Amerika

Archive for the ‘Social Reality’ Category

Nonsense Leftists Say

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

“He’s hungry, and I have food,” said the man being devoured by a rabid dog. “I have no more right to my flesh than he does.”

“We must not give in to fear,” said the man calmly being pummeled by a drunk. “Fighting back is exactly what the he wants.”

“All men are potential rapists,” said the woman to the men who would die to defend her.

“It is a grave injustice to be ruled over with no voice in governance; we demand a share of the power,” cried the gonads to the brain.

“We simply want to live, grow, and reproduce, just like every other cell,” said the bacterium.  “It’s xenophobic to create supremacist definitions such as ‘host’ and ‘infection’.”

“I feel like a bird,” said the rabbit as he jumped off a cliff.

“Look at all these beautiful, vibrantly colored paints,” said the artist.  “I will mix them all together uniformly and spread the mixture evenly across my canvas.”

“Love is love,” said the man to the boy as he opened a bottle of lubricant.

“Your appetites are unsustainable,” said the cat lady to her multiplying clowder.  “You’re just going to have to learn to live together with less.”

“Violence never solved anything,” said the man as he watched raiders take his harvest again.  “We simply need to educate them and open a dialog.”

“I’m not an extremist, don’t lump me in in together with them,” said the new leader installed by the occupying force.  “I didn’t participate in the invasion, and I denounce violence in all its forms.”

***

They call it an “awakening” because in a relatively short span of time, you come to realize that everything you have been told is not only wrong but designed to conceal the real problem: our civilization is in decline and just about everyone is lying, crazy or otherwise delusional. Nothing can be trusted.

Our society fell years ago, and those of us who still believe in the idea of civilization are under assault. What remains of a once-great civilization is being steered into oblivion by the dizzyingly insane and malicious.  If not stopped, they will continue to recklessly destroy, disintegrate, and grind up into meaningless shreds anything of value. 

The longer this continues, the uglier our options for survival become. We are not yet at the end.  We are far from the end. The end is not even an end, just a greater slow slide into irrelevance and third world style subsistence living. Those of us who are fighting are struggling for the ability to exist on a better level than the majority of humanity who live in poverty, corruption, disorder and filth.

Destroyers of civilization have disordered minds ruled by their appetites. They know only their own desires, and are constantly stewing with reality-denying nonsense. Those with clear minds who glare back unfazed at realty, those with an innate desire to know and understand truth, will reject this nonsense and join our ranks. But they are an eternal minority, not just here but in all of humanity.

Those who do not quietly shrink back when danger approaches but stand erect with feet firmly planted in the ground, eager for glory — these will fight with us. Those who have enough love in their hearts to imagine a civilization that is not constantly in decline, and to look instead toward the possibilities of greatness and beauty which this abundant life offers us, they will come to understand us.

Be patient. This crisis has taken centuries to become visible to the normal above-average intelligence person. Most are afraid of what is required and so will make excuses, rationalize and bow out. They will go back to their televisions, political platitudes, jobs and shopping as a way to silence the fears in their minds. This is a miserable way to live, but it is morally and intellectually easier than facing the problem head on.

Humanity has survived many bottlenecks, or events where most of us died or faded away, in the past. Ultimately, this horrific era of modernity may become a great filter through which our people will pass, leaving only the most honest, most courageous, strongest, and noblest. The future is dark but through it shines a luminosity that tells us that beyond this layer, greatness awaits.

What Really Killed Those Cute Bahamian Swimming Piggies

Friday, March 17th, 2017

There is a predictable pattern to the way that mass media news outlets report on events.  First reports tend to be highly sensational, and either due to ignorance, bias that favors an ideological narrative, or bias towards the popular (“clickbait”), also tend to leave out or misreport important facts.  This departure from truth is further amplified by social media, which promotes simple explanations that point the blame solely at a guilty few who can be satisfyingly hated due to presumed malicious motivation.  We have explicated the steps in this cycle previously.

So it is with the Bahamian swimming pigs.  After seven of these beloved creatures were found dead on their tiny home island, the first, biggest, wave of mass exposure this event received cast the blame onto a few reckless tourists who through cruel stupidity fed the pigs alcohol.  This was a popular framing, first because it allowed people to indulge in feel-good hate against an unfair oppressor, and second because it allows advertisement of an easily achieved personal moral superiority: look at these pig murderers, I would never murder a pig for laughs, and therefore I am good, even though that’s a very low standard for good.

Now, after the Internet outrage mobs have dispersed to new distractions, National Geographic reports that there may not be any malicious oppressors at all:

Though initial reports suggested that tourists had given the pigs fatal doses of alcohol, Humane Society inspector Ventoi Bethune told National Geographic that the dead swine had likely ingested sand.

Veterinarians who visited the site found large quantities of sand in the deceased animals’ stomachs, which Bethune says may have been caused by a recent influx of visitors throwing small amounts of food on the beach.

“The pigs have been on the island so long, they are used to foraging for natural food,” Bethune says. The pigs would only go the beach for an occasional treat.

But with the increase in tourism, the pigs are relying on humans more than ever.

Though the modern mindset is shaped from an early age to expect harm from intentionally evil agents–like comic book super villains–in reality those threats are not so great, because they’re rare, easy to spot, and easy to deal with.  If the pig murderers had been a few malicious individuals, we could imprison, exile, or execute the culprits and the problem would be completely solved; at least until another set of this rare type of person appeared.

What is in fact far more dangerous is carelessness and well-meaning naiveté.  This is commonplace; its negative effects are far more difficult to spot, and there is no obvious solution.

None of the individuals responsible for the pigs’ deaths intended to kill the pigs.  None of them expected it to happen, and most likely the vast majority don’t even realize that it happened.  If we wanted to assign blame, we would have to hand out a large number of fractional pig murder sentences, which is absurdly impractical and ineffective.  And to hate those responsible, to declare ourselves morally superior, we would need to pass a higher standard than the cartoonish modern conceptions of morality such as “don’t be a dick”.  Those who fed the pigs probably thought they were being nice, friendly, and good.

But we are able to sketch out some direction that a solution would take if we leave behind the need to blame as the most important component of a solution.  Assigning blame is important when it means holding people responsible for their failures, but becomes a distraction from solutions when punishment and retribution take the place of identifying causes.

In this case we see that the pigs died because they ate too many bits of food left in the sand, which was the result of a combination of too careless humans, and too many humans.  From there we can propose either making the human visitors less careless (good luck), or reducing the number of human visitors to the island.

Though this is less satisfying than beating a few assholes, it would mean the remaining cute swimming piggies would be less likely to die — and that is what really matters.

Why Civilization Drifts Left: Social Feelings

Thursday, March 2nd, 2017

Donald J. Trump gave his first really big speech, and feelings are mixed across the board. Many on the Right feel that he gave in to the Left, and it is certainly hard to refute that when we see language like this in the speech:

…while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.

…Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty, and justice in an unbroken chain all the way down to the president. That torch is now in our hands, and we will use it to light up the world.

…This is our vision. This is our mission. But we can only get there together. We are one people, with one destiny. We all bleed the same blood. We all salute the same, great American flag. And we are all made by the same God.

His speech is great and stirring, a laundry list of changes shaped roughly around an arc from bipartisanship to his big point of American unity and self-interest. He makes a convincing argument for that — in the context of recent history — which reveals his role as a moderate trying to stop the bleeding in the short term, not think about the long term.

In the long term, everything said here is nonsense. Mob rule is unsustainable; the election of Trump was an attempt to fix the past hundred years of horrible decisions, not to make an affirmative choice toward a saner and healthier civilizations. He alludes to this:

Then in 2016, the Earth shifted beneath our feet. The rebellion started as a quiet protest, spoken by families of all colors and creeds, families who just wanted a fair shot for their children and a fair hearing for their concerns. But then, the quiet voices became a loud chorus, as thousands of citizens now spoke out together from cities small and large all across our country. Finally, the chorus became an earthquake, and the people turned out, by the tens of millions, and they were all united by one very simple but crucial demand – that America must put its own citizens first. Because only then, can we truly make America great again.

In other words, things got so bad that a correction had to happen, and so democracy will perform one of its favorite tricks just as it did under Reagan. In this trick, democracy shows us how “good enough is the enemy of good” and will fix a few really egregious and immediate problems as a means to ignoring all the longer-term, deeper-seated problems.

Our modern world is miserable. It is ugly, conformist, unrestful, noisy, polluted, disposable and essentially wastes time because it refuses to find a purpose except humanity itself. Its emphasis on equality and tolerance means endorsement of decay and degeneracy all around us. Jobs are jails and most of our activity is distraction, producing landfill and little else.

This society is a horror. It has been a horror for so long that we cannot imagine any other way of doing things. Western Civilization is in decline and has been for centuries. The result is that all of our thinking is screwed up. We are so accustomed to the lies and rationalizations that we can no longer see clearly. And so the failed methods of the near past get perpetuated.

Most people have focused on adapting to our current existence, forgetting that by doing so, they are changing themselves. They spend the best hours of every day in servitude to the pretense and fears of others. They invest their time in communities which do not last, institutions that chase trends and fads, and a society whose values conflict with their own.

America represented an attempt to delay the decline just a little while longer by restraining mob rule through an elaborate set of gates, locks and channels known as the Constitution (“muh Constitution”). But by limiting the insanity of modernity, it only perpetuated modernity in a slightly diluted form.

This held on for almost two centuries before imploding, reaching its low point in 2008 with the election of the least credible candidate for an American president ever, and then in 2016 reversing course through the backlash Trump mentioned. We are in the midst of a cultural movement in the West that rejects liberal democracy, diversity and equality. Trump and Brexit are its first steps.

Our society is a horror because it is driven exclusively by people jockeying for position in socioeconomic status. The Enlightenment™ was a revolution against the kings, but it was also a revolt against caste, or the knowledge that people have different awareness — intelligence, morality — and that general gradations in awareness correspond to career and social roles that people should pursue.

With a caste system and aristocracy, the jockeying for socioeconomic status is removed. This produces a stable society which does not need constant growth in order to maintain itself. We gave this up for equality. America has tried to limit that equality with rules, but the herd subverted the rules and took over, with the most egregious example being Barack Obama.

His election however heralded something else, which was really total victory for the Left. They had beaten back the last vestiges of Anglo-American self-interest, and now conquered the nation with socialist policies designed to bleed dry its middle class and convert it into a Venezuela-style ideological state.

While Trump is pushing back against this and cleaning it up, the bigger problems remains which is that the system of liberal democracy is unworkable. The West has been in an accelerated downward slide since its liberalization, including two disastrous and fratricidal world wars. But everything else is bad too, except the economy, which so far has seemed powerful.

For example, in most of the West, our leaders are still crazy. Our popular culture is garbage and we have not produced anything great in centuries. Our science is politicized, our industries predatory, and the average person walking around exhibits the symptoms of dissociation (sorry… deconstruction) and confusion. Idiocy rules. Ugliness prevails.

Preserving this situation is the “good enough” that is the enemy of “good.” Good would be a better society, from its pattern to the everyday experience of its citizens. Good enough is patching up the sad wreck of modernity so that it avoids the immediate crisis and then goes back to a slow, smoldering decay.

People say that civilizations have life cycles, but this is less like a human life cycle and more like that of a forest. When a forest is new, trees expand onto previously unused land. As it succeeds, it runs into new problems like overcrowding, soil nutrition, parasites and waste removal. In the long term, the forest that lives maintains itself, and this is what civilization has failed to do.

Our civilization needs pruning and renovation. Our people, the only implement that can make this civilization, also need some work, both in terms of mental discipline and ejecting the one-in-five people in this society who seem to be outright insane or criminal. We need to orient our minds toward a future version of our civilization that is better, not just the present with a few threats removed.

Trump cannot do this. He is only the president of one country, and his goal is to take “baby steps” away from the Obama insanity and toward something more like 1950s America. That is admittedly a good first step, and if he can do it without starting a disastrous war that first step will lead to others, which is ultimately the goal for any non-Leftist.

However, he will have to struggle with a very human problem: humans tend to move Leftward in their thinking, especially in groups. This originates in the nature of socializing with others; the first step in socializing is to make others feel accepted, and most people do this by validating the individualism of others.

Individualism does not mean what people think its means. It does not mean independent-minded, as people want it to, but instead has a complicated meaning which amounts to thinking that the self is more important than the world, principles or others. Excerpts from a dictionary definition:

…the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests

…the doctrine or belief that all actions are determined by, or at least take place for, the benefit of the individual, not of society as a whole

We might include principles and the inherent purpose of civilization in with the categories listed above as “common interests” and “society as a whole.” The essence of individualism is denying anything larger than the self and things one needs to manipulate in order to get what one wants. It is the basic unit of control, or using others as an extension of a will not their own.

Some would say, not incorrectly, that individualism is a kind of sociopathy and solipsism: it denies the world outside the self except as an agent of the self, or an extension of the self, or in extreme cases, views the world as part of the self instead of the other way around. This is a fundamental inversion, like pretending to be God, that afflicts humans like a bad mental virus.

The reason humans shift Leftward by default is that we like to socialize, and socializing means accepting the individualism of others, and this in turn means accepting the worldview in which individualism is the default. This means that instead of thinking about the consequences of our actions in reality, we are thinking about:

  • Symbolism. What message does it send? What does it stand for?
  • Feelings. How does this make other people and the group feel?
  • Appearance. How does this make me look to others, and how will they react?
  • Judgments. Does this communicate safety or risk to others?

If you wonder why the West has drifted into decay, here is your answer: the default state of human beings is self-destruction, but they are only liberated to this state when they are so dominant over their environment that they have excess. Someone whose concerns are bound up with reality is conservative, and people who spend all their time on survival tend to be that way.

Societies like the Spartans and even modern religious orders embrace asceticism for this reason. People who have no excess and stay busy tend to be focused on their actual task, not woolgathering that then becomes wishful thinking and, once an untested mental paradise is created, self-pity at being here and not in the Utopian there.

Trump cannot be anything but a moderate because he has relatively limited power and anything approximating actual conservatism will seem to most people to be beyond the boundaries of what is accepted now, in the 70th year of our transition to Communism and the 228th year of our transition to Leftism and the thousandth year of our immersion in individualism.

He also is forced into a moderate position by the social pressures around him. Now that he is inside the system, and socializing with the people there, he is gradually drifting Leftward through a process like entropy where the collected wills around him slowly erode his own. He is fighting back, and seems to be employing the Reagan strategy of symbolic Leftist acts to cover himself while working toward a few core ideas that are more moderate — undoing Leftist damage because it is dysfunctional — than Rightist.

So far, he seems to be doing well. Brexit and Trump are just the tip of the spear of a cultural shift in the West. This is manifesting in politics most visibly, but behind the scenes, people are shifting away from Leftism in all of its degrees, including liberal democracy. We have seen that it wants to kill us — especially Caucasians — and now we want escape.

Dot-Com 3.0 Collapse Inbound

Sunday, January 8th, 2017

More signs that the dot-com people who we are supposed to respect as “geniuses” are in fact drudges who got lucky: Google’s new big news is a minivan and virtual reality continues to bore everyone except the nerds.

Silicon Valley has forgotten how to add utility to its products. Self-driving cars are great for avoiding both tiresome commutes and the types of people we find on public transportation. Otherwise, no one really cares. VR is great if you use it as a way to create a virtual office so we can all stay at home and avoid society. Both of these are not “fun” technologies, but mitigations of social problems caused by decline.

Even more, they are pathetic. Minivans are a symbol of how boring America was in the 1990s, and the apparent nostalgia that Google has for them is creepy at best. Virtual Reality is like the satire of every geek in history: living in a world of tedious details, fascinated by the obvious, and yet missing the bigger picture.

The lack of immediate utility to either of them suggests that Silicon Valley remains out of ideas, vision and realistic thinking and so will soon make a large flushing sound and leave a lingering smell of digestion.

Yes, The Washington Post Really Is Fake News

Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

In our world of microscopic attention spans and oversocialized lives desperate for purpose, news stories follow a predictable arc:

  1. Shocking revelation: something terrible happened; some great danger is revealed; or something very unfair and mean is happening.
  2. Mass hysteria and speculation: a headline gets shared around, the event is rapidly and all-too-neatly fit into a preferred narrative, and a mob forms (even if just an online social media mob) to retaliate and hate, because doing so is like crack to bored and anxious people.
  3. The truth comes out: after the mob disperses, or rallies to the next fake outrage, important details about the original shocking revelations come out. Previously unseen facets and particulars of the event mean that it no longer neatly fits into the preferred narrative, but almost nobody cares, because that makes it too difficult to blame the preferred cause and slip into the fun ecstatic rage.

The result is that, for the majority, only the sensational, biased, oversimplified version of the event is retained in memory, and the preferred narrative is reinforced.

The Washington Post has demonstrated this wonderfully with their fake news report on how (shocking revelation!) Russians hacked into the US electrical grid! Kalev Leetaru, a Forbes contributor, dissects this lügenpresse story:

From Russian hackers burrowed deep within the US electrical grid, ready to plunge the nation into darkness at the flip of a switch, an hour and a half later the story suddenly became that a single non-grid laptop had a piece of malware on it and that the laptop was not connected to the utility grid in any way.

However, it was not until almost a full hour after the utility’s official press release (at around 10:30PM EST) that the Post finally updated its article, changing the headline to the more muted “Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say” and changed the body of the article to note “Burlington Electric said in a statement that the company detected a malware code used in the Grizzly Steppe operation in a laptop that was not connected to the organization’s grid systems. The firm said it took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alert federal authorities.” Yet, other parts of the article, including a later sentence claiming that multiple computers at the utility had been breached, remained intact.

One might naively expect a news article title to be a short summary of the content of the article, but we see here that in practice, a title acts more as meme, a particle of communicable information that can be used to broadcast directed ideological pressure.

This is significant, as one driving force of fake news is that as much of 60% of the links shared on social media are shared based on the title alone, with the sharer not actually reading the article itself. Thus, the title assigned to an article becomes the story itself and the Post’s incorrect title meant that the story that spread virally through the national echo chamber was that the Russians had hacked into the US power grid.

Even after numerous stealth-edits, the Washington Post still has not made contact with reality:

Yet, even this correction is not a true reflection of public facts as known. The utility indicated only that a laptop was found to contain malware that has previously been associated with Russian hackers. As many pointed out, the malware in question is actually available for purchase online, meaning anyone could have used it and its mere presence is not a guarantee of Russian government involvement. Moreover, a malware infection can come from many sources, including visiting malicious websites and thus the mere presence of malware on a laptop computer does not necessarily indicate that Russian government hackers launched a coordinated hacking campaign to penetrate that machine – the infection could have come from something as simple as an employee visiting an infected website on a work computer.

Leetaru ends with three important points: news media organizations are not concerned with facts, they tend to simply parrot government sources, and the need for instant gratification has turned journalism into sensationalist gossip:

Putting this all together, what can we learn from this? The first is that, as with the Santa Claus and PropOrNot stories, the journalism world tends to rely far more on trust than fact checking. When one news outlet runs a story, the rest of the journalism world tends to follow suit, each writing their own version of the story without ever going back to the original sources for verification. In short – once a story enters the journalism world it spreads without further restraint as each outlet assumes that the one before performed the necessary fact checking.

The second is that the news media is overly dependent on government sources. Glenn Greenwald raises the fantastic point that journalists must be more cautious in treating the word of governments as absolute truth. Indeed, a certain fraction of the world’s false and misleading news actually comes from the mouths of government spokespeople. Yet, in the Post’s case, it appears that a government source tipped off the post about a sensational story of Russians hacking the US power grid and instead of reaching out to the utilities themselves or gathering further detail, the Post simply published the story as fed to them by the government officials.

The third is that breaking news is a source of a tremendous amount of false and misleading news as rumors and falsehoods spread like wildfire in the absence of additional information. Top tier newspapers like the Washington Post are supposed to be a bulwark against these falsehoods, by not publishing anything until it has been thoroughly fact checked against multiple sources. Yet, it appears this is not the case – in the rush to be the first to break a story and not be scooped, reporters even at the nation’s most prestigious news outlets will take shortcuts and rush a story out the door. What would have happened in the Post had waited another day or two to collect responses from all involved, including Burlington Electric? It would have avoided publishing false information, but it also likely would have been scooped by another newspaper who wanted to be the first to break the story.

All of this confirms what we’ve repeatedly observed: for most of the mainstream news media, a slick website and an aura of respectability mask the underlying ideologically motivated fake news.

Female moderators

Sunday, January 10th, 2016

rosie_the_riveter_-_we_can_do_it

I hate female moderators because they cannot do their job. To them it is more important that people are politically correct than that those people form their own opinions.

If you think about it, moderating means to make moderate. In practical terms, that means “to make equal.” You remove every spike and alley so that everyone can fit to a normalized standard.

Have you heard the story of Procrustes? He was the son of Poseidon and a black smith of old Greece. Known as “the stretcher,” this is his story. He had an iron bed and offered passerby a night’s rest. Then he would make them fit the iron bed. If they were too tall, he would amputate parts to make them short. If they were too short he would stretch them out to fit. Since no one matched his bed exactly, everyone who slept over would be dead in the morning. Moderating is like this.

Procrustes was one of the earliest moderators. Moderating requires the removal of any upsetting thought and to actualize conformity to the crowd. Intelligent people are in bad luck since they cannot express anything without standing out. That is because they make accurate observations and think for themselves, rather than adhere to groupthink. A stark contrast to the crowd that repeat and spread false or poor information.

So the intelligent have their voices silenced. Wherever they go the crowd works against them. Oftentimes they are called trolls for stating the obvious. But the real trolls are all those people on the forum with ten thousands of posts. They are parasites of the system, getting along all too well by flattering others and repeating known tropes. They succeed because they speak in lukewarm crowd-speech and nothing else.

Female moderators are by far the worst group of moderators. Because women to begin with are more about getting along, they take to the role of cutting the traveler to fit the bed. They do not understand those who poke, stir, joke or express themselves. They deny the obvious: To create the opportunity for good outcome you have to stir the pot. To get through to people you have to be upsetting.

By its nature stirring the pot is risky business; it is a gamble. You could get yourself into trouble and you will face inevitable criticism. Yet it still has to be done and males do it best. Women do not know how to challenge people. After a few turns she’ll ask “why would you do that?” There is a simple, honest answer.

Because we are males. Do you trust our efforts, or not?

The motto of the age is we-can-do-it and female moderators carry out the unconscious conformity of the herd to make sure that women are seen as doing everything a man can do just as well as he can. To achieve this, modern women resist advances and deny the value of males in their lives. She cannot recognize the good you do, all she sees is the damage you do to her ego by not being inferior. In matters of sex, she is afraid to lose privileges by having less than a dominant role, so the subject is taboo.

As a moderator she will sentence you for being necessary and banish you to troll-land. She will call you a troll and a sexist simply for being male and not preemptively conforming to her control. And when you cal her sexist in return for her bias, that makes you the devil, and the course of action is equally obvious. A devil is to be banished and that requires removing its ability to speak.

A moderator is an equalizer. Equalizers destroy the exceptional. Female moderators interpret this as destroying anything which rises above the norm or threatens the group conformity. As a result, in the name of ensuring discussion, they murder it.

Darkness and light

Friday, January 1st, 2016

darkness_and_light

Philosophy consists more of vectors than arguments, sort of like the “angle” to a good human interest story: approaches, and framing of both goals and points at which arguments become incoherent, that in turn reshape the issue from what we might think to what we recognize as structurally sound and consistent with all else we know.

In my wanderings, I have borrowed basic analysis from Plato and Schopenhauer; political analysis from William S. Burroughs (“Control”); civilizational analysis from Nietzsche and Plato; and my most basic approach, from the Bhagavad-Gita, the Odyssey and the Bible, which see the root of human error as hubris or self-important solipsistic delusion. These pieces fit together better than one might expect.

In doing so, I have refuted some parts of the philosophies of all of my heroes except Plato. I disagree with Fred Nietzsche that the root of liberalism is Christianity, since the actual root is hubris brought on by overpopulation of our lower classes thanks to the successful social order of our aristocrats. I see Schopenhauer as missing the political and metaphysical implications of Germanic idealism, where Kant was closer to accurate on the latter. Burroughs is often caught in a victim narrative that externalizes evil. And so on.

But let us return to that study of evil, because in this distinction, I see the most basic approach to philosophy revealed: one either wishes to know the truth of reality and see the beauty in it, which corresponds to the realist and transcendentalist prongs of conservatism, or one wishes to deny reality in favor of human feelings, judgments and desires. Throughout all of human history, all human actions have fallen mostly on one side or the other of this divide, because it reflects whether we are able to perceive the world (good) or are dedicated only to ourselves and our illusory power (evil).

Another way to see this distinction is that good means acting within a whole order, or one that incorporates all parts of the world. Evil means acting for yourself alone, which usually requires looking at only some parts of natural order, or cherry-picking what reality you notice and then justifying/rationalizing from that point of view. We see people do this all the time when they see an action in one context, and repeat it in another as if it were some universal solution, when really its success depended on the action plus the context.

But what is most interesting about evil is its desire to conceal — including through use of distraction. The following two examples show how evil works by hiding its actual intentions and then distracting observers with fake symbols of good intentions that exist merely to deceive.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
The Bible, John 3:19-21 KJV

The evil hates the light, and so it hides its deeds; the good comes into the light, so its deeds may be seen, because the good does not fear judgment. This view sort of represents a “first take” on evil, because once the above has been said, evil — which is not stupid in the short term — will begin to disguise itself. This is why evil appears seductive, even beautiful, throughout the Bible and classical literature.

Plato expands on this concept:

Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point.

And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another’s, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another’s faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.
— Plato, The Republic, Chapter III

The good will hide his good deeds, and let his bad be seen; this is equivalent to the good coming into the light from the Biblical passage.

The bad will hide his bad deeds, and let his good be seen; this, if anything, is the crux of Plato and later Nietzsche, which is that we should be wary of human symbols, intentions and displays/signaling as they are always corrupt (and seem to work, year after year for eons, on the clueless herd).

The above are in parallel to Plato’s classic formulation of justice, which is “good to the good, and bad to the bad.” In other words, give to people what they are, so that you get more of the good and less of the bad. This also fits with a Darwinistic interpretation.

Old-school conservatives began their study of humanity with evil, and extended this into political philosophy, mainly because when you combine the Bible and Plato you realize that most people are both deceptive and bad, and that we either put the good ones in charge of the rest, or the rest will rule us and destroy us with their solipsistic evil.

Success for me, but not for thee — the secret of guilt culture

Thursday, November 5th, 2015

guilt_culture_pity_culture_shame_culture

Neoreaction stands out among right-wing movements because it is essentially a toolkit of arguments to use against the vast flood of liberal propaganda in which we are immersed constantly. Liberalism has dominated the discourse for 226 years by generating a constant flood of “new” ideas which are picked up by compliant voices among intellectuals, media and the arts.

One of the best arguments to come from Neoreaction is the notion that liberalism operates mainly by “virtue signaling,” or allowing preening individual animals to show how good and moral they are by repeating the right dogma. I propose a more radical amendment: liberalism is virtue signaling in order to throw others off the scent of success, which is achieved by conservative methods.

In addition to explaining the somewhat schizophrenic nature of liberals, who tend to embrace realism when it concerns their own profits but publicly condemn realism and preach liberalism, this theory explains the utility of liberalism: it enhances success by allowing individuals to hide their actual motives behind flowery words, like politicians donating a few bucks to the poor and grafting millions behind the scenes.

Interesting, Tom Wolfe covered this years ago as part of his analysis of how competition for social status as a means of distinguishing the individual from others is the basis of all contrarianism, which is the essence of liberal thought. In other words, people hope to get ahead by loudly endorsing dogma that makes them seem different and unique from the rest of the herd:

Status groups, Weber contended, are the creators of all new styles of life. In his heyday, the turn of the 19th century, the most stylish new status sphere, no more than 30 years old, was known as la vie boheme, the bohemian life. The bohemians were artists plus the intellectuals and layabouts in their orbit. They did their best to stand bourgeois propriety on its head through rakish dishabille, louder music, more wine, great gouts of it, ostentatious cohabitation, and by flaunting their poverty as a virtue. And why? Because they all came from the bourgeoisie themselves originally and wanted nothing more desperately than to distinguish themselves from it. They seldom mentioned the upper class, Marx’s owners of “the means of production.” They seldom mentioned Marx’s working class, except in sentimental appreciation of the workers’ occasional show of rebelliousness. No, as the late Jean-Francois Revel said of mid-20th century French intellectuals, the bohemians’ sole object was to separate themselves from the mob, the rabble, which today is known as the middle class.

I thought bohemia had been brought to its apogee in the 1960s, before my very eyes, by the hippies, originally known as acid heads, in reference to the drug LSD, with their Rapunzel hair down to the shoulder blades among the males and great tangled thickets of hair in the armpits of the women, all living in communes. The communes inevitably turned religious thanks to the hallucinations hippies experienced while on LSD and a whole array of other hallucinogens whose names no one can remember. Some head–short for acid head–would end up in the middle of Broadway, one of San Francisco’s main drags, sitting cross-legged in the Lotus position, looking about, wide eyes glistening with beatification, shouting, “I’m in the pudding and I’ve met the manager! I’m in the pudding and I’ve met the manager!” Seldom had so many gone so far to feel aloof from the middle class.

While this seems like competitive behavior, it more resembles compensatory behavior of the form “If I can’t get to a good place, I’ll at least be a big fish in a small pond.” No one seriously doubts that the West is in decline any longer, although they will not admit it in public because that makes it look like they are complaining in order to excuse their own failures. There is no longer an expectation of a good life for people here other than materially (desirable zip code, fancy car, good money). They accept that, and then try to make themselves seem important. To such a person, posturing becomes the basis of all their acts, with it becoming important to demonstrate moral and social pretense that affirms their role. A status-seeking person will never complain about a bad meal, or a ding on their bumper, or someone slowing them down by moving slowly, because to demonstrate pretense they must show that they are masters of their time, that a few hundred dollars are “nothing” to them, and that they are altruistic, egalitarian and moral potlatch-givers who expect everyone else to screw up and in response just pat them on the head and say, “There, there, good little serf.”

This compensatory behavior consists of not going to war against the problems that make the West slide into oblivion, but trying to be the most important fish in the pond left by the collapse. Their pretense is such that they do not even bother to note the decline, but wave it off like an undercooked soufflé as if to say, “Well of course society is self-destructing my dear, it’s what these little monkeys do. In the meantime, I’m getting a promotion and a BMW that runs on used cooking oil.” Wolfe was followed by David Brooks who wrote one of the most important books of our time, BOBOS in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, showing how these new pretentious citizens replaced the old Western European order back in the 1960s by using the pretense of liberalism. What to know why today’s SJWs, hipsters, nouveau riche and status climbers all employ public and hyperbolic liberalism? Because it worked last time.

Wolfe again on compensatory behavior:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world–so ordained by some almighty force–would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.

What he has described above is pretense. You set up values that benefit you and make you look like the center of the universe, and then act like these are universal truth, which allows you to retaliate against anyone who does not accept them as if they attacked you. It is both passive-aggressive behavior and the “Begging the Question” fallacy in behavioral form, and the more pretentious and unrealistic it is, the more you force others to recognize your importance and grant you social status.

This explains the combination of nanny-style Agony Aunt and Berkeley radical that defines today’s liberals. From Brooks:

Bobos turn out to be the parsons of the pubic region. Nearly gone are 1960s traces of Dionysian wantonness. Instead, “Play Safe” and “Play Responsibly” are the slogans that are repeated again and again in sophisticated sex literature. The practicioners talk so much about how healthy it all is you’d think they were doing jumping jacks…Today’s Marquis de Sades don’t want to create an immoral underground society. They’re not trying to subvert normalcy. They’re trying to join it. They want to win mainstream acceptance and so gain a respectable place in the middle-class world.

To them, ideology itself is a means to an end of raising their status, justifying their lifestyle as necessary, and showing higher pretense than others thus making them look appealing and powerful as people. It is no different than birds puffing up their feathers before a fight, or monkeys posturing before throwing feces at one another. It is one of the oldest animal processes and no amount of layers of business clothing, perfume, Marxist theory, or even hip club lingo can disguise the raw animality of it.

If we decode liberals in this way, we see them as not outsiders trying to take over our society, but insiders trying to hide their own middle class origins and rise above them with pretense and the social boost that having the right opinions gives in liberal circles. If you look through media, government, entertainment of much of business, you will see the reason that liberals like Masons or Toastmasters remain popular: liberals helping liberals get ahead by promoting fellow liberals above everyone else.

Looking at this psychology through other eyes, we come to the question of guilt, shame or pity culture — from a post over at Dividuals:

Basically, it is about prestige. When we argue we have a moral obligation to do X we are saying we should deduct prestige points from people who don’t do X…the West is a guilt culture, not a shame culture.

As shame is basically low social prestige, it is fairly obvious how shame cultures really work like this.

For a guilt culture, the simplest explanation is that guilt is internalized shame, and thus the idea of moral obligation is internalized shame, internalized prestige loss, you feel bad about yourself if you did something bad, thus basically reduce your own prestige points in your head even if nobody else did.

This is probably a good thing, at some level. Installing a prestige policeman in everybody’s head.

The distinction between guilt and shame cultures strikes me as nothing more than a gap between pre-emptive mental process filtering and post hoc behavioral filtering. In guilt cultures, people use compliance as a means to get ahead, as if in a free market; in a shame culture, the only consideration is getting caught. If you look at shame cultures worldwide, whatever their average IQ, they have less of a strong middle and upper echelon level of intelligence than we do (still) in the West. These are cultures where it is acceptable to destroy certain individuals when they are caught doing wrong because they become token sacrifices and scapegoats.

Let us look at the successful psychology of guilt culture in what Vaclav Havel calls “post-totalitarian” systems:

THE MANAGER of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

Guilt cultures control everyone. We all want to rise, so like Havel’s grocer, we clearly signal our obedience to the dominant paradigm of liberalism. Our modern SJWs for example form a shame culture as a means to guilt culture; SJWs gain personal prestige for shaming others. Thus we see that the guilt-shame distinction really gets in the way of seeing what is actually happening here: whether by consuming others (shame) or censoring themselves (guilt) modern people are raising status, and raising job prospects, through liberalism. That is all it is: a giant street gang where the secret handshake involves repeating something you read in The New York Times or Salon. When you join the gang, the gang will help you out and defend you, and you can gain power in the gang by doing audacious stuff. The kids of a century ago who lit firecrackers under police horses and became legends on their blocks are the kids of today who go on Twitter and Tumblr to demand that people stop using gendered pronouns.

Now for the “Success for me, but not for thee” part: at the same time these people are using liberalism to advance themselves and push down others, they are also using it to conceal their greatest secret. If they are succeeding, it is with conservative methods and principles, but they must hide these because they are unpopular, so like the politician kissing babies they make a big public show of liberalism, and then in private, act as conservative as possible. As a mainstream source notes:

Greg Gutfeld says conservative principles are more common than you think in professions sometimes identified with liberals—music, exercise, and cooking. “If liberals applied their no-score, no-winner, no-loser belief system to their hobbies and professions, they would fail miserably,” says Gutfeld, author of “How to Be Right: The Art of Being Persuasively Correct.”

The best thing about liberalism is that it is old. Ancient, even. 1789 was its first real formulation, but the disease had been festering for some time. People like me argue that liberalism came about because the West overpopulated itself with idiots after sacrificing too many of its good people to fight off Mongols at the same time it became diverse from too much trade, but the gory truth is that every society faces this high noon. If you do not purge the idiots, outsiders, perverts, fetishists, neurotic intellectuals, criminals and grifters among you, they eventually gang up on you and win out by superior number.

Luckily the situation is easily changed — from Dividuals again:

Thus the only potential for true change is to change how prestige is assigned. I mean, prestige is assigned by e.g. socially valued achievements, but also by moral arguments, such as “we have a moral obligation to do X”, thus doing X is high-prestige and not doing Y is low-prestige.

When a civilization shifts from an individual-based model to a culture-based model, these guilt/shame/blame/pity feelings get redirected into a singular question: “Did you uphold the culture?” Since culture takes the form of values, honor, pride, behaviors, aesthetics, customs, and includes in itself things such as civilizational goals, this serves as a non-intrusive control mechanism that harnesses these weird animal impulses and directs them toward a positive end. With individualism, we get animals competing for pretense; with culture-based societies, as known in Nationalism, we have individuals competing to achieve things that benefit all people in past, present and future of that society.

Wolfe himself affirms this with a nod to the rising prevalance of Nationalism in societies where people are not divided against themselves by competing for status:

More recently, I returned to Washington and Lee for a conference on the subject of Latin American writing in the United States. The conference soon became a general and much hotter discussion of the current immigration dispute. I had arrived believing that, for example, Mexicans who had gone to the trouble of coming to the United States legally, going through all the prescribed steps, would resent the fact that millions of Mexicans were now coming into the United States illegally across the desert border. I couldn’t have been more mistaken. I discovered that everyone who thought of himself as Latin, even people who had been in this country for two and three generations, were wholeheartedly in favor of immediate amnesty and immediate citizenship for all Mexicans who happened now to be in the United States. And this feeling had nothing to do with immigration policy itself, nothing to do with law, nothing to do with politics, for that matter. To them, this was not a debate about immigration. The very existence of the debate itself was to them a besmirching of their fiction-absolute, of their conception of themselves as Latins. Somehow the debate, simply as a debate, cast an aspersion upon all Latins, implying doubt about their fitness to be within the border of such a superior nation.

In other words, identity works not just because it is a motivator, but because it motivates people to act in their own interests. Who cares what’s fair? Get more of us here!

As modern society crumbles from within, not only Nationalism but every form of “birds of a feather flock together” is rising. People are grouping together by ancestry, values, caste and moral system as they anticipate the acceleration of decline.

This shows the importance of Nationalism as the vital cornerstone of a successful society. With Nationalism, people work toward values; without it, they become chaotic beings competing with each other to see who looks coolest according to an unrealistic and delusional ideology. Others argue that we need conveniently one-step fixes like a restoration of religion, and a return to pure capitalism, and while we need those also, they will get nowhere without a return to rigid nationalism. Only the group with an unbroken identity can construct for itself a society that does not tear itself apart from within.

What we see with modern liberalism is merely more of the tearing-apart: people who have given up hope on a future, trying to make themselves more important now, so they can justify their inaction in the face of obvious problems. As history shows us, most great empires go out that way, not so much in flames but falling from the pages of history and resurfacing centuries later as third-world ruins.

Existentialist Hell

Monday, October 5th, 2015

welcome_to_existential_hell

“Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world—and defines himself afterwards.” – Jean-Paul Sartre

Commentators and thinkers in the Alternative Right often like to compare the accelerating decline of Anglo-Saxon civilization to Ray Kurzweil’s “Singularity” event, but substituting equality for artificial intelligence. This “Left-Singularity”, or the point at which leftism explodes into full nihilism, while a useful concept, misses much about our current cultural overlords. “Equality”, though a very important ideological concept of the left, is losing ground to, and will eventually be consumed by, pure French existentialism.

Existentialism is a postmodern philosophy that posits that human existence is prior to everything, and places an individual squarely at the center of the universe. Existence — the mere fact of your being, Heidegger’s Dasein — precedes every other concept or category. Existentialism then goes on to posit, as a logical corollary of its central statement that meaning is individual, unique, and relative, and can be constructed solely by the individual. This means, essentially, that the only two concepts that really fundamentally matters in the existentialist worldview are Authenticity, the unique meaning that the individual gives to himself, and Will, the self-direction that a man uses to propel himself towards authenticity and meaning. We are simply self-directed Wills, floating along through the endless dark of the void-sea, in search of our own authentic experience.

Such a plastic view of existence has many implications, and it should not come as a shock that the later French existentialists were almost all hard leftists. Atheism is also an inevitable byproduct of existentialism.

At some point after the Second World War, existentialism began to seep into leftist thinking, or perhaps its seed had always been there. Nevertheless, instead of the inevitable, cold historicity of Marx, therapeutic self-direction emerged. Anyone who has gone to school in the United States can recall being repulsed by ridiculous slogans about “being yourself” or “everyone is special” – both of which are profoundly Existentialist statements.

The result of this focus is that the two primary goods that leftism sees in the world are increasingly becoming will, self- meaning and authenticity. Any force that suppresses the will’s attempt to will itself towards meaning and authenticity is Bad And Oppressive, like the fact that skirts are sold in the women’s department of a store, or that people make fun of you for wearing a My Little Pony T-shirt. Meaning and authenticity are self-created- each person is a special snowflake who is the only entity capable of determining what the good is. There is no Good, True and Beautiful, only meaning and authenticity limited to each individual.

These concepts have been oozing into mainstream cultural leftism and are beginning to dominate over older narratives about equality. The gushing comments over a YouTube video of a child opening his first package of powerful estrogen hormones in order to “transition” are illustrative of this. The presumptions of the “wow so brave” crowd are:

  1. A person’s existence is prior and a person is just self-directed will seeking meaning;
  2. Your will seeks out authenticity on its own inherently, and it has perfect knowledge of this authentic meaning, and attempts to disrupt the will from this path are bad;
  3. All people, including children have such a will;

Unfortunately for those of us who still have an attachment to the Good, True and Beautiful, the above argument is essentially an argument for drug use, vice-as-lifestyle and ultimately, pedophilia. Who are we to prevent people, even children, from living their “best life”, shitlord?

The motto of the assassins in Bartol’s novel Alamut was “Nothing is an absolute reality, all is permitted.” Anything that restricts or even makes the will feel bad about its radical “self-actualization” will be attacked and torn down. True authenticity, however, is never something one can discover through egoistic attachment to the physical, but through spiritual experience and transcendence.

And that is the cruel irony of the new Existentialist movement, be it trans-sexualism or pedophile-acceptance- is that they will never feel complete, never feel truly authentic. Meaning will ring hollow to them. And so the quest will accelerate, and this will get far worse before it gets better.

We may not be in Existentialist hell yet, but we are approaching it.

Reflected

Sunday, October 4th, 2015

o-URBINO-900

The city wakes. People pass in their work clothes. Others show that they do not need to go to work. A retired man spends an hour at the car wash, detailing his car. He wants to give the finger to everyone going to jobs like he did for years, feeling a sense that something has been taken from him but unable to see what it is. During the last month, his answering machine has recorded exactly three messages and two were sales calls. He and his wife spend their days watching television. The boat he bought with half of their savings back when he was forty-five sits in the backyard, rusting.

A rich man attends to his car dealership, specifying every detail of his upcoming repair twice. He has nothing to do and the unease that he might be missing an opportunity creeps up on him. He whips out his cell phone and feigns receiving a call, then dashes out to spend an unsatisfying afternoon poring over stock prices. A thin man, obviously homeless, lights a cigarette twice, it having gone out as his hands shook. He puffs aggressively as he ambles down the road. Behind him, two joggers plan strategy for evading him without the inevitable touch for change or possibly, a brush with someone who might well have 31 varieties of hepatitis. Both the heroin addict and the joggers are thin, and both for the same reason. They want to feel good. One is addicted to opiates, the other to public opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czi5rbl0Ghw

Recommended Reading