Logical fallacies prove useful because, like many studies of the human animal and its mind, they reveal common pitfalls of cognition and analysis. They are less practical in arguments because they tend to get applied as rubber stamp style deflections, and are often misapplied, which leads to a need to analyze the fallacies for fallacies.
Of interest are a series of illusions which boil down to a very simple idea, namely, the imposition of a false binary on the world. In this mental error, it is assumed that there are only two states of outcome, with one excluding the other. This is called a false dilemma or false dichotomy:
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of “reasoning”:
Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.
However, this fallacy is not absolute; see the warning on “rubber stamping” above. For example, “Either we are suffering from global warming, or we are getting wiped out by pollution.” Both could be false, but if one is discussing evidence of some kind of breakdown or decline, and it is limited to two sources, this might not be a false argument.
More commonly you see this one as a vernacular expression of support for a program. “Either we adopt Obamacare, or we face revolution as people go bankrupt from healthcare costs,” for example. There are other options to these two, but the person arguing is hoping to exclude all of those possibilities in order to argue for his case against a weaker opposite.
In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
In other words, the person arguing asserts that an event will lead to an extreme. This is a quasi-fallacy because it can be true if the intervening steps are true, which occurs if the final state is merely an intensification of the initial state. As historical examples show us, decisions have momentum, and if there is not a reason to stop a policy, it merely accelerates.
These two fallacies are very similar in that the person arguing is claiming that two extremes must exist. Either X leads to Y, or X does not lead to Y, with no variation in between. Since either of these may be false, we quickly slip into false dilemma or false dichotomy territory in the analysis of this fallacy.
For that reason, not every use of slippery slope is a fallacy; X can lead to Y, but depends on other data to be verified, unless (for example) we are looking at a historical pattern. At that point, referring to slippery slope as a fallacy is a form of the false dilemma or false dichotomy.
I will summarize it: a motte-and-bailey argument is where you have a strong ridiculous claim and a weak trivial one. You make the strong ridiculous claim. When your opponent counters by pointing out that the strong ridiculous claim is, in fact, ridiculous, you re-counter by saying, “No no no, I’m just saying [weak trivial claim].” You then go on to say, “Because of [weak trivial claim], it follows that [thing that follows from strong ridiculous claim but not weak trivial one.]”
For example, I claim that our physical bodies would not exist unless we perceived them through a social lens [strong ridiculous claim]. When you rightfully tell me I’m full of horse shit, I respond by saying, “No! I’m only saying that we understand bodies through a social lens.” [weak trivial claim] You agree to this, because it’s damn-near common sense for anyone who has thought about the issue. I then go on to say, “Therefore, not only gender, but biological sex itself, is socially constructed [follows from strong ridiculous claim], because biological sex is understood through the lens of gender [follows from weak trivial claim].”
In other words, with two claims X and Y, a condition of X or Y is asserted, with the idea that failure of one leads to the other. This enables the person arguing to backdoor the stronger claim on the basis of the weaker one through the implication that the two are related.
Translating into false dilemma, this becomes X->Y or not (X->Y) for the sake of arguing, essentially, that we either accept the linkage between the two, or we negate both claims, which also negates the partial truth stated in the weak claim. An implied false dilemma or false dichotomy thus exists there.
All of recent history comes from using a false dilemma to deny slippery slopes, such as “immigration leads to genetic replacement,” which are in fact logical because the final condition is only an increase of intensity of the starting condition, and their replacement with the false dilemma of “partial truth or not partial truth,” therefore the strong claim — which is not an increase of intensity, but a widening of scope — must be true.
For example, we are told that it is not true that immigration leads to ethnic replacement, but that because immigration has some advantages, immigration is necessary, even though there are many other ways to address the problem that immigration purports to solve.
On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to deny the slippery slope, since history shows us that when a population makes itself available to unlimited immigration, it tends to get replaced. The vast number of mixed-race societies across the globe are proof of this, with none of them showing signs of reversal.
For this reason, we come back to the accusations of false dilemma that inevitably follow when it is argued that immigration must be restricted. “Either we restrict immigration, or we are abolished,” sounds like it might be false, except that when one sees that the initial conditions lead to the extreme, the real false dilemma clearly lies elsewhere.
We are frequently told that “We either take immigrants, or we are abolished by low population, low revenues or lack of diversity.” This shows all three fallacies at work: a false dilemma in that we have other options, a false slippery slope in assuming that population or revenues will continue to fall, and a motte-and-bailey that has us assume that since immigration has some advantages, it is necessary.
Now we get to the big point, for which all of the above is prelude.
Leftism itself consists of a false dichotomy. Its origin, equality, comes from the demands of class warfare brought on by a splintered leadership structure. The argument advanced is: “Either we make people equal, or class warfare destroys us.” This fails because there are many options in between.
This argument fools us because there is a partial truth inherent to what is being said: class warfare is a threat. You can see the “first strike advantage” in that the person offering the argument presents it as an option, and then implicitly disclaims all other options, in an inverted form of the motte-and-bailey argument.
A little more reduction shows the false dichotomy inherent in this. They are arguing, in effect, “Accept my plan or all other options will fail,” which naturally is not proven. In this, its naked state, the argument stands revealed for the fallacy that it is, even if it is buried under several layers of misdirection to conceal its raw nature.
Life is mathematical. Every organism faces a series of challenges which are defined more by numerical factors than anything else. For example, how much food is there? How many offspring must be produced? All of these calculations determine outcome more than doing one specific task so well that it overcomes the numeric limitations imposed upon it.
The mathematics of life determine survival. A parasitic disease, like a flu, that takes too many resources will kill the host and be less successful as quarantine kicks in; a rapidly-reproducing organism, like yeast, is most likely to reproduce too fast, consume all of its nutrition and die in a bloom of excess.
We see these events happen in nature all of the time. The dreaded “red tide” is one type of population bloom that occurs through algae which reproduce too much and then deprive the water of oxygen, killing off all sea life in the area. If not whacked back, crabgrass takes over lawns and chokes out every other species.
These extreme examples conceal the fact that these mathematical limits apply to every species. If there are too many deer, they will destroy enough trees that next season, they will starve. Too many squirrels means starving squirrels. But the same is even true of human attempts to form groups; if the group cannot limit its natural impulses, it implodes.
In August 1944, the Coast Guard released 29 reindeer on the island as a backup food source for the men. Barged over from Nunivak Island, the animals landed in an ungulate paradise: lichen mats four inches thick carpeted areas of the island, and the men of the Coast Guard station were the reindeer’s only potential predators.
…[thirteen years later the] herd was then at a staggering density of 47 reindeer per square mile. Klein noted the animals’ body size decreased since his last visit, as had the ratio of yearling reindeer to adults. All signs pointed to a crash ahead.
…in summer of 1966, he, another biologist and a botanist found the island covered with skeletons; they counted only 42 live reindeer, no fawns, 41 females and one male with abnormal antlers that probably wasn’t able to reproduce. During a few months, the reindeer population of St. Matthew had dropped by 99 percent.
Let us look at the mathematics of the situation:
St. Matthew then had the classic ingredients for a population explosion—a group of healthy large herbivores with a limited food supply and no creature above them in the food chain.
In other words, there is a mathematical threshold here imposed by the ratio of animals to resources given the need for the resources to replenish themselves. With few enough animals, the food source is able to renew itself; with too many, a situation like “eating the seed corn” occurs and there is no crop in the following year.
These thresholds are invisible because they are not formed of anything tangible or evident, only a prediction based on the mathematics of the situation. For this reason, human groups routinely stumble over these and self-destruct through a process known as a death spiral.
In a death spiral, a human group engages in a pathology based on what has worked in the past. They do this because of social factors, which ties into the same type of neurosis that causes “cargo cults” among human groups:
Cargo cult, any of the religious movements chiefly, but not solely, in Melanesia that exhibit belief in the imminence of a new age of blessing, to be initiated by the arrival of a special “cargo” of goods from supernatural sources—based on the observation by local residents of the delivery of supplies to colonial officials.
In these, people confuse what they were doing at the moment an event occurred with the cause of that event. This leads to groups engaging in religious rituals to bring back the cargo, even though the delivery of the cargo was initiated by events entirely unremoved from the group. This provides a good metaphor for human pathology.
A small village has a few dozen farmers. One of them has an abundant crop. “I didn’t do anything different, except sacrifice this fish to the god Ba-El,” he says. The other farmers face a difficult choice: if they fail to sacrifice a fish to Ba-El, and they do not have a good crop, they will appear incompetent to others. Whereas if they do, they are merely out one fish.
The economics of pathology unfold from this moment. The symbolic task does not represent a risk in itself directly, but will cause a “sin of omission” where those busy with the symbolic will miss actual problems. But the social cost of not doing the symbolic task could be much higher, especially if something goes wrong and then no one wants to aid the guy who did not conform.
As a result, economics dictate that people follow the socially acceptable path even though it requires the adoption of what is essentially a lie, which is the idea that the fish sacrifice made the abundant crop. The lie unites the social group. Through this method, the human group starts its equivalent of a yeast bloom or red tide, which is a virtue signaling death spiral.
In a death spiral of this type, appearance is more important than reality and simultaneously, is detached from reality much like the symbolic fish sacrifice mentioned above. This means to social success, and success in terms of realistic results, rapidly become opposites. Symbols and their referents even more widely diverge. And so, the civilization becomes dedicated to lying.
For example, the fish sacrifices may have never worked, but those farmers who were conscientious enough to plough, plant and irrigate correctly are also those prone to make fish sacrifices. And so, it appears that the talisman works; everyone does it and those who do not are not trusted, cannot get loans or sell their product, and are marginalized.
The result is that to be a successful farmer, one must make the fish sacrifice, because social factors mediate reality through the actions of other people needed by farmers. At this point, something fascinating happens.
Clearly the fish sacrifices are not working. Normally, we would conclude that the method either never worked, only partially worked or has stopped working, and place less emphasis on it. But because of social factors, we must double down and place more emphasis on it.
Through this runaway acceleration feedback loop, more fish sacrifices will be performed. They may happen daily or require more or bigger fish. Farmers will spend themselves bankrupt buying fish because to do otherwise is to lose social approval, and so to be unable to get help (loans, sales, labor) from others. Insanity replaces sanity.
A virtual signaling death spiral of this sort adds to the natural conditions for a sudden extinction: unlimited growth plus finite resources reaches a threshold, but now, the added wrinkle is that resources are being expended for symbolic and not realistic ends. This does not cause sudden failure, which is why it is deadly.
Instead, it causes a gradual slowdown. For every dollar made from a farm, ten cents go to fish. This cost is passed on to consumers, who now pass it on to others. Lawyers, teachers, and repairmen all charge ten percent more. This in turn raises costs to farmers, so they raise their costs in turn. This feedback loop continues until the economy is near collapse.
Human groups of all types fail through this process. Symbolic and social behaviors replace practical ones. Then, the group both divides itself internally over the issue of symbolic behaviors and how to interpret them, and bleeds itself dry pursuing non-issues instead of the obvious and massive actual threats.
We see these patterns time and again in human society:
Communism. Being Leftist meant social success, so people went far Leftist and then destroyed their society. At the time when they needed to be fixing real problems like a lack of food in grocery stores, they were instead fighting over ideological issues.
Greenland. This Nordic colony thrived on hunting ivory from walruses, but then the market discovered elephant ivory. Instead of admitting the failure of this market, the colony continued hunting walrus with the energy it should have spent relocating or finding new industry.
South Africa. This colony made itself rich on natural resources until other sources were found. At that point, it could no longer support its underclasses, and mass revolt resulted in a typical diversity death spiral where two groups fight each other instead of looking toward a new source of income.
Immigration. The West experienced a huge population boom after World War II and started looking for ways to fund the social benefits it had appointed to those people. Instead of admitting that it could not pay these benefits, it began importing immigrants, only to find the tax revenues from these were not what were hoped for.
Future human leaders will be more concerned with feedback loops that produce death cycles than we are now. Failure of organization to respond to changing resource needs, including to slow growth before a crisis, destroys civilizations. Instead of adapting, the dying organization relies on proxies which increase its free rider and tragedy of the commons crises.
Those looking for rules that can prevent this situation will be disappointed. Humans are biological organisms that vary in ability; those with low ability, even in the presence of enlightened rules, will only misinterpret those rules. Without perceptive leaders with the power to act decisively before a crisis, that group will fall into a virtue signaling death spiral and perish.
The chicken-and-egg question of civilization decline dogs us repeatedly. Which came first, democracy or breakdown? The answer may be shocking: the tendency of humans toward individualism, manifested in both bourgeois oblivion and prole present-tense me-firsting, overcomes societies once they succeed.
From Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs:
The Divisionists occupy a mid-way position, could in fact be termed moderates…. They are called Divisionists because they literally divide. They cut off tiny bits of their flesh and grow exact replicas of themselves in embryo jelly. It seems probable, unless the process of division is halted, that eventually there will be only one replica of one sex on the planet: that is one person in the world with millions of separate bodies…. Are these bodies actually independent, and could they in time develop varied characteristics? I doubt it. Replicas must periodically recharge with the Mother Cell. This is an article of faith with the Divisionists, who live in fear of a replica revolution…. Some Divisionists think that the process can be halted short of the eventual monopoly of one replica. They say: “Just let me plant a few more replicas all over so I won’t be lonely when I travel…. And we must strictly control the division of Undesirables….” Every replica but your own is eventually an “Undesirable.” Of course if someone starts inundating an area with Identical Replicas, everyone knows what is going on. The other citizens are subject to declare a “Schluppit” (wholesale massacre of all identifiable replicas). To avoid extermination of their replicas, citizens dye, distort, and alter them with face and body molds. Only the most abandoned and shameless characters venture to manufacture I.R.s — Identical Replicas. (81)
The more important question with this in mind is how to resist it. So far the best resistance has come from aristocracy, but aristocrats tend to sacrifice themselves in battle, lessening the ratio of intelligent leaders to unpunished herd. And worse, when the intelligent are made into babysitters, they tend to self-destruct.
Compounding this is the tendency for human beings, even intelligent ones, to create a false social reality in which human intentions and feelings matter more than reality. Socializing reprograms our brains to defer to other people, not reality. On top of that, symbolic reality is more powerful to us, including the approval of others, because it creates a stronger signal in our brains.
If any human society survives in the future, it will do so through a dogmatic elitism and strict attention to morality of thriving in all areas. Ugliness will be banished, and the one-fifth of every generation that are born neurotic, resentful and oblivious will be dispatched to other lands. This seems harsh, but like nature, its harshness will result in better outcomes.
For those who imagine golden fields surrounded by happy people, this may be the price necessary to pay. Good to the good, and bad to the bad, in all things with an eye toward biology, namely that allowing the bad to persist endangers not just other people, but the shared effort toward which we give our lives in cooperation that takes up our irreplaceable time.
Fred Nietzsche is probably right in that currently, humanity is in the saddle between ape and greatness, and what holds us back is our fear for ourselves that has us resisting commitment to greater things than our own desires. And yet as the last century has shown us, a society dedicated to human desires becomes ugly and corrupting for all.
As the news struggles to accept the suddenness of vast change forced upon it, the Alt Right has faded into the background hum a little bit. Part of this is that the Alt Right seems confused as to its own actual goals, or in other words, what it proposes instead of the failing system we have now.
What makes the Alt Right fascinating is that it arose organically in parallel between several belief systems — libertarians, human biodiversity, nationalist, deep ecologists and the new right — and then lived on through what was found in common between them, pushed to an extreme by its irreverent, absurdist troll culture.
But a different view would be that these different belief systems were not the cause of the Alt Right but rather a vocabulary through which it could spring up. Instead, the Alt Right came from a yearning for something so simple and powerful that it was nearly impossible to articulate. It is something one assumes, not speaks.
And yet, those of us who have grown up in a failed civilization and who have realized that this was the case from an early age have always yearned for something like the Alt Right. We were born depressed, have lived in ambivalence and alienation our entire lives, and finally found a voice and animated it however we could.
While the Alt Right proposes many related ideas — nationalism, anti-egalitarianism, post-democracy, futurism — the root behind them is a simple desire: we want to escape civilization collapse. We know that most societies collapse, but that someone can beat the odds and rise to a greatness merely dreamed of by the rest of humanity.
One cannot escape civilization collapse as one dodges a bullet. Instead, civilization collapse is like a path in a forest that leads to a large pit. The only solution is to get on another path that both (1) goes away from the pit and (2) goes somewhere good, so that one does not die the slow death of purposeless wandering until entropy becomes victorious.
This leads us to our goal: restore Western Civilization by giving it a purpose unrelated to individualism, equality or any of the impulses that cause fragmentation in a society. The Alt Right is our desire to be a great civilization again and to live our lives with meaning, instead of in service to consumerism, democracy and social popularity.
We want order. We want a path. We want meaning. That requires values, customs and something worth sacrificing for so that we can bond with life itself. We wish to see the infinity open before us and to become an eternal civilization, exploring the stars and establishing new great civilizations, with intricate histories, triumphs and tragedies.
This is what we are. We are the reflective people, or those who contemplate life and search for meaning not in ourselves but in the universe around us. From that we can bond our intuition to that of the cosmos, and from that, discover a way of life that fits who we are. We do not expect it to be universal; it is enough that it fits Us, and that is all we need.
Perhaps the most renowned of its mysteries is the fact that the outcome of a quantum experiment can change depending on whether or not we choose to measure some property of the particles involved.
…The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: “observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position.” In other words, Jordan said, “we ourselves produce the results of measurements.”
…Whenever, in these experiments, we discover the path of a quantum particle, its cloud of possible routes “collapses” into a single well-defined state. What’s more, the delayed-choice experiment implies that the sheer act of noticing, rather than any physical disturbance caused by measuring, can cause the collapse.
Our job is to notice our present options, and then put our focus into those which offer us a future of restored Western Civilization. In doing so, we make them more likely to become incarnate, much as our noticing can render light into particle or wave. We then become sorting engines within the calculation machine that is the cosmos, a pattern-based reality which constantly self-evolves.
The act of observation links the observer and the observed. This implies an informational basis to reality, as if it were composed of patterns that manifest in materiality, and shows us that we wield a force greater than materiality in the focus of our minds. When we create links between ourselves and ideas, we manifest them, albeit not directly like material force.
When Nietzsche said, “God is dead…and we have killed him,” what he means is that we have failed to rediscover things such as “God.” These are not innate to the universe because they are not universally accessible. Only those who forge their thinking into directed noticing can access these ideas, and their effects will remain invisible to others much as most truths are.
We know from Darwin that the whole universe acts as a calculating machine, forever refining its objects into a greater balance and efficiency. Our thoughts act the same way — this is one of the precepts of my upcoming book Parallelism — and so we see that our first task is to visualize and thus “attract” what we desire.
While that may not be known in precise visual terms, it can be known in general direction. We can stop reacting to what is happening as if we are trying to save a miserable society that makes people bored and frustrated. Instead, we can escape the loop of trying to salvage the dead and focus instead on rising again.
If the Alt Right has a goal, this is it. We want to restore Western Civilization by aiming for greatness. We wish to embrace excellence in our future and to use that, and not reacting to material problems, as our guide. It seems too New Age for us right now, but once upon a time, it was accepted knowledge, and perhaps deviation from that is responsible for our current downfall.
Why did the American media, shortly before the Obama years, shift hard-left and stay there? One theory is that their audience defected, so they appealed to the people they could count on to keep clicking on those ads: millennial internet and social media addicts. If all you need are a few million warm bodies, you can pick any warm bodies you want, so go for the fanatics.
[R]eaders didn’t want to travel to a newsstand to buy a whole newspaper when they were interested only in one story or two. And, in so many cases, they really didn’t care all that much whose byline was at the top of the piece. Subsequently, newspaper advertising revenues fell from $67 billion in 2000 to $19.9 billion in 2014. Meanwhile, the same pummeling occurred in the book-publishing world. Many consumers didn’t want hardcover books for $25 when digital versions were available for $9.99.
Movie-theater attendance is down to a 19-year low, with revenues hovering slightly above $10 billion—or about what Amazon’s, Facebook’s, or Apple’s stock might move in a single day…Between 2007 and 2011, overall profits for the big-five movie studios—Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, Universal Pictures, and Disney—fell by 40 percent.
Add to that the music industry being half the size it was in 1996, and the television industry still reeling from cable and now being replaced by online streaming, and we see what a larger pattern: these industries were dependent on the fact that their products were difficult to acquire, but now that the internet has obliterated that, the product is being seen in a way that is independent of its scarcity, and people are less likely to care about it because it is all (roughly) the same in quality. Call it media entropy.
In the meantime, the big events that the news-entertainment media once relied upon are now in decline, causing people to wonder if there is a future for media at all:
Hosted by Jimmy Kimmel for the first time, the 2017 Oscars are down 4% in viewership and 13% among adults 18-49 from what the 88th Academy Awards ended up snagging in its final numbers last year. Like the metered market numbers of early today, that equals a nine-year viewership low for AMPAS’ annual ceremony. In fact, the 2017 Oscars were the third-least-watched of the 21st century.
We have gone back in time to an era when news was local and newspapers served the secondary function of keeping us updated on the events in politics and industry, but had no other significance. As in that time, people get their news from other people, but now it is not about local events, but specialized events like genres, niches, in-groups and other identity adornments.
Couple this with the NFL in free fall, the press getting locked out of the White House, and the shaky performance of social media, and we see a general pattern: when media was scarce, it was valuable; now that we have seen enough of it to realize that it is all the same, it has proven itself irrelevant, and people are retreating from it.
Like many industries, media had a growth curve. When it was new and there were only a few newspapers, radio stations and movie theaters, it was highly prized; now that it is matured as a technology, it is expected as a background hum, sort of like previous technological wunderkind like search engines and electricity.
The grim fact is that most of the industries which arose with the industrial revolution were never worth as much as anticipated, and as we reduce their scarcity, they fall in value, revealing that much of our economy is based on make-work and pretense. This in turn reveals that our economy is unnecessary, and that we need to find a purpose instead of merely trying to using “it makes money” as our cause for existing.
In social groups where relatedness among interacting individuals is low, cooperation can often only be maintained through mechanisms that repress competition among group members.
In other words, when relatedness among interacting individuals is low — this means a diverse society — it is difficult to maintain cooperation, requiring either a police state or “repress[ed] competition” a.k.a. equality.
Societies that are not diverse are comprised of individuals who have roughly the same inclinations, wants and abilities. For them to cooperate is easy, since everyone knows what the general agenda is and few are far removed from it. But with diversity, people have no internal compass wiring that tells them which direction to take. This means that people compete on the basis of challenges offered by the lowest common denominator in society — jobs, products, social events — because culture is invisible on that level, since it is interpreted through a relatively small group of people who are able to understand it. Without culture, there is only mass culture, and that is what diversity promotes, which then in turn requires equality to keep people from clobbering each other with aggressive competition.
This study produced two other solid conclusions and one that seems a misinterpretation:
This comparison revealed full support for all three predictions of evolutionary policing theory.
First, when controlling for policing efforts, crime rate correlated negatively with the similarity among citizens. This is in line with the prediction that high similarity results in higher levels of cooperative self-restraint (i.e. lower crime rates) because it aligns the interests of individuals.
Second, policing effort correlated negatively with the similarity among citizens, supporting the prediction that more policing is required to enforce cooperation in low-similarity societies, where individuals’ interests diverge most.
High similarity results in higher cooperative self-restraint; low similarity results in lower cooperative self-restraint, symbolized by crime but extending to all other areas of society. In other words, diversity is chaos, and nationalism is order. This much makes sense by the use of logical facts such as that cooperation requires a high amount of internal communication if it is not innate because of the similarity in focus, ability and purpose of those involved.
However, the third point offers some confusion:
Third, increased policing efforts were associated with reductions in crime rates, indicating that policing indeed enforces cooperation.
Science often draws overbroad conclusions. Policing may simply remove those with enough sensitivity or intelligence to react to the situation around them, leaving only the oblivious, which represents a loss of shared culture instead of an enhancement of competition.
As with many Leftist attacks, this one begins with a social appeal, progresses to one fact, then draws overbroad conclusions from that and goes to a crazy place. The headline screams “The future is mixed-race” and it features a picture of a cute, mostly-white kid to make you think everything will be ducky.
But when we look further, we see the usual logical sleight-of-hand and circular reasoning that seems to define Leftist propaganda:
Recent insights from the sequencing of hundreds of thousands of human genomes in the past decade have revealed that our species’ history has been punctuated by many episodes of migration and genetic exchange. The mixing of human groups is nothing new.
What is new is the rate of mixing currently underway. Globalisation means that our species is more mobile than ever before. International migration has reached record highs, as has the number of interracial marriages, leading to a surge of multiracial people such as Shewmake.
It is so subtle you might miss it: in the past, groups which no longer exist today merged to form highly distinctive groups. This happened because they were close to each other and were in the process of improving themselves to the point where ethnic groups are today. In other words, this was evolution.
But now, instead of merging groups in a beneficial way, we are merely mixing randomly, and erasing groups in the process, replacing them with… what?
Let us assume that race-mixing happens all the time and has throughout history, and then look at it as a method of evolution, and compare different results from different areas.
For example, we can look at the Romans, who were a hybrid of Etruscans and ancient Greeks (in theory). Did it work for them? They had a great empire, for a time, and then it fell apart. Were these two groups closely related, or not? History suggests that since there were blonde and red-haired Romans, the Romans were much like modern Western Europeans, which suggests that these groups were more similar than disparate.
But then, we have plenty of other examples of race-mixing. For example, Pakistan is what happens when Muslim invaders mix with local Hindu populations. Vietnam is a merging of Asian groups, Brazil is an ethnic free-for-all, Iraq is a mixture of Persian and Arab, and Eastern Europe shows a mixing of Europeans with Asiatics. How has mixing worked out for those places?
Then we might look at Israel, a group with ancient origins that has steadily increased the amount of European in the mix over the years. Obviously this group was doing well in the past, and is doing even better now. Can we attribute that improvement to miscegenation? Probably not entirely. But the point is that sometimes, blending in other advanced tribes can help a small tribe.
But as far as bigger groups, when they blend, the result is going to be more like Iraq or Pakistan: the attributes of the larger group, formed through aeons of evolution, are adulterated by something different — it does not have to be “bad” or “good,” “superior” or “inferior,” merely different — which removes all of that refinement. A specific thing becomes a generic one.
This is why Vietnamese, Filipinos, Mexican indios, Pakistanis, Brazilians, Southern Italians and Thai people look very similar: they are roughly the same racial recipe, with similar amounts of Semite, Caucasian, and Asian leading to similar appearances. They might have something else in common: none of these societies are particularly functional.
So when you hear the argument that race mixing is inevitable and it is good, reflect on this. No method is universally good, and “good” depends on who is doing it and how, because that is what regulates results. Results are more important than categories like good and bad based on social feelings. And if you look at results, it becomes clear that race-mixing is neither all bad, nor particularly good.
In most situations, race-mixing leads to the death of civilization. The once-distinctive group loses its unique traits, becomes generic, and then creates yet another generic human civilization, which is basically subsistence existence with disorganized social order in the Thirdworld™ style. That is the future of random race-mixing.
Contrary to what the article says, race-mixing is not inevitable because the choice remains up to the individuals involved. Some people will race-mix; some always have. But those who want a non-thirdworld future for their descendants are probably against it. And so instead of our inevitable future, race-mixing looks more like a way of purging some people from among us, as a prelude to sending them away…
Humans migrated out of Africa at least 50,000 years ago and occupied many different ecological and climatological niches. Because of this, they evolved slightly different anatomical and physiological traits. For example, Tibetans evolved various traits that help them cope with the rigors of altitude; similarly, the Inuit evolved various traits that help them cope with the challenges of a very cold environment. It is likely that humans also evolved slightly different psychological traits as a response to different selection pressures in different environments and niches. One possible example is the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jewish people.
This is nothing short of revolutionary: a respected publication and mainstream writers are endorsing what HBD writers have said for years. HBD was only controversial because it violates the idea of equality, or that all people are basically the same and that they make choices not based on genetics but instead because of their all-powerful intent and “free will.”
Instead we are now back to recognizing the basics of Darwinism: that genetic coding positively defines our traits, or abilities that we can develop, where environmental influences mostly negatively define traits, such as fetal alcohol syndrome making people slow and slightly crazy. This rejects every thought derived from The Enlightenment,™ including that people are “equal” on some level other than “roughly the same size.”
Naturally, there is fear of the big un-democratic bad guys being imported into science as a result of this — eugenics, nationalism and caste systems — so the researchers make some disclaimers about ethics:
Frank discussions of such differences among human groups have provoked strong ethical concerns in the past. We understand those ethical concerns and believe that it is important to address them. However, we also believe that the benefits of discussing possible human population differences outweigh the costs.
These are not nonsense however. Medicine has reached a brick wall because the “average” patient, especially in a multi-ethnic caste-mixed democracy, does not exist. Instead, targeted medicine is the future, and this requires being genetically literate about who the patient is, including about the risks that patient faces.
However, there are also political implications. When our ideology requires us to consider people as “equal” in fact as well as in political access, then certain ideas become taboo. Even the possibility of genetic differences — between class, which is most taboo, and sex, and race — constitutes a threat to the ideological narrative of the ruling order, and must be punished. The last 20 years have shown us that idea in full flower.
With a recognition of biological differences, Leftists fear that people will desire freedom of association again. This means roughly that “birds of a feather [can] flock together” and they are not required to subsidize each other. With this, the diversity empire fragments.
The problem for Leftists is that nature is racist because tribalism is more efficient than trying to vet every other organism one encounters. Nature is rife with predators and worse, parasites, and so the organism that is able to recognize its own is able to save massively on its energy budget for self-defense.
As science moves toward recognizing the possibility of human biodiversity, it is also inching toward recognition of an important update to Darwinism: the organisms that thrive are those which conserve energy to dedicate toward improvement of offspring, improving quality instead of quantity, and these are by nature tribal to avoid wasting energy on potential threats.
When trying to understand Leftism, it makes sense to treat it less as an ideology than a pathology, or cycle of impulsive behavior that reflects an inner need. Only this analysis explains the intensity of Leftist belief and the way it behaves like a drug, giving its users a momentary high and then leaving them miserable until given the impetus to act again.
Given that Leftists, when they achieve their political aims, tend to create institutions and civilizations that self-destruct from the success of those very aims, it is clear that Leftism is not a reality-based narrative. This is the essence of ideology: it supplants reality by making human reason and intent more important than results in reality.
That, by its very definition, fits the archetype of a pathology. The same behavior is repeated independent of results because the behavior itself, and not its stated aims, are what its adherents crave. That leads us to the question of what type of pathology Leftism might be. One big fat candidate is separation anxiety disorder, or SAD.
What is SAD?
According to the American Psychology Association, separation anxiety disorder (SAD) is an excessive display of fear and distress when faced with situations of separation from the home or from a specific attachment figure.
Anxiety and/or being anxious are similar conditions resulting from an environment where change occurs. If one is accustomed to a specific environment, change can be (very) disruptive thereby motivating the establishment of an entire Change Management Industry (for companies).
What is the population impact?
Infants: 6 months – 3 years > 4%
“It is presumed that a much higher percentage of children suffer from a small amount of separation anxiety, and are not actually diagnosed. Multiple studies have found higher rates of SAD in girls than in boys, and that paternal absence may increase the chances of SAD in girls.”
However, “the clinically anxious pediatric population are considerably larger, according to Hammerness et al. (2008) SAD accounted for 49% of admissions.”
The election results (as an indication of the extent of liberally oriented people in the US) show that Leftists represent about 50% of the voting population in the USA. Comparing the violence “against change” after Obama’s inauguration with that of Trump, one can safely say that liberals are fairly anxious about the perceived changes they expect from a Trump Presidency. What is interesting is that Obama also stated his desire to change America in 2008, without it resulting in a comparable negative reaction by conservative voters.
The reference to “paternal absence” above, can also be illustrated by one in three children living without an own father. This is about 24 million people which in a generational sense points to 30% of the population. In addition to that single parents have tripled since 1960.
Informal data over time therefore, encourages the real fear of a SAD population (of adults) growing to 30% and beyond. Apart from requiring specialized medical attention, it appears that negative political fall-out has (as a consequence of ignorance thereof) manifested itself in an unstable nation.
Who is knowledgeable about SAD?
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) is the 2013 update to the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) classification and diagnostic tool. In the United States the DSM serves as a universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses.
Medical practitioners may follow the following process: To be diagnosed with SAD, one must display at least three of the following criteria:
Recurrent excessive distress when anticipating or experiencing separation from home or from major attachment figures
Persistent and excessive worry about losing major attachment figures or about possible harm to them, such as illness, injury, disasters, or death
Persistent and excessive worry about experiencing an untoward event (e.g., getting lost, being kidnapped, having an accident, becoming ill) that causes separation from a major attachment figure
Persistent reluctance or refusal to go out, away from home, to school, to work, or elsewhere because of fear of separation
Persistent and excessive fear of or reluctance about being alone or without major attachment figures at home or in other settings
Persistent reluctance or refusal to sleep away from home or to go to sleep without being near a major attachment figure
Repeated nightmares involving the theme of separation
Repeated complaints of physical symptoms (e.g., headaches, stomachaches, nausea, vomiting) when separation from major attachment figures occurs or is anticipated
One informal comparison with (liberal) SJWs includes the following criteria:
The “anticipated” separation from major attachment figures includes “friends” at school or Facebook. In other words, not being part of the popular group can cause serious anxiety. The fear of being alone is a real issue (FOMO: Fear of Missing Out)
Repeated nightmares involving themes of separation. It seems that their anxiety cause SJW’s into a light sleep causing multiple dreams every night. This will cause them to be slow developers.
Physical symptoms (such as vomiting) can be intentionally produced as a means of manipulation to avoid (anticipated) separation. (They literally live in a future world)
One explanation for having different “attachment figures” is precisely the lack of parents or even siblings. Single children are perhaps also more likely to exhibit SAD due to helicopter parents and in the case of single mother homes, mothers treating their boys like girls could also exacerbate this problem. The part where “avoidance” is discussed can also develop into defensive behaviors, manifesting in its full glory during adulthood.
Political impact of SAD
As shown above, anxiety and specifically SAD can cause a person to behave in certain ways. In theory this is due for the most part to avoidance, in order to avoid separation with whoever is important for that person. It appears that, due to exactly this avoidance, that liberals/SJWs will refuse to admit his/her own avoidance to anyone, ever.
Since no research investigations have been initiated into this field, political writers such as Matt Forney have realized that SJWs cannot be fixed and that they should be contained.
In the aftermath of the Trump inauguration, the question remained of how to achieve American unity. Many commenters voiced the opinion that the Democratic Party strategy will be to simply continue their losing fight to the next election. But surely that is not viable and certainly a nation divided is not feasible.
From an anxiety perspective it is unfortunately unclear whether a solution exists on a political, but what is clear though, is that this issue is not going away because it worsens with every generation. Decay begets pathology, and pathology begets ideology, which the resulting disastrous choices worsening the conditions of decay and causing the group of anxious Useful Idiots to grow, accelerating the cycle of suicide.
“When you’re on my level, God just gives you free shoes.” – YouTuber Lilian Shekinah
There is an antidote to the ennui that is sucking the West into the toilet of history. It is an antidote that you take as an individual. Taking it will inure you to the pathological rot marauding the institutions of our Modern Society. It involves the Law of Attraction.
The Law of Attraction is simple. You ask for it, you get it. That can be good, bad or indifferent. And you’d probably better take control of the asking, because your brain will do it on autopilot if you don’t.
If you let it slide, you get whatever you tolerate. It will suck because the crowd will populate your universe the way algae can kill all the fish and stink up the water at your favorite pond. When others control what is in your mental and sacred space, they will use it as a porta-crapper.
You will experience internal dialogue every day of your existence. Your brain will take things in aggressively and that will shape your view of the world and your place in it. You filter those images or they fill you to the neck with toxic crowdist sludge. Take control of this stuff or you will end up like “Fat Boy” in this old Silverchair song.
So how do I establish this level of self-control and inner dominance? You control what goes in and out of your life. You build your own High-Pass Filter. You demand better. As TRS puts it; “Will to power, bruh!” Really? How?
Visualization is how you start. Imagine what right looks like. Put visions in your mind of what you want to see happen. Make them increasingly detailed. It’s not Dungeons and Dragons. It’s using your imagination to plan what your life will look like.
Create your personal story board: Imagine your life as a movie or novel and lay out what you want to see happen. What type of person do you want to have kids with? Where do you want to live? How do you want to make a living? Answer these things or the world will give you those answers and they will be crowdist and sub-optimal.
Plan How To Live Your Story: Build a bridge. Look at where you are now and ask yourself how you intend to get from your current state to the life in your story board.
Listen Critically to Your Internal Dialogue: If it tells you negative things or drives you in a bad direction, treat it like a Nickelback song and turn that drivel off. You have discretion over what messages you accept and which ones you “Nickelback.” You need to use it. You will always hear internal dialogue.
Start Yesterday: As you age, your options dwindle. John Derbyshire describes the urgency this requires well in a movie review he did of Saturday Night Fever.
At twenty, these young men are all pretty much done, and you can practically hear the doors of opportunity clanging shut around them. Not that it is impossible for them to get somewhere in life from this point on, but now it will need more courage, determination, and luck with every passing year. This is the thing that Tony grasps at the very end of the movie: “I’m an able person. I can do these things.” (Unspoken: But I better get moving.)
Do Things At The Right Pace: “Festine Lente” said the great Philosopher cum Emperor. Set a pace you can steadily move forward at. Plan your work, work your plan. Ignore the crowd. They are garbage.
So, in conclusion, you need to internally fortify yourself against the external carny house of a culture we live in. Stand on the promises you can make to yourself and keep. These are reliable. Nothing you encounter around you will be.