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.
Bruce Charlton brings up an excellent point with his most recent post on ancient knowledge:
Like most good metaphysics, Ingwaz comes from the solid, primary, necessary intuition that we are thinking. From this comes the inference that whatever we think, do, know or whatever – thinking is involved. There is no way of getting-at any objective reality that does not involve thinking – it is nonsense (makes no sense) to be thinking there is an objective realm of ‘facts’ that are autonomous from thinking.
However, this is NOT the ‘idealism’ of stating that there is only mind, and ‘reality’ is an illusion; what is being stated is that thinking is involved in everything – therefore, everything includes thinking. The thinking cannot be detached from anything, thinking is always involved in everything.
To this I add a few ideas. The first is that what we know of the world is formed of our interaction with it, but this does not mean that it cannot be realistic, because we do not face an either/or option regarding external/internal objects.
“Objectivism” is nonsense. Objective and subjective are human fantasies. Reality is more like objectivity than subjectivity, but it uses subjective means to get there. Heisenberg and Schrodinger smile down on us as we realize that as observers, we are inextricably bound up with what we observe, and what we know is “a representation of a representation” as Schopenhauer says, meaning that our thought-objects (engrams) are representations reflecting the highly filtered (per Kant) and active process of perception.
We the conscious mind are observers on the balcony of a large building, looking through the glass below at objects made by a busy staff of dendrites, based on something they see through binoculars and can recognize according to a vast Book Of Known Objects which tells them what to look for. For humans, to look is to filter, and we find only what we know how to see.
Idealism however is more complex.
Kant’s transcendental idealism was a modest philosophical doctrine about the difference between appearances and things in themselves, which claimed that the objects of human cognition are appearances and not things in themselves. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel radicalized this view, transforming Kant’s transcendental idealism into absolute idealism, which holds that things in themselves are a contradiction in terms, because a thing must be an object of our consciousness if it is to be an object at all…Inspired by Karl Leonhard Reinhold, they attempted to derive all the different parts of philosophy from a single, first principle. This first principle came to be known as the absolute, because the absolute, or unconditional, must precede all the principles which are conditioned by the difference between one principle and another. – “Germanic Idealism, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Others show us further divisions between transcendental idealism and the more extreme versions to follow:
It examines the relationship between epistemological idealism (the view that the contents of human knowledge are ineluctably determined by the structure of human thought) and ontological idealism (the view that epistemological idealism delivers truth because reality itself is a form of thought and human thought participates in it). – “Idealism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
This leads us to Schopenhauer, who made sense of the dispute. In his view, idealism did not suggest that objects were created by our minds — he explicitly states this early in his works on the topic — but that what we knew of as objects existed within our minds. Further, the universe was created of thought, or something thought-like, and obeyed the principles of thought more than those of matter, which is a fancy way of returning to Plato’s idea that organizational form (information, pattern) is more important than its material substrate.
The most common misunderstanding of idealism is the solipsistic fallacy, which is the notion that the world exists within the mind and vanishes when we are not there to see it. This flatters the human ego.
Charlton is insightful yet again. All of our intuition, emotion and even subconscious response are forms of thinking, as necessarily is our perception. This is where the Buddhists ran off the rails: by attempting to separate thought from intuition, they created a false intuition which, while powerful, leads to incorrect conclusions. The Hindus did not have this illusion.
Charlton’s site is worth visiting. I used to comment frequently on his posts until he adopted the Google Accounts only rule, which has driven away a number of his regular commentators who would rather link to our homesites than indulge the Google Authority in yet another expansion. Nonetheless, it is always a worthy read and I am told he now accepts comments via email. Having dealt with Blogger’s ancient and crusty interface and limited comment options, I can see why he made the decision he did, although I would not have done so.
Where I can offer more to this debate is with the notion of self-conscious. The self conscious person is not aware of himself, but of himself as he appears to others. Otherwise, he has no need for visualization of the self. Self-consciousness is a politician promising voters what they want to hear; it is a salesman saying words that appeal to the fears and suppressed desires of his audience; it is a hep cat at the club telling people that what they want to do, not what they should do, is new and therefore more important than what works well.
With self-conciousness, even our internal thinking becomes corrupted. We no longer know what we need, or even what we want, but can only pay attention to the value of things to others and feel we should have them. We are entirely reactive to what the herd is doing, and what seems to be the trend of the moment. The granular decision-making of the individual is replaced by wave motion.
The intellect, when not aware of itself, serves the raw animal will of the individual. This is separate from individualism; the individual is aware of his position in the hierarchy and rank order of the universe, and does not aim to rise above (hubris). Instead, he simply seeks the best advantage and to maximize his position because it is immutable.
When societies grow, the bloat affords voice to the agents of decay: merchants, whores, vandals, idiots, sycophants, charlatans, lawyers, priests, perverts, apologists, denialists, sado-masochists, victims, flatterers and white knights. This enables the concept of individualism, or self first in conflict with role and duty. From this comes self-consciousness, or the “Will I get caught?” mentality of someone in the process of doing the non-helpful.
Traditional societies were not self-conscious because they were aware of a hierarchy above the social level. They thought about natural order, rank among others, and God, but not social prowess and popularity. This saved them from the neurosis that currently devours civilization. With self-consciousness, thinking becomes a slave to the self, and in so doing, to the herd and its endless doubt and fear.
Watching mainstream Neoreaction and outside-Right sources walk the same path as cuckservatives evokes visceral pain in the experienced observer, but it is our fate, because the same power that subverted mainstream conservatism has triumphed in the underground Right. You can tell where the divide is whenever people speak of “the Cathedral.”
To those who are still trapped in the Leftist paradigm, the Cathedral is a group of shady people who magically seized control of the West, and if we just dethroned these bad people, the good times would resume. This fantasy resembles the storyline of a 1980s film where the outcasts unify and beat back the arrogant popular kids!
And yet, if we dig deeper, that fantasy can be found elsewhere, such as in West Side Story or even earlier, in a relatively unbroken line going back to the dawn of time. Stories which invert reality — telling us what is plainly true is not true, and that there is an easier way to success, glory and moral good than what is evidently necessary — are always popular because they play to the fears of insufficiency that individuals have.
Reality-inversion may be the oldest successful non-essential product. Once there is food, and the plague and famine are not raging immediately nearby, humans turn to distractions: over-indulgence of wine, prostitutes, and fantasies about how they are succeeding by failing. In fact, they are failing by succeeding; their society has beaten back nature enough that Darwinian rules no longer seem to apply, and humanity has failed to adopt a corresponding quality control standard.
What is ironic is that the Cathedral gains its power by offering reality-inversion fantasies (RIFs), much as mainstream outside-Right movements gain their audience by doing the same. The RIF for the Cathedral is pacifism, isolationism and freedom; for the mainstream underground Right, it is gated communities without minorities and feminists so that everyone can easily commute to their entry level tech jobs. Both are the same fantasy retold in different forms.
The audience defines the product; whoever offers that product will be rewarded, unless held back by those with more mental power. This means that like weeds and parasites in nature, a new Cathedral springs up wherever human society is established — unless it is suppressed. Other self-organizing forms of parasitic human behavior like gangs, prostitutes/pimps, beggar colonies and hobo camps create themselves the same way. People want these things, or at least, some people do.
Self-organizing power structures and “dark organizations” — anti-patterns for success that come about as a result of organizing humans in groups — are little studied compared to the patterns which reflect how we like to think of ourselves, which involve formal organization and bureaucratic success. But these are the key to the human species: wherever we go, the civilization pattern goes, and it eventually kills civilization. This tells us that there is an inherent pitfall to the civilization process that must be counteracted to make it work, much like rhubarb needs to be cooked thoroughly or it is poisonous.
If conservatism has a virtue it is that it understands civilization beyond the face value formal definitions issued by civilization itself, because conservatism distrusts civilization. Is the rhubarb cooked enough? a cautious cook might ask; similarly, the conservative asks whether civilization has been suppressed, oppressed, beaten down, trimmed back and subjugated enough for its payload — a human group — to survive. Civilization invents pretense, which is the form these “face value” (i.e. deceptive) notions take, but all face value notions are like the speech of a salesman: designed to obscure faults, and induce the buyer to succumb to the various pitfalls of human mentation that allow us to see what is not there, and ignore what is.
If conservatism has a vice, it is that often conservatives confuse the beating-down of tangible objects with having beaten the intangible disease within; this process — like scapegoating, talismans, devil dolls, neurosis, superstition and other Vodoun-style symbolic projection — allows the human group to “cast out” its own disease and project them onto something else which can be defeated. But the real defeat must occur within our souls, which is what Nietzsche and Evola chide us with each time someone comes up with an easy externally-based solution for human ills.
The paradox of this human illness is that it infects individuals, but takes effect in groups, a process called Crowdism which is a form of collectivized individualism. Individuals want the right to deny reality, but that right can only be granted by the group, so those individuals organize a breakaway group. This group becomes more popular that the over-group because it has lower standards for membership, namely “demand the same thing we do and you’re in the gang.” This cult or gang-like dark organization then pervades and dominates the host over-group.
Where my own writing is unique is that I join this Darwinian/Nietzschean view with a classic Homeric/Christian view of evil, namely that human hubris or pretense leads to self-delusion through the Burroughsian method of “control,” and I tie it into a Pynchonian idea, which is that we can see this process as part of entropy. This sounds like a lot of buzzwords, but in fact it unites a number of themes we have seen time and again in human society: many options presented, society pulls itself apart, and our response is to impose more stern standards and punishments, at which point the opposite of what we intended occurs, like pouring water on an oil fire.
Entropy occurs as a process of life. The more possibilities exist, the less predictable activity is… to a point. When too many options exist, the differences between them are erased in a process called heat-death where any option produces about the same result as any other. This explains the arc-like or circular pattern of most things in nature; at first, they expand; then, their growth flowers in every direction; then, they die or at least most of them dies; finally, they are reborn in a reduced form consisting of those which flowered in a realistic way. There is a Path after all… it is not obvious to all.
Naturally this provokes in our minds the thought that to limit entropy, we need to limit the number of options available. Very true, but also wrong, because limiting options alone will not work in the same way stern authority does not. Unintended consequences arise, which is that people work around strong authority. This is why Darwinian natural selection works: centralized order based on before-the-fact censorship fails, but order united by principle and applied in after-the-fact selection always works. Conservatives hate socialism and tyranny alike for this reason because they are before-the-fact selection, which means that they are as easily gamed as any other form of face value order.
The only solution that remains is internal order. This is much like the self-discipline that athletes use to reach Olympic status, or the self-control of a sniper, the deliberate forceful thinking of (good) writer, or the contemplated movements of a craftsman that allow him to achieve immense precision, even timing the motions of his tools between breaths to avoid jarring. Self-discipline allows us to see reality and then to act toward the best possible options that present themselves to us, which generally consist of that which has been tried and observed before and the best results conserved.
Here however we encounter a bootstrapping problem. Unlike the self-organizing chaos of Crowdism/the Cathedral, making civilization arise — or return, in our case! — requires both inner and outer force. That is, some with inner force must gain control of the rest, beat back the individualism and its collective, and then implement standards which make people rise to their best possible level of performance. All good leadership and management consists of this process, and yet it is not popular among humans because it tells each of us that we do not know what is best for us in all cases, and therefore, “freedom” and “liberty” are not solutions but distractions. That rankles the Ego.
To solve our bootstrapping problem, we need strong leadership that can nurture the excellence within us. This shows us that in civilization there are only two options: either the best oppress the rest (Rightism), or the rest oppress the best (Leftism). Leftism is a method of the latter, which is actually Crowdism, much as Neoreaction is a method of the former; both are intellectualizations designed to explain the core principle behind each direction. Like most symbolic realities, they do not translate literally; this is why Leftism always changes when in power, and why Neoreaction is mostly talking points to get us to compare possible other options to the present monolithic Leftism ruling the West.
I write this down in a handy form in case I get squashed by a bus or die of the Zika virus or some other inglorious and yet all too normal end. It is here as a precursor to a forthcoming book which explains these ideas in more detail, and serves as a warning against the Crowdism within, especially in Right-wing movements. There is a reason it has subverted every institution it has attacked, and Right-leaning ones are especially vulnerable. The Cathedral is us, like the enemy is us, until we apply discipline to our inner choices and head toward the light instead.
White nationalism, a product of ideological confusion and emotional outbursts pretending to be political theory, is a degraded form of nationalism that is gaining in popularity because of the disaster of 0bama and EU immigration policy. Nydwracu points out another area where white nationalism fails:
There are perhaps other reasons to oppose white nationalism, but why worry about the weaker argument given the existence of the stronger? It simply wouldn’t accomplish its proponents’ goals. In a hypothetical white nationalist America, one side or the other would eventually realize both the possibility and the utility of ending white nationalism in order to advance its own interests against those of its traditional enemies. In other words: ‘white’ is not a nation.
In the name of nationalism, white nationalism is the opposite of nationalism: grouping together different nations on the basis of ideological comradeship, instead of natural ethnic interests. It imitates the dominant paradigm of the “proposition nation” but because it hides that behind what seems like the main idea of nationalism, or race in the sense of ethnic group, its proponents can claim it as an alternative to other methods of proposition nationism.
If you wonder why white people have not united behind white nationalism, one major reason is that they do not feel like being grouped into generic whiteness and having their ethnic identity destroyed. They also distrust the class- and caste-denying nature of white nationalism, as well as its anger and tendency to scapegoat other ethnic groups (most commonly: Africans and Jews) instead of looking at white problems, specifically the decay of Western Civilization through increasing Leftism (itself a subtype of Crowdism, or collectivized individualism).
Even more, it makes sense to separate Nationalism from “racism.” While any sane observer knows that diversity is the cause of racism, because when you put two or more ethnic groups in the same place they compete including for dominance of the values system, there is much to dislike about racism. Instead of recognizing that separation is necessary, as Nationalism does, white nationalism/racism blames specific groups for the failure of diversity, which fails no matter what groups are involved. This lets diversity, democracy and Leftism off the hook.
A more sensible viewpoint is pan-nationalism, or the idea of nationalism for every group. The first group to break away from the system of ideological nation-states will inspire others to do the same as a means of competing; Nationalism reduces the massive cost of enforcement required to keep people with nothing in common working together. It also breaks the power of Government, which relies on fruitless quests to justify its own expansion in order to rationalize increased taxation, and thus profit to those in government, a form of corruption.
This also allows cooperation between Nationalists of different races and ethnies because they share a common goal: a world defined by Nationalism, where each group works in self-interest and is beholden to no other group. This spares us from entropy-accelerating standardization and the kumbaya illusion enforced by UN troops showing up to make us all good Leftist internationalists.
White Nationalism is not an alternative to our current political order; it is another form of it. It perpetuates control of the center by the uncontrollable mass, which results in domination by the usual human failings which are sometimes called “the civilization disease”:
All human groups tend toward the same order. Whether it is Open Source, or “wisdom of the crowd,” or whatever: people need to work together, so there must be a power structure and rules. Alternatively, you find some very talented people and give them absolute power, but that upsets people. So, the audience defines the product, and the workers define the organization of the venture, whether it is pro-profit or not. You see the same thing in church groups, rock bands, PTAs and militias that you do in corporate America and Wikipedia.
Amerika offers instead radicalized conservatism: let us conserve what works in reality and that which produces excellent results instead of merely utilitarian ones. This is an odd form of thought, as if Republicans finally understood Nietzsche and turned all the dials up to eleven, demanding a functional social order instead of fighting a rearguard action on the economy, defense and certain social issues.
The modern world is based on rationalism, or the idea that we can understand our world using logic independent of direct experience. It tends to overlap with empiricism, or the idea that replicated results are the highest form of sense-experience.
From the opposite side of the debate comes the older view: human reason is misleading unless it is deeply intuitive and guided by morally honest, self-disciplined character. Our logical deductions often reflect more of the chaos of our own minds than the world around us.
In practice, rationalism means the assumption of equality a.k.a. “universality.” This thinking assumes that all objects sharing some attribute belong to the same category, and they behave the same way. It allows those objects to be treated as generic, and without any changes to our logical approach for their type versus another.
This reveals the human projection behind rationalism: we want the world to be uniform for the convenience of our thinking, which does not want to know particulars. It wants to make broad conclusions and apply them mechanically to achieve magical results. That provides the maximum convenience and ego-flattery for the individual.
Rationality starts with deduction, and ends with broad almost religious conclusions, but in the middle there is the imposition of assumptions about logic. Rationalists tend to assume that the boundaries of a category are more important than its center, in the same way the nuances of words in interpreting law has become more important than the spirit of the law. “Technically correct” is the hallmark of rationalism.
The utility of rationalism is found purely in material sciences. Technically, its results are correct, although there are always externalities and imprecisions that somehow were never noticed, and they are usually not mentioned.
If you wonder why our society is so advanced and yet so incapable of getting basic things right, you are seeing this rationalistic approach in action. When Microsoft Word glitches constantly and does by default some very stupid things, rest assured you are seeing the remnants and externalities of rationalism at work. People looked at the details and treated them as universal, instead of seeing how the parts connect up.
Rationalism has one sole advantage: it extends analytical thinking, or a bad analogue of it the way Budweiser is technically “beer,” to people who are not geniuses. The Crowd can participate if they memorize enough equations, rules and methods to be able to have some way of breaking apart a problem. But as with all things modern, the deconstructed is never assembled again into coherence, spreading entropy and misery alike.
As more people cast around various scapegoats in an attempt to explain how the West has fallen from the world’s premiere society to a laughable backwater, it is time to take responsibility and point the finger at the actual cause of our misery.
It is not The Jews, The Rich, or The Government (although that did not help). It is not corporate personhood or the fact that our democracy is not direct. Nor is it even the GOP, although they did not help either. We need to peel back all the layers and look to the core.
Our candidates are liars because democracy rewards lies. They offer a product which might be described as the illusion of peace of mind. This consists of a promise of a solution to some basic problem, a scapegoat to blame for the wider systemic failures, and a reason to consider yourself smarter or nicer than people who oppose this idea.
Leftists are the masters at this. They look at a ruined society and say that clearly the problem is that some have more than others. To support this they show you people suffering, counting on you to worry about what would happen to you in that situation. Then they trot out the studies that consider one factor out of ten thousand and use that to rationalize blame on a scapegoat. Then they say that only mean people could oppose this.
The GOP Establishment (GOPE) has another policy. It lets you know that liberals are insane and PC is bad, and then brings out the old familiars from the Reagan era: defense, Israel, the Bible and maybe even some outrage at abortion. They then say that only morally bad people would not want these things.
In either case, the audience is being manipulated like bulls at a bullfight, with one crucial exception: the audience wants it. They want to purchase peace of mind, and that requires simplistic solutions and blame, and then a reason to feel good even if they lose by calling the other team a bunch of weenies, moochers, meanies or incompetents. That raises the hands and gets the candidate into office.
Once in office, the candidate guffaws. In this system of checks and balances, made exponentially more powerful by two centuries of attempts to fix it, nothing can be done. The direction will not change; the question is only what flavor of compromise. So he goes back to the voters and blames the scapegoat again, but promises to try even harder next time, and the cycle restarts.
White accountability begins when we recognize that our problem has always been an internal war. Most people are bad; like our Simian forebears, they cannot control their urges, and one of those urges is the desire to tear down those above them. They form mass mobs and demand power, at which point the limitations of their abilities are revealed. But the first error was the crucial one, which is demanding that people who cannot make leadership decisions be called on to vote on those decisions.
Out of a hundred people, one is a natural leader with the mental capacity and moral character to see a complex thought through to its conclusion. The rest can fix cars, program computers, draw anime, etc. but that is because these tasks are narrowly framed. They do not have what leadership decisions require, which is a high tolerance for ambiguity when fitting thousands of details into a big, top-down picture.
White internal warfare has marked this country since its inception. The 1% who knew anything wanted to keep the franchise small, but the herd wanted power to make itself feel important. Its first gambit was to import lots of non Western Europeans, all of whom tend to vote Left-leaning. At that point, it began systematically dismantling any sense of sanity in education, media, literature, art, music, government and society.
That process leads us to the present day. You will find lots of people offering you the pair of easy answer and blame, but all of these are lies. What went wrong was that we gave in to our inner evil and the Simian self-important beast that lurks beneath the surface in each of us. We dressed it up, in the way only clever white people can do, as enlightenment and empathy, but really, it was venality and license bubbling to the surface.
The situation has not changed. One in a hundred is capable of making these choices, but we have all one hundred choose, drowning out the leadership capable. We either put these natural leaders back on top and have them suppress the rest of the population, or we will be oppressed by the rest as they continue to choose sociopathic and simplistic illusion over reality.
With the Trump campaign, as predicted, convergence occurred between underground and mainstream right, forcing a recognition of underlying issues which are outside of the Leftist scope of concern and so not articulable in the postwar West. The question now sits before us: where to from here?
As I articulate in the theory of Crowdism, most human endeavors fail because they are invisibly infected by individualism weaponized into a collectivist mentality. That is, a group decides that they will become a collective for the defense of individualism, or the lack of accountability of the individual to reality and the natural hierarchy of humans and ideas.
This thought process corresponds to both what the Greeks called hubris and the sin described in the Garden of Eden: desiring to be above one’s place in the natural hierarchy, and using subterfuge in human opinions both internal (self) and external (Crowd) to achieve the simulation of that. Like all illusions, this one ends in tears, but that happens at a distant time, so for those who can shorten the scale of their perception to the immediate, it seems like a win.
Since ability to think long-term correlates highly with intelligence, we might see hubris in groups as a victory for the statistically-prevalent lower 80% of the Bell Curve, who by the Dunning-Kruger effect lack the ability to understand what is above that cognitive level. This is the human problem; all else flows from this, and it is also what ends human civilizations by reducing them to third-world levels of inefficacy.
Crowdism can infiltrate any field, even those which nominally brand themselves as being against it. Any time the truth is adjusted to fit its audience, and not the other way around — adjusting the audience to fit reality, known as “natural selection” — Crowdism enters and through the misplaced self-interest of individuals, takes over. I say “misplaced” because putting oneself and all those similar to you on a path to certain destruction is never wise. It guarantees all that you do will be wasted.
Like all evil outside books that involve orcs and wizards, the evil of Crowdism comes not in a terrifying form but a beautiful, kind, compassionate, loving, gentle and socially inclusive one. It accepts all who are willing to formally adopt a basic outlook, and then in the name of keeping the group together, includes all in its focus even when their ideas begin to erode the fundamental truth.
This is the great ugly secret of humanity: reality is the one truth, and we either obey it or self-destruct. All of our errors consist of adjusting truth to fit what we wish were true, and all of our successes come from accepting reality as it is and then acting to improve it qualitatively, which means not finding a “different” way but taking the obvious way and doing what we can to make it better for those who are better. Crowdism is merely a clever sleight-of-hand around this obvious and time-honored path.
The dissident Right — alternative right, neoreaction, new right, red pill and others who see that the foundational myths of democracy, equality and pluralism are the cause of our civilization’s dysfunction and imminent failure — has come far by rejecting the Leftist-tinged ideals of the compliant cuckservative mainstream Right, but we must make sure we do not fall prey to the same syndrome that took them out. Crowdism lurks for us in doing what is popular, not what is right, and our future legitimacy rests on our ability to beat this cognitive error.
As mentioned early on, the dissident Right struggles with its desire for novelty and thus its tendency toward Crowdism. Its main function has been to widen the Overton window so that we can talk about topics like HBD, nationalism, the inherent failure of socialism and other negations of the Leftist ideal. But in trying to popularize these ideas, it can fall prey to popularization itself, and become a lesser method of what it needs to be.
What has always plagued the Right is lack of ability to state what it wants. We know that Leftism is a stream and once a toe is dipped in it, the current carries us forever further Left. The only solution is to affirm a Right society that does not have any Leftism in it, and that requires facing some unpopular truths. That in turn requires taking a difficult stand that will not be popular, but if our leaders affirm it, the others will fall in line and follow. The dog must wag the tail again, instead of the tail (popularity) wagging the dog (goal).
Currently the dissident Right is caught in a loop of rehashing its criticisms of the Left but it is unable to make the step toward the difficult stage of demanding actual change because this conflicts with Crowdist elements in its audience. We have lots of blogs rehashing ideas that myself and others covered 20 years ago, and while that is great, it has become preaching to the choir. We either take the next step or vanish in irrelevance.
The topic of this piece concerns knowledge that once was commonplace but now is taboo to mention because it is so thoroughly contradicts egalitarianism. It also shatters the suburban white woman view of the world as basically a good place that can be trusted to keep doing its institutional goodness. It is a view into the abyss and then, into the genius of nature.
Resentment arises from differences in relative position within a natural hierarchy. This natural hierarchy is composed of ability and moral character. Most people can perceive it and instinctively react to it, because in emergencies, you want to be aware of who should be in charge. This invisible network rules most human interactions even in defiance of official titles, power, and responsibilities.
Think of your favorite desk. If you are sitting at it, working, and discover through a radio broadcast that war has been declared or a tsunami has hit, you will probably put some kind of plan in motion. You will try to take care of your people and wealth, and maybe even defend those like you. But first, you will go to those you know you can rely on in a crisis. This is the natural hierarchy.
Natural hierarchy is not as simple as race or caste but those are heavily implicated. Someone from a higher caste, or from one of the “favored races” — Jews, Western Europeans, Japanese — is more likely to be higher in ability and moral character. As a result, these people are natural targets for those beneath them. So are white women, smart kids at school, and those with innate talent of any form. These people rise above the norm, which is like an average grade a mediocrity, and make everyone else look bad, therefore they are hated.
This hatred is not universal. Among those beneath you in the hierarchy are good people and bad people. The good people have some humility and so they perceive that your role is necessary and the stability it ensures in turn helps them. The people who are not mostly good instead give rise to their resentment. They hate you for being above them and by the reflexive principle, making them look bad.
What higher people do not understand is that they can do nothing about this resentment. The resentment does not care how much you give to the poor, how much you love ethnic minorities, or how you have been a civil rights activist. The resentment is not about your actions, but your position: if better people exist above, the lower can never feel content, and instead of acting toward rising, they — if bad — try to destroy the beautiful, good and true above them so they feel content in their mediocrity.
This is a universal human truth but you will find it carefully not mentioned in public information because those who aspire to power wish to harness this force. An angry mob of people who feel mediocre is a powerful tool. They can easily be convinced to tell themselves that they hate those above them because those do something bad — voting Republican, removing savage Indians, refusing third world immigrants — when in fact their desire is simply to smash those more successful than they.
Again, this simply misdirection. People from the upper echelons of society by IQ and character need to know this, especially upper-half-of-middle-class Western European women: they hate you because of who you are, not what you do. You can vote democratic, march in civil rights protests, bring Muslim jihadis into your living room and be feminist all you want. It will not save you. They want to destroy you and take what you have, even though it will not last for them because they cannot keep it alive. They are not reasonable. They are emotional.
Any society which wishes to survive will formalize this natural hierarchy by ensuring that the people it promotes are the best and that these are held up as examples. Our current society promotes people for silly reasons — celebrities, entertainers, people who make nonsense products — and as a result, our natural hierarchy is partially invisible, which allows it to be targeted. Even more this creates a Lord of the Flies hybridized with Idiocracy situation where members of the angry mob like SJWs use all sorts of pleasant-sounding ideology to justify their destruction of others.
The first step to undoing this problem is to spread recognition of it among the natural hierarchy. Stop feeling guilty for the successes of your ancestors and your own gifts inherited through blood. You are a tool toward the means of human thriving like any other person, but your additional superpowers mean you are more competent — and thus should have wealth, power and influence because they are safer in your hands. The mob will never understand, no matter what they tell you, because they are not like you. You would understand, in their position. But they cannot.
Few consider how much ideology serves as a substitute for reality because, in their view, reality is a physical thing and ideology consists of choices made about how “we” should correct reality. In that however is a germ of truth: ideology inevitably requires deposing what is natural, logical and true for what is emotionally satisfying.
Ideology also replaces reality by placing itself between the world and our knowledge of it. To be correct in reality, you act so that the outcome you intend occurs; to be correct in ideology, you act in such a way that you do not transgress that ideology. This means that every action you take is filtered by a desire to conform, before you even act, and that you are granted permission to act in any way that you can get away with by justifying your intentions with the ideology.
This means that whenever a question of how a proposed action will work out, we do not think in terms of how it will actually turn out. We think about how it looks when we tell others what we intend, and how that reflects on us, and whether it will please the group. Witness this mentality in action:
When someone says a refugee might be a terrorist, we can respond with the idea that yes, he/she might be trying to sneak in to Canada to do some harm. But that same person might be a doctor, an engineer, a teacher, or have any other number of useful skills. Someone might even be a social worker who’s already found the solution to chronic homelessness in rural and remote communities. We don’t know. These refugees could be the perfect fit for our community. But we won’t know till we let them in.
Two interesting points arise from this excerpt. First, the writer argues that we must act as if ideology is true regardless of the outcome. Second, the writer demands that we ignore secondary consequences, affirming that the true decision is what to say and not outcome in reality. Result: complete denial of fact and likely consequences in favor of looking good in the moment.
This is how ideology programs our brains to replace reality with this strange world of human intent, social pressures and appearances. This also has the effect of reframing the debate. A sensible person might ask, “What kind of society do we want to be?” and point out that heterogenous societies have throughout history consistently suffered more problems, internal division and eventual collapse to a third-world state.
But none of that is mentioned here. The only topic is applying ideology, and the only measurement is what other people think. This is conformity and control in their raw form, but no one is to blame but the social group. Without strong leaders to point back toward reality, people always retreat into their own minds and emotions, and when given power, reality replacement — and its dire consequences — is the inevitable result.
Generation X is referred to as the “bridge” generation, linking the massive cohorts of the Baby Boomers with the zombie Millennials. But more likely, that generation was a bridge to nowhere because it was raised by the same people who brought us the liberal takeover of the West in 1968.
Unlike the Millennials, who grew up in the stability after the 1968ers hit their 40s in the mid and late 80s, Generation X knew a world where there was more than one path of history. This world had mild disasters, like the oil crisis and depression, but also knew real threats, like the Soviet Union and its reckless militarism.
Millennials on the other hand have only grown up in a liberal-controlled world. 1968 values were taught to them by children’s television, children’s books, their elementary school textbooks, the words of celebrities, the movies from Hollywood and by liberal politicians in Hollywood. For them, there is only a liberal-dominated world, moving slowly toward “Progress” by destroying all who dissent.
As a result, Millennials are the most obedient and conformist generation ever. Like Baby Boomers, who took the WWII-era values of their parents and turned up the intensity, Millennials take PC to the next level with “social justice worrier” style rhetoric. For them, society has always been stable, without want or fear, and all that we need to do is give away enough free stuff that everyone is happy and pacifistic.
Generation X was savaged by divorce, being latch-key kids of working moms, and facing the instability of the incredibly selfish “Me Generation” as it attempted to parent kids it viewed as little more than possessions for its own glorification. It saw the lunatic nature of the 1968ers as they were, which was horrible parents and unstable neurotics who chased “profundity” and “art” at every turn yet returned to selfishness as a guide.
Its response was mostly to drop out. Unlike Baby Boomers and Millennials, Generation X has no loyalty to political agents such as its country or an ideology. It respects that which works, mainly because it has seen its countries disintegrate in the onslaught on the family, values, and standards. It has stepped aside to watch the disaster from the comfort of its own homes.
One recent survey of Generation X both missed the mark, and revealed quite a bit.
Gen Xers didn’t just turn inward because there was nothing to capture their attention outward—they were purposefully turning away from a world that didn’t hold much promise from what they could see.
There is what you must know. Generation X saw what their parents, the 1968er Baby Boomers, had done to society using its postwar mandate of absolute equality, and noped out. They wanted no part of the disaster. Unlike Millennials, who like zombies absorb the propaganda and bleat it, Generation X simply stepped aside to watch the giant fall.
Why hasn’t Gen X been able to shake the shackles of its misspent youth (and what youth isn’t misspent?)?
Partially, they haven’t tried very hard. It’s an introspective generation that never felt a need to explain itself.
Well, that’s cute. Translation: they trust no public voice with the truth, so keep silent and out of sight. The motto of Generation can best be encapsulated by the name of a radio show, “In My Room”, namely that it has retreated to the space it can control. Crazy parents control the world, crazy democracy controls society, but maybe there are dropout spaces.
As a friend of mine voiced:
It feels like there was a boat missed in the 90s and now we have the current generation split between some really savvy thinkers who are not doers, some pretty smart doers, and some clever (snarky, sarcastic) wishers who are loud with their emotions and that’s what’s catching everyone’s attention.
I think our generation opting out was a mistake, and I don’t know what we would have done differently.
When you trust zero public institutions and public voices, how do you protest? You do not: you drop out. When every institution is corrupted by the same illusion, and every person who wants not to be fired parrots it, who do you trust? You do not; you preserve yourself, and wait for the big BOOM! to tell you that it’s time to awaken and act.
Generation X learned firsthand what the liberal ideal is. It is not a big happy pacifistic group, but a giant ego swallowing all else while flattering others by telling them what it is known in advance they will agree with. There is no escape once an illusion grasps your society, and all who want to succeed endorse it. There is only retreat, and waiting for the collapse.
Few have learned the lesson of Generation X. There just was not much to be done; those who spoke up were destroyed, and those who agreed with the ideology and became enfranchised in the system turned into yuppie zombies with no souls. The only solution was to express yourself quietly, and then get out of the way so the raging bull of failure could self-destruct.
And they are still waiting. Even the successful Generation Xers are cynical. The Boomers and Millennials — both zombie generations — do not understand, but Generation X does. They saw a tragedy in formation and will never be the same. Even if they cannot articulate it, they want the old over the new, but the new has gained power and crushed all dissent.
In the future, we will all be Generation Xers. Millennials and Boomers assumed that society was a static thing which they could tweak and get more out of at the expense of its future, but Generation X realizes how fragile social order is. They also recognize how crazy the Boomers and Millennials, who are like a single group interrupted by a generation, are. And they want nothing of it.
The 1968ers betrayed Generation X. In the name of altruism, they betrayed their own families. In the name of egalitarianism, they betrayed and subverted their own children, leaving them cowering like PTSD victims. And because they had popularity on their side, the Me Generation could not be opposed. And yet, opposition rose.
The world has yet to see what Generation X will do. A sensible guess is that they are waiting for a cataclysm so they can finally point out where their parents were wrong, where Millennials are wrong, and thus the necessity of dispossessing such zombies and seizing control in the name of common sense. We all await that day for deliverance from the successful lie and private Hell of post-1968er society.