The Mental Bias Toward Ideas We Think We Can Control


The old saying about putting the cart before the horse is one of those eternal human profundities that is so practically useful that its philosophical importance gets overlooked. When used correctly, a tool becomes an extension of the mind; when this does not happen, the tool becomes the master and the mind alters itself to balance.

This rule even applies to the mind itself. In theory, the mind is a tool for the survival of the organism and the experience of life. Both of these seem to be important, since even wild animals who fall into miserable circumstances seem to be able to will themselves to death.

However, the cart comes before the horse — and the tool becomes the master — if not explicitly resisted. Our minds favor stronger signals over weaker ones, and gravitate toward explanations instead of mysteries because mysteries are threats. This creates an inherent bias toward simpler and broader ideas over granular and open-ended ones.

One example of this concerns time. When an event is in the news, it seems like either the apocalypse of the gateway to Utopia, and not just because our journalists are rodents. Present things are fully accessible and comprehensible to our minds, and therefore, we prioritize the new over the old and the eternal.

As a side effect, this creates a type of paranoia: fear of risk amplified by a need to stay current. This manifests in an obsessive “fear of missing out” which reflects not an intensity, but underlying emptiness to life. When there are no signals stronger than what is present-tense but trivial, it is a sign that people have found few things of actual importance in life.

“FOMO is especially rampant in the millennial community because they see a peer achieving something they want, and somehow in their mind, that achievement means something is being ‘taken away’ from them,” said Darlene McLaughlin, M.D., assistant professor at the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine and a psychiatry and behavioral health specialist with Texas A&M Physicians.

…In fact, recent studies have shown that FOMO is linked to feelings of dissatisfaction. “The problem with FOMO is the individuals it impacts are looking outward instead of inward,” McLaughlin said. “When you’re so tuned in to the ‘other,’ or the ‘better’ (in your mind), you lose your authentic sense of self. This constant fear of missing out means you are not participating as a real person in your own world.”

This mentality might be seen as a desire to be the “center of attention,” an idea which implies a supremacy of the social group. Whoever is receiving the attention is winning; whoever is not has been victimized and had that victory taken away from them. This mentality reflects the inability of people for whom little of actual importance exists to judge value and purpose on their own; instead, they defer to the group, having no experience with actual choice-making.

With this center of attention, the basis of collectivized individualism or Crowdism is born. People are no longer motivated by inner choices — duty, honor, pride, creativity, wisdom — but by what the rest of the herd is doing. For this reason, they are losing out if they do not get in there and force others to pay attention to them, which creates the stunts-based attention whoring that is the basis for radicalism and thus, liberalism itself.

The present-tense bias of our time reveals a disconnection from the inner world through which we notice the details and thus the whole “big picture” of our physical world. Our minds grasp what is easy, but like scapegoats or Utopias, these easy thoughts are a way of avoiding the necessary larger action, and by distracting us, ensure our failure.

The Antiwork Conservative


Conservatives espouse traditional (or more accurately: eternal) values including the importance of hard work and dedication. Few ask themselves however if this extends to jobs. It should not, mainly because (1) jobs are not actually work in most cases and (2) jobs are the antithesis of what the value of hard work is designed to foster.

In modern Europe and the Americas, everyone — male and female — over the age of majority must attend a job. This means showing up every day from eight to five and being in the office, doing office tasks. Every person gets a cubicle or an office and a computer, maybe a title. They do this until they are sixty-five, then wonder what it meant.

In the average job, very little of actual import is done. This occurs first because most of the assigned activities are pro forma or “make-work,” but more broadly because most business activities are ill-advised or irrelevant, often through the creation of regulatory law.

In this sense, jobs are not “work” per se, or the process of applying oneself to a task. They are the process of attendance, obedience and time-wasting.

This realization leads to the second point, which is that jobs are the antithesis of the “work” described by traditional values. In traditional work, the individual learns how the world works by applying himself or herself to tasks and achieving mastery. It is a method of understanding realism and gaining self-discipline.

Jobs do the opposite. Jobs reward appearance, not actuality, except in a few rare cases. Even in professional fields, the goal is to keep abreast of what others have done and do the same in a certain specific case, and accountability occurs only when one deviates from the commonly accepted practice, even if results are bad. Doctors lose patients, lawyers loses cases, and architects design junk all the time but so long as these are competitive with what others have established as “safe” minimums, no consequences attach.

The constant obsession with staying abreast of standards makes work into an obsession. One must appear to be as devoted as one’s comrades, or be suspected of disloyalty. Further, the worker must demonstrate diligent emulation of public appearance as defined by others, which creates a neurosis of fears about what has not be done as opposed to what needs doing.

In this way, jobs lead away from work, which is results-based. Instead, they present a flight from life itself: an escape from the world of actions and consequences into the purely human world of imitation and social reward. This adds a soul-killing dimension because the acts on which we spend most of our lives are entirely a waste of our time and potential.

Consider it this way: from the years of the early twenties through the mid-sixties, a person spends fifty hours a week, fifty weeks a year, preparing for or attending work. These are the best daylight hours and the most intense moments of their consciousnesses, devoted to something that is both unnecessary and demeaning. They never notice because everyone else is doing it, at least until retirement, where people tend to become aimless and bitter.

If Moses were around today, he would be saying “let my people go” while looking skeptically at a heap of TPS reports.

Michel Houellebecq unveiled the conservative case against jobs in Whatever: jobs ruin our expectation that life will be good, and force us into desperate compensatory measures to feel good, almost all of which lead to destruction of hope for life itself. Jobs make us bitter, alienated and destructive, which mirrors the ressentiment inherent to Leftism, which is why jobs are a creation of the Leftist regulatory state and not the free market, which rewards performance over pro forma activity.

Others have made this case before, such as Louis-Ferdinand Céline, who showed how jobs took over the minds of people and turned them into near-automatons. Indeed, among conservative writers of the early twentieth century, the mind-enslaving specter of “Progress” was seen through the voracious expansion of industry, the collapse of small communities into cities, and the reduction of families into financial units driven by jobs.

People ask, “What would our alternative be?”

The conservative answer is to remove all regulation of the job market and to allow reward to go only to those who can achieve results, which in turn limits labor to the necessary and also radically reduces costs so that people can live on less and be happier. This would lead to less time spent at jobs, because they would be task-driven and not appearance-driven.

In addition, the regulatory state creates a need to keep up with standards to avoid legal liability and government intervention. This directs the focus of management from making things happen to dealing with labor and legal issues. Most managers are not very good at what they do, in part because their real job is to find a way to work with the regulatory state, not get their workers to perform.

If a conservative took over with absolute power, the intermediates between worker and employer like unions, regulations, and legally-defined liabilities would vanish and be handled instead by civil courts. Workers would find themselves as more like contractors, hired to make a certain function happen and rewarded for it. They would have greater pride in their work and most of it would be necessary, as opposed to the current scheme where most of it is not necessary.

Existential concerns would come into play here. When work is not a mandatory time period, but a question of achieving results, people can see the time value of labor and conversely, the monetary value of time. This encourages them to go home, spend time with friends and families and on cultural activities instead of attending extra hours for the sake of appearance.

We need only look at the Dutch model to see how less job means more happiness.

One Dutch woman explicitly states that less time at the job means more liberation and ability to have a positive life. As Macleans reports:

“Every woman in Holland can do whatever she wants with her life,” says Van Haeren, 52, who lives just outside of Rotterdam and rides her bicycle or the train to work three days a week at a police academy, where she counsels students. She has worked part-time her entire career, as have almost all of her friends—married or unmarried, kids or no kids—save one or two who logged more hours out of financial necessity. Van Haeren, who wasn’t married until last year and has no children, says she’s worked part-time “to have time to do things that matter to me, live the way I want. To stay mentally and physically healthy and happy.”

Many women in the Netherlands seem to share similar views, valuing independence over success in the workplace. In 2001, nearly 60 per cent of working Dutch women were employed part-time, compared to just 20 per cent of Canadian women. Today, the number is even higher, hovering around 75 per cent. Some, like Van Haeren, view this as progress, evidence of personal freedom and a commitment to a balanced lifestyle.

The article goes on to show what a world without job mania might look like:

Ellen de Bruin, who patterned her book after Mireille Guiliano’s bestseller French Women Don’t Get Fat, began by defining the stereotypical Dutch woman: naturally beautiful with a no-fuss sense of style, she rides her bike to fetch the groceries, has ample time with her kids and husband, takes art classes in the middle of the week, and spends leisurely afternoons drinking coffee with her friends. She loves to work part-time and does not earn as much as her husband, but she’s fine with that—he takes care of the bills. The book went on to note that Dutch women rank consistently low, compared to those in other Western countries, in terms of representation in top positions in business and government—and rank consistently near the top in terms of happiness and well-being.

As an article in The Economist amplifies, this is a prioritization of existential concerns and lifestyle over the demands of commerce:

When I talk to women who spend half the week doing what they want—playing sports, planting gardens, doing art projects, hanging out with their children, volunteering, and meeting their family friends—I think, yes, that sounds wonderful. I can look around at the busy midweek, midday markets and town squares and picture myself leisurely buying produce or having coffee with friends. In a book released several years ago called Dutch Women Don’t Get Depressed—a parody of French Women Don’t Get Fat—Dutch psychologist Ellen de Bruin explains that key to a Dutch woman’s happiness is her sense of personal freedom and a good work-life balance. But it’s hard to transplant that image to the United States, where our self-esteem is so closely tied to our work.

Conservatives owe it to ourselves to look at the root of tradition, which is reverence for life itself, including the natural environment and the existential need to find excellence and joy in existence. Jobs obliterate this and replace it with Soviet-style grim obedience and grueling time expenditure on the doomed. It is time conservatives got off this chain and began fighting for life itself over the pointless obligation of jobs.



Afraid to walk the streets
In the coldness all alone
The blackness of the night
Engulfs your flesh and bones
Hoping for relief
From the fear you feel inside
Losing all perspective
Of reality in the night

What do they fear? Reality.

Why is this important? It is larger than the human perspective.

What do they choose instead? Mass religion: consumerism, egalitarianism, libertarianism, new age hocus-pocus.

It is time for war.

God bless you, Slayer, and may you be guided to eternal peace, Jeff Hanneman.

In this course I pray.

It is eternal war, us (the sentient) against the zombies (the conformist).

Each time you kill one of them, the universe breathes slightly easier.

This is war… total war.

The Necessity of Evil (In Avoiding Dark Organization)


At times, our hearts weaken when we look at this world, for two big reasons that are so terrifying that it seems gauche to mention them.

First, there is the nature of nature as “red in tooth and claw.” Predation occurs, and often it is the sweetest and cutest bunny that gets ripped apart before our eyes by a hawk, which seems unconcerned with the question of whether its prey had a soul, a personality, or sensation. As an extension of this, we can be victims of predation or (more likely) our own error or warfare, and will be left insensate dead to be laughed at by others.

Second, there is the fact of decline itself. Everything we create will have a life cycle from birth to death, but even worse, we cannot imagine it being any different. We know ourselves how experience goes from new to mundane, and how we are constantly seeking new stimulus to avoid this cycle, so tend to have few enduring favorites.

We cannot step in the same river twice, and we cannot go home again, because the experience has changed for us internally and independent of the world. The first time one samples a delicacy, or the first time one is well and truly drunk under a midnight moon, can never be equaled. What defines them is not the external object, the delicacy or purloined case of beer, but the newness to us.

In a sense, the universe is driven by novelty as well, since repetitive events lead to entropy. As a cycle repeats, it becomes predictable, and margins loosen, introducing gradual leaks of energy and information. Over time, the leaks take over from the main, and soon all energy dissipates. This is similar to how civilizations fall, where energy is transferred from a focus on goals to the disparate desires of citizens.

As one poet wrote, “Nothing gold can stay.” Like death, this loss of intensity of experience seems to be the core of tragedy in life.

But what if these methods represented a better option to what otherwise would be logically necessary? Perhaps logic itself is inherent to existence, and as a condition of existence, the form that existence takes must be logical and not arbitrary according to its own needs. That alone is galling, since as part of existence, we want what we want to take precedence over all else, although this tendency leads to individualism which is a form of hubris, the root of all evil (if one accepts the pagan “good to the good, and bad to the bad” and not the “good to everyone” of Crowdists).

The struggle of existence in logical terms, which underlie the physical but are not discernible in appearance from it, is to avoid becoming repetitive because this is what creates the next stage in the cycle: a lack of energy created by the increasing entropy of repetition. No creature can survive by being entirely static, and no civilization can survive when it has a “system” which mandates repetition of the same ideas, even if those are merely “universal” or applied equally (be sure to genuflect to a stature of Karl Marx when you read that word) to all people.

But, then, we might ask, how do creatures in nature avoid stagnation? After all, sharks and cockroaches have been with us for hundreds of millions of years. To understand that, we must return to the wisdom of Ptolemy:

The Ptolemaic model accounted for the apparent motions of the planets in a very direct way, by assuming that each planet moved on a small sphere or circle, called an epicycle, that moved on a larger sphere or circle, called a deferent.

The importance of epicycles is that they move contrary to the dominant motion of the cycle, which keeps internal variation within that cycle, approximating motion at the level of detail instead of falling into trope with the larger motion. It is the same way with nature: species go through birth-midlife-aging cycles on the level of individual generations, but do not themselves complete the cycle to death, because in every cycle there is a contrary movement which keeps ambiguity alive as to the end result.

This is like the universe itself: to avoid entropy, it ensures that the answers are never known until they happen, which keeps an information potential of ambiguity present at all times, avoiding the repetition that accelerates entropy. If the answer is known, there is no point doing the calculation, and on an informational level — independent of time — the end-state and the starting state collapse because they are one and the same. This is how entropy accelerates.

For this reason, formalization is the enemy of survival, because it creates a dissipation of energy that leads to dark organization within a human group. Its opposite, or informal order, calculates itself on the level of detail in each epicyclic generation, and so avoids the wide margins and repetitive structures that accelerate entropy. This requires internal conflict, like anarchy plus medieval knights raging all over the place, that much as “the exception proves the rule” by the constant fighting to assert principle, re-establishes the rule.

The ancients knew that evil must exist for this reason. Evil is the exception that proves the rule, and unless allowed to gain the upper hand, serves a vital role by keeping the good in a state of constantly asserting that outlook, much as predation forces prey animals to be clearer about their own purpose. Without evil, one does not have heroes, and without heroes, the principle of heroism is lost to degeneration, a form of entropy.

And so, you may ask, why death? It is clear why there must be predation and warfare, but why is death inevitable outside of those things? The answer is that experience over time hardens the mind into conclusions, and those can then become repetitive in all but exceptional individuals, at which point it is time for a long sleep to refresh the capacity for learning. This is why the ancients possessed a complex view of death, in which most dwelt in a static state after the end, but many either ascended to heavenly realms or re-incarnated. They were bits of code that needed rebooting, having proved its utility, where those who were irrelevant (no informational utility) could simply pass into ash and dust.

Our modern morons — whatever cretin taught you in kindergarten is at the head of the list — teach us to value balance, harmony, and equilibrium by implying that those are “peaceful.” They look at a field of flowers for ten minutes and consider that nature is peaceful! In fact, they have seen effect and not cause; the cause is the endless predation, warfare, storms and chaos that rage through as epicycles and by doing so, in converse application, strengthen the deferent.

For the same reason, people should be wary of external stimulus like social media, television, socializing, and trends. These not only put people in trope, where they are all thinking and doing the same thing at the same time, but interrupt the internal process of renewal which is necessary. Our minds function best when they are mostly closed, or at least closed circuit, and we spend time studying and analyzing what we know to find new dimensions in it. This keeps our knowledge from calcifying and allows us to avoid slipping into the repetitive mental cycle of senescence.

The reason that conservatives prefer principles and flexible structures like caste, race, religion, and hierarchy to universal systems is revealed in this knowledge. In addition, we can see how our society has chosen to kill itself the way every other society kills itself: by finding the “right” method, and applying it universally, we eliminate ambiguity but accelerate entropy, hastening our rush to the end — when if we acted otherwise, we could avoid it indefinitely.

Crazy White Girl Syndrome


As experienced readers of this blog know, the problem with humans is peer pressure: the stupid monkeys cannot stop themselves from emulating other monkeys, even when they know the result is going to be shockingly stupid.

Crazy white girl syndrome happens when a young white girl grows up seeing certain ideals around her in media and through her friends. She does not act on them directly, as they contradict her self-interest, but she internalizes them, and there the error is made.

Parents who allow their children to trawl through television, music and internet without supervision are the root of this problem. Most of them are going to Homer Simpson style just pop another beer and comment on how hilarious it is, but decades later will be hungrily searching for someone else to blame for the ensuing dysfunction.

When the white girl matures slightly more, she tries to do the right thing, but now she is “sophisticated” or at least adult. She seeks out ideals which resemble those she saw in media or learned from her social group. Specifically, she seeks men who resemble the ideals she has internalized.

For most women, this means they are looking for men in a narrow range of careers, with a narrow range of qualifications, but worst and most destructively of all, they are searching for men with a certain amount of social influence and hipness. This excludes the stolid and realistic types entirely and sends them chasing after bad boys.

But this misses the point of bad boys: they are “cool” because they care about nothing other than pleasure. And so, they are not going to commit. They will take the offered sex and then move on when it becomes inconvenient. This leaves the white girl increasingly desperate.

Eventually, she finds her options have limited, whether by time or simply by the string of useless bad boys she encounters. But she will not change what she is looking for, because it is by now so hard-wired that it feels like instinct. And so she chases inappropriate males and gets more desperate.

After some time of this, she is reduced to being an attention whore, drawing attention to herself in an attempt to filter out the bad boy who might stay, even though all of the previous ones have fled at the first touch of complication. She then enters a death spiral: crazier stunts, worse results, and more compensatory behavior.

There is no way off this train except to stop, think and realize that bad boys will never commit because they are dedicated to themselves alone. The only escape is to stop pathologically repeating the same bad index of selection, and instead think about what she really needs, but very few have the intestinal fortitude for that.

The Increasing Mediocrity Of Everything


Growing up, students like myself were amazed at the obvious fracture: great art, symphonies and books all belonged to the past. The stuff our teachers told us was good in a contemporary sense was gimmicky foolishness and rarely had the depth of the past, with a few exceptions like Tom Wolfe and Michel Houellebecq.

In the meantime, there was always a trend afoot. Some book was the most recent Hunger Games and was flying off the shelf, to inundate used book sales barely a year later. Some movie was a constant source of pop culture references, or kids were listening to some album, but they never endured more than a decade at best.

Through this, early on we were introduced to the knowledge that our society had once been great, but now was not, and that our current “culture” consisted of little more than temporary fascinations which had no significance. With this in mind, it was hard to take anything seriously but hedonism and careers, since nothing had any meaning at all.

Since that time, most of us have become accustomed to the thought that as every year passes, every thing — institutions, art, culture, products, machines — would cost more and be less functional, but would be correspondingly even more over-hyped. It is like Moore’s Law for decay.

You may wonder why things are so wretchedly awful and getting worse. Here are three good reasons:

  • Ahierarchicalism. In the old days, there were editors on every level who selected the best of what was before them and kicked that upstairs. For this reason, by the time a book hit the readers, it had gone through many gates and was likely at least a candidate for good. As this model became unpopular, writing underwent a “democratization” process by which mediocrity was equated to quality. Now, anyone can publish, and they all do, which has resulted in a flood of books, blogs, magazines, and papers that no one has time to read. Where previously a few hundred thousand “power user” readers sifted through fifty books a year, now they face thousands of books being released per year, almost all of which are terrible and equally over-hyped. Even the famous sources of best-seller lists can tell us what is trendy, but not what is good. As a result, junk proliferates because it is competing on the basis of novelty and ironic uniqueness — a surface trait — alone. This is true not just of books, but all cultural objects and any products, including technology. Innovation has died, replaced by reconfiguration of known tech into new consumer objects. What we do have barely works. Refrigerators that once lasted decades now barely last for ten years. Microwaves fall apart while units from the 70s are still going. Cars seem to work OK if one buys an older design, but the newer trendy ones disappear within the decade.

  • Government. Government does nothing right. At every level it introduces waste and moves slowly, and when it does act, it screws up the natural process of life and business and replaces it with a bureaucracy that rewards the idiotic and punishes the intelligent. Whole fields are now essentially paper-pushing experiences in which new false targets are established by regulation and fear of government interference. Wherever government goes, the markets slow down and those who attempt quality are punished not just by the high cost of all the paperwork, but by the risk involved in going beyond what others are doing that is officially approved. In addition, government demands ever-increasing taxes to keep up with its bloat, further stilling innovation and markets.

  • Education. How can you be against education? That is a modern heresy like saying you are opposed to science. And yet, education produces people who cannot think for themselves. They are good at being taught a task, memorizing its many variants, and working away at it in that low-intensity modern way that involves lots of detail work and almost no analysis. As a result, they pass along blatantly unrealistic ideas as verified truth and fail whenever confronted with something outside of the script that they were taught at school. Think of the blank looks on the faces of European leaders when the migrant crisis exploded, or the number of companies that have fallen into senescence by failing to keep their products relevant. Look at Radio Shack, which vanished without a fight, or even Apple, which cannot seem to invent any new technology so keeps updating the past. Notice the number of district attorneys who prosecuted absolutely hopeless cases, or failed to prosecute necessary ones. Or even the vast amounts of corruption, tax cheating, and general lawbreaking which goes unnoticed and unacted upon. We have created a system that promotes the obedient far beyond their abilities, and then has no response when they somewhat predictably cannot figure out anything that they were not taught.

All of these are secondary to the primary decay of the West, of course. Once upon a time, we chose our best people and put them into a hierarchy, assigning them power and wealth as tools to be used toward the end of advancing civilization. For several millennia we have backed off from that approach, and as a result, every year we are less good and less competent, but more cocksure and pretentious.

Egalitarianism Kills Communities

An ode to the destructive powers of universal inclusion:

Here, the vision of the internet as an egalitarian space where all were welcome and nobody was privileged still had currency. While dogma and censorship were condemned, an ambient spirit of progress marked these groups—a belief in the internet as a catalyst of human potential.

All that fell by the wayside after the “Eternal September.” Usenet was overwhelmed by what Delano dubs “a veritable tidal wave of assholes and Everymen” that never receded. For her, the inundation of AOL subscribers in 1993 was tantamount to a natural disaster that wiped out Usenet’s liberatory appeal. “Scam artists realized that electrons were infinitely cheaper than paper circulars, while trolls could harass or bully anyone without consequence,” Delano says. “There was anonymity with no accountability.”

When participation is universal, the culture expands to fit the audience, at which point “anything goes” and the insanity outnumbers and then overpowers the sanity. This is a process akin to cultural genocide, which later becomes actual genocide as those who depend on that culture withdraw, emigrate or cease breeding.

Dying In Vain


My partner Shank and I shot the breeze a bit while gearing up. It was like that after Watch Assembly at precinct. Shank and I talked family, then bitched about our evening’s assignment. It was proper social grooming. It got us into work mode and ready to roll and pull our shift out as partners.

“Hey Reg, they seriously named it Playn Street? That’s a misprint if I ever saw one.” Shank informed me.

“Nope, it’s pretty much just a cul-de-sac off Hull Street Road. Fun place. It’s near the biker place SWAT got called over to last Thursday. That’s why Coop told us to go park there all night and keep an eye on things.”

“You say so, man.” Shank shrugged and put another wooden toothpick between his teeth as he adjusted his tac-gear. “I guess that curve in the road keeps both them and us from having LOS. Do we just listen for about twenty bike motors and send up the Bat-signal if we hear them?”

“Pretty much. I think that’s what SGT Cooper wants from us.” I responded as I got my stuff squared away and picked up the keys and vehicle log from the Motor Sergeant. We always rode Alpha One-Fower_Zeerow. After being partnered with Shank in the same ride for six months, it had the familiar feel of a car we actually owned. On those rare occasions we drew someone else’s ride for some reason, the cars didn’t smell right and it bothered us. It was like every partnership in the precinct marked their car as a territory of sorts.

So we drove out of the precinct garage, across Redneck Road as we referred to Jefferson Davis Highway. We rolled slow and easy down Hull Street Road, past the facades of dying small businesses. The pawnshops, payday loan sharks and laundromats teemed with a verminous underclass. I remembered riding this stretch and recognizing a fourteen year-old girl I’d run in for blowing domes over in the industrial park the previous week. Hull Street Road ran through the worst of HUD City.

We reached our spot and settled in. We found a spot to parallel-park with a good, clear run for rapid egress. We settled in for the night. Shank, formally known as Patrol Officer Igor Larianov Shanskirov, got out a bottled water and his empty Planters Peanuts jar. We were there from 7:30 to 5:00 AM. Coffee after 6 PM was something you’d come to regret on an assignment like this one.

“This sh!t gets old, Man. Even with a special partner like you. They should take those bikers.” I offered after an hour and 30 minutes of boredom.

“Did you forget your porn, Young Reginald?” Shank asked.

“Yeah, I deleted every one of those videos of your mom off my cellphone. Just like you asked. But they should seriously send in the fvcking armored cav the next time they hold the Texas No-Look Hold ‘Em game and cut their product. If even *I* know this sh!t goes down Sunday Night after the last NFL game, Vice has to be on to it.”

“You just say that because they’re the only whites on the whole stretch and it pisses off the natives. More calls, more ambulances, that sort of sh!t.”

“Wouldn’t so bad if they were just whites like us. They’re fvcking Vikings on meth and they deliberately stir sh!t up. The place is on edge every time The Eastern Shore Pagans roll in.”

“Gotta’ love the fvcking overtime.” Shank quipped. “Diversity is Southside Richmond’s strength.”

Another four hours passed. Shank whistled lullabies as he idly scratched his crotch. “I went to the Suicide Prevention Training the other day. Sitting through that class was the hardest part.”

“You’re still with us. I’m happy it worked. I went to Substance Abuse Training two weeks ago. They taught me I’m not supposed to hang by my knees from the chandelier while I drink. It might not go down quite right.”
Shank sat up straight. “The fvck? You see that old Buick, Peters?”

“Yeah. Been there five minutes. What’s that kid doing tossing something in the window?”

The Buick fired up and started to roll. Not really fast. Not like he knew we were a police cruiser. We had sat dark since early evening and were under a pretty big shade tree. An oblivious fool wouldn’t have made us five minutes ago.

Shank had the mic and talked quietly. “Quarterback, this is Alpha One-Fower-Zeerow. The dog is off the leash. Out.”

“Nice of you to consult me, partner.” I said as I started the cruiser and prepared to follow the Buick off of Playn Street. Once we’d called in about the dog being off the leash, dispatch would know a required stakeout just went uncovered. I fully expected Cooper to call us up and read us the Roberts Rules. This didn’t happen. I rolled in blackout mode, slowly behind a Buick as it approached the T Playn made at Hull Street Road.

The Buick didn’t signal by design or neglect, but the vehicle bore rightward and would have risked a Darwin Award to whip around for a sudden Louie. I went headlights, but no sirens. The Buick had a driver and no passengers. The right side rear window was about two and a half inches ajar. He rolled out to the right, about five or so miles above the speed limit. I held back for a count of five and let one car intercede between us before I followed.

The Buick would roll a block or two and hang a right. We’d skulk back a car or two behind. He’d keep making rights on side streets. He’d turn around and stop for a couple of minutes. People would drop things through his window. It looked like plastic bags. Product or money. Shank wondered aloud. “Where the fvck is his security?”

His license was dirty and missing some paint. Perhaps it was deliberately as opaque as could be and still pass as legal. Shank had called in. “Bravo, Two-Niner-Fife. Um, ah, Mike or November. Unsure which. Tree-One-ah,..Papa or Foxtrot, again unclear on that last digit.” The Buick’s driver had taken five of these bags through his window and we were waiting for the ID to come back.

Shank called in a phase line and notified Alpha Fife-Zeerow-Fife we were crossing their patrol territory and were tailing a suspicious brown Buick. Still no notification on the plates. The Buick then turned right and took an abrupt left into a grass-invaded driveway next to a rundown old rambler. I slowed and looked for the address on the mailbox. “One-Tree Hoover Avenue, Shank.” Shank called Quarterback for permission to interrogate. The hand-to-hands were probable cause with an Oak Leaf Cluster.

“Let’s ring the doorbell and tell him Amway sent us.” I remarked. The radio had just come back with a list of possibles on the tags. One was a City Councilman’s son named Brock Handlemann. It was the only one who matched a Brown Buick. The Sonovabeach giving us PC was the enfant terrible of one of the most powerful men in Richmond’s Municipal Government.

Alpha Five-Zeerow-Fife drove up. A tall, almost Zulu-dark Officer named Hopkins approached our cruiser. “What’s the poop?” He asked.

“Single, Caucasian, male. Five hand-to-hands with the locals down Hull Street Road.” Shank explained pointing to the old house. “Dispatch tells us to check it out. We’ll do standard front and back. I’ll knock and ask to speak to the owner of this Gentleman’s Establishment. Oh, and its Councilman Handlemann’s adorable son Brock doing the trappin’.”

“Fvck me.” Hopkins sucked air through his teeth and responded with his countenance grave. “McCourty and I have got your Six. You heard any dogs on the property? How many are in the house?”

“We think just the Handlemann Spawn.” I answered.

“If you lyin’, you dyin’.” Hopkins riposted.

I was not happy camper, but I had my role to play in this takedown. I oozed myself against the side of the house, working myself around back and hoping Hopkins hadn’t prophesied anything by asking about dogs. It would be a nice night to die, except that dying, like, you know, sucked.

Shank approached the front of the house the way a calm and fearless warrior approached the possibility of final fate. He knocked on the door. “Police. Ope…”

BLAM!BLAM!BLAM! “Arrghhh…oh, God, arragghhh,,,”

“Flash! Flash! Flash! Quarterback, this is Alpha Fife-Zeerow-Fife. McCourty speaking. Officer down. Code Tree. One-Tree Hoover Avenue. Shots fired. Backup requested. Over.”

Around back I heard the blast. I felt like we had been left for dead. My immediate instinct was to run to where my partner was. I also knew I couldn’t leave the back open or the perp/perps would escape. It had started happening before I had a good angle on the back entrance. It consisted of a wooden door, a screen door, a stoop and three small steps. The doors flew open.

I saw the shotgun before the perp. I got low, drew down and shot. The round was just rear of center mass and the person who it hit went rolling with a cry of great pain. Sirens began to resound in the distance. Dogs took up a cacophony throughout many of the neighboring yards. Lights went on. The downed perp rolled to his weapon and tried to maneuver it in my direction. I fired again. He was finished.

While I had dispatched Thing #1, another individual crashed through the door and fired a handgun in my general vicinity. One round kicked dirt on top of my head. Another ricocheted off one of my pouches and ruined a portion of my gear belt. I turned to address him with my service weapon and this exposed me to the door.

Thing #3 emerged. His weapon discharged in fiery anger. The sirens faded. Light disappeared. The pain was awful, but blissfully fleeting. It became quiet and peace overrode all….

EPILOGUE: after investigation of the tragic incidents occurring on the night of October 19th, 2016: It was determined Officers Reginald Kalb Peters and Igor Larianov Shanskirov had violated numerous tactical protocols and had no permission or probable cause to be on the property located at 13 Hoover Street. Furthermore, they had abandoned a stakeout against the orders of Watch Sergeant Nathaniel Brainard Hoover without any notification. Proper dispatch logs were surprisingly illegible and poorly kept. What was learned came from the testimonies of Officers McCourty and Hopkins. The case was moved expeditiously and wrapped up in record time under the intense pressure and guidance of Council Algernon K. Handlemann.

The Message Is Lost In Translation


If you had to encapsulate your learning in a short text, such as one that might fit on a 3×5 card, what highest level of understanding would you communicate there?

To my mind, something like this:

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Notions like pacifism and equality make us feel good because we personally are not at risk. When many feel good together, it creates a self-reinforcing and -amplifying collective mania. This then creates a society which is toxic, in that its mentality spreads by contact and people are forced to be immersed in it, because it is obsessively reality-denying and makes all other choices a means to that end. This creates endless unintended consequences that are prompted denied.

Our modern world is toxic. If you want to know why people are manic about wanting to send you to school or a job for as close to twelve hours a day as possible, this is it: they want you to absorb the toxic propaganda from others. Misery loves company, and people are at some level aware that our civilization is built on lies, but to confront those lies means to realize how much of their own time is wasted, so they would rather spread the lies; this is the path of least resistance.

The message is lost in translation because of our tendency to view our mental models of reality as more real than reality. This is not done deliberately, but occurs because we rely on those mental representations and work our thinking process on them. This in turn creates a world in our head which is perfectly logically sound and consistent among its own parts, but may be improperly “sampled” or perceived from reality. We have a tendency to make mental models which are convenient to remember and manipulate, but this also makes them less accurate and therefore, three or four calculations down the line, error has crept into our thinking in a non-trivial amount.

The problem with communicating this message is that we have a tendency to put it into handy mental containers like politics and science. This zooms in on the details, but loses the big picture, and then because the focus is on the details, our mental model of the larger picture becomes distorted. This is identical to the process by which we arrived at this confusion in the first place, which is that we adapt our model of reality to what is easy for us, instead of adapting our thinking to what is real. Only some can do this, and only with self-discipline.

“But what if we created a system to force everyone to think intelligently…”
There you go again. Always thinking in terms of how to control others and reality. Instead, choose those who think intelligently and let them run the show.

“The essence of our quest is this singular political or religious command…”
There is only one command: adapt to reality. When you put that into an ideology or something that behaves like one, you have already gone down the path that leads to where we are now.

“I don’t see why you are so discontented. I have a good life…”
You are rationalizing. We can always find the best version of bad in a bad situation, but that does not take away from the fact that the situation is moribund and thus, savages our souls.

“The real problem is that we use language, symbols and logic…”
There you go again. If the problem is denial of reality, focusing on the means used to deny reality is to avoid the actual problem: the pretense and hubris that the world adapts to our minds, not the other way around!

“What we have to do is motivate people. That requires an ideology…”
You are right, but also wrong. When you adopt an ideology, the message gets diluted, and so you achieve victory in a social sense but not in terms of solving the problem, and so you become what you fight against.

A knotty problem this is, indeed. This is why all successful ventures begin with a strong hierarchy that puts those with the best leadership skills — in civilization this is generally moral character and tendency toward reverent excellence — on top and sorts out everyone else according to what role they serve best. To do this requires crushing the dominant illusion of our time, the Enlightenment and the last four thousand years: equality.

The Failure Of Laissez-Faire As An Organizational Principle


I grew up as a sort of late-comer in a large achiever type family, who managed things over my head, allowing me to simply go about my business.

Growing up like that was nice because the reliability of “my” society was fantastic. I mean things like family Sunday-lunches, family holidays happened regularly without any input from me. I literally never asked for anything or “manipulated” my parents because I knew “it” was going to happen. However, I do remember being bored enough during some holidays to wish for schools to start-up again.

Later in life I married and divorced when my girls were in primary school. I was devastated and tried to take custody but the Court said that unless I could prove my wife to be a bad mother, it was not going to happen. She was not a bad mother, so I had to move on. Later I married a single mother who came with a matriarchal mother-in-law assuming many of the duties to “look after” the young man destined to become my step-son.

I knew going in that this was going to be a difficult assignment. Having come from a society where people did nice things for one another so that they could increase the quantum of niceness in their local community, I adopted a position of accommodating the needs of these three new additions. I would have been a fringe father figure anyway as I was not a biological dad in this case, so I abdicated my fatherly responsibilities in order to allow the mother-in-law and mother to have the control they sought. It was the nice thing to do.

Some days later, I stumbled across this definition of Laissez-Faire, which is the principle that replaced top-down hierarchy:

Laissez-Faire, adjective.

2: a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action…[it comes from the] French laissez faire, imperative of laisser faire “to let (people) do (as they choose).”

Living on the southern point of Africa, I am not the only one being “laissez-faire” because the native tribal culture in the area around me is the same. In fact many commentators might say the entire Africa is “laissez-faire.” One native language term for it is (and this will be controversial) “emisebenzi” which Google translates as “jobs.” In this context a descriptive explanation might be that “we want jobs,” but that it’s OK if those come tomorrow.

Ten years after I became a fringe father figure, I saw the essence of SJW-type culture when three generations of family members attacked me with an accusation of being abusive. I had thought that honesty was important, and that people who did nice things should be rewarded in kind, but SJW-culture is different. It operates on pure opportunism: if they can get something from you by using one of their carefully-crafted categories of victimhood, the truth does not matter. Only what they want.

Naturally the allegations fell apart but here, now, I saw the face of laissez-faire: if you tell people to do whatever they want, you have opened the door to the lowest common denominator of behavior, since all behaviors are now equal. What people need to hear instead is a trinity: x behavior will be rewarded, y behavior will be punished, and anything else falls in z which gets neither punishment nor reward.

I may be in control now, but somehow I can’t prevent myself from wanting to be nice, hence I remain a “laissez-fare” father. Only this time I can see mistakes in real time.

One group I worked with came up with a managerial technique which uses “values” as a performance measure to align employees of any orientation. The practical outcome is that financial performance improves as adherence-to-values improve.

The same can be done with SJWs despite their lies. When applied as moral pressure, adherence to values determines whether a person is included in the group or not. It immediately becomes clear that some values should come before others. For example trustworthiness is important to become part of a group, even in criminal gangs. If you trust someone, you will listen to that person. This means you will be trainable and changeable, which means that knowledge can be passed on through the group.

That however implicates another important value: honesty. To achieve the desired outcome in training, the person being trained must be honest in admitting what succeeded and what failed. This is not just necessary for training, but happiness. Someone who approaches success and failure honesty is actually integrated with the task, and when he attains victory, will be able to take pride in his achievement because the impetus came from within. If his only celebration is more money or prestige, there is no personal component and so trainability is limited to technique, not goals or understanding.

The group affirms its values with every victory. Once you have achieved something, your group will acknowledge your achievement, which will lead you to have to acknowledge similar achievements by others. This bonds the group to its values. It is a mistake therefore to assume that people adhere to values if there is no reward or punishment involved. Achievement rewards, and the group bonds; but if they are not punished for failing to perform according to the values, they get to be in the group and experience that benefit without having done anything to merit it. This creates a parasitic and resentful psychology.

I realized the same rules apply in a family, which like a corporation, gang, military unit or tribe in the wilderness needs to bond itself through values. Being nice as a father exacerbates the lack of values in children because they are given membership in the family without having to do anything of their own, from an inner impetus, to contribute to it. When being good and being bad have the same consequences, it is more efficient to be bad, because you get the same benefits and can do whatever you want too.

Failing to punish activity outside of values will result in the entire societal environment rotting away. As clients using the method described above demonstrate, if values go down, the company eventually goes bankrupt. In a family, because financial solvency is not derived from the operations of that family, what collapses is trust and even enjoyment of your fellow family members.

The other side of this coin is that leaders must lead by positive example. A child will notice when you are busy and will leave you be, by playing on his own. However, if you sit behind a computer, all bets are off, because it looks the same as if you are sitting behind a television. Sitting behind a television appears to the child that you are doing nothing. Children speak the truth; televisions are literally “nothing.”

Young children learn survival from their parents, they want to sleep, go to the toilet, eat and drink. Anything that disrupts that will be cried over because it’s a threat. If you tell the child to keep quiet because you are watching television, the television becomes the threat. Later in life he will watch television and tell you to shut it.

A local sociologist expressed concern about an increase in teenage boys abusing and killing their mothers. Like SJWs, these people are showing the effects of dark organization created by a lack of clear values.

Instead of being “active” examples — washing floors, mowing lawns, washing cars — parents have become passive examples. This leads to the problem of promises. For example, a parent will watch television and to avoid an “important bit,” they will promise the child something like “just wait dear, we will take you to the playground/movies tomorrow.” This turns children into master manipulators.

Children learn from you. Little children raised on the “tomorrow plan” will learn to do the same to you. They will, long before they can tell time or read a calendar, ask you what you will be doing tomorrow. Through this they learn to persuade and eventually manipulate their parents as a way of working around the unclear values of “do as I say, not as I do” implied by a parent prioritizing doing nothing over interacting with the child.

Master manipulators live in the future by ignoring anything you tell or teach them. They have only one goal: the expectation they have in their brains — a “want” or “need” — regardless of the consequences. For them, consequences do not exist because without a clear values system, all that matters is whether they get what they want or not.

The failure to consider the consequences of actions planned and executed is a problem because the situation will turn violent and vicious if the expectation is not met. The (by now) well-known effect of a SJW “mob-attack” based on “words” is a clear example of the threat to some unknown future “expectation-loss.” The SJW, having grown up without values, knows only what they want and how to argue for it, and when they are denied it feels like a denial of their existence itself.

Parents have to manage children just as surely as we manage employees or soldiers. The grim, socially unpopular and thus suppressed truth is that laissez-faire leadership produces sociopaths. The mistake a laissez-faire father makes is to fail to be an example of engaging threats, because the engagement of bad things is necessary to enforce what is good and therefore, to give the child a target larger than his own expectations.

Children instinctively expect their fathers to make war against threats, whether a rattlesnake in the rose bed or criminals lurking around the back porch. They also expect their fathers to make internal war against bad behavior, both in the child and in the father, so that if the child needs attention and the father is watching television, the father stands up and turns off the device to instead affirm the positive values of the family itself by engaging with his child.

In a democratic society, the inability to enforce these values creates waves of alienated sociopaths like SJWs. A father and his son drive by a mosque on the way to church, and the son asks why they are not going to the mosque instead of the church. Pluralism does not provide a values-based answer, but an expectation-based one; saying “we just like this better” reduces an important life-choice to a triviality like which condiment one puts on french fries.

In that situation, the father has to either speak up the plain truth and say that Islam is not desired whether because it is foreign or bad, or he has to tacitly endorse the mosque and destroy values systems. If he says Islam is bad, he reveals himself to be cucked, because if it is really bad, he will be making war against it. His failure to do so affirms moral equivalence — good and bad are the same — in the mind of the child.

There is much more that one can say on this subject, but I do not actually have answers as to how things should be. All I know is, I am a laissez-faire father and it irks me.