What Is The Root Of Modernity?


As our modern age spirals down into ruin, corruption, pollution, poverty and megalomania — typical conditions in the third world — we must ask ourselves: what makes this time modern?

The crowd pleaser answer, which is the surface or first glance analysis, which therefore makes everyone feel smart for having noticed the obvious and banished the actually threatening, is “technology.”

Looking deeper, we see that technology is a non-answer. Humans have always had technology; it differs only by degree. Even more, there are other distinguishing traits of the modern time.

Without going into excessive detail, we should look at modernity as a type of civilization design, or a set of assumptions about how humans live. Its root is externality: instead of seeking inner sanity, it seeks inner death and outward similarity, so that all of us can go through life without taking on existential or moral challenges.

The heart of the modern time is the urban gated community. One pulls into the parking garage in a fancy car, gets out and goes to an apartment, never contacting others. Food, wine and drugs are delivered. Work is the only requirement. Nothing that forces us to question our purpose or strive for something higher is present.

This is why the essence of modernity is quantity over quality. Quality requires toughening, a pushing of ourselves against challenges in the moral and metaphysical realm as well as ordinary mental and physical self-discipline. That in turn belittles us, and reminds us that we are mere mortals, and that offends and angers us.

So: the revenge. We blot out all that is not purely external. This means that all aspects of our society become one-dimensional and crassly simplistic, that commerce takes over culture and daily life, and that we will be ruled by whatever idiot flatters the other idiots with a shiny, flashy new idea that explains why our problems are not our problems, and we need to be looking elsewhere.

This is how all societies go out. It is a byproduct of success: as we grow, we enable those who could not have done this on their own, and they tend to breed by an r-strategy (many kids, low investment) and thus quickly flood our society with serfs, proles, plebs. Back in the day, we kept them in check by calling them those names and limiting their prospects.

But eventually, there are too many. They have a bright, shiny “new” idea: democracy, equality or some variant thereof. Basically, suspend standards; let the mob rule. At that point, the hand is reaching for the “flush” lever, and all comes undone. That is modernity.

Tags: ,

25 Responses to “What Is The Root Of Modernity?”

  1. Finnish Individual says:

    Megalomania as a feature of the third world. Can you phrase an example regarding the common people (not dictators)? Are third world people megalomaniac, and how? The humble africans are megalomaniac? Are they Dunning-Krugered too, to my astonishment (can’t say I spoke to many of them over the course of my life)?

    genuine question; I think I would agree with you there but I’d like to hear an example.

    • -A says:

      Listen to the way they talk about themselves and others. There are Africans who are “humble” I guess, as an attitude. I don’t imagine that very many of them make it here, though. However, they are usually unable to think beyond their personal needs. The majority of third worlders I have met (and I spend a great deal of time in Atlanta, a “world city.”) are arrogant, self absorbed, impractically critical even of things that are not problems and often have the “fake it till you make it” cargo cult attitude. That being said, there have even been Arabs that I have enjoyed the company of. They are just much fewer.

      • Finnish Individual says:

        Why don’t they stay humble, adoperate envy constructively and improve instead of disrespecting the host and better civilitation they have intruded (in that “impractical criticism” fashion you mentioned)?

        Your description sounded a lot like a mexican acquiantance of mine. Third worlders gonna thirdworld.

        Now I remembered some past encounters of mine with unwesternized africans. Horrible people they were. No humility or self-awareness at all. I guess that’s how they stay inferior.

        Also I’m more and more convinced humans devolve into monkeys, and not the other way around…

    • 3xilarch says:

      Have you ever dealt with browns and their “We wuz KANGS” bullshit?

      Every brown thinks it is the best person that has ever lived, and as soon as anyone or anything reminds them otherwise they screech monkey noises and attack it.

      • -A says:

        Even among their own, which can sometimes be worse for them. This is why they have stayed the definitive third world, I am afraid.

  2. Finnish Individual says:

    Oh please reach for the flush. Modern western plebes ARE megalomaniac, they think absolutely nothing and noone is above them, and that is fucking intolerable…I hate them more and more, I see them everyday and they seem oblivious to the fact that IT REALLY ISN’T THAT HARD TO BE BETTER THAN THEM; also, they have no fucking single virtue or point of interest, most people.

    Fucking idiots think they’re perfect and nobody is better; how can you not rejoice at the idea of them dying in large swoops anonymously.

    The Dunning Kruger is the single most important thing to know really as social psychology is concerned…it is REALITY, as scary and horrble as it is, and it is the law of counter-intuitiveness.

    The more incompetent and worthless, the more perfect they ACTUALLY BELIEVE they are…like, they feel it within. Absurd, definition of madness really. WAY BEYOND “narcissism”! And THAT and that alone is the EVIL to be fought…the megalomania of the inferior

    • crow says:

      Haha :)
      Pretty strong stuff. That said, I can find no fault with its applicability. In fact, if I were one to agree, I’d happily do so.

  3. Jose Cruz says:

    For countries that are already third world dumps, how do you go about trying to fix it?

    • Jpw says:

      1) Seek like-minded people.
      2) Seperate yourselves from dysfunction.
      3) Build your own structure.
      4) Hope the idiots who surround you ultimately perish.

      • Finnish Individual says:

        Look, number one is sort of silly since a third world dump just doesn’t have many intelligent people, there’s very litttle of them, almost none else it wouldn’t be a third world dump. Number one is out of question, unless you take into consideration the internet and people abroad…but they won’t be able to help you much with your local problem.

        People living in shitty places must leave to better areas when available. In terms of seeking personal happiness. Third worlds can only change through coups, revolutions and the sorts….but look what happened to Gheddafi trying to improve Libia. He did, but then the roaches had enough of the improvement, and needed to kill him off and go back to chaos and misery, which is their habitat.

        What must be understood is that idiots are actually masochists, and prefer the ugly to the beautiful. Not everyone prefers what’s objectively better, not at all. When you’re a worthless fuck who feels threatened by anything better than you due to narcissism, you hate everything that is better and just focus on destroying all the good. The only kind of improvement the worthless know is the petty/small/materialistic devoid of any aesthetics.

      • -A says:

        On point 4, there is no reason why you can’t give a little nudge in this direction, is there?

      • crow says:

        1) When you have a mind like mine, there no like-minded people. Raccoons, foxes maybe, or birds…
        2) Any proximity to people renders one unable to avoid dysfunction. Leave the room, the building, the area, even – if possible – the planet.
        3) I build structures all the time. Does wonders for one’s outlook. Especially when I don’t follow building codes or build to suit other people.
        4) Everything comes to he who waits. It’s really only a matter of becoming immortal.

  4. crow says:

    Modernity is the smug dismissal of assumed survival.

    • -A says:

      Also, that although there is no God, survival and even life extension and breeding are your inalienable rights. We’re all human, we all bleed red, everybody loves.

  5. crow says:

    There’s no God? News to me. As unreliable as news so often is.
    Everybody loves? Again, news to me. Here’s a brief description of love…

    • crow says:

      Oops, wrong reply button. The above was aimed at ‘A’.

      • Finnish Individual says:

        I read it. And liked it.

        “A” will maybe never read it.

        • -A says:

          Lol. It was projection. The assumption of people who assume that their survival and quality of life are positive rights to be upheld by others often are atheists.

    • -A says:

      Love is earned and love is built. It could possibly be a different animal with the same basic structures for every true love made. A beautiful recounting, might I add. Not at all what the “everybody loves” crowd would ever consider to be real or ideal. But to them, it is not only what is expected, it is the exact same thing every time, which everyone must “go through” kind of like “childhood” or the “high school experience” or the “college experience.” To them, it is one more mechanized and identical thing because everyone and everything is different, therefore it is all the same. Sad, maudlin, gauche creatures every last one of them.

  6. moe connoisseur says:

    “Civilization design” is the key. Humanity has to change, and specifically, it can’t not change. Realizing that, who wouldn’t want to exert their will on that process?

    What’s distinctly modern in the modernist effort is how simple-minded it is. They want to make it last, so it should be independent of the humans managing it, but that has made it less than human in capability and complexity. Like old-timey AI it’s a simple machine incapable of learning, and “fine tuning” it to match $currentyear is increasingly costly while the paradigm is more and more outdated. This explains why laws multiply – we discover exception cases to rules of the expert system, and fixing those creates even more.

    The Nietzschean system of values and roles resembles evolutionary algorithms. Values (and more widely, cultures) are the heuristics studied. Honor is the testing process (testing to the bitter end). The rare exceptional men create the next generation of ideas-to-be-tested based on their (aesthetic) evaluations of honorable men’s lives, and their understanding of human existence.

    Being an approximation of a Bayesian system, what’s described above is capable of learning and seeking greatness. An expert system cannot.

    • crow says:

      There might be some hidden message in that, but what?

      • moe connoisseur says:

        Thank you for the question marks.

        Most of modern society is based in laws and other simple protocols, like standardized tasks at work. The article about not living in a make-sense world springs to mind.

        The first AIs were similar. They took input, saw if there were rules that could process that input, applied them in the right order, and produced the output. The best this paradigm could produce was the “expert system”. It couldn’t learn or adapt.

        The next wave of AIs were based on automated learning like the evolutionary metaheuristic. Later on it was noticed they were all approximations of perfect Bayesian learning.

        In Nietzsche’s work we can see the idea that values are subject to “natural selection” of sorts. What makes it possible is that someone actually sticks to his values, i.e., has honor (his first metamorphosis). Then life would be the “fitness function” for values he claims it is. Some also have to try new things. That task would be for the people who have passed through all three of his metamorphoses, and their followers.

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>