The old saying about putting the cart before the horse is one of those eternal human profundities that is so practically useful that its philosophical importance gets overlooked. When used correctly, a tool becomes an extension of the mind; when this does not happen, the tool becomes the master and the mind alters itself to balance.
This rule even applies to the mind itself. In theory, the mind is a tool for the survival of the organism and the experience of life. Both of these seem to be important, since even wild animals who fall into miserable circumstances seem to be able to will themselves to death.
However, the cart comes before the horse — and the tool becomes the master — if not explicitly resisted. Our minds favor stronger signals over weaker ones, and gravitate toward explanations instead of mysteries because mysteries are threats. This creates an inherent bias toward simpler and broader ideas over granular and open-ended ones.
One example of this concerns time. When an event is in the news, it seems like either the apocalypse of the gateway to Utopia, and not just because our journalists are rodents. Present things are fully accessible and comprehensible to our minds, and therefore, we prioritize the new over the old and the eternal.
As a side effect, this creates a type of paranoia: fear of risk amplified by a need to stay current. This manifests in an obsessive “fear of missing out” which reflects not an intensity, but underlying emptiness to life. When there are no signals stronger than what is present-tense but trivial, it is a sign that people have found few things of actual importance in life.
“FOMO is especially rampant in the millennial community because they see a peer achieving something they want, and somehow in their mind, that achievement means something is being ‘taken away’ from them,” said Darlene McLaughlin, M.D., assistant professor at the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine and a psychiatry and behavioral health specialist with Texas A&M Physicians.
…In fact, recent studies have shown that FOMO is linked to feelings of dissatisfaction. “The problem with FOMO is the individuals it impacts are looking outward instead of inward,” McLaughlin said. “When you’re so tuned in to the ‘other,’ or the ‘better’ (in your mind), you lose your authentic sense of self. This constant fear of missing out means you are not participating as a real person in your own world.”
This mentality might be seen as a desire to be the “center of attention,” an idea which implies a supremacy of the social group. Whoever is receiving the attention is winning; whoever is not has been victimized and had that victory taken away from them. This mentality reflects the inability of people for whom little of actual importance exists to judge value and purpose on their own; instead, they defer to the group, having no experience with actual choice-making.
With this center of attention, the basis of collectivized individualism or Crowdism is born. People are no longer motivated by inner choices — duty, honor, pride, creativity, wisdom — but by what the rest of the herd is doing. For this reason, they are losing out if they do not get in there and force others to pay attention to them, which creates the stunts-based attention whoring that is the basis for radicalism and thus, liberalism itself.
The present-tense bias of our time reveals a disconnection from the inner world through which we notice the details and thus the whole “big picture” of our physical world. Our minds grasp what is easy, but like scapegoats or Utopias, these easy thoughts are a way of avoiding the necessary larger action, and by distracting us, ensure our failure.
When a civilization is new, it is formed by collaboration toward a goal, which enforces both hierarchy and quality standards. In such a civilization, people are known by their acts.
If that civilization survives, it then enters middle age. At this point, the goal is to be good at what it already is, and people are rewarded for allegiance and obedience rather than initiative.
After that, every human civilization so far created has entered old age. There, the goal is to participate only, or to do what others tell you to do and avoid offending taboo. This rewards people for obliviousness to results.
Sane people consider civilization survival the question of human philosophy. Since most civilizations fail, there is something not-obvious about how to avoid failing and, conversely, the way to failure looks like the way to success.
Civilization itself works like a kind of Ponzi scheme. The more people are created, the more the existing things that people own are worth, and so civilizations tend to grow through internal encouragement. But with that, a focus on quality is lost, and is replaced by the idea of mass manipulation, or convincing many equal people to swarm toward a goal through emotional fears and desires.
At that point, it becomes important to keep the group together because this is a prerequisite for it acting as a swarm. This is where the kindergarten teacher logic comes out: what is most important is that everyone gets along, which requires beating back conflict and enforcing identical participation in activities designed around an average. This is the utilitarian, managerial and “nanny” state that ushers itself into extinction.
From this comes the mythos of control, which is that it is more important to defend the power structure than to ensure that its authority is directed at reasonable ends. That amplifies an ancient monkey-level fear in humanity, which is of the group turning on the individual.
Out of that fear comes the human desire for “we are all one” thinking, which is a type of pacifism designed to appease the rest of the troupe of simians by extending universal inclusion in exchange for non-aggression. Instead of fighting internally to create a hierarchy, this group pathology aims to simply accept everyone.
What it denies is the need for internal conflict to keep civilizations in their early and early middle stages. With constant internal conflict, the civilization is constantly rediscovering its roots and goals, and pushing the more competent above the rest. Without it, it slides into senescence.
“We are all one” sounds like peace but in fact it is war against the quality of the civilization, which results in its slow decay. The death spiral is caused by each individual deciding to take advantage of the situation and pass the disaster on to the next generation.
There is great social fear of not joining the “we are all one” surge. It is effective salesmanship to insist that all people are accepted, which is what equality actually means: equal acceptance. It is also a powerful manipulation tool because it projects all conflict as outside of the group, which enables the group to feel like it is perfect in its current state.
No one seems to ask the vital question, which is “One what?” Are we all one civilization, species, or merely united in fear of risk and possible personal insufficiency? This remains a mystery because the we-are-all-one people do not want to delve into such divisive topics.
In the meantime, we-are-all-one serves the same purpose as pro forma tasks at a job. If you do those, you will be promoted, even if you fail to achieve anything of real-world, practical and goal-oriented value. The higher-ups like those who are obedient more than those who are effective but might be a threat.
In this way, the Ponzi scheme of civilization beats itself to death once it gets powerful enough to have people who are not ruling toward a goal, but in maintenance of the status quo through pacifism. Like most human errors, it looks innocent and positive at first, and only far later does its fatal nature emerge.
From an in-depth look at runaway universalism:
In most societies across the world (i.e., clannish ones), there are weak and highly conditional attitudes towards reciprocity. The primary targets of altruism are kin. Prosociality is maintained through various forms of social honor and shame or at worst, fear of reprisal from the aggrieved or by the state. Dealings between non-kin typically take place warily and with many measures to ensure honesty by all participants. Trust is very low and is not given freely.
By contrast, NW Europeans have evolved a sense of reciprocal altruism and can deal much more readily with non-related individuals. Trust is extended. The other party is presumed to act honestly. Indeed, favors will be extended to others because the recipient may one day return the favor (or at the very least, the helping individual may earn a reputation for generosity that may parlay into favors from others).
…Having a sense of reciprocal altruism (which actively seeks targets with which to trade favors) – along with a suite of other traits that co-evolved with this (such as a sense of fairness and a belief in the equality of all in-group members) – there is little to prevent extending the (soft) cognitive barrier those presently in an outgroup when new information serves to humanize this outgroup (by appealing to affective empathy). And since no outgroup is really any different from any other (being effectively equally unrelated), there’s nothing to stop this process from repeating once new outgroups become humanized. Runaway universalism was thus inevitable.
Universalism, or the idea that every person is equal and therefore the same methods can be used on all people, seems like it would arise from this reciprocal altruism turned into promiscuous altruism. However, there is an elephant in the room.
All human civilizations so far have gone out after achieving success. With this success came primary factors of Progress, like industry and universalism. Secondary factors like diversity and instability were both symptoms and direct causes of the disintegration.
Universalism arises from socializing. When you hang out with other people, the correct way to make them happy is to emphasize a sense of group togetherness. This requires including all of these people without looking too deeply into their failings. This is why successful societies develop universalism: what we call bourgeois values are in fact commercial values, which are social values, and demand equal inclusion which produces universalism.
From this comes the altruism we see, because altruism is a virtue signal for universalism.
Not to ruin an excellent analysis by Jayman, but if we look at the psychology involved, we can see he has the causality backward. The societies that succeed adopt a commercial/social mentality and it is what kills them. As we are starting to see, Progress and formalization are a death-trap, and these arise from the same impulse.
Unsurprisingly it also brings altruistic universalism that pervasively infiltrates our minds, starting with the smartest. This explains why civilizations succeed and then self-destruct, not the other way around.
If you had to encapsulate your learning in a short text, such as one that might fit on a 3×5 card, what highest level of understanding would you communicate there?
To my mind, something like this:
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Notions like pacifism and equality make us feel good because we personally are not at risk. When many feel good together, it creates a self-reinforcing and -amplifying collective mania. This then creates a society which is toxic, in that its mentality spreads by contact and people are forced to be immersed in it, because it is obsessively reality-denying and makes all other choices a means to that end. This creates endless unintended consequences that are prompted denied.
Our modern world is toxic. If you want to know why people are manic about wanting to send you to school or a job for as close to twelve hours a day as possible, this is it: they want you to absorb the toxic propaganda from others. Misery loves company, and people are at some level aware that our civilization is built on lies, but to confront those lies means to realize how much of their own time is wasted, so they would rather spread the lies; this is the path of least resistance.
The message is lost in translation because of our tendency to view our mental models of reality as more real than reality. This is not done deliberately, but occurs because we rely on those mental representations and work our thinking process on them. This in turn creates a world in our head which is perfectly logically sound and consistent among its own parts, but may be improperly “sampled” or perceived from reality. We have a tendency to make mental models which are convenient to remember and manipulate, but this also makes them less accurate and therefore, three or four calculations down the line, error has crept into our thinking in a non-trivial amount.
The problem with communicating this message is that we have a tendency to put it into handy mental containers like politics and science. This zooms in on the details, but loses the big picture, and then because the focus is on the details, our mental model of the larger picture becomes distorted. This is identical to the process by which we arrived at this confusion in the first place, which is that we adapt our model of reality to what is easy for us, instead of adapting our thinking to what is real. Only some can do this, and only with self-discipline.
“But what if we created a system to force everyone to think intelligently…”
There you go again. Always thinking in terms of how to control others and reality. Instead, choose those who think intelligently and let them run the show.
“The essence of our quest is this singular political or religious command…”
There is only one command: adapt to reality. When you put that into an ideology or something that behaves like one, you have already gone down the path that leads to where we are now.
“I don’t see why you are so discontented. I have a good life…”
You are rationalizing. We can always find the best version of bad in a bad situation, but that does not take away from the fact that the situation is moribund and thus, savages our souls.
“The real problem is that we use language, symbols and logic…”
There you go again. If the problem is denial of reality, focusing on the means used to deny reality is to avoid the actual problem: the pretense and hubris that the world adapts to our minds, not the other way around!
“What we have to do is motivate people. That requires an ideology…”
You are right, but also wrong. When you adopt an ideology, the message gets diluted, and so you achieve victory in a social sense but not in terms of solving the problem, and so you become what you fight against.
A knotty problem this is, indeed. This is why all successful ventures begin with a strong hierarchy that puts those with the best leadership skills — in civilization this is generally moral character and tendency toward reverent excellence — on top and sorts out everyone else according to what role they serve best. To do this requires crushing the dominant illusion of our time, the Enlightenment and the last four thousand years: equality.
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.
Peter Brimelow, the founder of VDARE, wrote about his political quest (via Outside In):
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.
Exterminate all rational thought.1
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.
- Selection bias.
- 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.