Posts Tagged ‘control’

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.

Intelligent Words About Marriage

Wednesday, December 28th, 2016

From somewhere on the internets:

I don’t think compromise is the right word. A marriage is a union of interests, not a blending or averaging of them. The couple doesn’t ask “what’s good for me?” and “what’s good for you?” and then try to find something that half-pleases both, but instead just asks “what’s good for us?” Usually works best with the man taking input, maybe discussing, then deciding. Each individual might not get what they want, but they can both be happy knowing that they’re doing what’s best for them.

It’s probably not what you meant, but compromise to me sounds like trying to “equalize” what each gives up in some kind of directionless micro-communism. Better to have a mentality of being on the same team, and just doing what’s best for the team (family).

In life, there are two fundamental forms of organization: control, or forcing everyone to use the same methods for an objective serving a single party, or cooperation, where people work together to achieve a goal, which in complex organizations requires a purpose and principles used to achieve it. Cooperation works toward an idea that may be partially extant, but will never be fully realized, so it can always be improved in its qualitative dimension.

Marriage and family, or even organic ecosystem-like groups like nations, require this abstract but realistic goal such as is provided by the cooperative idea. They fall apart under control because authority creates a backlash and by its nature as one-dimensional, fails to gain feedback from the people at lower levels, and thus makes the top of the hierarchy blind.

Political Correctness: An Extension Of Archetypal Leftist Psychology

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016


The Left rose through a singular power: a simple idea that made people feel comfortable in their social group, binding them together into a band to conquer all so that it would serve this idea.

For that reason, it makes sense not to say that Leftists are individually totalitarian, but that the thinking of Leftism is inherently totalitarian and individual Leftists will not be satisfied until they achieve a state that is both totalitarian and reality-denying.

The nature of ideology, after all, is to replace reality. It is the anti-reality. It tells you not how things work, but how they should according to human social logic. Leftism is at war with reality.

As a variant of Crowdism, Leftism is based in individualism. Every individual in the group wants guaranteed acceptance by the group. For this reason, they form a gang to make this so, but while their method is collectivism, their motivation is individualism.

What gives Crowdism power is the transfer of society from cooperative — where all people work unequally toward a goal that all understand — to control-based structures, where a formal goal is set up and applied equally to all in order to maintain power structures despite the fragmentation of society into many special interest groups, with individualists being one of these.

This gives rise to dark organization or a counter-current within society, formed of the individualist gang, that operates against its goals. Special interest groups do not share the goal of society as a whole, and therefore become parasitic: they take from the whole to support their own agendas.

For these reasons, the gang/cult of the parasite is always in motion. Its agenda never rests because it has hacked the human brain with a simple pleasing concept that short-cuts everything else. “If everyone is accepted, no one is at risk, and there will be no conflict,” is its underlying appeal, and the very fact of this simplification makes the meme powerful. It appeals to fear.

Since its motive is always conquest from within, the Crowd uses a number of hooks to short-circuit the psychology of others, and these in turn shape its own thinking into a pathological (repetitive without regard for results) obsession. This mental state can be recognized by the following internal cycles:

  • Begging the Question. To advance itself, Leftism uses this fallacy to transition political ideas to perceived social morality ideas. As we see with political correctness, the basic form is to assert that certain things are universally good, and therefore that in the converse, anyone who opposes those ideas is bad. The basic form of the fallacy is as follows:

    The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (“begging the question”), occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated (example: “Gregory always votes wisely.” “But how do you know?” “Because he always votes Libertarian.”).

    A special form of this fallacy, called a vicious circle, or circulus in probando (“arguing in a circle”), occurs in a course of reasoning typified by the complex argument in which a premise p1 is used to prove p2; p2 is used to prove p3; and so on, until pn − 1 is used to prove pn; then pn is subsequently used in a proof of p1, and the whole series p1, p2, . . . , pn is taken as established (example: “McKinley College’s baseball team is the best in the association [ pn = p3]; they are the best because of their strong batting potential [ p2]; they have this potential because of the ability of Jones, Crawford, and Randolph at the bat [ p1].” “But how do you know that Jones, Crawford, and Randolph are such good batters?” “Well, after all, these men are the backbone of the best team in the association [ p3 again].”).

    Strictly speaking, petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction, since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise.

    The final line may be the most important: this argument type is a linguistic sleight-of-hand, and the only reason it works is that the premise is associated with universal moral good, a concept that itself is an assumption. But because of its appearance in a social setting, the argument seems convincing because universal acceptance is a necessary basic attribute of socializing in large and thus broad groups. This is how the Crowd forms.

    For example, consider the Leftist argument for diversity: variety is good, therefore we need ethnic variety. The only way to oppose this seems to be to criticize the conclusion of the argument, when the real solution is to attack the assumption and the inexact language that allows it to seem relevant. Variety is good in certain contexts, and only certain types of variety, and these do not analogize to civilizations very well.

    The Left moves into circulus in probando by stacking its assumptions: “Because (we assume that) morality is universal, (we assume that) diversity is good, and since (we assume that) diversity is working so well, we need to expand the program.” In fact, all of Leftism can be seen as a circulus in probando starting with the idea that personal intent is more important than reality — the core of individualism and The Enlightenment™ — and moving to universalism, democratization and finally, to the extension of those principles to other areas. Diversity might be viewed as ethnic democracy, welfare as subsidized universalism, and strong state control as democratization of power.

  • Rationalism. Humans like to think that reason alone will bring them to correct answers, but they forget that our reasoning is shaped by our minds and must correspond to a reality more complex than our minds. Reason is thus not a singular thing, but many grades of an idea, and in addition to that, it varies with the individual.

    For those reasons, saying that reason will guide us to correct answers necessarily overloads our minds with the imposition of the idea that all people are the same, and that reason works like a calculator, when in fact it is more varied. That in turn creates the curse of rationalism which is that it enables people to have tunnel vision by identifying a plausible answer and then finding facts to support it, instead of assessing all facts and finding a model which fits all of the known data.

    Rationalism in this sense is not essentially distinct from rationalization, or developing a way of visualizing an unfortunate event as a positive one. In this case, the unfortunate event is civilization collapse, and so instead of fighting it, the Left rationalizes it and directs its attention away from fixing the problem to finding a way to feel good about the problem. Both rationalism and rationalization start by accepting a perception and then altering facts by filtering out those that do not conform to the thesis so that the perception appears not just true but inevitable.

  • Control. When cooperation can no longer exist because society is pulling itself apart into special interest groups, control appears: force everyone to go through the same procedures, or “means” versus “ends” or goals, equally or in the same way, so that details can be managed from central control or through a centralized narrative, even if independently interpreted as is the case with egalitarianism, the founding idea of the Left.

    The modern method can be seen as Social Control, or use of the threat of ostracism and reward for making people feel good as dual pincers of the control mechanism. Guilt is the primary weapon there: those who are not ideologically conforming become aware that others will be “upset” or “offended” by their acts, and are made to feel bad not about the consequences of their actions in reality, but in the perceptions of others.

    This process of regulating people through public appearance proves deadly effective because humans — like our Simian forebears — are social creatures. Alienation does not require government intervention, and because it causes others to fear for themselves if they are associated with the alienated person, spreads like a disease. It is more effective than any other means of punishment because the consequences are all-pervasive.

    When noticed by humans, social control is referred to as peer pressure with all the implications of collective punishment that this indicates. A small group, like a local community, fears being associated with bad ideas, so it punishes those who have them. In addition, this group will punish a group within it for deviation from the norm. This means that the individual is totally dependent on the group for behavioral cues and must follow whatever is decided, in an inversion of democracy but an extension of democratization. When all people have a voice, conformity results, and then it is made mandatory.

  • Crybullying. To advance a petitio principii fallacy, one must act as if the assumption therein is normal and universally liked. This requires playing the role of an innocent, benevolent and passive party. However, when someone refuses the assumption, this requires the fallacy advocate to act the role of wounded victim, which then justifies (synonyms: rationalizes; excuses) retaliation.

    This produces a type of weaponized passive aggression or indirect bullying. The Leftist needs to appear somewhere, insist on a Leftist method, and then act wounded while summoning the troops — the rest of the gang/cult — to attack. This enables Leftists to infiltrate any area of society and, by using their passive aggressive “victimhood” narrative, force others to conform to what the Leftist desires.

The psychology created by the above cannot be properly viewed as a philosophy, but an inversion of philosophy: instead of finding reasons to act in certain ways, it assumes basic human impulses — which like most undisciplined things, are usually wrong — are correct and then invents explanations for those that make them seem reasonable.

That however implicates a philosophy with two branches:

  • Means Over Ends. Leftism embraces a classic “means over ends” analysis. In that view, the goal does not matter so much as behaving in a correct way, in this case for social approval. That allows necessarily goals to be ignored if the methods needed are upsetting or inconvenient to the group, which “wags the dog” because then instead of thinking toward purpose, people think away from purpose and let methods become a substitute for goals. This rationalizes the lack of purpose inherent to a dying civilization and creates an imitative society where people repeat past successful acts without knowledge of what made them successful, simply by placing trust in the method and being afraid to contemplate goals.
  • Cause And Effect. Normally, we see our actions as the cause of an event which had certain effects, or outcomes. In the inverted world of Leftism, cause is removed by the assumption of moral goodness to methods, which signifies that the methods are both effect and cause. This removes the human ability to see cause, and by declaring the irrelevance of ends or effects, obliterates our ability to formulate independent goals. This creates atomized, infantilized, and domesticated people who depend on strong authority for guidance, as their acts otherwise are goalless and therefore become self-destructive in addition to pointless.

The root of this philosophy is a resistance to life itself: people would prefer to be gods in their own minds than to realize their place in an order — structure, hierarchy, flow of events — that makes life what it is. This is the essence of control within the human mind. It rejects all that is natural and replaces it with a world composed entirely of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. This is comforting to the under-confident and neurotic.

All high-level societies die through some form of Crowdism, which is usually Leftist. When a civilization is forming, its purpose is clear: create civilization, beat back nature and disease, and organize so that the pleasures of life are possible. After that point, civilization is taken for granted because most people cannot see the reason to choose a new purpose, since they have the effects of the work that created that civilization.

Dysgenics factor in here as well, especially in cities large enough to be anonymous. People need only to find a job, rent a place to live, and purchase food from street vendors. Everything else is optional. It is not surprising that modern Leftists are enamored of the job/rent/restaurant lifestyle. This, and the advances in institutionalized hygiene and safety that save people from their own bad choices, create people who are living but have no will to live other than the mechanical and material process of survival itself. With this, purpose and bravery die.

Anti-goals afflict successful civilizations only. One mode of thought, embraced by primitivists and Nietzscheans to varying degrees, is that civilization — if it wishes to survive — needs to back off of “perfecting” everyday life, and should preserve dangers. The idea of social Darwinism that is not in love with jobs and money holds that there should be no externalized costs to individual actions, such that each individual faces the consequences of his actions including potential death. This means strict punishment for any costs incurred to society by the individual, a lack of things like insurance and uniform methods of survival, and daily challenges so that the clueless weed themselves out.

Another possibility for civilization survival is to design it such that every action must have a purpose, and the results are compared to that purpose, with those who achieve parity between intention and reality being promoted in a hierarchy. This creates constant internal evolution and at the very least disenfranchises those who are inept at everything but collecting social approval. In other words, society must be less “social” and more purpose-driven.

Diversity presents a fundamental problem in any society because with the presence of a single person from the Other group, either social standards must be widened to include the standards of both self and Other, or those who are Other will be at a disadvantage and appear to be victims. That in turn jump-starts the begging-the-question fallacy by making it easily observed that the Other is failing, and assuming that this is bad, and therefore that “change” must occur.

Above all else, we must remember what Walt Kelley told us years ago: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Inside of each of us is a monkey. This monkey reacts to life out of fear and lives in a miasma of superstition, projection and denial through filtering out inconvenient and upsetting information. This monkey is driven by impulse, which leads to rationalization of that impulse, and reverts thought. The healthiest civilizations are disciplined more in terms of private thoughts than public behavior, but not through Control; instead, they aim for realism and other methods of refining the spirit to be rigid about its thinking and to push down the monkey impulses.

Our inner monkey resents life for not being equal to our intent as individuals. That choice forces us to either accept reality as it is (nihilism) or to accept only ourselves, then rationalize that denial as good, and in turn blot out reality without a consensual hallucination of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. Since this has its root in the monkey impulse toward self-importance in defiance of a reality structured otherwise, it is also a regression and the source of the dark organization that is Crowdism.

We have come to recognize Typical Leftist Behavior (TLB) with increasing frequency as the achievement of Leftist goals (diversity, equality, democratization, globalism) has made reality totally unknown to most people, resulting in terrible consequences when their ideas are put into practice, as usually happens with reality-denial. TLB takes many forms but all are based in the schema above.

The threats in front of us — Leftism, The Enlightenment,&trade civilization collapse — are themselves effects of this inner transformation of human beings. We no longer intend to achieve good results; we focus instead on making our feelings happy despite the darkness around us, but this deprives us of a sense that life can be a joy and a pleasure. That in turn pushes us toward more dark thoughts and behaviors.

Salvation for Western Civilization begins when we not just reverse this process, but commit ourselves instead toward a purpose which replaces the original purpose of survival that kept our civilization united in its early years. We also must protect ourselves genetically, so that we are not replaced with the Other, even in traces, as those alter what we were and through atavisms of that, what we must be again.

The Left won because it had a simple idea that dominated all other thinking. The solution is not to try to replicate that, but to understand that simple ideas which dominate are in themselves a terrible notion, and that instead, we need a more nuanced, purpose-driven and realistic view of life. As Leftist society crashes in chaos around us, more are turning toward this idea or something like it.

Why Social Caste Exists

Saturday, December 3rd, 2016


Back in the days of suffering through what passes for “education” in our declining civilization, you were probably told about “top-down” and “bottom-up” orders.

Leftists — most teachers and professors are of this variety, because it makes them feel powerful — fetishize bottom-up orders, or those which have no guiding principle except self-interest of their smallest particles. For them, self-interest means individualism, and they draw the line at capitalism, which they see as limiting the self-interest of other particles.

On the other hand, top-down orders occur with a plan in mind that is used to arrange all those little particles so they work together.

Professors tend to point to nature as an example of bottom-up order. Bacteria form, evolve, and become higher organisms, which then exist in ecosystems, where each particle serves one of many different roles, unequally, and together through acting out those roles, achieve a balance to the whole.

What they do not tell you is that this arrangement demonstrates all of the attributes of a top-down order, only done indirectly and not in the human method of carving things up with large machines. There is some kind of plan inherent to the order of nature where some are granted more power and form different levels of a hierarchy, much like eagles and sparrows are both birds.

This natural hierarchy is what Leftism seeks to abolish.

If you went further on in “education,” you probably encountered the equally mystifying concept of vertical and horizontal hierarchy. In vertical hierarchy, some end up potters and some end up coopers, and the coopers tell the potters what to do. In horizontal hierarchy, everyone is a potter, and some are acknowledged as better potters than the others.

If Leftism has a message with its one ideological pillar, namely “egalitarianism” or the idea that everyone is “equal” (whatever that means), it is that we should have horizontal order alone, and that this will magically create a bottom-up order through competition. This extends from classical liberals (“libertarians”) to Communists; all want everyone equal, and then to see a magic calculation emerge from this.

Only traditional society offers actual social order, which is both top-down and bottom-up as well as both horizontal and vertical. Part of this is aristocracy, which includes social caste or its modern depleted equivalent, “class.” The classes are ranked in vertical hierarchy, but within them, there is horizontal hierarchy. This allows those who are good at making pottery to be ranked alongside their companions in caste, but also, for them to be limited from rising above their level of competence, where they will make decisions without having any idea how to do so.

Social caste is important because it liberates each group from competition beyond what is appropriate to it. Sparrows cannot compete with eagles nor can eagles subsist on grain and grubs as sparrows do, but both are needed. Without the eagles, the sources of grain up which sparrows depend would be unduly depleted by others, such as rodents. In this way, the unequal roles of the ecosystem hierarchy preserve health and happiness for all.

The difference between the ecosystem we had with traditional society and what we have now is that the past was based on authority, and the present is based on control. With authority, those in power are accountable for their decisions, and to that end, given more power. As soon as we regulate their power, they are no longer accountable, because those regulations have hampered their ability to act directly. Instead, we get Control: making everyone do exactly the same thing in order to eliminate deviation so that those in power remain in power. It turns out to be less hospitable to human flourishing.

Modernity Encourages Obsessive Behavior

Thursday, December 1st, 2016


From the Financial Times comes the recognition, unwelcome to Leftists, that government legalization of formerly illicit substances causes a massive increase in their use.

As we say around these parts, “What you tolerate, you get more of.” Legalization is a form of tolerance, but a more potent form is creating a carrot/stick reward system.

These “Control” systems have a similar pattern: people are manipulated individually through reward and punishment by treating them as identical units, depersonalizing them and driving them toward a lowest common denominator. This breaks their spirit and makes them obedient, which to the type of incompetents chosen in modern societies, seems like success.

These systems create obsessive behavior by promising a reward that is never fulfilled, and making any other option seem intolerable. Control systems create a “game” that replaces reality by social mediation. People are addicted to games, and this creates a compulsive mentality where a small group takes over society as a result of its obsession.

Like rats in a lab, gamblers in Vegas do the same thing over and over again, and are constantly watched, measured, and studied. Millions of dollars depends on it.

Casinos are not the only businesses to take notice and profit from the study and manipulation of human behaviour. Smartphone companies also rely on the same discoveries about human nature. They also seek to promote a style of consumer behaviour that, at its most engaged and profitable, looks a lot like an obsessive compulsive disorder.

…The result is a matrix of similarities between problem gambling and problem smartphone use, which is even evident in the economics, as casinos and many smartphone applications make their greatest profit off a small portion of “big fish” users, who are hooked and pulled from the vastly larger set of casual users.

These obsessive-compulsive nature of these pathologies create negative feedback loops where people expect something good, and receive something less good, but because no other option is tolerated, they keep pursuing the one option open to them. This is the end result of setting up games with binary carrot/stick reward/punishment control systems.

This is the nature of modern society. By making individual intent the mediator of reality as The Enlightenment™ prescribed, our society has replaced the question of results-in-reality (consequentialism) with the question of appearance to others (collectivized individualism). This creates the game-playing that in turn fosters the obsession, turning society upside down as herd panic takes over.

How Humanity Transitioned From Power To Control

Monday, November 28th, 2016


Over at The Financial Times, Edward Luce writes that the American era is over with the demise of globalization, and the era of “strong power” is back:

Mr Obama took office at a geopolitical inflection point. As he prepares to leave, few any longer dispute the fact of relative US decline. For all his high aspirations, Mr Obama was unable to stop the process.

…The US-led international order as we knew it for 70 years is over. The era of great power politics is back. An ebullient Russia, led by the strongman Putin, and an increasingly confident China, led by the strongman Xi Jinping, will deal with a wounded America led by strongman Trump. The long-term trajectory is towards China.

The era of great power politics refers mainly to the fact that there was no superpower status nation-state which kept the rest in line, so it was open competition on the basis of self-interest. Not surprisingly, this led to “strong power” or more authority to the heads of state.

But this leads us to a question: What if the great powers age never ended, but instead transitioned into a propaganda war?

This explains the radical shift toward manipulative imagery instead of pure military might. That in turn led to the war for hearts and minds that created the ideological age.

In new right circles, we tend to refer to that type of power structure as “soft totalitarianism” or “decentralized totalitarianism.” Perhaps its best explainer is Vaclav Havel, who writes of the passive coercive power that such systems demand through ideological conformity:

One legacy of that original “correct” understanding is a third peculiarity that makes our systems different from other modern dictatorships: it commands an incomparably more precise, logically structured, generally comprehensible and, in essence, extremely flexible ideology that, in its elaborateness and completeness, is almost a secularized religion. It of fears a ready answer to any question whatsoever; it can scarcely be accepted only in part, and accepting it has profound implications for human life. In an era when metaphysical and existential certainties are in a state of crisis, when people are being uprooted and alienated and are losing their sense of what this world means, this ideology inevitably has a certain hypnotic charm. To wandering humankind it offers an immediately available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenly everything becomes clear once more, life takes on new meaning, and all mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of course, one pays dearly for this low-rent home: the price is abdication of one’s own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and conscience to a higher authority.

In these systems, people are rewarded for conformity and punished for deviation, including — most importantly — the failure to participate. If you want to have a career, family, house and friends, you must join the franchise, like a union, gang or cult.

These systems start with the assumption that they are right and then use that position to portray all who fail to participate as being by the converse wrong, which justifies their exclusion. In this way, it incentivizes every person to re-interpret reality according to the ideological narrative, and excludes those who do not join the herd.

To see this in action, witness an anatomy of “spin” as it works to advance the Leftist narrative by attributing Leftist actions to the Right:

These facts as they circulated from Dallas sent shock waves across the world, suggesting that Castro or perhaps Soviet leaders were behind the assassination of an American president. Indeed, a spokesman for the District Attorney’s office in Dallas soon asserted that President Kennedy had been assassinated as part of a communist conspiracy.

…It was to be expected then that prominent public officials and journalists would look for ways to deflect attention away from Oswald’s possible ideological motives and toward other possible causes of the crime. In the same issue of the New York Times, adjacent to the report from Dallas, readers found an unusual opinion article penned by James Reston, the Washington bureau chief of the Times and at that time the dean of national political journalists. The article was titled, “Why America Weeps: Kennedy Victim of Violent Streak He Sought to Curb in Nation.”

…Two narratives of the assassination were thus juxtaposed on the front page of The New York Times on the day after the event. One was based upon the facts, which pointed to Oswald as the assassin and to the Cold War as the general context in which the event should be understood. The other was a political narrative, entirely divorced from the facts, that pointed to “extremists on the Right” and a national culture of violence as the culprits in the assassination. Both interpretations could not be correct.

…Upon hearing that President Kennedy had died, Chief Justice Earl Warren, soon to head the official commission that investigated the assassination, issued a statement to the press: “A great and good President,” he declared, “has suffered martyrdom as a result of the hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots.”

Truth was reversed by the simple interjection of opinions by those at the top of the ideological hierarchy. Others conformed; those who did not were marginalized, and that was used — as a complex ad hominem argument — as proof of the unfitness of their opinions. History was re-written.

This shows us a transition from power to control. Power is either exercised upon a population, or with their consent to its general correctness (authority) even when disagreeing with a specific act. This is the nature of strong power.

The postwar American hegemony on the other hand operated through control, which is a type of managerial state that takes advantage of dark organization within itself by making ideology align with the personality weaknesses of individuals that generate dark organization when they rebel against social order or organizational goals.

Control is the root method of civilizational destruction. This is an opposite to strong power, which opposes dark organizations by setting up clear goals and rewarding only those who achieve them. Control rewards only those who obey ideology, which is a substitute for reality where having the right opinions is more important than achieving results.

The new strong power age has positive implications for those who want a traditional civilization. It ends the “we are all one” and “everybody is important” mythic dogma required for Control, and begins to implement the values standards necessary for authority. As part of this, it promotes culture and morality over financial convenience, which will be a vast change from the gradual assimilation of society by financial interests that has dominated the West in the near past.

Generation X Wisdom: Modern Life Is Modern Lifestyles, Which Are Killing You

Thursday, November 24th, 2016


Politics is Leftism: the idea that every person is able to make leadership decisions, which in reality translates into the need to manipulate, control and manage them to make them reach the right conclusions — or any conclusions at all.

When we view our time this way, we see that the root of modernity is The Enlightenment.™ With the rise of the notion that every person should manage his own fate according to nothing but whim, social order began to die and was replaced with mass manipulation.

Every aspect of modernity is shot through with this. The constant advertising that seems to cover every available surface. The droning syncopated music that places the audience at its center. The religious cults which emphasize the ego. And of course, slogans and laws and regulations everywhere, all the time.

We have lost control.

Modernity manifests for most people as a lifestyle, and this is also its Achilles Heel. We are trained from an early age to go somewhere away from home where we spend our time obeying rules and conducting exercises unrelated to end results. This makes us instructable, so that we respond in Pavlovian sympathy to symbols.

The “good” symbols make us drool, and the “bad” symbols make us bark. This, more than Christianity, is the root of our binary morality. To control people, you need to create a good/bad pair so that when you want them to do something affirmatively, you call it good, and when you want something away from consideration, you tag it as bad and destroy those who pursue it.

Control — using categorical limits to create mass compliance — works in this fashion. Its opposite is hierarchy, where people find their own means of achieving goals which are invariant, and the best rise. With Control, there is no invariant purpose; there is only the whim of those in Control, who pride themselves on being the most powerful monkeys in the troop.

Your life has been managed by Control, which means that you are directed toward specific methods of behavior without regard for goal. These behaviors are mostly designed to fill time and keep you instructed in the ways of compliance, and so you may find that your irreplaceable seconds are being flooded with irrelevant gunk for purposes unrelated and contrary to your benefit.

The modern person goes to work or school, waiting through stoplights and traffic jams as his fellow incompetents struggle with simple tasks. This instructs him in passivity, or that he must always defer to what the group is doing.

At work or school, he works on details that are unrelated to an end result. If he is an architect, he bases his designs on what has sold well in the past. If he is a doctor, he follows what the literature of his profession says are the right procedures. If he is a lawyer, he uses statements by others to argue a case for his client. In no case does he wonder what a good result would be; his entire being is invested in playing the game.

When he votes, he plays the game, trying to choose the candidate whose actions will lead to his own personal wealth or power increasing. When he shops, he tries to outwit the pricing algorithms at the stores. When he drives, he chooses his route based on what others are doing, and tries to avoid them.

His mindset is entirely conditioned to react to the group and choose some things he assumes are “good” over the norm, which is mostly negative in outcome. He values money, convenience, comfort, sex and power. He has no concept of purpose, meaning or any higher significance than his own sensual experience.

This is how Control works. Like rats in lab cages, we pull one lever to get food or an electric buzz in the pleasure and sexual centers of our brains. Pull the other lever, and we get a nasty shock to the nose. Soon we know exactly which lever to pull every time.

90% of our work is not necessary and very little of it is fun. But our society does not run on results, but perceptions, because every man is a little king. Those nano-kings must believe the same things so they operate on the same assumptions, or control will fail, and who knows what comes after that.

In the meantime, the controllers are not tyrannical ideologues like Hitler but super salesman like Dale Carnegie. They know how to manipulate people. They instinctively flatter and then enrage the group, creating moral binaries: diversity is good, racism is bad, so we all go broke if you do not support diversity and smash down racism!

The needs of Control have ruined your life. You get only one, at least in this form, and your time is mostly spent on useless and degrading labor so that you remain malleable to Control. In order to justify this, your mind chooses to exist in a bubble world of its own ego, rationalizing that although life is horrible, at least the ego is in control and that makes the self important.

When you get home from work or school, there are only self-directed hobbies. You can watch porn or television. You can experiment with woodworking or music. But these are dead ends; they connect to nothing, and serve no purpose except — like work and school — to expend your time in a mixture of compliance and self-fascination, rendering you inert.

Our modern time is baffling because the entire thing resembles a religious experience of the ego. All day long there are choices and chances to feel a sense of personal power, but while these have consequences, none exist at a level greater than personal comfort. You are sealed in yourself and distracted by yourself.

This lifestyle is the root of modernity. When we went down the egalitarian path, which is what happens when a society succeeds enough to breed idiots and parasites in moderate numbers, we severed ourselves from meaning, and became atomized little cogs which require controllers, and so those showed up to control us.

Generation X recognized that the futility of modern life begins in the lifestyle. Jobs, divorces, television and shopping are meaningless and yet they are all there is, outside of open rebellion. Maybe it is time we tried that latter option instead.