Posts Tagged ‘control’

Heterosexual Pride Day Demonstrates How “Equality” Will Not Solve Our Problems

Thursday, June 29th, 2017

In the realization that the best defense is a good offense, a group of non-Leftists got together and christened today Heterosexual Pride Day. Good provocation brings out the issues that lurk under the surface, and this was top-notch trolling.

Naturally the Left responded with outrage. In their view, homosexuals are a persecuted minority, and therefore homosexual pride is good, but heterosexual pride affirms the oppression that they infer is going on because of the delta in power between the two groups.

On the Alt Lite and mainstream parts of the Right, this provokes confusion. How is it, they ask, that if it is good for one group to have pride, it is bad for another group to do the same? Try that with the “White Panthers” or “Christian Holocaust” in conversation and you will see why not.

As they are about to learn, the hardest cuck to beat is the cuck within. In each of us, there is a beaten, derided and humiliated little boy hiding in his room after his parents said something cruel or his social group at school made fun of him for not being enough “with it” in emulating whatever trend everyone else was chasing.

To uncuck yourself, realize that there are two views of human social organization:

  1. Do what allows everyone to just get along.
  2. Do what is right and realize there will be conflict.

Egalitarianism arises from a desire to avoid conflict. Properly speaking, it is a variety of pacifism, or the idea that refusing to fight is more efficient or more moral than getting in there and fighting. The tearful child hiding behind his pillow wants, at first, for the conflict to end so that he is just accepted and can go further down the path of maturation without the horror of social censure confronting him.

If you want to know why most people tend toward egalitarianism, and from that to the range of opinions derived from it known as “Leftism,” the reason can be found in this desire to avoid conflict. If we tolerate everyone, stop fighting, and each of us just does whatever he or she needs to, they think, then society can function and the individual will not be bullied anymore.

To someone in the grips of this mentality, “equality” seems like a savior. In this view, every person and group gets an equal chance to have pride in what they do. But that is not how equality works in practice. In practice, pacifism always penalizes those who know and care enough to fight for what is right instead of what is convenient (that which allows us to “just get along”).

They do not understand egalitarianism. Equality will always and forever mean taking from the thriving and giving to the failing. It will always mean supporting the underdog against the strong. It will inevitably and necessarily oppose those who start conflict, even if the conflict is fair and reasonable, because the goal of equality is keeping everyone together in lieu of finding out what is right because the latter inexorably involves conflict, and egalitarians fear conflict in which they can appear to be in the wrong.

Scratch a bully, find someone who is terrified of not being included. Every bully that I knew had a terrible home life. Divorce, drunk dads who loved the belt more than a single word of praise, dysfunctional parents and siblings in jail. Feeling no place that belonged to them, and thus no value or purpose to their lives, they came to school and did unto others as life did unto them.

The kids who were really sad were the ones who had outwardly functional homes, but parents who belittled them or ignored them. To these parents, children were possessions that were designed to make the parent look good, and if that did not happen — the little screwups of childhood — they treated the children like non-functioning gadgets, and this mentality of “take it back to the store” or “throw it out” imprinted deeply on those children. These are at first inclined to go along with the True Believers in equality, but over time come to realize that what they have always wanted is to know what is right, and to do that, so when people criticize the belittled child can comfort himself with the knowledge that he did what was good and that the others are simply wrong.

One does not need equality in a group that is naturally equal, which means a group where everyone knows roughly what is right and each person is working toward that unequally, or according to their skills and abilities without the expectation of being identical. But in a group organized around control, or forcing everyone to just-get-along so that authority can stop worrying about what is right and focus on increasing its power, inequality is a problem because authority needs everyone to do exactly the same thing in order to avoid internal conflict. They demonize that internal conflict because some of it will consist of accurate and realistic criticism of that authority.

Authority gets a huge boost here. The dividend achieving by not trying to address real problems, and instead using that energy and resource load to further the goals of authority itself, makes authority massively powerful. Despite its promises to citizens, it serves only itself, and power that serves its own goals instead of those that it rules is by nature tyranny, or another form of bullying. It comes full circle.

This creates a match made in some infernal place. The underconfident herd demands an end to being bullied because its individual members fear losing social status if they are found to be wrong, and so authority steps in and promises to abolish all standards except obedience to authority, which makes everyone safe. At that point, society anathematizes realistic thinking and solutions in the external world, and goes down a path of navel-gazing which rewards only lies, since it is based on an assumption (equality) that is a lie.

This is why “Heterosexual Pride Day” or “white pride” will always be viewed as different than their equivalents among minority groups, and will be demonized and treated as an attack. You cannot get to doing what is right through equality; in fact, egalitarianism opposes the very idea of doing right or being realistic, which is required to know how to do right, in the first place. Equality replaces good as the goal of society. As the old saying goes, “Quality or equality; pick one.”

Understanding Feedback And Feedback Loops

Wednesday, June 28th, 2017

Some insight into feedback loops

The advantage of capitalism v. central planning, is that information is sent through prices, supply and demand. This information feedback, however, is still gameable by power blocs. The exact strategies are different than in a command economy, but the end result is the same. The West and America are currently undergoing this exact problem. The entire financial crisis was about inaccurate feedback, and broken feedback loops: it was about the financial and housing industries deliberately damaging the feedback system.

…In a hundred years, when historians and whoever deals with economic issues look back (hopefully not economists as we understand them), they aren’t going to be that impressed that Western Capitalism outlasted Soviet Communism by forty or fifty years. Instead they are going to look back and say that both were doomed, in large part, by inability to manage the exact same problem. In both cases the feedback systems which controlled economic production were so perverted by various internal power blocs that the societies were unable to reproduce the material circumstances necessary for their continuance.

This is why many of us oppose formal organization, because it creates rules which are de facto centralized power, as opposed to what conservatism favors, which is informal, particularized, localized and case-by-case basis decisions.

Leftism is the religion of the rule, and the rule involves the word “all,” which leads to control as it naturally creates a centralized power structure. All people must drive 35 MPH; all applications must be filed in triplicate; all people must go through the door on the right. This forces obedience by making people equal in the rule of the law.

The natural opposite to the religion of the rule is cooperation, which requires inequality, because not everyone can do the same thing. Instead of a rule saying that all people must do the same thing, which means they have equal obligation to the centralized control, cooperation says that each has different importance, we do not all do the same thing, and thus we have unequal obligations and rewards.

This thwarts the internal power structures which arise in human organizations to attempt to take control, such as dark organizations or crowdist cult-gangs.

Feedback is a vital part of the cooperative system. In it, power resembles a cascading hierarchy, which means that each level delegates to the level below and does not intervene on the basis of method. Instead, they assign tasks and say, “Use best judgment always” or “by any means necessary,” both of which are ends-over-means analyses.

Control on the other hand is means-over-ends. It requires that each person use the same method so that it can filter out methods that it believes weaken its power. The classic example is demanding that each person repeat back dogma on a regular basis, effectively programming their thoughts. Think of someone saying, “Diversity is our strength.” You either accept it and pass the test, or are identified as an enemy.

Feedback loops happen when something is wrong at the level above the one to which it has been delegated; you see this in the form of jury nullification, for example. The person to whom the task is delegated needs to report back that the task is wrongly framed, unintended consequences have arisen, or that a new type of problem has occurred.

The classic feedback loop is what William Gibson observed when he saw a young boy playing a video game. The boy moved the cursor, the computer responded, and the boy responded to that and then the cycle repeated. His inspiration William S. Burroughs saw feedback loops using naturalistic metaphors: monkeys attack the weakest participant in any altercation, so some monkeys play fey, which is a covert form of attack.

You can see feedback in your hand. You intend to grasp something, so you pick it up, and the hand radiates back that it is hot, so you do something else with it. A feedback loop might be a man adjusting a sluice: he fiddles with it, the water goes in a different direction, so he responds to that and the cycle repeats.

The importance of feedback loops is that they recognize what most humans deny: time, and the cyclic nature of history. Our moments are not unique, because they exhibit patterns that others can experience. And, the changes we want to make to the world must be interpreted not in the instant they are performed, but how the world will react, like thinking ten moves ahead in chess.

Classic human informal order recognizes the need for feedback with lattices of power, and for feedback loops with informal power. Lattices of power are hierarchies that are both vertical and horizontal, like the classic aristocratic model, and informal power avoids the rule as much as possible, relying on a case-by-case basis that avoids precedent and therefore can be negotiated not only unequally but specifically.

You can see conservative-style informal power anywhere leadership employs localized, particularized and case-by-case decisions made by culture, wise elders, a caste system where higher castes have social power, religious leaders, local respected voices, and the like. All of these systems are more flexible and resilient that rules, resolutions, laws, regulations, treaties, and command economies.

Civilization Depends On Lack Of Control

Saturday, June 3rd, 2017

Stop me if you have heard this old joke. A drunk Soviet citizen takes a box labeled TURNIPS to his neighbor and offers it for sale. They open it up, and it is full of stones. “If the Party says they are turnips, they are turnips, comrade,” says the drunk. “Unless you want me to report you for calling the Party a liar?”

All human groups — civilizations, church clubs, businesses, rings of friends — collapse the same way: they become successful, and to regulate themselves, set up rules and procedures which then become more important than the intended results of those rules and procedures. The letter of the law wins out over the spirit of the law. After all, you can either call the stones turnips or become an enemy.

These internal systems can be called control, which is the habit of making people into a fungible commodity so they can be forced to obey the same instructions, mainly for the defensive purpose of keeping them from destabilizing the group. Control, like any good virus, quickly escapes its masters and becomes dedicated only to itself, addictive like the power of the One Ring in Lord Of The Rings.

In that story, the ring represents a force that is seductive to men and then takes over their minds. It grants them great power, including invisibility, but the more they use it, the more their will is bent to its own. This is a metaphor for control, which is the trap into which most civilizations fall.

William S. Burroughs wrote extensively about the nature of control:

[W]ords are still the principal instruments of control. Suggestions are words. Persuasions are words. Orders are words. No control machine so far devised can operate without words, and any control machine which attempts to do so relying entirely on external force or entirely on physical control of the mind will soon encounter the limits of control.

…When there is no more opposition, control becomes a meaningless proposition. It is highly questionable whether a human organism could survive complete control. There would be nothing there. No persons there. Life is will (motivation) and the workers would no longer be alive, perhaps literally. The concept of suggestion as a complete technique presupposes that control is partial and not complete. You do not have to give suggestions to your tape recorder nor subject it to pain and coercion or persuasion.

…Consider a control situation: ten people in a lifeboat. two armed self-appointed leaders force the other eight to do the rowing while they dispose of the food and water, keeping most of it for themselves an doling out only enough to keep the other eight rowing. The two leaders now need to exercise control to maintain an advantageous position which they could not hold without it. Here the method of control is force – the possession of guns. Decontrol would be accomplished by overpowering the leaders and taking their guns. This effected, it would be advantageous to kill them at once. So once embarked on a policy of control, the leaders must continue the policy as a matter of self-preservation. Who, then, needs to control others but those who protect by such control a position of relative advantage? Why do they need to exercise control? Because they would soon lose this position and advantage and in many cases their lives as well, if they relinquished control.

Burroughs may err slightly in that he sees control more as a physical state, and not a psychological one. As Plato points out, it is possible to have a strong leader whose intent is noble and whose intelligence is realistic, thus he accomplishes (mostly) what he aims for. This leader has “control,” but it is not really control. It is leadership, a variety of something covered later in this essay.

For example, consider a lifeboat full of eight dangerous schizophrenics and two leaders. The leaders will need to force the others to row because there are only two leaders, and many relatively expendable people; this way, the boat will reach its destination and the highest number will survive. Even more, since sanity is more valuable than insanity, it is important that the two get there, as a future is found in them but not in the schizophrenics, whose condition is highly correlated with genetic inheritance.

This shows us the essence of control: it is not power itself, but the desire to use power for no purpose other than itself or those who wield it. As Burroughs shows with his metaphor, those who use power for no purpose except themselves are soon thrown into a defensive role, at which point they must enforce control in order to avoid being destroyed.

Tolkien’s metaphor is portrayed most powerfully in the movies, where the ring seduces those who encounter it with words that reveal to them simultaneously their doubts about themselves and the world, and promises easier answers than the obvious and challenging task before them. Men are destroyed by wanting to use the ring to solve their problems instead of actually solving the problems directly.

In this way, the power of language is revealed. Words have a stunning power because they are tokens that evoke images in the minds of those to whom they are spoken, and there is no guarantee that those images correspond to those in the mind of the speaker. This occurs through the power of symbolism, or the ability of one detail to stand for the whole. The word can mean a single detail excluding others, and speaker and listener often have different sets of those details that provide the image in their head, meaning that the listener is blind to many of the properties that are implied. There are also lies, which may be the oldest and worst of human vices.

As is frequent on this blog, a citation from Tom Wolfe completes the circuit:

Evolution came to an end when the human beast developed speech! As soon as he became not Homo sapiens, “man reasoning,” but Homo loquax, “man talking”! Speech gave the human beast far more than an ingenious tool. Speech was a veritable nuclear weapon! It gave the human beast the powers of reason, complex memory, and long-term planning, eventually in the form of print and engineering plans. Speech gave him the power to enlarge his food supply at will through an artifice called farming. Speech ended not only the evolution of man, by making it no longer necessary, but also the evolution of animals!

…No evolutionist has come up with even an interesting guess as to when speech began, but it was at least 11,000 years ago, which is to say, 9000 B.C. It seems to be the consensus . . . in the notoriously capricious field of evolutionary chronology . . . that 9000 B.C. was about when the human beast began farming, and the beast couldn’t have farmed without speech, without being able to say to his son, “Son, this here’s seeds. You best be putting ’em in the ground in rows ov’ere like I tell you if you wanna git any ears a corn this summer.”

…One of Homo loquax’s first creations after he learned to talk was religion. Since The Origin of Species in 1859 the doctrine of Evolution has done more than anything else to put an end to religious faith among educated people in Europe and America; for God is dead. But it was religion, more than any other weapon in Homo loquax’s nuclear arsenal, that killed evolution itself 11,000 years ago.

Worse than simply being manipulative, language has utility. In doing so, it allows those who could not succeed to learn from others and so endure despite lacking the understanding behind the words. This creates a rich environment for manipulation, because then there is a mass that does not understand depth, only the surface comprised of the simple images in their minds evoked by language.

If anything marks the transition between the last century and the present, it is a gradual rejection of the power of language to control. People are recognizing that words do not have inherent meanings, which means they are only meaningful insofar as speaker and listener have the same mental images, and this depends on who they are, and cannot be “educated” into them.

Through this mechanism, humankind returns to something like the order of nature. Language is useless, so instead we agree on a goal which cannot be transmitted through language, like the amorphous idea of a great civilization rivaling that of the ancients. Then, we rely on people to reach that goal by independent action, reflecting their ability and therefore where they belong in the hierarchy.

Contrarian to this large evolutionary step, the doctrine of egalitarianism serves as the basis of control. It establishes what cannot be said by making a rule that all people must be equal, so anything above equal becomes taboo. Wherever humanity is held back, you will find control saying that we cannot get ahead of ourselves, because not everyone is up to speed yet.

The latest from the forces of control is “political correctness,” a type of speech code that shapes thought toward egalitarianism and therefore prevents critique of the failing 1789-2016 programs which implemented egalitarian ideas as policy. The backlash against political correctness is beginning with fervor, and may have elected the current president of the United States:

According to the website—the project of mathematician Spencer Greenberg—believing “there is too much political correctness in this country” was the second most reliable predictor of whether a given person intended to vote for Trump. The only better predictor was party affiliation: despite an abnormal campaign featuring an abnormal candidate, it remained the case that the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for the Republican candidate, and the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the Democratic candidate.

But being anti-P.C. correlated more strongly with being pro-Trump than just about anything else: it beat out social conservatism, protectionism, and anti-immigration as predictive tendencies.

“Nowadays, as the right sees it, the left has won the culture war and controls the media, the universities, Hollywood and the education of everyone’s children,” Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at New York University, told Politico in the recent article that made me aware of Greenberg’s survey data. “Many of them think that they are the victims, they are fighting back against powerful and oppressive forces, and their animosities are related to that worldview.”

Political correctness represents the attempt by the dying egalitarian Establishment to hold on to power after it has lost the hearts and minds of its people.

Egalitarianism promised “freedom” from the “tyranny” of the monarchy, and instead delivered a string of ideological wars beginning with the Napoleonic Wars and extending into World War Two. Since that time, the West has fought a cold war against egalitarian totalitarians, and divided itself between different shades of egalitarianism among its own political powers.

The point of political correctness is to prevent the criticism of egalitarianism by noticing certain facts that egalitarianism will not acknowledge, and so quickly became a war on truth itself. As in witch-hunts, political correctness gives power to the people making the accusation, which is assumed to be true because no one wants to in turn become a target of the inquisitors.

In turn that creates a situation where necessary truths are denied, forcing ordinary people to become extremists once they realize this system is designed to perpetuate a lie and suppress truth:

In January 2014, the commander of a French military academy rejected the master’s thesis of an elite German army officer under his charge for its extremist argument that human rights could lead to the genocide of Western races.

“If this was a French participant on the course, we would remove him,” he told the young officer’s German superiors.

An academic hired to review the thesis told senior officers in the German army, the Bundeswehr, that it included racist and radical nationalist content, but they chose not to formally discipline the man as they did not want to jeopardize the career of a high-flying recruit.

Societies that suppress potentially truthful observations because those observations may threaten control are by nature totalitarian societies, no matter what methods they use, including “peaceful” ones like ostracism. You either obey control, or your life is destroyed by obliteration of your career, reputation, livelihood and chance to have friends and meet potential mates. The forces of political correctness are using natural selection to “weed out” people with unconventional opinions.

As a result, the West now has created a situation where it is pursuing a path to doom and has eliminated any ability to notice that this doom is upon us. This gives us a binary choice: we either fight this system, or accept our own destruction. We are going to go out just like the Soviets, unwilling to alter a failing direction because of our pretense of being correct according to control:

Totalitarianism has nothing necessarily to do with violence (as Aldous Huxley perceived in his Brave New World of 1932 – and to equate totalitarianism with violence was an error by Orwell). For totalitarianism ‘whatever works’ is the guide.

Thus we now, in the West, live in a highly totalitarian society, in which most people’s thoughts are controlled most of the time – by a combination of indoctrination during childhood and youth, the unified-linked bureaucracy of the government and the workplace, the mass media and its addictiveness, and a legal system which explicitly includes thought crimes (what else are ‘hate crimes’?).

Those who wish to resist this totalitarianism have made a fatal error. Instead of demanding an end to control, they have chosen a false target through an ersatz opposite to control. They choose “freedom,” which is a form of egalitarianism, which means that as soon as control is overthrown, it will be reinstated through the manipulation that produced it the first time.

The opposite of control is not liberty, but cooperation. Cooperation requires a purpose and principles, so that people can measure their actions by how they help to achieve that goal. With cooperation, people take on unequal roles toward the same end for the benefit not of individuals, but of society as an organic whole, as if it were an organism.

Without cooperation, people go in many different directions at once, and this opens the door to manipulation. Since the chaos impedes life, people will begin manipulating one another with language. The virus will spread, and soon everyone will manipulate each other, which makes manipulation the only way to have power, and by natural selection elects to leadership those who are the best manipulators.

Sex As Control

Tuesday, May 30th, 2017

Control is a psychological state, a method of wielding power, and a philosophy. It can be used in any context and most commonly is intangible, meaning that you cannot point to a specific thing and say it is control. There is evidence of it like ripples on the surface indicating fish below or a healed wound hurting before the rain, but no one will ever lay hands on it.

You can recognize control because it manifests as a need to manipulate others directly for self-referential reasons. The person in control is not leading a group to accomplish an objective, but master of closed-circuit power, which means enforcing obedience upon a group by making them embark on actions whose only goal is the perpetuation of control.

A need to manage others directly and to have them do exactly what is told, as opposed to a decentralized or brachiated system of leadership, forms the basis of control. Instead of giving individuals a goal and having them collaborate toward it, control hijacks the goal and makes itself the goal like a parasitic organism would, and so each person must do exactly what it is told.

Without control, people set objectives and then work individually toward them with what they have, and are rewarded unequally for their differing abilities to achieve those objectives. When people panic at this state of inequality, they inexorably demand “equality” instead, or having everyone serve basically the same role. Control always arises from democracy, mob rule, cult behavior or gang mentalities.

People find control comforting: everyone is accepted so long as they do one thing, and they are accountable to control and not to reality, so they do not even need to be successful in their aims, only obedient. Everyone is accepted equally under control except those who defy orders, and those give the mob a reason to unite for a lynch mob witch hunt. Life as a herd is psychologically easier than struggling to survive.

Control requires an equal group doing the same things with any internal status variations being symbolic. With control, all that matters is the uniform obedience by method, not by goal. Everyone must think alike. This is how control maintains its power, and since its real goal is perpetuating itself, all other actions are pretexts.

For example, in a control state, war happens frequently not because the foreign objectives are important, but because wartime terrifies people and motivates them to contribute labor and obey authority. Some actions are made criminal so that anyone can be guilty at any time, causing people to turn on one another to get into the good graces of those in authority.

Most significantly, control regulates appearance. People must be able to look up from their tasks and see others obeying and none dissenting. They must witness, on a regular basis, the human sacrifice of those who failed to uphold the pretexts of control. This keeps them constantly incentivized to obey, and thinking that it is their own idea to do so. This makes them feel free while enslaved.

Control accelerates because it benefits from human failings. When people make small mistakes, they can be destroyed, which means they must either immediately beg for forgiveness in exchange for some other act, such as informing on others, or face oblivion. Control also uses human lusts, desires, emotional reactions, passivity and confusion against them by luring them onward with false promises and real threats.

For example, consider the use of sex in the Soviet Union as a control mechanism:

The official line is that promiscuity is bad, but exceptions are made for whatever advances control. This binds the individual to control both by granting a forbidden pleasure, and making it a shared secret that puts that person at the mercy of control, lest the rules be enforced against him.

Our society has — during its Leftist descent — encouraged open sexuality but also an increase in penalties for rape, as well as a loosening of standards for what is considered rape. It would not be surprising if this violent sexuality were encouraged among those in the inner circles, in whatever breadth of depravity can be summoned.

You May Be A Leftist And Not Know It

Saturday, May 27th, 2017

Patriotards, we used to call them. They were people who came just to the cusp of understanding the world outside the comfortable modern bubble, and then backed off. Instead, they went back into the safe space of ideology.

Ideology is comforting because it is so much simpler than the world itself. You think in categories like good or bad. There is a theory which gives an answer in every situation, and it is a theory based around humans like yourself that promises to gain you reward simply for being obedient to the theory.

People who come out of ideology are as stunned as those who get out of prison after fifty years. They are suddenly in a new world where none of the old routines and practices apply. They recognize many of the same things, but they have entirely different meanings now. It is like visiting a foreign land made to resemble home.

The sad thing about ideology is that it arises from a perpetual problem that got the upper hand at some point. People always want to be more important than they are, so they invent reasons why they are more important than the world as it is. These theories about how life “should” be, called ideologies, are mentally addictive because they explain life in simple ways.

Ideology corrupts people at the lowest level of their thinking. They start thinking in terms of what the ideology says they should do, instead of what they need to do by the demands of external reality. This is the oldest human mental failing ever, and it gets given names like “tunnel vision,” “cherry picking” and “inverted cognition.” Someone makes their mind up too early about what their goal is, and interprets all future data according to that image, instead of updating the image itself to reflect that the new data indicates a different situation than first estimated.

All human groups fail this way. In social groups, popularity or novelty become more important than finding bonds with each other. Power becomes more important than purpose and principle. And in nations, utilitarian substitutes for doing the right thing — patriotism, religion, success and popularity — actually replace that right thing because they are easier and less risky to achieve.

In this way, the tool shapes the user and changes the goal, instead of helping the user reach that goal. Ideology does this to everything, but the scary thing is that any idea can be restyled into an ideology. Many ideas tell us what we should do, but they do it on the basis of adaptation to reality or achieving our goals or principles. Ideology focuses instead on the individual, and suggests benefit to the individual for doing what will be socially approved of.

Your average conservative is a brain-dead robot zombie who waves the flag, supports the troops, thinks we all need to get closer to Jesus and wants us all to work even harder at our jobs because it is the right thing to do. He is in the grips of conservatism converted into an ideology, so that instead of focusing on the purpose of the activity, he just wants to look good to others because he has engaged in the accepted methods of dealing with it. This is how first-world societies have superstition, and it is more damaging than any primitive religion could ever be.

We are most likely in the midst of a massive evolutionary shift in humanity by which we learn to distrust tools that are not directly applicable to the situation at hand, and tend to shy away from people who cannot tell the difference. Tools must serve a goal or, like power, they become a goal in themselves, and by denial of the actual goal, the group fails.

Group evolution on this basis will likely weed out most of humanity since they like to engage in repetitive tasks without regard for their effectiveness. They just want a place in the social group and to go through the motions in order to get it. But, as the impending collapse of liberal democracy shows us, that is not enough, and it is also fatal to the group.

You may be a Leftist and not know it because your philosophy is an ideology and not a practical way of life. Conservatism, if not converted to an ideology, is something more like a folkway: a way to find a place within the group by doing the right thing. Ideology says everyone gets the same place and no one is forced to do the right thing. Conservatives are seduced by this easy answer all the time.

Most conservatives are secretly Leftists. They believe that all people are equal and should be treated equally in courts, society and school. They think we can indoctrinate people with the “right” answers and make idiots into the equivalent of geniuses. They wave the flag, slap the Bible, and carp on about hard work. But underneath the skin, they are the same enemy that we fight on the Left.

Vicarious Existence

Friday, May 26th, 2017

When a society is new, everything has purpose in the physical world. Defeat the barbarians. Grow these foods. Build a sewer. Clear these fields.

As a society grows, social purpose replaces actual real-world purpose. The real-world goals are mostly vanquished; now, one must convince others to do things. Some do they because they are necessary, and others become individualists, who act for personal power and wealth at the expense of others, the organic society, and that intangible and fragile world of principles which sustain civilization.

When the concept of “equality” arrives, as it always does when one wants to pacify a group, the methods of motivating people through authority fade away. What replaces them is an open market and social scene, and then symbolism takes over from reality. The appearance of being good and friendly becomes essential to interact with others, and have them do things for you or pay you for services.

This symbolic reality quickly replaces all other vectors to success. Those who want to succeed must learn to manipulate it, and in so doing adopt it as their way of interacting with the world. This reduces all of society to a question of control: how to coerce and bribe others into doing what you want by presenting pleasant illusions instead of harsh realities.

At this point, the society becomes dominated by merchants or at least those who think like them. (Much of Europe’s outrage at Jews can be explained by the identification with Jews as merchants, and therefore the blaming of Jews for Europeans converting themselves into a society that uses exclusively mercantile logic, as happening following The Enlightenment™).

Control demands that there be one central authority, ruling others through direct command or indirect methods like guilt and ideology, and it too spreads as a mentality. Society becomes competitive on a personal level for who is able to rule over others not by mutual interest, but as a form of using those others as a means to an end, with that end being the interest of control in maintaining itself.

In a control-based society, control has no goals except itself because being in control enables one to freely partake in the wealth and power of that society. The controller needs nothing more than to achieve control, which requires constant assertion of dominance, and then any other decision is contingent upon that control; society becomes the tool of the individual who is motivated to control.

The problem with control, as Fred Nietzsche noted in his controversial and misunderstood series of observations of “slaves and masters,” is that it makes the controller dependent on the controlled. This causes the controller to live through others, engaging in a vicarious existence where the experiences of others become more significant than those of the controller.

This is how tyrants become lonely, introverted, and sad. It is also how anyone of above-average ability, in a control-based society, destroys themselves. Appearance leads to manipulation, manipulation leads to control, and control leads to all — including the controller — becoming tools of the control. The cart comes before the horse, and the tail wags the dog.

As part of this, the family is shattered. Parents must dedicate their lives to work, either in control or under control, and they take this mentality home. They both attempt to control their children, and live through them. This leads to a mentality of ownership in which parents project themselves into the lives of their children, who they treat as symbols:

And yet, making real estate decisions solely for the sake of your kids can be a recipe for regret that can actually undermine your family’s happiness.

“People get idealistic and sometimes irrational when they choose the home they plan to raise their kids in,” says Holly Breville, a McEnearney Associates real estate agent in Washington, DC.

The parents become idealistic and unrealistic because they are not thinking of real needs of their children, but how the parents want to visualize themselves as successful parents. This involves a slaves-and-masters calculation: in order to appear in control, the parents allow themselves to be controlled by the opinions of others, living through those others as through their own children.

Controlling parents ruin their children by planning life too exactly for them. Such parents want a child to act out what the parent secretly desires, and so they shape the life of the child, making decisions for them and wrestling control over the life of the child from that child when something goes wrong.

By doing so, they raise children who are unable to make their own decisions. The explosion of hipsters — mostly the children of successful parents — demonstrates this: never having been able to make decisions and get them wrong, and having been made dependent on the parents by parental intervention, the children exist in a perpetual present tense of indecision, which they supplement by adding adornments to their lives to appear in control, despite having given up on many important areas of life.

The horror of the modern time is not limited to external forces like institutions. Much of it arises from the craziness of people: neurotic, unstable, vindictive, petty and most of all, manipulative. Control is a mental virus that infests a society and ruins it from the inside out, leaving behind a wasteland of confusion.

Leftism Polarizes Society And Gives Rise To Inevitable Totalitarianism

Sunday, May 21st, 2017

One way you can tell that our society is doomed is that people of the upper half of socioeconomic position are not conversant with the classics, such as Plato’s Republic. It is as if history has literally been deleted because no one is familiar with it, and who has time between work, television and shopping to read some musty old books?

But if the herd had read Plato, and understood it, which most are biologically limited from doing, they would have realized that Crowdism is the father of Leftism, and Crowdism takes on many faces in its mission to wreck civilization. Leftism is just one of those masks, albeit the one closest to the actual idea of Crowdism, which is a human social impulse more than anything else.

As a result, while our current political environment rewards those who point fingers at the obscure, the real developments of our time are entirely linear results of our original decision to “go egalitarian” during The Enlightenment™ and the French Revolution. This includes the rise of the managerial state:

The thesis of this essay is that the theory of the managerial elite explains the present transatlantic social and political crisis. Following World War II, the democracies of the United States and Europe, along with Japan—determined to avoid a return to depression and committed to undercutting communist anti-capitalist propaganda—adopted variants of cross-class settlements, brokered by national governments between national managerial elites and national labor. Following the Cold War, the global business revolution shattered these social compacts. Through the empowerment of multinational corporations and the creation of transnational supply chains, managerial elites disempowered national labor and national governments and transferred political power from national legislatures to executive agencies, transnational bureaucracies, and treaty organizations. Freed from older constraints, the managerial minorities of Western nations have predictably run amok, using their near-monopoly of power and influence in all sectors—private, public, and nonprofit—to enact policies that advantage their members to the detriment of their fellow citizens.

Currently the managerial revolt is de rigueur as a talking point for people who are looking for something to blame for our civilization collapse. Like “late stage capitalism” and other tropes, this is designed to cast the blame away from the real culprit, which is egalitarianism.

Consider the egalitarian society. Every institution must be made egalitarian, but as this happens, they fail. These mini-collapses occur from the outer periphery toward the core of society, much like circulation failing in a dying patient. As the outer institutions fail, the inner institutions — government, education, lobbyists and media — must become more powerful to pick up the slack.

Before the Great Depression, we could count on our markets to be relatively stable because investment was kept within an informal WASP aristocracy who managed to avoid reckless, trend-oriented investing. After the First World War, an America flush with wealth started bumping people from lower castes to higher classes through the magic of “new money.”

At the same time, the company man was born as unions and socialist thought changed the concept of labor itself. The goal was no longer to own your own business, but to have a job that paid the right amount of benefits, and then you were living the good life. It was a prole party! And then it all came crashing down, as it turns out that the new investors were more reckless than the old.

What does egalitarianism do, admit that its grand plans are not working out so well? Not at all — it doubles down — and so instead of blaming itself, it blames capitalism and offers its solution… more Leftism! Coincidentally, this requires stronger inner institutions, and so a whole layer of charities and independent businesses die out.

Good, think those who are in control. This means people have fewer options and so they will have to do what we want them to do. This is the essence of control; it is the ego trying to master the world, and since it has no positive goal but has a negative goal, namely not wanting to feel powerless, it pursues power for its own end.

The government of the 1930s worked well-ish up through the second world war, but then it became clear that wartime mobilization would be required to fight the Cold War, so the inner institutions agreed on a hybrid of classic American individualism with socialist individualism, and from this came the Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism and all the other Communism lite variants we know today as “normal.”

When the Soviet Union fell, the inner organizations wanted a way to achieve even more power, so they created the administrative state, a time of unelected lawmaking, and expanded internationally as a means to create a world economic which would force everyone to obey. The “managerial” side of this is that instead of working through outer institutions, governments and their allies now worked directly through stronger central institutions.

At this point, to an observer entirely free of bias, the United States and Europe resemble a hybrid of the systems of the combatants of the last World War. They retain some of their original informal order, which relied on outer institutions including many entirely free of government influence, but they have adopted socialist subsidy systems and a soft totalitarian order.

They have gone down this path because of the wrecking ball of egalitarianism. First, it waged class warfare, and destroyed social order. Then it attacked the family, and later assaulted the notion of a national identity or ethnic component. After that it assaulted heritage and values. Each of these strengthened inner institutions like government and media at the expense of outer institutions.

What this process resembles is an infection more than anything else. The mental virus of ideology began as something to be tolerated, one option for a philosophy. Then it became a trend, where all the hip kids who were united in their dislike of society believed it. As it became popular, finally it became official dogma, and now anyone who deviates will be punished.

The more popular the mental virus has become, the more it has strengthened its hold over the population, and thus we have transitioned from a semi-libertarian state to one that is wholly ideological, with globalism, diversity, feminism, civil rights and social justice as natural extensions of the egalitarian idea to other races, sexes and social classes.

Ideology is a morality. It gains its power by seeming to be “universal,” or accessible to all people. This gives it its messianic character, in that if the ideology is the moral right, it must be spread through propaganda and social pressure to others, so that everyone is doing right.

Its origin in egalitarianism requires this. The original idea of egalitarianism was a seizure of power from the natural leaders of society and transferring it to the mob, a group composed of both the very poor and the fairly well-off who wanted fewer obstacles to their businesses (obstacles that, in retrospect, were a good idea).

The mental virus demands that everyone be brainwashed and mentally controlled by the ideology so that no competing ideals can exist. To those infected with ideology, it is the one right way, and anything but it is therefore evil and must be smashed so that the good ideology can persist. This leads to a raging mob drugged on moral superiority:

With the aid of the media and the Democratic Party, the institutions of the republic are crippled, the levers of power having been seized not by the elected but by the unelected bureaucratic state — from ideologues at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the partisans and paranoid who inhabit our intelligence community.

…This is not the words of a dutiful civil servant but of a partisan tyrant who would see his own view, his own agenda, and his own lens of politics dominate over that of the elected government of the United States. In their minds they are but a guardian of the people, albeit one that must stand up to and ultimately negate the will of that very same people.

…In all of this, the media has abandoned their role as watchdogs with a healthy dose of skepticism and become the propaganda arm of the unelected administrative state, complicit in and even cheering on the actions that have superseded the will of the people.

This is what ideological takeover looks like. We are dealing with a mental virus, not an “it” as a single actor. Government becomes the method of the mental virus just like peaceful protest was fifty years ago. For this virus, everything is a means to the end of the advancement of the virus and no logical consistency is needed.

Now we have a decentralized ideological state. Why have one Party in Moscow when you can have millions of unofficial KGB officers working at every level of society? They receive their orders from the media, then implement the fad or trend of the week, and they inform on those who do not go along.

This is the essence of Crowdism: whatever pleases the herd to believe must be enforced on everyone else, or it might seem weak. This creates a fanatical audience of zealots who derive meaning in life from advancing the justification for their failures in life. This means they must crush all dissent in order to feel good about themselves.

At the end point of such a virus, and we are at peak egalitarianism now, life in society becomes binary. You either go along with the herd and accept the mental virus, or you resist and become an outsider. People think that there are three options — mental virus, opposition to mental virus, and agnostic tolerance of both of those — but really, there is only compliance or apostasy:

Tron Guy took his concerns to the board of Penguicon and suggested adding conservative panels to balance out the left-wing ones. The board told him they did not want to add any panels that would draw controversy.

…When asked over the phone if he is alt right, Tron Guy laughed, describing his political views as “movement conservative with a hint of libertarianism.”

“I am specifically not alt right,” he said. “I don’t believe in white supremacy or the patriarchy. I have no problems with true equality of opportunity, but social justice is a code word for equality of outcome.”

Tron Guy takes a classic tolerance approach. He thinks that by endorsing acceptance of all views, he can avoid joining the mental virus and simultaneously not be its enemy. But that is not how a mental virus works. You are either in the gang, or you are its enemy. You either join the cult, or you are a heretic. You either pay union dues or you are a scab.

There is no way out of this death spiral. It is clear that in 1968 the mental virus took over, and in the 1990s it gained full power, and we are now seeing the results of that with the election of Barack Obama and the consequent emboldening of a new generation of zealots. We either reject the mental virus by rejecting the idea of equality, or it consumes us.

Salary Surveys Reveal Truth Of H-1B Racket

Wednesday, May 17th, 2017

Despite the tech industry insisting that we need H-1B visas in order to “compete,” the data reveals that in fact, the program is designed to lower wages:

If you work at Apple’s One Infinite Loop headquarters in Cupertino as a computer programmer on an H-1B visa, you can can be paid as little as $52,229. That’s peanuts in Silicon Valley. Average wages for a programmer in Santa Clara County are more than $93,000 a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the U.S. government will approve visa applications for Silicon Valley programmers at $52,229 — and, in fact, did so for hundreds of potential visa holders at Apple alone.

Control has two sides: a pretext and a result, which is the concentration of power in the hands of those who use it for the sake of more power alone. In this way, it represents a monopoly, meaning that method has been disconnected from any goal, and has become a goal in itself, sort of like drug addiction, overeating or gambling.

In this case, Silicon Valley knows that as time goes on, its products will become more commonplace and less valuable, and therefore that it needs to bump up its margins another way. Its method is to produce an army of programmers in which most people end up losing, and a few become superstars, transferring profit to Silicon Valley while externalizing costs to society at large.

When we look at immigration, from nurses in the UK NHS to manual laborers in construction in North America, this pattern repeats every time. Foreign labor is not needed except to act as a market force driving down wages and making jobs less secure, which benefits those in power by concentrating wealth at the expense of those who contribute.

Discovering The Nature Of “Control”

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

Amerika has taken the lead on the Right in criticizing the unifying method of our society: control, which serves only the individualistic ego, as opposed to cooperation, which requires a purpose and therefore invokes questions like “who are we?” and “what should we be doing?” which make it unsuitable for consensus politics.

Control is a philosophy of mass motivation: break people down into individuals motivated by external material reward, create a fungible crowd, demand that it do and believe the same things, and keep it individuals in constant fear that they will “stand out” from the crowd as having violated the fundamental principle of the crowd, and simultaneously motivate them to “stand out” by demonstrating their allegiance to the idea that unites the crowd. This creates a mass of people who are fundamentally inert in their confusion but can be used as means to an end; the trap in control is that control only serves itself, and those who hope to use control find themselves being swallowed up by it. Control is at first power, and later, inversion of the will through its enslavement to the need to continue and further control.

More voices on the Right are joining a critique of the nature of control:

This system, which still dominates the present-day power structure, has some troubling aspects that help to explain the growing dysfunction and decline of our society. I want to draw attention to two in particular.

First, because power is based on control rather than on ownership, there is a constant need to justify it through appeals to the emotions of the masses. Rather than being defined by the interests of the masses, democracy is defined by what can be sold to the masses, which is definitely not the same thing. Secondly, the need to demonstrate competence outweighs the need to have actual competence.

The great irony is that these two characteristics are produced by a system dedicated to efficient control and getting results, but in effect they work against efficiency and results.

The defining attribute of control is its focus on external features and motivations. This pairs handily with equality, which insists that people are essentially the same, and that changes in behavior and motivation are regulated by their position in society, wealth, power, education, social group and other factors that are outside of their personalities.

External factors are those, in other words, outside of individuality itself: the moral and realistic choices of an individual based on what that person understands and values. The “understanding” portion of that calculus involves a good deal of genetic determinism, since intelligence and most preferences are biological in nature and thus heritable.

Control can only be opposed by cooperation, which requires a sharing of purpose and values, both of which arise from internal traits and are assessed through gut instinct and intuition including aesthetics. Cooperation unites unequal individuals in the pursuit of a shared goal, knowing that while each may benefit differently, all achieve the baseline benefit of reaching that goal.

The way to understand inner traits is to explore the nature of thinking:

We discover true hypotheses by attaining to a clear knowing, by achieving a transparency of thinking. (Such transparency must, in practice, be achieved actively – not least by rejecting false assumptions.)

Truth is then seen – but it is not imposed on us; it is possible to know and to deny (that is a consequence of human agency, or free will).

The proper conduct of science involves attaining this clear seeing – which is a question of attitude, which is dependent on motivation: on wanting, more than anything, to know.

External thinking does not focus on clear understanding of the world, but instead is inward looking toward human individuals and their impulses or reactions to stimulus. Internal thinking is more reflective, contemplative and most of all, quiet. It suppresses the cacophony of desires, whims and responses that normally fill the human mind, and sees the world as close to as it is as possible.

What this leads us to is the most interesting of hybrids: a realist approach to philosophy, anchored in the fundamental ideas of religion, namely that for those who can think, clarifying the mind, finding eternal values and pushing aside the dual social and emotional impulses of humanity to discover something approximating a moral adaptation to existence.

Why Leftism Is Obsolete

Thursday, April 13th, 2017

A quick refresher on the disaster that was the first Leftist revolution:

The Jacobins instituted the General Maximum, a regime of price controls that eventually covered all foodstuffs and a long list of other basic goods. Violating the Maximum was punishable by death. This of course caused widespread shortages and famines. The Republic responded by sending troops into the countryside to seize crops from farmers to feed the capital. The people’s state that had freed the peasantry from their parasitic feudal masters had itself become for them, in a few short years, an even more voracious parasite.

The new Committee of Public Safety, under Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre, then initiated the Reign of Terror: a wave of political violence, including prison massacres and thousands of beheadings, that made the political repression of the overthrown regime look tame in comparison.

…The Republic’s worst single atrocity was the War in the Vendee. An anti-revolutionary rural population revolted against Paris’s attempt to conscript their sons into war. In crushing the insurrection, the Republican government killed as many as over a quarter of a million peasants. Rebel prisoners — men, women, and children — were executed in mass crowds by gunfire and drowning. A state massacring its own people at such a scale was at that time almost unprecedented.

This essay is flawed because the writer goes on to repeat the tired Leftist lie that nationalism arose with the French Revolution. What the fools mean is that nationalism was formalized at that time in defense of the nation-state, but they do not mention that nationalism was a natural instinct and common practice among tribes who saw themselves as bonded in larger groupings such as “the German tribes” or “the Frankish tribes,” all of which were seen a lesser parts of the general idea of European-ness, which even back then divided them into West, South and East clusters of tribes.

However, he points out handily the problem with Leftism: it is unstable, namely because it is based on what the Crowd wants, and what the Crowd wants is the sum of what its individuals want, which can roughly be described as acceptance into society without having to contribute more than obedient behavior; they want freedom from the obligation to behave in a constructive, moral way all of the time.

This is what equality means. The person who does ill is equal to the person who does good, which makes doing ill more efficient and profitable. The serf is equal to the noble. This basically creates a prole holiday where no one is responsible for anything beyond transactions and the pursuit of personal pleasure, which turns people against each other and makes them resentful.

In turn, this naturally makes an unstable society. People do the minimum and act according to ideology through a process known as conformity, but their participation is half-hearted and they do only exactly what they are obligated to; in the meantime, they have no need to do right and good, so when their participation is done, they feel justified in taking or exploiting anything else.

Society at that point deepens its engagement in what we call The Napoleonic Cycle: first, a violent revolution on some pretext; next, a purging of the dissenters and those whose assets can be taken; then, new rules which intensify old problems; finally, as society crumbles, permanent warfare as a means of keeping everyone in line and scared for their lives.

This is the face of Control. Leadership brings people together toward a goal; with Control, the only goal is more Control, and it uses pleasant illusions as a justification to keep itself in power. The end result is that people are forced into equality and conformity so that they can all do the same exact things, day after day, as a means of maintaining order.

Leadership on the other hand is cooperative. Leaders have more power because they have no need to justify themselves. They act as they think is best. They have beneath them a hierarchy of many levels, instead of the two-stage elites and masses model of Control. In this hierarchy, people act as individuals, participating unequally toward the same ultimate goal using different methods.

Nature resembles Leadership more than Control. Aristocracy is a form of leadership; military rule can be. Democracy always starts on a positive note and then, as the lack of standards encourages each person to go their own way, becomes more authoritarian as the society fragments from within. It always ends in a tyranny because democracy is unstable and cannot function for long.

Control creates a bad psychology of self-deception in order to accept that Narrative advanced by those in control, and in doing so, it twists people by making them obedient to the formal system of rules and simultaneously oblivious to the evident and commonsense truth of what they are doing. It steals their ability to have purpose. Witness how this self-deception works:

In one experiment Trivers and his team asked 306 online participants to write a persuasive speech about a fictional man named Mark. They were told they would receive a bonus depending on how effective it was. Some were told to present Mark as likable, others were instructed to depict him as unlikable, the remaining subjects were directed to convey whatever impression they formed. To gather information about Mark, the participants watched a series of short videos, which they could stop observing at any intermission. For some viewers, most of the early videos presented Mark in a good light (recycling, returning a wallet), and they grew gradually darker (catcalling, punching a friend). For others, the videos went from dark to light.

When incentivized to present Mark as likable, people who watched the likable videos first stopped watching sooner than those who saw unlikable videos first. The former did not wait for a complete picture as long as they got the information they needed to convince themselves, and others, of Mark’s goodness. In turn, their own opinions about Mark were more positive, which led their essays about his good nature to be more convincing, as rated by other participants. (A complementary process occurred for those paid to present Mark as bad.) “What’s so interesting is that we seem to intuitively understand that if we can get ourselves to believe something first, we’ll be more effective at getting others to believe it,” says William von Hippel, a psychologist at The University of Queensland, who co-authored the study. “So we process information in a biased fashion, we convince ourselves, and we convince others. The beauty is, those are the steps Trivers outlined—and they all lined up in one study.”

In real life you are not being paid to talk about Mark but you may be selling a used car or debating a tax policy or arguing for a promotion—cases in which you benefit not from gaining and presenting an accurate picture of reality but from convincing someone of a particular point of view.

When people are given public rules, they obey those rules by filtering out everything else they must do, which makes them insincere and prone to believe in illusions. When they are then rewarded for those illusions, they internalize them. This is how societies die, by cherry-picking data and filtering out the non-conforming information, then imitating the illusion in round-robin until the system collapses.

The dysfunctional behavior of government is explained by this as well. Under Control systems, people are told what to do and that if they fulfill that and do not violate the narrative, everything else is acceptable. For this reason, they view their role as conformity to ideology and not generalized morality, which creates a permissive situation that is prone to abuse:

Investigators showed the children more than 1,000 photographs that included pictures of Sri Lankan troops and locations of where the children had sex with the soldiers.

“The evidence shows that from late 2004 to mid-October 2007, at least 134 military members of the current and previous Sri Lankan contingents sexually exploited and abused at least nine Haitian children,” the report said.

After the report was filed, 114 Sri Lanka peacekeepers were sent home, putting an end to the sex ring.

Some of this may merely be third world sexual ethics. Practices that appall us in the West are commonplace in most of the world, and may serve as a necessary social control mechanism. There is no universal sexual morality, but more advanced moral standards offer certain benefits that may not be visible to all people (call it “sociological esotericism”).

However, more likely the situation is that you give people power and then identify a task for them, and so long as they are doing that task, they will use their power in abusive ways. The same practice is true of bicycle riders in the US who are given right-of-way and use it in a passive-aggressive manner, or even hall monitors in high school. Power without responsibility to morality invites abuse, and Control systems replace morality (in addition to: heritage, culture, family, integrity, chastity and eventually sanity).

Now consider this drama:

Congressional Democrats are demanding that key ObamaCare payments be included in the next spending bill, raising the possibility of a government shutdown if they are not.

The calls come a day after President Trump on Wednesday threatened to cancel insurer reimbursements in an effort to force Democrats to negotiate on healthcare reform.

Around here, when the Prole Holiday flag is flying proudly from the pole, people behave badly because there is no responsibility. They are more anonymous people in the industrial city, and can behave like selfish ingrates because they “gave at the office,” or in other words, they have performed their Control function and everything else is now fair game, with no moral standard.

People avoid looking you in the eyes as they cut in line in front of you, block aisles in the grocery store, drive in blithe ignorance of others, throw litter directly into national parks, urinate on monuments and engage in potentially thousands of other low-grade antisocial behaviors. Prole Holiday means you do not have to say you are sorry.

During the last government shutdown, this changed. Prole Holiday was suspended; the normal masses of people milling about the streets vanished, probably because they decided they should do something functional for a change. The passive-aggressive people stayed home. The remaining people started greeting each other, engaging in courtesy, and looking each other in the eyes again.

Leftists are playing a dangerous game with government shutdown, and Trump may force them to it. He wins the longer the government stays shut down, not so much because he can golf and spin-kick alligators at his Mar-a-Lago retreat, but because people will start doing things for themselves and others again.

Charities become the source of what welfare displaced, and they have standards, so even the guy who mumbles about alien abduction and probing non-stop will comb his hair and stop molesting kids so he can get his daily soup. Neighbors get to know each other, and start neighborhood watch groups. People interact informally, naturally and with the intent of making society work again.

If this went on for, say, three months, it is possible that people would begin to snap to and question how much of this government thing we actually need. Normal functional people benefit from none of this stuff, but work more than twice as long to pay for it and because of its myriad rules, laws, regulations, advisories, intercessions and the threat of intervention.

As a result, the people who do nearly everything in society would do just fine without government, and the others would be forced to make themselves useful or go hang out at the soup kitchen over at Our Virgin Of The Holy Legume. This would invert the inverted order we have now, where the strong work for the weak, and would be more pleasant for those who get just about everything accomplished.

A government shutdown would also break the Control structure. Instead of the combination of apathy and deference that comes with micromanaging authority, people would take responsibility for having not a rule-abiding society, but a moral and qualitatively good one. It would more resemble the America of old and might even improve upon it.

Recommended Reading