I just finished a semester of the most manipulative propaganda conceivable.
As a medical student, I have encountered the American education machine and its propaganda on both an academic and a personal level. Not only was it vile in its attempts to shape young minds toward a clear agenda, but it was also corrupt in its tendency to omit, downplay or ignore information that did not fit with the narrative. On top of that, the academic staff ferreted out and persecuted dissenters, so that the only option for a student who wanted to continue being a student was to nod, smile and (gulp) wolf it down.
One of our teachers literally kills whitey for a living. He is some ethics guy who is involved in determining who gets transplants. He said that they quantified it and in a nutshell, younger white men tend to have the best survival with organ transplants (they give the most organ transplants, being responsible, healthy and altruistic). That was unfair, he thought, so he decided to move for them to give more womens and browns organs even though over all more humans die with that strategy.
He, an old white man, literally said “given a choice between max survival rates and killing whitey, I prefer to kill whitey.” He said this to his students. Then he watched, to see if anyone objected. And while they tell us that our grades are standardized, we are no fools. Any portion of our testing that is not pure Scantron can be graded “subjectively,” which is a euphemism for “truth optional.” Assignments can be lost. And teachers have optional participation grades they can use to drop us a half-letter if we are politically non-compliant.
One of the questions on this teacher’s exam was the following almost verbatim:
“One individual you know is more or less conservative and thinks very negatively of the ideas of social justice and human equality. He considers his position quite reasonable and well thought out. When he discusses his ideas with others, he accuses them of hidden agendas and bias. Which Freudian defense mechanism is he relying on?”
The correct answer is “projection,” of course. That isn’t even how projection works, but what do they care? They just have to push their agenda, truth is a distant second. The point is to — like their Soviet forebears — categorize anything but liberal thought as a mental health disorder. They want to grind it into our heads like everything else they teach us so that in our overworked future lives, it becomes a knee-jerk reaction. Liberal good, anything else ignorant, insane and cowardly.
Throughout the course I was sickened by the overt Marxism with which we were being indoctrinated. All printed materials referred to the default doctor or patient as she/her, and we were taught that the fundamental principle of insurance is wealth redistribution. That’s funny, my good friend out here worked in insurance and he was under the impression it was to spread risk, not to effect communism. The point is for the teachers to spin everything toward a liberal explanation, so that our only way of understanding the world is liberal theory, so that when we encounter the unknown, we project liberal theory onto it.
By the time I am a practicing doctor, these ideas will be the party line in public. They are no longer the domain of 60s radicals, but mainstream, with government, academia, media and celebrities arm-in-arm singing them out as a kind of People’s Liberation Chorus. My fellow classmates, who lack my introspective tendencies and background in theory other than liberalism, will accept these ideas wholesale. And why should they not? In the nu-America, you get ahead by conforming not to culture, but ideology.
This country is turning into Brezhnevland.
During our next term, we have a class with a very substantial lab component. Prior terms had us assigned to lab groups, but this term we are advised to freely choose our own groups, yay! Sort of. Each group of eight must contain at least three women and be “ethnically diverse.” That is the requirement imposed on us by the teachers; if we do not conform, we fail and end up with a vast amount of student loan debt with nothing to show for it.
The insidious nature of this requirement hides behind the illusion of choice. Normally, teachers would choose the groups themselves and ensure that the right distribution of minorities and women was present in each. But that does not teach us the real lesson they want us to learn, does it? The lesson is: conform to the politically correct, or you will fail in life. That is why they demanded that we choose the group. Education consists of repeated behaviors that become instinct. They are training our instincts to always select diverse groups, without even thinking about it.
It also allows them to claim that the students “chose” to be diverse. They can show their little Potemkin village to visitors, who will notice that each group is appropriately diverse. In their minds, they will make a little check-mark on their list: diversity is working OK here. The students will infer that this was their own choice, and then justify it by claiming it was what they wanted all along, because their only other choice is to admit they were forced to do it. They are too proud fo that, and their ego will lead them to claim the ideas of another as their own.
The awards for the groups actually rate on level of diversity. They are literally offering feelgoods for us to offer proof that their retarded idea actually works, and that diverse lab groups are more effective than homogenous lab groups. Never mind that if we are actually all equal, a diverse group will work just as well as a non-diverse group and vice-versa. They know that diversity is a failure. They want to force us to accept it anyway, to humble ourselves and by giving up on our pride in independent thinking, to become good little ideological robots like they are.
In Brezhnevland, everyone will be judged by degree of ideological conformity. Today it is diversity; tomorrow it is diversity and promiscuity; next it will be killing off dissidents, or anything else they need. They want nerve endings they can touch with an electrode and see them twitch the same way every time. That way, when liberal high command makes an order, all of us obey exactly as intended. Power will be absolute. And, we will be extensively trained in the most important art, which is “not noticing” where the narrative fails.
They taught us extensively about the horrors of “paternalism,” where “doctor knows best” and the doctors simply followed their judgment and ignored silly patient nonsense. They used as a prime example some 1960s case where a 16-year-old girl got on oral birth control without telling her parents and the doctor let her dad know, saying he “feared for her moral health.”
Being a slut is a human right! You should be able to let all the boys you want raw dog you without daddy even getting to know, much less disapprove!
So from there on, we were taught how we shouldn’t presume our way is best, and how we should ask the patient what they think is wrong and what they think the treatment ought to be and go from there. Equality means that every individual is right, which is a backdoor way of insisting that there is no right and wrong because only the ideology and the narrative are true. Everything else is reality-optional.
We had to watch a video where a Hmong family wanted to try a tribal rite to cure a six-year-old girl’s heart defect by tying a white ribbon around her wrist while people bowed and chanted in front of a tree. We were taught to pretend that their silly nonsense is working, and simultaneously apply medical science to actually cure the problem. Then to let them attribute their kid’s survival to the plant worship. Never, ever tell them that their idea is retarded. Always affirm the delusion, unless of course it contradicts the narrative.
This is where the Potemkin village nature of our society reveals itself: there are always two layers, a public image surface and an underlying agenda of control. On the surface, we accept and even praise the magic ritual and diversity. Underneath, the real goal is to make everyone into robots so that our overlords can rule with an iron hand. They do not want thought and they do not care about competence. They want obedience. That is all their ideology amounts to, because all the “altruistic” stuff is just the surface layer. The real goal is total control.
Later in the class, they taught us a story about the origins of the Hippocratic oath. Hippocrates oversaw a group which intermixed healing arts with religious ideas. They took an oath of secrecy to never reveal anything about how the body actually works to their patients, ever. It sounds odd, but seeing how medicine has become corrupted in the hands of academia, I’m beginning to think it was a great idea.
“I can breathe again! How’d you do it, doc?”
“Magic! And if you don’t comply perfectly, the gods will put a curse on you!”
Looking at the behavior of my teachers and fellow students, Hippocrates makes more sense to me. Knowledge should go only to those who have the wisdom to use it. My teachers, as leftist zombies who are clearly in denial of history and common sense, are bending “the truth” to fit their own narrative. They are moral degenerates who do not deserve positions of authority. Hippocrates would have told them that healing was magic and sent them back to the only job appropriate for people that callow, manipulative and foolish, which is picking crops in the fields. They are white but they should be slaves.
I think Hippocrates was a swell guy and we should bring back more of his ideas. Maybe start by removing Google and Wikipedia from general public access. Maybe start teaching good info only in Latin and never allow commoners to learn it. The ancients were right again, and when we arrogantly assume we can do better, we end up with forced diversity and magic rituals being validated in the name of medicine, all so that nu-Brezhnevland can keep its citizens under control.
Nature, “red in tooth and claw” (but not destructive like Reds), often shocks us because its most beautiful creatures are violent and seemingly cruel predators. For example, the elegant raptor that glides so gracefully on the wind will with almost demonic glee seize a small cute mouse and tear it apart.
Similarly, the common house cat — a creature beloved by many — will toy with a mouse with a sadistic disregard for pain as it essentially tortures it to death and then delightedly munches on its innards. (Housecats are also a plague on nature if not kept indoors, where they do the same thing to songbirds at an environmentally destructive rate.)
We the creatures insulated (mostly) from the burden of fearing predators find it hard to reconcile these two extremes. How do we accept the fact that our kind and loving moggy takes pleasure in destroying other creatures? We can rationalize it with the need to eat alone, but clearly the cat seeks this as a form of purpose as well, halfway between the equivalent human concepts for “career” and “pleasure.”
Humans are not totally immune to predation. Within our own species we have predators, not only the obvious killers, thieves and rapists but the legions of scam artists, con men, speed traps, and government monopolies on issuing penalties for financial reward. Yet this is more parasitism, or organisms which live off of others through indirect means, than outright predation.
Often since I was a young child I have thought of the benefits of predation. Yes, evil and violent creatures exist in the woods; but among us walk people who are idiots, liars and incompetents. As a child walking through the woods after dark, I was wary; others were not, either from the oblivion of the idiot or the arrogance of the deceiver. Is it not a higher form of justice — “good to the good, and bad to the bad” as Plato suggests — that fools and liars be consumed by creatures who need nutrition?
Think back to your third-grade class or equivalent. Undoubtedly some of those children were well-intentioned and well-behaved. Others may have been more rebellious, but those split into two camps which take a little mental work to differentiate. The first group are those of obvious ill-intent, who like future con-men have no concern for the consequences of their actions. The others are simply out of place, acting out, confused and surly, but have some degree of moral culpability and at least feel remorse for their acts and try to rebalance themselves. Most of those come from broken homes or other dubious family situations.
But then there are the kids who are either oblivious to the consequences of their actions (idiots) or too absorbed in themselves to care about any impact beyond personal satiation (liars, thieves). How is it anything but genius that nature designs snares for such people to destroy them in as horrific a way as possible? Through their pain, they serve the order of nature… as nature’s equivalent of a cheeseburger.
If anything, the West suffers from too much survival. We have ensured that “anyone” can live a life of relative leisure in exchange for 40-80 hours of labor a week. But this group of anyones includes the idiots, liars and thieves. Because of our fear of power itself, including leadership which is power applied toward non-personal goals, we resist any attempt to sort people based on who they are. And from that, we rage against nature and try to keep it from carrying off the unfit, who then — because they have no purpose other than self-gratification — become parasites on society as a whole.
All that we fear — the sharks, snakes, bears and wolves — help us by removing those who are clueless or parasitic. If we had a just king, he would rule for the most part by some form of eugenics which promotes the best people and ushers the worst off to exile or doom. Our ability to survive as a group will doom that group to being absorbed within the vast number of useless people it cultivates. Nature may seem cruel, but this Darwinism that destroys the people who will be our doom seems in the end analysis to be a greater form of mercy.
Idiots possess favorite tactics that allow them to insert questions or objections that are structurally nonsense but parse as language, requiring smart people to pause and spend time analyzing the insanity before realizing it is, on a logical level, nothing but babble.
One of their favorite gambits is to insist that reality does not exist. They will assert that what are in fact distinctions of degree and conform to a hierarchical sense are in fact options of a flat hierarchy in a lateral sense. That is, if you say that option A is better than option B, they’ll respond with:
“It’s not better or worse! It’s just different!”
The first person to encounter this insanity probably stood there with mouth agape for a few moments instead of doing what they should have done, which is to behead the speaker. However, since we live in “civilized” modern times, we can no longer simply remove idiots but have to instead find some way of debunking their arguments even though the arguments are contentless.
Idiots tend to follow the modern path of being narcissistic. To a narcissist, everything in the world is directed at them because their self is all they know of the universe. This has a downside: when a restrictive rule applies, they want to be the exception to whom the law does not apply; when a rule encourages a standard of behavior, they think of themselves as the exception where application of the rule would be unfair, no matter how tenuous a scenario they must construct in their minds to justify that.
A sensible way to view reality is that it exists and we each perceive it in different degrees. These different degrees are not separate realities or lifestyle choices, but a reflection of ability. We then make choices based on those perceptions. The people with the best minds and spirits tend to make more elevated choices than the others, in addition to perceiving reality to a higher degree and thus being more realistic.
There is only one reality, and different cultures describe it in different ways and perceive it in different degrees, much like individual humans perceive truth and reality to different degrees. This does not mean that most people are “wrong,” only that they are partially correct. An intelligent person will choose the highest degree of realism and the highest degree of behavior to match, but idiots hate this and think it is discriminatory.
If you wonder why so much of modern chatter in the media and among people on the street is about what conservatives call “relativism,” you now know: idiots fear reality and most of all are terrified by the idea that someone might know more than them. In their dim-witted way, they think the best response is to obliterate the idea of reality itself, throwing society into chaos. If you cannot discretely behead them, at least do your best to publicly mock and shame them so they take their idiocy to the basement with their video game consoles, fast food and mainstream entertainment.
Currently a debate rages among our dim-witted fellow egalitarian voters about whether a woman has a right not to be raped.
One side argues that women should not ‘have to’ use precautions against rape. In this view, rape simply should not occur and the responsibility for that lies with men, not with women in taking precautions against date rape drugs, intoxication, provocative attire or other issues.
“Anything that reduces sexual violence from happening is a good thing,” Tracey Vitchers, Chair of the Board at Students Active For Ending Rape (SAFER) told Mashable. “But at the end of the day, we need to think about why we put the responsibility of preventing assault on women instead of men. The problem isn’t whether a woman knows there are roofies in her drink, but the fact that someone put roofies in her drink.”
The other perspective is that, while in an ideal world we would simply tell men not to rape and be done with it, in every conceivable reality we have experienced, some men do rape, and thus women should take precautions.
This debate echoes the controversy that instigated the “slutwalks” where women dress skimpily and march around in the SWPL capitals of the world but somehow avoid doing so in the third world or internal third world ghettos of the USA. The controversial comments were kindly-intended advice:
“You know, I think we’re beating around the bush here,” Michael Sanguinetti began, blandly enough, as he addressed the 10 students who turned up for the pep talk. Then he said: “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised.”
His advice echoed traditional wisdom for women worried about rape: don’t get too intoxicated to run; don’t wear high heels or tight clothing, for the same reason. Don’t dress or look like a prostitute. Never leave the room and go somewhere out of sight with a man you do not know well. But now, the surging proleocracy of feminists view such practical advice as an imposition on their will, and an insulting restriction on their ability to do whatever they want.
Luckily, past examples and present events show us exactly where to stand on this issue. Instead of relying on society to provide for you, since such a thing is not only logistically impossible but unlikely, stand by a single rule that works in every situation no matter how complex: self-preservation. Act for your own best interests and expect other people to be dishonest, self-deceiving, corrupt, opportunistic and short-sighted, all of which are conditions that lend themselves to act like theft, assault, rape and graft.
The first example comes to us from a devastating war a century ago:
Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan wanted to warn Americans not to travel aboard British ships. But President Woodrow Wilson, writes Windchy, “said that American citizens had a right to travel on belligerent ships with impunity, even within a war zone,” a defiance of common sense and an absurd interpretation of international law.
President Wilson: Our ships have a right to dress like sluts even within a known torpedo rape zone.
Sec State: But there’s a high risk that, if we float high-value targets within range of their submarines in a war zone, they’ll torpedo the ships.
President Wilson: Don’t you dare limit my potential, you cisgendered eye-rapist! This isn’t about practicality, it’s about what ought to be.
We all know what happened. Making yourself bait and having no defenses against the obvious attack means that you run the risk that someone will call your bluff. And they did, and 1,500 corpses in the surf later, people started to figure out that screaming about your rights against hostile parties is a futile and self-destructive act.
Maybe the feminists will wake up. Another historical event might wake them up as well, which is the hacking of celebrity nudes and their widespread distribution through the lonely masturbators network of basement-dwelling neckbeards. While the real lesson here might be “never trust an Apple product,” another lesson on our point here is that if you make yourself a victim, someone will victimize you.
The same standard applies to women out on the town. If you dress like a prostitute and get blackout drunk, you are low-hanging fruit for any sexual abuser. They will be looking for such low hanging fruit because it is easy. You have just made their job a lot easier.
You can rant and hashtag about how you should be able to do whatever you want, but that’s a red herring. The fact is that the world has never been a safe place and never will be. You need to defend yourself at all times, including against those who say the terrifying words “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
This lesson will fall unheard upon the ears of modern women. They have been deceived by a media that panders to them on the surface, but underneath that surface, manipulates them to be slaves. They slave away in offices and miss out on the best years of their life with family, and they slave away at sex busily giving up their intimacy with anonymous penis donors, losing out on their chance for actual bonding. They slave away at finding the right products because they do not have any culture to give them direction. And they are brainwashed to consider themselves brave for defiantly defending their “right” to their own slavery. No wonder past generations treated women like large children, because intellectually, they must be so.
Conventional wisdom, science and ancient religion seem to agree on the necessity for humans to overcome their lower impulses and discipline their minds in order to become functional as human beings.
Our lowest impulses are formed of innate motivations to point us toward activities we need to do, like eating, fighting, fleeing and reproduction. Once civilization is formed however these become misdirected because those basic needs are taken care of.
Under a health system of self-rule, we reward those who rise above the basic impulse and instead use self-discipline to make their acts deliberate. These people use an understanding of cause->effect logic to use experience to predict how different actions will change a situation, and thus to choose actions by past results.
For 6,000 years or more the rules of humanity have not changed because not only are humans unchanged, but the situation for intelligent animals is universal. Our animal selves must be controlled by our wisdom, and our emotions must correspond to logic and study of cause->effect. Without that, we act on impulse without a plan and while we seem to do so with impunity thanks to the wealth of civilization, the resulting chaos ultimately dooms that civilization.
Esoteric Social Darwinism holds that we refine ourselves in such a way and thus become competent to make decisions about our future. Until we do that, we are headed downward away from higher civilization toward the anarchy of the wild. However, a paradox exists within this idea, which is that only a few tend to rise above. Those are then ruled by the rest, who herd together into a mob and use their superior numbers to enforce a “no standards” standard of behavior.
Democracy provides an opposite to esoteric Social Darwinism. Democracy is exoteric, or based on entry alone. If you are human, you are equal, and therefore you are presumed to be able to make decisions; this entire line of thought is a ruse to disguise the impulse toward the standard of no standards. With equality we remove the incentive to rise above impulse and thus encourage people to be more perverse, selfish, manipulative, passive-aggressive, cruel, oafish, pretentious and ever other mental disorder of humanity.
What happens with democracy is that instead of society being led by those who have overcome their human pitfalls, society expands to fit all of those who have not. The result is the ultimate inversion of both natural selection and any sense of religious or philosophical “overcoming” of the animal half of our condition: society favors the lower over the higher and quickly abolishes itself. All societies die this way. Tail wags dog.
“There’s strength in numbers.” Among humans, the belief that membership in a group conveys lesser culpability finds great popularity from age to age. People like to believe that when the teacher leaves the room, and children revert to the ways of their simian ancestors, guilt attaches to no one.
Similarly when adults bind together into groups and commit some act, whether hanging a witch or voting themselves benefits from the public trust, they treasure their anonymity in the group. This enables people to watch the disastrous results of whatever they have done unfold and transfer the blame from themselves to the group. Invariably, someone else can take the blame: the plan was good, but executed poorly, they say; alternatively, the plan was ruined by the opposition. This allows people to choose a delusional idea, take no blame for it, and transfer blame of its failure to another.
No society allows individual members to do this for individual acts. If in clearing your field you create a fire that burns down half of the village, you will be held accountable. Something in us holds us back from the same kind of blame if a group decides that burning a field is necessary, and then this fire consumes the village. The group lends an atmosphere of legitimacy through universal consent, and besides, when enough people are involved, it becomes difficult to punish them all because they hold a numerical plurality. For example, a burned village may need them to rebuild.
I propose a different view for humanity: those who join any kind of Crowd, mob, herd, trend or party inherit the whole of the blame individually. Those who form the group from which someone pulled the trigger each get treated as if they individually fired the kill shot. With this mentality, people will think harder about what they do in groups since safety in numbers will not save them. That in turn will have them see what has been concealed for so long: the decision to join the mob is in itself a moral act from which all consequences are inherited by the individual.
Imagine the consequences for democracy. Those who vote for a party become accountable for fixing the mistakes it makes, instead of being able to blame the party, its opposition and “the voters” as a generalized bloc. Those who join in a group screaming for some entitlement or another get treated as if they alone caused the bad consequences of that action. The jeering mob around the guillotine are not seen as participants or supporters, but murderers each.
Until humanity adopts this (opposite) rule to its socially instinctive maxim of safety in numbers, most human actions will continue to be drive-by events. Voting requires a half-hour of time and can then be forgotten; public protest is a weekend activity for bored and purposeless people. These popular pursuits allow people to inject a momentary opinion to signal their intentions to others and then skip out on the consequences. With a change in our outlook, they would for the first time feel the fear of being wrong that any honest decision-maker does, and their trivial and often vandalistic participation would take on a new weight for them.
Popularity contests like democracy, consumerism and socializing itself create a moral proxy that shields the individual from the consequences of his actions. Where human society went wrong can be seen in that very fact: we have separated cause from effect with a layer of social sentiment and individual freedom. Predictably, our decision-making and leadership have faltered after that point because a Crowd appears, frenzies around whatever idea flatters it the most, and then forces it upon the rest, retreating long before the consequences are seen. Something to put on humanity’s tombstone, at least.
We are our minds. Or rather, we perceive ourselves and our world through our minds, so what we see of reality is composed of thought-objects. The sensible among us try to get as close to approximating reality with those as possible.
In our minds, a force greater than gravity exists and holds sway. That force is denial. Denial enables us to selectively “switch off” awareness of certain facts or issues. When we go into denial, we sacrifice long-term truth that upsets us for short-term function. Originally, this helped us survive traumatic events by taking them “one day at a time.” Now it helps us ignore the consequences of our actions because these results are too complex and upsetting for us.
The problem with denial arose when we domesticated it. As with most of our instincts, denial becomes a problem after we civilize it and socialize it. At that point, it becomes a choice; because we are equal, it becomes an equal choice, meaning that any option is as good as any other. This equality of choices convinces us that consequences are irrelevant and the choice itself is all that matters, as if it were symbolic and not part of reality. People see no harm in going into denial because to them it is a choice that is part of their personal appearance and emotional reaction to life, not an act which can cause bad things to happen.
As a result, in humanity for at least the past 2,000 years denial has become the primary civil right. You can choose to pay attention to reality or you can withdraw and no one will criticize you for it. In order to protect this right, our ancestors forced upon us the principle of democracy so that an ignorant and denial-laden opinion would be equal to an informed one. This way, denial received the protection of law and culture. In the witless wisdom of those who are tired, they believed that this would “eliminate conflict” and allow us to live together. Instead, it has allowed the insanity of denial to dominate over all else.
Denial gains its power from the fact that truth is like a string of firecrackers. Once one goes, the rest go. The first firecracker is denial itself. Once that explodes, people have to start noticing other things. Like how our society has degenerated in power. How the West is committing suicide. How we are surrounded by ugliness and hidden enemies. How our viewpoints are based in assumptions that conceal socially unacceptable truths. How most people care about nothing beyond themselves. How “last times” it all feels, this suicide of the West.
Although many insist that the task before us is mystifyingly difficult, I suggest that most tasks are in actuality exactly as they appear. We must deny denial and put an emphasis on truth-based and reality-based thinking. The wise, savvy moderns will respond with “Well who decides?” and the answer is those who are competent to, which excludes anyone who responds with that question. The point is not method, it is goal. Our goal is truth, health, wisdom and perpetuity. We find that by denying denial and focusing on reality.
Some say that the decay has not reached critical levels, so we should do nothing. Others say it hovers at the brink of disaster and we must do anything that might have a chance of working now. Some want cadres; others want newspapers; others want to drop out and run away to some obscure place to go it alone.
All of these strategies have been tried before. Cadres lead to Revolutions which then swing leftward as a means of motivating their participants. Newspapers have a chance at influence, but the audience wants lies and thus will bypass a truthful newspaper. Dropping out and going it alone makes you inconsequential and low-hanging fruit for others to victimize, because they outnumber you and always will.
No, sadly, there is no escape from The Civilization Game. Once your species goes down this path you must either master it or be destroyed by it. When the game gains enough momentum, it has the potential to thoroughly vandalize our planet in addition to bringing all of us down with it. Like technology, it is a force that must be controlled by the intelligent or it will dominant the rest and become a force for its own interest at the expense of ours.
So what can we, the people who realize that humanity has been running itself off a cliff for centuries or longer, do? In the grand tradition of self-help writing, I present to you a 12-step plan:
- Know what you want.
In my experience, the biggest glitch here is that people invent new philosophies to personally express themselves and ignore the real need, which is a philosophy of a new civilization. Humanity has been in decline for at least 2,000 years but more likely longer. The ancient Greeks spoke of a Golden Age long before their present time, and they were probably right. That Golden Age got invaded by individualism and millennia later we are the fallout. We can either head back toward the Golden Age or continue down our path to decline; nothing is static. That is what our philosophy needs to address. So far most people are more focused on differentiating themselves and their writings as product that addressing a real need, primping and preening like pretentious animals. My suggestion is a simple one: pick a philosophy that (a) focuses on results, not feelings/desires and (b) has a transcendental aspect to it. That philosophy will fall under the banner of conservatism not because liberalism rejects #b as most of your “wise” pundits would say, but because liberalism rejects #a. A fully-developed philosophy will be simple and consistent, showing a relationship between each of its parts to a primary goal, which I would describe as “human thriving” in the context of an ascendant civilization.
- Find a way to communicate this
Most writing serves to put people into a loop. It inflames emotions, then offers a partial solution, which keeps those emotions inflamed so people need more of that type of writing. This creates a product cycle for the writer. Political writing is almost universally of this type. It never quite expresses a lack of doubt, so people rely on it and then encounter doubt and come running back to it. Some of the best writing for actual communication is literature because it shows exactly what it means in concrete terms with characters who represent parts of the subconscious mind of each of its readers. Other types of learning like philosophy manage precision and broach difficult topics but exists in a form that few can read or understand; this would be useful for informing your leadership caste, but not much else. This leads us back to a means of communication. I suggest it take the form of narrative, whether political or fictional, and that it be in a form that could be spoken to others.
- Take back your social institutions
When you run away or apologize, you legitimize the complaints of those who oppose you. Our society includes every institution it needs to function but these have been infiltrated by reality-deniers. A sensible response is to counter-infiltrate which means joining them, gaining power, and then steering them toward a healthier direction. This healthier direction takes two forms: first, get issues on the table, which causes conflict to rise around them; second, focus on results-oriented plans which mirror the values you find that are eternal in the best of humanity. In politics, third parties fail unless they have warned of some great calamity and it has come to pass. In the meantime, allowing the existing parties to keep doing their thing is consent to what they will do. A better plan involves getting inside the gates of these glacial giants and subverting their bad ideas while replacing them with better ones. The Tea Party in the United States led the way here by forcing a results-oriented economic plan and traditional conservative values on an otherwise slumbering insider major party. Similar results can be achieved elsewhere by participating in and then converting these institutions to a more useful form.
- Destroy that which needs to be destroyed
The media will always be hostile to reality-based thinking because fantasy-based thinking makes for a better product. Who wants to hear about the difficult path of surrendering the ego and doing what is realistic, when there is ego-drama and other things that make people feel self-important to report about? Support piracy; come up with lawsuits; sabotage their displays; turn off televisions. Shut down the great zombie ritual by removing its ability to effectively do business.
Many of our people cannot hold a coherent thought and yet insist on intervening in public affairs. Their careers must be ruined by any means necessary. Dredge up any scandal, complain en masse, bring them down with legal means, smash them and leave them as a warning to others. The left uses this strategy to great effect and business responds. There is only one known way to stop a rioting mob and that is to pick those who are serving as leaders and destroy them.
- Create alternative activities
You are intending to replace a culture. It is a culture of consumerism, altruism and egalitarianism. You need activities which emphasize health in the opposite direction, which is results-oriented, masculine and hierarchical. Sports teams will not do this, nor will church charities, nor will video gaming. You need groups of people heading out into the countryside to do healthy things like orienteering/hiking, construction, hunting and exploring. You need people in town who are preserving culture, having heritage events, and socializing. Emphasizing practical learning of both liberal arts and technical backgrounds is important too. The left won by signaling status; these need to become your new status symbols.
- Conquer the two vital groups
Within your society, you must conquer two groups: the thinkers and the natural leaders (there is much overlap). Thinkers, which are the natural equivalent of what city people call “intellectuals” (a badge similar to owning a Mercedes-Benz), are those you can find who get to the core of a problem in a way that no one else understands. Natural leaders are those you find at every level of society who are able to organize responses to both daily events and emergencies. Every office has one person who keeps everyone together, every local PD has one cop who keeps the others on point, and every church or business has one person who knows how to do everything and gets to an expedient solution quickly. These groups need outreach on your terms. They need to be pushed to mock their old beliefs and accept new ones. Much of this process involves the production of written documents and artworks that they can understand.
- Gain critical mass
If the above happen, a critical mass will form where 2-5% of the population will agree and are motivated by a need to accomplish change. This group will then accomplish the work of infiltration by bringing up these ideas in public, taking over institutions, forming a product base for objects which reflect these ideas, and creating the basis of an alternative media. The Tea Party and Front National show the best possibility here. My suggestion is to be the non-ironic equivalent of “edgy,” or dangerous, unconquered, a wild terrain. People love new spaces to explore; it is hard-wired into our glorious simian heritage. Be the leather jacket rebels of the 1950s, the biker gangs of the 1960s, the punks of the 1970s, the survivalists of the 1980s. Push yourself onto society as a new idea that also touches something raw and essential inside of each one of us.
- Dominate through elections
The other side is always screwing up and the media covers for them. Begin the rise in local elections, then regional. At every step sabotage and subvert your enemies. Tax media until they go bankrupt. Destroy social programs and transfer the money to something useful. Use the resources of office to point out where your opponents have failed. When a liberal program is mid-failure, use your influence to make its failure more apparent or inevitable. Always push the same consistent message: the Left is the old and calcified, the crazy and the weak, the effete and the miserable. Gain power and then begin dismantling all laws made since 1790. As momentum picks up, it will be possible to gain the quorum necessary to remove Constitutional amendments and other liberal vandalism of our system of government.
- Disenfranchise your opponents
Roll the voting age back to 30 for landed owners only. Deport all illegals; remove all anti-discrimination law. Tax the media until it dies, smash Hollywood with regulations, and provoke our international enemies until they are forced into defensive and strident positions. Liquidate federal and state agencies and send those employees home. Remove all welfare and channel the unemployed into the military. Fire all leftists and anyone sympathetic to them, but replace them with only those who are both sympathetic to your view and competent. Cronyism and nepotism are death.
- Force an international union
Nothing official is required. State your beliefs; give preferred trading, political and social status to those who support you and marginalize others. Again avoid cronyism and nepotism or those who support them. Force an international agenda of “no guilt”: each nation does what is best for itself, and if its neighbor dies, make the assumption that the neighbor used an inferior system and thus their demise is Darwin’s laughter not the tears of an overly compassionate, overweight, couch-bound suburbanite just looking for “what is real.” Remove any international obligations beyond self-interest. The best obligations are informal through shared goal.
- Re-shape humanity
For the past several thousand years, humanity has followed a steady path of decline from an originally more brilliant point. With the rise of civilization and specialized labor, efficiency allowed society to include people who were not useful. Those in turn found themselves fond of simple obligations called jobs, simple political systems that made their numbers outweigh anything else, and social systems that enable any behavior that does not achieve immediate bad results or appearances. That attitude, called Crowdism, originates in human egoism/individualism and in groups causes madness that destroys civilization. Any human species of the future will cut back on the useless or single-function people and replace them with a network of capable leaders and a group akin to the top half of today’s middle classes in ability who do everything else, but do less because they will not invent the make-work jobs, mindless bureaucracy, and consumerist frenzy of today’s society. Leaders can reform education by getting rid of it, reform job promotion by making it informal, reform law by throwing out all laws and replacing them with principles. This forces people to stop relying on external guides and use their brains instead, which will quickly separate the useful from the useless. I suggest exile for the useless and massive reward for the useful so they have lots of children and replace the useless with a functional species.
- Gain a new transcendent goal
Early humanity had it easy because they had a clear and luminous goal: avoid becoming apes again by building civilization. With civilization comes communication, with that learning, and with that philosophy and art; then people build the final layer on Maslow’s pyramid which suggests a need for purpose and transcendent meaning in our lives. We need a new source of transcendent meaning via an ongoing goal that we cannot ever fully achieve but can always pursue, approximating it much as we always get closer to a knowledge of reality itself but can never fully know it. Space travel, a new Golden Age of art and philosophy, and self-refinement into Nietzschean supermen are all good goals. The goal will not only direct us, but bring us closer to knowledge of the sacred, and will also serve to further exclude the useless, criminal and selfish.
At this point you are probably saying, “Oh, well that’s all,” in a rather sardonic voice. This is not a todo list for this weekend, or even for this century. It is a todo list for the rest of time, with each successive generation accomplishing what it can. The first three items are the most pressing in the immediate time but also the easiest. As those occur, the others become easier. Not for the faint of heart.
Image: Unknown man tending his garden in a wasteland. Let it inspire you as you struggle with similar — but less visually obvious — circumstances.
A Husky-Chihuahua mix.
A crucial aspect of multiculturalism escapes mention: what exactly is the unit of measurement by which we deem something multicultural or not. In other words, where is the boundary between inside the multicult and outside the multicult? The endgame of the multicult becomes clearer when you consider this.
If you were to look at earth from another planet, you would have to say that the earth is a multicultural world and always has been. Multiculturalism as a propaganda campaign would be redundant and unnecessary.
But this is not what people mean when they say a “multicultural world.” Upon closer look, although the planet has seven continents with different types of people indigenous to their respective continents (penguins to Antarctica), all the people keep apart from each other by living on their home continents. This is a reason to be sad according to the Hollywood movies that I have seen. We need to change this.
Let us relocate the seven types of people (to keep it simple), all divided seven equal ways, to each respective continent in perfect ratio to each other. Now we have seven continents with all seven types of people living in perfect ratio to each other on each continent. Multiculturalism at last! What’s that? Although if you use the boundary of the continent as the unit of measurement, each continent can indeed be called multicultural, upon closer inspection, it seems as though the seven types of people have segregated from each other by forming countries by dividing each continent into seven different regions. We must now take these seven regions within seven continents and move the seven types of people into equal ratio in every region.
See how they do it in America. There are 50 states, which is the perfect unit of measurement. Take the seven different types of people and put them in equal ratio per state for all 50 states. Now we have perfect multiculturalism, all 50 states have all seven types of people on the planet earth. But now the people are self-segregating into different regions within the state. Then we must do it by county. Every county in every state must have equal ratios of the seven different types of people. They are still segregating and avoiding each other within the county. Then we must do it by city limits and township limits. But they are still living on different sides of town. Every town, of every county, of every state, roughly divides itself seven ways according to the seven different types of people.
There is only one solution, Comrade. We must no longer live with our families. Families will have to be broken up so that quotas per household can be met. Under every roof, in every town, in every county, in every state, must be living at least one person of the seven different types of people. The American household will no longer be a Man, a Wife, a son, a daughter, a dog and a cat. It will be a unit of seven: one person from North America, one person from South America, one person from Europe, one person from Africa, one person from Asia, one person from Australia, and a penguin.
As the Inspector Commissar I must drop by every now and then to make sure the commune is functioning. I have to say, as I walk around the house, I notice that the black fella spends all his time upstairs, the Arabian is always outside in the hammock, the Chinaman is downstairs, and the white guy is on the porch. They don’t seem to be palling around with each other, commiserating, or generally getting caught up in lighthearted hijinks like we see on the sitcom TV shows.
Summon Dr. Frankenstein. Behold! The head of a white man, the torso of an American Indian, the arms of a black man, the hair and mustaches of a Mexican, the legs of a Japanese, the feet of a Hindu, the beak of a penguin, and the lisp of a gay man. I give you Dr. Frankenstein’s Multicultural Monster!
Those who want a prediction for our future as a species that is both positive and plausible often turn to the term “singularity.” This refers to a moment when our technology reaches such an advanced stage that it changes human nature and magically creates a new Utopia from our wiser, more advanced selves. Technologies commonly mentioned include human biological enhancement, artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfaces and transhumanism. But how likely is this singularity, given larger trends?
Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether growth has limits, we can see that growth is finite by looking at the available data. In the US, average annual growth in real GDP over the prior 40 quarters has gone steadily downhill since the 1950s.1 The 21st century has seen very little increase in real GDP, which is GDP adjusted for inflation. Globally a similar trend is visible. Using global real GDP data, we find a decline in the global growth rate, from 4.7% in the late 60s, to just 1.3% in the late 00s.2
The fastest growth rates are now in those places which were until now effectively completely undeveloped. Economic growth happens where there are many resources left or where violent conflict made those resources inaccessible until recently. No developed economy has escaped the trend of declining GDP growth rates. Japan went from a 7% yearly real GDP growth rate to around 0% in recent years.3 Thus the effect does not originate in the changing demographic compsition of Western nations.
A similar stabilization can be seen in global life expectancy.4 This is again most visible for those countries than perform best on this metric, like Japan.5 We find stabilization in every trend that would be indicative of continued exponential growth. Most developed countries show stabilization in IQ, as better nutrition and an improved environment can no longer increase IQ any further.6 There’s also a stabilization visible in the number of miles driven in the United States, while a decline is visible in much of Europe.7 Developed economies have seen a small decline in total energy use compared to the 70s.8
Energy use has declined with further improvements in energy efficiency. Steel production represents five percent of global energy use. Developed countries however no longer manage to book any further improvements in energy efficiency in steel production.9 Energy efficiency in air transport of passengers has effectively flatlined since the 1990s with much of the improvement coming at the cost of the comfort passengers enjoy while traveling.10 Fuel efficiency of cars is still improving in developed countries, but this comes at the cost of energy used to produce the cars as is visible in the higher up front cost of hybrid vehicles. The decline in improvements in energy efficiency and the rising cost of energy have led to peak speed, visible in the fact that since 2003 passengers can no longer fly at supersonic speeds between London and New York or any other cities for that matter. The fact that humans have not landed on the moon in decades represents a peak distance in regards to how far a human being can travel.
We can therefore conclude that if a singularity were to occur, it would not be through a continuation of the trends we have witnessed over recent history, but rather, through a break in these trends. Assuming infinite resources at current prices, the trend would seem to be one towards gradual stabilization. The fact that non-renewable resources are being depleted would suggest that the opposite, a decline in standard of living, is in fact inevitable as well as effectively permanent.
What then about the two industries that are supposed to revolutionize our world, biotech and artificial intelligence? These are the two industries that would represent the most likely candidates for a break in the trend towards less growth. There are however limits to what can be accomplished through the use of these technologies.
Understanding the limits to what can be accomplished through biotechnology requires us to understand the nature of human intelligence. It is increasingly believed that human intelligence is not so much a product of certain mutations, but rather, a product of the absence of mutations. Intelligence is a product of the healthy functioning of a wide variety of processes in our body. A state of general health and a low mutational burden would thus translate into increased intelligence in our species.
This represents the first challenge we will face in our quest to increase human intelligence. Instead of increasing intelligence by selectively endowing people with a particular mutation, we will have to screen people for a wide variety of individually very rare mutations. To prove that any particular person’s very rare mutation leads to subtly reduced intelligence will be a gargantuan task, as these mutations may be limited to certain families, which makes separating environmental effects from genetic effects very difficult. Biotechnology will thus mostly prove itself to be effective in eliminating those genetic defects with severe effects, where causation is easier to demonstrate. The step from an IQ of 85 to one of 100 will thus be much easier accomplished than the step from 100 to 115, in the same way that increasing a nation’s life expectancy from 70 to 85 years is proving easier than increasing it from 85 to 100.
Assuming we pass this hurdle, there are a number of different issues we subsequently face. The nature of the process of fertilization tends to select for the healthiest sperm cells, which carry very little genetic damage.12 Bypassing this process through IVF, which will be required to enhance the intellectual potential of the next generation, means increasing the mutational load of those children, thus negatively impacting their intelligence. Screening the various embryos produced to find out which ones are free from the mutation we seek to eliminate is also an invasive process that has detrimental effects on the embryo, as it involves selecting a single cell and destroying it. Comparing adult mice that underwent preimplantation genetic diagnosis with adult mice that did not undergo the procedure shows they suffer poorer memory and higher body weight.13 It’s likely that this procedure is subject to diminishing returns, with the costs outweighing the benefits when dealing with minor mutations that do not cause severe genetic disorders.
What about actual genetic enhancement then, in which we choose to produce an embryo with genetic material that does not normally occur in humans? This has been successfully accomplished in plants after all, producing traits beneficial to humans that do not naturally occur in the plant. Here it has to be noted that we have been quite successful at producing traits that originate from a single gene, like the production of a specific pesticide. A complex emergent phenomenon like intelligence is of a fundamentally different nature.
The second issue to consider is that plants are organisms that are better capable of handling a genetic disturbance than animals. Consider that polyploidy, a doubling of an the number of chromosomes in an organism, is a common method of speciation for plants. In animals, it is comparatively rare and occurs mostly in non-vertebrates, never having been demonstrated in mammals. This suggests that animals are more “fine-tuned” and vulnerable to the effect of any drastic changes to their genome. The effects of such drastic changes would be expected to first affect those processes most dependent on overall functioning of the organism, ie complex thought.
The third issue to consider is that even plants have shown very negative responses to the introduction of alien genetic material. Besides the fact that the process of introducing the genetic material is believed to damage other areas of the genome, artificially introduced genetic material is regularly rearranged. Even more interesting is the fact that plants do not pass on the introduced foreign genetic material. It is selectively removed from the genome on a systematic basis.14 The transhumanists who argue that humans will one day carry synthetic extra chromosomes that give us superhuman abilities are pushing a science-fiction narrative.
Since the biotech bubble offers no answers, the remaining alternative for a radical transformation of our civilization lies with artificial intelligence. The first problem to note here is that the fundamental nature of consciousness remains unknown. If it is produced by a quantum field, as believed by some physicists, it will be of a fundamentally different nature than intelligence produced through binary logic of the type that our computers use. Efforts to simulate a human brain by 2020, known as the Blue Brain Project, have recently been accused by prominent neuroscientists of having narrowed the scope of the project, who argue that the project no longer seeks to simulate such higher-order brain processes as thinking and decision-making.15 Like fusion energy, artificial intelligence appears as far away as ever.
The project currently uses a supercomputer with 8,000 parallel processors to simulate ten thousand neurons. Considering that the human brain has 10^12 neurons, humans would face the task of building and running 8,000,000,000 parallel processors to simulate a single human brain. Moore’s law, referring to doubling of the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit, is then suggested as a trend that will help us escape from the apparently massive costs of machine intelligence. The problem here becomes the fact that Moore’s law is slowing down and will apparently come to an end by 2022.16 Exponential growth is seen in the early stages of most technologies, but there are always physical limits we encounter which we seem to be reaching in computer science as well.
We have to consider the possibility that the blobs of fat drifting in cerebrospinal fluid that happen to emerge spontaneously if you leave a large amount of hydrogen unattended for a few billion years are really the most energy-efficient method of producing self-awareness available in our universe. Assuming that present economic trends and our decades long failure to discover methods of energy production that share the characteristics of fossil fuels persist into the future, civilization seems very unlikely to grow a lot more complex than its present incarnation.
1 – http://blogs-images.forbes.com/beltway/files/2011/06/Ten-year-growth-rates1.jpg
2 – http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx
3 – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Real_GDP_growth_rate_in_Japan_(1956-2008).png
4 – http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/hc434/wme.gif
5 – http://www.gfmer.ch/Books/bookmp/185.ht99.jpg
6 – http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/Sundet2004.pdf
7 – http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/SXiH7ajGVVI/AAAAAAAAEWI/38691ym6xms/s1600/VehicleMilesNov2008.jpg
8 – http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u673/images/2012/0313/per-capita-energy-consumption-countries.png
9 – http://www.worldsteel.org/steel-by-topic/sustainable-steel/environmental/efficient-use/content/0/text_files/file1/document/energyconsuption_linechart_final.jpg
10 – http://www.theprimitivethinker.com/2013/10/jevons-paradox-in-aviation.html
11 – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/human-intelligence-peaked-thousands-of-years-ago-and-weve-been-on-an-intellectual-and-emotional-decline-ever-since-8307101.html
12 – http://www.clevelandclinic.org/ReproductiveResearchCenter/docs/agradoc148.pdf
13 – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090721122857.htm
14 – http://www.i-sis.org.uk/transgenicLinesUnstable2.php
15 – http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28193790
16 – http://www.cnet.com/news/end-of-moores-law-its-not-just-about-physics/