Posts Tagged ‘cognitive dissonance’

Awakening from the nightmare of democracy

Monday, November 23rd, 2015


Across America and Europe, people are slowly awakening from the mental haze of illusions, propaganda and false promises offered to them by democracy. They are re-learning the lesson of ancient Athens, which is that once you go democratic, you get rich but your society self-destructs.

People are beginning to see the split between what they are told is true, and what is actually true. This is leading them to see how they are sold on certain “wants” as “needs,” and this has caused them to spend recklessly on the non-essential while neglecting the essential, which is the condition of our civilization and its future.

For years democracy trapped them in the dream. Follow us, and be Enlightened™. On this new path, you will be more moral than the kings, more powerful than the lords, and the master of your own future, beholden to none! While some glimpsed the demonic nature of this promised control, few had the bravery to confront the massively popular illusions with hard truths that were difficult to explain and understood by only a few.

Thanks to the relentless incompetence, greed and gift-giving of our rulers, we have learned that all the free stuff and good feelings came at a price. Namely, our societies do not feel healthy as they one did, but stand revealed as moribund dystopian wastelands waiting for the final fall into permanent third-world, mixed-race, cultureless and brainless status.

Imagine Idiocracy meets Blade Runner: a devastated landscape of heavy industry, ruling over a population from the low-IQ lands of the third world, mixed into a featureless grey mass that wants nothing except more food, drugs, porn, alcohol and gadgets to distract itself with. Surrounded by an environment that was ruined as it was displaced by the growing society, it is a perpetual future of existential misery but infinite ways of concealing the problem.

Their first taste came this week through a survey which revealed that most Americans feel like “strangers in their own country,” and see a bleak downward ramp for our future:

According to the Reuters survey, 58 percent Americans say they “don’t identify with what America has become.” While Republicans and Independents are the most likely to agree with this statement, even 45 percent of Democrats share this feeling.

More than half of Americans, 53 percent, say they “feel like a stranger” in their own country. A minority of Americans feel “comfortable as myself” in the country.

You can see the cogitation as it happens. “But… we voted for tolerance and peace, not violence and war!” It does not occur to them — yet — that by backing down from strong signals of identity and a unique place in the world, our society invited us to become the world’s punching bag. Or that diversity naturally creates conflict as it puts opposing cultures and groups with different abilities and inclinations in the same face and makes them compete for a share of resources shrinking with each person added.

As mentioned here before, we once thought the future would be glorious, but now we see it as a dark place like a technological Brazil with more uncertainty. As we go, we realize, the rest of the world will collapse inward as our dollars disappear (or are devalued) and a vast rush will appear among us looking for the scraps.

Where once people assumed that the triad of diversity, democracy and pluralism would save us from all ills, the problems with each have come out of the closet. Diversity and pluralism, or the idea that radically different groups who envy and hate each other for unequal abilities can co-exist in the same society, has fallen as we fight over what our standards, customs and values will be. Increasingly it becomes clear that under diversity and pluralism, we can have none of the above, and will instead get a lowest common denominator dictated to us by a government that will find endless reasons to increase its power.

Now that the chaos brought on by multiculturalism is out of the closet, more white Americans are feeling oppressed and alienated now that they are experiencing what it is like to be a minority in a country with an abusive mixed-race third world soon-to-be majority. This is not the future they were sold, they say, in which America would stay the same but other people could come here and participate in our wealth. But they are slowly realizing that the dream and the nightmare are the same, and that they were simply not told about the bad consequences, and with their voting, led themselves into the trap.

A majority (53%) of Americans say that American culture and way of life has mostly changed for the worse since the 1950s, compared to 46% who say it has changed for the better.

…More than four in ten (43%) Americans say that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while 55% disagree. Opinions about ‘reverse discrimination’ have remained fairly constant over the past few years. Half (50%) of white Americans—including 60% of white working-class Americans—agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while fewer than three in ten Hispanic (29%) and black Americans (25%) agree.

Notice the racial split: people with third world origins generally think things are going just fine, while white people are noticing what it is to be marginalized. They are also noticing that third-world groups are more straightforward about their self-interest, while whites are deferential and altruistic. Third-world groups come here as reverse colonizers, conquerors and slavemasters, not as friends. The few who realize this is a bad idea are marginalized in their own communities.

As part of our descent into permanent Brazil with Wal-Mart and Hollywood, we are seeing that third-world behaviors — including corruption, crime, lack of hygiene, dishonesty, laziness and deceptiveness — have taken root in our own communities as third-world people have arrived in significant numbers. It did not occur to the voters that people in the third world live the way they do because the majority of their people behave in such a way, or that there may be a biological condition — such as the few smart ones being killed as witch doctors — corresponding to the low average IQs of their societies and translating into their third-world conditions. The voters bought the line that the third world were equal to us in every way, and simply victims of misfortunes and oppression, when in fact colonialism often improved standards of living in the third world.

In fact, wherever liberal policies have been most successful, white people are most marginalized and conditions are at their worst, causing voters to regret the decisions they made. At the time, those decisions flattered them and made them feel like kings, tossing out gold to those peasants who looked on them with admiring gazes. Now they realize that instead they were waving a red flag in front of a bull, and now it is charging, and its demands will only increase — even as our society bankrupts itself and must sacrifice its essential functions to keep paying those benefits.

Just 28 percent of white New Yorkers approve of the Democratic mayor’s performance, and 59 percent now disapprove, up sharply from the start of his term, according to a citywide poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College. …

Mr. de Blasio’s support among white residents has descended to a level so dismal that it has challenged a core assumption of his political strategy: that in a diversifying city, moderate white voters had lost much of their electoral influence, and that the mayor’s path to re-election runs through nonwhite communities.

The only problem here is that the voters exist in a permanent state of disconnect. In the next election, they might try to roll back… until the opposition candidate says something that offends their pretense as cosmopolitan, intellectual, educated and empathetic voters. Then they will run right back into the arms of the people creating the disaster now. As polls consistently reveal, there is a disconnect in the minds of voters between what they voted for and the results achieved. They do not understand the cause and effect relationship, or how their own pretentious and emotional decisions in the voting booth created the disaster before us now.

According to Rasmussen’s presidential approval rating poll of November 10th, 48% of “likely voters” approved of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, while 51% disapproved. On the same day, however, Rasmussen Reports published results of a poll conducted November 1st-5th showing that only 27% of “likely voters” opined that America was headed in the right direction, while 66% believed the country was on the wrong track.

…Recent polls by Rasmussen Reports show both that approval of Obama as president norms roughly 50%, while about a quarter of “likely voters” have believed America is going in the right direction. (Every poll has sampling error, of course, but most of these percentages won’t vary by more than plus-or-minus 3-5 percentage points if every adult American were interviewed.)

…The Gallup Organization, for example, reported that Obama’s approval ratings for November 1st-3rd, 2015 were 49% approved vs. 47% disapproved. Just a few days earlier (10/25-29/15), a poll conducted for NBC News/The Wall Street Journal found that 27% of the public opined that the U.S. was headed in the right direction, while 64% believed it was on the wrong track.

…a McClatchy-Marist poll (10/29-11/4/15) has data on assessments of Obama’s job performance and opinions about the country’s direction. In this poll, Obama’s job approval-disapproval split is 48% vs. 48%. The same poll, however, shows that 60% of the public think the country is going in the wrong direction, while 35% opine that it’s on the right track.

How could so many people be so wrong? We could point to the average IQ of 98 in America and say that only about 15% of the population possesses the congenital intelligence to understand the consequences of political actions, and that most of those are busy with jobs, football and shopping. But even more, there is a disconnect in democracy. It relies on making decisions based on trust in the candidates, and that these salespeople will tell us the true results of their policies, instead of erecting them and then skipping out at the end of their terms, enriched by their power at the expense of the rest of us. Even more, people are oblivious to the fact that governments justify their power with every group of suffering people they can “help,” and that politicians — like salespeople — are never held accountable for their promises or their actions.

What the voters do not realize — and will never realize — is that not only are the nightmare and the dream the same, but democracy and demagoguery, or the art of manipulating people through image and emotion, are one and the same.

In democracy, the vote decides the rule and after that, the voters (“we the people”) lick their wounds and accept what has come. Before the vote, they see contrasting promises based on theories untested in reality. Whichever one flatters the voters the most, wins. Voters love to be told how smart they are, and how free things are coming their way, and how it’s that other group — the team in red and not blue — who is stupid, ignorant and inbred. This makes them feel better about themselves. So like Pavlovian hamsters they keep pulling the lever, but then, since they have done their civic duty, they forget about all of it until something upsets them. When it does, they react emotionally, and then the other team picks up the ball and as the crowd cheers, runs down the field. Only later do they realize that both teams are fixed and playing for votes to get power to get money, and that they have zero interest in doing anything right for the citizens.

In their view, the voters are pig idiots who pull a con job on themselves from their own greed, and deserve to be manipulated and destroyed for their stupidity. Watching the voters get it wrong yet again, one has to conclude that there is legitimacy to this outlook. In particular, voters love any emotion that makes them feel like heroes, so they go in for altruism and gift-giving. This is the root of a toxic philosophy that separates cause from effect.

According Progressives, there is no original sin. All men can be improved by Darwinian evolution, social evolution, education and the compassionate leadership of the moral elite until they reach perfection. Perfection can be achieved rapidly, provided the enlightened leadership is obeyed in all matters down to the smallest detail of your life, your words, your deeds and your thoughts. Nothing is neutral, nothing is too small to be beyond the need for your betters to place it under their control. Nothing is apolitical.

Because there is no original sin in the Progressive system, all suffering must arise from the institutions of civilization. To be specific, in a semiliterate misunderstanding of Darwin, human societies are said to ‘evolve’ that is to say, to move by trial and error in the general direction of inferior to superior, drive by mystical forces of history. The flaws in human institutions hence are caused by an insufficiency of evolutionary pressure, that is, a lack of the wars and internal social breakdowns that drive social evolution to ever higher and more enlightened forms. This theory makes so little sense one is tempted to conclude it is not meant to. One assumes it is meant only to sound impressive and justify violence.

We all know what the future is: more of the same. They will borrow more money and keep the sad farce alive. Good people will be forced to work even more hours at even more boring jobs to pay for the rest, who will grow in number and in demands. If their demands are not met, they will start race riots or terror attacks, which they will do anyway because everyone knows only one group can be on top and every group wants to be it. Trust will decline, order will erode, and yet, you will be able to buy your way out of it if you sign on with a super-larger corporation. Then you will owe your life to that corporation, and in the few hours a week of free time that you do get, you will be too tired, distracted, and depressed to do anything but nod and maybe even vote. This is the future you chose; you did not vote for it directly, but for the type of delusional policies that have been proven by history to create it. That is the basis of the whole system: the disconnect between an image and what is required to create it, and the revelation that what promises to create it will make something far different indeed.

Let us look at the true root of this problem. It makes no sense to blame the third-world groups; we invited them here (or kidnapped them and sold them for our own profit). It makes even less sense to blame the politicians, because when you see a group of people behaving like idiots, the only thing to do is take advantage of them as any wealth they have they obviously do not merit. The rich? They are people like you and me, trying to escape this world of horror by buying their way out of it. It makes no sense to blame corporations, because they are only trying to survive in an increasingly corrupt and criminal world. Who to blame?

I suggest we look at the people making the decisions: the voters.

As Walt Kelley famously said, “I have met the enemy — and he is us.” Voters want to be flattered, and they support any policy that gives them more freedom — or more license — to behave as amorally as possible. They hate rules and they hate standards, including values and social order, so they vote to dismantle those at every turn. Even when they vote “conservative,” they vote for pseudo-conservatives who let the sick show keep on going on refrain from telling us that, as individuals, we need to grow up and get our act together so we have a brighter future. Voters especially love destroying other groups. They vote for things which will beat down their competition, destroy their neighbors and sabotage anyone who can tell the difference between truth and lie. They use “the poor” and “the minorities” to justify these passive-aggressive acts, but the real target is each other. They each think they’ll win the lottery and climb to the top of the heap by shoving others down.

In short, voters are morons. Most of them are biologically incapable of making sane political decisions, and all but a few of the rest are clearly emotionally and morally incapable of doing the same. The voters are the problem. They are the enemy here, and the only solution is to disenfranchise them by ending democracy. There is a reason democracy destroys every society that adopts it, and that is that most people behave like pigs, and in groups behave like insane pigs, and that voting causes them to switch off their minds and stop monitoring what their leaders are doing except once every four years for two weeks, leaving politics unmonitored and reckless. That is the heart of our problem, not any scapegoats we find.

Switching from democracy is so easy that even democracy can do it. We need to find a place where we can vote to end democracy, or seize power through money or the military or revolution. Then we need to delegate to the best among us the choice, and they will pick others who are also good, and make them our new aristocracy. These people do not get a day off and they are held accountable because they are in office for life. They fix the problem or it destroys them. The voters can go back to making bad decisions in their own lives and, without a power-hungry government to bail them out and control them, will be accountable for the first time. It will be a time of learning, a new golden age for humankind, but it only begins when we remove democracy to solve the problem of our terminal decline.

Realistic thought outrages the self-pitying

Wednesday, December 11th, 2013


Let us consider the word victim.

When a bad event befalls you, you are its victim; when someone does something bad to you, you are a victim of their behavior.

Many people are perpetual victims. In their view, they are innocent and life has done horrible things to them. Repeatedly and in an ongoing sense. They are the blank slate; it (reality) is bad; the rest of us should compensate for that.

If you let them get away with that mentality, they never leave victimhood behind. They forever consider themselves weak, helpless and pitiable. That form of condescension ultimately leads to self-hatred and never leads to liberation. It’s a dead-end street as anyone who has survived it and changed course can tell you.

But it’s popular, especially among the young, the stay-at-home-Moms, the elderly and the mentally fragile.

Take a look at this article; the official title is “20 Things the Rich Do Every Day.” But it’s the subtitle that really says what the point of it all is:

So what do the rich do every day that the poor don’t do?

In other words, let’s look at rich and poor not as conditions imposed upon you, but as the results of your behavior. After all, just about everyone starts off poor, unless you’re Paris Hilton. Those who are able to have something in life do so by behaving in a certain manner.

This was Dave Ramsey’s point when he posted what became a controversial list of behaviors that rich people have and poor people do not, which is partially excerpted here:

1. 70% of wealthy eat less than 300 junk food calories per day. 97% of poor people eat more than 300 junk food calories per day. 23% of wealthy gamble. 52% of poor people gamble.

2. 80% of wealthy are focused on accomplishing some single goal. Only 12% of the poor do this.

3. 76% of wealthy exercise aerobically four days a week. 23% of poor do this.

14. 6% of wealthy watch reality TV vs. 78% of poor.

15. 44% of wealthy wake up three hours before work starts vs. 3% of poor.

16. 74% of wealthy teach good daily success habits to their children vs. 1% of poor.

Why is this controversial?

It shows you how to get wealthy and stop being poor.

The only catch is that then you must assume responsibility for outcome. You can’t use “I’m a victim” to explain away this necessary confrontation with reality.

This scares people who fundamentally distrust life. Some have had bad things happen to them and are traumatized; the other 96% are people who pity themselves because it is easier than being morally accountable.

Most of these people go to work each day and “work hard” meaning they press hard on the pencil or keyboard as they fill out those forms or do whatever else menial is required of them.

But how many have actually applied themselves? What kind of decisions are they making?

To show them that their decisions could be better calls their existing decisions into question.

It doesn’t necessarily say they’re bad. But it removes them from the liberalism-sanctified space of “personal choice” and places them under scrutiny in regards to consequences.

Liberals want a society based on the suspension of personal judgment, so that if there are options A, B and C, whichever one you take is personally judged to be OK regardless of outcome:

Action Response
A “Whatever”

Conservatives do not concern themselves with personal judgment; they are more concerned about consequences. A conservative chart might look like this:

Action Response
A Bad
B Mediocre
C Good

Having seen the above, Conservatives conclude that action “C” should be the new rule, since it’s the only one with a good outcome.

This enrages liberals. To them, a lack of judgment of their actions — through the dubious mechanism of personal judgment that is nullified, albeit still a personal judgment — is important to shield them from their own incompetence and the vagaries of fate.

And yet, no society has ever risen by that principle. All of them have risen through the conservative principle, which is to assess cause and effect, and repeat actions that produce desirable effects.

Poverty will always be with us. However, it can be escaped at any time by changing behavior. While that threatens to remove victimhood as an excuse for non-performance, it also liberates us from the blindness and superstition of the liberal universe, where the effect of any action is a mystery and thus ignorance forever reigns.

Everyone’s faking it

Friday, December 7th, 2012

In the late-night admissions of old friends, the whispers of star-crossed lovers waiting for doom, and the drunken confessions of those who seemed so resolutely content only moments before, the admission comes: I don’t understand why everyone else seems to find it so easy, surviving in this time.

Many thoughtful people find themselves alone, earning not that much money or having that much success in school, or even having many successes and still feeling totally alienated. They question their own competence, purpose and ability.

What they don’t do is question everyone else.

The gnarly fact is that most people in this society behave as if they’re resentful. They cheat on the little details, whether tipping a waitress or driving like a fool. If not watched, they may simply take what they want and ignore the consequences. They often push ahead in line, or lie about their behavior, or otherwise deny reality.

They’re resentful toward their family members. They may even set their children up to fail, by giving them nothing but criticism. They sabotage their spouses by entangling them in drama and unnecessary obligations. They ignore any effects beyond their own property. If something gets tossed over the fence, it’s out of sight, out of mind.

But what they are certain to do is hide this fact. They will hide their bad deeds, their resentment, their selfishness and their anger. When you encounter them, they’ll pull a sales job on you. As far as they say, they’re geniuses who live in happiness and wealth.

It’s this way in the rich neighborhoods, where half of the people are living on credit and the BMW might get repossessed any minute. It’s also this way in the poor neighborhoods, where ever dishwasher is a big MC after hours.

Humans specialize in making themselves look important. Whether it’s the ironic hipster, or the staid suburbanite keeping up with the Joneses by buying a digital salad shooter, it’s the same mentality.

The only people who suffer for it are the sensitive, intelligent and curious. They see a world of multitudinous small hells, and people who appear to be well-adapted and even enjoying it.

When in reality what they are seeing is another series of hells, this time created within the humans themselves.


Monday, May 28th, 2012

In the modern time, revolution has gone from a historical event to a metaphor.

We talk about “revolutionary” new ideas, universally use the term “revolution” to mean an overthrowing of the bad by the good, and frequently talk about revolutions in technology, social practice, sex, art, drugs, and more.

Our own origins are in two revolutions, first the American revolution which overthrew the idea of empire itself by liberating colonies, and second in the truly archetypal revolution in France, in which the many and poor overthrew the few and powerful. It only makes sense that we keep applying this template to our current ideas.

However like all good terms of political control, the notion of revolution is deliberately vague. We know it to mean something approximately like a group of people deciding the old way was bad, and joining together to seize power. Notice that there is no mention there of the consequences of their actions beyond seizing power; what matters is that they are now in control, and control is like an object they own or a bargain they score at Wal-Mart. It’s not a means to an end, like an enlightened leader using power to achieve a civilization of lasting grandeur.

Since our bias weighs so heavily in favor of revolutions, revolutionaries and revolution-istic thinking, we automatically assume that anyone who is revolted against is (a) bad and (b) obsolete. The point is renewal, like changing our disposable trash bags or shopping for new entertainment goods. We worship the new, novel and different as part of our revolution cultism. As a result, if a revolution occurs, we assume the people pushed out of the way deserved it. In order to avoid having a revolution overthrowing our current society, which we claim to like, we give handouts to the crowd, usually in the form of freebies (entitlements) or permissiveness (more freedoms, even ludicrous ones).

This puts an interesting spin on history: for the first time, history is exclusively a moral judgment. We are no longer thinking in terms of how things come about, but what our feelings and judgments are about those things. In the post-revolutionary world, if enough people feel and judge against something, there might be a revolution! For this reason, we moralize history and those who take the least radical stance are those who win, because they’re least likely to be deposed by revolution. We assume revolutions are a morally corrective force replacing the bad.

However, that type of thinking obscures a historical fact: revolutions don’t have anything to do with actual injury. They have to do with perceived injury, because by its nature a crowd formed of angry people knows nothing about the actual circumstances, and forms a circular logical chain whereby it cycles its own dissatisfaction, amplifying it like a feedback loop. Revolutions are not political, or even more, although they pretend to be so. Revolutions are fundamentally a social activity.

“I had discovered that it didn’t make any difference whether you smoked reefer in a white classmate’s sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you’d met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids. … You just might be bored or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection.” – The New York Times

Disaffection is a social response to the challenge brought on by a less than optimal condition. For example, the French Revolution was brought on by the increased power of the monarchy allowing them to standardize commerce, health and production, which meant that more citizens survived to reproductive age. This in turn causes a population bloom at the lowest strata of society, which then outpaced its resources and in coincidence with several mundane misfortunes, produced a food crisis and then a power crisis.

The fault was not with the leadership, but with the people who would become the revolutionaries, but they didn’t care. This was not a fact-finding and analytical endeavor. It was a social one. We are all familiar with tricks of the human mind like displacement, projection and cognitive dissonance. All are in play here; when something goes wrong, we want someone to blame. Once we’ve blamed them, that lets us think in terms of justification, working backward from what we want to a reason why we should have it. That in turn leads to the creation of a morality of why we should have it, and when the world doesn’t reward us, a strengthening of that morality to the point that we deny reality itself.

When the talking heads on the news, or our political leaders, or even our friends want to justify a seizure of power, they start talking in revolutionary logic. This is a script, much like con men use to talk their marks out of their money. A script works based on the assumptions we make as part of our culture and experience, such as the idea that if a revolution has occurred, it’s some Hitler getting disposed not a strong but benevolent leader. It’s easy to talk people into revolutions because blaming all of our problems on leaders and social institutions is easier than owning up to our personal problems, fixing the details that are out of place and using self-discipline to force ourselves to leave our comfort zones and actually achieve something worth doing. (Coincidentally, this is the only activity that makes people feel truly alive.)

As the fruit of the revolution of 1789 continues its rapid plunge into the abyss, showing us that it’s not the method of revolution but the goal of revolution itself that is dysfunctional, people are going to react to the emergency as they always do. They will demand more of what has worked in the past. They will not recognize at first that when what worked in the past doesn’t work, it’s time to re-assess and choose a new method. They will claim their method is new; after all, it’s a revolution! However, they’re preaching a tired and dead, old and calcified order that never had a chance of working. Remember, revolutions are not related to an actual injury.

When this happens, other people will expect you to go along with the script like everyone else marching in brain-dead hive-mind lock-step toward oblivion. The correct response is to raise your paper, push your glasses further up the bridge of your nose, and do the only actually “revolutionary” act you can: ignore the impulse to follow the herd in yesterday’s folly, and instead begin planning for your role in a post-revolutionary civilization.

Race pity is self-pity

Saturday, May 12th, 2012

The media, the popular kids at work/school, the government and all your favorite celebrities champion a single idea: that we all must be equal, and the mercury in the thermometer is race and civil rights.

Their focus is not on race per se, but they use it as an indicator for measurement of their progress. They want total equality: race, gender, class, even physical ability.

This is not new. In 1789, the French Revolutionaries demanded the same exact stuff, except for them the “race” part was internationalism or the notion that no national borders would exist anymore.

What is most interesting is this chorus. You hear the same idea in different forms from several locations. It’s like a kaleidoscope: your eye sees jagged shapes, and your brain assembles a coherent image from the mirror impressions.

This idea in many places must obviously have a common origin.

That common origin is either a world conspiracy more efficient than any we’ve ever heard of before, or the common origin is like many human mistakes: a natural pitfall.

For example, it’s natural to wander over to a body of water, see a fish and attempt to catch it — by lunging in the wrong place. Light refraction bends the image so we “see” the fish in the wrong place.

Another natural pitfall is to lose track of time. Yet another is to underestimate our knowledge when we know a lot, and overestimate when we know little. These are just life’s little gotchas.

The hivemind is the same way. It appeals to basic psychological pitfalls, and by justifying them through the strength of the group, makes them accepted.

The hivemind has one basic message: stop striving to adapt to reality; instead, project your needs onto it and use social guilt to force others to conform.

This hivemind is the root of all liberalism, but it’s also the root of all human groupthink, peer pressure, social fear, and other mental failings that occur in groups. Hivemind is what happens when we give up on (a) reality and (b) ourselves in favor of (c) the social collective.

That’s why Hollywood stars say the same stuff as advertisers and government propagandists. Just like your friend group, they want to say something that will “succeed” and be popular, so they pander to popular notions.

This is why they love equality and its indicator, race. Both of these are mental pitfalls. Our brains like to level quantities in order to make them easier to compute, and so we like leveling influences like equality. When everyone is the same, no tension can exist.

Race seems to us an indicator of equality because of another standard perceptual error. We assume that when we make a change to the world, it’s like painting new colors onto a painting. We don’t realize that it’s more like re-arranging a series of balances, where any one act causes a chain of consequences.

Thus we can never step into the same river twice, because we’ve altered the river by stepping. You can see this mentality most clearly in the bored office worker or housewife: “If only I had…” they dream. But if they had that, their lives would be so changed the circumstances that make them want it would no longer exist.

Equality arises from our fear of insufficiency. If we are strong, we work smarter to adapt. If not, we fall into self-pity. Instead of adapting to reality, we create a reality of our own through a process called cognitive dissonance. In that reality, we comfort ourselves, we are kings — even if in regular reality we are janitors.

This, too, is a common and inherent pitfall.

Out of this self-pity we invent a mythology of the world. It is bad, because it doesn’t recognize the world in which we are kings.

But that’s not enough. For it to be bad, it must be an evil, and we must be committed to fighting it, or “changing” it. We must invent a sense of “progress” that fixes it and makes it more like our fantasy world.

From the outside, this belief is indistinguishable from an honest desire to improve the world. The honest desire tends to be more gradual, and spend more energy on what it wants instead of what it doesn’t want, but those are clues and not fully indicative.

Our race-pity is part of our cognitive dissonance. Displaced and lonely people want a reason to make a better world where every ego is important and a king. They thus bang the tin drum of equality. In turn, they take that to its logical extreme, and demand that all things be exactly equal. Destroy all titles, distribute all the wealth, mix all the peoples into a uniform tan.

In their view, based on their fantasy world where each person is as important as any other, this crazed fantasy of destruction is morality incarnate. However, the root of it is self-pity.

The Hollywood types, television advertisers, friends at the pub, government pamphlet writers and others know this. They are pandering to your weakness. What they want is your allegiance.

The only price is the total destruction of your society, and that like the credit card bills and pub tab you can put off for the near future. You only live once.


Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

A word we’ve all used.
We all know what it means, don’t we?
Um. No. We most certainly don’t!

A word about the picture:
Imagine that’s you, on the other end of that charging grizzly.
No weapons. Nowhere to go. No time to make a plan.
That’s Reality!
And so to work…

This essay is one I know I am not going to be able to do justice to, and so I write it with trepidation. Because it needs to be written ‘just-so’, and I know I can’t write it that way. But if I don’t write it, who will? So, taking that into account, please, bear with me…

It has come to my attention that everybody has a differing view of Reality. No two definitions are anything like the same. Most can not even begin to define it, yet all assume that they know what it is. This is a word that has everything in common with another very common word. No two people come up with the same definition, and most are unable to define it at all.

That word is ‘God’.

And how can this be? Words so common that everybody knows them, that fail, completely to communicate what is meant by them? Another is ‘Love’. There are more, but these words are about all I can cope with, for now.

Let me give you my own definitions of these things, to consider. See how they differ from your own, if indeed you have ever consciously defined these things. See if they make sense to you…

Love: Service to something that is not obviously yourself. Although it actually is.

God: That concept, created by men, to signify something so far beyond them, and their own capabilities, that there is no other word, or words, to express it.

Reality: The thing that the term ‘God’ actually attempts to describe. What-is. What-always-was. What-always-will-be. Everything and nothing. Context. The framework underlying everything that exists.

Note the order of mention; Love first. This is actually something we are capable of, but so seldom exhibit. Most often this is a word used to signify desire, or need. And it’s all downhill from there.

God, second. Beyond us completely, at least until we grasp what the term “Created in God’s image” might actually mean. We can be, and really are, although almost nobody knows it, God-like, in our rather limited way. We can create, although most of us don’t.

Reality: Number three. That state that advises all of existence, including the non-existing. The clockwork that runs the whole show. Non-negotiable, non-flexible. Certainly non-human. The Chinese call this “Tao”, The Great Mother. Lao Tzu said “It Is Older Than God.” And of course, it is, since it gives rise to everything else, including the man-made concept of God.

So the first two are really manifestations of the third. Reality is what concerns us, here.
A ruleset. Fuel for the matter that the rules will act upon. Matter, operating under these rules. Energy forming into matter, then returning into energy. A closed system, as far as anyone can know, turning, turning, in an infinite space, through infinite time, infinitely. But how does this concern us?

People, it appears, mostly think Reality is a human creation. By people, I mean leftists. Although many conservatives subscribe to the same very muddy, shallow thinking. This must be a human failing, to kick God out of his throne, sit themselves down in His place, and proceed to demand things be as they desire them to be.

To hear Christians speak of God, is often to witness the utter absurdity of such thinking.
The Christian God needs people to serve Him. Fight for Him. Worship Him. And if they don’t do that, to His specification, then He rages and exacts terrible vengeance.

It should be quite clear, really, that such people are actually describing themselves, when they speak of God. If God were really like that, what sort of a God would He be? The sort, clearly, that atheists currently seek to eradicate, once and for all.
But the atheists, are, if anything, even worse.

By denying, completely, anything like a God, atheists have no baseline from which to operate. They exist in a vacuum, lacking any context. This is why they can be such hypocrites, such liars, and make so little sense. Lacking context, any word means anything, any behaviour is equal to any other. And nothing, but nothing, leads anywhere but to chaos.

To deny a baseline, is to be, to all intents and purposes, insane.
If you don’t know where you stand, then how can you know where you are?
If you don’t know where you are, how can you know where you are going?
If you don’t know where you’re going, can you really ever say where you’ve been?
Ah! No. And so whatever experiences may have crossed paths with you, along the way, you will be unable to learn from any of them, because, lacking context, there can be no understanding.

So it goes.
People started living in cities, and once they did that, Reality was kept at arm’s length.
It became a human construct, that took its place. People started to think they controlled Reality, and had no further need to respect it. They made their own Reality. To their own specification. Except there never was a specification, that all agreed upon. So the only thing that was agreed upon was that Reality was reality, and everyone knew what that was.

I was involved in a hurricane, once, at sea. The most memorable thing about that, among rather too many memorable things, was the distinctly uncomfortable realization that I had no idea how bad this was going to get. It went right off the scale, and kept right on going. For all I knew, it might not have an end to it, and even if it did, I might well not be around to see it.
That’s Reality.

If you have one bit of respect, about you, then you will respect Reality.
It rules. You don’t. Simple.
This is what provides the political schism we see every day.
While there are many differing degrees of conservatism, it is based, always, upon respect of some sort, towards what we know as ‘the natural order’. We are this way because we can only be this way. We look at the sorry performance of the left, and stand stunned into bewilderment at the manifest insanity of it. The incomprehensible delusion. And we don’t know what to make of it.

Make nothing of it. It is what it is. It is what happens to people who choose to abandon all context for living, and live solely on desires, emotions and selfishness.
This is what The Bible refers to as evil. It is as common as dirt. It is easy, while its opposite is not.
Created with free-will, we are, so it is said. And this is true, to some degree. We may choose the path less easy, although the ones who do, may have little choice in the matter: it is hard wired into them, probably from birth.

Like I said: I was never going to do a good job of writing about this subject. But here it is, and this will have to do, for now. There is very much more that can be said about the nature of Reality, and its enormous importance, to us. But that’s for another time.

Remember this, if nothing else: when people speak of Reality, they are highly unlikely to have any idea of what it is they are referring to. Unless they have a baseline from which to operate. And these days, who does?

Why don’t we give it away?

Monday, April 2nd, 2012

At the moment their career turned from underground indie band to mainstream rock band with commercial potential, Georgia-based R.E.M. penned a song with the title “Why Don’t We Give It Away?” While it’s unclear what any of their songs were about, the sentiment remains popular.

Among the Baby Boomers, who were born in the years immediately after the Anglo-American victory in WWII, this sentiment became a sacrament. It was how you became accepted by others: you advanced this pleasant-sounding ideal. Why don’t we give it away?

The statement itself combines two ideas. One is a sense of finding purpose in life by helping others, or through altruism finding self-respect. The other is a type of exhaustion, a sense that “it” is as much slavery as liberation. Someone else should manage it. We’re tired and need a break.

After two disastrous world wars, that sentiment rings true.

Between their depression and their need for self-affirmation through altruism, the Baby Boomers did give it all away on a grander scale than had ever been attempted before. A manic need to enfranchise, subsidize, include, articulate, incorporate and ultimately adulterate all classes of people ensued.

This wasn’t unique to the Boomers. It started in the 1920s, when the “lost generation” partied themselves silly because they saw no future. World War I had announced the dark end, it was felt; there no longer was meaning, only industrial warfare and a slow grinding for domination of political forces. The kings were dead and with them died the sense of organic nations that had an actual purpose other than money and power.

By the time 1937 rolled around, those spiritually exhausted parties were also socially exhausted. The system failed and the Great Depression reigned. As a result, Socialism/Communism began to make more sense, and the anarchist-rebels of the 1920s became genteel Reds sipping imported sherry at country clubs.

These people were given a quest in World War II, and they fulfilled it grimly out of fear at first, and eventually out of a sense of renewed meaning. Our lives have purpose again, they thought, through this great struggle. But when it went away, nothing but wealth and 9-to-5 jobs remained.

They passed this bitter, sandbagged, cornered, hopeless mentality on to their children.

As spawn of this great tectonic collision of historical forces, the Baby Boomers were born exhausted of anything but themselves. Government had failed, and with Communism showing its true colors, ideology had failed. There was nothing left but shopping and careers.

They rebelled against this, as any sane generation would. Unfortunately, they had no new ideas, and so they ended up going back a generation to the 1920s and agitating for not Communism but its gentler variants. They went left. And they gave it all away.

In our modern world, we can see the results of this. Our society is spread thinner, like (as Bilbo says in Lord of the Rings) “not enough butter over too much bread.” It is exhausted. We have included everyone, but this means the power to make decisions rests with no one. It is a slow, grinding, exhausting system.

Giving it away had other consequences. There are more people in the workforce, so jobs are both competitive and boring. It is no longer a challenge of intellect or strength, but of hours marked on the chart. That’s “hard work” in our new parlance.

Ostensibly the United States won the Second World War. Post-war developments do not suggest that is true. In addition to the great political fragmentation of 1968, in which the left and right permanently divided and the sense of “our country” evaporated, giving it all away has resulted in a massive regulatory and welfare state — a Nanny State.

This Nanny State exists because nothing unites us except political and economic participation in a place. As a result, we need a strong police force to keep us in line, because there are no cultural standards to do that. We need advisory boards to protect us from ourselves, since no one knows anything any longer.

Since modern people are told that nothing is true without facts and figures, let’s look at the factual consequences of giving it away. More prisoners per capita than any other industrialized nation. Only 65% of our people are employed. Over half are impoverished.

Did we spread it all too thin, by giving it all away?

These figures resemble not a single country, but two countries. It’s a first-world country attached to a third-world country. Since 1968, the leftist plan has been to keep giving it away, to try to unite these two countries. But all that will do is bring them both down, and then the country will collapse.

Perhaps we should instead consider our motivations behind giving it away. Did we do so to try to help others, or to try to let ourselves off the hook for having to run an empire? The Romans got exhausted, too, and they gave it away for the same reasons we did.

Social conservatives

Sunday, March 25th, 2012

Another four-year cycle, another American election gone to the left because the right is disunified.

Popular sentiment blames the social conservatives for this. After all, they are the lone group refusing to come to the table, compromise, and join the system of government where economics and popularity determines what is “real.” People power, individualism and democracy, you know.

Social conservatives have a different ideal. Not all of them are religious, but all of them believe something should come first before our material calculations: God, transcendent reverence for nature, morality, heritage, tradition or at the very least time-honored methods of survival.

This doesn’t sit well with the rest of the Republicans because they want to join the left. Both neoconservative right and all parts of the left wing short of Communism can speak the same language, which is a big government leading itself by economics and popularity. It’s universal, to those groups.

Social conservatives point out that this puts the cart before the horse. God, like nature, is an order that encompasses all that we see. Yet the order itself is invisible. We either work in harmony with it, or spread destruction as we walk. Even if that destruction may take centuries to manifest.

When we pander to the crowd, or to the dollars of the crowd, we are reversing this healthy process. We replace looking at the world, trying to figure it out and adapting with a different human spectrum of behaviors, which is projection, transference, cognitive dissonance and denial.

We can talk all day long about conservative values but the real conservative notion is not disunified. It has a center. That center is that reality, God and nature come first before human desires, opinions and ideologies.

The social conservatives are going to take more flak this election. The neocons want them to buckle under and fold, and the left of course wants that, not only because it means only leftists are running, but because it discredits the Republicans by making them into a more difficult flavor of leftist.

Despite what is popular to think, reality is as it has always been. Social conservatives focus on a transcendent ideal instead of the crowd composes of individuals who want to believe in what they desire, not what they see. As a result, they posit the only sane position in this whole campaign.


Sunday, March 18th, 2012

The art to making it big as a blog is to tell people that something screwed them. However, it’s best not to pick actual causes, but intermediate ones. Beating a real cause takes a lot of power. Getting a bunch of people mad at an intermediate, or mad enough to buy your book, is much more achievable.

If those of us who bring you this blog had any financial sense, we would not be identifying actual problems like crowdism or demographic decline, but looking at intermediates that make good punching bags. Obama. Christians. Corporations. Satan.

Finding a good punching bag makes you feel good. Instead of seeing the broad problem of re-organizing society, you can single out a little tiny piece and rage against it, then consider the job done and go home. It’s easier and more emotionally satisfying to find something to blame.

The only glitch is that by doing so, you miss out on the actual culprit. Such is the case with the following article, in which some people (who should know better) blame the problems of the “lost generation” or millennials on the economy:

But sometime in the past 30 years, someone has hit the brakes and Americans — particularly young Americans — have become risk-averse and sedentary…

Back in the early 1980s, 80 percent of 18-year-olds proudly strutted out of the D.M.V. with newly minted licenses, according to a study by researchers at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute. By 2008 — even before the Great Recession — that number had dropped to 65 percent. – “The Go-Nowhere Generation,” by Todd G. Buchholz and Victoria Buchholz, The New York Times

Sometime in the past 30 years. What has happened since 1982?

A lot, but the biggest change has been that the social programs of the 1960s have come into full fruition. The Reagan 1980s after all were sort of a rearguard action against the encroaching liberal reforms that from 1964 onward — when the first baby boomers hit 18 — had been rising in power.

The “lost generation” are the people who inherited the true weight of liberal reforms. Sexual liberation means divorce and faithless relationships. Social welfare means a glacial economy and parasitic government. All forms of “equality” mean constant internal class warfare. Civil rights means open immigration and increasing internal division.

Millennials are not the first to face this decline. Before them, the Generation Xers were known as “slackers” and “dropouts” for their own tendency to retreat into the basement and shut the door on a world gone mad.

Why did they think the world had gone mad? Each individual liberal reform had bad results, but the effect of liberal reforms as a whole is that you no longer have a society with purpose. You have a giant shopping mall where nothing has any meaning, except purchasing things and individual drama

Each day, people go to work for the purpose of sustaining themselves. They have families and hobbies. But there is a sense of going through the motions and being in shock, which is why people behave like such zombies, craving power, wealth and prestige without knowing why.

And yet they are afraid to rock the boat. They are grateful for what they have, even as they are miserable. They insist they are not discontented. They pick one team to cheer for, find a reason to feel superior to others, and keep going through the motions.

The term “Stockholm Syndrome” was coined in the early 70’s to describe the puzzling reactions of four bank employees to their captor. On August 23, 1973, three women and one man were taken hostage in one of the largest banks in Stockholm. They were held for six days by two ex-convicts who threatened their lives but also showed them kindness. To the world’s surprise, all of the hostages strongly resisted the government’s efforts to rescue them and were quite eager to defend their captors. Indeed, several months after the hostages were saved by the police, they still had warm feelings for the men who threatened their lives. Two of the women eventually got engaged to the captors.

The Stockholm incident compelled journalists and social scientists to research whether the emotional bonding between captors and captives was a “freak” incident or a common occurrence in oppressive situations. They discovered that it’s such a common phenomenon that it deserves a name. Thus the label “Stockholm Syndrome” was born. It has happened to concentration camp prisoners, cult members, civilians in Chinese Communist prisons, pimp-procured prostitutes, incest victims, physically and/or emotionally abused children, battered women, prisoners of war, victims of hijackings, and of course, hostages. Virtually anyone can get Stockholm Syndrome it the following conditions are met:

  • Perceived threat to survival and the belief that one’s captor is willing to act on that threat
  • The captive’s perception of small kindnesses from the captor within a context of terror
  • Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor
  • Perceived inability to escape.

Stockholm Syndrome is a survival mechanism. The men and women who get it are not lunatics. They are fighting for their lives. – “Societal Stockholm Syndrome,” by Kathleen Trigiani

Liberal society enacts those characteristics upon us:

  • Threat to survival: constant crime, instability, job loss, fears for health and reproductive success in the media, dubious international politics and constant wars.
  • Small kindnesses: society throws us a few bones in the form of pity and handouts.
  • Isolation: any perspectives other than that of a technocratic liberal democracy are considered insane, racist, hateful, voodoo, etc.
  • No escape: let me know if you can think of one. If you run away to the woods, it’s just a matter of time before someone converts those woods into a McDonald’s.

If you find yourself wondering why every year, things seem worse and people seem even more paralyzed to act against them, consider this: people are afraid things will get worse, so they’re clinging to society in order to appease it. Like abused children, they conform — and then beg.

What makes this society so powerful is its duality. On one hand, it is permissive and so everything is “OK;” on the other hand, this permissiveness causes such vast social instability that we are each islands, trying to duck crime, abuse, isolation, poverty and other forms of social chaos.

The result is shell-shocked people who through the motions in order to avoid things getting worse. They are paralyzed by fear of what could happen, based on the fact that bad things happen all the time and nothing is done. They are psychologically scarred and coping as best they can.

Symptoms of PTSD fall into three main categories:

  1. “Reliving” the event, which disturbs day-to-day activity
    • Flashback episodes, where the event seems to be happening again and again
    • Repeated upsetting memories of the event
    • Repeated nightmares of the event
    • Strong, uncomfortable reactions to situations that remind you of the event
  2. Avoidance
    • Emotional “numbing,” or feeling as though you don’t care about anything
    • Feeling detached
    • Being unable to remember important aspects of the trauma
    • Having a lack of interest in normal activities
    • Showing less of your moods
    • Avoiding places, people, or thoughts that remind you of the event
    • Feeling like you have no future
  3. Arousal
    • Difficulty concentrating
    • Startling easily
    • Having an exaggerated response to things that startle you
    • Feeling more aware (hypervigilance)
    • Feeling irritable or having outbursts of anger
    • Having trouble falling or staying asleep

Post-traumatic stress disorder, PubMed Health (NIH)

These symptoms are not shocking for anyone who has observed modern people closely. They are not overt, but a society based on distraction and evasion of hard truths fits the profile of an escapist trauma victim. They most closely describe the character of our society at large.

When we look at these together with the Stockholm Syndrome, we can see how a person with PTSD would be the perfect candidate for Stockholm Syndrome. Traumatized once, and shown a small kindness, they will act to achieve more of that kindness. They will obey authority even as it pushes them toward horrible deeds.

Milgram recruited subjects for his experiments from various walks in life. Respondents were told the experiment would study the effects of punishment on learning ability…”Teachers” were asked to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the “learner” when questions were answered incorrectly.

Shock levels were labeled from 15 to 450 volts…In response to the supposed jolts, the “learner” (actor) would begin to grunt at 75 volts; complain at 120 volts; ask to be released at 150 volts; plead with increasing vigor, next; and let out agonized screams at 285 volts. Eventually, in desperation, the learner was to yell loudly and complain of heart pain…Finally, at 330 volts the actor would be totally silent…

Milgram was shocked to find those who questioned authority were in the minority. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the teachers were willing to progress to the maximum voltage level. – “Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience to Authority,” by Gregorio Billikopf Encina, University of California

Like its partner experiment, the “Stanford Prison Experiment,” the Milgram experiment has been presented to us as a way of explaining how ordinary people give in to evil authority. If we read it more cynically, we could say it shows how ordinary people exhibit Stockholm Syndrome-esque responses to contemporary authority.

Paralysis occurs in our society because when it began falling apart, a series of tragedies occurred. The French Revolution was the first, but after that a series of wars, genocides, etc. happened. We try to play nice with our captors by reasoning that these are results of bad people or ideas among us. The more likely truth is that our society is diseased, self-destructive, a Late Roman period of collapse. It is the source of these problems.

We will remain paralyzed as long as we do what is popular and cast around for some discrete, separate entity to blame. As long as we have Satan, Hitler, Stalin or Kony to blame, we can pretend that our society is not rotting from within. The paralysis wins and we stagger onward, sleepwalking to doom.


Wednesday, February 29th, 2012

The path to oblivion lurks behind every step we take and each moment of any day.

As in life itself, we can choose at any time to make an act of self-destruction: throw ourselves in front of the oncoming train, drink the turpentine, or pull that convenient plastic bag over our faces. Each moment can be our destruction if we choose it to be so.

A different kind of oblivion also exists in each and every moment. We can choose to turn away from what we know is real, objective and external and instead hide within our own minds in notions that are subjective and internal.

When a society is formed of laws and economics, there is no actual shared goal, and so people are accustomed to two modes. In the first, they defer to the external, which is either authority or social pressures. In the second, they pursue their own desires, feelings and judgments in defiance of the external. In other words, like miscreants they obey the letter of the law and twist everything else to serve their own wants.

This deference to the external makes it easy for people to ignore the consequences of their own behavior. If the law designed to prevent criminality makes it illegal to steal, they will invent ways to steal by coercing or deceiving others. Other than what the law says is bad, everything is OK.

But they feel justified in what they do because they are obeying the laws, and the laws are forced on them by their fellow citizens, and obeying the law — nevermind the “spirit” of the law, that’s not scientific — is the only requirement.

A milder form of this is found in everyday oblivion. On her way to work, the average person passes at a least a dozen obviously bad behaviors. It’s not our job to fix them; that’s for the cops and stuff, even if this means nothing is ever done. It’s a carte blanche to ignore the world and focus on the self.

They tend to view this dichotomy of modes such that the second mode is entirely “pleasure” and the first mode is entirely “obligation.” This makes them feel like victims of obligation imposed on them by society at large, and thus take great sneering delight in cheating it to support pleasure.

In fact, our tendency toward external authority and social pressures makes it easy for people to ignore the consequences of their own behavior entirely. That in turn means they stop observing consequences at all. When we have elections, the campaign promises are considered to be the event. Those happened. The results of those promises? No one is counting — we have separated consequence from cause.

Instead, they do what they are told and the society becomes one of social image and not actions which are calculated to produce results. The more they externalize, the more oblivious and the more helpless the citizens become. They take image at face value and consider it more real than reality itself.

While they wander down this pleasant-feeling path to oblivion, the myriad details which are the consequences of not-quite-right-but-legal oblivious actions tend to pile up and drag the civilization under, unnoticed by those who are too busy focusing on their own pleasures.

Recommended Reading