We Live On A Planet Of Liars

Humanity is consistent in one thing: most people are degenerate liars, and in groups, people give in to the lowest common denominator, which is degenerate lying.

We have one real industry, which is the production of excuses, justifications, rationalizations and scapegoats to help us avoid the obvious conclusion that all human problems are caused by the dishonesty of individuals and the panicked impulse control problems of the herd.

People will flock to any explanation other than what is real simply because they do not want to face the really difficult question in human society, which is how we deal with the fact that most of us are essentially “talking monkeys with car keys” who lack impulse control.

This is why we have spent centuries chasing after the perfect political System, through endless war and millions of miles of ink spilled on laws and regulations. We have whole industries trying to explain away our failings. They all use the same mechanism:

“It’s not you, it’s your circumstances.”

In their view, it is not individual humans making bad decisions that causes our problems, but a long list of excuses: we have the wrong System; we need more laws; the Russians did it; the Rich did it; we do not have enough wealth; we were victims of something, so whatever we do is its fault. All of these amount to clever monkeys thinking up excuses that they can use as pretexts for bad behavior.

Here, for example, is stupidity in action from the bigoted legacy academia:

We citizens of a modern democracy claim to believe in equality, but our sense of equality is not even close that of hunter-gatherers. The hunter-gatherer version of equality meant that each person was equally entitled to food, regardless of his or her ability to find or capture it; so food was shared. It meant that nobody had more wealth than anyone else; so all material goods were shared. It meant that nobody had the right to tell others what to do; so each person made his or her own decisions. It meant that even parents didn’t have the right to order their children around; hence the non-directive childrearing methods that I have discussed in previous posts. It meant that group decisions had to be made by consensus; hence no boss, “big man,” or chief.

If just one anthropologist had reported all this, we might assume that he or she was a starry-eyed romantic who was seeing things that weren’t really there, or was a liar. But many anthropologists, of all political stripes, regarding many different hunter-gatherer cultures, have told the same general story. There are some variations from culture to culture, of course, and not all of the cultures are quite as peaceful and fully egalitarian as others, but the generalities are the same. One anthropologist after another has been amazed by the degree of equality, individual autonomy, indulgent treatment of children, cooperation, and sharing in the hunter-gatherer culture that he or she studied. When you read about “warlike primitive tribes,” or about indigenous people who held slaves, or about tribal cultures with gross inequalities between men and women, you are not reading about band hunter-gatherers.

If you were born yesterday, or merely in the mid-1990s, the above might sound convincing. The rest of us have heard this claptrap from the legacy academia since the 1970s. It translates to this:

“The problem is not that you are all lying nitwits, but that you are in a system that is unequal.”

You can note the lies inherent in the above quoted article by a few angles that are so obvious that they are boldly concealed:

  • Archaeology. From many digs and fossils, we find that most of the specimens have evidence of wounding. Since we do not have evidence of agriculture at the same time, these were by definition hunter-gatherer societies.
  • Contemporary evidence. Hunter-gatherer societies were more violent than even the State societies in recent memory.
  • Human consistency. Humans have always been violent and usually for reasons of territory, culture, and suppression of nearby people who act like idiots. Much of this is emotional. The notion that “egalitarian” societies make people peaceful is a fantasy.
  • Marxist bias. Academia is biased toward Leftism/Marxism and most of its research is fake, usually for reasons of political bias, which are in fact reasons of capitalism; that which has an audience gets paid for, and that which does not starves.
  • Genetic evidence. Peaceful, egalitarian societies would result in populations that accepted members from a wide range of competing tribes and had little internal hierarchy. Instead we see the exact opposite.

The primitivist argument, advanced most convincingly by John Zerzan, is popular because it blames something other than humanity for the problems of humanity. Like blaming The Rich, The Jews, The Elites, etc. it transfers culpability from the everyday behavior of people to a symbolic object and assumes that by banishing that, we are left with only “the good” in ourselves.

In reality, the exact opposite is true. Bad rich people are created by thoughtless idiots buying scammy products. The problem of Judaism is created by proles disabling kings so that immigration could occur. The Elites are formed of our thoughtless voting, buying and social notions as a group.

People have been fooled by this because it allows us to blame external problems for our collapse, which makes it seem that collapse will be external, which is a lot faster and easier to deal with than civilizational collapse, which occurs through cultural, political and genetic forces and is extremely difficult to counteract through any method that can be communicated by convincing others.

As always, politics dooms us. People want easy answers, and reject hard solutions. This means that they race after Marxist daydreams or totalitarian wet-dreams (or both) and miss the point: we are an unpunished herd, and we need our best people with absolute power, cracking the whip, while setting up a social order based on caste so every decision is made by personally-accountable, publicly-shameable intelligent people instead of an anonymous mob of people with zero responsibility or accountability.

This is why Amerika advocates the four pillars. Until we have those, we do not have civilization, and will be ruled by a succession of incompetent demagogues, religious fanatics, profiteer-parasites, lunatic New Agers and racial scapegoat-mongers of various stripes.

Leftism itself may be seen as a rationalization of decline in order to avoid pointing the finger at the failure of Systems, or rules designed to make the mob behave, because of the inherent attributes of a mob. We either have kings and social roles, or a mob, and the last five hundred years of history have shown us conclusively that mob rule does not work.

So, let us look at reality. Hunter-gatherers live miserable lives. Efficiency is found when you have big estates ruled by noble families in which all the people under 130 IQ points are told what to do, and no one cares about what they think outside of their specific domains. That model works and we know it does because it provided many centuries of positive living, and build the basis of our technology and advanced culture and institutions.

Nothing we have done since has been anywhere near as good, but our pretense will not allow us to admit that, because to admit that is to recognize that we, as individuals, are not kings, and that we need to be managed because we are barely in control of ourselves. Jordan Peterson points this out in a telling passage in a recent interview:

Skeptical neutrality is ‘you’re a bucket of snakes, just like me. However, if you’re willing to abide by your word, and I’m willing to abide by my word, then we’re able to engage in mutually beneficial interactions, so that’s what we’re going to do’. The reason I said courageous trust is to distinguish it from naiveté. Naive people think that everybody’s good. That’s false, everybody’s not good. But acting in a manner that’s hostile and sceptical and anti-social is completely counter-productive. So what you do if you’re a mature person is you say ‘well, yeah, you’ve got a dark side, so do I. That doesn’t mean we can’t engage in productive interactions’. We do that by sticking to our damned word. Honesty simplifies us to the point where we can engage in mutually beneficial interactions.

We need to acknowledge the dark side of humanity which is that most people not only do not have “free will” but they are in fact unstable egos trying to ride herd on a bag of raging impulses, many of which are animalistic and primitive in the sense of entirely driven by raw urges. The dark side is not a good thing; it is the reversion of evolution, and yet most people will favor tolerating it because they want socially-derived “freedom” from the risk of being rejected because their dark side traits are out of control.

Primitivism is nonsense because inherent within it is the idea that our human problem is our circumstances and not our behavior. That is scapegoating and the oldest form of rationalization which says that, instead of putting our best in charge and suppressing the insanity in all of us by that mechanism, we should accept the insanity (remember: Leftism means Good = Bad) and celebrate it.

Like all other forms of human nonsense, this one will always be the most popular, especially among middle-intelligence people (120-129) who find it comforting because it assuages their egos, which are both fragile because they are aware of more limitations to knowledge, and arrogant because they move among a herd of people without their intellectual advantages. But like all nonsense, accurately known as reality denial, it is a path to death.

Tags: , , , , , ,

34 Responses to “We Live On A Planet Of Liars”

  1. Fish says:

    How do you reconcile you view on dark side of humam nature, which you expressed in this essay, with your appreciation of Black and Death metal, which sometimes glorifies the unconstrained dark side of human nature?

    I tend to view it just as an example of extreme honesty of heavy metal artists. It is beautiful to contemplate.

    • How do you reconcile you view on dark side of humam nature, which you expressed in this essay, with your appreciation of Black and Death metal, which sometimes glorifies the unconstrained dark side of human nature?

      Human nature, or re-wilding humans by embracing the nature within them?

  2. ChangeOfSeas says:

    The middle-of-the-pack in terms of intelligence are difficult. They’re the ones who are just smart enough to get themselves into trouble. If we can just unify the >130 crowd, they’ll fall in line. But that’s hard, because most people at 130+ run with 120-ish people who influence them via social pressure.

    • Story of my life man! Well put, hadn’t thought of it that way.

    • If we can just unify the >130 crowd, they’ll fall in line. But that’s hard, because most people at 130+ run with 120-ish people who influence them via social pressure.

      I agree, which is why it is great that the Alt Lite are exclusively 120s influencing other 120s.

  3. Youkai Polygraph says:

    huh, you bumped the IQ threshold up to 130

    not bad!

    • An ideal society would probably kill off anyone below 115, keep anyone under 120 out of a job with a title, and have as leaders only those above 130.

      • Fleshcrawl says:

        It’s good to know I will be eliminated from the ideal society.

        • What indicators do you have that you are under 115 IQ points?

          • Fleshcrawl says:

            Not sure what these indicators are? But i recall from years ago my IQ being below 110.

            • But i recall from years ago my IQ being below 110.

              If you were tested before age 20, you need to be re-tested for accuracy.

              If you used an internet test, disregard, because those are approximations with unstable accuracy.

              • c a watson says:

                but do these tests over, or under estimate? Or both?

                • Internet tests? They seem entirely inconsistent, so “both.”

                  • -A says:

                    When the mid-minds realize that there are things they don’t know and can’t quite grasp in seconds, they feel vulnerable. They begin to flood their minds with “what would I do if I were the first civilized man, would I fuck it up?” Then they assuage themselves with “nope, because we invented true civility.”

  4. D says:

    Interesting that you mention Peterson, I have been listening to some of his stuff as well.

  5. I think the only way out of the mess is to get out literally. My wife and I are considering Maine or Idaho. But life in isolation is vulnerable. Best bet would be some kind of intentional community, or the organized takeover of some quaint, leafy hamlet. Unfortunately I don’t have the funds or the allies just yet. I figure we’ve got a little under a decade, and am scared for my kids’ future.

    • Civilization collapse is most likely going to be a slow decline into third-world levels of corruption, disorder and hygiene. This is most visible in the failure of stable institutions and a high crime rate with more violent and pointless types of crime becoming the norm. For this reason, anywhere with lots of non-third-world people and low income is good because then you will be invisible to the parasitic government as well as the parasitic beige crime wave.

      • -A says:

        Still, if we had a kind of communique of people who planned on these demographic take overs of locales, and they all spoke to each other, that would be a good start. With Trump’s administration, there would be a little bit less pressure on out throats but, I would still recommend secure communication. With this kind of internal colonizing, we could manage to influence state politics and influence federal politics from there. At least it would be a good idea if it were doable.

  6. james wilson says:

    High intelligence is no bar to the job of driving society into the ditch. Usually it is the first requirement.

    • Willingness of high intelligence people to work with society varies inversely with the degree of un-health of a society. For the last few centuries, our brightest have been fleeing to the countryside to write novels alone and have died childless. This is why we are living in idiocracy now. There is nothing “high intelligence” about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are both under 125 IQ points.

      • james wilson says:

        I am well aware that Obama is merely a cipher and Hillary is a stiff. The source materiel and the game plans are written by 130’s, 140’s, and 150’s. Marx, Alinsky, Rousseau, Ayers, the Frankfort crew, the Bloomsbury group, on and on. The class is fading now like an inbred royalty, but it still owns the medium, and the medium is the message now more than ever. This fish too rots from the head.

        • Marx, Alinsky, Rousseau, Ayers, the Frankfort crew, the Bloomsbury group, on and on.

          Do you really think these guys are 130s and up? They’re bureaucrats, justifying themselves on paper.

          None of them could have executed, for example, Pride and Prejudice.

          • james wilson says:

            Yes. Greatness in literature, philosophy, and politics is first related to a man’s character, because at that level of intelligence talent is even more facile in validating ego or gaining power over others than it is in searching for truths. It’s not so different than the curse of pretty girl syndrome.

            As you inferred, true genius is solitary. The only satisfaction is discovery. But as Saul Bellow put it, a great deal of intelligence will be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

            • I see it less as a “need” for illusion than a “market” for illusion: most people, given the choice, will pick the pleasant illusion over the complex truth every time. Part of it is that — we have all read The Bell Curve here, nu? — most people are unable to process more than simple binary, categorical interpretations of truth. They live in a fantasyland that works because they focus on a few core inputs (food, sex, money) and this enables them to survive until they can spew out some offspring. But worse is that there is a pocket at the higher end that is smart enough to get itself in trouble, but not smart enough to see the way through to something more sensible. Among those at the very high end, social underconfidence is rife, and so they are very rarely willing to take themselves through the difficult work (probably 20 years of thinking) to realize the reasons for certain eternal truths. Genius is the rarest of all, and often cuts through this process with a type of intellect more like aesthetics than calculation, but as a result, tends to have a partial picture and be unable to explain itself beyond its very narrow chosen domain.

              • -A says:

                Marx was economically retarded. I wouldn’t even venture to guess his IQ. The 120’s of Russia wanted to repackage his nonsense and sell it to secure their place instead of working with their increasingly limping caste. The Frankfurt School just wanted to over complex economics to justify their bubbles. Truly intelligent men and women work on strategy and real market building. They want their society orderly and they want their money to have meaning. Contrary to popular belief, even the Sheremetev’s built summer homes on their orchards.

  7. Avraham Rosenblum says:

    Trump shows there is a change in direction in the USA and in the West.

  8. epochehusserl says:

    Puerto Rico doesnt have income tax. A few business ideas would be: debt collection, legal counsel, 3d printing, derivatives trading.

  9. coyote says:

    The “god-emperor” meme seems to be sticking in this cultural change wave- the need for a strong leader has risen to the surface, and is openly expressed in the alt-right. Many ‘economists’ see some very dark days ahead regarding the collapse of pension funds, sovereign defaults, etc. The election of Trump has perhaps saved us from war with Russia, and it may be that our peoples will willing turn over ‘the keys to the kingdom’ to a strong – even dictatorial- leader to save them from themselves. History seems to show times of benevolent despots as good for their peoples. Let’s give it a try.

    • epochehusserl says:

      we need to create new types of financial institutions to restore social trust. A company that collected on defaulted debt and traded derivatives would be able to profit from different phases in the credit cycle.
      After the era of the last man becomes tiresome which we are in, we will see the reappearance of the superman emperor god.

  10. epochehusserl says:

    I think we need a specific agenda. Let’s call them engagements.
    1. Overturn Duke Power vs Griggs and get rid of disparate impact.
    2. Restore the family as an economic unit by getting rid of no fault divorce.
    3. Having a tiered income tax system that would encourage the family business.
    4. Create video game gambling as a system to increase state revenue. (Imagine allowing people to play tetris online vs opponents while the state takes a cut of the transaction).
    5. Have a dialogue with the public to create new financial instruments using the blockchain including allowing people to hold their wealth in hard assets and shares of patents.
    6. Facilitate the creation of new financial models including putting debt collection and derivatives trading under one legal entity as a risk management strategy.

  11. missy says:

    I have a 156 IQ, tested when I was age 30. Who knows 15 years later where it’s at. One thing that’s great about high IQ’s is you notice things sooner than others. So I woke up. The lower IQ’s will too, they will just do it later. Is there a ‘too late’ though I wonder.

    At any rate we’re going to end up like Brazil with a very corrupt government because most of the voters will be 3rd world. Whites will do what they did in Brazil and stay in a white sub-territory, cold northern area of the US. The problem will be the corrupt central government. Whites will try to succeed, the corrupt central government, with some Obama like figure as president, will resist. Going back to Western Europe is best bet IMO. Maybe there will be a right of return when every one finally wakes up. I refuse to live under a 3rd world government.