Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘civilization decline’

How Franklin Delano Roosevelt Invented Modern Leftism

Wednesday, April 19th, 2017

When we look at Leftism, it makes sense to analyze it as a series of road forks and straightaways. It continues on its inertial path until interrupted, then adapts to the new reality, and continues onward, gaining momentum. These points both reveal to us the great villains of our age, and how their ideas are inevitable extrapolations from the original concept of “equality.”

Consider, perhaps, the case of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He presided over a war against the quasi-Right, partnered with the far Left, and despite his own elitist outlook, defined the next several generations of Leftism with one incendiary speech:

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Although the precious darlings in the cosmopolitan cities refused to recognize this, Roosevelt has essentially demanded that Leftism move from its first step — political equality, a result of equality under the law being interpreted pre-emptively — to its second step, in which a wealthy but dying society assumes that economic subsidies are required to give people political equality.

Those who have read this blog for some time know that we have a hardline anti-work attitude because jobs are jails. This does not mean we are against requiring all to contribute, because a civilization is made of contributors. Some will do so without jobs, and these are usually the best among us. For most, all that they know how to do is pitch in where others give them direction.

American conservatives in particular hammer out the “work hard, go to church, and have a family” line that keeps conservatives neutralized and paying taxes to fund the Leftist state. An anti-work conservative sees this, and transmutes “work hard” — nonsense language designed to mean “spend all your time at work” — into an intersection of be effective and contribute.

For example, some live impoverished lives but care for a patch of forest or aspect of culture. These are contributors, too, even if they get paid little. Others, such as homemakers, contribute more than their fair share by perpetuating the tribe and raising children to be morally alert, mentally perceptive and physically healthy.

This means that for a thinking person, there is a middle path between “work hard” and “subsidize everyone.” This path is to reduce the amount of time people spend working, to make jobs less odious, and to recognize that not all contributions come from jobs. With the advances in efficiency from technology, we should be working a few hours a day, but instead work far longer to pay for the free riders, government, irrelevant “experts” and do-gooder social programs that benefit no one.

Socialism destroys the chance of this path by taking from the contributors and giving to non-contributors. This ensures that contributors work longer hours and the group of non-contributors grows. Instead of fixing a problem by limiting it, by subsidizing the source of the problem, socialism makes it permanent and prone to take over a society.

With the above, Roosevelt set out an argument for socialism by going back to the root of idea of America, which is that people must be politically equal without a hierarchy of caste or aristocrats. This gives in to the weakest impulses of human nature and guarantees that people will, instead of cooperating, go in many different directions and compete against one another, creating internal friction.

He justifies it by appealing to our prosperity and saying, essentially, that since we can afford it, it is a good idea. In doing so he created the modern “big government” which uses a justification of egalitarianism to argue for its endless expansion and debt spending. But most interesting was this:

In the plain down-to-earth talks that I had with the Generalissimo and Marshal Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill, it was abundantly clear that they are all most deeply interested in the resumption of peaceful progress by their own peoples — progress toward a better life. All our allies want freedom to develop their lands and resources, to build up industry, to increase education and individual opportunity, and to raise standards of living.

The argument for “progress” arises again, which amounts to the increase of the personal wealth of the individual and using “education” as an excuse for how we will make rabble into wise decision-makers, a power they will exercise with the vote. This disease was spreading across the civilized world, much as egalitarianism had after the French Revolution.

Almost a century on, we can see that Roosevelt was wrong. Instead of increasing wealth, this pattern of policies reduces it by increasing the cost of every detail of the process through the taxes and costs imposed by the welfare state. Even worse, it has made citizens into entitled, destructive people.

We like to think that all people are good and like us, if just left to their own devices will do the right thing. History shows us otherwise: without a strong social order and hierarchy, people devolve into a mob in which each pursues his own interest at the expense of all others. Egalitarianism does not work.

In that context, we can see the history of Leftism as a series of failures:

  1. Legal equality. The idea of all people being equal under the law seems intelligent, until we realize that this means that wrongdoers have their bad deeds expunged and good people are unable to point to their history of positive contributions. This results in penalization of the good, which causes them to retreat from public life as much as possible in order to avoid conflict with the wrongdoers who will use the courts against them. This creates the apathy and rootlessness common to modern societies.
  2. Political equality. Notions of all people having the same contribution to the political process appeal to the same portion of our minds that finds pacifism appealing; if we remove the source of contention, we “reason,” then people have no cause to act irrationally. This denies the fact that most people act in illogical ways much of the time, and when they can cancel out the few votes of the sane with their number, they do so every time, which makes the illogical into policy and then into ideal. This causes the most intelligent in society to essentially give up on it and its future and act for themselves only, creating a predatory mindset.
  3. Economic equality. In order to defend against the “winner takes all” mentality created by political equality, Leftists then demand economic subsidies, taking the form of socialism or the welfare state, in order to keep people from being ground under by the resulting highly competitive and violent socioeconomic battle. This further penalizes the most intelligent, driving them into retreat from success, while enabling those whose intent is to deceive and profit at the expense of others to the fore, effectively corrupting the social structure of society.

Where does it go after this? Let us revisit the original endgame of Leftism, which we might call The Napoleonic Cycle. Revolutionaries overthrow the more-intelligent upper castes, establish subsidies, and promptly end up in a greater plight economically than they had experienced before.

Their solution is to throw out more subsidies and go to an authoritarian state in order to force people to do what is necessary for the nation to survive. When this fails, they mobilize the nation by non-economic means, usually warfare. This creates a cycle where there must be constant warfare and so the wars expand in scope until the world is absorbed in them.

The same pattern happened with the Soviet Union. When it struggled economically, it was at its most militant, and when that failed, it collapsed inward and dissolved into third world kleptocracy and chaos. Its satellite republics suffered the same fate, leaving behind failed states.

When we embarked on the Roosevelt path, the West began to suffer The Napoleonic Cycle. The modern West, comprised of welfare states like the EU and USA, devoted itself to the welfare state, and now has no option but to expand the state while keeping the population in a state of terror through constant warfare, crisis, crime and instability.

As history churns on, we see — yet again, as these little wake-up calls happen every few millennia — that there is one right way to have a rising civilization, and that as we have deviated from this, living off the wealth of the past, we have decline both as individuals and as cultures. If we do not fully escape egalitarianism, it will consume us.

Inversion = Equality = Individualism

Tuesday, October 4th, 2016

inversion_equality_individualism

What is the root of our disease?

Most people of functional mind now understand that the American dream is not only dead, but was an illusion, brought on by a pocket of history between bad decisions and the moment their consequences arrive.

Even more than that, we are now seeing that Western Civilization has died, and we who are left — functional minds, again — want a new civilization to replace it.

Something went wrong, long ago, and we have been surviving since that time on the slowness of decay. Like a monkey on our back, this original mistake lives on as an assumption, and for this reason, no matter what we try, it is infected with the bad assumption.

We are like a person trying to clean a virus from a computer network while using an infected machine, so that no matter how much he cuts away, he re-infects everything he touches. The disease lives in us, the Typhoid Mary of bad ideological dogma assumptions.

Reactionary Future describes this as it was envisioned through the writings of Mencius Moldbug as a type of Puritan reaction:

The trouble is that, while war, slavery and poverty are in general bad things, they may well be profitable for some. Especially in small doses. And if you can create a feedback loop by which Universalism causes war, slavery or poverty, but does so in such a way as to reward those who practice and promote Universalism, you have a loop that can continue indefinitely.

Take, for example, the “peace process” in Israel and Palestine. Now 60 years old and counting. How confident are you that this “peace process” is not, in fact, the cause of this similarly unending conflict? It certainly generates a very comfortable living, full of meaning and importance and not a few frequent-flier miles, for all those involved. Why shut it down?

RF hits back with his own analysis, which is closer to the truth:

What we have then is the system itself being the driver. This is the key point, and one which can only be repeated in as clear a way as possible, without the added distraction of the additional context provided by Moldbug when trying to explain it – the unsecure system is the problem, and the mechanisms of this unsecure system create the environment which selects for progressivism. Power is above culture.

The power system literally created this culture.

Power systems are proxies for leadership; people decide that kings are too dangerous, and so they implement a series of rules and incentives (a “system”) for managing people who are presumed to be roughly equal in moral character, mental ability and instinct.

Perhaps instead we should look toward the fundamental assumption there, which is equality. Equality is a human tendency wired into us since early days because it is how one forms a group. Offer inclusion into a new group, or tribe, to a number of people, and promise them that they share equally in its profits, and they hop on board. This is an addictive virus to the human brain: less responsibility, and the possibility of more gain.

This is why equality seems, on a mathematical level, to be a good game-playing strategy. The forgotten factor (as usual) is time, or more accurately, iteration: profit-based systems, over time, decay from high-margin to low-margin as the efficiency effects they bring become more widely distributed.

Visualize a new technology product, for example the iGroin. This product constantly stimulates the groin with small electrical shocks to keep the wearer awake at his boring job, tedious television watching, and stultifying small talk. At first, it sells for $700. But as more people own them, costs go down and competition increases, so prices drop.

Ten years later, the iGroin is a generic type of product that sells for $50 at grocery stores.

Equality has the same curve. At first, it is a brilliant power grab: the new tribe takes everything it can, distributes it, and becomes wealthy. Over time, there is less to grab, and so the parasitic process becomes unruly. This then requires the implementation of the same administrative and leadership roles that the parasites took from their host tribe, a larger group. At this point, the parasite becomes the host, but because it has no mode except parasitism, it starves itself as it fragments into smaller groups trying to parasitize it.

This is why all advanced societies have died so far, on Earth and in the heavens: the society becomes wealthy, subsidizing those who could not have survived without it, and then those take over through equality, because equality is social magic because it cannot be opposed without the opposer looking like a cruel tyrant to the herd. Then, the society chokes itself to death, and reverses the process of civilization.

In this view, the system is the result of the assumption, not the cause of it. This is more accurate.

The problem is Us. Individualism arises from people who do not understand civilization. They exist within it because they can only exist when someone else takes care of the basics of life and social order. At that point, they take it all for granted, and start agitating for more (hubris). With that, the parasitism begins.

With the rise of parasitism, all values and meanings are inverted, meaning that they come to mean the opposite of what they were originally intended to mean. The reason for this is that equality demands inversion. To include everyone equally, one must remove any differences between choices, and even words themselves, by making them mean the same thing, ideologically. This means that any terms describing something other than the ideology must be inverted.

Now the cycle is complete. Inversion = Equality = Individualism. The needs of the individual, expressed through a collective, alter the definition of symbols, and create a false consensual reality in which realistic thought is suppressed. Then the society drives itself insane with its inability to find the assumption which started it on a path to doom.

There is only one solution for this: keep the people of highest intelligence and moral capacity in power, make as many of them as you can, and drive away the useless people. Darwinism in nature has no analogue in civilization except this, and it is vitally needed.

In the future, an advanced civilization will survive this threshold. It will do so by adopting the view of the Spartans not in a military sense, but in a social one. Its people will wage constant war against stupidity and idiots, and exile them to distant lands, without having to make a case for laws being broken. People will be sent away simply for being fools.

This society will not be excessively wealthy. The casting away of fools removes the vast profit motive of consumerism, and also requires that even the highly intelligent do actual work. That will paradoxically reward them, as it gives them a break from their over-heating brains, and allows for a lack of the tedium of nonsense work.

In such a civilization, people will spend very little time on inventing new theories, except as pertains to physical science discoveries. Most of their time will be spent in silence, contemplation and enjoyment of life. They will embrace the mundanity and reject the “exciting” as fetishistic.

This type of civilization fits with what Plato saw as ideal:

In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us. – The Republic

The gold are those of excellent moral and mental ability, and the silver those who can implement that vision. When these castes are mixed, those raw abilities are lost.

Hierarchy in human tribes takes this form: there must be some who rise to the top not by manipulation or brute strength, but by ability and the direction in which they appoint that ability.

Here are the gold, silver, bronze and iron castes in another form:

He is called a Brahmana in whom are truth, gifts, abstention
from injury to others, compassion, shame, benevolence and penance.

He who is engaged in the profession of battle, who studies the Vedas, who makes gifts (to Brahmanas) and takes wealth (from those he protects) is called a Kshatriya.

He who earns fame from keep of cattle, who is employed in agriculture and the means of acquiring wealth, who is pure in behaviour and attends to the study of the Vedas, is called a Vaisya.

He who takes pleasure in eating every kind of food, who is engaged in doing every kind of work, who is impure in behaviour, who does not study the Vedas, and whose conduct is unclean, is said to be a Sudra. – “The Four Orders Of Human Beings”

In failed societies, we find false Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas as we see in our current society. These are caste-mixed people who take on the behavior and moral attributes of Sudras.

In healthy societies, we find Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas who act according to their station, much as they were called Jarls, Karls, and freeholders in Europe according to their ability and inclination.

This hierarchy is the opposite of equality. It is quality-based, meaning that it aims to produce more of quality, instead of attempting to normalize everything to one level as equality does.

Equality arises from social politeness in mixed groups. One must assert the opposite of the truth in order to include everyone else. For that reason, the ugly person becomes beautiful and the weak strong. Then the group bullies and gangs up on everyone else to enforce this.

Maintaining this order over centuries requires a maintenance of genetics, because only people of quality can enforce it. The tendency of civilization is to burden those people with responsibility for the welfare of less capable others, thus exhausting them and driving the good ones into exile.

This is why Darwinism is the solution: the less capable and bad must be driven out, not “rehabilitated” or kept as serfs, because they are the destroyers of civilization, even if it takes centuries.

The Spartans understood this on a gut level, but used military aptitude as a proxy for goodness. The next civilization to inherit this earth and the stars will use no proxies, and will simply rank people with a cold and emotionless eye, always pressing the best upward and the worst outward.

Iowa

Monday, September 19th, 2016

no_sheep_love

What crushes white people in America is low self-esteem resulting from years of cosmopolitans telling us how much cooler and hipper it is in the big cities.

Cosmopolitan elites are good at doing that because they are master manipulators. They are more socially successful, tend to be better salespersons and winners of arguments with clever language, and are well-experienced in forcing their will on other people through social means.

Cities = social, not realistic/practical like the country or the burbs. Out there, you need to show results directly, not through a long chain of people who have been conned into buying, voting or enthusiastically applauding the appearance-based idea you sold them.

Sales is, as cons are, mostly based upon appearance. You make an image in the mark’s mind that makes him think buying this watery beer really will make him be surrounded by blonde women in bikinis, or that voting for one insane proposal or another is the “right” thing to do and will make other people like and respect him.

It is not hard to hack the human mind. Most people stumble through life getting conned on a regular basis, but then rationalize it and move on. They rarely confront the method of the con and think through how to avoid having it happen again.

And so the people out in Iowa feel terrible for living in flyover country, so they start imitating the cosmopolitan elites. They adopt the same attitudes and talk about the same things. They dress the same. All of this comes from low self-confidence: they have been induced to believe their own way of life is inferior.

They are the perfect marks because they have generally not lived in these big cities and so have no idea how fake all of the promises are. They opine vociferously on ideas — like diversity, equality, and pluralism — which do not exist in their own world, all because they assume their world is bad.

Yesterday we drove through a major American city. The highway had six narrow lanes across which cars boomed at high speed, or slow speed, at random. It was lined with shops of many varieties, most of which seemed only tangentially related to the task of survival: nail salons, check cashing, home decor, gift shops, cell phone stores.

The noise and pollution was crushing. So was the passage down the freeway, which stopped every dozen miles for a car crash or traffic jam caused by people confused about which exit to take at an intersection with another freeway. Sirens cut the air and motorcycles gunned their engines.

Every single aspect of the experience seemed designed to drown out the world and replace it with human activity, noise and appearance. Any open land was filled with a shop or car dealership, and people seemed to be driving not to get somewhere, but to have something to do. All of it screamed I AM IMPORTANT at life itself.

Finally we ended up at our destination, an outer suburb that was once another town. This place is booming because people are fleeing the diversity in the city and nearer burbs. But wherever people go, they get the same texture of modern society — all those shops and car dealerships — and those hire low-priced labor. So soon, they will need to flee to another place to get the same nice life, and will leave behind another rotting multicultural ghetto.

This is the paradox described in The Wump World: modernity reflects the desires of people, but creates hell, and so they flee it to a new area, where the same desires create the same hell. The result is a stream of landfill and pollution, all for human pretense!

A better understanding is that of nature: we are not equal, and for most of us, our desires are poison. Like an addict of dangerous drugs, we can never get enough of what we desire, and it fills our time but wastes that time, so we end up circling around, seeking new highs to distract us from the failures of the old.

Perhaps it is better in Iowa. It is not as exciting as the salesmen describe the city as being, but it is saner. Cause leads to effect, and then that cause is remembered for being good or ill. People work together on real goals. It does not matter how clever you are with wordplay, only how correct your words are.

Modernity is hell and it will not end until we end it. The first step is regaining our self-confidence to speak what we know to be true, instead of what the cosmopolitan elites think is important. Those self-styled elites have no relation to reality, or really, to any of us. They are just parasites.

The Enemy Is Modernity

Monday, September 19th, 2016

the_barren_polluted_wasteland_of_modernity_and_democracy

It is time to acknowledge that the enemy of all sane people is modernity, because modernity is insane. The conventional view of modernity is that it is related to technological progress, but this is backward. Modernity is the condition that turns technological progress into dystopia by mismanagement.

What is modernity? Some time ago, I wrote:

This is the face of modernity. There’s no way to tackle a specific issue in it, because the whole thing is wrong. Sure, we could make rules about stopping at intersections, but then you need a cop in every intersection to enforce that rule, or people learn they can get away with it, most of the time, thus they don’t change the behavior. Similarly, we’d have to assign an infallible cop to every single person out there to prevent littering, toxic waste dumping, or sodomizing rape. Even worse is that no matter how many rules we write, there are always new ways to do something that is technically legal yet completely devoid of moral consideration for society and nature as a whole. You can make sodomizing rape porn illegal, but someone else will find something legal that’s similar and will market it, and they’ll be cheered on by those around them because hey, everyone loves money.

Modernity is the cause of this. We often think that our time suffers because it has no unifying philosophy, but the situation is even worse: our unifying philosophy is one of making no decisions. Instead of having a government you trust, you have the “freedom” to escape actions by your government, since it is assumed that you and the government will never come to accord on a sane way to live. You wanted a sensible job? Too bad – it’s more important to have competition so that if your job sucks, you can devote the next month to finding a better one. Let the jobs that suck continue to exist, so long as we have the freedom to choose a lesser degree of suck. We’re so afraid of legislation that we resist any restrictions on development, so if people destroy your neighborhood by covering its forests with concrete, your can move to a less-destroyed neighborhood.

Inevitably, such systems spiral out of control, because of two principles: relativity, and time. Relativity is a problem in that you can find something that sucks less, so you pick that instead instead of fixing the problem. Time compounds that by introducing a succession of greater suckstates, and you keep picking the lesser suckstates, until at some point the less-sucks sucks as much as the original, and you still have no recourse to change it – you’re looking for something that sucks less, instead. Everything affected by this model is a vortex of decreasing standards that eventually culminates in either apocalypse or third-world-style anarchy. But remember, you need that “freedom,” because instead of fixing the problem and creating a sensible government, we want you to be able to defend yourself against all governments.

This is clearly diseased reasoning, if looked at from an architectural perspective, but since such things don’t pay, no one does. No one is willing to target the whole of modernity, for at least the simple reason that it makes change a seemingly large task. I think it makes it a simpler task, as when we’ve found out where we went wrong, we can systematically replace those beliefs with something healthier. But in a modern time, we’re used to external ways of change. Use money as a carrot, and the law as the stick; “educate” (brainwash) people, or make them sign off on decisions like bureaucrats. We understand force, and treating humans and nature alike like machines, but we don’t understand internal motivation, or how we could actually make people understand what they do and why. Reversing this attitude would alone undo modern society, and would give us a clear and relatively easy path of change.

William Faulkner treated this subject tangentially in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech way back in 1950:

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat…Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands…I decline to accept the end of man….I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet’s, the writer’s, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past.

The gestalt we find by combining the many details of society’s failing shows us that things are not well; things are diseased and destructive. We are oblivious to them not because we ignore the details, but because we pay attention only to certain details, and we do this because modernity more than being a “thing” is a state of mind. We look at the external forces we can impose, the qualitative measurements we can use, or the ways we can manipulate each other and thus feel clever about ourselves. These are passive ways of looking at the world, and as they don’t encompass all of it, they constitute only a certain segment of its detail, and leave us oblivious to the larger picture.

In other words, modernity is a mindset, not a thing or a specific process, including technology. It is a human system of organization that corresponds to the later stages of civilization, at which point its strength — a reflection of concentration of resources in areas like technology, military and economic might — is at a peak, but it is highly internally divided and likely to hit the pavement soon.

Another way to describe this mindset is as a pathology, or a repetitive behavior which is triggered independent of its results, so that it is repeated even when it fails:

Modernity is not tangible. It is an idea, thought or notion, like the worst of our afflictions. Obesity starts with ignoring the consequences of calories. Alcoholism starts with a denial of the effects of alcohol. All insanity begins with the thought that reality follows our minds, not the other way around.

Any number of false enemies will come your way. These fakes rely on your frustration and difficulty articulating why you are upset. Their goal is to make you fight them, so they gain through guilt and necessity a place at your table. These are parasites, but not the cause of our misfortune.

The real enemy is a thought. Other mistaken notions resemble it in that they are not immediate in result. You can get away with the deception for some time. You may even be able to fake it on a regular basis. Eventually, the disastrous results come due.

Modernity is now showing us its ugly side. Across the globe, governments have bankrupted themselves in pursuit of liberal programs. Societies have become dysfunctional, families ruined, daily life a miserable imitation of TV shows, and jobs and commerce have taken over souls.

Leftism and modernity are inseparable. As Bruce Charlton writes:

The way I would conceptualise matters is that government and politics will always be based on some view of the Human Condition. This may be implicit rather than explicit. At present, all mainstream politics works on the assumption that what is important is hedonic (in one way or another) and confined to mortal life.

A ‘Religious’ society is to be taken as short-hand for a society built on the assumption that this is *not* the bottom line, but a means to an end which extends beyond pleasure and mortality – although of course religions vary widely as to what that might be.

Your description fits into the Religious category – although I suppose it is more like an individual spirituality than what is normally considered A Religion – nonetheless its scope is religious.

Here he refers to the same psychology that Faulkner identifies above. Healthy societies worry about moral purpose, and whether or not their actions are producing a benevolence toward life itself or not. Unhealthy societies focus on people and keeping the group together by offering inclusion in exchange for obedience; we call this control.

Control denies our inner traits in order to focus on ways to manipulate us so that everyone is doing the same thing. This assumption of identical motivations, which is closely related to equality, forms the basis of social control or control by the appearance of our actions to the judging minds of others, which determines whether we can be part of the “in” crowd or are ostracized and left with fewer options, since people advance each other socially.

This leads to a situation where all values are externalized:

While our society is divided into left and right, its fundamental impetus has been from a liberal viewpoint, in philosophical terms. This viewpoint is the idea of fundamental human rights and equality, meaning that we all get treated the same way regardless of wealth or quality, and from that, we get “justice.” Both Republicans and Democrats embrace this view, and even far-flung parties like Greens and Nationalists seem to, which means that in our political outlook, there is no deviation from this assumption. We view equality as the highest good, the individual as the highest pursuit, and wealth as the means of that pursuit, and anyone who doesn’t agree with that is worse than a Commie or a Nazi, they’re a failure and probably a sociopath.

In our desire to be equal as people, we have denied the person within: the internal traits and preferences that make each of us who we are. We can be measured by our wealth, or our height, or our wish list on amazon.com, but what defines us as individuals has nothing to do with these external factors. It is a combination of personality and abilities. We want to be remembered not only for our skill at guitar playing, but for what the songs we wrote conveyed and made real to others. We want to be known not just for participation in public beach cleanup programs, but our own private choices and sacrifices that helped keep waste out of the world. Even more, we want to be known for how we treated our friends, how we raised our families, and the things we valued enough to die for them, as a life is looked over when the living is done. These are all internal factors, and they are denied by modern society in its desire for external equality.

And so what is the root of modernity? There are two types of civilizations, at the most basic level:

  • Forward motivated. In these societies, people decide what is right and then do it. In this world, the cause is a moral or aesthetic need, and the effect is translating that principle into action.

  • Reversed cognition. Societies of this type argue from convenience, looking at what is already present — materials, humans — and find a compromise that includes all of those to hold the society together.

The latter approach may be referred to as rationalism, because it rationalizes from material and social reactions instead of planning what might be ideal.

The difficulty with this approach, as people brainwashed in modernity see it, is “Who decides?” They are accustomed to “systems” or control structures where all people participate in formalized, universal activities and when they demonstrate exceptional obedience to the principle of control — equality — they are chosen as leaders.

In saner times, people realized that inequality of ability is a fundamental aspect of life itself, and that learning is esoteric or dependent on the ability of the person and how much cumulative knowledge they have already mastered. For this reason, such a society is hierarchical or based on leadership structures like the military.

That in turn implies an interesting quandary: when we need the best, we must ask the best who to choose, because per the Dunning-Kruger Effect, only the best will recognize others of that ability, just like only geniuses recognize other geniuses.

In such a group, the process is started when a threat troubles the tribe, and someone makes it go away through heroic or insightful action. At that point, this person becomes selected as one of the best, and can choose others to form part of a leadership cadre or caste.

These societies have existed for time immemorial. Their order is not older, but simply more evolved than what we have now, which is mob rule plus lots of regulations to try to make equally insane people sane. This order has four cornerstones and is how, in any age or place, one produces a healthy civilization.

Modernity is the inversion of this. It was crafted by those who wished to seize power. Their goal was to abolish hierarchy through equality and then, by using the same tactics of snake-oil salesman, conning the herd into doing their bidding. Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel are contemporary versions of this psychology.

Ironically, such people come about because of the success of a civilization. When societies succeed, they implement order and institutions which then allow those who could not survive without civilization to survive. The more brain-dead labor is needed, the more deleterious mutations accumulate in people who cannot exist without a narrow path of instructions guiding them.

This tells us what society must do if it is to avoid downfall: it must constantly produce more of the intelligent people, and pare down or eliminate those who are foolish, or cannot survive on their own without civilization. This requires a society willing to be more like the Spartans, who sacrificed defective children to avoid contaminating their gene pool.

An ideal way to do this gently is hierarchy keeps power in the hands of the best, and limits the options of the worst, encouraging them to leave the civilization and try their luck elsewhere. All orders break down over time, which is why “systems” do not work; what does work is keeping quality of citizenry and thought high to discourage the lower.

Modern people — to those who have crossed the abyss of thought that separates modern people from reality — seem robotic and confused on this point. They cannot conceive of anything other than a system which makes guarantees based on universal, formalized action.

In fact, the path to health is like that of nature. No universality, because people are not equal; no formalization, because systems are easily gamed by the cynical but defective. This is the natural order to which our ancestors aspired, and if we are to reverse modernity, it is what we must target again.

Attention Seeking

Friday, September 9th, 2016

giggin_sjw

One can start this pièce by saying that SJWs are attention seekers, which is made abundantly clear by their use of language and can even be extrapolated to include liberals. However, for purposes of this discussion, we will assume that “attention seeking” is a single and independent cultural dimension.

Cultural dimensions are discussed at length by Geert Hofstede in his book Culture’s Consequences. In the 2001 edition he identified five dimensions applicable to all cultures (or at least those identified in fifty countries). It will be assumed that “Attention Seeking” is a sixth dimension, meaning that some cultures consistently seek more attention than others regardless of their circumstances.

Attention seeking is by its nature used in all communications cycles, where it is always the first step. For example, one party in the prospective communication cycle would need to grab the attention of a second party, as would be required for the intended communication to even occur. For example, if you want to talk to your neighbor, you seek attention by pressing his door bell.

Going to all the trouble of identifying a dimension also requires of the investigator to identify extreme forms of attention seeking. One example is a technique historically used by the Zulu King “Dingaan” as well as an unknown English Feudal Lord whom both invited “mercenaries” (i.e. not current enemies) for a tea (party) with the express purpose of killing them afterwards.

The commonality between the English and the Zulu was that both cultures applied attention seeking, but on a wider cultural scale the Zulu would be inherently more prone to attention seeking (of all kinds) than the English. But in the same vein, it can be observed that Germans may on average be even less prone to attention seeking than the English. This may be co-incidental with their measured “Power-distance” dimension i.e. the closer you stand to someone; the more likely you may be an attention seeker.

Another factor influencing attention seeking is genetics and specifically the jaw structure. This apparently influences whether you express yourself from the back of mouth towards the front of the mouth. Some people point to the development of languages where Germans historically sounded guttural, progressing to the French, speaking in the middle of the mouth, followed by the English speaking in front of the mouth. One deduction can be that it is easier to project your voice if you speak in the front of your mouth. In that sense, the Zulu (as well as other African tribes) are known for their ability to project voices very far since they also speak in the front of the mouth.

Attention seeking could be the result of genetics as well as of their sense of survival i.e. culture. The curious case where English and Zulu attention seeking is comparable can be used to highlight extremes of the dimension as well… The alternative dimension referenced herein is Power –Distance from which the following is quoted from Hofstede:

  • Wealth should be negatively correlated with Power-Distance because wealth goes together with the growth of middle strata in society, which can form a bridge between the powerful and the powerless. (Adelman and Morris 1967, pp. 155, 255).

  • The authoritarian states do either very well or very poorly.

It is obvious that England is wealthier than the Zulu because they have a “middle strata” otherwise known as the middle class. As far as attention seeking goes, the English has another factor as to why they would seek attention.

But to first elucidate the Zulu tribe’s “normal” attention seeking mode, where examples of clownish behavior to exact laughter for recognition purposes are plentiful such as comments from tourists saying things like “but they are funny, let’s give them a tip” or “but they are laughing despite not having shoes” etc. These are the wrong responses but nevertheless true.

The English are known to seek attention by projecting superiority as well as being a jester. Their superiority comes from their own King that “gave them the privilege” to communicate on behalf of “His Highness” (all of the King’s men and all of the King’s horses). In other words, their attention seeking is not just based on “impersonation” it is also based on achievement such as clothing, ships, armor, books etc. Effectively English attention seeking is based on the fact that their King told them it is allowed to brag about the middle class, whereas the Zulu subjects can only brag about their individual impersonations while never allowed to speak on behalf of the King.

Although the English and Zulu have similar origins of attention seeking, they also represent dimensional opposites to attention seeking.

Moving on to those who actually do not seek attention (not English or Zulu), then considering a standard organization is beneficial, where the attention seekers would generally be the marketing personnel while the non-attention seekers are quite happy to work in workshops and laboratories. Then it is possible to say that (within a culture) an entire organization can be attention seeking (such as a political party) while another entire organization is not (such as Military Engineers).

The closest to occupational Power-distance data was the following comparison:

  • Unskilled workers have a much higher power-distance than professional managers.

  • In engineering, the customer service engineers have significantly lower power-distance than technical (computer) engineers.

It is perhaps fair to deduce (on the one hand) that you can’t be a manager if you are too authoritative while on the other hand, if you are authoritative, then you had better master the art of attention seeking.

Lastly, the phenomenon of SJW’s seeking digital attention from their Mother’s basements could be their alternative to real communication. This basement approach may be attention seeking in a world that they do not understand, because real communication actually requires some outcome (eventually). Their inability to communicate constructively is caused by their inability to communicate (in their own language). The example of English versus Zulu is again instructive: English language is formalized whereas Zulu language is not – because Zulu’s do not have schools and universities (middle-class).

By dumbing down clothing in fashion (as an example), but also language in universities, industry and academia have succeeded in exacerbating the attention seeking in the SJW emergence to envelope normal people previous known liberals and even cuckolding conservatives.

Liberals do not appear to make succinct arguments anymore because they seem to have a fixed vocabulary while conservatives valiantly strive to maintain a formal language with implicit meaning. This further enable the liberal mobs because any kind of formalism becomes a target, however, being clever conservatives have begun to think outside the box, seeking attention through trolling liberals. In the new dimension of “Attention Seeking”, this may well become known as “the persuasion” factor. Some people are simply better at it than others. But the road ahead is still far and steep.

It Will End With A Whimper, And Not A Bang

Thursday, September 1st, 2016

thomas_robert_malthus

Thomas Malthus dropped a meme-bomb on both Economics and Environmentalism. The damage that he inflicted infests some corners of both of these fields today. Wrong ideas can have an impact analogous to a nuclear weapon.

Abundant loud and violent stupidity gets detonated at the time the foolish ideas are adopted and the long term effects are also toxic. The idea has a half-life, so to speak, like Strontium 90. As long as the wrong idea can be attractively packaged, it will get parroted by masses until it is put to the acid test. Kevin Williamson of NRO describes just such a scenario.

In 1980, there was a famous bet between Paul Ehrlich, Malthusian par excellence and author of The Population Bomb, and Julian Simon, a fellow at the Cato Institute, regarding the prices of a handful of widely used metals (chrome, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten). Ehrlich believed that the Earth was running out of resources, and that scarcity would send the price of these metals higher, while Simon believed that human ingenuity and the creative power of capitalism would lead to abundance, and hence to lower prices for those benchmarks. Simon was right, Ehrlich was wrong. But there is almost no price to pay for being wrong if you are wrong in the service of that which is popular….

The corrupting meme infesting both economics and environmentalism is that of The Big Catastrophe. The SHTF Moment. The big mile-marker that tells us Romulous Augustulus is about to be deposed by a some hide-wearing barbarian from the Faustian Woods. I mean, if Paul Ehrlich re-ups those futures contracts long enough, will every last one of them go into the money? It could just be that he’s gotta’ believe! If he so endeavored, he’d hardly be the only non-religionist taking a Kierkagardian Leap of Faith.

I think its more than just a lingering case of Normalcy Bias on my part to ponder another possibility here. What if several million dedicated preppers wind up the badly dissappointed laughingstocks of their neighborhood as the MREs pile up in their basements, and the Martians never seem to get around to launching that invasion? Just how well is your favorite Peak Oil Blog doing right about now? When was AGW going to doom the Earth again?

Maybe, just maybe, there is only one looming Armageddon. We have on scriptural authority that none will know the hour or the day. Given that market information blackout; I wouldn’t advise calling up your commodities brokerage of choice and writing any Armageddon calls. We can all ignore the cranks and whack-jobs because nobody has seen any of those black swans quite yet. Yet maybe that mindset puts us in even more danger.

It doesn’t have to burn out. It could fade away. The termites that eat a foundation, probably don’t wreck an entire wooden barn in just a day. Entropy can work over time. Things can degrade more slowly than anyone primed for The Big One can readily recognize the growing sarcoma. Will McIntosh posits just such a societal failure in his novel Soft Apocalypse.

What happens when resources become scarce and society starts to crumble? As the competition for resources pulls America’s previously stable society apart, the “New Normal” is a Soft Apocalypse. This is how our world ends: with a whimper instead of a bang. New social structures and tribal connections spring up across America, as the previous social structures begin to dissolve. Soft Apocalypse follows the journey across the Southeast of a tribe of formerly middle class Americans as they struggle to find a place for themselves and their children in a new, dangerous world that still carries the ghostly echoes of their previous lives.

That’s plausible, simply because the vast majority of SHTF events are obvious threats that intelligent people can recognize and head off at the pass. More insidious threats such gradual decrease in humanity’s IQ, the growing world economic deficit, and the steady decline of beauty and aesthetic pleasure in the town you live in are not all up in your grill like a bad Rap video on World Star Hip-Hop. They don’t gross us out. They don’t particularly scare anyone. Then you wake up and notice things just don’t work that well anymore.

This sense of it just not working anymore is an opportunity for proper diagnosis. Amplifying that sense of anomaly can help us awaken the sleepers. When we look for the small cracks in the foundation rather than the approaching tidal wave, we can start seeing where our lives, our society and our nation need to be fixed. All of these problems didn’t just come flying out of Voldemort’s wand. They started small. And like Cassandra of Albion – Enoch Powell, the people who warned us about them were ignored or vilified.

The realization that Doomsday isn’t on the calendar is a start. The next step is to realize that the absence of Doomsday from the calendar doesn’t render any of us immortal or immune. Then, we can put together the clues and start fixing the societal problems that are killing us all one more coffin nail or tonsil polish at a time. This becomes more possible when we rid our thought ecology of Malthusian Doomsday fantasies and remove the Modern Blindfold.

Recommended Reading