Posts Tagged ‘crowdism’

Cold, Ice Cold

Saturday, April 22nd, 2017

Philosopher Nick Land talks about the transition that the West is currently experiencing as a shift from being nice to being more realistic. “Nice” is like bourgeois values: offend no one, befriend everyone, and always gesture vividly toward your acceptance of all people, behaviors and ideas.

Naturally, this niceness is fatal to any group because it opposes the idea of standards, as well as the basic notion of finding some things to be true and others not, therefore unacceptable as answers to certain questions. To be nice, one must believe that all people are basically the same and thus are “universal,” or uniformly good for the most part.

The problem with nice is that it is a form of competition. If your neighbors are nicer than you, you are seen as a less desirable business partner, mate, customer, friend, coworker and seller. When one person on the block goes down the path of nice, the others must “keep up with the Joneses” and virtue signal their niceness as well.

This psychology originates in the bourgeois ideal of being a mercantile middle class. You are not responsible for leadership directly, and yet you have a duty to earn money and keep up (including the Republican “work hard and go to church” mentality) and so you adopt nice as a means of marketing yourself.

When every man is a shopkeeper, he must always think that any person around him is a potential customer. So when it comes time to act, standards are out as these will alienate someone; nice is in because it enables anyone to be a customer, and who cares if they are good or not, so long as they have money?

Like most human illusions, this one is fallacious too. The shopkeepers that are longest-esteemed are those who uphold standards and enforce social order because they are trusted by the upper portions of the bell curve, and everyone else imitates those. When the herd takes over, however, this becomes inverted.

In addition, those who are starting out with nothing will use nice as a way to get a foot in the door… with guilt. Who can turn down a nice guy? White knights everywhere rely on this theory, and it works enough that society keeps producing white knights like an unwanted but voracious weed.

Businesses use a variation of the “nice guy” strategy any time they support a little league team, highway cleanup or local symphony. Unlike regular nice, however, this gives back to the community as a whole. This means it is not personal like nice normally is. However, this means that other businesses can use nice as a simpler version.

The problem with nice is that, like other bourgeois ideas such as “the customer is always right,” it results in acceptance of anything-goes behavior. This in turn makes the business less efficient for others because it is busy being nice to the insane, selfish, lonely, bored and sociopathic.

When the mental virus of nice leaves behind business and migrates into the broader culture, it creates a pathology of deference. Individuals lose the self-esteem they need in order to demand that there be standards. Instead, they take the only safe option that is compatible with nice — they get out of the way — creating that “anything goes” feel.

This creates a society of neurotic people who are afraid to stand for anything, and as a result, welcome any new degeneracy or foreign invaders in their midst. To them, the only winning strategy is more nice, because any lack of it leaves them exposed to someone else demonstrating more of it and thus capturing the high ground, at least in social terms.

Equality creates this form of competition because in an egalitarian society, being non-egalitarian is the only real sin aside from obvious sociopathy like murder, assault, rape and violent theft. Those who are nice are inherently egalitarian; by the converse, those who fail to demonstrate nice will be seen as ideological enemies.

The bourgeois mentality of salesmanship and the prole culture ideal of equality thus conspire to create a society where everyone is a sitting duck. To defend themselves against bad behavior is to invoke the wrath of the Crowd; to accept bad behavior and use it to demonstrate nice, on the other hand, is a win. This way, good becomes evil in results, a form of inversion.

The way around nice is removal of the anti-hierarchy created by equality, which mandates a vast mass who are equal ruled by a few leaders who exist to implement further egalitarian reforms. If we recognize each person as having a place, it makes sense to see them as having immutable self-interest related to that position.

For example, a thief always steals; this is what thieves do. The less-intelligent always seek to overthrow the more intelligent, much as the less-moral seek to overthrow the more moral. The herd seeks to dethrone the exceptional. The ugly and sad want to destroy the beautiful, healthy and cheerful.

When we escape the mental grotto of nice, we can see that not only do people work in self-interest specific to their roles, but that it is more humane to recognize them as they are. Give people clear direction and limit the damage they can do, and they are less likely to live in a miasma of lowered self-esteem based on their past failures and bad acts.

In order to have this exist, however, the best must always oppress the rest, because in one of those rare but ineffable binaries of life, otherwise the rest will oppress the best. Since having the best in power provides the best results, and these distribute to all citizens, it makes sense to put the best in power, much as we select the most talented surgeons or mechanics over the rest.

A new era dawns in which cold, hard logic will be victorious over social sentiments and individualism. Cold, hard logic is like ice in winter that kills all but the hardy; it removes mental confusion by focusing on results and reasoning about how to achieve those, and leaves feelings and group emotions by the wayside.

This view liberates us from a fundamental curse: caring about what is popular. Ultimately, nice is an expression of popularity and fear. People fear that they will not be included, and therefore, it is popular to include everyone, which requires abolition of standards. As we awaken from the stupor of this idea, our civilization can become functional again.

Individualism Destroyed Western Civilization

Wednesday, April 12th, 2017

For years, Amerika has identified the root of downfall in the West as individualism, or the idea that the intentions and desires of the individual take precedence over understanding and adaptation to natural order, logical fact and metaphysical reality. This form of hubris dooms societies to dissolution through lack of common purpose.

As the collectivized form of individualism rages on without noticing how destructive it is, others are starting to recognize how lack of internal solidarity destroys cooperation:

There’s no way the individually competitive white community would identify someone brainy and eloquent, then allow them sometimes to putter around into their 30s before there’s a payoff. That’s pretty much the life story of Bernie Sanders. He probably wouldn’t have become a US senator if he had to focus his energies on a 9-5 job instead.

…Extreme apex ventures like professional acting, writing, art, politics, academics, journalism are too risky and too expensive for atomized individuals to participate in. That just leaves an open field for a group that backs each other up and makes investments in developing their own human capital.

…The community support that Hamilton benefited from would be unthinkable in modern white culture. In fact, with jobs that pay even the simplest living now scarce, workers take perverse joy in someone like Hamilton falling through the cracks.

They love to waggle their fingers patronizingly and say “Look how I pulled myself up while that smart guy turned out to be a loser.”

Individualism engenders all of our worst behaviors, including the notion of linear history or “progress.” It is what happens when people no longer share ideals, and instead, each person uses the now-decaying civilization as a means to their own wealth, power and status alone, instead of making that objective consistent with the goals of the civilization.

When Western Civilization adopted individualism, probably as an artifact of a fragmented ruling caste, it took the path away from working toward an ideal, and instead went down the path of rationalizing human desires as the goal of the civilization. This facilitative and mercantile outlook removed the ability to do what is right and replaced it with an impulse toward convenience.

As we enter the final phase of collapse, we must dig deep to get to the root of our decay so that we can identify it and remove it. Otherwise, we will merely push it back a few steps, and it — being like all evils more fanatical than good — will inexorably advance until we arrive as the same state where we currently are, exhausting ourselves through repetition.

What Are The Origins Of The Left?

Friday, March 24th, 2017

When we engage in conflict, the immediate impulse is to try to find a vital stronghold of the enemy that can be seized or destroyed, giving our group the upper hand. This leads us to pursue mentally tangible objectives instead of realizing that we are in a war of ideas, and ideas are only supplanted, not dissolved.

For those on the Right, this means that we will not find a stronghold of the Left to conquer or obliterate. Instead, we must build up what we know to be true and head in that direction, making the Leftist direction obsolete. War is a bad metaphor here; we are more like people designing a city, rejecting one paradigm because we found a better one.

However, because it is tempting to find a target that we can visualize ourselves conquering, we look for some origin of Leftism that can be rooted out and eliminated. This leads to a mistaken conjecture about the nature and genesis of Leftism:

In order correctly to understand the modern Left, it’s important to recognize it as a secularized religion. Tracing the development of this religion, from its origins in Protestantism, then Puritanism, then through its many transmutations in America — from sixteenth-century Massachusetts, through its northern and western Protestant expansion, through the “Awakenings” of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, through the secularizing influence of Univer[s]alism and Unitarianism, through the sequential attachments of its “mission into the wilderness” to various sacred causes such as abolition, Prohibition, women’s suffrage, global government, desegregation, feminism, environmentalism, Blank-Slate biological universalism, open borders, LBGT-etc. activism, and global warming, to name some salient examples — has been a major project of the dissident and reactionary Right over the past couple of decades.

…The leftmost edge of the Left has accelerated sharply leftward in recent years. This has exerted tidal stresses on what was never a monolithic cultural bloc to begin with, and the laminae are starting to pull apart — with the result that many old-fashioned and relatively moderate liberals are beginning to see for themselves the unmistakable features of a fundamentalist and authoritarian religion beneath the contours of what they had previously imagined to be nothing more than a compassionate and humanistic political attitude. Given that many of these sorts pride themselves on their atheism, to see that they have been associated with a religion is immediately to declare apostasy.

The second part of this statement bears inspection and enjoyment. As revealed here before, the ecosystem of Leftism includes a few manipulative leaders, some true believers and a huge horde of people following along for social reasons, mainly that they think being Leftist increases their social status through iconoclasm or altruism.

As it becomes clear that Leftism is a singular idea — egalitarianism — that varies in degree from classical liberal to Communist, more are seeing the grim truth of Leftism: it gains intensity as its power concentrates such that it will inevitably and invariably arrive at Communism, or what Plato would consider a form of tyranny, if its power is not checked.

This shows us the Leftist cycle, as revealed in Revolutionary France and the Soviet Union: oppose the dominant, sabotage it, then point to the sabotaged ruin as a pure example of the opposite of Leftism, then gain popularity and take over, becoming unstable as Leftism ideals fail, resulting in a military dictatorship that must wage war against ideological enemies to keep itself together.

But the origins of Leftism go farther back than that. In particular, as Plato documents, Leftism assailed ancient Athens as part of its collapse cycle. Even more, we have new world examples of caste and class revolt, such as the ancient Maya, Aztec and Inca. For this reason, it seems that Leftism does not have a modern or Western origin.

For this reason alone, it makes no sense to attribute modern Leftism to modernity, but to assign the reverse: modernity is the result of Leftism, having arisen from The Enlightenment™ thinking of egalitarianism, which is the core of Leftist ideals. But that is in the near term, because clearly there was a cause of The Enlightenment™ that made egalitarianism seem like a good idea.

While it makes sense to say that Christianity has often aided in Leftism, and modern Leftism resembles a religion as Mr. Pollack carefully notes, most of this comes from the fact that Christianity has a focus on the individual, much as Leftism does. For this reason, most people who are Christian are susceptible to the message of egalitarianism as a demonstration of individual moral goodness through altruism.

This leads us to the root of Leftism. Humans fall prey to the same problems they did at the dawn of the species, and sometimes problems which predated it among our Simian forebears. Leftism arises after a civilization becomes successful and as a result, loses focus on a shared purpose and system of values. It is thus not a forward direction, but an inward-focused one.

Leftism for this reason is a form of rationalization that serves to explain the decline as a positive thing, and through its inward focus, to concentrate on redistribution of what remains instead of the creation of new. It is a product of the lack of direction of a civilization that gives perceived social validity to certain human impulses that previously would have been seen as destructive.

What form of ancient human weakness exists to which Leftism can give a voice? It would have to be something fundamental to humans, a mental pitfall as old as time. Civilization is a contract between individuals and the civilization itself to sacrifice some liberties in exchange for participation in the feed of resources. However, this is measured in terms of social approval by the group, or “appearance.”

This creates the problem of formalization. Appearance creates a proxy or intermediate. This is then manipulated by the individualistic, turning the organization known as civilization against its purpose, which is an “inversion” or thematic reversal of its original purpose.

Over time, this destroys every civilization through the same method: individualism, which when expressed by a group is collectivized individualism, or Crowdism. When we face this, we see the monster we are actually struggling with, instead of intermediaries. Leftism is a weakness as old as time, and this is why the ancients called it, simply, “evil.”

Children of Humanity

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017


by D.A.R.G.

I. Children are the Future

As with most slogans that are thrown around nowadays, the idea that “the children are our future” is understood in all its implications by a tiny minority only; the rest not takes it as a pretty-sounding phrase unblinkingly, as a rule and expecting someone else to lead them or do something about it. This is no different than with other things, except that, in modern times common people not only want to be told what they should do, but they also want to have their “rights” (whatever they feel they are entitled to, which more often than not is caprice).

In the West, children are thought as little new automatons who must be indoctrinated in the right way, as per the myth of the blank slate and equality, so that they grow up knowing how to self-indulge in the proper ways. Freedom is not so much a reality as an afterthought and a fantasy dangled in front of everyone long enough so as to entrance them, only to then continue to ask for subservience. So is the child reared with the concepts of liberty, free will and conscientiousness while he is taught to be afraid of nature and to run into the arms of social norms made specially to nurture and foster delusions.

In the East, children are thought as beasts of burden for their parents, their ancestors and society as a whole. Fetishists of the Far East will often look upon this as wisdom, when in practice what it really means is the perpetual enslavement of humanity in the service of the ideology of civilization and order: a metaphysical and cultural totalitarianism. Rest is reserved only for those who have done their duty, and it may only be truly found in old age after a person has gone through a life of unblinking and mindless toiling in terror of not having enough for old age. Some may say something similar happens in the West, but they know little of how intense and to what degree this permeates Far Eastern culture.

In truth, children should thought as neither little automatons to be programmed or as the workers that should maintain the delusions of society. They are neither the means to the future nor the inhabitants of said future, but rather the future itself. It all may sound like a lot of meaningless word-flinging, but when thinking about each of these concepts, the reader will find that they imply very different things. Furthermore, when seen under a holistic light that examines the causes of problems beyond the sphere of human social concerns, considering children as the future in themselves moves us away from ideology and into a more open-minded problem solving mode that sees them as part of larger natural system on which they are dependent as inhabitants and not as owners with “rights.”

The Family as a Means to Happiness

One of the greatest tragedies of modern thought is the ignorant, egocentric and solipsistic idea that the highest good for a human being is the search for happiness above anything else. The only condition is that the person should not directly cause any harm to any other human being (animals do not matter to these people, in general, or the rest of the planet so long as they can keep extracting what they want from it); I say “directly” because such people refuse to see beyond their noses when considering the impact of their decisions over the natural system as a whole. Who cares if society as a whole has already burdened the planet to the extreme with an overpopulation asking for more and more, I still have the right to create more human beings because that will make me happy, right?

The capricious production of children to fill ego voids creates adverse situations in an era when humans have shielded themselves from the ways nature has of controlling population. These impede the ideal or proper rearing of children themselves, bringing them to an overcrowded and unnatural world to live in the temporal comfort and delusion of modern human urban life. Not is life lived by and for material things that do not matter, but the real, the universe itself, is regularly ignored or thought of as a background to the ‘reality’ of human self-absorbed consumption and comfort at the expense of everything else.

What is worse, the stupidity of the de facto “right to reproduction” has gone so far as to tacitly encourage the spread and proliferation of genetic defects. To be fair, this is one of the side-effects of civilization itself as it shields humans from the consequences of poor breeding and excessive survival. You can see, for instance, the degenerate state of the general Chinese population that probably comes as a result of too-long a time as a surviving civilization: what in the West are considered genetic defects (limbs of considerably different lengths, cross-eyes and considerable impairment of eyesight, and more) are the norm among the Chinese.

Civilization in its softening aspects and Crowdism is entirely to blame, and only a drastically more conscientious approach to how we handle our long mis-used power can make for it.

The family as the nucleus of human society must have a transcendental goal whose focus must be the holistic health of all. That is, none of the reasons why it is started or why rules are implemented should be separate from a consideration of their ultimate effect in the long run; this probably requires a wise leader to be in charge, and a certain degree of empirical knowledge of psychology and biology.

Tradition as a Means of Conscious Evolution

In the interest of pushing forth an idea that is both new, and yet old as well, we can propose a way of treating the family, children, nurture and heredity that may yield better results than the blind goose chase for “happiness” has shown. Having understood that forming families is not without heavy consequence in the environment, the community and the future of the human world as a whole, anyone with the courage and interest in striving towards the better should acknowledge the need for some manner of control, even if the words “breeding” and “eugenics” are too emotionally charged for them at this time.

Setting the bases for a Tradition or culture for a new human being, we could start by saying that whatever the teachings are, they should be taught but not pre-conditioned; brainwashing techniques have been the norm in many civilized societies, for it mangles and shapes the individual to the interests of that group, however arbitrary they are. We can see how individual enlightenment and improvement are always at odds with that way of imposing things, since they individual may have to invest a very long period of time de-programming itself before a journey of discovery and development can truly start — even if what is discovered is exactly the same that said tradition was attempting to teach.

Most of a community’s laws should be based on a cultural consensus rather than a Federal kind of set of statutes; the group should be allowed to shape its views on all kinds of sensitive subjects, while an Imperial force should, if in existence, regulate grander issues pertaining the long-view of things and to function as a spiritual reference that moves little through time (such was the original meaning and function of Imperium, rather than an “ancient Federal state”).

Another key aspect that should form an integral part of our new way of guiding human beings in a new era should be a realist awareness about ecology and as human as both an animal and as a creature that has overstepped the boundaries of its natural past; which overstepping now places a heavy burden of responsibility over us, since we have in our hands the power of utterly destroying everything: ourselves and the rest of the biological systems on the planet.

What should be emphasized here is that the actual learning that matters for holistic purposes is that which is individually discovered; knowledge that is attained through experience and personal intellectual effort, rather than handed over as something to be accepted without questioning or as a formula, has an visible effect beyond the simple utility of that knowledge.

The present is a cultural teaching methodology that encourages the creation of opportunities for experiences early on in the life of a child, while at the same time leading them to seek guidance in a way that this teaching is not imposed.

There are several direct consequences which might be the cause of objection in the reader, the first of which may be the dangerous and perhaps apparently unstable nature of it all. A considerable portion of the individuals might never look for guidance, some out of a greater sense of independence and self-reliance, and the majority of these out of inadequacy and incompetence. The first would excel, and the second would be culled by our allowance of natural selection to play a role within our Tradition. Those who did seek advice would form a third group that may or may not succeed in following the advice and applying it in a successful way.

The aim of this kind of selection system is to create generations of individuals that are increasingly self-reliant and aware of both their place and relation to the species and to the wider biological and energetic spheres; individuals that are increasingly cooperative towards what is good (defined within a context and not dogmatically) out of conscientiousness and a natural tendency towards balance rather than out of superimposition and the fear-mongering.

The idea linked to this is that no matter how widely individually-discovered paths become, the most successful must ultimately converge in the larger scheme of things. If anyone points to the present system and conditions as relatively successful, we need only point out where the breeding style and energy consumption schemes in overpopulation of the present are taking us.

At the present and in the current state of affairs, the increasing dependency of individuals and communities on governments and environments that isolate them from a natural way of life (and thus less direct contact with the consequences of their actions), along with the further encouraging the breeding of even more dependent individuals while ostracizing those who seem too strong and independent, may lead only to a slow and smooth decadence akin to putrefaction in life and a death without resurrection.

End Of The Internet

Thursday, March 2nd, 2017

Smart money got its start in the internet before the collapse began, working on the new frontier in the days antecedent to the time when the herd took over. Since then, the internet has become a popularity contest of highly similar ideas, each claiming to be distinct.

This is consistent with an aging market. When a technology is new, it is rewarded with high-margin results for those who conquer new spaces; as time goes on, it becomes a part of the background hum, with thin margins which encourage a competition death spiral in which all participants emulate one another and thus approximate a mean.

We are now seeing the downfall of the internet as people recognize that the internet corrupts source material by forcing it into this form designated by this dying market, which is the opposite of the “wild west” the internet once promised:

But she found that publishing on the internet often had the unintended and unconscious effect of causing her to cater to the aesthetics of those platforms. “The internet should be a place with no rules, and freedom, but it’s not,” Piñero said. “There is a certain pressure to conform to certain aesthetics.” It was something I had noticed myself. Each social-media platform tends to reward certain behaviors and styles of posting, all in the interest of building fans and followers who are invested in the performance of a persona (maybe even more so than the Geppetto-like person orchestrating it all). Instagram is a place for intimate-seeming photos, Twitter for clever quips and collaborative memes. Facebook demands an unmitigated rawness that can be terrifying at times. With all, the works are often made to fit the platform, not the other way around.

Much as content adapts to its audience, it also adapts to the medium through which it is communicated, which on the centralized internet means relatively few sites like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Reddit. As a result, the message is being contorted to not just fit in the medium, but to do what the audience rewards, a sort of consumerism based on imaginary internet points.

After all, these imaginary internet points determine whose content is at the top of these sites and therefore, who gets the benefit in search engines like Google and Bing. That means that social media itself has become a market for popularity such that the content which appeals to the broadest segment of the market dominates, crowding out the voices that do not conform.

This reveals a weakness in demotism itself, as expressed in systems like democracy, capitalism and social popularity. What is most popular is always wrong; what is least popular is a mix of crazy and the hard-to-identify rare moments of sanity. As a result, the herd outweighs sanity and demands that what flatters it become the norm, even if it is insane.

What this means is that the free riders game the system and by appealing to the sympathy of others, corrupt the dialogue with nonsense information:

As CBS2’s Jessica Borg reported, chances are you have probably seen something like this on your Facebook feed – a friend shares a heartbreaking photo of a baby or a teenager with a life-threatening illness.

The post urges you to “like,” “comment,” or “share.”

…Barrios said such fake posts are part of a scam called, “like-farming.” They can put your computer security at risk, or your personal data if you donate.

Humanity is learning in this century that when we set up “games,” or proxies for purpose measured by method, people take advantage of them, and the result is corruption and opportunism. The internet falls into this difficulty because of its tendency to standardize content to form, which means that the lowest common denominator clickbait wins out.

This shows us the end of the internet: a once decentralized system, which aimed to be decentralized because it knew the fallibility of centralized systems to “gaming” or other attacks, became centralized because the herd came in and demanded the same entertainment they got from their televisions.

As a result, it has now lost truth value, not so much because of the “big corporations” but because the users rapidly destroy anything good in a quest for individual self-importance, attention and profit. This mirrors what happened to Western society as a whole when individualism took over.

Someday we may learn that people are either geared toward some purpose in common, whereby they can cooperate, or they turn into bickering monkeys who tear apart everything good for the benefit of the individual. The internet was once a refuge from this, but now it merely exemplifies it, and has lost utility as a result.

Wikipedia Discovers Crowdism

Wednesday, February 15th, 2017

As it turns out, crowd-approved group blog Wikipedia reveals the Crowdist pattern in its “objective” articles and comments:

They concluded that “significant progress could be made by moderating a relatively small number of frequent attackers.” But at the same time, in Wikipedia’s comments “less than half of attacks come from users with little prior participation; and perhaps surprisingly, approximately 30% of attacks come from registered users with over a 100 contributions. These results suggest the problems associated with personal attacks do not have an easy solution… the majority of personal attacks on Wikipedia are not the result of a few malicious users, nor primarily the consequence of allowing anonymous contributions.”

In other words, the wrong people got in power… again. Funny how this happens. In business, in social groups, in volunteer groups and even among fellow employees heading out to lunch. When there is not a clear leader and hierarchy, the snarling Simian ancestry of humans comes forth and we sabotage ourselves by fighting for power like preening animals, “talking monkeys with car keys.”

The problem is us. Crowdism is the theory of what happens when individualism becomes collectivized, and inverts definitions by removing the unpopular complex and unpleasant concepts from within the bigger concept, leaving us with something like a cross between Disneyland and the Soviet Union.

Humans ruin everything they touch. Someone starts up a new idea, and this idea will be powerful so long as it is not widely understood, so that the idea selects its audience. But when people start coming in for demotic reasons — politics, commerce, popularity — then they want to use the idea as a means to the end of their own personal advancement, and they destroy it.

This is why nothing persists in the human world. As soon as something good is formed, it is destroyed. Wherever people gather, they consume whatever they find so that they can advance themselves. Unless this herd instinct is formed, humanity becomes the source of the death of anything good and devolves into squabbling, pretentious rodents who soak up all the resources and leave a wasteland.

We talk a good deal about virtue signaling on this blog, but the fact is that virtue signaling is one method of bullying people out of the way. There are others, but generally, people use language to manipulate each other, not to communicate. As a result, they are like worms creeping through computer data, changing everything into gibberish by redefining it.

Wikipedia provides an interesting model for this because it seems that it would be free of the commercial pressures that are commonly blamed for corrupting everything in the human world. In fact, commerce is just one of the ways that a “tragedy of the commons” occurs, with people acting in self-interest against group interest.

Could Wikipedia be saved? Yes, but only if: it had strong leaders, a caste system, and a strong culture that rewards the honest and punishes the bad. That is the opposite of what it has now, which is a popularity contest. We can see reflections of our society in Wikipedia, and in neither case is the prognosis very good.

Slashdot Discovers Crowdism

Tuesday, February 7th, 2017

Over at nerd herd Slashdot, at least one reader has figured out that individualism is the root of the human inability to be effective as groups:

The number of people who don’t help at all with problems but rather butt into threads with unhelpful comments like “Why would you want to do that in the first place?” or “why don’t you look at X poorly written documentation page ” was staggering. One forum user with 1,500+ posts even posted “you are such a n00b if you can’t figure this out” in my question thread, even though my tech question wasn’t one that is obvious or easy to resolve…

The original submission claims the ratio of unhelpful comments to helpful ones was 5 to 1.

This seems baffling until you look at the social economics of this situation. Every person wants to participate, because they must do this in order attract attention, which is what they need to have any social rank or capital at all. Hilariously, many forums give users privileges based on how many posts they make, so there is an incentive to make posts that look good but do not create any particular controversy.

Next, look at how someone can participate. It is not efficient to research and type out a lengthy answer, since chances are that your answer will not be perfect and thus someone else will gain points off you by criticizing you. The solution, then, is to offer nothing except criticism, as criticism takes little time and effort and cannot be criticized because it has negative content value, and is issued in defense of the herd, therefore will always be socially acceptable.

The same is true in all Crowdist situations. When negative effort is equal to positive effort, there is no reward in undertaking positive effort unless it is both easy and nearly certain of being 100% correct, so that others have no critique to offer. Equality means mediocrity as a result, but for the individual, the way to exploit this situation is to criticize and offer nothing that can be criticized.

Crowdism In Literal Form

Wednesday, January 25th, 2017

We know the Lügenpresse has a clear purpose, but it is not to report the news. It is to present an information/entertainment product that people enjoy, and since the major media consumers are Leftist people looking for alternatives to reality, it leans left.

But this week, the Lügenpresse got caught in a callow lie — by their own hands, no less — when they insisted that the crowd size at Donald Trump’s inauguration was less than that at Barack Obama’s inauguration:

There has been an enormous, brutal argument between the media and the administration about the size of Donald Trump’s Inauguration crowd. The administration has pushed back on media reports that it was sparsely attended. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer leveled a full-throated attack against the press for reporting on the attendance, calling Trump’s Inauguration the “most-watched” in history.

This image went viral, comparing the attendance of both Inaugurals. It has since been proven misleading, at best.

The best part is that the proof is open and visible, thanks to the CNN Gigapixel, which reveals the crowd during the inauguration ceremony and not after or before as the Lügenpresse image comparison posted above portrays.

All of this serves as prelude to an important question: why are we engaged in a penis-size-comparison-contest about crowd size? The Left always wants direct democracy, or whatever is most popular in social circles at that moment wins, but the Right recognizes that humans are mostly muddled thinkers who in groups are subject to fads, manias, panics, phases, trends, paranoia and peer pressure; for that reason, the Right tries to limit democracy, if it does not outright oppose it on the basis that it is the handmaiden of civilization decline.

We are seeing Crowdism in a literal form as the herd attempts to equate popularity with correctness, and use that as a basis to seize power. And yet, this approach has never served anyone well, because whatever is popular is usually the surface viewpoint, a distraction, scapegoat, deflection or other surrogate for actual activity. If our era has an epitaph, this will be it.

Roots Of Leftism: The Enlightenment — And Before That?

Monday, January 23rd, 2017

We moderns face dual problems: the immediate political collapse of the West and the long term decline and collapse of Western civilization. To defeat these fatal pitfalls, we must understand where they come from so we can choose a different direction and not merely opposition to them.

The origins of our downfall in the immediate political collapse of the West prove easy to find: post-war Leftism, itself an outgrowth of the trendy 1930s socialism that occurred in response to the instability of society brought on by 1920s moral laxity and financial herd behavior.

But where did that come from? A blithe writer in American Pravda a.k.a. The New York Times reveals the roots of Leftism in The Enlightenment™ and hints at its derivation in turn:

The Enlightenment must never bow to the Inquisition.

Recognizing and even celebrating individual identity groups doesn’t make America weaker; it makes America stronger.

There you have it: The Enlightenment™ is the ultimate goal, and Leftists see it as both their inspiration and goal. And so what is this “enlightening” philosophy? Skipping over group graffiti blog Wikipedia and its derivates, we can find an answer through an established and vetted source, The Encyclopedia Britannica, which tells us that The Enlightenment™ very much resembles eternal Leftism:

Central to Enlightenment thought were the use and celebration of reason, the power by which humans understand the universe and improve their own condition. The goals of rational humanity were considered to be knowledge, freedom, and happiness.

This requires a bit of distillation to see what is actually intended, since all humans express a dichotomy between public (social) and private (self-interested) views. In the above we have five assumptions:

  1. Reason. It is assumed that reason, in itself is good, forgetting that despite some areas of life being understandable a priori, many require experience or repeated contact over time to understand their complexity, and that people learn unequally because of different biological capacities for perceiving, remembering and understanding these correlated details. Reason without a parallel referent in reality itself is solipsism, or at least can be, and theory often does not correlate to reality because the theory is based on human assumptions which can be rationalized or forced to be understood through reason, and thus assumed to be reasonable, and does not have a referent in external reality.
  2. Equality. This derives from the idea that all humans have (equal) reason, which is required to consider reason a universal good. Implicit in this is pacifism, or the idea that other people are reasonable, or respond to reason instead of bodily impulses, personality-supporting pathologies, over-intellectualized neurosis and a desire for personal wealth and power.
  3. Knowledge Knowledge, and not wisdom or intellectual ability, is presumed to be what makes people smart. Take anyone, “give” that person enough education, and then he has knowledge, which replaces a need to have the innate biological and genetic ability to understand that knowledge, and more importantly, to apply it in such a way that it advances principle, civilization and individual.
  4. Freedom Instead of having goals, we should have an anti-goal of having no goals whatsoever. That way, these equal people can use their reason and knowledge to do… well, probably the same stuff their ancestors did, which for 99% of them means the “four Fs” — foraging, fighting, fleeing and reproduction — with complete blithe oblivion to any consequences of their actions beyond immediate inconvenience or convenience to self.
  5. Happiness Where previous societies looked toward sanity and realistic adaptation as their goals, we will instead pick an easier target: being happy. What makes someone happy? No one knows: it varies between individuals, and we do not want to admit this, but seems to rely heavily on the group, because people need context for the feeling that the way they are living is the best possible way they could live, and need a stable, functional and upward-driven society in order to live in pleasant surroundings, which have much more to do with their happiness than any navel-gazing or politics.

From these, the basis of our modern society is formed. We know how well that turns out, and we have seen similar types of mental structure in the past, such as in ancient Athens and Rome. But where did the impetus for The Enlightenment,™ which looks like a formalization of a long-building social/cultural shift or civilization decline, come from?

The original article gives us a clue:

If my difference frightens you, you have a problem, not me.

Ah, yes: forced acceptance. Equal inclusion is the motivation behind The Enlightenment™ and Leftism/liberalism alike. Its root is in a pathology of people who fear they do not belong in a group, namely that they want to force themselves to be included, at which point they can continue their non-contributory or parasitic behaviors and other people are forced to accept those as normal whilst paying for them through contributions to the collective, or socialized cost matrix to which expenses of dysfunction are externalized.

The origin of the paradox can be found here. Individualists, who want to force others to accept them but not to change their own behaviors, demand equal inclusion on the basis of collectivism, or the idea that everyone is important, solely for the reason that they want personal inclusion. The whole thing is a con job, from start to finish. Never trust a Leftist; they always lie.

This Is How They Think

Saturday, January 21st, 2017

The root of modernity is individualism. The individual wants to be included by mechanistic action like equality, as this guarantees he cannot lose but also allows him to continue to agitate for more. In groups, individuals agree that this is best, and so they create collectivized individualism, or mob rule called crowdism. Like a gang or cult, this infests society and subverts it by reversing thinking from principle to results (cause to effect) to thinking that argues from what is, and tries to find a way to justify it as socially good or bad so that it advances the crowdist narrative. To do this, it creates the mythos of itself as a victim so that its taking of wealth and power from society can be justified as positive. This creates a one-dimensional world where whatever makes everyone feel included is good, and everything else is a source of victimhood and bad, so this must be fought instead of the real-world problems that civilization faces. From that thinking one gets the type of smug, entitled and witless thinking demonstrated by this poster for the women’s anti-Trump protests today.