One of these Friday nights, you will find yourself in the Texas hill country, looking up at a vast black sky speckled with stars. At that moment, you will understand the essence of the human condition: total, complete and all-encompassing isolation.
You are alone on this journey. When you duck back into that dive bar and talk to Dave about his band and Phil about his media company, you are sharing in an illusion that any of that is anything more than a means to spend time and derive sustenance. It has no greater importance. At the end of the night, Dave and Phil (like you) go home to wait for death, and to hope that the time they are spending has somehow offset the inexorable onrushing emptiness.
No matter how many symbols or activities we invent, we are alone with our nihilism at some point. The big questions — eternity, meaning, purpose, value — strike us from out of invisible corners where they hid. The fears and doubts rise with nothing to blot them out or distract us. We are alone, as we were born, and as we shall die.
The complexity arises because there is overlap between the false social world and this cosmos of nothingness. We need something to do to keep the bucks flowing, and some activities to pleasantly spend or time or even better to derive meaning from. The social world is just the appearance of these, based on the illusion that if a whole group of people are doing something, it is more eternal than the eternal, which is both void and mystery.
Our social groups are empty, our governments and awards transient. Celebrity is isolation even now, because the celebrity is the most recognized and least known person on earth. Fame and notoriety are equally hollow. There is nothing here, nothing that lasts, except what you discover in union with the cosmos.
Even truth is a lie. There are universal aspects to reality, but no universal truth, because truth requires a perceiver — and unless that perceiver is intelligent, moral enough to be diligently honest, and fascinated by the world in which he finds himself, he will hover around the lower levels of perception. What he finds cannot be communicated, only experienced, and then enforced on others by the sword and axe (or FN FAL for you sticklers).
Embrace the nihilism. Total emptiness. Total nothingness. Except for you, your mind, and whatever reality you can discern. This gives rise to the question of how to give your life meaning, as you will be gifting yourself with significance to existence by making choices. None are inherent; all are optional, entirely preferential, on the level of aesthetics more than morality.
Are you a great warrior? A thinker, an artist, a steward, a king? You must shape yourself through self-discipline and the choices you make. You will be a creator, not a consumer. As part of that, you will want to adapt to your environment and then, being consistent with the principles of that adaptation, gradually improve your lot.
This necessarily includes civilization. Humans evolved by tribe and tool, and are dependent on a civilization for their ideas to take root. You can communicate or improve things, or even point civilization in an ascendant direction rather than its default of decay. In this, you have the power to use creative energies to not only leave a legacy, but to feel the significance of sacrifice and excellence.
Civilization is not complex. The way to do it right is well known, as over 6,000 years of recorded history only one approach has made civilizations that not only survive but thrive. However the basics are easy. Life rewards in degrees, not binaries, and so mediocrity alone guarantees survival.
This points you to a fascinating study. If mediocrity is enough, why do civilizations fail? Look to a biological metaphor: parasites draw away energy and resources and this then conveys the civilization into senescence. The question of life is not one of positivity, but of negativity: those who thrive are the ones who suppress the negative, leave the mediocre, and celebrate the excellent so more of it arrives.
In your life, you can see the same thing. Mediocre behaviors waste time and foreclose possibilities, but negative behaviors sabotage prospects. It is the same in civilization. There are normal people, some excellent and most mediocre, and then those who engage in behaviors that sap the vitality of civilization. To succeed, a society must oppress and exile those people in imitation of Darwinian natural selection.
This seems unduly grim. An empty universe, a humanity of failures, a seemingly impossible task. And yet, this is the only canvas on which many great people have found it stimulating enough to paint. It is a backdrop for the greatness of the human mind, harnessed by self-discipline and realism, and it will not abolish the emptiness but will make life a bright enough light that the darkness is kept in balance.
From a surprisingly anti-modern analysis in the Wall Street Journal:
Working to achieve a particular outcome is a good model for many crucial human enterprises. It’s the right model for carpenters or writers or businessmen. You can judge whether you are a good carpenter or writer or CEO by the quality of your chairs, your books or your bottom line. In the “parenting” picture, a parent is a kind of carpenter; the goal, however, is not to produce a particular kind of product, like a chair, but a particular kind of person.
In work, expertise leads to success. The promise of “parenting” is that there is some set of techniques, some particular expertise, that parents could acquire that would help them accomplish the goal of shaping their children’s lives. And a sizable industry has emerged that promises to provide exactly that expertise.
If we had to distill modernity to this, it would be conformity and emulation through expertise. Someone learns a way to do some task, and then that becomes the definitive model and all must at least do that. It is a game of “follow the leader” played by crowds out of fear that, by not doing what is the established norm, the individual involved will be culpable if something goes wrong.
For example, Farmer Bill wants to plant okra. In his town, there is lore that states that okra will not grow unless you bury a cow skull among the plants. Farmer Bill does not have a cow skull, so he plants the okra anyway. A tornado strikes his patch. In town, the open-mouthed nodding heads all agree: he failed because he did not bury a cow skull in the plot.
Expertise is the same. We specialize in teaching it through schools, certifications, and government qualification programs. This produces a legion of people who know techniques, but lack reasoning skills, which is why we have a proliferation of slick but contentless art, complex but non-functional and insecure software, interior design products that all look the same and are impractical, and bureaucrats who can tell us why we cannot do anything but cannot tell us how to achieve anything. It is a disease of the crowd.
This produces a death spiral where superstitions are established and can never be removed, much as laws are created and never renovated or struck when they are obsolete or inexact, and bloated companies and government agencies linger long after their relevance. People are afraid to work against the wisdom of expertise lest they, like Farmer Bill, get blamed for an unrelated failure and worse, jailed or sued for denying “contemporary standards.”
Moribund institutions like modern art and rap music linger because people are afraid to criticize them as the calcified and talentless zones they are; absurd government doctrines like affirmative action persist long past their plausible expiration date simply because everyone is afraid to criticize the prevailing expertise. In the meantime, expertise conveniently blocks the vital skills of judgment ability, critical analysis and aesthetic taste.
One way to tell a healthy society is that its behaviors exist as principles which are constantly reinterpreted in the abstract, and perpetually interpreted when applied to specific localized situations. In contrast, a dying society exhibits expertise which is both fixed in a universal sense, and never interpreted locally, meaning that its inexactitude gets spread around much as inefficiencies are spread by subsidies and collective bargaining, in which the least competent is favored as much as the most competent.
The parenting propaganda is another form of this. Instead of producing people who have principles for living, and goals and healthy lifestyles, we come up with a set of universal roles so that broken people can still pretend to be doing the right thing, even though they are just kicking along antiquated and calcified “knowledge” because everyone is afraid to criticize it. As usual, the Emperor has no new clothes after all.
Darwin said we came from monkeys, to use the vernacular paraphrase of his findings, but what he failed to mention is that we are still monkeys — just a complex variety that can talk, do equations, build stuff, drive cars and post on social media.
Monkey behavior seems to rotate around trying to seem more important than one is, so that one can rise in the troupe without having to demonstrate actual ability. Humans are no different: our game is to become socially important without showing actual skills in leadership.
Consider race. Most of our countries are ablaze with fear of terrorism, brutal crime, and social disorder. But the elites? They are camped out in gated communities. To them, “Immigrant problems? What immigrant problems?” is a sensible and logical response, because they face zero of the consequences of these problems.
When it comes to ethnic tension, humans quickly divide into two groups: those who can claim it does not affect them, and those willing to lose a little social cred because they mention that real problems are actually real problems. “It doesn’t bother me” is a way of saying that you are above the problem because you are above those who suffer it. It pushes others down and raises you up.
This is just more of the pretense, posturing and bragging of the human monkey. Christians sometimes call this original sin, or the knowledge that without self-discipline and purpose toward a transcendental goal, we are just talking monkeys with car keys. Such monkeys ignore the actual issue, such as the effects of immigration on civilization, and focus on the non-issue — their own gated community — instead.
When historians look back on this time, the 60% of the population that took over and enslaved or exiled the rest will be seen as a reaction against not just their own government, and not just Leftism, but this entire crazy attitude of ignoring the big picture to focus on the little details that flatter the individual. They will (rightly) see people who behaved that way as mental defectives.
A mouse placed in a cage with a snake will first explore, sniffing the walls of the cage and then the snake. He will tense, realizing his certain doom. But then, something interesting happens: he acts as if the snake is not there, so that his last moments before the crushing strike are happy and distracted. Nature knows when to apply anaesthesia.
Humans living in modern civilization are staggering under this mental numbing as well. We know that all civilizations seem to go out the same way, and that its is perennially more popular than any other activity, and that the signs of our senescence are on the wall. Instead of looking the snake in the eye, we too go into denial.
The proof of this can be found in the refusal of Europeans to breed at replacement levels. Starting with the smartest, people look at the direction of civilization and realize that it is hell, and they would be raising their children to be imprisoned in hell, and that no matter what good they do the herd will destroy it.
As the saying goes, you are either ruled by the best, or oppressed by the rest.
Why is Europe in decline? It’s the misery, stupid: we have forced our best people to labor to support a vast undergrowth of not especially useful people who are constantly screwing up. As a result, instead of working four hours a day and then spending the rest of time growing our souls, we are trapped in tedium.
Western civilization has been dying out for millennia because of this. Long ago, we created hierarchy from those who were the best, and did what was right regardless of personal advantage. We gave them money and power because they did not seek those things, and would use them against the character of those faculties, meaning that instead of the slow degradation and decay brought on by greed and powermadness our leaders brought stability.
When your society works in reverse, meaning that instead of choosing our best and giving them money we find out who has the money (or popularity) and pretend they are the best, all aspects of society become miserable because they are no longer “about” their own purpose, but all are infected with the need for popularity, money, sex appeal, celebrity, disposability, drama, convenience and other transient and shallow attributes that drain away all meaning.
Modern society is an emotionally toxic wasteland which rewards the non-vapid with existential stress and depression. Idiots rule over us, mass tastes pervert culture, jobs are mostly unnecessary activity done from fear of poverty, and the dysfunction of our fellow citizens — which we are expected to subsidize — ruins everything good.
People forget that all human societies to date have self-destructed (with a smaller group that were outright destroyed by outside forces). What leads all of us down the same path to ruin?
A thinking human would find this question to be the only political matter worth worrying about, since civilization suicide is inevitable unless one finds a way to avoid it. That however is where the denial instinct kicks in.
Your average person seems like an oblivious nitwit who does not notice how much this society is a gigantic waste of time, but he feels it on a subconscious level. Unaware of it, he snaps into denial as a means of survival. He is simply unable to articulate what he senses and what it means, so instead he cruises on “feelings.”
The most normal aspects of this world are the most toxic ones. Everything we accept as healthy is toxic, and much of what is healthy is simply not mentioned or avoided. Only those who are too unconcerned with anything but a constant stream of their own experiences, distracting them from life, are happy here.
This is how every human civilization destroys itself: in the name of succeeding, it sets up a number of “systems” to manage its population, which take its best citizens from a role of enjoying life to one of serving like slaves those who cannot take care of themselves.
At some point, all of those societies become the same thing: you either serve constantly and become part of the elite, but then have no time for yourself, or you serve less and live in relative poverty. All of the smart people choose the latter and, sensibly, defer or decline to breed.
Over time, a vast wave of hollow and anti-introspective people outbreed the rest, and at that point, there is nothing worth saving in the civilization, and even its own citizens want it destroyed.
When writing about nihilism, one runs into an old misconception:
Nihilism–the belief that there is no Absolute Truth, that all truth is relative–is, Eugene affirmed, the basic philosophy of the 20th century: “It has become, in our time, so widespread and pervasive, has entered so thoroughly and so deeply into the minds and hearts of all men living today, that there is no longer any ‘front’ on which it may be fought.” The heart of this philosophy, he said, was “expressed most clearly by Nietzsche and by a character of Dostoyevsky in the phrase: ‘God is dead, therefore man becomes God and everything is possible.”‘
In this view, there is an Absolute Truth in which all humans can share; we call this idea “universalism,” and it is the basis for the notion of equality, which is that instead of selecting those who understand and assigning them by degrees to a hierarchy, we can accept all people and simply educate them with this absolute truth. That method is sometimes called exotericism.
A more lucid definition of nihilism offers us:
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.
So what is the difference, sort through all of these abstractions?
Nihilism is the anti-universalism. It says that we do not all see the world the same way, but that the world alone is consistent. Therefore, there is no truth: truth is a human assessment, and it is not shared because it cannot be communicated, because any truth passed between people is re-interpreted. As a result of this, there is no universal morality either. There is only reality and our interpretations of it, which are not equal (universal) but vary with our ability, inclination, discipline, genetics, bias, and even energy level.
Insisting that there is some absolute truth which is shared between all people only creates a false target, which is the endless debate over interpreting this truth. Not all people can see it, and those that do see it will perceive it in different degrees. As a result, we must discard the universalist model, and focus on how to find the people who perceive the most and put them at the top of the stack.
In politics, this is aristocracy. In art and culture, it is elitism. In social order and the military, it is hierarchy. All of it implies an order defined by nature, not by human thought, in which those who perceive more should be given more power, and contra equality, most are assumed to perceive very little and accept as true even less.
Nihilism is anti-humanism. It is extreme realism. It is skepticism of the idea that human intentions can take the place of reality and solve our problems. It is a destroyer of the ego, and of the social worlds we create when we project our egos onto one another.
In my first book, Nihilism: A Philosophy Based in Nothingness and Eternity, addresses many of these confusions in the context of politics. It serves to liberate us from our fear of a false target (nihilism) and points us instead toward the actual threat to our existence, solipsism.
Many in the popular press associate Nietzsche with nihilism, but he was not an advocate of what he called nihilism, which more properly resembles fatalism or individualism: a concern with no values higher than individual comfort and convenience, rationalized from an acceptance of the failure of all human endeavors because of a lack of goodness in the world. A nihilist as described above would not speak of a lack of goodness, but of how things were bungled or ruined because they were unrealistic. Nietzsche is more akin to that outlook than to moral relativism or other escapes from realism.
This type of fatalism is a reaction to what nihilism uncovers, not nihilism itself. However, in their desire to prove universalism, many conservatives have understood the situation precisely backwards:
Old-World nihilism belongs to a handful of intellectuals persuaded by philosophical arguments that human knowledge, on the whole, is worthless as a reliable guide for living. Consider Heinrich von Kleist, the nineteenth century dramatist and short-story writer, who became intellectually unglued when he read Immanuel Kant’s The Critique of Pure Reason. In a letter to his fiancée, Wilhelmine von Zenge, Kleist describes how he was crushed by Kant’s philosophical argument that the senses do not report the world as it truly is: “If everyone wore green glasses instead of eyes, they would have to judge that the things they saw through them were green—and they could never decide whether their eyes showed them things as they are or whether something had been added that belonged not to the thing but to the eyes.” Kleist goes on to draw the obvious parallel with knowing. “We cannot decide whether what we call truth is truly the truth, or whether it only seems so to us.
…Kant claimed to effect a Copernican Revolution in the foundation for all the sciences. Copernicus shifted the viewpoint of astronomers from the Earth to the Sun. Similarly, Kant changed the viewpoint of philosophers from the objective, external laws of nature to the internal, fixed laws of how the human species perceives and understands the universe. Kleist despaired that after Kant science was no longer about the truth of things, for things-in-themselves were unknowable, but about the operations of the human mind.
…In the Sixties, the American academy embraced Old-World nihilism; as a result, the life of the mind for many academicians did not focus on the universality of human experience; and consequently, intellectual discourse eventually degenerated into an endless labyrinth of opinion. In an essay published by the American Council of Learned Societies, six eminent professors of literature proclaimed, “All thought inevitably derives from particular standpoints, perspectives, and interests.”
This argument is contrived to the point of nonsense. The truth of relativism is not that it says “anything goes,” but that it creates universalism out of the unequal perceptions of individuals adjusted to a mean, which is a sneaky way of establishing an absolute standard of “truth” and coordinating others toward it. That was the contribution of the 1960s, and by the end of it people agreed they could agree on nothing but the idea of universal equality taken farther than ever before.
On the contrary, nihilism states that the truth of a statement depends on the speaker, and is known only by that speaker, because others are interpreting the tokens used in language and do not receive an exact duplicate of the meaning. Not only that, but people are not autonomous agents, at least until they apply the self-discipline so that they make choices instead of acting on impulse. Generally, people act according to what they know and their emotions or desires. Logic and reality have very little to do with it, although they are often invoked as reasons for the behavior.
Taking a sensible view, the nihilists are not our problem; the individualists are. Individualists will type #yolo onto their phones, go to their jobs and flatter everyone with power, then go on shopping sprees before retiring home to hours of exciting television. They care about nothing and create nothing. Their sole utility is their obedience, and by being obedient to what the social group wants, they consider themselves entitled to all that society offers, even with no affirmative acts on their part to improve anything.
What Kant did was to orient humanity back to reality: we cannot know in a universal sense what is true, so we must rely on our intuition; Nietzsche grasped this and pointed out that with this in mind, we must find the people who are best — with the strongest intuition and tendency toward excellence — and put them in charge of interpretation, since we will never find an absolute and universal truth that all can agree on.
To contemporary Christians, few of whom understand much about their religion, this seems like blasphemy. They want an Absolute Truth that is written in a holy book that they can use like an ideology, and force all people to be equal in obedience to it. This represents Christianity as filtered through liberalism, and not any realistic assessment of the highly hierarchical and unequal world. Like all other human failings, it is us projecting our intentions and desires as if they were truth, when in actuality we are running from truth toward more ego and social illusion.
Another take on nihilism focuses on the nature of knowledge and morality:
Rosen understands the root of nihilism as the separation of “the conception of ‘reason’…from its traditional affiliation with the concept of ‘good'” (p. xiv) — of which the famous distinction between facts and values is one symptom — as a result of which, such a thing as “rational preference” is no longer supportable, and in Nietzsche’s words, “everything is permitted.”
Nietzsche strove to be somewhat of an ultimate realist, believing not only in material reality but in the possibilities offered by its structure, and how changing this structure could align more objects than the immediate material being manipulated. As a result, he saw human reason as human rationalization, or a determination to rely on materialism for the root of logic, and therefore, to see only that which can be manipulated as within our influence. That form of “materialism” arises from individualism, where the individual gives up on abstract and structural thinking, and focuses on physical safety and comfort instead of striving to implement the ideas that make a thriving civilization.
For this reason, a nihilist focuses not on enforcing a universal truth — determining what is permitted — but on a preference that is non-rational, i.e. forward-looking toward what is uncreated or dormant. In the Nietzschean world, aesthetics inform our intent, and cause-to-effect logic determines how serious we are about our intent, since answers can be found. A nihilist would agree with this general approach, since it is not truth-based but choice-based, and it is measured by results and not the soup of intentions, emotions, desires, social feelings and group compromise that normally informs human collective action.
Conservatives have refused to accept nihilism and, in doing so, have rejected realism and chosen a type of human projection instead. They write down their Absolute Truths and then depend on the herd to come together and enforce them equally, forgetting that in the process all meaning has been lost not so much by the machinations of language, but by the nature of humans themselves. People interpret reality as they can, and few can do it well, thus we require hierarchy. This is the realistic outlook that Leftists and most conservatives alike are fleeing from.
From a source that dislikes jobs and nonsense economic activity more than the average, an insight into the dysgenic effects of the welfare state:
The generationally unemployed carry mobile messaging and pornography access devices with enough computational power to put a man on the moon, like an Idiocracy version of Star Trek. Urban poors living in food deserts eat like Henry VIII and become even more obese. For those with a low Malthusian threshold, who breed and chill as soon as they have a roof and three meals a day, this is abundance beyond their wildest dreams. For those still attempting to live with some dignity, however, these conditions present insurmountable problems.
For, just as food and toys have become cheap, education and middle-class acceptable housing have become intolerably expensive. Our educated middle class has refused to accept either of two major lifestyle hits: cutting consumption (and giving up the wife’s income) to afford children, or adopting an actuarial, pragmatic approach to life planning. (Clueless people, such as baby boomers, call this “giving up on your dreams.”) Basically, we don’t want to give up brunch, so we gave up families and the old middle-class aspirations.
To pay for those generationally unemployed, the welfare state taxes the middle class, which means that they cannot both afford children and a decent lifestyle. Being humans, they choose the path of least resistance.
As a result, the numbers of the clueless surge, while the people who could make a difference are bred out. This probably happens through multiple methods in failing civilizations, with the common ground being the idea of subsidizing that which is not succeeding, and it explains why after the crash, failed civilizations cannot resurrect themselves: they lack the necessary genetics.
Intelligence is a tantalizing subject due to its magic “wow” component. But it is also the one measure liberals will never, ever, discuss.
I found this “avoidance” technique fascinating in that it is quite a “telling” characteristic. Even Donald Trump mentioned that some topics are “not discussed.” Another more personal example is, while making a speech to (organizational) members of a black labor union, I noticed how, despite being a fairly responsive audience in general, they became (almost) deathly silent when I mentioned “pensions.” People reading this will automatically assume that the audience is “sensitive” to pensions because it is perhaps something they “really” desire. But you are wrong; it had nothing to do with being sensitive. It had everything to do with the fact that they want “my” pension (on an organizational basis) while vociferously arguing something else as a technique to distract “my” attention from their real intention.
There are more examples of this in every area of social design, but suffice it to say that when liberals (organizationally) go silent on the issue of intelligence, they have something up their sleeve which begs our attention as well as our intention.
Since I am only a middle-class, middle-drawer type guy, unfortunately with the ability to look up and down, I had to look around for guidance. Then Doug Detterman popped up via Dr. James Thompson;
Now he looks back at 50 years of intelligence research, and avers that it is much more important than curing cancer, controlling global warming or ending poverty. He also regards teachers and schools as over-rated, since they only account for 10% of pupil achievement. Five decades dedicated to finding a satisfactory answer to a simple question: why are some people smarter than others?
His answer: a traffic jam. All the modules of the brain have to go through a central hub, and the poorer the connection the lower the intelligence.
However, I have also previously been influenced regarding the intelligence effect by a top drawer South African, Garth Zietsman. His point of departure to any problem was (in my re-collection), the question: “what would the intelligent man do?” Since then he co-authored a book which states that;
[T]he correlation between national IQ and rates of unemployment is r = -0.756
Clearly you can make your own deductions as to why entire organizations (i.e. not just individuals) that espouse the dogma of liberal-democracy would want to keep quiet about that. However, Dr. James Thompson wrote about “The Intelligence of Governments” in 2015 wherein it is stated that:
Good governance is a highly complex cognitive task.”
As well as:
As in previous studies (Rindermann et al., 2009) the level of the top ability group (“intellectual classes”, “smart fractions”, “rocket scientists”, “the team in the tail”) had a stronger impact on economic performance. Cognitive capitalism is built upon intellectual classes.
At this point I would agree with those saying “enough with all this cleverness”. Let’s look at a tantalizing example of “worst practice” as was also described in this article:
An example of worst practice is revealing. According to Schmidt (2009, pp. 11ff.), until the mid-1980s the Washington, DC police force was one of the best in the USA. Applicants were selected for police academy training based on a general intelligence test and a background investigation. The mayor, Marion Barry, eliminated this procedure with several consequences: the drop-out rate among the police increased (80% of the new hires were incapable of completing the required training); the content of academy training was eased; the police officers being produced were frequently incompetent (murder indictments were dismissed because the reports written by the officers on the scene were unintelligible, solution rates for murder cases declined, firearms accidents soared because officers did not know how to use weapons properly, and crime on the police force became more common).
The worst case example shows that an “organization” that appeared to be intelligent, somehow became unintelligent. But such a deduction is not true since only the Mayor changed and what a change it was. Somehow this has been memory-holed forever, after the disastrous reign by a Mayor-for-Life as described by the (liberal) New York Times:
Mr. Barry was a charismatic yet confounding politician. Admirers saw him as a Robin Hood who gave hope to poor black residents. His detractors saw a shameless rogue who almost ruined the city by stuffing its payroll with cronies and hacks and letting services decay. Indisputably, he was a political Lazarus with a gift for convincing his followers that their hopes and disappointments were his, too.
It’s quite clear (to me) that one guy in power is capable of turning a thriving, intelligent organization on its head. It is also clear to me that people can learn, but organizations cannot. If organizations are supposed to be intelligent, how do they learn actually and how would one measure it? These questions have not been answered and require top drawer study because all modules of the organization do not go through a central hub: poor connections and low intelligence. Is that where we’re at in 2016? Is that why liberals are hiding their “intelligence”?
Is it because they actually want (and only) want low intelligence voters in contradiction to their highly intelligent donors? Therefore, is it fair to say that the average intelligence of liberals is somewhat in question? Is it fair to say that any policy to do with equality/inequality is completely flawed if not an outright lie? If they distract from their intelligence using politics-of-fear, then in my opinion, it is absolutely disgusting.
A peek into the psychology of different ethnic groups:
Nicolas was, according to him, very good at masking his seizures, often through what Iwaszkiewicz called, using a Russian word, “Dostoevshchina”, or “Dostoevskian stuff”, which usually means over-the-top emotionalism and melodrama (or, to cite Iwaszkiewicz’s own elaboration of the term, “bad living, drinking, completely Russian outbursts which were terrifying in the orderly compartmentalized world of the West”).
Dostoevshchina could be the word of the year. There should be an American equivalent, probably “Wal-mart stuff,” but that just does not have the same ring to it.
Most humans survive — at an existential and spiritual level — by assuming that what they have known as ordinary is “normal,” and that all deviations from this are temporary.
This enables us to keep a mental map of the world which is both static and comforting. We see what we know as a baseline that will return. And yet, as the poets warn us, we cannot step in the same river twice, which means that each moment is unique and only change is the constant.
However, nature has a plan that veers down the middle between constant and change. This plan uses cycles to change between different time-dimensions of a thing, so that it can be both unchanging and constantly changing.
This leads us to the question of what the cycle is. Is it individual lives? Particular societies? Or is it humanity as a whole? Again, nature has a more complex plan: individual societies go through cycles, but instead of being triggered by time, this change is driven by the choices made by those leading each society. This is why some civilizations last for a long time, and others a much shorter time.
Much as in nature there is Darwinian competition among individuals in a species, in humanity there is competition between these societies, but not as simple as war. It is a competition to discover what enables a society both endure and have high quality of life and knowledge.
In Western Civilization, which is Western Europe and the formerly British colonies of the New World and Oceania, we now face a struggle for our survival. The path upon which we have traveled for so long has led to nothing but failure, and that failure is accelerating.
We either do something different, or fade from history and see all that we — and our ancestors — have worked for disappear into the mists of time.
Young people are at a major disadvantage when it comes to parsing the world around them because they have not yet seen the cycles of public opinion.
The Memory Hole. A story comes out that could damage the Left; they scramble and come up with a plausible reason to what “could be” happening, then insist on it as truth because they like it. While cracks appear in the narrative, their audience — who are just catching up with events — quickly shout down the opposition. Within a week, stories and water cooler discussion abandon the matter, and inside of a pay period it is forgotten.
Theory and Studies. A theory is advanced, or a study published, which contains radical conclusions. On the basis of a few data points, the herd throws out the many previous facts which indicate the contrary. A decade later, studies are retracted or disproven, and opinion shifts back.
The latest example of the latter involves the practice of flossing teeth, which has now fallen into official disfavor:
It’s one of the most universal recommendations in all of public health: floss daily to prevent gum disease and cavities.
…But all this could change following an investigation by Associated Press (AP). Last year journalists from the agency asked the departments of health and human services and agriculture in the US for their evidence that flossing works.
Since then, the US government has quietly dropped the recommendation, admitting that there is no scientific evidence to prove the benefits. And now the NHS is set to review their own guidelines.
First the study comes out, making careers for all those who were involved, who now get promoted or their own research labs; next, the media, which loves a contrarian narrative more than anything else because it implicitly rejects realism, bangs the tin drum for awhile; finally, people chatter about it on treadmills, at water coolers and on social media. The herd burps, and concludes it has reached a conclusion.
This “trickle-down” process of information provides the guts for the most advanced mental control mechanism ever. The media is desperate for product, and people need something to talk about, and think that if they know things (“it’s got electrolytes”) they are smart, and this makes them feel good. The hive buzzes warmly because it has disproven the idea of doing things the realistic way yet again, and has some new fascination to pursue with which to distract itself.
And yet, common sense rears its ugly head. How is removing decomposing food bits from between one’s teeth, where cavities are most likely to occur, in any way ineffective? The Left screams about how we are all being forced to buy expensive corporate products like dental floss, and the Right talks about the loss of autonomy caused by centralized dentistry. We wait the next decade, when we can return to common sense in this detail, and to fight for it in the ten thousand other inversions that will have been established by that time.