The cornerstone of the Alt Right is that genetics determines culture, and culture determines everything else. Genetics also determines hierarchy. The question then arises, how do we find the best? Dr. James Thompson advances a good entry-level argument that centers the debate on the actual topic, instead of the tangents that most people will pursue:
In summary, you can spot exceptional minds early, if you bother to test for them. Verbal and mathematical tests provide powerful predictors. Adding spatial tests (done for some of them in later testing) assists in getting even better predictions. There is no upper limit after which additional smarts make no contribution. On the contrary, every increase in ability, like additional height in a basketball player, adds to achievement in life. Very bright people contribute a lot to society.
My digression is to note that although a simple explanation for the different directions these very bright people take in their occupations is that they play to their strengths, the observed differentiation is similar to the patterns of international trade as noted by Ricardo in his theory of comparative advantage. Ricardo sought to explain why a country like England which in 1817 could produce many things more efficiently than most other countries (such as Portugal) still bothered to trade with them. Similarly, why do very bright people, very much better at virtually all intellectual tasks than most people, still bother to specialise in only one of their manifold talents? Applying Ricardo’s theory to these very bright people, if any two eminent minds capable of producing two products, say Words and Sums, engage in a free market then each eminent mind can increase their overall consumption by selling the good for which they have comparative advantage while buying the other good, provided there are differences in productivity between both eminent minds. Bright people who are better at words will do wordy work, even though they are very much better than 9,999 other people at Maths. It is comparative advantage rather than absolute advantage that is responsible for intellectual specialisation and the trading of intellectual products.
While the basics are sound, it misses a couple of other key points:
Economic system is a proxy. Smart people are useful when they are rewarded for their work, because not rewarding them creates a de facto disadvantage because rewards for performance and non-performance are the same, making performance inefficient.
There are grades of highly intelligent. The above makes an initial cut for the talented people who are genetically gifted enough to offer thinking that no one else can do, and sensibly divides them between words people and maths people. But there are divisions within that structure as well.
But why is genius so rare, even in places where there are a high concentration of geniuses – as there were here in England in the past few hundred years?
1. Genius requires very high intelligence – in a country with a high average IQ like England, this means in the top ten percent (above 120) and considerably higher for some subjects (e.g. mathematical subjects). But often geniuses are at intelligence levels of about the top one in ten thousand. Some societies have much lower average IQ than England.
2. Perseverance, self-motivation to pick-out and work in one area without need for external encouragement, autonomous indifference to the evaluations of others, ability to go it alone.
3. Creativity. This is Eysenck’s big contribution.
Creativity is associated with a style of thinking that is relatively loose in its associations, inclusive in its linking of disparate elements – a style of thinking akin to that of dreaming sleep, psychotic illness, and intoxication.
This would be the upper echelon of genius: the artists, philosophers, writers, composers and rare public figures like Arminius and Charlemagne.
On top of that, it must be said that lack of verbal ability excludes people from some fields. The greatest intelligences of my acquaintance, in the course of venturing through the top echelon of our educational and social layers, have been of the verbal variety as paired with a high ability to organize thoughts in a non-linear fashion, which seems to equate to the spatial or something like it.
STEM people, while intelligent, came nowhere close. This has been consistent for many years. STEM requires linear analysis of finite tasks; this is a bit easier than non-linear analysis of multiple factors, any of which may be weak or fallacious. That kind of balancing — a sort of architectonic thinking — belongs to the artists, writers and philosophers, and those are the upper crust of intelligence.
It is worth noting two points from Schopenhauer; first, the rest of us are Dunning-Krugered when it comes to genius, because we will not recognize it and it will sound like raving drivel to us:
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
If we use the merely-talented/talented-plus-genius dichotomy, the merely-talented are generally confined to STEM fields, where the talented-by-genius can venture toward less concrete forms of thinking.
These modes of thought in the humanities are maligned by the Leftist takeover of these departments which occurred because most conservatives focus on the practical, allowing the Leftists to occupy this “lesser” territory. This parallels the difference between mainstream conservatism and actual conservatism: humanities as taught in US/EU 2016 are far different from humanities as they are understood on their own terms.
Although the intellect exists only to serve the will, in certain humans the intellect accorded by nature is so disproportionately large, it far exceeds the amount needed to serve the will. In such individuals, the intellect can break free of the will and act independently. A person with such an intellect is a genius (only men can have such a capability according to Schopenhauer), and this will-free activity is aesthetic contemplation or creation. The genius is thus distinguished by his ability to engage in will-less contemplation of the Ideas for a sustained period of time, which allows him to repeat what he has apprehended by creating a work of art. In producing a work of art, the genius makes the beautiful accessible for the non-genius as well. Whereas non-geniuses cannot intuit the Ideas in nature, they can intuit them in a work of art, for the artist replicates nature in the artwork in such a manner that the viewer is capable of viewing it disinterestedly, that is, freed from her own willing, as an Idea.
A genius can dig more deeply into structure — the patterns of existent, not their material substrates — and in so doing undertake the mentally-demanding task of ascertaining their true nature. Here Schopenhauer agrees with Charlton on the dream-like state of genius; the person bearing genius has transcended his human state, and as a result his thinking is not constrained by self-interest.
If anything has promoted the West, it has been its abundance of genius — especially in leadership. Most of the geniuses of the West are unknown to us because their work formed the groundwork for popularizers to express to the world, and history remembers those instead. But for every great discovery, the path ahead was found by lone geniuses working independently toward understanding the root of the problem.
Currently, our society is opposed to genius, because nothing makes a crowd feel less equal than the presence of genius. In fact, that it exists seems to refute our idea of equality entirely. At the far-right of the IQ curve, people are targets for the herd, which in its loss of confidence seeks to eliminate the symbols of its inequality.
The question of the supernatural boils down to a simple metric: is the world organized by material, or by information?
If it is organized by material, then bits of stuff just bounce into one another and create what we know of as reality. Opponents call this nihilism because it believes in no ordering force. Intelligent Design tries to work around that by saying that a cosmic chess-player designed those material pieces to create an emergent order.
If it is organized by information, material is the canvas through which order is expressed. This suggests that what happens in reality is more of a calculation, or interaction between material parts to derive informational results, than a pre-planned order. It is both emergent and animate.
The argument for an underlying mathematical or informational order to reality is separate from the question of purpose. We are agents of choice by virtue of being alive; we make choices based on our ability to perceive and our honesty in doing so; there is no inherent right or wrong, but those who choose to pursue reality find it has much to teach.
In discovering reality, one finds oneself look at structure or patterns, and comparing what one knows of how things work to what is seen. This can lead to a perception of an underlying system of order:
A lot of people don’t realize what’s really going on. They view life as a bunch of unconnected incidents and things. They don’t realize that there’s this, like, lattice of coincidence that lays on top of everything. Give you an example, show you what I mean: suppose you’re thinkin’ about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone’ll say, like, “plate,” or “shrimp,” or “plate of shrimp” out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin’ for one, either. It’s all part of a cosmic unconsciousness.
The above, from the movie Repo Man, is designed to be humorous, but illustrates the basic point: either we think there is a principle of organization, or not. If there is a principle of organization, it is not material.
This presents a quandary to our highly material minds. We work from the original material, which is our bodies and their needs, and inevitably extend that into the social sphere because it is composed of other bodies like us. Bodily needs and desires are universal; contemplative analysis of the order of existence is not.
But over time, we see how patterns repeat. How those implicate other patterns. And how, at the heart of it all, the entirety of existence appears to be alive.
But this understanding of synchronicity assumes that Life is nearly-all discrete, granular, autonomous and unconnected events: just ‘bits’ of information.
In contrast, synchronicity is ‘telling’ us the opposite about Life – that in reality our Life is a web of relationships between conscious entities – like a dream.
The point of synchronicity is really very simple, and does not need decoding – because it is not a informational message. Synchronicity is the sudden awareness that Life is a web of connected and purposive relationships; and that there are many entities around us involved in these relationships – things as well as people.
The division comes down to the alive-ness of life. If you sense that reality acts like an organism, pieces of the puzzle start to fall into place. This is an esoteric understanding, however, and not accessible to most. But, as many of our smartest and best people have discovered, it is the understanding which unites all the parts of reality.
This seeming paradox exploded into public consciousness with quantum mechanics, which affirm an order which works outside linearity and likely, outside materiality:
Some claim that it shows quantum mechanics implies action-at-a-distance, period. Others maintain that we can still avoid action-at-a-distance by denying that quantum mechanics is a theory about a reality in space and time. Either way, the consensus is that Einstein can’t have what he wanted – a real world in space and time, without action-at-a-distance.
…Ordinarily, we think that the past is fixed while the future is open, or partly so. Doesn’t our freedom to affect the future depend on this openness? How could we affect what was already fixed? These are deep philosophical waters, but we don’t have to paddle out very far to see that we have some options. We can say that, according to the retrocausal proposal, quantum theory shows that the division between what is fixed and what is open doesn’t line up neatly with the distinction between past and future. Some of the past turns out to be open, too, in whatever sense the future is open.
Interestingly, the most likely solution to this problem is relativity across time as well as space:
Costa de Beauregard pointed out that Alice could affect Bob’s particle without action-at-a-distance, if the influence followed an indirect, zigzag path through space and time, via the point in the past where the two particles intersect. But there are no zigzags like that in standard quantum mechanics, so if we put them in we are actually agreeing with Einstein that the theory is incomplete.
This gives us an interesting model: two events can influence one another across space and time, with each event adjusting itself to match the other, not so much as if they were entangled but as if they were different computations whose results rely on one another. We can see the same effect in microprocessors where a thread is dependent on the outcome of another thread, and must adjust the form of that outcome, for example number of decimal places, based on what is calculated in the other thread.
In my hopefully-upcoming book Parallelism, I argue for another approach: events are not just dependent on one another across time, but can partially create one another through pattern similarity, such that things which are potentially true become true when they find structural counterparts in another event, including a person. In this view, we create supernatural reality from supernatural possibility.
At that point, we have taken the world-organized-by-information to the place where the cosmic idealists of the past visualized it: the universe as a vast informational construct, with a purpose of its own, in which we can by emulating its patterns gain greater power, if we so choose.
Very little in life is simple. This approach is not as simple, popular or gratifying as exoteric liberal Christianity or materialistic atheism, but it is more logical in a world where most is mystery, and the underlying patterns dwarf their material outcomes in importance.
Throughout human history, one constant has appeared in all ages: the temptation to give in to evil.
The root of evil originates in individualism, or the desire for the individual to be more important than the order of reality. In the classic view, all of reality is a hierarchy, with the divine at the top and the rest arrayed below, and everything has a place like in an ecosystem, assuring balance and harmony with a constant inner struggle that produces people and things of quality, much like Darwinism or martial competitions.
We might refer to that abstract natural order as the plan. It includes the bigger picture: the civilization, the structure of existence, the goal, ideals of integrity and conquest, morality and nature.
All people at all times contain the tendency to desire what is evil. They want the individual to be larger than the plan. They fear the plan, because it ranks the individual, and their egos want them to be bigger than they deserve to be.
This fear compels them into a psychology of resentment: they must tear down any that are higher than they are, so that the lower are just as raised as the rest, and therefore no one looks bad for falling short of an ideal. This pathological mental state appears throughout human history as a necessary consequence of individualism, and always justifies it with a form of pacifism, equality, which states that all will be included in the group regardless of how they rank according to standards or questions of contribution.
Humans have called this “evil” through history because it is pathological, which means that it repeats itself obsessively regardless of success or failure. Where most people try something, then step back to see if it worked, the egalitarians repeat their actions with obsessive insect-like reflex action, blindly destroying in their need to assert these ideas as true.
We can see this evil in operation through how it is represented in mythology. The Greeks called it hubris, or a type of arrogance that reflected self-importance above the role of that individual in the plan. In the Bible, the hubris of Adam and Eve in the Garden resulted in their exile from a life of innocence/excellence. When humans try to place themselves above God and God’s order, chaos and horror results.
This extends to the mythical fall of Satan. As an individualist, Satan thought his personal desires were more important than the plan. As a result, he fell from heaven and became king of a different domain, but this was also his punishment: in Hell, all good things are inverted or turned into their opposites.
Then we turn to nature. Hubris can be seen in monkeys as well. A monkey tribe will gang up on any monkey who does not conform to the low standards of behavior of the group, and individual monkeys will frequently challenge the leaders — alphas — of that tribe with provocations. It is human behavior, in microcosm.
The conformity that is being forced is equality, or the rule that everyone must do the same thing, and any who exceed that are seen as a threat to the rest for having raised standards. If standards rise above the mediocre, it will alienate many in the group, and that threatens the feeling of equal inclusion that seems to prevent conflict — again, this is a form of pacifism, or bribing people with acceptance, tolerance and moral relativism in order to avoid friction.
Seen through this lens, evil is more of a mathematical certainty than a mystical force. In any group, a tension will exist between having standards and having universal inclusion, with most people desiring the latter because it creates a guarantee for them personally that they will be accepted. This is why the root of collectivism is individualism, even though it is collectivized as the group demands what each individual in the group desires, much like a union, street gang or lynch mob.
From this comes the great evil of the modern time: the compulsion to dominate the personalities of others. Created from equal parts pathetic need and a mental violence that demands satiation through victimizing others, this predatory mental state demands that nearby personalities be subjugated through social pressure, including humiliation. Like other forms of mind control, this method does not use sci-fi technologies, but simple peer pressure or psychological manipulation through the threat of what others might think.
The typical vampiric predator-parasite of the modern social scene seeks others around him, usually of lower self-confidence, and immediately begins to sow doubt in their minds. He attacks what they believe indirectly, so it does not seem like an assault, and then introduces a plausible but unproven alternative. Now the passive-aggressive begging-the-question attack begins in earnest: if they do not agree, he asks them why they are denying the truth, or the obvious, or some other phrase implying social agreement with what he has said. He then bullies them into accepting his view of reality, all for the simple reason that it makes him feel more powerful, in the absence of real power like the ability to change the failure-bound direction of his society.
Personality parasites appear in abundance because people are given no other mode of power than that which can be had through enforcing the official ideology of the Crowd, which is always egalitarianism, plus a perception of individual exceptionalism. In other words, individuals demand equality because these individuals believe they are exceptional, but must rationalize their lack of influence by believing that they are unrecognized geniuses instead of entirely average. This produces the poisonous and viral state of mind which demands that they compel others to recognize them, validate them and by doing so, recognize them as exceptional; that in turn requires that everyone be pulled down to the level of a faceless mass above which the narcissistic individual believes he can rise.
All of this is illusion. Social recognition is fleeting because the impetus behind social activity is directed toward the individual, so other individuals allow themselves to be dominated in order to achieve the sense of being part of something bigger than themselves, which makes them feel important. Looking at the audience of the average rock concert or political rally, one can see that the audience acts as if they were the ones on stage, even as they acknowledge their presence there for the concentration of social energy triggered by those actually on the stage.
Monkey dynamics persist in all human behaviors, and this tendency toward projection is no exception. It reveals the true struggle of humanity, which is not for any of the various issues that people advance as part of their psychic vampirism, but for sanity. Sanity means a clearing of the mind, and then enforcement of self-discipline, so that one can first adapt to reality, and then select the most optimal means of engineering it so that the best possible results ensue.
Modern people — like any people in a society in its last stages, regardless of technological level — find themselves under constant assault by those who want to dominate them and force them into the reigning narrative. The old saying “misery loves company” applies here: most people are miserable, and wish to drag others down into that misery, to feel better both for having dominated others and having validated their rationalization of their condition as inevitable and necessary. The modern person faces a social order in which most people are outright evil in intent and conceal it behind normalcy, “everyone does it,” and other statements of social endorsement for that evil.
The war for sanity is a quest to discover reality and escape the prison of our minds. The individual mind finds it more convenient to work through other minds, since they share a language, whereas reality is not human in nature and requires application of self-discipline to understand it. This is the nature of the hive-mind, groupthink, the echo chamber, mob-rule and other forms of the Eternal Human Dysfunction: a lonely ego, finding in other egos the ability to deny the world, which is a path of least resistance compared to understanding and finding beauty in reality.
It was for this reason that our ancestors, dating back to our origin, selected from us the best: those who were able to adapt to reality and choose excellence, because that benefited the civilization. The problem is that, over time, making civilization stronger extends that protection to those who cannot understand the importance of civilization and take it for granted, thus immediately begin to conspire against it for their own benefit. They want “anarchy with grocery stores” because that provides the broadest canvas on which to splash their egos, and the unsatisfying result makes them pathologically demand more of the same, like a drug addict who has reached a high level of biological tolerance for her substance of choice and can no longer feel the high.
When power is given to the best, they become a combination of babysitter and war-leader for the rest, giving them direction where they are afraid or incapable of thinking. This will exhaust and destroy them unless the civilization implements some method of filtering out monkey behavior where it can constrained, and exile of those for whom there is no cure.
Western Civilization has been awash in parasitic, resentful and poisonous people for too long. These are perhaps a fifth of our own people, but they have disproportionate influence because they appeal to the lowest behaviors, such as panic, emotional gushing, self-pity, fear and envy. A sane society will protect its leaders by sending its toxic people away to the third world, which is more appropriate for their anti-civilizational mentality.
This is how one fights the evil that threatens to destroy civilization, the loss of which will make all work and hopes of the individual futile and impotent.
Some years ago, a popular science writer named Malcolm Gladwell penned a book in which he insinuated — short of outright claiming — that what made epic talent was practicing a certain number of hours. In his view, because the greats did this, it meant that it was what made them great.
We call that “blank slate” reasoning because it assumes that people are identical in ability. Our society must assume that, because it is based on the assumption of human equality, and ability serves as a proxy for wealth and power. Therefore, we must pretend that everyone is the same, even though when it is time to choose a doctor we want a smart and naturally talented one.
Gladwell has one massive talent, and that is recognizing the crest of a wave created by a notion that will flatter people that is about to float into public consciousness. What the top ten percent knew twenty years ago will become available to the lower ninety percent today, and the writer who scripts it in an engaging text will get quite rich.
“Whether we like it or not, these people really do control our society,” says Jonathan Wai, a psychologist at the Duke University Talent Identification Program in Durham, North Carolina, which collaborates with the Hopkins centre. Wai combined data from 11 prospective and retrospective longitudinal studies2, including SMPY, to demonstrate the correlation between early cognitive ability and adult achievement. “The kids who test in the top 1% tend to become our eminent scientists and academics, our Fortune 500 CEOs and federal judges, senators and billionaires,” he says.
Such results contradict long-established ideas suggesting that expert performance is built mainly through practice — that anyone can get to the top with enough focused effort of the right kind. SMPY, by contrast, suggests that early cognitive ability has more effect on achievement than either deliberate practice or environmental factors such as socio-economic status.
Since democracy inevitably mutates from the idea of “political equality,” or treating everyone the same by making them go through a bureaucratic process, to the notion of “actual equality,” or the mistaken thought that people are identical in ability, the notion of democracy — and related notions of class warfare, diversity, sexual equality and pluralism — will die with the blank slate.
For that reason, the Left and the everyday useful idiots who fear change are hanging on with their fingernails to the idea that Gladwell advanced, which is that you can take any human and run him through the right education, instill in him the right opinions, and make him undertake 10,000 hours of practice and he will be a genius. The reality is the opposite: a genius, if not deprived of the ability to practice extensively, will gift us with acts of genius, where the average person will merely occupy space that displaces geniuses in a society based on equality.
In some ways, the near-universal adoration of Holmes reflected her extraordinary comportment. In others, however, it reflected the Valley’s own narcissism. Finally, it seemed, there was a female innovator who was indeed able to personify the Valley’s vision of itself—someone who was endeavoring to make the world a better place.
The old question: did history make the person, or the person make history? She came along at the right time to inherit $4 billion from investors and valuation of her company. And yet, it seems, it was vaporware all along.
And, is it worth giving up your soul, for twenty pieces of silver?
There is a song which the Dropkick Murphys, a silly Irish beer punk band, covered called “The Green Fields of France” (originally by John McDermott). It is a good song, worth listening to:
If it makes you feel better, everyone and their dog has covered it, and it may be the most popular “statement music” about the First World War that has ever existed. Rank it right up there with All Quiet On The Western Front and “In Flanders Fields” for the type of emotional reaction most people have to that war.
(That useless, pointless, suicidal, fratricidal, misbegotten, hateful, vile war.)
But it loses the train of thought right here:
The sun now it shines on the green fields of France
There’s a warm summer breeze makes the red poppies dance
And look how the sun shines from under the clouds
There’s no gas, no barbwire, there’s no guns firing now
But here in this graveyard it’s still no man’s land
The countless white crosses stand mute in the sand
To man’s blind indifference to his fellow man
To a whole generation that were butchered and damned.
Same basic theme as “In Flanders Fields,” but with less patriotism. However, the point where it loses its train of thought is here:
The countless white crosses stand mute in the sand
To man’s blind indifference to his fellow man
Of all the lessons one could take from the First World War, this is the last one a sensible person would take.
Indifference? War is indifference. We hate wars when they go badly or, as in the case of the First World War, they utterly fail to resolve the conditions that created them. The First World War went so badly that it paused for a generation to refill the armies of Europe so they could attempt suicide again in a paroxysmal tantrum of self-hatred at the utter futility of trying to exist as modern societies.
In the nearer term, it is obvious what caused the First World War: democracy did. The First World War was a repeat of the Napoleonic Wars, in which the democracies of Europe made war on the monarchies. The monarchies defended themselves many times over that century, and by the early twentieth century, had formed unstable alliances in order to fend off the various enemies who were circling like hyenas or vultures.
But democracy screwed them. It betrayed them all, as it always does.
First, democratic societies cannot make decisions. For this reason, politicians picked unstable alliances — because they were easy, and got more approval from the idiot voters than the more complicated task of fixing the problem would — and set themselves up with suicidal “entangling alliances,” as George Washington would have called them.
Second, democracy must always make war on non-democracies because democracy is a parasitic virus. Or rather, the idea of equality is. Equality is magic and kryptonite to humans. You mention it and women coo and men head to the bar. Everyone feels good. The reason for that: they are feeling, not thinking. Whether or not they are morons, they have made themselves into morons at that moment, and the results are predictably stupid. However, those warm feelings go away if anyone anywhere anytime succeeds with some alternate method, because that provokes cause/effect thinking instead of the emotional, egotistic and defensive thinking that humans indulge in (and which we inherited wholly from our Simian forebears). For this reason, Leftists always — because they are compelled to, in order to defend their sacred illusion — make war against anyone who is not-Leftist and democracies make war against those who are not democracies. You do not have to oppose Leftism or Democracy, only fail to be them — and they are one and the same — because if you live differently from them, you are competition, and that makes monkeys angry.
This led to a horrible war with no clear purpose except some nebulous thoughts about “the war to end all wars,” implying that when democracy conquered the world — other names for this: globalism, the NWO, internationalism — all humans would live in brotherhood forever like in the lyrics to Beethoven’s 9th. You can tell that democracy had already made people morons because they accepted this crock of stupid without murdering the people who repeated it at them, but again: feelings. Women swoon. Men glow. People love illusions that make them feel happy because they can use those to shut out the actual fears, starting with death. You talk about pacifism, or everyone being included in the group, or equality — these are all the exact same concept — and you are the star of the show. People just float around you and make happy lovey gooey stupid faces at you. It’s retardation, but it will make you rich and powerful.
After the carnage was over, the people who wanted those swoony feelings back needed something to blame. They could not blame democracy, because that in turn fingers equality, and to say equality is wrong is like going up to each individual in the group and screaming “YOU’RE INFERIOR!” to them, even though that is probably correct and would help them by encouraging them to improve themselves instead of stagnating. If you can’t blame the actual cause of the war (democracy) then who do you blame?
Oh, we found a good one… get this… it’s inhumanity.
What does that mean?
You know, inhumanity. The failure to engage in those swoony feelings and to spread the happy illusion to others so we can all be harmless, neutered, oblivious, blithe happy idiots together. We can become like a single brain cell, thinking of love and peace, instead of paying attention to reality — and, hiding in the back corner of our scared monkey brains: death.
“In Flanders Fields” came up with similar nonsense:
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Here the problem is the Foe. Gotta kill them Germans, even if the real enemy here is an illusion. If we kill all the Germans, we do not have to notice that we are in the grips of illusion, and we can go back to those happy swoony feelings. (Alert readers will notice that this is classic scapegoating, seen in our society most with those who finger The Eternal Jew™ as the source of our downfall instead of blaming democracy, or blame The Rich™ instead of blaming the low mental and moral quality of most humans which is the actual cause of their poverty. Both of these are odious in themselves because they lead to murder, but that is not why they are bad; they are bad because they are moronic, and they are moronic because they scapegoat the wrong cause, which lets the actual cause — democracy and dysgenics — run free to do more of its vile destructive work).
But no one is going to identify the actual cause, which is complex and nuanced, although that is not why they refuse to identify it. Yes, there is a tendency among humans to prefer pleasant illusions to complex truths, but very few truths are actually complex! What they are is offensive to the human individual and its pretense, because if you tell a monkey that it is not equal, man, it will feel terrible and start screeching and flinging poo, even if you were just pointing out that equal=mediocre like all averages and means, and so we need to beat that standard, not adopt it as dogma. The problem is this pretense. This pretense caused democracy and leftism, and through those, caused the First World War. Plant a poppy on the grave of democracy and equality, and only then have you honored the war dead. Everything else is just monkeytime, distractions from the real problem.
How did everything get so backward, or inverted in altright lexicon? There are two issues here:
Why do humans tend toward this illusion?
How did it take over Western Civilization?
The answers are evil and entropy, in that order.
Evil — a suspect term because of its centralized, manipulative power — generally means the type of error that arises from selfishness or a refusal to see the obvious because of a fear for the fragility of one’s own mental state. Evil is ego-driven stupidity, in other words, because short-term solutions always create havoc and destruction to things we care about, and people who care about nothing must be boring and stupid to find themselves so fascinating.
Entropy on the other hand is the natural process by which, as options proliferate, it becomes less likely that any one will be chosen, which is said to make the pattern more “random.” That is debatable, but in human societies, entropy is the background hum of doubt that occurs when one no longer knows by rote or by immediate inference (“intuitive”) what the right thing to do is. At first, it is clear: by any means necessary, establish civilization. Once civilization has more options, people mystify themselves with questions which magnify details because the bigger aspects of the civilization question have been answered by the establishment of that civilization.
This is why all high-IQ societies seem to die out: they grow, become powerful, lose sight of their goals, and then orient themselves toward tolerance as a means of avoiding dissolution, which results in their inclusion of non-contributing dependents (parasites), fools, con men, etc. and eventual obliteration in this wave of bad genetics and sociopathic chaos.
How do they lose sight of their goals? Civilizations succumb to a lack of awareness because they use a type of proxy warfare as a means of coordinating their citizens. The simplest example of this is ideology; when not enough people understand the goal of civilization, “smart” and “clever” people then distill it down to a few emotional and symbolic principles. This allows all of the people who do not understand the concept to act as if they understand the concept, at least until the meaning of those principles is hijacked, corrupted, altered, or eroded by entropy.
Proxy warfare exists, as Fred Nietzsche told us, in the terms “good” and “evil.” Yes, we all know what they mean, but they are a lazy shorthand that uses categorical logic instead of looking at what actually makes an event good or evil, which is the consequences in reality that it creates. By relying on these categorical terms, we shift the focus from consequences to the categories, and then our logical thinking becomes reversed or inverted because we see the category as the cause of its members, not the other way around.
Another form of proxy warfare can be found in the scene-policing of various political genres. Are you a true anarchist? Are you conservative enough? Even the alt right, which normally seems highly realist, has taken to scene policing by enforcing its borders through symbolic, highly visual issues. This weakens the alt right as focus moves away from the question of the issues, i.e. the goal, and is transferred instead to appearance, much as democracy always does.
One thing from “Green Fields of France” is for certain. Humans make the same mistakes over and over again because they cannot overcome the pathology of desire. This inverts their big brains by creating a kind of “tunnel vision” where the human fixates on one aspect of reality, and uses it to explain the rest because it is what they desire and they are unaware of how their individual perspective is not the “whole” perspective of a situation. The only way to get that whole perspective is to analyze structure and pattern, and most cannot do that. Thus, as the song says:
The killing and the dying were all done in vain
For young Willie McBride it all happened again,
And again and again and again and again
Despite the sheer weight of hippie-fash in academia, especially the liberals arts, the roots of the liberal arts are based on an idea: to study human history through the unbroken line of ideas, bypassing details and material methods in favor of understanding concepts and spirit. It is a study of ourselves through our interaction with our world.
Currently, the great fad is to bang the tin drum of STEM, but mostly this is an offshoot of the latest Great Hope which is that somehow the dying internet economy will support us. Alas, no: cell phones are selling less, as are tablets and apps, and ad revenue from online sources continues to fall. The internet has become daytime television but with less power of influence because it is an interactivity product, not a message. As it falls, the STEM fetishism will as well.
But a liberal arts education has much to offer. First of all, it is a study of stories: how characters faced a problem, took different approaches, and what the result of each one was. This consequentialist approach shows the basic method of conservatism, which is to look at past activity and see what produced golden excellence, and what merely made mediocrity.
Further, the liberal arts is a study of history as a progress of ideas, not random events of a purely material cause. We see in literature how single people, committed to a vision, can change history — and how always the herd opposes them for rising above, and tries to tear them down.
Finally, the liberal arts — philosophy, history, literature, art — teach us to view life as more than a duty, but a change for beauty, joy and pleasure. This is the pleasure one takes from a task well done, or a hard realization after a sleepless night; it teaches us transcendence, to value achievement of mental clarity and effects on the world over sensation. In this it teaches us how to live.
Reading the great books of history as literature, including the Bible, shows us how we cannot cut and paste a small segment of a vast story and treat it as ideology. Instead, we must trace the paths through history of what people thought, what challenges they faced, the actions they took and how they worked out. Through this, literature will make us all conservatives, if we open our minds to its meaning.
Most of us focus too much on what we think, and not enough on how we measure what we think.
The children of past read history more than we do today, and read more autobiographical sketches of the great men and women of history.
This contributed to a different view of individuality, more like what one would find when composing a eulogy. Individual lives distilled down to ten minutes of a speech become less a question of sensation, and more of realization and achievement.
When you summarize a life at a funeral, you look not at their everyday experience, but at what they believed in enough to struggle for, and how they made it real. This shows a view of human life that is both unique and feared.
The people who will inherit the future are those who think of every day in terms of their eulogies. How to make greatness out of the mundane. How to find something worth struggling for, and to act like a warrior on its behalf.
Our modern time is the anti-eulogy. Death is offensive, and scares people. So we think in terms of sensation, not struggle and achievement. In doing so, we have lost the sense of what a eulogy bestows: achievement.
Standing over the dead, struggling with emotion and yet a sense that the funeral must go on, we deliver orations that reveal the inner core of a person. What was worth fighting for; what was worth dying for.
This is the only sensible view of human life. It shows us what gave meaning to individual existences, and how the moral character of the person involved allowed them to respond.
At a certain point, everything else is chatter. Obstacles occurred — so what? — they always do. But in the end, we remember people for what they did. Not what they ate, chatted, or bought; what they overcame and how they made their ideals into reality.
Forgetting this level of analysis has made us callow and weak. We live for the now and assume our eulogies will be shopping lists. Reversing that will make us feel great again, as in the sense of significant beyond our mortal bodies.
We live in an age of inversion when the definitions of common terms have not only become confused, but turned on themselves, so they mean exactly the opposite of what they originally meant. One such term is morality.
As the practice of being social, and compelling others to “like” us by modifying our behavior, spread through society, it took on a will of its own as all control mechanisms tend to do. It was no longer enough that it modified bad behavior, but it began to modify merely unpopular behavior.
The problem with this is that socializing is an extension of the human ego. Everyone wants to feel good about themselves, and included, so the temptation is to remove standards so that each person has a place — which means they must be immune from any (real) criticism, such as that involving inner traits like moral goodness, intellectual ability and character.
Since moral character is the most important part of any human being, it became the first target of the socializers. They redefined it from traditional morality, which emphasized doing what was right according to an order larger than humanity: nature, God or gods, and the hierarchy of human ability and character.
We might call traditional morality a form of “realist morality,” or morality based in the consequences of individual actions beyond the individual. Its replacement, social morality, emphasizes the appearances of acts to other people and how those acts influence the social commandment that all must be included.
Social morality will be familiar to you from your kindergarten class. What is important is that the teacher remain in control, and for that to happen, all conflicts must be erased so that everyone engages in the same activities and thus can be manipulated by the same incentives/punishment structure. Control is necessary because the natural sorting of people into hierarchy has been interrupted.
Social morality takes several forms:
Some people are starving, so we must give them money.
Some people are being arrested, so we must change our laws.
Not everyone can participate in this activity, so we must change it.
This knowledge makes some people uncomfortable, so it must not be mentioned.
Realist morality looks different:
If people are committing crimes, this damages our civilization; protecting those who are not committing crimes is most important.
If people are starving, we should look at what led to this starvation as contrasts those who are not starving, and suggest that behavior instead.
If an activity requires certain abilities for participation, then that activity is most useful when done by those with those skills.
If some knowledge makes some people uncomfortable, we should change the conditions that make them uncomfortable instead of editing our knowledge/history.
Alert readers may note that the second list is more complex in argument. It does not operate in the simple form “Some are not participating, therefore all must participate.” The nature of people is that they like simple answers because they are easier to understand. However, this does not make them correct.
Moral realism says that if some cannot participate, then the answer is to fix what makes them unable to participate, instead of altering the criteria for participation. Social morality employs moral relativism which demands that civilization lower its stands instead of holding people accountable for their ability to meet those standards.
You may notice that in your favorite horror movies, a conflict between characters arises: the more insane characters (MICs) struggle with the more sane characters (MSCs) for control of the human side of the situation, notably the question, “What do we do?” The MICs will seek to emote and will consequently dominate discussion; the MSCs have a tendency to give up and sulk because they realize they cannot make the group see sense.
In most films of that nature, the MICs win out at first, and then the group turns to the MSCs, at which point it becomes clear that “saving everyone” is not an option. MSCs at this point become more willing to sacrifice MICs for tactical advantage, as if recapitulating Darwin and perhaps history itself. Evolution rewards the saner, but only in the very end.
Humanity faces an evolutionary challenge of a similar nature. Every society that has existed so far has failed and collapsed to a third world state, especially the highly intelligent ones. Technology, power, wealth and military strength do not save them. There is something that all of us are doing wrong, and it is fatal.
An analysis of the changes in these societies throughout history shows that as they succeed, they become more concerned with social morality than realist morality. As this pre-dates even political changes, it suggests that the root of their failing can be found in this moral shift, and that it is the cause of their demises.
We live in an age of massive inversion. All of the original values held by our civilization were deemed offensive, so they were replaced with inoffensive versions, effectively reversing the original meaning.
An example can be found in the notion of tolerance. Tolerance originally meant accepting different viewpoints, but that required us to tolerate opinions that did not flatter the ego, so it was redefined to mean accepting all people who avoid unflattering opinions.
This has been going on for centuries, millennia even. It is the fatal disease of civilization itself: as soon as a society thrives, those who are unrealistic benefit from the inventions and social order imposed by the realistic. Since the realistic reproduce at a lower rate, soon the unrealistic outnumber them and shift policy to insanity.
At that point, the insanity of groups take over. Votes and mob participation do not involve individual responsibility, allowing the Crowd to participate and then blame itself without attaching guilt to any persons in particular. Groups tend to favor what keeps the group together, and that is almost always illusion.
The insanity has begun to melt however. For the first time in ages, we are having a conversation about civilizational health: how well our society works and what its prospects are, including whether it allows people to enjoy life and therefore try to do well by it.
That in turn leads to an inversion of the inverted. The mind recognizes that all social order is more social than order, and that each definition — like an official Soviet or Newspeak label — hides its actual meaning. With that comes a realization that the traditional ways and the ways of nature were effects, not causes in themselves, with the causes being an understanding of reality itself.
In this way, realism returns. Humans naturally fear nature because with it comes the risk of being personally destroyed by a natural selection like process. As a result, they rebel against realism, and create rules designed to insulate the unrealistic from the consequences of their actions.
And yet, all of those rules turn out to be wrong because they treat cause and effect as the same. Laws for example prohibit behaviors instead of looking at why those occur. Management of people relies on enforcing uniformity, not looking at the differences between people that cause some to do good, and some bad.
With the inversion of our adulterated values, which is the “re-evaluation of all values” that Nietzsche proposed, civilization can return to its function: adaptation to nature, which is not a binary process but a spectrum. That thrusts on us the choice of what type of future we would prefer.
Europeans rose above other groups by creating a civilization in which individuals had both an intense desire to do right, and a strong motivation to bond with life and experience a transcendental appreciation of its beauty, intensity and excellence. All of that has been gradually obscured by the unrealistic, who want safety more than existential joy and purpose.
As all of the plans of the unrealistic come to fruition, as began to happen in the 1990s in earnest, we are seeing the future that unrealism makes for us: endless rules, constant tedium, and a lack of mental silence and time in which to get to know ourselves and existence.
With that, we abandon the control-oriented human schemes, and return to the subtler and more flexible designs of nature. The backlash is still in its early stages, but one might visualize it as the functional people seeking a way to separate from the inverted people. We do not need them. And we cannot make them happy.
Years of inverted living have brainwashed people into accepting what seem like the best options from what is available. But when even those lead to destruction, it is time to think outside of what is accepted, and open our frame of reference up to the eternal instead. This leads to an entirely different viewpoint, one in which the inverted are no longer necessary or desired.
At first, this backlash may appear in political forms. But in parallel, it is occurring through cultural and artistic change as well. We have reached the endpoint of inversion, and seen that it is death, and now people are thinking of life again — and are determined to escape the inverted values that put us on the path to death.