Too late the slumbering lummoxes who supposedly are the guardians of our society have discovered that colleges are echo chambers of leftist thought. Why, thank you for noticing; it has been this way since 1968 or so, maybe earlier. All of us went through them and being young and impressionable, both gritted our teeth and ignored the crazy or imbibed it because it made us feel better about our lack of knowledge.

Why are colleges leftist echo chambers? The simple answer is ugly: the person drawn to be an educator is usually someone stalled at the point of his own education. This combination of nostalgia and regret has people revisit the point of their injury in life, much like PTSD, and try to re-live it through others. As with the best leaders, the best teachers are often those who do not want the job but feel obligated to take it or take it as a matter of laziness. It is after all an easy job because if you avoid a few errors, there is almost no accountability and the task itself — explaining in simple detail things you learned long ago — is not challenging. Even more, it allows these people to feel power over the knowledge they once struggled with and a time of life that once made them miserable. It is revenge through empowerment.

The leftist echo chamber has accelerated in the last decade for two simple reasons: first, we have sent too many people to college where now two-thirds of high school students go on to college of some form, and second, as liberalism fails the dogmatists feel it necessary to become either more strident lest they be forced to admit their lives are built on a lie.

The grim fact is that only about a fifth of our population, those above 120 IQ points, benefit from any kind of education at all. The others just misuse it and become cleverer, or more able to hide behind technicalities and clever use of language but correspondingly less likely to find answers to problems. In democracy however those who have the most favorable appearance win, and so our politicians used simple reasoning: college makes people richer! Everyone wants to be rich! So send everyone to college! …cleverly ignoring that this would create an industry whose goal is to parasitically sign up as many people as it can and deliver the cheapest possible product. From this, political correctness emerged: a desire to make the product as “safe” and inoffensive as possible so as many people as possible could be induced to take on mind-blowing amounts of student debt and get specialized degrees that credential them to work in a specific field.

As part of this politically correct expansion, colleges invented back in the 1990s something called a “trigger warning”: if a dangerous or possibly offensive topic — which means a topic that might cause any person to question the legitimacy of their participation — arises, a warning must precede it that warns students that the topic may “trigger” their fears and delicate sensibilities.

While this is laughable on its face for how pretentious and narcissistic it is, it also creates another kind of mirth. As a writer, my job is to trigger people. Words cannot convince any person of any thing. What they can do is reveal a pattern, like a metaphor or stylized drawing, that triggers a memory in the consciousness of the person. “Ah yes, I remember thinking something like that once, but less fleshed-out,” they think, and then their brains begin to work on the idea. Soon they see instances of it everywhere, like thinking of a plate of shrimp and seeing plates for sale downtown and shrimp on the menu. This is the opposite of paranoia: where paranoia uses selected instances to prove a pattern, triggering causes people to remember what they have noticed and then see where the pattern applies. This is how writing works. It makes people think when they see their own experiences through the more streamlined and articulated eyes of the author.

Our society fears triggering. Of course it does! It fears reality. It fears anything which may destabilize the individual by pointing out the illusions which they use to prop up their personalities. Triggering removes their justifications and pretenses of importance and places reality in place of the human individual as the most essential thing in life. Society fears triggering become it removes the legitimacy of this “altruistic kleptocracy” and reveals it to be the community in tumbling decline that it is. We are expected to pre-emptively apologize for speaking the truth, because it might “trigger” someone, and use that as a reason to sweep it under the rug and pile lies upon it so that it can never escape. And we do this knowing full well that our only salvation has ever come from confronting truth, and that lies always lead to future downfall. Triggering is interruption of denial, and it is a moral duty for every human being to do it as frequently as possible on all topics.

Original sin


For each powerful thing in our world, an opportunity cost is created. This can be what we forego in order to have that thing, or the disadvantages of using it. Opportunity costs represent the sum of costs and obligations incurred by doing something.

Civilization itself has an opportunity cost: the ideas of “freedom” and “free will” are dead, although people who want to sell you products will adamantly rant otherwise. Whether a contract or not, civilization is an agreement to cooperate made between all members of a group and entails not compromise necessarily but outright giving up of certain abilities.

For example, all of us hate annoying people; without civilization, when you encounter one in the wild, you gut him like a pig and use him to feed the worms you will use to go fishing next season. Problem solved. 100%.

In civilization, people need assurances that someone will not deceptively attack them while they are conducting the business required by civilization. In the wild, one is always on one’s guard; if that is attempted in society, it makes you a paranoid beggar living under a bridge.

Let us for a moment consider civilization as a game. That is, separate from all moral considerations — more on that later — how would you play it to win, to extract the most value from it with the least effort?

This question involves two sub-questions. One is acquisition, and the other defense. You want to acquire as much as possible but simultaneously must avoid allowing others to take any appreciable amount of it, acknowledging that some lossage is inevitable.

The game of civilization (not Sid Meyer’s enjoyable Civilization video game) requires that you understand the real currency of social groups: appearance. People need to know why they should do anything for you, even if they are compelled to do so, because performance of any task occurs by degree. If the guy in the cafeteria line hates you, you’ll get a small portion of watery eggs and a biscuit with dust on it. Technically, you were served.

To acquire things in society, you need a reason why people should consider you good and then a reason why they need your product or friendship. The best way to be good is public acts of altruism; the best way to sell a product is to essentially neg them by insulting some ability of theirs — usually centered around reproduction, sustenance and ability to stay cool in a conflict, the primal issues that our hominin ancestors also struggled with — and claiming that your product will invisibly heal the wound. Small penis? Buy a Corvette. No money? Credit card. Nervous? Designer jeans.

At the same time, you want to defend your status. The best way to do this is to advance some claim that you deserve it, namely by claiming that you are working for someone other than yourself. The old salesman says, “This price doesn’t even cover our cost, but we keep these around for nice folks like yourself.” An even better salesman gets himself appointed to the Homeless Rescue Team or Anti-Poverty Orphan Welfare Fund or even the Peace and Harmony Diversity Group. He takes a known social ill — homelessness, orphans, racial strife — and turns it into a marketing opportunity. By doing so, he externalizes the actual problem and creates a fake solution to which money is handed, while simultaneously protecting himself from criticism. This is the ideal product. As long as he keeps doing what he does, people will show up and hand him money and he gets to keep all of it except taxes, which he will dodge anyway by realizing very little of that wealth as personal income. What’s better than a high salary? Owning something valuable, and having it buy your car, rent your house, pick up the tab for travel and eating out and everything else that you can plausibly claim is related to business.

At this point, this person becomes a seller of distractions. Civilization has an opportunity cost which is that it requires people to find some way to motivate each other to work together. This opens a door for fakers, who benefit from the acquisition/defense strategy mentioned above, which is that they create distractions and sell them as solutions. This can be as simple as a beggar asking for money, then spending it on booze. The problem continues unchanged because the root of the problem is in the beggar. Similarly, when people sell junk products or useless charities the problem is in the charity and those who donate to it, because they are perpetuating a problem with the added parasitism of a false solution.

Let’s look at some common distractions:

  • Liberal lie: The rich are too rich, inequality is rising and it will destroy us!

    Actual need: We’re picking the wrong people to be rich and have created a society with too many people incapable of doing much of value.

    Liberals phrase everything they say as a description of the victimization of the people they are speaking to. It is taboo to say that the average citizen has become a doofus because that insults people. Instead, tell them that the average citizen has been victimized by… uh… oppression! Someone with power, money, good looks or a natural ability is oppressing the rest of us without those things. (This will eventually modulate into the smart people are the enemy we are familiar with from the third world, where inventors are regularly burned as “witch doctors.”) The real problem is that we make people rich for make-work schemes like Uber, for being good at sports or twerking, or for conformity to government regulations. Or even for just earning money. We could pick them by ability to lead well, which is different than earning money; earning money happens best by externalizing costs and creating a high-margin product that people think they need but actually do not. The liars and deceivers like psychologists, lawyers, marketers, bureaucrats, self-help writers, etc. grow fat on the stupidity fo the population, which becomes increasingly helpless and unable to do anything but staple TPS reports. The distraction hides this actual problem behind a football game style “us versus them” argument. The actual source of inequality is inequality of ability.
  • Liberal lie: Global warming is holocausting the world, so we need to cut our carbon emissions!

    Actual need: We have too many people taking up too much space.

    Humans have expanded to the point that nature cannot restore itself, a condition which did not exist when we had two billion people. When we expand, we use land, which cuts up ecosystems and chokes out various species that need lots of land for their own health as organic populations. Animals need space to hunt, breed and play; trees need to be spread widely so their internal genetic variation increases through mutation and they do not inbreed. Running roads, fences, pipes, etc. through these spaces destroys the ability of those species to survive. When we had only a billion people, this was not a problem because trees existed to humans in a ratio of tens of thousands to one; now, with far fewer trees, the forests cannot absorb enough CO2 to offset the human production. Our scientists — who claim to be intelligent — tell us that the forest can only absorb so much. The answer is yes, in its current state. But if you plant more trees, that changes. Europe and white-USA have already reduced population to a declining curve but the rest of the world is expanding rapidly. Each person requires new space, not just for an apartment as our media overlords hint and passively suggest is all that is needed, but lots more space for factories, hospitals, roads, schools, stores, etc. for that person. The only solution is to lower our population. Official population reduction efforts are a sham focused on teaching birth control and careers, which only cause the population to rise.
  • Liberal lie: White people are racist and are oppressing minorities, causing racial strife worldwide.

    Actual need: Diversity does not work and deprives groups of autonomy and thus self-esteem.

    Racial strife worldwide is the norm because it is part of natural selection within races: some groups break away, improve, and then conquer the rest. The four root races — Dravidians, Negroids, Euripoids, and Mongoloids — have each achieved internal variation according to this principle with some rising above the rest. Races do not co-exist, and history shows us zero examples of successful multiracial civilizations but rather reveals a long history of multiracial experiments leading to civilization collapse and third-world status, because they are optimized for different functions. Even more, people need to know they are from a group with clear behavior standards; this works better than police, who can only show up after a tragedy and try to arrest the right culpable person. In the meantime, a good person is injured and one of an infinite stream of useless ones receives a usually slight punishment. Minorities are not actually minorities, but a majority on planet earth. White people are the only group asked to “be diverse,” a euphemism for replace itself with a mixed-race population as is the norm in most third-world nations. Diversity is a way of tearing down the society of our ancestors and replacing it with a third world society, which liberals love because then there will be no troublesome social standards and awareness of better options to hold back liberals from whatever venality they desire.

It might make sense to see the distractors as in fact apologists for decline. Their actions say, basically, that society is not worth having and they would rather trade higher levels of civilization for higher levels of profit, which means that civilization itself offers little to them in their estimation. They are usually wrong, but only in the long-term. In the short-term, they would find a third-world society — the remnants of actual civilization — more profitable. With a lower average IQ, there are more idiots who want products. Government and law enforcement are easily bribed. Money is more easily spirited away and in the social chaos, there are few who will notice whatever corrupt, perverse or self-serving things that people do. The third world is the ultimate society of people oblivious to one another so they may each have total personal autonomy. Apologists do not want to stop this decline but hasten it, and they will do anything and say anything to deny the fact of decline. They want you to think that everything is not only fine but improving, and they will spill out ten lies in the time it takes to refute one, so that they keep you wondering and confused while behind the scenes they do what is necessary to secure power.

How does society defend itself against these parasites? With social standards, of course, which is why they are the first target of the apologists. Social standards demand that people put the health of society above their own non-necessary preferences. That is too many words and concepts for the voters, but leaders understand it. People must have the basics of life, but beyond that, their individual desires do not matter much. The reason for this is simple: all of us, until we refine ourselves with self-discipline and a drive toward truthfulness, are basically nothing more than monkeys with the gift of language. Our motivations are crap because all of them are justifications that hide our real intent, which is usually bad. We are selfish (the more advanced term for what your average rock band calls “greed”) and self-motivated, and to preserve that, we become oblivious to others. This mentality removes focus from the necessary task of maintaining civilization and replaces that with a narcissistic satisfaction of appetites.

I mentioned above that it was necessary to consider civilization as a game “separate from all moral considerations.” That is because all but a few people have no moral considerations. True, they talk in public loudly about their moral convictions and when it comes time for people to spend four hours on a weekend helping the homeless at a soup kitchen, they are there first. Why? Because it’s four hours of easy work. The whole rest of the year they can point to those four hours and ignore the other three thousand hours in which they did nothing for anyone but themselves other than to ignore them. It is the equivalent of buying candy for a child and then declaring oneself a good person so that one can take candy from children every other day of the year. It is laughable and yet to most people, it seems not only acceptable, but good honest proof! It’s hard not to laugh at this situation. The public, even the highly educated and successful “elites,” are total dunces who cannot recognize reality when it slaps them in the face and takes their wallets. They are literally oblivious and are so proud of their meagre achievements — a career, a trophy wife and family, a few possessions — that they ignore everything else and exist in a world of themselves. Swimming on self-congratulatory praise, esteemed in the eyes of (oblivious) others, they push aside all “negative thoughts” (e.g. reality) and instead direct their minds toward things that make them feel good. Then one day they retire, and reality catches up. Their children have grown up in a ruined society and turned out badly, their community is now bordered by crime-ridden slums, and all their achievements have been forgotten by a world rushing from one pleasure to the next. At that point, being fundamentally dishonest people, they do what every criminal does when he is caught: blame someone else, and claim to be a victim of oppression, because otherwise he must think himself worthless.

This is original sin. People are basically bad until they make themselves good through discipline and truthfulness, and most will not take on this path. To undertake civilization is to recognize that oppression is inevitable and is a positive thing when it oppresses the degenerate and preserves the good, but that in most societies it goes the opposite way — forcing the good to subsidize the degenerate until the good fade away — and destroys itself. Society is suicide. Trusting other people is also suicide. The only solution is to have high social standards and remove those that cannot achieve them, but that scares all the timid sheep of the herd who fear that they might actually not be good people. Instead of handling that in a mature fashion, and improving themselves, they band together to remove standards, in doing so dooming their civilization. It takes many generations to come to that point but when it does, what is left is a third world ruin like the rest of the world. Original sin has triumphed over its opposite, which is a state that joins religious morality and natural selection. That mentality says the best must rise over the rest and have 0% (zero) obligation to them; it recognizes that most of humanity is mostly monkey and that including them in a civilization will kill it. But already I have said too much that even the smartest among us cannot tolerate.

Nullius Mihi Culpa


A characteristic feature of an irresponsible society is socialization of failures (externalities) while encouraging individuals to keep (capitalize) all profits from successes. Such societies are susceptible to the ravages caused by those who seek centralized power.

For this reason, in an irresponsible society it is very common to attribute achievements to individual capabilities (as if capabilities were needed in an egalitarian state) and on the other hand to blame failures on society in abstracto, so that the individual gets praise for anything that succeeds but faces no censure for failure.

In such societies convenience requires we ignore that economic success arises from the individual: intelligence, cunning, credentials and alma mater of his choice, capabilities, effort, and many other reasons that directly depend on him and his decisions.

Failures are always attributed to the collective and, even, to the past: “because we are so,” “it’s because of our ancestors,” “they are the politicians who steal everything,” “Communists are ruining it all,” “Capitalism is guilty of the ruin of the people” and an endless list of scapegoats we can blame for the misfortunes, even including superior beings for which we have not even a hint of its existence.

I want to expiate all blame on Television, because it is not T.V. who has turned society into imbeciles, but it is the society itself which has turned T.V. into a stupid thing. For example, an irresponsible society complains about the stupidity of some characters, as if it were not the same society which consumes trash-T.V. on air, filling the pockets of the not-so-stupid people with thousands of dollars. When Rocko’s Modern Life was taken off the air, I stopped watching television. After all, no one is obliged to watch the crap being showed on screen.

However, why should there be better television programming? Should television be educational? Having so many ways to self-educate yourself, why should the TV be responsible — and, therefore, the entire industry which is behind the TV — for the severe lack of education of this society? Since when is responsibility of others the education of the individual? Pick up a book.

It is too easy to blame it on the System when the individual fails, especially if this help us to forget, for a while, that we are the main causes of our own ruin. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Jobs alter personality, make you obedient and mindless


The American Psychological Association recently issued a bulletin in which it summarizes research which states that unemployed people over time lose the traits that jobs inculcate into them:

Unemployment can change peoples’ core personalities, making some less conscientious, agreeable and open, which may make it difficult for them to find new jobs, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

What they do not mention is the converse: if people can lose these traits from not having a job, then jobs instilled them into people in the first place. Let’s look at those traits:

  • Conscientious: detail-oriented/big-picture oblivious.
  • Agreeable: prone to compromise.
  • Open: easily guided.

In essence, the APA is complaining that indoctrination fails when people are taken out of the workforce. I suggest we take every white male out of the workforce immediately.

No solutions


“There is no solution!” This answer pleases everyone. That is because what we call “modern” is just one of many. Every civilization goes through a life cycle where suddenly, at the peak of its technological and social power, it collapses as if everyone just up and left. What remains are shattered third-world mixed-race shells like Brazil, Mexico, or what remains of Angkor Wat. That is collapse: a long slow process of apathy grinding against material self-interest, leaving only mud huts and a bazaar patrolled by local warlords.

People wish there to be no solution because it enables them to keep on living as “normal,” by which they mean the new normal of every generation being worse off than the last. The reason is not a discrete “issue,” like whether we legalize abortion or weed, but the issue of whether our civilization has a healthy design or not. A healthy design promotes constant renewal not through novelty and irony, as our current society does, but through constant improvement in all areas. If you have a bad king, you need a better king, not democracy.

Their instinct to live normally comes from our oldest biological urge, which is to fight and predominate. For them, the question becomes how they can beat out everyone else and smash them down, because peak empires tend to be packed with people most of whom are utterly useless. This enrages people but they cannot articulate it, both because their brains are not disciplined enough to notice, and because they are in denial. Denial allows them to continue thinking they are successes, winners, exceptional people with fascinating lives, even though they are simply more profiteers on the carcass of greatness invented long ago.

Bravely they recite what they were told at schools: that all other methods of government have failed, that anything but our mixture of commerce and subsidies is tyranny, and that the best future for us is to keep repeating the same acts that have gotten us into this position, just take them to new extremes. This dovetails with the ultimate self-interest in a place where society is overgrown, which is the need to get noticed. If they can capture attention for a few moments by being radical, that makes them stand out above the crowd.

No one wants a solution. A solution would require we discipline our own behavior, change our ways, and apply social standards to everyone including ourselves. Anarchy with grocery stores provides what each undisciplined heart wants, which is the ability to act as selfishly as possible without consequences. It is no wonder we talk of dying societies imploding; they collapse into the dark void of individual human need.

You will meet two types of people in a collapsing society. Both of these are compensating, or justifying failure with the thought that they get a reward in some other area, by insisting that we ignore the problem — that our civilization is a long, slow collapse to nothing but a polluted third-world wasteland — and wanting us to agree with them that there are no solutions but to keep doing things as we are, but with a few details changed, like illegal abortion or higher minimum wage. Then we’ll be in paradise, finally. Misery loves company.

These types are:

  1. The Republican

    Comfortable with the idea of social Darwinism, the Republican believes that you should work hard and get ahead, and by that he means get wealthier. He is basically correct, since that is how in a biological sense you beat out other animals and rise to a position of power. He forgets two things: (1) working like a dog will make you act like a bear, and your family will suffer, thus your line ends soon after you and (2) as society decays around you, it has a nasty habit of taking you down with it.
  2. The Democrat

    The Democrat deals with decay by outright ignoring it and rationalizing it. In his view, society has always been bad and there has never been any hope, so all we can do is make ourselves comfortable and wait for the end. Comfortable means no rules and hopefully a state subsidy, so no one has to do anything but sit around and be social, which is where the Democrat excels over his Republican counterparts: they are good at business, he is good at socializing. As a result, he wants to make a civilization of socializing only.

These caricatures are cut of whole cloth and almost as transparent as Ayn Rand or Barbara Kingsolver characters, but they exemplify the two basic responses to civilization decay, which are biological and social respectively. They are created this way because they by definition refuse to see the problem and its solutions, so are left with compensatory behaviors that enhance their own powers at the expense of others.

No one wants a solution. Solutions mean changing ourselves and limiting our freedom, 99% of which we do not need, but which gratifies our narcissistic egos. Nature gives us such egos because in the wilds, failure is frequent and the healthiest creatures shrug it off with an innate sense of self-worth. When channeled into a social sense however this confidence becomes a sociopathic greed and tendency toward manipulation. Including, of course, insisting that there are no solutions.

What is the Zombie Ritual?


Out of the gathering fog, they assemble without knowing why. Brainless, they move impulsively like insects, repeating actions autonomically. They consume the living and replace them with the living dead. The few survivors resist but are hopelessly outnumbered and are excluded to the point of living in constant fear, hiding in remote areas and maintaining a constant paranoia, because at any moment the attack can come.

This is the Zombie Ritual. It describes how every society on earth has destroyed itself: by replacing the logic of consequences with a social code that enforces illusion. In a dying society, the only way to advance is to repeat the zombie ideology. This causes other people to approve of you, hire you and befriend you. Once you have joined the group of socially acceptable people, you can then make a life for yourself. It is thus logical to repeat lies and eventually, it becomes logical to believe them, because otherwise you must face the truth that your society is dying and you and your descendants will be destroyed by its collapse.

If you obey the dominant power, all will be OK, at least for now; almost everyone does, because the alternative is to be excluded. The dominant power maintains control by forcing people to accept an idea which is also a goal. This idea “represents” reality but does so like a symbol, inaccurately and favoring certain ideas over others. If everyone else agrees that the Emperor’s new clothes are beautiful, when in fact he is naked and revealed thus as foolish, those who speak up against the new clothes will be pariahs. At the same time, an Emperor that foolish will lead the civilization into decline if not outright dystopia. The official narrative states that the new clothes are beautiful, and anyone who wants to succeed must repeat this dogma.

When contradictions to the official narrative or doubt of its validity emerge, the people become terrified. They take the path of least resistance: instead of opening up critique of the narrative, they gather together with others to reinforce the narrative. First they filter out disturbing thoughts and facts, and then they go on a witch-hunt for any who disagree with this new interpretation of what is real. Individuals can advance themselves by currying favor from this lynch mob by smashing down others who do not embrace the narrative enough, claiming them as deniers. In the grips of such a passion, the society quickly removes all but those who champion the official narrative.

Drink from the goblet, the goblet of gore
Taste the zombie’s drug, now you want more
Drifting from the living, joining with the dead
Zombie dwelling maggots, now infest your head

Zombie ritual
Zombie ritual

For the everyday person, it becomes important to avoid noticing glitches in the narrative. When reality contradicts dogma, the correct response is more dogma. It can be made more extreme and must be, because the farther it drifts from reality the more its errors show, and so these societies inevitable tend toward stronger lynch mobs and/or official voices who will censure or outright imprison those who disagree. It may even, like the first democracy in Athens, execute people for asking questions about the official narrative, as it did to Socrates. The defeat of those who disagree will be viewed as victory for the narrative and thus affirmation that it is correct, good, true and “the right side of history.”

Among the people neurosis and near-schizophrenic conditions will become the norm as they force themselves to believe what is patently untrue. Like the loyalty test question in 1984, where 2+2=5 to those who love Big Brother, the test of dogma exists everywhere, especially in everyday conversation. Those who enforce the narrative are safe. Those who do not must be shunned lest those who associate with them be thought to be critical of the narrative. All must obey not just in their actions, but in their words, which then program their minds. The result is that the average person lives in a world of political assumptions, programmed to see issues within only those narrow filtered questions and cherry-picked data sets.

This creates a fetishism of denial among the people. They compete to see who is most in denial, and by being more rabid and strident than the rest individuals can rise to prominence. They are cheerleaders for the narrative and make everyone else feel good because instead of pointing to doubts and fears, they issue a calming statement that all is well and nothing must change. Just keep on keeping on. And thus people can turn back to their jobs, their personal lives and their fortunes and avoid any thoughts that they are complicit in the creation of a tragedy. They are given the freedom to be oblivious, which is what they wanted in the first place: permission to stop concerning themselves with anything but themselves.

As denial intensifies, the recriminations accelerate and the opposition becomes weaker. It also finds it harder to defend any point of view but the prevailing dogma since all of the language that it uses is already framed in terms that are convenient to the narrative. Any thought except the narrative gets squeezed to the periphery and then excluded. The narrative becomes the new starting point for all thought and the assumption behind every statement. Conflicts with reality become explained as enemies, not errors in the narrative. For this reason, the society goes off on a path of its own chasing chimerae of political illusions and, when it finally collides with reality again, it is in a fatal and permanent correction.

On the importance of doing nothing


Among the vast tomes of hidden agenda behind this blog lurks a simple commandment: thou shalt spend more time doing nothing.

Much of my conversion to conservatism came through the realization that conservatives eliminate unnecessary labor and activity while liberalism increases it.

People in our society have forgotten the importance of doing nothing. While we often forge our souls through adversity, we also do so in the quiet moments of relaxation or futzing around where we learn to know ourselves and through that, how to value what is important in life.

For many of us, the quiet times spent gardening or fiddling some recalcitrant bit of gear into action represent the greatest realizations we have had about ourselves. Know thyself, know the difference between world and self, and thus escape the prison of self that our solipsistic society and its liberal masters see as ideal.

Conservatism advocates a minimal approach to life. Focus on family, on contributing something productive to society and life, and on self-refinement through quiet moments, whether prayer or fixing a 1950s coffee maker in the garage. Loafing, goofing off, fooling around, dozing, daydreaming, launching ridiculous projects and play represent the best of human experience.

Liberalism on the other hand bases itself on the principle of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” with a justification of need on Paul’s part. It extends this to time as well: we work extra hours to subsidize the welfare, social justice and environmental initiatives that liberalism demands. This doubly makes zero sense when we consider that these “problems” arise mostly through liberal attempts to fix them.

The suicidal West requires a root-level fix. A huge part of this entails giving people more time to know themselves and discover their values. This is done by cutting time at jobs and sending them home to spend more time with their families and friends, but also more time with themselves, even if spent in the basement or lawn area doing nothing in particular.

People are happiest when most of their time is their own. Even if they have no idea of some grand purpose for this time, those quiet moments help them grow within. This growth is not in terms of quantity, but quality. They become clearer about self and reality. As this time has decreased, the West has become a bitter self-hating place, full of suspicion and paranoia.

If we were to drop the exaggerated and unnecessary “purpose” that liberalism imposes, we would return to our primary purpose in life: knowing ourselves through doing not much of anything. When we muck around the house, we become bored with the unnecessary and replace it with the sustaining. We learn who we are. And from that, we learn what to preserve and nurture because it has a connection from our innermost soul to the essence of the cosmos.

Binary decisions


Our minds rebel against the idea, but some decisions are binary: choosing one excludes the other forevermore. For example, you cannot be both tattooed and non-tattooed; you cannot both be a veteran and know the world of not having faced combat. Experience changes us.

The same is true of innocence. You cannot both be innocent and have experience, although you can try to fake innocence with the usual shallow ploys. For this reason, most intelligent people limit their experience (omigod, so closed-minded) in order to avoid the damage to their psyche done by experience that numbs them to the beauty in life.


Has anyone else noticed the fall of eccentricity in the West? We used to have more eccentrics: people who were harmlessly, idiosyncratically but purposefully out of step with whatever everyone else seemed to be doing.

In fact, in many ways we cherished this tradition of eccentricity because from it many of our greatest innovations were birthed. It also lessened the struggle for social acceptance that defines the lives of most modern people.

Even in the 1970s, this tradition was healthier. There were people who were just “odd,” which is a separate word from “weird.” An eccentric is odd but there is purpose and logic to it, just slightly shifted from what others accept as the norm. It is not perverse or broken, but it strikes most people as strange until the motivation behind it can be understood.

One of our last eccentrics might be Steve Jobs, who managed to partially ruin his health with his bizarre and dogmatic eating habits. But even in Silicon Valley these days the “eccentricity” is conformist: in order to be taken seriously, entrepreneurs must wear black sweaters and a weeks’ beard and do cool youthy stuff like pull all-nighters on Tuesdays.

The more the power of social control rises above us, the more we conform, but now we can conform to niche forms of “non-conformity.” All geeks must act a certain way, all athletes another, to preserve their unique brand identity. But honest eccentrics? They have dropped off the radar.

Book fetishism


Among the denizens of this wild planet, minds seize on the popular notion of the importance of books. People who read are good people, we are told, and people who do not are ignorant, bad, stupid and wrong.

The common refrain of “read a book” or “educate yourself” rings out across the land, from internet debates to nasty exchanges in political debates. But someone should ask the unpopular question: what, exactly, is so important about reading?

What is excluded by the formula “reading=good” is the question of what is being read. This is deliberate: the book fetishists want you to think it is the trivial act of reading, and not the harder acts of reading important or truthful material, and understanding it, that matter.

In the simplistic logic of prole drift, you get smart by reading. It does not matter what. You read, and since all books are equal, you get smart, because all people are equal. Anyone who believes this simplistic formula obviously lacks the ability to understand anything in the difficult books.

And yet they advance it, for a simple reason: they want to make us all equal. By obliterating the question of content, they are able to enforce “universal” opinions about what is right and claim that all books and facts reinforce these. They are also able to claim that the act of reading alone raises them above others, which has always been their covert (reading between the lines) goal.

Thus book fetishism is a “safe” philosophy in a liberal era and insisting that some books are better than others, or that ideas must be understood more than merely read, are dangerous philosophies. To hide the intolerance of this proposition, the book fetishists hide it behind the rather consumeristic idea that buying and reading lots of random books increases intelligence.

As a cultural meme and convention, book fetishism thus shows where we are as a culture. We have eliminated the question of content and learning and replaced it with conformity to a behavior that can be recognized by others. Appearance matters more than context or goal, and that enables the illusion of equality to continue.