Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘collectivism’

We Versus Us

Monday, January 8th, 2018

The future of the West depends on whether it chooses We or Us.

We consists of the implied agreement of the group with the individual as in, “We can solve poverty by raising the tax rate and paying the poor to stay in hotels.”

As the old saying goes, “Who is ‘we,’ white man?”

The Lone Ranger and Tonto get surrounded by hundreds of armed Indians.

The Lone Ranger says, “It looks like we’ve had it this time, Tonto.”

Tonto replies, “Who is ‘we,’ white man?”

We — a group — must act together, or we all will fall, so we — individuals — must do whatever placates everyone else. This serves their individualism because it gives them veto power. Any individual can say, “Only I decide for myself what is true or right,” and the group breaks apart. Out of fear of this, it becomes enslaved to the lowest common denominator.

For this reason, We is an unstable group, with the inversion of leadership. Instead of a leader who shows the way, the leader must poll the group to see if anyone has a negative opinion on the proposed action, and then back off if so, because if that opinion spreads — like a rumor, infection, or market panic — then the group will unravel and turn on the leader.

Modern people are used to describing policy this way. The news is full of what We should do. We need to band together to fight endless wars: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the battle against drunk driving, the fight against cancer, the crusade against online hatred, and of course, the revolutions which overthrow kings and other powers so that We The People can rule.

The use of “We” conveys a sense of inclusion in the group, which keeps us from seeing this as what it is, which is an attempt to use the money of other members of the group to further our own interests. Once we create the sense of false union through the use of “We,” it seems only fair that we share in what others have produced to accomplish these goals that all of We agree on.

Or do we…?

In contrast, Us refers to a sense of what we as individuals are working toward that binds us to others. There is no sense of inclusion because it is not based on boundaries or enforcement, but on shared understanding and appreciation. Us is the essence of civilization: people collaborating because of mutual benefit and more importantly, the glory of doing something great and meaningful.

With Us, individuals see that they share an identity — a story of why they are here, what is “good” that they should do in order to have meaningful lives, and why they have a unique and necessary role in the world — and want to nurture the source of their strength, which is their civilization. Civilization is more than society; it is a shared mission, values, and heritage.

Only with the advent of Us do we escape a society controlled by material reward. Such societies attract cruel manipulators because there is no mission other than the pocketbook, so he who steals/sells/cheats/entertains the most, wins. Voters — who are easily manipulated through their greed — always appoint manipulative actors instead of heroes.

This is how democracy really works its horrors. It is not enough that it is incompetent; as Plato noted, its worst effect is that it changes the people under it. They become narcissistic, flighty, and lost in a maze of themselves. Voters are changed by voting, and this is why we always get horrible leaders, even when we go in with the best of intentions.

Us is a transcendent concept. That is, it both explains our reality as being good despite its scary parts, and gives us a vision of purpose — goodness, beauty, and truth — that is specific to us and therefore escapes being inverted by making it accessible to everyone. Accessibility requires simplifying each time we find anyone who does not understand, and meaning is destroyed.

Transcendent concepts can be used to unite a civilization instead of relying on a single big theory to make everything work. Single big theories are methods of motivation, and invariably rely on the concepts of We instead of Us. That is, they work by appealing to everyone everywhere, and therefore in utilitarian simplicity, becoming popular; this is how they motivate masses of careless people.

This proves important when a society considers the question of ownership. Anything not owned by someone will be exploited by a herd of people who come in, take what they can, and leave a wasteland. This is as inherent to humanity as the possibility of growing too fast and choking all life is to algae; dead ponds are what happen when there is not a balancing force to restrain the algae.

That idea, advanced by Garrett Hardin, shows us that the eternal problem of humanity is growth without structure. Unless we create a hierarchy not so much of power but of duty, everything will be worn down by a crowd, leaving the world trash-strewn and trampled into mud like a field after a weekend carnival.

A natural hierarchy exists among people based on levels of intelligence, with the higher levels understanding more of any given task at hand than the levels below them. If the higher levels do not rule over the lower, data is lost and perception limited, which causes poor decision-making.

A transcendent order like Us can embrace truths like the above and convert them into positives: those who are working together can naturally promote the most competent so that all benefit, and those then have a stewardship role toward those below them who are contributing, and a curator role to the organization, its culture, its knowledge, and its values.

Us can create an order like that. We — the notion of removing hierarchy so that no one is lowered in social status for incompetence or bad behavior — cannot, because that violates its principle of roping everyone together based on what they, as individuals, desire or want to do.

We is the opposite of Us.

Our society is divided against itself because it went with “we.” An emphasis on the rights of individuals destroys the right to have a civilization or shared values, and so societies in pursuit of We always break up. A feedback loop appears: the more individuals are encouraged to pursue their desires, the farther those desires get from reality, and soon internal conflict disintegrates the society.

A civilization can form when people are united toward a goal. This naturally suppresses the raw human instinct toward individualism and its group form, often called “collectivism.” When the focus is on external reality as interpreted through a principle, people discipline their inner selves to be realistic. When it is on people, they fall into an abyss of navel-gazing and over-indulgence.

Individualism means “me first.” Collectivism is “me first” using the power of the herd, because that is both effective and reduces the risk for the individual. This group individualism demands that we always look toward raising up the minorities, the self-styled exceptions, and the underdog in the hierarchy order to prove our allegiance to the herd.

This shows us the fundamental divide in thinking: people are either reality-oriented or socially-oriented. The latter depends on everyone in the room feeling good about something for it to be true; the former depends on figuring out whether a “true” idea actually depicts reality in any accurate way.

Socially-oriented thinking unites individual to group on the basis of individualism, or the pursuit of individual desires. This is separate from self-interest, as animals experience, because human desires often do not reflect needs, but a desire to succeed socially in questions of degree; in other words, to climb the hierarchy.

However, this thinking also negates the individual because it makes them obligated to the group in order to receive the mental reinforcement that they need in order to feel good about themselves. This creates an unhealthy dependency in which the raging desire for satisfaction of desire is inextricably bonded to the need for approval, making the individual addicted to the group.

That in turn creates the fundamental inversion in which the individual sees the world as part of themselves, instead of themselves as part of the world. The human love of money, power, control, manipulation, passive aggression, and vainglorious self-worship comes from the need to rectify the solipsism of the fundamental inversion with contrary data from reality.

Self-interest is inherent to human beings; civilization is the process of disciplining it so that it rewards the best instead of the lowest common denominator. The only successful way to do this is the traditional or ancient way, which is to have institutions which are not oppositional, but working in parallel, because they are united on cooperation toward a goal.

Humanity faces an interesting age. We survived the threat of nuclear warfare, and despite the North Korea drama, it is unlikely to return in the form that threatened all life on Earth. Now, we are faced with a bigger enemy: our tendency to become a raging herd out of control that then creates oppressive, self-destroying societies because of its instability.

Across the globe, human societies are failing. Vital institutions are being replaced by inferior bureaucratic substitutes. They are just too many people, each with their own needs and visions that are tangential at best to any idea of improvement of our society, which is like “progress” without the notion of Utopia; improvement is merely taking what is, and making it more competent.

As all of these degraded institutions fail at once, and all of our policies also fail, people are turning on the root of those policies, which is the notion of individualism as a viable method for assembling a human society. The Age of Ideology — probably the last thousand years — championed the individual; the future celebrates the organic whole, and having a sense of purpose.

In that calculus, we are transitioning from “We” to “Us.” It may be a rocky road, but at the end, we will be saner and healthier for it.

We Reach Peak SJW As Equality Includes Obesity

Wednesday, October 18th, 2017

Very few realize that the modern “social justice” movement has its roots centuries ago, in the French Revolution or The Enlightenment™ and The Renaissance™ before it. The idea is simple: do not focus on external order (society, God/gods, nature, logic) but instead look at the individual and its desires.

This came to a demi-peak in the “Me Generation,” otherwise known as the [expletive deleted] Baby Boomers, who insisted that only what flattered them as individuals was true, and they would act on that, and ignore the rest of reality. This of course causes isolation and paranoia because most of the world is filtered out, and so random events can occur without being anticipated, at any time.

But the Leftists got their hooks into the West after the 1960s, brought on mainly by how boring and corporate the 1950s were, causing anyone with spirit to revolt against our commercialized, democratized, and simplified mass culture. Unfortunately, as is almost always the case, the Revolution was a case of the cure being worse than the disease, as often happens.

And so for Generation X and others, we grew up in a time where adults insisted on what obviously was not true and denied what obviously was. Even to a child, this signals hopelessness: your civilization has opted to commit suicide, rather than looking deeply enough to see its actual problems, even though those are not that complicated. We were abandoned children.

The generation after us, the Millennials, they grew up believing the lies because they had never seen anything different. They never knew a time when people were honest, had culture, and managed to stay married without divorce or stay in love without a bribe. They had never seen pre-multicultural America, a place of trust and easy normal socialization, and were entirely lost and thus dependent on what their 1960s-style instructors told them.

Eventually, these cordycepted toxoplasma zombies gained enough power to elect a president, and then they assumed Utopia was near; it turned out that all their ideas failed, and so instead, we entered dystopia. But before that became apparent, because most people are incapable of analysis or thought beyond one level deep, we would see “peak Leftism” or “peak SJW” as the long tail whipped around. Witness the genius of obesity as a human right:

Following online backlash, Google is removing a planned feature in Maps that shows you how many calories you’d burn when in walking mode. Google’s attempt to promote a healthy lifestyle caused a number of people to lambast the feature on Twitter, claiming it would “shame” and even “trigger” those with eating disorders. Engadget reports:

Taking note of the negative reaction, Google is now dumping the experiment. It confirmed to Engadget that the update was briefly tested on iOS, and has been abandoned based on user feedback. As The Hill’s Taylor Lorenz noted in her tweets, there was no way to turn off the feature. Lorenz also claimed that using pink cupcakes as the unit of measurement was “lowkey aimed at women.” Others pointed out that Maps wasn’t the appropriate place for the update. After all, there are plenty of fitness and calorie counting apps that keep track of your activity and consumption — again emphasizing how misplaced the feature was.

The point of equality, although egalitarians will not tell you this, is to save the individual from being judged wrong for their opinions. Each of us tries to understand the world, and acts on our mental image of it, and when we screw up, it means that we were too neurotic, delusional, dysfunctional or otherwise less-than-superior to handle that simple task. Sneers and scorn rise like locusts from a field of dead corn.

As a result, egalitarians try a simple formula, which might be said to be “good = bad” or at least that good and bad are arbitrary, relativistic and irrelevant, so we might as well approve of everyone at the same social level. Their great fear is losing social position by being inept, and so they have banished judgment for ineptitude, at least in the public forums where it once kept our leaders competent.

We can extend this to any choice by the individual. No one should lose social status, or be punished, or be made to feel bad, for any choice. Being obese, on drugs, metrosexual, incompetent or anything else is just an arbitrary choice, you see, because everything is relative. It is not that we have a purpose, or a world to which we can objectively derive adaptive strategies, but a question of what the individual wants.

If you wanted greater proof that egalitarianism is individualism, and collectivism is merely a shield for the individual to use others to advance his own agenda, it cannot be found than in this great panic over criticism of obesity. Not even criticism; Google simply wanted to help us all stay fit. Maybe now they are reconsidering the monster they have been supporting.

Understanding Individualism

Sunday, July 9th, 2017

It is good to see that the Alt Right is catching on to the problem of individualism in the dead West. Individualism means what the ancient Greeks called hubris, or making oneself more important than the order of nature.

That order of nature is a tricky thing. Most people cannot physically comprehend it; that is, their brains lack the circuits to wrap around all of what it entails. It means not just natural order as it is in material terms, but its logical principles, and more subtly, the directions like evolution, quality and supremacy toward which nature subtly moves. It includes the realm of the gods as well as that of men, plants and animals, and is more of a pattern of patterns than a tangible thing. It is above all else, a system of organization.

Each of us have some place in that order. We are born to our places: some will be farmers, some plumbers, some clerks and some kings. Individualism, on the other hand, states that the natural order is not important, and that the individual should come first before all else. The whims, desires, judgments, feelings and impulses of the individual are more important than any other order, including civilization, nature or the divine. Individualism became the dogma of the West with The Enlightenment,™ the Renaissance,™ and the rise of egalitarian thought (ideologies dedicated to humanity equality, which means “no one can be sent away”) centuries ago.

You can either live for yourself, for the group, or for some intangible third entity which includes both, like “race” or “ethnic group” or “civilization” or even “tribe.” In fact, sane people live for all of those; a German wants to live according to the customs of his people so that his people and their values and ideals continuity in perpetuity. Anything else is not motivation, but rationalization of a failure to have some goal so inspiring that it animates a person over a lifetime. Individualism and collectivism, in this view, are two sides of the same coin: instead of living for the eternal, we are living for the material, in the form of our own comfort and safety or that of the group. Heroes, geniuses, inventors and philosophers are not made from such paltry stuff!

Even more, collectivism is individualism. No individual wants to be told “No” or sent away from the group, so the individual demands a rule that all must be included, based on the theory of pacifism, which is that it is more important for everyone to get along than for the group to find realistic answers, since that process involves conflict. Individuals band together into mobs to enforce this individualism. They seem like collectives, but each individual is participating because he thinks he will get something out of the effort he invests. People are self-interested actors. They do not join collectives out of altruism, but selfishness: here is guaranteed participation in not just the social life, but the wealth of the group, and an expectation that like a placental fetus, the individual can offload the costs of its survival onto the group through a process known as externalization or socialization.

This is the secret history of individualism in the West. It has steadily infested us for over a thousand years, and in its triumph, has decided to destroy culture and heritage, so that nothing comes before the individual and its protector, the State. How well we can see this depends on how we define individualism:

No, my problem with America is how dog eat dog it is. How “fellow Whites” will go out of their way to pull you down, just so that they can scramble up over you. They’ll side with minorities to do it to you as well. It’s not right, and it’s not healthy. This lack of solidarity steadily chips away at the fabric of society.

…There is this belief that we are perfect the way that we are, and that all our problems can be blamed on external forces and external tribes. While there is more than enough evidence to prove that there are indeed hostile groups within our societies that blend in and want to corrupt us, do us harm and eventually destroy us, that’s not all that’s at work here.

…I believe part of this stems from the American experience compared to the European experience. Europe was racked by many absolutely devastating wars. Everyone was hurt, and from mutual suffering, a shared consciousness grew. People understood that bad things could happen in life that could hurt everyone. You could die one day from a bombing raid through no fault of their own. You weren’t a loser because you died in a war. You weren’t a loser if you wanted socialized medicine to take care of you in case of misfortune.

He has a great point, but misunderstands individualism. Individualism is not people trying to escape from the herd; it is the herd. The collective is formed of individualists. The Communists were the most selfish people ever, and thought that they should get free support from the rest of society whether they did anything or not. What he calls individualism is in fact the reaction to individualism, which is people trying to cut free from the demands of the herd.

We do not want to be socialists. We do not want to be Leftists, or egalitarians, or individualists. These are effectively the same thing.

Our current situation where white people refuse to help one another is the result of egalitarianism. In a society of equals, every other person is a threat. They want to take your money from you in taxes; they may report you for having non-egalitarian opinions, as happened in France and Russia and was usually a death threat for the person reported. Most of all, we have a “crab bucket” where, because everyone starts out equal, we are all trying to beat down everyone else so that we can rise to a point of comfort and escape the horrors of the system.

In other words, the above article gets it exactly wrong when it defines individualism: socialized medicine is individualism, just like any other government benefit. Tolerating people just because they are white is individualism. No one can be thrown out from the group, in that way, which means that individuals can behave however they want and the rest of us are still forced to tolerate them and eventually, subsidize them.

It makes sense that the Alt Right is experimenting with socialism. They are looking for some philosophy that is very popular, and “no one can be thrown out” plus “free stuff for everyone” is very popular because it addresses a deep fear in each of us. We are all afraid of a Darwinian event where we run out of money, screw up badly enough to be thrown out of the group, or otherwise end up falling short. We like the idea of rules that say that society must keep us around and has to pay for us.

But this is not the path to greatness. It is the path to mediocrity, as has been shown in every society that has embraced it. If social welfare were good for Europeans, they would be breeding at replacement rates. If it made them happy, they would not be so self-destructive. If it actually ended poverty, we would have fewer poor people instead of the growing bloom of them that we have now.

Another article correctly identifies that egalitarianism is the root of inequality and social status games:

Thanks to egalitarianism, the new elite is liable to see the lower orders, not as a Third Estate that, while socially subordinate, is an indispensable member of the social body (the “backbone of society”) with rights all its own that the elite must respect and protect (noblesse oblige), but rather as the losers in an egalitarian contest fought inter pares, and thus deserving nothing but contempt, degradation, and humiliation. For the so-called “Conservatives”, Blacks and Aboriginals have earned the world of poverty, family breakdown, addiction, and criminality in which the rank-and-file must live; for the so-called “Left”, the White middle and working-classes deserve all that and much more. The Left’s attitude towards Blacks and Aboriginals is tempered by a sort of paternalism, and moreover by a more purely cynical appreciation of the political uses to which those groups can be put; but their attitudes towards non-elite Whites are those of a conquering army towards soldiers of the army it has just defeated, or dreams of defeating.

When Leftists brought out class revolt in the US, they guaranteed that those who could rise above the herd would try to destroy all of those below them, because the lower echelons are inherently trying to do the same to them. How do we know this? Lower castes innately attempt to destroy higher castes because higher castes limit the destructive behavior of lower castes by enforcing behavior norms that lower castes lack the biological ability (wiring) to understand; for more information, see the Dunning-Kruger effect, which basically states that none of us can understand anything that requires more intelligence than we have in order to understand. Lower castes have lower g, or general intelligence, as well as lower moral character. There is a reason for the hierarchy, which is that when the most moral and intelligent are in charge, we all thrive; when the lower castes, including the most dangerous of all who are in the middle and thus smart enough to make things work in the short term at the expense of the long term, are in charge, our civilization collapses.

The dirty secret of humanity is that all civilizations die the same way: through caste revolt. The upper castes, who are the more intelligent and capable, are unable to prevent the lower castes from running into problems, as the lower castes naturally reproduce at a higher rate, and therefore make themselves starving. Instead of accepting that they have made an error, which requires a biological intelligence they do not have, they scapegoat those in power and overthrow them, creating a dying civilization which lives off the wealth and power of the past without creating replacements, and over time fades into obscurity as a dead civilization that is now yet another third world ruin of once-great human potential.

In pro-white activism, one question has remained so bedeviling that it has taken on mythical significance, and it is, “Why did whites not unite in order to preserve themselves?”

The answer is as obvious as it is profound: they were already divided. Once class warfare has hit, and the herd has demanded that the higher lower itself for the mental convenience of all, those who are most capable are fleeing civilization. They are no longer pro-white; they are in favor of their own escape from a society which is drugged on the illusion of equality, and so will destroy anything it touches. Your average intelligent white now is a drop-out, and he or she wants nothing to do with the angry rabble, who think they have escaped culpability for mass revolt but in fact are associated with it.

We know how this situation will work out because we have seen it before. Maybe 10% of our society will escape the coming cataclysm and go somewhere else to rebirth Western Civilization; the rest will be bred into the third world. The poor will simply become brown, but the rich will be a mostly-Caucasian group hybridized with Asians and Africans, much like today’s Jews, who demonstrate acute mercantile power but unfamiliarity with literature, philosophy, religion and heroism. The capable people among us aim to be part of that 10%, and they will not spend any time trying to “save” those who have tried to destroy them. In fact, they will welcome their demise, since without the lower echelons, society could move on as it does in nature, through evolution.

This sounds brutally cruel, but it is how the world works.

There is an alternative, of course, but it involves strict hierarchy. If you are born a butler, you stay a butler, and similarly for those plumbers and clerks. Some are born to rule, mainly because this acknowledges what Charles Darwin learned namely that all traits are heritable, and preserves the traits necessary for leadership — found in fewer than 1% of the population — so that all of us can benefit from them in future generations.

Naturally this presents a problem: hierarchies are the opposite of democracy and equality, and those are the founding myths of our time. If you tell the average modern person that no one is equal, he will consider you Hitler or worse. Or at least, he used to. As we see the end results of liberal democracy, it becomes clear that the worst dictators and kings could never do this much damage. Democracy is a pathology which leads people to chase after the illusion of equality like Ahab, heedless of whether or not it destroys them and their cohorts, so long as it is achieved.

Those before us knew this; consider the approach of the founders of the USA:

Their main bulwark against tyranny was civil liberty, or maintaining the right of the people to participate in government. The people who did so, however, had to demonstrate virtue. To eighteenth century republicans, virtuous citizens were those who were focused not on their private interests but rather on what was good for the public as a whole.

They were necessarily property holders, since only those individuals could exercise an independence of judgment impossible for those dependent upon employers, landlords, masters, or (in the case of women and children) husbands and fathers.

Our founders recognized at some level that equality was nonsense, and so intended a hierarchy. In their view, those who worked the land and made greatness of it should rule above those in the city, who only attended jobs and ran their lives on credit. Their ideal of democracy was that the productive and sane members of society should vote, while the herd had no say, much like the European feudal system.

The problem they encountered is that the vote is seductive. It is gambling; you go to the table, cast your vote, and see how the cards reward you. As a result, there is no sense of accountability or responsibility, only a feeling that one chooses the right option like betting on horses or cards, and hopes for the best.

Because of this, even the most reasonable republican government quickly gives way to mob rule, as happened in our past. Despite knowing better as individuals, when grouped into a herd of individualists, even the most sensible people went along with the herd. This shows us the lesson of America: no matter how much you limit mob rule, it returns to mob rule.

As long as we have democracy, there is no future for our civilization. Democracy is the political form of individualism, which really is the individual turning against the goals of civilization in favor of short-term personal reward. Those who demand socialized medicine and other benefits are at the forefront of this movement, and pull everyone else down to their level through passive aggression. There is no survival for civilization when this takes over.

We should — if we want to rebirth Western Civilization, which formally died in 1945 — instead look toward the following stages:

  1. Look toward a vision of what is desired. I suggest Lord of the Rings plus space ships, achievable through a few basic methods.
  2. Unite the 2-5% of our people who do all the important work, at every level of society. Much like the Pareto Principle states that 20% do 80% of the work, it is clear that 5% or fewer do most of the decision making.
  3. Most important: take over our governments, probably by infiltrating our institutions while advancing a cultural wave that rejects Leftist thought, beginning with the notion of “equality” itself.
  4. Change government to favor the type of society we want, transitioning from liberal democracy to monarchy and choosing our best people to rule and own pretty much all of everything, thus restraining the herd.
  5. The purge: all who are not of the founding ethnic group must be repatriated, ideally with reparations, and all who are of the founding group but not in line with its ideals must be exiled.

After that, life finally has a chance. Society will have a hierarchy, where higher caste people make all the important decisions, and lower caste people are ignored. The herd will be cut back to size. Instead, the most competent will rule, which is our only alternative to how things are now, when the least competent rule.

What holds us back is recognizing that there is no “white = right” rule to life. White people are highly varied. America functions best with Western Europeans, and even those are divided by caste, and when the lower classes initiate class warfare as they are prone to do, everything falls apart.

We must remember the two options before us:

  • Left = equality
  • Right = order

Order requires a pattern to life larger than the individual. This is offensive to lower-caste individuals, but is accepted as normal by higher-caste people. Our recent history consists of turning against this truth, which has revealed to us that most white people are foolish when it comes to leadership decisions.

We know democracy has failed. Even more, we know we did it to ourselves, through the thinking of The Renaissance™ onward. No other group has the power to do this to us. We did it to ourselves, by following what seemed right, but it was wrong. Time to change direction, and in doing so, give our civilization the chance to rise from its ashes yet again.

Libertarianism Is A Variety Of Leftism And Should Be Avoided

Sunday, June 25th, 2017

What are libertarians? Libertarians (sometimes called “lolberts”) are classical liberals: people who believe that everyone is competent, and therefore that what the market chooses will be the best solution. They tend to be rugged individualists who want as few rules as possible regulating their conduct, including use of drugs and gun ownership.

Naturally, realists find this kind of comical. What use is liberty, when most of the people on your planet will behave simply like selfish fools? We are back to the problem with utilitarianism and democracy, which is that there is no wisdom of crowds; the crowd is a plague of locusts who will devour everything, give nothing back, and leave a ruin which cannot regenerate.

Utilitarianism, after all, sounds good on paper. You do what brings happiness to the most. Well, how do you find out what makes them happy? Simple: you ask them. But then… but then we are into the realm of what humans think, not what they do, and this is an inherently superficial realm because we barely know ourselves.

The same is true of democracy. People vote in self-interest. How the heck do they know? They guess, or “estimate,” if we are being polite, but most of these people run out of money a week before the next paycheck. And they are supposed to understand financial policy, foreign affairs, domestic tranquility, human genetics and long-term survival?

People have an inner dimension and an outer one. The outer one is easily influenced; it is where socialization rests, their reactions and fears, desires and whims, and the narrative they tell themselves about their lives, why those are good, and what they are intending to do. The outer layer is inherently after-the-fact; we observe our world and make up stories about it that make it make sense.

The inner dimension is less easily influenced. This consists mostly of urges, like a primal will to assert oneself as independent and worthwhile, a desire to do good — in some — and any intuition, concept of spirit or soul, and basic instinct to a person. This is the part of us that is both extremely “animal” and most cerebral, not as material- and event-driven as the outer layer.

Ironically, an inversion occurs here, as it usually does when we cross layers. From the outside, the inner dimension looks like the outer dimension and the outer dimension looks like the inner. That is: the part of other people that is accessible to us — their outer dimension — appears to be their actual self. We re-order reality to be convenient for our minds.

For this reason, individualism deceives us. We think we are living for our true selves, but in fact, we are living through the outer dimension of ourselves and others. This means the most malleable, least personal and most conformist parts of ourselves. Individualism inverts individuality by making us justify our “me-first” attitude in the language of others, which then destroys that individuality.

As always with human “good intentions”: it’s a trap!

Now this requires us to revisit our ideas of equality and individualism. These things, instead of liberating us, create utilitarianism, or a society devoted to minimums shared by the largest group, which is in effect a suppression of individuality. While egalitarian ideas sound good to us at first, they really reduce us to our most trivial parts, ignoring who we are.

That allows us to have some fun laughing at lolberts virtue signaling about how individualistic they are:

Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy that considers all people deserving of equal rights. In contrast, Spencer is a tribalist and collectivist whose personal commitment to identity politics vastly exceeds the left’s.

No, you are not individuals; you are conformists hiding behind “individualism” as a way of disguising the fact that you have no inner purpose or plan for civilization. You have retreated from the notion that humanity can succeed, and now all you want is your condominium and grocery store, and to hope the rest just goes away.

As people in horror movies inevitably find out, wishing the monster would go away never works. The monster here is our lack of purpose, as a species and as communities within that species; our lack of purpose arose from our dedication to mercantile matters, thanks to the rising middle class, instead of virtue or moral behavior that leads to the best results in the longest term.

We need a non-modern society. Modernity is the era of egalitarianism, which as shown above, is not about individuality but forming a superficial mass of people to mobilize toward one fascination or another. You can dress up egalitarianism in different costumes, like libertarians pretend to be frontier woodsmen, but in reality, all of it is the same.

And the term “collectivist” should cue you in that you are about to be subjected to utter stupidity. Collectivists are individuals because a mob is formed of selfish people each acting so that he gets what he wants, with the mob enforcing his right to do it. This is why mobs are known for lynchings, looting and turnstile jumping. They are formed of selfish individuals who want to avoid accountability.

On the other hand, tribalism offers us something that is not entrenched in our sick modern individualism. Tribes have an identity, which means a purpose and goal, and they have principles. Each person serves an unequal role in the tribe but so long as they help achieve this cooperative goal, they are accepted and respected as part of the community.

Tribalism requires us to reach down into those inner traits. What would we sacrifice for? What is worth dying for? At the end of the day, we rely on our intuition. Life is good, therefore something good created it. Other people can be good, so we care for them. We do not want to be placeless, identityless, and purposeless just so we can claim to be individualists. We want a place and purpose to bond us to life and make it worth living.

Anti-Darwinism Is The Basis Of Leftism

Sunday, May 28th, 2017

The links between Leftism, individualism, collectivism and hubris are simple but require a complex understanding of context to make sense of them.

Every creature has four basic behaviors known as the “four Fs” — fighting, fleeing, feeding and reproduction — which serve a singular goal, which since Charles Darwin wrote about it, we have described as “adaptation,” or finding a niche within its ecosystem where it can find regular nutrition at minimal risk of combat or predation.

For an animal, every action it takes is a risk. If it ventures out from safe hiding, it is exposed to predators. If it wanders into the territory of another animal of its species, it may get in a fight, and those contain at least a large component of rolling the dice. Its best guess about how an action will turn out determines its survival.

Those guesses in turn reflect how well the organism knows its world. If it is delusional or misinformed, it becomes prey. Consequently, every organism secretly wishes for independence from this state of constant stress. A mouse might imagine the ideal life as a giant field where there are no eagles and snakes, and there is enough grain to always be content.

Humans have an equivalent of this in Leftism. Leftism is a defensive ideology based on preventing others from becoming predators to the individual. It does this by removing social standards; this is what “equal” means: there are no standards, so whatever an individual does is acceptable, and no one can criticize those who are obeying the minimums of civilization (yes: job, shopping; no: murder, intolerance).

In this way, Leftism is a fundamentally anti-Darwinistic philosophy. It wants no social classes, because that way some have more power than others and can victimize them. It wants to make as many actions as possible acceptable, so that someone cannot be lowered in social status for their actions. It prioritizes the weak, broken and clueless so that everyone feels accepted.

When we recognize this basic psychology, it becomes clear why individualism leads to collectivism. Individuals band together in a gang that offers protection from those in the rest of society who might know better. This cult in turn demands allegiance, and so those individuals become slaves to forcing that ideology on others. It justifies itself by being universal, or agreed upon by all as a good thing.

At the root of this is hubris, or the desire of the human individual to be the most important thing in the world. The individual wants itself and its desires, judgments and feelings to come before social order, natural order and logical order. This means that there cannot be recognition that some people are better than others.

For this reason, Leftists idealize criminals, prostitutes, drug addicts, and the dysfunctional. They hate the good, powerful, strong, loving, beautiful and realistic people because those establish a de facto hierarchy. Their ideal is a vast grey lumpenproletariat in which everyone is equal and can do whatever they want, and society subsidizes them.

In thermodynamics, we might refer to this condition as “heat death,” because under it, people would have no reason to strive. Their efforts would be focused on the individual and would therefore not lead to anything that benefits civilization or the soul, except in the rare case of the genius artist, musician or thinker (which is why Leftists pretend to be all three).

Leftism — a subset of Crowdism — is a weaponized form of individualism that demands the individual be free from the burden of having to take realistic actions in the external world. It is a retreat from life, a fatalism, in which we create a new religion and ideology based on human individuals, not actions which adapt to reality.

It is the death of individuality, civilizations and species. This is why it is so addictive: it both promises freedom from death, and a certain path to death which seems easier than toughing it out and trying to survive as long as possible. In its wake, it leaves behind a domesticated, incurious species who exist at the subsistence level found throughout the third world.

r-Strategy Living Arises From Society Assuming Responsibility For Individuals

Thursday, May 25th, 2017

We have been writing about K and r strategies and their influence on politics for many years now, but recently, thanks mostly to The Anonymous Conservative blog, this idea has gained momentum.

Over at VDARE, Lance Welton attempts to deconstruct European pathological altruism using K/r strategy theory:

Race differences in ethnocentrism are almost certainly (partly) a matter of historical evolution to a different kind of environment.

…We all sit somewhere on this spectrum, relatively closer to r or K, and this is true of nations and races. In a highly unstable but plentiful environment, such as pathogen-rich Africa, more people adopt an r-strategy. They must live fast because they will die young and unpredictably. As such, they are evolved to invest their resources in sex and have as much sex with as many people as possible. They create weak social bonds, only develop small and unstable social groups, and are highly aggressive and impulsive. All of this is designed to be able to deal with sudden, violent problems.

As the environment becomes more stable, it reaches its carrying capacity for the species. This makes it harsher and more competitive. This results in a move towards a K-strategy. You live slowly because you can better predict the future, making investments in it worthwhile.

While undoubtedly there is a genetic basis for populations choosing an r-strategy, another possibility comes to mind: the nature of civilization itself converts groups from K-strategy to r-strategy by adopting a policy of universal exclusion, thus subsidizing those who would not naturally be welcome that society.

The primary challenge to civilization comes from externalization. This takes two forms; first, the habit of people to pass along the costs of their activity to the group, in the form of socialized cost; and second, the tendency of individuals to externalize their thinking process to ideology, economics, rules, laws, popular social notions and bureaucracy.

When a civilization decides to assume responsibility for subsidizing those who are not naturally included, it shifts from rewarding a K-strategy to encouraging an r-strategy. No longer does it matter whether or not you get anything right; what matters is that you get along with others, which means deference to whatever the herd is fascinated by or fears at that moment.

Equality is the forerunner of this mindset. Equality correlates to the demands of a rogue cell in a body. This cell wants to be able to act against the interests of the body as a whole organic entity, but still be able to participate in the wealth and power of that body. Individualists form groups, known as collectivists, who demand equality for all.

At the heart of the problem is socialization itself. When people make decisions socially, they are thinking in an r-strategy mindset instead of being focused on reality, purpose and meaning, which are K-strategy decisions. For this reason, civilizations die because they become individualistic, and through doing that, remove their K-strategy focus and revert to third world social order.

Robert Conquest’s Three Laws Of Politics

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2017

Back when John Derbyshire worked at the National Review, he wrote some great stuff, including this summary of Robert Conquest’s Laws of Politics:

As best I can remember, they are:

  1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
  2. Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.
  3. The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.

The second law is the most discussed because it essentially says that any organization which does not design itself to be Right-wing only will find itself drifting Leftward. This points to a broader principle: there is pressure on all organizations to turn Leftward because human beings, in general, favor Leftism, much like they like cheeseburgers and donuts more than broccoli.

Leftist ideas are appealing because they are a form of pacifism. Instead of conflict and risk, they promise peaceful coexistence by simply sharing the wealth. The problem with this is that it makes it more efficient to be a free rider than a contributor, so civilizations that go down this path devour themselves.

For those hoping to have their civilizations survive, this means that there must be constant negative pressure against pacifism and related ideas like equality, pluralism, tolerance and individual liberty. People must do what is right, not what they decide they want to do, because the natural tendency of people is toward entropy.

That adds a wrinkle to Conquest’s Second Law. Unless an organization commits itself to purpose over individual choice, it becomes degenerative.

Even further, certain systems such as democracy, which validate the principle of individual choice as being more important than the consequences of that choice in relation to purpose, will always drift Leftward, even in the presence of the most extreme Rightist ideas. Rightism cannot coexist with egalitarianism; the two are opposites.

What Conquest hints at is what we all know, deep down, which is that moderates are our downfall. There is no such thing as a moderate because any moderate position simply allows more Leftward drift.

As a political system designed around compromise and mediating extreme choices, democracy propels the Leftward drift. Democracy is the political arm of Leftism, which is the philosophical arm of collectivism, which is the social arm of individualism. Individuals who do not want to face possible risk and consequences for their actions desire egalitarianism to escape accountability.

This leads us to the ultimate distillation of Conquest’s Second Law. Any organization which does not explicitly dedicate itself toward some outward purpose will fall into an inward purpose, which consists of human preferences, and these tend toward individualism and thus toward Leftism.

Like everything else in life, the science of organizations consists of resisting decay not so much by pushing down on something — although, like weeds, bad things must be removed — but in having clarity of purpose and motivating people toward that, lest they recede into their own minds, whims, emotions, fears and other degrading forces.

The Message Is Lost In Translation

Friday, July 1st, 2016

3x5_card

If you had to encapsulate your learning in a short text, such as one that might fit on a 3×5 card, what highest level of understanding would you communicate there?

To my mind, something like this:

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Notions like pacifism and equality make us feel good because we personally are not at risk. When many feel good together, it creates a self-reinforcing and -amplifying collective mania. This then creates a society which is toxic, in that its mentality spreads by contact and people are forced to be immersed in it, because it is obsessively reality-denying and makes all other choices a means to that end. This creates endless unintended consequences that are prompted denied.

Our modern world is toxic. If you want to know why people are manic about wanting to send you to school or a job for as close to twelve hours a day as possible, this is it: they want you to absorb the toxic propaganda from others. Misery loves company, and people are at some level aware that our civilization is built on lies, but to confront those lies means to realize how much of their own time is wasted, so they would rather spread the lies; this is the path of least resistance.

The message is lost in translation because of our tendency to view our mental models of reality as more real than reality. This is not done deliberately, but occurs because we rely on those mental representations and work our thinking process on them. This in turn creates a world in our head which is perfectly logically sound and consistent among its own parts, but may be improperly “sampled” or perceived from reality. We have a tendency to make mental models which are convenient to remember and manipulate, but this also makes them less accurate and therefore, three or four calculations down the line, error has crept into our thinking in a non-trivial amount.

The problem with communicating this message is that we have a tendency to put it into handy mental containers like politics and science. This zooms in on the details, but loses the big picture, and then because the focus is on the details, our mental model of the larger picture becomes distorted. This is identical to the process by which we arrived at this confusion in the first place, which is that we adapt our model of reality to what is easy for us, instead of adapting our thinking to what is real. Only some can do this, and only with self-discipline.

“But what if we created a system to force everyone to think intelligently…”
There you go again. Always thinking in terms of how to control others and reality. Instead, choose those who think intelligently and let them run the show.

“The essence of our quest is this singular political or religious command…”
There is only one command: adapt to reality. When you put that into an ideology or something that behaves like one, you have already gone down the path that leads to where we are now.

“I don’t see why you are so discontented. I have a good life…”
You are rationalizing. We can always find the best version of bad in a bad situation, but that does not take away from the fact that the situation is moribund and thus, savages our souls.

“The real problem is that we use language, symbols and logic…”
There you go again. If the problem is denial of reality, focusing on the means used to deny reality is to avoid the actual problem: the pretense and hubris that the world adapts to our minds, not the other way around!

“What we have to do is motivate people. That requires an ideology…”
You are right, but also wrong. When you adopt an ideology, the message gets diluted, and so you achieve victory in a social sense but not in terms of solving the problem, and so you become what you fight against.

A knotty problem this is, indeed. This is why all successful ventures begin with a strong hierarchy that puts those with the best leadership skills — in civilization this is generally moral character and tendency toward reverent excellence — on top and sorts out everyone else according to what role they serve best. To do this requires crushing the dominant illusion of our time, the Enlightenment and the last four thousand years: equality.

Collectivism versus Capitalism

Thursday, November 26th, 2015

delicious_tobacco

As you sit down to your Thanksgiving dinner, you will be full of thoughts of what you are thankful for. The most important ones you will not mention because they are invisible to you. You cannot see them because you enjoy them every day.

First on this list might be stability of your civilization, unlike every other human civilization which like Italian cars and German soap operas seem to be non-stop screw-ups from the start. Most people live in disorder, filth, corruption and incompetence. We here in the West do not, although the gap has narrowed over the past few decades, and not by the acts of others.

What got us this way are two things generally considered opposites: capitalism and collectivism. Both have been replaced by modern, inferior variants that are useful to our society only because they do not offend our leftist ideology.

Capitalism in its raw form is the idea that economic decisions should be made by those who will face the consequences for them. In other words, a bakery must make the choices that determine if it lives or dies, and citizens must make their own spending choices and thrive or flail accordingly. Keep in mind that despite those radical opposites, most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

Collectivism, in its original form, meant that we understood ourselves as a society and kept its interests front and center. That meant that we took care of people who helped that society, in accord with Plato’s “good to the good, bad to the bad”: people who do good should be rewarded, and people who do bad should be driven away. It is natural selection in its social form.

These two offended leftists, naturally, because leftism is based on a single idea: “I deserve to be included for society no matter how little I contribute or how delusional I am.” It is freedom not to be accountable to reality. That is why it is eternally popular; accountability to reality determines who thrives and flails, and so it is not a popular reminder among humans. Using social control, which is peer pressure plus the assumption of goodness, they can banish reality and replace it with equality.

(That summarizes leftism from nose to nethers as far as its essential ideas; it is subsequently draped in layers of theory, studies, facts/interpretations, emotions, etc. that are mostly gibberish and always taken out of context. If you see a leftist, watch their hands instead of listening to them speak. They are most likely lifting your wallet.).

Both capitalism and collectivism have now come to mean something else through the transformative powers of leftist ideology. If our society has one disease, it is the use of a broad and simple idea to replace all other ideas, and in this case, liberal egalitarianism has replaced the original meaning of these terms.

Traditional society liked capitalism because it was efficient. Capitalism has never existed without restrictions because, before modernity replaced the idea of having a goal as a civilization with the notion that civilization existed solely as a means of empowering the individual to be a precious snowflake, capitalism was always subordinate to goals, values, social standards and practical demands. There were also legal restrictions placed on it, usually to protect the consumer but just as often, to prevent the boom/bust cycle where something makes a lot of money so everyone does it, neglects everything else and in the process bankrupts themselves. Crazes, trends and fads are as destruction in markets as they are in society itself, and just as vapid.

But the traditionalists had a different approach to regulating it. Instead of writing a million laws, they allowed organic forces — culture, religion, superior individuals, and social standards — to regulate demand instead of supply. Where moderns tell businesses what they can manufacture, the traditionalists tuned in their people to certain ideas of what is good, and regulated products through that. As a result, things were built to last, more elegant and often far more effective than their modern variants.

In the same way, collectivism has been spoofed. Once it meant that we were all in it together working for the same goal, so anyone who was trying to do that was welcome. This offends the leftist idea of universal inclusion, which has its roots in individualism: the individual wants to always be included, so he desires the removal of any restrictions on who is included so that he always makes the list. After leftism, collectivism means that we all work and throw money into the pot to support everyone else, no matter how useless they are — or how much we dislike them.

A healthy society needs both of these forces. A civilization cannot exist by economics alone, and by making the choice to use solely an economic system — capitalism or socialism — the society signals to its people that it will not have a values system, competent leadership or purpose, which turns people into miserable drips who feel correctly that their lives are without meaning. A society cannot exist without some sense of guidance, direction, and purpose, which is why traditional collectivism is needed and not its modern variety, which obliterates all of those with a single guilt-ridden imperative to be uncritical, non-discriminatory and in other words oblivious in choice of the people surrounding you.

While I admire the French New Right, I find their continued embrace of socialism to be problematic. Once you create benefits, you create an all-powerful state to enforce them, and you destroy the idea of regulating inclusion by who is useful. No society with standards that low can exist, and it imposes on people an immoral duty to spend their time, which translates into money, supporting those who they would not otherwise support. For this reason, socialism is the great evil that destroys societies and rightists should never support it. Under socialism your entire society becomes contorted to fund the bennies and justify them, even at the expense of society itself.

By the same token, I find the reliance on absolute capitalism as a motivator to be unworkable, which is why I am not a libertarian. Libertarianism always shifts leftward because it is based in the egalitarian idea of “Everyone do what they want, and the best will magically rise to the top.” This is far from true, as any look at the most popular movies, music, art and novels will show us. Instead, pure capitalist societies are a race to the lowest common denominator and, like socialism, they replace the idea of a purpose to the civilization with the idea of it facilitating individuals. This is also bad.

I have said in the past that if people were to look more deeply into mainstream conservatism, they would find a way of life more radical than their ideologies and economic systems could ever be. That is because the roots of mainstream conservatism — now buried under layers of lies by 75% leftist “neoconservatives” and “libertarians” — are extremely radical. In that view, most people are scatty little monkeys who will if the whip is not cracked simply engage in every venal behavior possible. No matter what economic or political system we use, the truth of humanity remains and never changes, so we must first look toward producing healthy individuals. That requires the opposite direction from egalitarianism and infuriates liberals, but it explains why conservatism is less formalized.

The idea from which conservatism arises is traditionalism, which has been around in many forms over the ages. It is basically thus: over the centuries, we have found some things that work and some that do not. These do not take the form of ideology, but of knowing our world and its logic, so instead of being individualists, we submit to natural order and find our place in that. Then we are known by how well we rise to that challenge and what it reveals of our moral character, which is the most important part of an individual. By applying this rigorously, we can breed ourselves into a better class of people and make a civilization as great as that of the ancients at their height.

Naturally, this is not a popular message. 5% of the population can understand it, so to the rest it sounds like gibberish and they hate it for making them feel dumb when they desire the pretense of intelligence (they do not understand the Dunning-Kruger effect either). Even among those 5%, traditionalism is controversial because it places limits on the individual, and they have been raised in a civilization that thinks the ultimate good is liberating the individual from limits, even — especially — reasonable ones. This is why people always look for an ideological solution, and choose variants of capitalism and collectivism as the answer when they need a more nuanced approach.

The importance of a nuanced approach is that it avoids collapse. Rigid, sharp-corners thinking like leftism and libertarianism will run a society into collapse as paradoxes emerge based on the attempt to impose a square form over an organic topography. This will force people to deny reality so they can keep ideology intact, and will then cause massive internal friction. On the other end of the pendulum’s swing, however, it is important to remember that both collectivism and capitalism — in their original forms — are vital, and trying to stop the decay brought on by liberalism by limiting them will also lead to failure.

The individualist fallacy

Wednesday, September 16th, 2015

sheep_love_in_the_hinterlands

Every sheep secretly thinks he is a lion. For that reason, we overstate our contributions and under-estimate how much we depend on those around us. This mentality is similar to that of scapegoating, in which we assume that our intent was right and any failure must have come from external forces.

The Individualist Fallacy falls into the same pocket. Specifically, it holds that the individual is or does not need civilization, while living within civilization. This can be seen in the rebellious types who want “anarchy with grocery stores,” libertarians, and many conservative Christians and conservatives, including fairly underground types.

There are three main areas of the Individualist Fallacy:

That the individual can do what is right, and associate with others like him, and this solves the problem of civilization downfall.

This version of the fallacy mainly affects mainstream conservatives. Their idea is, based in part in Christianity and in equal part in economic liberalism, that society is comprised of individuals and that each individual has responsibility to do what is right, and then things will end for the best. This makes sense at first because it parallels Social Darwinism, with the idea that the most adapted — raising happy families, maintaining wealth and health and moral standards — will outproduce the rest. It fails to take into account however that the others will reproduce more thanks to the efforts of society and, that in civilization, other factors exist than for isolated families in the wild. The responsible will end up paying for the rest and the rest will use their greater power in numbers to parasitize and eventually destroy the responsible. This version of the fallacy is most frequently heard from baby boomers who just want to die before their children inherit the utter ruin the boomers made of the West.

On the left, this version of the fallacy mutates into the idea that everyone is good and we will all survive together and somehow, magically, the choices that exist for you today — or back in 1965 when the boomers were young — will be there for you in the future. One would have to be blind to the current state of Brazil, the history of the French Revolution or Soviet Union, and human nature to believe this. Choices and opportunities change as society does, and whatever is tolerated proliferates, so that those people who are doing bad things eventually outnumber the rest. Again, this type of reasoning serves as an excuse and justification — backward-looking, inverted thinking — than forward-looking, planning-type analysis. People just want an easy answer that allows them to “keep on truckin'” without having to “rock the boat.”

That rules which affect society at large do not affect the individual, and therefore that the individual has no right to object to rights or privileges granted others.

Mostly on the left, this version of the fallacy goes like this: how dare you oppose someone else doing what they want, such as gay marriage or legal marijuana, because it is an individual choice and affects only them? Any sensible and experienced person will interject here with the observation that nothing affects only the individual. Gay marriage for example sets a new lower boundary for permissiveness in society and changes the nature of marriage from “mature, get married and have a family” to “date recklessly, and when your current significant other needs health care, go perform a trivial civil ceremony.” The children after gay marriage have lost the sanctity and purpose of marriage. Similarly with legal marijuana, a social value is changed — and a market is created. Now children will be surrounded with the paraphernalia, behavior and lifestyle behavior of those who are using drugs. With one drug legal, others become acceptable. Even more, society embraces a type of thinking that it has firm reasons to oppose. Every individual “right” in turn forces the normalization of that right on others, and deprives those others of their right to a society of their choice. The liberal will fire back that they can have that at home, which is fine if they and their families never leave that home and will not be interfered with there. In reality, it means that they are attacked passive-aggressively by society — passive aggression is a form of the “begging the question” fallacy where one party assumes as behavior is right in order to challenge others with it, then play the victim when they are not approving — and forced to either submit to the new order which goes against their conscience and wisdom, or become targeted as a potential pariah for ostracism.

That collectivism is formed of a collective, and not individualist impulse, rather than being a collective enterprise to demand individualism.

This version of the fallacy has found popularity with the Internet-style Libertarians who believe that, since they exist only in their apartments and jobs, everyone else should do the same. In their view, the enemy is Statists who are collectivists, which means they believe all money should be pooled and used to support all people. They are correct in recognizing that this is insanity, but incorrect in that they forget that society itself is a collective enterprise. In it, we all do things which do not benefit ourselves directly but because they benefit everyone, serve to increase the value and utility of life in that society. This denies the leftist impulse which is to create “equality” by penalizing the successful to subsidize the unsuccessful — zero historical counter-examples exist — which involves paying benefits to specific groups which are smaller than the whole or even the majority, thus “minorities.” The problem with this version of the fallacy is that it denies the simple formula collectivism = individualism. Collectivism is individualism in a group context where individuals join together to form a large group that uses the superior numbers of that group to demand that individualism — no higher purpose than self-gratification — to become the law of the land. This irrevocably changes society. While a libertarian system seems to oppose this, what it really does is create a society based on individualism which will inevitably turn toward “collectivism” as a plurality of people emerge who, exhausted of no purpose except self-interest, will support it.

Hope you enjoyed our brief tour of one of the most common fallacies today and its three common variants. You will see these regularly and expressed fervently, but like almost all of human thought, they are signals, distractions and rationalizations to allow that individual to both (a) continue to live life as they have been, for individual comfort a.k.a. “bourgeois values” and (b) feel justified and in fact morally good about doing so. Illusion is an easier sell than reality.

Recommended Reading