An Opportunity

It is tempting to bemoan our time, but recently, our prospects for the future have improved. With the debunking of liberal democracy as the US and EU collapse in a flurry of convergent failures, people are seeing that Systems — networks of rules — are inferior to culture and organic civilization.

Those two things, culture and organic civilization, have been banned by the Left through the use of diversity. By insisting that society be mixed-ethnic, they prevent it from ever having a single origin and single people, which it needs to have social standards and cultural values.

We might view the Left as a social contract: it offers guaranteed inclusion in society, or “equality,” in exchange for political support of the Left. This creates a mass within society that consumes it, but because it is unstable, it tends toward direct authoritarian rule instead of decentralized rule by principle as occurs with social standards and cultural values.

The problem with this is that it works against itself. As social acceptance approaches 100%, people have no need for Leftism anymore. Leftists then tend toward authoritarianism, especially acts which are symbolic only.

For example, diversity is a symbolic-only act. Leftists import the third world, then carefully live apart from them. The point is to smash down symbols of majority culture, because that has a values standard and so some people can be “wrong” and not included by those rules.

When Leftism becomes irrelevant, the social contract evaporates, which is why Leftists must constantly invent new crusades to “unify their base.” Luckily this is easy as much of the appeal of the Left is that it justifies revenge on those more naturally gifted or successful. When the base is given a new target, like gay marriage, they sense the ability to smash down the sane and make insanity standard, which delights them.

The problem with this, as with all work in search of a purpose, is that it gradually becomes disorganized and paradoxical. The more people we make equal, the less they are to agree with one another, and more likely to fragment into nearly infinite special interest groups, at which point those will be at war with one another.

In addition to the failures of their leadership, which are many because ideology is inherently reality-denying, Leftist societies fail because they cannot achieve voluntarily cooperation. As soon as people have guaranteed acceptance, they start pulling away from ideology, and even whipping them up into a Two Minutes Hate with the ideological outrage of the day is less effective, lasting for shorter periods of time.

Leftist society in the US and EU resembles the Soviet Union for exactly this reason: as soon as it took over, Leftism became The Establishment and the same bratty human behavior that Leftism took advantage of to get into power began to work against it. This requires them to switch to “negative authority,” or punishment, to keep people in line.

Your average Leftist does not care a fig for transgender rights or gay marriage. They want these things because they are absurd and offensive and therefore can become shibboleths, or quick tests for who is a good obedient Leftist cog and who is not, with the latter group seen as The Enemy even when — especially when — they do not identify as such. This is the bullying mentality behind Leftism.

The combination of this bullying, the predictable failure of unrealistic Leftist policies, and the growing uneasy sensation that our society was heading down a path to doom from which there could be no recovery, together motivated a backlash that we see with the election of Donald J. Trump, Brexit and other anti-Government actions.

These are more than a rejection of the last eight years, or even the last seventy, but more importantly, reject the entire concept of the System as good and Modernity as a variety of Utopia. We have seen what is on the end of the fork, and we now realize that all modern paths lead to authoritarianism, entropy and breakdown to a third-world status.

As pragmatic people, we realize that when a certain action is failing, the best thing to do is to stop doing it — or at least do less of it. This is why the narrative we see now is more anti-government than anything else. We want fewer taxes, welfare, healthcare, immigration, political correctness, censorship and other government programs. We want more normal life without its intervention.

For the functional among us, very little is needed from government. We like roads, military and police, and beyond that, want very little. But this conflicts with a segment of our population that probably would have been eliminated by natural selection who are a biologically-determined drain on civilization:

After 35 years, the researchers found one fifth of the group was responsible for 81 per cent of the criminal convictions; three quarters of drug prescriptions; two thirds of welfare benefit payments and more than half of nights in hospital.

…“About 20 per cent of population is using the lion’s share of a wide array of public services,” said Prof Terrie Moffitt, of King’s College and Duke University in North Carolina. “The same people use most of the NHS, the criminal courts, insurance claims, for disabling injury, pharmaceutical prescriptions and special welfare benefits.

…“But we also went further back into their childhood and found that 20 per cent begin their lives with mild problems with brain function and brain health when they were very small children.

In other words, civilization has been hijacked by its least competent because its most competent are afraid of appearing non-compassionate.

Symbolically, these elections are about more than politics. They are a cultural shift against the religion of compassion, and in favor of the lifestyle of realism and common sense, applied knowledge.

This places the West at a juncture where it has never been before, and possibly at a chasm that no society has ever managed to cross: it is rejecting our monkey-instinct fear of social disapproval and instead, suggesting that self-discipline and logical prevail over the impulses we otherwise follow.

If we reject our fear, we can stop making our policy around those who need to be moved on, and instead focus on what makes us healthy, sane and experiencing existential pleasure in life.

The team began the project to test the ‘Pareto principle’ – also known as the ‘80-20 rule’ – which states that in the majority of systems, around 80 per cent of the effects come from about 20 per cent of the causes.

This principle has been found to work computer science, biology, physics, economics and many other fields.

The new research found that the law is also true for societal burden. As well as increased criminality and NHS use, the most-costly participants of the study also carried 40 per cent of the obese weight and filed 36 per cent of personal-injury insurance claims.

All of nature fits this pattern. There is a corresponding 20% who do most of the good, and by definition, 60% in the middle. Societies that succeed are those which push the good 20% to the top, chop off the bad 20%, and reward the 60% only when they act more like the good 20%.

Government and Systems move in the opposite direction, which is to design around a lowest common denominator so that they do not leave the bad 20% behind, thus avoiding the appearance of being bad and keeping the fear of the sheep from being inflamed. That way of living does not work.

Since the West went egalitarian, or believing that Good = Bad so that it could accept the bad 20%, it has steadily devolved into incompetence, corruption, stupidity and mass slavery to boring tasks that are designed to accommodate the lowest achievers. We have made life existentially miserable, and as a result, our people are self-destructing.

These elections are the first step, a symbolic gesture, in the reversal of this path toward the bad and, in order to avoid it, setting a path for the good instead.

Many civilizations have faced this fork in the road, and apparently they all chose wrong, because history is a graveyard of failed empires.

We have the possibility of fixing a thousand years of decay and to move past it, just by pushing forward toward a non-Government, non-System based society anchored in realism and moral attention, which requires denial of individualism. All of these things are present in nascent form in the existing cultural change.

Right now, we have a chance to do what no others have done, and by so doing, end the crisis of leadership that has afflicted humanity and allowed it to overpopulate, pollute and vandalize a planet with useless activity.

We may rise above all who have come before us, starting with these little baby steps.

Tags: , , ,

19 Responses to “An Opportunity”

  1. Avraham Rosenblum says:

    Maybe Leftism is rage against pseudo religious people and counterfeit religiosity. That plus the intellectual justification of Hegel. It does not have to be from a bad heart to be wrong. Maybe it is like the original Enlightenment. People just got tired of pseudo religiosity. If they only people that were openly religious would have been the ones that were sincerely religious then I doubt if the Enlightenment would have gotten of the ground.

    • Maybe Leftism is rage against pseudo religious people and counterfeit religiosity.

      I think it is rage at success.

      Society grows, allows many to live who otherwise could not; this forces the good into a position of policeman/babysitter/manager/administrator to try to rein in the herd. In doing so, they become stewards of the herd, and this creates a slaves-and-masters relationship. The real consequence of this is that it ruins life for the masters, who are now dependent on the slaves, instead of simply killing off or exiling the useless and keeping the functional. From that starts a chain of events in which every smart person essentially wants to flee society and every dumb one wants to compel everyone to suffer it equally.

      I view religion as being corrupted by this process, rather than being the cause of the corruption. That is not a popular view apparently.

  2. crow says:

    “We might view the Left as a social contract: it offers guaranteed inclusion in society, or “equality,” in exchange for political support of the Left.”

    Not guaranteed. At any moment, the left can turn on ageing celebrities and punish them for actions which – although absolutely normal in the context of their time – are now frowned upon and/or illegal.

    Do we care about the welfare of ageing celebrities? Should we? Maybe we’ll care more when the attention of the leftists turns to us, which it will, once the ready supply of higher-visibility targets has dried up.

    “Ask not for whom the bell tolls: it tolls for thee!”

  3. Navy Jack says:

    Assuming Western Civilization achieves escape velocity and avoids destruction in the black hole of history, what would you propose that revitalized Westerners do with that “bad” 20%, the “lowest common denominator?

    • what would you propose that revitalized Westerners do with that “bad” 20%, the “lowest common denominator?

      The strict answer is that it does not matter, so long as they are no longer part of the civilization.

      In practice, I favor exile, but this tends to create nearby populations motivated by vengeance.

      So… they need to be exiled to far away, like Americans sending their criminals to Mexico as was once common, or executed. Obviously, people like myself are more excited by the former than the latter.

  4. Navy Jack says:

    The Pareto Principle is an observable and proven fact. And, I see it in action every day in the inner city of a large Southern metropolis. However, being a traditionalist, I tend to think in terms of family, that being the most basic, most original, and most important human community.

    Take, for instance, my middle son – – let’s say that he, most certainly, requires more of our familial resources due to Downs Syndrome – – he may even, some day, require more of society’s resources – – this “drain” will continue as long as he lives. However, his brothers are healthy, strong, and intelligent – – paragons of their race, their culture, and their familial line. Already, they are net contributors to the family economy and show every sign of being future contributors to the community at large, perhaps even leaders among men.

    Do Son 1 and Son 3 redeem their brother? Do their obvious abilities make up for his needfulness? If so, how does that equation work out?

    Son 1 and Son 3 would certainly go to war for their brother, defend him to their deaths, spend any resources necessary to do so. In doing so, do they harm the family? Harm society? To what limit of cost their love for their brother?

  5. Tony says:

    Nature has it’s way of what to do with the 20%.
    The Essence of Survival: every morning in Africa a lion and gazelle wake up; when the sun comes up you’d better be running.

    • Nature has it’s way of what to do with the 20%.

      Civilization suspends this, so we must re-invent it.

      Another interesting point: by definition, 80% of gazelles avoid predation.

  6. AgentofReactivity says:

    Equality and Hierarchy are the same thing, they both deny valuing people based on their character and merit, both systems determine your value arbitrarily in reference to other people’s value (in Equality your value is what everyone else’s is and in Hierarchy your value is what your caste is but both systems impose value on you rather than you earning your own value, which is pathetic, if you need value given to you or imposed upon you, that’s pathetic).

    • Equality and Hierarchy are the same thing, they both deny valuing people based on their character and merit, both systems determine your value arbitrarily in reference to other people’s value

      I disagree here. Hierarchy values you according to ability, which only exists relative to the rest of the group. There is no universal value to human beings, only what they achieve.

  7. Tony says:

    Navy Jack, please understand my comment was directed toward groups or races, not toward individuals.
    Brett, and by definition 20% of the lions starve.

    • Brett, and by definition 20% of the lions starve.

      If you want quality lions, the weak ones need to die out. Nature may seem cruel, but it is sensible, a highly intelligent design.

      • crow says:

        Do you not see anything wrong with decreeing nature to be “highly intelligent”?
        You may not realize it, but your stance towards nature is one of condescendingly allowing it to be almost your equal, by granting it a measure of what you judge to be its highest quality.

        The reason I go on about the language you use, and your refusal to decipher the language I use, is that by our language, itself a reflection of our beliefs, we cement our stances towards life.

        If life is barely adequate in your view, then life becomes barely adequate in your experience.
        Conversely, if life is a wonder, a mystery, filled with unbelievable delight, it becomes, for you, exactly that.

        Intelligence is utter bullshit, when you get right down to it. It means nothing. A vehicle to assume a fictitious stance of superiority.
        A superior being is superior. He doesn’t need to feel it, know it, broadcast it, convey it. Doesn’t need to be taken to be so by others. He is what he is.

        The last thing nature is, is intelligent.
        Supreme, yes. Mysterious, yes. Awesome, yes.

        By assigning human values to nature, there effectively isn’t any. Only a comparison to oneself.

        Hubris wears many disguises.

        • You may not realize it, but your stance towards nature is one of condescendingly allowing it to be almost your equal, by granting it a measure of what you judge to be its highest quality.

          I view nature as more systematically logical in operation than humankind, and myself as part and not the whole as less capable than it.

          The reason I go on about the language you use, and your refusal to decipher the language I use, is that by our language, itself a reflection of our beliefs, we cement our stances towards life.

          Whorf-Sapir in a nutshell. I recommend the Nietzsche/Wolfe view instead, which is extensively documented in these pages: language is used as a weapon for manipulation. There are exceptions, but they will not be as easily comprehended or really, as interesting.

          The last thing nature is, is intelligent.

          In this case, saying that nature is intelligent does not imply an active intelligence, but that it was designed intelligently.

          • crow says:

            All you ever do is defend an untenable position.
            It’s not just you that does this; everybody does it.
            An endless defense of a tiny piece of worthless territory, against the influx of anything that might render it less worthless, simply because you feel it’s yours, and you own it.

            I’ve always known what you know. The difference between us is that I have always reached out, adventured, sought, and found, suffered and been scarred-by the quest for the unknown and new.

            My folly has been to assume others might be as excited by discovery as I am. They are not. They will cling forever to scraps of knowing, decreeing that those scraps are man’s highest achievement.

            I feel the hermit calling. The need to fuck off away from humans, as all other seers have done, throughout history.

            This is not a comfortable feeling, but then, nothing I have ever done with my life has been comfortable.
            I trade comfort for Reality, and there’s no doubt at all which is more valuable.

            A civilization does not come to be, as a result of stagnation and defense. It reaches out and up, and improves upon itself. When it stops doing that, nothing on earth can save it.

            An individual human is a microcosm of that.
            When it thinks it knows, as opposed to knowing the value of knowing, it is royally screwed.

            I love Reality: it is an infinite source of paradox.
            The more you come to know, the greater the separation from those that don’t, until it becomes completely impossible to ever communicate anything, to anyone, ever again.

            Balance, not defense, or attack. To shift when shifting is necessary. To go-with, and move-toward, as Reality dictates. And most of all, to adapt.

            I am most fortunate, to have found a world, within a world, that is perfect and complete. Now all I need to do is exclude, once and for all, the plague of humans that know nothing, are nothing, and will return to nothing.

            Jokers, all.

  8. Tony says:

    Nature is the only constant in the universe. It was designed that way. There is no right or wrong, no good or bad, it is nature.

  9. Navy Jack says:

    Nature. Design. Intelligence. Highly intelligent design. Nietzsche. Constant. Universe.

    Gentlemen, have you ever read Plato’s allegory of the prisoners in the cave viewing reality in the shadows cast on its dark walls? I suggest that you need to turn from the shadows and view reality. You are highly intelligent creatures designed for a purpose as part of a constant, continuing and comprehensive plan – – Nature, the Universe, whatever, you wish to call this mortal coil is nothing more than the cave walls upon which your attention is currently focused – – there you see shadows of the Truth but not the Truth in its awesome whole.

    Your very language betrays your knowledge of an intelligent designer – – let us call him the Creator – – this is not an intellectual weakness on your part but merely a reflection of the fact that his presence is encoded into your very soul (or mind, or being, or hardware….or whatever you want to call it). Accept, for a moment, that He exists. Does not your position in relation to Him matter immeasurably more than your position in relation to nature (which is always and implacably passing away)? Or, in relation to your fellow rational creatures (who are more often than not in various stages of irrationality, of confusion about reality and even about their very existence)?

    If your position in relation to this Creator matters, then your knowledge of Him must not be accidental. If you acknowledge Him (as you have already done in the very language of your posts), it must be because He acknowledges you. He coded you, and your language, as an expression of the code, cannot help but reflect its encoder. If so, there is no escaping the reality that you must deal with this Creator as He most certainly has dealt (in your formation) and will deal (in your deformation) with you. An intelligent designer as the one constant beyond and above the universe itself is most certainly a fixed position around which you orbit, to which you are drawn and about which you may, to some extent, know Truth. Nature may reflect this design no better than the shadows on the cave wall, but it cannot be that Truth in and of itself.

    Now, back to my original question (which no one has, as of yet, addressed). Assuming the intelligent design of which you have spoken and acknowledging that said intelligence posits a Creator, did He err in the design of the Downs Syndrome boy? Did the potter’s hand shake in shaping the clay? Are the weak, the malformed, the unlovely really an error in the code? Or, is the boy, as much as his lovely brothers, a creature of the same Designer? Formed for a purpose as yet beyond the ken of our shaded reason?