The Raging Realist


In contentious times, people want an option outside of the major choices. In some cases, the choices are made simple: accept the obvious, or run away from it. When those are your options, finding a third way is near impossible.

But, if it will make you “feel” better, let us consider my perspective a third way. There is Leftism/Liberalism, Rightism/Conservatism and my way, Raging Realism. A Ragin’ Realist is someone who denies all but what exists out there in the world, which humans normally suppress in exchange for the social world of emotions, desires and judgments (moralizations: “it shouldn’t be that way”).

As a result, Ragin’ Realism is not for the ordinary, which is why it is raging. It must achieve incredible momentum to reach escape velocity from the sickly treacle of the “feelings” of people around it. But at its core, it is very simple: our thoughts must correspond to reality.

Naturally this makes reality a target. The favorite human game is to redefine key terms, or to sample only part of the data necessary and draw broad conclusions for it, or even our “rationalistic” thought process, which is to think of a convenient hypothesis and filter out any data but what supports it. All of these are pretty bad but pretty normal.

In fact, that is what makes Ragin’ Realism so controversial. It says that what most people are thinking most of the time is not just nonsense, but concealment, deliberate deception designed to hide reality so that the monkey party can continue. The first step in realism is realism about what humans are.

By most, it does not mean fifty-one out of a hundred; it means ninety-nine out of a hundred. That is the grim fact that intelligent, aware and moral people have always refused to hear. You are alone, very alone. The rest are clueless and if not beaten back, will do their best to destroy you so that their cluelessness is not revealed. They call that “equality.”

These people love chaos as well. Why? In chaos they can hide. If there are no standards, they are never wrong. If everyone is screwing up all of the time, their screwups are invisible. Their desires to transgress — which fetishize something that is less interesting in reality than in their vision, which is usually based on illusion spread by the raving commentary of their friends anyway — can be hidden behind a wall of confusion.

You might find something similar in American folklore:

“Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please,” said Brer Rabbit. “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”

“The briar patch, eh?” said Brer Fox. “What a wonderful idea! You’ll be torn into little pieces!”

Grabbing up the tar-covered rabbit, Brer Fox swung him around and around and then flung him head over heels into the briar patch…Brer Fox cocked the other ear toward the briar patch, listening for Brer Rabbit’s death rattle…He turned around and looked up the hill. Brer Rabbit was sitting on a log combing the tar out of his fur with a wood chip and looking smug.

“I was bred and born in the briar patch, Brer Fox,” he called. “Born and bred in the briar patch.”

The briar patch for your average person is chaos. They were born in chaos, to chaotic parents who lived in disorder and squalor, even if modern conveniences helped obscure that. Their minds operate by chaos, which is to say that they have no hierarchical capacity, only the ability to understand lots of little things with specific details, like comic books and movies. Their lives are currently chaos.

If you catch them doing something low-level insane (a.k.a. their modus operandi) they will immediately create a false target: “Oh, don’t throw me in that briar patch!” Their point is always to get you to do something which increases the chaos, so they can hide in the chaos.

Now, conservatism, that is tempting. It introduces the question of degree to Ragin’ Realism. A Ragin’ Realist loves what works, but like the term “reality,” this is under assault by human reason itself. If you need to house a million people, you could just build giant Soviet-style apartment blocks full of 8×10 rooms with combination sink/toilet/shower holes in the corner. Technically this solves the problem.

Conservatism modifies this with degree. What is the best solution in human history? That is what conservatism conserves: best solutions, highest achievements, most intense greatness, awesomest pleasures. Most sources note a “zest for life” in conservatism, and I think that is the core of it: it is the philosophy of pleasure-seekers who have taken a moment to understand their own pleasures.

Maybe Ragin’ Realism can learn that from Conservatives. Can it learn anything from the Left? Since most of the Left is based purely in moralization, or a statement about what “should be” without understanding why it is not what is, i.e. why it is not as effective and efficient as what nature produced, most of Leftism should be discarded.

There is one thing however… perhaps it’s a trifle. Or maybe it should be mentioned. Leftists are self-destruction junkies, but they are also willing to admit when something sucks. They look too hard for that, because Leftism is really a way for lonely and miserable people to socialize with each other through commiseration, but they can point out obvious truths where Conservatives will tell you to suck it up and stop being such a pussy.

For example, that society sucks. That other people are mostly poisonous little dwarfs who get their only excitement in life from provoking others into failing or flailing. That on the whole, a housecat is better company than most of the human race. And so on. The Leftist “culture of critique” is what shapes intelligent post-collapse populations and becomes their raison d’etre. But right now, someone should mention that this society sucks. That is Realism too.

The real attribute of Ragin’ Realism that scares people is its utter nihilism. A realist cannot obscure a historical or factual truth with platitudes. We recognize that the universe is mostly emptiness and that which does not struggle against this emptiness perishes, and no one cares. There is no eternal glory in the sky for a species that dies out because it became mentally disorganized.

In life, only that which persists, matters. Everything else is swept backward into time. Maybe it lives on in the metaphysical afterlife, or not, but that matters less than what survives in reality. Most people are always looking for an excuse to self-destruct because they are tired of the burden of survival, which is like an endless series of Post-It™ notes reminding you that you can have better results if you just fix this one more thing one more time…

You get tired of it. It is tiring to beat back demons, to fiddle with fixes, to struggle against the crushing wave of entropy (and the bigger wave of the insanity of others) that always wants to drive you to the lowest common denominator or, preferably, chaos so that that happy monkey party time can continue in the trees. Free fruit for all! And we fermented it too, and there’s Bonobo sex parties. Fascinating.

A Ragin’ Realist recognizes all of this, and takes these two principles from conservatives and liberals. First, that we need not just the minimum functionality, but an experience that nourishes us. And second, that because life sucks, our first agenda should be to sweep aside all the tedious, exhausting, ugly and blockheaded experiences we can in order to conserve our limited energy so we can apply it to the good stuff.

But with that in mind, you can see the paradox of realism. There is an answer to life; it is not easy; without it life sucks. Therefore, we should choose that, and with this obvious fact in the room, two choices arise. Deny it or accept it. And most people will go for the former, of course, because their big brains tell them it might be like the lottery, where one in three hundred million people gets into money Heaven for being at the right place at the right time.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

29 Responses to “The Raging Realist”

  1. […] (hardcore). Survive the decline. The establishment isn’t suicidal. The holiness trap. The raging realist. Convergent religious decay. Homo economicus and his other. Reading Disraeli, Wittgenstein, […]

  2. hhhhhh says:

    I thought you were aware of the difference between leftists and liberals, and that is why you always opted to day “leftists” in the past. While it is true that liberalism is commonly defined as leftism, that is only because leftists appropriated the term in order to remove the idea of freedom from the English language. An insistence on using the proper definition of “liberal” must not be abandoned. The same is true for other concepts leftists have attempted, sometimes successfully, from removing from language. The word “libertarian” was created to replace the word “liberal” after leftists confused the meaning of the word and made conversation impossible. It was no small feat to bring the word libertarian into common usage; if it hadn’t happened, then the concept of liberty may have been removed from English altogether. So “libertarian” and “liberal” have identical definitions.

    • -A says:

      All of leftism conflates. They will all pursue this conflation over time. At this point in the game, they are one and the same. What was a proper term for liberal has become a Republican Conservative: one with labour concerns.

    • While it is true that liberalism is commonly defined as leftism, that is only because leftists appropriated the term in order to remove the idea of freedom from the English language.

      Historically, liberalism is what resulted when rightists incorporated leftism in their beliefs after the French Revolution. Properly speaking, liberalism is a variant of leftism. It is also a degenerated version of the original idea of liberty, which is that those who are not doing harm should be left alone to be as eccentric as they want.

      • hhhhhh says:

        This blog uses “left” as defined by Kazcinsky, so I use that term despite it, strictly speaking, being incorrect. But then again, all use of “left” and “right” outside of revolution-era France is incorrect, and has become beyond irrelevant.

        Your response makes it even more clear that liberalism is not leftist, but perhaps has some traits in common. Liberalism is not left nor right. I suppose your key criteria of excellence is the acceptance of a monarchy, but by definition, a monarchy has exactly 1 free individual at most. Liberalism rejects monarchy, but so do most “right-wing” groups today. I see no reason ever justify a conflation of liberal and leftist.

        “original idea of liberty, which is that those who are not doing harm should be left alone to be as eccentric as they want.”
        What would you call this of not “liberalism?” No monarchy has ever embraced such ideals.

        • Liberalism is not left nor right.

          Quick test: if it is based on egalitarianism, it is Left.

          • hhhhhh says:

            And classical liberalism is not, at all. It is more akin to rugged individualism, which is why an aristocracy and loose caste system is inherent to it. A key thing to note is that you can have an aristocracy without a king.

            • It is more akin to rugged individualism, which is why an aristocracy and loose caste system is inherent to it.

              If it is based on egalitarianism, it is still poison, and rugged individualists seem oblivious to the fact that the other 99% are merely individualists hiding behind the rugged label.

              There is a reason “classical liberalism” failed.

  3. Lucius says:

    Where do I go to meet people who are raging realist in person, other than doing it online in sites like this one?

    • Engage in realist activities and look for others who understand them. I know that is vague, but it also fails in no situations. It is more like a principle than a recipe.

  4. crow says:

    A realist doesn’t rage. He may rage on his journey towards realism, but reaching it, he ceases to rage.
    He also doesn’t become a realist by copying bits from others. He discovers what realism is, for himself, and thus becomes a realist.

  5. Flying Kites says:

    Oh I have been there on the coast of Troy in full charge alongside Poseidon’s tidal froth.

    The entirety of mind crushed under the absolute finality of a moment ceasing to be and emerging into the next moment utterly lost, and in police custody. The trigger? A supernatural Love yearning for freedom, the fire that leaves nothing behind.

  6. AntiDem says:

    “You merely adopted the briar patch! I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t see the outside of the briar patch until I was already a man!”

  7. Agent of Reactivity says:

    Sanity is an illusion, normality and control are lies.
    Challenging things is a good thing as it shows us the merit of ideas. I consider myself a kind of post-controlist, by this I mean that nothing is beyond challenging, if something is really great, it can withstand any challenge, the difference between conservative-haters (like myself) and conservatives, is that conservatives see all challenge as bad and conservatives-haters use challenge as a means to better the merit of their ideas. Conservatism is an philosophy that it compatible with holding back greatness and excellence, hence the name.

    • crow says:

      Sanity may be an illusion to you, but it’s as real as real gets to the sane. I’d say more, but that really says it all.

      • It seems to me that many of the best death metal riffs come from dicking around with the interval between two notes, inventing a fill, finding a rhythm to fit it, then forming a shape and finally a series of riffs. All of this comes from exploring the dimension of depth/quality and none by surface readings. It seems to me philosophy works the same way…

        • crow says:

          I look forward to the day, if it ever comes, when you suddenly realize that I haven’t been talking about either philosophy, or ideas, for all these years, but of Reality, its laws, and its immutable nature.

          • Philosophy is a mode of talking about Reality, when done well — which is rare.

            • crow says:

              Maybe so, but how accurately can a mind communicate what it can only think about?
              Transcendence seems to be lately included into the conservative remit, but does any conservative understand what it is?
              It is categorically not a mind-thing. It does not reside in, nor originate from, thought.

              I’d say try get your head around that, but that would be the antithesis of what is necessary.

              If you characters could grasp this thing, there’d be no stopping you.

              • It is categorically not a mind-thing. It does not reside in, nor originate from, thought.

                Is that so? We’re wired differently, I suppose, but for me, the trustworthy kind is a form of analysis like critical thinking or a disciplined emotion.

                • crow says:

                  Is that so? Yes, it is so. How do you suppose your mind could ever understand something the mind is unable to grasp?
                  This was the real value religion supplied, in the past. Unable to transcend, in itself, it nonetheless inspired a few, known as Mystics, to take it further, to its source.
                  Few can do this, and few need to. That anybody can and has, really should – you would imagine – be of interest to the rest. But of course, it rarely is.
                  Think Galileo and Darwin. Heretics, in their day, yet possessed of profound knowledge unknown to anybody else.

                  Leftists think. They do nothing but. Look what it does to them. Conservatives think less. That’s what even a bit less thinking can do. Consider what a completely silent mind might be able to perceive.

                  • Few can do this, and few need to.

                    That’s esotericism. We might rephrase this: the equal mind (exoteric) cannot grasp this, but the ready mind (esoteric) can.

                    Leftists think.

                    I disagree here. I think they feel. What they tend to do is intellectualize as a means of avoiding reality-correspondent truths. In other words, a mental deflection.

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>