Those of us in the modern time grew up in a bubble, and we went through an awakening to get where we are now, which leaves us in a vacuum between knowing what we do not want and what we will eventually desire.
Each bit of figuring out our destination, and our plan for getting there, involves other micro-tremors of awakening. In each other, the assumptions that allowed the bubble to occur get debunked in sequence.
This means that the process of becoming sane in our time involves a series of losses. We lose faith in things, no longer rely on them, and in the ensuing emptiness, must invent anew.
It makes the bubble appealing again, but once you have seen its deception, you can never go back. You are now out alone in the cold, beyond what society considers normal, decent, sane, and good. Here there are no easy answers.
A bubble on the other hand comprises nothing but easy answers. It is part bourgeois consumerism, or the idea that the customer is always right and industry, science, or government will fix all problems. Part of it consists of belief in the ideology of external good, or that we can make ourselves better by collectively adopting an attitude of tolerance, acceptance, and altruism. Another part is purely social, the idea that while it is cold out there and death is real, we can make ourselves feel better with a feast of friends, some alcohol, quality entertainment, and health insurance. The bubble consists of the warm feelings one has when highly symbolic easy answers replace the ambiguity of reality.
That in turn tells us the purpose of the bubble. People who have a high degree of inner purpose do not need a bubble; they in fact demand to know the raw truth of any situation, so that they may manipulate it. For them, the light at the end of the tunnel is an understanding and appreciation of life, so that they may move on to the next level of understanding. They see knowledge as esoteric and the only power we have in this world, since we cannot change how nature operates.
If you lack that attitude, you are in a bad way. Without a belief in your own efficacy, you find yourself perpetually in a passive position where life does things and you accept them, which makes you have a nasty mindset of retaliation and taking everything that you can for yourself. Even more, you find your lack of control — which originates in your lack of mental organization — drives you a bit mad, and you will discover that you are compelled to crush others who do not act in accord with your vision, because these challenges threaten what little grip you have.
Our distant ancestors stayed nomadic because they realized that eugenics is the basis of civilization. You need to constantly promote the good, so that you get sane people, but in order to avoid being poisoned by its own waste, your tribe/civilization/culture needs to constantly shed people who are neurotic, resentful, schizoid, parasitic, or otherwise reveal that they have a lack of inner order.
Inner order — this requires having a real spirit, or even soul — comes from understanding life as fundamentally good and our roles within it as beautiful because we get to participate in that good, and perhaps enhance it a little bit and spread it along. Someone who always discovers something new, whether an unknown type of frog in the local pond or a new book or even a different way to cook an old favorite recipe, and then wants to tell everyone about it has a high degree of spirit. Someone who wants to climb mountains, conquer nearby tribes, and assemble and filter knowledge also has this aggressive positive spirit. These types of people can make civilizations; many others are simply takers, in that they are neutral, inert, and unable to influence their world much because they do not understand it, so their only role is to consume and destroy so that they can fill the void inside themselves with temporary power, social approval, wealth, or simply mass consumption. They are human yeast, in that if not beaten back and exiled, they will reproduce profligately and consume all resources, then die among the ruins of the far better things that they have destroyed.
People of this nature form a Crowd or self-reinforcing collective behavior, something that is always individualistic or “me first at the expense of everything else” like these void-stuffers. No one else needs a crowd; they function on their own, doing their thing their way, and get to a point of balance with the world where they contribute and enjoy simultaneously, sort of like how species in an ecosystem both give and take. Think of the humble mouse, which eats seeds, leaves droppings, spreads pollen, and provides a food source for nimble predators. The mouse benefits from life being hard on it, because that way mice remain generally competent; when natural selection pressures fall off, mice die out because their lives no longer have meaning, which proves to a be a similar process to the ressentiment of the Crowdist.
Fred Nietzsche describes ressentiment as fatalism clashing with a desire for power producing an impulse to destroy the beautiful, good, and true (“real”):
People who suffered from oppression at the hands of the noble, excellent, (but uninhibited) people valorized by good/bad morality—and who were denied any effective recourse against them by relative powerlessness—developed a persistent, corrosive emotional pattern of resentful hatred against their enemies, which Nietzsche calls ressentiment. That emotion motivated the development of the new moral concept
, purpose-designed for the moralistic condemnation of those enemies.
Plato saw this process more realistically as a caste conflict, with those who were biologically destined to have disorganized minds and therefore be applied as rote labor rising up against those who could do more, a form of pure resentment he described in biological terms:
And the end is that when they see the people, not of their own accord, but through ignorance, and because they are deceived by informers, seeking to do them wrong, then at last they are forced to become oligarchs in reality; they do not wish to be, but the sting of the drones torments them and breeds revolution in them.
Ultimately, Plato strikes me as more realistic because good people arise in every society and can be found doing constructive things (yes, I’m not a “racist”; I tend to like and find good people everywhere, even if I think diversity is pants-on-head retarded). Conversely, drones and proles can be found in every society, and they seem born that way: aimless, greedy, revengeful, confused, directionless, and manipulative. They think themselves clever, yet are only intelligent at the level of tactics, because once they gain power, they either directly destroy or chase illusions that lead to destruction of good things.
A healthy society produces genius by rewarding high performance disproportionately, violently excluding the bad, and ignoring everyone else as mediocre and therefore, not valuable. Winner-take-all societies produce exceptional competence, where tolerant everyone-is-good societies create a huge herd of people with nothing to offer who believe the exact opposite of themselves.
This herd can be identified by its indecision. These people cannot commit to a path, so stay in perpetual internal conflict, mirroring the adversarial and pluralistic systems they prefer to hierarchies. They avoid making decisions in order to avoid self-actualizing and demonstrating who they are, mainly because they fear that they are empty. Perhaps they are right, and they have identified their role as being more like the mice of the field than the eagles of the sky, which is great if you want a mouse society, and that society has no technology or economies of scale that might allow the untermenschy to thrive.
Where productive people specialize in concentrating energy, power, learning, and wealth so that great things can be done, the proles seek to release stress, mainly because they have no actual goal. For them, civilization can be taken for granted, and nothing must be done to maintain it, because their focus involves themselves, their consumption, and their personal desires and nothing more. These people rely on external motivation, such as tangible objects to acquire and the pain of bad feedback. As alwasy seems the case in humanity, the more external motivation that exists — whether totalitarianism, centralized bureaucracy, social control through popularity, or domineering parents — the less internal motivation is developed. People in the grips of external control emerge into the light like the East Germans, waiting for instructions and otherwise unable to plan their days.
People with external motivation rely on egalitarian societies in order to facilitate their individualism. You can tell that these societies are individualistic because they emphasize accepting everyone so that their use of everything else as a means to the end of their individualistic desires cannot be judged as selfish, causing them to be seen as proles. For the externally motivated, everything out there exists for the individual and its self-expression, a condition we might call “solipsism” because it denies that the world-in-itself is good, and worth nurturing and enhancing, because good is not a property of the individual but something shared by all over the longest historical scale.
Their denial of the inner meaning of life, and of our need for internal motivation to meet it, makes them create a world of comforting external symbols so that they feel accepted, and they force others into this because if anyone succeeds without their order, it proves that their order is not needed, at least for those with internal motivation. The herd hates genius, loathes realism, and wants to crush anything good, beautiful, and true because they see it as a challenge to their personal totalitarianism which insists that they can use power, wealth, and status for the acquisition of more of the same, seeming them as an end in themselves, a condition known as “control”, per Naked Lunch:
The face of evil is always the face of total need. A dope fiend is a man in total need of dope. Beyond a certain frequency need knows absolutely no limit or control. In the words of total need: Wouldn’t you? Yes you would. You would lie, cheat, inform on your friends, steal, do anything to satisfy total need. Because you would be in a state of total sickness, total possession, and not in a position to act in any other way. (4)
You see control can never be a means to any practical end…. It can never be a means to anything but more control…. Like junk… (81)
This control requires something to resent, to destroy, and to manipulate; it depends on using other people, objects, and ideas as a means to making our own mental state feel better, like a drug, and similarly it is brutally addictive:
When there is no more opposition, control becomes a meaningless proposition. It is highly questionable whether a human organism could survive complete control. There would be nothing there. No persons there. Life is will (motivation) and the workers would no longer be alive, perhaps literally. The concept of suggestion as a complete technique presupposes that control is partial and not complete. You do not have to give suggestions to your tape recorder nor subject it to pain and coercion or persuasion.
Consider a control situation: ten people in a lifeboat. two armed self-appointed leaders force the other eight to do the rowing while they dispose of the food and water, keeping most of it for themselves an doling out only enough to keep the other eight rowing. The two leaders now need to exercise control to maintain an advantageous position which they could not hold without it. Here the method of control is force – the possession of guns. Decontrol would be accomplished by overpowering the leaders and taking their guns. This effected, it would be advantageous to kill them at once. So once embarked on a policy of control, the leaders must continue the policy as a matter of self-preservation. Who, then, needs to control others but those who protect by such control a position of relative advantage? Why do they need to exercise control? Because they would soon lose this position and advantage and in many cases their lives as well, if they relinquished control.
Our bubble exists because of the inner totalitarianism of human beings who have not discovered their purpose. It uses symbols, words, images, and emotions to distract us from the process of becoming self-actualized, so that we may join the mob of waste humans who have no purpose, simply because “misery loves company.”
Anyway, on to some links:
Herman Hesse famously used the metaphor of a river to point out that one cannot step in the same river twice. Humans do not see it this way; they see a photograph of the world as it was when they were eleven to sixteen years of age, and assume that no matter what they do, it will stay that way. This sort of thinking enables them to take swans out of their natural environment, put them in parks, and feed them human food, but then later — for social validation points — preach about how people should not feed the birds bread, causing the birds to starve. Once you have stepped in that river, humanity, it is a different river. You have taken responsibility for the stewardship of these birds, and if their natural food sources are alien to them because of domestication, you have to keep bringing bread. Even better yet, leave them as you found them, and appreciate them from a distance instead of making them decorations for your parks.
The Left specializes in implication. The gross truth here is that even if Trump said to Ukraine, “Investigate Biden or I withhold aid,” he was acting legally because it is part of his job as president to make sure aid is not going to corrupt countries or otherwise posing problems. He was doing his due diligence and the Left has a problem with that. Surely it has nothing to do with Biden’s guilt, which is probably a non-issue given that Biden looks like the walking dead and surely would not survive to the end of a trial.
Most American nationalists have no idea of this, but Zionism is a form of nationalism, and the Left attacks Israel because it is nationalistic. The BDS movement seeks to force diversity on everyone, where only about seventy percent of Jews are far Left enough to demand the same.
The good news about WW3 is that it will not a brother war; instead, it will be the West and allies versus China and allies. Most of those allies will be Eurasia and middle eastern. The build-up shows that China intends to project power across Asia, forcing the West to invade. If the West learned anything from Fort Sumter, it should be that we must force the Asiatics to invade us, which they do not want to do after the punishing casualties inflicted on the Mongols last time.
Zuckerberg may not be the best coder in the room, or the best businessman. However, he knows his audience, and that he is at least willing to identify as supporting the notion of open discussion shows that he has read the way things are changing. This in turn suggests that the rest of social media is lagging behind on this realization. Here is the takeaway:
“I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy,” Zuckerberg said Thursday.
In other words, now that the entire world seems to want to regulate social media, it means that the attempt by social media to avoid regulation by pre-emptively censoring material has not worked, and so he is walking it back in order to avoid going further down the road of government control. Let us hope this continues. The bigger problem, that no one is talking about, is that centralized services like Instagram, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Reddit have replaced the wide-open internet by only rewarding people who play their game, which destroys the “anyone can get on and publish” Wild West of the internet which saw under-acknowledged experts able to compete with Big Media. Will Facebook walk it back on big media as well? You have a chance to be a hero here, Zuck.
Diplomacy Trump-style seems to work better than whatever the US did before. His method seems straightforward, as detailed in his book. He figures out what could be an improvement over the current, and offers to help make that happen in exchange for the other party doing what he wants. This creates a win-win situation if all play, but otherwise allows the current situation to exist, at which point he forces the situation to deteriorate by crippling it at weak points. In this case, Trump created an immigration crisis in the US so that other nations would act, and offered them help in exchange for working with the US, instead of spending the money directly, knowing that his way would be cheaper and help more people.
The row over 5G originates in the fact that it was not properly tested, and assurances were made without basis, and people want us to slow down and take a hard look instead of assuming that it is or is not totally safe.
In a diverse environment, all groups view members of other groups as both disposable tools and enemies, which brings together a desire to use them and destroy them. Like ethnic crime in the US, these abuses go on and people are afraid to report them for fear of appearing racist, which allows ethnic warfare to rage until finally one side formalizes it with acts of terror. If some UK Brenton Tarrant shoots up a mosque, no one will actually wonder why, although they will make a big show of being confused by it in the media.
Something about modern agriculture and the food products it creates is making everyone fat. Processed food and soft drinks may be to blame, but what will we do if it turns out that processed flour bread products are also to blame? Our agricultural miracle is reversing itself, not just with the pesticides that are rapidly being banned, but the failure of the food types themselves.
The study specified 10 categories of stressful or traumatic childhood events, including abuse, parental incarceration, and divorce or parental separation; its research showed that sustained stress caused biochemical changes in the brain and body and drastically increased the risk of developing mental illness and health problems.
Destroying the family with sexual liberation and divorce has long-term ugly consequences. Now we have a nation full of broken, angry people.
We are pointing the finger at Southeast Asia, but we are doing the same thing here with our “hate crimes” laws, red flag laws, and industry-wide collaboration with dubious “fact checkers.” White people have a disease in the form of a hateful cleverness that disguises what we are doing just enough to make it subtly enraging. We are driving ourselves mad with this hypocrisy.
Sort of like in the 1980s, teens have figured out that adulthood is a dead end where you work at jobs doing nothing important in order to pay taxes to keep a vast oblivious electorate ensconced in dreams of oblivion and rock star importance. There is no point growing up; you will simply work until you die, in an environment suspiciously like your brain-dead high school, while the world falls apart around you.
In the name of tolerance, the city encouraged homelessness and drug use, and now it is basically a third world country with wealthy enclaves where people retreat to avoid the needles, feces, and crime.
Political correctness works by assuming that choices that others make for themselves are to be interpreted in the universal and absolute context that egalitarians intend their own ideology. This means that no one can deviate from the orthodoxy, which makes society rigid and thus, fragile.
In a diverse society, any honest look at anything will offend some group, and as a result, society will always be at war with itself. Diversity is a dead man walking, just waiting for someone to figure out a soft way of getting rid of it.
Behind the scenes, Western governments are doing their best to stem the flow. Stories like this discourage others from coming. They are not doing this for ideological reasons, but because their attempt to raise new tax revenue by bringing in lots of third world people, dumping money on them so they spend it and inflate the economy, and then taxing them is not working. As a result, governments are trying to minimize impact before the inevitable crash.