If the dissident Right has a weakness, it is that it is Red Pilled but not Black Pilled. With the Red Pill, you see through some of the illusions of our time; with the Black Pill, you see through the illusions of humanity itself.
We are the system that oppresses us. While that system creates many dictators, tyrants and control-crazed governments, the root of its power is in the human herd, which tends to be self-deluding, much as people tend toward narcissism if not checked by a superior force.
The traditional Right emphasizes hierarchy to deal with this issue. Every person in society has a superior force to hold them in check, all the way up to the kings who have an intuitive knowledge of the divine and hold themselves in check with that (or are, like most natural creative geniuses, intensely reality-driven).
Our modern Red Pill types however do not see through to this underlying need. They see how Leftism is delusional; this helps them understand why #FeelTheBern-style socialism will lead to disaster, and Marxist sexual politics are merely more underdog-on-top style Leftist inversion. But what about the weakness that caused these to take over?
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” Fred Nietzsche tells us this and he is most probably right, if we are looking for insanity alone. But most of life occurs in gradients, not binaries. Insanity occurs at different degrees, and can be either a permanent or temporary condition, but it is one of the two and only that. And people might be classed as insane, sane and then those in the middle who are not insane but also not pointed in the directions of realism, discipline and purpose that are required for full sanity. They are both insane and sane, in varying degrees, but have not passed the threshold of recognized insanity.
The interesting thing about the Black Pill is that it unites Darwinism and Christianity by recognizing evil. To a Christian, evil is a type of error committed out of a spiritual ethic of convenience; to a Darwinist, evil is any persistent illusory thought that allows the animal to avoid adaptation. In humans, illusion occurs at the personal level through narcissism and solipsism, a type of self-worship that allows the individual to negate risk by altering the conception of it in their minds, in other words: explaining away actual problems, and inventing distracting mysticism that includes scapegoats to deflect from the actual problems. In groups, this solipsism becomes a phenomenon of mass-insanity, a trance-like state in which people slavishly emulate a social successful behavior even though it is obviously false.
We know that the trance state is more likely to occur in people who under extreme psychological distress, and who believe in the possibility of spirit possession. All of these conditions were satisfied in Strasbourg in 1518.
The city’s poor were suffering from severe famine and disease. And, crucially, we also know they believed in a saint called St. Vitus who had the power to take over their minds and inflict a terrible, compulsive dance.
Once these highly vulnerable people began to anticipate the St. Vitus curse they increased the likelihood that they’d enter the trance state. And once in it, they acted out the part of the accursed: dancing wildly for days at a time.
While this mass delusion is easy to criticize because of its surface-level supernatural basis, if it exists as a psychology, it can be invoked by many means, most of which are not supernatural.
Before looking too far into the supernatural roots of this phenomenon, we should look at the pragmatic ones, namely that people were starving. Why was that so?
Following the Mongol invasions and the weakening of European aristocracy, peasants and serfs gained new freedoms. Many of them moved from Europe into the former Mongol colonies in Eastern Europe, changing the Asiatic population there to be blonder and bluer-eyed. But still, the population surge within Western Europe destabilized it.
Consider how poverty arrives. There can either be a fault of production, or a glut of labor. The latter case seems more applicable for Europe’s serfs: given new freedoms, they choose reckless reproduction, and as a result made themselves less valuable. This is the classic pattern of r-selection: quantity over quality, leading to a lottery in which a few win out big and everyone else is equally miserable.
Almost all human poverty arises from this tendency and it explains the poverty of the third world. They are overflowing with people, most of whom have only basic skills, and as a result, everyone lives in the muck and misery and a few super-wealthy tyrants crack the whip over the befuddled, self-distracting and delusional horde.
One might even see the Mongol invasions as an extreme r-strategy: produce robotic human warriors who while canny tacticians and able politicians, are terrible leaders and so create short-lived empires that fall to ruins very quickly.
This is why humans are self-deluding: the foolish desire more quantity, and the intelligent, by selecting quality, become marginalized. This creates the pattern we are all familiar with where vast crowds chase trends and fascinations, and a few smart people confine themselves to out-of-the-way places to do creative and useful things, to the unacknowledged benefit of the rest.
In our current times, delusions remain prevalent — accepted by all but a few — which are every bit as supernatural and unrealistic as the dance of Saint Vitus:
Democracy. People make bad decisions in groups that favor the lowest common denominator because that makes it easy to achieve agreement within the group, even on simple decisions like choosing a restaurant for the evening.
Rights. People vary in degree of quality; none are equal. Giving them rights entrusts each person with the same power, meaning that the bad abuse it and the good shy away from using it if possible. This creates a race to the bottom because bad behavior provides an advantage.
Anti-hierarchy. Without someone of intelligence and wisdom guiding it, any human venture will fail. This applies to those in business, social life, religion and government alike. The vast ineptitude of our current society is a testament to this.
Equality. Equality works well for comparing simple mathematical amounts; it fails for any measurement with more than one quantitative dimension. People vary in abilities, but more importantly, in character. Some are born programmed to do good, some bad, and most, indifferent.
Freedom. Like “free will,” the term “free” makes people sit up and notice. They love the thought of being able to do “anything” because such a wide-open thought creates brain freeze. But really, most people need to be able to do a few things, be restrained from doing bad, and left alone otherwise.
Diversity. Throughout history, diversity has been the heralding of the fall of empires. Different populations cannot occupy the same space without mutually destroying one another. There is a reason that all mixed-race countries are impoverished, chaotic, filthy and confused.
Once they make you accept these illusions as fact, they have broken your ability to think because you will always be working around and rationalizing these insane ideas. Our pretentious fallacy is that this condition is in any way different from the delusion of the Saint Vitus dance, when in fact they are one and the same: desperate people who cannot control themselves looking for a way to distract themselves, and ending up in a repetitive trance-like pathology of illusion.
“So tell me, in just a few words, why you detest modern civilization,” said a friend over brandy and cigars back at the club.
“Too many ways to count,” harrumphed another member of our group.
I could see his point. Most evenings there, I spend my time there trying to avoid a gross faux pas while absorbing as much nicotine and mulled alcohol as possible. The conversation is good but generally, I have long given up on the interesting topics. Schopenhauer was right: talk about dogs and horses. But a reply was called for.
“It wastes your life,” I said. “Let me tell you three key ways and remember, gentlemen, that I started out in this life as a die-hard Liberal. I always want the best for humanity and to treat people well and fairly. But this has led me to surprising places.”
Believe it or not, antiwork conservatives exist. They recognize above all else that life must have a purpose, and that purpose is to enjoy life. In other words, to do life and to do it well. This requires the two components of conservatism, consequentialism (or realism) and a transcendental or optimizing goal that aims for excellence, beauty, immense inner satisfaction, existential pleasure and that sort of thing.
On top of that, we are practical men — and we are all men; did you ever know a woman to turn down a chance at being important at a job, rather than “stuck at home with the kids”? — who recognize that there is very little we must actually do. We need some kind of food, some roads, and to avoid dying in famine or warfare. Everything else is gravy, icing on the cake, and we can do without it.
Technology improves all these things, but on a curve like everything else under the sun. It is at first difficult, then a great boon, and finally, it settles into the same position of burden as everything else because it requires the same staff and labyrinth of rules to support it. At the far end of the curve, we are working for technology and not it for us.
The same is true of management. After the middle part of the curve, it becomes as much of a burden as aid. Soon we have more managers than workers. In the same way, clerks can become a burden. At some point, having all these people to take care of paperwork becomes a burden. And what if we reduce both to the minimum? Maybe we lose a few percent more each year in wastage, but we lose less of our lives to this mind-numbing, tedious labor.
During the late 1990s, this idea really exploded. Mike Judge made a movie called Office Space and Michel Houellebecq wrote a book called Whatever. Houellebecq introduced the topic, which was that jobs make us miserable and nothing that important goes on in them. Judge translated this for the masses into comedy that showed how even good jobs involved a few hours of work at most, management was insane, and most people were lonely and isolated.
These criticisms are not new. They began in the 1950s when the huge boom in Western wealth converted our surface cultures from “do the right thing” to “make the sale.” This disease spread from the top to the bottom, and now all of our jobs are a combination of past roles: clerk, salesman and now, IT guy. Most of what we do has nothing to do with any practical task.
If anything, the rise in online business has destroyed the role of salesman. The customer can find what he needs unless he is a total moron, in which case he is either a rich moron who can hire a personal assistant, or a poor moron who has no hope of buying anyway. The whole foundation of our post-1950s boom has just collapsed from within.
Now we shuffle everyone into office jobs, where one person now does as a singular role what one worker did in the past. This is a response to how dumb and neurotic everyone is, thus useless. Our managers are idiots, and our workers retards, so we dumb down the whole thing for them, which means that anyone with an IQ above that of a microwave hot pocket is in deep trouble because he or she will be bored, lonely and subtly enraged during their entire working tenure.
All of these are procedural or tactical critiques of jobs. We could do them in a tenth the time, and eliminate two-thirds of them, or numbers roughly along those lines. This is well-known among higher-ups but they also fear prole revolt, so they have designed the ultimate trap maze to keep the mice running in circles with just enough to buy goodies so that they do not notice their utter existential slavery.
The real critique is this: when your society starts making jobs be the forefront of existence, it means you have lost direction. You have given up on making sense of life and are trying only to keep the paychecks coming so the economy does not crash. Life itself has been disrespected and relegated to second-class citizen status. No one sees this as insanity because to do so is to realize that they are wasting the best hours of most days doing nothing of any real importance.
Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing
I stole this term from Star Trek. They wrote “GNDN” on the pipes running through the Enterprise in that cool font because those pipes were there for appearance only, to keep the audience pleased, as it were. The problem with living in a dying civilization, and modernity is certainly one of those, is that no matter what you do it will not matter.
In the past, people who did exceptional things had the belief that their works would live on by benefiting others. Now, we know that anything good will be ground under the wheel so that something mediocre but more profitable can take its place. Even if something is excellent, no one will recognize it because it appeals to a numerically small audience instead of the milling-about masses.
The people want 50 Cent, not Beethoven. They want Budweiser, not a pub on every corner with its own blend. They desire cigarettes, not pipes brimming with Empire Virginias pressed, panned and aged to perfection. This means that only fools pursue excellence, because the real model for victory is disguised mediocrity that is cheap to produce and sold at high margin, like Coca-Cola or the Republican party, come to think of it.
We are familiar with the trope of the innovative artist: laboring alone in poverty, he makes great works and is totally ignored. He dies in squalor and confusion, and then fifty years later someone makes a fortune by “discovering” his works and making him a household name. We have replaced this role by cutting out the innovative artist and replacing him with the recombinant aesthetics of the “creative” who have been taught to be so.
These people come up with “new” ideas that are re-mixes of old ideas, and give them the best slick surface that training and money can buy, and then are lauded as new undiscovered artists. The public, accustomed to the trope — and tropes are fun, like simple dances, because everyone can participate — lunges for the mediocre wrapped in shiny paper and then the artist is forgotten. See, we have made the process more efficient, just far lower quality.
All of this means that no sane person is going to spend their time on making objects of greatness. That is a path to getting ignored in the present, and, because our society is degenerating, not noticed in the future. No one cares about quality. As a result, if you slave away writing great symphonies, they will go into a dusty old library where no one notices them, which then burns down as a result of the incompetence of its staff.
We Are The Robots
The last one hits me closest to the heart: a society designed around equality turns its people into mechanical parts. The old saw about cogs in the machine comes to mind. Each person must be a worker, a consumer and a participant in some kind of social scene. We have converted everything that is not-work and not-buying into socializing.
This means that life is a robotic process of following what others are doing and trying to participate, without any ability to show distinction except by doing a different version of what everyone else is doing. Someone always wins that lottery, gets his fifteen minutes of fame, and then disappears into the memory hole, and everyone else chases the new trend.
In short, our society is vapid and worthless like most dying empires. It has replaced actual goals with nonsense and now demands we spend our time on this nonsense, robotically going through the motions. Anything that actually reflects us or our unique abilities is ignored, then trodden over as the crowd rushes to the next attraction or should I say, distraction. Your time is wasted by this process alone.
When people say that Europeans are not breeding at replacement rates, or that idiots seem to rule in every area of life, I point to this dilemma: when life becomes a repetitive process, anyone who wants to really live checks out and heads for the hills. There are not enough jobs as writers, artists, musicians and the like for everyone, and in those honesty is deprecated, which makes them a form of slavery to trend. It is misery.
Then take a look out the door. Constant make-work and busy-work. Cars drive around as if aimless, businesses scream advertisements, government lines the roads with signs warning us about how fun things will kill us. Every few years there is a new panic — drugs, Nazis, global warming, AIDS — that turns out to be a non-issue for most of us. There is no peace of mind or contemplation, because to have those would reveal the emptiness of it all.
“And that, gentlemen, is why modern society is worthless, in a nut-shell. This society has lost purpose. We no longer aim high for anything. There is only the activity we do to compensate, and it is designed for idiots by idiots, which slowly kills off the non-idiots.”
“Much as Satan fell to earth, and decided it was better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven, by giving power to Man over nature and God we have made a Hell of what could be Heaven. Since it is not visible like an apocalypse or zombie attack, it goes unrecognized. They waste your time, all of it if they can, because they have no purpose of their own.”
And with that, I sipped the brandy before it got too warm, and puffed my smoldering cigar back to life.
This morning’s new brought this entertaining item about how our “energy efficient” washing machines fail to fully clean clothing, hence it smells bad. Based on a whiff of people around here, the solution has been to use detergent and fabric softener that is more heavily scented.
Hiding the problem has worked for many years. In fact, some could say that hiding the problem is all that we do in the modern West: push the disaster under the rug, then bring out a dance team to perform a musical named Diversity Is Our Strength or The Recovery Is Right Around the Corner. Certainly in Barack Obama and Angela Merkel the West has found itself leaders who specialize in making the right noises and then creating a distraction, an “anti-problem” if you will, to deflect our attention while quietly removing notice of the actual problem.
And then there is the Austrian election. Most people who could not afford luxury housing wanted the far-right candidate, but those who are good little tools of the system and could move away from the multi-ethnic disaster zones were more concerned by public image. To them, it is more important that Austria be able to sell goods to other Leftist idiots than that its policies work. This is typical of dying regimes.
Now the EU tells us that it is going to block far-right “populists” from power. This, coupled with apparent anomalies in the election in Austria suggest that Leftists are doing what they normally do: filter out anything which does not agree with The Narrative, whether that means forging votes and losing or invalidating contrary ones, or even as the EU seems to want, outright banning anything but Leftist candidates.
As with all ideological regimes — or, those which replace truth and realistic thinking with pleasant thoughts about how equal we all are — we are living in a Potemkin village. Ideology is more important than reality to these people. As a result, they filter out any data that does not fit the narrative that they are telling us is truth. Then, when effects in reality do not match the promise, they fake it. They fudge the data, delete the non-conforming votes, or outright lie.
The best part is that this is not done through a coordinated and centralized campaign. Instead, it is effected through a swarm: many individuals, each doing crazy things, because each one needs to believe that the illusion is true so that they feel better about themselves.
This leads to a mathematical postulate: in groups, the weakness of humans is cumulative, where strengths remain at the level to which they are shared between members of the group. This occurs because weakness always involves denial of reality, and this creates a feedback loop where the denial becomes popular or in other words becomes denied a second time.
People cluster around illusions that make them feel good by denying reality, so that they can distract themselves and escape from their real-world problems for a few moments. This puts denial in the same camp as alcoholism, over-eating, sex addiction, drugs, and watching too much television. It is a weakness of the human design, and also an in-built limit on our quest for power.
There is no escape from this situation until we end the mechanism that puts illusion in charge: the notion of human equality. Some people are better than others in every area, and in the area of leadership/morality, there are a few who stand out above the rest. If you put those in charge, you do not need the maze of rules and regulations that both do not achieve their goals and waste everyone’s time with tedious, frustrating and mindless activity.
Our path has two branches. If we follow our present direction, we become Brazil 2.0: a mixed-race, impoverished, disorganized, neurotic, self-indulgent, chaotic and filthy third-world wasteland. There is no sudden collapse (although bubbles be poppin’ yo) but a long, slow decline to irrelevance.
Think of the ancient Greeks. Once the leading human civilization on earth, they became more civilized — and it killed them. Within a few centuries their former empire evaporated into ruins, leaving an ethnically-replaced population that more resembles Turks or Armenians than Greeks, whose capabilities seem to peak at gigolo and food service occupations. That is our future, unless we turn from what is popular toward what is real.
We all know how to make a party of people happy: say something that makes everyone feel good, like “we are all equal, every one.” This makes them feel even better than saying something true, because implicitly you have denied truth and reality, so they feel less threatened by the non-complimentary versions of those.
The problem is that then you have entered a non-reality zone. You have just said that the deciding standard for what is important in life is not that it is true, but that people like it. This means that whatever people like goes to the top of the heap, and anything they would prefer not to notice is forgotten. It is a prescription for oblivion.
At this point, the carnies take over. Carnies are people who work as entertainers in the circus and are known for their low standards of behavior. Sexually, they are omnivorous; they tend toward hedonism in other forms as well. They tend to live in slovenly ways, behave crassly, and use every moment as a chance to whore for attention. They are masters of appearance and being entertaining, and nothing else.
The West is now dominated by carnies. When Ted Cruz takes the microphone, we are witnessing a man who knows exactly what to say, and what he should say does not vary with the facts of the situation. He says the right thing based on the entertainment demands of the moment. He knows the right words to make himself look presidential or authoritative. His job is audience manipulation, not results. Who cares about those anymore?
When President Obama makes a speech or goes to visit a foreign land, the entire process is theater. He is the carny who knows what the circus audience wants: pacifism, equality, and the feeling that what is evidently true is not true because it might be disturbing. In his hands, tyrants become heroes and real threats become imaginary threats, all while he keeps up the show under the circus tent of the good clowns fighting the bad clowns.
In the same way, Bill Nye the Science Clown knows what his audience wants: they want science that makes reality seem to be not what it is. They love irony and inversion. They want to hear that what we think of as true is in fact nonsense, so they can project into the void that nonsense is true, and Bill Nye will validate their vision with the stamp of Official Science™ in exchange for their ducats and shekels.
Hollywood has become the same way. What does the audience want? Simplistic fairy tales, so here come the superhero movies and romantic comedies. Never mind that these are so brick-stupid that if the audience were even halfway paying attention, they would throw up at how callously and easily they are manipulated. But they do not care. They simply want the sensation of being distracted, much like the audience at the circus watches with half a brain.
And what about academia? Appearance over function triumphs there as well. The science and criticism writers know that what is popular wins, so they write about topics that are popular and ensure their results match. That is easily engineered by changing the question from “what is true” to “what part of the data contradicts the obvious conclusion of the whole.” They nibble away at details, then make broad announcements and the crowd cheers.
The carnies won the minute we selected feelings over reality. We did that by putting power in the hands of groups and not individuals. Individuals can be responsible for the results of their acts, but groups never are. And groups break down because the decision is made based on internal factors, such as what the members will think of each other. Group decisions are by nature reality-optional.
At the end of the day, for carnies, it is all about a paycheck. They make the audience happy, and then the money goes into their grubby little hands, and then the party can continue with the wine flowing freely and the clothes hitting the floor. Somewhere in the back of their minds they know that it must end. Someday.
Bruce Charlton brings up an excellent point with his most recent post on ancient knowledge:
Like most good metaphysics, Ingwaz comes from the solid, primary, necessary intuition that we are thinking. From this comes the inference that whatever we think, do, know or whatever – thinking is involved. There is no way of getting-at any objective reality that does not involve thinking – it is nonsense (makes no sense) to be thinking there is an objective realm of ‘facts’ that are autonomous from thinking.
However, this is NOT the ‘idealism’ of stating that there is only mind, and ‘reality’ is an illusion; what is being stated is that thinking is involved in everything – therefore, everything includes thinking. The thinking cannot be detached from anything, thinking is always involved in everything.
To this I add a few ideas. The first is that what we know of the world is formed of our interaction with it, but this does not mean that it cannot be realistic, because we do not face an either/or option regarding external/internal objects.
“Objectivism” is nonsense. Objective and subjective are human fantasies. Reality is more like objectivity than subjectivity, but it uses subjective means to get there. Heisenberg and Schrodinger smile down on us as we realize that as observers, we are inextricably bound up with what we observe, and what we know is “a representation of a representation” as Schopenhauer says, meaning that our thought-objects (engrams) are representations reflecting the highly filtered (per Kant) and active process of perception.
We the conscious mind are observers on the balcony of a large building, looking through the glass below at objects made by a busy staff of dendrites, based on something they see through binoculars and can recognize according to a vast Book Of Known Objects which tells them what to look for. For humans, to look is to filter, and we find only what we know how to see.
Idealism however is more complex.
Kant’s transcendental idealism was a modest philosophical doctrine about the difference between appearances and things in themselves, which claimed that the objects of human cognition are appearances and not things in themselves. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel radicalized this view, transforming Kant’s transcendental idealism into absolute idealism, which holds that things in themselves are a contradiction in terms, because a thing must be an object of our consciousness if it is to be an object at all…Inspired by Karl Leonhard Reinhold, they attempted to derive all the different parts of philosophy from a single, first principle. This first principle came to be known as the absolute, because the absolute, or unconditional, must precede all the principles which are conditioned by the difference between one principle and another. – “Germanic Idealism,Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Others show us further divisions between transcendental idealism and the more extreme versions to follow:
It examines the relationship between epistemological idealism (the view that the contents of human knowledge are ineluctably determined by the structure of human thought) and ontological idealism (the view that epistemological idealism delivers truth because reality itself is a form of thought and human thought participates in it). – “Idealism,”Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
This leads us to Schopenhauer, who made sense of the dispute. In his view, idealism did not suggest that objects were created by our minds — he explicitly states this early in his works on the topic — but that what we knew of as objects existed within our minds. Further, the universe was created of thought, or something thought-like, and obeyed the principles of thought more than those of matter, which is a fancy way of returning to Plato’s idea that organizational form (information, pattern) is more important than its material substrate.
The most common misunderstanding of idealism is the solipsistic fallacy, which is the notion that the world exists within the mind and vanishes when we are not there to see it. This flatters the human ego.
Charlton is insightful yet again. All of our intuition, emotion and even subconscious response are forms of thinking, as necessarily is our perception. This is where the Buddhists ran off the rails: by attempting to separate thought from intuition, they created a false intuition which, while powerful, leads to incorrect conclusions. The Hindus did not have this illusion.
Charlton’s site is worth visiting. I used to comment frequently on his posts until he adopted the Google Accounts only rule, which has driven away a number of his regular commentators who would rather link to our homesites than indulge the Google Authority in yet another expansion. Nonetheless, it is always a worthy read and I am told he now accepts comments via email. Having dealt with Blogger’s ancient and crusty interface and limited comment options, I can see why he made the decision he did, although I would not have done so.
Where I can offer more to this debate is with the notion of self-conscious. The self conscious person is not aware of himself, but of himself as he appears to others. Otherwise, he has no need for visualization of the self. Self-consciousness is a politician promising voters what they want to hear; it is a salesman saying words that appeal to the fears and suppressed desires of his audience; it is a hep cat at the club telling people that what they want to do, not what they should do, is new and therefore more important than what works well.
With self-conciousness, even our internal thinking becomes corrupted. We no longer know what we need, or even what we want, but can only pay attention to the value of things to others and feel we should have them. We are entirely reactive to what the herd is doing, and what seems to be the trend of the moment. The granular decision-making of the individual is replaced by wave motion.
The intellect, when not aware of itself, serves the raw animal will of the individual. This is separate from individualism; the individual is aware of his position in the hierarchy and rank order of the universe, and does not aim to rise above (hubris). Instead, he simply seeks the best advantage and to maximize his position because it is immutable.
When societies grow, the bloat affords voice to the agents of decay: merchants, whores, vandals, idiots, sycophants, charlatans, lawyers, priests, perverts, apologists, denialists, sado-masochists, victims, flatterers and white knights. This enables the concept of individualism, or self first in conflict with role and duty. From this comes self-consciousness, or the “Will I get caught?” mentality of someone in the process of doing the non-helpful.
Traditional societies were not self-conscious because they were aware of a hierarchy above the social level. They thought about natural order, rank among others, and God, but not social prowess and popularity. This saved them from the neurosis that currently devours civilization. With self-consciousness, thinking becomes a slave to the self, and in so doing, to the herd and its endless doubt and fear.
Watching mainstream Neoreaction and outside-Right sources walk the same path as cuckservatives evokes visceral pain in the experienced observer, but it is our fate, because the same power that subverted mainstream conservatism has triumphed in the underground Right. You can tell where the divide is whenever people speak of “the Cathedral.”
To those who are still trapped in the Leftist paradigm, the Cathedral is a group of shady people who magically seized control of the West, and if we just dethroned these bad people, the good times would resume. This fantasy resembles the storyline of a 1980s film where the outcasts unify and beat back the arrogant popular kids!
And yet, if we dig deeper, that fantasy can be found elsewhere, such as in West Side Story or even earlier, in a relatively unbroken line going back to the dawn of time. Stories which invert reality — telling us what is plainly true is not true, and that there is an easier way to success, glory and moral good than what is evidently necessary — are always popular because they play to the fears of insufficiency that individuals have.
Reality-inversion may be the oldest successful non-essential product. Once there is food, and the plague and famine are not raging immediately nearby, humans turn to distractions: over-indulgence of wine, prostitutes, and fantasies about how they are succeeding by failing. In fact, they are failing by succeeding; their society has beaten back nature enough that Darwinian rules no longer seem to apply, and humanity has failed to adopt a corresponding quality control standard.
What is ironic is that the Cathedral gains its power by offering reality-inversion fantasies (RIFs), much as mainstream outside-Right movements gain their audience by doing the same. The RIF for the Cathedral is pacifism, isolationism and freedom; for the mainstream underground Right, it is gated communities without minorities and feminists so that everyone can easily commute to their entry level tech jobs. Both are the same fantasy retold in different forms.
The audience defines the product; whoever offers that product will be rewarded, unless held back by those with more mental power. This means that like weeds and parasites in nature, a new Cathedral springs up wherever human society is established — unless it is suppressed. Other self-organizing forms of parasitic human behavior like gangs, prostitutes/pimps, beggar colonies and hobo camps create themselves the same way. People want these things, or at least, some people do.
Self-organizing power structures and “dark organizations” — anti-patterns for success that come about as a result of organizing humans in groups — are little studied compared to the patterns which reflect how we like to think of ourselves, which involve formal organization and bureaucratic success. But these are the key to the human species: wherever we go, the civilization pattern goes, and it eventually kills civilization. This tells us that there is an inherent pitfall to the civilization process that must be counteracted to make it work, much like rhubarb needs to be cooked thoroughly or it is poisonous.
If conservatism has a virtue it is that it understands civilization beyond the face value formal definitions issued by civilization itself, because conservatism distrusts civilization. Is the rhubarb cooked enough? a cautious cook might ask; similarly, the conservative asks whether civilization has been suppressed, oppressed, beaten down, trimmed back and subjugated enough for its payload — a human group — to survive. Civilization invents pretense, which is the form these “face value” (i.e. deceptive) notions take, but all face value notions are like the speech of a salesman: designed to obscure faults, and induce the buyer to succumb to the various pitfalls of human mentation that allow us to see what is not there, and ignore what is.
If conservatism has a vice, it is that often conservatives confuse the beating-down of tangible objects with having beaten the intangible disease within; this process — like scapegoating, talismans, devil dolls, neurosis, superstition and other Vodoun-style symbolic projection — allows the human group to “cast out” its own disease and project them onto something else which can be defeated. But the real defeat must occur within our souls, which is what Nietzsche and Evola chide us with each time someone comes up with an easy externally-based solution for human ills.
The paradox of this human illness is that it infects individuals, but takes effect in groups, a process called Crowdism which is a form of collectivized individualism. Individuals want the right to deny reality, but that right can only be granted by the group, so those individuals organize a breakaway group. This group becomes more popular that the over-group because it has lower standards for membership, namely “demand the same thing we do and you’re in the gang.” This cult or gang-like dark organization then pervades and dominates the host over-group.
Where my own writing is unique is that I join this Darwinian/Nietzschean view with a classic Homeric/Christian view of evil, namely that human hubris or pretense leads to self-delusion through the Burroughsian method of “control,” and I tie it into a Pynchonian idea, which is that we can see this process as part of entropy. This sounds like a lot of buzzwords, but in fact it unites a number of themes we have seen time and again in human society: many options presented, society pulls itself apart, and our response is to impose more stern standards and punishments, at which point the opposite of what we intended occurs, like pouring water on an oil fire.
Entropy occurs as a process of life. The more possibilities exist, the less predictable activity is… to a point. When too many options exist, the differences between them are erased in a process called heat-death where any option produces about the same result as any other. This explains the arc-like or circular pattern of most things in nature; at first, they expand; then, their growth flowers in every direction; then, they die or at least most of them dies; finally, they are reborn in a reduced form consisting of those which flowered in a realistic way. There is a Path after all… it is not obvious to all.
Naturally this provokes in our minds the thought that to limit entropy, we need to limit the number of options available. Very true, but also wrong, because limiting options alone will not work in the same way stern authority does not. Unintended consequences arise, which is that people work around strong authority. This is why Darwinian natural selection works: centralized order based on before-the-fact censorship fails, but order united by principle and applied in after-the-fact selection always works. Conservatives hate socialism and tyranny alike for this reason because they are before-the-fact selection, which means that they are as easily gamed as any other form of face value order.
The only solution that remains is internal order. This is much like the self-discipline that athletes use to reach Olympic status, or the self-control of a sniper, the deliberate forceful thinking of (good) writer, or the contemplated movements of a craftsman that allow him to achieve immense precision, even timing the motions of his tools between breaths to avoid jarring. Self-discipline allows us to see reality and then to act toward the best possible options that present themselves to us, which generally consist of that which has been tried and observed before and the best results conserved.
Here however we encounter a bootstrapping problem. Unlike the self-organizing chaos of Crowdism/the Cathedral, making civilization arise — or return, in our case! — requires both inner and outer force. That is, some with inner force must gain control of the rest, beat back the individualism and its collective, and then implement standards which make people rise to their best possible level of performance. All good leadership and management consists of this process, and yet it is not popular among humans because it tells each of us that we do not know what is best for us in all cases, and therefore, “freedom” and “liberty” are not solutions but distractions. That rankles the Ego.
To solve our bootstrapping problem, we need strong leadership that can nurture the excellence within us. This shows us that in civilization there are only two options: either the best oppress the rest (Rightism), or the rest oppress the best (Leftism). Leftism is a method of the latter, which is actually Crowdism, much as Neoreaction is a method of the former; both are intellectualizations designed to explain the core principle behind each direction. Like most symbolic realities, they do not translate literally; this is why Leftism always changes when in power, and why Neoreaction is mostly talking points to get us to compare possible other options to the present monolithic Leftism ruling the West.
I write this down in a handy form in case I get squashed by a bus or die of the Zika virus or some other inglorious and yet all too normal end. It is here as a precursor to a forthcoming book which explains these ideas in more detail, and serves as a warning against the Crowdism within, especially in Right-wing movements. There is a reason it has subverted every institution it has attacked, and Right-leaning ones are especially vulnerable. The Cathedral is us, like the enemy is us, until we apply discipline to our inner choices and head toward the light instead.
There are perhaps other reasons to oppose white nationalism, but why worry about the weaker argument given the existence of the stronger? It simply wouldn’t accomplish its proponents’ goals. In a hypothetical white nationalist America, one side or the other would eventually realize both the possibility and the utility of ending white nationalism in order to advance its own interests against those of its traditional enemies. In other words: ‘white’ is not a nation.
In the name of nationalism, white nationalism is the opposite of nationalism: grouping together different nations on the basis of ideological comradeship, instead of natural ethnic interests. It imitates the dominant paradigm of the “proposition nation” but because it hides that behind what seems like the main idea of nationalism, or race in the sense of ethnic group, its proponents can claim it as an alternative to other methods of proposition nationism.
If you wonder why white people have not united behind white nationalism, one major reason is that they do not feel like being grouped into generic whiteness and having their ethnic identity destroyed. They also distrust the class- and caste-denying nature of white nationalism, as well as its anger and tendency to scapegoat other ethnic groups (most commonly: Africans and Jews) instead of looking at white problems, specifically the decay of Western Civilization through increasing Leftism (itself a subtype of Crowdism, or collectivized individualism).
Even more, it makes sense to separate Nationalism from “racism.” While any sane observer knows that diversity is the cause of racism, because when you put two or more ethnic groups in the same place they compete including for dominance of the values system, there is much to dislike about racism. Instead of recognizing that separation is necessary, as Nationalism does, white nationalism/racism blames specific groups for the failure of diversity, which fails no matter what groups are involved. This lets diversity, democracy and Leftism off the hook.
A more sensible viewpoint is pan-nationalism, or the idea of nationalism for every group. The first group to break away from the system of ideological nation-states will inspire others to do the same as a means of competing; Nationalism reduces the massive cost of enforcement required to keep people with nothing in common working together. It also breaks the power of Government, which relies on fruitless quests to justify its own expansion in order to rationalize increased taxation, and thus profit to those in government, a form of corruption.
This also allows cooperation between Nationalists of different races and ethnies because they share a common goal: a world defined by Nationalism, where each group works in self-interest and is beholden to no other group. This spares us from entropy-accelerating standardization and the kumbaya illusion enforced by UN troops showing up to make us all good Leftist internationalists.
White Nationalism is not an alternative to our current political order; it is another form of it. It perpetuates control of the center by the uncontrollable mass, which results in domination by the usual human failings which are sometimes called “the civilization disease”:
All human groups tend toward the same order. Whether it is Open Source, or “wisdom of the crowd,” or whatever: people need to work together, so there must be a power structure and rules. Alternatively, you find some very talented people and give them absolute power, but that upsets people. So, the audience defines the product, and the workers define the organization of the venture, whether it is pro-profit or not. You see the same thing in church groups, rock bands, PTAs and militias that you do in corporate America and Wikipedia.
Amerika offers instead radicalized conservatism: let us conserve what works in reality and that which produces excellent results instead of merely utilitarian ones. This is an odd form of thought, as if Republicans finally understood Nietzsche and turned all the dials up to eleven, demanding a functional social order instead of fighting a rearguard action on the economy, defense and certain social issues.
The modern world is based on rationalism, or the idea that we can understand our world using logic independent of direct experience. It tends to overlap with empiricism, or the idea that replicated results are the highest form of sense-experience.
From the opposite side of the debate comes the older view: human reason is misleading unless it is deeply intuitive and guided by morally honest, self-disciplined character. Our logical deductions often reflect more of the chaos of our own minds than the world around us.
In practice, rationalism means the assumption of equality a.k.a. “universality.” This thinking assumes that all objects sharing some attribute belong to the same category, and they behave the same way. It allows those objects to be treated as generic, and without any changes to our logical approach for their type versus another.
This reveals the human projection behind rationalism: we want the world to be uniform for the convenience of our thinking, which does not want to know particulars. It wants to make broad conclusions and apply them mechanically to achieve magical results. That provides the maximum convenience and ego-flattery for the individual.
Rationality starts with deduction, and ends with broad almost religious conclusions, but in the middle there is the imposition of assumptions about logic. Rationalists tend to assume that the boundaries of a category are more important than its center, in the same way the nuances of words in interpreting law has become more important than the spirit of the law. “Technically correct” is the hallmark of rationalism.
The utility of rationalism is found purely in material sciences. Technically, its results are correct, although there are always externalities and imprecisions that somehow were never noticed, and they are usually not mentioned.
If you wonder why our society is so advanced and yet so incapable of getting basic things right, you are seeing this rationalistic approach in action. When Microsoft Word glitches constantly and does by default some very stupid things, rest assured you are seeing the remnants and externalities of rationalism at work. People looked at the details and treated them as universal, instead of seeing how the parts connect up.
Rationalism has one sole advantage: it extends analytical thinking, or a bad analogue of it the way Budweiser is technically “beer,” to people who are not geniuses. The Crowd can participate if they memorize enough equations, rules and methods to be able to have some way of breaking apart a problem. But as with all things modern, the deconstructed is never assembled again into coherence, spreading entropy and misery alike.
As more people cast around various scapegoats in an attempt to explain how the West has fallen from the world’s premiere society to a laughable backwater, it is time to take responsibility and point the finger at the actual cause of our misery.
It is not The Jews, The Rich, or The Government (although that did not help). It is not corporate personhood or the fact that our democracy is not direct. Nor is it even the GOP, although they did not help either. We need to peel back all the layers and look to the core.
Our candidates are liars because democracy rewards lies. They offer a product which might be described as the illusion of peace of mind. This consists of a promise of a solution to some basic problem, a scapegoat to blame for the wider systemic failures, and a reason to consider yourself smarter or nicer than people who oppose this idea.
Leftists are the masters at this. They look at a ruined society and say that clearly the problem is that some have more than others. To support this they show you people suffering, counting on you to worry about what would happen to you in that situation. Then they trot out the studies that consider one factor out of ten thousand and use that to rationalize blame on a scapegoat. Then they say that only mean people could oppose this.
The GOP Establishment (GOPE) has another policy. It lets you know that liberals are insane and PC is bad, and then brings out the old familiars from the Reagan era: defense, Israel, the Bible and maybe even some outrage at abortion. They then say that only morally bad people would not want these things.
In either case, the audience is being manipulated like bulls at a bullfight, with one crucial exception: the audience wants it. They want to purchase peace of mind, and that requires simplistic solutions and blame, and then a reason to feel good even if they lose by calling the other team a bunch of weenies, moochers, meanies or incompetents. That raises the hands and gets the candidate into office.
Once in office, the candidate guffaws. In this system of checks and balances, made exponentially more powerful by two centuries of attempts to fix it, nothing can be done. The direction will not change; the question is only what flavor of compromise. So he goes back to the voters and blames the scapegoat again, but promises to try even harder next time, and the cycle restarts.
White accountability begins when we recognize that our problem has always been an internal war. Most people are bad; like our Simian forebears, they cannot control their urges, and one of those urges is the desire to tear down those above them. They form mass mobs and demand power, at which point the limitations of their abilities are revealed. But the first error was the crucial one, which is demanding that people who cannot make leadership decisions be called on to vote on those decisions.
Out of a hundred people, one is a natural leader with the mental capacity and moral character to see a complex thought through to its conclusion. The rest can fix cars, program computers, draw anime, etc. but that is because these tasks are narrowly framed. They do not have what leadership decisions require, which is a high tolerance for ambiguity when fitting thousands of details into a big, top-down picture.
White internal warfare has marked this country since its inception. The 1% who knew anything wanted to keep the franchise small, but the herd wanted power to make itself feel important. Its first gambit was to import lots of non Western Europeans, all of whom tend to vote Left-leaning. At that point, it began systematically dismantling any sense of sanity in education, media, literature, art, music, government and society.
That process leads us to the present day. You will find lots of people offering you the pair of easy answer and blame, but all of these are lies. What went wrong was that we gave in to our inner evil and the Simian self-important beast that lurks beneath the surface in each of us. We dressed it up, in the way only clever white people can do, as enlightenment and empathy, but really, it was venality and license bubbling to the surface.
The situation has not changed. One in a hundred is capable of making these choices, but we have all one hundred choose, drowning out the leadership capable. We either put these natural leaders back on top and have them suppress the rest of the population, or we will be oppressed by the rest as they continue to choose sociopathic and simplistic illusion over reality.
With the Trump campaign, as predicted, convergence occurred between underground and mainstream right, forcing a recognition of underlying issues which are outside of the Leftist scope of concern and so not articulable in the postwar West. The question now sits before us: where to from here?
As I articulate in the theory of Crowdism, most human endeavors fail because they are invisibly infected by individualism weaponized into a collectivist mentality. That is, a group decides that they will become a collective for the defense of individualism, or the lack of accountability of the individual to reality and the natural hierarchy of humans and ideas.
This thought process corresponds to both what the Greeks called hubris and the sin described in the Garden of Eden: desiring to be above one’s place in the natural hierarchy, and using subterfuge in human opinions both internal (self) and external (Crowd) to achieve the simulation of that. Like all illusions, this one ends in tears, but that happens at a distant time, so for those who can shorten the scale of their perception to the immediate, it seems like a win.
Since ability to think long-term correlates highly with intelligence, we might see hubris in groups as a victory for the statistically-prevalent lower 80% of the Bell Curve, who by the Dunning-Kruger effect lack the ability to understand what is above that cognitive level. This is the human problem; all else flows from this, and it is also what ends human civilizations by reducing them to third-world levels of inefficacy.
Crowdism can infiltrate any field, even those which nominally brand themselves as being against it. Any time the truth is adjusted to fit its audience, and not the other way around — adjusting the audience to fit reality, known as “natural selection” — Crowdism enters and through the misplaced self-interest of individuals, takes over. I say “misplaced” because putting oneself and all those similar to you on a path to certain destruction is never wise. It guarantees all that you do will be wasted.
Like all evil outside books that involve orcs and wizards, the evil of Crowdism comes not in a terrifying form but a beautiful, kind, compassionate, loving, gentle and socially inclusive one. It accepts all who are willing to formally adopt a basic outlook, and then in the name of keeping the group together, includes all in its focus even when their ideas begin to erode the fundamental truth.
This is the great ugly secret of humanity: reality is the one truth, and we either obey it or self-destruct. All of our errors consist of adjusting truth to fit what we wish were true, and all of our successes come from accepting reality as it is and then acting to improve it qualitatively, which means not finding a “different” way but taking the obvious way and doing what we can to make it better for those who are better. Crowdism is merely a clever sleight-of-hand around this obvious and time-honored path.
The dissident Right — alternative right, neoreaction, new right, red pill and others who see that the foundational myths of democracy, equality and pluralism are the cause of our civilization’s dysfunction and imminent failure — has come far by rejecting the Leftist-tinged ideals of the compliant cuckservative mainstream Right, but we must make sure we do not fall prey to the same syndrome that took them out. Crowdism lurks for us in doing what is popular, not what is right, and our future legitimacy rests on our ability to beat this cognitive error.
As mentioned early on, the dissident Right struggles with its desire for novelty and thus its tendency toward Crowdism. Its main function has been to widen the Overton window so that we can talk about topics like HBD, nationalism, the inherent failure of socialism and other negations of the Leftist ideal. But in trying to popularize these ideas, it can fall prey to popularization itself, and become a lesser method of what it needs to be.
What has always plagued the Right is lack of ability to state what it wants. We know that Leftism is a stream and once a toe is dipped in it, the current carries us forever further Left. The only solution is to affirm a Right society that does not have any Leftism in it, and that requires facing some unpopular truths. That in turn requires taking a difficult stand that will not be popular, but if our leaders affirm it, the others will fall in line and follow. The dog must wag the tail again, instead of the tail (popularity) wagging the dog (goal).
Currently the dissident Right is caught in a loop of rehashing its criticisms of the Left but it is unable to make the step toward the difficult stage of demanding actual change because this conflicts with Crowdist elements in its audience. We have lots of blogs rehashing ideas that myself and others covered 20 years ago, and while that is great, it has become preaching to the choir. We either take the next step or vanish in irrelevance.