Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘civilization design’

Future Survival – Part 2: Design

Thursday, November 3rd, 2016

nicotiana_tabacum_vortex_nexus

Civilizations arise because — well, we don’t know why exactly. But it certainly is not because a single person designed them. The closest approximation to the single civilization designer is the type of social engineering that comes from George Soros or the Soviet Union, where men think they have God-like abilities based on how good their intent feels to them and their social groups.

The concept of design is a typical STEM activity and generally it sounds like “mechanical control.” The concept of control, although very successful in terms of automation, appears to have damning effects on people. In other words, it is suggested that “control” turns people into numbers allocated with predetermined functionalities, because it treats them as equals engaged in the exact same role.

This means that what control achieves is not what the discipline of automation was intended for, which was to help people and organizations. The problem perhaps is that the purpose of control was never a civilizational purpose, but is an individualistic one that accrues power for the individual and elites at the expense of civilization.

Control is the opposite of authority. It focuses on the individual by giving it a number and treating it exactly like all other individuals, whereas the correct use of authority is to focus on the health of the organization as a whole. If individuals and organizations were able to focus on their “purpose,” they would be able to “design” such a civilization.

This leads to one of the great paradoxes of our existence: even an exceptional individual person cannot design a civilization. We can only participate in one by upholding a role which is specific to our abilities, and by acting in accord with the principles of that civilization within the context of that specialization.

An intelligent, forceful civilization does not need central control. Nature already does that for us; we just need to understand it. In a recent article the incompetence of Americans to control, or even to understand, their own actions was described thus:

In fact, about half of all children born in the United States are an unintended byproduct of sex, rather than a conscious choice.

Nature allows us to reproduce, but we just don’t get it. Historic reaction to this took three general forms as follows:

  • Turn all women into feminists and men into metrosexuals (Liberalism).
  • Decree the law of single child families (China).
  • Allow tribal conflict where the winner kills all men and children, and take all women.

If you have been to Africa, you will see women working the fields, not men. In Africa, women provide sex, look after babies, make food and work the fields. For example, if they need to go to the toilet while working in the fields, they will just squat down right where they stand. As the West heads toward third-world status, its women will have to re-educate themselves for this job description.

A more intelligent approach is to take the long term view by promoting informed choice which will confront people with their (realistic) prospects. This requires government not to control birth, but to refuse to provide economic assistance so that individuals regulate births based on their own circumstances. By treating everyone equally, control prioritizes the unplanned over the planned.

The pitfalls described by Paul Warkin of an engineering-based civilization design can be addressed by using nature as a central control as well as implementing a maintenance-oriented civilization.

This approach would result in a “spiral” of reactions whose ultimate destination is impossible to predict. However, while it might not attain a Type 1 civilization, it is also not sure that Type 1 is in fact our purpose. In fact, the focus on Type 1 could be an assumption that prevents us from seeing our needs.

Any design is based on requirements which are generally derived from purpose, experience and also projections and estimates.  History shows (in my opinion) that conservatives over-simplify things while liberals make things overly complicated.

This may be counter-intuitive because conservatives want to keep “things as they are” whereas liberals want to “improve” things to the point where no improvement is possible through anarchy plus subsidies. In this process conservatives use force-multipliers that increases the power of civilization without fixing its broken direction, while liberals add rules to entrench their improvements and thus their own power. The defensive approach of liberals is more effective at maintaining power in the short-term, as history shows us, but then becomes unstable and self-destructs.

History also show that humans either like “stability” or creative disruption. For example, Asians are very stable while Euro-descendants are creatively disruptive. The difference between the two is the level of violence. (Ignore collective societies because they are not deemed as civil in this sense).

The ideal is in fact being not too clever, but also not too dumb. After all variation does promote conflict which in project management circles helps to finish the job. In other words, humans do like saber-rattling, in fact humans perform way better under temporary stress situations.

But then, if we understood nature, this would be common cause.

But also being intelligent help humans to optimize their survivability. This should be seen in universal context of course, but until better guidelines are developed, the safety technique required is to optimize health, security and systems (nature and human systems)

Using the philosophy of realism would enable humans to surpass the conundrum of Left versus Right. It will allow for the design of a civilization spiral that reaches upward toward quality using its understanding of nature. A civilization designed as an ecosystem, or one in which unequal people fulfill specialized roles, would be one where organizational safety and realism — with maintenance of that civilization as a subset — take precedence over the attempts of rulers to cement their positions of power.

“The most important resource to mankind is organizations”, says Nick Land, but we have never realized it, till now. The civilization of the future will focus on organization, not the individual, and attempt to adapt to nature as an abstract order in addition to a wild place surrounding. If humanity survives, it will be through this path away from control.

Rocket Testing

Tuesday, October 18th, 2016

civilization_entropy

The early days of experiments in rocket design were quite exciting. The boffins would troop out to the launch pad, hit the switch and more often than not, witness a spectacular explosion instead of a graceful flight. When flight did occur, it was often unstable and resulted in a slightly more distant explosion.

Civilizations have the same problem: they are complex designs in which each part of the system influences every other part simultaneously, so linear thinking is insufficient. Their status is also far less quantifiable than telemetry (or explosions), and it often takes centuries to see the impact of even a tiny change, which can have consequences far outreaching its perceived minor status.

From a human perspective, our species has been struggling since its inception to build a society which does not self-destruct relatively quickly. Paradoxically, the smarter and more powerful a civilization is, the more likely it becomes that it will implode. They die from internal disorder which eventually overwhelms this.

Those who dream of the stars wonder why their rockets detonate. They also worry that, even if we escape to the distant skies, our problems will come with us, because they are rooted in assumptions that we carry with us. In other words, something that we assume is “good” is in fact creating a fatal condition.

Usually our solutions involve “Systems,” or the idea of one big concept applied universally to all people. This is a form of control, or use of manipulation to make citizens into means toward an end of order, but all of these Systems self-destruct anyway. More force is not the answer.

With rockets, we eventually learned that certain invisible forces acted on the ships but in different ways at different times. Effects were cumulative, and complex, meaning that small variations led to radically different results. There was no singular theory that worked in a universal sense, only many forces acting together.

Life derives its complexity from this tendency toward interaction between forces and how that in turn changes the task over time, like layers of interpretation when one reads a novel, or thinking ahead a dozen moves in chess. This requires a strategic approach.

We call these questions which pop up by the name emergent properties. This refers to their intangibility and the inability to discern them from the initial conditions of an attempt, and alludes to their tendency to appear from out of the complexity set in motion itself. As in civilization design, in rocket design these are the challenge within the task.

It is now clear that something has gone wrong in Western Civilization. Our writers and artists have warned us for centuries that living for the self in large cities and faceless jobs has a tendency to destroy people, and that destroyed people then turn on the world around them and in turn destroy it. Our people are miserable.

This shows us the emergent properties of civilization. The more we do for people, the more they become dependent on control; this in turn leaves them existentially confused. The more we educate, advance and subsidize our population the less they know what they want. The more accepting we are, the more people lose pride and purpose.

And yet these acts seemed like good ideas when they were implemented. People adore the idea of using force to create a single-act solution that crushes a problem, and yet the harder they pound on the target, the more the details conspire against them. Cleverness emerges as the actual opposite of intelligence.

From this we can see why our civilization rockets keep exploding on the launch pad. We have thought ourselves halfway to a solution, but by not integrating all of the pieces into a whole system like the operation of the organs in the body, we have succeeded in simply chopping up social order and making it more complicated without being more complex, or interrelated among its parts.

Some find it odd that writers on this blog identify as “conservative,” because to them conservatives are weaklings. The answer to this is that conservatism embraces a core principle that can be used to find the many answers to a problem and to then balance them with one another. Mainstream conservatives are like mainstream culture, junk food, television and business, an inferior substitute.

Conservatism itself, however, is a simple principle: organicism. We look toward what works and incorporate it, like making a ball of string, instead of trying to make a theory that is convenient for the human mind which can apply to everything. There is only one theory, life itself, and we can observe what works and what does not by the results achieved, and then make our choices by looking to the results we desire and choosing the corresponding action.

This approach provides a starting point to the question of how to keep civilization blowing up like an ill-fated test rocket. Instead of aiming for the best as we see it in our intentions, we aim toward what works on a practical level and discard all ideology, emotion and social feeling from the process. This is an engineering question, not a social one.

As of 2016, another one of our rockets has become a fireball. We thought (once) that liberal democracy was the “end of history.” Now we know that it was just a bubble that existed between implementing it and seeing its results. It is clear we must leave this path, and the only question that remains is what principles will guide us.

Introduction To The Alt Right

Monday, October 10th, 2016

alt-right

The Alternative Right or “Alt Right” consists of lone writers who bang out missives in the odd hours of the day and after work, expending their sparse free time on a vision of a better future. They do so knowing that their ideas are incomprehensible to most, and would be disturbing if understood.

Coming from the re-grouping of the right after the Leftward shift that followed the Second World War, the Alt Right combines elements of other anti-liberal movements — the New Right, Neoreaction, black metal music, White Nationalism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Human Biodiversity and Traditionalism — and finds the elements they have in common.

Its fundamental idea rejects centuries of thought from The Renaissance™ and The Enlightenment™ onward, namely the equality of human beings. The Alt Right sees that as a construct of human intention and social reasoning, and suggests instead that biology must be the basis of our understanding of humanity.

Where the contemporary dialogue supports the idea of universalism, or the notion that people are the same and so can be shaped into an ideal society with rules and “education,” the Alt Right sees that people and peoples are highly varied. People have different abilities, inclinations and moral characters, and this also varies in a broader frame with ethnicity and race.

Once we accept this realization, the quest against “inequality” no longer makes sense; inequality is the default state of the universe and also a necessity for change, evolution, conflict and growth. This allows us to discard the past centuries where countries have shattered themselves trying to achieve equality.

Instead it makes sense to look toward a social order where the abilities of each person are matched to a role in which that person can excel and yet be limited from doing damage by acting on questions above his level of ability. This type of internal hierarchy, which is both vertical (ability) and horizontal (specialization), creates a social order unlike the flat single dimension of equality.

As part of this realization, the Alt Right understands that different populations are not arbitrary but specific to things only they can do. For this reason, the Alt Right is strongly Nationalistic, or believes that each ethnic group thrives through self-determination, or homogeneity and command of itself according to its own standards.

Another way to view this is through the principle of self-interest: each group is different and has its own direction, and these self-interests do not combine but conflict. Diversity cannot succeed because it violates this principle and will cause only enmity between the groups involved, whoever they are.

This represents a departure from the conventional view of assessing “good” and “bad” or “inferior” and “superior” groups. In the Alt Right view, every group is superior for its own purposes and if left in isolation. When groups are combined, the unique traits of each are lost and the result is a cultureless “grey race.”

Accepting that equality is nonsense raises another question. If people are unequal, it no longer makes sense to make decisions by mass “consensus” achieved through political promises. Instead, choosing those who are most competent to lead becomes evidently sensible, and this leads away from democratic systems.

The Alt Right is divided on many questions, including what comes next, but royalism/monarchism/aristocracy have significant support because they alone allow us to step outside of the cycle of politics itself where the winning idea is that which flatters the broadest segment of the audience.

That in turn leads to some realizations about humans. Not only are we unequal, but we are not all one. Instead, we are an organic structure where different roles and abilities work together, sometimes through opposition, to achieve an ultimately positive result. Humans are not universally anything, but saying we are all “good” is clearly wrong.

From this comes the idea of hierarchy, or that society must like nature always advance the more competent in every role above others so that all may benefit from the greater competence. In this view, leadership becomes a question of ability and not mass agreement, recognizing that people in groups make “committee-like” decisions and that most people will misjudge complex issues.

With that idea arises one of the fundamental ideas of the Alt Right, which is consequentalism, or the idea that leadership acts are assessed by their effects in reality and not the human intentions, feeling and judgments which fill our heads with idle mental chatter. Reality matters; intent does not.

From this point, the Alt Right belief system transitions to Traditionalism, or the idea that there is an eternal order of human civilizations and interaction with nature and the metaphysical, and that healthy civilizations restore this constantly. Dying civilizations deviate from it and rationalize, or justify, their choices as being more “moral” when in fact they are merely compensatory.

Currently, because we live in a 70-year Leftist acceleration within a society that has been drifting toward egalitarianism for a millennium, these ideas seem incomprehensible to modern people. They have been raised in a series of dichotomies which amount to thinking the current system is good and anything else is bad.

However, as the contemporary order not only fails to achieve its objectives but leaves shattered lives and broken countries in its wake, people are thinking the unthinkable: that perhaps our comfortable order of equality, liberal democracy, diversity and sexual liberation is not just bad policy but a path to doom.

For this reason, the Alt Right invokes Nietzschean ideas and expresses questions about the collapse of Western Civilization. It not only opposes the delusional Left, but wants to remake Western Civilization into the type of eternal order that produced its days of glory, genius and excellence.

In its view, society succeeds when it has a clear purpose and measures that by results. All political systems and static moral measurements are proxies, or symbolic measurements, of this, and they are easily misdirected by the relentless changing of history and meaning that is the hallmark of the Left and other destroyers.

For the Alt Right, diversity and immigration are means the Left uses to destroy any sense of shared purpose, values, culture and heritage. This idea is borne out by historical evidence:

The era of Republican dominance in California was finally broken in the 1990s and has since disappeared into the background at a breathtaking pace. Democrats, who now command a supermajority in both of the state’s legislative houses, along with the governor’s mansion, have been forging ahead with an assertively progressive agenda on all fronts, from the environment to taxes to the culture wars.

The single most visible cause of this shift was mass immigration—or, alternatively, the failure of California Republicans to adapt to immigration—which produced a demographic transformation of the Golden State without parallel in the rest of the country. The California that elected Reagan its Governor was about 80 percent white and 12 percent Hispanic; today, those figures are 38 percent and 39 percent, respectively. In other words, California squeezed into forty years a transformation that is expected to take at least a century for America as a whole (if it takes place at all, given rates of assimilation and ethnic attrition) and which many Trump supporters clearly resent and fear.

In the Alt Right view, civilization success begins with homogeneity not just of race but of ethnicity, such that those who are from an ethnic group like Western Europeans can form a society together, but a society cannot be forged from mixed-race and mixed-ethnic populations. The California experience shows that diversity benefits only Leftism, which seems to speak endlessly of equality but always tend toward controlling, centralized authority.

With the rise of civilization comes the tendency to have purpose beyond the merely physical. With this comes an appreciation for the complexity of our world and its tendency toward positive results, even through its darkest moments. For this reason, many on the Alt Right reject atheism and tend toward a religious viewpoint.

Through that filter, life remains inexplicable when seen through the purely material, or physical, mindset. Instead, life has a purpose, although not an inherent one. We can choose any level of existence we want, but those who wish to go the farthest toward excellence and beauty strive to understand the metaphysical realm and apply its wisdom in the physical world.

As part of that drive, the Alt Right leaves behind the modern mentality of dividing methods into good and bad, and instead focuses on how those are directed. For that reason, the eternal civilization desired by Alt Rightists is entirely compatible with advanced technology, including that pushing far beyond our consumer-oriented gadgets of the present time.

This pairing seems unbelievable but fits within the futurist spirit of the Alt Right: we wish to advance civilization beyond its current stagnant stage to future greatness that marries the wisdom of the ancient past with the abilities of the distant future. As a lone standout in the Leftist The New York Times writes:

Reactionary ideas have made modest inroads in the mainstream right: The intellectuals’ case for Trump that I wrote about last week includes a thin but striking “regime change at home” thread. And they have appeal in areas like the tech industry where mainstream conservatism presently has little influence, because (like fascism in its heyday) the new reaction blends nostalgia with a hyper-modernism — monarchy in the service of transhumanism, doubts about human equality alongside dreams of space travel or A.I.

The Alt Right sees life as excellent, and not an unjust condition to be corrected as the Left does, and wants to extend this excellence into new domains. In this view, humanity is a species competing with many others among the stars to see who can produce a stable civilization that can explore the stars without self-destructing from internal conflict.

Like most things Alt Right, this breaks down conventional dichotomies. We are not struggling between oppression/non-oppression, but for competence over incompetence, and if the competence is oppressive yet geared toward our purpose, it serves our goals and is beneficial. In fact, suppression of the human tendency toward chaos may be necessary.

This runs up against the human pretense that everyone is good, and that all individuals deserve to do whatever they want. In the Alt Right world, the goal of humans is something more than themselves; we wish to achieve self-mastery through self-discipline and through that, make a civilization of excellence more than mere adequacy.

For this reason, the Alt Right remains an outsider to the politics and values of today. It accepts that condition with pride because it sees our values now as a byproduct of rationalizing decay, and instead wants to combat that decay by overcoming it through the process of aiming toward something grander, more majestic, more epic.

In the Alt Right world, only two options exist for the future. Either there will be more advanced humans who look back on this time and laugh at it, or there will be a vast cultureless grey mass who cannot comprehend any of these ideas. The choice is ours, and the future will judge us by our decision.

Civilization Is A Trap

Thursday, September 29th, 2016

civilization_is_a_trap

Civilization is a disease which is almost invariably fatal.1

The rich are different than you and me. In particular, they are better at making money, which requires having the pulse of trends and being able to see to some degree where they are going. From a story about bunkers/panic rooms for the wealthy comes this tasty tidbit:

Adds Mike Peters, owner of Utah-based Ultimate Bunker, which builds high-end versions in California, Texas and Minnesota: “People are going for luxury [to] live underground because they see the future is going to be rough. Everyone I’ve talked to thinks we are doomed, no matter who is elected.”

What do they know that the rest of us do not? They have probably noticed the downfall of the Obama years — the declining currency, increasing corruption, decreasing competence — and view the current presidential contest as a disaster, perhaps because of Hillary Clinton’s ability to evade prosecution for obvious lawbreaking and the tendency of media to act as her propaganda organ. These are third world events, not first one ones.

We are now at a point of what Guillaume Faye calls a “convergence of catastrophes.” This refers to what happens when 227 years of bad politics and seventy years of extremely bad Leftist rule drive a civilization, like Western Civilization, to the point of collapse. Ecopocalypse hovers on the horizon, either from environmental crash or the rising amount of environmental pollution that will eventually render the planet inhospitable. The economy is not just crashing, but leaves behind record debt and devastated industries destroyed by globalism. Political instability is at an all-time high. Leftism will leave us in a cloud of shame, again, as the destroyer of all that is good, based on an idea — equality — that was really popular because it sounded good. Appearance is not reality.

In addition, modern life is hell. Cities are designed around retreat to the home and blocking out of life around us. Jobs are tedious and pointless, usually achieving nothing but make-work and titles to peacock around with. The consummate ugliness of our architecture, graffiti, urban decay and product-oriented lifestyle is repellent. Social groups are warzones between races, ethnic groups, social classes and political factions. We are surrounded by “null culture,” or music, art and literature advertising fatalism and self-indulgence without any glimpse of what is real, beautiful or accurate.

People are asking how we got to this point. The answer is that we got conned, but as every good con man knows, the person who is conned is a collaborator in the deception because of his desires and fears. In our case, the desire to be important and to have our intent — not our will, because that would be unequal — render unto reality has made us egomaniacs, and our fear of being not equal enough has made us into nasty, squabbling people who treat everything like a negotiation at a bazaar.

How did it all come down to this?

The answer is that civilization is a deviation from the balance of nature, and unless that is compensated for, civilization quickly self destructs. The most intelligent civilizations seem to rise the fastest and fall the hardest. This points toward a disparity between what humans think they should do, and what they actually should do. The problem lies in human intent.

Intent defines our lives. We seek to adapt to our world and put plans in motion toward that end. Those plans are based on what we know of the world, plus a hypothesis about what will achieve the results we intend. The question arises then whether those results are actually the results we need. Our brains like nice, orderly, equality-based structures where each part is divisible and replaceable, where nature prefers complex tiered orders of inter-related balances based on inequality, with each part serving a different role in the organic method.

In designing human society, this leads us toward the idea of the one-step solution. If there are too many people, put them in apartments in big cities for convenience. If people are displeased, make them equal. If the group fragments, implement an ideology to keep the team together. If some do not fit in, beat them down until they do; if some fall behind, subsidize them. If it is too large to know who is good, implement proxies — tests, certifications, schools, laws, middle management — to choose the ones who can implement the goal.

The root of this failure is control. Control occurs when humans micromanage by deciding that instead of having unequal people working in parallel toward a goal, they want to specify that goal and force it to be applied exactly as they intend. It is a mark of bad leadership, and also of a situation where there are too many fools to be trusted with their own work. There is a path to power in organizing all of the fools together and telling them exactly what to do like equal interchangeable cogs, and this is the order that overwhelms all civilizations.

At the right level of zoom, humans and yeast become nearly indistinguishable in this regard. They encounter an opportunity, multiply beyond carrying capacity, and then die out. The civilization of the future is the one that solves this problem.

Amerika is a blog for hard truths, which is why it is not as popular as the blogs from the easy answers crowd, which takes infinite forms and so can come from any orientation, outlook, ideology, discipline or perspective. As such, the texts on Amerika appear to be absurdly effete, stating plain observations without the usual emotional agitation and calls for extreme action; then again, the blogs that succumb to those tendencies are either from the easy answers crowd or inevitably assimilated by it as the blog owners attempt to remain relevant and popular.

We now have a mandate for extreme change. Most people have no idea how big the screw-up is. Leftism, and its final stage globalism, have left a ruin of the first world and made its citizens so existentially miserable that they are refusing to reproduce and in many cases, refusing to leave the house. Globalism has collapsed just like the previous Leftist scheme, world Communism, has. Like the Soviet Union, it has fallen apart in a shambles of the failure of its own policies. It has no one to blame, and people are struggling out of their democratic stupor to reach this realization.

That leaves humanity with a long trail of failed Systems. National Socialism failed, Communism failed, and now it seems like liberal democracy and its socialistic understructure has failed, leaving us wondering what could possibly come next. This gives us a hint: not a System.

Systems rely on the modern notion of the mass. A mass is formed of equal people who have no hierarchy but are ruled by government. They act in self-interest disconnected from its effects on civilization or nature, a condition called individualism around here.

This mass motion acts according to human social rules, meaning that it is based on appearance and including all others in order to keep the group together. This is the basis of the universalist values that since the Enlightenment™ have formed the basis of Western political thinking. This is not unique to the modern West; universalist values arise any time a society has lost purpose, and instead of finding one, chooses control as a means to keep itself together.

Whenever people are grouped together in a mass, or group without internal hierarchy, and herded through mass motion, a System results. This contrasts the hierarchical and tiered orders of nature in which each type of thing has a role and fulfills that activity alone, relying on the combined actions of all parts in balance to produce the stability of the order.

In order for a System to work, it must create a consensual hallucination of an objective space in which symbols are actuality. We reference this space any time we say “science proves it” or “it is recognized that” in reference to an idea. The space of ideas, in a universalist system, is assumed to be shared equally among all people and therefore, people react to ideas as if they were programming distributed through a computer network.

From this come the pitfalls of civilization: the cities where people are anonymous, the accumulation of broken people and deleterious mutations, the loss of any culture or idea which cannot be spread universally, which requires it to be very simple and based on the archetype of the idea of universalism itself. These ideas flow from the basic assumption of egalitarianism which arises when a civilization becomes prosperous enough to lose its implicit goal of establishing itself against the restrictions of nature and lack of knowledge of the world, and become the toxin that destroys it.

Civilization is a trap. We go in expecting to make things better, but by improving our lot, we create a path to fatality. When civilization goes, all that we have contributed is lost. In the process, civilization forms its own sort of Darwinism that selects not for the smartest and strongest, but for the least offensive. It turns Vikings into pajama boys. It takes a thriving people, and leaves behind a stupider, more docile version, as if they were domesticated animals.

What can be done? This task seems hopeless. And yet, as the good book says, our suffering is what makes us know who we are; it is a gift from God (this is not of much comfort during the suffering, however). This is a challenge which demands our best of intellect and heart, and charges us to rise above the malaise and sloth into which we have fallen.

Instead of relying on Systems, we can move toward a traditional civilization. This will include, in addition to the “big theory” four pillars, the following methods:

  • Anti-Formalism. Instead of rules and laws, depend on people. That is: put your best people in power, and let them learn what life is, organically. This means a lack of uniformity, which offends our minds and pretense, but a breeding ground for people of more complex understanding.

  • Localism. Big, anonymous cities are death. Small cities and towns provide places where each person knows everyone else. This encourages decisions based not in the moment, but upon what someone has done with their life. Anonymity destroys trust.

  • Anti-Control. Control seeks to rule details from a centralized place of abstraction; traditional societies allow a cascade of authorities, from the highest to lowest, with each one managing only its domain.

  • Hierarchy. This has two parts: first, we elevate our best people — morally, intellectually, by character — to positions of authority, so that they may oppress the rest, as a binary option to the inverse, where the rest oppress the best. Second, we allow Darwinistic competition, including in free markets, to fill in where authority is not needed.

  • Incompleteness. The societies that thrive are those which preserve an internal dialogue and combat between extremes. This reinforces the reasons why for positions, instead of merely repeating thing, and strengthens them by testing.

  • Darwinism. In every society, some will arise who are either chronically negative or without any direction. Natural selection demands these be exiled, along with any defectives, for the greater strength of those who remain. Nature is cruel; so must we be.

Civilization creates proxies, or intermediates which can be gamed by the unscrupulous, wherever it is afraid to directly confront the question of hierarchy. It works best when administered by culture, not government, and kept focused on ongoing and unattainable goals like excellence. These things seem contrary to the very idea of civilization itself in appearance, and so they are rejected universally, despite being salvation.

As we approach the doom of this particular instance of civilization, it will cheer us to know that many civilizations have died before. This one is no different. We chose a wrong path, and now it is time to find a better one. As we discover it, we can let go of the past like memories of a fever, and instead aspire to the greatness to come.


1 — William Ralph Inge, “The Idea of Progress”, Romanes Lecture (27 May 1920), reprinted in Outspoken Essays: Second Series (1922).

The Alternative Right Knows This Is A Struggle For Civilization Survival

Saturday, September 24th, 2016

ruins_of_carthage

The mainstream right directs its energy toward preserving what is left of the status quo; the alternative right recognizes that our society is not only a sinking ship, but is built on false assumptions starting with the delusion idea that equality can replace hierarchy.

No right wing movement has succeeded in resisting this decay in part because it cannot be resisted; Western civilization needs someone to pound the RESET button and start over. Everything we think we know is tainted with assumptions brought in from the ideas and people infected with the delusion of equality.

While the new right seeks to rebuild from within a liberal framework of the welfare state, and neoreaction seeks exit by small groups who will then be inevitably re-absorbed, the alternative right — an out-of-focus coalition of those united more by a feeling of dread and distrust of all Leftist ideas — recognizes that not only is the ship sinking, but that it must be destroyed before it can be rebuilt.

This may seem extreme. After all, if Western societies just aborted any changes made after 1945, things would return to stability. But this is where the alternative right rises above the rest: it recognizes that just going back is not enough. We must renew, because even back then the seeds were sown, and the path will not change on instant replay.

Yet until we get to the root of equality… — no, we must go even earlier to find the source of our decline. Writings on this site have targeted individualism, or the idea that the desires of the self must come before civilization and nature, as the root of our problem. The ancient Greeks called this hubris, or pursuit of power beyond one’s place in the natural hierarchy by ability and character of men and nature. Old Christians preached humility. And in the wolf pack of the steppes, an arrogant young wolf must fight his way to the top, or accept his place in the order of things.

Nothing about our time is good except our material prosperity. Everyday life is meaningless and filled with ugliness, tedium and a constant struggle for power as the lower try to keep the naturally more gifted from rising to their natural place. Our cities are war zones where we struggle for enough money to buy our way into the areas that are not blighted.

If one accepts this as normal, it is possible to find similar bargains — better values for the money — in housing, medicine, entertainment and career. However the fundamental problem remains: our time and energy are wasted, while nothing we do can have any significance, all the while the rot gets stronger around us. This society is terminal.

In the upcoming American election, we have a choice between a right-wing-ish candidate and someone who will open the floodgates further to permanent Leftist voters, because minority groups always vote against majority interests. Once that happens, there will be no chance for those who remain except revolt, and then, they are most likely to be killed by their well-meaning fellows who just want to preserve the union as it is, despite its dysfunction.

The only sensible response is fanaticism. Support nothing that is Leftist; stop linking to Wikipedia, reading Leftist news, or earning or buying anything you do not need, as the taxes support the beast. Barter among friends as much as possible, work for cash whenever possible, and every day get out there and raise a hue and cry about how this society is dying and must be restarted, because that is the ultimate taboo.

Most importantly, we need to work toward power. If 2% of Western citizens find themselves agreeing on civilization restart, a critical mass will be reached, and we will pass the threshold of no return. Never accede to the argument that we can fix the leaky ship; always insist on its replacement. Ignore the zombies and focus on reaching that 2%.

If an actual conservative party took power, the first thing to do would be to reverse the flood of new left-wing voters by removing anti-discrimination law, post-1790 immigration laws, civil rights and welfare programs. Write law to reverse the civil rights and entitlements agenda, and then do away with all the laws based upon it, and the vast reams of pro-government laws which have created the out-of-control regulatory state.

But even then, we must go further: laws themselves do not work, because they are interpreted flexibly and people avoid responsibility. Replace them with strong leaders of arbitrary power at the local level who can re-arrange their societies as needed, and not have to be deferential to tiers and layers of limiting law. Restore freedom of association, cut taxes, and begin holding the Leftist media and entertainment industry accountable.

But even then, we must push further: we can abolish most laws and replace them with culture. We can remove the tedious and unreliable democratic process and install an aristocracy. We can cut checks to the Other among us and repatriate them. All of these things are doable, and yet they are not extreme enough to save a civilization.

We must go further: remove any subsidies or other equality-based institutions, cut ourselves off from we-are-all-one initiatives like the United Nations, repossess any degenerate businesses and exile of our own people who behave badly. Stop taking responsibility for lawbreakers by putting them in jail and trying to rehabilitate them; instead, view their behavior as a Darwinian event and exile them.

Even that does not go far enough. We must go further: using our aristocratic government as a shield, we can restore a sense of culture, in values just as in the arts, and bring back the calendar and seasonal events of the past. Abolish public schools, regulations, certifications and other proxies for talent. Promote the best among us, not just in ability to memorize, but in moral character and mental clarity on the task of building a civilization.

At that point, we can go even further: in each of us who remain, we can awaken a sense of responsibility to reality, a transcendental view of nature where each of our places in its order are significant, and a belief in the possibility of good, beauty, excellence and truth in life. We can reject the false assumptions going back to individualism and to the assumption before it, which is that life is terrible and we are victims. We must be conquerors, but first of all, we must conquer ourselves.

Whew. That looks like quite a to-do list. And yet, if we do not do this, we are merely putting duct-tape on a broken bridge, plugging leaks in a boat with oil-soaked rags, or plowing around the stones in our field. History is clear: we are either headed upward, or stagnating and will immediately head downward. We must reform our hearts to want an ascendant path, and then use the power of our civilization to instill that in others.

Without this new path, we go down the same path of the old, which ends in our civilization slipping away into irrelevance as a witless void of morally bankrupt, low intelligence grey people. In the absence of radical change, that is our future, and as the years go by and the pace of events accelerate, that doom is coming sooner than anyone thinks.

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.

Organizational Values In 2016

Friday, September 16th, 2016

wasteland_of_landfill_left_behind_by_a_music_festival

Evan McMullin was proposing himself as an independent presidential candidate when he wrote this “Letter to America.” He writes:

Even in times of economic crisis and war, our nation has been a singular source of hope for people throughout the world yearning for liberty, dignity and opportunity.

Then he adds this tidbit:

(Donald Trump’s) infatuation with strongmen and demagogues like Vladimir Putin is anathema to American values.

As shown above, those values would be liberty, dignity and opportunity. He ends with:

Leaders who will unite us and guide us to a prosperous, secure future, beyond the dysfunction of a broken political system.

Just as the American Revolution required men and women devoted to liberty and freedom to stand up and be counted, this moment calls a new generation to the same sacred task.

He admits that the current political system which is “broken” is the same system he actively participated in. Also, pointing to “leaders” to push for a second American Revolution obfuscates his real intention of attacking Russia.

This deduction may be wrong, so let’s look at (his) values proposed for (his) leadership, which in his mind would be anathema to Putin. The only values identified in a letter he himself wrote as pertaining to himself are “pride,” “quiet” and “renew[al].” The other values mentioned pertained to foreigners (opportunity and liberty) and universal values (dignity). In addition it was strange how he used the term “constitution” as if it were a value, while “law” or “justice” may have been better.

Clearly the above is disjointed as far as the concept of values is concerned. First of all he should have identified his own values (that he himself actually lives by). Then he should have compared his own values with the values of the American organization or bureaucracy that he intends to (directly) manage for the next four years. Two values were mentioned i.e. “limited” and “smart” which are strange words to use when effectiveness would have been better.

The reason people should separately identify their values (and the values of their organization) is to enable the electorate and employees to measure the performances of the candidate as well as of the organization. For example effectiveness can be measured, but “limited” cannot. You can measure “pride” and “quietness” to some extent while “renewal” opens a can of worms. For example, proposing a second revolution sounds awfully like Communist doctrine, which he claims to be anathema to.

The reason values are so important is that the electorate and employees find comfort in knowing on what basis the candidate makes his (own) decisions behind closed doors. Those values essentially reflect his personal survival technique meaning that if he survives, then we will too. If he succeeds, we will too. However, if he fails, we will know where to pick things up. In summary therefore; Value management reduces risk thereby increasing the probability of success (all by itself).

The candidate already drives the values which caused his own success and motivated his application as independent Presidential candidate. His own family knows his values motivating them on their own paths to success as well. In fact, these values were obtained from the grandparents and can in most cases be traced across generations. Then finally, he is so confident in his own values that he is attempting to bring that to the Presidential table.

How did that happen, you ask? The original settler in his family-line must have suffered a lot in a strange new world, causing him to develop a new set of survival skills. For example, hunting bison, eating strange tasty leaves for medicinal purposes, building a house with tree stumps and building a water channel. This skill-set became a family tradition and over generations finally morphed into specific values such as “prudence,” “volunteering,” “pride,” and “quietness.” What Evan McMullin is trying to say is that his family worked hard to attain these values, and being American all Americans should identify with that (automatically).

The problem though, is not his own understated values, but the total ignorance of values the organization he wants to manage require of him. Let’s say the organization needs to be effective. How would that help him to help the tax-payer? The idea is to identify metrics that would measure effectiveness (of the organization) every quarter. How would that help him to engage Putin? Well, he could engender some respect from Putin which could improve their relationship away from being “anathema” to “cooperative.” The interesting part is how a personal conflict of values between these “leaders” will affect a cooperative outcome (assuming it is actually contradictory). American (organizational) survival must improve despite any decisions made.

Therefore, it is possible to say that personal values improve the probability of personal survival, while organizational values do the same, but for the organization. It is possible and advisable to take the next step to Empire or Civilization, meaning that a third level of values would be required. This candidate missed this level as well and it is not like the topic of Empire or Civilizational decline is under wraps. On the contrary, the New World Order is well known but unfortunately over-valued in 2016 as the (somewhat) despicable Cathedral, thus requiring new “values” too.

From a values perspective, the deduction is that values should be aligned between ordinary people, their organizations and their empire so that (those) taxpayers can improve their survivability. This does not relate to drinking party wine, it relates to probabilities that an empire (such as the USSR or the NWO for example), can last longer than 40 years.

Think about that.

The Successful Nations Are Inside Out

Thursday, September 15th, 2016

toffs_and_toughs

Let us consider the most popular statement of traditionalism, from its most evocative author, Julius Evola, and reflect how it has become the standard for actual conservatism in our day:

My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.

There are two ways to construct a nation: inside-out, or based on its people and their varying levels of ability, or outside-in, where it is based on rules that shape people like products in a factory.

Our present civilization in the West is outside-in through the magic not just of egalitarianism, but its root in individualism. Individualism demands outside-in because each individual wants to end the Darwinian risk of not being included in the group through personal failings, low character or habits. Paradoxically, individualists demand collectivism because only collectivism provides each individual with protection.

As one might anticipate, any such paradoxical viewpoint will lead to something bad. Our society is not just failed, but since the World Wars has been ugly and corrupt in its soul, meaning that everyday life is the opposite of joy and tends to destroy anyone who is not a robotic, consumption-driven cog who specializes in flattering others. This is a time we benefit from leaving.

Making a break from the past requires us to update Evola’s statement:

My principles are only those that, during the golden ages of humankind, every well-born person considered sane and normal.

The decay had started long before the French Revolution, although that was the fatal decision that formalized the anti-realistic thought of the Left and thus weaponized it for transmission.

At the end of the day, the question distills to a simple set of further questions.

  • Do we want a golden age, or to apply band-aids to what we have? (Most people want the latter. Always.)

  • Do we want quality, or a whole lot of something less? (If we have more, we all get some.)

  • Do we want our lives to be fulfilling, or would we rather have nothing compete with the self for meaning?

  • Do we want to live for what others fear, or what we fear to assert, because it is so beautiful?

The inside-out society explores our inner desires to find what is real. It knows that there is no objectivity, only degrees of subjectivity, and those who are least subjective are those who know themselves the best, contrary to popular “wisdom.”

The outside-in society assumes that all of our desires are the same, i.e. “equal,” and therefore that we can be manipulated with external rewards and punishments alone. This turns us into domesticated animals who do not plan or desire, but merely react to what is offered, which keeps those in control in power.

At the current point in history, we stand at a juncture. We can keep on going down the path of the last several millennia, which is increasingly individualism which depends on a convenience-based worldview in which all objects in the world serve the individual, and that which conflicts with individual desires is seen as an impediment:

Individualism, political and social philosophy that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. Although the concept of an individual may seem straightforward, there are many ways of understanding it, both in theory and in practice. The term individualism itself, and its equivalents in other languages, dates—like socialism and other isms—from the 19th century.

Individualism once exhibited interesting national variations, but its various meanings have since largely merged. Following the upheaval of the French Revolution, individualisme was used pejoratively in France to signify the sources of social dissolution and anarchy and the elevation of individual interests above those of the collective. The term’s negative connotation was employed by French reactionaries, nationalists, conservatives, liberals, and socialists alike, despite their different views of a feasible and desirable social order.

No one can quite put their finger on it, but individualism is the essence of the outside-in mentality. This is paradoxical: assertion of the individual, as an ideological concept, replaces the achievements of the individual as an independent actor. Individualism protects the individual from having to test himself by attempting to achieve goals and succeeding or failing. It removes the burden of adaptation to reality by insisting that the individual is fine just the way he is, or “equal.” This comforts the human mind by removing the primary struggle outside pure animal survival.

A sensible person is neither individualist nor conformist, which is what happens when a group of individuals get together and agree to enforce a fake reality that ensures no individual is challenged to do more than he desires. Think of a gang: all are accepted, so long as they uphold the gang, and no one is criticized for having failed at life so much that being in a gang is all they are good for. Civilizations thrive where they are the gang; once internal gangs arise and become popular, then the civilization is a bundle of special interests held together by some narrow device — usually politics or economics — which inevitably then becomes disproportionately powerful.

What might an inside-out society look like?

First, every activity would be related to a purpose that was in turn directly related to the goal of civilization. “I want this” would not be an acceptable reason, nor would “Other people want this.” Legitimate reasoning would take the tripartite form of “I need to do to x in order to achieve result y which is part of goal z.”

Next, at every level, people would have responsibility. Their jobs would involve tasks for which only one person was responsible and, if it were done wrong and no extreme intervening factor were found, they would be blamed. The flip side of this is that each day provides options to succeed by doing things right.

Finally, this society would be actively engaged in maintaining itself — and in bottlenecking its population. The hidden area where politics refuses to go, but nature does, is genetics. People act according to their genetic code, just like bugs or rodents. This produces a need to constantly promote the best and exile the worst, so that in every generation there is a struggle to prove oneself.

The main difference between an inside-out and outside-in society is that the outside-in society creates a type of system or game. It tells its citizens what is expect of them not in terms of results, but in terms of methods or procedures. As a result, those who conform, even if they miss everything but the obvious, get promoted and those who reject this exercise as silly are demoted, leading to a die-out of those with critical thinking abilities.

As world liberalism winds down — and from its failure across multiple fronts, it is clear that it is ending its two-hundred plus year streak and the last seventy years of intense dominance — we will need to look for an alternative to our society as it stands now. Our mistake will be to not go far enough, and not just reverse liberalism, but reverse the cause of liberalism by choosing a healthier direction such as an inside-out civilization

Monkey Dynamics

Monday, September 12th, 2016

Monkey Dynamics

Throughout human history, one constant has appeared in all ages: the temptation to give in to evil.

The root of evil originates in individualism, or the desire for the individual to be more important than the order of reality. In the classic view, all of reality is a hierarchy, with the divine at the top and the rest arrayed below, and everything has a place like in an ecosystem, assuring balance and harmony with a constant inner struggle that produces people and things of quality, much like Darwinism or martial competitions.

We might refer to that abstract natural order as the plan. It includes the bigger picture: the civilization, the structure of existence, the goal, ideals of integrity and conquest, morality and nature.

All people at all times contain the tendency to desire what is evil. They want the individual to be larger than the plan. They fear the plan, because it ranks the individual, and their egos want them to be bigger than they deserve to be.

This fear compels them into a psychology of resentment: they must tear down any that are higher than they are, so that the lower are just as raised as the rest, and therefore no one looks bad for falling short of an ideal. This pathological mental state appears throughout human history as a necessary consequence of individualism, and always justifies it with a form of pacifism, equality, which states that all will be included in the group regardless of how they rank according to standards or questions of contribution.

Humans have called this “evil” through history because it is pathological, which means that it repeats itself obsessively regardless of success or failure. Where most people try something, then step back to see if it worked, the egalitarians repeat their actions with obsessive insect-like reflex action, blindly destroying in their need to assert these ideas as true.

We can see this evil in operation through how it is represented in mythology. The Greeks called it hubris, or a type of arrogance that reflected self-importance above the role of that individual in the plan. In the Bible, the hubris of Adam and Eve in the Garden resulted in their exile from a life of innocence/excellence. When humans try to place themselves above God and God’s order, chaos and horror results.

This extends to the mythical fall of Satan. As an individualist, Satan thought his personal desires were more important than the plan. As a result, he fell from heaven and became king of a different domain, but this was also his punishment: in Hell, all good things are inverted or turned into their opposites.

Then we turn to nature. Hubris can be seen in monkeys as well. A monkey tribe will gang up on any monkey who does not conform to the low standards of behavior of the group, and individual monkeys will frequently challenge the leaders — alphas — of that tribe with provocations. It is human behavior, in microcosm.

The conformity that is being forced is equality, or the rule that everyone must do the same thing, and any who exceed that are seen as a threat to the rest for having raised standards. If standards rise above the mediocre, it will alienate many in the group, and that threatens the feeling of equal inclusion that seems to prevent conflict — again, this is a form of pacifism, or bribing people with acceptance, tolerance and moral relativism in order to avoid friction.

Seen through this lens, evil is more of a mathematical certainty than a mystical force. In any group, a tension will exist between having standards and having universal inclusion, with most people desiring the latter because it creates a guarantee for them personally that they will be accepted. This is why the root of collectivism is individualism, even though it is collectivized as the group demands what each individual in the group desires, much like a union, street gang or lynch mob.

From this comes the great evil of the modern time: the compulsion to dominate the personalities of others. Created from equal parts pathetic need and a mental violence that demands satiation through victimizing others, this predatory mental state demands that nearby personalities be subjugated through social pressure, including humiliation. Like other forms of mind control, this method does not use sci-fi technologies, but simple peer pressure or psychological manipulation through the threat of what others might think.

The typical vampiric predator-parasite of the modern social scene seeks others around him, usually of lower self-confidence, and immediately begins to sow doubt in their minds. He attacks what they believe indirectly, so it does not seem like an assault, and then introduces a plausible but unproven alternative. Now the passive-aggressive begging-the-question attack begins in earnest: if they do not agree, he asks them why they are denying the truth, or the obvious, or some other phrase implying social agreement with what he has said. He then bullies them into accepting his view of reality, all for the simple reason that it makes him feel more powerful, in the absence of real power like the ability to change the failure-bound direction of his society.

Personality parasites appear in abundance because people are given no other mode of power than that which can be had through enforcing the official ideology of the Crowd, which is always egalitarianism, plus a perception of individual exceptionalism. In other words, individuals demand equality because these individuals believe they are exceptional, but must rationalize their lack of influence by believing that they are unrecognized geniuses instead of entirely average. This produces the poisonous and viral state of mind which demands that they compel others to recognize them, validate them and by doing so, recognize them as exceptional; that in turn requires that everyone be pulled down to the level of a faceless mass above which the narcissistic individual believes he can rise.

All of this is illusion. Social recognition is fleeting because the impetus behind social activity is directed toward the individual, so other individuals allow themselves to be dominated in order to achieve the sense of being part of something bigger than themselves, which makes them feel important. Looking at the audience of the average rock concert or political rally, one can see that the audience acts as if they were the ones on stage, even as they acknowledge their presence there for the concentration of social energy triggered by those actually on the stage.

Monkey dynamics persist in all human behaviors, and this tendency toward projection is no exception. It reveals the true struggle of humanity, which is not for any of the various issues that people advance as part of their psychic vampirism, but for sanity. Sanity means a clearing of the mind, and then enforcement of self-discipline, so that one can first adapt to reality, and then select the most optimal means of engineering it so that the best possible results ensue.

Modern people — like any people in a society in its last stages, regardless of technological level — find themselves under constant assault by those who want to dominate them and force them into the reigning narrative. The old saying “misery loves company” applies here: most people are miserable, and wish to drag others down into that misery, to feel better both for having dominated others and having validated their rationalization of their condition as inevitable and necessary. The modern person faces a social order in which most people are outright evil in intent and conceal it behind normalcy, “everyone does it,” and other statements of social endorsement for that evil.

The war for sanity is a quest to discover reality and escape the prison of our minds. The individual mind finds it more convenient to work through other minds, since they share a language, whereas reality is not human in nature and requires application of self-discipline to understand it. This is the nature of the hive-mind, groupthink, the echo chamber, mob-rule and other forms of the Eternal Human Dysfunction: a lonely ego, finding in other egos the ability to deny the world, which is a path of least resistance compared to understanding and finding beauty in reality.

It was for this reason that our ancestors, dating back to our origin, selected from us the best: those who were able to adapt to reality and choose excellence, because that benefited the civilization. The problem is that, over time, making civilization stronger extends that protection to those who cannot understand the importance of civilization and take it for granted, thus immediately begin to conspire against it for their own benefit. They want “anarchy with grocery stores” because that provides the broadest canvas on which to splash their egos, and the unsatisfying result makes them pathologically demand more of the same, like a drug addict who has reached a high level of biological tolerance for her substance of choice and can no longer feel the high.

When power is given to the best, they become a combination of babysitter and war-leader for the rest, giving them direction where they are afraid or incapable of thinking. This will exhaust and destroy them unless the civilization implements some method of filtering out monkey behavior where it can constrained, and exile of those for whom there is no cure.

Western Civilization has been awash in parasitic, resentful and poisonous people for too long. These are perhaps a fifth of our own people, but they have disproportionate influence because they appeal to the lowest behaviors, such as panic, emotional gushing, self-pity, fear and envy. A sane society will protect its leaders by sending its toxic people away to the third world, which is more appropriate for their anti-civilizational mentality.

This is how one fights the evil that threatens to destroy civilization, the loss of which will make all work and hopes of the individual futile and impotent.

Can Philosophers Keep Politics And Economics Apart?

Saturday, September 3rd, 2016

politics_versus_economics

Organized society mostly promotes separation of Church and State, as well as separation of powers such as between legislative, executive and the judiciary. This separation prevents for the most part corruptive enterprises also known as white collar crime, whereas (in other cases) sometimes the opposite is required i.e. to integrate, coordinate or to provide seamless operations.

An additional function requiring more separation these days is “economics and politics” while another function requiring less separation is “philosophy and politics”.

These functions can be combined in a continuum as follows:

Politics  Philosophy  Economics

Philosophy both separates politics from economy and serves as the balancing point between the two. We can see this in current Western civilization.

Imagine that politics decided to implement the liberal-democratic ideology for all countries. Initially this leads to fair economic growth and most people are happy because one benefit punted by this ideology, was that it will increase the middle-class. This would also lead to stability in the populace that would benefit both lower and upper classes.

But after a few generations, some people became unhappy because the economy is not good. Corporations cannot make money, so economists initiated the quantitative easing “experiment” to see if that will help. Since money was no object for corporations anymore, they promptly attempted to revitalize the middle-class. Then this failed too.
The problem is that the middle-class does not want money. Then pressure on corporations increase even further and that depletes the middle-class even further. Investors get agitated and put pressure on politicians, but politicians do not realize they have to change their ideology, so they go dark.

Disentangling oneself from this mess allows a more focused view. Politicians are feverishly playing their own “system” while economists are feverishly playing another “system.” This is getting so bad nowadays, that politicians become economists and vice versa, while everybody loses.

One way to keep them all honest (and wealthy) is to insert unbiased philosophers inbetween.

Take a specific example such as the European Union. It is a monetary union separated from its political union. Being a monetary union means businesses get priority, this allows for the importation of cheap labor from Africa. However, this is not politically tenable, leading to a serious growth in political opposition that may actually break the monetary union apart.

A philosopher-king can impose a mediating force. Neither economics nor politics alone can solve this situation, since economics will sacrifice all other disciplines for lowest cost and highest efficiency, and politics rewards what is popular at the moment.

Instead, we need a continuously monitored stabilizing factor. Philosophy looks at what is true, not what humans want to think is true or what benefits some but not all aspects of society, as economics does. By virtue of peering into long-term consequences, and their effect on civilization as a whole, philosophy mediates the extremes of politics and economics, which ultimately should be seen as tools toward the ends that philosophy defines.

When we removed the power of the kings, we took away the arbitrary strong power required to say “this is the right thing to do, even if it will not appear that way for centuries or millennia.” This is what philosophy does: it compares truths, and finds the most realistic ones, and matches them up with our rarely-articulated inner desire for greatness, meaning, mystery and significance.

Economics, as a tool and not a goal in itself, has a tendency to burn itself out by dominating the field and then for short-term gain, rendering necessary long-term implements unnecessary. Similarly, politics sacrifices the invisible stability and health of a civilization for panics and trends. Without a balancing factor in the middle, these two positive forces become destructive ones.

This theme appears in all organizations where dark organizational tendencies erupt within. The part stands for the whole, the tool becomes the master, and the short-term obviates long-term needs. Dark organizational might be seen as this process of parasitism, where purpose becomes hijacked by convenience.

As applied to the contemporary Western Civilization, this concept means more than a desire for philosopher-kings: we need a balance, or unison, between the different types of power in our society so they work together toward the same goal. More than fighting political problems on the surface, this promises a saner future by fixing the root of our disorganization.

Recommended Reading