Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘crowdism’

White People Need To Realize That “The Enemy Is Within”

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

Is It "Facism" To Send All Leftists To The Third World?

We live in a time of great upheaval and thus, great opportunity. Liberal democracy has died from an inability to govern. Our leaders and media say things that are obviously insane, but are not recognized as such by the herd, and so they are accepted.

But over time, claiming that “everyone thinks this is true” — rule by consensus, instead of rule by realistic thinking — falls apart when the results of those claims being put into action are consistently bad. In Europe and the US, not only are the results bad, but they are getting worse and accelerating.

We are seeing the failure of liberal democracy around us every day. Soon it will be replaced. If we are intelligent, we will skip over tyranny and move to a more sensible option.

In the meantime, however, we have to face our enemy: ourselves. If we are honest — and if we could be realistic about other races, we can do the same to our own — we will admit that most of us are incapable of making the complex decisions required for leadership. Most make bad decisions, the “educated” frequently make irrelevant choices, and in groups, the committee effect dominates and we act like domesticated cattle, shuttling between stampede-level panic and bovine-level insouciance. Committees make compromises based not on a realistic goal, but on the pragmatic choices required to keep every member happy, and so the compromises pile up until no one can act because all of our objectives are paradoxical and we have many, many illusions to uphold.

Right now, many people are talking about populism and how “we the people” are going to take back our countries from the governments… err… that we elected. Let us set the record straight: populism is not the people defending themselves against a monster. It is buyer’s remorse for having gone along with the liberal democracy sham and, upon seeing exactly where it was heading, realizing that it was a bad choice all along. People feel this in their guts, but will never admit it. To admit it would be to affirm the obvious truth that the voters screwed it up for centuries, that they did so because they got greedy, and that this is typical human behavior in groups — think of attendees at a carnival, all the litter on our roadsides, graffiti on every wall — because in groups, people do not face the consequences of their actions. They externalize or socialize the cost to the rest of society. When given power with no responsibility for the results, people tend to do just whatever, because we have replaced the goal of power with the need to maintain that power itself. Democracy, consumerism and social popularity are all manifestations of that transition.

The thing that ties these together is human social behavior. In a group, the way to win the game is to make everyone feel comfortable by including them. It is more important to have everyone get along than it is to reach any certain conclusion. In this way, the committee mentality arrives. When everyone at the table is invited to participate, someone balances all of their concerns and comes up with a solution that avoids inconveniencing anyone terribly. The result is that the original goal is long forgotten, and in the name of pacifism and making everyone feel included, a non-solution is erected. Repeat this by tens of thousands of times — in congresses, boardrooms, voting booths, bars and churches — and you get a civilization dedicated to keeping everyone together instead of cooperating toward any kind of sensible behavior. The problem is us because in groups, we behave like nitwits, no matter how educated or intelligent we are. The situation itself creates the bad results.

Human thinking is comprised of these two prongs: wishful thinking at the individual level, and socializing at the group level. The West encountered this problem not because — as the scientists say — the West is particularly altruistic, open or introspective, but because when a civilization gets powerful enough that it can forget its natural constraints and get by for awhile while ignoring its goals, people fall back on this type of social thinking and then use it to make their wishful thinking be accepted as real. We wish we were all equal, so we make it a taboo to deny equality, even though equality does not exist in reality. We then enforce that on each other, and out of pragmatism, it is accepted, and any who rise up and point out that this is insane are smashed, in the name of protecting the group consensus and the “good feelings” it depends on to keep everyone feeling chipper enough to continue their contributions. Such smart monkeys, we have manipulated ourselves into oblivion!

This disaster is not unique to Western Europeans, but a consequence of their success plus high IQ and a tendency to be social, since the more powerful a human is, the more benevolent and sociable they tend to be. In addition, it is lonelier at the top because with dominion over nature and want, there is no longer a need to cooperate as closely with others. The system does that. People know their roles, and do their tasks, and somehow everyone turns out okay. For the past couple millennia, the West has been in this state for the most part, especially relative to other groups.

Bad decisions however have a way of coming back to haunt us. With each compromise, our options decreased. The voters, concerned only about the time between the day of the voting and the next paycheck, kept electing people who went along with the system. Over time, the system began to strengthen itself because it had not been rebuked. But even more, it was popular. Barack Obama was elected. Ruby Ridge and Waco did not lead to massive outcry. Nor did the increasing pollution, crime, racial antagonism, corruption, and unsustainable programs like the entitlements that make up 60% of our budgets. The voters kept rubber-stamping these bad ideas, or at least not opposing them enough. And so finally liberal democracy came to its endgame. Bankrupt, purposeless, self-interested and apparently clueless, our governments doubled down on their agenda again and again. This culminated in an attempt to replace the citizens themselves with third world newcomers who were designed to be permanent Leftist voters, keeping the system in power.

What is Leftism, however, but people power? The United States was founded on some Leftist ideas and some Rightist ones. But over time, the Leftist ideas always won out because they were simpler and they made “we the people” feel good about the free stuff we would be getting, how Mother Theresa like we looked for being open-minded about immigration and class warfare, and how we were all going to have good jobs and fat pensions by using the system for our own gain. The voters were greedy, and this made them select leaders who were greedy, and those promptly created greedy governments which came to want power for its own sake so that the graft could continue unabated. At that point, there was nothing left but failure.

If our time has heroes, history will find them in men like Anders Breivik and Timothy McVeigh. Instead of committing callow acts of violence against the newcomers, these men targeted the governments and the Leftists behind them. They recognized that what went wrong was that the voters had lost their moral compass, as most people tend to do when given power without responsibility, and had created this monster and sustained it with their interest. Left-leaning cinema, news, entertainment and academia remained wildly popular. People were only too glad to inform on others for having the wrong (Right) opinions. The herd wanted to believe that it was good, and so it chose poor options every time instead of tackling problems head on. People ran from looking at the actual needs and solutions that stood before them. Pretense ruled over common sense. These men knew that the government was not a thing of its own creation, but entirely created by the voters and the illusions of people acting in groups.

At this point, nothing remains but separation. Leftists — up to 40% of the population — want a different type of civilization than the rest of us do. We cannot coexist.

Breivik made his point by forcing people to be accountable. Those who agitated for communism and immigration were killed in order to show that them supporting these destructive ideas might have costs for them, personally, which had never happened before. McVeigh showed people that just because the system was there and paid good wages, there are costs for supporting that which is immoral and an abomination to logic. That spirit can be carried on without violence by physically removing Leftists. Half of our people are mental children, foolish and selfish, intellectually and morally broken, and the only solution is to move them on and work with the rest.

Since a big shakeup is coming, and the collapse of a system as surely as Communism and National Socialism collapsed, we will have this opportunity. Relocating all of those who are not of the founding group in the USA will leave us with maybe 150 million people, and removing the committed Leftists from among them will result in an America of 80 million people. This leaves us with enough competent people to do whatever we need to, but without the constant chatter and chaos from the Left. In fact, it will be a more productive nation, and there will be more room for nature, so our environmental problems will relax and so will the pressures of life. Jobs will no longer be a lifeline and jail sentence but places where people are rewarded for performance instead of attendance. Natural species that have been crowded out by the endless suburbs, roads, strip malls, warehouses and parking lots will come back to life. Oxygen will rise from our forests and our water will be cleaner. We will be able to actually live again, instead of subsisting at virtual gunpoint in order to subsidize a system that has been failing for a long time.

We the people are not good people. Some of us are good, and many are mixed degrees of good and bad, but in groups we make bad decisions. The individual and group act in parallel because both use social thinking, or the assumption that we the people are good and therefore that we must include everyone through the mental acrobatics required to support egalitarianism. People choose easy answers over complex truths. As a result, whatever is popular is a lie: the disgusting mass culture and pop art, the glib explanations of media, the details turned into grand theories of science and academia, and at the root, the idea that we the people have any legitimacy as rulers at all. Mob rule is still mob rule. Mob rule extends beyond the voting box to what people buy, the mental viruses they repeat as truth in order to seem intelligent to others, and the behaviors that are enabled by a permissive society and so become more degenerate, generation after generation. We the people prefer lies.

This tendency for human groups to self-delude is called Crowdism, and it forms naturally wherever success enables people to take their eyes off the ball for even a second. The only thing that opposes it is a hard realism that denies our human impulses to consider ourselves good and to be sociable by assuming the same of others. Under the illusion of the goodness of we the people, we have created an idiocratic society where the stupidest and most blatant lies triumph over everything else. And so now, a purge is coming. For society to survive, it must remove those who thrive in an environment of chaos and degeneracy, and replace it with those who want a realistic order that improves itself qualitatively so that it always has a goal, and never falls back into the self-congratulatory and self-referential circular reasoning of the herd.

Like a garden, a civilization can be renewed. The necrotic tissue must be cut off and burned, the unhealthy plants removed, and the health ones nurtured. If any plants are in the garden that do not belong, they must be relocated. This makes the garden healthier this year, healthy the next, and progressively healthier each year that we repeat the process. There is no other solution.

Right now most of our fellow citizens are busy looking for excuses and scapegoats. They want someone to blame for our failure, anyone but us. They complain about capitalism, government, the Rich and shadowy conspiracies, but really we have no one to blame but ourselves. The sooner we grow up, accept that fact and act on it, the sooner we can stop being failures and start doing something fun again.

Horseshoe Theory: Large Corporations Behave Like Communism

Tuesday, June 20th, 2017

The theory of Crowdism states that our problem as a species is not a particular ideology, but any behavior in which humans become a goal in themselves. This is equivalent to a means-over-ends analysis that selects for methods which do not harm, inconvenience or embarrass any individual.

Since the dawn of our species, humans have been self-destructing in groups because at a certain point, the herd wins out. The innovators, leaders and pioneers are always few and the herd many, and the herd takes over and makes the activity about the herd, instead of about its ostensible purpose.

And so a business becomes a support system for its workers (unions, socialism); a government becomes an industry for lobbyists and bureaucrats; a church group becomes a social opportunity for bored middle class ladies; a gang becomes a cult centered around a leader who tells people what they want to hear.

This is the real horseshoe theory: at any point, human endeavors become their opposites because the need of the herd to be a goal in itself inverts the purpose of the organization.

Witness the similarities between monopolistic businesses and Communism:

Look at how Google games searches. A study reported in The Wall Street Journal found that in 25,000 random Google searches ads for Google products appeared in the most prominent slot 91% of the time. How is that not the unfair leveraging of search dominance and the abuse of algorithm? All 1,000 searches for “laptops” started with an ad for Google’s Chromebook — 100% of the time. Kim Jong Un would be envious of results like that at election time.

And then there are the recently launched Google snippets, which stylistically highlight search results as if they were written on stone tablets and carried down from the mountain. Their sheer visual physicality gives them apparent moral force. The word “Orwellian” is flagrantly abused, but when it comes to the all-powerful algorithms of Google, Amazon and Facebook, “Orwellian” is UNDER-used.

As for news, institutional neglect has left us perched on the edge of the slippery slope of censorship.

Interestingly enough, Mencius Moldbug picked up on this years ago by noting that organizations who desire a monopoly no longer act out of need, but out of aspiration to total power and total control:

Sometimes I get an almost Soviet feel off Google. After all, what was the Soviet Union but a whole country run by a single company? Of course, Google is much better managed than the Soviet Union. But give it a few years.

When you are writing a large piece of software in order to just give it away, it has to be a labor of love. If it’s not a labor of love, the task becomes Brezhnevian. Google will do just fine if everyone in the world accesses their servers via Apple or Microsoft phones. The commercial justification for writing Android strikes me as quite thin.

While this passage argues against his own theory of Neoreaction — if big corporations running a country end up like the Soviet Union did, then Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism is not an escape from the human problem described in the first paragraph of this essay — he makes a good point: we either act toward ends for the sake of those ends alone, or we become the ends, and then regulate method until we invert ourselves from ends-over-means to means-over-ends and filter out anything that offends the herd. That in turn produces the entropy that takes down every human group from a cluster of friends through a civilization, namely that internal division predominates over cooperation because the meaning of the activity has been lost through inversion.

Any corporation, if it becomes large enough, comes to serve itself, just like any government without hierarchy and culture becomes a parasitic predator determined to use its people as a means to the end of itself. Without some kind of cooperative goal, as is found in culture and transcendent appreciation of life, the activity becomes merely technical and then, becomes a purpose in itself.

Plato noted this in his own account of the end of a golden age and the degeneration to the point where democracy “seemed like a good idea” to the round-headed herd:

When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.

You either do things for their own sake, or they become masters over you. You can feed your people because you love them, strive for excellence, fight for supremacy, and try to build the greatest civilization ever, and fortune will shine on you. But when you are doing things because of the things themselves, like “we gotta keep the corporation running” or “the Party demands sacrifice,” then everything falls apart. That is the horseshoe in effect: whether Communist or Capitalist, you will end up in the same place without some kind of transcendental goal.

Plato calls it virtue. Christians call it holiness, but that seems too serving of itself as well. To the ancients in The Odyssey, it was a sense of putting the world to right, both morally uncompromising in a way that the Christians wish they could be, and geared toward balance more nuanced than the silly yin-yang that every teenager puts on their bedroom wall next to the dreamcatcher and Che Guevara poster.

Without this transcendental goal and people smart enough to keep us focused on it, every one of our ventures comes to serve itself and then self-destructs. This even applies to Metallica; when they were out there to make the best music they could imagine, the band had quality, but as soon as the goal became making the band more successful, the quality dwindled and popularity surged. This is the sign of an entropy bloom: like a red tide, at first the algae seem to be successful because their numbers have increased, but then there is a population crash. Like yeast in a bowl of syrup, or lemmings in a field of grain.

That transition from cooperation to control is what wrecks human endeavors, even solitary ones.

Consider the church. First it came to save the souls of men, but then it started competing with pagans and other sects, and acted toward its own power and control. This made it corrupt. That then removed the value it offered — salvation by inducing people to do what was necessary to save their minds, souls and logical ability — and it went into decline, but first it became wildly popular because it had lowered standards to the point where the herd could participate. Profiteers surged in and made themselves famous, but now, it is basically a dead institution in the first world. So it goes.

Power serves only itself unless you have an aristocrat — a philosopher king, in the sense of Marcus Aurelius and Meister Eckhart — to intervene and redirect things toward intangible and immutable but ongoing goals, known as the transcendentals. These are exclusively qualitative and relative, such as the classic formulation “the good, the beautiful and the true,” and also include the Bill And Ted’s Excellent Adventure sense of just wanting excellence, a form of benevolent elitism. Make everything the best of everything.

As the old saying goes, you either struggle upstream or are swept downstream. Civilizations either reach for constant improvement or are swept into the third world mentality of subsistence living, essentially dishonest people, and warlords to act as fences to keep the herd from running loose and harming itself.

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

Anti-Darwinism Is The Basis Of Leftism

Sunday, May 28th, 2017

The links between Leftism, individualism, collectivism and hubris are simple but require a complex understanding of context to make sense of them.

Every creature has four basic behaviors known as the “four Fs” — fighting, fleeing, feeding and reproduction — which serve a singular goal, which since Charles Darwin wrote about it, we have described as “adaptation,” or finding a niche within its ecosystem where it can find regular nutrition at minimal risk of combat or predation.

For an animal, every action it takes is a risk. If it ventures out from safe hiding, it is exposed to predators. If it wanders into the territory of another animal of its species, it may get in a fight, and those contain at least a large component of rolling the dice. Its best guess about how an action will turn out determines its survival.

Those guesses in turn reflect how well the organism knows its world. If it is delusional or misinformed, it becomes prey. Consequently, every organism secretly wishes for independence from this state of constant stress. A mouse might imagine the ideal life as a giant field where there are no eagles and snakes, and there is enough grain to always be content.

Humans have an equivalent of this in Leftism. Leftism is a defensive ideology based on preventing others from becoming predators to the individual. It does this by removing social standards; this is what “equal” means: there are no standards, so whatever an individual does is acceptable, and no one can criticize those who are obeying the minimums of civilization (yes: job, shopping; no: murder, intolerance).

In this way, Leftism is a fundamentally anti-Darwinistic philosophy. It wants no social classes, because that way some have more power than others and can victimize them. It wants to make as many actions as possible acceptable, so that someone cannot be lowered in social status for their actions. It prioritizes the weak, broken and clueless so that everyone feels accepted.

When we recognize this basic psychology, it becomes clear why individualism leads to collectivism. Individuals band together in a gang that offers protection from those in the rest of society who might know better. This cult in turn demands allegiance, and so those individuals become slaves to forcing that ideology on others. It justifies itself by being universal, or agreed upon by all as a good thing.

At the root of this is hubris, or the desire of the human individual to be the most important thing in the world. The individual wants itself and its desires, judgments and feelings to come before social order, natural order and logical order. This means that there cannot be recognition that some people are better than others.

For this reason, Leftists idealize criminals, prostitutes, drug addicts, and the dysfunctional. They hate the good, powerful, strong, loving, beautiful and realistic people because those establish a de facto hierarchy. Their ideal is a vast grey lumpenproletariat in which everyone is equal and can do whatever they want, and society subsidizes them.

In thermodynamics, we might refer to this condition as “heat death,” because under it, people would have no reason to strive. Their efforts would be focused on the individual and would therefore not lead to anything that benefits civilization or the soul, except in the rare case of the genius artist, musician or thinker (which is why Leftists pretend to be all three).

Leftism — a subset of Crowdism — is a weaponized form of individualism that demands the individual be free from the burden of having to take realistic actions in the external world. It is a retreat from life, a fatalism, in which we create a new religion and ideology based on human individuals, not actions which adapt to reality.

It is the death of individuality, civilizations and species. This is why it is so addictive: it both promises freedom from death, and a certain path to death which seems easier than toughing it out and trying to survive as long as possible. In its wake, it leaves behind a domesticated, incurious species who exist at the subsistence level found throughout the third world.

Leftism Polarizes Society And Gives Rise To Inevitable Totalitarianism

Sunday, May 21st, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Recommended Reading