their minds. It is no wonder the left loves the working mother.
Even worse, working mothers produce neurotic homes. Food is acquired ad hoc with none of the planning and handcraft that goes into cooking and managing a larder. Nothing is constant and parenting consists of rules made after the fact, inconsistently, and in vague terms, teaching children early on to hate and distrust authority. Kids have shattered self-esteem that is only later in life assuaged by jobs and awards, which make them dependent on the approval of others for their self-esteem. Home becomes not-home; kids trust corporate services and maid service more than parents. Degeneration occurs from within.
For Generation X, the result of the working Baby Boomer mother was shattered self-esteem and a neurotic fear of anything that was not already explicitly known. Gen-Xers grew up into a world they saw as living death, without any of the tools of self-discipline and purpose that previous generations had, both hating their parents and seeing them as a kind of totalitarian-style authority that must be obeyed. The result was that Generation Xers either became obedient little sheep for the manipulative control by their parents, or rebelled and became slackers who now work off-shifts at customer-facing storefronts. Obey or die. Much like a liberal government, parents used the “in your best interests” line to justify being controlling, and produced shell-shocked permanent victims who just wanted to escape.
Now the liberal hype machine, via Pravda-on-the-Hudson, kicks into full gear with its praise of the working mother as not just acceptable but in fact better than the nuclear family with a parent — preferably the more nurturing one, the mother — at home:
In a new study of 50,000 adults in 25 countries, daughters of working mothers completed more years of education, were more likely to be employed and in supervisory roles and earned higher incomes.
…Some of these effects were strong in the United States. Here, daughters of working mothers earned 23 percent more than daughters of stay-at-home mothers, after controlling for demographic factors, and sons spent seven and a half more hours a week on child care and 25 more minutes on housework.
…Either way, the new study is part of a shift away from focusing on whether working mothers hurt children and toward a richer understanding of the relationship between work and family.
As with all things liberal, this is a social message that looks great if taken at face value. See, working mothers make their kids worth more money. More jobs and stuff. That’s good, right? And the boys spend more time on child care, which limits their male tendencies to be violent and cause trouble. Everyone is obedient to the image that the neurotic liberal self demands, which is a world of perfect inertness so that the personality of the liberal self encounters no barriers.
Except that as quickly glossed over — maintaining the illusion of journalistic objectivity in an article that otherwise fawns over its subject — there are massive problems with this study:
“The problem is we don’t know how these mothers differed,” said Raquel Fernandez, an economics professor at New York University who was not involved with the Harvard study but who has also studied the topic. “Was it really her mother working who did this, or was it her mother getting an education?”
The classic liberal tendency is to take people who were headed for money anyway and claim that one unrelated aspect of their lifestyles led to that money. This is a begging-the-question fallacy based on the assumption that all people are the same, so that only something that someone did differently could result in different results. It could not be — at all — that they were actually different people with different abilities. That’s racist.
If this study fails like past liberal studies, it will turn out that the “scientists” responsible set up some filters for whose data they would consider, carefully eliminating anyone who did not fit their thesis. They also probably did their best to sample among populations who were already heading toward success when they assessed working mothers, and people likely to have less income when they assessed non-working mothers. Even better, they may have relied on surveys, which are notoriously bad like witness statements. People self-report what flatters them. Thus to the working mothers you ask how successful their kids are, but to the non-working mothers you just ask household details.
Not that it will officially fail, of course. Other results will come out and it will become clear that this The New York Times article and the study it reports on were based on utter lies, but no one will say that. No one wants to be excluded from the Kool Kids Klub, of course, so they won’t attack each other. They will just pretend it never happened, delete any references to it that they can, and move on to attack something else.
When people like me say that liberalism is a mental disease, this is what we speak of it. Liberalism replaces the part of our selves that gives us purpose and self-esteem, and makes even liking ourselves contingent upon this external thing that is based in ideology. We can only feel good about ourselves when doing the ideology. We feel bad when we lack it. And so like zombies, we advance, hungry for brains but never full, numb to the world around us as we collide with it, because we have replaced all noticing of that world with our single-minded quest for brains, the scapegoat that we think will make us feel better… and it does not, so we try again, and again, in a circular pattern that ultimately destroys us and everything else around us, but at least we feel a faint warm glow of self-righteousness as the edifices collapse.
The average social program that takes seventy years to produce results would be viewed with skepticism. But not liberal social programs. Those are “good,” by the sentiment of the herd, so they never get assessed for whether or not they achieved — well, anything.
Since the second World War, America and Western Europe have veered to the left. This was a necessary fiction to make the fascists and National Socialists seem like outliers, rather than the extremist version of the norm that they were. As part of this veering to the left, liberals have infiltrated schools and media and have been busy teaching Americans to lean left.
Thus, the dramatic headlines: social liberals now match the number of social conservatives. No mention of the fact that no propaganda was needed to produce those social conservatives, nor were they products of education or media addiction. They just were, as an outpouring of culture and common sense.
Later in the article, this mention sneaks out:
Gallup first asked Americans to describe their views on social issues in 1999, and has repeated the question at least annually since 2001.The broad trend has been toward a shrinking conservative advantage, although that was temporarily interrupted during the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency. Since then, the conservative advantage continued to diminish until it was wiped out this year.
In other words, this reflects a very recent event and the culmination of a concerted effort to brainwash people into accepting official state ideology. It does not show us Americans as a whole finding liberalism more acceptable, only that the political environment has become so polarizing that people are drifting to extremes, shaped by media and government education.
If you listen to the liberals tell it, this is the Great Awakening as people suddenly realize that liberalism is “reality-based” and “on the right side of history.” More likely it shows the widening split in our society between the clueless conformists and the resistance, with a third of them following the bandwagon while another third tries to sit out and hopes it all blows over.
Now that the ashes are cooling in Baltimore, every party has to inject its own post-mortem to try to spin the dialogue to its advantage. The left bangs the old poverty-did-it tin drum, the right rages about the death of the family, and the community blames everyone but itself. The truth, as often is the case, lies elsewhere than convenient scapegoats.
Some draw outrage from the refusal of police to stand up and be punching bags for first the violence, and second the blame when the inevitable glitches arises. They see it as a lose-lose situation: when you make 1000 arrests, by the nature of human error, one or more will go bad. The media and community will seize on that one and use it to implicate the rest, when in fact it is exactly what it seems to be, a screwup. Just like not every package reaches its destination, some cars have bad brakes, and sometimes your cheeseburger is small, some arrests go wrong. This happens in every situation. The problem is that when police fear that one arrest more than the consequences of letting the other incidents go free, you end up with no police force.
Witness the meltdown:
Residents tell reporters they see officers driving right past street fights and disturbances.
Officers turned their backs to De Blasio as he visited injured officers in the hospital and at the officer’s funerals.
But officers in Baltimore, according to at least one of their own, are turning their backs on not only the Mayor but also the citizens they’re sworn to protect.
While the media spin on this one leads you to think it is the end of the world, it in fact represents something else entirely:
A good idea.
I suggest that all of us follow a simple principle: we work for people who work with us. That is, let the cops patrol the nice white neighborhoods where people do not attack them on a daily basis, and let businesses sell to the people who are not vandalizing, stealing, open defecating or whatever other non-desirable behaviors are occurring. Let our taxes go toward services for us.
And the rest? The ghettos, the homeless, the impoverished, and the victimized? Let them follow the law of nature, which is that they either improve their own circumstances or vanish from this earth. They will blame anyone foolish enough to take stewardship of their communities and do it less than 100% perfectly, which we all know is a number achieved in theory only. A sensible response would be to skip out on the blame, and on the risk, and to go police where people pay your salary — most of the income paying for police comes from those white suburbs — and where they do not rage out and riot over a one in a thousand mistake.
Even more, let us the nice white people from the suburbs stop taking responsibility for African, Asian and mixed-race inhabitants of America. Their communities are their own responsibility. We will pay our taxes, work with our police, and keep our own streets safe. They can do the same in their communities.
Since the end of the Civil War, the narrative of liberal America has been that white people are oppressors and therefore are responsible for the well-being of others. That encourages the others to disregard their own well-being, do whatever is convenient, and blame white America when things go wrong. That can stop. We are not obligated to these people: we do not owe them a living, or policing. We do not owe them welfare, benefits, or social programs. We can pay for those for ourselves if we want, but if we have any brains, we will respect Darwin and get rid of all of those programs.
Our society has made itself miserable by creating obligation to those who are failing. Let nature take her path. End the obligation, and focus on success and how to achieve it instead of on failure. The ghetto will never be happy with its policing, so abandon it to its own fate. Its citizens will determine whether it lives or dies. We are responsible to ourselves alone, and our only obligation is our own well-being.
If there is one concept in the modern age that needs to be folded, spindled, and mutilated, it is the idea of safety. Safety represents an entirely negative idea: the removal of risk, which inevitably translates into protecting the weaker from the stronger by neutering power. In order to fully render power impotent, however, those who desire safety must also limit the information which justifies power, specifically any knowledge above that upon which the weaker are acting as part of their modus operandi.
People in this modern age tend to view it as anomalous because of its technological advances. This outlook requires a fallacious assumption that technology exists on an absolute scale. Past empires have far exceeded the abilities of their neighbors in terms of technology, most notably the Greek, Persian, Roman, Mayan and Indian empires, but they fell by the same method the modern West is declining — class revolt, reckless outbreeding and corruption — mainly because technology alone does not insulate an empire from crisis.
Even the leadership equivalent of technology, advanced managerial and legal systems designed to dole out power in minute increments producing supposedly “equal” results, breaks down if given false starting assumptions or administered by those determined to circumvent it. In fact, management seems to work the opposite way of how it is intended by protecting the corrupt through its tendency to cloak them in authority and hide them behind a maze of rules, standards and measurements that baffle anyone but the extremely dedicated person with lots of time to sift through thousands of pages of bureaucratese.
These institutions justify themselves with the idea of safety, or the defense of people against potential harms, whether from themselves or others. Since the topic of our human tendency to do the exact opposite of what we need to be doing remains unpopular, their focus inevitably shifts to the mysterious enemy or scapegoat upon whom all failings can be blamed and in whose name all new powers can be rationalized. Like the mythological Satan, the best scapegoat is one who does not exist and cannot defend himself, such as the role of Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984 who seemed to be filled by various actors but may not have in fact existed at all.
If we scapegoat a nonsense entity, anything we attribute to that entity is assumed to be true without proof, and since the shadow figure cannot contradict that, all charges stick. To listen to those who advocate government and society being focused on “safety,” risks lurk behind every corner. Mattresses without tags will burst into flame and kill you; food additives will reach out and gift you with tumors in your sleep; bad thoughts will jump off the PDF page or out of a book and turn you into a full-fledged Nazi or anarchist setting cars ablaze. Naturally, risks exist, but not to the degree that the safety-advocates say they do, and they are limited by the choices made by those who encounter them. Few people who avoid smoking in bed find their mattresses suddenly ablaze, and the risk of most “dangers” is less than the chance of being stung to death by bees, while everyday threats like obesity, drunkenness, accident, and other forms of human lack of self-control are the most likely forces to kill any one of us.
Even more, statistics lie about circumstances. Most who die of the various terrors described in wide-eyed self-important glow by the news are elderly, and many who manage to damage or destroy themselves do so in the midst of disorganized lives where a long stack of bad, selfish and short-term decisions lead to conditions where nothing but failure remains. An obese person living in a trailer park in the path of a tornado, sucking down his 15th menthol cigarette and fourth cheeseburger of the day while drinking watery beer and re-attaching his propane tank using chewing gum — maybe even in a “hoarder” style whirlpool of useless possessions — faces one real risk, which is that the accumulated stupidity will find some way to snuff them. This is where modernity disconnects cause and effect; if someone under such circumstances dies from a mattress fire, is the mattress to blame, or simply the tottering house of cards assembled by the oblivious human?
Governments dedicate infinite resources to “educating” us about risks such that most public places are interrupted by ugly warning signs, blinking indicators and recorded messages. Hours of educational video, years worth of seminars and presentations, decades of mandatory classes and aeons of public policy discussion accompany these. If someone dies, it is a “tragedy” even if that person was worthless (and if we are honest, every single one of us considers some categories of people to be worthless) and brought it upon themselves, and through the magic of “accountability” we blame those in power for this unnecessary death.
And nothing is worse than death, we the assembled crowd think from our armchairs, because we fear nothing more than death itself. Thus we panic and foam at our mental mouths and demand that something be done. The press fans the flames with hysterical paranoia disguised as “advice.” Politicians make rules, ugly signs and blinkers go up, and we have another barrier of red tape and bureaucracy thrown in our path before we can accomplish simple life tasks. The accumulated rage makes us angry and we scapegoat the world, much like before that we scapegoated those who are more powerful than us. To take revenge on it, we find some reason to blame it, namely that it is bad and full of risk, and so we lash out at it with more rules. Then life gets more insufferable and the cycle begins again. Round and round. Round and round, again.
I suggest a society based on the creative principle instead: we focus on goals instead of fears. This requires recognition that life is not safe and never will be, and that the concept of “safety” — perceived as an abstraction in a universal context, then applied by our neurotic minds to every possible niche in our daily lives — is itself fallacious. We can design our society not to avoid risk, but to be logical, so that risk comes in proportion to our awareness of what is around us. This corresponds roughly to the results we get anyway, because even with thousands of rules idiots are dreaming up new ways to maim, mangle and murder themselves daily, but without the overhead of making ourselves into worrywarts.
What holds up this transition? I will submit to you this simple axiom: in a group of a hundred people, only a handful have actual direction. The rest have attached to something — a job, a sports team, a church, an ideology, a dollar amount — that they can believe in and they make their lives’ importance contingent upon that. When asked what they want from their leaders, they will not (unsurprisingly) state a goal, but fears. They have no goals, so what concerns their minds is interruptions of what they already have, like bad gamblers unwilling to take risks and therefore equating taking any risk with the behavior of compulsive risk-takers who rolled the dice and lost everything. In a society ruled by popularity, the fear of risk takes over from any attempt at goals.
Almost all public policy can be explained through the quest for safety. Patriotism is safety from foreign threats; diversity and welfare are safety through buying off the lower classes; global warming is a kind of talisman against our general fear of the sheer havok we are wreaking upon our environment. Democracy produces products in the form of visions, like how we project ourselves into the comfortable living room and stable families we see in video ads, and the best products channel an amorphous series of fears into a single symbol and produce a similarly symbolic solution. As with all human failings, our smart monkey-plus brains deceive us and we become a howling mob of simians demanding tangible assurances against an intangible order which determines our future.
It is a popular saying in our churches and political halls: “we are all one.”
In fact, it will make almost any group perk up and listen to you with misty eyes. It encapsulates so many of our sentiments in this fallen time, from egalitarianism to the idea that we should all “just get along.” But it is an incorrect and degraded version of a greater statement, much as our time is an inferior residue of a better one, albeit without iPads and hip-hop music.
The original statement, unfashionable in this time, reads “We are all one in God.” If you are atheistic like many are and in fact I tend to be whenever I fill out triplicate forms, you may substitute purpose for the name of the deity. Most of the time however I find that a religion, in parallel with what was once called “science” that encompassed all learning, marks the mind which has sought beyond the boundaries of the visible and into the non-existent structure that nonetheless emerges everywhere, in both logic and the arrangement of physical matter in discernible patterns. God, purpose, nature, logic — pick which one you feel most comfortable with — because what I describe is in common with all three.
Now, “we are all one” is a much more convenient statement. It is the equivalent of the kindergarten teacher saying that we should all share and get along, or the politician talking about bipartisanship, or even the come-one-come-all cry of the barker. It limits our focus to the human world only, and thus like so many other human behaviors is entirely social in its scope, which reduces our problems from a complex management of ourselves as both individuals and species to a simple matter of socializing with others. Like many things in this world, it is a surrogate for the real task that, being easier to grasp and more tangible in focus, allows us a measure of comfort in how easy it is on our minds and the weight we carry as we consider what our future decisions will be.
On the other hand, “we are all one in God” represents a type of conditional statement. We are united where we are in God. This type of statement makes sense only when God refers to an order, not a physical person or discrete entity. God is Godliness, a participation in the order that is holy and what produces that type of pattern that is simultaneously good, beautiful and true. True means reality; good means a morality of creating greater order — complexity, endurance, universality, efficiency, quality — wherever we go; and the beautiful is what shows us the transcendent in the mundane. It peels back the layer of the visible and shows us an invisible order pervading all reality which gives it the possibility of purpose, and shows us a path to make us like ourselves more. But these must occur at the same time so that all three traits are one.
People shy away from this phrase not only because it mentions that least sociable of ideas, that of the higher order and possibly but not necessarily a metaphysical one, but because it mentions purpose. If God is an order, our purpose is that order; this is not to say that the order is inherent, because we can choose to avoid it. But like any thought which is more good, beautiful and true than others, it calls to us like a childhood dream or the image of early and perpetual love. The problem with purpose is twofold: first, we can fail to achieve it; second, we must cut out of the social circle those who fail to achieve it. Like the small rodents of the forest, we fear the predators in our world, but the greatest predator is existential despair or the sense that our lives have been wasted. We never want to be wrong, and wake up to find that we have spent our irreplaceable time and energy on the worthless, revealing ourselves as fools or lost souls. In other words, “in God” adds a burden of an order which the best of us embrace, revealing the rest of us as lesser beings, and with that burden comes the necessity of exclusivity. Some rise, others fall.
Exclusivity is the least popular topic in any social gathering. People take it personally when they are found wanting. (The best form of exclusivity is secret exclusivity, because then one may feel the rush of ego-opiates brought by recognition, but not suffer from the wrath and resentment of others when they realize they did not make the cut). In contrast, inclusivity remains perennially popular because it gives us all warm feelings. “All are welcome” and “we are all one” are the same statement. Inclusivity conveys not only the sense that peace will prevail and all will be happy, but the notion that individual advocating it has risen above the earthbound tensions of animals and has become a higher being, if only socially. Our society sways under the weight of many would-be prophets who feel the rush of endorphins and dopamine that comes with having negated the self in preference for the group. Inclusivity creates a group where everyone feels good about themselves and feels safe from others.
In the view of that group, exclusivity represents a cruel and primitive urge to stimulate the ego by being above others. They view it as a vestige of our simian past and congratulate themselves on having enlightened, progressed, transcended and most of all “been better than that” or “been the bigger person.” Exclusivity threatens the circle of warm feelings that socialization through altruism/egalitarianism provides. With purpose, exclusion of some becomes inevitable. And yet without purpose, our lives become a prison confined to personal power and desires, a game which rapidly becomes pointless and boring, but which we play out of habit and the same desire for completism and uniformity which motivates our obsessive-compulsive cleaning and organizing of ideas. Purpose gives us a reason to rise above ourselves, but most people fear that challenge through the assumption that they will fail, even when it is highly unlikely that they will.
In an exclusive society defined by purpose, inclusion becomes revealed as what it is: a great injustice. The person who does right gets the same reward as the person who does nothing, or stops just short in his wrongdoing as to fall below the threshold of laws or rules. To be fair to people, those who do more should receive more reward and recognition, and also be given power so they can more effectively continue doing more. This is the nature of any society with order, any belief system with consistency, and even nature which rewards adaptation over illusion. Exclusivity is entirely incompatible with inclusivity because each is anathema to the other and would un-do it in short order. Where “we are all one” is a statement of inclusion, “we are all one in purpose” forces upon us both the greatest gift of a life — purpose — and what we fear most, the lack of pacifism and sociability uniting us into a happy circle.
At the same time, purpose raises standards. Our goal is not the constantly downgrading cycle of acceptance that lowers standards in order to fit every plausible candidate in the circle, but the rising of standards that says that as we improve the goal rises higher. Perhaps we might even reach the stars. Where inclusion calls for a minimum standard, in other words a negative measure based on fear of excluding, purpose calls for a positive standard which rewards all of those who step outside their fuzzily self-referential minds and begin the climb toward excellence. This is why purpose, like so many experiences, begins with terror and then progresses after an initial learning curve to a golden era of greatness. But our fear holds us back.
You will hear “we are all one” anywhere people wish to unite others and manipulate them. Inclusivity carries an automatic threat which is that if you are not inclusive enough, you can be excluded. Exclusivity, on the other hand, has no additional hidden layer; you do what achieves a higher degree of the order sought and you are rewarded, and there is no other standard that can be used to exclude you. In addition, all benefit from the increased stability to society as a whole, and the decrease of ideas that make us neurotic. If we listen to pop-philosophers like Bill and Ted, who tell us to “be excellent to each other,” we see an initial progress out of pure inclusivity. It is not enough to be all one; we must be excellent. If we wish to return that statement to its original balance, it can be shortened to the simple be excellent. Discover the order to life — and beyond! — and make yourself and your civilization excellent through it. Not everyone can participate, but those who are excluded fail only by their own fear, and those who beat the fear go on to become more of all the good in themselves.
Civilization creates its own fatal disease which is the predominance of popular notions over realistic ones. This disease proves difficult to diagnose because it is invisible, intangible and omnipresent. Like a virus in a computer network, it spreads through any and every program, elusive in its lack of a center to attack.
If these writings seem to rage too much against scapegoats — The JewsTM, “thugs,” The Rich, government itself instead of the voters who empower it — it is to avoid falling into the pitfall of popular notions, which perpetually prefer a tangible and easily-understood target to the more complex task of unraveling different threads and separating truth from lies.
Other popular illusions get short shrift sometimes but merit our attention, with two of them being the “fact”-based narrative and the obsession with details that demands lengthy research and vocabulary to merely discuss an item at a deeper level than “insight porn,” the pop culture styled contrarianism that creates a Thomas Kinkade level of philosophy: bright colors, simple scenes, and essentially a pleasant illusion avoiding the deeper problems within.
Many of us distrust the “fact”-based narrative for a simple reason:
There are no facts, only interpretations. – F.W. Nietzsche
That is to say: our language cannot convey wholly what is in reality, so it is inherently selective. This extends to fact-finding itself, which must choose facts to fit a narrative instead of assessing all facts and then looking to see what remains. A selective narrative produces a 300-page book of compelling ideas, where an assessment of all facts would produce a 10,000-page spacy analysis that few would read, until a final chapter appears which seems to magically make broad conclusions.
The left will always attack with the idea that conservative ideas are not “fact”-based, because the left specializes in cherry-picking data especially within a recent time frame, mainly because their goal is to explain away the unbroken historical record of failure to democracy, egalitarianism and subsidy-based economies (“socialism”). They have more to conceal than they have to say, so they specialize in generating “facts” that are in fact a very selective reading of reality, transferred into narrow categorical containers to produce a binary, and then spun into broad universal conclusions derived from relatively thin evidence.
Over the course of my life, I have seen both popular wisdom and the latest scientific studies fall. Not just arrive at a state of doubt; outright fail. This is because there are numerous levels of selection bias. Paul Krugman, a talented writer whose conclusions are often wrong because they are based on false assumptions, hits the nail on the head — broken clock right twice a day, perhaps — with this statement:
It doesn’t matter that the skeptics have been proved right. Simply raising questions about the orthodoxies of the moment leads to excommunication, from which there is no coming back. So the only “experts” left standing are those who made all the approved mistakes. It’s kind of a fraternity of failure: men and women united by a shared history of getting everything wrong, and refusing to admit it.
In other words, there is a selection bias among those who have become recognized leaders in their field, and it is not unfair to assume that much of this consists of destroying any ideas which conflict with their own. Their careers are based on their ideas; unlike even fifty years ago, when people were promoted based on their character and generalized abilities, in the current time people are vaulted to the top of their profession for attracting public interest. This leads to the second form of selection bias.
Crowd selection bias exists as a positive distinction, meaning that the masses reward what they find appealing. Note that these are not the masses as a whole, but the specific plurality which consumes news and intellectual products (usually books and movies). They ignore anything which is too complex or offends their conventional wisdom, but if they find a champion for an idea they find compelling, they will lift that person up through their purchases and attention. These heroes are the talk of the town for a few years, then are forgotten because their theories did not redefine the world. Thus Thomas Piketty passes into history and joins a list of other names I could cite here, but none of us would recognize them. They are past favorites, now comfortably serving as heads of departments or laboratories across the West.
In addition to the above selection biases, a type of negative selection bias exists which is fear of offending. We on the realist fringe are familiar with this one! Any idea that is too dangerous, or too insane — and the opposition likes to conflate these two much as the Soviets did — will be viewed as potentially incurring risk of offending either a plurality that is vocal or worse, a group or individual with protected pity-status. Those are dangerous and must be avoided, and so these are filtered out before they reach the surface.
Those three alone guarantee that “facts” as released into the mainstream will rarely provide useful information; “useful” is a better test than crowd favorite “valid,” which merely means placed in a form that is coherent. More likely, the facts issued forth will take the form of the far wall of an echo chamber, repeating what is already believed by excluding anything which does not fit that narrative.
Some useful facts make it through. These are either advanced by those who know their importance, or sneak past in a variety of guises. The best guise is insignificance, or the noting of a small detail and allowing others to interpret it. Another is as internal criticism within already accepted theory or ideology. Yet another is the infamous backwards attack, in which the researcher or writer advances a terrible argument in favor of an idea in order to show how hollow the idea is. These different types of guises are generally employed by those who work for the crowd heroes who run the departments.
None of these filters however disguise the raw problem with “fact”-based reasoning: the facts are chosen in order to be popular, and the method is bad. Modern science consists of surveying data, picking a factor to look at, and implying a causative relationship through statistical means that address only the data itself. Inherent in that are a number of assumptions which rely on universal tendencies to data, or similarities between context based on the form of information and not the specifics of its derivation, and these fail time and again. No one cares: this is an industry, not a moral crusade to be realistic.
On the other side from the “fact”-based narrative is another narrative which seems to be different: the detail obsession of specific domains of knowledge and vocabulary, which hold that to discuss a topic you must have read thousands of pages of dense material and mastered many small nuances. If humans retained their ancestral intelligence, they would see this for what it is, which is job protection through obscurity. Remember “security through obscurity,” the idea that if you make your computer products cryptic enough no one will hack them, despite the fact that hackers specialize in the cryptic because much like regulation offers more options to cheat, it offers more different wrinkles to exploit? Job security requires that specialized workers make their tasks so obscure and rife with tedious detail that outsiders cannot critique, oversee or redesign them. This perpetuates “the way we do things around hereTM” in perpetuity, guaranteeing jobs but reducing competitiveness. The same is true of academics and other thinkers, who want to claim ideographic space on the great blueprint of known ideas, and the defend it by making entry impossible, and forcing those who would enter to adopt enough of the language of the discipline as to force them to accept the specific precepts of its owners.
Within this topic, I side with the philosophers: all ideas reduce to a very simple core, and there are not many actual ideas, so generally what one finds is a variation on a previous idea. What is needed is not an in-depth look, but a clarification of the basic concepts in as few words and specialized terms as possible, or discussion is moved into a domain controlled by the specific knowledge which makes extrusion to other domains of knowledge nearly impossible. Academia hates this idea because it would put the philosophers and literature teachers back in charge, and since the best of those tend toward realism, they would focus on collapsing the empty spaces of rhetoric and domain-anchoring dogma and replace it with simpler, clearer concepts. Compare The Republic or Reverence to the average book of academic writing and the difference leaps from the page: good thinking expresses itself clearly in few concepts and then reveals their depth; bad thinking expresses itself in a nearly flat hierarchy of specialized concepts, hiding meaning within, then explains it through examples which only gradually reveal what is actually being said.
As always, the problem of humanity chases us here. Why is it that all of our knowledge is corrupted, all of our leaders are bad, and all great civilizations extinguish themselves? The only smart money says that a similar pathology, or repeated behavior that is indifferent to its results, explains all three. We got a hint of this in the news this week when attention whoring made the news:
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) on Saturday backtracked from recent comments in which she seemed to suggest that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was getting more attention than she deserved by admitting what’s widely known about Washington: everyone seeks attention.
So that we all catch the tacit admission here, let us look at the normal, healthy leadership. A good manager seeks what must be done to succeed and then works to accomplish it. But as McCaskill says, democratic Washington acts on the opposite principle: it seeks what is popular, and then finds a way to justify it by arguing toward some recognized policy goal. In other words, we are no longer in the domain of leadership, but in entertainment, except that it uses the mantle of authority given to leaders to grant itself gravitas and extort money from us all. People, she said that politicians make their careers by attention-whoring; no one mentioned leadership or acting on what is important here. Grab headlines and win, just like the “fact”-based studies, and do what is right and be ignored.
In this light, our society resembles a closed circle: each of us does what is popular, so that we may become popular, based on what has been popular in the past. Surface-level alterations, such as what hipsters excel at like adding tubas to indie-rock bands and proclaiming it “a new sound,” are in fact affirmation of sameness in the same way the exception proves the rule: if the only differentiation possible is aesthetics only, then no other idea is possible, which affirms the predominance of the idea. This closed circle means that we as a society are like a dog chasing its own tail, entirely self-referential and oblivious to the larger reality around us. “Fact”-based argument, and argument from detail-obsessive specialized domains of knowledge, are methodologies which endorse and promote this outlook. Its end result is that reality is ignored and supplanted by social reality, or the collective consensual hallucination formed of what people desire, judge or feel — in other words, what they wish were true instead of what they deduce or induce to be true. This is the end result of all crowd selection algorithms, whether democracy, consumerism or simply social popularity, and constitutes a revelation of the implicit goal in those methods which is to obscure difficult truths by re-directing our focus elsewhere.
All of this leads to the point of the essay you are now (still?) reading: universalism creates subjectivity. Our theory is that in order to find objective truths, we must create an objective truth which is shared among people. However, by doing so, we grant a weight to that objectivity which guarantees it will be manipulated, and because people have different levels of the power of discernment — this is distinct from subjectivity; it suggests that we have different degrees of the same abilities, not different abilities which produce different truths — they will then use the same objective symbols and tokens but mean different things, gradually poisoning the objective truth by redefining its tokens. A better approach is to reject the objectivity/subjectivity dichotomy and instead take an esoteric approach, which may be summarized as “the truth reveals itself to those who are ready, in varying degrees according to readiness.” With esotericism, we expect no objective truth to be universal, and correspondingly guard against poisoning by cherry-picked facts (in “scientific” “studies”) and biased language controlling specialized domains of thought alike.
The media inflates again with seemingly endless bloviation about the Iraq war. Again this exists to conceal some difficult truths behind the scenes. Let us investigate the Iraq war (II) and see what may be found.
At first the question seems simple and to coincide with the one asked by the media: was this a just war? Was it a successful war? And, did it simply damage American prestige worldwide?
Each of these questions aims to hide a more complex truth.
First, was this a just war? Meaning: did the bad guys deserve punishment, and are we in a moral position to do it? Glossing over for a moment the specious and irrelevant question of whether there is morality to war, as it is generally a thought debated by those far from the battlefields who have no intention of participating, let us look to Saddam Hussein. There was much to admire about him as he unified Iraq at least temporarily.
However, the dark side to Saddam Hussein was that he was also the ruling power in the Arab world and he had supported terrorist attacks against Israel including launching Scud missiles from long distances. That in turn prompted the question of whether Iraq had “WMD,” a term that in its honest use means NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) weapons. Lobbing 150kg of Semtex into downtown Haifa is bad enough, but hitting it with the same amount of VX gas could achieve a measurable percentage of genocide and precipitate a collapse of Israel. Speaking as realists, we must recognize that the West would not simply sit on its hands when that happened, so a rather extensive conflict would result. Further, Iraq was the weapons clearinghouse of the middle east, and many of those ended up in the hands of Palestinian terror groups. For these reasons, the war on Hussein was “justified” if such a thing must be done.
In addition, the war against Hussein represented a clear response to the middle east as a whole: if terrorist attacks happen to the United States, we will show up to where you are and destroy enough stuff that you will regret your support. Then you will be engaged in fighting us in your backyard and will not have the time or resources to follow up on terror attacks. This also displaced all terrorists from Iraq, a populous area, to the more sparsely-populated regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan where they could be droned from armchair comfort.
The question of WMD was never resolved. Iraq had developed WMD in the past and might be doing so currently. What changed this question was Hussein’s ability to launch Scuds and the rising power of Islamic “extremism” in response to the 9/11 attacks. The Iraq war took all of that down a peg. Oddly, like the Viet Nam war, the Iraq war was massively successful in that it dissuaded others from following the path of mideast terror. Resistance happens in increments and is emboldened by a lack of strong response, because that means that one can be a revolutionary and also face a likelihood of zero penalty. When the penalty rises, support falls. In the same way that the Viet Nam war stopped Chinese Communist expansion, the Iraq war stopped Muslim extremist expansion. This re-asserted a geopolitical balance where the nations intolerant of this resistance movement held the upper hand by the fact of not only being unwilling to tolerate it, but picking a semi-arbitrary nation to sacrifice for having supported it in the past. Message delivered: support this and you may be next.
Then there comes the question as to whether Iraq was a successful war and with it, the question of whether America lost or won. The factors that determined these questions were beyond a single president. It makes sense to divide the Iraq action into two parts, the “war” and the “occupation.” The first resembles what Bush I did, which was to smash the opposing army and level huge parts of its industrial capacity, cutting it back if not to the stone age at least to less harmful levels. As in the first Iraq war, the second one — the war part at least — was successful. After that came the occupation, where almost all of the casualties and expense occurred. Occupations, as happened also in Viet Nam, are generally costly because all of the strategic advantage goes to the guerrillas, much as it did during the American revolution. As luck has it, occupations are also virtually demanded by any democracy fighting a war because it cannot support the un-democratic alternative, which is relocation or destruction of the subjugated population. You can avoid a guerrilla war, but it takes extreme means.
Saddam Hussein lobbed missiles at Israel, experimented with WMDs, gassed his own people and supported terrorists. Together these showed a pattern that revealed a strong nose-thumbing at Western authority in the middle east, which is essential since the middle east is Europe’s southern flank. This was in itself not a problem, but with 9/11 the Islamic terrorists got too arrogant and strong for our interests, so they had to be spanked down. In Iraq, this consisted of a successful war to depose a tyrant, and a less-successful occupation demanded by our “democratic feelings.” In Afghanistan, it consisted of a prolonged guerrilla war which drove its targets to remote areas where we identify them and drone them to this day. Much like Viet Nam, this war pushed back against a challenger to our authority, and radically reduced the support for terrorist organizations in the middle east.