When you exit the mainstream path of politics, usually by becoming a realist and recognizing that democracy is a scam, you take on new company who are not vetted by social filters like the people in mainstream politics.
Some of these will impress you with their depth and commitment, and others will strike you as people looking for an excuse to act out antisocial fantasies. Sometimes the line blurs: each one of them is enraged (versus mainstream conservative outrage) at how his society has been ruined and turned into an ersatz version of itself. This rage translates into emotional lashing out, and the result is hilarious one-upmanship:
“I’m going to gas the bankers and then throw their bodies into the compost heap.”
“Oh yeah? I’m going to line up all the Jews facing forward down the line, and drill them all through the forehead with a single bullet.”
“Shooting? That’s so mainstream, brah. I’m going to stuff the Jews and bankers in a giant grinder, like you use for weed, you know, and use the paste to make a wall on the Mexican border.”
“Dream on, shorty; that’s not extreme. It’s an acid bath for the Jews, bankers, homosexuals, gypsies and all journalists. Six inches at first, then the knee, then the groin. They will beg for death before it is done.”
“You guys are too dramatic. We just need a day of the rope where we string up the obvious, then armed troops on every streetcorner with a gallows. The minute someone breaks the law, they do the neckless jig.”
Needles to say, there are two factors at work here: (1) people tend to “act out” their emotions, suspending logical judgment, and (2) those who want change almost always end up emulating those who came before them. History is full of these little pitfalls.
Let me stave off some of this chaos with two observations:
1. Genocide is not necessary, not good and not effective.
Trying to whip some sense into the Dark Enlightenment audience, Jim makes some excellent points about the nature of the Other:
All this inclusiveness and diversity is not being reciprocated, and is not going to be reciprocated. It is cuckoldry. And this has been glaringly obvious since whites were ethnically cleansed out of the inner city. When whites are 43% of the voters, the government just takes their stuff away. That is simply the way things are. Just as when Muslims are ten to thirty percent of the population, you get holy war, when whites are in the minority, democracy will dispossess them.
Altruism is seldom the game theoretic solution. When it is the solution it’s a result of a highly successful culture that is fragile. The Dark Enlightenment talks about high trust equilibrium a lot. High trust equilibria are rare and hard to maintain…the trick is to break out of that natural equilibrium, to get a cooperate cooperate equilibrium.
The above summarizes the Dark Enlightenment well, but it should go further: altruism is salesmanship and nothing more. It is how one seduces societies into self-destruction for personal gain.
If the Dark Enlightenment has one core principle, it is this: all people act in self-interest as do all groups and, perhaps more importantly, this is correct behavior. When all act in self-interest, we do not need endless signaling, because we can simply address their self-interest as a contract proposal. They come to us and we assume everything they do and everything we do will be exclusively in self-interest.
Trust level and signaling are inversely proportional. The more trust you have, the less signaling you have; the less trust you have, the more signaling takes its place. In a high trust environment, like an ethnically-homogenous, religiously unified and culturally-ruled society, you do not signal anything because it is known. Your positions are those that are healthy, and those are agreed on not because they are popular but because they are right and have worked for aeons for that civilization.
Altruism is a form of signaling. Why else would it exist? When you do a good deed for someone, you tend to hide it; if you have to tell them about it, you have introduced new terms to the implied contract between the two of you. “I did this for you, now I want something in return.”
You will notice that all liberals behave this way. Liberals succeed in part because for them the contract is clear: you get equality, and in turn, you support our insane ideology by crushing any who disagree. Liberalism is simply an advanced version of the street gang. Anyone can join if they are willing to fight for the gang and die for the gang. And that fight? Revenge on anyone who is stronger than they, of course.
Which brings me to another point: we tend to see Dark Enlightenment theories as applying directly to the Western European (“white”) people. However, these rules are universal. There are only two parties in the world of leadership, and those are Us and Other. Us is your society; Other is everyone else, regardless of how smart, nice and capable they are.
This is one area where the Dark Enlightenment has gone off the rails. There is too much demonization of the Other, not realizing that we need a stricter rule regarding all Others, which is that if it is not Us, it needs to go away. It must not coexist with us in any form. It needs to go back to its continent of origin.
Which brings me to more of Jim’s essay:
A bunch of white American settlers want to settle on American Indian land. Indians have previously indicated that they are unhappy with this, and there are previous agreements that white people will not settle on this land. You offer them payment, including a lot of barrels of firewater. Indians accept the deal, land for nice stuff, including lots of firewater. They get drunk, stay drunk, while settlers move in and build some forts.
After a while, the whiskey runs out. The Indians wake up with a blazing hangover, no food, and no hunting grounds. “We have been cheated”, they wail.
They demand their land back. The settlers in the fort tell them to go to hell.
Some braves agree to go bravely looking for some undefended or minimally defended white women and children. They catch a woman, and two small children. Whom they rape, then skin, then burn alive. Then they bravely go back to their tribe and tell their tribe. “Well now it is war. So which side are you on. The side of us very brave braves, or the side of the people who took your land and gave you this hangover?”
The tribe declares for the warpath.
And then you kill them all and take their stuff.
Unfortunately, this approach is nonsensical because it is classic passive aggression and appeals because it is political, much in the way democracy only fights wars when it can portray itself as the victim and unify the herd behind war.
A more sensible view is this:
- Recognize the Other. Look at them: unless they share very similar genetics, similar abilities and inclinations, similar culture and proximate religious values, they are Other. If you are German and they are Irish, Nigerian, Japanese, Greek, Italian or Russian, they are Other. If they are Finnish, Austrian, northern French, English, Dutch, or Scandinavian, they could be Us; this depends on the situation. In America, all Western Europeans are Us. In Europe, only those of the same nationality are Us.
- Deport the Other. Tell them your self-interest: we need a society without Other, and no matter how nice you are, you are Other. So: boats! Big lovely boats with comfortable cabins. Those who resist can be subdued. But put them all on boats and send them away, and I’d make sure the bar is well-stocked with firewater, and never deal with the problem or the misery of murder again.
The angry types will say I’m not being extreme enough. But above I said genocide is “not necessary, not good and not effective.” All are true. Genocide is not necessary because deportation achieves the same result. It is not good because murder and warfare are hard on our people and not interesting for their own sake. It is also not effective because it creates negative goodwill toward themselves in our own people, and gives various Others a flag to take up against us.
My argument is not, by the way, “it is unpopular therefore a bad political move.” Genocide is usually popular if the group committing it thinks they will escape consequences. My argument is that genocide creates bad goodwill, in the form of lower self-esteem, in the group that completes the killing and then realizes they just acted out an emotional outburst and covered themselves in blood for nothing.
Deportation/exile possesses many advantages over genocide: it is not as popular, but it is also easier and easier to forget. It also preserves the order of nature, which is that different tribes separate and mature as they can, working in parallel so that different approaches are taken to the same task ensuring that one will at least work at some point. Other tribes are not a problem when the Other stays in its own continent and your own borders are sealed.
Further, deportation takes the form of a new contract. If your society is prosperous, pay them reparations for future goodwill. The trade is clear: you are displaced so we do not have to murder each other, but we are sending you on your way with gifts so you can set up a new life. This is not our act against you; it is our act against an order which fails each and every time it has tried, namely diversity.
On to our second point…
2. Those who hunger for executions have bought into the reversed logic of democracy.
Realistic people look at nature and reality, see why it works the way it does, and realize that their options are limited to things that work in similar ways. This is true because reality is not a physical thing, so much as an informational/mathematical order; that was the point of Plato’s forms.
Unrealistic people look at themselves, decide on what impulse is strongest, and find a way to justify that according to some universal principle they find that others enjoy as well. The unrealist looks at the Other, realizes that he can gain political power if he calls them rapists or pedophiles or some other unpopular outgroup, and then calls for their execution on the basis that they are bad.
This also occurs at the individual level. People love the thought of killing. They might be surprised to talk to some killers, who rarely will talk about it by the way, and to see that killers view killing as another tool, like we might view a hoe or ratchet wrench. To them, you kill when there is a need and otherwise do not think about it; the wrench stays on the bench. This is both (1) more detached than most people are comfortable with and (2) less “Rambo” emotional than people would expect. It unnerves most people, in fact, which is one reason why killers rarely talk about it.
The problem with unrealist thought is that because it is reversed, it leads to other reversed thought, such as democracy. Our Western mania from equality may have been born long ago when one person decided to act out emotionally, and rallied others to his side to justify the kill. That created a memory in which having a group agree made things easier. That worked for simple problems among honest people, but when manipulators appeared or the problem is complex, the group chooses wrong every time because its unrealistic thought process adapts poorly to reality.
Another article, this time an essay encoded within a story, from Spivonomist, goes awry at a crucial point:
Me: “You might be surprised. Plenty of laws get passed this way. Most of them are pretty standard things: no murder, no theft, no rape, that sort of thing. And nobody’s stupid enough to try to pass a new law if they aren’t very sure they’ll have the support of the crowd.” I paused to consider something. “I’d reckon they don’t have a lot of civic participation on windy days.”
The article is called “Toward a Model of Efficient Self-Governance” and talks about a society based around a gallows. Those who lead, or propose a new idea, do so with their neck in the noose. When the crowd objects, they are hung.
We call that democracy.
Unrealist philosophies are defensive because they are maintaining an illusion, that is, a narrative not based on reality. Instead it is based on preference and political power, or agreement of the group. This reverses focus from “How do we adapt to reality?” to “How do we justify what we desire?” and this reversal is the root of all human error.
You do not want a crowd making judgments. It always makes them in terms of itself alone. A crowd is a replacement reality; in a crowd, your goal is to keep the crowd on your side and not to step over the line, because then the crowd will destroy you. Just like a street gang. I say cut out the middleman and adapt to reality.
Even more, do not be so hasty with your desire to kill. When the penalty is death, only the crazy step up — or the sociopathic, because they know they can manipulate you. They will put their head in the noose, tell lies that most people think are pleasant, and then hijack your civilization just as surely as the West was stolen by democracy.
Tying this in to the first point: beware of the crowd especially when it comes to genocide. They will kill the Other they fear and keep the Other they think they can dominate, and that more innocuous Other will then simply out-reproduce them, miscegenate and assimilate them. Self-destruction in three easy steps.
I acknowledge that the problems facing us are dire. But we do not get to solutions by acting out our emotions, or by pandering to the crowd. We get to the solution by Dark Enlightenment itself — realizing the nature of people, and the nature of crowds, and instead of going with the herd, putting our best in charge and choosing honorable, efficient and effective solutions over emotional outbursts.