Americans do not trust diversity

Recently, American citizens were polled regarding whether the “melting pot” (diversity; multiculturalism) is weakening us as a nation:

However, nearly seven in ten say that immigrants are a burden on the taxpayer, 62 percent think they add to the crime problem, and 59 percent believe they take jobs away from Americans. – CNN

Nearly 70% of Americans think immigrants are a tax burden, and almost that number think they cause crime.

What are they telling us here? Let me advance some thoughts:

  • Diversity doesn’t work. Forget racism; it’s stupid. Forget happy hippie kumbaya horsepuckey; it’s equally stupid. Let’s look at the reality of the situation: more than one culture cannot occupy the same space without causing inevitable conflict. The idea that we can isolate ourselves in our apartments and “ignore” social change without being affected is a modern phantasm of the mind. What if we wanted to integrate with a culture that supported cannibalism, or female circumcision, or coprophagia? It’s not our place to tell them they’re wrong, but we might point out that conflict is inevitable and “tolerance” only makes the problem worse by forcing us to ignore the underlying conflict until it explodes.
  • Supporting diversity is a way to climb socially. People who want to look benevolent and generous to others look for pity targets. If you find a disadvantaged group, whether orphans, the developmentally disabled, the ill, the impoverish or the minority, it’s a way for you to show other people that you’re better than them.
  • People who want to come here are fleeing disaster zones. If your country is stable, happy and prosperous, you don’t want to come here. You’ve already got a good life. But if your country is a corrupt kleptocracy, ridden with disease and warfare, where most people are making poor life decisions, heck yeah you want to get here. Only there’s a problem: if people in that country had any clue, the country wouldn’t have gotten into that state. So we’re importing clueless and damaged people.
  • Diversity supporters are giant racists. When you ask them why they like diversity, their answer always includes ethnic food, if it’s not limited to that. They usually talk about different perspectives, as if you have to be from a different culture to think outside the box, but then they get back to ethnic food. What they really mean is that having lots of cheap labor enables them to live above their income level. In fact, the entire American economy is tanking because people lived above their income level, in part thanks to cheap Mexican indio labor.

With the events of the past week, in which the left finally saw (and will immediately forget) what a racism accusation does to a career, the American white middle class is pulling back. When diversity was spun to them as helping other people, they thought it was a great idea. Now they’re seeing that it has an inherent cost, which is that the white middle class becomes the “giver” and an endless stream of people coming into the country become the “takers.”

And even worse, in the meantime our culture loses focus; we no longer have a culture, but we’re like an open-air mall. You want food? Go to the food court. You want athletics? Downstairs. But there’s no organizing principle to it all, like a culture should be. In the absence of culture, government and corporations gain more control of us.

These are the things zinging around in the heads of Americans as they answer polls about whether the “melting pot” has strengthened us or weakened us. The answer is probably more complex: it has diluted us, confused us, and left us with a war zone of crime, disorganization and constant blame against anyone who has more than the newcomers.

What will split America

What did your friend the musician tell you after his band, which was successful on album two but not so much by album five, broke up?

“We just drifted apart. Didn’t have much in common anymore, we were heading in different directions.”

That is also how societies die. When they start out, they have a clear mission, and through years of struggle and violence they prevail over their enemies, beat out their own inner demons, find a stable system of values they agree on (the “social consensus”), and then use that value system to blow off everything else and drive hard toward self-improvement.

Once they reach that, these societies are in trouble. They lack wars to unify themselves; they invent internal wars, and spend time chasing Communists, Racists, Satanists, Hackers or other Demons. When that behavior runs out on them, they spend time chasing nothing; the individual becomes more important than the society, and soon what you have is a giant pool of selfish people who barely tolerate each other because they have nothing in common except a desire to manipulate past each other so they can continue their selfish pursuits.

And then they fade away. Usually, it’s not a sudden explosion, but an ongoing decline into third world status punctuated by larger dysfunction events, as happened in the Soviet Union:

In 1991, the Soviet Union suddenly evaporated. The Cold War was over. Like many wars, it seemed to have an obvious winner and an obvious loser. Nearly twenty years later, as the U.S. heads down the Soviet road to disaster—even if the world can’t imagine what a bankrupt America might mean—it’s far clearer that, in the titanic struggle of the two superpowers that we came to call the Cold War, there were actually two losers, and that, when the “second superpower” left the scene, the first was already heading for the exits, just ever so slowly and in a state of self-intoxicated self-congratulation. – HNN

What is third world status? You can’t rely on the blockheaded Wikipedia definition here, which tries to make it into a political alignment issue. Third world status means your nation is disorganized and lacks direction; as a consequence, it is corrupt, dirty, violent, illiterate and feeble. Usually it was once a greater nation, but fell into disorganization, and with that lost the ability or desire to recognize its better people, and bred them out. What is left is a horde of filthy clueless people ruled over by clever and thoroughly vicious overlords.

Did I just describe Russia? Indeed. And if you don’t believe that, let me sell you a Russian wife — it’s as easy as opening up a local paper here.

Did I describe the future of the USA? Quite possibly.

All empires, no matter how magnificent, are condemned to decline and fall. We tend to assume that in our own time, too, history will move cyclically – and slowly.

The environmental or demographic threats we all talk about seem remote. In an election year, who really cares about the average atmospheric temperature or the age structure of the population in 2050?

The most obvious point is that imperial falls are associated with fiscal crises – sharp imbalances between revenues and expenditures, and the mounting cost of servicing a mountain of public debt.

Think of Ottoman Turkey in the 19th century: debt service rose from 17 per cent of revenue in 1868 to 32 per cent in 1871 to 50 per cent in 1877, two years after the great default that ushered in the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. Consider Britain in the 20th century. By the mid 1920s, debt charges were absorbing 44.5 per cent of total government expenditure, exceeding defence expenditure every year until 1937, when rearmament finally got under way in earnest.

But Britain’s real problems came after 1945, when a substantial proportion of its immense debt burden – equivalent to about a third of gross domestic product – was in foreign hands.

Alarm bells should therefore be ringing loudly in Washington, as the US contemplates a deficit for 2010 of more than $US1.47 trillion – about 10 per cent of gross domestic product, for the second year running. – The Age

The entire article is brilliant and thoroughly worth reading as he describes the periodistic nature of empires. History is not linear; it speeds up and slows down, depending on what’s going on. Empires are healthy so long as their internal organization is healthy, but as they begin decline, they start to make a number of bad decisions all at once. There is no single cause of decline except decline itself.

Decline starts with loss of consensus. When you have social consensus about what is valued, you can reward people for upholding that and thus create a constant stream of “better” people. What replaces that is a measurement of a person’s viability to business or popularity (media), which is not a measurement of their overall competence but their skill/determination at only one skill out of thousands. Without a values system, society rewards the outlandish, the corrupt, the conniving and the dramatic. It rewards those who play the social game, not those who can create better function.

This is why in third world nations, people are generally more verbally and socially competent than they are competent with technologies and learning. They can talk a good game, or really make something sound like an appealing product; are they the descendants of long-ago corrupted hipsters? Hipsters themselves are the most evident product of decline. When your middle class kids stop trying to do anything productive and become egomaniacs trying to prove how unique they are, you know the system is broken, has failed them and has failed itself.

You can recognize a dying society by its need to falsify reality. With a social consensus, accurate perception of reality by every member of that society is not necessary; they need to follow (healthy) symbols and customs, and by doing so, use a metaphor for reality to achieve a positive interaction with it. In a declining society, with social consensus goes away the idea that some people have more of a clue than others, and soon “equality” (really: equal social status for the clueless) takes over. As a result, the comforting myth arises that every person has an equally valid and accurate perception of reality. Because that never turns out to be true, society turns to to people who can give it false but comforting perceptions of reality:

The maintenance of the hierarchical structures that control our lives depends on Pinter’s “vast tapestry of lies upon which we feed.” Therefore the main institutions that embed us into the hierarchy, such as schools, universities, and mass media and entertainment corporations, have a primary function to create and maintain this tapestry. This includes establishment scientists and all service intellectuals in charge of “interpreting” reality.

In fact, the scientists and “experts” define reality in order to bring it into conformation with the always-adapting dominant mental tapestry of the moment. They also invent and build new branches of the tapestry that serve specific power groups by providing new avenues of exploitation. These high priests are rewarded with high class status. – Denis G. Rancourt

Newspapers, which once were viewed as little more than tabloids, then became seen as valid sources of “objective” journalism, become the shapers of the minds of people who cannot make up their own — and naturally become a focal point for the most embittered of them all, people who want to destroy the validity of others by insisting passive-aggressively on universal equality and consequently a drowning out of the “better” with the “average” or to-be-pitied:

Tucker Carlson’s Web site, the Daily Caller, has unearthed a treasure trove of liberal journalists talking (nastily) to themselves in a private e-mail list about how they should use their media power to remake the world in their image.

The funniest thing about this expose of JournoList was witnessing journalists say it was unfair to leak these e-mails when reporters had an “expectation of privacy.” More than 90,000 pages of secret documents on Afghanistan have been leaked and journalists are tripping over one another in a mad stampede to cover the story. Everyone should laugh heartily at leak-devouring journalists getting a fistful of their own bitter pills.

The saddest thing about all this is the confirmation (as if it were necessary) that liberal journalists really aren’t journalists first. They’re political strategists.

They pretend to be the Hollywood version of Woodward and Bernstein, the brave sleuths digging out government malfeasance and corruption. But in reality, they’re the Woodward and Bernstein who plotted how to get Richard Nixon impeached and ready the way for pacifist and socialist “Watergate babies” like Chris Dodd and Henry Waxman to take seats of power. Ethics are only relevant if they’re a weapon. – Investors Business Daily

These are the people we’re trusting to tell us the truth, and most importantly, to tell us what ideas/trends are for smarter people — because that way everyone emulates them.

Even more, we’ve gotten to the point where even for liberal thinkers, all we see is financial transactions and benefit from individual to individual. No sense of a cohesive nation:

In every industrial democracy since the end of World War II, there has been a social contract between the few and the many. In return for receiving a disproportionate amount of the gains from economic growth in a capitalist economy, the rich paid a disproportionate percentage of the taxes needed for public goods and a safety net for the majority.

In North America and Europe, the economic elite agreed to this bargain because they needed ordinary people as consumers and soldiers. Without mass consumption, the factories in which the rich invested would grind to a halt. Without universal conscription in the world wars, and selective conscription during the Cold War, the U.S. and its allies might have failed to defeat totalitarian empires that would have created a world order hostile to a market economy.

Globalization has eliminated the first reason for the rich to continue supporting this bargain at the nation-state level, while the privatization of the military threatens the other rationale. – Salon

Like most liberals, Salon is educated and savvy for all surface issues. They are clueless for any sense of the underlying structure. In the case of the United States, the reason for globalization has been a steady moving of vital industrial elements away from the dying nation. Parasitic unions? Too many laws? Too much crime and corruption? Well shoot let’s take our manufacturing someplace where we can buy the local authorities and by being corrupt, crowd out not only organized crime and corruption but bureaucracy. It’s just more efficient.

Even more, as the latest round of American workers turn out to be entitlement-hounds like Generation Y, there’s no point starting a business here. Go somewhere else where people are more realistic, even if they can’t use IM and Twitter to unite a department into a social hive, or whatever crap buzzwords they’re spewing now.

Salon falls into the usual pattern of liberals in a time of decline, which is to try to destroy as much of the power structure as possible, and then get raped in the ensuing anarchy:

Empire achieves this by means of “economic liberalism, militarism, multinational corporations, corporate media, and technologies of surveillance.” Because capitalism causes millions of deaths that a non-capitalist system would eliminate, it also is guilty of mass murder.

The United States, of course, is the Great Satan, accused of hoarding disproportionate resources. Its military oppresses the poor so its corporations can exploit them. Its government promotes the pretend danger of terrorism to aggress abroad and repress at home.

And Israel is the Little Satan, serving as Empire’s sinister ally — or maybe the Jewish state is really the master? From World Social Forum meetings in Brazil to the United Nations anti-racism conference in Durban and from mainline churches to NGOs, Zionism is represented as absolute evil. Why Israel? Beyond not-so-subtle anti-Semitism, it alone of Western countries lives under a barrage of constant threats, which in turn compel it to engage in constant wars. “Stripped of all context,” Sternberg notes, “Israel’s actions fit the needed image of aggressor.” – National Review

Let’s get rid of the people and institutions who could help, using the justification that they are not helping those so clueless/lazy/stupid that they fail no matter how much aid you give them.

These are all signs of the decline, and while people are waving hands over the Wikileaks debacle, which releases very little actual news, the truth behind the scenes is that this country is eroding itself from within — from its lack of agreement on essential values, or social consensus.

That lack of consensus is how nations split apart. Right now, we can see that America is divided by “rich” (actually, middle class: household income of $50,000/year or more) versus poor (rural whites, urban minorities, recent illegal immigrants with household income of $18,000/year or thereabouts) or maybe by conservatives versus liberals or north versus south. It’s about to be divided even more thoroughly: those who are oblivious to the decline, mostly leftists, and those who oppose the decline and want to restart the nation, and those are mostly on the right.

The end of racial appeasement

Since the end of the Civil War, America has embarked on a policy of “racial appeasement,” or gifting minority populations with money and power to stave off the inevitable conflict brought on by diversity. As America wakes up to how easily an accusation of racism can crush a career, people are re-thinking racial appeasement and thinking instead of options to diversity.

Picture this for a movie:

On planet Raeth, injustice reigns. The ruling group, Aucascians, have oppressed the Friacans, who don’t have technology and have been in the past cruelly enslaved and used as cheap labor. When a few people of good moral character figure this out, they band together to help the Friacans gain political power. Eventually, a Friacan is elected with the promise that racial antagonism will end, Friacans and Aucascians will breed together into a new race, and peace will reign forever.

Except that it doesn’t happen. The movie doesn’t end there; instead we see the Friacan president struggling, realizing that he has to both make Friacans like him, and avoid having the Aucascians feel attacked. He starts trying to transfer wealth and power to the Friacans, which makes the Aucascians realize: now we’re the target, and soon we’ll be oppressed like the Friacans were, if we don’t do something about it.

Sound familiar?

When we elected Barack Obama, his constituents hoped for many things. The white people who voted for him were primarily young and inexperienced; 95% of black people voted for him, as did many members of other ethnic groups. They elected him for the same reason they elected Bill Clinton, which was a hope for racial reconciliation and a happy ever after story.

Instead they got an intensification of racial resentment. Race relations are probably more tense now that at any previous time except the morning after the Watts riots wound down. Both groups are slowly starting to realize: in a diverse society, one group has to be on top. Both can’t be. Even more, if you try to “raise up” one group, you’re going to do it at the expense of the other, and then they’ll hate each other.

Brushing past the insane racists (people who hate black people and consider them inferior) and insane anti-racists (who consider wanting to be of your own race to be racist) we can see that this problem has no end. The problem isn’t white people. It isn’t black people. It’s diversity.

Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the beautiful mosaics — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!” – Ann Coulter

Very few people would voice this sentiment because the populist political parties — those most popular with those who are least invested in understanding the mechanism of governance and economics — tend to group together “critics of any attribute of diversity” with “racists: those who hate black people.”

But the facade has been cracking. After Andrew Briedbart trolled the left by showing them how damaging an unsourced whisper of “racism” could be, people are starting to realize that the situation is unstable. Blacks aren’t happy; whites aren’t happy. Other ethnic groups are caught in the middle, but all ethnic groups are starting to realize that one ethnic group must rule us — trying to split the power isn’t working and cannot work.

Interestingly, the same thing is happening in Europe, where immigrants from backgrounds as varied as Turks, Arabs, Africans and Asians are finding it hard to integrate. They find themselves in ghettoes, despising the local population and in turn being despised, while governments make more laws to prevent discrimination and write more checks to subsidize them.

We’re even seeing people on the left trying to compete with the Tea Party for the white middle class vote, since not only are those people numerous, but they’re economically, socially and politically important as a creative force in America.

The Tea Party was a classic Libertarian backlash: we don’t want the entitlement state, and we don’t want a moral government telling us how to think, especially if that thinking includes a morality of self-destruction. Tea Party logic is that if other ethnic groups can demand self-serving change, so can white people, starting with the elimination of politically privileged ethnic groups.

In other words, if we’re going to be fair, we should apply the same standards to everyone. If a black person isn’t racist for wanting to marry a black person, then a white person should not be racist for wanting to marry a white person. If “black power” is socially acceptable, “white power” should be too. That’s real diversity. But it’s not what the left has been supporting; instead, in their view, only white people can be racist. That got old real fast.

Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.

The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all “people of color”—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites.

Policy makers ignored such disparities within America’s white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts. – “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege,” James Webb, Wall Street Journal

In other words, we can’t expect to force people to be equal and we can’t fix the past by discriminating against Caucasians. This makes sense, but Webb is serving democratic interests here by trying to apply a band-aid to a situation that’s ready to explode.

Think about two salient facts:

  • Everywhere diversity has been tried, it has brought conflict and instability. This applies to diversity of ethnic/racial groups as well as religion, radical political differences, or radical leaps in ability or economic power (class/caste). People like to point to the West and say, “See, it’s working out OK, especially in Canada” forgetting that diversity on any measurable scale has only been in effect for thirty to forty years, which from a historical viewpoint is less than the blink of an eye. What does other modern and ancient history show us? That diversity causes conflict and ultimately destabilizes a nation, leaving behind a society of the third world type.
  • Different ethnic groups evolved differently. We shouldn’t worry about whether this extends to the potential or abilities of individuals, but should point out that no continent was ever completely dominated by a foreign authority. Had these continents wanted to invented technology, they could have but did not. Evidence suggests that limited efforts were made along those lines. So there’s a reason why some groups, notably Jews, Western Europeans, and North Asians succeed and still stay on top of the game: they developed along these directions and maintain the ability to do so. It’s not racist to admit this, since these are subsets of races rather than racial groups in themselves.

We can at this point either face history, and see that the diversity experiment in America is doomed to failure because someone must always rule and everyone else will rebel, or continue our “out of sight, out of mind” policy of racial appeasement. Policies of racial appeasement:

  • The welfare state. We’ll transfer money from others to you if you’re having trouble.
  • Affirmative action. We’ll put you first in line, maybe that’ll help.
  • Political correctness. We’ll insist you are magical, innocent and vital so that you become symbolically important.
  • Conflict avoidance. If a white cop shoots a black guy in Oakland, we’ll lock down the city and excuse you if you riot. It’s not your fault; you were wronged.
  • Anti-discrimination legislation. As much a handout as legal redress, this enables you to sue someone if you don’t get hired or rented to, even if you’re incompetent or dangerous, as some individuals of all ethnies and races are.
  • We’ll elect one of you. Barack Obama has less experience, a past with less documentation or evidence of competence, and less experience with decision-making than any president in history. He was elected because he was black and we hoped that would end the race debacle.

Racial appeasement ran its course because it appeared to be the path of least resistance. After a disastrous civil war, no one wanted to bother with partitioning the United States, or even repatriating its former slaves with compensation. Through the next generations, race riots were commonplace about every decade, and appeasement was the policy there, too.

Horrible racist injustices did happen, as did cruelty, but the perpetrators have been punished where caught, and now are thoroughly marginalized especially after WWII, when we defeated that big evil racist, Hitler. For every incident, an appeasement was tabled, until we get to the point where government looks first to hire minorities, businesses are scrambling to hire minorities, all of our movies feature positive stereotypes of minorities, and we’ve elected a black man as president. When does one appease enough?

As the dust settled after Obama’s election, a sinking feeling set in among Americans. What if this didn’t do the trick? What if this is an ongoing problem instead of something we can solve with one gesture of appeasement? As Neville Chamberlain found out when appeasing Hitler just delayed the inevitable war, appeasement doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for blacks, or whites, or anyone else. And so the myth of racial appeasement starts to crumble.

Cannibals

What is the correct foundation of morality? In the billions of years before human existence, where was right and wrong in the darkness of space?

And from the dawning of humanity ownwards, where was morality among the cannibalistic ape-like hominids who clung to the earth, warring with each other in small bands?

A caveman in the deep Paleolithic takes a thigh bone and crushes his kinsman’s skull, and throws the lifeless cadaver into a bog. He seizes the dead man’s wife and fucks and impregnates her, thus transmitting his genes.

What, really, is the difference between this, and someone complaining of another’s infelicity, wagging her finger, feigning bewilderment, raising the eyebrows, when it is against the one complaining herself that the infelicity has purportedly been committed? She is, after all, making the accusation merely in order to gain her own advantage.

If our characters are paintings, the brush strokes of the short period of recorded history completely fail to obscure the far vaster work of the 99.9% which is unrecorded, and a work vaster still before humans entered the scene. In the words of Carl Jung:

Archetypes are like river-beds which dry up when the water deserts them, but which it can find again at any time. An archetype is like an old watercourse along which the water of life has flowed for centuries, digging a deep channel for itself. The longer it has flowed in this channel the more likely it is that sooner or later the water will return to its old bed.
Essay on Wotan

In these latter days of metropolises and supermarkets, we are no different. Morality is not a given, and common notions of right and wrong are not well-founded. This explains why the modern world is so depressing. Everyone keeps this facade of right and wrong, but a real sense of universal brotherhood is absent. So what is this thing we call morality and how are moral phenomena to be understood? The way I see it, there are two consistent views.

One is individual: an agent seeking psychical peace by bringing his various urges into harmony, including hunger, lust, compassion and pity.

The other is universal: the ethically prescribed course of action is that which will maximize the probability of the survival of intelligent life. If you believe in some kind of anthropic principle to explain cosmogony, then in this case the agent is harmonizing his will with the will of the universe. Or to use a religious symbol, with the will of God. The foundation of morality of this type is transcendence of the individual, love.

Turnabout is fair play

When Shirley Sherrod got fired on a simple accusation of racism, it wasn’t just injustice — it’s what anyone who does anything but fawn over “diversity” experiences frequently. Don’t rehire her; stop the “racism” paranoia and accept opposition to diversity and frank recognition of human diversity as legitimate.

So there’s a media circus, again.

Right-wing news outlet finds a tape, and takes from it the portion where a black bureaucrat admits discriminating against a white man. Her bosses see this, the White House panics, and fires her.

Later in the tape, she says she was wrong, and how she learned from the experience. We now see this as the full tape emerges. She gets rehired.

Left-wing news outlets whine about the injustice of it.

Forgive me if I’m not moved. The left made “racism” into a taboo insult that can be casually slung around without proof, as with the ongoing attempts to prove Tea Partiers are “racist” with faked videos, out of context images of signs that were nowhere near Tea Party protests, and fiddling with the definition of “racism.”

Tell us, liberals, what is that definition of “racism” again? It seems to vary every day, from “noticing blacks and whites are consistently physically different and attributed that to genetics” to “wanting to demolish the welfare state (which may inconvenience some black people).” Notice how the President, his cronies, and the entire left wing media are careful to never give you a clear definition of “racism”.

Of course not. It’s to their advantage to make it ambiguous, so they can accuse you of it if you don’t toe the party line — on equality, on diversity, on the welfare state, whatever.

Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama’s critics as racists. He wrote:

“If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them—Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares—and call them racists. . . . This makes them ‘sputter’ with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.” – WSJ

If a white person or Asian person speaks up about any racially-tinged issue, our media likes to assume they are Racists and the left-wing establishment eggs them on. It’s like having a magic bullet: your Reichstag fire is to invent “racism” behind every bush, and to then use that accusation to justify killing off your enemies, politically.

And if we find out they didn’t do it, or that theirs is a legitimate view? Well, you don’t see Big Media hitting the brakes to turn around and vindicate them. Nor do you ever hear liberal voices to this effect. They’ve already been tried by public opinion; why do we need a lengthy appeals process?

Don’t rehire Shirley Sherrod. Let her be a casualty of our witch hunt against vaguely-defined “racism.” Let others meditate on what a tragedy it is that we allow a magic bullet accusation to kick off a witch hunt at such speed we don’t even stop to ask basic questions, like, “Is it true?”

Reality is Nihilism

emptiness_and_isolation

It’s hard to define nihilism because the term is abused so commonly. People abuse the term nihilism because it sounds cool. Cool is whatever isn’t what is; in a herd of sheep, you want to be the one doing something different. And for most people, you don’t want to get that way the old fashioned way, which is to pick a discipline and work hard at it so that someday, you’re known as the guy who invented the anal extractor or a cure for cancer.

Because they don’t believe they’re going to succeed at anything real, and because they lack the will to do so and so are correct in that first estimation, most people choose instead to adopt a surrogate: social status, or how many people like them; money, or how much power they have over others; popularity, or how many friends they have in the mainstream or a niche; morality, or how they can feel superior for doing a human-centric “right thing” by individuals, instead of addressing the problem that includes all individuals, their environment and technology.

In this environment, picking a radical belief that doesn’t entail radical results is a clear winner. It lets you be “different” and rise above the pack, but you don’t actually have to pay the price. Why be a real revolutionary, who might die or kill others (which is unpopular)? Instead be popular by being an armchair revolutionary. Preach some radical belief you don’t believe, and fool others, who will then make themselves accessible to you as friends, sexual partners, business associates and so on.

Nihilism isn’t a philosophy to most people. It’s marketing. When a brand says “Better value for less money!” that’s not their philosophy; it’s their marketing. As they say about human beings, don’t listen to what they say — look at what they do. Does the product actually offer better value for the money? Sometimes but not necessarily. In the same way, do people who are nihilists generally live that way? No, a thousand times no. They live like any other hipster, scenester, socialite, hanger-on, toady or one of the crowd. They’re there to socialize.

In theory, nihilism could even be used to sell products, but only of the entertainment type. “This is the most nihilistic vacuum cleaner on the market!” somehow fails a basic test of credibility. But a rock band? We believe in nothing. A radical? Our belief is that nothing exists. A politician? Those nihilists are going to come and hate our freedom, or be racist like al-Qaeda. As with rock music, the news is entertainment, as is politics. It’s keeping the proles entertained and giving them very simple symbols to use as “reasons” for them doing whatever they do, or what you want them to do.

And at the end of the day, the most public “nihilists” are the ones most likely to be lower-case-c conservative: they sell a product, they make a ton of money, and they retire to gated communities where they spend their time golfing. Nihilism, or just good marketing?

What’s not nihilism

The marketing/social-friendly “nihilism” could more accurately be described as the intersection of fatalism, or believing that we have no control over the outcome of our actions, and selfishness, or the doctrine of acting only for the self. They are inherently materialistic — meaning that they recognize no dimension to reality except the physical comforts, wealth and convenience we can achieve — because they are based on removal of giving a damn.

However, they’re also completely destructive because they are limited in scope to right now. What do you want right now? How to look cool right now? Life is a process of many moments knitted together, and when we deny that future and past, we lose the ability to build. There is no need to be productive or constructive when you are living for one moment only, but if you live for many in sequence, you start wanting to have your life show its meaning in what you have done with it.

Fatalism and selfishness will be eternally popular because they’re the same thing. Don’t reach out into the world and challenge yourself; you’re fine just the way you are! Don’t strive for anything. Don’t grow. Just be, and you’re equal and we’re all happy. If people aren’t convinced, hide behind the idea that nothing ever changes and there’s no point doing anything, except living for your own comfort and convenience (of course).

In our modern time, we’ve elevated fatalism to a positive value. Instead of admitting that we need to evolve as a species, we’re looking inward and congratulating each other on how moral we are. Instead of striving so that we improve as individuals, and that we produce heroes and exceptional people, we’re going to focus on making sure we accept each other as equals. We’re all one, we’re all the same, we’re all OK, everyone wins!

This is the mindset of a solipsist who fears the world and doesn’t want to challenge himself or herself, so has created a social doctrine that demands no change to the status quo. When you think about it, equality and selfishness are the same idea, because with equality no one will strive and no one will tell you that you should strive, so you have ultimate freedom to consume, work, buy — anything but push yourself to achieve. And if you do, others will sabotage you with many pointless demands.

What is nihilism?

If we could successfully encapsulate philosophies in a paragraph, we would have far fewer philosophical tests or debates. However, any sufficiently unique idea requires explanation not so much for its essence as symbols, but for its implications. If I say that my philosophy is to eat only the brains of cretins, I’m going to need to explain how to harvest those brains, what the justification is, and what implications it has for a social order that needs to breed captive morons for slaughter. And that’s a super-simplified example.

The definition of nihilism expands. It’s like a doorway, more than an endpoint. We can start with the simplest definition:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

What do values, knowing and communication have in common? Each relies on us representing our world or parts of it with symbols. A symbol uses a part of the whole to communicate the whole, and depends on its audience knowing enough about the topic to know what the symbol represents. Even our memories are stored in symbolic form such that we recall a summary or a conclusion, but not the whole of what is going on. Many of us can remember the end result of a conversation in a room; few can remember the steps of conversation, or all of the objects in the room.

Nihilism is a rejection of the “false world” of symbols, memories and the “knowing” of others. When we say all values are baseless, we mean they are a choice and there is no writing on the wall or Word of God or scientific “proof” which can justify them. The world does not tell us what to believe; the world just is. Nothing is inherent and we cannot prove that some value or truth is inherent. We can only elect to believe them.

A nihilist for example recognizes that even if shown proof of some truth, people may choose to disbelieve or may simply not understand. A person with no short term memory can see people walking through two doors, a blue door and a red door, and observe that everyone going through the blue door gets a hollowpoint round to the forehead. But without that memory, even if told the blue door is death, they may have no idea of the context and walk through it anyway (thus curing their memory problem).

On a practical level, most human beings possess enough intelligence to be functional in a narrow range of tasks, but not to predict the outcome of some behavior they have not seen before. They therefore do not understand consequences of their actions beyond the immediate, and like basic algebra, are limited to measuring one variable at a time. Even worse, because they do not understand any idea more complex than one they have conceived, they view such ideas as wrong, and because they cannot see where their own thinking is limited, compare all ideas to their own and reject those which are not of their own conception — which includes all ideas more complex than their own.

When people are incompetent in the strategies they adopt to achieve success and satisfaction, they suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it. Instead, like Mr. Wheeler, they are left with the erroneous impression they are doing just fine.

The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else’s, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people’s responses as superior to their own.

“Unskilled and Unaware of It – How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments” by Justin Kruger and David Dunning

We see immediately a split in worldviews:

  • There is no meaning. Nothing means anything, or can mean anything. It’s all pointless. When philosophers say that “A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy” this is what they are speaking of. However, in our view this is a confusion. The lack of meaning does not mean that one cannot have preferences, even logical ones.
  • There is no inherent meaning. Meaning, values, memory and symbols are artifacts of judging, perceiving minds. Without humanity, the world just is; a tree falling in a forest makes sound, but there being no one there to recognize the sound and call it sound, the world remains unenlightened as to its soundiness. However, lack of inherent meaning does not preclude humans from choosing meaning, or from noticing that they as humans will find some things more meaningful than others — specifically, as related to the task of human survival.

People who seek an inherent meaning in life, like writing on the wall appearing from a mystical world that is guaranteed to be 100% true 100% of the time, find nihilism depressing — they immediately see that they have no perfect argument to convince others they are right, and no perfect way of communicating it, so they give up on meaning entirely. Their view is that if meaning is not inherent to the same degree that, say, oxygen is, there’s no way to discover it or share it.

Others however do not share this view. They reason that without a being that can prove itself inherent, such as a god who can work miracles and communicate with us in a scientifically verifiable format, there is no way to prove anything inherent. The universe does not have a human consciousness, and will not give us truths in a form we can recognize as being similar to our memories. Instead, per the scientific method (otherwise known as any systematic method of discovery) we must observe, formulate theories about how the world works, test them and share as much as we can what we have learned.

In many ways, this is parallel to our transition from childhood to adulthood. A child needs parents or other adults to provide absolute right answers that the child can trust and act upon; an adult is comfortable with greater degrees of ambiguity, and at some point says “this makes sense to me” or “this is what I want” and so pursues it. Children need inherent or quasi-inherent values; adults view values as, well, value choices. Not everyone has the same values but much like not everyone gives the same answer to a test question, some answers are better than others.

What is passive nihilism?

Nihilism as a philosopical doctrine is simple: the denial of inherent meaning. Nothing inherently, automatically and irrefutably “means” anything. Meaning is a projection of the human mind and does not exist outside of it, much like while we may use a symbol for “God” we cannot say God exists in the human form we project; we’re using a variable or metaphor to describe God but that symbol is not equivalent to the thing itself.

When we look for inherent meaning, we are inevitably talking about morality of method. This type of morality assumes that the instance of any one thing is equivalent to its essence, like our word and conception of God being the same God who exists to other species on other planets. For a morality to be inherent, it must be a morality of outcomes (effects) and not their causes, or the effects they in turn create. The only moral object that is inherent is the action; its consequences unfold over time and so are not inherent in the same way that material change is.

For example, our civilization has become thoroughly neurotic about killing: murder is bad, except when we kill murderers, or wage war. If we wage war, we also need to be murdering murderers, or we are the aggressor who attacked first. However, if we murder a killer before he murders, or wage war against a civilization that by growing lots of cheap food will eventually produce an invasion force that will destroy us, we are committing immoral acts in terms of outcomes, but committing moral acts in terms of the effects of those outcomes.

Through this reasoning, we see that inherent morality is like tying a hand behind our backs. Outcomes and methods exist in the moment, and may cause us personal fear, but what we must look at is the long-term consequences of our actions. Our human instinct is to demand inherent morality from fear for ourselves, but what this shows us is that what we want to consider “inherent” to the world is inherent to a different globe entirely — the human head.

What is active nihilism?

When people ask how you can be a nihilist and still be striving for something other than self-pleasure, remember this: nihilism means denial of inherent value. It does not mean denial of functionality, or loss of a desire for our actions to be constructive and produce aesthetic beauty in life. Nihilism simply states that there is no inherent morality, or in other words no morality of method, so we must be willing to do immoral things for moral ends.

Nature parallels this vision. In nature, predators consume their prey with vicious violence but that consumption creates smarter animals. The majority of intelligent creatures are the predators; the majority of stupid creatures are primarily prey. There is no morality of murder, or other outcome-based judgment, because such logic would stop the whole process of evolution. Instead, nature works by a basic principle of morality of consequence: if the ends (evolution) require vicious means (predation), so be it.

When Plato wrote his metaphor of the cave, he was talking primarily about instance/essence confusions. (While most scholars prefer to think he is speaking of a dualistic world where perfect archetypes exist, his point is actually the opposite — no such world exists, because essence is defined not by duplicating instances in a purer form, but by being the attributes in common between all instances.)

In the Platonic view, most people are looking at instances (outcomes) and believing they see a pure essence (meaning), when really what they see is specific to their participation in the event — and therefore, like morality, is easily gamed into a “I demand freedom so you cannot force me to change, even as I force you to change to avoid inconveniencing me wherever I go,” which he identifies as the decay of a civilization.

When we are children, the difference between instance and essence is clearer to us. We have recently learned words like “chair,” and know that not all chairs are alike. We even draw the distinction “all chairs are like my chair” without assuming that all chairs spring from that one chair. But as time goes on, through a sleight of hand, we are convinced to build up an idealized, socially-driven version of more complex ideas that conflates to “all things like this are like the version I have most closely experienced.” For example, in morality we conclude that our deaths would be an injustice, therefore all killing is wrong — but how easily we are lured into paradox when it comes to killing those we perceive as threats.

The principle of active nihilism is one of ultimate reality: we are real, in a physical world that is real, with real consequences for any given action. There are no inherent goals, so we must pick one. If we like life, that goal is survival. If we want to maximize survival, we pick a systematic method (the scientific method) for discovering truth, or mental constructs that correspond to constructs existing in the physical world. After all, the one inherent thing to life is physical reality outside of us; everything else is up for grabs or ambiguous.

Thus there are two essential ideas in active nihilism:

  1. Adaptation not judgment. We judge; the world does not. What the world does, like a machine, is function on some input and fail on others. As organisms who want to survive, our goal is adaptation. While life and physical reality are inherent, the choice to adapt is not; we can choose suicide. But only true idiots argue over “validity” when there’s a lack of inherent value. Nothing is valid or invalid; there are only results. Did you get the results you desire? Did your desiring make sense given the reality around you? Does your notion of sense make sense, both in the a priori zone of pure logic and the a posteriori zone of knowing how similar decisions in the past have worked out? Judgments are human and as such are (a) representative of a small segment, or partial truth, or truth or reality and (b) inherently anthrocentric in context, and to humans they appear inherent.
  2. Correspondence not absolutism. Absolutism means that something is true (a) because it is internally logical and (b) as a result, it applies in a universal context — it is not situational, or specific, or time-dependent or context-dependent at all. Some logical ideas may exist a priori from the concept of logic itself, such as that one proposition must follow from another, but anything more complex is usually dependent upon factors from our world. Absolute thought exists in a universal context, in a perpetual present tense, to all people equally, without variation no matter what the balance of power (for moral actors) or context of the question is. If we said “donuts are good” is a universal truth, we would use donuts to end wars, feed cattle, balance machinery and soothe hemorrhoids. Sound insane? It’s just an easy to recognize example of common insanity.

Active nihilism denies inherent value but does not deny the inherency of reality. It tells us there are no default or universal judgments, and all that we can expect is that reality is consistent such that specific actions achieve similar results every time they are tried. This is the basis of all learning, and without it, even the basics of our understanding (gravity, time) would not make any sense because we could not expect them to be consistent.

Historically, the most popular theory of truth was the Correspondence Theory. First proposed in a vague form by Plato and by Aristotle in his Metaphysics, this realist theory says truth is what propositions have by corresponding to a way the world is. The theory says that a proposition is true provided there exists a fact corresponding to it. In other words, for any proposition p,

p is true if and only if p corresponds to a fact.

The theory’s answer to the question, “What is truth?” is that truth is a certain relationship — the relationship that holds between a proposition and its corresponding fact. – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

From this consistency we hope to construct truths, but it is understood these are not universal; they only apply in our minds, to such degree that our individual minds are ready at that moment to accept them. The most profound truth if told without context seems like arbitrary babble, or if told to an idiot, seems like pretentious drivel.

If active nihilism has a tenet, it is the denial of anthrocentric desires for “inherent” truth — really, consistent patterns to our consciousnesses that we would like to believe are inherent to the universe, but are an artifact of the object we are using to perceive, namely our brains: social preferences, feelings and emotions, the “official” declarations of public institutions or individuals, the promises of advertising — in preference for the adaptive model provided by the scientific method. “Deny no perception,” says the fatalist; “Deny no truth,” says the active nihilist.

Toward a non-Hollywood Nihilism

Nihilism will continue to confuse its audience because the actual concept is so much less emotionally satisfying than the false one. The kind of active fatalism that is required to deny anything but the self and the self’s material comfort in the present moment carries with it a satisfying rage against all that we dislike in the world. Nihilism itself however sees the rage of rejection and the errors of calcification as one, and provides an antidote: remove the human definition of “inherent” that is essentially solipsistic, and replace it with a knowledge of events over time as a sequence of causes.

It is for this reason that nihilism, unlike fatalism, does not proscribe striving for ideals, even ones that might overlap with what is considered “moral.” Nihilism denies the inherent nature of values, and by doing so, denies human solipsism; it does this as a means to having clarity about why we choose to be moral, which is a form of adaptive strategy similar to the scientific method where we observe the world and pick a response that is most likely to bring about positive results.

Nihilism may be our ultimate weapon against the consequence of human solipsism, which is backward rationalism. Because our selves are the formative archetype we know, we argue “from the self and toward the world” (instead of the converse). This means that when we find something we desire, we effect it, and then argue backwards from that effect toward a justification outside of the self.

“I’m just drinking this alcohol so no wayward kids get it” could well summarize human logic of this nature. We rationalize from what we have done to the reasons for doing it, using tokens that will manipulate our audience, usually of an emotionally universal or logically absolute (contextless) type. Nihilism denies this solipsism by denying these universals and absolutes, and by rejecting inherent values that are cornerstones for manipulation, forcing us instead to formulate forward logic: “I am doing this action for this effect toward this goal.”

The rejection of the idea of inherent values negates justification because it means there are no universals toward which we can always ascribe our actions; instead, each action must be considered situationally not by a moral standard of outcomes, but by a moral standard of goals which will be measured by the outcomes they claim (before the action) to be attempting to achieve.

For this reason nihilism is less a philosophy in itself (or like fatalism, a substitute for a philosophy) but a philosophical framework. When we understand like as not the false inherency of our solipsism, and as being composed of many moments knitted together by cause and effect where immediate outcome of an action is not its sole effect, life makes sense again. In the odd mode of paradox that afflicts many of nature’s greatest creations, in human life we must accept nothingness in order to find meaning in something.

Facebook = Racist

The group was not hateful (vague), did not threaten anyone, was not obscene, and attacked no individuals or groups. It was for the positive advocacy of Black Nationalism, African-American independence, African secession and autonomous self-rule for African-Americans and Africans.

It’s not just white people that Facebook discriminates against. If you stand up for nationalism, or the definition of nations by ethnicity, you are going to get shut down. Why? Probably because that idea offends our modern notion that with democracy, propaganda/education, and consumerism we’re all going to be OK. There’s no need to actually address problems like diversity or class warfare — just tolerate them. And keep buying stuff.

Sensibility and Intelligence

When we talk about intelligence, it is primarily the ability and inheritance of the individual, race, species that is able to deny short term sensuality and aim toward achieving a goal, to sacrifice pleasure in the present to achieve a greater reward in the future.

The way nature configures this is through the promise of a reward, either from a thought of food that urges the hunter to go and hunt, who then kills his prey, gaining the hunter who sacrificed his time a greater abundance energy – a reward for controlling the responses toward the senses for a greater lavishing of taste in the future, tasty food.

The evolution of our species has given the inhabitants of Earth genetic traits specific to different parts of its ecosystem, from one great ecosystem toward semi-isolated continents, many isolated tribes diverted their evolution into specially adapted races – and along through civilization, we overcome direct limits and impose indirect ones (social and civil boundaries, morals, which in turn preserve genetic isolation where our geologic boundaries do not). 

Our world around us, our civilization that we have created is a young experiment and our biological evolution is currently juxtaposed against the rate at which cultural and social information can evolve and that it cannot, we as defiant little monkeys then force these ideals onto our biology, and many that do not healthily reflect our current position or a greater future goes to prove that it has alienated our senses.

With dysgenic inherited diseases and corrupted genes disabling once useful genetic traits, many are unable to re-tune with natural, healthy environments full of sense and sanity, and are doomed to sink down with their ‘memetic warship’ defiantly denying direct natural selection in favour of peace, justice and equality.

Where once our sensibility gave us a tribal sense and common sense collectively through the group, we had a survival mechanism to preserve the races independantly and conservingly of the wilderness around them. Oppositely, where we exist today, our senses are partially in an enclosed environment and it is very different to that in which we had evolved, which many of us still bear the genetic adaptations for and others have evolved traits which would hinder our existence outside of the cultivated environment.

Maddened morals has lead individuals to evolve counter-productively, crushing and denying our primitive senses, sawing off the limbs of what evolution has bestowed us, leaves us without our animal senses, our tribal spirit and biological intuition.

We are still very dependent on an external environment to determine our evolution – transnaturalism was that fish out of water, the heat of a glaring sun corrupting and decaying the flesh, deceasing and rotting the system of society that has attempted to breathe the air of solitary evolution, yet too, far too primitive to do so, and suffocates.

Our evolution still has aquatic gills, we still thrive best in the ocean of life, when a film of liquid acts as a evolutionary umbilical cord. That liquid film that we bring with us, to help us breathe in such a hostile, trans-natural terrain is our ecosystem, our wilderness. Tradition, religion & the sciences are the young air breathing lungs, tiny strips of metaphysical flesh in the naive humans, breathing through their minds the air of nothingness, the land of death that we creatively crawl towards, only temporarily covered by our wilderness into the dry, scorched, deserted lowlands of civilization.

All ideas are converted from designs in the external reality, cause and effect, we cannot envision ideas out of a total vacuum, only nothing can do that. We fill the young mind with information through the senses, sight, smell, sound, touch, taste and even secondary senses within the brain that combine these major feeds of information with sublime, perhaps subtle senses we are unaware of, antennas of collective evolution, social receptors; all by-products through the combinations of the foundation senses, not in spite of them.

The body is very sensitive to the environment of an ecosystem, in an enclosed ecosystem first rate senses are desensitized, deprived from the external wilderness and those that are best able to disable these and reproduce the quickest inside the enclosed ecosystem will do so.

Twice as many paths for the intelligent

To split intelligence into two factions, on one side I keep biological intelligence and on the other the symbolic intelligence; intuition and IQ respectively. The intuition takes its information through the first rate senses (touch, taste etc) and represents these toward the brain, from which second rate senses interpret these through combinations (social, ecological and group reflection, albeit collective symmetry and adherence toward other biology to enhance survival).

The intuition is everything that we would need to survive the wilderness, it’s impulsive and instinctive, hard wired into each of us – yet with IQ we hack that intuition and corrode it, in what seems a good idea at first – our sawing off our limbs that keep us sensible whilst in the biosphere, the higher our symbolic IQ, the greater the strength of our denying the wilderness through peak intervals, we invent technology with our IQ, after which we regress in evolution having sawed off our first rate sensuality, leaving a void that makes for desperate, sensationalist seeking individuals, out of control and criminally insane.

The intuition takes its information through the first rate senses and represents this into the brain, it is sensible, the IQ is the ability to prospect intuition at a distance and can be expressed as a scope into reality beyond the direct sense feed, it is indirect and therefore by-passes the individuals physical sensual reception.

As mentioned before, the film of liquid is the information with a direct biological wilderness of senses, we evolved from this and it gives us our strength – further trans-natural evolution will frustrate the senses of those unable to disable them and kill those that are unable to re-enable them after the short term.

That means that although reliant on second rate (indirect) sensual information through symbolism, many that have never directly experienced that sensual information are going to interpret them inaccurately, primitive cognitive abilities.

The symbol is a vesicle of sense information through a transportation medium beyond the standard biological transfusion. It is inorganic information, inorganic sense, inorganic memes and is created through inorganic surrogation, which is to use energy into creating something which does not directly benefit biological survival.

That prospect of intuition is symbolism.

Symbolism has given humanity the observational powers that allow us to perceive senses indirectly but not to feel them directly. It is a form of scaffolding and support around the real objective reality that allows us to perceive senses that we cannot at this point in evolution, feel directly.

Science is this, we can perceive what the moon’s surface is made of and the temperature of its day or night but we as human beings, we can never get to its surface and scoop up the lunar sand and feel it through our fingers and walk through the lunar sand bare foot as if we were on the earthly beaches.

We cannot feel the solar energy on the moon as if through the atmosphere here on Earth. The moon has no significant atmosphere, the solar energy is too intense and energetic for us to feel on our skins for it would surely be death to us.

We can only perceive what these sensations must feel like, therefore we must interpret these feelings through symbols, the symbols that two hundred degrees Celsius would be too great for us to feel directly, thus we are disconnected from reality and we observe a second rate reality through our interpretations of the first rate reality through our symbols, and through symbols we can create ideas and from ideology we create civilizations, the scaffolding around the real object, us as human beings – is our civilization.

IQ is therefore, sense at a distance, in a detachment from the biosphere it created the warship of God, a battle against our senses, against our gills – trying to recapture the breathe taking moments in life and sanctify them, like a dead corpse preserved in the desert’s salty sands. When we learn to create our religions actually in this reality, we will learn to not only sense at a distance, but also to sense through time, spirit.

Time being a non existent thing in itself, it is the measurement between two phases, like the surface of a liquid flowing, sensing through time allows us to dive and leap out of the present, under and over the surface of our direct sensuality, it is spirituality and is a product of our imaginations, it is a mental intuition, a sense that we are still evolving – and when you’re travelling 200 light years in a warship across the bleak void of space, you’ll appreciate it, it will keep you alive and breathing not fatalistic and depressed.

Intelligence and the desert voyage

The symbol has a low information quality – the amount of sense that was received by an individual before they type and distort it into symbolic characters on a page is enormous compared to the reinterpretation of this information, at a distance.

Compared to intuition, our symbols are pathetic, but they are all we have for collectively transmitting information halfway across the planet toward other life forms in our partially enclosed ecosystem of civilization, those who are mentally able to digest this low information quality whilst simultaneously frustrating/disabling short term biological sensual information feeds, whilst also not being oblivious toward them – will be able to survive ‘the desert of the land’ and because they did not saw off their senses also, they will be able to re-engage with reality after they have finished interpreting symbolic information and be able to refresh and flourish in an oasis of liquid information from their natural environment around them, reverence.

If only high in IQ, these creatures wander into the open air of the desert without precaution, perhaps without having evolved spiritual lungs to breathe the air that is toxic to the short term sensationalists, and suffocate, asphyxiate, or perhaps they are evolved without the ability to re-engage their biological senses; perhaps having been burnt in the open air of the void for too long – desperately unable to rehydrate, roasted in the heat from the glare of the void, the questioning of meaninglessness without a cold, refreshing wilderness to drink.

Mental illness and insanity, senseless within the space voyage. The voyage over the void with no prospect but a horrible death beneath it – the exhausting weight of mankind as he walks across the rope toward the cosmic wilderness, toward his next oasis in the desert of land – the depression of nonexistence gnawing at the consciousness like the beating of radiation from the sun, unpleasant for the weary traveller of solitary evolution, sucking the liquid of life out of him.

All things biological need their water, both physically and metaphysically, both substantial and insubstantial, the solvent of life, the faith in God – the God that is trans-natural life over and below that surface of waves, which we sense – throughout and in the river of time, keeping the fight for survival for the weakened, thirsty traveller until man reaches his new wilderness of senses, the ‘Overman’.

The symbol is the word and everything we do that is intelligent is to preserve our senses in a form that sustains us in the ‘lands of the dead’, the lands where we can only indirectly sense, the times where we have to suppress our short term desires because of the radiation around us, where we are to be deprived of our wilderness in search of a greater wilderness, seperated by that gnawing void – IQ is the sense of emptiness and our preparations for the wilderness of the cosmos – to travel the stellar seas in search of new worlds with nothing left to directly sense except our spirit, our faith as a reservoir of intuition that we conserve from nature to where we are able to reach pure intuition, the sense of fullness, indirect sense and direct sense.

Intelligence is to creativity and the symbolic esoteric – intuition toward social and the biological exoteric. High IQ’s give the individual a survival trait for extreme malnourishment of sensual information, low IQs oppositely – but all things must eventually drink the water of life and breathe the air of a void, or remain forever attached to a biosphere outside of civilization.  Asphyxiate and dehydrate, or allow yourself to breathe and to sense nature around you.

Potential traits to be evolved

High IQ individuals will need to strengthen senses, indirect senses do not allow you to adapt from a direct threat, direct senses do not allow you to adapt to an indirect threat.

An indirect threat, the collapse of civilization, direct senses cannot see this, it is through time, in the future. Direct senses have to capitalise on the strength traits that allow you to prepare for the future before it happens – the more direct senses active, the greater the cross reference of intuition, it can sense a wave coming.

IQ is a fourth dimensional sense, that being a trait above the ordinary abilities of animals, it allows scaffolding around the lesser dimensional senses, to build onto them new limbs and sense receptors instead of sawing them off. To then be able to sense intuitively every particle in space, to see the whole spectrum of photon waves, to listen to the light like the Voyager space craft, to hear the gravity and magnetic fields and see them at the same time, to even taste them as they pass through the skin – to feed the senses with information in the cosmic wilderness.

Transforming our indirect, symbolic ideas of indirect senses, into new organs for direct sensual feeds in the hostilities of space – that is, to ‘breathe the air’ and take a leap in evolution beyond and out of the short term present and create ourselves the sense to rebuild civilizations and immunize them from known decay, keep it hydrated to prevent it from dying.

Complementary gender roles and parallelism

I like reading the blog The Thinking Housewife. Even when you disagree, the spicy insights into human nature and how far modern liberal society has gone off-track are worth the read.

There’s a downside to it. Like many conservative thinkers, the authoress feels backed into a corner because it seems like all but a few people in society are headed in the opposite direction. This feeling is normal; conservatives had to abandon the “follow us, or you won’t succeed” the instant the first rock star became a millionaire, so now they often fall into dogma and retaliation.

On a recent topic, I feel the authoress is off-base, and wanted to clarify my position here because I think we can all learn from the debate. With luck, and if we’re really lucky civility, others will join in and we can get a lively debate going — modernity outside of its technology will end up being a blip on the radar of history, and conservative ideas will prevail, but in the meantime it helps us to achieve clarity in the details of our beliefs.

This is a letter to The Thinking Housewife from a young woman:

ENNA writes:

I have recently discovered both the “manosphere” and the small number of anti-feminist blogs. While I disagree with some of the writings at both types of blogs, most of what is written has forced me to confront and deepen my conception of human nature, and I am glad of it. I have come to realize more (although I was already aware to some extent) the differences between men and women, and the general strengths and weaknesses that each sex possesses. However, I encounter some confusion when I try to apply these principles to myself. In your recent post, “Men are Slow to Ripen,” you wrote:

I used to be baffled by why men seem so much slower at housework. I now think this is a major reason. They are trying to figure out a system, like a boy building a castle with Legos. They are architects, not housekeepers. Most women, even those who are extremely neat, don’t create abstract plans as they work. If they were domestic strategists, the world would fall apart within a matter of hours. Similar disaster would ensue from the failure of men to conceptualize.

You see, I am (and always have been) a very conceptual thinker. Ever since I was a teenager, I have tested an INTP (nicknamed The Architect) in the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator; I am a “systems thinker,” very spatially oriented, and am always trying to discover the underlying plan behind any activity or way of thinking. I also have trouble with housework–I’m too caught up in the “abstract plan.”

I have been trying to cultivate a feminine attitude in myself, especially as I learn the toxicity of feminism, but am somewhat unable to reconcile this with my supposedly masculine way of thinking. I try not to think of it as “wrong” because my brain is God-given, and I could not stop myself from analyzing and abstracting any more than I could stop myself from breathing. Sometimes I am unsure of how to act or think because my experience as a woman does not match up to many of the generalizations I read here and on other blogs.

I guess my questions for you are these: If someone does not fit under the ideal woman, does that make her less feminine, or somehow inadequate for womanly tasks? (I have a hard time thinking so, as God made me a woman and not a man, but it’s hard for me to reconcile that fact with how women are supposed to act and think.) How far can these generalizations go? And what can or should be done when people don’t fit completely under them? – TTHW, “The Thinking Woman’s Dilemma”

I think femininity and masculinity are misunderstood here. When we say they are complementary roles, we are talking about the mental organization and strengths of each supporting the other.

Men approach the world from a contractual, ends-over-means, casual and architectural state of mind.

Women approach the world from an adaptive, stabilizing, context-derived and atmospheric state of mind.

The former requires less elaboration than the latter, because the latter translates less well to language. However, a good starting point is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning.

Men are deductive: if all of the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. (All crows are black; this bird is a crow; therefore, it is black.)

Women are inductive: if all of the premises are true, the conclusion is not necessarily true. (All the crows I’ve seen are black; therefore, crows are black.)

These are valuable complementary intelligences. Deductive reasoning empowers choices, while inductive reasoning empowers adaptation when insufficient data exists.

Both contain the other, by the way. The idea that deductive reasoning always works requires an inductive leap of faith; the idea that inductive reasoning is valuable requires us to deductively assess the likelihood of us having perfect data. Even more, deductive reasoning is excellent for finding membership and categories and so manipulating those membes, but inductive reasoning works best when exploring either (a) a situation where the conclusion or goal is known but the methods remain a mystery or (b) a situation where nothing is known.

Further, both forms include emotional intelligence. Man emotions tend to fall into the lines of finding that which is out of its category, and setting things right; female emotions tend to involve finding what is important or beautiful in a situation, and pulling that out.

These are anecdotal observations but until our brains are fully debugged by science to the point where we can create an emulator for any given individual, and have it make the same decisions they would given identical stimulus, we’re not going to have any data either way except the anecdotal.

In my view, Enna’s thought process is not unfeminine. She seems highly intelligent, and at the higher end of the intelligence curve, people tend to be “androgynous” in regards to these divisions of approach. They are aware enough of what they are doing with their minds to program themselves, and so to adopt new behaviors; this is a degree of complexity removed from what most people can do.

In addition, as an identified INTP, she is acting as her personality type mandates.

Her logical approach is not unfeminine because complementary gender roles do not dictate how an individual thinks, or what an ideal is, but describe a generalization based on that gender and its emotional/personality approach to processing stimulus. The actual thought process can vary greatly within that categorical division.

To my mind, femininity is an acceptance of and expression of the feminine principle, which is induction and the ability to tolerate ambiguity that would break masculine thinking machines. On the flip side, masculinity is the acceptance of and expression of the masculine principle, which is deduction and forward-looking planning. Each exists optimally with the other, much like the cycle of winter/summer renews on either end what was depleted in the other.

Intelligent women exist and require an outlet for their thinking, and this is entirely independent of their acceptance of traditional roles. In ancient times, women were expected to have minds, think, and even fight when called upon — these behaviors, or means, did not change their approach to life and mentation, or ends.

These observations are entirely coherent with the philosophy of parallelism that I espouse, which includes several tenets:

  • Multiple factors must be considered at once in any situation, because no cause exists without context, and for an answer to be not just valid logically but correct in reality it must reveal a complementary accord between these multiple factors.
  • Thoughts, matter and energy are substrates in which patterns exist in parallel, including natural selection, which compute data not previously existing.
  • If divine beings exist, they do so in a space that is parallel to our physical reality much as our thoughts parallel changes in matter, and much as we translate from mental to physical parallels through action, transcendental actions translate from physical to divine levels of organization.

What concerns us most is the first point: men and women are complementary factors in the situation of life, and where they coincide in decision is likely the right course in any complex decision. In the creation of a home, the two work together and by balancing each other, are able to tackle any decision. On inductive decisions, the woman leads; on deductive ones, the man leads. Then the other contributes balance and the decision is smoothed out through a process like natural selection, where together they test their ideas against their environment and arrive at a refined idea.

Laura Wood hits on this in some important ways:

Men and women have general tendencies, with men given more toward the abstract and impersonal. But there are so many exceptions and differences within the sexes, with some women possessing a more masculine type of intelligence, that it would be wrong to say that women are “supposed to” think in a certain way. And no matter how masculine in thinking a woman may be, no woman is physically or spiritually a man.

Some women do have a special calling to do something other than marry and raise children, but even they possess the strong inborn drive to meet these feminine obligations, and the ones who are happy are those who are involved in work that allows them to achieve this feminine form of love in some way.

The women who are categorically unsuited to traditional feminine tasks are not those who are lousy housekeepers or who don’t enjoy festooning their homes with stencilled flowers or who think like architects or who have been influenced by feminist thinking all their lives, but the women who are selfish or unable to connect with other people because of some serious weakness or handicap.

The first paragraph makes sense where it talks about spiritual femininity and masculinity. You must identify with and accept your gender, and learn to love it, in order to grow into it; further, you must be able to make sense of the inductive/deductive principle as it pertains to you.

From the second paragraph quoted above, I get the somewhat genderless truth of life: if you are not able to find meaning in a biological role, you will starve your soul. Symbolically, rejection of the biological role of parenthood is rejection of your own parents and the culture that produced you. It is hatred. Parenthood does not need to be your only goal, but without it in your list of goals, you are missing out.

Her last paragraph rings true despite gender roles: selfishness is a subset of solipsism, or being unaware of the world outside of one’s self. Those who cannot connect to the world become abusive and crass.

However, I think she’s off-base with this:

Women who are more masculine by nature may have an especially difficult time being feminine. They may have to consciously cultivate the habits of thought and being that make it possible for them to live well as women.

Perhaps if you could devise a cure for lung cancer, a cure that no one else could invent, it would be more important than loving and serving others as a woman, but this is not likely. There is nothing of more value or significance than fulfilling this common spiritual role.

Women who are more masculine by nature may have an especially difficult time being feminine. They have to consciously cultivate in themselves the habits of thought and being that make it possible for them to be happy as women. The most important of these ends is to love and serve.

I suggest that instead of thinking linearly, or in OR states (if any condition is true, the assessment is true), we think in parallelist terms, or in AND states (all conditions must be true): women can be many things at once, but denying any one of these things is fatal. What unites the many parallel strands of woman-ness is femininity, or appreciation of and expression of the feminine principle.

When you read an older book and think about the women in it, you see an inner network to society run entirely by women. They knew music, sciences, literature and art; they communicated extensively by letters, and often were the supporters of ideas that others forgot because they could not justify them with the data at hand. They educated their children and instilled in them creative desires and an urge to seek the mysteries of life. These were educated, intelligent people who ran not only their households, but often their communities, in the parts of those tasks to which the feminine principle applies.

We cannot force women into femininity by making yes/no lists of activities. We need to celebrate instead what makes femininity unique, and by accepting it as complementary to masculinity and equally as vital, empower women in the only real meaning of that word which is to give them space to grow and discover themselves. Otherwise, we make the mistake that feminists make, but in reverse, by creating an adversarial relationship where none need exist.

Iron Will, Faith & Discipline

Long neglected, the west continues its miserable decline into absolute failure. Will we ever rise to rule ourselves again? What is our ability to organize ourselves and form a collective force, a social force, an Iron Will able to conquest back our nations from the disorientated weakness of convenience?

What is needed is organization, strict organization with hierarchies, you and everyone you know, find yourself amongst everyone and get to where you need to be to make things happen. Each individual has a set of genetics they are born with; see this through your mind that we must harness ourselves toward greatness what our potential has given us.

As we age, we lie having never discovered our true potential – the point of youth is for reckless competition, warlike denial of your weakness, to find and overcome your limits; modern society lacks this – and beneficial to big business a horde of confused individuals, not knowing themselves nor their enemy, fade out of existence unfulfilled having lost all their wealth to the soul sucking parasite that modern economics is.

Those who are aware – fight the impossible, challenge the world, overcome yourself and your immediate environment. Faith begins within yourself, and nothing can destroy it except yourself.

Change begins within the core of the self – like a dynamo, the churning of thoughts should supposedly contradict, yet that contradiction increases the viscosity of that stone you call a soul, amplifying itself into a veil of power about your vicinity.

The herd of the Hive-mind lacks faith in itself and froths and clamours externally to make it appear as if it is much bigger than it actually is, bubbles on a wave. Finding strength within is to increase the flow of your will, for no wave can exist if there is not a point able to transmit this. Once you create that wave, it becomes easier for others to follow in your lead. You must be as a stone onto eggs, the hollowness of others breaking against the iron of your discipline, of your will power.

These hollow shells of individuals, carry about them a colourful film of symbolisation and fake justifications for inaction, met with the Iron edge of your will, bursts into disarray. Deception is the key to victory; the common herd do this as they pretend they have strength – where honesty lacks, appearance is the illusion; they create bubbles of air and noise as if they actually mean something – do you want to clamour around and pretend that you mean something? Or do you actually want to mean something?

The journey to recovering our nations from the claw of insect traitors starts at home – they want you to give up and ignore the real treasures in life so that they can continue being weak, trying to feel all powerful about themselves – don’t let these fuckers get away with it, keep fighting unto your last breathe – and even when they force you into a bad situation, have faith in yourself, chin up and fight it through – cowards whimper out of existence, and end their miserable life in shame having never fought anything. What glory is in their name?

Iron Will

Individuals, individually are weak – through popular atheism our liberal leaders are crushing the spirit of the west and pursuing hedonism, ecocide, mediocrity, multiculturalism and its commercial convenience. Honestly, why would any intelligent individual want to become part of a failing spirit? Is not a will power a derivative of a belief in something greater than yourselves individually? Yes it is.

Will power, used precisely and adequately is known as Iron Will; the ability to achieve the impossible through a sharp edge. No matter how much iron you have in you, what good is that if it is not blasted with the furnace of action? Not fashioned into a sharpened blade? If your will is not a blade but a lump of earth with no guiding hand other than yourself as a rock? Collectively then, with your community, the individuals can harness that earth and blast that iron within that rock and create something powerful.

Is it not the iron will of the Earth that keeps it alive? If there was none, how could life survive on our world? Blasted with radiation from the hostilities of a void, creating a cancer of existence, mutated beyond control, dead.

If it lost the faith in the dynamo and solidified, turned to cold rock instead of molten iron, then the oceans would have boiled away and left the land dry, exhausted, and extremely marginalised and deserted – it is the magnetosphere that shields life from the blast of the Sun.

Faith

Many hate faith, the people say ‘faith is dogma, it is indoctrination, it has no evidence!’ – But being honest with ourselves, why would you need evidence to believe in yourself? Are you that weak that you need authority figures to give you ‘evidence’ through your TV’s to believe in yourselves?

What of your future, do you have faith that a better future is possible? Or do you say ‘Oh well, there’s no evidence for the future, therefore I don’t believe in it’. Those who have no faith in themselves to achieve a greater future are weak, traitors to themselves and to their people; the passive atheist denies any claim to faith as it has no evidence, therefore killing the future.

A belief in your race allows you to stay in the race for existence – if you, like a coward, destroy the collective will power driven by a faith in a future for your descendants, you kill your reproduction and depression sets in as nothing is left to transcend the individual and their insect needs.

Faith in God needs to be reintroduced with an Iron-like fascism – there is every reason to believe in ourselves, any who want to destroy us for individual petty desires is going to drive us toward extinction, we need to protect our Earth and this is the route.

‘Ohh ohh, but God doesn’t exist!’ – Neither do you, then – if you destroy God you destroy the socialization of your civilization – the socialization, the collective, the community – it is a super organism, an anthropomorphic deity, much as the mind is between neurons, God is between life. What is a friendship? where is a value? where is a hope? Where is the evidence for these things – why can’t I put it in the lab and test it? Because it is within and throughout the individual it has no substance that you may domesticate.

Only indirectly can you perceive these things. Much as the surface of water, between two boundaries of geology, is the driving force of evolution; the sky and the sea mix to create waves, foam, boundaries of reality – this drives the waves across the land and mixes the algorithms that give rise to live. So too is our existence on Earth, a boundary of reality between the fact and the cosmos beyond us, the faith that throws facts into the sky and drives a storm across the dry lands, unleashing a downpour of water creating the forest.

Discipline

We shape the environment as a civil species, and that environment shapes us. When we become lazy and decadent, we drop dead in a mental sludge of depression and inaction and recreate this misery in mediocre culture and terraced prisons – it’s a curse, placed by your tainted, ill-created, soul leeching environment, and why I use these words to describe it? Because it’s certainly not healthy for your mind.

What you may do about this is to keep your land clean and tidy, and prevent yourself from surrogates. Surrogates drain your will power and waste your time, and in life, time is life – every second you waste is another you will regret having lost. Controlling the fate of civilization is no different than controlling the fate of your house, if it falls into mess and comforts, so does your mind – its called a box for a reason, so think outside of it.

Routines are necessary, maintaining good standards of living, never allowing yourself to give up. When you are able to manage yourself, then you may manage others through your excess ability – and that is a great leader, we need leaders in our society that are willing to go beyond the crowd and their short term comforts to ensure that we have a future, and having a routine about how to live is the most important step of all.

Through you, the environment is shaped; if only by others, you will be excluded and left out – but joining and co-operating and much can be made with less time wasted and communal socialization to reinforce the faith in yourselves, your friends and your abilities to change the course of the world.

Localization away from multicultural toilets is a definite, this must happen for the most poisoned environments, generate enough spirit within yourself to get away from parasites, mimic them to get you some space – they appear to be big, you appear to be big even if you are not, get enough space around you to find and form a community able to deny the waves that are to come.

Back in The Hierarchy of Economics, toward the end was the hint of creating a corporation, a communal corporation through the discipline of its individuals, an organic society in other words – this is the only way you are going to ensure a decent standard of living, because the wealth has been leeched out of our nations, new wealth must be created and this thing must be built of Iron and fortified within your faith; that a better life is possible and we cripple all extinction and death threats trying to save it.

The failure of White Nationalists

In the Occident, many active intellectuals prefer to detach themselves from the herd and radicalize, counter-productively rather than productively – this is a waste of your energy, man the life boats with the best – throw out the rest who are not being productive. It’s one of those sink or swim moments, you either drown in stupidity or emerge above the surface of that faceless ocean, and if need be, cut the hands off of those who are deliberately trying to smother it, sinking it, because they’re too insecure about themselves, too drunk on their false comforts.

Be buoyant of the ocean, be in balance, for you are submerged by a wave of idiocracy. Sometimes your will power must be like a blade of iron and yet others a life boat of metal, floating and crashing through the waves, even rotating like the propeller and rising yourself into the sky, beyond the drowning waves.

The willpower must be fashioned and adapted toward your situation, be wise, find your strength and amplify it – think productively, what example can I set for these people? What is my true potential? Find it – use it, if you can manage one (yourself) you can manage a thousand – Don’t be a coward and let those traitorous underlings of the hive-mind take advantage of your extremity.

Most individuals with these marginalised ideologies are being repressively forced into the background noise, have become so because they lack discipline and belief in that which creates adaptation and Iron Will, how can they create a wave without any point?

In addition, reforming Christianity is a must towards this and forging common ground from which all of the Occident can uphold, free from pity – the doctrine of God through ourselves, honouring self sacrifice for the future of the Earth and its people.

God as the collective will power, channeled through all individuals who fight towards a common goal and resonating individual will power creating higher waves with minimal energy, Iron faith in our own will power through the strengthening of the whole.

Appearance is something, and using this to our advantage it can appear as everything – it’s used against you (NWO, anyone?) now, like the light of the Moon, reflect that light from the cosmos onto the world of night and make them see – like moths to the flame, potentials die in the flaming rants of disorganization; extinguish it and create organization, then they will follow the Moon, something beyond their world – as it should be.

Life, deceptive as it is, is about being drunk on certain things and sobriety for those areas which result in death. Now everything may result in death, it is inevitable, therefore prioritise that which is essential from the mediocre and uphold sobriety free from alcohol and drugs to deny it.

If they are drunk everywhere they are released everywhere, if they are sober everywhere, they are disciplined everywhere – humans have their limits however; they are not robots, hardly any can reach that 100% sobriety, but by being drunk on strength, like the dynamo of a faith, covers the weakness in a veil of power allowing strange chemistry to create the impossible, turning ugliness into beauty – we prefer adaptive viewpoints able to create the greatest outcome from our position.

And one last thing, appreciate good language and respect for individual differences, symbolising groups against the wave is a route to drowning. Some white nationalists “WRITE IN CAPITALS, ADN MOAN ABOUT YU FKING JEWS” – Most don’t care about jews and neither should you because you lack any influence to do so, they’re just living their life, so start living your life, discipline yourself and set examples – make the most of it while you still can.

Surrogating amongst yourselves is NOT an option, evolution is constant and inequality everywhere through every caste, find the best in every individual and allow them to amplify strength – respect each other and potential outcomes and adapt toward them.

It’s effective not to pin-point groups as if they are individuals; find an ideal instead and through this those who are productive will help you followed by The People, we’re fighting corruption and rebirthing tradition – anything else is suicide and passes with the wave.

Find your faith to fortify your discipline, then make a difference.