The best ideas are unpopular because their unpopularity means that they are both contrary to the trends of the time, and there’s a threat that they’re correct.
The primary mythos of our time is that of external control, both in the idea that we can control other people (we cannot) and that any misfortunes or fortunes we encounter are the result of external forces acting upon us or through us.
Through theories such as “invisible hand” theories of economics, or belief in the rule of law, we pretend that nothing an individual does in his own sphere of influence has any impact on others. They are separated in our compartmentalized minds.
In contrast, a sensible exploration reveals what we are afraid to see: our fortunes are made by the choices of individuals, especially when enough gather around a popular choice to make it snowball into a mob situation.
Even more intense is the problem of plurality, in which whatever appeals to the broadest group possible drowns out everything else. The profit is simply easier with the broadest group, and as a result, there is no incentive to provide for the others.
Because human beings compete for individual status when there is no other plan or goal, and because then “keeping up with the Joneses” includes both imitating successes and hiding errors, society turns on itself by chasing trends.
Imagine two products, Refrigerator A and Refrigerator B. A is more reliable but old and boring; B is less reliable but looks snazzy and costs more. Which one wins out?
In theory, it would be A because it’s the better deal. However, as soon as one person buys B, a trend exists, and suddenly B is most of what is being sold. In order to capture the new stream of money, the maker of A may even switch to making B-like models.
The gnarly part is that once the consumers who bought B notice that it’s starting to break down, they don’t admit that something went wrong. Instead, they defend their position, and make excuses for B while demonizing A.
Within a few years, no consumer can get A at a reasonable price. They are all forced to use B if they want a refrigerator. Since 95% of the consumers cannot tell the difference, there’s no market for bringing A back.
It is true that in the world of hand-made leather-lined luxury refrigerators, someone makes a version of A that’s guaranteed for 75 years, but it costs more than a car. For all practical purposes, the society has rejected A — the better option — in favor of B.
There’s a saying that every society gets the government it deserves. This is also true of products and social climate. When the number of selfish, short-sighted and reality-denying people — these go together, usually a product of bad parenting — rises to a certain point, say more than a fifth of the people, the society begins its downward plunge.
At that point, the same forces that once made the society great are now working against it. People act in their own self-interest, at the expense of others. Large corporations are driven by the shareholders who possess their stock and want more profit; government is driven bankrupt by the demands of voters who want more services.
When all of this shakes out, the crowd of people will together get defensive. They will not admit their own wrongdoing, but will blame those to whom they delegated the wrongdoing, namely corporations and government. And then the people will retreat, telling themselves that all along a great conspiracy kept them from being “free.”
The mundanity of evil is a stark thing to behold. Where we expected complexity and intent, there is only a circular march toward unrealistic and nonexistent goals, leading to a disintegration of the marchers.
43 queries. 1.107 seconds
I read only the title. That in itself is enough…
Ordinary people never ruined anything. How could they?? How could a poor, lazy, sappy individual be of any danger at all? They are just animals. Mammals. People just want to have a great life, they can’t because they are bored and frustrated with the politics that runs their lives. It is not logical to switch from something that does not work to another something that does not work. Certainly not when we know from history that the politics we want to work never ever worked at all… Ramble =).
What is ruining us are these ideas going around. When we believe conservatism is political and not a quality to live by then shit happens. A conservative, ordinary man simply has to live his own way and build something that works on his own.
He eats natural products, because anything else is ‘fishy’, pardon the paradox. He does not believe in new ideas, because all ideas are crappy. That necessarily means all past ideas are crappy too. They are all ideas.
Things has to come from within. He knows that his method to build on what works is very useful, but what works is something he must derive at himself. He could never build on any political ideas. Institutions already in place is not something he could build upon. That is just lazy and sloppy work. Yet it’s promoted to work hard?? He starts new enterprises on his own. He lives on his own. It is liberal and conservative at once.
We must have the intelligence to separate when to build upon things and when to start from scratch. Knowledge is different from ideas. Knowledge is rather timeless. Knowledge can be plucked from history, to be used when we need it. But ideas live on on their own. It becomes traditional, it is not intelligent.
Ordinary people were never a problem to anyone, the problem is building on ideas that never worked. This is anti-conservative, as conservatism requires building only on what works. That means nature, generally. Living by nature or emulating it. Making digging machines out of spades, making spades out of digging sticks.
How has politics ever worked, how did it ever work to tell people how to live. They become suppressed, miserable. Revolts, mutiny happens. The only revolutions are people revolutions and they are revolts against suppressive rules. All rules are suppressive, only a very small bare minimum of it is necessary.
In that, I agree with the creed of this site. But like all politics it tries to reach down to the people, instead of going bottom to top. I don’t think this approach will quite work, because it builds on what does not. First change – horrible, terrifying word! must happen to it. Objectivity and honesty is its saving grace.
When you say about certain politics that they “work” or that they do not “work”, what do you actually mean ? And in relation to whom or to what are they supposed to “work” ?
“The primary mythos of our time is that of external control, both in the idea that we can control other people ”
It is called mass-media. The masses do not discern between useful and useless. But they do not have an initiative either. There is always something out there to drive them in a certain direction- advertising and all sorts of media do this very well.
Also, we can say that we have moved into a new phase. Right now, we are caught between mob rule and a pseudo-elite of technocrats. The first phase, that of liberal democracy has destroyed the true notion of elite and eliminated the organic, traditional principles of life.
This paved the way for a pseudo-elite with pseudo-principles (or lack of principles) that is an even bigger threat than the mob rule that still prevails today.
Technocracy is guaranteed not to solve anything, but to deepen the present problems much more. We are all experiencing this in Europe, today, with the European (neo- bolshevist) International (some call it the E.U.).
This site spends way too much time and words on effects or secondary causes and ignores the more subtle threats.
Without thinking too hard here, I’ll just agree that we as a society have in a sense sold our souls to the effects of media. Most shape their identities, who they think they are, on the media they consume. It becomes what we “are”. And yet, there is no “being” in such a thing. No wonder the ship has been sinking.
I like technology, or at least I find it mentally stimulating to work with – a challenge if you will. And I know it well. But I am certainly seeing its limitations. I accept it can only provide so much. But what happens when a society has crossed that line not only where it depends primarily on technology to function. But even worse, depends on it to fulfill human existential needs, the means of “being” if you will? We are headed that way, and in some respects have crossed many lines. I’m slowly learning to turn off and tune in to other things. I have issues in these areas, but I suppose awareness is a first step. But truth is, this is where things are going for the majority. I think we have lost our sense of “self”. I’m not willing to give that up without a fight.
Comment of the week :)
What is happening, at least as I see it, is that there are still some ties to things that matter, enough of a thread that we still feel some grounding. But I imagine in a hundred years (probably much, much sooner than that actually), these last threads will no longer exist. At that point humanity is shipwrecked and lost at sea. No way home. Sounds like hell actually. And this isn’t something I just pulled out of my arse. Been thinking about it for some time.
By the way, I wanted to be clear that just because I have thought a lot about something does not make it right. But I do think there is some truth in what I am saying here. I just don’t fully know yet what the alternatives are or how to get there. I realize that is part of what is being explored here.
If Technocracy you’ve mentioned means a kind of Meritocracy, then why not? If somebody will be able to define the target function other than the monetary profit, and that will benefit the whole system, why not to give it a try?
Technocracy promotes a narrow-minded specialization where each individual is focusing on just one part, to the extent that they lose sight, not only of the whole, but of Reality itself.
The obsession with statistics, where all questions are reduced to simple numbers, is a perfect illustration of this.
I want to watch TV- I plug it in and push a button on the remote-control.
A light bulb is spent. I take a new one and replace the old one, and the lights are working once again.
My computer is broken. A computer specialist comes in and fixes the problem by replacing the broken part with a new one (if it’s a hardware problem) or installs a program that handles whatever bugs or viruses are out there (if it’s a software one).
These are technical problems, that require a rigid and predictable question and answer sequence.
Human society does not function this way. Unless we totally give up our humanity and resolve on becoming drones and fleshy computers.
If the Technocracy is really that bad, then something different, based on scientific method, but free from “narrow-minded specialization” may be employed.
As Brett have said: “For a conservative, the question is what is best, and the guide is what has worked in the past. This is not substantially different from the scientific method.”
Something of common sense together with the eternal human values. Having profit as the main target of economy doesn’t help preserving our humanity, quite opposite. Why not to choose something different instead?
“If the Technocracy is really that bad, then something different, based on scientific method, ”
Scientific method and technocracy are intimately connected.
Both are the slaves of facts. Facts have their importance, but they can never be at the top of the hierarchy.
It is in the modern anglo-saxon mentality the belief that one can derive principles beginning from facts. Such is considering things upside-down.
Facts do not ‘speak’ for themselves. Whatever caused them speaks. And we often see how the same facts are caused by completely different agents.
The problem with technocracy, as well as modern science, is that it focuses all its views on method and means, not on principles. It tells you all about how to obtain something, but it never even thinks to ask itself WHY would anyone want it.
If we know “what has worked in the past”, we have facts.
These facts give us an idea how to obtain something, for example, a better society (Sorry, Tucken, I know society doesn’t exist :) ).
Should we try to obtain it without having the complete knowledge “why” (which is impossible in principle), or just sit and mourn our limited abilities?
To know “why” is not at all impossible in principle.
And to apply some facts that lead to good results in the past without knowing the principles which stood behind them means only to imitate. And imitation, regardless how talented, is just an empty carcass.
Look at the Renaissance. It wanted to “revive” the classical spirit of ancient Greece by imitating its style, its art, its writings etc. All it achieved was appearance and nothing of essence. Nothing of ancient Greece was actually captured in the Renaissance spirit- it was all an idealized abstraction, a counterfeit of bourgeois snobbery.
It also wanted to “purify” latin from all its popular elements accumulated throughout the centuries. This didn’t lead to a “pure”, primordial latin- all it did was to kill the language forever.
Facts without principles are dead bodies. And dead bodies are things you’d want the least to put in charge of a society.
PS: Another example of imitation would be Nazism.
All you have said about the Renaissance is my great concern for the “Paleoconservatism: traditional values, monarchism, caste and leadership by culture” [from the sidebar]. How to ensure it will be not a mere imitation, Burger King instead of King?
While the Renaissance knew they wanted to revive spirit of namely ancient Greece (but failed anyway), we are talking here about a spirit, a tradition, a culture, a religion of just a society to be revived.
The only requirement is, it should be Western (otherwise, join Muslims and get plenty of traditions, kings, and values of the past. Everything already in place, even no alcohol policy).
Wouldn’t it be helpful if more people knew about underlying principles, educate them? If these principles are knowable but impossible to articulate, maybe this education should help people to come to the understanding on their own at a certain stage of development?
That is my concern also, and I do believe that a large part of the New Right are going on the way of idealized abstractions and cvasi-utopias.
Their neo-paganism is a very good indication of this.
Also, the post-modern style of using jargon has, unfortunetly, penetrated this area too. I am sure that those words you enumerated there (caste, monarchy etc) don’t mean anything for a great mass of “new-rightists” and that they use them in the same way leftists use words such as “equality”, “democracy”, “human rights”- only as labels and jargon that have become void of all meaning.
However, we were discussing technocracy.
And I was arguing that all it can do for us is deepen the inhumane atmosphere of our present society. And it does this by completely replacing the human being with the “specialist”, where specialist means one who focuses on a more and more narrow field of expertize and facts, until whatever of his personality isn’t compatible with that certain field is atrophied to the point of obliteration.
It also delivers the perfect terrain for the establishment of the nanny state that this site typically talks about.
I don’t know how things are in America, but in the E.U. I can tell you things have advanced very far along the lines I described above.
That’s true. And this happens also in other forms of government. Replace “specialist” with “monarch” or “democrat”, and you will see that the process you’ve described repeats in a similar way. Democrats forget about the society as they are too busy with the progress of democracy.
In my opinion, in all these cases the target function is poorly defined: for capitalism – just the profit, for feudalism – the land, for slavery – number of slaves.
The problem is, there was never a target function as a combination of stability, health, education+development_of_man, safety, ecology, and prosperity of the whole society defined as a main goal.
Simply, people have perverted notion of a “good life”.
Though there is a notion of “Quality of Life” (opposite to “Living Standards”) that may become a starting point.
You are right, the narrow specialists couldn’t help. A right project architect with a wide vision is the must. If technocracy is defined as a bunch of independent narrow specialists, there is no chance.
Everyone controls everyone by giving examples of how to act.
The smarter ones can use this.
Of course it’s not some tight, mechanical control.
http://cdn02.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2012/05/mark-zuckerberg-married-to-priscilla-chan.jpg
Brett,
“The gnarly part is that once the consumers who bought B notice that it’s starting to break down, they don’t admit that something went wrong. Instead, they defend their position, and make excuses for B while demonizing A.
Within a few years, no consumer can get A at a reasonable price. They are all forced to use B if they want a refrigerator. Since 95% of the consumers cannot tell the difference, there’s no market for bringing A back.
It is true that in the world of hand-made leather-lined luxury refrigerators, someone makes a version of A that’s guaranteed for 75 years, but it costs more than a car. For all practical purposes, the society has rejected A — the better option — in favor of B.”
This is a perfect description of reality which I have long noticed. However, we are not the first one to notice this reality. Nay, the companies (and the Masons who are behind the companies) knew this a long time ago before us. And this is what the Masons want: they want to ruin the West (in fact they are doing it) and they are using this efficient means which they knew about a long time before us.
Does it mean, without Masons there will be no more competition that is aimed on profit rather than on customer satisfaction, that is common for the todays capitalist economy? Or, maybe, without Masons these 95% will be able to tell the difference between A and B quality and stop making buying mistakes?
“buying mistakes”
When you force the people to buy B instead of A by cutting the production of A and by bullying those who produce A, then the people has no choice. Even in the case where the people has noticed he is making a buying mistake and wants to correct it, they will leave him no choice but to buy B.
“the todays capitalist economy”
The today’s capitalist economy is a Masonic creature. It didn’t exist before the Masons took over things in England during the 17th century, and in Europe and America after the Masonic French and American revolutions.
The only solution for today’s problems is to go back to the time before the domination of Masonic companies, when if you wanted a shoe you went to a shoe-maker to make them. Why not have your local computer-maker in every town for example instead of importing everything from China?
If there’s any big mistake, nay sin, that the people is committing, then it is laziness.
And the best way of doing it is to firstly give the West a great power, make it well developed by means of Industrial revolution, as you said:
It doesn’t seem logical.
It would be much cheaper for Masons to destroy the West when it was still weak, instead of helping it with industrialization.
Or they were just having fun: first build, then destroy?
No, the Masons did not create industrialization, they created or perpetuated scams like banks, companies, stock markets, fiat money, economy and every other thing designed to transfer power into their hands. These are the things that constitute the “capitalist economy”. The Masons invented nothing of these industrial inventions, they took the new inventions and used them to acquire more power and to suffocate all other manufactures. They also took over whole countries, and that is a precedent.
The biggest lie is that this “capitalist economy” is the product of the new innovations and that such an evil system is inevitable. Wrong. Evil and harm doesn’t come from steam or fuel engines or electricity, it comes from humans. It is human intentions that decide the nature of system, especially the intentions of those who have the most important things in their hands and who happen to be Masons currently. What do you expect from a sect that worships Lucifer?
“It doesn’t seem logical. It would be much cheaper for Masons to destroy the West when it was still weak, instead of helping it with industrialization.”
It’s 100% logical, because industrialization transferred the powers into their hands.
“Or they were just having fun: first build, then destroy?”
“Solve et coagula” and “Ordo ab chao” are basic Masonic principles, which is why they call themselves Masons: they build then destroy then build then destroy etc.
It seems we have a lot of Masons around – building, destroying, making capital, scams like banks, etc.
Maybe all, who is not Mason yet, should join Masons to get power?
It is a comforting news: they will re-build everything, and we’ll have everything brand-new.
““Solve et coagula” and “Ordo ab chao” are basic Masonic principles”
Don’t confuse traditional Masonry (which originated in the Middle Ages and were guilds of qualified builders who participated in building the Cathedrals) with its illuminist counterfeits.
Those two principle refer to inner spiritual processes, not to the subversion of society.
When I say “Masons”, I refer to the well known Satanic cult. The context is obvious here.
“Ordo ab chao” refers to the subversion of society which is the Masons’ favorite game.
I think you have created some very unhealthy obsessions for yourself.
If evil was so tightly located in just one place, then things would be easier for us. However, they are not so simple and focusing all on an external target is extremely detrimental.
Can Man own technology or must technology own Man?
Well, it can drown itself with technology (and media), and in the process lose the “self”. And the “self”, so important in “being”, no longer really being, there is no more “being”. Just an eternal, existential emptiness. But alas, there will always be some shallow distractions available on the likes of MTV and their minions (not to mention the eternal emptiness of cyber-space) that we can all base a new “self” on. But it is not real, and has no substance. There is no more “being”, just a meaningless eternity. You can already see this clear as day if you are an observer like me and watch people. The disease has already taken hold, and spreading fast. Best to be aware and choose a better way. I don’t have the answers for everyone on that better way of being, but it is worth looking within (and “without”) and figuring it out for one’s self. The “self” would be most appreciative!
I stopped watching people a long time ago.
Then I started exclusively watching nature.
Then I realized I had stopped watching that, too.
Little by little, I became aware of no longer ‘looking’, and found, instead, that I am whatever I am involved with.
Now creatures respond to me as if I am one of them, and not as they would to a human.
Maybe this sounds boring, to a tech-head?
Maybe it is.
But to me, it is life-on-steroids.
Doesn’t sound boring at all. I find quite a bit of solace in nature. And to live “in the moment” if you will sounds pretty cool (I think most can relate to having at least moments of doing so.) I have done plenty of numbing in ways maybe not in line with the values expressed here. But I have my reasons for doing so. That said, I have been working on letting these bad practices towards the “self” go, as I want something better. What am I getting at? Well, once you decide to move away from the numbing and deal with life and reality on its terms, there is a lot of thinking and introspection that happens (not that it wasn’t happening before, it just seems to take a different shape.) I haven’t got it all figured out yet for myself, but I am learning. I do know when I get stuck in some sort of escapism or otherwise defeating behaviors, than catch myself and back way, it ends up feeling good. So I am trying to figure out what actually works and what doesn’t. As far as nature goes, there is peace there in an otherwise chaotic and often meaningless world. I don’t need to get way out into the middle of nowhere to feel this peace. Just far enough to find some birds and other creatures, away from too many people, and it usually feels pretty good.
This is inevitable: All B-comany workers must buy B in order to get promoted or just to continue their employment. Kind of forced patriotism + discount for employees.
After buying these Bs, they will persuade themselves and their friends that was the best choice. And this old A didn’t have the icemaker…
Considering also the millions spent on advertisements (paid not by ordinary people), it’s not so difficult to predict the result.
Lake Woebeggone Effect. Everybody wants to be better than average. Nobody wants to do what’s actually necessary to get us there.
Bad labels.
Ordinary MEN let the West go to seed because they never questioned their wives when she wanted the new sexy granite countertop. Women play the status games, men either mitigate their effects or play the “I’m just ordinary people, man!” game when called out for their participation by men who can see.
They waste the aggression and dominance that should have been used against the flighty shit tests of their women and use it on the men who dare to question the status quo, preferably in a public setting where his woman can see him defending her decision by proxy.
No one ever said right living was sexy.
For what it is worth, there is tons of non-verbal aggression in our society, and see a lot of it between men (don’t get me wrong, american women are catty as h*** just the same.) I see our culture heading down the path of narcissistic douche-ism. How can a cohesive and functional society exist is such a state? It cannot, and what we see is the result.
I am certain all the blame games going around are nothing more than people looking for a scapegoat for what is wrong. People can feel it in their hearts that we are on the path to hell. But no one want so accept their part, or call out the stuff that they otherwise hold near and dear. A whole lot of selfishness on so many levels.