Imagine lying asleep in your house, dreaming of something pleasant. Unknown to you, your house is on fire, but this is an invisible fire that leaves no traces others can see. You wake up, certain the house is on fire, but everyone else in your family insists that everything is fine. A paralytic indecision results.
The change in attitude from being in the modern dream to opposing it can only be described as an awakening. While in the modern dream we labor for a laundry list of “issues” and “concerns,” the awakening launches us into an awareness of one solitary issue, which is survival. When the root of your civilization is rotted, the only concern can be fixing it.
For those who do awake, a baffling decision awaits: we live in a time of trends, when getting enough people to buy/vote/repeat a meme determines whether we succeed. But re-inventing a civilization requires more depth than that, and is not as easy as a revolution, where you unite people by a negative mantra and have them form a military lynch mob to overthrow your leaders.
The task before you is to make a society based around a singular principle, which leads to a goal, values system and culture in common. Our society as it stands now is composed of the exact opposite principle: no goal, but we facilitate any idea except that which opposes our society’s design. These two are opposite extremes and as time goes on, we see how our current civilization’s design brings out viciously enduring problems, like a cancer.
Because people in this time think in terms of “issues” and “concerns,” and not a single idea which informs all issues as older types of civilizations had, they’re going to object to any instance of this universal principle of a healthier society. Obviously, since racial issues are as taboo as any issue has ever been in a civilization, the instant race is mentioned a binary category is created: racist/non-racist.
This kind of “my way or the highway” thinking is common to a time when people can barely string two thoughts together. Modern people are incoherent because they are overloaded with bureaucratic jobs, probably disastrous marriages and families, and neurotic from a lifetime of television, social pressures and advertising talking in their brains. You will have to argue your point without letting them define you in these narrow categories.
Instead of getting sidetracked into a discourse over racism, which fits into the preconceived media narrative that is spoon-fed to most people, look at this problem as a doctor would: our people are ill with a cancerous idea that eats away at their minds, and this idea is transmitted through memes that create a modern mindset, and that — not race, not economics, not the culture wars — is our real target.
We are the oncologists (those who remove tumors) of the future. We must identify the tumor, find its cause, fix the cause and then remove the tumor. When you view the problem through this metaphor, instead of the conventional political idea of “fighting” another side, you see how easily it can be accomplished. This isn’t a question of beating anyone, but restoring a body (the West) back to health.
As good tumor removal experts, we want total clarity on the cause of this tumor. The founding concept of the modern time is the death of God (and His Kings), and with Him, centrality and hierarchy. These have been replaced with as many tiny Gods and Kings who insist upon their own autonomy, “freedom,” and a lack of interruption by the things leadership-minded people understand, with the same panache with which a child demands a favorite blanket or toy.
From this individualism — and in the oldest sense, this is what it is, “a placing of the individual before else” of the same category of -ism that “racism” belongs to, meaning a preference of one race before all others — come two basic memes: guilt and oblivion, or by their more technical terms, competitive altruism and narcissism.
- Guilt: in our symbolic world, we like to show others that we’re good people. This makes them feel good about helping us with the tasks that they do for us through specialized labor. When the hardware store guy likes us, we get good service and avoid conflict. Conflict is what puts us out of jobs, scares off potential mates, and makes people not rent to, sell to or work with us. The type of natural selection found in civilizations favors those who offend none and flatter all, and this creates a type of competition for altruistic acts, or symbolic acts in which we do nice things for others. Symbolically, the greatest advantage is to be had in helping those who are most miserable and helpless: cute bunnies, the poor, or underdogs of any kind.
- Oblivion: because we want people to let us be individualistic, or as it manifests itself, to let us do whatever it is we think we ought to be doing, we extend the same favor to others. This requires us to ignore socialized costs and collective problems that occur when people of inequal judgment have equal freedoms. When our neighbor builds a giant basement and talks excitedly about enslaving young girls in it, we tend to ignore the situation until proof slaps us in the face — because that way, we’re blameless socially. If we intervene, and don’t “mind our own business,” we’re automatically the bad guy — the cop, the fascist, the busybody and the controller. So we develop a polite oblivion to whatever stupidity goes on around us, and use guilt to make others extend the same to us, which is why we got into the oblivion game in the first place. The result is people who are narcissistic, or self-obsessed, because to collaborate on any shared goal is to be not minding our own business.
These memes arise from good intentions. Like obesity, they’re the result of a good thing — too much of a good thing. We want to be polite to others, so we create a neutered society where each person is an island (a King or God in their own right), and as a result, we cannot work together to solve problems because that would step on someone’s toes.
A defining factor of many individuals united into a mob demanding individualism is politics. The effects of our actions don’t matter so much as how they appear to others. We each become politicians trying not to offend any constituency: is our idea good for midgets? For necrophiliacs? For left-handed people? We tie ourselves down with too many demands, and then re-order our priorities from “effective acts” to ones that look good to a crowd.
Like most processes, it is likely that this bad psychology originates in pity. We feel bad for others, so we flatter them. We feel bad for ourselves, so we demand flattery. Soon we have become a group of addicts who agree on one thing only: that we can stop any time.
If you have ever wondered why it is so difficult to unite people around realistic ideas, this is the reason. People are not interested in reality. They are interested in a social reality in which appearance matters more than effects, gloss more than substance, and whether people like something more than whether it’s good for all of us as a whole — the type of organic human collaboration known as a civilization.
Our only real enemies are ideas, and they exist in our heads. Speaking of heads, we cannot fight them by slashing away at instances of them, like heads of a Hydra. You may be tempted to take up the crusade of race, biological determinism, traditional values, conservative economics or even the aristocracy, but what we need is all of these explained as manifestations of one big idea. We need to take on our degeneracy as a whole instead.
That big idea, for Western culture, is a goal, values system and vision that unites us. Something we’d give up our individualism somewhat for, or even die for, in times of war or great danger. Some call this “transcendental” wisdom, in that it doesn’t promise 77 virgins in Heaven, nor earthly riches, nor even popularity in high school. It does promise the glue that holds a civilization together, and ensures that if we act well, we are rewarded with the honest gratitude of the type of people we’d like to know.
Every known philosophy and spiritual discipline explains this moment of clarity. Zen has its satori; Christianity has grace; the pagans have reverence and the hominid had the delirium and exhaustion of trance-like ritual dances. When we work ourselves through the chaos of our minds, we can see life as it is and can stop existing in the world of worrying about what others think, how things look, or how to symbolically communicate.
These philosophies all degenerate when faced with the virus of pity, including its individualism leading to narcissism, its competitive altruism leading to social status and guilt, and its desire to deconstruct every idea into granules because this virus lacks a single big unifying idea. While we regroup to try to retake our future from this tumor, we should think about what we really fight for, not whom we fight against.
I like to make lists. Sometimes I make lists of heresies. All heresies start with this precept: reality is different than dogma. That’s what makes them heretical; they offend dogma. If our leaders and fellow citizens tell us that something is true, and we point to a contrary example, we are heretics. In a “free” society, the dogmatics are not so much our leaders as our salesmen: the people in big media, corporations and your neighborhood social group who want to convince you to do things their way.
- We give extreme negative power to the wrong people in this society. We reward the voice who shouts an epithet from the crowd, maybe “Communist” or “racist” or “elitist,” but never demand accountability for him. As a result, we deprive people of the ability to build especially in the areas where we most need construction.
- Intelligence is relative. That means that people cannot understand an idea that requires more intelligence than they have in order to conceive of it. This is why we can “educate” people in behaviors, but unless they understand the cause/effect relationship about why those behaviors are superior, they are simply mimicking the original.
- Creating misery. In a situation where objections stop change, no real change occurs, and so it treats us to dress up the same old stuff as new and then put some icing on it so the proles don’t notice.
- We’re selling each other to death. Our culture has gone from a mode of “produce things” to “find ways to make other people like things.” We are now a culture of salesmen. The rest of the world moves on, produces things, knowing that at some point we’ll isolate ourselves and be selling each other the same stuff in a giant circle.
If you find yourself asking, “Why is modern life such a drag?” consider this:
- Appearance is more important than reality. But that appearance needs to be positive in the sense of “someone wants to buy it,” but it can be ugly. It can be cheap. It can be crass. And you’ll have to drive past it every day.
- When you assemble a large group of idiots, they buy idiot products — but no one except idiots from rich countries want to buy idiot products. The rest of the world needs function and if our wealth fades, we will have nothing to market.
- You must tolerate idiots. It is heretical to suggest that idiots are, indeed, idiots and therefore should be removed from any functional process. Instead, we need to include them so we all feel good. It’s good marketing. “Everyone here is happy,” says the salesman. “We’re a big happy family.”
- People who are not idiots get infected with the idiot virus brought on by having to sell things to idiots. They pre-chew every idea, break it down into tiny bits, and then tell you with bright pink faces how these tiny bits are more important than getting the whole thing right. Again with the salesman: “But it slices and dices!” Yes, but does it work? How long will it last? Is there a better way?
- The essence of guilt is the idea of equality: I’m just like you, how could you turn on me? Take that from a reaction to a forward action and you have passive aggression: I’m just like you, I demand you do what I want! Only a society of salesmen could come up with such a moronic idea.
- In a society where the greatest number of people must agree something is a good idea, and most of them are unaware of consequences past the next paycheck, you’re always going to get the short-sighted idea that hands everyone a bone while ignoring the real problem, which may take months or years to really stand up and slap us in the face.
Instead of going to either of the extremes — “I’ll do it their way” or “I’ll do it my way” at the expense of all else — just do it the reality way. That is the ultimate heresy. Idiots are idiots. Marketing does not improve products. Fast food restaurants, nail salons, record stores, head shops, convenience stores, cell phone places and charities are blight. So is producing nothing but repackaging the mediocre and numbing everyone’s brain by saturating them with marketing-speak. Do you want blight? No? Then exclude these from your life. Even if they tell you you’re a heretic. That’s just a sign you’re succeeding.
Apocalyptic prophecies, as well as religion in general, easily garner an eye-roll from most everyone. What we see on the surface is an extravagant threat made to cow non-believers into fear of eternal damnation, or slaughter at the hands of forces above themselves; a desperate attempt to accrue validity to an ideology. Growing up, it was hard for me to understand this subject as little more than it was presented to me, and I was firmly of the belief that these veiled threats were meant only to be ignored. With adolescence came my insatiable desire to understand everything from an unbiased perspective, and this extended to religious thought. Now, as I enter young adulthood, I feel that religion was never meant to create a description of the end-times as much as outline the general flow of events that is decay.
The Norsemen believed that the end would be heralded by a magnificent battle against forces of chaos destined to replace order and morality. When we take a look at the world today, it’s hard to tell them that they’re wrong. Any sense of order or values is immediately regarded with suspicion by the majority populace. Still, people desire to visually and ideologically appeal to others as unique, and so they seek to adorn themselves with personal symbols that simultaneously do not insult our desire to not apply standards to anyone around us. Culture is appealing to these people, because the idea of being unique by being born into a culture creates a relatively easy method of standing out from the crowd. What this creates is a purely aesthetic understanding of culture.
In the past, culture was a conduit for tradition, which encompassed the goals and values of a people. Over time this tradition became engrained in the cultural aspects of a people, and so people born into that culture would be raised to interpret the world through their lens of tradition. The various religious and civil duties of a people would be designed to accomplish the goals defined by a tradition, and eventually the people would work towards accomplishing these merely by participating within the shared culture of their people.
Tradition insults people. It creates a standard by defining a course of action, and this is because those who are unable to follow that course of action are discarded or ignored. Obviously this can become a problem in a society that values diversity, as people who interpret the world through their tradition are inevitably going to hold the people they meet to the standards set by their traditions. This creates a tension between multiple cultures when one culture that does not understand the standards of another is brought under the scrutiny of them. When we defined the modern world as a multi-cultural world, we beset ourselves with the responsibility of creating a solution to this tension. The solution was reducing cultural values to a purely verbal or visual level.
When one thinks of Asian culture today, they think of Asian cuisine, like those eggrolls found in the frozen food aisle. They think of robed people with long hair and paper dragons dancing through the streets. They think of music played on Asian instruments, although not necessarily Asian in theme and purpose. If one is to become Asian, all they have to do is adopt these aspects – even if they only do so for a month or so. People decide to adopt the visual aspects of varying cultures as they appeal to them, or how they relate to their lives at that particular moment. There is no devotion to the traditions and goals of a culture associated with adopting these aspects, and no great amount of effort goes into the adoption process beyond the shopping spree that occurs at the local Earthbound Trading Company. If I can speak Asian, eat Asian food, and dress in the manner of an Asian, then I am Asian; as far as those who analyze culture with a shallow perspective are concerned.
This same surface-level adoption process extends to ideology. For the myriad of obscure problems we feel are facing the human race today, we have an equal amount of obscure solutions. We become so convinced that the world operates on the same single principle that unites the ideologies that we prescribe to that we spend more time promoting our ideology than living in a manner which improves the conditions that affect us. People will choose the ideology they associate themselves with based on how well they can disprove the ideology of others with it, and this belies our inability to understand anything outside of the social context created by our interaction with each other. What sounds witty (able to disprove the ideas of others) or altruistic (helpful to those we do not wish to be in the position of) all too often trumps simply living in a manner you know is effective and productive.
All of this stems from the same shallow interpretation of the world that reduces culture to a verbal level, and it reduces ideology to this same level. It is what reflects ourselves that we are concerned with, and truly we show little to no concern over the issues we so fervently discuss. I once discussed welfare with an acquaintance of mine for almost two hours before she finally informed me that she was insulting me out of her anger at how inferior she feels in comparison to me, rather than her concern for the issue at hand. We wear our ideas and our culture like clothing we buy at the department store. How meaningful do you find your t-shirt? If you are like most people, it is only something you wear until it doesn’t fit you anymore, after which it is immediately discarded. Is this how we should act towards issues that concern the well-being of our people and our families? What relevance will you proving your opinion correct bear on the proliferation of crime, or corruption?
For those who strongly adhere to their values, life can be truly frightening. Such people are subject to scrutiny from all directions, as their refusal to compromise their standards for the sake of tolerance is a threat to the peace of mind of their fellow citizens. Those who do not agree with these firm individuals will subject them to the same shallow discourse they engage in with others like themselves. They argue only to prove their authority in their own minds, and demonize the intelligent in the process, as intelligence implies an effective course of action which may not always be preferred. The choices of such intelligent individuals can even be perceived as useless in the face of such opposition, creating a sense of despair that so many actually concern themselves with such useless conversation. This assault on the courage of such people is only heightened as they witness the other banal pursuits that their peers elect to spend their time upon: methods of avoiding responsibility, self-gratification, and justification of activities that do nothing to advance the well-being of themselves and their community. With so many people unconcerned about their future, why should we even try?
It’s a harrowing question, but to those who strive to reach higher goals, one thing redeems the slow collapse of order, and that is purpose. Purpose is created when one defines a goal and focuses his actions towards achieving that end. For purpose to exist there must be an obstacle to overcome, and it is here that the Norse myth of the end times, Ragnarok, unveils its beauty.
When chaos surges forth across the world to claim it, it will be successful because of the lack of those with strong enough morale to fight it. But the Norse myths honor those who seek challenge, and thus seek to engage in life directly, and what better challenge than fighting a battle that seems overwhelming? This is a call to all the warriors of the world to fight against this challenge, and to keep the spirit of honoring life and creating meaning within it. It is a gift to those who understand what makes life purposeful to be confronted with these times. Many will feel tempted to become anachronistic, or to romantically pine for a better time, and these people have failed the challenge set before them.
At the end of Ragnarok, a time of understanding and wisdom descends upon the Earth, and the warriors who honored their traditions are hailed by their fathers in Valhalla, the realm of the Gods on high. These warriors are not people who literally praise Odin, although some of those people fit the mold; they are the people who maintain what they know is good, powerful, and meaningful in times when everyone has abandoned these things to recede into themselves. By fighting hard to gain positions of power, and spread their influence to others who feel lost, they have created a desire to build something positive in the wake of collapse that occurs around us. Their lifestyles prove through their results the positive results of their beliefs, and this will inspire generations of the intelligent who wish to find some sort of meaning in the world. This transcendent idea, of crafting an idea that carries itself out through generations, is the realm of the Gods themselves. By helping craft these ideas and beliefs, you are joining the Gods in this realm, and they will surely hail you for giving the fight of your life in the world of men.
People think the media has changed rapidly. It’s the generational gap at work: Having graduated high school in the 1990s, I now think that what kids are getting into in the 2000s is insanity. Same will be true of people who are graduating now looking down at the class of 2020: “It wasn’t the same then”. One writer over at Boston.com finally broke through the social red tape and decided to tell it like it is:
A Catholic priest claimed that Superman “seems to personify the primitive religion expounded by Nietzsche’s Zarathustra’’ and said comics were a dangerous distraction from Christianity. A 1945 Time cover asked, “Are Comics Fascist?’’ Psychiatrist Fredric Wertham, employing some rather creative methodology, claimed that comic books influenced “the case of every single delinquent or disturbed child’’ he and his research team studied.
It seems quaint in today’s world of high-definition interactive violence and petabytes of free pornography that comic books could induce such hysteria. But they did, and we should pause occasionally to wonder how later generations will look at current efforts to rein in youth culture.
It’s useful, then, to place the concern over sexting into the broader context of youth culture hysteria. Just as was the case with comic books, many adults are reacting apoplectically to bits of technology or culture with which they have little familiarity. Like then, so-called experts try to convince us that kids today are more out of control than ever before. And like in the 1950s, misleading figures – often containing kernels of truth but conflating many unrelated elements – are broadcast at reason-suppressing decibel levels.
The idea being, “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”. The idea works for both media companies, who are always late to the game but retain just enough loyalty from herd-like creatures that they can afford to be perpetually late, and sexting as the author above describes.
The new boss is a type of site called a social news aggregator. This type, which feature commenting and voting/recommending, was made popular, in part, by sites like Reddit. People can vote up stories and try to get on the front page of the site, and there are circles of people – cliques, if you will – who vote up each other’s stories. Part of the reason to do this is to call “bullshit” but in a neutral piece of web space, and in standardized format.
The problem with traffic being diverted away from the Reddits and remaining at the larger media outlets themselves, is the idea behind a Reddit-type site is destroyed. If you post a Boston.com article on Reddit, anyone on Reddit from anywhere in the world can see it, and the more active (and one would hope, more intelligent) Reddit members would vote it up and comment on it as ideas about the article were discussed in an open forum.
Keep the discussion of a story or piece of news at the place from which it generates, and the quality of that discussion goes downhill. Now you’re mostly dealing with locals, and the company generating the content can decide whether or not to allow comments at all, or removing comments that are deemed unsuitable by way of generating too much controversy. In cases like these, a site like Reddit would normally take a much more hands-off approach than a larger media outlet “protecting the integrity of the interaction of its members”, or some such nonsense.
I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy, but rather business as usual: the larger, for-profit media outlets looking to sensationalize news stories but with a twist. Now they also want to control, as much as they can, how you react to that sensationalism.
When you think about how any aspect of reality came to be, you realize there are several parts:
Groundwork means the situation being set for a series of events to happen. For example, gasoline is often stored in cannisters in outside bars.
Causes refer to the exact chain of events that forced an event to transpire. Such as Billy Rob getting drunk as a coot, grabbing the shotgun and heading outside where he sees a possum and opens fire, not noticing his backdrop is the barn.
Media are the steps between the original cause and the event. For example, the barn fire was caused by the gasoline bursting into flame, which was caused by a gunshot. And the cause of the gunshot?
Effects are the event that transpires. Billy Rob blasts, the hot pellets tear through old sunbleached wood, the gas cannister ignites and the barn goes up in flames as Billy Rob passes out cold in the yard.
When something goes wrong with civilization, people momentarily “wake up” from their lives and their personality solipsism, and look immediately for someone to blame.
It’s like a drunk passed out in the street who comes to and found his wallet went missing while he was drunk. “Who screwed me?”
But really, these people are just agitating against the media, having finally noticed the consequences, and being oblivious to the cause and groundwork.
The groundwork: we are as a culture so obsessed with ourselves, our work and our pleasures that we push politics and leadership out of our heads.
The cause: a proliferation of parasites among us, and our determination to appear benevolent by ignoring, tolerating and even encouraging them.
Calcification, weight gain, bloat, decay, cancer… our metaphors all unite on one idea: the body has become an end in itself, instead of a means to an end, and so you get radical growth for its own sake, not for the health of the organism. The cells are all happy but the whole system is sick.
When we are inattentive, parasites proliferate. And in this world, there is never a time when you cannot be attentive, because the world is in constant motion. We are either headed for evolution or devolution, complexity or entropy.
There are no gray areas; there is, however, a pause between cause and effect while we wait for the signs of the effect to become visible, and we frequently mistake this for “no effect.”
If you listen to some charlatan, or even some neurotic self-deceiving person, they will tell you that this pause is proof that there are no effects for whatever self-serving ill-designed idea they’re foisting off on you.
Even more, they’re going to use social guilt to passively force you to accept it because — well, they want it. They’ll couch that personal want in terms of the abstract “Every One” or “Each Citizen” or “The Average Person,” but what they’re thinking of exclusively is what they want.
They are also not considering consequences, because they don’t care — they want what they want, and they want it now, because like the monkeys from which we originated, their intelligence is not developed enough to predict long-term intelligence. Consequently, they project themselves and their immediate need on every situation.
They will tell us that it is “none of your business” what they do, and that since they’re not directly murdering/raping/bombing they’re doing no harm, although they may be sinning by omission and by not doing the right thing, guaranteeing bad things will come about. Or by being selfish, they tear down and divide what is for their own gain.
Because they want us to re-designate “bad” as meaning “aggressive actions that change the status quo,” so that they can get away with whatever indirect or omissive sins they wish to commit, they will idolize pacifism, peace, conflict avoidance, benevolence, altruism and anything else that will keep the rest of us neutralized while they do their stealing and gaming of the system.
This is how parasites abuse society, and our inattention guarantees they will succeed, because by the time we wake up and see that overnight our society has transitioned to disaster, it’s too late for the kind of quick, sharp, painful and radical action that can avert the decay. It’s already underway and now requires a lot of labor to fix.
When we form a civilization, we immediately cease from struggling against nature to struggling against ourselves. Not everyone is born able to do what is right, and those that cannot or will not are determined to destroy that civilization — even if they don’t think they are, or claim they are not.
They are not autonomous; they are motivated by desires and pathologies below the level of the conscious mind. In the same way, homeless mental patients who come to live in your town “don’t mean to” invite in crime, but by providing cover for it — hey, it’s just another bum wandering around — and “borrowing” a few things here and there, urinating in a few alleys, breaking a few windows and creating a comforting environment for the alienated, they do perpetuate crime.
They’re the cause, not the media, which is the criminals who later arrive or the people who “suddenly” decide to act on their criminal urges. In the same way, parasitic people are the cause for corrupt politicians; they empower them by being willing to fall for any scheme, fear-mongering or ideology that allows parasites to keep doing what they want to do. This is why the most outrageous scams in history involve the words “freedom” and “equality.”
We should fight parasites because they don’t know what they do, and cannot do differently — they are pathological and broken. Although fighting them, and excluding them in victory, seems cruel, it is not because it allows that which is thriving to take their place. Imagine weeding a garden and removing the plants that threaten the productive ones — we aren’t any different from the plants. Some are born as healthy tomato plants, some as sick tomato plants, and some as weeds.
Promoting the strong, high character and high intelligence people allows us to continue evolving, growing and moving on to bigger challenges. After all, the stars await, and someone conceivably could write a better Ninth Symphony or Moby-Dick.
Focusing on the parasitic, or protecting the parasitic by focusing on the unfortunate or failed, guarantees that we will never get farther than we are now — and as time goes on, we will be beaten back by the world rushing past us.
Bad things do not happen overnight. They are not the result of predatory government or corporations — those are the medium through which they may appear to occur, but their origin is in good people being inattentive to the entropy-increasing actions of parasites.
The price of innocence is constant vigilance, and a willingness to destroy the parasitic.
Idealism is the idea that order in the universe is not inherent but immanent.
That means that when patterns appear in our world, they occur from similar configurations of interaction of interconnected forces, like gravity plus energy transfer creating waves in our oceans.
Although that seems simple and obvious, it’s profound. On one hand it means there is no definitive intent behind the world; on the other, it means that all of it fits a design of vast complexity and that these patterns will always be with us, and we will eternally either adapt to them or suffer the consequences.
This sense of order emerging from life, as if the chaos of reality causes enough interactions that similar patterns become “beneficial” to the actors involved, much as how people flock to malls when there are coupons, directly contradicts both our old dualistic ideals and the relativistic ideals that replaced them.
The mystery has to do with a class of common events that can occur in full view, and share one key feature. In them, chaos inexplicably leads to greater regularity, or synchrony.
In certain experiments, “When you introduce disorder… the chaos that was present before disappears and there is order,” said Sebastian F. Brandt, a physics graduate student at Washington University in St. Louis.
In a dualistic view, some perfect pattern — heaven, or more recently, human wisdom — sets an ideal and life follows it.
In a relativistic view, parts of reality react to each other in predictable forms based on what each needs or seeks.
In an idealistic worldview, patterns emerge because matter, energy and thought are structured similarly, and the boundaries and tendencies of the information-demands of their structure determine probable patterns of outcome.
In other words, idealism explains order rising from chaos as being the result of all matter being shaped by the same patterns, and therefore, tending toward those patterns. Dualism and relativism have to rely on an absolute standard in which a tangible purpose, motivation or function is assigned to each actor.
But nature keeps surprising us, especially when we look hard at science and realize that our experience is shaped by our physical world, and not by the mathematical realities that may be out of our reach but nonetheless influence us:
There’s beauty in the world of condensed matter physics, if you know where to look.
Physicist Alan Tennant found it in the transitions between quantum states of cobalt ions cooled to temperatures near absolute zero and then subjected to high magnetic fields.
“At the exact point where you change from one state to another, that’s where you get the really important stuff,” he says.
“The quantum aspect of the system provides a kind of a simplification, and extra layer of order that you wouldn’t expect,” says Tennant
In fact, as they report in the journal Science, the order Tennant and his colleagues found was a kind of symmetry known as E8.
The point here, as Tennant says, is that in the weird quantum world, under certain precise conditions, an order in nature emerges that was previously unknown.
The idea that the properties of matter derive from information and pattern rather than inherent tendencies of matter upsets both the dualistic and relativistic worldviews. Interesting, these are more recent inventions — from 5,000 to 20,000 years ago, the ancient Hindus wrote about relativity in a way that suggested idealism.
Now, as we stagger back from humanism (the idea that human reason defines reality) and materialism (the idea that matter defines reality), we’re starting to rediscover the world of emergent patterns — and realize that contrary to dualism, they suggest no centralized control, but that also contrary to relativism, they suggest an order that does not change when we alter place, time or material.
Researchers from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie (HZB), in cooperation with colleagues from Oxford and Bristol Universities, as well as the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK, have for the first time observed a nanoscale symmetry hidden in solid state matter. They have measured the signatures of a symmetry showing the same attributes as the golden ratio famous from art and architecture. The research team is publishing these findings in Science on the 8. January.
On the atomic scale particles do not behave as we know it in the macro-atomic world. New properties emerge which are the result of an effect known as the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. In order to study these nanoscale quantum effects the researchers have focused on the magnetic material cobalt niobate. It consists of linked magnetic atoms, which form chains just like a very thin bar magnet, but only one atom wide and are a useful model for describing ferromagnetism on the nanoscale in solid state matter.
Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres
The article above is another take on the previous research, but one which better explains the relationship between informational order, beauty, mathematics and the physical world which we experience from a human perspective.
It’s food for thought as we approach life itself. To know that the world is not a subset of our thoughts, and that matter does not have inherent tendencies, but the interaction of forces creates familiar (and repeatable) patterns — this should make us want to apply the scientific method in a new way, and think beyond the divine order of dualism and blank slate theory of relativism equally.
Extreme politics: the action taken by those who care about our future but believe conventional politics cannot stop its decline, so we must seek other, often taboo, options like anarchy, greenism, libertarianism, nationalism, communism and fascism.
Although the idea of an independent candidate makes most laugh, Ron Paul has redefined the political spectrum with his candidacy. While Paul is running as a GOP candidate, that does not obscure the position that he takes, which is clearly beyond what either major party can accept. He is for all practical purposes an indepedent.
We laugh at independents because we know that most Americans have taken one side or the other, and use that idea set as common ground with others to drum up public support for their businesses, personalities, films and books. You can convince anyone you’re a friendly good guy by being liberal and permissive, or convince those experienced enough to be cynical that you’re a realist by drawing a clear line between what’s acceptable and not. It’s more than a political view; it’s a definition of your personality, and a reflection of the audience to which you want to appeal. In a more cynical statement, we want liberal neighbors and conservative bankers and lawyers, because those are the personalities who either leave us alone or work carefully with our money, respectively.
With this in mind, Paul’s success is nothing short of amazing. Candidates like Nader and Badnarik appeal to a small few who are already alienated, but scare off most voters because the single-minded single-solution approach they have taken does not address a range of problems. Paul took basic conservative values, and applied to them a traditionalist twist as interpreted through the mechanism of modern libertarianism. He is both recognizably part of something we would like, which is a solid and moral conservative leader, and a bridge to a new way of thinking about government.
This new method relies not on dividing the political spectrum into good and bad, and fighting the bad while promoting the image of the good, but on removing the easy breeding ground for behavior that leads to bad. While conventional Republican doctrine is that we must fight bad, and liberal doctrine is that bad is misunderstood and need more nurturing, Paul’s doctrine is that bad arises where the good give it space. He suggests we strengthen the good by eliminating their bureaucratic responsibility to support the breeding ground for bad. It’s more akin to natural selection than the Nanny State created by most Republicans.
While at first it seems relentlessly pro-capitalist, Paul’s theory reduces capitalism to a means to an end, with his outright attack on usury culture and the form of moral inattention that allows large corporations to strike from behind government as a shield in the name of civil rights. He suggests instead making the individual less obligated to those corporations, thus removing their shield, while cutting out the illusion that government is here to help. By doing so, he makes capitalism secondary to the question of individual survival and the ability for the smarter among us to escape the rest.
We could then construe Paul’s division of the world into smarter and less smart, and honest and parasitic, and see his basic statement as an unwillingness to support parasites — or the well-intentioned bureaucracy that comes about through our fight for good versus evil. He knows that the more territory a government commands, the broader the lowest common denominator gets, and because there is a single entity trying to provide for all this people, how rapidly government becomes a defender of the broadest rights to existence. In effect, this makes it support parasites and crusade against biologically more intelligent people who will naturally try to escape the masses of clueless television zombies.
In this sense, Paul is not only a defender of the oldest form of conservatism, which encourages not commerce but a strong positive leadership, but is also an endorser of indirect soft eugenics. Allow natural selection to work for us, Paul hints, and the endless stream of criminals both white collar and street level will slacken, because what they rely on is a society of chumps who will defend their right to do nothing of import and excuse their criminality in the name of fighting good and evil.
Garden variety libertarianism has never reached this level of clarity because it focuses too much on the good/evil split of personal and civil rights, insisting on increasing those to absurd degrees while ignoring the fact that giving good people rights equally gives those rights to bad people, who will then wreak havoc as best they can. Paul’s Libertarianism is focused less on rights than a single right: that of honest, intelligent people to use their income to support their own families instead of the breeding of proto-criminal idiots.
When we see this clearly, it becomes obvious that Ron Paul, like the best of politicians who unite opposing factions into a singularity, is an alternative to the left/right split of American politics. He is conservative but unwilling to moralize over individual behavior because he believes that nature will sort out what morality cannot. Let the individual do what he or she wants, Paul’s theory goes, because those who act according to conservative values will prosper and the others will fade away. Avoid worrying about both fighting evil, and defending the rights of those who want to behave like idiots; let the natural consequences of their actions judge them.
What right and left have been able to agree on, over the past thirty years, is that our present path is fraught with error because we are ruled by cynical, corrupt and avaricious corporations and bad government. Both sides agree that localization, or smaller local governments handling problems, is superior to a large federal bureaucracy trying to come up with one average solution for 300 million people of different regions, cultures, intelligences, values and goals. This is why natural selection localized libertarianism of a less-than-embracing attitude toward capitalism has infused the extremes of both left and right.
For example, when we look at the National Anarchist parties gaining precedence worldwide, we see people who are basically liberal in outlook but have come to believe that a localized, national state is the best way to defend their culture. The rise of nationalist Bolshevik parties in Russia also shows this “third way,” and more of these leftists are endorsing a Paul-style post-dogma doctrine: do not crusade against evils, but give them no subsidy at the expense of the rest of society through the mechanism of the bureaucratic state.
On the far right, the only interesting activity has been the rise of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, a pre-Paulite conservative libertarian outfit, and the change of the American National Socialist Worker’s Party toward a “traditionalist” outlook that emphasizes cutting ties with the parasitic and nurturing the best of an organic population toward a localized, ethnic-cultural state. In these changes, we see the far right drifting away from the idea of constant warfare against an enemy toward a doctrine of defending the best against the obligation to support the potentially parasitic.
Another way of looking at this is to divide society not between haves and have-nots, but between those with the personal organization and intelligence to be haves, and those who lack these probably biological traits. The former can rise given a chance to show their abilities, while the latter are not composed enough to ever rise, and so will always try to find ways to invent obligations of the former group to subsidize the latter. The potential haves know they are outnumbered, so instead of tackling the potential have-nots directly, they’re cutting them out of the benefits plan.
This allows those who are personally organized, intelligent and driven to build for themselves a nice life and to have happy, healthy families. They don’t want to wage war against the potential have-nots, but they also don’t want to spend their tax money on keeping these people alive to cause trouble. Let nature sort it out. If the potential have-nots are able to organize themselves into a society, and support themselves, they then become potential haves and eliminate their own threat potential. If not, well, who wants to pay for those who will then turn against us? Support the best and ignore the rest.
In running for president, Ron Paul acknowledges that he has a slight chance of winning. What matters more than winning the public show of the presidency, however, is in winning the hearts and minds of the smart people in our television-and-minivan-blighted nation, and convincing them that a politics of denying the support of idiots through Nanny State bureaucracy is more productive than another war against potential have-nots in the style of the war on terror, the war on drugs and the war on crime.
Instead of another misdirected war, Paul tells us, we should return to the roots of conservatism, which is a connection to nature and the natural process. That he has communicated this to so many, and united supporters from both left and right, is the real triumph of Ron Paul’s candidacy and surpasses anything that can be done in a single presidential election.
When you shop for your loved ones this year, get them practical gifts that are both fun and prepare them for adult life in these times. We’ve put together a gift buying guide so you don’t have to feel helpless when gifting today’s youth.
Practice Birth Control Pills
These tiny candy pills resemble something your daughter will be getting to know sooner than later. With most girls sexually active by 12, and reaching the 25 partner point sometime by age 17, she’ll need to develop a routine of taking the right pill nightly. These brightly colored pure cane sugar pills will give her a little reward at the end of each day, and build that all-important habit of staying sterile. She’ll also feel like she’s becoming a woman when she, too, can take the pills her mother and older sisters live by. $24 for 12 monthly packs, comes with fake Planned Parenthood advice sheet.
With good jobs few and far between, and our currency all but worthless (and falling fast), your precious amotivated snowflake is most likely going to end up in an entry-level job for most of his or her life. That is, if they don’t get hooked on drugs and become permanent food service employees. You can develop good habits with our Make-Work Desk, which both delights youngsters and teaches them early to look busy and if they’re not busy, to invent something good. Realistic reference manuals, a multi-line phone, drawers to clean and our handy 1.2mhz “Crashing Again” computer will show them how to always look busy, even when they like their coworkers put in 15 minutes of work a day and spend the rest of time in meetings, on the phone, or self-stimulating. $149, with Crashing Again computer $249
Young Partier DUI Field Test Practice Kit
With the way they grow up these days, it’s only a few more years before your child will drink to excess — and drive home. Why not start them early on dodging the cops? This easy home kit lets you set up a DUI (“Drunk Driving”) Field Test just like the cops do at the roadblocks. See how many drinks your youngster can down while practicing the alphabet backwards, walking a straight line, touching her nose with eyes closed and stepping through the complex patterns that law enforcement officers use to test for drunkenness. This makes drunk driving not only fun, but potentially saves your child thousands of dollars yearly that could be spent on hookers and blow. $39, additional breath mints $2
Sing-A-Long Excuses CD
If your civilization is dying, only the real losers take it at face value. Whether at school, on the job, in front of a Congressional investigation, or simply trying to dodge all the losers, fakes, parasites and jerks they’ll meet on a daily basis, your child needs to learn to sing like a bird — sing out lies, excuses, deflections and evasions, that is! Our long-playing CD sets common verbal gambits to song to make these classic excuses easy to remember, and to help children someday invent their own variants for whatever responsibilities they have to dodge. Children glow as they sing along with our mournful blues ballad, “Doctor Says I Ain’t So Well Today,” and they really come alive for the reggae-themed “No One Told Me (This Was My Job)” as well as the heavy metal ripper “Can’t Talk Now, Have an Organ Transplant.” If you start them out early with this informative and catchy CD, you’ll make winners in our future goes nowhere economy. $12
Ever since T.S Eliot penned The Hollow Men, we’ve had this term lingering under our tongues: hollow. It perfectly describes a world that is all appearance, and no substance; a world where convincing others that appearance means reality is more important than achieving that reality.
Another way to view “hollow” is that it means we do not have inner structure. In other words, our question of the soul is in danger. Like other equal citizens, we stagger along and react to life as it affects our material interests, comfort and social status — but are we striving for anything?
Constructive means striving-for: I want to make a bridge to span these valleys. Reactive means reacting-to: I’m afraid of government, so I want to destroy it. Constructive is inherently something beyond even collectivism, it’s so self-negating; it’s joining the world and accepting that we are small objects afloat in its motion. The world is not within us; we are within the world; however, it appears to the be the opposite to our big brains.
Reactive implies a world based on appearance, not underlying structure. People look for the first sign of danger, and reject anything dangerous, because they’re fearful and reactive. As a result, the only things that succeed promise 100% success (superstition) and 0% defects (denial of entropy). Because such things have nothing to do with reality, soon we live in a false society.
Conservatives have spent too much time defending the hollow as well as the traditional. I separate “conventional” from “traditional” as a result: convention is the post-1900 period, but tradition is what worked for the 5,000 years before that. True conservatives literally conserve good things, and in order to do that, they must smite the bad — that which threatens the good — and they cannot get caught up in hollow, reactive categories like good, evil, censorship, authoritarian or anarchic in that pursuit. Just do it.