Posts Tagged ‘control’

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.

Supporting The “Right To Repair,” Including Repair Of Our Civilization

Monday, April 3rd, 2017

If you follow technology circles, you may have seen something about a “right to repair.” Corporations have, as part of their sales contracts, denied end users the legal rights to repair or modify the products sold to them, and in many cases, have inserted a hybrid between copy protection and digital rights management that prevents users from doing so.

This of course penalizes the little guys who do not have the money to do what these corporations want, which is in case of malfunction to purchase another gadget or go to the Official Repair Center for expensive consultations. The businesses justify this by claiming that unlicensed repair “may be” of lesser quality, harming the reputation of the company by having a defective product out there.

As in most interesting cases, both sides have a point. If you make a vehicle, and Josh the drunk mechanic duct-tapes it together so that it makes a horrible grinding noise when used, people may squint at it to see the logo and make a mental note to never buy one of those durn things. On the other hand, Josh might offer basic repairs at a far lower cost, or the end user could do them himself.

The quandary becomes obvious when we consider the position of the end user:

“I can’t turn the alarm off. If I had the literature and capability to diagnose and fix it, it would already be done. I changed the mechanical switch and wire, but now I’m down to the programming,” he said Wednesday.

Kyle is one of many farmers in the US fighting for the right to repair their equipment. He and others are getting behind Nebraska’s “Fair Repair” bill, which would require companies to provide consumers and independent repair shops access to service manuals, diagnostic tools and parts so they aren’t limited to a single supplier. They have an unlikely ally: repair shops for electronic items like iPhones, tablets and laptops who struggle to find official components and information to fix broken devices. This means the bill could benefit not just farmers but anyone who owns electronic goods. There’s also a benefit to the environment, as it would allow for more refurbishment and recycling instead of sending equipment to the landfill.

While a law is the wrong way to go about this, and requiring manufacturers to publish information and tools places a burden on them, let us consider instead the philosophy behind the right to repair: nothing should be so centralized that its use is entirely regulated through a single source. That source then effectively controls those who use the product.

Control is a slippery thing to define. One basic idea is that it is a hierarchy limited to two layers: a centralized controller, and many equal controlled people. You can only have a two-level hierarchy with equality, because one layer will be everyone but the control layer. Control requires an equal mass to do identical tasks and thus become agents of the controller, which uses them as a means-to-an-end of its own intent.

With more natural systems, such as monarchy, instead you have a cascade of power. A king commands his lords, who come in a half-dozen varieties that correspond to steps in the hierarchy. At the bottom are local lords, who while they do not have the power of a king, have a microcosm of it in that their word is law in their local domain, provided it does not conflict with decisions made above them.

You may recognize this structure in our current court system and the interaction between federal, state and local law. However, leaders are more flexible than laws, and tend to look at situations on a case-by-case basis, giving the most precise solutions possible. We have lost this with the transition from leaders to laws.

With our democratic system, in an ironic inversion of democracy, we have lost the right to repair our local communities because the cascade of laws above us do not consider a case-by-case basis. Instead, they see our local communities as a means-to-an-end, namely that of advancing policy at the centralized federal level.

Whether or not the lack of right to repair is legal, it retards the ability of individuals to do good and productive things. This is also true at the government level. We cannot eject problematic people because of a myriad of laws and rights created by bureaucrats. We cannot act independently of federal policy, a rule we might refer to as “we all go down together.”

These limits like centralization itself seem intelligent. Laws and rules are rigid and make us feel comfortable because they purport to be guarantees. However, with each one comes more of a commitment to the narrow path of the intent of our controllers, and there is no off switch, even if they regulate the communities which we feel are ours by right of blood, sweat and tears.

Diagnosing Political Correctness

Tuesday, March 14th, 2017

The American Scholar takes a stab at diagnostic dissection of the bizarre confluence of religion, ideology and social status that is Political Correctness:

What does it mean to say that these institutions are religious schools? First, that they possess a dogma, unwritten but understood by all: a set of “correct” opinions and beliefs, or at best, a narrow range within which disagreement is permitted. There is a right way to think and a right way to talk, and also a right set of things to think and talk about. Secularism is taken for granted. Environmentalism is a sacred cause. Issues of identity—principally the holy trinity of race, gender, and sexuality—occupy the center of concern. The presiding presence is Michel Foucault, with his theories of power, discourse, and the social construction of the self, who plays the same role on the left as Marx once did. The fundamental questions that a college education ought to raise—questions of individual and collective virtue, of what it means to be a good person and a good community—are understood to have been settled. The assumption, on elite college campuses, is that we are already in full possession of the moral truth. This is a religious attitude. It is certainly not a scholarly or intellectual attitude.

…Elite private colleges are ideologically homogenous because they are socially homogeneous, or close to it. Their student populations largely come from the liberal upper and upper-middle classes, multiracial but predominantly white, with an admixture of students from poor communities of color—two demographics with broadly similar political beliefs, as evidenced by the fact that they together constitute a large proportion of the Democratic Party base. As for faculty and managerial staff, they are even more homogenous than their students, both in their social origins and in their present milieu, which tends to be composed exclusively of other liberal professionals—if not, indeed, of other liberal academics. Unlike the campus protesters of the 1960s, today’s student activists are not expressing countercultural views. They are expressing the exact views of the culture in which they find themselves (a reason that administrators prove so ready to accede to their demands). If you want to find the counterculture on today’s elite college campuses, you need to look for the conservative students.

Which brings us to another thing that comes with dogma: heresy. Heresy means those beliefs that undermine the orthodox consensus, so it must be eradicated: by education, by reeducation—if necessary, by censorship. It makes a perfect, dreary sense that there are speech codes, or the desire for speech codes, at selective private colleges. The irony is that conservatives don’t actually care if progressives disapprove of them, with the result that political correctness generally amounts to internecine warfare on the left: radical feminists excoriating other radical feminists for saying “vagina” instead of “front hole,” students denouncing the director of Boys Don’t Cry as a transphobic “cis white bitch” (as recently happened at Reed College), and so forth.

Political Correctness is a form of Control: an attempt to make all people obey the centralized authority by responding equally to its commands. This stands in opposition to the organic way of life, and cooperation, which point people in roughly the same direction by principle and encourage them to develop their own paths toward the same end.

Leftism is a demand that you obey the herd. They are individualists, and individualists in groups want to hear that you accept everyone no matter how broken they are, even if it means the sacrifice of your civilization. Each individual thinks of nothing bigger than himself, and wants the world to affirm his role as the center of it, at least in his mind.

In this way, we see Political Correctness not as an attempt at altruism, but an attempt to use altruism as a pretense for furthering the social status of the individual, as Tom Wolfe noted. Like most viral ideas, it spreads by the weakness of others, and erodes the basis of civilization, but cannot be criticized because it is “popular” for (temporarily) removing the fear of the meek.

Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, Control And Cooperation

Monday, March 13th, 2017

Silent chuckling:

A correction to a frequently cited 2012 study has been issued, after researchers discovered they mixed up results purporting to show conservatives are more likely than liberals to exhibit behaviors linked to psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.

…The study also posited those who are socially liberal are more likely to possess behaviors associated with “Social Desirability,” or the desire to get along with others, than those who are socially conservative.

But in an erratum issued by the journal, first reported by Retraction Watch, the authors said those two findings were “exactly reversed.”

It’s lügen-everything these days. There is no reason to trust published science because it is made by people, and those are self-interested actors who are selling a product to an audience that likes to confirm its Leftist bias. In addition, they are trying to get promoted within a system that exclusively swims Leftward.

Authoritarianism and tyranny are misunderstood terms. The Left likes to think that methods determine intent; in reality, intent determines methods. In an emergency, everyone is an authoritarian because the consequence of not ordering people around is that they panic like disorderly sheep and this results in mass carnage.

This means that we cannot talk about “authoritarians” or “tyrants” by their methods, such as strong power, as this study hopes to. Intead we have to look at the reasons behind their efforts: tyrants are self-serving, the Right exerts strong power as a means of preserving civilization as a whole, and the Left achieves tyranny through good intentions and passive methods.

For that reason, criticizing someone as an “authoritarian” is like the term “racist” just a throwaway line, or a way to dispel critics without actually looking at their arguments. This is typical of the passive-aggressive approach of the Left.

On the other hand, we can look at what Leftists actually want: Control. Control occurs when a two-layer hierarchy is present of a few strong leaders and masses who are required to do the same exact thing over and over again as a means of advancing an ideological agenda. Control is the opposite of strong leadership, which produces a space for natural growth and rewards the good.

The Left has flirted with Control because this is an extension of its dominant philosophy, individualism. The individual wants to make himself more important than the world and other people so that he can use them as means-to-an-end of his own gratification. In a group, this becomes Control, in which people are made equal so they can be subservient to the ideology and its Narrative.

Cooperation is the opposite of Control. When cooperating, humans unite unequally on the basis of principles and goals. They work together without being the same and operate organically, where good behavior is rewarded and bad punished, but people are not expected to do exactly the same thing like a machine in a factory.

Even when Control is not authoritarian — and it frequently is not, for the same reason evil always appears well-dressed and seductively attractive — it seeks to make everyone act in the same way, a conformity of obedience designed to make them extensions of the design of the controller, and it punishes not enemies but those who fail to comply.

Control is what happens when human order breaks down, and Leftism both rationalizes and promotes it.

Facebook (And All Social Media) Must Die

Friday, January 13th, 2017

Meet the new media, same as the old media. You will notice that government, celebrities, social pressures and consumerism advance the same agenda as if it came from the same source:

Facebook removes hate speech, which includes content that directly attacks people based on their:

  • Race,
  • Ethnicity,
  • National origin,
  • Religious affiliation,
  • Sexual orientation,
  • Sex, gender, or gender identity, or
  • Serious disabilities or diseases.

Organizations and people dedicated to promoting hatred against these protected groups are not allowed a presence on Facebook. As with all of our standards, we rely on our community to report this content to us.

Did you think They were really a “they,” or just people responding to the market created by many democratically-empowered people doing what people in groups do, which is fearfully pick stupid easy answers over useful ones?

In fact, the problem is “we” — or in other words, what happens when a group of humans get together and start behaving like scared monkeys who are more interested in pacifying each other Bonobo-style than finding any hard or realistic answers to any relevant question.

Notice that the above community guideline seems clear, until you realize how ambiguous it is. What does “attacks” mean? Who are “people”? Is stating a fact about an ethnic group, caste/class, race or religion an “attack” on “people,” or a comment in abstraction? Never mind: the point is to create the broadest possible standards so that you, in your quest to be popular and get famous, will not even come close to the murky edges of these amorphous guidelines.

In the meantime, we see the truth of political manipulation, which is that it is used as a means to control you and is not a serious policy the controllers apply to themselves:

In 2014, Facebook for the first time released its demographic data, and by the following year, it hadn’t shown much progress in increasing the number of women, black or Latino workers. The following year, the company decided to do something more. Publicly, executives talked about expanding programs that wooed college students from a wide variety of backgrounds to intern at Facebook.

Behind the scenes, the company dangled a carrot for recruiters: double points. Recruiters usually got one point for each candidate of theirs that took a job at Facebook. With the new incentive, they’d receive two points if that person was a “diversity hire” — someone who was a woman, or who was not white or Asian, according to two former recruiters.

Do as I say, not as I do, because that way I can remain functional and still punish you, subjugating you and humiliating your will and forcing you to be dependent on me.

“Thermodynamics has won at a crawl.”

Friday, January 13th, 2017

When people indulge their personal intent instead of paying attention to the world, they create small bubbles around themselves of the world they recognize, having filtered out all information that contradicts their personal illusion. This separates a space of information from that of the cosmos, and subjects it to repetition, since it lacks enough variety to be anything but repetitive.

The writer William S. Burroughs wrote about this in his epic Naked Lunch, talking about the downfall of a society through its refusal to withdraw from the need for manipulation or control:

The black wind sock of death undulates over the land, feeling, smelling for the crime of separate life, movers of the fear-frozen flesh shivering under a vast probability curve….

Population blocks disappear in a checker game of genocide…. Any number can play….

The Liberal Press and The Press Not So Liberal and The Press Reactionary Scream approval:

“Above all the myth of other-level experience must be eradicated….” And speak darkly of certain harsh realities… cows with the aftosa… prophylaxis….

Power groups of the world frantically cut lines of connection….

The Planet drifts to random insect doom….

Thermodynamics has won at a crawl…

Within the human mind, a smaller pattern takes precedence over the larger, and because this is too small to maintain internal variation, it becomes fixed and repetitive even if it seems to take many forms. As a result, change slows… each option becomes about the same as any other… heat death, or the state of futility of choice, predominates.

This is what awaits humanity under individualism. The individual chooses to deny the world, and so becomes sealed in himself, at which point the mathematical limitations of that state become revealed. As each person becomes atomized, these people draw energy from the world and segregate it in individuals, at which point the whole slows down.

Control creates this situation. Each individual desires his intent to rule over the more complex world of nature, and what results is a standardization of others in order to conform to that intent. In doing so, this process of uniformity destroys the internal variation that keeps the world from collapsing in on itself through repetition.

This is the future under The Enlightenment.™ In it, each person becomes powerful enough to shut out the world, and as a result, dooms themselves to a closed-circuit feedback loop in which variation dies. And then, predictably, the world recedes and the individual suffocates from a lack of internal variety. And yet, they maintain the illusion of control until the end.