The highest-paying jobs disproportionately reward those who can work the longest, least flexible hours.
These types of job penalize workers who have caregiving responsibilities outside the workplace. Those workers tend to be women.
If you want to know why our society is awash in Generation X underachievers and low-impact millennials, here is the reason: jobs are both terrible in and of themselves, and terrible as a lifestyle.
Our current environment forces our most ambitious people into wasting their lives away, at which point they become alienated and resentful, and start enthusiastically approving antisocial policies. The tendency of modern Western Europeans to notice the world burning and change the channel originates in this.
An ambitious person will be forced into a work schedule which will steal their soul by depriving them of their time, energy and experience of family. A legion of successful divorced professionals with kids in therapy can attest to this; it peels society like a banana, starting at the top, removing those with the most to give by ensuring that they are enslaved to constant frustrating, ugly drama.
Our economy is constructed as a circular Ponzi scheme: much activity exists, and because other people think it is important, they keep buying and selling. Constant growth is the goal, and we achieve that by adding pointless and unnecessary activity so long as we can sell it before the buyers, and the resellers who service them, realize that it is empty. We have gone in search of a reason to work, not in search of work that needs doing.
This enslaves every person to their debt — as this is the only way to afford housing — and so they keep going to work to pay for the stuff they need, adding on top of it the stuff they want to feel better about wasting their lives away.
The toxic environment that results occurs because we are all aware of our mortality. The last thing we want to do is waste our irreplaceable time, but that is exactly what society demands of us, and demands the most from its best. Doctors serve hopeless cases and hypochondriacs, lawyers pursue pointless cases, architects design boring strip malls that will be torn down in a decade, and writers are reduced to entertaining people looking for the opposite of truth, profundity, wisdom and beauty through distractions of a salacious and saccharine nature.
Futility of this nature wears people down and makes them angry deep within. The rising tide of bad human behavior comes from this tendency to allow our economy to lead us, instead of serve us. But when we have no goals, what purpose can anything serve, except to perpetuate itself from our fear of what comes when it goes?
And so: we all embark each day to go to jobs we do not believe in, wearing down our time and vitality, with the best serving the worst, growing more hateful and revengeful by the moment.
Those of us who take up the pen, if we are honest, never advocate that which is destructive, but we often must speak favorably of that which seems destructive because it goes against the assumptions of our time. Keep in mind that the Crowd is always wrong, or at least looking in the wrong places, so what it insists is true is in fact a deception.
However, on the Right and associated “movements,” there a number of people who do not advocate win-win solutions where every group comes out ahead. Instead, the us-versus-them narrative replaces a reasonable take on reality, as is the case with the Left, which in the future — if there is one — will be seen as a type of mental disease.
The grim fact is that what is spoken of here will benefit everyone. African-Americans, Orientals/Hispanics, Indic Asians and others would benefit from being sent back to their home continents with new knowledge — and more importantly, new expectations. A whole lot of people in India demanding American-style functional institutions would advance conditions there quite a bit, much as Americans coming back from Europe and Asia demanded higher standards during our frontier days, and by creating a market, ensured they would occur.
Nationalism works. Aristocracy works. Socialism does not work; positive reward does. Transcendental outlook, duty and naturalism work. Hierarchy works. Everything else fails: we have had 6,000 years of human civilization, and it is clear what works for producing higher civilization, and what does not. Our only enemy is our fear.
This fear is understandable. Radicals — even the intelligent and realistic ones — demand that we abandon what we know and launch off into new territory, even if it is only new to us and not new to history. But what we have now is not working; people are miserable and not breeding, becoming degenerate and apathetic, often simply self-hating.
Thus we have a world to gain beyond the barrier of fear, and by continuing with the present, only a slow road to decay.
This decision is thrust upon all of us whether we want it or not, and at some point, we must choose one of the two directions. Do we wish to rise or continue falling? The solutions will be scary at first, but as the logic behind them is revealed, we will see better results.
We toss around terms, and assume they mean what we want them to mean, and then the tool becomes the master, and by language we are all enslaved…
What does “free will” mean? Most people use it to mean choice, or that with the options in front of us and a little bit of analytical creativity, we can find an option we like more than the others.
But “free will” implies something else: that we know all of the options, and choose the best one. This is problematic because our knowledge is limited to our experience and ability to conceptualize, which is (mathematically) a smaller set than the set of all possibilities.
Emphasizing choice makes sense. Among the options before us, we pick the best one and hack on it or modify it as possible. But to assume we have “free will” is to equate ourselves to the perspective of the gods, or at least omnipotence, and this is not only foolish but logically impossible.
The problem: people may be able to read, and think they understand what they read, while missing the full understanding. Another way to phrase this, consistent with Dunning-Kruger, is that people read for what they can understand.
As an article in The Week points out, that can lead to partial understanding just like any filter that excludes all but what supports the thesis of the reader would do:
“Fiction might be the mind’s flight simulator,” Keith Oatley wrote in a recent review of the research on reading and mental health, published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Research into the psychological impact of literature suggests that when we read stories in which characters are rich and developed, we actually slip into those characters ourselves. By taking on these other personalities, we learn what it’s like to be someone else, and improve our own social skills.
The type of reading matters, Oatley and his colleagues at the University of Toronto have found. Books that emphasize plot do not have the same benefits as those that focus on character development, and fiction provides more of a boost than nonfiction.
By taking on these other personalities, we venture into a world of insanity: we are not those people, and pretending to be them is a mental model that functions more like drugs than literature.
In a great book, each character represents a curve. The character is faced with a conundrum, and makes a decision, and then we see the results of that decision not in yes|no/good|bad, but in terms of granular degree of many different factors.
This is why pop fiction quickly separates from classic literature; pop fiction focuses on the ego of the reader, and gives them something to project themselves into (Fifty Shades of Grey or Twilight) with the usual emotional appeal of victimhood, lust, tragedy, being needed, being alone, and the like.
In literature, one does not project into a character because each character is an argument for a certain moral and realistic approach to the philosophical problems posed by certain situations, and the point of the book is to compare outcomes not cheerlead for one side like propaganda or advertising.
Pop fiction is closer to propaganda and advertising than literature.
The writer of this piece misunderstands empathy. Empathy does not mean approval, validation or inclusion, but being able to see the limitations of a person and the challenge before them as if through their eyes, and to recognize the difficulties they face in making choices. The way the writer of that article uses it, empathy means something akin to egalitarianism, i.e. “approval and inclusion of everyone.”
In reality, empathy includes a recognition that our acts are literal in a literal world, and so results are as one would expect. We may feel the struggle of a character, and even wish them well, but not to the level of excluding them from the group of us who face the consequences of our actions.
This leads us to wonder if universal literacy was a mistake. We have people reading (and writing) books who do not understand what literature is, or what can actually be communicated, and instead are coming away from these books with the kind of robotic logic one might get from a TV commercial or WWII propaganda film.
In result, this means that our bookstores and libraries and minds are being submerged under a vast wave of disguised ineptitude, encouraging us to become schizophrenic and deny reality at the same time.
Sweden has just mandated a six-hour workday. While this will irk the blustery “work hard and get ahead” American conservatives, it is in fact a move toward sanity:
“The eight-hour work day is not as effective as one would think,” Linus Feldt, the company’s CEO told Fast Company.
“To stay focused on a specific work task for eight hours is a huge challenge. In order to cope, we mix in things and pauses to make the work day more endurable. At the same time, we are having it hard to manage our private life outside of work.”
…He said the new work day would ensure people have enough energy to pursue their private lives when they leave work – something which can be difficult with eight-hour days.
The culture of perpetual work is viewed as a form of patriotism to our egalitarian ideal, in which all the smart people get tucked into miserable offices to work hard and pay for the rest. If you refuse this daily cuckolding, you are seen as striking a blow at the heart of our Republic.
And yet, because this work is nonsense two ways — most of the tasks are unnecessary, and most of the projects ill-conceived or pointless — people get caught into an ugly cycle. They hang out at the office, doing a whole lot of nothing, but cannot spend that time on something meaningful, so instead become trapped in a cycle of wasting time and then working too much.
The Swedes address the nonsense culture of work as well:
Mr Feldt has said staff members are not allowed on social media, meetings are kept to a minimum, and that other distractions during the day are eliminated – but the aim is that staff will be more motivated to work more intensely while in the office.
Sending people home for more hours a day enables them to have full lives and get to know themselves, at which point they are more able to make sane decisions regarding the world around them that previously was inaccessible. When we exist in a mutually consensual false reality comprised of human social interactions, actual reality becomes obscured.
The Right-wing parties have conventionally emphasized work as a good thing because to them, it is a valuable personal behavior. In doing so, they have subsidized the Left by creating a culture of constant work, so that Rightists have no time to fight Leftist insanity, and high taxes arising from the income generated. This is why they tend to bloviate on about the importance of work, and how they defeat themselves.
A more sensible Right-wing approach is to view civilization through an existential filter: the societies that are pleasurable and ascendant are the ones in which citizens are naturally productive, but this requires doing away with the notion of equality and replacing it with hierarchy, in the process moving along the parasites. This is why Leftism constructs itself around equality; it seeks to ensure that this does not happen.
In the meantime, the average Western citizen is subtly miserable, which is why people are destructive, dissolute and refuse to breed at replacement levels. Striking back against work culture and mindless brain-distractions provides one method of circumventing this damage.
The kids are alright. What I mean is, we should view the world through the eyes of a young teenager, because that person has a perspective we all learn from.
We start out with as close to an empty mind, except intuition, as possible at birth. We mature, and then people layer heaps of obligations upon us. Reasons why we cannot do things. Obligations, especially to pretense and public image. Fears and doubts.
But a teenager is on the bend. They still retain the innocence and clarity of childhood, but are struggling with the entropy and calcification of adulthood. When they encounter adult worlds, they speak a truth through immaturity: this is not right.
Their measure is not moral, nor is it practical. It is both aesthetic and realistic. The aesthetic part is that they realize we create misery, us adults, by bowing down to complaints, disadvantages, restraints and fears. The realistic part is that they realize that aesthetics determine our attitude toward life, so if we want good results, we need to put people into an open, loving, hopeful, cheerful state of mind.
Say that to your average adult and they will drop fifty cents in your coffee and tell you to “Get a job!”
Children are inherently aware of our tendency to ruin things. That is, foreclose on the possibilities of them, and replace those with the obligations toward other people that destroy the potential of every good thing in life. Why look toward the sun, when we can stare into the fearful faces of the crowd?
The teenage question is ultimate, What is right? where “right” comprises morality, aesthetics and long-term hopes and dreams. A teenager can still admit they want a Tolkien-esque world, but with computers and toilets, and point out that most of what we do as modern people is wasted time for the sake of appearance. They command us to set ourselves free.
Every time I interact with a smart teenager, I am struck by their clarity. Their morality is to not ruin the experience of life. In their minds, life should always be an adventure of discovery, a sensation of goodness, a hope of something amazing around every corner. I am inclined to think they are right.
Since I was young, through my own adulthood, I have observed that adults are like concrete on a freeway in rain: beaten down into a uniform mud-like substance, aware only of what it fears, never aspiring. As long as the mortgage is paid, the kids are in bed and the wife is not in therapy, things are good. But this is a negative vision of life.
Immaturism demands that we make life into a good experience as a whole. Maturity breaks life down into many questions which we must take at face value in order to be seen as good citizens, but immaturism views life as a whole. Is the experience a good trade for death? And if not, how can we fix it?
Academic philosophers love to divide the questions of life into many smaller categories, like aesthetics versus practicality. Immaturism views them as existing in parallel, meaning that each is a slice of understanding the same basic issues. Life is what it is, and our responses to it reveal what we understand.
Immaturism takes life as a whole and looks to the quality of experience. The kids are alright. They understand that without a life we can have faith in, we drift into subdivisions of the question itself, and justify our choices as to the whole with callow excuses and rationalizations. We either look at the big picture and details together, or we mislead ourselves.
Contrary to our adult biases, children are the farthest thing from non-judgmental. They are quick to reject that which ruins their vision of life. Since their vision is hopeful, it provides a good basis for how to choose what is healthy and what is not. That which does not add beauty is poison, and must be smitten and driven away, or we admit its cold darkness into our own souls.
If you make a mild error and have to backtrack a wee bit to set it right, we tend to say “Whoops, Oh well.” It’s a minor thing, time to be a minor king. When you totally mess it up and make the type of existential error you will still suffer from fifteen years later, you just have to admit that you “f*cked it up.” Savor that etiology. When you really do it wrong, you “f*ck it up.” I don’t find the turn of phrase accidental.
The guys who think with the wrong head make the wrong decisions. A life centered around the acquisition of belt notches is a life spent pursuing short term, low-payoff aspirations. A life spent grousing over a lack of sexual gratification has a non-zero probability of turning someone into a serial killer. Yoga practitioners espouse the belief that sex-drive comes from a lower chakra called the Swadhishtana. This is described below.
This energy is the center for creating relationships of all kinds. It is where we develop an inward sense of self and an outward awareness of others, ego, sexuality, and family and defined as we work with this energy. The feelings of other people are directly perceived through mastery of this chakra’s energy.
Not so bad so far, but what happens when that becomes the predominant center of your humanity. Here’s what happens to you if you over-indulge. You develop the following traits.
Here’s what happens if you over-obsess over not getting none.
Deficient: co-dependent, martyr, submissive, doesn’t feel anything, shut down
The point of this being that bad things happen when you get taken hostage by the more basic needs on Maslov’s Hierarchy. When you focus on the sex-type thing instead of more important matters, bad things happen. Psychologists refer to this as dissipation. Webster’s Dictionary offers the following definition.
2. (n.) A dissolute course of life, in which health, money, etc., are squandered in pursuit of pleasure; profuseness in vicious indulgence, as late hours, riotous living, etc.; dissoluteness.
In the Gospel of Luke we learn that the dissipate man is not prepared when he meets opportunity. Luke speaks of spiritual opportunity, but adventures, careers, and other forms of enrichment could be pissed away as well if we think first, foremost and only about satisfying lustful desires. In other words, Luke is warning you not to f*ck it up.
And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
So does the perfect Neo-Reactionary human being completely swear off sex and lock up the jewels in an iron-clad chastity belt? — Nope. At least not if he’s going to be a wank about it and let it dominate his mind and energy. The point is really about focusing on other things. You get so many hours of life. If you spend it obsessed on sex; you spend it not advancing anything that you care about. If worst comes to worst, just gratify yourself and get on with things. Find a balance, put it in its proper place, get on with the rest of your life.
This is called sublimation. To sublimate is to channel energy otherwise wasted on some form of sexual obsession on more enlightened forms of self-betterment. This doesn’t even mean you need to drop game. It just means you play a more intelligent game to win more intelligent prizes. The whole reason I even offer this up is that the first step in effective neo-reaction is a personal one: be worthy. You are worthy when you achieve equipoise. Equipoise is balance. Balance is what saves you from having life knock you on your butt. Other, you’ll probably end up as just another f*ck-up.
Don’t sit still and just take it. It’s killing you. One boring day at a time, your office job is eating away your life. Your cublicle is a veal-fattening pen. A study published in Lancet tells us the following:
Research on more than one million adults found that sitting for at least eight hours a day could increase the risk of premature death by up to 60 per cent. Scientists said sedentary lifestyles were now posing as great a threat to public health as smoking, and were causing more deaths than obesity. They urged anyone spending hours at their desk to change….
This can be fixed if you make yourself stronger. If you work out one hour per day, your mortality rate drops from 9.9% to 6.2%. The ways that sitting on your can kill you involve cancer and heart disease. I could of sworn my previous boss made it a tacit policy to try and give his employees cancer. If it could be spread verbally, this guy would pass it out like Zika.
The researchers failed to pinpoint exactly how the office kills us as we sit there and take it, but I think Jean Paul Sartre offers insight. “Hell,” He explained, “consists of other people.”
The office is a mecca of hurry up and wait. It is a cesspool of needless stress over utterly unimportant details. It is a dog pound of egocentric jerks who work out their gender inadequacies by bullying and degrading their subordinates. It is a minefield of passive-aggressive back-knifing and visceral resentment. Like the Los Angeles River, it leaves you swimming in the fecal bacteria of toxic and abusive human relationships.
And what do you get in return? A check. Once every two weeks, your financial gas tank gets refilled. You climb back onto the hedonic treadmill and buy food, entertainment and shelter. You crap it out, go back into debt, get up Monday and strap the helmet on to take more crap to get more cash. You don’t find meaning. You rarely accomplish greatness. I’ve attempted to do more. I’ve pushed myself to go above and beyond. The d-bag boss then said. “Thanks. Watch me promote myself by stealing this idea and taking all the credit.”
In a righteous world, you could strap on your pistol and tell the son of a b!tch to choose his two seconds and meet you at dawn. But you can’t do that here in the hell of Amerika. You can try and sue the man. You can try to defame him. The long and well-renumerated careers of people like Hillary Clinton and Martin Shkreli put the lie to that. And that’s another thing that makes the office lethal. It rises the meanest, most shameless arse-fickers and soulless catamites to positions of unearned granduer. It gives every toxic pissant a hill from which they can urinate upon the hapless and the desperate.
Work is the toxic, evil business-end of the economics of modernity. If you value your entire lifespan and want your life to come freighted with legitimate meaning, find another way to define yourself as a human being. That, and get off your dead @$$ and hit the track or the gym. Otherwise, every day is as deadly as a coffin nail.
The Black Pill terrifies us all: an admission that there is no innate purpose to the universe, that communication is at best a game of mutual guesswork, and that values are not universal.
It seems like a gateway to the kingdom of darkness from which no beauty, truth or goodness can emerge.
And yet, as will be demonstrated, it is the only way to get to those states, because everything else is human and therefore biased toward the tendency of humans, which is to revert to our simian state of desire, judgment and feelings taking precedence over reality. Some call it hubris, others simply individualism.
The Black Pill represents hard truths that cannot be reduced to simpler ideas that are more pleasant, or deflected into distracting tangents or scapegoats which make us feel better. The Black Pill is a hard confrontation with the emptiness of life and mortality, and people fear it.
Let us distill The Black Pill to its simplest idea: hard realism, based on what we can know rather than what we can opine. The Black Pill as a radical honesty, extremist realism and hard emphasis on the non-human conditions of existence does not negate any beliefs, only speaks to what we can know without doubt.
This is not limited to material reality, but it explicitly rejects human notions which are first presented as desirable, and later justified or explained in terms of selectively-chosen elements of reality. The core of the Black Pill is that the human observes first, and then finds a theory to fit all of the data, not the other way around as most people do.
Without this type of mentality clarity and self-discipline, all of human thinking becomes projection or an extension of the personality imagined as being part of the world. This especially happens in groups when people agree that something should be true, and therefore is true, or at least will seem to be true if they all insist on it.
What follows are some Black Pill truths. Warning: this will most likely offend you and may induce crippling existential doubt.
Morality. The herd morality is that you should never hurt anyone. The actual morality of life involves the results of what they were doing. If they were doing bad, hurting them is a good; if they were doing good, hurting them is a bad. It is all about results, and not about methods. You can see the fallacy of method-based reasoning when you contemplate someone trying to hurt your family. Would you harm them any way you could? Yes, but even more, you would act so that your family came to no harm, and the consequences to someone doing something stupid, destructive, pointless, degenerate, or criminal are of no concern to you. In fact, you might desire to destroy the people threatening your family so completely that the threat is forever terminated. The herd views this as bad because all of them are projecting themselves into the position of the person harmed, because that allows them to feel self-pity and therefore excuse their own venal and idiotic deeds through some philosophy of being victims of their world. “Sodomize the weak” is a better morality than “protect the weak” because with the latter, the evil quickly learn to disguise themselves as the weak.
Equality. The root of equality is the idea that “I want/see/recognize” is the beginning of an argument in favor of some action. The Black Pill says that it is not: the individual is usually mediocre and even if not, usually wrong, and inevitably driven by impulse and not reasoned action. There is no justification for an action or idea to be found in individual approval, nor in group approval; actions are only worthwhile if they will achieve results that are good, and “good” is both obvious and recorded by history. This does away with the questions of morons which float around “validity” and “who decides?” — unless one is a fool, the best people decide, and there is no validity, only accuracy. People tend toward evil. The best can be redirected with self-discipline but the rest need to be oppressed because their desires are destructive and oppressive toward all good things. More shocking to a herdsman is that people are born with not just their abilities, but their moral inclinations, and these do not change. Some are born bad, and some good. Within the good, a hierarchy exists as in nature of those who are best all the way down to those who are merely OK.
Radical evil. The Christian idea of “original sin” shocks people when first encountered. We are all sinners, and bad, and probably stupid and retarded? Emphatically, yes. The human mind prefers what is easy to grasp and rejects anything it cannot understand (the Dunning-Kruger effect). It is not lazy so much as biased toward stability; the human mind alternates between states of order and disorder, and when it can impose order by simplifying its representation of reality, it does so. The problem arising from this situation is that this creates an animal mind which is bigoted in favor of illusion. That in turn means that most of what people do, and think is right, is in fact wrong because they have based their idea of “right” in what is mentally convenient for them. For this reason, people need to deliberately turn away from evil and toward good through self-discipline in order to achieve good at all, and very few will do this. Instead, most wallow in what some call “radical evil”: everyday behaviors and events that are the opposite of good, but are considered good by most people because they have failed to investigate what actual good is. And what is good, asks the crowd? (They always think they are profound for asking non-questions). The obvious: survival, of us and our environment. Increase in or maintenance of quality. Focus on truth, goodness, honor and competence. All the things normal people fear because they have not polarized themselves toward achieving them.
Civilization. Your standard Republican idiot clings to a fiction whereby he can observe civilization around him failing, issue some pithy statement about going back to God or traditional value, and then go home and work hard and go to church and somehow come out OK despite his civilization failing around him. This is nonsense and stupidity. Our fortunes are determined by civilization unless we live alone where no one else can reach us, produce all of our own tools and goods, and have no children who need future spouses. No one lives like that because no one has ever lived like that. Human evolution resulted from simians herding together and developing skills. Early humans existed in wandering tribes. With fixed agriculture, we could build a broader base of tools and thus knowledge and from that came what most of us think of as “civilization,” with towns, cities, institutions and hierarchy. The eternal human fiction is that all we need are ourselves and a few of our favorite shops, i.e. “anarchy with grocery stores,” because that way nothing opposes us fulfilling our whims (calls for collective non-oversight like anarchy begin in the desire of the individual to escape judgment and notice). If you do not defend civilization, you will be ruled by non-civilization, even if in the guise of civilization as we currently have. The “individualistic fallacy” — that it is enough to simply act in immediate self-interest through hard work, religion and traditional values — kills societies because all the potentially good people marginalize themselves while the neurotics take over the public sphere and then educate the next generation in their propaganda.
Machiavelli. All things act in self-interest. This includes groups, individuals, genes and ideas. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile; this is the result of self-interest, but also explains how one arrives at a “tragedy of the commons” where individuals acting in self-interest over-exploit a resource, as happens with over-fishing and overpopulation. Machiavelli and others suggest we recognize the literality of self-interest, namely that it cannot be disclaimed by language, symbol and virtuous act, but is innate and unchanging in all things. This means that if you have a country, every other country on earth is acting against your interests, even if — especially if — they are your allies. Their goal is to put themselves first. In the same way, other people behave in self-interest and will always prioritize their needs before yours. There is wisdom in self-interest in that it never fails, and it is not ambiguous, unlike altruism which introduces a cloud of ambiguity, doubt, guilt, uncertainty and confusion. In a Machiavellian view, one must view others as destructive unless they are specifically incorporated in an agenda which marries their self-interest to group-interest; generally, only biological kinship does this, at the levels of race, ethnicity and class.
God. Despite what most people think, the Black Pill does not reject God and in fact is mute on the issue. We have no physical evidence because there cannot be physical evidence for the metaphysical, and asking for it is silly. Some concepts are also silly, like dualism where two worlds with different rules in each exist. We can reject that which is logically ill-constructed, but we are never going to have certainty of God’s existence or absence in this world, and claiming otherwise in either extreme is illogical and corrupts the thinking process. Most who oppose the Black Pill do so because it rejects their idea of God, which is as innate to existence to the degree that all must recognize him, or be seen as evil. This is a mistake because it reduces faith to conformity and obedience. It makes more sense to say that God is a choice that can only occur when the subject matter is understood, and that by using logical conjecture, some credible arguments can be made for his existence. Note that the same cannot be done for his non-existence, as there is no boundedness to the universe that allows us to claim it excludes certain potentials. Under the Black Pill, those who seek God have made a choice and have done so as a reflection of not just their inner needs, but their inner qualities. Under the Black Pill, no decision is innate or necessary, but all decisions reflect back on us and our place in the hierarchy of intelligence, ability and moral character. That scares people more than the (potential) presence of Hell.
As you can see, in a Black Pill view most of what humans consider to be sacred is based in the illusion created by humans to justify their desires, and what replaces it is a simpler, clearer and less “human” view of the world. This inhumanity allows humans to escape the animal confines of their own impulses, and demystifies the world but also reveals its mystery.
Until a civilization has people who can accept Black Pill reality in its leadership, it is doomed to regress to third world levels. Civilization can only occur where hard-core literalist realism is present. We need people who will open every door, unafraid of what they might find, because they are hard-minded to find excellence and beauty in life despite whatever they find.
To dodge the Black Pill is to permanently corrupt your own thinking. If you reject realism, you become an agent for the idea that human preferences and notions are more important than reality. This in turn makes you into a zombie who is addicted to the pathology that re-affirms that illusion, so you seek out other justifications and those who believe them, forming the basis for a Crowd.
Our civilization thrived when it was able to accept both the Black Pill and a huge degree of mystery. Do the gods exist? — It seems so. No one knows. No one will ever know. What is right? — there is no definitive answer, only good answers, but only good people can understand them. Mystery dominates.
With entry to the realm of the Black Pill through what I call radical realism or nihilism, one can confront reality in a condition as close to accurate as human beings can do. This enforces self-discipline on the individual, which brings the “inner world” of creativity, morality, honor and desire for excellence to the front of the mind.
Without a Black Pill approach, people live through filters imposed by their ideological need to validate a human perspective as more important than reality itself. This in turn causes their mental process to reverse, so that they are ascertaining truth through justifying what they already believe instead of perceiving what is before them.
In that distinction, we can see how societies fail. Those that accept the Black Pill — and the utter mystery of life — are able to think clearly and act in a forward motion. The others blunt themselves to reality, and instead become “Progressive” or increasing hell-bent on replacing reality with human notions, and shortly afterwards decline.
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.