Posts Tagged ‘authoritarianism’

Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, Control And Cooperation

Monday, March 13th, 2017

Silent chuckling:

A correction to a frequently cited 2012 study has been issued, after researchers discovered they mixed up results purporting to show conservatives are more likely than liberals to exhibit behaviors linked to psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.

…The study also posited those who are socially liberal are more likely to possess behaviors associated with “Social Desirability,” or the desire to get along with others, than those who are socially conservative.

But in an erratum issued by the journal, first reported by Retraction Watch, the authors said those two findings were “exactly reversed.”

It’s lügen-everything these days. There is no reason to trust published science because it is made by people, and those are self-interested actors who are selling a product to an audience that likes to confirm its Leftist bias. In addition, they are trying to get promoted within a system that exclusively swims Leftward.

Authoritarianism and tyranny are misunderstood terms. The Left likes to think that methods determine intent; in reality, intent determines methods. In an emergency, everyone is an authoritarian because the consequence of not ordering people around is that they panic like disorderly sheep and this results in mass carnage.

This means that we cannot talk about “authoritarians” or “tyrants” by their methods, such as strong power, as this study hopes to. Intead we have to look at the reasons behind their efforts: tyrants are self-serving, the Right exerts strong power as a means of preserving civilization as a whole, and the Left achieves tyranny through good intentions and passive methods.

For that reason, criticizing someone as an “authoritarian” is like the term “racist” just a throwaway line, or a way to dispel critics without actually looking at their arguments. This is typical of the passive-aggressive approach of the Left.

On the other hand, we can look at what Leftists actually want: Control. Control occurs when a two-layer hierarchy is present of a few strong leaders and masses who are required to do the same exact thing over and over again as a means of advancing an ideological agenda. Control is the opposite of strong leadership, which produces a space for natural growth and rewards the good.

The Left has flirted with Control because this is an extension of its dominant philosophy, individualism. The individual wants to make himself more important than the world and other people so that he can use them as means-to-an-end of his own gratification. In a group, this becomes Control, in which people are made equal so they can be subservient to the ideology and its Narrative.

Cooperation is the opposite of Control. When cooperating, humans unite unequally on the basis of principles and goals. They work together without being the same and operate organically, where good behavior is rewarded and bad punished, but people are not expected to do exactly the same thing like a machine in a factory.

Even when Control is not authoritarian — and it frequently is not, for the same reason evil always appears well-dressed and seductively attractive — it seeks to make everyone act in the same way, a conformity of obedience designed to make them extensions of the design of the controller, and it punishes not enemies but those who fail to comply.

Control is what happens when human order breaks down, and Leftism both rationalizes and promotes it.

The Fidel Castro Litmus Test

Thursday, December 1st, 2016


So who do you really like….Donald Trump or Fidel Castro? Should be an easy question for anyone in the vast, non-morphadite voting demographic. With years of Liberal Therapy, as shown in the video above, this actually becomes a bit more tricky. It gets back to Daddy Issues.

Seriously. It gets back to what you believe a leader should do with power and authority. Do you use it to accomplish things, or do you use it to put people in their appropriate pigeonhole? Since we actually have to do a serious compare-and-contrast for the really smart cookies over at AU; let’s start with some similarities.

1) Both men lived a lifestyle adorned with the the riches of Croessus.
2) Both men have labored hard and ruthlessly to attain power.
3) Both men have dedicated and loyal fans.
4) Both men seem to have overturned an overturned an entrenched status quo.

But there are also two bedrock differences between Trump and Castro.

1) What do you do with your power?

Donald Trump built things. Lots of things. He put people to work. Lots of them. You, like me, may think the resorts and gambling palaces our current President Elect are garish, but they had a positive that can’t be denied. If you laid up some drywall or hung a few wires, then you got money, health insurance, pension matching, paid vacy and a sense of purpose. Tell me the Gubbermint program that gives people that and gets stuff done on time and under budget. You can’t. It does not exist.

FIdel Castro put people in what he believed was their assigned places. The ones that escaped are the ones who avoided the fate of living under Emperor Fidel.

Driving the pre-Castro elite into exile was part of Castro’s plan. The pre-revolutionary business and political leaders of Cuba, he felt, were tainted and compromised by their association with the United States. They had accepted a quasi-colonial role for Cuba, and as long as they made money from it, were content with a Cuba that was “working for the Yankee dollar”, whether in the sugar cane fields, at the baccarat tables or in the red light district of Havana. Fidel wanted to purge the country of this old, collaborationist elite, and build a new Cuba—strong, self-confident and free.

2) How do you handle the people you have power over?

Donald Trump is judgemental if you work for him. You either

A) Do your job, get paid and continue in his service.

B) Fail at your job. You get informed that “You’re Fired!” and go spruce up that resume and not use The Donald as a reference.

This means he treats people with true objective fairness. The type most precious snowflakes will tell you is !NO FAIR! He has expectations and treats you like an adult. That can truly suck if you aren’t much at adulthood.

Fidel Castro wants you dependent upon him. He wants his name to forever be the answer to the deep, philosophical question “Who’s yo daddy!?” He wants your adulation as he gives you free “healthcare.” He wants you to idolize him for giving you a “job”, giving you “housing” and giving you your life.

Unpack this and you’ll hit a veritable wall of evil. You see, he can’t give you your life unless he owns it. By logical deduction, you are his slave. So naturally, Pope Francis is truly sorry to see a great guy like Fidel bite the bag and step out the door.

Again, I’m somewhat aghast that this is a serious question. The Justin Trudeaus, the Barack Obamas, The Satanic Anti-Pope and all other dirtbags are magnetized to Fidel Castro. He represents what they truly believe in: absolute power, wielded absolutely. He is the living embodiment of the Gnostic Heresy. When Reverend Jonathan Edwards described the power and the inclination of God towards all of us simian, detestable sinners, he wrote the following:

The God that holds you over the Pit of Hell, much as one holds a Spider, or some loathsome Insect, over the Fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his Wrath towards you burns like Fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the Fire;

This is how liberals like Fidel Castro view the people they feel empowered to dispense with on a whim. It’s the sort of theological training that leads an otherwise educated person to speculate as to who you get to trash in a Basket of Deplorables. But in the end, they hold that view of the people, but blessedly encounter limits on how well they can carry out “God’s” will as expressed in Edwards’ famed Jeremiad.

Yet the real reason why people better educated than the apparent typical University of Arizona cretinous morlock should choose Trump over Castro comes from Joel Hirst. It’s not just what happens to the sinners who land in the hands of the pissed-off commie deity or his overrated, sadistic homunculus named Che. It’s the ones who slip through their bloody fingers and live in the perpetual twilight purgatory of Leftist dominance instead. Here is what they suffer. Here is what’s behind door number one.

Forget the gulags and the concentration camps and the firing squads. Those are the stories that made the papers at least — stories that were told. No — the most important part of this tragedy is not what happened, but what didn’t happen. The novels that were not written, stories of beach and mountain and freedom and loss; the beautiful paintings that did not come to be, which in turn did not inspire abounding love – the love of storybooks. The cuisine that was not refined; the businesses that did not provide for families; inventions that do not help humanity; diseases that were not cured.

If the alternative has even the inclination to try Making America Great Again, I can’t imagine wasting the saline solution to mourn the passing of Fidel Castro. Unless, of course, his death is analogous to the failure and demise of everything these sick and depraved worshipers of the zero genuinely believe in. Maybe the decisions made by students at Arizona U tell us all we need to know about how well our current academics serve the continued interests of civil and decent society.

Why Automation Has Failed In The Past

Thursday, September 15th, 2016


Automation is a vexing subject because it costs money and results in less profit. It should improve profits, but somehow in the past, it has always ended up costing more.

Any system or structure requires control. In the case of the US Democratic Party control is achieved by fear i.e. Hillary’s tantrums lasting longer than her speeches.  Screaming at your own employees is a routinely applied technique and some CEOs even disconnect electronic monitoring of their boardrooms to hide that fact. Hillary does not have “control” over independent media journalists but will apparently not hesitate to scream at the major shareholders who “control” that media, which in turn “control” those silly journalists.

It would be fair to say that Hillary has very effective “control” measures in place. The interesting part of her technique is that it does not cost her money. The reason is that it is part of her natural personality and therefore inherent in her “system” design.

An industrial comparison to Hillary’s control “mechanism” is bi-metal actuators. These are little metal strips that consist of two plates of dissimilar metals i.e. soft steel and copper joined together. This allows the strip to bend due an increase in ambient temperature. The natural bending motion allows the strip to activate a switch, which in turn activates a cooling fan.

In the first instance the temperature is controlled by the fan, but the fan itself requires no additional control and finally, the bi-metal strip itself, requires no control either. One can imagine that the temperature inside such a facility would fluctuate within an acceptable range of 10 degrees.

This is different to temperature control inside an industrial oven where a smaller “range” is specified e.g. one degree. In such a case a temperature probe, controller, energy actuator and an exhaust actuator is required. However, additional control elements are required to “check” on the “control loop”, such as an exhaust flue temperature detector and indicator, actuator alarm detector with alarm activation and finally a human operator backed-up by an automation technician for maintenance.

Clearly, the smaller the range of operations, the more control is required which in turn requires a bigger investment.  It can happen that operational control gets so important, that the control requirement exceeds the priority (and the cost) of the operation.

Control really gets important when one designs a missile. It has very strict limitations but also very specific operational range requirements. For example, Hollywood thinks that missiles move in straight lines while they (in most cases) do not. One reason is that wing control is not always proportional and that it is more effective for the entire missile to move in a spiral towards a point ahead of its target. One example of such a wing control mechanism is a binary approach where the wing is either kept open or shut i.e. not proportional. The “control” in this case is cheaper because the wing is literally opened and shut thousands of times where just the open periodic timeframe is changed as required.

So, what is the point of control, really?

Control is required to improve the operation. But operations itself is an activity or only one function of a system, that requires its own control at a higher level.  Therefore, taken the entire industrial requirements for control together, the point would be to improve industry (as an operation). However, if Industry is an operation, then the civilization must decide on control of industry. If there is more than one production activity in a civilization, then controls must be described for all those as well.

The best method of control as described above is natural control. But it appears as if the opposite is happening today. Unnatural control is blooming, for example, artificial intelligence because it is unclear what production this will benefit. Drone warfare is another example where it is obviously cheaper than fighter aircraft, but what production does (having this control) really improve? Medical Aid is becoming a control measure in search of a service, paying tax is a control measure in search of an investment, property ownership is a control measure iso a wealth creator and education is a control measure in search of a knowledge expander.

It is not clear what production is required by civilization anymore, but what is transparent is this absolute drive to expand centralization and control i.e. Big government and Big metropolitan areas where government does not have borders, Cities do not have borders and humans have “trans”-borders nowadays.

They say population control has become necessary, why? Natural control is better. They say economics control require migrant labor, why? Natural control is better.

Technically, when controls starts to control, control, then failures increase, because maintenance requirements increase, which increase centralization, which increase failures even more. Production becomes control and control prophesies itself as God even after production came to a stop. Since technology fads improve control, politicians increase spending on this wrong technology in search of production.

The ironic part of all the control spending is that the “range” of production increased which is the opposite of good governance expected. As controls fail, it simply demands even more spending and bigger controls.

Spending money on control for the sake of control is wrong; it is not economic and will increase fatalities, decrease production, destroy competitiveness and end civilization. Leadership has been captured by dark organization when it idealizes control for its own sake, and recovers when it recognizes that every control mechanism needs a purpose other than itself.

The perils of democracy fetishism

Thursday, January 14th, 2016


Unlike a lot of people who blog on the Alternative Right, I don’t believe Democracy, in and of itself, is evil. Unlike the people I used to blog with on the Not-So-Alternative Right, I also don’t see it as a particular good. I also don’t believe Marlboro Cigarettes, Ford Cars and jars of Vlassic Pickles are inherently evil either. Capitalism? No moral alignment. Most philosophical systems? Neither good nor evil in and of themselves. So how can Moldbug, The guys at The Right Stuff and several others argue such compelling points athwart Democracy? Because the people using it most effectively are a pack of farging ice-holes.*

The response above was too simplistic by half. Every confidence man has a bit of the pigeon and vice-versa. You can’t be fooled unless you voluntarily delude yourself. I’m basically not a Marxist unless it allows me to steal from people more talented than myself. However Marx could make a good valid point about as frequently as he was able to father a bastard. One of his better riffs involved the concept of commodity fetishism. This involves objects, tangible or otherwise, that can be bought and sold in the market being evaluated and given value based on factors beyond the value of their use or the labor content necessary to bring them to market.

Leftists have an advantage over most of the right when it comes to the buyable commodity known as Democracy. Leftists get that Democracy is pretty much a system to make markets in public opinion. You buy yourself a mob of voters. They threaten to blow stuff up for not recognizing the terrific genius of Rahm Emanuel. Stuff gets done. It’s a system. It can be simple one like skateboard, or a complex one like a Camaro. But at the end of a day, it’s just another tool. Fetishizing Democracy either as good or evil is as stupid as fetishizing your hacksaw if you work as a plumber or a carpenter.

You can tell a Democracy Fetishist by their analogy. Democracy gets compared to motherhood, riding a bike, pizza, and gosh knows what else. All of it wrong-headed. All of it as a misleading and disingenuous as the ads you read in a magazine. The Democracy Fetishists try to sell you Democracy while yelling at you if tell them it is merely a commodity. The analogy that best describes the utilitarian and practical use of Democracy to enforce will was made by Demotic thug from Turkey Pratip Erdogan.

People chuckled when, Erdogan, then mayor of Instanbul, now Prime Minister of Turkey famously said “Democracy is like a street car; you ride it as far as you need, and then you get off”.

The Left understands this down to their bones. They have made this practical wisdom a part of their collective DNA. One can almost hear the echoes of Willy Sutton who once told a reporter he robbed banks because it was where the money was. Barack Obama loved Democracy until the small-d democrats no longer loved him. Then it was time to govern by executive order. In Venezuela, it appears that the Left has decided to step off the street car. They recently lost an election, so now Democracy no longer serves their purposes.

Venezuela’s Supreme Court has blocked the parliamentary super-majority won by the opposition in December’s landmark elections, in a move denounced by opposition leaders as a “judicial coup” by President Nicolas Maduro. The court – which critics complain is stacked with pro-government judges – granted a request from Mr Maduro to suspend three opposition parliamentarians who were due to take office on Tuesday. It will now consider a legal challenge filed by the Socialist government, which has alleged a “criminal” vote buying plot and other electoral fraud on the part of the opposition. One Socialist parliamentarian has also been suspended.

As long as you foolishly worship Democracy, you play the game of the Demotist. The will of the people changes like the weather. The will of the demagogue is what occupies Wall Street. When the wrong colored mob shows up to crap on the village green; the Cathedral deploys the media and all of its isms. We hear about racism, sexism, ageism, fascism. Scary stuff; if you deliberately delude and misinform yourself to maintain an illusion of your own intellectual perspicacity.

Once you stop deluding yourself, you see Democracy as an algorithm. If you don’t like how it works, code up your own objects instead of just accepting apps from the Cathedral. Screw off your Obama and Jeb apps. Plug in a Trump or a Cruz instead. Watch how fast the typical Leftist who praises the gawdalmiddy will of the pee-pole suddenly rants and raves about the ignorant redneck mob. It could a funnier cluster flock than father’s day in New Orleans. So the Alternative Right should not demonize Democracy and the Not-So-Alternative Right should not worship it. To indulge in either form of Democracy Fetishism is to play the Left’s game by the Left’s rules.

All of us on either Right hand will wind up smelling the glove once it’s all over like MC Hammer’s career as a musician. This is one rare instance where Pratip Edrogan makes like the good Muslim Fundamentalist that he is and totally beats the b!tch. Democracy really is just a streetcar. Pick your destination wisely and get off like Rick James once you’ve arrived.

*-my own mother quoted me a line from Johnnie Dangerously once…Once!

Neoreaction is conservatism

Wednesday, November 11th, 2015


Neoreaction, like libertarianism before it, grew popular because it offered a plausible argument against the Left, and did so by using the liberal ideas which have become accepted as truth in our highly-liberal society. People want a way around liberalism because they realize it is delusional and will destroy us.

Neoreaction and libertarianism share a vanishing point: if they revert to the Enlightenment™-era ideal of individualism, they will become mob rule just as liberal democracy has, because humans in groups choose pleasant-sounding ideas and compromises instead of realistic solutions.

Any system that has as its core “everybody do what you want if you can afford it” will restore us to exactly the same point where we are now.

Since its inception, Neoreaction has been dangerously divided between a tendency to become mainstream right, and protect capitalism and liberty as the core of our society, and underground right, which tends toward authoritarian means of restructuring society. It also suffers from Leftist entryism through related ideas, such as libertarianism which rapidly becomes liberalism, and White Nationalism which is a form of Leftist ideology adapted for ethnic self-rule.

Free Northener offers a clarification on Neoreaction:

Formalism is the essentialist notion that the symbolic and the real should align, particularly when it relates to power. The mythic, factual, and social truths of power should be the same. He who rules in name should rule in fact, and he who has power should hold an office and title truthfully indicating his power.

Neocameralism flows from formalism. It is the truth that the state is simply a group of people working towards a common goal, it is a corporation. The only difference between it and other corporations are sovereignty and territoriality. Sovereignty is the right to force obedience through violence, while territoriality applies this sovereignty to a particular geographic area.

Formalism and neocamericalism are neoreaction, everything else flows from these two ideas. Combined these ideas give the neoreactionary position: that the state should acknowledge that it is a corporation sovereign with ownership over its particular territory and the residents therein and that it should openly wield and delegate its power as an owner.

The problem with these ideas is that they still straddle the line between the old way and whatever must come next. On one extreme, we are back at the mainstream right but in a sci-fi format: gated communities as services sold by a non-ideological state. That is a Republican dream. On the other hand, some want a state run by benevolent tyrants, which more resembles the Stalin-esque solution but with capitalism. These more resemble modern-day China than anywhere else.

As with many other experiments in post-Liberal social design, both of these threads of Neoreaction attempt to adopt a new “System” in place of the old.

The greatest problem Neoreaction faces is becoming like American Republicans: defending God, country and economy but as a result, ceding the vital ground — “What should our civilization look like?” — to leftist assumptions. That is a slow defeat but a fatal one, and it always happens when the leftist notion of a System is used in place of reversing leftism itself.

Let us then look at these definitions in terms of where they assign control. Formalism tells us that government should accept that it is a corporation, but whose are its clients? If the answer is “everyone,” we have no need to change as thing, as our open-borders globalist welfare-consumerist liberal democratic contemporary state is exactly that.

The problem with consumerism is the same as that of democracy: most people make bad choices, and in large groups, everyone makes bad choices. Profit depends on demand, and demand depends on consumers, who as a loose mob of dubious analytical skills, usually prefer Budweiser to Grolsh, Marlboros to Semois, and Coca-Cola to tea. We’re right back at rule by the mob.

Neocameralism tells us that a civilization is a group of people working toward common goals, which could make it a corporate state — or a cultural one. Culture contains values, methods and ideals that implicate the goal of achieving those on an ongoing basis. It is like a baseball team whose ostensible goal is “winning” but whose actual goal, as a means to that end and an end in itself, is improving its aptitude as individuals and ability to function as a team. With culture in charge, people make better decisions than on their own.

The Right has flirted with these ideas before. Under Mussolini, Fascism, which was less oppressive than Hitler who was less oppressive than the Communists, defined itself as “corporatism.” In that case, however, it was an inversion: the state took over the means of production not for the worker, but for the Nation as a whole, much as Neocameralism argues that a civilization could be people working toward something other than individualism through democracy, consumerism and social popularity.

As Mussolini himself wrote in “What is Fascism?”:

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.

The point he makes is that economy and government must be in unity and must have a goal beyond utilitarianism, or what most people think they want. Utilitarianism appears in democracy, consumerism and social popularity. If those control government, it is democratic (Leftist); if government leads those, it is ideological-authoritarian (Leftist); if culture leads, it is organic-authoritarian (Rightist).

Through this we see a format where certain goals — like capitalism and liberty — are not goals in themselves, but something that emerges from a society in properly working order. The team wants to win, but its necessary antecedent is being a team good enough to win.

Jonathan Sacks writes about the necessity of a cultural underpinning for markets in “Markets and Morals”:

The striking feature of religion, for Hayek, is its attitude of humility, even reverence, towards the great moral institutions without which our complex liberal democratic societies could not have developed. It guards against what he calls “the rationalist delusion that man, by exercising his intelligence, invented morals that gave him the power to achieve more than he could ever foresee.” Of course it does so by insisting that our morals were given by God. For Hayek, they were arrived at by the evolutionary forces of history. What these two views held in common, though, was a strong and principled opposition to the idea that individually or collectively we can devise a better system rationally constructed to maximize happiness or some other good.

It is a fascinating argument, and it places Hayek in a line of thinkers—such as Edmund Burke, Max Weber, and most recently Francis Fukuyama—who have reflected not only on the morality of the marketplace (what we call nowadays “business ethics”) but on the wider question of what kind of society gives rise to and is able to sustain a market economy. The answer each of them gave—an answer that has been given new salience by the rise of the economies of Southeast Asia—is that it tends to be a society with a strong respect for certain kinds of tradition.

When power is allocated by “everyone do what they want so long as they can pay for it,” control shifts to the masses who do what masses do which is pursue the venal, trivial, perverse, idiotic and banal. This shows us where mainstream conservatives, Neoreactionaries and far-rightists alike miss the point: the problem is managing human individuals who are not equal, not designing the right “System” to fit interchangeable cogs.

Systems descend from the French Revolution. Previously, functions were handled by people who served in lifelong roles. They did not have many rules or laws, but used judgment — a function of their intelligence and “nobility” of moral character — in particularized ways. Every decision was situational and took into account the histories of the people involved and the specifics of the locality, area of expertise, and other factors.

“Particularized” is an interesting term here because it is a classic conservative word that has been forgotten. It means local, specific and taking into account the history of events, as opposed to making “universal” rules that take none of that into account. Saying that every person should clear their parking space daily is universal; suggesting to Mrs. McGillicuddy that she should sweep her infirm elderly neighbor’s space, which doesn’t get it fully clean but clean enough, is particular.

The idea of a System was that instead of relying on people who are hard to replace, like smart/noble people, we would design many thousands of rules and procedures so that any idiot could fill the role. Where that failed, we have elections, so that whatever most people think is OK will pass, and this keeps us from having revolutions. That is what Systems do: enforce compromise and order through control, based on the idea of equality.

In other words: if you’re thinking in terms of Systems, you are a liberal.

Here is what conservatives recognize — people are not equal because they are biologically unequal:

I’ve been doing some thinking recently about the findings of behavioural geneticists and their implications for education policy. For instance, a study of more than 10,000 twins found that GCSE results are nearly 60 per cent heritable. (This research, by Robert Plomin, was first revealed in The Spectator.) So genetic differences between children account for almost 60 per cent of the variation in their GCSE results, with the environment, such as the schools they go to, accounting for less than 40 per cent. One very obvious implication of this research is that we may need to lower our expectations when it comes to the impact schools can make on the underlying rate of social mobility.

But behavioural geneticists are upending our assumptions in other areas, too. Parenting, for example. Most middle-class parents, me included, believe that how you bring up your children has a major impact on their life chances. That’s why we spend so much energy on -getting them to put down their screens, do their homework, practise the piano, etc. But, as The Spectator also pointed out back in 2013, if you look at some of the biggest determinants of success — IQ, conscientiousness, grit — they are far more heritable than we like to imagine. Our children’s destinies aren’t set in stone from the moment of conception, but the difference that a good parent makes is fairly negligible.

In other words, each of us is ranked by our genetics in terms of our adaptation, which is not just to mere survival but to the ability to perform in and possibly lead a civilization. Darwin is with us always, and his system shows how the more adaptive rise over the rest; all of liberalism is a vast compensation designed to circumvent this. That is what “equal” means, past the mumbo-jumbo about courts and opportunities: that no one is judged or noticed for being lower than others. Liberalism is war against Darwinism itself.

This means that civilizations hover between two points: rule by the best, or rule by the rest, which happens to destroy them. The goal of every civilization must be to suppress its idiots and raise up its intelligent. You do not achieve that effect with mind-numbing jobs and paying lots of taxes. You achieve it by having intelligent people in power at every level, making particularized choices.

Orwell and Huxley wrote the same book from two different angles. In Orwell’s book, humanity suffered under the methods used to rule it; in Huxley’s, humanity created a life of perpetual misery because its individuals lacked impulse control. Those who find Orwell appealing are liberals, where those who see Huxley’s vision are conservatives. The enemy is us. Most people, if given license, will run society into the ground for small personal rewards.

The point of Neoreaction is to argue around liberalism with thought-models. It is not to be a goal in itself. Moldbug said as much, as have many other Neoreactionary thinkers. The end goal is to find a system that puts the intelligent back in charge at every level and recognizes that most people need to be guided. This is not like totalitarianism, where a centralized authority regulates their lives, but it is an organic and decentralized authority that upholds social standards not with rules but with particular decisions.

We are working toward that because anything else is liberalism. We took a wrong turn in the past, and now it is time to turn back. That does not mean back toward the past, but toward the methods that actually work instead of ideology, which is based on what should be true and not what is. We cannot veer toward Huxley’s hell and claim by that by escaping Orwell’s hell, we are not still in hell.

For that reason, it is time for Neoreaction to climb out of the ghetto of liberal and libertarian thought. Capitalism, liberty, and nationalism are things that emerge not from having the right system, but from chucking out the idea of systems altogether. We need an organic society in which the stupidity of most of our species is suppressed and our best people are free from soul-sucking jobs and bureaucracy. Arguing for anything else is effectively a vote for the Socialists.

All I Really Needed to Know to Avoid I Learned in Kindergarten

Wednesday, May 15th, 2013

kindergarten_crushes_soulsBack in the 1980s, before memes were memes, a popular meme circulated on mimeographed sheets called “All I Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.” It later became a best-selling book.

It was a list of a dozen or more rules based on the teachings of kindergarten classrooms. The gist of these were that you should share, play fair, don’t hit people, and some Hallmark moments. The point of the meme was that people had forgotten how to behave toward one another and the solution was, essentially, “sharing” and avoiding conflict.

The meme caught on for two reasons. First, our society had become horribly crass and financially-motivated, which had obliterated culture and replaced it with a kind of universal productization and emptiness. Second, people generally melt for simplistic answers to complex problems, and the “just treat everyone nicely” meme was picked up by the assorted discontented as well as by suburban moms who just “meant well.”

The list belonged uniquely to kindergarten because it comprised a series of techniques for learning to get along with people. It oozed with well-meaning and social helpfulness. Its proponents would like you to believe that these simple answers would save the world, and they’re ignored because we’re selfish.

The truth is simpler: “getting along” has very negative consequences.

Kindergarten teachers instill in us bad knowledge because it makes their job easier and makes them look better. If a parent — and the distracted, casual, but panicked demands of parents are the bane of education — looks into a classroom and sees a mass of kids fighting or tossing each other around, they’ll freak out and complain. But if they look in and see kids in perfect harmony, sharing and caring and all that, they think they’re getting the most of their education dollar.

As a result, these teachers have a vested interest in having everyone “get along.” Even more, it makes their jobs easier. Why try to get to the bottom of disputes and squabbles when you can just demand they go away? Why pay attention to who started the fight, when you can merely punish the kid who hit back? That way, he’ll think twice, and order will resume and you’ll look good, get favorable treatment from administrators and parents, etc.

Authoritarianism begins in kindergarten, but it’s a kind of “individualistic authoritarianism,” where the goal is to keep each person happy and safe and comfortable so that the system as a whole looks good to all individuals, and thus is not subject to criticism. More like Nurse Ratched than Josef Stalin, this system is based on the accountability of teachers. But it’s that same accountability that makes them act quickly to suppress things that look bad, instead of fixing the underlying problems.

The “get along” policy has a number of negative consequences.

  1. Inability to make decisions. Compromise as a goal is based on the notion that it’s better to have a resolution that does not involve conflict, than to reap the rewards of conflict. Looking at history, we can see that conflict is good. It forces one side to prove supremacy over the other, whether by direct means (strength) or through proof of concept. However, when the goal becomes “getting along,” compromise takes precedent over finding the better solution. As a result, it creates a situation where decisions are not made, but people gather in committees and talk out issues until boredom forces compromise. In kindergarten, this means that nothing changes for these kids since change requires strife. If little Johnny decides it might be more interesting to play soccer, the wise all-knowing teacher will sweep in and crush that impulse quickly because it might cause conflict.
  2. Victimization by the manipulative. Angry and/or stupid people have a major advantage in society in that they stand for nothing. Their goal is to see what smarter people value, which is obvious, and then attack it indirectly. Because they’re delusional and/or stupid, they think this is a brilliant move because it works in the short-term. When teachers punish people for hitting back, as is inevitable in kindergartens across the world, the teachers are in effect giving those who provoke — the stupider, more delusional, etc. people — a free pass and a privilege. The kindergarten teacher mentality makes the aggressors into victims, and punishes those who would restore order by punching the lights out of the angry idiot so that normal people could go on enjoying life.
  3. Learned helplessness. The sum total effect on smart children is a sense of learned helplessness. It’s not a stretch to imagine that kindergarten teachers, not all of whom were at the top of their classes, might enjoy a certain revenge through this process. Nobody likes a smart kid except other smart kids. Everybody likes a kid who is below average, because he’s not a threat. He’s a pet, or someone you pity and help along who makes you look like a good guy because you’re caring for the demi-retarded person. Learned helplessness occurs when smart kids realize that if they try to do anything different, if they defend themselves, or if they have any ideas other than what Dear Teacher wants, they’ll be squashed like bugs and demonized as troublemakers. Thus, as in the Soviet Union, the best policy is to keep your mouth shut and just do what everyone else is doing. This encourages you to see dysfunction and a lack of planning as the norm.
  4. No attention span. The problem with “get along” as a theory is that it relies on interrupting things. Suppose that little Sara has the blocks, and is using them to build a castle. Along comes little Donna who wants to build a series of huts. What’s the rule? “Share everything.” Like, now. Sara has to stop building her castle and start using the blocks to build huts. Soon they will need more blocks; where to get them? Why, from the castle of course, because it’s not finished. Share everything. In reality, this means that whoever shows up late or clueless will get to sabotage those who started early and had bigger plans. It legitimizes the short attention span and demonizes those who wish for something more than the average.

The people who wrote “All I Really Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten” were probably right, but not in the way they intended. The kindergarten teacher policy of get along has sowed the roots of a destructive and pervasive mentality that is both against nature, and every bit as brain-numbingly conformist as that mental palsy which gripped the French Revolution and Bolsheviks as they guided their respective countries into irrelevance.

Recommended Reading