The enemy is within


Humanity resembles a wide-open plain with a few mountains poking above the relatively consistent but not uniform grasses and scrub brush. From those high places, much can be seen, but most ignore them, since their concerns lie in the nice equally short bushes.

One of the mountaintops came to us from Jamaican-American thinker Marcus Garvey who, as a nationalist and integralist, intuited that no tribe can coexist with others, even geographically, because they will then be inherently in conflict and will use each other as scapegoats. He spoke of a condition called fatalism to describe those who find such long-term goals inconvenient and prefer the “pragmatic” short-term goals that end in certain (but delayed) failure:

Some of us seem to accept the fatalist position, the fatalist attitude, that God accorded to us a certain position and condition, and therefore there is no need trying to be otherwise. The moment you accept such an attitude, the moment you accept such an opinion, the moment you harbor such an idea, you hurl an insult at the great God who created you, because you question Him for His love; you question Him for His mercy.
― Marcus Garvey, Selected Writings and Speeches of Marcus Garvey

Fatalism takes many forms; the simplest occurs when people decide that their choices have no impact. They look at a much larger structure above them and induce in themselves the belief that what they do has no relevance because it is smaller in scale. They are both right and wrong.

The individual cannot have direct effect on the scope at which the mountain exists. We cannot, as individuals, kick out our feet and level the mountain. And yet, our choices have consequences. They influence others, and push back against certain ideas, which is where they are most effective. By driving out delusional ideas, we can not only subvert the mountain but change its fundamental nature. We also stop the spread of those delusional ideas by not passing them on to others as if they were true.

The biggest impediment to us having effect is not others, but ourselves. Humans are half-computer, half-monkey, and since the monkey half is simpler it is what we default to as we mature. Any human who wants to have an effect on the world must first grow past his monkey, and then defeat the various illusions that inherent to the early stages of thinking about an issue.

What follows is not popular, because it affirms the idea of us conquering ourselves instead of choosing an external option — God, democracy, drugs, love, money — that will do it for us. This is the philosophical version of the old joke: a traveler rolls down his window and asks a man on the curb, “Do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?” to which the cynical bystander replies, Practice!

Indeed: analysis does not happen without practice. If you are stepping onto the floor with philosophical, political or social issues, analysis is what you are doing and the only method by which you will succeed. Sometimes called critical thinking, before the 1968ers ruined that term, analysis refers to the act of logically breaking down a problem, figuring out how it works, and then testing the solution as a whole to see what is a sensible answer.

Most people — about 80% — are biologically incapable of this level of thinking, and most of the remaining 20% are either too immature, too obsessive or too dishonest to do it. It falls to about 1% of the population who are both capable and of the moral character to make themselves receptive to the process. This is why almost everything in society is blockheaded: most people can repeat what succeeded for others, but not understand why, which creates an insect pathology of repetition which ignores context and situation.

If you are wondering why the internet is awash in conspiracy theories, liberals and white nationalists, the reason lies above. People are incapable of the analysis necessary and so they default to monkey behaviors like scapegoating, group identity, victimhood/revenge and projection. These theories are in fact the most popular because they are understood by the most, and people recognize truth up to their cognitive limits and assume anything above that is voodoo or a typing error.

On the right, for example, there are those who blame The Jew™ or The Negro™ while on the left they blame White Men or The Rich™ apparently without realizing the irony of “We’re the victims, so let’s victimize someone else!” In fact, this pattern repeats in both monkey tribes and human groups, which is that any party which is failing or troubled will immediately seek out a weaker party to clobber, raising its own group status to having someone to bully.

We need to turn to our logical side and point the finger where it belongs: at democracy, altruism, equality, tolerance and other illusions which cause civilization collapse. These are the cause of our decline, and we know this both through history and through the logical fact that if we remove them, our society rises out of its misery and neurosis.

This requires us to be mature and accept that we did this to ourselves. We made a bad choice, basing it on what flattered us emotionally instead of what was obviously true, and since then our society has thrashed in helpless decline. We hide that decline behind wealth, prestige and the even greater incompetence of other societies, but the mirth and power has left us. We are falling.

Why are our leaders so bad? They are chosen by voters, and (1) most people cannot make this decision with any realistic basis and (2) in groups, humans choose compromises that make the group happy instead of addressing complex real-world issues. We The People™ chose these leaders. Even if the media, entertainment and intellectuals misled us, we pulled the levers and made the choice when we should have known better to be capable of making those decisions.

Why do we suffer under degeneracy, diversity and relativism? Once you start with an idea like “equality,” the assumption that people are equal means that in every situation where someone fails, there is a scapegoat. People always blame those with higher standards for the failings of those with lower standards. Through this process, a rule of having no standards spreads through all of society.

Why is our society incompetent? We insist on altruism, which measures external characteristics like obedience through schooling and attendance, and ignore internal ones like character and intellectual traits. As a result, we promote the shallowest people for having the “right” ideology and then watch them flounder when confronted with complex problems off the beaten track.

Is the problem Jews, Africans, or even whites? Much more complex, and yet simpler: the problem is an idea. This idea flatters us. It says we are all equal. This causes us to act mechanically and treat all people as identical cogs in a big machine, which in turn much like Communism robs them of their will toward excellence, doing good and planning toward the long term.

Democracy misleads us. In the name of a kind of pacifism — the idea that we can control others by considering them “equal” — we have made our society into hell. Under the surface, it is a miserable place. People act with a “committee mindset,” taking no unpopular risks to affirm what is right, and we enable millions of parasites to take from the good. Until we fix this outlook, everything else is just a scapegoat, which is why we have failed to reverse our decline so far.

Tags: , , , , , ,

41 Responses to “The enemy is within”

  1. crow says:

    Logic is self-defeating: it applies what it knows to what it doesn’t know, using rules that do not apply.

    Intellect applies what it knows to what it doesn’t know, in an attempt to know it, then, failing to know it, discards it as valueless.

    Truth does not need to make sense, to be true.

    Be grateful you’re not a bird. Or you, too, would crow about things like these.

    • Logic is self-defeating: it applies what it knows to what it doesn’t know, using rules that do not apply.

      Intellect applies what it knows to what it doesn’t know, in an attempt to know it, then, failing to know it, discards it as valueless.

      That’s an interesting point. Logic exists in two forms, actual and human. The human form restricts itself by insisting that the world consists of only what average humans can observe, and that those observations are absolute truth (cause) and not its instance (effect). Like a programming language, logic is only as good as the programmer, and when the programmer decides to limit what he will acknowledge and notice as true to a small subset of what is true, then the program is consistently hobbled as well. The core of this insistence to my mind is rationalism, or the demand that wide and deep swathes of data be symbolized in tokens and logical yes/no states, instead of approached with the more flexible “whole” analysis of the Greeks.

      Intellect, I can’t help anyone with. It is highly praised in our society, and serves as a form of personal adornment, but us pragmatists think that intellect is only useful when it is (a) correct and (b) realistic, or descriptive of some actual event, problem, solution, etc. And at that, the intellectuals look down their nose at me, because I view the intellect as a tool as if I were some kind of common farmer! Still, common farms have fed millions, while intellectuals have fed nothing but the vanity of the city elites, at least in recent history.

      • crow says:

        You think there is natural logic? How do you arrive at that idea? Logic is a human concept, is it not? How could it be otherwise?

        • There is a logic to how this world is constructed. How well humans can perceive it varies with the individual (esotericism) and requires a long learning — or at least observing — process. Man’s logic is rationalism; nature’s logic is like gravity or time, revealing the two essential traits to this world: (1) consistency and (2) infinity, including infinite refinement.

          In other words, it’s the usual human problem. Nature makes a thing, humans give it a name, and then they start being selective about what they admit is that thing, resulting in an inaccurate or deceptive view of it, which they then insist others use, which conceals the actual truth of the thing so people cannot perceive it.

          They did it first to God, in my view, making him human-focused instead of looking toward infinity and infinite possibility as is more likely.

          • crow says:

            Humans like to survey very big things and turn them into smaller, more manageable things, by giving them absurd names, and then deeming them ‘understood’. Thereby ensuring they will never, ever be known about.
            The Big Bang, for example. Whatever that is. What colossal hubris to stick a name like that on everything that ever was, is, and ever will be.

        • -A says:

          Yeah? Physics is a human concept too. Should Ontology and math be thrown out the window?

          • crow says:

            That would probably be of profound benefit to the human race, so yes. On the other hand, knowing what I do about humans, maybe not.

            But seriously, it’s a simple concept, too simple, apparently, to grasp: Physics, math, logic, are all human symbols for stuff that predated humans and will far outlast them.

  2. socratits says:

    What’s that, no mention of a certain group of white men with guns taking over a government building and threatening to kill police? Oh I guess it’s only black protesters revolting against systemic racism in the form of summary police executions and violence who are worthy of criticism/contempt then.

    • You completely missed the point.

    • Jpw says:

      Yeah, Mayor Emanuel in Chicago needs to be dragged forth and hanged if you ask me.

      • Tom Iron says:

        Another point about re is he’s a “dual” citizen. He served in the Israeli army rather than ours during Desert Storm Operation. Also his dad was part of the Irgun, a real nasty little group.

    • -A says:

      Does such a group of men even exist?

      • hhhhhh says:

        I’m not convinced. Blaine Cooper (the person who led the nature preserve bathroom occupation) is definitely a Fed. Look at the video on his YouTube channel, and things will be much more clear. You’re right, there might not even be anyone occupying those public bathrooms.

        • -A says:

          I thought they took over the reserve itself. I did not realize they took over a government building.

    • hhhhhh says:

      I can see your point, but it’s weird to pretend that it wasn’t mostly Jews that decayed society. All those ideas that you listed as a cause of societal decay were introduced mostly by Jews, not democracy.

      • All of those ideas were accepted because democracy/equality is the root of them.

        Surely we do not blame The Jews™ for the fall of Athens?

        • hhhhhh says:

          I think it was caused more by things like the creation of suburbs by government(zoning laws) which destroyed any sense of community, along with the Zionist/Leftist takeover of government, and compulsory public education. In essence, society was made vulnerable in ways that made people more susceptible to trickery. There were many other insidious techniques that attacked the culture and the mind slowly, but each too innocuous to notice or resist. It’s also been theorized that all the brave men were killed off in the world wars, which left society vulnerable to this kind of infiltration. I would definitely never blame “The Jews,” but a particular subset of them is conspicuously behind most society-destroying events/organizations. Perhaps the oligarchs use them as scapegoats, but perhaps they’ve out-maneuvered the previous oligarchs.

          • In essence, society was made vulnerable in ways that made people more susceptible to trickery.

            This takes us back to the infection model: “people are exposed to bad ideas that just change them.”

            While there is truth to the fact that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater triggers panic, I have a few questions for that model.

            First, do we assume they made any different decisions before the vulnerability was instilled?

            Second, we know human weakness… it’s pretty much universal. While you make a good point in that it can be manipulated, does that speak well or ill of a system based on individual choice?

            • hhhhhh says:

              Well, when the US was founded, they only let white land-holding males vote. Would that not eliminate almost all the undesirable elements from voting. I just find it bizarre that you would advocate monarchy in order to return the US to greatness when it was founded on the fact that monarchy was a universal evil, then succeeded in demonstrating the viability of the alternate system with its unrivaled success due to not having a monarchy. You’ve stated your main goal in establishing a monarchy is having a philosophical/moral leader, but such a leader can exist without owning everyone in the nation as personal property. I’ll finish by saying that a corrupting influence can more easily overtake a society if there is a definite leader to bribe/threaten to do your bidding. Germany was impossible for the Romans to conquer because they had no leaders to surrender to Rome. I’ll posit that certain Western European areas are the last places to be domesticated by a tyrant. If you look at China, they are ridiculously domesticated, and I wonder if you feel admiration for their society?

  3. Wrong Side of History says:

    To imply that a certain (((group))) isn’t a problem is ridiculous.

    • There are many problems, but there is only one root of all problems. Strike at the neck of the Hydra, not its many heads, especially because you may mistake others trying to avoid the problems caused by the neck for one of the heads.

  4. PubliusMN says:

    Another great essay.
    I am a bit confused by your lumping of White Nationalists with the groups that you claim are “stupid.” Are all White Nationalists really stupid? Like any group, they will be full of a range of people with a range of intellectual capacities. And the impetus behind ethno-nationalism seems to be sound: separation of ethnic groups and cultures. I therefore would see white nationalism, if done right, as on the side of the solution. Same with conspiracy theories: there actually are real conspiracies: the ongoing project to dilute European nations and the USA with incompatible cultures, and to destroy homogeneity seems to be a very real, though mainly hidden by the mainstream media, conspiracy. Well, it’s not even a conspiracy anymore, unless you can have an open conspiracy.
    But your root idea, that the problem is not a group to scapegoat, but certain ideas, is mainly correct. However, if and when this fact is realized and acted upon, a society trying to save itself would inevitably need to act against certain groups, and this will be seen as scapegoating by many or most.

    • Jpw says:

      Yeah. I can see how !WHITE NATIONALIST! could be an abused buzzword like !RACIST! I think everyone is a nationalist in the older, less political sense of the term. I think of myself as an American Nationalist instead of purely White one. In other words, I’m pretty happy around Black, Asian and Hispanic people who have their heads out of their butts and who basically try to live decent lives. I don’t deliberately diversity, but I can work well with it if it is intelligent diversity.

      That proffered up front, I also don’t blame Whites who informally resegregate. It’s none of my business who they want to hire, marry, hang out with or include in their lives. I think freedom of association is a lynchpin right. If we lose it, we lose America and become Amerika.

    • -A says:

      White Nationalist has become a buzzword devoid of meaning. Most White Nationalists abide by this meaninglessness and make a form of liberalism (all liberalism is toxic) that simply favor White people at the expense of others, when all of our Society should be White and without an other to exploit in the first place. The smart (real) White Nationalists call themselves Identitarians. In fact, some pretty staunch Libertarians have changed their tunes in regards to diversity in earnest by embracing Identitarianism.

      • Most white nationalists are leftists who want a classless society for whites, where all whites are equal and on top, and everyone else serving them. It’s a fantasy.

        The roots of nationalism and identitarianism come from practicality: each population needs some way to regulate itself without government, because government is parasitic and inefficient. This can only happen through culture, which requires a homogenous racial group, and from what comes identity, or a sense of shared purpose, social standards and values embedded in the flesh like DNA. This is the only sane basis for a society, and everything else fails and leads to third-world conditions.

        • PubliusMN says:

          Now I understand a bit more. I do not know much about American white nationalism, even though I live here. I come at it more from my knowledge of the European New Right, where ethno-nationalism makes sense.
          I do sense that one of the biggest failings of many white identitarian groups is too much of a focus on the evils of the “other,” and not enough on the failings of the individuals and the culture of the group. A strong culture would automatically reject any dangerous “infection.” I am reading an account of the crusades by Joinville, and a French knight simply bashed a rabbi on the side of the head for denying some major tenet of Christian belief while in a meeting at a church or abbey. He didn’t have to kill him, he just slapped him around and that was that. No threat.
          We are so “infected” now by both liberal ideals, liberal delusions, and are also beset by a dangerous flood of literal invaders, that the cure is bound to be pretty drastic at this point. Like how the longer you wait to treat some diseases, the cure eventually becomes as dangerous as the disease…

        • Socratic Dialoguer says:

          National Socialists were also very leftwing oriented. Having a egalitarian agenda applied only to germans

          • I agree. The NSDAP strike me as people trying to be rightists, but caught within the classless society paradigm, so instead of killing aristocrats they murdered Jews.

  5. Neal Joitke says:

    I will read it later not now. That picture is great I saved it. Look at Stalin posing for the camera what is he saying by putting his hand inside shirt pocket just like Nepolien of France in the in the late 1700s. And so many more just like him. To include George Washington I got a picture of him doing the same thing for the same reason. He is saying

  6. Stephen says:

    “Most people — about 80% — are biologically incapable of this level of thinking, and most of the remaining 20% are either too immature, too obsessive or too dishonest to do it.” The Pareto Principle strikes again! Gotta love it.

    • Just like the Bell Curve, it’s everywhere we look — except few look because it’s unpopular.

      • Stephen says:

        Exactly. You also mentioned that…”It falls to about 1% of the population…to make themselves receptive to the process.” Which correlates with the third iteration of the Pareto Principle.
        1. 80/20 rule
        2. 64/4 law
        3. 51.2/0.8

  7. R. Jones says:

    This is the fairly accurate diagnosis. And it has been for some time. However…

    Occam’s razors still suggests that the particularly rapid decline of the west is attributable to Jewish influence. In addition, the worship of equality is an especially, almost uniquely European trait. Perhaps genetic, perhaps due to affluence and a reversion to hunter-gatherer norms.

    You correctly diagnose the general problem but you appear to desire to dissociate yourself from white nationalist types and anti-semites. However, the growing consciousness of the failure of leftism has been more successful propelled by reemerging European ethnic identity and culture.

    There must be a positive idea that the best groups can coalesce around. Anti-egalitarianism must be made viral and robust. And it can’t just be anti-equality. That’s retarded. Equalitarian sentiments are helpful in small groups. Communism works on a small enough scale.
    Even hard nosed reactionary truth sayers are afraid to dip into the deep water of group identity and transcendence.

    Sorry if that was a bit cobbled together.

    For more about the Jewish influence that Moldbug seems to ignore you can search the blog of racehist .

    • I submit to you that this statement:

      Equalitarian sentiments are helpful in small groups.

      …is your actual goal, and this statement:

      Occam’s razors still suggests that the particularly rapid decline of the west is attributable to Jewish influence.

      …allows the inevitable destruction of society brought on by egalitarianism to be concealed.

      If we did something horrible like killed all Jews tomorrow, our problems would still remain in the form of white liberals, who are merely lower-caste people attempting to seize power through guilt.

      Egalitarianism is guilt. Guilt for rising above; guilt for not subsidizing those who did not. This guilt creates internal division and destroys our best people, propelling the least competent into power, and wholly explains our downfall.

      I submit that some Jews have had a role in this, but they are liberals first and Jews second, as we see with deracinated Jews like Mark Zuckerberg who has bred with a Chinese woman, destroying his Hebrew bloodline.

      If you chase a scapegoat, you will exhaust the goodwill of others in supporting you and strengthen the actual problem. If the Evil Jews™ have a victory in that context, it is that you will destroy them, causing liberalism to win its final victory.

      Anti-egalitarianism must be made viral and robust.

      Here I agree: we need a different motivation, which is pursuit of excellence. The good, the beautiful, and the true; the best of our past and the best possible future; to be stronger, faster, smarter and better all around; to be conquerors.

      • Jpw says:

        >>>Equalitarian sentiments are helpful in small groups.

        I’d modify this a touch. They are helpful in carefully selected small groups. These groups would consist of people already successful in passing at least one sort of high-pass filter.

        • They are helpful in carefully selected small groups.

          I don’t agree. Egalitarianism is a substitute for results in reality; it corrupts the mental process as a result. In addition, it’s a substitute for what small groups need which is friendship or camraderie.

  8. Fleshcrawl says:

    That shadow, that shadow warned me of the end,
    That shadow, that shadow let me live again,
    That shadow, that shadow pulled me from the flames,
    That shadow, a premonition!

  9. […] Brett Stevens in quite on point with The enemy is within: […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>