Humans live in dual worlds: an inner world and an outer.
The inner world contains a model of the outer world, and allows us to understand it, but can also obliterate reality if our own thoughts or those of other humans over-write the reality-based information.
The outer world contains a model of the inner world, as seen by others, and can be used to manipulate that inner world. This manipulation feels like inner thought, but represents a surrender of moral and intellectual agency to the appearance of our selves to others.
Nihilism is a form of extreme realism with a twist: its goal is the purging of the false inner world, which is actually the outer, and the restoration of the inner as a means of discovery of truth in coordination with external experience. It is denial of human impulses by subordinating them to reality.
Why might this be useful? you might ask. It is the only path toward truth, because only through joining intuition and intellect can we discern the patterns of reality and therefore, what is likely to be true. Without that, we are dependent on material proof of details, and the conclusions we draw from those will be based on those details in isolation and miss the bigger picture.
After what seemed like an eternity, the police officers told me plainly, “Aletha is dead.” What followed that stark statement was a sudden moment of lucidity in which only one thing mattered: the truth.
I had to be honest. I had to tell the truth.
That sudden moment of lucidity is nihilism. Ideas have consequences. Illusions are ideas. Act produce results. We are responsible for the consequences of our acts. We have a duty to find out what is true so that our acts turn out well, or at least as we have intended.
Most human activity is designed to promote a myth that human feelings, thoughts and judgments (moralizations) are more important than results in reality. That way, if you wanted an A on the test but got a C instead, you can say, “Oh well, at least I’m more interesting/moral/sexy/friendly than the people who got As.”
This leads to illusion, because the goal is replaced by sour grapes, a scapegoat, a superstition or some other mental pitfall. With goal replacement, purpose is lost, and people become dependent on external worlds for guidance, since they have sabotaged their inner worlds.
Xiao Chen had waited for this day for weeks. Nonetheless, she was almost late for the great event. After half an hour of preparation, a thick layer of makeup concealed every minor imperfection on her skin, and she hurried on her bicycle to school. The teacher, Mrs. Wu, seemed to anticipate that the girls would be late and for once tolerated this truancy.
As the bus was still busy charging behind the school, she instructed her pupils on what to expect. “Saxonia is about 200 kilometers from here, so it’ll take us about three hours to get there. It’s only accessible by bus. I looked for another option, but this is the fastest we can get there.” Odd as her calculations might seem to us at first, she was correct. The legal speed limit on most highways was 80 kilometer per hour, in an effort to conserve energy.
Mrs. Wu continued. “Now students, please remember that this is meant as an educational field trip. You’re not going to Disneyland. There will be questions about this on your history exam next week.” Xiao looked at her best friend to the right and rolled her eyes. Both girls giggled. “Lucy, did you bring the vodka?” She asked. Lucy nodded. A small bottle, concealed in her bra, would serve to make an already exciting trip even better.
The girls had stopped paying attention to their teacher’s boring monologue, but snapped back to attention when it seemed she was nearly finished talking. “So be warned, if I see any more of that behavior like we saw at the Fitna memorial, I will have to call the principal and ask him to cancel our next field trip. Did I make myself clear?” The students responded in unison: “Yes, Mrs. Wu.” “Alright then, students, go ahead and get your coats now.”
The journey proceeded mostly non-eventfully. Riding tightly behind a big truck for most of the journey, the artificial intelligence that controlled and coordinated the journey managed to shave a few highly valuable percentage points off its energy expenditure. For a human driver, burdened with a human reaction speed, this feat would have been highly dangerous to pull of, but human drivers were of course a rarity for this very reason.
The bus left the highway and continued its journey on a small provincial road. “Music, louder,” Lucy said. The heavy metal that played in the bus became even louder, then Mrs. Wu stood up and reprimanded the girl. “Lucy, I heard that was you. Cut it off or you can write an extra assignment.” She warned her before nearly falling down as the bus came to an abrupt stop.
The bus had encountered a big toll booth. “You are entering a federally designated indigenous reserve,” stated a big wooden sign on the side of the road. It was tough to make out for the passengers, as the sign was overgrown with vines and various mosses. A middle-aged man of coffee-colored complexion with blonde curls entered the bus and began to check everyone’s ID.
“Look!” Lucy said to Xiao, as she gently pushed her elbow into her side. Xiao looked at the man’s chest, where a little metal hammer bounced up and down on the hair of his chest as he wandered through the bus. Xiao bit her lip. “Oh my God Lucy, you’re such a slut!” Lucy exclaimed. The girls giggled. The man, who was used to worse, pretended not to notice them.
The journey continued, but the quality of the road rapidly deteriorated. The bus began to bump up and down. Out of the window, abandoned and squatted buildings could be seen, as well as overgrown farmland, where two young blonde women in white dresses were gathering wild flowers to put into their hair. “Oh my God, look at that!” Lucy yelled, upon seeing a tree growing on top of a small abandoned office complex. “They’re going to have to cut down that tree at some point, or the whole roof is going to give in,” Mrs. Wu remarked.
Finally, after traveling over a small hill, a big sign on top of a wooden palisade became visible to them. “Saxonia” it said. The students hurried to the doors before the bus came to a stop. Two statues of tall, bearded and shirtless blonde men carrying a spear and a shield stood on opposite sides in front of the entrance. A metal sign attached to the palisade wall spoiled an otherwise impressive sight. “This project was made possible thanks to European Federal Union subsidies for indigenous development,” it said, but none of the passengers paid any attention to it.
A short while later, the students entered a big wooden hall. Here various items were shown that an early medieval Saxon household would use. A big wooden statue in the middle depicted a woman and her children crying. “The massacre of Verden,” it said. The placard provided a detailed explanation of the massacre of 4,500 heathen Saxon men by the Frankish king Charlemagne.
Because the hall was rather crowded, other students visited a small stone building instead. “A typical late 20th century German household,” read the placard. They were presented with an impressively designed scene of a small blonde child playing with a Lego castle, while a woman sat on the couch with a bag, removing the outer layer of some Brussel’s sprouts. A student pressed a button and the child’s hand moved slightly, as a high-pitched children’s voice told a story of a knight looking for a dragon in authentic German.
In another room an elderly man in a three-piece suit watched as Mrs. Wu struggled to discipline one of her students. “I didn’t say Heil Hitler, I said Hey Hitler!” Fang said to Mrs. Wu. “I don’t get why you kids still pretend like this is some funny joke, when this man killed millions of people. Well, I guess I can’t blame you, this stupid exhibition treats it like a joke too,” she lamented.
“Pardon me. Is there a problem?” A voice from behind her said. The man in the three-piece suit gently took a step forward, as Mrs. Wu turned around. “We don’t deny the Holocaust, but we didn’t wish to overemphasize it. This was simply a different era. Remember that the Japanese committed far worse atrocities against our own people back then,” he stated.
“Are you the director?” Mrs. Wu asked. “I am Li Pan, the founder,” he replied. “When I set up Saxonia, the youth unemployment rate in the indigenous reserve was fifty percent. Drug abuse, suicide and genetic dilution were rampant. That’s what a century worth of self-castigation does to a race,” the man responded.
“You see Mrs. Wu, white people were simply not made for the modern world. This is what their society struggled with on a continual basis. What to do with this vast population of people whose jobs were taken over by machines? They had no good answer. A few of them could be taught how to program in PHP or in Python, but most of them had no such desire. Nor did the white women particularly desire to have children with men who spent their days massaging a keyboard. They had to import people from Asia to do it for them.”
“If they don’t have something meaningful to do, they become neurotic. Same thing happens if you confront them with some unfortunate historical facts. Whereas most people will try to deny it or rationalize it, these people start to descend down a self-destructive guilt complex, so when we built the museum, we simply decided to present history to them in a fashion that works,” Mr. Pan continued.
“And so you tell them that Hitler simply had no choice other than to invade Poland, because the Polish army had mobilized?” Mrs. Wu responds, as she looks at another exhibition. “We don’t want them to embarrass themselves. Remember that the indigenous resistance spent roughly sixty years rendering itself irrelevant by referring to him. If you present Hitler as just another historical figure, he becomes irrelevant to them,” he explained.
“Look over here, Mrs. Wu, what do you think of this?” The man says, as he points out another exhibition, featuring statues of bulky white men with ponytails, beards and black jackets. “Sons of Odin” Mrs. Wu begins to read. “Sons of Odin was an indigenous resistance movement. It became prominent when it claimed responsibility for the murder of six men held responsible for the sexual assaults in Cologne, usurping a variety of other organizations and pushing the fractured political landscape of the various resistance movements in a decisively Heathen direction. Sons of Odin would go on to play an important role in enabling the Fitna by assassinating scientists involved in vaccine development,” she continued.
Mrs. Wu sighed. “I get the idea, but I can’t help but think that this whole project you have built is awfully patronizing to white people. You merely help reinforce the scientifically dubious idea that white people can’t fully participate in society when you shield their eyes from anything that doesn’t paint a flawless picture of their history. What’s wrong with simply explaining to white people that whatever might have happened in the past will under no circumstance ever necessitate their collective self-abolition? Don’t you think these people should at some point be returned to self-governance?” she continued.
“It might be a scientifically dubious idea to you, but it works. Despite thousands of years of agriculture in Europe, white people overwhelmingly descend from egalitarian hunter-gatherer communities. Whereas in China there were no barriers to the advance of civilization, the collapse of the Roman empire, the Norman conquests and various other episodes of enormous upheaval continuously replaced people well adapted to civilization with people who were genetically effectively still stuck with one foot in the stone age.”
“They might be intelligent and innovative because of the skills needed to thrive in the Scandinavian environment from which most of them originate, but they are obsessed with the concept of fairness, easily bored by repetitive tasks, allergic to authority and sexually promiscuous. These are unfortunately all values that simply threaten their survival within our advanced stage of civilization. There is no other option than to treat them like the human equivalent of a Giant Panda,” he explained to the teacher.
Mrs. Wu looked out of the window. A bearded muscular man with long hair, complete with Suebian knot, held a sword-fight with a skinny Chinese boy in a black T-shirt with German words on his back as a number of girls looked on. “Very good, you’re learning fast” She heard the man say, before she was surprised by a hand on her shoulder and a voice that whispered in her ear: “They’re happier this way.”
Mrs. Wu was silent for a moment before she responded: “Perhaps we’d be too.”
In contentious times, people want an option outside of the major choices. In some cases, the choices are made simple: accept the obvious, or run away from it. When those are your options, finding a third way is near impossible.
But, if it will make you “feel” better, let us consider my perspective a third way. There is Leftism/Liberalism, Rightism/Conservatism and my way, Raging Realism. A Ragin’ Realist is someone who denies all but what exists out there in the world, which humans normally suppress in exchange for the social world of emotions, desires and judgments (moralizations: “it shouldn’t be that way”).
As a result, Ragin’ Realism is not for the ordinary, which is why it is raging. It must achieve incredible momentum to reach escape velocity from the sickly treacle of the “feelings” of people around it. But at its core, it is very simple: our thoughts must correspond to reality.
Naturally this makes reality a target. The favorite human game is to redefine key terms, or to sample only part of the data necessary and draw broad conclusions for it, or even our “rationalistic” thought process, which is to think of a convenient hypothesis and filter out any data but what supports it. All of these are pretty bad but pretty normal.
In fact, that is what makes Ragin’ Realism so controversial. It says that what most people are thinking most of the time is not just nonsense, but concealment, deliberate deception designed to hide reality so that the monkey party can continue. The first step in realism is realism about what humans are.
By most, it does not mean fifty-one out of a hundred; it means ninety-nine out of a hundred. That is the grim fact that intelligent, aware and moral people have always refused to hear. You are alone, very alone. The rest are clueless and if not beaten back, will do their best to destroy you so that their cluelessness is not revealed. They call that “equality.”
These people love chaos as well. Why? In chaos they can hide. If there are no standards, they are never wrong. If everyone is screwing up all of the time, their screwups are invisible. Their desires to transgress — which fetishize something that is less interesting in reality than in their vision, which is usually based on illusion spread by the raving commentary of their friends anyway — can be hidden behind a wall of confusion.
“Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please,” said Brer Rabbit. “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
“The briar patch, eh?” said Brer Fox. “What a wonderful idea! You’ll be torn into little pieces!”
Grabbing up the tar-covered rabbit, Brer Fox swung him around and around and then flung him head over heels into the briar patch…Brer Fox cocked the other ear toward the briar patch, listening for Brer Rabbit’s death rattle…He turned around and looked up the hill. Brer Rabbit was sitting on a log combing the tar out of his fur with a wood chip and looking smug.
“I was bred and born in the briar patch, Brer Fox,” he called. “Born and bred in the briar patch.”
The briar patch for your average person is chaos. They were born in chaos, to chaotic parents who lived in disorder and squalor, even if modern conveniences helped obscure that. Their minds operate by chaos, which is to say that they have no hierarchical capacity, only the ability to understand lots of little things with specific details, like comic books and movies. Their lives are currently chaos.
If you catch them doing something low-level insane (a.k.a. their modus operandi) they will immediately create a false target: “Oh, don’t throw me in that briar patch!” Their point is always to get you to do something which increases the chaos, so they can hide in the chaos.
Now, conservatism, that is tempting. It introduces the question of degree to Ragin’ Realism. A Ragin’ Realist loves what works, but like the term “reality,” this is under assault by human reason itself. If you need to house a million people, you could just build giant Soviet-style apartment blocks full of 8×10 rooms with combination sink/toilet/shower holes in the corner. Technically this solves the problem.
Conservatism modifies this with degree. What is the best solution in human history? That is what conservatism conserves: best solutions, highest achievements, most intense greatness, awesomest pleasures. Most sources note a “zest for life” in conservatism, and I think that is the core of it: it is the philosophy of pleasure-seekers who have taken a moment to understand their own pleasures.
Maybe Ragin’ Realism can learn that from Conservatives. Can it learn anything from the Left? Since most of the Left is based purely in moralization, or a statement about what “should be” without understanding why it is not what is, i.e. why it is not as effective and efficient as what nature produced, most of Leftism should be discarded.
There is one thing however… perhaps it’s a trifle. Or maybe it should be mentioned. Leftists are self-destruction junkies, but they are also willing to admit when something sucks. They look too hard for that, because Leftism is really a way for lonely and miserable people to socialize with each other through commiseration, but they can point out obvious truths where Conservatives will tell you to suck it up and stop being such a pussy.
For example, that society sucks. That other people are mostly poisonous little dwarfs who get their only excitement in life from provoking others into failing or flailing. That on the whole, a housecat is better company than most of the human race. And so on. The Leftist “culture of critique” is what shapes intelligent post-collapse populations and becomes their raison d’etre. But right now, someone should mention that this society sucks. That is Realism too.
The real attribute of Ragin’ Realism that scares people is its utter nihilism. A realist cannot obscure a historical or factual truth with platitudes. We recognize that the universe is mostly emptiness and that which does not struggle against this emptiness perishes, and no one cares. There is no eternal glory in the sky for a species that dies out because it became mentally disorganized.
In life, only that which persists, matters. Everything else is swept backward into time. Maybe it lives on in the metaphysical afterlife, or not, but that matters less than what survives in reality. Most people are always looking for an excuse to self-destruct because they are tired of the burden of survival, which is like an endless series of Post-It™ notes reminding you that you can have better results if you just fix this one more thing one more time…
You get tired of it. It is tiring to beat back demons, to fiddle with fixes, to struggle against the crushing wave of entropy (and the bigger wave of the insanity of others) that always wants to drive you to the lowest common denominator or, preferably, chaos so that that happy monkey party time can continue in the trees. Free fruit for all! And we fermented it too, and there’s Bonobo sex parties. Fascinating.
A Ragin’ Realist recognizes all of this, and takes these two principles from conservatives and liberals. First, that we need not just the minimum functionality, but an experience that nourishes us. And second, that because life sucks, our first agenda should be to sweep aside all the tedious, exhausting, ugly and blockheaded experiences we can in order to conserve our limited energy so we can apply it to the good stuff.
But with that in mind, you can see the paradox of realism. There is an answer to life; it is not easy; without it life sucks. Therefore, we should choose that, and with this obvious fact in the room, two choices arise. Deny it or accept it. And most people will go for the former, of course, because their big brains tell them it might be like the lottery, where one in three hundred million people gets into money Heaven for being at the right place at the right time.
I remember the first time I read that Nietzsche believed altruism did not exist. It shook my world: how was it that anything good could come of life if we did not act against self-interest, and for the benefit of others or other things, like for example the forests and streams?
Then I went to my first volunteer job. I was a young liberal, full of idealism and completely suspended from reality by my immersion in education and the fact that my parents paid for my existence. We were helping people who were beyond help. And the more we helped, two things happened: first, more people showed up; second, the ones we helped early on could not meet us halfway and do their part. The line was endless.
I left that experience shaken. Perhaps altruism needed boundaries, like me deciding which of these people “deserved” help. Then again, I was not very comfortable with that. Who was I to decide? Then I realized: nature had already decided. Some of the people who came to us for aid had purpose, and got themselves out of a bad situation. The rest were merely passing time, finding a new excuse for doing nothing.
This led me to question my own involvement. Why indeed was I there? I wanted to help, of course, but on analysis, I realized that in addition to my basic friendliness, what I wanted was to feel good about my society. I wanted to think that it took care of everyone and was fair, so that I could feel good about what I had achieved.
This was the gateway to much learning. I suddenly saw this as a transaction: I gave them things to buy off my own guilt. Where did this guilt come from? From being friendly, and from wanting to think my friendliness could solve the problem. Far from an altruist, I was a self-interested party — but my interest was in “good feelings” not realistic results.
At that point, I turned from the path of altruism. My approach took a different form, which was highly informed by Darwinistic natural selection, Plato and the Bible alike: reward good behavior, punish bad behavior. This approach never fails. It does two things: it picks those those are competent to be active in society, and sends a strong signal to everyone else as to what they should do.
Unlike charity or welfare, this approach restores accountability and responsibility to the individual. It eliminates all ambiguity. If you do right, you succeed. Otherwise, bad things result. The instant we start degrading this hard and firm standard, everyone suffers, because they no longer know what they should do in order to be okay in life. Altruism creates doubt and despair.
Others continued on this path. It made me wonder what type of person pursues altruism. I noticed they had some things in common:
Lack of direction: Rich or poor, they seemed to be lost in life. They did not know how to spend their time in order to be living the good life, so they substituted with altruism much like housewives used to have a stiff gin in the afternoon.
Personal despair: Something about these people made them believe they were not good. They admitted it in quiet moments, late at night after drinks or when tired after doing work. It was not at the forefront of their minds, but always present.
Resentment: Somehow, they all believed that the world was bad and that nature was Hitler/Satan levels of unjust. This meant that humans had to “fix” the world. This gave them the mandate to do whatever failed, and yet call it success, because since the world was bad, anything really good would fail so failure is good.
Self-promotion: This left the greatest impression. The aid workers I knew never ignored an opportunity to self-promote, and had a public self-image of being good people who were doing what the rest of society should be doing but was not. It made them both egotistical and fragile.
Naturally, any sane person would want out of this circumstance. Clearly this psychology was more of a pathology — doing the same thing regardless of results — than a reasoned response to life. And to me, it became clear that it was more about the giver having “good feelings” than helping the receiver.
Altruism now strikes me as a type of promiscuous behavior. The person advertises their value, and then others take them up on the offer, and then the person validates their sense of self-worth through the interest of others. Like a slut at a bar, they only feel good when some guy has bought them drinks and taken them home.
These people we call altruists are essentially attention whores. For them, life has no beauties except the attention of others. When they are dancing naked on a table in a bar, a spectacle mocked by any sane person, they are compensating for their lack of success with the fact that they are the center of attention. This is what the altruist gets in exchange for their acts of charity.
The same girl who likes to be in the middle of the room while a dozen men line up to have sex with her will instead go on a mission to Africa. She is a degree smarter than the raw whore, and knows that this way, she can not only get her attention fix, but be lauded by democratic, egalitarian society as a hero. The prostitute becomes a savior.
In the same way, our elites are whores. They do whatever is required to gain the attention of the herd. If the herd is foaming at the mouth about sexism that week, that is the topic. They say what is required to get the voters to sign off on more power for the elites. And then they do it again, and the voters fall for it.
Our society has, like a patient with uremic poisoning, become a victim of its inability to recognize toxins. Whores and gigolos are toxins, but when they wear suits and go on missionary trips to Haiti we are blinded to their inner whore. When we become healthy again, the first task will be recognizing the toxicity of promiscuous altruism — and removing it like the parasite it is.
It matters not whether the ethnic differences are based on language (Belgium, Canada), religion (Iraq, Syria), or race (the United States, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa . . .). In each case, the lack of a common identity leads to a perpetual tribalization of politics. These problems are sometimes peaceful, and often they lead to otherwise unnecessary ethnic civil wars, but in each case there are intractable problems. People on average are simply not as willing to submit to authority, pay taxes, or give their life in war for another group, as they would for their own group. In a word: There is no solidarity.
To my mind, it makes sense to turn this around from a negative point to a positive one: with nationalism, you have solidarity without needing ideology and government. People, from a place within themselves, want to do right and they use their national culture as a means of assessing what is right and thus, what will be rewarded by others.
Durocher lists a number of other good points, but this seems to be the core of it: instead of forcing people to get along, choose people who are headed in the same direction and have the same interests and values, and they will desire to get along. Their striving will make it happen without requiring a neurotic layer of government, propaganda and “education” to humiliate and compel them to obey.
It is this positive desire to cooperate with others toward a goal — corresponding to what Evola might have called the inner states — that makes nationalism superior. It is simply more efficient. You do not require a strong-arm government, bureaucrats and media; instead, people naturally get along because they are the same sub-group of a sub-species.
It’s clear that we are more altruistic to people who look more phenotypically similar to ourselves, to pass on and benefit copies of our genes. This evolved in spite of the negative impact on behalf of the altruist. The altruist is helping copies of his shared genes survive so that they may be copied into the next generation of progeny. The tendency to favor co-ethnics is the tendency to attempt to help pass on shared genes, as if the phenotype is similar, more often than not, the genotype is as well. This is the basis for ethnocentrism.
First, he makes the mistake of calling this process “altruism.” If self-interest is involved, it is not altruism, and calling it so will mislead the vast majority of people reading the article.
But the bigger point that is lost here, I think, is that people identify with a group based on its members being allies, and also see these people as helping the individual collaborate toward a goal. In other words, they are working together toward a common purpose, and that common purpose alone unites them.
This point is downplayed by most racialists who know that liberals will turn around and say, “Great! We’ve got a common purpose, too, called ‘egalitarianism’ and we’re going to use it to destroy your society.” But that is not a common purpose; it is an ideology, which is a belief about what purpose should be and not a purpose in itself, or it could be achieved.
Further, part of common purpose is the creation and nurturing of civilization itself. That requires identity, or a group of the same genetics, because in our heart and guts each of us knows that the happiest and best societies are homogeneous and use that homogeneity as a basis for their own further upward evolution.
Ihavewrittenonthesetopicspreviously (not to mention previous writings at CORRUPT, ANUS, on USENET, and on a number of third-party nationalist sites, going back to 1997). This is not new ground, and this has always been my position: cooperation is more efficient than coercion, and produces better results, and cooperation is only achieved by unity of race, ethnicity, values, culture and moral character, including the ability to see the wisdom of caste systems, aristocracy and traditions. That group is my people.
The concept of “universal nationalism” is appealing, but too ideological for me. Nationalism works for those sane enough to try it; my people need it; my people do not owe a living to any other group. We act in self-interest because our actual interest is in our shared purpose, and the rest of the world will have to find its own path.
In March 1976, philosopher Michel Foucault described the advent of a new logic of government, specific to Western liberal societies. He called it biopolitics. States were becoming obsessed with the health and wellbeing of their populations.
And sure enough, 40 years later, Western states rarely have been more busy promoting healthy food, banning tobacco, regulating alcohol, organising breast cancer checks, or churning out information on the risk probabilities of this or that disease.
The concept of biopolitics is an interesting one because it entirely hinges on how one measures the health of a population. If it is measured from the individual perspective, each individual must be made healthy; if a Darwinian or moral view is taken, those who do good must receive good care, and those who act in a way that disrespects their own survival should face consequences of that act.
In fact, as the film Idiocracy raises, the question upon is is whether we want to protect and make healthy the unhealthy, because then we will get more of them. If people behave in a reasonable manner and take care of themselves, the healthy will survive and the strong will die out, eventually. If we insulate people from the consequences of their actions, and bail them out from bad decisions and bad genetics, those will proliferate and drown out the healthier.
That conflict shows us one motive latent within Liberalism: to replace natural selection. One method of replacing it is as described above, the socialist-style safety net being extended to preventative health care. Instead of allowing people to face the consequences of their actions, we are all exposed to the consequences of tolerance and egalitarianism as the lower replaces the higher.
Another Leftist replacement for natural selection is the notion of “progress.” In the progressive view, society changes over the years and we view each change as the new normal and an improvement over the past. By continuing the path of change, we eventually reach a Utopian state. But this both denies the actual history of humanity, and serves as a distraction from and substitution for natural selection.
If humans have never fundamentally changed, as seems to be true from the six millennia of recorded history, then all forms of government and social change were known at least in theory long ago. History shows us that other societies have experimented with liberalism, notably ancient Greece and Rome. This means that our “new” ideas are not new, and even more, they have already been tried, which means their consequences are known.
If humans, on the other hand, have changed in some fundamental way, adopting a type of society that was designed by past iterations of humanity makes no sense as we are then subjecting a new species to the rules of an older species. This fundamental logical trap eludes liberals, who want to believe that society does the improvement for us, so that we do not have to face evolution — the consequences of our actions determining whether we thrive or fail.
We can see the future of the Leftist program in Foucault’s coded warning:
Foucault never claimed this was a bad trend – it saves lives after all. But he did warn that paying so much attention to the health and wealth of one population necessitates the exclusion of those who are not entitled to – and are perceived to endanger – this health maximisation programme.
With the demise of natural selection, we no longer select who succeeds based on their actions in regard to health and life itself. Instead, we must select them by political reasons. Because Leftism is also a religion/morality replacement, this means that soon we will be choosing people by political allegiance, which means that Leftist states will import and protect all who claim to be Leftist, and drive the rest out.
… the largest effect size [from a single allele] researchers have been able to detect thus far is less than a single point of IQ. Larger effect sizes would have been much easier to detect, but have not been seen. […] This means that there must be at least thousands of IQ alleles to account for the actual variation seen in the general population. A more sophisticated analysis (with large error bars) yields an estimate of perhaps 10,000 in total.*
Each genetic variant slightly increases or decreases cognitive ability. Because it is determined by many small additive effects, cognitive ability is normally distributed, following the familiar bell-shaped curve, with more people in the middle than in the tails. A person with more than the average number of positive (IQ-increasing) variants will be above average in ability. The number of positive alleles above the population average required to raise the trait value by a standard deviation — that is, 15 points — is proportional to the square root of the number of variants, or about 100. In a nutshell, 100 or so additional positive variants could raise IQ by 15 points. […] Given that there are many thousands of potential positive variants, the implication is clear: If a human being could be engineered to have the positive version of each causal variant, they might exhibit cognitive ability which is roughly 100 standard deviations above average.
Evolution is canny. A single gene for seemingly superhuman power would create people who, in one generation of bad breeding, might possess sociopathic personalities and superior abilities. This would be a disaster for the genetic group into which they outbreed, and would therefore self-destruct those traits. If instead of focusing on ideological conformity, humanity rewarded natural ability, we might be able to harness Darwin indirectly and by simply following Plato’s formula — good to the good, bad to the bad — make ourselves into Nietzsche’s supermen.
The reason for indirect use of Darwin is that our direct interventions are clumsy because they take into account far too few of the factors involved. Jim writes a convincing post about the evolution of female political inclinations:
In the ancestral environment, if you were a man and your in group was conquered, you were likely to be killed or enslaved, and thus be no ones ancestor. If you were a woman and your in group was conquered, you were indeed likely to be enslaved – to a successful man in the victorious group who would have children by you, and, knowing his children were his own, raise them well.
So we are in large part descended from men who conquered, and who resisted conquest with absolute determination, and descended from women who took to conquest, abduction, and slavery like a duck to water.
While that is interesting from a cyberdynamics perspective, in that it shows us a type of advanced sorting, it also fails to take into account the complexity of humanity. The Bell Curve has always been with us, even as cavemen, which we can verify because it can be observed in other animal populations as well. This means that not all women react the same way of have the same standards.
More likely, what we are seeing is an interaction of two factors: first, the huge boom in lower-rung populations in the West, and second, the defining attribute of femininity. Men are throwers, and women are catchers. Men must go out and force things to be right, where women exercise a singular capacity for gatekeeping — they decide what is let in and then make the best of it. This puts women in a role where the passive becomes the active.
As a result, the female mind is excellent at keeping together a group like a family or community — as is the traditional role of women; men just think they rule society, where women are the cornerstones of culture — but is in converse unsuited for the role of decision-making, because to a passive/active mind, the vital decision of inclusion has already been made: as in a family, all are included. This is unfortunate because the decision to exclude is the most vital choice any group has, and represents its only way of indirectly enforcing Darwinism.
In other words, war and rape — which tend to receive too much ink for how little they influenced us, relative to other factors — are not what make women into natural Leftists who make the dangerous choice to include rapists in our society. They are hardwired for this type of choice because their personality must be constituted on this type of accepting, active-to-passive mindset.
Factors like these influence our ability to preserve evolution among our people. Without a strong motivator toward quality, we become “tolerant” or “all-inclusive” and obliterate ourselves. That tolerance is the basis of the liberal myth of Progress, which is designed to interrupt natural selection in women and men alike, and replace it with a bigotry toward universal inclusion, which makes an obedient but low-quality civilization.
Instead, they take the essence of his critique of rationalist Western universalism and the structure of his solution, which is to retrieve a lost, organic communal life not as a traditional inheritance, but through a revolutionary project.
Taking these two movements as representative examples of a certain strain of Heideggerian political influence, what stands out is, first, the comprehensive dissatisfaction with the rationalist order, in each case described as a Western, politically liberal, or capitalistic set of structures. Second, in this view, liberal universalism—including its insistence on human rights, rights of property and contract, and the attendant rule of law—stands for the thinnest, narrowest basis of community, and indeed represents the corruption of truer, thicker, particularist forms of communal existence. Third, the power of the established liberal order is sufficiently entrenched to warrant, even to require, violent force in order to disrupt it. And fourth, urgently required though it might be, the political form of that post-revolutionary order is apparently ambiguous.
Modernity consists of a narrowing of focus to the material and instant. All people are equal; like an assembly line, universals act upon them and channel them toward ideologically correct behavior and self-interest. Connections to the community and nature are lost through this assertion of modern control.
Opposing this, the organic society is a broadening. It considers all factors at once, and sees society not as a bucket of sand but as something like an ecosystem, where unequal people in different roles collaborate toward an end, which is the health of the society itself. Modernity does not even have a basis for understanding this.
The organic society is at the root of traditionalism, and even the German wanderlust literary school of Hesse and others who undoubtedly influenced Heidegger. It is not a third way; it is an entirely different way, separate from politics and the self-consciousness it imposes on all.
Interest in Heidegger shows the most recent burst of modern people desiring to understand this ancient and future way of living. At the very least, it provides a toe-hold for those who want to see what might be on the other side. Its increasing volume shows how much they are drawn, on an aesthetic and emotional level, to what they see.
This is analogous to what happens to civilizations. One group carves them out of the wild; we could call these “creators.” Then others show up or emerge through the process of genetic expression which produces some excellence, mostly the same, and some errors. Errors compound. This new group, which we might call “participants,” are not the movers and shakers the creators were. They are there for the easier living and will contribute only what they are compelled to.
Over time, the society changes its policies and rules to accommodate the participants, who are less disciplined and moral in personal behavior and also more random in their activity. Lacking the guiding spirit of creators, they tend to focus more on the personal, sensual and immediate. The leaders of the society shrug: the participants outnumber the creators. As a result, like a business, that society panders to the audience it has instead of the audience it needs.
But the tipping point is long in coming. People went to MySpace because the audience was there; if they wanted to promote a band or idea, all of the fans or readers were there. Even as the writing of collapse is on the wall, more people pour in. The leaders nod sagely and think their strategy is working. Their bank accounts do not lie, after all… but among those, the smart ones take the money and run. They get out because they hear the sound of crumbling.
In the same way, a dying society produces leaders like Angela Merkel and Barack Obama. Their goal is to be as popular as possible so they can gain wealth and fame and escape the dying society. As it runs itself into oblivion, they will be living in some paradise for the rich where private security protects them from the chaos. They will have used their home society as a means to the end of their own power, and then escaped the consequences.
The participants will throw up their hands. Everything seems to be bad all of a sudden. Slowly, they will begin leaving. If they are on a social media site, they will go to whatever new one their friends are using. If they are in a dying civilization, they will emigrate. The only people left watching the stove will be those with no other options, in other words, the lowest rungs of the participants.
And so the old social media site will resemble a third world nation: a mass of people behaving badly, with a few increasingly powerful tyrants watching over the herd to prevent the worst abuses, and allowing these people the freedom to behave badly on a daily basis. No one beyond the borders cares anymore. They have moved on, and the drama is complete.
Vladimir Lenin was cute, but had an ideological ceiling. He kept saying the craziest things. “You can’t have a revolution without killings!” He announced.* He could also be somewhat profound in his oversharing of hate truths. “Art is a weapon.” He accurately pointed out.
So what do you do with a weapon when it no longer serves its purpose? You get rid of it. A US Soldier or Sailor who offended the assignment clerks used to get to spend three years on our nation’s Walmart version of Pitcairn’s Island. We would send people to Johnston’s Atoll and assign them the duty of dismantling and destroying WMDs.
So short of sending Serrano’s Piss Christ to its justifiable demise on Johnston’s Atoll, what do you do to dispose of Lenin’s weapon once you’ve finished using it to demolish culture? You reduce it to utter turd-chucking triviality. And that is what our popular culture has done with art, music and cinema. That is why Modern Art is as oxymoronic as a flaccid porn stud. It is deliberately configured to serve as a nullity that eats the aesthetic space once occupied by the true Beaux Arts.
Contra Oswald Spengler, the decline is a studied effort rather than a natural result of cultural Alzheimer’s. The people who want you helplessly dependent upon the managerial state fear the aesthetics as much as they fear ethics and morality. The aesthetics mirror the soul and inspire our aspirations. They are part and parcel to your capability to contemplate theology or higher philosophy.
Therefore those in power seek to banish them. Stalin and Hitler were barbaric in their crudity. They just banned it all unless they could plaster their gauche symbols of dominance all over the medium like a bear pissing on the limits of his territory. They never could comprehend the simple evil logic of just dumbing it down and leeching out all higher meaning and intellectual content.
It works through progression. You replace Brahms with Count Basie with Loverboy with Pearl Jam and then with Beyoncé as a fete accompli’. It gets more stupid and less rigorous with every step. It requires less of the listener (and far less of the composer and performer) at each demotic stage. It assists in the effort to turn the listener far afield from theology, higher philosophy or any other path to basic enlightenment. The machine feeds you Beyoncé to give you the mushroom treatment – keep you in the dark and stuff you with fertilizer.
So if you’ve ever walked through the Hirschhorn Gallery and wondered why you wasted your time; I don’t know, but you were defrauded and you wasted your time. If you decry the LACMA as a colossal waste of money, that assessment is accurate. Turn away from what you are encouraged to consume by an empty cultural landscape. Take in what your soul responds to.
You are in a fight for your soul against the modern disease. The aesthetics you take into your brain and soul are like the food I used to take in when I was training to play sports back in school. You need the right things to perfect yourself as a competitor. Discipline what you watch, view and listen to. You can’t unsee, unview and unlisten to garbage. It pollutes you when you overindulge like the crappiest of fast food McWaste. And that, my friends is what the Evil One wants for you as he dreams evil dreams and always swims Left and then further, further Left.
*-Like a hockey game without the goon fight or NASCAR without a good wreck. Man up and do this stuff properly!
It’s late 2012, when I walk down the train station and find myself greeted by the sight of at least a dozen girls of upper-middle class background in identical clothing, hair coloured in various shades of blonde, aspiring members of a local student fraternity. What’s supposed to draw attention however, are the oversized diapers they’re wearing, complete with fake stains of feces and urine.
Living in a nation that was at the peak of its education bubble back then, this didn’t surprise me as much as it otherwise might have. I was used by then to seeing guys my age in expensive suits, swimming in the canals while a group of guys on shore yelled orders at them through a megaphone. I memorized the incident, not because it shocked me, but because it serves like nothing else as a painfully visible symptom of an unspeakable taboo: Education is a farce.
At the end of every year, a new group of graduates prostrates before their faculty staff, as one kid or another gives a lame speech on what kind of hopeless incompetents they were before they attended college and how they are now ready to become productive members of society. It is not unlike a cult, where members see themselves as worthless and hopeless, all of their value derived not from their inherent qualities but rather from the cult they joined.
Education is a sacred cow and Malala is our generation’s Mother Theresa. If there is a problem in our society, we expect that it will be addressed through education. Problems as diverse as teenage pregnancies, unemployment, overpopulation, homophobia and mass sexual assaults on the streets can all be solved most effectively through education, or so we are told. It remains a mystery to me how people ever managed to get by before we all went to college.
I’ve heard that many people, typically the babyboomer generation, remember college not as a time they spent in limbo memorizing a variety of facts they’d never use again, but rather, as the greatest time of their lives. This raises the question of what these people consider to be important in life.
If you’re into having meaningless sex with people you don’t care about while intoxicated, or doing fake work that’s stuffed into a shelf as soon as soon as it is graded because you’re presumed to be too incompetent to do real work, then college must be a terrific place to be. For much of my social circle however, college appears to have been a time of ennui, confusion and depression. This is the other side of the story that’s heard less commonly.
Perhaps college seems great to people, because the period that follows it for which college sets you up is such a miserable one. Because you have to spend four years of your life hiding your working class background by using borrowed money to participate in the opulent lifestyle of your peers, you’re left with a big debt to pay back. You can’t combine socially mandated alcohol abuse and factoid memorization with a part-time job, unless you’re doing a worthless major perhaps.
If you’re at the age where you attend college, you have dreams about the future. You once wanted to be a superhero or a princess, but by now you have become slightly more realistic. Now you want to be a historian, a fashion designer, a creative writer, a journalist, a psychologist, a video game developer, or something along those lines. In all likelihood, even that’s not realistic, so you will end up doing something else, something that HR decided requires a four year college degree to filter out applicants, yet never allows you to use any of the information you spent most of your youth painstakingly memorizing.
If you’re a guy, perhaps you will do tech support or customize software for big corporate clients. If you’re a woman, perhaps you work in human resources or answer the phone and welcome visitors. If you haven’t given up yet on whatever ambition you had, you might be doing some internship somewhere. You’re promised an actual paid job in the future that will allow you to pay back your debt, but it probably won’t happen.
If you have working class parents who meant well, they probably told you that you can do whatever you want as long as you work hard. They didn’t set out to mislead you. They had mediocre jobs themselves, that left them feeling unfulfilled and drained them of their mental energy. Hence you saw them sit in front of the television every afternoon and were impatient to leave the demotivating atmosphere you grew up in, trading a house you have to share with family for a concrete box you share with miserable drunks. They hoped your future would be better, because that’s the only thing that kept them going.
I’ve written this article too late, because by now, much of the above is becoming common knowledge. Most people now realize that what you’re told about your job prospects after college is a fraud, pushed by colleges that hope to keep their staff employed by drawing in ever more shmucks. If it was not a fraud, we’d have embassies around the world the size of Vatican city, as practically every soft major seems to promise to its students that you “can work at an embassy”. Another tip for young people: If your major claims that its graduates can be found in all sorts of jobs, you’ll be last in line regardless of where you apply.
What hasn’t been lost yet however, is the fetish for education that our society has, even as we come to acknowledge that college education is no longer a guaranteed ticket for upward social mobility. College education is still seen as installing virtues in our people, as being part of a process that people have to go through to become model citizens.
As the college bubble began to inflate further and the genuine value of a degree outside of its societal associations continued to decline, the explanations for why everyone needs to go to college became ever more broad and ridiculous. “College teaches you how to think critically.” “College teaches you how to learn.” Apparently people have to spend four years of their adult lives figuring out how to think and learn. Why this has to cost tens of thousands of dollars a year and how binge drinking, beer pong and college sports matches contribute to this goal is still somewhat shrouded in mystery for me.
College to me, appeared to be a haven of hypocricy. I have to think back of the far-left Poli sci student of bourgeois background, who scoffed at her roommate, because he’s an adult man who works in a store. Or, perhaps I should mention the son of a college professor, who laughed at me after he asked me what my parents do for a living. It is today more than ever, a playground for the crotch-fruit of our bourgeoisie, where they are instructed in today’s socially fashionable ideas they will have to parrot if they do not wish to be at the centre of tomorrow’s social media scandal.
Does college promote or discourage social mobility? The answer isn’t as clearcut as you might think. According to one estimate in the United States, 44% of children from bottom quartile income families with a 1200-1600 range SAT score graduate college, compared to 52% of children from top income quartiles with 800-999 SAT scores.1 Part of the problem is that students from poor families have a much greater chance of dropping out. Among the bottom quartile, 29% attend college and 9% complete college. Among the highest quartile 80% attend college and 54% graduate from college.
In the United States, trends like affirmative action for minorities in combination with legacy admissions for WASPs ensure that poor whites and asians stand little chance at the most prestigious colleges. It’s clear that in the United States, some simple changes to the system would make the system more meritocratic, but it’s not designed to be meritocratic, it’s merely designed to appear as such.
To some degree however, these are factors that are inherent to college. It’s a universally observed phenomenon that gifted students tend not to graduate college. In Canada, the estimate is that a mere forty percent of gifted children will complete an undergraduate degree or pursue graduate studies.2 In the Netherlands, a mere sixteen percent of gifted children will ever graduate from a university.3 In other words, even when you try to incorporate college into a meritocratic system, you’ll probably fail to do so.
It has to be noted here that even if graduation rates were perfectly equal for different social classes, it wouldn’t leave us with a meritocratic system. Why is that? The poor appear prone to select different majors than the rich. Wealthy parents understand what degrees are useful and the necessity of building a social network with other rich kids, whereas poor parents typically have no such idea. They struggle to tell apart a bullshit degree from a useful one and would rather not see their children dragged along to drinking societies.
Why do children from poor families fail to graduate college? Lack of wealth is one factor, but there are other factors involved too. One problem is the inevitable cultural difference the children encounter, they end up fitting in nowhere. Their accents stand out, their views on society may be too “cynical”. They find that their peers are buying houses and cars, while they live frugally in an effort to afford college.
Children from poor backgrounds intuitively seem to want to see their work sustain society, whereas children from wealthier backgrounds intuitively want to mingle with the right crowd and feel in charge. Volunteer for a small local charity if you want to understand how these processes work out. Volunteers from poor backgrounds will generally seek to be physically active, volunteers from wealthier backgrounds will want to sit around discussing things and invent new titles for themselves.
I doubt this has ever been scientifically investigated, but I can think of different potential explanations for this phenomenon. Children with poor parents grew up seeing parents who were physically active. Fathers fixed broken ceilings, plumbing and machines at home. Mothers made food, necessary purchases, cleaned the house and helped the children.
Children with wealthier parents didn’t see their parents too often. The parents hired people to do necessary work for them and spent a lot of time socializing with other wealthy people in formal settings. Thus we may expect children to be intuitively attracted to the tasks their parents carry out.
In addition, we have to note that a high level of intelligence does not per definition have to be correlated with the correct mindset needed to be part of the managing class. Children who lose the genetic lottery may be intelligent and interested in physical labor, or not so intelligent and interested in socializing and ordering other people around.
Now that we’ve established that college isn’t per definition meritocratic and probably can’t be reformed into something meritocratic, the question becomes what we should do about it. My suggestion would be to do away with the pretense of having a meritocratic society and instead build a society where most people feel as if they are in the right place. How would we go about this? It seems to me that we would have to deindustrialize our society on a large scale.
This would then allow us to have a society where most people would have to be physically active throughout the day, rather than having to compensate for a sedentary lifestyle in a gym. A low to moderate level of physical activity spread out throughout the day would be ideal. Nobody ever suggests that the conflict between full scale employment and automation has to be resolved by favoring employment at the cost of automation, but this to me appears to be the best solution.
The Japanese banned firearms to preserve their feudal society, why can’t we ban technologies that threaten labor that psychologically satisfies us? We might not miss the coal mines and the weaving sheds, but certainly there must be people who miss sailboats, goat herding and theatre performances. If you respond to this suggestion by declaring that we can’t reverse the tide, it merely illustrates that technology is a force outside of our control that can just as easily make our lives worse as it can make them better, which proves that continual technological progress is a tremendous danger.
I don’t personally agree with the value of meritocracy. I think social stratification itself is a major problem. A life spent bossed around by others is as miserable as a life spent ordering other people around. One man loses his freedom, the other his camaraderie and participation in the physical world. Still, it should be simple to make our society more meritocratic.
The first step would be to ban employers from asking for college degrees. Instead, employers should administer tests. If your job requires a non-specified four year college degree, certainly you should be capable of coming up with a test to test whatever knowledge learned in college is necessary for the job. Employers in the US seem wary however, because of Griggs v. Duke Power co, a supreme court decision that would obviously have to be reversed.
The problem of course is that most employers don’t demand a four year college degree because of the knowledge imparted, but rather to cut down on applicants and be left with dependable candidates from a similar background. Businesses want employers with college degrees and bourgeois backgrounds for the same reason Chinese companies hire white guys in suits to give speeches: It generates trust and the appearance of competence. Businesses can’t admit to any of this as they’re caught in a paradox, having both a social obligation to be diverse and a financial obligation to project a bourgeois image.
There is another problem here however, which is that governments have a motive to send all their young to college. College generates the illusion of social mobility, which keeps minorities and the poor complacent. In addition, it keeps the young off the labor market for four years and generates employment for staff, while encouraging students to continue spending money through large loans. The typical government won’t just throw money into the black hole that is education, it will figure out how to teach its public to demand ever more education.
This is all nice and well, some of you might say, but at the end of the day we’ll still need doctors, engineers and scientists, all skills you won’t learn by yourself through a library subscription. To preempt the otherwise inevitable remark, let me make clear that I’m not suggesting we could abolish colleges tomorrow. Could we reduce college attendance by 90%, with no harm to our way of life? Probably.
Those jobs that quite clearly do require a college degree tend to be excessive in ways people fail to understand. Healthcare is subject to diminishing returns, much of our money in healthcare is spent prolonging the lives of people whose quality of life has dropped so much that we are doing them a disservice by keeping them alive.
Much of our disease burden could be eliminated by focusing more on preventative care instead, by improving the quality of our diet for example. The explosion in psychiatric care costs is largely brought on by our modern excessively stressful lifestyle. Considering that 49.6% of medical students suffer burnout symptoms and 11.2% are suicidal, the medical sector effectively generates its own customers.4
The question that becomes important to ask by now is: When does this bubble finally burst? A variety of apocalyptic scenarios could be imagined that would make college education obsolete, but if business as usual continues, the cause of death of the college industry will be Moravec’s paradox, a problem that our policymakers seem to be completely unaware of.
What’s Moravec’s paradox? Moravec’s paradox is the observation by artificial intelligence researchers, that computers are much better at high-level reasoning than at low-level sensorimotor skills. In English, the computer isn’t going to steal Joe Sixpack’s job, it’s going to render our upper class unemployed.
We can teach computers to beat us at chess, gamble in the stock market, decide on medical procedures or issue financial advice much better than we can teach them to deliver mail, clean a toilet, recognize a person’s face or figure out the type of fabric you have in your hands. This makes perfect sense, as our bodies evolved over billions of years to carry out physical tasks, while our cognitive skills evolved relatively quickly.
Contrary to what you might think, you excel at physical tasks, you’re rather poor at anything that requires us to think. The same goes for all humans, including our policymakers who seem to have thought that computers would create numerous highly skilled jobs. What they have created is an overeducated generation, that has taken over the values of the bourgeoisie but will be unable to take over their jobs.
The white collar jobs our college graduates hope to take over tend to lead to depression and bourgeois ennui. A college educated womb has for this reason, long been known to be a barren one. Banks still need employees, but an autistic Phd graduate who programs trade algorithms for a living does not quite lend himself as a source of aspiration, whereas the men yelling orders on Wall Street still had a certain romantic appeal. Perhaps we should thus be thankful to computers, because they have saved us all the burden of suffering a bourgeois existence.