If the dissident Right has a weakness, it is that it is Red Pilled but not Black Pilled. With the Red Pill, you see through some of the illusions of our time; with the Black Pill, you see through the illusions of humanity itself.
We are the system that oppresses us. While that system creates many dictators, tyrants and control-crazed governments, the root of its power is in the human herd, which tends to be self-deluding, much as people tend toward narcissism if not checked by a superior force.
The traditional Right emphasizes hierarchy to deal with this issue. Every person in society has a superior force to hold them in check, all the way up to the kings who have an intuitive knowledge of the divine and hold themselves in check with that (or are, like most natural creative geniuses, intensely reality-driven).
Our modern Red Pill types however do not see through to this underlying need. They see how Leftism is delusional; this helps them understand why #FeelTheBern-style socialism will lead to disaster, and Marxist sexual politics are merely more underdog-on-top style Leftist inversion. But what about the weakness that caused these to take over?
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” Fred Nietzsche tells us this and he is most probably right, if we are looking for insanity alone. But most of life occurs in gradients, not binaries. Insanity occurs at different degrees, and can be either a permanent or temporary condition, but it is one of the two and only that. And people might be classed as insane, sane and then those in the middle who are not insane but also not pointed in the directions of realism, discipline and purpose that are required for full sanity. They are both insane and sane, in varying degrees, but have not passed the threshold of recognized insanity.
The interesting thing about the Black Pill is that it unites Darwinism and Christianity by recognizing evil. To a Christian, evil is a type of error committed out of a spiritual ethic of convenience; to a Darwinist, evil is any persistent illusory thought that allows the animal to avoid adaptation. In humans, illusion occurs at the personal level through narcissism and solipsism, a type of self-worship that allows the individual to negate risk by altering the conception of it in their minds, in other words: explaining away actual problems, and inventing distracting mysticism that includes scapegoats to deflect from the actual problems. In groups, this solipsism becomes a phenomenon of mass-insanity, a trance-like state in which people slavishly emulate a social successful behavior even though it is obviously false.
We know that the trance state is more likely to occur in people who under extreme psychological distress, and who believe in the possibility of spirit possession. All of these conditions were satisfied in Strasbourg in 1518.
The city’s poor were suffering from severe famine and disease. And, crucially, we also know they believed in a saint called St. Vitus who had the power to take over their minds and inflict a terrible, compulsive dance.
Once these highly vulnerable people began to anticipate the St. Vitus curse they increased the likelihood that they’d enter the trance state. And once in it, they acted out the part of the accursed: dancing wildly for days at a time.
While this mass delusion is easy to criticize because of its surface-level supernatural basis, if it exists as a psychology, it can be invoked by many means, most of which are not supernatural.
Before looking too far into the supernatural roots of this phenomenon, we should look at the pragmatic ones, namely that people were starving. Why was that so?
Following the Mongol invasions and the weakening of European aristocracy, peasants and serfs gained new freedoms. Many of them moved from Europe into the former Mongol colonies in Eastern Europe, changing the Asiatic population there to be blonder and bluer-eyed. But still, the population surge within Western Europe destabilized it.
Consider how poverty arrives. There can either be a fault of production, or a glut of labor. The latter case seems more applicable for Europe’s serfs: given new freedoms, they choose reckless reproduction, and as a result made themselves less valuable. This is the classic pattern of r-selection: quantity over quality, leading to a lottery in which a few win out big and everyone else is equally miserable.
Almost all human poverty arises from this tendency and it explains the poverty of the third world. They are overflowing with people, most of whom have only basic skills, and as a result, everyone lives in the muck and misery and a few super-wealthy tyrants crack the whip over the befuddled, self-distracting and delusional horde.
One might even see the Mongol invasions as an extreme r-strategy: produce robotic human warriors who while canny tacticians and able politicians, are terrible leaders and so create short-lived empires that fall to ruins very quickly.
This is why humans are self-deluding: the foolish desire more quantity, and the intelligent, by selecting quality, become marginalized. This creates the pattern we are all familiar with where vast crowds chase trends and fascinations, and a few smart people confine themselves to out-of-the-way places to do creative and useful things, to the unacknowledged benefit of the rest.
In our current times, delusions remain prevalent — accepted by all but a few — which are every bit as supernatural and unrealistic as the dance of Saint Vitus:
Democracy. People make bad decisions in groups that favor the lowest common denominator because that makes it easy to achieve agreement within the group, even on simple decisions like choosing a restaurant for the evening.
Rights. People vary in degree of quality; none are equal. Giving them rights entrusts each person with the same power, meaning that the bad abuse it and the good shy away from using it if possible. This creates a race to the bottom because bad behavior provides an advantage.
Anti-hierarchy. Without someone of intelligence and wisdom guiding it, any human venture will fail. This applies to those in business, social life, religion and government alike. The vast ineptitude of our current society is a testament to this.
Equality. Equality works well for comparing simple mathematical amounts; it fails for any measurement with more than one quantitative dimension. People vary in abilities, but more importantly, in character. Some are born programmed to do good, some bad, and most, indifferent.
Freedom. Like “free will,” the term “free” makes people sit up and notice. They love the thought of being able to do “anything” because such a wide-open thought creates brain freeze. But really, most people need to be able to do a few things, be restrained from doing bad, and left alone otherwise.
Diversity. Throughout history, diversity has been the heralding of the fall of empires. Different populations cannot occupy the same space without mutually destroying one another. There is a reason that all mixed-race countries are impoverished, chaotic, filthy and confused.
Once they make you accept these illusions as fact, they have broken your ability to think because you will always be working around and rationalizing these insane ideas. Our pretentious fallacy is that this condition is in any way different from the delusion of the Saint Vitus dance, when in fact they are one and the same: desperate people who cannot control themselves looking for a way to distract themselves, and ending up in a repetitive trance-like pathology of illusion.
“So tell me, in just a few words, why you detest modern civilization,” said a friend over brandy and cigars back at the club.
“Too many ways to count,” harrumphed another member of our group.
I could see his point. Most evenings there, I spend my time there trying to avoid a gross faux pas while absorbing as much nicotine and mulled alcohol as possible. The conversation is good but generally, I have long given up on the interesting topics. Schopenhauer was right: talk about dogs and horses. But a reply was called for.
“It wastes your life,” I said. “Let me tell you three key ways and remember, gentlemen, that I started out in this life as a die-hard Liberal. I always want the best for humanity and to treat people well and fairly. But this has led me to surprising places.”
Believe it or not, antiwork conservatives exist. They recognize above all else that life must have a purpose, and that purpose is to enjoy life. In other words, to do life and to do it well. This requires the two components of conservatism, consequentialism (or realism) and a transcendental or optimizing goal that aims for excellence, beauty, immense inner satisfaction, existential pleasure and that sort of thing.
On top of that, we are practical men — and we are all men; did you ever know a woman to turn down a chance at being important at a job, rather than “stuck at home with the kids”? — who recognize that there is very little we must actually do. We need some kind of food, some roads, and to avoid dying in famine or warfare. Everything else is gravy, icing on the cake, and we can do without it.
Technology improves all these things, but on a curve like everything else under the sun. It is at first difficult, then a great boon, and finally, it settles into the same position of burden as everything else because it requires the same staff and labyrinth of rules to support it. At the far end of the curve, we are working for technology and not it for us.
The same is true of management. After the middle part of the curve, it becomes as much of a burden as aid. Soon we have more managers than workers. In the same way, clerks can become a burden. At some point, having all these people to take care of paperwork becomes a burden. And what if we reduce both to the minimum? Maybe we lose a few percent more each year in wastage, but we lose less of our lives to this mind-numbing, tedious labor.
During the late 1990s, this idea really exploded. Mike Judge made a movie called Office Space and Michel Houellebecq wrote a book called Whatever. Houellebecq introduced the topic, which was that jobs make us miserable and nothing that important goes on in them. Judge translated this for the masses into comedy that showed how even good jobs involved a few hours of work at most, management was insane, and most people were lonely and isolated.
These criticisms are not new. They began in the 1950s when the huge boom in Western wealth converted our surface cultures from “do the right thing” to “make the sale.” This disease spread from the top to the bottom, and now all of our jobs are a combination of past roles: clerk, salesman and now, IT guy. Most of what we do has nothing to do with any practical task.
If anything, the rise in online business has destroyed the role of salesman. The customer can find what he needs unless he is a total moron, in which case he is either a rich moron who can hire a personal assistant, or a poor moron who has no hope of buying anyway. The whole foundation of our post-1950s boom has just collapsed from within.
Now we shuffle everyone into office jobs, where one person now does as a singular role what one worker did in the past. This is a response to how dumb and neurotic everyone is, thus useless. Our managers are idiots, and our workers retards, so we dumb down the whole thing for them, which means that anyone with an IQ above that of a microwave hot pocket is in deep trouble because he or she will be bored, lonely and subtly enraged during their entire working tenure.
All of these are procedural or tactical critiques of jobs. We could do them in a tenth the time, and eliminate two-thirds of them, or numbers roughly along those lines. This is well-known among higher-ups but they also fear prole revolt, so they have designed the ultimate trap maze to keep the mice running in circles with just enough to buy goodies so that they do not notice their utter existential slavery.
The real critique is this: when your society starts making jobs be the forefront of existence, it means you have lost direction. You have given up on making sense of life and are trying only to keep the paychecks coming so the economy does not crash. Life itself has been disrespected and relegated to second-class citizen status. No one sees this as insanity because to do so is to realize that they are wasting the best hours of most days doing nothing of any real importance.
Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing
I stole this term from Star Trek. They wrote “GNDN” on the pipes running through the Enterprise in that cool font because those pipes were there for appearance only, to keep the audience pleased, as it were. The problem with living in a dying civilization, and modernity is certainly one of those, is that no matter what you do it will not matter.
In the past, people who did exceptional things had the belief that their works would live on by benefiting others. Now, we know that anything good will be ground under the wheel so that something mediocre but more profitable can take its place. Even if something is excellent, no one will recognize it because it appeals to a numerically small audience instead of the milling-about masses.
The people want 50 Cent, not Beethoven. They want Budweiser, not a pub on every corner with its own blend. They desire cigarettes, not pipes brimming with Empire Virginias pressed, panned and aged to perfection. This means that only fools pursue excellence, because the real model for victory is disguised mediocrity that is cheap to produce and sold at high margin, like Coca-Cola or the Republican party, come to think of it.
We are familiar with the trope of the innovative artist: laboring alone in poverty, he makes great works and is totally ignored. He dies in squalor and confusion, and then fifty years later someone makes a fortune by “discovering” his works and making him a household name. We have replaced this role by cutting out the innovative artist and replacing him with the recombinant aesthetics of the “creative” who have been taught to be so.
These people come up with “new” ideas that are re-mixes of old ideas, and give them the best slick surface that training and money can buy, and then are lauded as new undiscovered artists. The public, accustomed to the trope — and tropes are fun, like simple dances, because everyone can participate — lunges for the mediocre wrapped in shiny paper and then the artist is forgotten. See, we have made the process more efficient, just far lower quality.
All of this means that no sane person is going to spend their time on making objects of greatness. That is a path to getting ignored in the present, and, because our society is degenerating, not noticed in the future. No one cares about quality. As a result, if you slave away writing great symphonies, they will go into a dusty old library where no one notices them, which then burns down as a result of the incompetence of its staff.
We Are The Robots
The last one hits me closest to the heart: a society designed around equality turns its people into mechanical parts. The old saw about cogs in the machine comes to mind. Each person must be a worker, a consumer and a participant in some kind of social scene. We have converted everything that is not-work and not-buying into socializing.
This means that life is a robotic process of following what others are doing and trying to participate, without any ability to show distinction except by doing a different version of what everyone else is doing. Someone always wins that lottery, gets his fifteen minutes of fame, and then disappears into the memory hole, and everyone else chases the new trend.
In short, our society is vapid and worthless like most dying empires. It has replaced actual goals with nonsense and now demands we spend our time on this nonsense, robotically going through the motions. Anything that actually reflects us or our unique abilities is ignored, then trodden over as the crowd rushes to the next attraction or should I say, distraction. Your time is wasted by this process alone.
When people say that Europeans are not breeding at replacement rates, or that idiots seem to rule in every area of life, I point to this dilemma: when life becomes a repetitive process, anyone who wants to really live checks out and heads for the hills. There are not enough jobs as writers, artists, musicians and the like for everyone, and in those honesty is deprecated, which makes them a form of slavery to trend. It is misery.
Then take a look out the door. Constant make-work and busy-work. Cars drive around as if aimless, businesses scream advertisements, government lines the roads with signs warning us about how fun things will kill us. Every few years there is a new panic — drugs, Nazis, global warming, AIDS — that turns out to be a non-issue for most of us. There is no peace of mind or contemplation, because to have those would reveal the emptiness of it all.
“And that, gentlemen, is why modern society is worthless, in a nut-shell. This society has lost purpose. We no longer aim high for anything. There is only the activity we do to compensate, and it is designed for idiots by idiots, which slowly kills off the non-idiots.”
“Much as Satan fell to earth, and decided it was better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven, by giving power to Man over nature and God we have made a Hell of what could be Heaven. Since it is not visible like an apocalypse or zombie attack, it goes unrecognized. They waste your time, all of it if they can, because they have no purpose of their own.”
And with that, I sipped the brandy before it got too warm, and puffed my smoldering cigar back to life.
The media, which thrives by panic, and lately, to their discredit, certain Republicans, have been bemoaning the future of automation. They think that robots will quickly displace all of our jobs, including fairly high-level ones, and there is some evidence that they are correct.
I have a different take on this issue: I hope robots take all of our jobs, every last one. First, because since robots are not as flaky as human beings, they will do a cleaner, more reliable job. Second, because we should abolish jobs since they are one of the worst things to ever visit humanity.
Jobs are jails. Most people spend almost all of their waking hours during the week either preparing for or attending their job, at which they do very little of actual import. Most of it consists in performance for the sake of appearance so that others keep the flow of money coming. When bungled, the average job has zero consequences in store for the bungler. It is clear that jobs are obsolete even without robots because if most people stayed home, life would keep right on truckin’.
The modern addiction to jobs spreads misery, achieves terrible results because there is no responsibility to results for salaried employees, and ensures that people never get to relax. Jobs keep us manic and disturbed, living in fear and debt, slouching toward something worse than serfdom.
A tale of modern jobs present a parable:
A story I came back with is essentially the same one that’s been told a fair number of times over the past few years, but is worth repeating. It concerns Stanwell and its remove from Denmark to Italy.
From its earliest days, apparently, the Stanwell workers were paid by the piece. This method rewarded the better, faster worker and all workers kept their heads down and worked. They did not idle. I saw this myself when visiting the factory with Bjarne Nielsen years ago, and not understanding the reason for the rare lack of congeniality, thought that the Stanwell crowd was simply lacking in affability. No, they simply did not want to be distracted from the income-earning activity in front of them.
When international cigarette/tobacco conglomerate Rothman’s bought Stanwell, they decided to give salaries. They probably thought this would allow them to more accurately predict payments to the workers, as opposed to having to tally up individual production each day or week.
Nonetheless, with a secure income, the workers slowed up and production decreased. Orlick, the pipe tobacco company (among other things they own, I suspect) then bought Stanwell, but profitability didn’t increase. When the initial change from piece work to salary was instituted, the old line managers retired and were replaced by new, less knowledgeable people. This switch proved to be just as costly, if not more so, than the change to a salary system.
With the old guard, the factory was visited on a regular basis by the likes of Tom Eltang, the Bang boys and others. It was visited, in short, by the very best pipe makers in the world. The best of the best. These guys came for various reasons. They could hand pick the best briar from the stacks of wood Stanwell warehoused; they would pick up repairs to do for Stanwell (especially Eltang, who did their repairs for a number of years); they would use the Stanwell blaster to sand blast their imperfect bowls. Sandblasting machines are typically too expensive for a single pipe maker to buy. Then, they would sit down with the workers and have a free lunch on the factory. This was not unimportant to a bunch of less-than-rich pipe makers.
Guess what happened at these lunches? Right…people talked and ideas were exchanged. From Stanwell’s point of view, they got design and production ideas from the greatest pipe makers in the world. We all know how beautiful some of those relatively inexpensive pipes were. This exchange of thought was a boon to Stanwell that was invaluable to the brand, but was lost when modern corporate methods were employed. If the new design cost Stanwell $500 or $2000, big money to a poor pipe maker, it might earn Stanwell 10 or 100 times that expenditure. It was a true symbiotic relationship.
Soon, with slower production and no new ideas or energy, the Danish factory proved to be unprofitable and was closed down, with production moved to a large Italian factory. Good-bye symbiosis. I can’t say that the factory in Italy is making bad pipes, but I can say, with the applied knowledge of a European insider, that the refined shapes Stanwell produced in the past can not be executed by the mass maker in Italy. The designs of Tom Eltang, Ivarsson, Anne Julie and others requires a bit of expert, experienced hand work. That expertise and experience is not in a large factory dedicated almost solely to creating big numbers. The above explains the boost in prices on good, used Stanwells. I always thought they were undervalued, anyway. — Marty Pulvers
Jobs replace the free exchange of labor with a collective subsidy not different than unions and somewhat like socialism. Instead of being paid for results, workers are paid for attendance and obedience. This means that the foolish thrive and the useful are ignored. Bosses value those that they can control and easily replace more than those who exceed norms.
This makes life in a job miserable and destructive to the soul. But for machines, no such problem exists. If a pipe-maker creates a quality design, and then a robot manufactures ten thousand of those, the difference to the end consumer is minimal.
Let us hope robots take all of our jerbs. This will produce an immediate catastrophic effect on the human psyche: people will be forced to spend at least eight more hours a day getting to know themselves. They will be forced to ask what makes their lives meaningful, since products will be much cheaper with robot labor.
Across the land, people will get up in the morning and be forced to do… nothing. For the first year, loafing will predominate. They will drink to excess, play the buttons off their video game controllers, watch television endlessly, take drugs and fornicate with other carnies like themselves. But then, something will happen that will terrify them.
They will become bored. None of these stimulations by themselves make a good life. And with the passage of time, mortality sets in. Suddenly they will have decades ahead of them that they must fill. They will not have fancy titles and “important” job responsibilities, or an excuse to boss others around, giving themselves a sense of purpose by being In Control.
People will have to actually spend time with their family members. They will get to know their children, neighbors and friends in detail. They will also come to know themselves, since even in the most television- and alcohol-blasted moments, they will still have thoughts and desires.
They will begin to dream. When everything is easily possible, they have no excuse for not challenging themselves with something that might not earn money, but could make a difference. A barn made of hand-carved wood, intricately etched in designs retelling the tale of an epic battle? A great symphony? Hand-to-hand combat for dominion of a local area? The possibilities will actually be endless.
As far as the economics go, some form of universal basic income in exchange for non-profitable labor will come to pass. Every park will have a guardian, every building a doorman-guardian, every patch of forest a forester. There will be no litter on the streets and no unsupervised areas. People could work for four hours a day on these pursuits and still have plenty of time to get to know themselves.
It could be that in the end of Fahrenheit 451, individuals will become masters of books. They will memorize a single volume, study it in depth and retell it, possibly with improvements much as the ancient Greek singer-poets did. They may, as the European aristocracy did, adopt small scientific pursuits and attempt to explore them in ultimate detail.
People will quickly fall into two camps: those who can handle the existential burden of having nothing to do, and those who so need to be distracted that existence will become hell for them. Perhaps those will turn to roller derby full time; who really cares? Those are the people who clog our current existence with misery.
Now, this is no Utopian vision. It mainly fixes the void of meaning in modern life. There will be consequences as well.
For example, robot pipe-makers replace human pipe-makers, and humans will lose the ability to perform that task because it is no longer needed. Unless he is living by intellectual property alone, through licensing his design, a pipe-maker has no purpose unless he is making luxury objects for those who fetishize “handmade.” This will produce designers who make impractical but distinctive designs.
Another disadvantage is that robot quality will mean uniform service, and will take Social Darwinism out of the equation. If it does not matter how you choose, or where you buy food, because you will thrive the same with any option, people will survive no matter how bad their decisions are. Equal survivability obsoletes our facility for making critical decisions.
There will be solutions for those as well. Perhaps a return to public dueling, or robots that move through the streets very slowly looking for victims to consume, or an ideological movement based on buying hand-made items only. But in the meantime, it will be very silent in the human soul for the first time in a long time, and actually difficult mental decisions will have to be made.
The title of this posting is not a mistake, but rather intended to show that (at least in my estimation) psychologists are (in toto) busy falling off the table by saying that spanking is bad. Some time ago the pepper-pot Albert Brenner rightly identified me as a positivist. After that, when I mentioned that emotions are an attribute to conservatives rather than liberals/SJWs (whom mostly express surface feelings based on a low average emotional state), he made the remark that Freud (and Jung) seems to have been the last of the real investigators in this area of expertise (my wording).
The thing is that the Patriarchy seems to have been under attack from all corners, despite it being relatively successful. (I am positive about that) Meaning that spanking is probably a Patriarchal thing and apparently a “white” thing, hence a bad thing detrimental to those poor children – especially the greatest generation?
The “Developmental Psychologist” Elizabeth Gershoff literally spent her life on researching and building the argument that spanking is bad . I asked a retired remedial post-graduated teacher if he supports spanking and he stated “only under severe circumstances”. I then asked a medical General Practitioner whom also assisted convicts receiving corporal punishment and he stated “convicts in general never returned for another “spanking”. In fact they hated it and think it worse than being raped in a normal prison – meaning they were not caught again or they moved to another town. Finally I spoke to a warden and he stated that corporal punishment was generally only given to serious first offenders as an alternative to actual long prison sentences. But he also told me, that “in his days” the principle “leaders” of a community (such as the Head of a School, the Mayor, the Religious Pastor, the Business Chairman, the Sheriff, the Judge and himself) would meet on a quarterly basis to discuss the current state of affairs, including problem citizens.
This is interesting because these “old guys” followed a multi-disciplinary process or perhaps an integrated process to address “punishment” and other solutions to benefit an entire society, of which “spanking” is basically a small part.
But Elizabeth is adamant:
“In a recently published meta analysis in the Journal of Family Psychology, Gershoff and University of Michigan professor Andrew Grogan-Kaylor sift through 75 studies, for a total data pool of nearly 161,000 children, and find “no evidence that spanking is associated with improved child behavior.”
She then follows that with a paltry;
“But Gershoff suspects spanking does lead to these detrimental outcomes. Or, at the very least, she makes the convincing case that spanking doesn’t do any measurable good.”
What she is saying is that data collected over approximately 4 decades indicate that spanking does not do any “measurable” good.
Business people in general like the concept of “carrot and stick” where the carrot (such as a bonus) is supposed to incentivize an employee and the stick (to be fired) positioned as the alternative. There are no counselling sessions, stress amelioration, sharing of feelings or other modern bed-side manners. The stick is therefore a widely accepted “punishment” technique literally used by everybody and I have never heard anybody complain about it. (If there are complaints – it is of no consequence)
Clearly punishment works well with humans. It works so well that cuckolded politicians are willing to sell their wives to prevent personal “punishment”. It works so well that youthful commentators would heavily criticize Christian people, but not Muslims (because Muslims are violent). It works so well that accredited journalists would fake facts to prevent bad imagery – a sort of victim mentality. It works so well that SJWs Always Lie ( via the author VoxDay) to prevent “punishment”.
At this point it is clear that there are more to “punishment” than mere psychology. But to illustrate the point that psychology has been on thin ice for a very long time, consider the following actual cases:
An SJW mother and child go to see a psychologist (about the child’s deviant behavior). Using excellent bed-side manners the psychologist tells the mother that she raised her boy incorrectly between 3 and 5 years, but that it was not her fault because she was divorced. The mother simply moved on to discuss the “next” step. She did not ask what exactly went wrong so that she can correct her own deviant behavior, but mostly the 30 year old female psychologist did not even attempt to explain, even if she could. I doubt she could because she has never heard of the term “SJW”. There are strong indications that SJWs and liberals in general have mental issues, so how does this “developmental” psychologist specializing in secondary school children not know this?
Psychologists are academically disinclined to investigate contentious issues simply by its very nature of appeasement (don’t worry – I understand – we all have the same problems – but we’ll help you through it – ok?) So they spend time on moral things like what is right or wrong (spanking) or on whether meat is actually good for you. It may well be that Albert Brenner was right to criticize psychology for not knowing things, in fact my opinion based on dark organizational theory is that psychologists know very little indeed. I recently confirmed this when speaking to a psychology student who said that this aspect did not feature in her curriculum (at all).
The concept of spanking has been racialized too by saying that it came from the “slave-masters” but some reference was also made that “beatings” are not actually spankings. There may be some truth to this because African tribal culture does not support “spanking”. This is confirmed by my own observation in South Africa, but Stefan Moleneux challenged me by referencing a non-tribal inconsequential black Christian church doctrine promoting “spanking”. In fact even in Muslim culture spanking is rarely applied. It may be fair to say (since I’m not a psychologist) that collectivists raise their children in a more collective fashion (i.e. the village raise them), than western families, where they actually would rather “cover” for each other than enforce some “punishment” (on whose authority?)
The question remains – is spanking for the good of society? Since western society is the most successful society ever – maybe it is. Punishment may start at spanking, but it quickly escalates in the adult world. In collectivist cultures perpetrators are mostly just killed (beheaded), but in western society a more gradual approach is taken and it appears “that” contributes to success. Here is a chart of incarceration vs 10% wealth showing the more successful a justice system, the better for the economy (broadly stated).
Spanking therefore is indeed better than not-spanking, for the child and for society as a whole.
I’ve borrowed a motif from a large, obnoxious Leftist slob. Not the one from Flint MI, but rather George R. R. Martin instead. It is his motto for House Stark from his Song of Fire and Ice novels.
Winter is Coming!
As society in America declines and grows worse, this meme of coming troubles fits our time too well for me to quibble over Martin’s Maoist political beliefs. The meme fits what is happening regardless of whether he ever finishes his septology of novels or not.
Since winter seems to be coming, getting ready may seem like a logical consequentialist strategy. Therefore I hope to embark on what will be a logical intelligent discussion of disaster preparation before the early frost kills our herbaceous borders. Today I offer part I, “What is a SHTF Event?”
When people think of prepping or planning for SHTF, there is a stupid, popular tendency to just assume these are morons who have spent too many hours playing Fallout on their PC and are just LARPING their (((end of days))) fantasies. This is inaccurate. SHTF events occur every year in several places around the globe. They also occur in scales of calamity. Prepping on at least some level is a wise and beneficial decision I would commend to all of you.
As America morphs into Amerika, SHTF events will continue at the same rate they occurred before the decline set in. There will be no more SHTF events and no fewer. The difference between these events occurring in America; as opposed to Amerika, is the extent to which you will be on your own as society continues its selfish degeneration into solipsistic crowdism. Hurricane Katrina, The Alabama Tornado Spree of 2011 and the Eruption of Mt. Saint Helens were all three SHTF events of varying magnitude that would have befallen people in the contiguous 48 states regardless of how well or poorly our society functioned.
The impacts on society differed. Hurricane Katrina was the worst of the three for two reasons. It struck a dense population. That population’s leadership and government on every level performed execrably. The Mayor delayed ordering evacuation until 24 hours before the storm hit. If you’ve ever been on the I-10 Bridge heading west the morning after a big party, you know that was the wrong call. So a city so shot through with corruption that a good chunk of its police force couldn’t be bothered to show up for duty and even looted a Walmart during the storm, left an awful lot of its people to quite literally sink or swim.
The Alabama Tornado Outbreak was also tragic, but less a disaster. The local governments responding were hampered by a lack of resources and pre-planning. Many public officials throughout Alabama could be justifiably criticized in that regard.
However, they didn’t loot any Walmarts and nobody on the Tuscaloosa police force deserted in the aftermath of the F5 that ripped through the downtown. There were one to two week aftermaths in places all over Alabama where the power was out and roads were blocked for miles. One advantage Alabama had over New Orleans was that volunteers came in waves to saw the roads clear and clean up the debris.
The point being, that places where order breaks down and the community is disinterested in mutual assistance will suffer a far worse fate from a SHTF event than places where people are being turned away as volunteers because there isn’t enough food to feed them or equipment to put them all to work in a gainful fashion. So as society degenerates, it is less and less unintelligent to prep for at least some form of SHTF event.
The worse our culture becomes, the more you will be on your own to look after yourself, your family and the people you care about. Let’s first address what you prepare for. SHTF events can be measure on the Bi-dimensional Feke Scale* from F1 to F5 depending upon length and severity. The scale is shown below.
The Length Scale addresses the length of time normal society is disrupted by the event. F1 events are acute, non-recurring events that hit and then move on. F2 and F3 events occur for progressively longer time scales and require greater preparation or outside help to survive. F4 events probably cannot be survived without prior preparation and will significantly impact the culture and history of an area from the time length of social disruption alone. F5 SHTF events are historical milestones that are burned into cultural memory. Think WWI, WWII and the Great Depression. For much of Europe, the time span from 1936 to 1950 could be viewed as a F5 Length SHTF Event.
The Severity Scale attempts to categorize how wide spread the fertilizer becomes once it blows off the oscillating rotary device. F1 events impact the vicinity around you. F2 events take out/ take down entire local regions. F3 events reduce us to maybe 48 or 49 states instead of 50 for a while. F4 events hammer an entire nation or continent while F5 events impact the entire globe.
An F(1,1) would be a major storm or tornado that damages houses and threatens lives but then blows away. The Alabama Tornado Outbreak of 2011 would be about an F(2,3). It killed 300 people and knocked the power grid out, but was over in 3 weeks and never posed an existential threat to life and limb once the storms subsided. Katrina could go up to F(3,3). The Yellowstone Caldera blowing up would rate F(4,4) or F(5,4). The thermonuclear Shoah-Jobs portrayed in A Canticle For Leibowitz or On The Beach would score F(5,5).
Thus, an SHTF event involves some form of major natural or manmade disaster that causes destruction, loss of life and a breakdown of social order. These can classified using a standard risk cube scaled from 1 to 5. The two axis of SHTF can be Length and Severity. The length axis measures for how long social order is disrupted, the severity axis measures how wide of an area will be torn up or non-functional. In the next piece I’ll discuss some of the types of SHTF events that may occur in “Winter Is Coming Part II – Classifying SHTF Events By Type.”
The Harvard-trained theorist who can write a dissertation but not boil an egg, we are told, is “intelligent”; similarly, we are told, a mass of people acting in self-interest to buy products or cast votes will achieve a type of “intelligence.”
I offer an alternate theory: intelligence occurs in degrees, and is as logical as a computer, which means that “Garbage In, Garbage Out” (GIGO) applies. If you feed a computer paradox and nonsense, you will get more of the same. If you feed it sensible principles, you get logical results. This is a parallel to Plato’s “good to the good, and bad to the bad.”
But what is intelligence, this gradient which cannot be seen but whose effects (or lack thereof) can be painfully felt? It seems to be both brain activity, and an ability to correlate that to activity in the real world. We call that “creativity” in some areas because actual creativity requires not making up fantastical stuff, but making up fantastical stuff that is plausible enough as a type of reality, or addresses real-world issues enough to be appealing. Creativity is not arbitrary; it is as logical as science, but uses another approach.
Thus intelligence has two aspects: thinking power, and application power.
Creativity is associated with a style of thinking that is relatively loose in its associations, inclusive in its linking of disparate elements – a style of thinking akin to that of dreaming sleep, psychotic illness, and intoxication.
Creativity is not positively associated with intelligence – or if so at a very modest level. Some societies with high average IQ have low creativity, and vice versa. European societies had (in the past) high average IQ and also reasonably high creativity.
However, creativity is moderately associated with mental illness, psychopathy and addiction – and also with impulsiveness and ‘fecklessness’ – with a lack of perseverance.
This leads us closer to the idea of a genius: someone possessed by genius is literally possessed, in that this power directs the person toward an entirely different view of life which re-organizes it to be far from the normal. In particular, the creative genius resembles the apex predator: lazy, erratic at times, resistant to discipline and aloof.
Scott Adams calls these people “wizards,” and reveals a list of traits they seem to share:
Look for these clues:
1. The wizard succeeds in a high-profile field without the benefit of as much talent as you would expect should be necessary. (This is the biggest tell.)
2. People seem to have an irrational hate for the wizard that is not entirely explained by the wizard’s actions. Regular readers already know these unusual reactions are signs of cognitive dissonance. Wizards induce cognitive dissonance often, without trying.
3. Look for an inflated ego combined with an unusually strong ability to withstand withering criticism. (Wizards get a lot of criticism.) The common view is that wizards are egomaniacs. In reality, the wizard works hard to remain ego-free, and hence can handle criticism well.
4. Wizards are often more ambitious, and often more aggressive, than you think is normal.
5. One or more major PR disasters define the wizard’s history.
6. The wizard has a gift for simplification.
7. Observers detect a reality distortion field.
8. Wizards have an ability to succeed where other fail by changing the entire game as opposed to winning at the existing one.
9. Wizards use words to create images and emotions in people’s minds.
10. Wizards seek public attention.
The wizard filter on the world isn’t necessarily true in some objective sense. The fun is seeing if the data and predictions fit the filter.
I submit that much as Adams writes, creative genius cannot be tested for; it appears and can be identified later because it fit the filter, but beyond that, it is something that emerges in the real world through results and not through human selection.
That shows us the basis of the aristocratic system: find those who have done great things, breed them with the noblest and smartest women, and create a permanent group of high-intelligence and high-creativity people. This was the reason for Europe’s success and is the method by which it can be restored.
Today, on April 20th, I think often of Hitler: a man who knew so much, yet did so much wrong. Perhaps the division between Hitler and what we need as a civilization is this aristocratic division. We do not need a better modern, or “predictive” system, but an absence of systems entirely and a reliance instead on proven wizardry/creative genius.
That alone demonstrates a working model of intelligence. You can separate the men from the boys with SATs and IQ tests, but to find the gold among the silver and copper, we must rely on nature and instead of trying to control her, channel her natural bounty of genius and creativity into a new elite.
Thirty years ago, William Gibson wrote a series of cyberpunk stories — visual counterparts to the theories of Burroughs and Pynchon — which suggested a reality “underneath” the world of appearance and human “face value” assurances in which most of us live.
A terrible movie was made some years later to translate that simplification into an even simpler version. Called The Matrix, this movie gave the Hollywood treatment to cyberpunk but also gave us a powerful metaphor: the red pill.
In The Matrix, the protagonist was given the choice between a red pill and a blue pill. The red pill would make him see reality as it was, underneath the appearance; the blue pill would make him expert at the false reality. (Distracted observers may draw comparisons to the ring of Gyges from Plato and not be wrong).
While this movie was a fantasy, and its vision of actual reality in fact a false reality that scapegoated a centralized force instead of the decentralized decay we are experiencing, the metaphor sticks. Some people embrace the unpopular and unpleasant truths of life, where others just want to become good/successful at the illusion.
Some years later, my esteemed colleague Colin Liddell unleashed “The Black Pill”:
The Black Pill is the least dialectical of the three. It leads from actual inferiority back to actual inferiority. It is nihilism, but nihilism made flesh calls forth absolute egoism, a sense of the self detached from wider contexts and responsibilities—it is this that makes it evil and murderous.
The inferior person can either accept context and therefore inferiority, or fight it. The Blue Piller rejects his future inferiority by retreating backwards into illusion. The Red Piller rejects his present lack of superiority by marching forward through positive consciousness and action to redress the situation. The Black Piller, however, chooses neither the palliatives of illusion nor the challenge of positive action. He stares into the abyss—passively because his actions will never be capable of changing it—and, as Nietzsche so pertinently observed, the abyss stares back.
For almost thirty years, I have written about nihilism as a philosophy. In my view, nihilism is the gateway to all useful thought. It clears aside the human pretense and solipsistic illusion and replaces it with a cold, unflinching, logical and realistic look at our world and our place within it, including the Darwinian need to adapt. More disturbingly, it shows us that the standard of life is not how to explain away our failings, but that each time we observe a better method than our own, we will be dissatisfied and self-hating if we do not adopt it.
Without nihilism, religion becomes obedience out of fear, not a choice to seek out possible metaphysical dimensions to the universe. With nihilism, science becomes applied logic; literature becomes communication; art becomes Jungian symbolism. It is a gateway to a kingdom of darkness in which suddenly, the photonegative of normal human life — invert by social impulses, which are individual fears amplified and then placated by collective illusion — is negatived again, revealing that what we call “light” is darkness and vice-versa. Illusions fall in cold white flame.
In my view, nihilism is the black pill. It is not egoism, because nihilism denies the notion of humanity and the individual being the center of the world. In nihilism, as in the universe, the self is a tiny portion of a great vast space that is mostly emptiness. Nihilism is mostly negation, or destruction of human illusions and plans that turned out to be unrealistic. That process begins by attacking the deception of the mind by itself.
The black pill provides a gateway into an entirely different way of seeing the world. Where most people live in a purely social world, where they assume the goodwill of others, black pilled people see a natural struggle every bit as violent and constant as that experienced by a common mouse. Predators surround us and parasites infest us unless we actively and aggressively remove them without mercy.
In the black pill world, government is nothing more than a parasite. Salesmen are predators, hoping to convince you to pay high prices for something that is easy for them to acquire. Police and taxmen are parasites as well, looking for some way to justify taking money and time from you. Most people are parasites and predators alike who want to use you as a means toward their own aggrandizement. In addition, all but a few people — one in a hundred, maybe — are delusional to the edge of clinical insanity.
This is a new view of reality that has a tendency to snap into place suddenly so that thousands of details make sense at once as if aligned. It is a more realistic view, and statistically more likely true, than the happy world of “love and trust” (dependency and subsidies) erected by democratic society. It points out the obvious: humans are still mostly the same filthy little beasts that crawled out of the primordial ooze, and those who have risen above that state are targets of the rest.
Vice: First of all, could you explain what you mean by the term progress and why you think it’s a myth?
John Gray: I define progress in my new book as any kind of advance that’s cumulative, so that what’s achieved at one period is the basis for later achievement that then, over time, becomes more and more irreversible. In science and technology, progress isn’t a myth. However, the myth is that the progress achieved in science and technology can occur in ethics, politics, or, more simply, civilization. The myth is that the advances made in civilization can be the basis for a continuing, cumulative improvement.
This exchange is classic black pill. “Progress” is a myth told by salesmen to customers. The reality is that absent evolution or eugenics, humans do not change, and in fact have zero incentive to because they have made society parasite-friendly through egalitarianism. The myth exists only to justify the parasitism. “Progress” is like fashion in that it argues for something new you must buy or be inferior socially and (implicitly) evolutionarily.
With the impending election, the futility of our lives becomes even clearer with one salient point inescapable: It doesn’t matter who wins. The underlying issues destroying our society will never be dealt with under our current democratic system. Voting is pointless. The only possible utility voting possesses is the potential to vote for the worst possible candidate in order to hasten the demise of this broken society. There is nothing to preserve, conserve or improve. The only way forward is to destroy the corpse so something better can take its place.
As long as civilizations make intelligent or semi-intelligent decisions, they thrive. When people start making stupid decisions, as has happened for the past thousand years, it means both that the future will be bad and that the past was bad, since no society gets to the point of making stupid decisions without somehow putting the stupid in power.
Once a civilization falls into decline, far more decisive action is required than its political, social and economic system allows. It requires the intervention of strong power to remove the rot and send it far away, then rebuild institutions around good people who can make the complex decisions that rules, elections and markets cannot. This means that many dreams will be smashed, and all parasitic people need to be disenfranchised if not outright removed.
These are hard truths. They are also a source of great joy for those who discover them because that revelation lifts the burden of having to uphold illusions and fantasies as reality. It also shows a path forward out of a situation where everything we do is bound to be adulterated and fail, and allows us hope for a better future through our own hands, not government or “We The People” surging in like the cavalry to save the heroine at a movie’s end.
It’s 1954, when an angry mob of hundreds of people storm a cemetery, armed with knives, stones and hand-crafted spears. A vampire is said to reside there, who has killed and eaten two children. The vampire is said to be seven feet tall and according to the rumors has iron teeth. What country are we talking about? Lily white England. Plot twist: The mob consisted of children.
In contrast to what you might have heard from the alt-right, different cultures can in fact co-exist in peace for generations. I am talking here, of course, about the culture of children and the culture of adults. For centuries, children have maintained their own cultures separate from adults, passed on from older children to younger children. That culture has been lost, but it can be revived.
All that was necessary for these culture to be preserved, was for adults to leave their children unsupervised for sufficient amounts of time. These cultures emerged spontaneously and passed on legends and practices from older children to younger ones. They declined as we increasingly began to supervise our children, restricted their right to roam outside and gave them access at first to television and later on, computers, tablets and smartphones.
We might say that we wish to protect our children from harm, but more primitive cultures seem to have had less concern when it comes to such harm. Certain primitive African cultures have children with hands covered by scars, because the children are left for themselves to find out that fire is hot. As we isolate ourselves from the natural world and become anxious and risk averse, we impose our mentality on our children as well.
The problem is that we have placed excessively high expectations on our children. In addition, we have embraced the wrong values as a culture. We aim to make our children successful, that is, capable of holding onto some full-time white collar job that will allow them to provide for a family. In addition, in our meritocratic culture, we all expect that our child will inevitably rise in socio-economic status, rather than dropping down. When nepotism and inherited privilege ensure that social status is determined at birth, people have less reason to place high expectations on their children.
Children naturally learn new valuable skills. Their method of learning is called play, it teaches them all the skills that were necessary for most of human history. Leave a bunch of (tom)boys by themselves and they will build huts, rafts, slingshots and carts. If children’s natural method of learning doesn’t prepare them for adult life anymore, the solution is not to force children to play less and to do more homework. Rather, the solution is to change adult life to be more in tune with humans natural inclinations.
In many places, people are beginning to understand this. In Denmark, traditionally far ahead of the rest of Western civilization, we see an explosion in the number of nature based elementary schools and childcare facilities. Young children are given knives and taught to make spears from branches, or how to recognize and where to find wild plants and animals. Caregivers take the children outside and let them dig through the mud.
Of course at the same time, from the higher echelons of society we see an attempt to keep their disastrous project from falling apart. All developed nations are currently struggling with a shortage of STEM-nerds. To prepare children for the mediocre lives that adults have planned for them, as future objected-oriented PHP programmers and C# developers, a growing number of elementary schools are teaching children how to code, through the use of games on tablets.
The thought never seems to occur to our central planners that perhaps technology’s natural inclination is not to create a paradise on Earth, but rather to force lifestyles onto human beings that are increasingly at odds with our natural instincts and make us miserable. Perhaps there is no degree of indoctrination that could ever get women to look forward to spending their lives as PHP programmers. As much as people might fail to admit it, to work in IT is a choice of last resort, for people who need the money and have no real idea where else to get hired.
Another taboo to break through is as following: No matter how good looking they might be, the average engineer or computer programmer is an awful guy that women struggle to maintain relationships with. Silicon Valley is known to have an epidemic of singles, the main reason being that the high-earning white collar males who work there are awful people to interact with.
Intelligent, non-autistic women who had to work with successful IT nerds tend to have a variety of nightmare stories to share. Interacting with other people takes effort, those who spend their days interacting with computers and learning their logic inevitably struggle to develop this skill. If anything, the covert subtle language of human communication is diametrically opposed to the overt concrete language of computers. Thus, to learn one is to lose our understanding of the other.
When we educate our children, we give birth to the cultures that are to follow us. If we drown them with busywork to give them a chance in the rat-race for the shrinking pool of high-status white-collar jobs, we prepare a society that is as hellish as the one we find ourselves in today. They become like us, drones who expect to receive fat pension checks after they turn 65 that allow them to spend the last years of their lives as modern day leisurely aristocrats, to make up for the miserable decades before retirement spent in cubicles.
If on the other hand, we teach our children to love, enjoy and admire the living world that they inherited, they stand a chance of growing up to become adults with lives worth living. Our children deserve something better than we received.
To take one example, if you say there is no God and then turn around and tell me I should not be a racist, or that I should help someone in need, and I say, “why should I?” how do you respond? If we are all evolutionary accidents, why can’t I believe and practice anything I wish?
Let us refresh our historical memories with a short insight from Friedrich Nietzsche:
“Where has God gone?” he cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us – for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.”
Nietzsche’s point is that God did not die by his own hand, but by ours. We forgot how to value and notice God, and so He passed out of our consciousness.
In other words, choosing God is like everything else, a choice. Before we can make that choice, we must choose to choose, which means we must decide to be good, or that we value good more than its alternatives. Then we can discover what is good and pursue it, but not before we make the conscious election to want good and not any other option.
It is a narrow path, as they say.
It is the same with God. We must choose Him. Otherwise, we continue to live like the other beasts, limited in what they can do. And in fact, many humans have no choice but to be godless as they are unaware of many things. They lack the wiring to understand things more complex than cheeseburgers and the time period until the next paycheck.
We also do not need God for morality. We can choose to be moral the same way.
We need God for an entirely different reason: God is part of reality, and the only sensible answer to many of our questions. Reality without God is incomplete, but reality without being able to speak German is incomplete, too. This is not a binary choice, but an option to optimize our experience.
Pursuit of God is like the pursuit of any other transcendental — such as “the good, the beautiful and the true” — in that these are things above and beyond mere survival, but they enhance life from subsisting to thriving. Thus to those who reach a certain level of understanding, they become essential. This is the philosophy called esotericism.
A human needs food, shelter, and water to survive. Above that, life becomes better, but only when those basics are so well taken care of that the mind can look to other things. This is both Mazlow’s hierarchy and our own evolution. As we became more powerful, we turned to questions that required more power.
But in each individual, evolution is recapitulated: we must develop ourselves to the highest levels we can, and we are limited by what we are given to work with. Someone with an IQ of a hundred has far fewer options than someone with an IQ of 130.
Morality comes from realism. We are here to adapt to this world in all of its complexity and, once we become aware of an option, we must either choose it and rise or remain where we are. There is no Hell, only a knowledge of “what could have been” which is beaten into our heads by time. Foreclosure and regret and strong teachers!
All traditional morality consists of choosing the things that work out better than others. The family, culture, tradition, even religion itself — these things are important to us because like other methods of survival, they work better than the other options.
And yet there is no need to choose them. Not everyone can, and not everyone wants to. The human notion of rationalism — based in the presumed but unproven and illogical belief that all people are “equal,” an algebraic notion applied to a multi-dimensional space — demands that we see God as universal and therefore accessible to all.
But in reality, like understanding The Republic, God is not open to all. God is not a machine or a wonder-drug. God is first and foremost a state we must reach within ourselves to choose God.
There is no equality. Equality is the death of God because it assumes that what is shared between humans, the human form, is perfection and is therefore superior to God’s order a.k.a. reality. Egalitarianism is our arrogance and denial of God, but most insist that it is necessary so that God can be universal instead of optional.
But He is optional, like every other good thing. He is also “racist”: God made the different groups with different abilities, and they serve different roles. Race, too, is not universal. Universalism is the bigotry of humans against the complexity and unknowability (for everyone) of God.
And yet, we must beat back our raging human Ego. What is important is reality, including its transcendental dimensions if we can fire up the inner gumption to seek them out. And with that, we will rediscover God, and he will no longer remain dead.