Social media is dying. The primary reason is not because of its censorship, but because of what its censorship portends: it has given up on getting the cutting-edge audience, and wants instead to go out like MySpace, catering to the least competent users for as long as possible, then collapsing.
As an internet service, one has a choice. The service can be designed for the power users, and the rest will tag along as best they can, or when the power users leave, it can be designed for the lowest common denominator. The latter gets a larger audience, over the short term, but the former produces growth.
This creates the “MySpace cycle”: a new hip community grows from an elite of power users and early adopters, then becomes accessible to all, at which point the modern pattern occurs and the masses alter the character of the service by doing the same stupid stuff they do everywhere else. Quality declines.
With the fall of quality, the early adopters and power users flee for greener pastures. The company providing the service has grown and added dependents — more employees, lawyers, stockholders, and advisors — and is reminded by them of its need to kick up the profits. And so, in a classic MBA move, the service slashes costs and makes itself friendlier to the broadest section of its potential audience.
When we see social media banning people for stating the obvious, this cycle is in operation. The company providing the service wants more people in, and the masses always like illusion and human groups fear anything that is not “we are all one” inclusive, so the service hires trigger-happy idiots to remove anything that generates complaints. That way, they can be a safe space and bring in more neurotics, fools, idiots, geeks and hipsters.
The use of bans and censorship shows that the service is no longer interested in being a community. In a community, people exchange conversation, and with it, points of view. They are able to handle having different points of view, including controversial ones, because there is an active dialogue and difference is respected because the issues are interesting.
A service run only for profit however has no interest in community. It is there to provide an illusion as a product, and the people who consume this product — like television watchers in a former generation — want only a reflection of themselves and their thoughts, mainly because people are solipsistic and the less intelligent ones even more so.
Twitter (for example) knows it is going to die, because MySpace died and Digg died. All social media dies when it becomes popular with the idiots and then the power users leave as a result. Twitter is just trying to squeeze as much from the lemon as it can before the end, which requires pandering to total idiots like SJWs — otherwise unemployables — and if it loses some smart people, oh well. Its new audience will not care or want them.
The point of this is what we are looking at is economic Crowdism: how audience demographic shift on the Bell Curve takes once-thriving products and converts them into the same thing as everything else, thus reducing incentive to use them and ending their life cycles.
Crowdism is terrifying because it says that our enemy is not government, economics, politics, etc. but mass thinking; with mass thinking, all things — regardless of discipline or origin — are made into the same low standard, low future-time vision social-type organization. In social organizations, people compete for attention instead of accuracy or moral goodness.
For example, Crowdism has infested the world of publishing. Most books are written on trivial topics, contain little content and have no relevance except for the first year when they are published. They are mostly surface works in that what distinguishes them is the setting of the story, the unique twist on known ideas, or a novel combination of past aesthetics and concepts. The surface changes constantly, but the content is the same, much as how a Crowd will take a new genre or discipline and quickly convert it into more of “the usual.”
When people in the last century referred to something as “typical” or “common,” this was what they were alluding to. Once you let in the Crowd, they make everything into the same thing, a vast field comprised of equal — because that is the social measurement, equal inclusion — actors doing roughly the same stuff and struggling desperately to make their own variant look different. It is like an IQ test: the people who cannot see through the surface get trapped at this level, which we might describe as Sudra or Thrall to use the old Indo-European caste terms.
Therein is the problem: we cannot say that social media is the problem, only that it is conducive to the problem. The same conditions and pathological behaviors can arise anywhere, as they have in blogs and before that, in dial-up systems.
Your average 1980s BBS, once it became popular, shifted Left because Leftism is the socially appropriate answer to any question, and most people do not care about the question or the consequences of action taken in its name, but how they look to others. Boys and girls want to hook up. Middle aged people want business connections. Lonely people just need someone to talk to. Drug addicts and neurotics want far-out stuff to talk about that makes their failed lives seem meaningful. The result is constant activity, and that requires an abolition of eternal standards so that there can always be “new” (old, recombined) theories and topics.
The prevalence of Crowdism in the blogosphere leads to noticings or observations like the following:
Time out gives a man room to think. It is why vacation is an important part of a work-life balance. It is why male only spaces were so crucial to the continued survival of Western Civilization – you had to get away from the nagging wife to concentrate on the bigger picture.
Since I posted my ‘Exit’ post I have maintained relationships with allies, talking to many on a daily basis. In recent weeks I have also kept one eye open on those still blogging. What I see is sad and disappointing.
The more popular publications in this ‘sphere’ are still publishing nonsense articles about topics we already discussed years ago…The masturbatory self indulgence that many crave is happening for them, they rehash the same dead topics, they continue to abyss gaze with the same sick fascination.
Bypassing the excellent observation about “male only spaces” which can be expanded to the ideas of solitude and leisure, essential to any cogent antiwork argument as well as the right side of the Bell Curve in any health society, we see an excellent point being made: the blogosphere rewards those who write about the obvious as if it were mindblowingly complex, which makes people with nothing to contribute feel important and gives writers a way to advance themselves at the expense of others.
Begging your indulgence, perhaps we can review the writings on this site which have covered this topic in the past:
“Neoreaction hits choppy waters” (April 4, 2015):
The same writers who gave Neoreaction its early strength pulled it apart as they competed for audience with blogs, books and YouTube videos. To differentiate their product, they had to each invent unique theories and viewpoints. These in turn created confusion about the core of Neoreaction, and drifted farther away, which meant they lost their conservative core and as a result became increasingly liberalized.
If we listened to the liberals at the outset, Neoreaction was doomed because it was not liberal enough. As it turns out, it was too liberal, but not by ideology but rather by the behavior of human individuals seeking to profit from it. All those blog hits, video watches, and book sales became a goal in and of themselves, and the idea of Neoreaction got lost in the muddle.
Thus the movement became moribund in the same way a civilization does: it becomes a vehicle for individuals to express their own self-importance, not a cooperation toward a qualitative end. Neoreaction became assimilated by liberalism because it adopted the methods of commerce and popularity, part of the demotism that makes up modernism.
“Neoreaction in reverse” (April 17, 2015):
That essay raises the question of goals. If the goal is to be Neoreactionary, that should be done, in full. When that goal gets supplanted by another goal, like money or power, then the goal of Neoreaction is inescapably lost.
Endure a metaphor, if you will: when an artist writes a book to tell a truth, he creates a story, characters, metaphors and setting to express that truth. However, if the same artist realizes that people look forward to confirmation of their existing ideas, and writes books to that end, the method of making money has replaced the goal.
We are all familiar with this process. It explains why a brand that produced good solid products a decade ago now makes flimsy plastic crap, banking on its good name. It explains why every rock band goes to a terrible place after three albums. It explains why promising political candidates, once they get into office, suddenly turn their backs on their own beliefs.
This is the nature of politics: it reverses our thought from acting toward a goal, to acting toward the reward that normally comes from achieving the goal. This means that instead of acting from cause to effect, we are acting from effect (money) and inventing a cause (the book) to match. It is a form of corruption of will.
This is what has happened to Neoreaction. In the struggle for individuals to differentiate themselves and gain an audience, they have moved from writing about relevant topics to writing about that which they know will cultivate an audience, and for that concern alone. This has distorted their message and created entryism by demotism.
“Neoreactionary fragmentation” (April 11, 2015):
[I]n an effort to attract a popular audience, [Neoreaction] reduced itself to a form of individualism. This happens to all internet movements as people want to join so they can appear “edgy,” but fear getting too far from socially acceptable ideas.
“The Neoreaction/Dark Enlightenment tantrum” (March 27, 2014):
My point to the DE/NeR was basically that if your philosophy is functionally similar to conservatism, and you don’t admit it, you’re avoiding the truth out of some personal pretense. Further, this confines your thinking based on the taboos of liberalism, which means you’ll end up back at liberalism. Then I pointed out many of the liberal aspects of the DE, namely that its crusade against the Cathedral is a liberal-style revolution, e.g. an attack against the institution and its replacement with people power. What we actually need is an idea of what we want and thus a competing vision to the current set of pretenses held by our new elite.
“Exceeded By The Alternative Right, ‘Official’ Neoreaction Struggles” (July 7, 2016):
Most of Neoreaction and many of the Right choose to ignore my 20-plus year history of writing on the same topics they now approach. This is not solely because I am obnoxious, but because I threaten them. If someone else wrote it before, and possibly better, others become irrelevant. In turn, I find it hard to link to much of “Neoreactionary” writing because it is simply going over old ground and often, doing so with more of a robotic outlook.
“Neoreaction Goes Off The Rails Just Like White Nationalism Did” (June 29, 2016):
In the past, I have warned Neoreaction that it veers too close to become a Leftist-style ideology because Neoreaction has come to include the principles of collectivized individualism. Any time you find yourself arguing that there is a “system” which will manage people and come to good results, you have left behind the fundamental distinction of Dark Enlightenment societies: they believe in hierarchies and moral codes, and therefore, they select the morally best as leaders.
“What is Neoreaction?” (April 15, 2015):
What is subverting Neoreaction is what Neoreaction was designed to avoid: “demotism,” or a substitute for leadership where whatever idea is most popular is chosen. Demotism occurs in politics through democracy, in economics through consumerism, and in socializing through flattery. Neoreaction has been subverted by its inability to purge its opposite from itself, because when emerging from a political system the most common tendency is to carry over unseen elements of that system into the post-revolutionary future society.
The same conflict that crushed Napoleon crushes Neoreaction. He wanted to be a King, but with the revolutionary ideology of egalitarianism behind him. These two ideas conflicted, and so he became a tyrant, using the advertising of the ideology of altruism to justify his seizure of power and wars to enforce these ideas on others.
Neoreaction has stopped moving in a linear direction toward a goal, and instead is circling itself, trying to rid itself of an entryist it cannot identity.
I came from another tradition of writing about these topics: European philosophy, starting in the late 1980s, with a somewhat idiosyncratic take — as is appropriate for any philosophical exploration, to avoid the confinement of crowd-defined language — on society. I posted rants to hacker bulletin boards, published an ezine, raged across USENET, then began distributing my writings through an early underground website, the American Nihilist Underground Society, then CORRUPT which pre-dated the “alternative right” idea with a similar concept, many web bulletin boards back in the day, and finally transitioned to Amerika.
My influences were Friedrich Nietzsche and the philosophical and literary canon, underground (heavy) metal, and life experience. In addition, newer writers like Michel Houellebecq and Ted Kaczynski were massively influential, as well as the rants and outlook of outsider communities like the hacker underground and the heavy metal underground.
Others from the same era picked up the pen and began waging war — words are bullets — through increasingly clarifying statements. One of these, Bruce Charlton, recently penned a pointed critique of the Alternative Right (a silo in which he includes Neoreaction, probably because Neoreaction has been absorbed by it) which was widely ignored by online reactionaries because it hit too close to home:
The (online) excitement among the Alt-Right since they were mentioned in a speech by Hillary Clinton – and since it becomes clear that Donald Trump is (de facto) running unopposed – is palpable.
And it is natural; since the secular Right always sells-out, and opportunities for the secular Right intellectuals to be bought-off, co-opted and in general sell-out (for power, status, cash, sexual opportunity etc.) are looking very good, just at present.
No wonder the leading Alt-Right bloggers are so cheerful!
His point is that political movements default to a focus on people and material concerns when they do not have some transcendental goal, which we can observe happening in Neoreaction and the Alternative Right because to succeed as a blogger there, one must dumb down the message and tell the Crowd that it is the victim. This re-starts the liberal cycle under a new name, in a classic Crowdist gambit, and is not deliberate but is even more destructive than if it were, because the people who now think they are solving a problem are in fact bearing a mental infection that will reproduce the problem.
Inversion, in other terms.
Earlier on, this post mentioned how the threat of censorship and bans on social media services like Twitter destroys the prospect of community. To last, a community requires a transcendental goal, such as the idea of accuracy in information itself, or that problems can be beaten and beauty, goodness, truth and excellence restored through realism plus a gumption that demands a higher aesthetic quality of life; pleasure, even.
When dissident movements become inverted, they lose this sense of community and replace it with a false sense of community based on universal inclusion. At that point, they become Leftist in all but name, and many of the recent attempts to control the narrative are done solely in this aim, even if they state otherwise.
As one writer recently noted:
Any incoherence or challenges must then be met, unless they present such a challenge that the model proves wrong. As a result, strict and active management of new ideas must be enacted, prior held ideas which are incompatible must be dismissed, strong discipline must be maintained intellectually to such a degree that those who undermine the tradition are made aware of this issue and encouraged to correct, or stop claiming to be part of the tradition. Relaxing of intellectual rigour and doctrine for mere social requirements should be dismissed as rank stupidity.
…Much of what gets released under the neoreaction banner is intellectually incoherent.
Crowdism has infested social media, but it will infest any platform, and it has infested Alt Right and Neoreactionary blogging. The solution is simple: return the focus to ideas and action, not people. But that will never be as popular as social thinking, so instead, focus on the quality blogs like New Alternative Right, Atavisionary and many of the others listed in our blog list.
In the meantime, all of social media is having a sort of MySpace moment, as we see first and foremost in the backlash against using cell phones to constantly “stay in touch” (appeasing Fear of Missing Out, or FOMO) with social media:
Last week, superstar Kanye West tweeted: “I got rid of my phone so I can have air to create.” Singer Katy Perry replied: “unplug to connect.”
Stand-up comedian Brett Kline got so frustrated with smartphone selfie sticks that he made a video of him snipping them with bolt cutters all over New York. It turned out to be a prank, with fake phones and actors as the victims, but the video has more than 1.3 million views on YouTube since Sept. 1.
“Technology is making people sociopaths,” says Buddy Bolton, a comedian who recorded the selfie-stick clip-and-run incidents with Mr. Kline.
These people do not mean they literally got rid of their phones, but that they are using their phones as phones again instead of small portable computers ideally suited for social media.
In fact, widespread support for exit from social media has been gaining steam.
This is a result of the Myspace cycle described above, but applied not just to the aging big social media services (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit) but to social media and the internet itself. Once, it was a new frontier, because the Crowd had not arrived. Then Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft made it brain-dead easy to get on and use it, and then social media arose. At first, that was a new space, but then all the people that the people on social media were trying to flee showed up there as well.
Now, it is a bother where most of what is being posted is the same brainless drama that is spoken of at the water cooler, at family dinners or shown on daytime television. People want out as a result. The exact same phenomenon is happening to Neoreaction and Alternative Right, and those who care about the power of those movements should flee the dying zone and head toward a higher level of behavior immediately.
The Alt Right combines many non-liberal movements — Traditionalism, Nationalism, Identitarianism, Theocracy, National Socialism/neo-Nazism, Libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Social Conservatism, Neoreaction and the New Right — into a single dissident Right perspective.
Its purpose is to get past the “social filter” that limits the mainstream Right to inoffensive topics, where offensiveness is gatekept by Leftist ideals like equality.
While the Alt Right as a whole exists in the intersection of these ideas, their minor points clash even as their major points agree, and each Alt Righter tends toward one or the other, which is fine except that taking any one of those viewpoints re-orients the interpretation of the Alt Right toward the minor points of that view.
As with the New Right, the Alt Right gets the basics right. It is essentially a Nietzschean/Platonic Right, but implementation details remain confused. Many who are coming into the Alt Right now are bringing with them numerous assumptions that descend from Leftism, simply because they grew up in a Leftist time.
For many, a common trope involves rejection of the “left/right dichotomy” by choosing a third option, which ends up being a hybrid of the two. As always, fence-sitting results in confusion and thus, indecision. The importance of Left and Right is that we can only head in one direction, and that requires eliminating the other — and thus hybrids.
The division between socialist and capitalist is a case in point. The Rightist is neither, but he is also anti-socialist, because it conforms to a Leftist principle (equality) and not a Rightist one (hierarchy). The Rightists recognizes that capitalism works, but like any other method, it must be guided by principle or it becomes a cause in itself, and dominates the objective with its own needs.
This leads to the core of the Alt Right: flagrant realism. Alt Righters care about consequences in reality, and they use this to reject the current illusory policies in favor of those which will create a rising society. As one writer opines:
There are several core tenets of alt-right thinking, however, which unify the different factions within the movement. Key to these is realism when it comes to race, gender, culture and beliefs. Despite the histrionics of the leftist establishment, these views have not been considered controversial historically. For everyone except postmodern Cultural Marxists, it is obvious that there are distinct differences between the races and between the sexes. Some cultures are obviously more successful at creating civilisation than others. If it is sexist that women bear the primary responsibility for raising progeny, then biology is sexist. If it is racist that East Asians have higher IQ’s, lower crime rates and higher incomes than Sub-Saharan Africans, then genetics is racist. Even if reality hurts your feelings, it’s still reality.
It has also been true throughout history that humans prefer their own tribe. Leftists today don’t mind ethnic nationalism, as long as it is not whites adopting it. Why is it that Black Lives Matter, a group associated with domestic terrorism who are clearly ethnic nationalists, are feted at the White House while white nationalists are profiled by the authorities and castigated in the media? Why is the demographic displacement of whites through mass immigration and the destruction of white cultures official government policy in Western countries? Why do we lambast this process as cultural genocide when it was done to indigenous peoples but celebrate it as diversity when it is done to whites?
The point of the Alt Right is to escape the world of human symbols, and look at reality according to its function. There, we no longer rely on morality or social opinion, but on comparing the results of actions and choosing what action we will take based on what results we want to achieve. Life is both simpler and more complex.
As someone coming in from the Traditionalist side, I see the Left/Right division not as false as many in the Alt Right do, but the capitalist/socialist division as silly. Socialism does not work in any form. Capitalism does not work by itself, without some privileged and intelligent group to make the choices instead of a consumer mass.
This is why I summarize the Alt Right as the four pillars:
Aristocracy. Our best people must lead, and we will breed them to make even better leaders.
Nationalism (including HBD). Culture rules; this requires exiling all who are not genetically of the founding culture. Class and caste are important because we are only what our genes program us to be.
Hierarchy (including “no socialism”). All people have different abilities; there is no room for groups to negotiate. The best must rise, and those who are lesser, be demoted, or they will take over. No socialism or subsidies in any form.
Transcendental goals. Our purpose cannot be material, or even in the present tense, but must involve the future we wish to achieve, which we translate from ideal to material through known principles.
Not everyone agrees on these, mainly because of recent generations’ bad experiences with state-mediated capitalism. To them, socialism is necessary because capitalism in the hands of the herd is abusive. I ask: what is abusive, the herd, or capitalism? We are capitalist because socialism is death.
The Alt Right must purge from its soul — we’re talking ideas, not people — its remaining Leftist tendencies which arise from its members having grown up in a time when Leftist thought is all one sees, hears or reads. Leftism is death. Once we cast it aside, we can look at what remains and choose the best.
The point of the Alt Right is to unify two goals, (a) defeating globalism and (b) ending and reversing the decline of Western Civilization. To do this, we must reject not just socialism but modernity entirely. We want a new type of society, the kind that appears every now and then in history when people want more than just subsistence.
For us to rise to that level, we must reject all of the pretense of the modern time and replace it with an organic goal, which is seeing civilization as a life-form in itself that needs nurturing. Its opposite is the eternal human temptation toward individualism.
All other considerations are details toward this goal. The point is this: reject globalism, and then peel back the rest of the lies of modernity and create a civilization to rise above anything we have known in our lifetimes. The egalitarians lie in all forms, so we must choose a healthier way.
The Alt Right is consolidating. It has many different factions, but they overlap on a few core ideas, and that overlapped center excludes some of the peripheral details. That leaves us with a singular focus, which is how to create greatness in the midst of a wilderness of ruin, tedium, conformity and deception.
All else is extraneous. Unlike politicians, for whom lying is a job, for the Alt Right, all that matters is results. We are no longer content to be a dead and ruined civilization. We want to rise above, and this requires we reject the pretense of the current time, and establish what is eternal.
Those of us who think in Alt Right terms view our mission as twofold: end globalism, and stop the decline and fall of Western Civilization.
As part of that, we find ourselves wondering how deeply we should dig into the foundations of modernity to get to the root of the problem, rip it out and then start again.
One clue is provided by what we might call The Scandinavian Paradox: how it is that the most wonderful places with the bravest warriors end up the most “pozzed” or infected with Leftist dogma, a subset of Crowdism, a form of collectivized individualism.
The only sensible answer is that by making conditions safe, good and orderly, we enact the greatest removal of Darwinian evolutionary pressures on the population. This results in a proliferation of people with crazy ideas, and a society which is adamant in its defense of individual liberty at the same time.
Civilizations that collapse tend to be the most promising ones. The intelligent, valiant and mentally organized produce conditions under which their citizens thrive but then, thanks to the weakness of the human heart, those citizens find themselves taking civilization for granted. They then side with those who are born purposeless.
In nature, predation and starvation filter out those who cannot be realistic enough to adapt to their environment. In primitive human civilization, the same happens. Only in advanced civilizations, where each person is presumed to be intelligent and therefore worth defending, does humanity unmake its greatest accomplishments.
Scandinavia represents in every way the perfect society. Its people are intelligent, handsome and compassionate. And yet it has been overwhelmed by egalitarian drama, like Germany and France before it. Those that fly highest have the farthest to fall.
Philosophy enables us to see life not as objects bumping into one another, but the concepts that cause us to act in certain ways as resembling a Matryoshka doll: one inside of the other, until you get to the smallest one, which is the original assumption that set off the chain.
When we look at modernity, at first we see technology. But then it becomes clear that technology is only as good as how it is implemented, and that our present implementation reflects mass tastes through purchasing (consumerism) and popularity (democracy). On to the next layer by removing the outer doll layer with a floop sound.
When we look at consumerism and democracy, we see that both are unified by a belief in the equality of the individual. Floop! goes another layer.
When we look at equality, we see that it is based in the idea of equal consequences for unequal actions, or that the person who achieves good results by his actions, and the person who achieves poor results, both being rewarded for that. In other words, people want insulation from consequences. Floop!
When we look at insulation from consequences, we see that this benefits the individual and not the group. In fact, the “collectivism” of equality is based in individualism, or the idea that the choices of the individual are more important than anything else — including, and starting with, the results and consequences of those choices. Floop!
When we look at individualism, we see that the motivating force behind it is an Ego which wishes to be free of consequences and their potential Darwinian effects, which in civilization means exclusion from the group. Individualism therefore uses universal inclusion as its primary goal. Floop!
When we look at universal inclusion, we see a desire to make understanding the world optional. That is: people cannot be judged as good or bad based on how well they understand the world, which is what determines the actions they take and thus their results. They want their own thoughts to be accepted whether real or not. Floop!
And finally, we are at the smallest doll. People want their thoughts to be accepted so that what they intend, wish, desire, feel or judge is real, not reality itself. “What I perceive or want must be real,” stands revealed as the core psychology behind this whole mess.
That mentally unstable state is the origin of modernity. Or rather: it is a perpetual pitfall of human thinking, but it won out. Why? Probably because society succeeded, which caused a proliferation of people who could not exist except for society, who were able to reproduce because the institutions and social order of civilization protected them.
Perhaps there is a final Floop! here, if only in our minds. Civilization replaces nature as the arbiter of who lives and who dies; we need a replacement for Darwinism, or the process which filters out the insane, unfit, deranged, retarded, criminal and pathological.
Modernity arises from an echo chamber produced by the social collaboration of those who are individualists. They demand equality, and filter out any ideas which contradict that emotional vision, which rises from individual fear of insufficiency.
Where the Alt Right nods to Nietzsche and Plato is in its recognition of the Jack London style quest for adaptation that needs to be at the heart of our societies. Our hearts are too big and our methods too good; our intelligence and morality is what produces a surplus of those who will destroy civilization.
Naturally, none of this is politically correct, but — Floop! — it is more fundamentally not socially correct. It upsets people. And yet, it is the only path to survival for an advanced civilization.
Outside In presents a seemingly paradoxical tendency of Leftist regimes as described by Richard Fernandez:
The Western left has the habit of preaching from a moral height while simultaneously describing its history as one unending crime.
This makes no sense if you take the Left at face value, but there is no sense taking any politics at face value, because what is said is offered up as advertising to entice voters, and has little if any relation to the demands of power, economics, managerial bureaucracy and time, which are what actually limit policy and therefore determine the subset of options available.
Machiavelli remains demonized in some quarters because he said the same thing: people do not what they say they will do, but what they must do in order to remain in power. The demands of the task determine the options available, not the intent of the human, and this insults and offends us because we like to think we are in control.
But we are not in control. The world is in control, and therefore, the task is more important than our desires. We can elect to have principles, if they are both realistic and ascendant, and those can serve us well. But we cannot invert cause and effect and demand that method, symbol and emotion replace the mechanism by which results are achieved.
Let us explore The Leftist Loop:
The goal of Leftism is to seize power from kings, and after that, from those who are naturally more gifted than others. To this end, it is uses passive-aggression and a begging-the-question fallacy together: assuming that everyone is equal, those who are not in favor of equality are in fact attacking equality, and must be removed, because they are the anti-peace, anti-love, and anti-good.
This is how pacifism goes from kumbaya to “kill the dissidents” in one easy step. It happens again and again. Revolutionary France. Communist Russia. Brendan Eich. Jimmy the Greek. John Derbyshire. Anyone who speaks out against equality, or simply does not go along with the charade, is presumed to be evil and can be destroyed.
The Leftist Loop works because its essence is scapegoating. Instead of looking at the demands of reality, the loop distracts from reality by finding a symbolic reason for why everything has gone wrong. This is far, far easier than looking into the details, so it becomes popular. The herd destroys the symbol, sort of like an inverted golden calf, and then concludes it has won — until the same problem crops up yet again…. and again, and again.
This perception seems to arise from the sensation of individualism: thoughts within the mind, especially social thoughts, are stronger than more remote stimulus as is caused by contemplating real-world objects. People feel their thoughts as more real than the rest of reality, much in the same way their immediate personal circumstances interest them more than global policy. This is individualism: what is mentally convenient for the individual comes before all else.
Anywhere Leftist goes, the Leftist loop goes as well. This occurs because Leftism is based in ideology, not reality, and therefore demands enforcing because it does not work on its own. It is the first system of rule based entirely on human intent being more important than reality, like the face-value thinking described above.
Throughout human history, one constant has appeared in all ages: the temptation to give in to evil.
The root of evil originates in individualism, or the desire for the individual to be more important than the order of reality. In the classic view, all of reality is a hierarchy, with the divine at the top and the rest arrayed below, and everything has a place like in an ecosystem, assuring balance and harmony with a constant inner struggle that produces people and things of quality, much like Darwinism or martial competitions.
We might refer to that abstract natural order as the plan. It includes the bigger picture: the civilization, the structure of existence, the goal, ideals of integrity and conquest, morality and nature.
All people at all times contain the tendency to desire what is evil. They want the individual to be larger than the plan. They fear the plan, because it ranks the individual, and their egos want them to be bigger than they deserve to be.
This fear compels them into a psychology of resentment: they must tear down any that are higher than they are, so that the lower are just as raised as the rest, and therefore no one looks bad for falling short of an ideal. This pathological mental state appears throughout human history as a necessary consequence of individualism, and always justifies it with a form of pacifism, equality, which states that all will be included in the group regardless of how they rank according to standards or questions of contribution.
Humans have called this “evil” through history because it is pathological, which means that it repeats itself obsessively regardless of success or failure. Where most people try something, then step back to see if it worked, the egalitarians repeat their actions with obsessive insect-like reflex action, blindly destroying in their need to assert these ideas as true.
We can see this evil in operation through how it is represented in mythology. The Greeks called it hubris, or a type of arrogance that reflected self-importance above the role of that individual in the plan. In the Bible, the hubris of Adam and Eve in the Garden resulted in their exile from a life of innocence/excellence. When humans try to place themselves above God and God’s order, chaos and horror results.
This extends to the mythical fall of Satan. As an individualist, Satan thought his personal desires were more important than the plan. As a result, he fell from heaven and became king of a different domain, but this was also his punishment: in Hell, all good things are inverted or turned into their opposites.
Then we turn to nature. Hubris can be seen in monkeys as well. A monkey tribe will gang up on any monkey who does not conform to the low standards of behavior of the group, and individual monkeys will frequently challenge the leaders — alphas — of that tribe with provocations. It is human behavior, in microcosm.
The conformity that is being forced is equality, or the rule that everyone must do the same thing, and any who exceed that are seen as a threat to the rest for having raised standards. If standards rise above the mediocre, it will alienate many in the group, and that threatens the feeling of equal inclusion that seems to prevent conflict — again, this is a form of pacifism, or bribing people with acceptance, tolerance and moral relativism in order to avoid friction.
Seen through this lens, evil is more of a mathematical certainty than a mystical force. In any group, a tension will exist between having standards and having universal inclusion, with most people desiring the latter because it creates a guarantee for them personally that they will be accepted. This is why the root of collectivism is individualism, even though it is collectivized as the group demands what each individual in the group desires, much like a union, street gang or lynch mob.
From this comes the great evil of the modern time: the compulsion to dominate the personalities of others. Created from equal parts pathetic need and a mental violence that demands satiation through victimizing others, this predatory mental state demands that nearby personalities be subjugated through social pressure, including humiliation. Like other forms of mind control, this method does not use sci-fi technologies, but simple peer pressure or psychological manipulation through the threat of what others might think.
The typical vampiric predator-parasite of the modern social scene seeks others around him, usually of lower self-confidence, and immediately begins to sow doubt in their minds. He attacks what they believe indirectly, so it does not seem like an assault, and then introduces a plausible but unproven alternative. Now the passive-aggressive begging-the-question attack begins in earnest: if they do not agree, he asks them why they are denying the truth, or the obvious, or some other phrase implying social agreement with what he has said. He then bullies them into accepting his view of reality, all for the simple reason that it makes him feel more powerful, in the absence of real power like the ability to change the failure-bound direction of his society.
Personality parasites appear in abundance because people are given no other mode of power than that which can be had through enforcing the official ideology of the Crowd, which is always egalitarianism, plus a perception of individual exceptionalism. In other words, individuals demand equality because these individuals believe they are exceptional, but must rationalize their lack of influence by believing that they are unrecognized geniuses instead of entirely average. This produces the poisonous and viral state of mind which demands that they compel others to recognize them, validate them and by doing so, recognize them as exceptional; that in turn requires that everyone be pulled down to the level of a faceless mass above which the narcissistic individual believes he can rise.
All of this is illusion. Social recognition is fleeting because the impetus behind social activity is directed toward the individual, so other individuals allow themselves to be dominated in order to achieve the sense of being part of something bigger than themselves, which makes them feel important. Looking at the audience of the average rock concert or political rally, one can see that the audience acts as if they were the ones on stage, even as they acknowledge their presence there for the concentration of social energy triggered by those actually on the stage.
Monkey dynamics persist in all human behaviors, and this tendency toward projection is no exception. It reveals the true struggle of humanity, which is not for any of the various issues that people advance as part of their psychic vampirism, but for sanity. Sanity means a clearing of the mind, and then enforcement of self-discipline, so that one can first adapt to reality, and then select the most optimal means of engineering it so that the best possible results ensue.
Modern people — like any people in a society in its last stages, regardless of technological level — find themselves under constant assault by those who want to dominate them and force them into the reigning narrative. The old saying “misery loves company” applies here: most people are miserable, and wish to drag others down into that misery, to feel better both for having dominated others and having validated their rationalization of their condition as inevitable and necessary. The modern person faces a social order in which most people are outright evil in intent and conceal it behind normalcy, “everyone does it,” and other statements of social endorsement for that evil.
The war for sanity is a quest to discover reality and escape the prison of our minds. The individual mind finds it more convenient to work through other minds, since they share a language, whereas reality is not human in nature and requires application of self-discipline to understand it. This is the nature of the hive-mind, groupthink, the echo chamber, mob-rule and other forms of the Eternal Human Dysfunction: a lonely ego, finding in other egos the ability to deny the world, which is a path of least resistance compared to understanding and finding beauty in reality.
It was for this reason that our ancestors, dating back to our origin, selected from us the best: those who were able to adapt to reality and choose excellence, because that benefited the civilization. The problem is that, over time, making civilization stronger extends that protection to those who cannot understand the importance of civilization and take it for granted, thus immediately begin to conspire against it for their own benefit. They want “anarchy with grocery stores” because that provides the broadest canvas on which to splash their egos, and the unsatisfying result makes them pathologically demand more of the same, like a drug addict who has reached a high level of biological tolerance for her substance of choice and can no longer feel the high.
When power is given to the best, they become a combination of babysitter and war-leader for the rest, giving them direction where they are afraid or incapable of thinking. This will exhaust and destroy them unless the civilization implements some method of filtering out monkey behavior where it can constrained, and exile of those for whom there is no cure.
Western Civilization has been awash in parasitic, resentful and poisonous people for too long. These are perhaps a fifth of our own people, but they have disproportionate influence because they appeal to the lowest behaviors, such as panic, emotional gushing, self-pity, fear and envy. A sane society will protect its leaders by sending its toxic people away to the third world, which is more appropriate for their anti-civilizational mentality.
This is how one fights the evil that threatens to destroy civilization, the loss of which will make all work and hopes of the individual futile and impotent.
Most of the critiques of democracy advanced so far have focused on the bad results that occur through democratic leadership. While this is true, it is not the whole story, and may serve to make the problem seem less extreme than it is. Democracy is not just bad leadership, but mental cannibalism of our people.
Before looking further down this path, it makes sense to clarify the problem of democratic bad results. Under democracy, much as with a committee, results are not bad in the sense of flagrant, but they are predictably unexciting and rarely do more than take a token stab at any problem. They are mediocre, then, which over time becomes a steady erosive pressure that is more destructive than all but apocalyptically bad decisions.
With an apocalyptically bad decision, unless it truly ends the world like full-blown nuclear war, the error is confined to a discrete moment and single choice, which makes it easy to recognize and revoke later, or at least clean up after by not doing the same thing again. Unlike that, slow steady decline drains a civilization of its life and puts it down a path of a “death of a thousand cuts” from which no reversal is possible.
The main physical problem with democracy is that no one is responsible, ever. Voters fling in their choice, but their list of choices is determined in advance. Their vote is never known, nor do they alone face the consequences of what they chose. Instead, the herd trucks off to vote, and then a result happens, and everyone blames each other.
This is the psychology of democracy: it encourages corrupt voting because it destroys responsibility. The costs of any action are spread out over society, which encourages the wealthier to vote for insane costs which can be passed on to others, for whom it will be a heavier burden. A millionaire can pay 50% taxes and still have half a million dollars; for someone earning $40,000 a year, that puts them into poverty.
Even among the intelligent, the process of voting itself creates corruption. It is the “agree to disagree” option coupled with a lowest common denominator option chosen for being the least offensive of what is on the table. It encourages people to make choices that involve the money, time and lives of others, without ever being held accountable for the choice they make.
Further, democracy ends debates. If the matter goes to a vote anyway, why bother getting to the bottom of the issue? Just state what you think will emotionally or socially manipulate other people into taking your side, and pull that slot machine lever and see what the randomness of nature spits out. Even worse, it benefits you that there be as little understanding of the issue as possible, so you are removed from the question of whether your position is good or bad, and shift instead to the question of how well you communicate something people want to hear, which gives you equal chances with a good or bad position.
The consumer state is built upon economic democracy. In the same way that it is pointless to look too deeply into an issue, products become a question of what surface attraction can be used to make people think they need the product, irrespective of actual need. Socializing even takes on this dimension, where we tell people little white lies and flatter them with nonsense so that they are inclined to follow our lead when we have concerns or needs.
Democracy’s psychological damage extends beyond that. It is a passive process, since the individual makes a selection and then is arbitrarily given something else, mainly because politics produces politicians, or those who know how to make issues appealing to large groups, then work behind the scenes to implement what can actually be done, which is usually an entirely different animal. This passivity puts people into the role of servants: they may have had their say, but now The System has spoken, and they must implement it. This erases any will of their own and replaces it with conformity. When you see Europeans acting like they have no culture and no purpose, and therefore that their only meaning in life is “helping” third-world groups and facilitating their dreams, it is in part the fallout from democracy.
It does not matter how few people vote, or how smart they are. No matter how good they are as people, they will become accustomed to futility and start treating life like a gamble, not a deliberate process of achieving results. They will remove themselves from knowledge and rely on opinion, and then push away any competing point of view. And, since honesty is a losing prospect, they will become passive aggressive manipulators who tell partial truths and then entrap voters with guilt, emotion, shame, pity and fear.
This explains the utterly low quality of voter behavior:
As an analogy, suppose a jury were deciding a capital murder case. But suppose instead of carefully considering the evidence, the jury found the defendant guilty out of caprice or malice. Suppose a third of jurors paid no attention to the evidence, and just decided, by coin flip, to call the defendant guilty. Suppose another third decided to find the defendant guilty because they dislike his skin color. Suppose the final third paid attention to the evidence, but found the defendant guilty not because the evidence suggested he was, but because they subscribed to a bizarre conspiracy theory.
If we knew a jury behaved that way, we’d demand a retrial. The defendant’s property, welfare, liberty and possibly life are at stake. The jury owes the defendant and the rest of us to take proper care in making its decision. It should decide competently and in good faith.
This line of reasoning applies even more strongly to the electorate as a whole. Political decisions are high stakes. The outcomes—including all ensuing laws, regulations, taxes, budget expenditures, wars, and so on—are imposed upon us involuntarily. These decisions can and so harm us, and can and do deprive many of us of property, liberty and even life. At first glance, we should think that voters, like jurors, have a moral obligation to vote in a competent and morally reasonable way. But when we look at actual voter behavior, it seems like they systematically violate this obligation.
Now imagine a society of people accustomed to this bad decision-making. They have no hope that anything will go well, only that it will not be even worse. They know that all they are told is lies, and this creates a culture where they must lie in order to succeed. That in turn makes everything — self, family, hobbies, abilities — a means to the end of self-promotion, since that manipulates other people and achieves success. Souls evaporate. People become automaton zombies, going through unnecessary motions (jobs, bureaucracy, socializing) just to try to again regain the feeling of being alive.
Removing democracy is easy: put a party in power, amend a Constitution, and you have a new system — or even better, no system. The root of The System is the idea of systems itself, and that begins with democracy and the idea of personal choice in groups being the root of power. When that is removed, people begin to look toward reality again, and choose leaders instead of actors, liberating their minds and souls at the same time.
As the media machine struggles to make sense of what is happening, it repeats the old tropes. Conservative and liberal writers have taken to their keyboards to write about how leftism is good, and anything else is bad. They claim the opposite, that they are attacking specific movements, but only non-Leftist movements are attacked.
That leads to the kind of schoolyard name calling that we see in this article from Leftist voicebox The New York Times:
The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the alt-right “a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.” Most Americans hadn’t heard about the alt-right until this election, and some not until last month, when Hillary Clinton gave a speech in Reno, Nev., linking Donald Trump to it.
The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute says it is “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.” Through his online writings and YouTube channel, Mr. Spencer is a key player in the social-media universe where this core group of Trump supporters get their “news,” from sources with which most people aren’t familiar. A quick scan shows that immigration is not only their most important issue, it’s pretty much their only issue.
“Immigration is a kind of proxy war — and maybe a last stand — for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile,” Mr. Spencer wrote in a National Policy Institute column.
The Left bemoans this as identity politics, which means voting according to your tribe’s self-interest. It is acceptable for homosexuals, Jews, African-Americans, Mexicans, Japenese, Muslims, etc. to act in their own self-interest, but not Europeans. Why? Because the goal of Leftism is to destroy the majority culture and replace it with an ideology.
We know this because history shows it to us. The Soviet Union bragged about how diversity was its strength. Rome became increasingly diverse in its final years, as did Athens, by the account of Plato. In each case, the rulers imported new people to shatter the culture, heritage and traditions of the society so that the people could be made a means to the end of that ruler’s power.
That is the decision before us at this time: be not racist, so that our leaders can replace enough of us to have permanent control, or be called racists and say out loud that diversity does not and cannot function as a positive policy, therefore it should be replaced. That means America for its founding group, the Western Europeans.
Across all continents settled by Western Europeans, the elites have had one super-weapon which they use liberally (no pun intended) and that is the epithet ¡RACIST!. Starting even before the Civil War, the elites decided they wanted to replace our people with others, first Southern and Eastern Europeans, and later, other racial groups. This made the job of being an elite leader easier, because no cultural consensus conflicted with the power of the State.
Since WWII, it has been easy — too easy — for the elites, since Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini were all nationalists, or those who believe a nation should be defined by its founding ethnic group only. This opposed the agenda of the ever-expanding Leftist State, and thwarted its power, so it needed to be destroyed.
This agenda was enforced by the social perception that “everybody knows” and “everybody agrees” what is true, and therefore, those who think differently are not just wrong, but wrong because they are bad or stupid and ignorant. This is a fundamentally social method of controlling the thinking of the masses, a type of hive-mind imposed by an appeal to the weakness and pretense of individuals.
Except that now, people are willing to be called ¡RACIST! and ignorant because they realize that this is it: this is our last shot and preventing the takeover of our civilization by the Left.
Next stop, Venezuela. Or Brazil. But it will not be the future we have been told that we have. Nope, all the wealth and technology is slowly going away as social order further disintegrates, and then we have nothing but the type of third-world strongmen we are familiar with from the news, ruling over a banana republic where everyone is corrupt, that never produces anything important ever again.
This is why events like the Donald Trump candidacy, and Brexit, have shaken the establishment to its core, but more importantly, have shocked its supporters, who are counting on riding the coattails of the “right side of history” to personal success, and being thoughtless like people who litter in national parks, care not for the consequences of their actions. Witness history being made:
The first was an almost universal surprise, since it was a truism that Leavers were a tiny handful of fruitcakes. A defeat for Remain was thus unthinkable. In fact there had always been widespread opposition to the EU among voters at all social levels, even though political parties, the media, and most national institutions had treated the idea with contempt and its adherents as eccentric at best. Suddenly the referendum rules meant that Leavers were on television making the case for Brexit nightly and, contrary to their caricature, they seemed quite reasonable. They persuaded some voters to switch to Leave, and Leave voters to be more confident of their own opinions. As the campaign developed, the polls swung towards Leave and many late polls showed the two sides as neck-and-neck. A Leave victory, though by no means inevitable, should have been seen as pretty likely.
In fact the reaction that followed surprise was a set of variations on horror, outrage, indignation, anguish and a desire for revenge. That was on the Remain side; the Leave side was pleased but not extravagantly so. For a while it simply pocketed its unexpected success and watched, bemused, from the wings while Remainers rioted angrily stage-centre. They plainly wanted the referendum result annulled but they were never quite able to explain why. Obviously they couldn’t say simply that they wanted a different result. So they had to invent a series of specious reasons that in their eyes cast doubt on its validity—that the Leave campaign was xenophobic and racist, that its voters (though not Remain voters) had not understood what they were voting for, that it had “told lies” (uniquely so in political campaigns, apparently), and so on and so forth. But the argument advanced with most passion by Remainers and repeated most often in the left-wing press ran as follows: because old uneducated people supporting Leave had outvoted young people with degrees voting Remain, these miserable old geezers had “robbed the young of their future” and, well, it wasn’t right.
We are on a precipice. The past seventy years of conservatism, 227 years of democracy, and thousand years of steadily marching toward egalitarianism have betrayed us; every year, more problems occur and our society is less the beautiful, hopeful, ambitious and excellent place it once was. Instead, we accept inferior substitutes, and are forced by social pressure into denying that oblivion threatens us.
And yet, slowly it dawns on people. This is not just another election, after which things continue as normal. Normal is terrible: our governments are broke, our jobs are slavery, our cities are cesspools and our future is worse. It will be a long, slow, painful slide down to third-world levels of oblivion. And what can we do?
The first step — the most difficult, they say — is admitting that we have a problem:
One of the paradoxes—there are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate it.
Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?
What is the future of post-Enlightenment Western Civilization? If we search our hearts, we know the answer: going out like Rome or Athens, leaving behind a civilization which is thoroughly dysfunctional and produces nothing. We are not choosing which of these relatively inconsequential platforms to adopt, but fighting for survival, starting by reserving the ability to choose to beat down our potential tyrants in the future.
In the EU and the USA, the governments are basically the same: heavy regulations, social welfare programs, Leftist agenda, and a desire to replace their citizens with third-world people or “minority” groups, who always vote Leftist. They never vote right-wing, because it is against their instinct, since it would require admitting that their homelands did it wrong and that is why they are third-world, not because of colonialism or sunspots or whatever they’re claiming this week. And so, with a few statistically-insignificant exceptions, they will never do it.
That is what globalism means, when you distill down the meaning: worldwide trade because the Leftist empire has worldwide control, at least of the first world. Globalism = Leftism. Multiculturalism/diversity is the inevitable result of Leftism as it seeks to gain this global control. All else is noise and fantasy; we either destroy this, or it destroys us.
Cue the media catch-up because a term they did not originate has taken over the airwaves.
The National Review writes that the alt right = pure racism:
There is a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.” On Monday, Taylor asserted on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” that racialism — not religion, economics, etc. — is the one issue that unites alt-righters.
They seem to have missed the point that for the last 70 years, bashing white people — and using that as an excuse to demand subsidies from them — has been the modus operandi of the dominant left-wing parties. The putative conservative parties have done nothing to arrest this, but instead in an attempt to be popular by following bandwagon trends, have endorsed it.
The alt right is the pushback. But not just against anti-whiteness; against the decline of Western Civilization at large. For Western Civilization to survive, and reverse its collapse, however, its people must survive: those who are genetically Western European, which is what most of the world means when it says “white.”
Funny about that National Review article, because (theoretical) enemy of the Right Hillary Clinton says the same thing:
The alternative right, commonly known as the alt-right, is defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center (an organization that tracks hate groups), as a “set of far-right ideologies at the core of which is a belief that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.”
In other words: This is not conservatism or the Republican Party. This is a movement that fosters anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-multiculturalism, and anti-women rhetoric. This is a white supremacist movement, and one that Trump has not only refused to denounce—it’s one he actively courts.
If you oppose multiculturalism, you are a racist, in the view of both mainstream right and left. What does this tell us? The only permissible view is to accept the importation of many foreign people, eventually obliterating the native population. No leader who cares about the wellbeing of his people does this, and yet we have voices from both sides of the imaginary aisle demanding it.
This outlook follows the pathology of Leftism: it is not reflective of reality, but of humanity. It wants what humans wish were true. This leads to illusion, and is how every human society self-destructs, but because popular things produce immediate rewards, the illusion — what our ancestors called “evil” — is always chosen, like dogs drinking antifreeze and becoming poisoned. This is the challenge of civilization.
The alt right constructs itself around a simple ideal. It suggests that we do what is real, not what is popular. This launches us into a reality-first assessment that sees biology as more important than intentions, education or politics. From that, we find ourselves arriving at ethno-nationalism, or the idea that a nation is its people, specifically the genetically founding group.
The advantage of nationalism, in addition to the fact that homogeneous societies are the most stable and happiest, is that it does away with the need for government, and with it politics and “systems” of elaborate rules designed to make evil (illusion-dependent) people equivalent to good ones. People rule themselves by cultural standards, and that way, when they ostracize someone, it is for an actual transgression.
An eternally popular human illusion might be stated as “we are all one.” In this illusion, all people are the same everywhere, and so with the right rules, we can make them do good even if they are not good. This way, no one needs to be looked into to see if they are evil, and if they do an evil thing, they are automatically forgiven and still part of the group. This anti-Darwinian and pro-evil stance results in civilization decay.
In one of the more penetrating articles of the week, Ricardo Duchesne asks why multiculturalism has spread across the West so rapidly:
But while it is generally known that these factors are interconnected, there is still no cohesive explanation for the almost simultaneous adoption of immigrant multiculturalism across the Western world.
He explores a number of theories, and invents a few terms, but ultimately, finds no answer. Here is the answer: multiculturalism spread because it is a variant of the “we are all one” idea, which is popular because it enforces the idea of equality, which is in turn popular because with equality, the individual is accepted regardless of his abilities or evil acts. Equality is created by individuals through the group, but it protects the group only as a way of protecting the individual; its actual goal is to weaken the group, so that the group cannot ejecting low-performing or evil members. Equality is the anti-Darwin. Equality is also the eternally popular illusion.
All of Leftism — class warfare, diversity, sexual liberation, socialism, big government, etc. — arises from the idea of equality. Since equality is not-real (evil) it must be enforced. The best way to do that is to destroy everything but equality in the minds of the people, which requires deconstructing (destroying) culture, heritage, the family, personal integrity, history, art and love.
Diversity is an arrow in this quiver. With diversity, the heritage and culture of the host nation are destroyed, and it is unable to state any standards but those presumed to be universal, which are something like this: “All people like to eat and drink, and be safe, and have jobs, and not be interfered with unless they are committing grand theft, murder, rape or assault.”
This is why it spread like wildfire: it is a version of the ideology which had already spread like wildfire, Leftism, and so people adopted it as the latest means of making Leftism more powerful, thus protecting the individual from judgment.
That particular illusion manifests in “magic dirt” theory, described quite elegantly by Lawrence Murray:
Civic nationalism is magic dirt nationalism. It’s the idea that anyone anywhere can be shoved into the blast furnace of America and made into an American. There’s just something about being here that makes you belong here. I mean after all, we’re a nation of immigrants right (no reference as to where most of them came from before the last few decades)? Please invade us, just make sure you adopt our language and love of voting and mindless consumption. Race and religion don’t real; it’s being a good citizen that matters!
Name the theory above: it is a system. Instead of choosing the right people, you choose universal equal people, and have the right rules to shape them into perfect replicas of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Harriet Tubman or Martin Luther King, Jr.
This is why the dirt must be magic. When you get them here, into our system, they are transformed like raw materials in a factory. That universal human set of desires — eat, drink, safety, no oversight — becomes a series of incentives through which these people are manipulated. Then, they see the wisdom of our ways, and become Us, or at least something that carries on Our ideology.
If you are thinking that ideology behaves like a virus here, you are correct. Much like fungi of the genus Ophiocordyceps, the ideology of equality hijacks human brains and turns them into zombies, destroying them to propagate itself. This may be one of the few universal rules of the universe: all ideas seek to replicate themselves. (This also makes a handy theological argument: if the basis of the universe is ideas replicating, all life is a replication of the essential idea of life, which fits the profile of God.)
Systems arise from equality. Without equality, there is no need for systems, because people are known as they are by their acts. When we cannot hold people responsible for their actions because they are equal, we need a nanny state to guide them every step of the way, and because it uses a utilitarian approach, it begins its activity by assuming that all people are equally screwed up and so they have to be treated like retarded children.
In contrast, reality says that genetics trumps all of our best intentions, as revealed by this periodically strikingly realistic article in Foreign Affairs:
But recent evidence suggests that, in reality, social mobility rates are extremely low. Seven to ten generations are required before the descendants of high and low status families achieve average status. Thus in modern Sweden the descendants of the eighteenth-century nobility are still heavily overrepresented — 300 years later — among higher social status groups: doctors, attorneys, the wealthy, members of the Swedish Royal Academies. In the United Kingdom, the descendants of families who sent a son to Oxford or Cambridge around 1800 are still four times as likely to attend these universities as the average person. Social mobility rates have also been relatively impervious to government policy. They are no higher in societies like Sweden, with generous interventions in favor of the children of disadvantaged families, than in the more laissez-faire United States. For that matter, they are no higher in modern Sweden than in eighteenth-century Sweden, or medieval England.
This reverses the magic cult of equality.
Equality requires that we presuppose that human intent is more important than who those humans are, inside, including innate traits like those passed on by genetics, which is — no giant surprise here — nearly all of them, or by a conservative estimate, 80% of all of them. (I point interested readers to The Blank Slate or the works of Arthur Schopenhauer, in which twin studies feature prominently.)
With human intent, we can design systems. We can break out the carrot-and-stick and manipulate people by appealing to their reason. This denies the fact that reason, like everything else, is unequally distributed among every population. If it was evenly distributed, the group would have only two states: unison or complete disorder. Unequal distribution allows the group to move in waves rather than binary states.
When we turn to genetics as the basis for human behavior, we are suddenly looking at a situation where human intent is almost all nonsense, cover stories, justifications, rationalizations and manipulative lies; people do what they do because they are wired to do those things, and if we demand an appeal to their reason, they just do what they were going to do anyway and then make up ad hoc excuses for why it was important, contributing the mental equivalent of spam to the discussion.
However, this is an antisocial truth. To be social, people must trust one another through the symbols they use to communicate. The biology-first anti-equality view of life says that not only is that not necessarily true, but that relying on it encourages lying and deception. Oops.
This brings us back to “racism,” which is a Left-word for people wanting to associate with those like themselves.
Like other natural instincts, which are acted upon but cannot be articulated, our desire to associate with those like ourselves is a force multiplier. Having a group that does not require an expensive committee of oversight, otherwise known as government/police, achieves a great efficiency: all the effort that would have previously been spent disciplining (white) human monkeys can now be devoted to other things, like art, learning, architecture, etc.
Originally our societies had almost no government. There were committees of old men to judge matters brought before them at the local level, and kings who were more war and religious leaders than those who “preside” or attempt to shape society toward ideological goals, and then helpful people like local pastors and philosophers who could make sense of complex things and give advice to both individuals and the aforementioned leaders and judges.
In order to uphold equality, we need government, police, psychologists, lawyers, bureaucrats and others who essentially take wealth from the group and use it for their own purposes. Society goes further into breakdown.
Of course, here we hit an iron line: equality is social, and anti-equality biology-first thinking (one facet of realism) is antisocial for the reasons mentioned above. People want to think they can control the world through symbols, image/appearance and manipulation. In reality, that only works in the short term.
This is another reason why the alt right endorses racism: it is imperative that we shatter the illusion that only that which is social is good. Thus, we embrace “social evil” — or that which is antisocial but true — so that we may fight actual evil, or that which in reality has bad consequences but in the human mind seems appealing.
In this view, every human effort fails not because it makes uniquely wrong choices, but because it makes the same wrong choice, which is to be social. When it becomes social, it gets sold out, and then whatever it had that was unique is destroyed and replaced by the same illusions that fail every other time.
For this reason, establishment conservatives and global Leftist elites are doing our work for us. They are calling us evil, in social terms, and by doing so, are signaling that we are right in reality because we have denied social taboo with nothing personal to gain from doing so.
Your daughters love this kind of masculine, violent and realistic approach because it makes them know they are safe, instead of temporarily feeling safe when swayed by the words of hipster manchildren or feminist studies professors. It creates a knowing deep within them. The alt right are the 2010s equivalent of leather jacketed bad boys on motorcycles except that this time, it is not hype. They are here to destroy illusions, and that is why they are feared.
In your life, you will see many things live — and some things die. They will die from a number of different causes. It would be pointless to wish that this not happen to you, because it will, and because it is an important part of life. That does not make it more fun.
Consider a person infected with a fatal disease. Diseases are parasites — did you know that? — which take nutrients from the host and use it to fuel their reproductive process, at which they find a new host. It is no different than what a mosquito, flea or tapeworm does. All are parasites.
(Some parasites have even figured out how to turn the host against itself, in the case of cancers and auto-immune diseases like AIDS. This may have advantages in that these infections are nearly impossible to displace and spread silently, enabling the reproduction of the parasite.)
When a parasite kills its host, it is usually the result of the parasite having gone the way of yeast and reproduced excessively, thus the parasite dies with its host — but has reproduced, so other parasites are carrying on its message in the form of its DNA. Thus it is content to die, or at least cannot stop its own reproduction, and enters a terminal phase.
The victim takes time to die. Generally this is a cycle of staggered rises and falls, culminating in a big crash and a sudden, unpredictable exit. As the host sickens, it grows weak, but then uses its natural strength to fight back and rises again, but this guarantees a crash, because each time the host improves, so does the parasite.
Such situations are called death spirals because to win is to lose. If the patient gets healthier, the parasite gets healthier, and then the patient gets sicker; if the patient gets worse, the parasite also gets worse, but it is very hard to get to the point where the parasite is destroyed before the host is. This creates a Catch-22 situation.
Over time, the crashes may not increase in frequency so much as they will in intensity. The highs stay about the same, but the lows get lower. At some point, the body enters an unstable state where it is clear it will not extract itself, but might cruise at this level for some time. Randomly, usually at some inconvenient hour, one bodily system fails and starts a domino effect.
Humanity has a parasite. That parasite is our pretense, which says that we are all important, and we can be whatever we want to be, despite being limited in our abilities. It says that we do not need a natural order, formed of a human hierarchy in balance with nature, logic and the supernatural, but that instead we have an order of individuals. This notion flatters us and is socially popular, leading to a social takeover of our individual brains.
As this cresting wave of illusion — called “Crowdism,” for its collectivized individualistic nature — gains power, it throws civilizations into a death spiral. As they gain wealth and power, they gain more parasites, and those together form an echo chamber that amplifies their message, brainwashing more. And then the end is certain.