Most people who encounter this blog are confused by its mild-mannered appearance. This occurs because our writers tend to believe in using the most natural, gentlest and sanest methods possible. However, this does not mean we are not extremists — or something even better: realists.
A realist lives in a constant state of the Zen master slap that forces us to recognize that reality is indeed real, and that our continued consciousness — the inner world in which all of our thoughts, judgments and feelings exist — requires us to manage physical reality through an intangible knowledge of how reality as a whole works. That alone is too complex for ninety-nine out of one hundred people.
Against this, the realist can only summon discoveries, or events of noticing what is true in reality and how it applies to how we plan our future actions. What thwarts this is the usual human tendency to use philosophy as a categorical weapon: by giving an idea a name, and making its contents something that appeals to people as a scapegoat, it can become popular and then something can be done. But in the process, this adulterates the idea.
And so, this blog floats in a sea of people gaining money and popularity for creating popular fictions. For example, the white nationalist pitches racial exclusion and believes everything else will be just fine; the Leftist preaches equality and imagines a Utopia achieved through removal of causes for conflict. All of these are human notions where the underlying meaning has been altered by the desire to communicate and be popular.
So I said, look, I’m involved in an anti-Communist faction in journalism and we’re going to lose. I think there’s a real serious possibility that we’re all going to end up in a Gulag.
And, besides that, it’s crippling to our careers.
This leads anyone who is not Left-aligned to ask themselves the question: what is the root of my outlook?
For some, it is race; for others, anti-communism; for some others, like Michel Houellebecq, it is the simple recognition that liberal — egalitarian — ideas do not work and because they are paradoxical, create human disasters in their wake.
At this blog, we are looking at an even more basic level: how to save civilization from self-destruction, because all civilizations so far have self-destructed. That means that we (humans) do not yet have our design for civilization correct, or perhaps there is some flaw in the human design.
If we combat this flaw, we can have an enduring and thriving civilization, and gradually remove from our genetic profile the tendency toward whatever illusion causes us to self-destruct. If we do not, we face a future of permanent Brazil 2.0 status: a disorganized society where our good acts go ignored and nothing we does has permanence.
What opposes us is social practicality:
Maggy was a Canadian and wasn’t particularly political. She listened to this and said she’d not thought about it before, but, now that I’d explained it, she could see it was true.
So, she asked with female practicality, why didn’t I change sides?
Human societies unravel because what is socially successful is the opposite of what must be done. Illusions are popular with groups, and individuals are in ninety-nine out of one hundred cases not looking at the consequences of potential actions over time, but at individual emotions, desires, feelings and judgments.
How many times have you heard “I’m sick of…” or “I want…” or “What matters to me is…” when talking about some issue or another? The pathology of individualism has people value what they believe they want right now over the consequences of that action in reality.
Amerika the blog is dedicated to the idea of avoiding civilization collapse, starting in America. Here, a thriving nation has been replaced by a multicultural zombie apocalypse that has no culture, no values and increasingly, no competence. We call that “Amerika” and it is a replacement for the America that did great things in the past.
Avoiding decline is easy: find the actions based on illusions, and stop doing them. With very few exceptions, popular human thinkers are those who distract from this logical and evident truth, because people want to believe that nothing is wrong and they can keep pursuing selfish ends at the expense of self-interest, which includes having a thriving civilization.
For this reason, you will note little support for Amerika on the Right. People fear our message, which is about half old school religion, and a quarter Nietzsche with maybe another quarter for a Deep Ecology style idea of human coexistence with through conservation of nature. They want simple “truths”: scapegoat the Negroes, Jews or bankers; restore popular democracy; use libertarianism as orthodoxy.
In order to pursue those narrow beliefs, they must embrace a fatalistic outlook. Civilization has failed, so prepare for the end, which usually involves activities that make you feel good while ignoring how easily this can be fixed.
The goal of any sane person is to restore the type of strong moral and intellectual people that we had in the age of Aristotle and Plato, or maybe even before, while finding a way to use our technology responsibly and conserve half of earth for nature so that its ecosystems are preserved. That is sanity; everything else is distraction, deflection, excuse-making and rationalization!
And so, the paradox is revealed. A gentle common-sense and realistic approach rapidly becomes radical not because it is extremist, but because the forces of civilization decay — individualism, Crowdism, Leftism — are so extremist. Their acts are destroying us, and to undo them is both as normal as good hygiene and as radical as any idea that humans have ever acknowledged.
A recent article at the unironically named Man Repeller covers the history of the “midi” skirt, which many of us have never heard of. It contrasts the mini-skirt and is more like a normal calf-length dress.
But, long ago, since someone found the 1960s miniskirts to be crass and immoral, and pushed the midi hard instead, the article reframes history as a social justice issue: the struggle of women to, er, find miniskirts in every store. It follows the usual French Revolution narrative:
Actual boycotts erupted and soon newspapers were calling it a “hemline war.” The length of women’s skirts became a feminist issue: how dare anyone tell them how to dress? How dare a man define decency?
Rags, a counterculture fashion magazine out of San Francisco, called the push of the midi a conspiracy in a 1970 exposé entitled, “Fashion Fascism: The Politics of Midi.”
By 1974, the forced resurgence of the midi was proclaimed a failure. The New York Times reported that “women stayed away in droves, forcing several couture houses and small manufacturers into bankruptcy and the apparel industry into a tailspin.”
In other words, some people having an unpleasant time of life scapegoated the shocking condition that there were any limits on their personal autonomy. They see limits as a personal affront, or a criticism of themselves, much as they see life itself as an affront because it does not do exactly what they want it to.
This human fantasy begins with the idea that the person having the fantasy is perfect or at least, does not need to change at all to adapt to reality or even confront their own self-discipline problems. Rather, they assume that they are perfect and, as in all fantasies, good things come to them without effort or change.
That is the essence of fantasy: reality is inverted. Instead of being a nobody, they become the focus of the fantasy and the center of attention. Other people who are famous or important come to them, instead of the other way around; perfection is redefined in their image, instead of the reality of their form being an inferior variant of human perfection.
In human minds, this kind of fantasy narrative is the norm through daydreams and sexual fantasies and escapist notions. The average person barely interacts with reality at all on an analytical level. Their job tasks are simple and repetitive, and everything else they must do to survive in life consists of ordering people around. Tell them what you want at the restaurant, choose the products at the grocery store, yell at the lazy service person or flatter the customer. In this world, individual fantasy and group behavior overlap because they are composed of the same thing, which is the idea of personal authority asserted through control as a means of reducing risk and the personal affront of otherwise ambiguous reality.
For this reason, attempts to move aside the miniskirt met with rage. Not just consumer revolt, but rage as if a moral transgression had been committed. The attempts to limit the miniskirt threatened to invert the fantasy, or remove that focus on the self at the center of all things and replace it with the more complex calculus of the relationship between the individual, civilization and world. On that level, one needs to think about principle, consequences, responsibility and the like, where in the me-at-the-center-of-the-universe fantasy, all that one needs to think about is — as when ordering at a restaurant or store — personal desires, which are inevitably used as a means to calm, placate and make confident the self.
Through this neurotic process, “I” becomes “we.” A group of neurotics, each personally offended and determined to strike back for entirely personal reasons, joins together because these individualist reasons overlap in a single task: tear down the affront to the illusion of personal perfection. This is how abstractions, universals and ideals become corrupt. Instead of operating on the level of principle, they symbolize all of us through a single mystical icon of the human individual. That in turn becomes our focus, making us robotic and monomaniacal.
That, in turn, leads to the founding idea of Leftism:
If the midi debacle of 1970 achieved anything, it proved that even the most influential voices can’t sway the public if they don’t want to be swayed.
Good news: trends and progress and freedom lie in the hands of the collective.
Ah, the collective. If we are to assume that we as individuals are good, we need to assume the same of others, or we risk disturbing our fantasy by having standards — and those can be used to judge us, or even worse rank us, so they crush the suspension of disbelief required for us to find our fantasy plausible. Instead we choose to validate everyone, and have no standards, and use that group as an example of “virtue” because it does what we want, at least for now.
The West degenerates anywhere the collective is active. In fact, for several thousand years, the collective has been gaining momentum. But it is essential to remember what is at the core of the collective, which is the individual. The individual wants to feel safe from harm, and to make life something it can control. From that desire we get both rebellion and tyranny.
People fear the ambiguity in life, so they try to control it by putting it into a form that the human brain finds safe. This is like a giant grid of identical boxes covered in warning labels where all food and drink are medically approved and come in hermetically-sealed containers. In their fear, the herd sucks the joy out of life. But they do it as individuals, acting as a group only from mutual convenience.
That is no basis for a society, and it explains our steady decline from perhaps the world’s most excellent society to a plastic trash consumer wasteland littered with broken dreams. But at least we — I mean, “I” — have miniskirts.
Wherever human society goes, it creates the seeds of its own destruction. I posit that this occurs as a result of the increasing formalization of organization, meaning that instead of leaving choices to humans alone on the basis of their judgment alone, rules and structures are written down and enforced in an effort to perfect a process and also make it easy for a person of average ability. This explains why every human civilization so far has failed at the height of its power.
Formal order, or that which involves rules and procedures instead of generalized goals with latitude for the individual to succeed or fail much as they do under Darwinian nature, creates dark organization through the following methods:
Absolutism. Rights and other one-way measures of authority take the place of choosing to approve or disapprove of actions on the basis of their likelihood of achieving the goal. In this way, authority takes the place of reality, much as in civilization social pressures replace reality as well. Both of these are subsets of the general pattern of the human ego replacing reality, and demanding that others acknowledge its reality as a means of denying possibly unpleasant aspects of existence.
People: formal organizations select people who seek power or wealth for their own sake. Since formal organizations replace reality-based methods of selecting success, those who fulfill the needs of the formalized process are rewarded. This is simpler than making things simply work, which attracts both the less able and drives away the more able who find it tedious.
Facts: formal organizations create a process of rationalism, or searching for some answer that fulfills a predefined objective. This objective occurs independent of the whole, or on the level of detail, which filters out noticing of that which clashes with what is being done at a lower level, which means that people robotically apply procedure to detail, and that higher-ups never hear about the inadequacies of their models.
Careerism. Formal organizations reward doing what those above demand in preference to achieving a complete task in its own right. As a result, those who succeed are not the competent but the socially-competent, and people are driven by fear of not meeting requirements, not failing in their task. The person who produces irrelevant or wrong results which fulfill the needs of the process will be rewarded over the one who notices that something is amiss in the mental model being used, or achieves the task without doing all of the steps that please higher-ups.
Subsets. By the nature of formalization itself, wider questions are reduced to pre-defined narrower ones. This both enables the process to work through deconstruction, or dividing big questions into many smaller ones, and through use of average people, who can obey recipes and rules but not (perhaps) ascertain what is needed and critically assess it on their own. The result is that the lost data becomes a “conspiracy of details” which although small fractions at each part of the process add up to a much larger amount on the level of the whole.
If you wonder why civilization always fails, it is because it its own worst enemy: the process of civilizing, when not stopped before it becomes formalization for its own sake, produces robotic people who are masters of details and oblivious to reality and the whole question of each task.
This manifests most in the workplace and school, but also undermines the social process. Instead of the role of being a good friend, people seek others who flatter them and meet their personal needs for objects such as people to engage in social activities with. This reverses selection for the best people, and instead creates a need for obedient ones who do not care about the consequences of their actions.
As such, formalization is a removal of responsibility. Instead of being accountable for end results, people are assessed by the fulfillment of tasks designed artificially: doing their work on homework assignments, filling out the right paperwork, saying the right thing in a political speech or social engagement.
Formalization rewards lowercase-c conservatism, or conformity to process, past successes and the opinions of others. Someone who does a task in a different way is at risk even if he succeeds, but someone who follows the process will be rewarded even if she fails.
It has long been clear to me that human “best intentions” are the cause of the decline of complex societies. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as they say, and our best intentions have us find a right way to do things, then write it down, and then to control others in order to force them to follow this one right way. From that comes a form of internal entropy, division and eventually, mediocrity and doom.
1 — William S. Burroughs, as cited in the movie Naked Lunch and derived from his early works.
Politicians love any program that requires more money, more hiring, more spending and more power. But welfare and related payments (entitlements) have been sold to us as a benevolent act. The reality is far more grim.
Consider this scenario: government dumps money on impoverished citizens. These have little judgment, so they run off and buy shiny new iPhones, which then pumps up Apple’s stock. Government can then point to Apple, say “see our economy is massive,” and take out more loans, with zero members of Government planning to be around at the moment when default becomes inevitable.
If we abolished welfare tomorrow, our consumer-level products economy would collapse, leading the Chinese to stop buying up our debt, which would mean that government would have to become accountable for its spending. That alone would be worth doing.
As many have noted, the cause of civilization decline is civilization. When there is a big pot of money, people get their fingers into it and in order to keep the parasitism going, they create rules and power structures that doom the society. This pattern repeats time and again, and it begins with wealth, which attracts parasites.
What is a parasite? Anything which takes resources but is not strictly necessary is a parasite. Not all lawyers are parasites; some serve a useful role, as do some bureaucrats, doctors, and other roles all the way down to manual laborer. But many do not serve any role other than to show up, perform a repetitive task, and demand money for it.
People who are not parasites give more than they take. People who do the minimum, or invent non-necessary stuff to do in order to justify themselves, are mere leeches. When enough of these accumulate, they take over society because they becoming a financial and political bloc.
When the epitaph for liberal democracy is written, people with note how normal people were entirely unacquainted with how vicious these parasites are. For them, it is do or die: they either keep the parasitism train running, which eventually kills the patient and parasite alike, or they are without sustenance because they are useless and generally neurotic people.
This is why Leftists behave as if any assertion of common sense is an attack on Leftists with intent to kill. The restoration of sanity will eliminate Leftists and other individualists, who put their needs above nature, God, society, sanity and realism. As we look on the Leftist killing fields of the French Revolution through the twentieth century, this viciousness reveals itself like a shape traced in smoke.
Some time ago, some alternate-right/dissident-right types began using an ASCII trope that involved putting certain names in tripe parentheses to indicate that these were Jewish voices. The mainstream of society finally discovered this and predictably, misinterpreted this.
Before I go further, it makes sense to offer the usual disclaimer with a twist: I find anti-Semitism repellent for two vital reasons:
It is impractical. Anti-Semitism identifies what is at most a subset of the problem we face, namely the decline of Western civilization through individualism and now Crowdism manifested in Leftism, with a scapegoat. This means that instead of attacking the actual problem, we will be fighting a phantom and even if we completely defeat it, the core of our decline will remain. The problem is us: our individualism led us down this path, and the solution is a rejection of egalitarianism, restoration of cultural standards and hierarchy, and booting from among us the thieves, liars, corrupt merchants, opportunists, jerks and morons who are blighting our society. We cannot solve this problem through purges alone, as the Communists tried to do, but by first raising standards and having a purpose, and then exiling those who do not fit that goal.
It is immoral. Mass murder is not an Indo-European trait, but it is a Leftist one. I appreciate the rage at living in a dying society, as I have felt it my whole life. Engaging in Holocaust 2.0, or rhetoric which will in the hands of the less-competent become that, will make us into monsters and the type of zombie robot hatred-parasites that populated the French Revolution and the Bolshevik spectrum because Leftism, as philosophy of revenge, attracts such people. We are not murderers. Placing blame for our decline at the feet of The Jews™ is not only moral cowardice for not owning up to our own failures, but will lead to the moral cowardice and third-world ethics of burning witches at the stake for our own refusal to man up and face our error.
One of our own writers, J.P. Wilkinson, fought back against this usage by generalizing it. He used the triple-parentheses to indicate any speech by members of the faux elites or “Cathedral” who make their parasitic living by parroting the dominant paradigm. In doing so, he was more consistent with the original usage.
Now let us look at the mainstream protest:
The name of the Chrome extension appears to have been intended as a reference to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that Jews somehow dominate the media and entertainment industries, and control them from within to the detriment of society.
…As Mic described in a separate story, the use of two or three brackets around the name of a suspected or confirmed Jewish person is called an “echo” in right-wing and anti-Semitic groups and communities online, and is a way for such groups to single out Jews in a way that doesn’t attract a lot of attention.
The original usage recognized a simple truth: every person and every ethnic group acts in self-interest, especially when claimed otherwise. For this reason, any voice outside of my tribe — Western Europeans — is to be treated with suspicion until translated from our perspective. This does not mean that all foreign voices are inherently bad. That means that flagging someone who is merely Jewish, and not both foreign (Jewish) and of the Cathedral is only scapegoating and will lead to the hateful mindset described above.
I have for over two decades written the plain truth that our problem is not other groups, but the conditions that force us together with them, namely multiculturalism and diversity (also called internationalism and globalism). These are simply bad policy. With bad policy, only one solution exists, which is to reverse that policy, which means that per nationalism, all who are not of the tribe must be deported. Israel does this where it can given the complex political environment of our time, and if they deported all Palestinians and other non-Jews tomorrow I would cheer them heartily.
I also recognize that there are many good people among other races and tribes. We should encourage the growth of these people, as they are likely to — like most Jews I have known — encourage a separation of tribes. Were Israel more stable, most American Jews would move there, but right now they see a tiny nation surrounded by enemies who are supported by the UN and Western liberals. That is a dodgy prospect. If Israel were restored to its historical borders, giving it more space, and enabled to have theater stability i.e. dominion over the crazy third-world Muslim states surrounding it, American and European Jews would likely move there voluntarily. That is a nationalist solution.
The point of using the echo parentheses is, at its core, to show that voices whose self-interest conflicts with those of my tribe are speaking as if they were from among us, when really any sane interpretation shows that they like every other population on this earth is acting in self-interest. Diversity is self-interest for liberals because it advances their class-war agenda, but it does so not only at the expense of Western Europeans, but of other groups invited here to get mulched up by the diversity miscegenation machine and spit out as generic Brazilians with no future except as third-world labor, ruled by a cynical elite who — like Jews, Italians or Eastern Europeans — represent a mostly-white, partially-Asiatic and Semitic mixed-race population.
I do not refer to the Cathedral as Brahmins because they are not Brahmins, but Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudras who have raised themselves to positions of power through commerce, which is empowered by demotism or the bulk vote of individual choices, which always favors the lower echelons of our society. Western civilization is bottom-heavy, with too many r-selected individuals overwhelming our population of K-selected individuals that made Western civilization great. In the past, through aristocracy, the K-selected kept the r-selected herd at bay, but with egalitarianism, the vote of an idiot is equal to that of a genius, and so the r-selected crowd always wins (the equivalent of “the house always wins” for gamblers).
Our only solution to this problem is to escape politics — the counting of votes, purchases and social popularity that benefits the r-selected — by restoring aristocracy, hierarchy, cultural standards and through those, a focus on quality over quantity. Quantity is always more popular; quality is the only path away from civilization extinction. This is important to the individual because civilization is the tapestry on which individuals write their deeds, and without that context to support them, anything good is lost and the transient and novelty-based triumphs and then falls into the fifteen-minutes-of-fame memory hole.
This idea is more controversial than any racism or Holocaust 2.0 jive you can cook up.
The root of anti-Semitism is a desire to create a Left for the Right, or in other words, the type of rebellion against power and authority that fuels the popularity of the Left. A scapegoat is always the most popular option because:
It absolves the individual of responsibility. The problem is not individual choices, as we see daily is the culprit, nor is it the tendency of groups to behave like idiots, but this strange external force which means the problem is not our fault. We do not need to change our behavior; we must only purge the Other. This type of thinking leaves bad behavior intact and compounds it with mass murder.
It presents a simple target. Mentally, it is far easier for us to blame some other force than it is for us to sort our own behavior into productive and unproductive categories. Crowds respond to simple targets because they are a lowest common denominator that unites the group on monkey behavior, much as we see lynchings, witch hunts, riots, pogroms, bank panics and mass delusions have been popular and powerful throughout history.
It unites the group on equality. An external target is a way of saying “we are all in this together” which implies equal acceptance — a liberal trope — of people despite their varying behavior. Criminals and saints alike can participate in the great Other beat-down and feel vindicated as morally good despite not having fixed their own wayward or useless behavior. This is a form of dysgenics, as it accepts the mediocre as equally important to the good.
This denialism on the Right consists of a conflation between method and goal. The Leftist method is popular and therefore easier, so the tendency is to want to adopt it without realizing that hybridizing with Leftism is like adding motor oil to your milk: any contamination, because Leftism is simpler and therefore more polarizing, takes over the whole of your agenda. It may take some time, but it does. It is worth mentioning that Leftism as a whole is a form of denialism that operates by scapegoating power so it does not have to look into the bad behavior of the citizens as a whole.
We must escape bottom-up orders like politics and replace them not with exclusively top-down orders like pure theory, but with organic growth: have a goal, reward the good and demote the bad, and let nature do her work. This is a message consistent between Darwinism, Christian morality, and pagan sensibility. It is not universal, because it is both esoteric or based on cumulative knowledge not accessible to all, and highly reliant on particularized solutions or those with uniquely adapted methods to specific situations. This is different from an ends-over-means calculus because while the ends remain more important than the means, the means must be parallel or synergistically compatible with the ends.
For this reason, I suggest we extend the echo-parenthesis indicator, as J.P. Wilkinson did, to all who are of the Cathedral or faux elites. They look like us, they walk among us… and yet, as agents of the delusion that is our enemy, they are an immediate threat. Removal (exile) of them is not a solution in itself, but eliminating their voices through shame and ostracism is a good start, and when we regain our discipline and goal, we can fix ourselves and then remove the parasites who will never do anything but act in self-interest against us.
This is separate from the reparations/repatriation idea of nationalism, which is that in every nation all of those who are not of the indigenous tribe will be relocated to their continents of origin, with mixed-race people residing in North Africa as is customary.
We call the echo by that name because the Cathedral is a giant echo chamber which parrots back to our bottom-heavy population what it wants to hear, which is that our decline as a civilization is not our fault and that the solution is to just pour on more egalitarianism, because that idea always makes a happy hive mind buzz. The echo chamber wants us to be anti-Semitic and to demand equality through ethnic unity, because then have programmed our minds with the egalitarian assumption, it will merely recreate itself and also discredit the Right.
Our goal is not to fight against things, but to fight for something: the restoration of Western civilization. This requires work done within ourselves, and when we fight scapegoats, we have effectively delegated power to the egalitarian impulse that works in the opposite direction. Thank you for listening.
Let us journey back in time to high school, which was probably when you first noticed the different between surface and structure. Like many observations from childhood, what you noticed was true, but you did not understand the mechanism.
In your classes, you observed that some people could understand the depth of an issue and how its parts interrelated, and others stayed floating on the surface where they could reduce it to easily-comprehended parts existing in a one-dimensional flat hierarchy. For example, to some Moby-Dick was a story about a whale and algebra was a series of equation-forms; to others, the book looked into the human desire for power and algebra was a language for translating discrete quantities to relative ones.
As you ventured into adulthood, you saw this division occurs everywhere, even among smart people. One can always take life at face value, or look at it through the lens of how one communicates to others and justifies one’s own decision as good. Face value creates an understanding of something in purely human terms, with no relation to how it connects to anything other than humans.
Most people think in terms of face value because it is less threatening to them than looking into the depth of structure. In groups, people agree on face value because the goal of a group is that everyone must all get along, and since face value is easily perceived, a group can share that assessment without it being controversial, where looking into depth involves risk and is thus always controversial. This means that in human societies, it is always opposite day:
Whatever makes most people feel good or they think is right or profound, is not, and is in fact a scapegoat or distraction from the real issues;
Whatever makes most people feel uncomfortable or confused is a gateway to the real issues, and most people spend most of their time in flight from it.
On perpetual opposite day, whatever you are told is “clearly” true is in fact not true, and whatever people get together to insist in false contains some grain of truth. This does not mean that you can simply execute a “180 degree rule” on whatever is popular and do the opposite, but that what is popular is distraction, and the answer can be found by beginning with what is denied and looking into it for depth.
The problem with humans is that their thought process rewards what is comprehensible over what is ambiguous. Truth is ambiguous: it has depth, particularity, internal structure and invokes (many) principles of abstract logic as well as natural law (gravity, Darwinism, etc.). As a result, humans tend to think about what they are thinking, and choose what they can communicate that will make others happy, which is always a subset of actual truth.
As any good leader can tell you, the enemy of getting it right is getting it “right enough” for someone else to sign off on it. People prefer a subset of truth, or something quite short of the whole truth, because they view it as something they can implement, starting with explaining it to their friends, colleagues and neighbors. Thus begins the perennial process of dumbing-down that seems endemic to humanity.
Human thinking is based in self-consciousness, or the perpetual question of “how does this look to others?” with a sub-heading of “we must all get along.” This prioritizes the clearly communicable (infectious) ideas that are mostly wrong over the more ambiguous and thus risky and controversial ideas that are mostly right.
The only solution to opposite day is to embrace the controversy, mystery, ambiguity and difficulty and to find the people who excel at understanding reality and put them in charge. The best must oppress the rest, or the rest will oppress the best, and then in incompetence society will dwell and slowly fade away, like every human civilization in history has eventually done.
But the catch — the difficulty in bootstrapping this — is that this principle itself requires understanding, so is anti-social or at least not infectious. It cannot spread like a disease, but is more like a trophy: those who fight to the top of the heap of ideas applied in reality are able to see it. Usually at that point, they despair, because they realize that this idea will be unpopular.
Perhaps, then, our first target is popularity itself.
If the dissident Right has a weakness, it is that it is Red Pilled but not Black Pilled. With the Red Pill, you see through some of the illusions of our time; with the Black Pill, you see through the illusions of humanity itself.
We are the system that oppresses us. While that system creates many dictators, tyrants and control-crazed governments, the root of its power is in the human herd, which tends to be self-deluding, much as people tend toward narcissism if not checked by a superior force.
The traditional Right emphasizes hierarchy to deal with this issue. Every person in society has a superior force to hold them in check, all the way up to the kings who have an intuitive knowledge of the divine and hold themselves in check with that (or are, like most natural creative geniuses, intensely reality-driven).
Our modern Red Pill types however do not see through to this underlying need. They see how Leftism is delusional; this helps them understand why #FeelTheBern-style socialism will lead to disaster, and Marxist sexual politics are merely more underdog-on-top style Leftist inversion. But what about the weakness that caused these to take over?
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” Fred Nietzsche tells us this and he is most probably right, if we are looking for insanity alone. But most of life occurs in gradients, not binaries. Insanity occurs at different degrees, and can be either a permanent or temporary condition, but it is one of the two and only that. And people might be classed as insane, sane and then those in the middle who are not insane but also not pointed in the directions of realism, discipline and purpose that are required for full sanity. They are both insane and sane, in varying degrees, but have not passed the threshold of recognized insanity.
The interesting thing about the Black Pill is that it unites Darwinism and Christianity by recognizing evil. To a Christian, evil is a type of error committed out of a spiritual ethic of convenience; to a Darwinist, evil is any persistent illusory thought that allows the animal to avoid adaptation. In humans, illusion occurs at the personal level through narcissism and solipsism, a type of self-worship that allows the individual to negate risk by altering the conception of it in their minds, in other words: explaining away actual problems, and inventing distracting mysticism that includes scapegoats to deflect from the actual problems. In groups, this solipsism becomes a phenomenon of mass-insanity, a trance-like state in which people slavishly emulate a social successful behavior even though it is obviously false.
We know that the trance state is more likely to occur in people who under extreme psychological distress, and who believe in the possibility of spirit possession. All of these conditions were satisfied in Strasbourg in 1518.
The city’s poor were suffering from severe famine and disease. And, crucially, we also know they believed in a saint called St. Vitus who had the power to take over their minds and inflict a terrible, compulsive dance.
Once these highly vulnerable people began to anticipate the St. Vitus curse they increased the likelihood that they’d enter the trance state. And once in it, they acted out the part of the accursed: dancing wildly for days at a time.
While this mass delusion is easy to criticize because of its surface-level supernatural basis, if it exists as a psychology, it can be invoked by many means, most of which are not supernatural.
Before looking too far into the supernatural roots of this phenomenon, we should look at the pragmatic ones, namely that people were starving. Why was that so?
Following the Mongol invasions and the weakening of European aristocracy, peasants and serfs gained new freedoms. Many of them moved from Europe into the former Mongol colonies in Eastern Europe, changing the Asiatic population there to be blonder and bluer-eyed. But still, the population surge within Western Europe destabilized it.
Consider how poverty arrives. There can either be a fault of production, or a glut of labor. The latter case seems more applicable for Europe’s serfs: given new freedoms, they choose reckless reproduction, and as a result made themselves less valuable. This is the classic pattern of r-selection: quantity over quality, leading to a lottery in which a few win out big and everyone else is equally miserable.
Almost all human poverty arises from this tendency and it explains the poverty of the third world. They are overflowing with people, most of whom have only basic skills, and as a result, everyone lives in the muck and misery and a few super-wealthy tyrants crack the whip over the befuddled, self-distracting and delusional horde.
One might even see the Mongol invasions as an extreme r-strategy: produce robotic human warriors who while canny tacticians and able politicians, are terrible leaders and so create short-lived empires that fall to ruins very quickly.
This is why humans are self-deluding: the foolish desire more quantity, and the intelligent, by selecting quality, become marginalized. This creates the pattern we are all familiar with where vast crowds chase trends and fascinations, and a few smart people confine themselves to out-of-the-way places to do creative and useful things, to the unacknowledged benefit of the rest.
In our current times, delusions remain prevalent — accepted by all but a few — which are every bit as supernatural and unrealistic as the dance of Saint Vitus:
Democracy. People make bad decisions in groups that favor the lowest common denominator because that makes it easy to achieve agreement within the group, even on simple decisions like choosing a restaurant for the evening.
Rights. People vary in degree of quality; none are equal. Giving them rights entrusts each person with the same power, meaning that the bad abuse it and the good shy away from using it if possible. This creates a race to the bottom because bad behavior provides an advantage.
Anti-hierarchy. Without someone of intelligence and wisdom guiding it, any human venture will fail. This applies to those in business, social life, religion and government alike. The vast ineptitude of our current society is a testament to this.
Equality. Equality works well for comparing simple mathematical amounts; it fails for any measurement with more than one quantitative dimension. People vary in abilities, but more importantly, in character. Some are born programmed to do good, some bad, and most, indifferent.
Freedom. Like “free will,” the term “free” makes people sit up and notice. They love the thought of being able to do “anything” because such a wide-open thought creates brain freeze. But really, most people need to be able to do a few things, be restrained from doing bad, and left alone otherwise.
Diversity. Throughout history, diversity has been the heralding of the fall of empires. Different populations cannot occupy the same space without mutually destroying one another. There is a reason that all mixed-race countries are impoverished, chaotic, filthy and confused.
Once they make you accept these illusions as fact, they have broken your ability to think because you will always be working around and rationalizing these insane ideas. Our pretentious fallacy is that this condition is in any way different from the delusion of the Saint Vitus dance, when in fact they are one and the same: desperate people who cannot control themselves looking for a way to distract themselves, and ending up in a repetitive trance-like pathology of illusion.
“So tell me, in just a few words, why you detest modern civilization,” said a friend over brandy and cigars back at the club.
“Too many ways to count,” harrumphed another member of our group.
I could see his point. Most evenings there, I spend my time there trying to avoid a gross faux pas while absorbing as much nicotine and mulled alcohol as possible. The conversation is good but generally, I have long given up on the interesting topics. Schopenhauer was right: talk about dogs and horses. But a reply was called for.
“It wastes your life,” I said. “Let me tell you three key ways and remember, gentlemen, that I started out in this life as a die-hard Liberal. I always want the best for humanity and to treat people well and fairly. But this has led me to surprising places.”
Believe it or not, antiwork conservatives exist. They recognize above all else that life must have a purpose, and that purpose is to enjoy life. In other words, to do life and to do it well. This requires the two components of conservatism, consequentialism (or realism) and a transcendental or optimizing goal that aims for excellence, beauty, immense inner satisfaction, existential pleasure and that sort of thing.
On top of that, we are practical men — and we are all men; did you ever know a woman to turn down a chance at being important at a job, rather than “stuck at home with the kids”? — who recognize that there is very little we must actually do. We need some kind of food, some roads, and to avoid dying in famine or warfare. Everything else is gravy, icing on the cake, and we can do without it.
Technology improves all these things, but on a curve like everything else under the sun. It is at first difficult, then a great boon, and finally, it settles into the same position of burden as everything else because it requires the same staff and labyrinth of rules to support it. At the far end of the curve, we are working for technology and not it for us.
The same is true of management. After the middle part of the curve, it becomes as much of a burden as aid. Soon we have more managers than workers. In the same way, clerks can become a burden. At some point, having all these people to take care of paperwork becomes a burden. And what if we reduce both to the minimum? Maybe we lose a few percent more each year in wastage, but we lose less of our lives to this mind-numbing, tedious labor.
During the late 1990s, this idea really exploded. Mike Judge made a movie called Office Space and Michel Houellebecq wrote a book called Whatever. Houellebecq introduced the topic, which was that jobs make us miserable and nothing that important goes on in them. Judge translated this for the masses into comedy that showed how even good jobs involved a few hours of work at most, management was insane, and most people were lonely and isolated.
These criticisms are not new. They began in the 1950s when the huge boom in Western wealth converted our surface cultures from “do the right thing” to “make the sale.” This disease spread from the top to the bottom, and now all of our jobs are a combination of past roles: clerk, salesman and now, IT guy. Most of what we do has nothing to do with any practical task.
If anything, the rise in online business has destroyed the role of salesman. The customer can find what he needs unless he is a total moron, in which case he is either a rich moron who can hire a personal assistant, or a poor moron who has no hope of buying anyway. The whole foundation of our post-1950s boom has just collapsed from within.
Now we shuffle everyone into office jobs, where one person now does as a singular role what one worker did in the past. This is a response to how dumb and neurotic everyone is, thus useless. Our managers are idiots, and our workers retards, so we dumb down the whole thing for them, which means that anyone with an IQ above that of a microwave hot pocket is in deep trouble because he or she will be bored, lonely and subtly enraged during their entire working tenure.
All of these are procedural or tactical critiques of jobs. We could do them in a tenth the time, and eliminate two-thirds of them, or numbers roughly along those lines. This is well-known among higher-ups but they also fear prole revolt, so they have designed the ultimate trap maze to keep the mice running in circles with just enough to buy goodies so that they do not notice their utter existential slavery.
The real critique is this: when your society starts making jobs be the forefront of existence, it means you have lost direction. You have given up on making sense of life and are trying only to keep the paychecks coming so the economy does not crash. Life itself has been disrespected and relegated to second-class citizen status. No one sees this as insanity because to do so is to realize that they are wasting the best hours of most days doing nothing of any real importance.
Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing
I stole this term from Star Trek. They wrote “GNDN” on the pipes running through the Enterprise in that cool font because those pipes were there for appearance only, to keep the audience pleased, as it were. The problem with living in a dying civilization, and modernity is certainly one of those, is that no matter what you do it will not matter.
In the past, people who did exceptional things had the belief that their works would live on by benefiting others. Now, we know that anything good will be ground under the wheel so that something mediocre but more profitable can take its place. Even if something is excellent, no one will recognize it because it appeals to a numerically small audience instead of the milling-about masses.
The people want 50 Cent, not Beethoven. They want Budweiser, not a pub on every corner with its own blend. They desire cigarettes, not pipes brimming with Empire Virginias pressed, panned and aged to perfection. This means that only fools pursue excellence, because the real model for victory is disguised mediocrity that is cheap to produce and sold at high margin, like Coca-Cola or the Republican party, come to think of it.
We are familiar with the trope of the innovative artist: laboring alone in poverty, he makes great works and is totally ignored. He dies in squalor and confusion, and then fifty years later someone makes a fortune by “discovering” his works and making him a household name. We have replaced this role by cutting out the innovative artist and replacing him with the recombinant aesthetics of the “creative” who have been taught to be so.
These people come up with “new” ideas that are re-mixes of old ideas, and give them the best slick surface that training and money can buy, and then are lauded as new undiscovered artists. The public, accustomed to the trope — and tropes are fun, like simple dances, because everyone can participate — lunges for the mediocre wrapped in shiny paper and then the artist is forgotten. See, we have made the process more efficient, just far lower quality.
All of this means that no sane person is going to spend their time on making objects of greatness. That is a path to getting ignored in the present, and, because our society is degenerating, not noticed in the future. No one cares about quality. As a result, if you slave away writing great symphonies, they will go into a dusty old library where no one notices them, which then burns down as a result of the incompetence of its staff.
We Are The Robots
The last one hits me closest to the heart: a society designed around equality turns its people into mechanical parts. The old saw about cogs in the machine comes to mind. Each person must be a worker, a consumer and a participant in some kind of social scene. We have converted everything that is not-work and not-buying into socializing.
This means that life is a robotic process of following what others are doing and trying to participate, without any ability to show distinction except by doing a different version of what everyone else is doing. Someone always wins that lottery, gets his fifteen minutes of fame, and then disappears into the memory hole, and everyone else chases the new trend.
In short, our society is vapid and worthless like most dying empires. It has replaced actual goals with nonsense and now demands we spend our time on this nonsense, robotically going through the motions. Anything that actually reflects us or our unique abilities is ignored, then trodden over as the crowd rushes to the next attraction or should I say, distraction. Your time is wasted by this process alone.
When people say that Europeans are not breeding at replacement rates, or that idiots seem to rule in every area of life, I point to this dilemma: when life becomes a repetitive process, anyone who wants to really live checks out and heads for the hills. There are not enough jobs as writers, artists, musicians and the like for everyone, and in those honesty is deprecated, which makes them a form of slavery to trend. It is misery.
Then take a look out the door. Constant make-work and busy-work. Cars drive around as if aimless, businesses scream advertisements, government lines the roads with signs warning us about how fun things will kill us. Every few years there is a new panic — drugs, Nazis, global warming, AIDS — that turns out to be a non-issue for most of us. There is no peace of mind or contemplation, because to have those would reveal the emptiness of it all.
“And that, gentlemen, is why modern society is worthless, in a nut-shell. This society has lost purpose. We no longer aim high for anything. There is only the activity we do to compensate, and it is designed for idiots by idiots, which slowly kills off the non-idiots.”
“Much as Satan fell to earth, and decided it was better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven, by giving power to Man over nature and God we have made a Hell of what could be Heaven. Since it is not visible like an apocalypse or zombie attack, it goes unrecognized. They waste your time, all of it if they can, because they have no purpose of their own.”
And with that, I sipped the brandy before it got too warm, and puffed my smoldering cigar back to life.
This morning’s new brought this entertaining item about how our “energy efficient” washing machines fail to fully clean clothing, hence it smells bad. Based on a whiff of people around here, the solution has been to use detergent and fabric softener that is more heavily scented.
Hiding the problem has worked for many years. In fact, some could say that hiding the problem is all that we do in the modern West: push the disaster under the rug, then bring out a dance team to perform a musical named Diversity Is Our Strength or The Recovery Is Right Around the Corner. Certainly in Barack Obama and Angela Merkel the West has found itself leaders who specialize in making the right noises and then creating a distraction, an “anti-problem” if you will, to deflect our attention while quietly removing notice of the actual problem.
And then there is the Austrian election. Most people who could not afford luxury housing wanted the far-right candidate, but those who are good little tools of the system and could move away from the multi-ethnic disaster zones were more concerned by public image. To them, it is more important that Austria be able to sell goods to other Leftist idiots than that its policies work. This is typical of dying regimes.
Now the EU tells us that it is going to block far-right “populists” from power. This, coupled with apparent anomalies in the election in Austria suggest that Leftists are doing what they normally do: filter out anything which does not agree with The Narrative, whether that means forging votes and losing or invalidating contrary ones, or even as the EU seems to want, outright banning anything but Leftist candidates.
As with all ideological regimes — or, those which replace truth and realistic thinking with pleasant thoughts about how equal we all are — we are living in a Potemkin village. Ideology is more important than reality to these people. As a result, they filter out any data that does not fit the narrative that they are telling us is truth. Then, when effects in reality do not match the promise, they fake it. They fudge the data, delete the non-conforming votes, or outright lie.
The best part is that this is not done through a coordinated and centralized campaign. Instead, it is effected through a swarm: many individuals, each doing crazy things, because each one needs to believe that the illusion is true so that they feel better about themselves.
This leads to a mathematical postulate: in groups, the weakness of humans is cumulative, where strengths remain at the level to which they are shared between members of the group. This occurs because weakness always involves denial of reality, and this creates a feedback loop where the denial becomes popular or in other words becomes denied a second time.
People cluster around illusions that make them feel good by denying reality, so that they can distract themselves and escape from their real-world problems for a few moments. This puts denial in the same camp as alcoholism, over-eating, sex addiction, drugs, and watching too much television. It is a weakness of the human design, and also an in-built limit on our quest for power.
There is no escape from this situation until we end the mechanism that puts illusion in charge: the notion of human equality. Some people are better than others in every area, and in the area of leadership/morality, there are a few who stand out above the rest. If you put those in charge, you do not need the maze of rules and regulations that both do not achieve their goals and waste everyone’s time with tedious, frustrating and mindless activity.
Our path has two branches. If we follow our present direction, we become Brazil 2.0: a mixed-race, impoverished, disorganized, neurotic, self-indulgent, chaotic and filthy third-world wasteland. There is no sudden collapse (although bubbles be poppin’ yo) but a long, slow decline to irrelevance.
Think of the ancient Greeks. Once the leading human civilization on earth, they became more civilized — and it killed them. Within a few centuries their former empire evaporated into ruins, leaving an ethnically-replaced population that more resembles Turks or Armenians than Greeks, whose capabilities seem to peak at gigolo and food service occupations. That is our future, unless we turn from what is popular toward what is real.
We all know how to make a party of people happy: say something that makes everyone feel good, like “we are all equal, every one.” This makes them feel even better than saying something true, because implicitly you have denied truth and reality, so they feel less threatened by the non-complimentary versions of those.
The problem is that then you have entered a non-reality zone. You have just said that the deciding standard for what is important in life is not that it is true, but that people like it. This means that whatever people like goes to the top of the heap, and anything they would prefer not to notice is forgotten. It is a prescription for oblivion.
At this point, the carnies take over. Carnies are people who work as entertainers in the circus and are known for their low standards of behavior. Sexually, they are omnivorous; they tend toward hedonism in other forms as well. They tend to live in slovenly ways, behave crassly, and use every moment as a chance to whore for attention. They are masters of appearance and being entertaining, and nothing else.
The West is now dominated by carnies. When Ted Cruz takes the microphone, we are witnessing a man who knows exactly what to say, and what he should say does not vary with the facts of the situation. He says the right thing based on the entertainment demands of the moment. He knows the right words to make himself look presidential or authoritative. His job is audience manipulation, not results. Who cares about those anymore?
When President Obama makes a speech or goes to visit a foreign land, the entire process is theater. He is the carny who knows what the circus audience wants: pacifism, equality, and the feeling that what is evidently true is not true because it might be disturbing. In his hands, tyrants become heroes and real threats become imaginary threats, all while he keeps up the show under the circus tent of the good clowns fighting the bad clowns.
In the same way, Bill Nye the Science Clown knows what his audience wants: they want science that makes reality seem to be not what it is. They love irony and inversion. They want to hear that what we think of as true is in fact nonsense, so they can project into the void that nonsense is true, and Bill Nye will validate their vision with the stamp of Official Science™ in exchange for their ducats and shekels.
Hollywood has become the same way. What does the audience want? Simplistic fairy tales, so here come the superhero movies and romantic comedies. Never mind that these are so brick-stupid that if the audience were even halfway paying attention, they would throw up at how callously and easily they are manipulated. But they do not care. They simply want the sensation of being distracted, much like the audience at the circus watches with half a brain.
And what about academia? Appearance over function triumphs there as well. The science and criticism writers know that what is popular wins, so they write about topics that are popular and ensure their results match. That is easily engineered by changing the question from “what is true” to “what part of the data contradicts the obvious conclusion of the whole.” They nibble away at details, then make broad announcements and the crowd cheers.
The carnies won the minute we selected feelings over reality. We did that by putting power in the hands of groups and not individuals. Individuals can be responsible for the results of their acts, but groups never are. And groups break down because the decision is made based on internal factors, such as what the members will think of each other. Group decisions are by nature reality-optional.
At the end of the day, for carnies, it is all about a paycheck. They make the audience happy, and then the money goes into their grubby little hands, and then the party can continue with the wine flowing freely and the clothes hitting the floor. Somewhere in the back of their minds they know that it must end. Someday.