Archeofuturism, by Guillaume Faye (Michael Walker)

Thanks to a generous act from Arktos, we are able to publish this review of Guillaume Faye’s “Archeofuturism” by Michael Walker, former editor of The Scorpion, a cerebral New Right publication from Germany that has until recently been relatively unknown in the New World.

In the 1980s Guillaume Faye was one of the best known member of GRECE and by far their most popular speaker. With humour, panache, invective and contempt thrown in at just the right moment-the dismissive “l’acteur Reagan” the contemptuous and venomous “monsieur Henri Levi surnommé le grand”, he had his audiences rolling in the aisles with delight. Every time I heard him speak at a GRECE conference he received a standing ovation.

GRECE was not only a school of thought, it was also a sort of social club, linking like-minded persons on a cultural, political and social level. However, its concentration on theory made the temptation in hard times great indeed to retreat from direct confrontation and reduce all issues to the level of academic debate. Faye explicates these and other criticisms in Archeofuturism (now available for the first time in English from the Arktos Press at the same time as it has become hard to obtain in the original French).

Structure

Archeofuturism suffers from coming from the pen of a man more at home before a gathering than a keyboard. It is unbalanced and paradoxically, given the content, in some respects extremely provincial and theoretical in its approach and design. At the same time, it owes nothing to the respectability and detachment from reality which can make cowards of many writers.

This is not to say that the book lacks structure. It has a very definite if unorthodox structure. It consists of three theses as Faye calls them: 1) the end of civilization as we know it owing to what Faye calls a “convergence of catastrophes”; 2) the necessity for revolution, notably in the European mindset, 3) propositions for the post-catastrophic world (and the title of his book expresses the essence of Faye’s solution).

The last chapter is a piece of science fiction, a story of a world in which the conflict of technics and tradition has been resolved by reconciling the two, and this is the underlying thread of Faye’s entire argumentation, that we must learn to reach back to our furthest yesterday and to the longest future.

Positions

One issue is the conflict between tradition and progress. On the one hand, technology is necessary as a tool of our will to power, something which Faye believes essential to the survival of the European. On the other hand, scientific and technical progress may prove and often does prove, destructive of tradition. Are religions just fables? It is hard to die for a fable. How is such belief possible in a world of scientific rationalism and progress?

Faye believes strongly that the world is hurtling towards multi-faceted disaster, less a clash of civilisations, although he seems to write at times in a similar vein to Huntingdon, with his view of Islam especially as a challenge in itself to the hegemony of European civilization, than what he terms a “convergence of catastrophes”. Like Huntingdon, Faye regards Islam as a single cultural, religious, political bloc with a an expansionist will.

On homosexuality : “it is not a matter of advocating any repression of homosexuality, of banning homosexual couples or socially penalising gay people; simply, the prospect of legalising of a form of marriage for homosexuals would have a highly destructive symbolic value. Marriage and legal heterosexual unions enjoy forms of protection and public benefits that are accorded to couples capable of having children and hence of renewing the generations and thus of being of objective service to society. Legalising homosexual unions and awarding them financial privileges means protecting sterile unions.” “pp 106/107)

On demographics: “It is necessary to relfect on the issue of immigration, which rperesents a form of demogrpahic colonisation of Europe at the hands of mostly Afro-Asiatic peoples…Three generations later, the colonisation of Europe represents a form of revenge against European colonisation..are we to accept or reject a substantial alteration oif the ethno-cultural nsubstrate of Europe? The baiss of intellectual honesty and the key to ideological success lie in the ability and courage to address the real problems, instead of attemting to avoid them.” (p49)

On distraction: “The system only makes use of brutal censorship in very limited areas: it generally resorts to intellectual diversion, ie distraction, by constantly focusing people’s attention on side issues. What we are dealing with here is not simply the usual brutalisation of the population via the increasingly specific mass-media apparatus of the society of spectacle — a veritable audiovisual Prozac-but rather a concealment of essential political problems (immigration, pollution, transportation policies, the ageing of the population, the financial crisis of the social budgets expected to occur by 2010 etc.. (p92).

Archeofuturism

It is a sad paradox, and one about which Faye is acutely aware in his book, that the European New Right in general has failed to make an impact at the very time that the march of events might have been expected to play into its hands: the end of the cold war, the decline of political Manicheanism (East versus West) , the decline of nationalism as a relevant political alternative to liberalism. Faye offers a number of explications for this failure. They can be summarised as a lack of media “savvy”, romantic isolationism, minimisation of catastrophe, cultural relativism and a lack of understanding of and worse, interest in, economics (Faye alone among spokesmen of GRECE had written a treatise on economics).

Faye’s response is to deviate from the consensus among the new right and to insist on European exceptionalism. He returns to what might be called a traditional belief of the radical right when he claims, as he does here, that European civilization is superior to others and that as a superior civilization it has a duty to resist the challenge of immigration in general and Islam in particular. Cultural and racial superiority was the premise (sometimes asserted, sometimes unspoken) of all movements of the twentieth and nineteenth centuries which sought to preserve or halt a decline in the domination of the white man over the political destiny of the globe.

European radical right movements after the Second World War focused their propaganda very much on the restoration of national prestige and glory and a rejection of immigrants and outsiders.  GRECE stressed from the beginning the importance of what it called “the right to be different” arguing less in terms of European superiority than in terms of European uniqueness, Europe’s right to the nurture of its own identity and destiny. The great enemy was seen not so much as military or political threats as such, as the forces which sought to attenuate, reduce, trivialise and ultimately abolish differences. The great enemy in this respect was neither Islam nor communism but “the American way of Life”, the manifest destiny to reduce all peoples to consumers, whose sole struggles were ones of economic competition.

This developed in the course of time within GRECE into a position of ethno-pluralism, which Faye and others subsequently denounced as cultural relativism. Simply put, it is the argument that all cultures are worthy of respect within their own terms and no culture is inherently superior to another. The obvious critique of such a position is that it ultimately disarms all willingness to disallow, challenge or oppose other cultures. Opposition even in its politest non-military form, can only be conducted on the premise that in some way one is superior or equipped with superior arguments or in the area of culture and religion, possesses a truer, superior culture and religion and one thereby and therewith seeks an opponent’s defeat.

There is another aspect — that of economic survival. A major criticism which Faye has of GRECE is that it ignores or glosses over demographic and economic warfare against the European. Faye argues that at a time of emergency, when Europe is threatened with being overwhelmed by non-Europeans whose demographics are reducing the significance of the European by the hour, it is a form of suicide to indulge in culturally relativist reflections and debate.

Faye spends no time in fleshing out his arguments about superiority and in what respects the European is “superior”. This is a pity because it would provide the book with a stabilising effect. As it is, Faye assures us that he believes the European is superior and rushes on the next point. What Faye implies although I did not find it in this book explicitly stated, is that when we talk about the right of a people not only to an identity but to a destiny, there is likely to be a conflict between the destiny of a people compelled to expand and conquer and the right of another (conquered) people to an identity. The notion of a “right” be it to identity or destiny is problematic: where does our “right” come from? A Nietzschean,as Faye claims to be, can answer this question. It could be baldly stated as the right to survival-the impulse of nature which all beings have the “right” to practise. Rights to be different are likely to conflict with the rights of others to be different. The right to conflict is therefore the right to survival of identity and it is Faye’s point that such a right can only be preserved by those who actively engage in the politics (as all politics in Faye’s view must be) of conflict. A defence of the identity of the European necessitates entering into a state of conflict with the prevailing hegemony.

Faye candidly states that he made the same mistake as other GRECE members in the expression of cultural relativism and an accompanying primary and fundamental anti-Americanism which took precedence over the ethnic question and the challenge of non-white immigration to Europe, (and presumably, the decline in relative numbers and influence of the Caucasian in North America). The “ethno-pluralist” approach is exemplified by Alain de Benoist’s Europe-Tiers Monde: Même Combat where de Benoist argues that Europe and the Third World (even the term seems a little outdated today) are natural allies against the American and Soviet ways of life. Faye stresses that GRECE (and he willingly includes himself here) ignored the reality of the Islamic threat and that ethnopluralism paved the way for an inactive, “head in the sand” response to the long term significance of massive Mohammedan immigration into Europe.

Faye’s stress on the superiority of Europe in place of the right of Europeans to be different indeed avoids the danger of degenerating into an ineffective and compromising inactive pluralism. On the other hand, it shifts the focus of intent significantly towards a provocative, inevitably conflict laden project which is dear to Faye: the Eurasian Imperium. Faye is for better or for worse an imperialist. His vision of the future as outlined in this book is one of a vast Eurasian bloc, stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

The implied direction, never explicitly stated of the archeofuturist project, is combat and conquest in a world divided into major power blocs jokeying for position. “Like in the Middle Ages or Antiquity, the future requires us to envisage the Earth as structured in vast, quasi-imperial unity in mutual conflict or cooperation.” (p.77). Seen in this light, Faye’s admiration for atomic power implied in this work (and more explicitly indicated elsewhere, dramatically in his comic book notre avant guerre, where he gleefully depicts a degenerate Europe being destroyed in mushroom clouds ) and futuristic technology in general is the ghost in the machine of Faye’s project.

However, unlike most modernisers, Faye does not duck the dilemma of reconciling a world of modern technology with a world of tradition, be it racial, political or other. How does one reconcile advanced technology and its implications with the preservation of continuity with the past? Faye faces this problem head on and if his solution is seems questionable and Utopian, he deserves the credit of highlighting the dilemma. Practically all radical rightists of whatever hue, fail to address the issue at all. Faye’s solution is what he calls “archeofuturism” the title of his book and the project to which he believes European revolutionaries (and Faye believes we must be revolutionaries to save European civilization and not conservatives) the assimilation of the future with the past, building a future not as modern or post modern but archeo-modern, a modernism acutely aware of and with its roots in a deep and profound past.

There will be a small elite of rulers with access to the highest forms of modern technology while the majority of less gifted will make do with crude forms of technical accomplishment-a completely two tier society in fact. This may sound familiar and not perhaps pleasantly so. It is this reviewer’s belief, one shared by many, that the ultimate aim of the ruling elite is the same: the division of mankind into two groups-the elite and the great majority of outsiders who no longer have a say in how public affairs are administered. This seems difficult to reconcile with Faye’s expressed support for populist initiatives. Be that as it may, this writer’s strength is his ability to fire the right questions rather than provide well prepared answers.

The “post catastrophic” world will be one, Faye believes, divided between the futuristic achievements of an elite and the archaic conditions and status of the majority, it will be archeofuturistic. Before we examine this idea more closely, it is worth taking a moment to consider the notions of growth and progress which Faye dismisses as overhauled. His chapter revealingly entitled “For a Two-Tier World Economy” opens with the bald assertion: “Progress” is clearly a dying idea, even if economic growth may be continuing”.

Anti-Growth

Faye’s rejection of what he calls “the paradigm of economic development” is simple:

“An intellectual revolution is taking place: people are starting to perceive, without daring to openly state it, that the old paradigm according to which the life of humanity on both an individual and collective level is getting better and better every day thanks to science, the spread of democracy and egalitarian emancipation is quite simply false…. Today, the perverse effects of mass technology are starting to make themselves felt: new resistant viruses, the contamination of industrially produced food, shortage of land and a downturn in world agricultural production, rapid and widespread environmental degradation, the development of weapons of mass destruction in addition to the atomic bomb-not to mention that technology is entering its Baroque age.” (pp 162/163).

The last comment excepted (which is pure Spengler), this writing must strike the impartial reader as familiar. It is a fairly good example of the pessimism of environmentalist writers in general and it has been said many times before. Faye knows or should know, that there are very many people who are deeply aware of the heavy price which we are paying for making Progress our Baal. Faye is entirely right in my opinion, as thousands of others before him have been right, to question the cost but anyone expecting Faye to so much as nod with respect in the direction of the many organizations, groups, campaigns and initiatives to reverse this trend, will be disappointed.

On the contrary, Faye contemptuously dismisses the French Green movement in these words, “the political platform of the Green movement contain no real environmentalist suggestions, such as the transport of lorries by train instead of on highways, the creation of non-polluting cars (electric cars, LPG, etc.) or the fight against urban sprawl into natural habitats, liquid manure leaks, ground water contamination, the depletion of European fish stocks, chemical food additives, the overuse of insecticides and pesticides, etc. Each time I have tried to bring these specific and concrete issues up with a representative of the Greens, I got the impression that he was not really interested in them or that he had not really studied them.” (p 145) It is not clear (possibly a fault of the translator’s) whether Faye is referring to one or several spokesmen. Be that as it may, it is not my experience at all that environmentalists are not interested in these issues.

Futurism

Faye gives the impression throughout the book less of someone proposing ideas in a book for a wide readership as enjoying a discussion with someone who was with him in the days of GRECE over a “ballon de rouge”in a Paris café. Despite his provincialism, Faye has a sound instinct for homing in on some of the genuinely important issues of our time and viewing them in a global perspective, even when (and this is often the case here) his global perspective is obscured by the incidental historical luggage which weighs his book down. The reader should not be deterred by the book’s incidental references from letting Faye lead to key issues of our time and demanding our response to core questions.

The greatest quality of this book is that it gives a voice to the growing sense of frustration that is felt among persons form all walks of life that we are living in a transitory period, that the “end of history” is an utter illusion and that old structures are insufficient to contain the force of history. Faye cites the unlikely figure of Peter Mandelson as an “archeofuturist without knowing it” as someone who has recognised that democracy as we know it from the Mother of Parliaments is tired and no longer able to cope with the challenges which European man and indeed humankind is facing.

Faye’s examination of the real issues behind the palaver of most contemporary politicians is refreshing. Here is a taste: “The new societies of the future will finally abolish the aberrant egalitarian mechanism we have now, whereby everyone aspires to become an officer or a cadre or a diplomat, even though all evidence suggests that most people do not have the skills to fulfil those roles. This model engenders widespread frustration, failure and resentment. The societies that will be vivified by increasingly sophisticated technologies, in contrast, will ask for a return to the archaic and inegalitarian and hierarchical norms, whereby a competent and meritocratic minority is rigorously selected to take on leading assignments.

Those who perform subordinate functions in these inegalitarian societies will not feel frustrated: their dignity will not be called into question, for they will accept their own condition as something useful within the organic community-finally freed from the individualistic hubris of modernity, which implicitly and deceptively states that each person can become a scientist or a price.” “Individualistic hubris” indeed sums up for this reviewer one of the great malaises of our time: the exaggerated importance which mediocre individuals attach to their own boring lives. Faye at his best is very good indeed.

For all its failings this book is a valuable contribution to the growing awareness of persons of European descent of their time of crisis. It  provides a highly readable and often acute observations about what Faye stresses are the real issues of our time but the question nags steadily: to what extent has Faye provided a strategy for Europeans in the face of those issues? The answer is that there is no strategy, unless by “strategy” we mean a positioning (for example in favour of European federalism vis-à-vis reactionary nationalism or friendly competitiveness with the United States rather than blanket hostility to the American way of life).

Perhaps someone much younger than either Faye or this reviewer will read this book and know that they are able to provide that response. In that case, this book will have shown itself to be of the past and the future, in a word archeofuturistic.

Diversity is genocide

150 years of well-intentioned government programs.

Several dozen serious riots.

Reams of paper for laws, regulations and opinions.

Trillions of dollars of lawsuits and resentful crime.

Why does the American race question persist? Is the answer that we will ultimately breed ourselves into a uniform brown, and finally be rid of the horrid dual curse of racism (against the minority) and racial resentment (against the majority)?

Up until the 1980s, race was really an American topic, but now in Europe we’re also seeing the same problems: crime, riots, hatred, violence, expensive welfare and re-education programs.

It’s as if we’re cramming a square peg in a round hole. Let’s first look at the pure logic of the situation:

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

Coulter specializes in simplifications of hot-button issues, which is why she’s a millionaire and you’re reading me on Amerika.org. But for the readers here, we need a clearer statement. Why is diversity such a problem?

If you exist in a diverse society, you have two options:

  • Assimilation. Forget your culture, your favorite foods, your values system, your language and heritage, and even your history. Become one of the people without any culture except what they see in the news-entertainment media. Give up what made your ancestors unique, get assimilated, and you’ll have fewer problems. You’ll also never know if people are merely “tolerating” you.
  • Preservation. Keep your culture, customs, language, values, heritage and history. However, now you’ll always be an outsider. All the other kids will be talking about what they saw on TV, or what typical activities they’re doing. You’ll have culture instead. You’ll also never know if people are discriminating against you for it.

Not a great set of choices there. Either you join the cultureless, or you stand out like a sore thumb. This is the essence of the crisis of diversity: it hands you a path of least resistance that leads to genocide, or puts you on a path of standing out that guarantees racial resentment both to and from the minority and majority.

As we’re fond of saying around here, the problem isn’t blacks, the problem isn’t whites, the problem isn’t Hispanics, the problem isn’t Asians; it’s diversity. Diversity is genocide. It replaces different unique populations with a cultureless, heritageless, valueless, lowest common denominator average. These people then have no binding consensus of values except what they see in the news-entertainment media and what their government says is good (freedom, capitalism, consumerism, democracy, welfare).

When you make a nation or continent “diverse,” you replace its indigenous values, heritage, culture and customs. You replace that unique and rare thing with a common thing, which is the mixed-race person. We already have a billion or more of those in places as “diverse” (heh) as Mexico, Brazil, Iraq and north Africa, where the mixing of the four basic races (African, Caucasian, Australid and Asian) has created remarkably similar looking people.

Something to think about: wouldn’t it be ironic if diversity actually created uniformity? But when you think about it, mixing all those different things together naturally results in a mix. You can’t take the ingredients out again. You’re stuck with the gray mush.

The first forests and terrestrial ecosystems appeared during this time; amphibians began to walk on land.

As sea levels rose and the continents closed in to form connected land masses, however, some species gained access to environments they hadn’t inhabited before.

The hardiest of these invasive species that could thrive on a variety of food sources and in new climates became dominant, wiping out more locally adapted species.

The invasive species were so prolific at this time that it became difficult for many new species to arise.

“The main mode of speciation that occurs in the geological record is shut down during the Devonian,” said Stigall. “It just stops in its tracks.”

Of the species Stigall studied, most lost substantial diversity during the Late Devonian, and one, Floweria, became extinct.

The entire marine ecosystem suffered a major collapse. Reef-forming corals were decimated and reefs did not appear on Earth again for 100 million years. – MedicalDaily

We can see this process in nature. When you introduce an invasive species, evolution stops dead in its tracks as organisms stop putting their effort into adapting to their environment as a whole, and put most of their energy into trying to survive the chaos unleashed by the newcomers.

It’s the same way in societies, when diversity strikes. Diversity is genocide. Once it hits, the possibility of a shared culture (outside of news-entertainment media and political loyalty) is gone. While the citizens now become easier to control, that does not last. Instead, they require more rules and more police, because they no longer have a values system that suggests they don’t engage in lowest common denominator, convenience-oriented behavior.

Mr Piening’s angst about integration comes as Germany is undergoing a period of deep introspection about its identity.

President Christian Wulff said recently: “Islam is part of Germany.”

That prompted Chancellor Angela Merkel to say that “multiculti” – she used the slightly disparaging term for multiculturalism – had “failed, utterly failed”.

On top of that, the best-selling non-fiction book in Germany since the war is a strong argument that Germany is destroying itself by immigration.

The book “Deutschland schafft sich ab” (Germany Does Itself In) is a rip-roaring success but it is hard to know how the complex idea of identity is playing out in German hearts. – BBC

The politically-conscious BBC does its best to downplay the fact that this issue is far from solved. In fact, it’s getting more contentious as Germans realize that Germany is going away, being dissolved, and will be replaced with a giant shopping mall culture like what we see in America. They will be Germans in law and language, but even those will then begin radical changes. Soon it will be Brazil or Mexico, in a land formerly German.

While the BBC attempts to cheerlead us into thinking that Germans are struggling to find their multicultural identity, and ultimately will triumph in accepting anyone and everyone to move into Germany, the reality is that blood is thicker than politics, and this issue will remain contentious. Didn’t we fight some wars over this? We’re still fighting them. One side demands its right to exist and not be assimilated, and the other insists that first side is “just ignorant and evil.”

When you tell someone there’s no possible legitimacy for their point of view, they stop expressing it. But they don’t stop thinking it. In fact, it’s more likely that they’ll simply polarize in the opposite direction, since you’ve told them that under no circumstances will you accept something they know to be true. The result is a further fragmentation of your society.

It’s not unthinkable then that diversity of any form — race/ethnicity, religion, philosophy, values, culture, language, customs, even social class or caste — creates a paranoid society: no one can talk about the elephant in the room. That surely spreads to other areas of discourse, and as Francis Fukuyama showed us in his groundbreaking The End of History and the Last Man, most of us in Western liberal democracies view ourselves as the ultimate evolution of society, which means that criticism of any of our founding myths becomes taboo.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

“The extent of the effect is shocking,” says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools, and it poses challenges to advocates on all sides of the issues. The study is already being cited by some conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to the nation’s social fabric. But with demographic trends already pushing the nation inexorably toward greater diversity, the real question may yet lie ahead: how to handle the unsettling social changes that Putnam’s research predicts. – Boston Globe

We like to think that if we desire peace, we can just command it. But that’s not going to the source of a lack of peace: people have different opinions, and to compromise them destroys them. The same is true of ethnic groups. If you combine them all into one, you destroy the ingredients. While our modern world loves compromise because it preserves convenience for the individual, the evidence suggests that compromise simply avoids facing the underlying reasons for conflict. So we’ll fight all our wars and social battles ad infinitum.

But we’re not going to get any honesty on this issue, because it’s so powerful. It’s a hot button issue ten thousand times more radiant than abortion or gun control, or even drug legalization. You just say a few words and you’ve polarized a room, which is convenient for liberal politicians. Liberalism is defined as opposition to what exists, and desire to use unproven “new ideas” instead, and so it benefits from having a discontent, neurotic voting caste who think they’re victims and the solution is to destroy the strong or the majority.

From the beginning of the Tea Party movement, the Left, its aiders and abettors at MSNBC, the NY Times and other reliable left of center propaganda venues, raised race as the driving force behind the movement, even though the evidence was never there. MSNBC even egregiously cut off a black protester’s head in a photograph of a man carrying a gun to a rally in order to discuss that anti-black racism was rearing its head in America.

But it got even more blatant when Congressmen Andre Carson and John Lewis and other Congressional Black Caucus members staged a walk through the Tea Party crowd in front of the capitol the day before the health care vote. They claimed they were threatened by a violent mob and were subjected to the vile N word slur fifteen times. With the unpopularity of the toxic health care bill that the majority of Americans did not want, the Democrats needed a November strategy. Neutralizing the growing Tea Party movement with charges of racism was clearly its post-health care reform vote priority.

What they did not expect was that new media would successfully challenge the propaganda of the old media and the Congressmen’s racial smear.

First, my $100,000 video challenge for any evidence of racism was met with crickets. The CBC, looking for a fight, and taking to the airwaves to accuse the Tea Party of racism made a 180 degree turn and went into hiding when challenged on the truthfulness of the outrageous allegations. From camera hogs to ostriches in snap of a finger.

When the media chose to ignore that Representatives Lewis and Carson’s story was falling apart, we dug deeper. We found four videos from the moment Rep. Carson claimed the racist Tea Party incident occurred. The four videos, which include audio, show beyond a reasonable doubt that the incident was a manufactured lie. That lie that was supposed to be the centerpiece in the Democratic strategy to destroy the Tea Party. The videos had been available on YouTube almost immediately after the incident occurred and could have been found by any reporter interested in investigating the truthfulness of Rep. Carson’s claim.

While the media ignored these newsworthy revelations, the CBC remained in hiding and ignored a letter in good faith from the Tea Party Federation repudiating all forms of racism, but also asking for the CBC’s help in investigating the Capitol Hill incident. The silence from the CBC was deafening. – Andrew Breitbart

When you can win an argument by calling someone a racist, why would you try to fix the situation? You want the sore to stay open, the wound to keep bleeding.

It’s not much different than how in various totalitarian republics you could accuse someone of breaking a political taboo, and have them hauled off to the gulag. See, there’s an official opinion whose line you must tow now, and those who want control benefit from that official opinion being crazy-insane-talk. The crazier is is, the harder they force it on you, to break your spirit and make you bow.

In the meantime, they’re using fear of being called a racist to allow them to import voters:

Berman said he believes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is a path to creating Democratic voters.

“There’s 25 million in the United States – you can’t listen to the 8 million to 12 million numbers that come out of Washington every day – you’re going to create an instant 25 million Democrats,” Berman said. – The Houston Chronicle

So let’s clarify that: “diversity” is a good-sounding code word for importing enough voters to gain control. One side of the political process is using diversity as a path to power. In the name of treating people well, they’re manipulating them and using them to manipulate others. A more corrupt, dishonest and subversive process is hard to imagine.

You can see from here the problem created by diversity. It becomes too powerful for people to leave alone. It’s like a room with crooks at each wall and a shotgun in the middle. Instantly a mad dash to get the weapon occurs. In the meantime, the pleasant-sounding idea of “diversity” actually means the production of a gray, cultureless and valueless group of people dependent on the government and the news-entertainment media for their surrogate “culture” of Hollywood memes and political dogma.

Diversity is genocide. It happens slowly, so we don’t think about it. The problem is not blacks, or whites, or any other ethnic group. It is diversity because diversity is fundamentally paradoxical and hides its corrupt intent behind nice concepts of universal rights and brotherly love. Evil would be too easy to avoid if it announced what it really was when it appeared. Instead, it’s just another easy thing to ignore that leaves political minefields for future generations.

Why diversity deconstructs society

From The Thinking Housewife:

I really enjoyed your post on race.

I think the people who complained about your post on rape statistics are missing the point. There are two basic groups in humanity: those who want to adapt to reality, and those who want all decisions to be subjective because they fear oversight.

Your average healthy person under normal circumstances marries someone like them, not just in race, but ethnicity, class/caste, values, intellience and health. The happiest couples I have seen are roughly matched in all of these areas.

The people who want reality to be subjective also want to harm those who have risen above the lowest common denominator of society, which we can see in the cities. This group is comprised of people who cannot readily control their urges, live for nothing larger than themselves, and wish to tear down anyone who isn’t like them. These people claim they bring progress, freedom, love, etc. but what they really bring is decay through the division of people.

It makes more sense for us to pay attention to natural divisions, and thus keep humanity together as a whole, than to break our society down into culture-less individuals who have no ideology or values system except “if it feels good, do it.” This is why race, chastity and many other things are important, and this is the fundamental split between conservatives and liberals: conservatives want to use time-honored methods of adapting to reality, and liberals view the only questions in life as social ones, and so say and do the “socially correct” things while completely ignoring their consequences in reality.

As we go on through our lifespan as a species, we need to ask ourselves what our actual goal is. Do we exist for ourselves as individuals only? If so, we become a rabble crowding into Wal-Mart for whatever’s on sale. Are we united by a sense of role, reverence, harmony, purpose and transcendental appreciation of the divinity of life? Then we truly have risen above our alleged monkey origins, and are ready (psychologically) to explore the stars. – “More Thoughts on Race,” The Thinking Housewife, December 20, 2010

Diversity of any kind — religious, ethnic/racial, values, culture, customs and even language — destroys a nation.

It forces the member groups to either assimilate into the majority, or define themselves as being not of the majority, creating resentment.

This in turn forces speech codes as the majority tries to cope with being the enemy, forcing self-hatred upon them.

The end result is resentment, but it’s not the fault of any group involved. The problem is diversity.

Diversity by its nature deconstructs the implicit consensus of civilization, a shared sense of values, heritage, language and culture. The result is that people cannot plan their actions knowing what will be rewarded and what will be censured. Chaos and retribution result.

If you want a healthy society, nurture consensus.

If you want to destroy your society, deconstruct consensus. Diversity is one helpful method.

What is a hipster?

Frequently on this blog we talk about how conservatism is an aggregate of working solutions to the problem of adaptation to our environment, and liberalism is an “ideological philosophy” meaning that it has one central point, equality of the individual.

Equality of the individual is a presumption that in reality leads to the idea that every lifestyle, every choice and every morality is equally valid. This causes social decay in that there is no longer a consensus of values that determines who gets punished and who gets rewarded. Instead, there’s a giant chaotic market in which some succeed and others don’t, usually depending on who gets caught.

One of the consequences of equality is the ego-centric individual, or those who want to look good in the mirror of social approbation. They want others to like them but since we’re all equal, they have to do it in trivial ways. Not through superior character, moral standing, decision-making, intellect, talent or ability, but through how unique and different they are from the mainstream.

The forefront of this movement is the hipster. Arising from the alternative rock scene of the early 1990s, hipsters were a rejection of societal norms in favor of social ones. Inextricably entwined with liberalism, hipsterism is about rejection of the majority and focus instead on how the individual as a person is able to socialize within the framework of cognitive dissonance, or explaining why they are civilization drop-outs who favor nothing but their own convenience.

But what is a hipster?

All hipsters play at being the inventors or first adopters of novelties: pride comes from knowing, and deciding, what’s cool in advance of the rest of the world. Yet the habits of hatred and accusation are endemic to hipsters because they feel the weakness of everyone’s position — including their own. Proving that someone is trying desperately to boost himself instantly undoes him as an opponent. He’s a fake, while you are a natural aristocrat of taste. That’s why “He’s not for real, he’s just a hipster” is a potent insult among all the people identifiable as hipsters themselves. – The Hipster in the Mirror, New York Times, November 12, 2010

The hipster, however, was someone else already. Specifically, he was a black subcultural figure of the late forties, best anatomized by Anatole Broyard in an essay for the Partisan Review called “A Portrait of the Hipster.” A decade later, the hipster had evolved into a white subcultural figure. This hipster—and the reference here is to Norman Mailer’s “The White Negro” essay for Dissent in 1957—was explicitly defined by the desire of a white avant-garde to disaffiliate itself from whiteness, with its stain of Eisenhower, the bomb, and the corporation, and achieve the “cool” knowledge and exoticized energy, lust, and violence of black Americans. (Hippie itself was originally an insulting diminutive of hipster, a jab at the sloppy kids who hung around North Beach or Greenwich Village after 1960 and didn’t care about jazz or poetry, only drugs and fun.)

The hipster, in both black and white incarnations, in his essence had been about superior knowledge—what Broyard called “a priorism.” He insisted that hipsterism was developed from a sense that minorities in America were subject to decisions made about their lives by conspiracies of power they could never possibly know. The hip reaction was to insist, purely symbolically, on forms of knowledge that they possessed before anyone else, indeed before the creation of positive knowledge—a priori. – What Was the Hipster?, New York Magazine, October 24, 2010

Ironically, no one hates hipsters as much as hipsters themselves, as illustrated by the Onion headline, Two Hipsters Angrily Call Each Other ‘Hipster’. This is because hipsterdom is all about appearing not to care (while caring deeply), nor identifying with any particular tribe (while effortlessly fitting in). Also, it’s important to know that before Caribou got big and won the Polaris Prize, he was called Manitoba. Obviously. – The backlash against hipsters has begun, The Globe and Mail, October 9, 2010

Ever since the Allies bombed the Axis into submission, Western civilization has had a succession of counter-culture movements that have energetically challenged the status quo. Each successive decade of the post-war era has seen it smash social standards, riot and fight to revolutionize every aspect of music, art, government and civil society.

But after punk was plasticized and hip hop lost its impetus for social change, all of the formerly dominant streams of “counter-culture” have merged together. Now, one mutating, trans-Atlantic melting pot of styles, tastes and behavior has come to define the generally indefinable idea of the “Hipster.”

An artificial appropriation of different styles from different eras, the hipster represents the end of Western civilization – a culture lost in the superficiality of its past and unable to create any new meaning. Not only is it unsustainable, it is suicidal. While previous youth movements have challenged the dysfunction and decadence of their elders, today we have the “hipster” – a youth subculture that mirrors the doomed shallowness of mainstream society. – Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization, AdBusters, July 29, 2008

Lysenkoism by social choice

The worst fate a civilization can face is to cut itself off from reality.

Sealed away from harmful facts, it swims in its own mind, nourished by wealth created in its past. Over time, the poisons build up and the delusion comes into collision — SMASH! — with reality and its unrelenting consistency. Then the civilization dies.

We like to think that with our technology and open society, we play by a different set of rules than people used in the past. We want to think this collision cannot happen to us.

To justify this, we create a mythos: the past was bad and brutal, but now we’re enlightened, and through the equality of all people, we are making as close to a Utopia as we can. And that’s what matters; everyone thinks they are taken care of.

No matter how “free” a society thinks it is, debunking its mythos will get you ostracized if not outright thrown in jail. There are practical taboos, and then there are taboos against attacking the core assumptions of that civilization.

In the modern west, our core assumption is equality:

  • All people are politically equal. This requires we assume they are all of equal abilities, because otherwise we’re letting incompetents vote and demand air time for their beliefs.
  • People are distinguished only by hard work and moral goodness (HW/MG). Since all people are assumed to be equal in ability, we must have some way to explain why some are promoted over others. So we invent the mythos of “hard work” and “moral goodness,” which generally translate into social factors like time spent at the office and socializing with others.
  • Anyone who has something not earned through “hard work” and “moral goodness” must have stolen it. If we’re all equal, and someone rises by some means other than HW/MG, then they must have done it by cheating.
  • In order to achieve moral goodness, we must remove those who do not have HW/MG. Since we are all already equal, the only anomalies are those who are evil, and we must destroy them.

In order to keep this mythos, we deny evolution. To read Darwinism correctly, all species are constantly struggling to reach a greater degree of adaptivity to their environment. That means that at every level, inequality exists.

If inequality does not exist, according to the laws of thermodynamics at least, then any sense of forward evolution stops. With all things equal, there is no need for change.

Our current mythos/taboo pair has us desiring that form of entropy: we want total equality, an end of history, and no further development (except our nifty technology, of course). No striving, and thus none of us have to ever feel like we came up short, at least in public.

This is why our taboo structure becomes so pervasive, and resembles other taboos from dying regimes:

It was due to Lysenko’s efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. Lysenko rose to dominance at a 1948 conference in Russia where he delivered a passionate address denouncing Mendelian thought as “reactionary and decadent” and declared such thinkers to be “enemies of the Soviet people” (Gardner 1957). He also announced that his speech had been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Scientists either groveled, writing public letters confessing the errors of their way and the righteousness of the wisdom of the Party, or they were dismissed. Some were sent to labor camps. Some were never heard from again.

Under Lysenko’s guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology. Science was practiced in the service of the State, or more precisely, in the service of ideology. The results were predictable: the steady deterioration of Soviet biology. Lysenko’s methods were not condemned by the Soviet scientific community until 1965, more than a decade after Stalin’s death. – Skeptic’s Dictionary

Modern humans like to think that the world is a series of external options. They don’t occur within us; they’re outside, and if we just demand the right one, we eliminate conflict and live without fear.

Part of that illusion is that idea that the past was brutal because it was externally brutal. Something happened to us that forced brutality on us, we reason, and so we’re just now escaping that brutal age.

We like to think we beat the brutality like an opponent in an arm wrestling match, like we beat the kings, Hitler, and Enron. After all, an external enemy is one you can fight once and defeat with force. An internal enemy is one you must constantly push back against with discipline.

Our Western Lysenkoism is that we deny any suspicion that equality is not a state of nature. We want to force everyone to be equal, and if that means we sacrifice our best, so be it! At least we’ll finally have peace.

The problem with Western Lysenkoism is that it denies evolution and Darwin as thoroughly as a religious fundamentalist. It manifests itself in the following ways:

  • It denies inherent differences between social classes.
  • It denies evolutionary differences between racial, ethnic and geographically isolated populations.
  • It denies the differences in ability and character between individuals, insisting instead that we’re all “equal.”
  • It denies our need to keep evolving by testing ourselves against our environment and finding optimal survival strategies.

We can see the results of Lysenkoism when we understand that our press is every bit as controlled as Soviet press during the Cold War.

Except that where the Soviets relied on centralized control, we rely on social pressures and media memes (passed down by entertainers from the social elites with whom they consort) to shame people into denying the taboo and accepting our mythos:

The problem is that there is no longer any source of objective and trusted information. In previous generations, Americans could turn to reliable sources of information, for example, reportage from newspapers, television, and radio news departments.

Too much information these days is tainted with an agenda, whether political, religious, economic, or some other. The influence of this information is so powerful that some people are believing and supporting policies that are not in their best interests. – “The (Mis) Information Age,” by Dr. Jim Taylor, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 13, 2010

When you think about it, the notion of “equality” means that we reverse direction in society: instead of finding a suitable target and working toward it, we turn to our people and poll them to see what they desire.

Since fear is stronger than a sense of desire for adventure, what most people want — and therefore what wins out — is escape from fear, material comforts, and a lack of accountability (which translates into a lack of social standards).

Our inverted society thinks backward. Instead of thinking what we should do, we think about what will be popular with other humans. By so doing, we deny the consequences of our actions as well as the biological and power-related origins of our desires.

  • Products reflect what the masses want to buy, and corporations do whatever is required to deliver those products at the lowest cost and highest margin.
  • Politicians promise whatever makes the most voters agree to put them into office, and only later think about whether that’s practical, which means that ideological hot buttons trump real issues.
  • Ideas that make people want to like the speaker become popular, and therefore drown out what may be scientifically or logically correct, because if people like your idea you prosper in wealth and friends.

We like to — in our mythos/taboo pair — blame large corporations, kings, governments and religions for our problems. One look at our media confirms that.

But as the list above illustrates, these social institutions are just doing the will of the people. With democracy and equality, the number of votes prevails.

That means that if you have 5 dumb people for every 1 smart one, the dumb people are going to win; this gives rise to very cynical people who pander to the dumb and make themselves rich, passing on the cost to the rest of us.

The notion the dumb people like is that we’re all equal. But the cost multiplies.

A small but influential group of economists and educators is pushing another pathway: for some students, no college at all. It’s time, they say, to develop credible alternatives for students unlikely to be successful pursuing a higher degree, or who may not be ready to do so.

“It is true that we need more nanosurgeons than we did 10 to 15 years ago,” said Professor Vedder, founder of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, a research nonprofit in Washington. “But the numbers are still relatively small compared to the numbers of nurses’ aides we’re going to need. We will need hundreds of thousands of them over the next decade.” – “Plan B: Skip College,” by Jacques Steinberg, The New York Times, May 14, 2010

What is the cost to you if too many people go to college? After all, we like to think that the choices others make do not effect us, unless they directly change our course through life. What they do in their bedroom, on their computer, or at college shouldn’t affect us, right?

Except:

  1. High school degrees are now worthless. To get everyone to go to college, you need to dumb the material down so that more can do well at it. Your HS diploma now says: “Bill showed up for four years.”
  2. Affirmative action. In order to boost people found in smaller percentages on our campuses, we dumb down the entry requirements. “Even though Jake got a 950 on his SAT, he can go to Harvard.”
  3. Grade inflation. Once they get to college, you can’t have 2/3 of them fail, so you need to dumb down the coursework to the point where a college degree is only marginally more useful than an HS degree. “We wanted Suzy to feel on par with her classmates, so the lowest anyone can get is a B.”
  4. Politicization. Because grades are now mostly arbitrary, the process invites abuse. “If you want an A in English Literature with Dr. McGillicuddy, you’d better write about feminist theories of hermeneutics.”
  5. Lack of real world skills and context. To make people pass, they drop out the hard stuff, like broad surveys and specific abilities. “The staff decided it’s too hard to code up a parser on a 64k Apple II, so we’re going to start you off on Logo for Windows 7.”

This is the price you pay: over two generations, a college degree becomes next-to-worthless.

What’s another cost to our Western Lysenkoism? We can’t talk about certain topics honestly, which then infects our science with “politically correct” (more accurately: socially correct) memes and illusions:

What Eia had done, was to first interview the Norwegian social scientists on issues like sexual orientation, gender roles, violence, education and race, which are heavily politicized in the Norwegian science community. Then he translated the interviews into English and took them to well-known British and American scientists like Robert Plomin, Steven Pinker, Anne Campbell, Simon Baron-Cohen, Richard Lippa, David Buss, and others, and got their comments. To say that the American and British scientists were surprised by what they heard, is an understatement.

In Norway, the social sciences have been more dominated by ideology and fear of biology than in perhaps any other country.

But science started to suffer. With so much easy money, few wanted to study the hard sciences. And the social sciences suffered in another way: The ties with the government became too tight, and created a culture where controversial issues, and tough discussions were avoided. Too critical, and you could risk getting no more money. – “Norway: Brainwashed Science on TV Creates Storm,” by Bjorn Vassnes, European Union of Science Journalists’ Associations, April 26, 2010

Science is corrupted the same way governments, corporations, kings and religions are: through the will of the people.

If the majority wants to buy into an illusion, scientists get grant money for supporting that illusion. They come up with research that cherry-picks data, considers some of the factors, tweaks definitions, etc. to disguise the truth and instead promote this happy idea that lots of people want to buy into. And then those scientists can send their kids to college.

As modern people, we are in denial of the corrupting force of Western Lysenkoism.

When we cannot talk honestly about a topic, we have no hope of fixing problems associated with it.

Even more, we corrupt our own standards of communication to work around socially-inconvenient truths and replace them with lies. This lowers the standard of our communication as a whole, leading us to become a society of simplistic thinkers.

Our Western Lysenkoism originates in our history: in 1789 with the French Revolution, our states decided that it was time to leave the “organic state” behind. The organic state was ruled by aristocracy, or a group of its wisest people, and was united by heritage, language, customs, culture and values.

We threw all that out, and replaced it with the “nation-state,” or a geographically-convenient grouping formed for the purposes of retaining political power. The nation-state is a “proposition nation,” meaning that it is united by a political concept such as equality.

This is why we say liberalism is organized around a single clear principle (equality) where conservatism is an aggregate, formed of all things that believe in a single type of result (the organic state) without being as specific about it. Conservatism is a direction to explore, liberalism is a demand for a certain principle to rule over all others.

But what are the problems of the proposition nation?

Why did ethnic groups need their own states? Mainly because the ethnic group that captures the state favors its own and disfavors others, even if the state’s rhetoric declares the theoretical equality under the law of all ethnic groups. That an ethnic group that captures the state will favor its own seems blatantly obvious, but is worth emphasizing in this age of phony equality.

The classic example of a multi-ethnic state run by one ethnic group that favored itself is Austria-Hungary. It is no accident that nationalist agitators were prominent in this state. The Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians, etc., saw themselves as discriminated against by the ruling German-speakers, their languages relegated to second- or third-class status, and state positions reserved for the ruling ethnic group. Zionism arose in Austria-Hungary as well, with rising nationalist sentiment convincing Herzl that the solution to the “Jewish problem” lay in statehood, so that the Jews could become a nation like any other.

Besides ethnic groups favoring their own through the machinery of the state, some groups will almost always prosper more than others; here again Austria-Hungary exemplifies this, as the Germans were arguably smarter and harder working than most of the other ethnic groups in the empire, another factor in their domination. Human biodiversity, along with geography and demography, predict that this will happen. For these reasons, it would have been impossible for, say, the Croatians ever to dominate Austria-Hungary.

The idea of a proposition nation, namely that a people or peoples will be unified in a nation without regard to ethnicity, using either a shared history, or geography, or adherence to some abstract principle, turns the notion of a traditional nation-state on its head. Real nationalism arose out of historical circumstances and was based on the historical experience of clashing ethnic groups, whereas propositional nationalism shares more in common with doctrines like socialism or fascism, in which some abstract principle, whether state ownership of “the means of production” (a quaint relic from the age of factories) or corporatism are given excessive importance, to the exclusion of all other social factors. – “The Proposition Nation is No Nation”, Dennis Mangan, May 14, 2010

The healthiest societies have the highest degree of consensus, and so require the least amount of enforcement.

If we want a healthy nation, the people should be of similar intelligence, ethnic background, religious or philosophical ideals, and through years of natural selection while the civilization was forming, similar outlook and abilities.

That’s how to have a happy society. You can, instead, choose to take the moral superiority path and jam everyone in together, then ignore widespread misery as is the case in the USA and Europe.

The Times’s story includes a graphic breakdown of police stops by race: blacks made up 55 percent of all stops in 2009, though they’re only 23 percent of the city’s population; whites accounted for 10 percent of all stops, though they’re 35 percent of the city’s population; Hispanics made up 32 percent of all stops, though 28 percent of the population, and Asians, 3 percent of all stops and 12 percent of the population. The article details a host of other police actions by specific racial numbers, including arrests, frisks, and use of force.

Here are the crime data that the Times doesn’t want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. Any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black than by a white perpetrator—a fact that would have been useful to include in the Times’s lead, which stated that “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped.” These crime data are not some artifact that the police devise out of their skewed racial mindset. They are what the victims of those crimes—the vast majority of whom are minority themselves—report to the police. – “Distorting the Truth About Crime and Race,” by Heather Macdonald, City Journal, May 14, 2010

The system isn’t working.

The system isn’t working for blacks. They’re still mostly poor, and white people don’t talk to them honestly for fear of government or social retribution. Even more, the denial of racial differences or the simple fact that each ethnic group wants to rule itself rings hollow, and spreads discontent.

This discontent doesn’t voice itself clearly. It’s snide, like people saying “diversity is our strength” after another interracial crime incident. It’s smug, like millions of people voting for Barack Obama to have a black guy in an office previously held only by white guys.

The system isn’t working for whites.

  • They feel targeted for having wealth and power, yet when they try to share, they get only resentment because sharing power from a superior position affirms that position and makes the lower sharer resentful.
  • They must deny the reality of crime and race.
  • They can’t talk about many topics in public and their science, to curry votes and purchases, turns against truth.
  • They lose a society where a standard could be upheld as “this is how we do things.” Who’s we, white woman? We is an open category, so there’s no standard, which translates into standards plummeting to a lowest common denominator.
  • Creation of a political elite based on racial pity and having the “right” political views.
  • The aforementioned dumbing down of education, science and the professions.

The system is not working for blacks, or for whites. And as it decays, it’s not working for anyone else, either.

We have developed an insidious Lysenkoism that denies biological differences, in the name of preserving equality, and so we alienate ourselves from reality.

President Obama is not helping bring this nation together. In fact, he seems to be doing everything he can to further divide this country. Every time he speaks, he divides us by race, by class, by occupation, and by income. He constantly refers to people in certain occupations–all private industry occupations–as greedy, corrupt, and un-American. His favorite targets right now are bankers and insurance company executives. But if he hasn’t gotten to your industry yet, he will. Unless you’re a government bureaucrat. The president has never met a bureaucrat he didn’t like.

Obama and his minions openly mock hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Americans by calling them names, describing them as racists, bigots, homophobes, extremists, hate-mongers, and teabaggers (the name for a sexual act that Obama himself used to smear Tea Party protestors). – “Splitting America at its seams,” by Chuck Hustmyre, The Hayride, May 13, 2010

We can’t blame this on Obama. He has no choice but to split because the historical onus is upon him to acknowledge what is inherently split: this country is divided between conservatives and liberals because we desire different kinds of societies.

Liberals want the Western Lysenkoism of equality.

Conservatives want an organic society, with different degrees of acknowledgment of this fact.

Instead of trying to compromise these incompatible views, we should recognize where we are incompatible and come up with a way for each group to have its own place.

Conservatives and liberals clash most clearly on the idea of who defines the social order both share. Liberals want an inclusive order, meaning that all behaviors are tolerated. Conservatives want an exclusive order in which standards are set, and those who meet or exceed them are guaranteed reward.

These are mutually incompatible.

Liberal: Why do you oppose legalizing gay marriage, drug use, Wikileaks and miscegenation?

Conservative: Those violate the standards of the community I want to live in. I’m wiling to cede certain rights in exchange for a guarantee of stable, productive behavior. I know what I need to do in life, and I don’t want it interrupted by social decay.

Liberal: But now you’re oppressing me, by telling me that I can’t do these things.

Conservative: But if we legalize those things, you’ll be oppressing me, by denying me the society I want to live in.

Liberals tend to use a passive aggressive argument, which is to assume that everything should be okay, and then to attack anyone who wants to ban anything, calling them “intolerant”, “elitist” or “racist.”

But the fact is that the two groups want different types of civilizations, and to give either group the upper hand violates the needs of the other.

Right now, the liberals have the upper hand, as they have for the most party since 1789. We fought several huge wars over this debacle, including WWI and WWII. Liberals won all of them.

The problem for liberals is that conservatives are not born, they are made. A child grows up innocent of all things until about fourth grade, when they start paying attention to the opinions others have of them. This “social consciousness” becomes increasingly important through college, and then vanishes as they have to face the world on their own. As they head into their late 20s, most of them are becoming far more conservative.

First, they’ve observed how sensible it is to group with people like you in most ways. When you seek a mate, you want someone roughly like you for maximum compatibility and if you have kids, their health. When you seek a house, you want people around you who share your standards, and have a similar way of thinking so they can appreciate why those standards are important.

Finally, the newly-minted conservative starts noticing how most of the problems in the world are caused by a single factor: human incompetence.

Not government, not religion, not kings, not corporations; the incompetence of individuals. The daily bungling, inability to defer desires until after the work is done, refusal to save money or stop drinking, or whatever. The entropy of humanity is its lack of self-discipline and planning for the future.

At this point, the conservative starts seeing herself as under assault from a large group of people who will without being productive demand more resources, siphoning them away from being put to good use generating more wealth, knowledge or stability. Humanity can become a cancer on itself.

This is why conservatives, even those who are unaware they are conservative, start adopting a new strategy — we might call this a counterpart or opposite to the Western Lysenkoism, which is denial of inherent inequality. The conservative strategy is not recognition of inequality, but demand for the ability for the exceptional to exist.

Here it is, in meme form:

Not in our town here.

Gay marriage, drugs, incest, casual sex, miscegenation, wife beating? Great, legalize it in California. But not here. We don’t presume to tell you what to do, but in return, you must not presume to tell us what to do, here in our town.

Although this strategy has been present for years, it’s time we start articulating it clealry and loudly: you can do what you want over there, but don’t make rules for me here. We are incompatible.

If conservatives start doing this, we can begin to erode the chaos wrought on our society by the Western Lysenkoism that denies the inherent inequality of nature.

The pathology of a mob

What are the most lethal predators we face? Not the lion, great white shark and tiger — the scary ones are the ones we cannot see.

Disease infects silently and we cannot see it or fight it. We have to trust our immune systems and hope for the best.

The most lethal diseases are the ones that use our own defenses against us. Cancer; Alzheimer’s; AIDS. They subvert us from within.

In the same way, all civilizations face a process called Crowdism by which they are turned against themselves. Crowdism is always fatal; or at least, it converts prosperous, free societies into disorganized kleptocratic ones.

The basic principle of Crowdism is that the selfishness of the individual, in demanding that as few restrictions as possible be placed upon them, causes them to bond together with others and demand this right for all.

The people drawn to this type of activity are those who are dissatisfied and feel out of step with social standards. They are not extreme political ideologues, but rather extreme personal activists: they want no oversight of what they do and for society to continue to tolerate them despite their deviation from its values or the values of its majority.

They demand total “equality” and total “freedom” so that no matter how much they fail, they are accepted and others are obligated to take care of them, provide them services and eventually, provide them sustenance. Whether they’re useful in any capacity or not is beside the point, because we’re not talking in the cold cause/effect logic of getting things done here. We’re talking morality.

Crowdists work by assimilation because their demands are open-ended. This is the strength of the Crowd: it is not an individual demanding subsidized unlimited freedom, but a Crowd of people demanding it for everyone. This kind of passive-aggressive ploy makes it difficult to counterattack, because then they respond with, “Well why don’t you want ‘freedom’ for everyone?”

Their definition of freedom is flawed because it, too, is open-ended. Freedom from what? From everything. From anyone who knows better.

Their assimilation proceeds because like any other mob, they wander around looking for people who don’t agree. They then challenge these people and when said people don’t agree with their demands, the mob claims it is the victim, and attacks viciously.

With this process Crowdists destroy dissenters in layers, starting with the most committed to opposition, and moving outward toward those who simply do not fully agree with the Crowd.

Although all liberal movements are Crowdist, not all Crowdists are liberals. Crowdism can infest any society, any group, and any religion or philosophy. As soon as one person starts pandering to the open-ended abyss of what people want to think and want to hear, instead of what is realistic, Crowdism takes over and assimilates or destroys everyone involved.

Lies that Crowdists tell:

  • There is no objective standard or reality. No one can tell us what is right, what is moral, or what we share as a group. In fact, destroy all groups.
  • We are free to do whatever we want with our own bodies and in our own homes. They ignore the fact that these actions have consequences.
  • Anyone who opposes us does it out of a personal desire to control us. This is pure passive-aggression: the “only” reason someone could object is personal and bad, they tell us.
  • Since we are all equal, if anyone has more they got it by evil means. This is what psychologists call “compensation” or “cognitive dissonance”: if a disparity exists, it must be unfair on a moral level.

Of course, to anyone who thinks on these topics for more than twenty seconds, the above are clearly logical fallacies.

  • The judgment “there is no objective reality or objective standards” is in itself is an objective standard.
  • All actions, even personal ones, have consequences; they just may not be visible immediately. If you start a swinger’s club, sexual morality in your community starts to erode. If you preach communism, others convert. If you take drugs, you are inattentive. They believe that the world owes them a total subsidy such that they are not responsible for interacting with it. They just close the front door and since they can’t see it, it’s not there. They cannot see the future consequences of their actions, so those must not exist either.
  • They assume that any demand always has the same origin, which is mathematically impossible. I may put out a fire by accident, or to save a child, or because I’m warm. Even worse, they insist that such things are “personal,” which is psychological projection because since their own jihad is about personal un-accountability, they assume others are doing the same.
  • They assume rather than prove equality not just of political representation, but of ability. This is social logic, or how you make friends, by treating them as if everyone has the same abilities. In reality, that’s not the case and not acknowledging it means you put people in situations they are not prepared for.

We like to think that we enlightened monkeys take a look at life, think really hard, and then come up with an ideology to match.

The converse is true. We do what we want, then invent some voodoo word salad to justify it.

For this reason, it is important to carefully analyze the implications of human behaviors more than the ideologies behind them as worded.

In a mob, no individual stands out, so the group can make a demand without fear of reprisal. They feel united against anyone who is not in the mob, and know that if that person fights back, the mob will crush them.

Any person who has power will avoid a mob. They have other means of getting done what they need getting done. If there is something objectionable, they change it by building something better that naturally subverts the bad thing. They worry less about the little things in life and focus more on the big picture.

Mobs by the fact of their existence are ready for something to set them off. They don’t care how important it is. They are united by a negative philosophy, which is that if they’re all equal, and yet they’re not succeeding as well as others, there must be a Satan somewhere that’s oppressing them. As a result, mobs go in search of enemies, not solutions.

It is an ever-opening battlefield: the demand for everything to be assimilated into that which is convenient for the low self-esteem individual. And this is what bonds them together. They are underconfident about their abilities, their place in life, or even their ability to socialize. So they join with others who are having a tough time, and together they agree that it’s not their fault and they deserve more. Strength of numbers does the rest.

They fool most people by advancing simple but baffling concepts: all choices are personal (consequences outside the individual don’t exist). Objective reality and standards don’t exist. There is no purpose to life or any particular society. We’re all the same inside and deserve the same things.

But these ideas form a cancer which destroys society from within. When everyone is equal, no one strives. When we cannot criticize bad behavior even if it’s personal, bad behavior becomes the norm. When we pander to pleasant illusions and not reality, our society becomes delusional. When we give up on the idea of purpose, adaptation to objective reality, or a consensus of shared values, our society falls apart.

They hide behind whatever pretense they can find and tell us we are the ignorant ones for insisting the world exists and has consistent rules, and that our ancestors figured those rules out and built a great society out of them. They hate the idea that any one person can be smarter or more disciplined than another, so in place of intelligence, wisdom and discipline they substitute “working hard” or spending more time in offices.

It is hard to assault the passive-aggressive unless you invert their attack. Practice saying “It is impossible to say that there is no such thing as objective truth without in so doing presupposing objective criteria for the application of terms.”

Practice pointing out that if we have equality, we have entropy, because there’s no point in striving for anything but personal gratification. And how many videogames can you play, porns can you watch, bongs can you smoke, sluts can you poke, etc. before you zone out from boredom? We as individuals are not as fascinating as we’d like to think.

Also remind them that they are the ultimate in shallowness. With equality comes no distinction between people but the shallow: how you dress, what memes you repeat, what you own and your position in a social group. These things have zero importance in reality except that other humans react to them, in an increasing cycle the more Crowdism gains hold.

Do you ever wonder why our world is awash in hipsters, salesmen, actors, prostitutes and vagrants, but it’s hard to find an honest person? Our political system disincentivizes honesty and using cause/effect logic to find solutions to problems.

Above I said that all liberals are Crowdists, but not all Crowdists are liberals. The difference in mentality between liberal and conservative underlies the distinction between Crowdism and that which came before it.

Originally, of course, politics was just discussion of issues. There were not two sides because it was assumed that everyone worked within the system. With the rise of liberalism and the revolution in France, we got the left/right divide.

  • The left thinks in terms of the impact of any action on the individual, and therefore values equality, social/moral pressures over financial or military ones, and demanding that exceptions define the rule.
  • The right thinks in terms of the impact of any action on society as an organic whole, and therefore thinks of it in a biological metaphor, in terms of consequences, overall health, discipline and organizing principle intact.

A few insights into this division:

In a new study, UNL researchers measured both liberals’ and conservatives’ reaction to “gaze cues” — a person’s tendency to shift attention in a direction consistent with another person’s eye movements, even if it’s irrelevant to their current task — and found big differences between the two groups.

Liberals responded strongly to the prompts, consistently moving their attention in the direction suggested to them by a face on a computer screen. Conservatives, on the other hand, did not. – Science Daily

Conservatives respond to nature, an organic whole, a collective, an abstract purpose or system of law.

Liberals respond to social cues and their effect on the individual.

This is why we say that Conservatism isn’t an ideology so much as an aggregate; it is a collection of ideas that have been time-proven through history.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is an ideology because it has one central concept (equality/freedom) around which every other aspect of liberal thought is organized.

“Political conservatives envision a world without God in which baser human impulses go unchecked, social institutions (marriage, government, family) fall apart and chaos ensues,” says McAdams. Liberals, on the other hand, envision a world without God as barren, lifeless, devoid of color and reasons to live.

“Liberals see their faith as something that fills them up and, without it, they conjure up metaphors of emptiness, depletion and scarcity,” McAdams said. “While conservatives worry about societal collapse, liberals worry about a world without deep feelings and intense experiences.” – Science Daily

Liberals worry about personal experience, or feelings, emotions, perceptions and appearance. They are not worried about consequences.

Conservatives worry about us getting deluded inside our big heads and therefore paying too much attention to the shallow surface, thus causing future consequences that break the design of our society or our selves.

When you see an expert destroy a fourteen story building with just two pounds of explosives by putting those explosives in key structural load-bearing points, you can see why the conservative fears are justified.

Haidt argues that human morality is a cultural construction built on top of — and constrained by — a small set of evolved psychological systems. He presents evidence that political liberals rely primarily on two of these systems, involving emotional sensitivities to harm and fairness. Conservatives, however, construct their moral understandings on those two systems plus three others, which involve emotional sensitivities to in-group boundaries, authority and spiritual purity. “We all start off with the same evolved moral capacities,” says Haidt, “but then we each learn only a subset of the available human virtues and values. We often end up demonizing people with different political ideologies because of our inability to appreciate the moral motives operating on the other side of a conflict.” – Science Daily

Liberals are worried about personal harm and personal fairness.

Conservatives interpret harm and fairness in the organic sense of the whole, which also requires sensitivity to allegiance to consensus (in-group boundaries), structure (authority) and design (spiritual purity, also an analogue for philosophical unity)

We can show how history split in 1789, with one side staying true to what was known, and the other side launching themselves into the shallow ideology of Crowdism by which they demand feelings, appearances, pandering and illusions for each individual but demand also to ignore consequences to the whole (and by extension, future individuals).

  • Traditionalism: decentralization of power yet centralization of role around a series of ongoing ideals and observations about what functionally adapts to reality in human life, thus keeping an abstract consensus without needing a centralized power structure.
  • Liberalism: decentralization through lack of consensus, attention to appearance and social/moral factors while ignoring consequences not yet seen, and maintaining strong control by making social disorder so profound that the only salvation is to have strong allies among those who have already become socially successful.

One concept the citizens of democracies haven’t awakened to yet: for any kind of actual freedom, you need a functional society, and that requires trampling on some individual rights to keep the social order from breaking.

Another: equality of ability is a myth. But the greatest equality may be that each person has a position which fits their abilities, so they are never made to feel insufficient by tackling things that are beyond them or below them.

Yet another: if we focus on appearance, and ignore consequences, we create a downward spiral. Focus on appearance makes us delusional; it also makes us fear consequence-based logic, like conservatives use. So we demonize it. That leaves us with no solution except more appearance-based logic, and we demand more and more of it as it kills us.

Like a cancer, this illogic slowly assimilates our good cells and replaces them with zombie cells that know nothing but their own need, and so they eat recklessly, eating away the structure of the civilization until all turns equally into wreckage.

“Naming the Jew” and why you won’t see it here

The right-wing provides the only realistic view of politics, and the spectra of right from paleoconservative onwards to Plato provides the best hope for humanity, in my view.

However, this forces you in with some strange bedfellows. As Francis Fukuyama pointed out, liberal democracy dominates the globe, and so ended history. The struggle between overlords (kings) and peasants is over and the peasants won, owing to superior numbers.

As a result, the only real opposition in this world at all comes from the right, who by insisting on time-honored tradition uphold the values of not just the past, but a better form of a society, one where in total contrast to all liberal societies, the equality of all people is not presupposed.

In a rightist society, no one is equal — it’s an insult, like saying you are mediocre. People instead serve roles. As a result, these societies are neither individualist nor collectivist, but organic. They are people cooperating at a level of such maturity that each person finds a role they can serve and stays there. If that’s king, great; if it’s peasant, ditto.

Every other political system on earth is shaped around a single premise: the presumed equality of all people. Through mission creep this moves from political equality to assumed equality of ability. This idea underlies all liberal philosophies, and modern “conservative” (or neoconservative) ideals as well.

Because the right stands out as the only real opposition, it is a target of both (a) people who want to discredit it and (b) power hungry people, often those who have nothing to offer but outrage. There are also a number of good people getting confused by by of those other groups (which often share members).

Many of the latter, who are angry at life and want politics to be an outlet, participate in an odious practice of “naming the Jew” as a way of shifting blame. Some have asked in email why we here, who face all truths as much as possible, do not “name the Jew.”

In fact, some won’t stay out of my email box about it and while that behavior may be annoying, they have a point: only a coward backs down from a legitimate challenge to his beliefs. If the beliefs are good, they should be defended.

First, a definition: “naming the Jew” practice of using someone’s Jewish heritage, culture or religion to debunk their arguments or make them a target of aggression. It used to be a right-wing thing, but now that the left hates Israel for not assuming Palestinians are equal, it’s also left-wing.

Here is why this blog and this writer will never “name the Jew”:

  1. Blame is unhealthy. Diagnostics are good. We like to figure out where we went wrong. But we steer this ship. Just because the kid next door tells us a lie doesn’t mean it’s his fault we follow it. We are responsible for figuring out our own course. Among us there are good and bad people. Bad people love lies. Lies help them cover up their own bad deeds. Good people should hate lies. If an outsider tells a lie, and bad people repeat it and give him money for his products based on that lie, the problem is those bad people, not the outsider. Even more, focusing our blame on outsiders means we do not clean our own house. For every second we spend talking about how someone oppressed us, how someone screwed us, and how someone else did this to us, we experience a corresponding drop in our own power. We sabotage ourselves by undermining our faith in ourselves. Even if the outsider were to blame, and he is not, we make ourselves weak by not insisting that the solution lies within ourselves. If we feel the power to fix ourselves in our own hands, we have power to do what must be done. If we insist that this power lies in the hands of others, we feel helpless and convince ourselves to fail.
  2. Blaming Jewish people or Judaism is not accurate. What destroyed the West was class revolt. Peasants, who breed without concern for the future, breed themselves above carrying capacity for their land, then starve and blame their leaders. They overthrow those leaders and set up governments based on equality, because if you’re at the bottom of the totem pole of life you (a) want to rise but (b) lack the initiative to do so and therefore (c) your only option is to pull others down to your level. These societies re-create themselves with a founding mythos of revolution: anyone with more than The People, by nature of us all being equal not just in political validity but in ability, must have stolen it to rise above that equal state. Therefore, we band together and crush the rich, crush the authority figures, and crush anyone who tells us that we should do anything other than exactly what we desire right now. That is what did the West in. If — and I don’t endorse this view — a bunch of outsiders showed up to profit from your decline, it isn’t their fault. It’s just good business. Europeans, you defeated yourselves. Or rather: your peasants did.
  3. We share a struggle. This was the point that spurred me to write this column. Israelis, as a high-IQ population surrounded by a lower-IQ ethnically Syrian/Jordanian/Egyptian of “Palestinians,” are trying to find a way to say, “We need this space for ourselves, and we will not feel guilty about excluding you even though we are wealthier.” The West can’t seem to turn down immigrants of any kind because we feel so horribly guilty that we invented many things, built strong economies, and have high productivity. We forget that we forged these things in blood and horror from a relatively low-resource landscape, and that people arrived in Europe by fleeing from easier living areas where disorder was higher. Israelis did the same thing, as did Jews, who left Israel after political disorder, passed through Turkey, Armenia and Eastern Europe, and finally arrived in Western Europe. Both Europeans and Jews have risen above the rest by going to a different part of the world and making themselves useful despite misfortune. Now both of us are being told we cannot have our societies for ourselves, and that we must admit anyone who shows up with an excuse. Both Jews and Europeans are trying to find plausible arguments for their own nationalism, cultural preservation and even more, the ability to set standards for themselves according to their own values system. Together we are the vanguard of a conservative revolution.

Some will immediately begin countering my bullet points above with lits of crimes by Jews or faults of Judaism. While those may be true, the question is what made us go wrong, and the answer is that even if Jews or Judaism were a contributing factor, they were not the cause. Banishing them is not the solution. It may be an incidental factor, in which Europeans decide they want to live by European idealist values systems, in which physicalist Judaism may be out of place, and vice-versa. But that’s what occurs after a solution, and by pretending that naming the Jew is our solution, we blind ourselves to the solutions we really need to wake up and see.

The problem of tolerance

When we have individual fears, we wish the world went easier on us.

When confronted with authority, we want to find some kind of rule that means it cannot get to us, or at least that we make it really hard.

Around 1789, we started banding together and overthrowing authority. Their rule: form a hierarchy to achieve an abstract goal. Our rule: all people are equal, and people are the goal, so destroy authority.

We trashed culture, religion, aristocracy, then even the idea of government itself. Surely now we are free.

But there’s a problem. The more we smash authority and enforce tolerance, the more disorder spreads.

It turns out that not everyone is nice. Our thought progression:

  1. The rich are bad. The rich are the bad.
  2. The bad are the rich. The rich are the only bad.
  3. We remove the rich; therefore, we’ve removed the bad.
  4. Oh wait, the bad exists among We The People, too.

We have rich people and governments as a way of distinguishing leaders. If enough people bought your product, it must be good and you must be smart. If enough people voted for you, you must be doing something that’s right.

Alternatively, we could just pick our best people to rule, and we’d have to con them into it because they and only they will view it as the most serious and hardest job on earth, but that’s another topic for another day.

But instead, we’re focused on defending ourselves against The System. As individuals, we want rules that ensure we are beyond its reach. We want to weaken it however we can. It is beyond us that others will abuse these same freedoms and in the ensuing chaos, produce a worse form of social system.

There are many ways this phenomenon manifests:

  • Crime. We pad our courts with rules, laws, appeals, technicalities and other means to protect us if we’re unjustly accused, which happens very rarely. What happens all the time however is career criminals, pedophiles and scammers exploiting these rules.
  • Screening. First airplanes, now maybe trains and buses: we will experience the radar scan and pat-down. This means that every single person undergoes a humiliating procedure and thousands of hours are wasted, instead of doing what smarter groups do: find those likely to commit the crime and pull them out. But we can’t do that; it’s not humanistic, or fair, or equal. Human rights must trump logic, because we as individuals fear being on the wrong side of authority.
  • Schools. Your child gets a terrible education in public school because (a) the course work is dumbed down so no one feels left out and (b) the school refuses to kick out troublemakers, violent kids, and special education cases who cannot “mainstream” with an ordinary class and always require more attention, yet will never use that education. We all suffer so the few unproductive ones have rights.
  • Customer service. At your favorite stores, people do dumb things all the time, and some are understandable. Sometimes, the bottle of apple juice just slips out of the fingers and breaks. Other times, it’s people moving slowly, scamming the customer service returns, vandalizing packages (including the odious habit of leaving frozen goods in random aisles when they decide they no longer want to buy them) and obstructing aisles. The few again ruin the experience for the many.

Our modern world is addicted to this human rights view of reality because all of our political systems are based on it. After all, if you were oppressed and the kings were bad news, you need to have reached a Utopian state after you killed those kings. But we haven’t. So the denial spreads, and we insist further on the human rights of all people, especially to sabotage the rest of us with their selfish and delusional behavior.

Stars

Some random musings of mine, as well as an amalgamation of thoughts from various people I’ve met, read the work of, or just derived sentiment from.

Out there is a larger group. Everyone fits in, whether they’d like to or not, and isn’t liking something such a strange thing anyway?

I don’t know why people make such a big deal over it… maybe that sums up the entirety of my study in philology thus far.

Back on topic; interacting with this group is a piece of cake. You find a niche, and there’s one for everyone, and you let your actions, and the actions they beget, embroil the lives of everyone you meet (and some you don’t, who may affect the lives of some people they don’t meet, but you happen to meet) within a constantly rolling wheel of reactions.

That’s sort of a key point right there: reacting. We spend much of our lives, it would seem, reacting to the actions of others, and we’re so acute to this sensation that we structure a good portion of our thought around how to perform actions based solely on what we can only assume the reactions of others will be. If it’s not the reaction we hoped it to be? Reality loses definition, anger results; this is temporary for some, and more static for others.

Slightly related to this subject, I’ve always found it interesting how when I find myself in a meditative state during a long, quiet walk (feet patter, tip, tap, tip, tap) that my focus of the surrounding world becomes… clearer? No, that’s not quite it. Different, perhaps.

All of the above can become dull to the young man’s mind, and we know how funny that mind can become when it is not entertained.

Growing up, such young men often fancy becoming a dissident of sorts, and vainly grasping for a sense of community that they plainly share with the entirety of their kindred. What truly bereaves such a man is at this point unrefined, and often the result of a rather wistful, dreamy child.

Dissident movements often contain two types of persons: the young men who thrash about as mentioned above, and those who group together for warmth. You know those people, who spend the entirety of their lives reconciling the fact that they just never quite grasped the opportunities that others so easily found in their laps. They gather in pictures, around the most outspoken of the least outspoken, the self-styled poets, the closest thing to a burning star in their humid firmament.

The young men mentioned before don’t find much to offer from such types, poet or no. Too uneven, outwardly boring yet inwardly spontaneous, they tear from side to side seeking challenge, inquiry, and experience, yet not quite knowing that’s what they’d like. That just doesn’t do for the dissidents. To be a dissident, you have to be content with your region. The interrogators and ships at storm that these young men are, they are initially a quaint curiosity to dissidents, but they lose their luster quickly, and are relegated to an appendix to the major events and characters in the dissidents’ calender.

Initially, to such stormy souls, this can be very disappointing. “Where to pour my energy?” They wonder, under a melancholy night sky. “Where and who holds my purpose, my desire, MY path?” To some, this question can become rather harrowing. At its peak, the shadow of this question seems to forebode an exile to the status of a wanderer. It removes hope, and it challenges all energies, purposes, desires, and paths. It especially challenges those now meddlesome people, with their squabbling over liking now being revealed as humorous, and very arbitrary.

…And suddenly, the young man looks up from the grassy fields he lays in to ponder such things and sees stars. They shine brightly, and stars… stars shine forever. For decades upon decades. Like the cold wind that blows by will return eternally cold, bitter, harsh, and refreshing. Like leaves make the same sound as that wind caresses them. Like the grass will eternally be cool and wet after a light rain. These things don’t need to belong, they are, and are to be experienced.

There is no need to be content now, young men. Seize the side of your ships in the storm, and ride the waters like the wind rides the plains. This conflict that encapsulates and pervades the human mind is eternal, like the stars, and to you explorers it is your livelihood.


Living in a fantasy

Most people do not understand that they live at the receiving end of an image of reality constructed by others for their own gain.

Marketers and journalists want to sell you an interesting story and advertising to match. That is how they feed their families. They have no responsibility to truth, only to create media that many want to consume.

Social groups, friends and random people want you to like them. They need you to approve of what they’re doing, or at least not stop them, so they are experts at being sociable.

Going to a socialist economy doesn’t stop this consumerism/socialization nexus — in fact, it makes it worse, because dividing up the wealth of a nation equally makes it very hard for that wealth to be in any kind of motion. That means that starting a business, rock band, or even building an attachment onto your house is a big deal, so you need to have friends in high places. This is why the black market is the most powerful aspect of socialist societies.

You wouldn’t trust a flu virus if it said, “I’m here to help,” so why do you trust people paid to create entertainment, salesmen and “friends” who are there to use you for their own game? Well, it’s easier that way. And “everyone else” seems to be doing it.

Yet we trust these people to tell us the “truth,” and if other people agree with them and either buy their product or repeat their meme, we assume their success is ordained by God:

Successive investments in Twitter have reportedly increased its value 33 percent, to $4 billion, while Zynga, creator of the popular Facebook game FarmVille, is worth more than $5 billion.

Google was willing to pay $6 billon for Groupon, an online coupon company that was valued at $1.35 billion only eight months ago. And Groupon was willing to reject the bid on Friday evening, presumably because it could sell for even more money later.

Less than a decade after the dot-com bust taught Wall Street and Silicon Valley investors that what goes up does not keep going up forever, a growing number of entrepreneurs and a few venture capitalists are beginning to wonder if investments in tech start-ups are headed toward another big bust. – NYT

The last time we had a dot-com bubble, in the 1990s, people paid absurd amounts of money to dead-end businesses with only a “shred of an idea,” as the article above says, and they all made imaginary money until they stopped. Fifteen years later, our economy is in a recession because we falsely over-valued our currency, thinking that all those billions for dot-coms were real money like the money that comes from manufacturing and agriculture.

We confuse the appearance of wealth with wealth itself, like we confuse appearance with actual cause, or the underlying reality. Here’s another great example:

But in a Thursday interview with Fox Business, Paul said the idea of prosecuting Assange crosses the line.

“In a free society we’re supposed to know the truth,” Paul said. “In a society where truth becomes treason, then we’re in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it.” – Politico

We like Ron Paul around here because he’s a man of his word. But he’s pandering to the crowd here. On a practical level, we know that while government is corrupt, it is corrupt because the vast majority of people are easy to fool — just create that fantasy world of image through media, products and social factors like memes.

They buy into it, and think it’s reality, and then they demand you make it so. That never works, so we must always have a Hitler/Saddam evil Satan figure that we blame for our unrealistic expectations going awry.

Does the American public read Machiavelli? Or de Toqueville? If they did, could they understand it? No: they have no idea what diplomacy is, or why behind the scenes there’s scheming and manipulation. They have glossed over how even Wikileaks releases show that this scheming and manipulation saved us numerous times from disaster.

No, the American public does not understand the subtleties of political manipulation, or of hiding information from a public that cannot and will not understand it. It only understands life like a TV show, or a video game, or even a morality play from a dumbed-down version of religion for a crowd gathered under a circus tent.

So we keep sorting our world into good and bad, making false images stand for reality, hoping we can smash down the bad-images fast enough that we get to heaven, ideological purity or at least easy retirement with 500 channels of cable:

Every zombie war is a war of attrition. It’s always a numbers game. And it’s more repetitive than complex. In other words, zombie killing is philosophically similar to reading and deleting 400 work e-mails on a Monday morning or filling out paperwork that only generates more paperwork, or following Twitter gossip out of obligation, or performing tedious tasks in which the only true risk is being consumed by the avalanche. The principle downside to any zombie attack is that the zombies will never stop coming; the principle downside to life is that you will be never be finished with whatever it is you do. – NYT

A zombie is a former creature — like a cancer cell on an organismal level, or a virus given its own life-support system — that has ceased responding to reality and instead proceeds dumbly, maniacally, singularly toward completing its task. Programmers will talk about “zombie threads” that stopped participating in useful computing long ago, but keep churning, eating up resources, trying to do whatever their long-irrelevant instructions tell them to do. Zombie-ism is what happens when an autonomous agent disconnects from reality.

What makes us modern zombies is our insistence that every part of our society exist on a granular level, that of the individual. With equality comes an end to hierarchy, and now, we’re all taking everything personally. Nothing is about role, or position in a functional sense; it’s about who we are, our lifestyles, and how much wealth we have.

Older societies used wealth and power as a means to an end. We use them as a means to our individual selves, and making ourselves look good to others. We have made a tool, a reality of appearance, and now it has changed how we view the world.

What would a larger pattern do to us? We’d have to surrender our “whatever I want right now is what’s most important” outlook. But in exchange, we’d gain a sense of how little our individual positions reflect who we are, and from that, we’d learn again to approach our world with reverence, hope and love.

Our individual positions after all may not reflect us at all, but may be cosmically determined:

Johnson, who specializes in the study of complexity, is one of a new breed of physicists turning their analytical acumen away from subatomic particles and toward a bewildering array of more immediate human problems, from traffic management to urban planning. It turns out that subatomic particles and people are not that different, he explains. “The properties of individual electrons have been known for many years, but when they get together as a group they do bizarre things”—much like stock traders, who have more in common with quarks and gluons than you might think.

Johnson and Spagat expected that the success of the attacks, measured in the number of people killed, would cluster around a certain figure: There would be a few small attacks and a few large ones as outliers on either end, but most attacks would pile up in the middle. Visually, that distribution forms a bell curve, a shape that represents everything from height (some very short people, some very tall, most American men about 5’10”) to rolls of the dice (the occasional 2 or 12, but a lot of 6s, 7s, and 8s). Bell curves are called normal distribution curves because this is how we expect the world to work much of the time. But the Colombia graph looked completely different. When the researchers plotted the number of attacks along the y (vertical) axis and people killed along the x (horizontal) axis, the result was a line that plunged down and then levelled off. At the top were lots of tiny attacks; at the bottom were a handful of huge ones.

That pattern, known as a power law curve, is an extremely common one in math. It describes a progression in which the value of a variable (in this case, the number of casualties) is always ramped up or down by the same exponent, or power, as in: two to the power of two (2 x 2) equals four, three to the power of two (3 x 3) equals nine, four to the power of two (4 x 4) equals 16, and so on….[power laws] show up often in everyday situations, from income distribution (billions of people living on a few dollars a day, a handful of multibillionaires) to the weather (lots of small storms, just a few hurricane Katrinas).

With the U.S. invasion of Iraq in full swing, he and his collaborators had an obvious second test. In 2005, using data gleaned from sources like the Iraq Body Count project and iCasualties, a Web site that tracks U.S. military deaths, they crunched the numbers on the size and frequency of attacks by Iraqi insurgents. Not only did the data fit a power curve, but the shape of that curve was nearly identical to the one describing the Colombian conflict. – Discover

We are logical particles, reacting to the same world and the same conditions, so we have responses that fit within similar patterns; even more, there is a Bell Curve that determines our attributes from height to intelligence. There is a larger order here at work than us.

But that fact scares the hell out of us, because it means that we are not in control, and being in control is the only way we make life tangible enough to offset our fear of insignificance, error and death. So we make a false world, populate it with symbols, and use it to declare ourselves important, even if we end up kings on a crumbling throne surrounded by wasteland.