Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘crowdism’

Do We Live In A Totalitarian State?

Sunday, December 10th, 2017

Democracy instructs us that we have “freedom,” “liberty,” and “equality,” but all of these seem to be modified definitions. Freedom is subject to forced association, liberty to serving in the jobs of the workers’ state, and equality means that the higher subsidize the lower so that the illusion of cooperation is achieved.

This leads us to wonder what other terms have mutated definitions. In particular, we start to suspect that we are living in a neo-Communist or totalitarian society. A handy resource can be found in one definition of totalitarianism which reveals the structure of the state based on control:

1. An official ideology, consisting of an official body of doctrine covering all vital aspects of man’s existence, to which everyone living in that society is supposed to adhere at least passively; this ideology is characteristically focused in terms of chiliastic claims as to the “perfect” final society of mankind.

2. A single mass party consisting of a relatively small percentage of the total population (up to 10 per cent) of men and women passionately and unquestioningly dedicated to the ideology and prepared to assist in every way in promoting its general acceptance, such party being organized in strictly hierarchical, oligarchical manner, usually under a single leader….

3. A technologically conditioned near-complete monopoly of control (in the hands of the party and its subservient cadres, such as the bureaucracy and the armed forces) of all means of effective armed combat.

4. A similarly technologically conditioned near-complete monopoly of control (in the same hands) of all means of effective mass communication, such as the press, radio, motion pictures, and so on.

5. A system of terroristic police control. depending for its effectiveness upon points 3 and 4 and characteristically directed not only against demonstrable “enemies” of the regime, but also against arbitrarily selected classes of the population, such arbitrary selection turning upon exigencies of the regime’s survival, as well as ideological “implications” and systematically exploiting scientific psychology.
Carl J Friedrich (1954) ‘The unique character of totalitarian society’ in: Totalitarianism. New York: Grossett & Dunlap.

To understand how this applies to our present society, we must understand the nature of decentralized, indirect, and informal control. In these systems, there is no single leader, only a singular idea. There is not even a party. Instead, people collaborate informally to enforce an idea on others, and that idea — more than a manifestation of it — constitutes the core of the totalitarian society.

In this type of system, the “terroristic police control” consists of fear of social consequences which can cause an individual to lose jobs, friends, family, housing, and even services as banks, doctors, attorneys, accountants, and even grocery stores pull away from the controversy.

The control that this system exerts can be seen in enforcement of an idea from people who perceive they are receiving personal benefit from doing so, therefore are fanatical in their search for an excuse to enforce this on others. Each person they destroy gains them greater social status.

At that level, the system has a monopoly through indirect means. Since it is driven by individualistic behavior, people form herds which are dedicated to running away from threats, which means that all it must do is indicate that certain ideas, individuals, or behaviors are threats, and the crowd will destroy them.

This is a form of individualistic herd behavior, sometimes called the “selfish herd theory”:

He suggested that groups of animals as diverse as insects, fish and cattle all react to danger by moving towards the middle of their swarm, school or herd, known as the selfish herd theory. Individuals in a herd benefit from being able to control where they are relative to their group-mates and any potential predator. It also reduces the chances of being the one the predator goes for when it attacks.

Such behavior may be a sub-form of the tragedy of the commons: if safety, or areas where one is safe, are a resource, each individual exploits those to the maximum and social order is sacrificed by the collective selfishness of individuals, as happens in most human organizational failures.

Decentralized totalitarianism exploits the fear-driven nature of human behavior. When humans organize into groups, they rely on external cues — the behavior of others — to identify threats to the herd. If the herd can be induced into constant panic, that panic can be used to target any threat by making that threat into the scapegoat, or by assigning agency for actual threats to the imaginary enemy. Satan is deceptive: we blame him for evils, when really he is merely the symbol of those evils.

Control systems of this nature depend on a dysfunctional codependency between individuals and their manipulators, who have as much in common with salesmen as dictators. The herd depends on the leaders to signal threats and potential rewards, and out of fear and fear of missing out, then depends on those leaders, who also require the power of the masses which are used as a political weapon, or a means to the end of destroying political enemies and thus asserting the power of the controller.

Aldous Huxley predicted that the mob rule brought on by the French Revolution would ultimately end in the rise of cynical controllers who hid their methods through indirect and decentralized means, letting people lead themselves into servitude with their fears and desires. Humans would be defeated by individualism, not outright control.

A system of this nature rules through duality. Individuals are induced into acts which neutralize them, while the same authority that they trust for those inspirations also teaches them to fear anything but the condition under which they find themselves. As Huxley wrote, perfect tyranny appears to be freedom:

The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.

The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. In the past, free-thinkers and revolutionaries were often the products of the most piously orthodox education. This is not surprising. The methods employed by orthodox educators were and still are extremely inefficient. Under a scientific dictator education will really work — with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.

This inverts the unduly famous statement from 1984, “Freedom is Slavery.” In the Brave New World of Huxley, he shows how what people think of as freedom becomes a form of slavery. This damages not so much the individual as a civilization because control methods lead to oblivious and inept societies because they create an internal backlash and encourage people to ignore important details that could indicate systemic problems. We saw that in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Control causes a loss of civilization. The inner-directed populace that works together toward the goal of having an excellent existence is replaced by a bickering crowd of monkeys who take civilization for granted, lower their standards, and are interested, carnie-style, in what immediate benefits they can receive right now. They would not pass the marshmallow test:

In the 1960s, Stanford University Professor Walter Mischel gave young children a simple proposition. They sat with a marshmallow in front of them for fifteen minutes – and if they could hold off from eating it, they would be given two treats at the end of the time period. Some of them ate the treat straight away – but others succeeded in overcoming temptation.

Subsequent research found that the children from the original experiment who could delay gratification had scored better academic results, earned higher salaries, and been less prone to obesity.

In this way, totalitarianism — like democracy — makes people less capable because they become accustomed to being outer-directed, and lose the ability to conceive and formulate their own direction. This appears similar to the case of children who watch too much television and then, are unable to figure out what to do with themselves when the television is off.

Decentralized control triumphs by creating this codependent relationship. It enforces its will upon the citizens, who then come to lean on it for guidance because it regulates what is rewarded, and end up becoming entirely defined by it. People lose the ability to understand their world and respond to it in a way that maximizes their position, and see the world entirely through the filter of government and social pressure. This way, reality is forgotten and abilities are lost.

Its decentralized nature allows control — which, as you recall, arises from individualistic fear — to remain invisible. It camouflages itself in social chaos and by maintaining internal debate and competition, both of which take the place of normal healthy functions and distract from the decay. As Mario Vargas Llosa opined:

It may not seem to be a dictatorship, but it has all of the characteristics of a dictatorship; the perpetuation, not of one person, but of an irremovable party, a party that allows sufficient space for criticism, provided such criticism serves to maintain the appearance of a democratic party, but which suppresses by all means, including the worst, whatever criticism may threaten its perpetuation in power.

In theory, the group we cannot criticize is the group that rules us, but what about a group that we cannot identify? If the group is fully decentralized, it has no membership list, official rules, hierarchy, or even headquarters. Its members may not even be aware that they are members, and will be spread among every industry, institution, and social role. They are united only by one thing: that they are infected by the same idea, and so are pathologically driven toward it, despite its eventual destructiveness.

Huxley again, this time from the 1947 introduction to Brave New World:

The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be made as effective as the negative. The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists will call “the problem of happiness” — in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude.

An empire based on distraction proves more powerful than one based on commands. When truth is obscured by a simpler but less realistic symbolic view of the world, then people will ignore the important issues and pursue the scapegoats and their positive counterpart, trends which lead to rewards through socializing, because those who ride the trends are the ones who become popular and get rich, which enables them to escape the disaster created by lack of social order.

With this in mind, let us revisit those five traits of totalitarianism:

  1. An official ideology, consisting of an official body of doctrine covering all vital aspects of man’s existence. This doctrine must cover all aspects of human existence and have Utopian overtones. In our distributed totalitarian society, egalitarianism — the idea that all people are equal, or should be, in varying economic, social, legal, and political ways — serves this role. It explains our purpose, lack of social order, morality, and method of control all in one.
  2. A single mass party consisting of a relatively small percentage of the total population (up to 10 per cent). Since it is decentralized, this group does not form a party, but a mob. They join together in ad hoc, informal, and tacit demonstrations of their belief and destruction of those who do not agree, like a lynch mob or witch hunt.
  3. A…near-complete monopoly of control…of all means of effective armed combat. This one proves more complex: self-defense is justified only when defending an individual and its right to pursue its desires, but it is viewed as illegitimate in defense of anything at a level broader than the individual, such as civilization, culture, heritage, values, or faith. This gives the power for violence exclusively to egalitarians.
  4. A…near-complete monopoly of control…of all means of effective mass communication. When everyone who becomes popular agrees on the same ideas, and only those who exhibit these ideas become popular, then a de facto monopoly exists not just among media, but entertainment and academia as well.
  5. A system of…control…against arbitrarily selected classes of the population…systematically exploiting scientific psychology. I have removed the term “police” because any form of control will do, and this describes the “struggle sessions” that happen whenever someone accidentally says something that is not politically correct, and must have their career and interpersonal relationships destroyed by the threat of ostracism.

Viewed from this angle, totalitarianism ably adapts to a decentralized format. What is more, it represents the crossover between totalitarianism and a cult, combining the socializing-based nature of a cult with the control-based agenda of tyranny:

Some aspects of the mind control methods of cults are inherent to Leftism when it occurs in a social setting (excerpted partially):

  • Isolation of the person and manipulation of his or her environment.
  • Control of information going in and out of the group environment.
  • Separation and/or alienation from family and friends.
  • Induced dissociation and other altered states by putting person in mild form of trance (through speaking in tongues, chanting, repeating affirmations, extended periods of meditation or prayer, lengthy denunciation sessions, long hours of lectures or study, public trials or group humiliation, about seat criticisms focusing on one individual, sexual abuse, torture, etc.)
  • Degradation of the person’s sense of self, through confession, self-reporting, rebuking, criticism and self-criticism, humiliation, and so on, in individual or group sessions.
  • Peer and leadership pressure, especially using powerful guilt mechanisms.
  • Induced anxiety, fear, and confusion, with joy and certainty being offered through surrender to the group; instilling the belief that the person’s survival physical, emotional, spiritual depends on remaining with the group; also induced crises, so that the person must submit to symbolic (or real) acts of submission to the group via betrayal and renunciation of self, family, and previously held values.
  • Extensive indoctrination sessions (through Bible lessons, political training, sales training, self-awareness lessons, lectures by leaders).
  • Alternation of harshness and leniency in a context of necessary discipline.

These describe complete methods of control, but distill to a few central methods of cults:

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who once taught at Harvard Medical School, wrote a paper titled Cult Formation in the early 1980s. He delineated three primary characteristics, which are the most common features shared by destructive cults.

  1. A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power. That is a living leader, who has no meaningful accountability and becomes the single most defining element of the group and its source of power and authority.
  2. A process [of indoctrination or education is in use that can be seen as] coercive persuasion or thought reform [commonly called “brainwashing”].
  3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Other descriptions of cults outline similar pathologies.

In the decentralized totalitarian state, the charismatic leader is replaced by a series of behaviors which signal charisma and social success, such as wearing black sweaters and jeans to flaunt the rules or inserting obscenity into mundane conversation, which enables members of the crowd to become leaders in turn for their fifteen minutes of fame.

The crowd then enforces its process of indoctrination through trends and norms, encouraging conformity to the same values by using the same terms, whose meanings have been edited to make them suggest an obvious conclusion. Those who step out of line are excluded, and since connections and friend nepotism are how most people get ahead, to fail to conform is to fail.

Finally, the herd exploits itself. In the view of someone infected with ideology, all people and things are means to an end, which is achieving that ideological Utopia. This conflicts with the natural human impulse toward ends-over-means thinking, such as that which insists that there be good results in reality by any means necessary.

A feedback loop between the individualists and the tyrant thus arises. They depend on strong leadership to reduce life to a narrow set of options so that the individual need focus only on the social, therefore using ideology as a means of gaining acceptance and then achieving wealth and power within the system.

In this way, we see that individualism and tyranny are one and the same, much like individualism and collectivism/egalitarianism are one and the same, because they are designed by individuals to enable them to succeed. This occurs at the expense of social order, and creates a death spiral where society must become more totalitarian as it becomes more chaotic.

Government Is Self-Rationalizing

Saturday, December 9th, 2017

Humanity encounters crises because we are self-referential. Through our specialized jobs, but even more our tendency to socialize, we are accustomed to getting through life by convincing other people that we deserve things. This leads to a condition where we are self-rationalizing; we act based on what others will approve of, and then later explain what we get to ourselves as the best possible condition that could have been.

This presents a problem because our first step determines our last step. Once we start down a path, we begin rationalizing it within the group, and the group reinforces its dominant bias or narrative agenda, which has us going further down the path because otherwise, someone might be to blame for screwing up. And so step one leads to step two, with no chance to get off the crazy train until the crash.

Internal pressure provides the most fascinating study. In a group of people, getting anything done is a struggle, so we filter our thoughts for what we believe we can achieve. At that point, making the group happy so that it holds together becomes more important than anything else, and we contort and adjust our ideas to match what the group will approve. This filter kills any ideas of a different path before they are voiced, much like an early form of political correctness.

Human groups thus find themselves following a behavior pattern where they start out small and have focus on a goal, but if they succeed, grow large and then shift their focus toward making everyone happy. At that point, reality is ignored, and results become bad in consequence. Out of fear of instability, the group works harder to unify itself, instead of re-focusing on the goal. In this way, the most successful human endeavors become the ones most pathologically devoted to self-destruction.

Somewhere in there, the sheer frustration of working on a doomed process takes over and people become actively destructive. They know, but cannot articulate, that their time is being wasted. They resent others for being implements of doom and yet have no idea what they would do differently. Vandalism, perversion, self-destruction, and resentful passive-aggressive behavior result.

We can see this self-referential self-rationalizing mentality in democratic governments, since they are unable to recall any past programs that provide benefit to anyone, as then they will be seen as the aggressor who takes from others. This is why we have hysterical political mumbling like the budget fumble currently roiling the swamp in Washington, D.C.:

As the population ages and lawmakers grapple with the effects automation has on job displacement, more funds at the federal level are going to be an absolute necessity. It’s simply not going to be tenable to keep on raising and spending what’s raised and spent today. And other countries prove there’s plenty of room to raise more revenue without kneecapping economic growth.

The easiest thing to do first is to raise some money on the corporate side. The U.S. used to raise 4-5 percent of GDP in corporate taxes. Today, that’s down to 1.6 percent. The corporate income tax once made up about one-third of total U.S. revenue. In 2017, it won’t even make up 10 percent. (At the same time, the personal income tax has remained steady, raising 7 or 8 percent in GDP, for about 45 percent of total revenue.)

…And then there’s rates on the wealthy, which most certainly have room to go up. If it were entirely up to me, rather than hiking what is currently the 39-percent top bracket, I’d add new brackets on top so that multi-millionaires aren’t paying the same marginal rate as the upper-middle class. America’s concentration of wealth is such that there’s plenty of room to raise taxes on the rich with nary an economic blip; in fact, there’s a case that income inequality is itself a drag on growth. The top marginal rate used to be above 90 percent, and was at 50 as recently as the 80s, so going higher than today’s rate isn’t some ahistorical anomaly.

The missing portions of this article furnish the most interest: we see zero analysis of cause and effect, such as “we raised the rates this much and this was the result.” Instead there is just the notice that people got away with something similar in the past, so maybe we should assume that the demands on us are identical and adopt those same old policies.

Even more, what we witness here turns from a reasonable argument about balancing a budget into a demand to keep funding exactly what we are doing now. There is no ability to say that we should look at acts of the past as something that requires assessment, or even a consideration for how we will eventually get rid of our crippling debt, which is devaluing our currency. There is just rationalization of what we have done and a panic-stricken begging for someone to keep the money tap flowing.

How do we escape this death spiral? Until there is a reckoning, known colloquially as “hitting rock bottom,” we do not, because under democracy politicians will not remove any program that benefits someone anywhere. Instead, they will insist that our current spending is the only possible universe in which we could exist, tax until they crush the producers in the economy, and spend until the government runs into default by fully devaluing its currency. Once we assume democracy, this is the only path that it can take.

Much like any other iteration of The Human Problem, this instance shows us the codependency with power that atomized individuals possess. They demand a protector because they fear personal consequences for screwing up or misunderstanding how reality works. They seek to abolish reality by replacing it with a human simulacrum of reality, and this path too leads them away from sanity.

We could save ourselves untold years of misery, trillions of dollars, and wasted potential by admitting that we have hit rock bottom because there is no other way that we can go except forward into rationalization, and thus downward toward the abyss. For us to do that, however, we must see sacrifice as part of duty, instead of merely a duty toward our individualistic selves.

Doing The Wrong “Right” Thing

Thursday, December 7th, 2017

At the start of a journey, the end remains shrouded in mystery. Adventures tend to be cumulative, with each stage dependent on the previous one. When the explorer finally looks down on the objective, it may not resemble at all what was anticipated way back when the journey began.

Frequently people discover that what seemed like the right path at the start of the journey was clearly a wrong path as they approach the end, even if they were able to get to a better path from that wrong path in the first place. Something of this nature currently embroils the West as we realize that modern civilization, or maybe just civilization, is killing us.

Our species struggles with The Human Problem, which is our tendency to adapt to the audience instead of the goal. Humans are social animals because other people are closer to our understanding than the world outside of humans out there, but this creates a trap in that in order to accept others, we must broaden our standards to include both lowest common denominator and any outliers or exceptions.

That in turn forces an inversion, or removal of some truths that are not socially acceptable, which reduces our mission from what must be done to the simplified version consisting of what others can understand and what does not offend anyone. Over time, this turns the mission from its original purpose to something which fits all members of the group comfortably.

We can see this in action in all areas of human life:

  • A rock band. They finally got some recognition after their first demo. The drummer wants to be more like what he hears on the big internet stations. The bassist wants to be more arty and obscure. The guitarist wants to become jazz-fusion with a surface covering of their old style. The vocalist wants to continue doing what they did. Agreement cannot be found, so they mix it all together. The songs get more pop, with more jazz technique, but arty touches when possible, and they double down on the tropes in their music that reviewers noticed. Six months later, no one remembers them.
  • A church. The old roof leaks; a new one is needed. The elders of the church gather. They determine that it will take them years to achieve the funding for a full roof replacement, but patching the roof will take only a few months of fundraising. They also note that laying on a plastic sheath will take a few more months, and will cost half as much as a new roof, but is modern and fashionable although it does not fix the underlying problem. The group takes a vote, and it is decided that the sheath is the best option, because it is both acceptable and achievable. In six months, the roof leaks again.
  • A corporation. The old product is doing well, but competitors offer competition. Some in the committee room argue that the company should adopt something more like what the others are doing, while many say it should stay with what is true. Finally a compromise is reached: the company will offer its old product, but tweaked to be more like the competition. This pleases no one and fails, which means that within a year it is no longer on the company website.

In each case, the mission migrates from what is possible to what the group will accept, and everything else is filtered out, resulting in the choosing of a lesser option.

Our human world contains the idea of “doing the right thing” which is usually interpreted to mean ensuring that every person has a stake in what is done. However, when everyone has a stake, no one has a full stake, which means that decisions are assigned as a responsibility of the nebulous collective, and no one faces any real accountability for their actions. They blame the herd.

As we see it, “doing the right thing” involves supporting our society: first, getting a career and money; second, giving money and time to institutions; third, trying to choose the right option of many in politics, society, culture, and socializing with others. What we do not realize is that these seemingly-correct paths are in fact journeys to doom.

Consider the job. We go, because we need money. It takes up all of our time and we neglect our family, culture, learning, and souls. The job bores us because most of it is make-work nonsense. We become frustrated, and take that out on our families and neighbors, because there — unlike at the job — there are no consequences.

Much as drowning people at night often become disoriented and swim downward instead of toward the surface, in our society we are blinded by a desire to do right according to the definitions of the Herd, and so we pursue our own doom as if it were goodness and mercy.

We go off to jobs. We work hard to get ahead. We pay those taxes to support the parasite state. On Saturday, we get up and mow the lawn so that everyone else in the neighborhood sees us as respectable (for the record, neither this blog nor this author are “respectable”). We fritter away the rest of the day trying to catch the sales at the grocery store, find replacements for failing gadgets, adjust our computers into working order, cleaning the house, organizing all the stuff that piles up, and engaging our kids in respectable activities.

Then on Sunday, we rush off to church to be told how to be good and moral to the “less fortunate,” then come home and find out we have no idea what to do with the remaining time, so we turn on the television or Facebook and farm our brains out. Then we do it again, and one day we wake up at age 65 and find that the world no longer needs us. It used us and threw us away. And it took our best years for its own purposes, mainly for the eternal social goal of subsidizing the lower by taking from the higher so that an external administrative force — the State and its Leftist constituents — to have a perceived necessity.

The Human Problem manifests in this way: the smart people do what seems to be the right thing, which consists of what appears to our blocky human intellects to be an order that beats back unruly nature and substitutes a universal, level, fair, and organized system that succeeds because it makes everyone in the social group nod along, thinking that this is a good idea. We forget our purpose, and instead focus on the methods we perceive as necessary for that purpose, along the way losing our direction and souls.

Those methods inevitably involve deconstruction; human intellects favor isolated institutions with single-issue functions, which divides up the question of “civilization” into a series of disconnected roles, like the thought of a neurotic mind raging on in their own monomaniacal intent without ever correlating the whole or acting in parallel. We never look at the whole picture of survival and adaptation, and consider last if at all the question of the existential, namely whether we are living in such a way that makes us see the beauty in life and work to enhance it.

Our mania for this false type of order leads us to create cities where every person has a narrow function, jobs where we perform so that those above us approve without regard for what is actually needed, tolerance of those who are dysfunctional such that the individuals in the group are not threatened by the possibility of being noticed for their own failings, and a sense of stewardship of society as defined in terms of human individuals, such that we perceive that what is “right” is what subsidizes every member of society instead of obeying the selection instincts of nature and focusing only on those who are the type of people we want to be in the next generation.

In other words, what we think is right is in fact incorrect, which means that it is not wrong because it is morally wrong, but wrong because it consistently does not work out well in reality. Our minds are not perfect replicas of the world; in fact, we know the world only through interpretations of it, and these vary among people. If the “Bell Curve” that applies to IQ is consistent with other abilities, this implies that in fact very few of us are very good at all at understanding the world, with perhaps 5% having a mostly-clear picture, another 5% having a reasonably clear picture, and everyone else existing in a muddle.

This divides humanity into two groups, a 10% who basically “get it” and a 90% who essentially do not. As human societies grow, they become dedicated to managing people externally, or control, which basically consists of setting up an organization outside the social order in order to enforce rules, like an administrator or manager. This group is external because it is appointed or hired to do so, giving it the gloss of “objectivity” and “neutrality” that allows the vast majority of individuals to settle in like pleased chickens because they believe they are safe from loss of face, prestige, social status, and the good will of others, for their mistakes and character flaws. That external group then, because its mandate is to enforce unity, uses the 10% who are reliable as a means of subsidizing and stabilizing the 90% who are not. In defiance of evolution, it sacrifices the good in order to keep the rest in line for minimum function.

If the 10% were to cut itself free from the 90%, it would experience an exponential growth in happiness and a proportionate massive reduction in tedium, crime, vandalism, cruelty, vice, and passive aggression. However, the 10% likes to hold on to the 90% because if another society attacks, having a large number of warm bodies who can wield weapons is more important than having a few experts. This was the lesson for Europe of the Mongol Invasions, re-learned by Germany when she fought against the Soviet Union, whose quarter-Asiatic citizens fought in human waves much like is common in Asian land warfare.

Traditional societies sequestered the 90% in lower castes, kept them comfortable but without much disposable income, and limited their political, social, cultural, and economic power to avoid their bad behavior from corrupting the core of social order. These societies understood civilization as an organic whole, or not as a group of people to be managed, but as a living thing in which each person served a role. Organic civilization is only aided by doing what keeps the civilization healthy, which takes a higher precedence than trying to save each person, especially trying to save them from themselves. This allowed the 10% to prosper and the 90% to live as they always do, in a miasma of selfishness, self-sabotage, attention whoring, drama, confusion, greed, incontinence, and self-destruction.

When our civilization decided to be egalitarian, or dedicated to preserving the individual at the expense of civilization, it created the type of environment we recognize from the modern job: an external source of control managing individuals through enforced conformity so that everyone stays within the lines of the minimum required of them, and thus unity is upheld. This made the 10% into slaves of the 90%, since the 10% both contribute more and have specific mental needs, such as freedom from uniformity, tedium, conformity, and the type of ugliness that mass culture, popular architecture, and government pamphlets have in common.

Jobs serve not actual needs but the need for people to gel together like a slime mold. While businesses address needs, or at least consumer demands, jobs are partially creations of regulations, politics, and social attitudes, and as such they serve more to keep everyone busy and feeling self-important than to achieve actual end results in reality. In fact, for most people, going to work is a social event, which is why they keep going. Driven by a need to be recognized, they use the workplace as an extended social group.

This social basis creates groupthink through rampant extroversion. Extroversion, or allowing oneself to be guided by what others are doing, leads to a desire to achieve good feelings by making the group feel good. Class clowns know this; when they make others laugh, they feel better about themselves. In a group, where people are managed based on external appearance, extroversion proves to be a winning strategy because those who are getting along with the group are automatically seen as not a threat; introverts, or those who are entirely self-directed, are seen as unpredictable and therefore threatening to the group, in addition to being less present in social events so prone to be overlooked or forgotten when a time for promotions and awards comes around.

Groupthink in turn creates the worst condition of a dying civilization, namely its self-referentiality. Instead of paying attention to the results of its actions in reality, it exclusively looks inward to see what other people think of any action, which occurs because rewards to individuals come from whatever pleases the group. Like a group of people so intent on their conversation that they then walk off a cliff, civilizations in the grip of groupthink self-destruct by pleasing themselves at the expense of doing what is necessary in a reality-referential context. As with all instances of The Human Problem, the group adapts its purpose to the group instead of adapting to its environment, and so dies out like any delusional species.

In the grips of this self-referential social order based on control, people become domesticated, infantilized, and atomized, or entirely separated from anything larger than their own self-interest. From this comes many of the behaviors which are blamed on anything other than the group — capitalism is blamed for greed, under-socialization is blamed for apathy, atheism is blamed for immorality, and nihilism is blamed for lack of faith in the group morality — which form intractable social problems because the same means used to “solve” them are the methods that perpetuate them. This places the civilization in a death spiral where it will keep pathologically repeating the same behaviors and expecting better results, when it is in fact swimming downward toward a cold and lonely death.

To solve this problem, our only recourse involves ceasing to take society at face value, and also, to apply the same treatment to ourselves. What we think we want is usually a path to our doom; what we actually need, more than personal needs or social needs, is stability through a thriving organic civilization. With that, we will be rewarded for doing what is good, and those who do bad will be encouraged or forced to move on. This replicates the role that natural selection served among humans before we formed fixed, organized civilizations.

We can see that instead of worrying about Leftist ideals on the basis of face value, and concerning ourselves with whether this plan or that plan would fix our issues and problems, we should be concerned about the environment we provide for ourselves because civilization shapes us. The type of civilization that we select will in turn make us into the ideal citizens for that type of civilization, and if we choose one that indulges the group instead of striving for adaptation, we will end up becoming obese tattoo-vandalized blue haired neurotics. If we choose adaptation, all of what we see as “good” will be that which produces good results for organic civilization as a whole, and so we will make ourselves stronger, smarter, healthier, and of greater moral character.

A healthy civilization rewards the good and punishes the bad; an unhealthy civilization equates good with bad so that all are equal, and therefore that they can be used as a mass for purposes of warfare, profit, or staying in power. This is the difference between noble rule and tyranny, more so than methods, because one can have a good dictator or a bad democracy, and in fact, all democracies rapidly and inexorably become bad.

Human minds work through symbols. As with the difference between religion and a cult, at some point in every human group the symbol for the goal replaces the goal itself, and this inverts the value system so that instead of rewarding productive behavior, it penalizes it by forcing the productive to serve the unproductive. This occurs through social means because we try to motivate the group to stay together so that it works as a mass, and therefore control remains uninterrupted, instead of realizing that power is rare and is the property of those who have the intelligence and moral character to use it well, because if not used well, it self-destructs.

Motivating the group toward a hierarchy naturally enforces a focus on purpose because this is how more intelligent and moral people operate: they measure the results of our actions in reality, and select the best, so that they further beauty, excellence, and realistic thinking (“truth”). When a society orients toward hierarchy, it creates what is best called “the genius pump”: a constant upward pressure that produces people of great ability because their contributions are recognized, instead of used as a weapon against them as happens in egalitarian societies. If the good are rewarded and the bad punished, this creates a sorting mechanism where those who consistently do good — the 10% — rise above the rest, and then are further rewarded for doing well in their new capacity, so that the most competent and best ascend toward the top of the hierarchy. This intensifies competition among the best, elevating those who are genius at leadership and ensuring that they find mates of similar ability. From this comes a healthy aristocracy not impoverished by property taxes to pay for the 90% and a sane society encourages such people to have large families, and the best of those children then rise further, creating a constant stream of better people to keep the rest in line and drive the group not as a mass but as many unequal roles working toward the same goal toward greater degrees of qualitative excellence, or gradual improvement in the details of what the organic civilization already is, instead of looking for new methods on the broadest level, or the opposite of details.

To appreciate this type of society, we need to accept that we live in a relative universe. As Plato points out, a drawing of a circle is never a circle, only an approximation thereof; Schopenhauer says that we experience life only through layers of interpretation, since we never make contact with the thing itself, being removed from it by intellect and the distance inherent to perception; Nietzsche tells us that there are no truths, only interpretations. This means that there is no subjectivity or objectivity, only an ability to have greater precision in approximating what we know of reality. In this esoteric view, people are not equal in their ability to perceive the world, and knowledge is cumulative and relative to the individual, so only those with the ability and the drive to be more accurate in their perceptions will achieve greater levels of approximation of understanding reality, creating a hierarchy of accurate perception that parallels the hierarchy of the good.

In the traditional view, we each are part of a whole living thing known as the cosmos, and civilization emulates that in order to be as efficient and excellent as possible. We serve our roles like cells in a body, not focused on making the cells happy, but on achieving the goal that they share despite each having a different place in the hierarchy, both vertically by ability and horizontally by location and competition between those on the same levels. In contrast, the modern view holds that life is something we manage from outside as if we were hired in a job to administrate it, independent of our own connections to the world or inner traits like excellence and intelligence. The traditional view makes us active participants who take responsibility for their actions; the modern view delegates all thinking to an external party, the State, and designates obedience as our only obligation.

That viewpoint descends from government through society. We treat ourselves as means-to-an-end at jobs, and we condition our children to be defensive and neurotic by treating them as products to be managed. Husbands treat wives as tools, and wives see men as managers, eliminating unity and even actual love between them. We treat nature as a substrate to be exploited, and instead of making our cities into a glorification of beauty, we create ugliness as if it were the fundamental design goal. All of this flows from equality, which makes the individual the focus and civilization the means-to-an-end, at which point inner traits are denied, and therefore hierarchy is forgotten, reducing us to a mob that consumes everything in its path through a tragedy of the commons comprised of individual wants, desires, needs, and assertions of authority.

At the time of this writing, The Age of Ideology is ending, putting to rest the egalitarian delusion. In the final calculus, ideology was the product of individuals using civilization for their own ends, and this conditioned people to be less thoughtful and more destructive. We are now searching for a new or at least different civilization design, one that puts the goal first and the audience second.

When we look back over this time through the lens of history, we will see a broader scope than ever before. Human civilizations will be seen like rocket tests, where each time a design is tested and it blows up on the launching pad, it is redesigned. Every human group so far has detonated because of The Human Problem sabotaging it from within, and it has become clear that for our species to explore the stars, we will need a civilization design based in hierarchy and transcendental purpose, or a type of purpose that is ongoing and immutable, meaning that it can never be fully achieved but we can always more closely approximate it.

Humanity has suffered from exhaustion for some time. Our rockets keep blowing up, but we have been unable to change the design at a low enough level to make it succeed. Instead, we keep applying the same bad theory and seeing the same sad results. When we finally get to the root of that theory, we find (as always, with bad things) the fear that human individuals have for themselves has unreasonably swayed us toward denying the need to be good. When we overcome that fear, nothing holds us back; the stars await.

Did Technology Destroy Society, Or Leftist Social Changes?

Thursday, November 16th, 2017

Frequently people argue that our society was just chugging along fine until technology came along and destroyed us. This proves to be a clever way of letting us off the hook for our bad decisions, and joins bias against the Rich,™ anti-Semitism and blaming climate change as a variety of scapegoating.

Scapegoating technology is convenient because it guarantees that nothing will ever be done. We benefit greatly from technology, so asking us to drop it all and move to mud huts is something few want to do, not to mention the geopolitical reality that any society which does so will be invaded and conquered by those who did not drop their tech.

If we are honest, we will place the blame where it belongs, which is in the thread of individualism running from The Renaissance™ through The Enlightenment™ and finally getting voice with the French Revolution, in parallel to the events in ancient Athens that ushered that formerly-promising civilization into the dustbin of history.

We can see this rationalization present in a discussion of the sexual revolution and the negative impact it has had:

My own research points to a more straightforward and primal explanation for the slowed pace toward marriage: For American men, sex has become rather cheap. As compared to the past, many women today expect little in return for sex, in terms of time, attention, commitment or fidelity. Men, in turn, do not feel compelled to supply these goods as they once did. It is the new sexual norm for Americans, men and women alike, of every age.

This transformation was driven in part by birth control. Its widespread adoption by women in recent decades not only boosted their educational and economic fortunes but also reduced their dependence on men. As the risk of pregnancy radically declined, sex shed many of the social and personal costs that once encouraged women to wait.

These forces have been at work for more than a half-century, since the birth-control pill was invented in 1960, but it seems that our norms and narratives about sexual relationships have finally caught up with the technology. Data collected in 2014 for the “Relationships in America” project—a national survey of over 15,000 adults, ages 18 to 60, that I oversaw for the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture—asked respondents when they first had sex in their current or most recent relationship. After six months of dating? After two? The most common experience—reported by 32% of men under 40—was having sex with their current partner before the relationship had begun. This is sooner than most women we interviewed would prefer.

It is always easier to blame something external like the birth control pill, but the grim fact is that sexual liberation had already been increasing for over a century thanks to earlier forms of condoms, diaphragms and other more complicated but still reasonably effective means of birth control, and that this was part of a larger movement of female liberation from traditional roles that included the ability to vote, own property, and most importantly, to have jobs.

A woman with a job is no longer dependent on moving from the house of her parents to that of her spouse. She can get herself an apartment in the city, where she is anonymous, and behave however she wants, knowing that it will not be remembered when it comes time to get a spouse. She can lie about her sexual past, and then have the best of both worlds: she can have her fun and get married later, a sort of sexual Pascal’s Wager.

The so-called “good news” that divorces are declining conceals the fact that the main reason for this is that fewer people are getting married. Courts favor the woman, and so for a man, there is nothing but risk. He knows instinctively that women who have more sex are less likely to form lasting bonds, and she can easily get a job and move out, so he will be left paying alimony and child support while she goes on to have more sexual liaisons. For a man, the only winning strategy is not to play, unless he is fortunate enough to find a traditional woman.

Her job quickly becomes the most important thing in her life because it is a lifeline which has replaced her parents and any future family she might start. With the job, she has money, so she can have an apartment and live on her own, a bold and independent woman! Interestingly, the world wars contributed the most to this mentality, because for the first time many women were working.

The job appeals to the narrative of personal power that modern people adore. In an age of individualism, nothing is more important than making choices that reflect your personality and interests. For women, this makes them more powerful than men, because they control access to reproduction, and therefore, have men dependent on them. This is why they keep these jobs even after marriage, despite having to shove the kids into daycare and then school days crammed with make-work.

But like the other Leftist social changes, it takes decades for the effects to shake out, but now we see that women having jobs results in mental instability for their children, a cost passed on to society that lessens the chance of that child, in turn, having a family:

Ms. Komisar’s interest in early childhood development grew out of her three decades’ experience treating families, first as a clinical social worker and later as an analyst. “What I was seeing was an increase in children being diagnosed with ADHD and an increase in aggression in children, particularly in little boys, and an increase in depression in little girls.” More youngsters were also being diagnosed with “social disorders” whose symptoms resembled those of autism—“having difficulty relating to other children, having difficulty with empathy.”

As Ms. Komisar “started to put the pieces together,” she found that “the absence of mothers in children’s lives on a daily basis was what I saw to be one of the triggers for these mental disorders.” She began to devour the scientific literature and found that it reinforced her intuition.

When we replace the family with the workplace, children suffer from neglect and an enduring sense of being unwanted. This in turn makes them more likely to carry their mental instability into society and pass it on to any children that they may have.

We could try to blame this on technology, but like many things, it is a symptom or an enabler, but not the cause. As individualism has risen, the individual has become more important than the evident mathematics or nature, called “natural law,” or social and cultural values. At the same time, cities and social mobility have made people more anonymous, with their bad acts forgotten.

This creates a “tragedy of the commons” where people rush to exploit what society offers, knowing that there are no consequences to them personally. From this comes the condition that, as the saying goes, we cannot have nice things. With the rise of individualism worldwide, this can be seen in non-Western societies:

In China, where there are some 16 million shared bikes on the street and MoBike alone now has over a million, the authorities have been forced to clear up ziggurats of discarded bikes. Residents of Hangzhou became so irritated by bikes lazily dumped by riders, and reportedly sabotaged by angry cab drivers, that the authorities were forced to round up 23,000 bikes and dump them in 16 corrals around the city.

“There’s no sense of decency any more,” one Beijing resident recently told the New York Times after finding a bike ditched in a bush outside his home. “We treat each other like enemies.”

We either have social order, or we have equality, which guarantees individualism by separating the individual from the consequences of his actions against the larger social, natural and cultural order. Technology simply accelerates the power of the individual and the anonymity, allowing this to spread any further.

If we want civilization back, and now that globalism has failed and with it cast doubt on Leftism and democracy, we will find the necessity of unraveling individualism and replacing it with a sense of obligation to nature, social order, culture and heritage. We have seen the other possible direction, and it leads to horrors and misery.

Why Jobs Take Your Soul And How Conservatives Can Fix Them

Thursday, November 2nd, 2017

Most conservatives embrace the “work hard, pray hard” mentality that is typical of people who are looking for a reason to prove that they are good and worthy, which raises the question of why conservatives have such a whipped, domesticated mentality. Undoubtedly, being a minority viewpoint in a world that is gradually grinding toward the Left and has been for centuries induces such despondency.

However, this confuses a method for the goal, which is an eternal failing. Our purpose is to conserve the best of our civilization, not the best option offered by the current regime or political order. This is why the notion of “American conservatives” proves ridiculous; there is no conservatism specific to a political entity, because incarnations of civilization serve the root civilization itself, which in our case is Western Civilization.

If we are to conserve the best of our civilization independent of the current year, we require an understanding not just of philosophy and prescriptive methods, but what provides a healthy life for the citizens who will create that civilization in each new generation. This raises the question of whether “work,” or jobs and the bureaucracy required to run an independent business, are healthy for those citizens. For some, these activities do not prove a burden, but these do not appear to be those with an interest in nurturing civilization.

Michel Houellebecq estimates that 90% of the activity in a modern job is not necessary. This makes sense when we consider that with high mobility to citizens, both in socioeconomic status and geographic area, the prime consideration for management regarding any employee role becomes how to replace those employees when they move on. Any role which cannot be replicated presents a problem for management, since then a department must be restructured. Instead, the bureaucracy demands that jobs be subdivided into nearly microscopic roles in telescoping hierarchies which function by “accountability,” or delivery of pre-defined results and conformity to paperwork and attendance demands, rather than a measurement of results, and this even extends into the tax, licensing, certification and regulatory systems that impose their requirements on independent businesses.

All of those influences manifest in make-work, or activities done so that they can be visually noticed whether in the office or on paperwork, so that the managers above the people in question can demonstrate their accountability to those above them. This eventuates in jobs consisting of pro forma activities for the sake of the management hierarchy, which itself suffers from the instability of the accountability system in layers above it:

Back in the early-1930s, renowned economist, John Maynard Keynes, predicted that technical innovations and rising productivity would mean that advanced country workers would be able to work only 15 hours and still enjoy rising living standards.

In a highly amusing, but also somewhat depressing article in Strike! Magazine, David Graeber asks why Keynes’ prophecy has not come true and instead we find ourselves working a range of meaningless “bullshit jobs” that many of us hate:

There’s every reason to believe he [Keynes] was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshaled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.

…But rather than allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world’s population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas, we have seen the ballooning not even so much of the “service” sector as of the administrative sector, up to and including the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations…

…It’s important to recognized this deep-rooted difference in values, even in a society that led the Industrial Revolution, and how America has (remarkably) managed to impose some of its workaholism on much of the rest of the world. Here, for instance, is Wikipedia on de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America:

…This rapidly democratizing society, as Tocqueville understood it, had a population devoted to “middling” values which wanted to amass, through hard work, vast fortunes. In Tocqueville’s mind, this explained why America was so different from Europe. In Europe, he claimed, nobody cared about making money. The lower classes had no hope of gaining more than minimal wealth, while the upper classes found it crass, vulgar, and unbecoming of their sort to care about something as unseemly as money; many were virtually guaranteed wealth and took it for granted. At the same time in America, workers would see people fashioned in exquisite attire and merely proclaim that through hard work they too would soon possess the fortune necessary to enjoy such luxuries.

Of the above explanations, only the one offered by de Tocqueville makes sense: in an egalitarian society, being an equal worker is the ideal so that others accept you as not attempting to avoid the burden of equal contribution, and so people make a show of working. When coupled with an accountability culture that measures people by external traits such as completed projects and objectives met, instead of looking at internal traits like intelligence and character, this creates an unbearable urge for everyone to be busy all of the time. This then becomes a form of competition.

You have undoubtedly seen this at an office. A new worker comes in and, instead of leaving at five like everyone else, she stays until six very obviously working on something that looks important. Everyone else in the office realizes that this is the new standard, because the person who stays until six is going to get promoted over the rest and fired last, so soon everyone stays until six. Then someone starts staying until seven…

Since we look at external traits instead of inner ones, we are accumulating people who can do what is asked of them and therefore are kept around despite being abusive:

Research in the United Kingdom and the United States suggests that jerk-infested workplaces are common: a 2000 study by Loraleigh Keashly and Karen Jagatic found that 27 percent of the workers in a representative sample of 700 Michigan residents experienced mistreatment by someone in the workplace. Some occupations, such as medical ones, are especially bad. A 2003 study of 461 nurses found that in the month before it was conducted, 91 percent had experienced verbal abuse, defined as mistreatment that left them feeling attacked, devalued, or humiliated. Physicians were the most frequent abusers.

This abusive work environment creates great stress for the individual, but is joined by the ambiguity of work itself. Jobs separate us by a layer from the effects of our actions; not only are we specialized, so that no one person sees any process from start to finish, but the hierarchy of managers determine success through their own measurements, which are usually pro forma and so do not fully coincide with real-world needs.

Even more, the social requirements of the workplace separate us from actual effectiveness. Managers like people who get along with the team because those people produce fewer complaints, but because this is a formal requirement, sociopaths and antisocial behavior cases recognize it from miles away and are able to fool the managers (a form of “gaming the system”) just about every time. Those who are less likely to think in terms of manipulation are unaware of this requirement, and so come across as more contentious while the actual malefactors slide under the radar.

We can tell this is true because managers rank intelligence last as traits they desire in a worker, well below the conformity surrogates of “professionalism” and “reliability,” because having a worker who causes no problems and is always there makes the manager look good and eliminates risk to his job:

Most people go to work, much as they went to school, for social reasons. They would be lonely otherwise and since most are extroverts, they have no idea what to do with themselves, or how to evaluate what they should be doing, without getting feedback from the group. They gain a sense of uplifting well-being from being part of a happy group, so when others are pleased, they feel contentment. Much of work consists of managing expectations through social interaction, and by pacifying others, achieving the positive estimation of the group.

All of these stages of removal from the actual task serve to benefit the less-competent, punish the competent, and create ambiguity about what will be rewarded. People depend on their paychecks and fear being fired, so they take affirmative steps to ingratiate themselves with others and their managers. This also produces a need for make-work activities. The fundamental uncertainty and unfairness of this situation creates great stress in even the average worker.

We are learning that stress, like inflammation, can be destructive to our health, and jobs induce a unique kind of stress that is a daily event, changing who we are biologically as well as mentally:

Researchers from Brigham Young University (BYU) found that stress could be just as harmful to the human body as a nutritionally poor diet.

The scientists discovered that when female mice were exposed to stress, their gut microbiota—the microorganisms vital to digestive and metabolic health—morphed to look like the mice had been eating a high-fat diet.

“Stress can be harmful in a lot of ways but this research is novel in that it ties stress to female-specific changes in the gut microbiota,” BYU professor of microbiology and molecular biology Laura Bridgewater said in a statement. “We sometimes think of stress as a purely psychological phenomenon but it causes distinct physical changes.”

We can conceive of stress as having several components: it must be a situation we cannot change, which recurs frequently, and which has an impact on our future. Raw production, like owning a farm, produces worry in terms of attempting to achieve results; work induces stress by piling stuff on us to do without certainty of success, especially since that success is divorced from raw production and highly dependent on authority and social influences. Workplaces are stressful because they are necessary and capricious.

Authority tends to work from a negative outlook just as social influences do. These both focus on removing threats more than rewarding good behavior because they are applied from outside the individual by those observing appearances, both of the individual and of the effects in others. This herd behavior effect means that someone who does everything right, but slips up in some crucial way, is destroyed, while those who do most things poorly or in a mediocre way but carefully watch their behavior get ahead. This punishes and removes people with any passion for life, forcing us to hide our inner selves and become actors, not to mention avoid most social interaction because of the risk.

In workplaces, the “heckler’s veto” dominates, meaning that managers focus on eliminating controversy instead of achieving results. This means that if doing something right is not universally accepted, managers select a compromise and therefore consistently dumb-down and make mediocre everything they touch in the interest of avoiding “bad optics.” The external nature of control, based on appearance and not results in reality, guarantees this result. The futility of attempting to perform and being hobbled by the group contributes to stress for the highest performers.

The damage done by stress has been well documented in medical lore:

Stress that’s left unchecked can contribute to many health problems, such as high blood pressure, heart disease, obesity and diabetes.

If we look at the list of problems likely to kill us, those illnesses rank high on the list.

Long-term stress, such as that created by jobs, is the most damaging:

Health problems can occur if the stress response goes on for too long or becomes chronic, such as when the source of stress is constant, or if the response continues after the danger has subsided. With chronic stress, those same life-saving responses in your body can suppress immune, digestive, sleep, and reproductive systems, which may cause them to stop working normally.

…Routine stress may be the hardest type of stress to notice at first. Because the source of stress tends to be more constant than in cases of acute or traumatic stress, the body gets no clear signal to return to normal functioning. Over time, continued strain on your body from routine stress may contribute to serious health problems, such as heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and other illnesses, as well as mental disorders like depression or anxiety.

In nature, the role of stress is to prepare us to act when a threat is present. At jobs, however, the threat is both constantly present and unpredictable, so the stress becomes chronic because people are experiencing pain and fear about things they not only cannot control, but whose reasoning and motivations are hidden.

That chronic stress induces inflammation which can actually alter the genetics of the people involved:

Researchers found that chronic stress changes gene activity of immune cells before they enter the bloodstream so that they’re ready to fight infection or trauma — even when there is no infection or trauma to fight. This then leads to increased inflammation.

This phenomenon was seen in mice, as well as in blood samples from people with poor socioeconomic statuses (a predictor of chronic stress), reported the researchers from Ohio State University, the University of California, Los Angeles, Northwestern University and the University of British Columbia.

“There is a stress-induced alteration in the bone marrow in both our mouse model and in chronically stressed humans that selects for a cell that’s going to be pro-inflammatory,” study researcher John Sheridan, a professor at Ohio State University and associate director of the university’s Institute for Behavioral Medicine Research, said in a statement. “So what this suggests is that if you’re working for a really bad boss over a long period of time, that experience may play out at the level of gene expression in your immune system.”

We can see the effects of this mutational load through the links between inflammation and cancer, a disease caused by mutated cells going rogue and taking over the body like a parasitic organism:

However, while the genetic changes that occur within cancer cells themselves, such as activated oncogenes or dysfunctional tumor suppressors, are responsible for many aspects of cancer development, they are not sufficient. Tumor promotion and progression are dependent on ancillary processes provided by cells of the tumor environment but that are not necessarily cancerous themselves. Inflammation has long been associated with the development of cancer…Epidemiological evidence points to a connection between inflammation and a predisposition for the development of cancer, i.e. long-term inflammation leads to the development of dysplasia.

This genetic corruption can occur through stress alone, as previous articles have shown us, and simultaneously result in mutations and, if those go unchecked, cancers as well as other responses by the body such as autoimmune disorders. The body does not recognize its own mutated cells and attacks them, which is the opposite situation as with cancer, where it fails to recognize and attack its parasitic inner mutants.

Most diseases that are widespread and seemingly intractable in the modern time can be explained as the result of stress-induced inflammation. This could explain why, despite medical advances, sickness is so prevalent. Inflammation leads to other diseases, and stress creates an inability to regulate inflammation:

A research team led by Carnegie Mellon University’s Sheldon Cohen has found that chronic psychological stress is associated with the body losing its ability to regulate the inflammatory response. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the research shows for the first time that the effects of psychological stress on the body’s ability to regulate inflammation can promote the development and progression of disease.

…Specifically, immune cells become insensitive to cortisol’s regulatory effect. In turn, runaway inflammation is thought to promote the development and progression of many diseases.

…”When under stress, cells of the immune system are unable to respond to hormonal control, and consequently, produce levels of inflammation that promote disease. Because inflammation plays a role in many diseases such as cardiovascular, asthma and autoimmune disorders, this model suggests why stress impacts them as well.”

With the loss of ability to regulate its inflammatory response, there is no system limiting the inflammation and, over time, this induces other disorders. With inflammation, common disorders become dangerous.

Not only can inflammation exacerbate existing diseases, but it can cause the brain to attack itself. Inflammation can lead to brain inflammation, memory loss and depression:

The researchers suspected that the stress was affecting the mice’s hippocampi, a part of the brain key to memory and spatial navigation. They found cells from mice’s immune system, called macrophages, in the hippocampus, and the macrophages were preventing the growth of more brain cells.

The stress, it seemed, was causing the mice’s immune systems to attack their own brains, causing inflammation. The researchers dosed the mice a drug known to reduce inflammation to see how they would respond. Though their social avoidance and brain cell deficit persisted, the mice had fewer macrophages in their brains and their memories returned to normal, indicating to the researchers that inflammation was behind the neurological effects of chronic stress.

In turn, this can have cognitive effects that also resemble problems of modern: the “memory hole” and social avoidance, suggesting that these rising trends may not be the result of cultural and economic pressures, but of biological changes — mutations — in our brains and the associated effects of inflammation and mutation.

This in turn could explain the reason for modern life to have become so toxic of late; while we have been pursuing the dream of wealth and technology, our inability to address our broken control structures and dark organizations has created a hellish life of stress that has been mutating us for centuries:

Penman labels the cultural characteristics that create and maintain a civilization as C. C includes industriousness, ability to cooperate, and moderation in food, drink, and sex. Chronic mild hunger produces hormonal, behavioral, and epigenetic changes that make people harder working and more cooperative. In societies with plentiful food similar effects can be achieved through religion and other social institutions: “Human societies, by a process of trial and error, have developed cultural practices which mimic the physiological effects of hunger” (14).

While C behaviors are required; “A successful civilization needs . . . some level of warlike aggression” (39). This should be disciplined aggression, group or collective assertion, not individual violence. Penman labels this component of civilization as V for vigor. Characteristics of V are a pioneering spirit, high morale, and the urge to expand and explore. The author offers Victorian Britain as a good mix of C and V.

V promoters include: intermittent (not chronic) stress, patriarchy, “an anxious but affectionate mother” and exposure to adult authority in late childhood” (48). “One final V-promoter in human societies is control of women’s sexual behavior” (49). In summary, “the temperamental complexes labeled C and V can be considered the fundamental building blocks of civilization” (54).

Through epigenetic changes, natural stress produces strength and increases aptitude, but chronic stress as is found in jobs reduces strength and increases mutations, depression and disease. In other words, our addiction to jobs has been gradually mutating us into depressive, wimpy, mentally addled and unhealthy people. That fits with what we see going on out there.

Jobs produce anti-V stress which has the effect of entropy on the human mind and body. This realization fits with the observed real-world effects of jobs, especially on women, which seem to result in social disorders and depression:

Ms. Komisar’s interest in early childhood development grew out of her three decades’ experience treating families, first as a clinical social worker and later as an analyst. “What I was seeing was an increase in children being diagnosed with ADHD and an increase in aggression in children, particularly in little boys, and an increase in depression in little girls.” More youngsters were also being diagnosed with “social disorders” whose symptoms resembled those of autism—“having difficulty relating to other children, having difficulty with empathy.”

As Ms. Komisar “started to put the pieces together,” she found that “the absence of mothers in children’s lives on a daily basis was what I saw to be one of the triggers for these mental disorders.” She began to devour the scientific literature and found that it reinforced her intuition.

We have to ask here if autism, a disorder present since birth, is the result of the absence of the mother, or stress on the mother because she is working. Exposed to constant workplace stress, and suffering the mutations and inflammation of that in addition to the consequences of a lifestyle which involves little time to maintain a home, comfortable eating and sleeping, mothers may be passing common mutations to their children.

Work induces a type of paranoia in us because the tasks we do are not really related to the actual task, the environment is hostile, and we have to guess as to what will be rewarded and often, find that this is entirely arbitrary. To work around these events, people at jobs tend to put in longer hours and do extra work to cover all contingencies, forgetting that none of this is needed or helpful; it only exists for them to advance their careers, their managers to do the same and shareholders to have confidence in their investment in the company.

Notice how happiness peaks after retirement:

Jobs brought the downfall of the West. They make life subtly miserable, so that we feel it is improper to outright complain, especially since we have it better than others. But we notice that our irreplaceable time is slipping away and we are spending it on nonsense and appearance, and this induces resentment, instability, and hopelessness.

Western men became domesticated because jobs took over their lives. Originally, people cared for their own homestead and had some kind of calling — carpenter, farmer, hunter, soldier, priest, shoemaker — which ensured that they had money to use for what they could not produce at their home farms.

But then, for people at the top, society became administrative as, thanks to advances in medicine and hygiene, the lower echelons of society swelled in number. This introduced a managerial type of society where a few smart people dedicated most of their time to reigning in the burgeoning masses, who like all lower-IQ people were highly individualistic and thus acted in chaotic ways, requiring restraint.

Once the West declared “freedom” and “equality” to be its goals, this process accelerated even further.

At this point, jobs have dominated the West and with them, through the denial of inner traits, the use of external manipulation has essentially domesticated and infantilized people, increasing atomization by eliminating ways that they can actually trust others. Now we are all actors on stage.

Jobs take up all of our time. Your average person prepares for an hour in the morning, commutes for another half hour, then stays late in order to qualify for a promotion. When they get home, after another half-hour commute, they are thinking about work and what people said and did. At this point, they have only a few hours before they must go to sleep, get up and do it the next day, for at least 71% of the days of the week.

When the weekend comes, this person is unprepared. Two whole days, with at least half of the first one taken up with filing taxes, researching new products, home repairs, stocking up on groceries, studying for a certification for work, fixing broken gadgets, cleaning the house, taking the pets to the vet, ferrying children to activities, doing laundry, paying bills, and a few thousand other little tasks that eat time and leave the person somewhat stranded.

On top of that, the conditioning kicks in. People whose days are marked by routine and external obligation suddenly have no idea what to do with themselves when they do have free time. As a result, the weekend presents stress as well: it is rare time, precious and necessary, but as people with no idea how to best spend that time, most people end up uncertain as to what to do, and as a result, wasting their time on what other people seem to be doing even if it does not fit them.

This psychological conditioning spreads through all aspects of life. Domesticated people cannot thinking critically, cannot analyze and cannot make decisions of their own; they always defer to the group, and then feel cheated because the results that work for an average person rarely work for any given individual. In politics, such as when they vote, or in personal behaviors, they emulate others, and then end up feeling terrible about the time they seem to have no control over, slipping through their fingers.

It is not surprising that a population subjected to jobs is deteriorating:

Data released last week suggest Americans’ health is declining and millions of middle-age workers face the prospect of shorter, and less active, retirements than their parents enjoyed.

The U.S. age-adjusted mortality rate—a measure of the number of deaths per year—rose 1.2 percent from 2014 to 2015, according to the Society of Actuaries. That’s the first year-over-year increase since 2005, and only the second rise greater than 1 percent since 1980.

…For those with a retirement age of 66, 11 percent already had some kind of dementia or other cognitive decline at age 58 to 60, according to the study. That’s up from 9.5 percent of Americans just a few years older, with a retirement age between 65 and 66.

Cognitive decline and increased mortality from disease are consistent with the stress-induced inflammation and genetic mutation that is discussed above. Although our minds are conditioned not to see it because we worship work as a means of being equal citizens, the theory lines up with reality.

Despite having all of our technology, wealth, and power, we are still working long hours in stressful conditions making ourselves neurotic. We are driven by a sense of labor by the pound, or what the employer is willing to pay for, instead of results, which are discerned in finer measurements and regulated not by the power of the manager, the shareholder or the employee but by the market, which is part of that scary Real World which reacts to what we do, often not in the ways we intended.

We live in a bubble: between the time when we act, and the time when results appear, managers and shareholders and the buying public reward us. Our social group claps us on that back and says attaboy. The money flows in, and then only later do we see the actual consequences. This insulates us from ever being really wrong, and allows for almost everyone to stay employed with no risk.

This creates false productivity based on the amount of economic activity we generate within the time-span of the bubble, not how much actual value we produce. This corresponds to the general link in humanity between solipsism and socialization where as long as we generate a buzz among others, we are seen as successful, because a self-referential society cares only about shared feelings and perceptions, not real productivity because as a society we are wealthy enough that the bread and steaks will keep coming no matter what we do.

As a result, people have found that the more hours they work, the more false productivity is created, and so they are essentially forced to work long hours for monetary reward despite this being, in the long term, economically irrelevant:

Recently, economists at Purdue and the University of Copenhagen made a clever attempt to clear up the question. They looked at Danish manufacturing companies where overseas sales increased unexpectedly because of changes in foreign demand or transportation costs between 1996 and 2006. These constituted a set of natural experiments. At firms where exports spiked, there was suddenly a lot more work to do, a lot more things to sell. This put the squeeze on employees, who became measurably more productive — but also started to have more health problems.

“The medical literature typically finds that people who work longer hours have worse health outcomes — but we try to distinguish between causality and correlation,” said Chong Xiang, an economics professor at Purdue and co-author on the paper, along with David Hummels and Jakob Munch. A draft was released this week by the National Bureau for Economic Research.

…If external forces caused a company’s exports to rise by, say, 10 percent, female employees were about 2.5 percent more likely to be treated for severe depression, and 7.7 percent more likely to take heart attack or stroke drugs. For context, about 4 percent of women overall were being treated for severe depression and 1 percent of women were on heart attack or stroke medication. These conditions are not very common, but job strain caused a measurable, statistically significant bump in prevalence.

In other words, the more you work, the less healthy you are. The more you succeed, the more likely you are to become sick, sterile and non compos mentis. The more you rely on your economy to guide you, the more it will lead you to doom; the more you rely on what other people think, the more you will be forced to go through mindless rituals of no significance.

We see an insight into The Human Problem through this. Like our fast money policies, it relies on a self-referential measurement, or assessing what placates the group (socialization, utilitarianism, rationalization) rather than what achieves the right results in reality, because the latter cannot be universally assessed.

This internal measurement leads to us chasing phantoms, such as measurements of productivity instead of productivity itself, and these are rewarded because other people are deciding what should be rewarded and they are using the same measurements. However, the map is not the territory… and the sensation is not the reality. This creates a spiral of unreality where what makes others feel safe, whether managers or shareholders, becomes the new reality, and the actual reality is forgotten.

It is no surprise that most people feel their jobs are pointless and that this increases the farther up in the hierarchy you go. We are a society dedicated toward nonsense work because it is not purposive toward a goal, but is designed as appearance, to make others feel good about the situation and therefore, to reward those doing the nonsense “work.”

In a 2013 survey of 12,000 professionals by the Harvard Business Review, half said they felt their job had no “meaning and significance,” and an equal number were unable to relate to their company’s mission, while another poll among 230,000 employees in 142 countries showed that only 13% of workers actually like their job. A recent poll among Brits revealed that as many as 37% think they have a job that is utterly useless.

This is consistent with other even more cynical measurements which found that most Americans are not “present” at work because the work they are doing is unrelated to reality:

More broadly, just 30 percent of employees in America feel engaged at work, according to a 2013 report by Gallup. Around the world, across 142 countries, the proportion of employees who feel engaged at work is just 13 percent. For most of us, in short, work is a depleting, dispiriting experience, and in some obvious ways, it’s getting worse.

In other words, most people know that their jobs are pointless, but by the same token, they still suffer the stress of these jobs which cannot be unrelated to the lack of utility and purpose of those jobs. Thus, like patients strapped to a gurney and bled out via a transfusion line, the average modern person knows that they are engaged in nothing of value but are dependent on it, so suffer stress and the existential void of knowing they are wasting their time on nonsense to appease the lower echelons of society. They are slaves, sacrifices and scapegoats, these workers.

The real crisis of this is that the penalty falls unequally. The intelligent realize their time is being wasted, become despairing and die out; fools who have nothing better to do see nothing wrong, and so thrive despite being in horrible circumstances. Jobs create a dysgenic force that rewards the fool and punishes the intelligent.

The intelligent, in contrast to those who must spend their time fascinated by what others do, require more time outside of work to organize their thoughts and gain clarity on what is vital:

Findings from a US-based study seem to support the idea that people with a high IQ get bored less easily, leading them to spend more time engaged in thought.

And active people may be more physical as they need to stimulate their minds with external activities, either to escape their thoughts or because they get bored quickly.

More intelligent people require more time to think, and jobs interrupt this by spamming their most active hours with tasks that have nothing to do with reality, and therefore, baffle the mind with nonsense.

This explains the downfall of civilizations: as they grow, the upper echelons become dedicated to their maintenance, taking on roles that stultify them, stress them, mutate them and make them ill. It is no wonder that every human civilization has failed; they have self-destructed through the black magic of jobs.

As conservatives, or those who conserve the best of the past and carry it forward into the future, we must address the crisis of jobs: mutations, disease, boredom, domestication, and existential misery.

Our most direct attack comes through replacing the false managerial hierarchy of “accountability” with something more exact, namely a hierarchy that addresses results in reality. This requires — gods forbid! — slowing down our cycle of perception and waiting for actual results to appear instead of using the social measurement of intermediate targets.

This requires us to do away with the illusion of meritocracy, or the idea that we can take “equal” humans and test them to determine who is good. This measures only external attributes like obedience, and misses out on the need to find out what people are made of within so that they do not have to be constantly monitored and penalized for not meeting the token objectives required by a meritocratic system.

In an indirect way, “work hard, pray hard” is a confirmation of egalitarianism: it holds that we are all equal and that the differences between us consist of how hard we work and how righteously we behave, when in fact intelligence matters more than labor by the pound in terms of results, and righteous behavior arises from the ability to understand why morality and qualitative improvement are important. But for those wielding “work hard, pray hard,” this pragma enables them to both deflect challenges to their possessions — “I worked hard for this!” — and to subtly explain themselves as morally superior, because after all, they worked harder and prayed harder than others, therefore if those are their values, they deserve what they have, and they can explain it without the socially-unpopular but realistic notion that some are born smarter and better than others.

Instead of having this indirection work against us, we can make it work for us by instead acknowledging that humanity is an evolutionary struggle between our smarter people and our dumber ones. The lower echelons will always be destructive because they cannot understand anything above their station, therefore will see it as unnecessary; much as the third world is the most individualistic place on Earth, our own homegrown proles are more individualistic and thus greedy, selfish, solipsistic, corrupt and perverse than those above them.

The Human Problem occurs whenever a group of humans form because social pressures reward accepting the stupid and including it, instead of following the law of nature, where a group that excels will break away. This social pressure exists because of fear of the herd; if a smarter group breaks away, it will be by the law of quality-versus-quantity less numerous than the herd, and the herd will then show up and dominate through superior numbers. Even highly proficient and trained soldiers cannot overcome odds of twelve-to-one or greater, which was the lesson of WW2 and perhaps why the world shifted so hard Left afterwards; the Left pacifies the herd by including them, and then allows the wealthy to buy their way into the good graces of the herd, although this backfires because then the herd controls the elites.

Once we accept that we are not equal, and that some are better than others by virtue of having greater force of intellect and force of character in parallel, meaning that both are required — this filters out the dot-com “geniuses” and clever shopkeepers — we can set up a hierarchy where the levels of society are acknowledged. This takes the form of both an aristocratic hierarchy, and caste levels to society; at the very top are the people who make decisions for the culture, and these tend to — in the way of actual genius, not the fake genius of the dot-com boffins and clever merchants — focus on qualitative improvement instead of “new” unproven theories. Slightly below them are the good and decent people, and these become local leaders through the manorial system. Only this reverses the problem of human decline, which occurs through the war of the many less-bright against the honest and decent brights who create and develop civilization.

Hierarchies of this nature lead to the manorial system as we see in the classic cultures of Western Europe and the ancient lands of Rome and Greece:

the manor system in core austrasia changed pretty rapidly (already by the 500s) to one in which the lord of the manor (who might’ve been an abbot in a monastery) distributed farms to couples for them to work independently in exchange for a certain amount of labor on the lord’s manor (the demesne). this is what’s known as bipartite manorialism. and from almost the beginning, then, bipartite manorialism pushed the population into nuclear families, which may for some generations have remained what i call residential nuclear families (i.e. residing as a conjugal couple, but still having regular contact and interaction with extended family members). over the centuries, however, these became the true, atomized nuclear families that characterize northwest europe today.

for the first couple (few?) hundred years of this manor system, sons did not necessarily inherit the farms that their fathers worked. when they came of age, and if and when a farm on the manor became available, a young man — and his new wife (one would not marry before getting a farm — not if you wanted to be a part of the manor system) — would be granted the rights to another farm. (peasants could also, and did, own their own private property — some more than others — but this varied in place and time.) over time, this practice changed as well, and eventually peasant farms on manors became virtually hereditary. (i’m not sure when this change happened, though — i still need to find that out.) finally, during the high middle ages (1100s-1300s) the labor obligations of peasants were phased out and it became common practice for farmers simply to pay rent to the manor lords.

In other words, there was always a higher-IQ lord who could regulate the peasants, and by restricting resources in the form of land, keep their population down and keep them from forming the thronging masses that the Greeks recognized arose in cities, and quickly adopted the characteristics of herd rule. Since the lords owned all the land, any activity on that land had to be approved by a lord, and pay tax to that lord, insuring that any wealth generated would then be put back into the community through the hands of the people least likely to waste it.

Manorialism and hierarchy improve jobs by limiting them. Perhaps future corporations will be located on manors, and each corporation will have an assigned lord on whose land they dwell, and shareholders will be limited to those of the upper classes, which will avoid the “race to the bottom” that occurs where corporations compete merely in terms of popularity, which grants them the media mentions and trend buzz required to wake up a population to their products despite being as a population over-saturated in terms of product options, advertising, trends and other distractions.

A social order of this nature also limits social mobility which means that people will stop constantly agitating for more money and power as a means of raising social status. In addition, it restricts commercial impulses — shopkeeping, merchants and other clever people — by placing them firmly among the lower castes, albeit a high lower caste, and by doing so removes the focus on work, money and commerce to the point that it takes over society, such as we see in Western “civilization” today.

In addition, by concentrating wealth among those who are most discerning, this type of community order enables civilization to pay people to do unprofitable things like make great art instead of pop culture, curate ancient ruins, care for forests, watch over lonely places, keep spaces clean and engage in cultural activity, customs and events.

We can see remnants of this ancient order in the UK, where the lords owned all the land and preserved huge amounts of it in its natural state as “hunting preserves” which were infrequently used. This created a vast “green belt” across the nation where wildlife was safe at least on the population level — if you did not mind a few dead foxes here and there — and interrupted the constant growth of cities and suburbs like a cancer spreading across the land.

By relaxing the pressures and attitudes that create modern jobs, the caste/aristocracy/manor way of life makes jobs more pleasing and less likely to take up all of our time. Medieval peasants spent a fraction of the time working that we do now, and more time living; aristocrats as well, the people who by their greater intelligence need more time off to simply learn how to think and refresh their core of wisdom, spent less time engaged in frustrating baby-sitting and more time connecting to the ideas behind culture, the reasons why that have to be re-learned every generation because they cannot be conveyed in written text.

Only when combined threats — Mongol invasions, plagues, religious division, Islamic invasions, wars — destabilized the aristocracy did the clever-but-not-bright middle classes manage to buy themselves into the power system and then weaponize the proles against the aristocrats. The Church facilitated this by trying to be a dual system of power to that of the kings, and in so doing, fragmented the power of the kings and let evil in through the back door.

As anyone who studies The Human Problem knows, this problem repeats itself time and again in all human organizations, or groups of more than two people. Unless a hierarchy is established, the rest oppress the best, and because this mass are not the best, they make increasingly horrible decisions. Every civilization dies by suicide resulting for collective insanity as people contort their thinking to fit what is popular, and the whole society goes over the cliff chasing an illusion, a phantom, an oasis and a chimera.

Reversing the progress of The Human Problem also frees us from mass culture, where whatever pleases the largest group wins out and so a “race to the bottom” exists for the most venal, crass and debasing “art” because that is what is profitable. This in turn generates a trend-based culture where each group, including corporations, hopes for the “big score” that comes with creating something that is vastly popular and becomes a trend. When these fads go big, they follow an arc by which The Human Problem ultimately infiltrates them from within, which makes profit for those who get in early and sell out right before the peak, but then bankrupts anyone who hangs on to the asset. The best example of this so far may be MySpace, which at its peak sold for $500m only to be worth $50m a few years later.

We have learned from modern time that we cannot use formal organization to tame our problems because it is too easily gamed. The rules, laws, incentives, punishments and procedures only take effect after a crisis have occurred, and so represent attempts to fix effects directly instead of looking to their underlying causes in the moments leading up to the creation of the disaster. Jobs fit within this perfectly well: to improve workplaces, we regulate workplaces, instead of looking at the underlying pressures that create them in the form we see them.

Conservatives, if they stay true to their principles, must realize that our society began failing for existential reasons and crept away from virtue in order to pacify the herd, include everyone, and try to replicate classical civilization by instead relying on mobilized masses. This mass culture creates the horror that is jobs/work, and to undo it, we must reverse its causes and focus on hierarchy instead of equality, because equality creates conformity and makes us treat ourselves as products on an assembly line, and it is from this outward-in order of regulated herd behavior that the horror of the workplace arises.

We Know Better

Sunday, October 15th, 2017

Long ago, we had a system called hierarchy where we took the people who were smartest and most prone to do the right thing in every circumstance, and put them on the top. They ruled over the rest of us, which by the very nature of humanity, involved telling us that what we “felt” or desired was not going to lead to a good outcome, so we could not do it.

That never sits well with a man, being treated like a child, reasoned the herd. Given that humanity is 90% people who need to be told what to do, and only 9% who can be delegated tasks to, most people need to be restrained from their own impulse to self-destruction most of the time. But the herd knew better.

“Those kings, it’s just an accident of birth,” the shopkeeper said, because he always says what flatters his customers. Say something nice, sell an extra pound of cheese, and the wife of the peasant or artisan who buys it will never tell and her husband will never ask. So the shopkeepers grew wealthy on the pretense of the unpunished herd.

Then the masses were formed, of the shopkeepers and the peasants, and they decided that the kings really were worthless. They worked with the rich merchants of the cities to overthrow the kings. Those who had read and understood the classics of history, who knew things about human nature, said this was a bad idea, and that we needed hierarchy.

“Oh, no,” said the proles. They brought out their own writings which used complex but irrelevant theory to suggest otherwise. “The kings are merely a social construct. When the people rule, we will end the abuses that were perpetrated upon us because we, who are obviously equal because we are people too, were obviously innocent.”

The elders thought that one over. The notion of “equality” slipped into the concept that they knew as “fairness,” which was that you listened to people and tried to do what was right before them. But they were baffled, because people were obviously not equal on the inside, where some showed more intelligence, moral character, determination and honor than others. The elders rejected the new idea.

We Know Better, said the crowd.

So the great experiment began! After all, all of the great works from the past suggested that this was a bad idea, based in no small amount on the graves of Rome and Athens signaling the end of the civilizations which were widely acknowledged as our superiors, except in technology, of course. But onward bravely we sailed.

The first thing that happened was that people were reduced to their dollar value. In the past, the kings and aristocrats were considered divine, or of the bloodlines closest to the divine, at least, and so they owned the land and laid out the social structure. No more! Now every person was free to join the lottery of salaries. They might earn more, but more likely, they earned less.

“Obviously, we can fix that, too,” said the sages of the new age of ideology. They got to work and busily wrote reams of law to make sure that hiring and firing were fair. They instituted taxes to pay for those who were “poor,” a nebulous category which included anyone who was not of the middle class, that is, with a stable salary, home and high tax rate.

Proud at having fixed that one, the sages turned to the next problem, which was that economies blew up every now and then because the masses, having no structure, moved in waves of panic at what had just failed and greed toward what seemed to be the Next Big Thing. The old sages suggested social order, where investment was limited to those who knew something about it.

We Know Better.

The new sages appointed leaders, created banks, expanded government and busily wrote more reams of laws. These seemed to just intensify social competition, so they raised taxes more to pay for those who were not succeeding. This made jobs nearly unbearable, with people giving most of their time just to live, and to pay the taxes, of course. The old sages pointed out that they warned people.

“You have removed social order,” they said. They pointed out that, in the hands of the merchants, civilization had become crass, a race to the lowest common denominator so that one could capture the widest audience, since the 90% were known for their low standards and fascination with the crass, sexual, excremental, cloyingly sentimental and mindlessly violent.

In the meantime, the herd was rioting again. It turned out that the new rules just made it easier for those with money to make more money, but even worse, the burden of red tape and legal barriers made it harder for smaller businesses to compete. And so the rich got richer, the middle class got poorer, and the poor got government benefits.

The new sages produced their final idea: since everyone was equal, everyone deserved the same money and power, so they would take from the wealthy and give to the poor. Refulgent in its simplicity, the theory seemed to defeat all. Unfortunately, it then collapsed, so they patched it up by saying that now they would not take from business, only individuals.

That made the richer citizens smile. They could keep their wealth in their businesses, and raise taxes on income, which would hit the middle class and then those suckers could pay for the poor. The laughter echoed through the halls of commerce and exclusive clubs in the center of the big cities.

By now marginalized to the outside of scholarship and literature, the old sages warned: you will merely replace social order with a commercial order, and by limiting that order, replace it in turn with government, which serves only itself. It seems like power to the people, but in fact it is slavery, thinly-disguised behind an economy and “good intentions.”

We Know Better.

The new sages of the herd came up with their next brilliant idea. In order to make everyone happy, the solution was for all of us to live the same way. We each got an apartment, a car and a job; we went to the job, and got taxed; the taxes paid for others, and then everyone would live in peace because no one had less than anyone else. We could be identical as equals.

At this revelation, a new energy infused the population. Finally, we were all equal, and all we had to do was obediently go through education, attend our jobs, do everything on the checklists for each task, and then we had up to four hours a night to amuse ourselves with television, alcohol, sex, drugs and motorcars.

For the new sages, this was a boon, because now they had most of the population on their side. Every person wanted their equal share, and was bigoted and paranoidly suspicious of anyone who proposed any other idea. Like ants, they swarmed over anyone who suggested otherwise, or merely failed to agree, and tore them to pieces, carting off the remains for themselves.

“The problem with this society is that you cannot tell the truth,” said the old sages. So they expressed themselves through literature, warning that the city and its businesses, if unleashed, became self-serving like everything else in this life, and would simply consume everything good and replace it with assembly line style interchangeable parts, rote process and divided roles.

Like the Romantics before them, they warned that the greatest risk to us was not some shadowy group, but ourselves. In a mob, we express ideas that are more emotion and personal attention-seeking than reality, and by chasing this phantom of the unreal, we lead ourselves over a cliff just like those ancient societies did.

We Know Better.

The new sages realized that their power might wane, so they introduced a series of distractions. First we had to all fight for sexual equality, which meant the ability to have sex with anyone and not be seen as less important for it. Next, we had to bring in other ethnic groups in order to be truly equal. Finally, we need more payments for the poor to keep everything fair.

“It’s just distraction,” said the old sages. They realized that the herd was deflecting from its own bad choices, and rationalizing decay instead of acting against it. But the masses were fully mobilized now. They were educated! They were empowered! They had money, too. And so they tore down any idea but going further along the existing path.

This forced civilization into a quandary: the few who seemed sensible opposed the new way, but everyone else wanted it, and they were more numerous. Now there was no way out but a breakup, with the Know-Betters on one side, and those who were skeptical after centuries of problems on the other.

Ironically, this brought us back to where we had been before the whole Know-Better crusade started. The kings, aristocrats, caste, culture and customs of the past — including a faith that this life is good, and therefore the end of the body is not The End — served a role, but only a few people could understand them.

And as history had shown, once again, those were the people who knew better, not the crowd.

What Actually Threatens The Alt Right

Thursday, September 21st, 2017

The Alt Right arose as an alternative both to the Left-leaning neoconservative mainstream conservatism and to the antisocial and violent underground far Right. As such, it gained great momentum in a time when people are tired of the options that placate the crowd, because anything popular converges on the inevitable mix of pacifism, egoism and neurosis.

Since that outsider status is what gives the Alt Right its power, its one fatal mistake — as opposed to missteps involving Nazi flags — is to become what it succeeded by not being, namely the Right-Left hybrid that is neoconservatism or other herd-friendly doctrines. The Alt Right succeeds by being all Right, which people accept even if disadvantageous to them because it is stable and sane.

From the days of its inception, the Alt Right has been threatened by infiltration from within by people who do not realize that they bear the Leftist idea-virus, and therefore convert the Alt Right into the Left by bringing into it their assumptions and dogma. If this de facto fifth column succeeds, the Alt Right becomes subverted like the mainstream Right.

Unfortunately, this fifth column is unaware that it exists. It consists of people who have gone through life, absorbed aspects of the Leftist hive-mind that is now our mass culture, and then turned toward the Right, without realizing how much of the Left is within them. This is why the Alt Right struggles with an angry audience of skraelings who will doom it just as they doomed white nationalism:

The comments sections of our website devolved into a cesspool filled by the most despicable pond scum, former 4-chaners who would routinely pile on in trolling attacks against me every time I published something with a bit of intellectual content.

The anti-4chan negativity seems off-base to this author, since 4chan is a mixed bag with some insightful commentators among the Reddit-style angry crawlspace NEETs and Whole Foods workers.

However, the larger point is a good one: when the herd takes over, it converts everything to a lowest common denominator, which then subverts the target and turns it into de facto Leftism. People allowed to express their individual judgments, desires and feelings become a force of entropy, fragmenting any focus by injecting their own personal needs where shared goals need to prevail.

This condition is not the fault of our leaders, but represents something against which they must struggle, because otherwise they will become Left-converged by those who, despite taking a hard-Right direction, do not understand — or do not care — about the meaning of the Right, and will convert it into the same old herd behavior that is the basis of Leftism.

The only solution to this behavior is to aggressively point ourselves toward clear goals and to extend our ideas to their logical conclusions, as this effectively excludes the neurotic intermediate steps favored by the herd. With a purpose, we do not fall prey to the swarm behavior of the aimless herd; without it, we become exactly what we were formed to oppose.

How You Know You Are Living in a Soft Totalitarian State

Wednesday, August 16th, 2017

Conservatives struggle with a fundamental problem: our ideals are perennially unpopular, at least until things get so bad that people are desperate enough for a solution that they turn to matured wisdom.

As long as the proles — the 90% of any society who belong to the category of people who need to be told what to do — have fat enough paychecks, beer, bread and circuses, they are perfectly content to ignore any long term problems. In fact, they delight in not just ignoring them but shaming anyone who notices them as a “loser,” because this makes them feel more powerful.

With the fall of Berlin, conservatism was not just marginalized by its relative unpopularity, but actively under assault for any area where its ideas overlapped with those of the National Socialists. This caused the “winners” to immediately drop those ideas, and the “losers” to hang on to them, perhaps with the disclaimer that they could be implemented differently.

Only fifteen years after the end of the second world war, America and Europe were already swinging hard to the Left, mainly because post-war prosperity guaranteed that people would be entirely unconcerned about any long-term consequences. As the saying goes, while there’s food, the peasants party, and then only worry about what to do when they wake up the next day to find themselves hungry.

Since that triumph of the Left, conservatives who speak honestly and realistically have been essentially a persecuted minority, with those who speak taboo truths finding themselves facing the terror of public opinion which seeks to deprive them of jobs, housing, friends and family:

“The thought of getting outed as ‘white supremacists’ to our employers and possibly losing our jobs is a horrifying prospect,” the user Ignatz wrote. If forced to choose between a rally, which could bring him unwanted exposure, or supporting his white family, he says he would choose the latter.

…”But, by and large, people are scared because of the exact same reasons you’d expect,” says Hankes. “It’s hard to get a job, hard to make a living, hard to have a normal social life when all your friends and family know you believe in ethnic cleansing.”

This means that we are living in a soft totalitarian state. Like regular garden-variety totalitarianism, soft totalitarian controls people by regulating what methods and ideas they can be exposed to. However, soft totalitarianism adds a wrinkle: We The People, in our endless quest for social acceptance, do the enforcing instead of government.

That extends to corporations and others who achieve their success and wealth through being popular. Consumerism, as it turns out, is a form of democracy; whatever the largest group of people purchases, wins, and so a market or competition is set up in which companies compete to be the most popular. Inevitably, that spills outward from value and quality of their products to public image, which then swings Leftward as all things do when left up to a mass of people, mainly because that mass chooses the lowest common denominator, which is always simple social sentiments instead of complex critical thinking.

In a soft totalitarian state, government uses freedom as a weapon, knowing that most people are short-term thinkers and therefore both selfish and oblivious to long-term consequences, and that in groups, people always choose a mediocre option in order to keep the group together because only a few people understand the task and have a sensible take on it, anyway. The more freedom and fewer restrictions, the more emboldened the mob becomes to engage in bad behavior, and as a result, the more it fears anyone who wants actual standards, morals, customs, values, culture, heritage, religion or purpose. The mob is the weapon.

In any democratic state, the mob takes over because it creates a market for liars. These actors go on stage, make promises they know are untrue, collect votes and then drive out anyone else. Like the Chicago “political machines” of the 19th century, they then rig the system so no one else can win. As Plato noted, they invariably import foreigners who, as people alienated from the majority, always vote for strong protectors, and so keep the actors in charge.

Their problem is that, as conductors of the masses, they must find a way to motivate an increasingly selfish and sluggish group of very distracted people, most of whom are lost in solipsistic ego-drama and attention whoring, in order to stay in power. To do this they must create vivid images like we would find in comic books of exaggerated good versus evil, with the underdog always winning because most people see themselves as an underdog, if for nothing else to justify their selfish behavior and excuse their failings, claiming oppression and therefore a “right” to take what they secretly believe is theirs, or to simply not contribute much. Politics becomes a hybrid between a circus and a football game, with constant distractions to keep the crowd interested, and then narrow characterizations to channel them into one opinion or another. This is one of the many reasons that democracy is immoral and dishonest.

Many have misunderstood this characteristic of democracy. They see how democracy acts against white people, men, Christians and intelligent people, and assume that it has singled these out for some purpose of its own. In a realistic assessment, what it is doing is forming a pretext. Democracy is the political system of equality; equality is only valuable to those who need it, which are the ones who could not succeed without it. If there are one hundred students in a class and a test comes back where grades are worse than usual, it is not the kids with As who are claiming the test was not fair. Equality creates an inherent victim narrative where those who are not successful claim to be equal, which means that the only reason they are not doing as well as the successful is that they have been victimized, oppressed or discriminated against by some force… and there is no one to blame except those who are successful. This is why all equality movements consist of taking from the successful and giving to the less successful. The war against successful groups — including white people in lands founded by white people — is a pretext for the seizure of wealth and power, followed by redistribution of the same.

You might wonder, why does this equality of power not threaten those in power? The answer is that equality is entropy. If everyone literally has the same amount of power, nothing will get done; this is why all known anarchist communes have perished, even those below Dunbar’s number, the mythical amount of people that one can personally know which allows — in theory — any political system to work. As a result, the equal crowd will always turn to a leader or protector, and who better to do this than the person who just gifted them with wealth and power taken from those who succeeded more than the herd? This creates a cycle where politicians gain power by stealing, then give it to the people, who give it back in exchange for more, and so taxes always go up, more rules are created so there can be more fines, more fees are charged to those with more wealth, and educational systems are designed to bore the intelligent and delight the idiotic.

Soft totalitarianism consists of this cycle. In the circus part of the cycle, the politicians provoke outrage in the herd about some target that can be easily destroyed. The mob, which like all groups with no individual power and full anonymity, loves to destroy, and this whets its excitement like a guillotine or race riot. Then comes the football game part of the cycle, where the crowd is encouraged to view itself as intelligent and morally upstanding for supporting blue team over red team. Finally, the politicians deliver the flashpoint: the other team victimized us, and thus we are justified in destroying them. By any means necessary. They are against our values. They threaten us. They must be destr– errr, defeated, wink wink.

We are now caught in that cycle. The Left whipped up the circus by calling the Alt Right “racists,” and there has been no greater sin according to American herd politics since 1945, so people were ready for violence. The cops created the football game by encouraging violence. Then, after one potentially mentally unstable person panicked and in trying to escape, crashed into another car which then killed one person and injured nineteen, the herd was told that it was the victim. There was the dog whistle! The crowd rushed off to smash the bad team, and the corporations, desperate for attention because it is the only thing keeping them relevant in an anarchic society with no values, used that as a pretext to wage war against the Alt Right.

In the past twenty-four hours, we have seen:

  • The Daily Stormer website being removed from GoDaddy and then invalidated by Google.
  • Amazon dropping author Billy Roper’s book The Ice Path because of complaints.
  • VDARE, Counter-Currents and others being deplatformed by Paypal.
  • Discord deleting the thriving Alt.Right chat server.
  • Numerous accounts deleted on Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, and Instagram.

At this point, we see a fundamental problem with the internet: once entirely owned by the government, it now is mostly in the hands of private businesses, and they are prone to do whatever reduces the number of complaints coming in while also giving them headlines that appease the Left, because the Left are the primarily media consumers and especially of social media, where they are most active in both finding news and regular use:

Overall, consistent conservatives are somewhat less likely than consistent liberals to get government and political news on Facebook or Twitter, primarily because they are somewhat less likely to use the sites in the first place. About half (49%) of consistent liberals (and a similar share of those with mixed ideological views) say they got news about government and politics in the past week from Facebook, compared with 40% of consistent conservatives. And while 13% of consistent liberals say they got political news on Twitter in the past week, just 5% of consistent conservatives (and 8% of groups in between) say the same.

Rather than expand to an audience which is less interested in spending its time clicking around, perhaps because it has more important things to do, the media is doubling down on its existing audience, mainly because the fortunes of the dot-com boom are fading and since statistics count warm bodies, it is essential to these companies to get as many warm bodies in the door as possible.

This means that private companies are in control of public spaces where these private companies derive benefit from making “safe spaces,” which means removing all non-Left-wing content. That realization prompted calls to regulate social media as a public utility:

Bannon’s basic argument, as he has outlined it to people who’ve spoken with him, is that Facebook and Google have become effectively a necessity in contemporary life. Indeed, there may be something about an online social network or a search engine that lends itself to becoming a natural monopoly, much like a cable company, a water and sewer system, or a railroad. The sources recounted the conversations on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to give the accounts on record, and could face repercussions for doing so.

…Under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission moved forward on a plan to regulate internet service providers as utilities, barring them from slowing down traffic to a site in order to pressure it into paying higher fees. The Trump administration is pushing to reverse that move, which complicates Bannon’s message.

…Silicon Valley’s liberal cultural politics puts it at odds occasionally with more conservative, rural Trump voters. Facebook was confronted by a backlash over its news curating during last year’s presidential campaign. With insiders claiming there was an anti-conservative bias, Facebook pulled its live team off the project.

If you can imagine a town where the only public spaces — churches, pubs, parks, streetcorners and any other place where more than a handful of people could gather — were owned by a company that forbade discussion of certain topics, you can see the risk in allowing private companies to control what has become a public space that has displaced other means of mass communication. This causes concern for the removal of free speech through methods that soft totalitarianism pioneered:

This brings me to the heart of my argument, today free speech no longer hinges on the government telling people it cannot say certain words. Earlier this year the Supreme Court affirmed that “hate speech” that bogeyman of inferior minds is protected speech. Rather, what’s happened is that the concept of “corporate social responsibility” a buzzword for social justice taught in business schools across the US, has been used to deplatform and deny the right the opportunity to participate in the arena of ideas simply because they control the medium, or media, through which the message must travel.

Technology has put the spirit of the First Amendment in a difficult position. Pedants all over the internet will tell you that censorship is only censorship when the government does it, private companies can censor all they want. They can refuse to do business with an individual.

Totalitarianism is a government banning ideas and behaviors; soft totalitarianism is a raging mob that destroys anything which disagrees with the idea of the mob itself, which is that everyone is accepted and wealth and power should be redistributed to them. This is what mobs have always wanted, an excuse to destroy and loot, and resembles a slow-motion riot more than intelligent political change. With social media, soft totalitarianism has found its ultimate weapon.

For the Right to survive this, it will need to create its own internet from the ground-up based on explicit principles of freedom of speech. A good start would be decentralizing, or abandoning centralized sites like Facebook and Google, to instead user a smaller network of blogs, news sites, search engines and chat rooms that are too numerous and too unknown to become targets. Eventually, the wires and servers themselves could be furnished, presenting a space of actual net neutrality not just in its mechanics but in its refusal to allow any host to prioritize traffic from any other, because that would in itself be a form of proto-censorship of this public-private space.

We are living in a soft totalitarian state. As Plato wrote, democracy always collapses this way and leaves behind tyranny. People are loathe to realize that what most of us want, in any group, is usually wrong, mainly because a mob has no accountability and people act through social behavior instead of logical thinking. If humanity is to survive into the next century, it is essential that we come to awareness that the crowd is evil and our only salvation lies in creating a hierarchy where the smartest, not the mob, are on top.

What Do “Right” and “Left” Mean?

Thursday, August 10th, 2017

The salient fact of modernity is that without a natural hierarchy in society, all actions must be accomplished through mass popularity. In order to gain approval of the herd, called consensus, leaders or commercial actors must mobilize a large army of warm bodies who claim to be excited about the idea.

Understanding hierarchy requires understanding the concept of order, or the idea that many unequal parts can work together in balance toward a purpose, guided by principles which ensure the evolution of that work. The opposite of this is mass culture, in which all are equal and are controlled by a force which manipulates them through images, bribes, terrors and guilt.

Mass culture therefore removes all meaning to terms by using them flexibly to argue for whatever is needed or desired. Any term like “Left” or “Right” will be abused, but that does not change the underlying meaning any more than an apple becomes a banana when referred to by the wrong term.

As written about before on this site, the nature of the Right is twofold and emerges from its primary goal, which is to conserve. This outlook recognizes that entropy and selfishness are the eternal enemies of humankind and also the pitfalls that are with us constantly in everything we do or fail to do, and so our goal becomes conservation of what works best.

While this is positive, it is also too backward-looking, and so we dig further into the historical and linguistic roots of conservatism, and find that it is conservation of order, arising from Plato’s “good to the good, and bad to the bad” statement, along the same lines as morality and Darwinism. It sorts people into a hierarchy from good to bad, and promotes the good while beating back the bad.

In this sense, conservatism is a folkway, or a time-honored tradition of choosing not just what works, but what produces the best possible results so that life is inspiring to our fellow citizens. It is the opposite of an ideology, which is a commandment about what “should” be true according human mass desires, instead of a revelation of what is true and how to maximize it.

When it manifests in politics, this way of life becomes the Right:

Historically, however, the famous terms “left” and “right” are around 300 years old. They have their roots in the “Assemblée des États”, the assemblies of the estates. Because of the belief of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God (the hand in which a man usually holds his sword in), the places right to the ruler were considered to be the more honorable seats. Therefore, aristocracy and clergy were sitting to the right hand of the king, the “lower” representatives of the free cities, the citizens, to his left.

This polarity carried on after the king was overthrown because those on the Right fundamentally wanted to restore the ancient order because they knew that aristocracy provided for greater stability than mob rule, and that while mob rule will always be popular with humans, so are many destructive things.

Naturally this created tension. It is impossible to work within a system you oppose without either compromising your principles, or being outright hostile to it and therefore unable to get anything done. The system selected for people who were willing to compromise, which explains why the West has steadily shifted Leftward since 1789 no matter what the Right seems to do.

Even worse, the fundamental conservative idea does not emphasize a change in direction because of its backward-looking desire to “conserve.” In this sense, backward-looking is not looking backward in time, but as a sense of retreat, where the conservatives try to defend a few vital institutions and ideals against a constant onslaught of Leftism. This strategy has not worked well either.

Most conservatives seem to accept society as a lost cause. To them, a society is born in a new state, rises to power, then becomes bloated with fools and parasites like every other human endeavor, and then lapses into a fallen state where conservatives just have to grin and bear it, keep paying taxes and supporting the military, and hope to silently pass into history, one presumes.

They rationalize their behavior with “work hard, pray hard” or The Benedict Option, but both are postures more than attempts to achieve anything. The modern conservative accepts defeat and, with his head held down low, trudges on through life, becoming bitter and passing that on to his family.

Launching a forward-looking conservative movement proves difficult because conservatives generally rationalize their way out of radical change. They also have no way to explain to people who are living the easy life why they should sacrifice and work hard in order to achieve a new system that looks like something from centuries before.

Any conservative party thus becomes a target for opportunists who are willing to cast aside the actual values of conservatism and replace them with pragmatic ones. They realize they can be the opposition party and still have power without having to do much of anything because they know and expect. To them, it is just another job, and they focus on the financial side of it.

Having given up on actually maintaining society, conservatives then treat politics as a business and try to compete, which dooms them because they are up against people who specialize in bribing voters with promises of free stuff. This is how conservatism ends up doing the work of the Left for them; by competing, it adopts Leftist methods, and soon becomes effectively Leftist:

The Progressive era of the West arrived by way of Bismarck and Germany. Otto, being a conservative, was, by that characteristic alone, a natural born progressive. He sought to stay the power and the rise of the Socialists in Germany. He did so thinking like a socialist, calculating as a socialist, and preempting socialist aims by providing what Socialists had not yet the wherewithal/power to dole out.

In the above, we see the classic pattern of conservatives “competing” by achieving socialism before the socialists. This way, the conservatives stay in power, but they also defeat themselves, much as American conservatives have by defending Leftist ideals and programs despite recognizing that these are anathema to their actual values.

This makes it clear as to why people are confused on “Right” and “Left.” When the Right acts like the Left, and the Left depends on the Right to keep the financial side of government operational, the dual parties seem like two heads of the same Hydra. In truth, the Hydra is the Left, and it maintains a public party as a means of forcing others to act out its agenda.

When considering this Hydra, it is worth realizing that it can take on many forms. The fundamental and only idea of the Left is egalitarianism, which means that bad and good alike can participate in society. This is their means of overthrowing any natural hierarchy and replacing it with a popularity contest so that the bad can seize power and profit from it.

In this way, the Left is an instance of both entropy and Crowdism, which is how all human endeavors fail by allowing everyone to participate, thus erasing hierarchy, at which point the Crowd demands the endeavor be made to fit its new audience, which inverts its meaning and adulterates its potency. That is what happened to conservatism as well: assimilation from within by people dedicated to nothing greater than themselves.

Humanity stands at a crossroads. We either find a way to beat this form of simian entropy, or we give on having advanced civilizations that can produce great art, literature and space travel. At that point, we will be assimilated from within by genetics, slowly introducing enough trace admixture to effect a soft genocide of our people, without whom civilization cannot be reborn.

The Alt Right shows promise by being willing to affirm the need to restore Western Civilization, which requires seizing power and driving out the parasites. In this way, it takes the ideals of the Right and the methods of the Left, uniting them toward a temporary force which can put civilization back on track, at which point it can develop naturally to its full potential.

Few will find it surprising that therefore the most intense appeal of the Alt Right comes from those who are existentially stranded in a boring modern existence and dreaming of exploring the stars.

Individualism and Nature

Saturday, July 29th, 2017

The courtroom filled with vultures and snakes, and each one wanted me dead. As an outsider to this group — coming from one of the outer belt moons instead of a nice, middle-class planet — I was already not one of them, and the fact that I had made their clique look bad was the clincher. This was through no fault of my own.

“All rise…” intoned a bailiff, hand on his stun weapon, eyes on me.

There was the usual boilerplate, introductions, disclaimers, miscellany, and other formalities before I found myself on the stand. The whole trick in court is that when you are on the stand, you see an entirely different room than you did before. Before, you saw the judge. Now, you see a group of people and know that whatever herd instinct they fall into relying upon will decide your fate.

“Describe for us the events of the date in question,” said my lawyer. As far as I could tell, his job was to make a bargain — a compromise, a pragmatic quid-pro-quo — with the other team, and deliver me into an appropriate sentence. On the other hand, in my view, I had done nothing wrong, which is why I was surprised to be arrested hours after the event, where they found me in an unlicensed church. I have no idea how they found me, but fifteen guys in combat gear came in and bodily removed me, and ever since I have been spending time in a locked cell with only a single window to view the world as the finite hours of my life passed by.

The judge nodded, and so I began. “We were a combat scout team deployed to a new and promising world. It had Earth-like temperatures, slightly on the warm side, and dense vegetation resembling that of the Triassic Era of our planet of origin. As scientific advisor, I was sent along to assess feasibility and to serve as second rifleman, which has always been my technical rank in our unit, since I lack the ambition to be formally recognized by military rank.”

“Objection, irrelevant,” said the prosecution.

“Overruled. Irrelevance itself is not against the rules of this Court; he is simply rambling. Witness, keep your attention on the narrative. Go on,” the judge rustled in a bloom of black silk.

“Where was I? Right, so we landed at about 0400 hours. Myself and my fellows — Dak, Zak, Mak, Vak and Hak — went north to the foothills of a mountain range, covering a half-dozen kilometers of jungle and prairie. I took numerous samples which are listed on the evidence table over there. Most of what we sampled were small invertebrates of two varieties. One had webbed wings like an insect, but soft bodies like butterflies, and the other were blind worms that thrashed along the surface of the dirt, eating vegetable matter like a cross between slugs and roundworms.”

I continued, since no one had objected. “Life was bountiful here. We spotted thousands of these little creatures. I kept sampling the air for microbes but found nothing threatening, similar perhaps to the ‘crobes of our own Jurassic period. My impression was that this world had a lot of potential, but that the hotter a world tends to be, the higher the presence of parasitism is because nutrition is easier for organisms in a hot climate, so there is excess which is exploited.”

Sort of like this courtroom, I thought, but did not add.

“Dak, who was ranking as a corporal, said we should acquire a vantage point to see if we could observe any large animals, as we had not seen any for some time. We climbed a small mountain or large hill, depending on how you look at it, and found ourselves on a jungle plateau. I took additional samples here which were lost somehow after my arrest, although they were in the custody of the military-scientific liaison group. My defense team has petitioned for these but received no answer.”

“Objection, hearsay,” said the prosecution.

“Sustained.”

I sighed. “These activities took us until mid-day, at which point it was decided to break for rations. Having covered quite a bit of ground, we were famished. We broke out rations, heated them, and started to eat, then Hak found a tea bag — ”

“Objection, witness is trying to deflect,” said the prosecution.

I waved them off and continued. “A teabag was found. It was decided that water was needed. One member of the team was either dispatched or dispatched himself to find water, over my objections, since we had not sample any aquatic life and so had zero verification of its safety. However, it was decided by ranking leadership that water itself, if properly boiled, could not harm us. But through this act, our doom was decided.”

As it turned out, Hak had found quite a beautiful little pool. Surrounded by gentle trees, with a soft breeze rushing over it, it was the loveliest and most inviting pool I had ever seen. These guys would not care about that, so I continued: “We found a small pond. At this point, it was blazingly hot — the notes are in my after-action report, if you can find it — and so Zak asked permission to strip down and go for a swim. Morale was sort of low at this point, since we had quarreled over whether there could be water for tea, and so over my objections, leadership decided that we should have a swim.”

“At that point, the events in question began. The others got into the water, but I refused to go, even when told by a commanding officer to do so. In my view, his order was illegal because we had not yet sampled the water to see what kind of life, if any, was in it. This is detailed in my report, which I do not see on the evidence table, where I felt strong objections to going into the water.”

The prosecution flexed his fingers below his chin. “And so, at this point, you began to resent your colleagues?”

I thought. “No, I would not call it resentment. I was determined not to follow them in their folly, mainly for the risk of bringing an unknown organism with multiple life-stages — think of a liver fluke — back onto our craft. It was bad procedure and there was no way I could ever agree to it. I would do the same today, honestly.”

A murmur went up from the crowd, earning a hawk-eye of disapproval from the judge.

I went on. “At this point, the group was fairly agitated. They were having fun splashing around, and were finally free from the heat. I wished for the same, but not through their methods. They started to call to me where I was seated on the bank of the pond.

‘Don’t be such a fag, get in here!’

‘Always a spoilsport. Quit being such a bitch.’

‘We’re all doing it, why are you such a nerd?’

‘Whatsamatter, what’s good for us isn’t good enough for you? Such a little prince, nose in the air.’

‘He thinks he’s too good for us! What a bigot!’

And so on. I have to say here that I did not particularly take heed of this, as I am told that such ribbing is in the tradition of our unit, so I had mentally filed it under camaraderie instead of antagonism. But after they had been in the pool for just, well, about two or three minutes, something changed.”

The silence in the courtroom made other sounds loud. I could hear the electricity arcing through the lights above, and the fan on the computer the court reporter was using. Even through the thick insulated doors, the mutterings of the crowd outside reached me. My stepfather and surrogate mother were out there somewhere, probably disappointed with me as they had been my whole life, except when I finally got appointed to this team which I had, in their view, screwed up.

All eyes were on me. “I noticed it first with Mak. He had been swimming in little circles, but then he started wriggling.”

“Wriggling — ?” the prosecution asked me.

“Yes, shaking, squirming, moving uncomfortably, like a weird dance or an uncomfortable child. It was an odd motion, now that you mention it, and that must be why it caught my eye. I called out to him and he turned to me. Dak told me to shut up. But as Mak turned, I saw that he was writhing in pain, and that there were… creatures in the water around him. There may or may not have been samples taken, and if they were, they were filed along with my after-action report, alive, but I do not see the chit on the table either. I will describe these creatures.”

The court remained silent. If I were on a power trip, or just an egomaniac like most people, I would have relished this moment. “They were about ten centimeters long, and were segmented worms with an outer carapace, like Earth millipedes or centipedes, but instead they had mouths like a lamprey inside a little armored head, like a tiny placoderm. And in place of legs, they had little flippers that were like the bodies of tiny flat snakes, so not bony like ordinary fish fins or flippers, which are usually a mammalian or bird adaptation. Any samples that I may have taken were extracted very carefully from the surrounding water using medical tweezers and a solid glass, kevlar-topped sample container.”

“But I am getting ahead of myself. Before I took the samples, I was talking to Mak. The others had stopped swimming at that point. Mak was in the deepest water, and he was doing this writhing dance, but was clearly not drowning. Then he turned to us, and opened his mouth, and inside of it I saw all of these creatures thrashing as they dove into his flesh. He looked at me with tense eyes, clearly in pain, and then the creatures thrust upward and all the life went out of those eyes as they ate the brain. He was dead before he sank into the water.”

A ripple of emotion cross the courtroom, bounced off the far wall, and lapsed into the middle in an entropy caused by lack of actual caring.

“At this point, I yelled to Dak to get the others out of the water. Zak started slashing at the water, and said, ‘They’re coming in through my penis!’ at which point the others started heading toward shore. But it was too late. They each started to do the death-dance, the little creatures having drilled into them and then attached their limbs to one another so that they formed a big rope, which then was sucked into the body where they began to feast. Piranhas and candiru have nothing on these little guys.”

The judge waved for me to go on.

“Before they died, Dak and Vak called for me to save them. They wanted me to pull them out of the water, or use my shock rifle to help. The problem is that the shock rifle would have killed them as well, and that going into the water would have put me in danger.”

Aha! The prosecution leaned in and said, “Isn’t it your job to go into danger in service of your comrades?”

The entire audience sat back. This was the moment they were waiting for, when the person who violated the sanctity of the herd would be punished.

I thought, and then said slowly, “There is no part of the rule book that says I am obligated to destroy myself to rescue a doomed comrade. You will see in my defense brief a listing of military cases where soldiers refused to aid those who had made bad decisions and doomed themselves. As it stated in our military book of law, there is no general obligation to render aid to another where rendering such aid would not change the outcome. And in my view, there was no hope in this case.”

“And on what authority did you make that determination?” sneered the prosecution, angry that his guillotine moment was over.

“The timing. Mak died in a matter of minutes, but even before that, he was beyond saving because his internal organs had been consumed. They eat the brain, heart and lungs last, probably to keep the meat as fresh as possible during their feasting. From the fact that these organisms had already entered their bodies, I knew that my comrades were doomed, and by their own choice, against my advice.”

The prosecution swept toward me, his robe forming dark wings behind him with the sudden movement. “But you were not the ranking officer here, so it was not your decision to make,” he said.

“No, I was not. However, I was the only scientific officer, and this was a scientific and not military question. There was no military objective in the pond. Nor was there any part of our mission that covered the pond, or I would have objected until we brought equipment that would allow us to safely sample the creatures within. None of the others had scientific training or background with biology, as I did. And so I had to make the determination on that basis.”

The courtroom fell into a complete lack of energy. The moment was defused. The excitement was gone. I had stood up to the crowd and, whatever they did to me, they would have to lie about it in order to make it seem like my defense had no basis. Then again, with so much of my evidence missing, I had zero expectation of fairness. But I went on.

“Seconds later, all four of the survivors were doing the writhing dance with increasingly frequency, like Mak had done in the moments before his brain was consumed and he lost consciousness, leading to animal death. In sequence, they each turned toward me, opening their mouths so I could see the swarming mass, and then the eyes went out as the creatures dove in and ate the brain. Then they fell back into the water, and the mass of creatures converged upon them, eating everything. They were even able to consume bone, which is why I was careful to use the bite-resistant sample container. They ate everything — eyes, sinews, hair, bone, and teeth — and left only the contents of the intestines. Three minutes, maybe, after the event began, all that remained of my comrades were five heaps of dung on the bottom of the pond, which I could see through the clear water.”

“In my opinion, we encountered a world that stayed in its Triassic-like state but for some reason, kept earlier creatures around from the Devonian era. These evolved, but instead of becoming new creatures, became more effective versions of themselves. The planet may have simply been too rich with life to squeeze creatures into new forms. Needless to say, this explained why we saw few larger creatures. These nasty little attack-worms normally feasted on the blind and idiotic invertebrates who moved randomly and so, inevitably, ended up in the pools where they were eaten. But any larger creature that came to drink water would have been destroyed immediately, so the parasites blocked further evolutionary potential.”

The prosecution fulminated in a corner. Seeing this, the judge asked, “In your mind, did you do anything wrong?”

I pursed my lips. This smelled like a trap. “The question is not in my mind, your honor. Human reasoning comes in three varieties: deference to the individual, or individualism; deference to the group, or collectivism; and deference to principle, logic, knowledge of nature, science and other abstractions that reflect an understanding of how the world works. Ironically, while the first two are purely social determinations, religion and philosophy belong to the latter, because they too are based on principles of how our world is composed and how acts in it tend to resolve, and from that, how to make the most of what we have. I defer only to science, somewhat, but even more, logic.”

“There was no way to save those men once they went into the pond. At that point, they had to be considered infected because of the presence of a parasitic species in the pond which our science does not yet know how to counter. For me to touch them was to risk exposing myself to the parasite, and it was more important for the safety of those to follow that this information be passed along. Their loss was a result of their choices.”

At this point, the courtroom returned to an uproar. Blaming the victim! Desecrating the dead! The energy returned back to the lifeless room. The bailiff hustled me out because he was afraid that the crowd might attack. But I knew this was theater. The real attack would come through the judge who, apologetically shrugging, would explain that from the necessity of keeping the group together, I, too, had to be sacrificed. And that is what happened. As it turned out, the ship taking me to an off-world penal colony suffered a fire, and had to crash-land on a distant moon, putting me right back to where I started. But that is a story for another time.

Recommended Reading