Democracy has failed us, but most cannot see that yet. They do not yet realize that popularity contests produce the easiest answers that are most convenient for the individual, not realistic responses. They do not realize that our horrible politicians and big corporation loopholes are the result of media manipulators, like matadors with red flags, leading the voters on with scapegoats and false rewards. Or that voters gratefully fall for it every time.
Right now, people are tired of politics. They have not yet connected the fact of democracy with the necessity of politics: when action is taken by getting a plurality to pull a lever like trained monkeys, politics becomes the norm. That means that all things are measured by appearance and public opinion, never by logical, factual or historical basis. As a result, all government falls prey to “soft” corruption of selling illusions, and all democratic societies become “soft” totalitarian as the herd punishes those who point out that utter failure of the system on which they depend for benefits, comforting lies and self-esteem.
Politics arises when people must be convinced to work together on specific things. It does not happen when people already agree on what must be done; then, they discuss method. But in a democracy, where the active unit is the individual, people specialize in having different opinions. These coincide rarely and only in small doses, which encourages those in power to constantly “dumb down” every idea until it becomes popular like Budweiser, Coca-Cola, or McDonald’s. Everything must be sweetened and sugared, coated in fat and given a savory sauce, so the voters will lead themselves through the corral to slaughter.
Voters specialize in blaming politicians and big corporations for their woes, but those two groups are merely service providers who cater to the need of the voters for illusion. This illusion must paint the voters in a positive, almost heroic light, so it is always patriotic and/or altruistic. It must explain away actual threats by categorizing awareness of them as racism, and invent imaginary threats which can never be solved and therefore will serve as a perpetual jobs program for politicians and bureaucrats, who are all parasites. The voters create government by being, as a group, incapable of agreeing on anything but comforting lies and convenient illusions.
At this point, the Left — who initiated a series of Revolutions in the name of The Enlightenment™ that have devastated Western Civilization — and the Right, who attempt to “conserve” the sanity that existed before the Left took over, have failed. Both groups have become dominated by self-serving parasitic entities. On the Left are the people who intend to generate wealth by dissolving what is left of Western Civilization and selling it by the pound, and on the Right are people who benefit from being the “opposition party” that makes a big show, takes the payoff and leaves. Republican voters elected a Republican House and then watched nothing happen; Europeans elected quasi-conservatives like Cameron and then saw him accede to every liberal policy.
People are fed up, and the resulting emotional outbursts have polarized the two sides, allowing the middle to rise — and most importantly, enabling “extremist moderates” who we might call intense realists. These people have been denied a voice in this system because their viewpoint is always inconvenient and reasonable, which means it gets bulldozed by the more emotionally dramatic Left and more business-oriented Right. Only in a crisis, when all else has failed, do the moderates get a voice, and at that point they are finally seeing how the mechanism of democracy invariably works against them. This makes them into radicals, and maybe this time around, they will begin dismantling the parasite hierarchy and replacing it with real leaders.
An analysis of these radical moderates shows they come closer to original conservative positions than any conservative to ever be on camera. That however belongs to the best of them. For now, the moderates remain moderate, which means — since we are living in a liberal time and have been since 1789 — that most of their positions are leftist:
Warren called these voters Middle American Radicals, or MARS. “MARS are distinct in the depth of their feeling that the middle class has been seriously neglected,” Warren wrote. They saw “government as favoring both the rich and the poor simultaneously.” Like many on the left, MARS were deeply suspicious of big business: Compared with the other groups he surveyed—lower-income whites, middle-income whites who went to college, and what Warren called “affluents”—MARS were the most likely to believe that corporations had “too much power,” “don’t pay attention,” and were “too big.” MARS also backed many liberal programs: By a large percentage, they favored government guaranteeing jobs to everyone; and they supported price controls, Medicare, some kind of national health insurance, federal aid to education, and Social Security.
On the other hand, they held very conservative positions on poverty and race. They were the least likely to agree that whites had any responsibility “to make up for wrongs done to blacks in the past,” they were the most critical of welfare agencies, they rejected racial busing, and they wanted to grant police a “heavier hand” to “control crime.” They were also the group most distrustful of the national government. And in a stand that wasn’t really liberal or conservative (and that appeared, at least on the surface, to be in tension with their dislike of the national government), MARS were more likely than any other group to favor strong leadership in Washington—to advocate for a situation “when one person is in charge.”
Moderates are pragmatists. They want whatever society can offer them, which means they like the benefits state much as it exists in Europe, and they also want the prolonged pet problems of the Left to be pushed aside because they are both intractable and the solutions destructive. This is the bourgeois voice that wants to just write a check, have the problem go away, and go back to getting easy money from the job and shopping all night on the internet. But these moderates also represent a group that can be easily polarized by taking their positions to extremes.
While the article above refers to this group as “radicals,” that means solely that they are tired of politics and looking for pragmatism. They can go a step further to realism, which unlike pragmatism is not based on “getting along with others” or “working within the system.” Realism says there is a solid answer and when found it must be implemented by whatever means are necessary. Realism also recognizes that a problem half-solved leaves behind a problem that will return, springing out from hiding places and assaulting those who did not do the job thoroughly enough in the first place.
What moderate radicals — and future extremist moderates — do not have is a voice to guide them away from the strains of liberalism that have infected their thinking. They need to become more tired of politics, more used to the idea that democracy will never produce their leaders, and more prone to demand people in place who can fix problems and also prevent them from recurring. If the alternative right and neoreaction need a place to go shopping for ideas, it is seizing upon these pragmatic reactions and accelerating their radicalism so that it reaches extremist levels. Only then can we thoroughly enough attack the problem at its root.
Human downfall occurs when our intangible ideas collide with tangible realities which we did not notice because our symbols did not correctly reflect the underlying reality. One vector for this is ideology.
An ideology which is not producing variations — like natural mutations among species in nature, causing constant conflict but also avoiding stagnation — is incapable of responding to changes in the environment. In nature, genetic variations provide random traits which can prove adaptive to new ecological niches or changing environmental conditions. Without the chaos that creates these “glitches,” the organism is incapable of responding to its environment and does not survive.
To apply this to the ideological dimension of human ecology, it is important to consider each human ideology within the context of a civilization and then civilization’s role within the planetary ecosystem.
Ideological civilizations succeed when they can explain the ecological conditions a civilization finds itself in and provide a means of subsisting within that ecology. This process of selection diminishes the propagation of maladapted variations. Thus, within a civilization — the human ecosystem — a species of ideology becomes more numerous as it finds acceptance with an existing generation as well as new generations. It achieves that status by successfully explaining the conditions of civilization survival and motivating people to meet them.
Because civilizations function as a means of concentrating wealth, they place strains on the non-human ecosystem in the form of disruptions of natural cycles and resource depletion. As ecosystems strive for equilibrium, nature pushes back on human intrusion by finding equilibrium. Individual species or systems within an ecosystem do not do this on their own; it is an effort of the whole system. The usual form human civilizations deal with are changes in climate, invasions of intrusive species (ideological/human/nonhuman) and changes in wild-caught food supply. Unlike its controversial global cousin, the most common form of climate change is localized in disrupted rainfall patterns lending to drought in response to growth of urbanization and agriculture.
An ideology which has lost the capacity for variation is incapable of responding to ecological conditions that differ from those to which it is already adapted, as well as the negative feedback prompted by a civilization acting on its beliefs where they do not correspond to natural reality. An ideology will continue to seek propagation through preservation by responding to change through increasingly extreme reinforcing of the status quo. When wealth distribution programs fail, the response is more distribution programs. When aggressive foreign policy and one sided diplomacy fail, the response is more aggression and less diplomacy. When manufacturing financial goods and services fails to prompt the growth of real goods and services, the response is more printing, more bailouts, austerity for the poor and more cheap credit.
Caught within these patterns, ideologies drag their civilizations down with them. This is the intangible mode of collapse prompted by the tangible adaptive challenges listed above. The intangibles can persist so long as the conditions under which they evolved remain so; intangibles such as ideology can have such effects on the condition of the world that they prompt environmental changes, such as to rainfall, food supply or scarcity of other resources including water.
Successful ideologies do not cease creating variation entirely. Instead, that variation exists on the intellectual fringes in the realm of unacceptable belief. Ideas propagate more successfully when the ideological data points between each individual are nearly identical. This is why diversity creates conformity that serves to avoid ideas, and instead repeat new forms of accepted notions, and why societies that are homogenous can have difficult or challenging conversations that their mixed-culture cousins could not.
Through this process of increasing enforcement, the demand for conformity to conventional wisdom forces a need for ideological homogeneity onto each new member of a population. This tightening of control follows the power law and is exponential rather than arithmetic, which means that it increases at a far greater rate and that intensification accelerates as time goes on. The likelihood of adaptive variations propagating within such an environment is very low. The resulting phenomenon, known as groupthink or Crowdism, is nothing more than natural selection caught in the process of that intensification, and represents the end-stage of an ideological civilization which has reasoned itself away from adaptation into control.
Those of us who talk about cause->effect logic recognize its power in understanding human behavior. For example, you are not free of a hated enemy (effect) until you replace the role it serves that perpetuates it (cause). Such is the case with our modern atheist, liberal and consumer-oriented society.
We have replaced all ancient gods with a single one: equality. To act in such a way as to offend equality causes people to retreat from you as if in fear of diseases or demonic possession; conversely, any activity can be justified in the name of upholding or expanding equality, regardless of its outcome. That is the key to the religious nature of egalitarianism: it is not measured in real-world results, but in the symbol itself, much like God who provides the only case where the symbol is enclosed by its referent.
For example, consider the case of education. Politicians get tears in their eyes and pound tables when the test scores come in. But what did they expect? Mathematics themselves opposes them: for any given curriculum, there must be some winners and some losers, with the number determined by how difficult it is. If you dumb it down so that everyone gets an A, it becomes worthless. People do not have the same abilities, especially not in the narrow competition for memorizing and repeating material.
Or contemplate politics. We insist that a popularity contest — “democracy” — can determine the best course of action. This denies the fact that people vote for what they understand, and most understand very little, which reduces actionable items to the over-simplified and generally reality-denying. But to mention this is to offend the god Equality and to bring on the wrath of his followers who are only too happy to have a witch-hunt.
Even in employment we engage in the fiction of equality. We like to think that we can sit down with a piece of paper that tells us everything about a candidate with specially marked fields, and that we can then hire anyone who matches those traits. These however are mere abilities, and tell us nothing about the person and how they will work with others in the team, or even how they would do in a situation as particular and unique as the average workplace.
We cannot as post-Enlightenment™ humans face the possibility of natural differences between people. It violates the fundamental idea that unites us which is that each human is the best person to make all decisions for herself. This idea arose when we replaced the order of nature and the divine with a human order. Social order of this type implies that the human is the highest goal, over reality, and therefore, that human choice is more important than real-world results. That was the path we took that branched off from all of past history and arrived at our present state.
In our view, natural differences between us — which are more mathematical, by the nature of most patterns following a Standard Distribution or “Bell Curve” — serve no utility and only serve to divide us. And yet these things evolved with us much like our other abilities. We know natural selection serves to rigorously cleanse, except in extremely isolated populations, unnecessary traits. These have persisted with humans and other groups throughout time, serving like natural selection itself to keep groups in a constant state of imbalance so they do not fall into sameness which can lead to entropy. If we were identical, all striving would cease and so would all ability for our acts to be meaningful.
Other benefits exist to inequality both within and between populations. Inside a population, inequality allows people to specialize, which means that they can devote all of their energy to developing an ability they wish to be unique to them. Inequality occurs both vertically, in terms of general competence (or even general intelligence, or g), but also on a horizontal plane. Out of all the artisans, some will become fine-motor workers like watch-makers and others will be carpenters. But some of the most radical benefits are seen to inequality between populations.
Equality outside the boundaries of a specific population would imply a Universal Human or a person who fits into any society. This idea however conveys the notion of a person without culture, unique abilities or pre-determined inclinations that might cause clash with whatever is the norm elsewhere. It also suggests a generic person, an interchangeable part, as the basis of all societies, rejecting the need for shared culture, heritage, or values. And yet as events in Japan suggest, that trust — formed of a commonality in orientation and philosophy that cannot and does not need to be put into symbols — creates a much better life:
What accounts for this unusual degree of independence? Not self-sufficiency, in fact, but “group reliance,” according to Dwayne Dixon, a cultural anthropologist who wrote his doctoral dissertation on Japanese youth. “[Japanese] kids learn early on that, ideally, any member of the community can be called on to serve or help others,” he says.
This assumption is reinforced at school, where children take turns cleaning and serving lunch instead of relying on staff to perform such duties. This “distributes labor across various shoulders and rotates expectations, while also teaching everyone what it takes to clean a toilet, for instance,” Dixon says.
She wouldn’t let a 9-year-old ride the subway alone in London or New York—just in Tokyo.
If you want to know the solution to the problems socialism claims to address, like class warfare, or even the problems the right bemoans like a lack of public morality, this is it: have people be similar in genetics and culture. That refutes the idea of equality, where the choice of the individual determines fitness to be in a certain society, and replaces it with the notion of cooperation, or the idea that people work together on ideas that they find mutually compelling and over time, those ideas become part of them on a biological level. Without the trust engendered by similarity, people drift apart and become less likely to work together or preserve shared resources.
The now-infamous Robert Putnam study on diversity showed that in diverse populations, trust declined — even among people of the same group. That is because, like surface tension on water, similarity once broken for one becomes broken for all. Society is no longer held together by a mission and values in common, but by compulsion, whether through money or authoritarianism. This path leads to an increasing cycle of tyrannical power, petty rebellion including apathetic performance, and eventual collapse of the higher functions of the society, leaving behind a third-world style ruin.
Diversity also paves the way for a tragedy of the commons:
Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons…As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain…Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
The only force that can unmake the tragedy of the commons is a sense of shared destiny. We cannot all add as many cows as we would like, because then we kill the resource, and with it our society. Without trust, and a shared sense of purpose and destiny, that sentiment rings hollow. The individual sees no choice but to exploit resources before the other guys get to it, because they are not on his team — they are in fact the enemy. By creating freedom, society removes obligation to the commons. With equality, it destroys the notion of sharing the commons toward a mutual goal, and guarantees accelerating exploitation and ruin.
Democracy has ways of punishing those who do not conform. Unlike its cousins in tyranny, the totalitarians, democracy does not act directly but prefers an indirect approach by regulating incentive structures. Since the direction of democracy tends toward the egalitarian in all things, it rewards those who become more egalitarian than the status quo while allowing them to, as part of this process, demonize those who are less egalitarian than the status quo. This is why democratic societies always compromise and shift leftward unless explicitly rapped on the nose and pointed toward the right.
A common refrain among right-wingers is “Thanks to the internet, we can work around the solid leftist reality reprogramming of the left-leaning media.” That has been true, with the rise of independent blogs. But twenty-eight years after the internet opened up to people outside of academia and government, a fundamental change has occurred which will allow future censorship of an unprecedented scale. This censorship will not be direct, nor will it occur through government, but through popular opinion in tandem with business aversion to risk.
Witness the rise of the Corporate Internet:
Despite an explosion in the number of websites over the last decade, page views are becoming more concentrated. While in 2001, the top 10 websites accounted for 31 percent of all page views in America, by 2010 the top 10 accounted for 75 percent. Google and Facebook are now the first stops for many Americans seeking news — while Internet traffic to much of the nation’s newspapers, network television and other news gathering agencies has fallen well below 50 percent of all traffic. Meanwhile, Amazon is now the first stop for almost a third of all American consumers seeking to buy anything. Talk about power.
Whenever markets become concentrated, consumers end up paying more than they otherwise would, and innovations are squelched. Sure, big platforms let creators showcase and introduce new apps, songs, books, videos and other content. But almost all of the profits go to the platforms’ owners, who have all of the bargaining power.
In other words, we are going from many sites to few, much like after a couple decades a Big Six media companies bought up all the record labels and magazines and became the sole arbiters of taste. Why is this a problem? It allows them to manipulate markets for their own benefit, but worse, it makes relatively few people accountable to public opinion, which is generally expressed through complaints alone. Those complaints inevitably involve the individual, which creates an individual-versus-behemoths narrative, which results in the behemoths retreating when the individual claims to be injured. This benefits the behemoths because it allows them to reduce traffic other than their intended message. The more they cut out, the more of their message shines through.
Why else do you think big media magnates are so willing to help?
On the sidelines of a United Nations luncheon on Saturday, Merkel was caught on a hot mic pressing Zuckerberg about social media posts about the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany, the publication reported.
The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that “we need to do some work” on curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. “Are you working on this?” Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative before the transmission was disrupted.
Ex-Communist (or maybe not so “ex”) Merkel knows the rules of the new system: government cannot intervene directly, but by indicating that it will support censorship, it can induce large providers like Facebook — and most of the people you know use Facebook regularly — into cutting out the posts. If Facebook constituted 70% of the sites that 70% of people visited 70% of the time, it could create a majority vote simply by dropping posts. And again, that benefits its business model. Consumers do not like controversy except of the fru-fru variety that Kardashians and Madonna provide. Real issues fall before tabloid issues. That means that more of the stuff Facebook wants through, like big trends and advertising, gets through.
All technology goes through a process of concentration, or reduction in variety of forms so that a few forms with multiple options can predominate, as it matures. The first cars were amazing and for the rich or at least dedicated; now, most cars are very similar in function and features and compete mostly on price, social status and perceived quality, a gap which has significantly narrowed as well. Digital technologies, which move much faster than physical technologies, accelerate the most. The internet is no longer a Wild West; people view search engines and social media as something in the background that should always function, like electricity or running water.
To put it another way: cyberwarfare models are maturing in the same way that other technologies mature. To take a more prosaic example, the evolution of cyberwarfare is a lot like the cycle e-commerce went through. There was a lot of initial excitement and investment from retailers in building separate e-commerce operations or businesses, but gradually these became not just a standard part of their operation but for many retailers the core of their business, just as cyberwarfare planning and strategy is gradually becoming a part of mainstream military planning.
This concentration means that consumers are less fascinated by these products. There is less novelty, and less perception that these things should be expensive and elite. That means that people put less attention into any single interaction, which in turn means that these companies have to increase the quantity of interactions (this quality-quantity cycle persists in all things, as a form of entropy). That in turn accelerates the need to control the Narrative in order to make the technology profitable, and this involves keeping it “safe” for ordinary consumers to avoid contact with any parts of reality they might find disturbing.
That in turn leads to censorship by public opinion:
There’s that saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. When it comes to censorship, one might say that the road to thought and speech control is paved by people trying to protect other people’s feelings.
…Of course, the real and fair solution is much less politically correct but effective. It’s to stop trying to protect people’s feelings. Your feelings are your problem, not mine—and vice versa.
If the Right does not get a site or business into the upper echelon of internet content providers, it will face the same embargo on its views that persists in the mainstream media currently.
There are moments where life comes down to binary decisions. One either flees the bear, or becomes lunch; one either escapes the locked room as floodwaters rise, or becomes a floater. Sometimes, one must make decisions about continuation, such as remaining at a job, or in a marriage, or within a city. These all fit within the yes/no pattern of binary decisions. But sometimes binary decisions are forced upon us by using false categories which resemble those needed in threatening situations, but are in fact carefully constructed to force you to answer one way only.
For example, someone grabs you by the shirt and says, “The enemy is at the gates — do you stand with these fascists, or are you an anti-fascist?”
Like any good con, this works by rhythm. First there is shock; then outrage, at about the same moment the dichotomy — a binary category imposed on the data — rises in the mind. Thus the emotional surge and the realization hit at about the same time and the average person stands up and says loudly,
Of course I stand against the fascists!
…all without having an idea what a fascist is, whether an enemy is really attacking, where the gates are, whose enemy is attacking, or really anything else (but we all know that low-information voting is the hallmark of democracy). As any salesperson knows, it is important to lead the mark into the decision so that he thinks it was his idea, when in fact it was a set-up.
Politics operates by these set-ups. It creates binary categories where there are none. Yes, when a dragon is attacking, there is an actual dichotomy: attack the dragon or do something other than attack the dragon. In non-emergency situations however the options vary more widely. This is why salespeople, con men and politicians all try to shorten the time scale: “This offer ends soon!” “We must act quickly before it’s too late!” “My buddy can’t hold on to this sweet deal forever!”
In the same way, people reframe the question of race as an ongoing attack. People are assaulting our minorities, and you either agree with us that everyone is equal, or you agree with the fascists. We need action now! Whose side are you on? And so the slow-witted average person, stunned and dumbed by forty plus hours of work and shopping, leaps to the obvious conclusion, as was intended. By this method, anything but saying we are all equal in every way becomes “racism” and makes you an enemy of the State, a Stalin-Hitler-Goldstein to be smote with fury.
The term “racism” has no meaning. As used, it is too broad; as conceived, it suggests a singular purpose behind multiple reasons to make the same decision. It is like talking with the street hardened cops:
Police #1: Why did you turn down this alley?
Citizen: I wanted to check if my tire was flat.
Police #2: He wanted to check his tire, he says! I’ve heard that one before.
Police #1: We all know there’s only one reason to go down this alley. Out with it and we’ll be easy on you.
In this case, the mental terrorists behind the term “racism” want you to think there is only one reason why you might not want to accept the all-people-are-equal line. Never mind that there may be multiple reasons, including being proud of your heritage and believing it should continue. Accept us all as equal — which really is an advertising term more than anything else, implying that people are marionettes who respond knee-jerk to a “good deal” — or you are the enemy.
Our healing begins when we recognize this term is useless. There is no racism and there are no racists. There are only people who do not agree with the liberal agenda, and those who do. The former group includes some who are just angry and hateful, but we have no data suggesting they are the majority. Everything we have suggests they are the (heh heh) minority. But the left wants us to lump everyone non-leftist into the same category as the bigots. That viewpoint itself is bigotry, and needs to die.
In the modern West, our dogma has become tiresome. It insists that ancient ideas are new ones, forgetting that the Greeks discovered democracy and equality thousands of years before us, and the Hindus struggled with it even centuries before that. As written about on this site, however, democracy and equality themselves are little more than theory legitimizing the human trait toward solipsism. They are individualism justified by this theory, called ideology, that amounts to little more than advertising: it promises a better future, but avoids specifics including a timeframe or other verification of its success.
Democracy is the like the beer advertisements on television from the 1980s: attractive athletic and obviously hip young people playing volleyball on the beach, or racing motor cars, or relaxing near the hot-tub in their million-dollar homes. The images are obvious — sexual success, financial success, and social success — but the promise is never made. Only the association. “Some hip young rich people love our product,” is the claim, and as any lawyer will tell you, that one is hard to disprove. How many are required for “some”? How rich is rich? Who defines hip? Some fat old editor at a youth publication says he does, so we can rely on that, right?
Since The Enlightenment™, but gathering momentum with the French Revolution, the democracy-advocates have had the advantage of appearing as “new” ideas, which requires that people get stupid enough to forget what happened to the Greeks and Romans. “So, how did democracy work out in Athens?” is probably the most hostile small talk anyone can think of in this society. The democracy-advocates, and civil rights is just another form of democratization, have always styled themselves as young, hip, successful and most of all, iconoclastic. Hate our society? Here is a new way… a different way. It leads to new places not the same old ones.
Conveniently it also served the Iconoclastic Fallacy, which let everyone assume that because people as a group are idiots, whatever person is not doing what the group is doing must be right; the majority is always wrong, in other words. This created a convenient set-up where anyone with a minority opinion could point to the group, claim moral correctness and victimhood status, and conjure up an instant army of those who would defend against the herd. Except… the instant army were in fact the herd, and the majority was often a false construction in the form of a scapegoat plus popular approval, like “The Rich,” “The White,” The Jews™, “the banksters” and other false targets. The herd was justifying itself by purging itself of unpopular symbols, and the result was a strengthened herd.
This came to a peak in 1968. Students, emboldened by the misstep of their fathers in fighting a war for something so nebulous as “freedom” and “equality,” used those ideas as passive-aggressive weapons to dismantle the social hierarchy. In their view, this would overthrow the commercial interests that had somehow magically seized control of democracy, and usher in a new age of prosperity. In reality, by getting rid of social standards, they in effect replaced them with commercial standards, strengthening the interests of money and weakening those of individuals and culture. This created the 1970s and 1980s, in which vapid oblivion covered for the advancing takeover of our society by commerce and its lackeys in ideology. Again, this was the crowd justifying its own takeover by pretending to be revolutionary.
This leads us to the question: were there ever any legitimate revolutions? Historical analysis suggests no: revolutionaries are parasites who destroy societies, but they attempt many times before they finally get a home run streak like The Enlightenment™ through the Magna Carta and onward to the French Revolution, all likely spurred on by peasant revolts at roughly the time the Mongols were invading Europe. All of these revolutions have been false, simply commercial interests seizing power through the Crowd as frequently happens when empires die, in the name of being the opposite of what they are.
And now, we look at real rebellion — realistic opinions speaking truth to popularity, which is always power for the parasitic — and we can see how the liberal revolutions were in fact anti-revolutions, or a strengthening not of a specific group of powerful people, but of the principle of conformity for the purposes of “everyone getting along” and thus easier commerce. Witness this recent censorship hilarity from Liberalism Inc.:
A peaceful student demonstration at a Virginia high school ended with school administrators suspending 23 teens for wearing clothing emblazoned with the Confederate battle flag, which violates the school’s dress code, according to school officials, students and parents.
The students, who attend Christiansburg High School in southwestern Virginia, said they wore the controversial Confederate symbols to protest a school policy that prohibits them, which they view as a violation of their free speech. Students are barred from wearing any clothing that could “reflect adversely on persons due to race” and specifies that “clothing with Confederate flag symbols” falls in that category.
Montgomery County schools spokeswoman Brenda Drake said that half of all middle schools and high schools in the county do not allow the display of the Confederate battle flag. About 8 percent of Christiansburg High School’s 1,100 students are black and more than 80 percent are white, according to the Associated Press.
What do we, doing our best to be impartial observers, see here?
- The usual justification: a kindergarten teacher wagging a critical finger and saying, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
- The usual method: punish anyone who steps out of line and notices the Emperor has no new clothes after all.
- The usual result: anyone with a functional brain will leave, and the idiots will look around and seeing no dissent, conclude they were right all along.
As always, democracy drifts toward endless compromise in favor of individual rights, which quickly means that society can have no meaningful hierarchy, culture, values, philosophy or direction. All that is left is the individual and, well, commerce of course. It is essential to separate this commerce from capitalism itself, which tends to obliterate such consumerist entities by enabling competition. This is social commerce, or the products which afflict people with too much time and money for the lack of direction that they have. Bored housewives, elderly camped in front of the TV, ghetto-dwellers on welfare: the psychology remains the same, a combination of victimhood, entitlement and old-fashioned haggling for more for the individual and less for everyone else.
In this case, administrators felt emboldened to make this move because they realized they were immune from criticism. America has changed, mostly through the Hart-Cellar Act, to a place where most of its people feel that racism is the biggest sin ever and all racists should be destroyed (joining other demonized groups like hackers, drug users, smokers and Satanists as media scapegoats). No one will ever experience any negative consequences for banning Confederate symbols; the historical majority does not yet realize — being dedicated to multiple goals, not a single one like an insurgent group, which always has the advantage — that the herd sees this symbol as representing the historical majority. “Whuh would they think that means me? I’m jus’ white, not Confeedyrate or nothin’. Hyuk!”
But this shows us the nature of revolutions. The idea behind a revolution is that instead of fixing the current system, you discard it and start over. This is obviously a false idea because most of what follows any deposed system is more of the same because nobody knows how else to manage a society, but the falseness is compounded by the mentality it creates. Revolutions create a mentality of the shopper, which is one-way obedience only. The products owe you; you owe them nothing. If the product is wrong, return it and find another. Do not fiddle with it, or work with it, or try to figure out why it might be good. If it is too mentally difficult, cast it aside. You are king and God alike in this choice; it is your power. This is why you want commerce in power over everything else, Comrade Citizen Customer.
We have created a model of disposability in our society. Empires are disposable; so are types of society. The only thing not disposable is the individualist consumer, who alone has the power (or they think). Anything that does not bend to their will and their control can be destroyed, executed like Russian dissidents in the gulag or French aristocrats at the guillotine. Everything is disposable for the convenience of the individual: all that does not crawl before them like obedient subjects — as they perceive products to do — must be subjugated and destroyed. Only this way will everything be safe. This is the process we call “progress.”
A little bit of analysis, or even a whole lot, pokes holes in this Narrative. If you wonder why society seems to systematically wage war against alertness, intelligence and depth, now you know: it is counter-revolutionary. If you notice failures in the Narrative, you are literally Hitler who wants to kill six billion Mexican transgender orphans. You are anti-egalitarian, Comrade Citizen Customer, by failing to ignore the problems with the Narrative. Don’t you see — it is good, and everything else, is bad. Choose a side. You are either good, and endorse our use of lying and murder to make our world ideologically good, or bad, and by resisting us you give us no choice but to destroy you.
This is how civilizations exterminate themselves. With lots of money, tons of products, mucho tolerance, and many fakes. Fake revolutions, false prophets, hollow cults and lies as foundations of their being. Then people become afraid to criticize the lies, and soon you have a whole group of people who, seeing no dissent, think they were right all along. A few brave souls speak out with honest revolutions, but they are bad, so they are destroyed. Progress continues. Until suddenly it stops, and the civilization drops from the radar of history, forgotten except as a memory.
Like obsessive lovers, those of us who live in the modern West dedicate most of our time to not noticing the imperfections while being swept up in the vision — a type of waking dream — of the life we live. We have now accepted and pushed to the background the knowledge that all of our politicians lie, everything the media does is salesmanship, and that even our neighbors tell untruths when convenient. We will do or say anything to avoid thinking that we should change course. Like a lover addicted to his vision even as it crumbles around him, we accept a world of mostly lies and nonsense in order to keep thinking we can just cruise forward to greatness.
Even more, we are intensely aware of the futility of any action. Any intelligent idea immediately creates a market for a simple excuse why that intelligent idea is not necessary. Any truthful politician, honest businessman, or even forthright member of a social group is quickly replaced by someone who will tell the necessary lie. All serves the goal: do not notice the cracks in the foundation, accept the Narrative that ours is the best of all possibilities, and keep slaving away to patch it together for one more day so this transaction can go through.
This is what the empire of the West — lands of dreamers, writers, warriors, kings, aristocrats, philosophers and theologians — has been reduced to. What did this? The belief that individual opinions, en masse, constitute a civilization, instead of the conventional wisdom that we require not just leaders, but thought-leaders like priests and artists, of the highest caliber. We are the headless mob that chases its own pipe dreams, makes its own heroes and creates its own versions of once-great things. Where our ancestors had heroes, we have celebrities; where they had aristocrats, we have entertainers; where they had social order, we have shopping.
Every few years someone else becomes a Hero of the People’s Republic for inventing something “new” enough to distract us from the yawning void. SUVs, tamagotchis, smart phones, the internet, reality television… all of these things contribute to the Narrative that the modern West is in fact the best place to live. There may be truth to it in that the rest of humanity is even more incompetent, but as the old saying goes, “You’re either heading up, or going down,” and we are clearly not heading upward. Rather, we are a mob drugged on its own self-importance by ideology, drunk on the wealth handed to it by former eras, and pretentious with its media power, but we have not noticed the one vital thread running through all of this: we are very bored.
In fact, it is that boredom — a symptom of lack of purpose or real connection to anything beyond oneself — that sends up the red flags soonest in a fallen world. People are going through the motions, with a tense mania for repetition, but are clearly not getting what they need from these activities because they repeat them again and again. Like people clicking on internet sites obsessively, searching for some enlightenment they have not found, or drunks slugging down more of the poison of preference, hoping that this intoxication will bring them the bright spaces of hope they desire.
Our people no longer expect good things from society. They treat it like an abusive uncle, as someone who must be kept at bay and satisfied with small doses of compliance as a means to maintaining some independence. We hate each other and ourselves because whenever someone does escape, another person will show up to bring them down, gaining social accolades in the process. We know that only lies succeed, and deception makes fame, so to succeed in anything is to become what we hate. No escape means no honesty.
Despite our human tendency to not acknowledge it, an iron law exists for civilizations: the more powerful they become, the more likely they are to turn self-referential and start chasing their own tails. In the Soviet Union, the tail was an official narrative from government; in the United States, it is a media concoction of pleasant lies and an illusion about what consumers want. Civilization becomes circular when it turns its goal inward, and pursues satisfying other people’s need for distraction instead of conquering the problems from which they need distracting.
The beginning of the end, for us, was democracy. It trained us to be vapid, waiting for other people to present us the question to vote on, and to be irresponsible, blaming “the voters” (as if we were not among them) for whatever outcome and scapegoating the politicians, TV preachers and advertisers who showed up to take advantage of the bonanaza of that much concentrated incompetence in any one place. The act of voting replaced our engagement with the world, so we became like bitchy consumers, always dissatisfied with the product but yet constantly coming back for more.
Now we have a world which is fallen, and every iota of its strength dedicated to denial of that fact. The taboos against racism, noticing Chinese aggression, inequality, and other social fears all originate in the crime of noticing that the West is failing. The first person to point out that the Emperor has no new clothes will be the downfall of all, so we have all become Stockholm Syndrome complicit in smashing down anyone who ventures down that path. I suggest the most useful, and most powerful, thing we can do now is to say it loud and clear: this is a dying empire and it could easily be saved by simply removing democracy.
In the West, we became weak as a society the minute we legitimized interruptions over purpose. Think about your day in this modern world: many small interruptions, subdividing every task into shorter and shorter pieces, each one less related to the others with each additional interruption, in addition to become simplified and the reason for its existence forgotten.
This is what egalitarianism does: it interrupts any clear intent with infinite small objections and exceptions because it associates people with importance of function, rather than function itself. A bureaucrat must announce himself as often as possible to show his importance; hipsters must make as much noise as possible to demonstrate their validity; everyday people must bungle, move slowly and otherwise interrupt flow in order to feel alive. Every act possible is thwarted by phone calls, advertisements, visitors, queries and paperwork; every simple task involves obtaining permission, filing forms and extensive background study to fit into the bureaucratic model. But, if we were not to do these things, they would not be accessible to all, which means both “equal” opportunity through bureaus and dumbed-down to the point where Beavis and Butthead can (but won’t) do it.
Aggression is seen as objectionable. Conflict is minimized through compromise and subsidies. Buy off the disenchanted; what do we care, it is only another hour or two in interruption. The lack of actual power means that people are always defending their power, so every staffer must show up to every meeting to maintain the illusion that they were “kept in the loop.” Every person must compete with others to be important, so the walls, screens, floors and even foreheads are covered in advertising. Each one wants to be different, so chooses ludicrous outfits and even less sensible hobbies to distinguish themselves. The Crowd reveals its face subtly, but pervasively.
In contrast, what builds good healthy people? Concentration. Dedication to task, learning it on their own and not with prompting from thousands of memorized rules. A warrior in particular treasures his concentration. It is how he goes from nothing to achieving an objective often with very little on his side. Consciousness itself is a commodity that our society does not recognize yet we need it to create anything better than mediocrity. Could it be that the war for interruptions is in fact a war against concentration, so that mediocrity is “safe” for those who fear they are less than equal? Leaders become sheep, warriors become meek, and only those with something to hide in the chaos are happy.
When looking at politics, it is important remember that cause->effect reasoning is about our only accurate guide. Every bad thing you see has a cause which is not necessarily “near” it visually or how you associate details. White suicide, for example, does not start with race, but far from it in the class warfare and egalitarianism that turned life in the West into a neurotic hell. Miserable, the people began to die out, and their leaders — probably in the midst of constant interruptions and unable to think anyway — opted to replace them with more convenient people. It is the type of distracted, neurotic and solipsistic decision-making that defines this time.
In an egalitarian time, the greatest sin is to withhold from someone else when you have more than they do.
While many people do this all the time, they carefully hide the fact. The most troubling circumstances resemble those in which I found myself yesterday.
At a convenience store, I purchased an item for my companion, and as we set out into the sun, a voice called out. “Sorry to bother you, sir, but I’m just trying to get something to eat…” called the plaintive soul.
Without hesitation, I said, “No.” He didn’t ask for an explanation — too many other marks coming out of the door, fattened on moon pies and Budweiser — but the reasoning is worth sharing.
Self-interest is the only moral course of action.
With self-interest, a direct correspondence occurs between the intent behind any action and its application. There are no proxies; the homeless-looking guy says he’s broke, but maybe not. The charities say the money goes to help people, but maybe not, and there may be secondary consequences. Those who give money are on a practical level chumps funding unknown evils in the name of the “good” whispered in their ear.
Further, Darwin winks at us. I use my money to the best of my judgment. Those who are poor at spending money wisely will end up being poor; those who are good, will rise. This benefits all of us by putting the most competent people both in charge of the money, and in a position to use it.
Next, I disagree with the idea of subsidy in any form. If I have to work, it is theft to allow others to skate by without it when they have need. I will spend my money on my family, and they will spend it on theirs. If an economic downturn comes, I want them starving so they bang on the doors of banks and investment houses and demand a fix. But do not steal from me. Karl Marx was right: time is money. When parasites show up and demand a handout, they are not just taking my money, but part of my irreplaceable life that I now have to work to pay for them, the parasitic bureaucrats who administer to them, and the businesses that crop up to take advantage of the free money handed out by the idiotic (apparently) voters.
There is only one legitimate use for collective income in society: toward things that benefit us all. We all take benefit from an opera, for example, pushing culture upward; we all benefit from roads, a military, courts and police. We do not all see any reward from charity, which takes from the successful and uses it to subsidize the unsuccessful like a crop no one wants to buy. And yet they grow. The more we give, the more of them there are.
This does not mean at all that I believe in Atomized Man, who owes no one a thing but himself. We all owe a debt to participate in society, and that is why we go to jobs and fund things like roads. The most important aspect of this however is the one no one mentions, which is supporting society itself — through labor. It takes work to maintain a culture, values, heritage, standards, customs and social order. These things do not show up on ledgers but they are more important than money. You can make it through a bad time with those, but not a rich time without, as our society is evidence daily.
One final reason exists for taking gleeful delight in self-interest: to do otherwise, to any degree, creates a victimhood mentality. If you give someone money, he must categorize it in his mind as either that he was wronged and is owed, or that he is a parasite. He will choose the former and the people handing out the money — all politeness — will do the same. This creates a mentality that spreads through society like an epidemic: first the poor feel wronged, then the middle class consider themselves victims, then the rich do. The problem is that victimhood is compensatory behavior. When someone feels wronged, they will “take it out” on other parties with the compensatory excuse and rationalization/justification that they were (actually) owed this, and did not receive it, so they are right in taking it. If you want to increase criminal mentation in your population, produce victims.
It is entertaining that our media is quick to defend various murderers and pedophiles with the excuse that they were abused when they were young. And yet, most abusers recreate their abuse trauma, so if possible, we should avoid abuse. Unfortunately for us, the perception of abuse — “I was wronged!” — functions exactly like abuse in the human mind. Handing out free subsidies is creating future abusers. It is immoral for the reasons stated above, as well as impractical, but it is downright suicidal for the reasons stated in this paragraph.
A victimhood mentality makes all of geared toward having non-goals. When they are at a job, and the stated goal is to make widgets, their actual goal becomes to do as little as possible to reclaim what was “stolen” from them. People pad bills, waste time, throw out working materials and otherwise sabotage society at large — which foots the bill through externalized costs — because they feel victimized. This quickly spreads to outright revenge, in which they would rather destroy everything everyone has than let another second go by without their “victimhood” being addressed.
Victim mentality creates a sluggish society. No one works toward task, but they also stop aspiring to anything beyond that theft of time and resources. They stop dreaming and hoping, and go into “resistance mode,” where like suicide bombers they simply hope to take down others with them when they go. They give up working toward anything and merely work against each other. Soon there is a giant mass of monkeys, each trying to rip all of the others off, with anyone who chooses to remain a decent person becoming the target of not just parasitism but outright violent crime. All of this arises from the welfare/socialist psychology.
White people got depressed and started dropping out of society at the point where it grew powerful governments. As the 1800s gave way to the 1900s, governments rose in power in replacement for monarchies and culture, and people became miserable. This occurred because government works through a victimhood Narrative which enables it to create victims, justify/rationalize the expansion of its power on their behalf, and then use that to force everyone else to obey and not notice its gross incompetence. When was the last time we had competent leadership? No one can remember, because it was not in our lifetimes, and in fact ended long before that.
Our current situation has us beset by parasites, most of whom do not intend to be predatory. They grow up in this society, get told they are victims, and then become addicted to the steady flow of benefits and welfare. On the other end, people become accustomed to easy jobs and stealing away whatever time and money they can, including by externalizing cost. Our current immigration crisis, as well as our constant class warfare, arises directly from the victimhood mentality created by our handouts because government wanted to be more powerful, and the voters approved it.
Self-interest includes that which benefits everyone, not just in the world of money and government, but things like the environment, natural species, clean air and preservation of culture and race. Without self-interest, those things are assumed to be someone else’s problem, and people work against them because they see any other costs as taking from what they are “owed.” Our society became hateful when we turned out back on these shared things for an endless cycle of finding pitiable peasants and trying to “lift them up” by giving them money, then finding out — it must be magic — that in the next generation there were more of them.
White people went into decline when we got into the government/welfare loop. Like bacteria or mosquitoes, our dependents multiply and drain us of energy. Soon good people stop caring, stop trying to get anything right, and finally stop reproducing and being moral. That is the condition white people were in by the time 1968 rolled around, like weakened patients watching helplessly as the host attaches. The parasite has sucked us dry and the only way to keep it at bay is to hold up the principle of self-interest rigorously in every area of life, all the time.
In the course of rambling through modernity, you will encounter any number of cults. These are self-justifying self-image clubs based on their ability to selectively admit members. To be a member, you must justify the cult; if you do that better than others, you will be given power. As a result, the cult does not need a formal structure or can rely on it less than groups with actual leadership.
What makes cults fascinating is that they replace internal commonality, or agreement on basic values and directions in life, with external commonality in the form of paying the entrance fee by justifying the cult. Cults replace self-image with group image and make the individual dependent on group approval in order to have self-esteem. This is their power and Achilles heel.
It is difficult for an outsider to see this, but the innate collectivism of a cult is based in individualism. Each individual sees himself as likely to gain more from the cult than he gives. Among other things, he gains a gang, and if he can spin the justifying myth of the cult to include his personal objectives, he will have an army to batter his enemies and force his dreams into reality.
Cults play both side of the fence, however. Like democracy, cults emphasize individual preference with collective action, so that each person is a participant but none are accountable. As with riots, mobs, gangs and stampedes, everyone just follows the herd and figures there is safety in numbers and thus they cannot be blamed, and exiled either from the cult or its host, the civilization in its later years.
This flexibility allows cults to infect any type of group. Apple products form a cult where users justify their purchases by attacking any criticism of them. Communism forms a cult where participants use equality to remove the power of those who are more successful, which allows revenge on that group through subjugation. Even the neighborhood bar can be a cult oriented around the idea that drinking into oblivion is not a bad thing and in fact a good thing. Cults succeed by changing objectionable aspects of reality for their members, and their members reward the cult with allegiance and war against its enemies. This is why cults are a variant of Crowdism and create a pathological, solipsistic and parasitic outlook in the individual.
Perhaps the most tenacious cult is that of the ego, or individualism. People who join this cult agree first and foremost on positivity. They live for love, peace, happiness, fulfillment, uniqueness and any other term that flatters their self-conception. The price for entry to this cult is to ignore the megalomania of others in exchange for them doing the same to you. This allows cult members to compete on bases other than reality, such as actual achievements, using image alone to show that they are in fact leading the perfect life and are worth admiring.
This cult takes many forms. The bloggers who post pictures of their children and perfect homes, carefully angling the camera to avoid the rotting fence or drunk husband on the couch. The New Age adventurers who want nothing more than a chance to tell their story of divinity and have others act as if it were irrefutable fact. The self-help and support groups where each person wants not to heal, but to commiserate, and feel justified in remaining locked in the circle of their own misery. Even heroin addicts, camped out in airless tenements, form a cult of self-pity where entry requires finding the world distasteful and praising heroin as not just compensation, but enlightenment.
Conservatism rejects the cult of the ego through two mechanisms which turn on a single axis. The first plank of conservatism is consequentialism, or brutal realism measured by results in reality and not estimations, calculations or (worse of all) utilitarian surveying of who agrees. The second plank is transcendentalism, which looks for an order to the cosmos which makes sense of the physical, instead of rejecting the physical and looking for an alternate order — a different quantity — in an undiscovered dimension. Both of these planks turn human focus from the individual to the outer world, and insist that it can be sensible and therefore should not be rejected in order to focus on human thoughts, feelings and judgments as a “better” form of reality.
When people rage against conservatives, the issue they choose as the basis of their stance is rarely their actual focus. Deep inside of themselves they know that they want to force everyone else to accept their mental illusion as reality, and they see anyone who refuses to validate them in this manner as an enemy. No compromise can exist between conservative realism and liberal — everything but conservatism — solipsism. We want the world, and they want to reject it and replace it with themselves, then use a group to create an echo chamber to make that into Official Reality.
Conservatives and anyone else of sound mind and body tends to look at that as we should, as a form of disease. Those who pity themselves and reject the world have insulted the greatest gift any being can imagine, which is the gift of choice and ability to explore the many possibilities of life. The cult of the ego rejects life not so much because they fear death, as to a real egoist death is simply the end of the world and not of themselves, but because they cannot control it. This explains why when given power, the megalomaniacs immediately begin a regime of destruction and murder, starting with the best of everyone and anything outside of themselves.