The Black Pill terrifies us all: an admission that there is no innate purpose to the universe, that communication is at best a game of mutual guesswork, and that values are not universal.
It seems like a gateway to the kingdom of darkness from which no beauty, truth or goodness can emerge.
And yet, as will be demonstrated, it is the only way to get to those states, because everything else is human and therefore biased toward the tendency of humans, which is to revert to our simian state of desire, judgment and feelings taking precedence over reality. Some call it hubris, others simply individualism.
The Black Pill represents hard truths that cannot be reduced to simpler ideas that are more pleasant, or deflected into distracting tangents or scapegoats which make us feel better. The Black Pill is a hard confrontation with the emptiness of life and mortality, and people fear it.
Let us distill The Black Pill to its simplest idea: hard realism, based on what we can know rather than what we can opine. The Black Pill as a radical honesty, extremist realism and hard emphasis on the non-human conditions of existence does not negate any beliefs, only speaks to what we can know without doubt.
This is not limited to material reality, but it explicitly rejects human notions which are first presented as desirable, and later justified or explained in terms of selectively-chosen elements of reality. The core of the Black Pill is that the human observes first, and then finds a theory to fit all of the data, not the other way around as most people do.
Without this type of mentality clarity and self-discipline, all of human thinking becomes projection or an extension of the personality imagined as being part of the world. This especially happens in groups when people agree that something should be true, and therefore is true, or at least will seem to be true if they all insist on it.
What follows are some Black Pill truths. Warning: this will most likely offend you and may induce crippling existential doubt.
Morality. The herd morality is that you should never hurt anyone. The actual morality of life involves the results of what they were doing. If they were doing bad, hurting them is a good; if they were doing good, hurting them is a bad. It is all about results, and not about methods. You can see the fallacy of method-based reasoning when you contemplate someone trying to hurt your family. Would you harm them any way you could? Yes, but even more, you would act so that your family came to no harm, and the consequences to someone doing something stupid, destructive, pointless, degenerate, or criminal are of no concern to you. In fact, you might desire to destroy the people threatening your family so completely that the threat is forever terminated. The herd views this as bad because all of them are projecting themselves into the position of the person harmed, because that allows them to feel self-pity and therefore excuse their own venal and idiotic deeds through some philosophy of being victims of their world. “Sodomize the weak” is a better morality than “protect the weak” because with the latter, the evil quickly learn to disguise themselves as the weak.
Equality. The root of equality is the idea that “I want/see/recognize” is the beginning of an argument in favor of some action. The Black Pill says that it is not: the individual is usually mediocre and even if not, usually wrong, and inevitably driven by impulse and not reasoned action. There is no justification for an action or idea to be found in individual approval, nor in group approval; actions are only worthwhile if they will achieve results that are good, and “good” is both obvious and recorded by history. This does away with the questions of morons which float around “validity” and “who decides?” — unless one is a fool, the best people decide, and there is no validity, only accuracy. People tend toward evil. The best can be redirected with self-discipline but the rest need to be oppressed because their desires are destructive and oppressive toward all good things. More shocking to a herdsman is that people are born with not just their abilities, but their moral inclinations, and these do not change. Some are born bad, and some good. Within the good, a hierarchy exists as in nature of those who are best all the way down to those who are merely OK.
Radical evil. The Christian idea of “original sin” shocks people when first encountered. We are all sinners, and bad, and probably stupid and retarded? Emphatically, yes. The human mind prefers what is easy to grasp and rejects anything it cannot understand (the Dunning-Kruger effect). It is not lazy so much as biased toward stability; the human mind alternates between states of order and disorder, and when it can impose order by simplifying its representation of reality, it does so. The problem arising from this situation is that this creates an animal mind which is bigoted in favor of illusion. That in turn means that most of what people do, and think is right, is in fact wrong because they have based their idea of “right” in what is mentally convenient for them. For this reason, people need to deliberately turn away from evil and toward good through self-discipline in order to achieve good at all, and very few will do this. Instead, most wallow in what some call “radical evil”: everyday behaviors and events that are the opposite of good, but are considered good by most people because they have failed to investigate what actual good is. And what is good, asks the crowd? (They always think they are profound for asking non-questions). The obvious: survival, of us and our environment. Increase in or maintenance of quality. Focus on truth, goodness, honor and competence. All the things normal people fear because they have not polarized themselves toward achieving them.
Civilization. Your standard Republican idiot clings to a fiction whereby he can observe civilization around him failing, issue some pithy statement about going back to God or traditional value, and then go home and work hard and go to church and somehow come out OK despite his civilization failing around him. This is nonsense and stupidity. Our fortunes are determined by civilization unless we live alone where no one else can reach us, produce all of our own tools and goods, and have no children who need future spouses. No one lives like that because no one has ever lived like that. Human evolution resulted from simians herding together and developing skills. Early humans existed in wandering tribes. With fixed agriculture, we could build a broader base of tools and thus knowledge and from that came what most of us think of as “civilization,” with towns, cities, institutions and hierarchy. The eternal human fiction is that all we need are ourselves and a few of our favorite shops, i.e. “anarchy with grocery stores,” because that way nothing opposes us fulfilling our whims (calls for collective non-oversight like anarchy begin in the desire of the individual to escape judgment and notice). If you do not defend civilization, you will be ruled by non-civilization, even if in the guise of civilization as we currently have. The “individualistic fallacy” — that it is enough to simply act in immediate self-interest through hard work, religion and traditional values — kills societies because all the potentially good people marginalize themselves while the neurotics take over the public sphere and then educate the next generation in their propaganda.
Machiavelli. All things act in self-interest. This includes groups, individuals, genes and ideas. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile; this is the result of self-interest, but also explains how one arrives at a “tragedy of the commons” where individuals acting in self-interest over-exploit a resource, as happens with over-fishing and overpopulation. Machiavelli and others suggest we recognize the literality of self-interest, namely that it cannot be disclaimed by language, symbol and virtuous act, but is innate and unchanging in all things. This means that if you have a country, every other country on earth is acting against your interests, even if — especially if — they are your allies. Their goal is to put themselves first. In the same way, other people behave in self-interest and will always prioritize their needs before yours. There is wisdom in self-interest in that it never fails, and it is not ambiguous, unlike altruism which introduces a cloud of ambiguity, doubt, guilt, uncertainty and confusion. In a Machiavellian view, one must view others as destructive unless they are specifically incorporated in an agenda which marries their self-interest to group-interest; generally, only biological kinship does this, at the levels of race, ethnicity and class.
God. Despite what most people think, the Black Pill does not reject God and in fact is mute on the issue. We have no physical evidence because there cannot be physical evidence for the metaphysical, and asking for it is silly. Some concepts are also silly, like dualism where two worlds with different rules in each exist. We can reject that which is logically ill-constructed, but we are never going to have certainty of God’s existence or absence in this world, and claiming otherwise in either extreme is illogical and corrupts the thinking process. Most who oppose the Black Pill do so because it rejects their idea of God, which is as innate to existence to the degree that all must recognize him, or be seen as evil. This is a mistake because it reduces faith to conformity and obedience. It makes more sense to say that God is a choice that can only occur when the subject matter is understood, and that by using logical conjecture, some credible arguments can be made for his existence. Note that the same cannot be done for his non-existence, as there is no boundedness to the universe that allows us to claim it excludes certain potentials. Under the Black Pill, those who seek God have made a choice and have done so as a reflection of not just their inner needs, but their inner qualities. Under the Black Pill, no decision is innate or necessary, but all decisions reflect back on us and our place in the hierarchy of intelligence, ability and moral character. That scares people more than the (potential) presence of Hell.
As you can see, in a Black Pill view most of what humans consider to be sacred is based in the illusion created by humans to justify their desires, and what replaces it is a simpler, clearer and less “human” view of the world. This inhumanity allows humans to escape the animal confines of their own impulses, and demystifies the world but also reveals its mystery.
Until a civilization has people who can accept Black Pill reality in its leadership, it is doomed to regress to third world levels. Civilization can only occur where hard-core literalist realism is present. We need people who will open every door, unafraid of what they might find, because they are hard-minded to find excellence and beauty in life despite whatever they find.
To dodge the Black Pill is to permanently corrupt your own thinking. If you reject realism, you become an agent for the idea that human preferences and notions are more important than reality. This in turn makes you into a zombie who is addicted to the pathology that re-affirms that illusion, so you seek out other justifications and those who believe them, forming the basis for a Crowd.
Our civilization thrived when it was able to accept both the Black Pill and a huge degree of mystery. Do the gods exist? — It seems so. No one knows. No one will ever know. What is right? — there is no definitive answer, only good answers, but only good people can understand them. Mystery dominates.
With entry to the realm of the Black Pill through what I call radical realism or nihilism, one can confront reality in a condition as close to accurate as human beings can do. This enforces self-discipline on the individual, which brings the “inner world” of creativity, morality, honor and desire for excellence to the front of the mind.
Without a Black Pill approach, people live through filters imposed by their ideological need to validate a human perspective as more important than reality itself. This in turn causes their mental process to reverse, so that they are ascertaining truth through justifying what they already believe instead of perceiving what is before them.
In that distinction, we can see how societies fail. Those that accept the Black Pill — and the utter mystery of life — are able to think clearly and act in a forward motion. The others blunt themselves to reality, and instead become “Progressive” or increasing hell-bent on replacing reality with human notions, and shortly afterwards decline.
“The end result of complete cellular representation is cancer. Democracy is cancerous, and bureaus are its cancer. A bureau takes root anywhere in the state, turns malignant like the Narcotic Bureau, and grows and grows, always reproducing more of its own kind, until it chokes the host if not controlled or excised. Bureaus cannot live without a host, being true parasitic organisms. (A cooperative on the other hand can live without the state. That is the road to follow. The building up of independent units to meet needs of the people who participate in the functioning of the unit. A bureau operates on opposite principle of inventing needs to justify its existence.) Bureaucracy is wrong as a cancer, a turning away from the human evolutionary direction of infinite potentials and differentiation and independent spontaneous action, to the complete parasitism of a virus…Bureaus die when the structure of the state collapses. They are as helpless and unfit for independent existences as a displaced tapeworm, or a virus that has killed the host. (67)
Why does democracy shift Leftward, inevitably and consistently? Democracy must create the State, because it has displaced leadership and at the very least needs an authority to administer elections. This creates bureaus, or managerial institutions composed of file clerks applying rules made by leaders. These tend toward an extreme egalitarian premise because the very nature of the bureau is that it knows nothing about the people who come in the door, so it treats them as anonymous citizens, i.e. equals who must subject themselves to procedure in exchange for results. This causes the bureau to act in loco parentis and therefore, to start demanding that everyone get along, always by protecting the clueless, weak, foolish, insane, etc. against the normal. From this comes a mentality of victimhood, and this encourages government and citizens to shift further Leftward.
You will see this one floating around far-right circles as entryist cucks try to justify a demolition of hierarchy through egalitarianism:
The people never chose diversity. It was imposed on them by the elites. Time after time, polls showed that people did not want diversity. And the elites just went ahead and forced it on them.
This is nonsense and lies. In the way of all democracies, our democracy drifted Leftward. Our zeal for diversity is part of the Leftist compulsion toward class warfare, which arises from the founding ideal of the Left, which is egalitarianism (“everyone is accepted and included”).
Let us review history. The voters chose politicians based on speeches. Those politicians, starting early in the history of our nation, began talking about equality. This made people feel warm and fuzzy inside. Then they started talking about racial equality, under the guise of helping African-Americans. Same warm fuzzies.
Repeat that over generations. Each generation accepts what the past generation voted on as truth because it is popular, and so it must be true! Then the next generation took it further, since illogical ideas like equality always conflict with reality, and they expanded the franchise.
Each time, the candidates who spoke more of equality got ahead over the others. Each time new equality or diversity initiative was introduced, the people went into the next election and approved the people who did it for another term. The voters spoke, time and again.
Ten years ago, if you had surveyed a typical American suburb, even with anonymity almost every household would have approved diversity. They would phrase it in terms of fighting injustice, ensuring equality, opportunity for all and the like. They would talk about how it would reduce costs and improve “race relations.”
Now, maybe a few more households would — under anonymity, because we know how Leftists retaliate — speak up about their doubts. But these will get it wrong yet again by saying they are afraid of certain groups, like Muslims or Black Lives Matter. In the meantime, they want everyone else to participate. Warm fuzzies again.
The problem, as this blog reminds you tirelessly, is the voters. The problem is us. Democracy cannot work because it rewards illusion and then distributes the disaster as socialized cost, so the voters never directly feel the pain and connect the dots. Blaming our elites is just scapegoating; we created them, not the other way around.
“The truth is that most satellite channels… deviate the society’s morality and culture,” he said at the event according to Basij News.
“What these televisions really achieve is increased divorce, addiction and insecurity in society.”
…Naghdi criticised Jannati’s comments and said those in charge of cultural affairs “should be truthful with people rather than following what pleases them”.
“Most of these satellite channels not only weaken the foundation of families but also cause disruptions in children’s education and children who are under the influence of satellite have improper behaviour,” Naghdi said.
It is hard to argue with that logic. Television is there to sell products, which because most people prefer illusion, will be of a deceptive nature. It also sells drama, which comes from the usual brew of sex, lies, hedonism, degeneracy, violence, crime, etc.
The West has tied its own hands by mis-interpreting the ideal of freedom of speech. The original idea was to protect political speech from control by governments; instead, it has become an excuse for legitimizing as much mentally broken material as possible to dilute any meaningful speech that might occur.
While many of his criticisms of “white nationalists” are on point, Fred Reed really loses sight of the issue with his latest:
White nationalists, often inaccurately called “white supremacists,” want to close the border. So do I. They want to make Obama stop importing every sort of third-worlder he has heard of. So do I. They want to deport illegal aliens. With exceptions, so do I.
For the sake of discussion, let us assume that all of this has been done. At this point the white nationalists (hereinafter just “nationalists”) run out of gas, having so far as I am aware no further plan or aim beyond a loathing for anything not white and European.
And we are back in cuckistan. Reading only for denotational meaning, he says that white nationalists hate anything not white and European. That is the exact same message that mainstream media conveys not just about “white nationalists,” which are a special hybrid of nationalism, and could have come right off the pages of the SPLC.
He also entirely misses the point of the anti-immigration backlash: diversity has failed. Looking back through history, we see that diversity has always failed, with two particular points of note:
Race does not matter. Diversity fails no matter what groups make up the diversity. Even high-IQ populations clash. Even groups of the same race clash. Diversity can take many forms — race, ethnicity, religion, culture — and wherever it is tried, chaos results. Even the diversity “success stories” like Switzerland are neurotic to the core.
Diversity is the opposite of culture. That is, diversity destroys culture by replacing it with multiculture, which is just another form of pluralism, or the idea that we can “agree to disagree” and therefore not have a goal, but still keep working together.
Reed is beating a dead strawman here. Those of us who have no love for white nationalism, and in particular who consider it “ethno-Bolshevism” as it is, have an obligation to criticize it correctly. That criticism comes from its numerous internal contradictions, its fundamental Leftist leaning, and its emotional radicalism.
However, Reed is not criticizing white nationalists — as he says above, he is criticizing all Nationalists. And for what? Some humanitarian impulse? A desire to justify his own residence in Mexico, despite the constant problems he writes about frequently?
So, what do nationalists propose? I do this not as a challenge but in search of understanding, a reasonable question in search of a reasonable answer. The question is one of the most important that can be asked. The country deserves a concrete answer. The politically correct classes say things like, “We need comprehensive immigration reform.” That can mean anything, and therefore means nothing.
My answer would be: Try to make legal Latinos into productive citizens, which should not be terribly hard. Leaving them alone, and not allowing governments to turn them into a welfare class, would probably do the trick. If nationalists have a better idea, or another idea, I would be happy to consider it.
This nationalist has a simple proposition:
We know that diversity does not work, which means that America needs to go back to its Western European (not just “white”) roots. And then, it is time to make sense of mess that liberalism has made.
Europeans Who Are Non-Western go back to their native homelands. If they are mixed, like an Italian-Polish crossover, they go back to whichever of those nations will take them.
Africans go back to Africa, but in recognition of slavery and the resulting non-policy for the last 150 years, they are given reparations with repatriation as a necessary condition. This will strengthen Africa and end a historical wound that, owing to Leftist history-editing, will never be understood.
Hispanics go back to Central or South America, depending on their country of origin. This will not be a large move for them, and both we and their source countries will be better off.
Oriental-Asians go back to their countries of origin. If they are mixed, they go to whatever country is lower (Vietnam over Japan, for example, or Thailand over Korea).
Indic-Asians go back to India if they are of historical Indian heritage, and Pakistan if they have mixed middle-Eastern heritage.
Mixed-race people and the white parts of their family all go to Brazil, which is a diversity paradise that is accepting of mixed-race people.
Looking at facts, America has too many people already. The cities are bursting at the seams and suburbs are stretching far into the countryside. Further, we do not “need” these additional people: they are here as cheap labor and paid Democrat voters, but nothing else.
Peering even deeper into the equation, since diversity does not work, we will see nothing but more actions of resentment and ethnic friction as these groups clash. The real cost is not the violence, however, but the lowered social trust and increased dysfunction of civilization.
No, diversity cannot stand — not in any form at all. It is the great evil that destroys societies and it is not “racist” to say that, because the problem is not the other race(s) but diversity itself; white nationalists should take note. Diversity is a bad policy no matter how it is implemented, and it is time to end it.
As far as Fred goes, he channels every cucked Republican for the past seventy years:
The problem, of course–“of course,” anyway, to people who have lived in the developing world–is that so many of the immigrants are not of the middle class. Once people have a decent job, spouse, mortgage, car, refrigerator, two kids and a dog, they become placid, maybe a little boring, and spend their time taking the kids to soccer practice. (How many of the people shooting each other in Chicago fail to fit this description? How many middle-class blacks shoot each other? Exactly) Thus it might be wise to encourage the entry of Latinos into the middle class.
Translation: give them some nonsense certification-based “education,” fill them with propaganda, move them to the suburbs and they become just like us.
Except that Mexico already has a middle class, and those are not the people coming across the board. You cannot educate and propagandize people into a class; class reflects abilities.
At this point, Fred has gone to full Leftism: the idea that people are all equal, and that we can play God and mold them into whatever good little comrades we desire in order to keep the egalitarian ideal safely in operation. This is a shame as many of his other columns are insightful.
He basically admits that his plan creates an insoluble crisis:
Is assimilation possible? I think so, eventually anyway, but we shall see. I do know that if (a) Latinos, already probably twenty per cent of the population, become ghettoized, isolated, hostile and dysfunctional, the United States is over, fini, done, and (b) constant attacks on them as Latinos tend to lead to this end.
Let us turn that around: “Is assimilation desirable?” Not unless you want to commit genocide of your own population and replace it with an exciting mixed-race group like we see in Brazil, Mexico, Iraq and parts of Russia. Trace admixture worked so well in the former Greek and Roman empires. They have been noticeably absent from history lately.
This is one of the many reasons that diversity does not work.
Reed, following the Leftist playbook, has tried to equate “anti-diversity” with “anti-Latino” and is using his cover of anti-African sentiment as a credential. He wants you to believe that you can oust a certain group, and then life can just keep on going as is convenient.
This is typical of the Baby Boomers and pre-Boomers who opted for diversity in the first place. They wanted convenience. Cheap maids were good for convenience, so they started with Filipino maids (vestiges of the Spanish-American War, perhaps). Then they hired Africans, and finally South/Central Americans. They wanted an end to “bad race relations,” so they demanded integration and welfare. They wanted to be more good than those evil Germans, so they cooked up multiculturalism as an ideology and demanded the world obey it.
When we have chosen a bad path, the most important task is to identify the path. White nationalists get it wrong, and Fred Reed now gets it wrong. The bad path is not a specific ethnic group, or a failure to include a specific racial group; it is the idea of diversity itself. Any other approach is nonsense and cuckery.
Fatalities due to industrial accidents have reached a plateau simultaneously in at least three Western countries. This means that safety professionals have reached a limit, sort of like how Moore’s law broke, below which they cannot reduce fatalities through safety measures.
On closer inspection it appears that this limit is not the result of limitations of the methods used, but a product of the increased complexity of safety in organizations. This inability to accommodate complexity could be detected by the loss of what “safety” meant. In other words, safety was oversimplified to accommodate various publics and in doing so, lost its intended meaning.
For example, trying to increase the speed of a racing car may result in one mechanic improving its aerodynamics while another would increase the size of the engine. The increased engine weight will negate the increase in airflow despite both mechanics improving on their own metrics, while resulting in the racing car having reduced performance. By succeeding at their individual jobs, they failed at the overall task, which is the result of leadership not understanding the complexity involved.
The current conceptualization of safety is insufficient, inaccurate, and even faulty. The reason for this boils down to our use of language. “Safety” has come to mean a list of tasks, not an overall goal, and as a result even our best attempts fail because we are achieving our smaller goals, but they are not contributing to the overall safety.
In the same way other concepts may become meaningless, such as “racism,” a better example can be found in the subtler distinctions involving the word “tolerance.” Our levels of tolerance have undoubtedly been pushed relentlessly to such an extent that we do not even know what it means anymore. Take for example the habit of people in this society to call someone else “racist” or “intolerant,” shifting a societal burden that is universal to a specific person, like poking pins in a devil doll or burning an effigy.
A more practical example is the concept of “leaving no man behind.” This is a US military concept that was so important that George W. Bush named his education policy “leave no child behind.” But the US military have in fact left soldiers behind, as Kris Paronto depicted in the now infamous film called 13 Hours about the Benghazi embassy siege.
Apparently the military would have rescued the embattled Embassy, but “civilian oversight” had a different “tolerance” level of safety for its personnel. The military did not come to the rescue because civilian oversight did not have the money for a couple of fighters to fly six hours, an estimated $1.2m. Four lives were lost to save $1.2m, or to preserve “safety” of an ideological type.
Clearly this should be intolerable and if it isn’t, efforts need to be made to prevent it from happening again. The entire discussion is nonsensical until you break it down as we have above. In that view, we can see that “safety” was defined in multiple different ways with no coordination between them. The politicians exercised ideological safety. The military exercised fiscal safety. And the guys in the embassy fell between the cracks.
My business dictionary lists twenty-seven terms involving the term “tolerance.” It is clear to me that the type of tolerance required for Benghazi must be related to safety. But then safety itself suffers of simplification to suit the various interested parties and special interest groups.
This represents a legal view, or one might say a demotist view, where the self-interest of every part somehow comes together into a “wisdom of crowds” moment. However, clearly this does not work with safety — nor with leadership. The legalities, formalization and regulation of safety and tolerance alike product an anti-result, or the inversion of what was desired. This is a form of dark organization at a conceptual not human level.
To beat this problem, we must see “legalities” as creating divided interests. This explains the discoordination that replaces goals with “dark organization” style self-interest, in which each party protects its own interests at the expense of others. Seeing that allows us to move to robust action, bringing the concept of tolerance from an abstract level down to the effects on the man in the trenches.
If Plato is the origin of conservative thinking, then we might construe conservatism as the discipline of failure studies: looking at how human groups and ventures fail in order to avoid that path and in fact go the other direction toward not just avoiding failure, but achieving excellence.
To some of us, this study takes precedence over all else because of the historical fact that civilization has a zero percent survival rate over time. Societies fail by succeeding, and this means that we are looking at a counter-intuitive problem, or one for which conventional methods will fail.
Bruce Charlton has been for many years a theorist of this and other issues, and a hidden hero of the post-1990s (“boomerpocalypse”) conservative revolution. When the Left assumed total control after the fall of the Soviet Union, those who were not Leftist found themselves struggling to keep up with a rapidly changing world.
En route to that explanation, The Genius Famine also convincingly looks into the psychology of genius and corrects several pop culture misconceptions through careful deconstruction and re-assembly of key terms used to describe those of high intelligence, genius and creativity. This part alone makes the book worth reading, since other than Maurice Bucke’s Cosmic Consciousness, there are few insightful analyses of the mental state and activity of genius.
Most importantly, the book states the seemingly obvious — geniuses are biologically altruistic, meaning that they help their tribe stay motivated to work together, and their innovations provide a means by which a society (especially Western Civilization) can overcome the challenges thrust at it. Charlton and Dutton establish a unique role for genius.
The benefits yielded by genius are not obtainable in any other way. (229)
This book has been previously reviewed on this site by a highly competent writer who did an excellent job. What follows after the brief introduction above is an exploration of some of the many insightful moments in the book, which is available online as an etext.
Perhaps a favorite moment for readers of this blog can be found in the following savagely accurate analysis of exactly why modernity is so miserable and unbearable for anyone remotely intellectually awake:
In a society of declining intelligence, we would expect: rising crime and corruption; decreasing civic participation and lower voter turn-out; higher rates of illegitimacy; poorer health and greater obesity, an increased interest in the instinctive, especially sex; greater political instability and decline in democracy; higher levels of social conflict; higher levels of selfishness and so a decline in any welfare state; a growing unemployable underclass; falling educational standards; and a lack of intellectualism and thus decreasing interest in education as a good in itself. We would also expect more and more little things to go wrong that we didn’t used to notice: buses running out of petrol, trains delayed, aeroplanes landing badly, roads not being repaired, people arriving late and thinking it’s perfectly okay; several large and lots of little lies . . . (185)
This passage explains the “death by a thousand cuts” of modernity: every day, things get a little worse and less competent. We start seeing the intricate web of inter-reliance by institutions falling apart. And then, we reach third world conditions, where everyone is selfish and foolish and society as a whole falls apart.
Charlton has described “the now,” or at least the time since about 1990, perfectly. We are in a declining society which will end up a third-world state, in which people are selfish and few are competent. The voices we relied on to give us direction and reveal the meaning in life — the geniuses — are gone.
How we got here, in his view, was through a process of dysgenics:
In other words, until about 1800 only the minority of people with (on average) the ‘best genes’ (i.e. the lowest mutation load) would be able to survive and reproduce; and among the great majority of the population only a very small proportion of their offspring (averaging much less than two, probably less than one, per woman) would survive to a healthy adulthood, reproduce and raise children of their own. In this context, which was for almost all of human history until about two hundred years ago; both new and inherited deleterious mutations were filtered-out, or purged, from the population every generation by this very harsh form of natural selection. (39)
He covers both sides of the equation: first, deleterious mutations accumulated through a lack of natural selection process based on competence and second, owing to the misery and bureaucratic nature of modernity, the intelligent ceased to reproduce at high numbers. This reversed the gains of previous centuries in which the lower intelligence portions of the population had few children survive to breeding age.
This view presents a new spin on ancient wisdom. As societies grow more powerful, they save everyone from natural selection, and in doing so impose their own form of unnatural selection, which rewards those who breed recklessly. This leads to a population in which intelligence declines, and soon, the intelligent become marginalized.
Even more importantly, and more relevant to the “It’s a trap!” perspective on civilization and progress, Charlton and Dutton identify the bureaucratic nature of an advanced society as responsible for elimination of genius. It replaces those with Head Girls, who are sort of like British honor students and over-achievers, who are good at everything on the surface back lack depth in their approach.
According to these authors, what distinguishes genius is its Endogenous approach, or a self-starting mentality that finds fulfillment in beating difficult tasks and by doing so, increasing the health and prospects of the civilization around them. Head Girls do not do this; they act in self-interest alone, and conform to what others expect of them, which is exactly what bureaucracies and commerce desire:
Indeed modern institutions are not even trying to select primarily by intelligence – the reality of which they often deny; but instead are implicitly – by the nature of their evaluations – and also by explicitly-stated policies – selecting on other grounds, especially for the ‘Head Girl’ personality – the conscientious, empathic, socially integrated all-rounders. Modern society is, of course, run by Head Girls, of both sexes (plus a smattering of charming or charismatic psychopaths), hence there is no assigned place for the creative genius. Modern colleges aim at recruiting Head Girls, so do universities, so does science, so do the arts, so does the mass media, so does the legal profession, so does medicine, so does the military. And in doing so, except insofar as they make errors; they filter-out and exclude even the possibility of creative genius. (189)
The civilization that has succeeded moves from being a cooperative venture to an inclusive one. At that point, it begins to focus on control, or making people follow a centralized agenda rather than interpreting general principles in specific ways. With this, society finds it more useful to have obedient people than genius ones.
This not only deprives society of an essential function, that of genius, but also puts it into a tailspin as intelligence declines and consequently, it begins to approximate a third-world state:
Working with Charlton, Michael Woodley discovered an already-published survey of historical reaction time data that demonstrated a striking slowing of sRTs from the time of Francis Galton in the late nineteenth century until the late 20th century.
This data carried the strong implication that there had been a rapid and substantial decline in intelligence over the past hundred-plus years – and opened-up a new field of research which Woodley has been actively pursuing ever since. (167)
These researchers have used reaction time as a proxy for intelligence, since faster nerve response correlates with higher intelligence. Through that lens, they can see what IQ tests — which are normalized to a control group — cannot, namely that over time, Europeans have been declining in ability exactly as the eugenicists predicted.
Charlton and Dutton take a nuanced view of IQ testing and other intelligence proxies. They explain the utility of these assessments, but also, how genius is measured differently: a collection of traits, explained in greater specificity than the usual modern methods, that make a self-directed, highly creative individual who is focused on abstract thinking in lieu of the social thinking with which most of us burn our time and energy.
These unconventional creative geniuses offer more to society than mere innovation. The Genius Famine theorizes that artistical/cultural geniuses serve to unify the tribe, giving society a leg up in endurance and depth, while technical geniuses are responsible for the big breakthroughs that later are explored through “micro-innovations” by those who expand upon the original notion.
Without these contributions, society self-destructs:
But as intelligence continues to decline, then growth in productivity will reverse into decline and inefficiency, as the ability of people to sustain, repair, even to maintain, the highly technical, specialized and coordinated world civilization will be lost, just as occurred with the fall of Western Roman civilization; when agricultural and industrial production and trade all collapsed, the standard of living and population plummeted, and general technical and organizational levels took more than a millennium to recover. (181-182)
The Genius Famine ranks as essential reading for anyone concerned with the fall of civilization and how to resurrect it. Expertly written, in a seemingly offhand but intensely analytical style, it does not grow old or slow as a reading experience but instead offers new revelations on nearly every page. This makes it an exhausting read, best sampled in small doses, but a highly rewarding one.
As Western civilization awakens from its slumber, the postmortem on its failure will be vast. The Genius Famine offers an important part of the picture, although as others have written, there are non-biological causes as well. In any case, it shows us how progress leads us away from the organic power of intelligence and in that choice, to our doom.
The outer right resembles less a fringe than an asteroid belt, safely beyond the gravity of herd conformity and yet not entirely lost to the randomness of the outer space. Many of you are familiar with Henry Dampier, whose writings on Neoreactionary topics are among the clearer and more practical examples out there. Amerika was fortunate to get a chance to sit down over cigars, bourbon and philosophical heresy with Mr. Dampier in order to catch his perspective on life, neoreaction and dissident right writing…
What led you outside of the sheep-pen of the mainstream?
I spent more time reading books and periodicals than is healthy. I think that I started off as a fairly standard boy who was curious and enthusiastic about technology and science. This lead me to read all the great American science fiction novels of the 20th century in my early teens. This included Heinlein, Asimov, Stephenson, and Gibson. My love of novels developed my interest in other cloud-castle construction projects like libertarianism with some fanciful notions borrowed from leftists.
Overall, I think the sheep are happier and healthier for staying in the pen, and I don’t blame them for doing the sensible thing. If you picked ten typical sheeple at from a collection of the middle class and then compared them to ten random ‘woke’ people on the internet, the sheeple would be healthier and better adjusted to their society.
What was your childhood like?
I’m the son of a former investment banker and a former Ivy League academic. My parents both had eclectic first acts in life (my mother was a dancer in one of the leading American modern dance companies, and my father was a college basketball player). My parents’ divorce during my teen years both obliterated the family fortune and drove everyone crazy. Before that divorce, I was an overachieving student and athlete. Afterwards, I became sort of a zany, erratic, and ineffective nihilist-rebel type who was constantly in trouble and coasting on talent.
I had a sort of moral awakening combined with an identity crisis. I realized that the things that I wanted weren’t supported by the ideology that I had been promoting.
Growing up, I lived mostly in New York City, but my family also lived in Europe. My dad often commuted between New York and Europe by plane. I was fairly spoiled. It also introduced me to a range of different people. I started off closer to the top of global society, tumbled as far as I could tumble (mostly because of my own dumb actions), and then have been trying to claw my way back up.
Are you a happy person? Is “happy person” a realistic goal?
My moods go from happy-go-lucky and jokey to brooding without much of a middle ground. Happiness is a consequence of good health, good fortune, and good behavior. Happiness is an effect rather than a cause. Having seen and known very sad people, I do think that pursuing the causes of happiness is a good thing, and even realistic. Expecting to be happy all the time isn’t, in particular because good and bad fortune have a lot to do with it.
How did you encounter Neoreaction?
I was looking to borrow other skeptical arguments about Bitcoin and found Moldbug’s writings by Google search. I then followed the trail to other blogs.
On a more personal level, I had a sort of moral awakening combined with an identity crisis. I realized that the things that I wanted weren’t supported by the ideology that I had been promoting, and that I’d been going about it in a disordered way.
In your words, what is Neoreaction? How does it differ from the Alternative Right, New Right and White Nationalism?
Neoreaction, for me and some others, flows from a bunch of people who were enamored by deontological libertarianism and became disillusioned by some of its more impractical aspects. If Republicans are just Democrats who have been mugged by reality, neoreactionaries tend to be anarcho-capitalists mugged by history.
Neoreaction has three areas of focus: capitalist in economics, traditionalist in its view of religion, and more nationalist/Darwinian in its view of race.
Have there ever been two people who agree on every aspect of every area of focus there? No.
There is a lot of incredibly tiresome whining, whinging, and internet debating about the precise meaning of these terms. I consider almost all of it an enormous waste of time and energy akin to arguing whether or not the melee combat rules in the seventh edition of the dungeon master manual empower a hobbit to grapple an ogre if the hobbit’s strength score is above 18/99 and he has at least half a free hand when using a buckler and still has his move action.
What it is is stringently anti-democratic. It agrees with Hoppe when Hoppe says that in the history of ideas, democracy has always been regarded as a soft variant of communism. Where it parts with the likes of Hoppe is in his deontological approach. I personally regard argumentation ethics as a nice thing but not a thing which is terribly useful for practical politics. People use force because it works and because of innate drives in the human animal. I’ve come to identify more with the conservative perspective as I’ve come to accept that human nature rarely changes much.
If I were to make a neoreactionary slogan, it would be ‘Burning a path to ordered liberty in the 21st century.’ Order is a necessary prerequisite for liberty, properly understood.
There are many key figures in the American ‘outer right’ who are ex-ancaps influenced by Rothbard and Hoppe. There’s obviously tension between these figures and others. Some of the people who are nastiest in their repudiation of their old influences are also some of the same people who were among the most fanatical in the past, but I guess that’s typical.
The Alternative Right really derives from Richard Spencer and his organization. I’ve become a bigger believer in the impact of individuals, so I’m going to focus on the individual there. Spencer wanted to come up with a new brand of right-wing thought that was more connected to the European zeitgeist. I imagine that he had been disheartened by what had happened to the American Conservative, which began as Pat Buchanan’s organ to float an alternative to George W. Bush’s compassionate invade-the-world invite-the-world conservativism.
Spencer attempted to abandon the Alternative Right term when he renamed his website to Radix and redirected his domain. Then, it took a life of its own. He seemed to want to promote a term, ‘identitarianism,’ that has never really caught on all that well. Identitarianism is a higher brow white nationalism that tries to shun Cletus the stereotypical ex-con white nationalist without overtly shunning Cletus and telling them that he is not wanted at the party.
The alternative right has sort of mystical and estoteric roots that isn’t really shared by neoreaction. Nick Land certainly makes allusions to mysticism and numerology, but it’s hard for me to tell how much of that is performance and how much of it is authentic. My private take on it has been to appreciate it the way that I would appreciate a novel, but not to treat it as if it were the real essence of the thing.
The alternative right became increasingly conflated with neoreaction because I think many people are hungrier for popularity and attention than they are for discussing what is true, teaching people, or even just having fun with ideas. Social media is a toxic medium that addicts people to facile quips, bad art, and dumb jokes. Those quips crowd out quality discussion (and I’m guilty of participating in this) in the same way that a good professor can’t give a profound lecture to a noisy room.
The alternative right reminds me a bit of the history of the hippies from the 1960s. They’re focused on freaking out ‘the man,’ doing their own thing, and promoting hedonism. There’s also a strong tendency to appeal to social science as a way to buttress their ideas: robotically citing Jonathan Haidt and Robert Putnam as if it could be persuasive. I don’t think that social science is epistemologically sound, so that puts me apart from a lot of people.
The alternative right is happy to become a democratic activist organization with one chief principle: “race is everything.” By simplifying and compromising, it grows, fueled by the constant provocations of ham-handed diversity-knapsack propaganda at universities. The alt right is well-targeted to the remaining white males at American universities.
The main distinction between it and neoreaction is that the alternative right is gleefully democratic, even if it’s occasionally skeptical of egalitarianism.
It agrees with Hoppe when Hoppe says that in the history of ideas, democracy has always been regarded as a soft variant of communism. Where it parts with the likes of Hoppe is in his deontological approach.
The identitarian tendency leans towards supporting political equality within a single race. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn also pointed out more than half a century ago, it also tends towards a sex homophily that’s overwhelmingly appealing to homosexuals. The reason for this is that ordinary relations between the sexes must involve the bridging of an enormous cognitive and physical gap. Men and women are far more foreign to one another than, say, Slavs and Southern Europeans (there are plenty of Southern European slavs).
It also tends towards socialism in its economics because of the equality principle. The refrain is that everything will be fine if we expel the foreigners, and no more thought is needed. That’s wishful thinking, but it also offers a clear goal and unifying principle.
The New Right is European. I think that when Americans try to understand or import aspects of the New Right, things tend to get garbled, because the European context is totally different. To make matters worse, people are always trying to universalize or think that they understand something because they saw a YouTube video once, read a book, or read a blog post. I don’t pretend to understand stuff or to put on the great show of getting weepy for foreigners who live thousands of miles away.
Pretending to be a pan-European activist for equality within the races is pretentious.
I used up my quota of pretending to care about suffering foreigners during my time as an anti-war person in my early 20s. I barely care about anyone who lives in Washington DC, much less Germany. I could pretend to care more about the fate of Sweden, but as an American, a lot of that is just useless Facebook-optimized pretense. If an African mob burns a parking lot in Malmo and no one tweets about it, I wouldn’t even know that it happened.
Overall, I’m more cynical about ‘political scenes’ now than I even was before. When writers become more interested in cultivating cults than in writing well, I think that the people involved tend to wind up suffering from it. When the creative spark goes out, it becomes an exercise in repeating a private jargon endlessly to an audience of parrots.
Are you able to support yourself with your writing?
My Henry writing? No. But I do support my household as a commercial writer and salesman.
I would love to have more of my income come from my political writing, because I both enjoy it and I’m significantly better at it than most of the other people who do it.
The issue with making money from political rhetoric is that enough people do it badly for free that it oversupplies the market. I also genuinely enjoy the independence of commercial work. If you have to become a celebrity, it means you have to shift your beliefs around constantly to cater to the masses, especially if you’re more of a follower as a writer than you are a leader.
By being more concerned about leading a ‘movement’ than telling the truth, it also draws you into ‘entangling alliances’ in which maintaining your political network becomes more important than revealing truth or elevating your own understanding. This is how these kinds of movements tend to falter. The movement becomes an end in and of itself rather than a means to a set of goals.
Since getting more worthless internet points by having people like me more isn’t all that appealing to me, I would rather spend my time selling tote bags, virtual app currency, proprietary vitamin formulations, and truck loans. One of them really disrupts my ability to have a private life. The other benefits my private life. If I can’t support a public contribution of my time and energy with my own resources at the level of quality that I mandate for myself, I don’t want to do it.
By being more concerned about leading a ‘movement’ than telling the truth, it also draws you into ‘entangling alliances’ in which maintaining your political network becomes more important than revealing truth
The bank who wants me to push truck loans on people isn’t asking me to change my beliefs to what’s fashionable: they just want more warm leads from truckers.
The landscaping company who wants more website traffic just wants to introduce more homeowners to their all-natural lawncare method. Who I am and what I believe doesn’t really need to change with that kind of work. I just sell my time and attention rather than selling myself or altering my fundamental beliefs because of some shift in fashion. Even when I’ve had to write diversity boilerplate, I at least don’t have to believe it or even portray it as what I believe. It’s just me putting up my “Workers of the world, unite!” sign.
While I’m sure that I could eventually earn a good income with political writing, for the meantime I need to pay down debts and go down that path in stages before I feel comfortable with the risk, since I have responsibilities which will only become more extensive with time. You can’t buy diapers with retweets or ‘likes’ on your posts, but you can with dollars. It would be totally pointless for me to play-act as a responsible conservative on the internet while missing bill payments.
I think it’s pathetic when writers have to raise money on crowdfunding sites or beg for donations. The biggest asset an author has is the respect of his readers. I think it’s better to have a fair exchange of a finished product than it is to demand what’s effectively a preorder. By begging rather than exchanging, you lower yourself below the reader. But the reader wants to be brought up rather than to descend.
Also, I think the reason that most people who write for the ‘outer right’ under their real name are some flavor of marginal character is because people are so whiny and entitled to free writing about politics.
Eventually, as the bubble business model of the web dies, this culture-wide sense of entitlement will hopefully begin to die down. An audience of whiny and entitled people can only afford to get marginal and lazy writers and other content-creator types to make things for them. Not all audiences are like that.
So you get a few types of people who write for this kind of fringe audience:
Bright and interesting writers who contribute fascinating work until they burn out and move on to other projects, like Moldbug.
Attention whores who will do anything for a ‘fav’
People who try really, really, really hard to make it a full time job when the audience won’t support it, which makes everything they do seem cloying and grasping as they lurch from personal disaster to disaster. “Please like and subscribe!”
A small number of professionals like Vox Day who, through superhuman work ethic, actually make it work
The real goal of a fringe writer should not be to serve the fringe, but to get the fringe to conquer the quality cultural territory. When the fringe belief becomes common sense, that is success. Many people tend to get hung up on trying to be the coolest cool guy in the edgy gang, but that’s a huge waste of time. This also leads to the common crab-bucket behavior of fringe figures: keeping the fringe fringe-y is more important than accomplishing the ostensible goals of the group.
In your view, what is the difference between opposing diversity and hating, say, Negroes?
If you oppose diversity, you can reasonably treat with other groups and come to a settlement. It also gives you something to offer other groups besides the threat of destruction.
When your whole approach to the other groups is to say “hey, we’re going to exterminate you and take all your shit!” — and the other group can resist — they are going to throw everything that they have into resisting you. When your approach is ‘separate nations for separate people,’ there’s a negotiation that can happen there. Whatever resistance might be there can be worked around.
A lot of people in the ‘hatred’ camp are a bit like less effective and less hard-working versions of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi, the founding father of ISIS, understood that the new Iraqi state could be undermined by provoking religious and ethnic conflict. The new Iraq wanted to maintain the old borders of Saddam’s Iraq without using Saddam’s methods for enforcing a polyglot nation-state. The new identity that Iraqis were supposed to adopt was to become, basically, White American Democrats.
Zarqawi saw that the Americans were not going to succeed in making Iraqis into people from Park Slope, Brooklyn. By bombing symbolic shrines and provoking Shiite militias to retaliate, he created a civil war and provoked the Americans to crack down. This crackdown raised the perceived costs of the war even as it temporarily ‘succeeded.’ Because Americans are soft and don’t believe in mass executions, the US would basically go and capture people in terrorist camps and then build new prison camps at taxpayer expense. In these prison camps, the future fighting force of ISIS socialized, exchanged ideas, and made plans. When the US released these guys, they went right back into the fray. This is exactly how Zarqawi got his start in a Jordanian prison much earlier.
When your approach is ‘separate nations for separate people,’ there’s a negotiation that can happen there. Whatever resistance might be there can be worked around.
In the long run, Zarqawi’s vision has wound up creating the conditions for the recreation of the Caliphate. The enforced diversity of the old regimes has been obliterated by force in large swaths of the Middle East now. That is one way of overthrowing the modern nation-state. Ironically, post-modern-internet-nationalism is revolting around the conditions created by the previous generation of nationalism which created states like Iraq in the mold of modern Germany, France, the US, and even the UK.
The reason why I bring this up as it relates to ‘opposing diversity’ is that I think these terms are more relative and fluid than many people like to think that they are. Iraq is not all that racially diverse if you ignore the Kurds, but it is/was religiously fragmented. ISIS is religiously uniform but ethnically diverse. The USSA is ethnically and (nominally) religiously diverse, but demands lockstep ideological conformity.
The old nation-state sought to break down barriers between sub-races, sub-nations, and most importantly religious groups.The new nation-state wants to create a universal government under a single religion: progressivism, which is just another word for Communism.
In contrast to what Zarqawi did to make ISIS possible, American alt-rightists don’t recognize that they really don’t have the popular support nor the zeal to provoke a civil war. Zarqawi was a realistic bandit who was comfortable with ultraviolence. He did not hesitate to do things like trick retards and old maids into suicide bombing weddings. ISIS destroys diverse nation-states on one hand, while proclaiming a global polyglot caliphate that encompasses many races worldwide. Even worse for the prospect of militant alt-rightism, the glue of nu-white-nationalism is a much weaker social glue than that of something like Wahhabism.
There is a difference between opposing the modern conception of ‘diversity,’ which tries to recreate the Tower of Babel, and being a hard-line identitarian. Some measure of diversity is going to be present within any society and any form of government. Even within races there is substantial diversity, both innate and chosen. The question is what a given state and society can manage. Diversity raises coordination costs. There are also some Darwinian reasons to be concerned about excessive ‘human biodiversity.’
Roger Scruton describes diversity as a means by which elites externalize the costs of their actions and reap the profits. So, for example, a big technology firm outsources the real costs of diversity onto the workforce and the government while reaping the profits from their labor. A community that used to be cohesive with a common set of values now needs to deal with the increased costs to their quality of life caused by the mass importation of a foreign population. The company that did the importation does not need to do the security screening of their new employees. The state does that. But the corporation and the state keep the earnings while imposing the costs, both seen and unseen, onto the citizens.
The root causes of our diversity crisis are complex. Many come from fundamental errors in modern conceptions of knowledge: especially the tendency to say that what can’t be arranged in a statistical table doesn’t count as a ‘cost’ that has been shunted off onto someone else who did not create it.
Hatred, being pleasurable to many, can become an end to itself. People just fixate on working themselves up into a hate-lather instead of attempting to come up with solutions. Since they don’t see a solution, they just run themselves into a loop of entertaining rage. Some people play League of Legends, and other people play “let’s post on the internet about how much we despise [race].” The effect of the behavior is the same, because it’s very easy to overestimate the actual reach of what happens in internet discussions.
Do you listen to any death metal? What do you listen to?
Not really. I just listen to classical, bad metal that I don’t know anything about, and some rock stations when I drive.
Do you think the West can save itself, or part of itself, or is all lost?
Part of itself, but not the whole thing. I think people like to get themselves worked up in believing that they need to save the ‘West.’ I think we should give the left what it wants by territorially amputating large sections of the Western world.
I think that by trying to save the whole thing, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. By saving part of it, the rest might be saved later, even if just as land and not the people who live on it.
One of the reasons that the West has gone so far off the rails since World War II has been because of the elimination of competition between states. States are competing again. We should aim to raise that competition without blowing up the whole planet.
What do you hope to express via your writing?
After a long time of being comfortable with my own level of knowledge and cultivation, I started to understand how ignorant that I actually was about history and the nature of things.
When I write, it’s usually me building my own understanding and knowledge by packaging it for other people. Many people suffer a lot from the popular deceptions that have shrouded our culture. I think that puncturing those deceptions helps people to develop a reason why to survive. That’s what causes many people to suffer: they don’t have a good reason to live.
I think we should give the left what it wants by territorially amputating large sections of the Western world.
I also speculate with conviction that the age of the herd is coming to an end because of where we are in the cycle of military competition. A mass army of conscripts is no longer a competitive advantage in war. The army of mass conscripts was the ‘killer app’ of democracy. Since it is obsolete and has been abandoned by all of the advanced democratic countries, a new form of politics which mimics the developing structure of new military forces is going to supplant it.
I don’t share the belief that this new military will be primarily non-human, but it is indisputable that the dominant new military organizations are more similar to the elite-driven armies of our feudal past than they are like the mass armies that conquered the planet after the 18th century.
This speculation, combined with my conviction that the fiscal-monetary systems of the Western countries are headed for doom, tells me that there’s going to be an enormous need for political reorganization on new principles within my lifetime. Writing is a great way of speculatively preparing for that development.
I also wanted to get new correspondents that were worth discussing current events with. I have that now, and don’t need to use social media to talk to them.
In the future, I want to write about important political topics of practical importance to ordinary English-speaking people with good sense at a high level of quality.
So I’ve got this minor nit to pick with GOP Nominee Donald Trump’s Acceptance Speech at the GOP Convention. It was extreme, it was like radical. It didn’t go far enough, so I come this fine morning to bring you the rest of the kwazy. The Donald, you see, got into a really nice riff slamming NAFTA, TPP and the rest of the free trade arrangements. He suggested stepping things down from the multi-national level to face-to-face negotiations among nations. Devolution he argued would allow us to negotiate more successfully in our nation’s interest.
It’s a really smart concept and it left me thinking what else we could devolve and how far down the chain of command that empowerment could go. You see I like the basic concept of devolving power to the operational level. The United States has an excellent history of using this concept well. You almost can’t read American Military History without coming across a riveting story of how small unit commanders made great decisions in a pinch to salvage a Fubared OPPLAN. Why not apply a similar concept when we aren’t dodging the bullets as they whiz past our very ears?
So rather than merely devolving decisions from arbitrary, unelected globalist organizations to our arbitrary unelected Federal bureaucracy, we should perhaps extend this concept a little further down the org chart. This would provide us two advantages. One, the people making the decisions would be closer to the street level reality lived by the people impacted. Two, if the decisions was botched, it would impose negative externalities on a smaller population. So by devolving power to lower levels of decision making, we improve precision and limit downside risk.
Federalism was a key concept to the American Republic. Back before we became Amerika, we gave states greater latitude and expected them to be different from one another in fundamental ways. We specifically protected this principle with the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
Totalists successfully made state’s rights synonymous with racial oppression in the minds of the voting public. This led to centralization so that one bad decision by a Federal Judge could screw up the school systems in an entire city or state.
Going one step further, we could even devolve decision power further in our society. In keeping with that last little clause in the forgotten 10th Amendment, we could devolve power to actual human people. What a concept! The name of this concept is Freedom of Association. To properly empower the people, Freedom of Association has to have both a positive and a negative component.
The positive component of Freedom of Association is generally seen as implicitly protected by the 1st Amendment. Freedom of Assembly as spelled out in the amendment is seen to include the right to invite or tolerate anyone you want to have present at said assembly. This is necessary, but not sufficient to empower individuals and restrict the state from enforcing unwanted and unrequired (((Diversity))).
A person or organization has to have the power to shun and exile as well. Withholding association is a vital right and a necessary defense. Perhaps the lamentable absence of a pedophiliac, skinhead with a Yarmaluke fetish from the $PLC Board of Directors explains why this right isn’t being allowed for. Instead, The USSC seems to cram people into places where they are not wanted or even remotely desired. In the case of BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND MONMOUTH COUNCIL, ET AL. v. JAMES DALE the USSC intervened in the local lives of Monmouth residents to a point of ridiculous self-parody. Here is where Justice Rehnquist informs us we will be made to care…
Petitioners are the Boy Scouts of America and the Monmouth Council, a division of the Boy Scouts of America (collectively, Boy Scouts). The Boy Scouts is a private, not-for-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill. Respondent is James Dale, a former Eagle Scout whose adult membership in the Boy Scouts was revoked when the Boy Scouts learned that he is an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that New Jersey’s public accommodations law requires that the Boy Scouts admit Dale. This case presents the question whether applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law in this way violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association. We hold that it does.
So our free country tells us that our government can force you into community with any individual it wants to even if said individual makes you feel like upchucking. Memo to Nominee Trump: If you really want to make America great again, you need to make the American people truly sovereign over their own lives. A major step in that direction involves giving them the power to voluntarily dissociate. If Sartre is correct, and hell is indeed other people; then the negative component to Freedom of Association is the way in which we all can put the devil back down in the hole. Give it a thought Mr. Trump. Finish the job.