Posts Tagged ‘decay’
Tuesday, February 21st, 2017
The London art gallery that hosted Neoreaction and Alt Right exhibits and is now under attack from deranged and angry Leftists, has posted a statement in which is diagnoses the unstable psychology of its attackers and reveals the importance of those exhibits in the first place:
We feel that the exceptionally aggressive, militant and hyperbolic reaction this has provoked vindicates our suspicion that at some point, as a society, we have drifted into a cultural echo chamber. A position on the left has become the only permissible orientation for cultural practitioners and apparently any who dare eschew this constraint are now publicly vilified, delegitimated and intimidated with menaces.
The attacks against us have come from a position of ignorance, fuelled by emotions that have ratchetted up a group dynamic that has, intentionally, obviated the possibility of rational interpretation.
Our position has always been that the role of art is to provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate. We had thought that if it was to be found in any discipline, then art should have exemplified this willingness to discuss new ideas, but it has just become apparent to us that this sphere now (and perhaps for the last few years) stands precisely for the opposite of this.
The internet is achieving its promise of accelerating time to the point of collapse. What we are experiencing now is how history writes itself, how fears and ignorance come to dominate people’s minds, effacing the possibility of truth; how, in fact, a lie becomes a truth for the next person, how that new person uses this as the basis of another misinformed opinion to generate a further specious version of the truth and so on and so forth. As a result of this we are able to witness in real time how reality empties itself out, reconstellating in a structure of fears and lies that grows bigger and stronger to the point there is no return, and we are now inhabiting those new truths/ or so called “post truths”.
As an art gallery we try to explore contemporary discourse through a series of exhibitions and open discussions, by looking at our programme one can learn how diverse and enriching these have been over the last 2 years. In recent months we found ourselves increasingly interested in the political ruptures in the west: America and closely observed events there throughout the extraordinary and dramatic election cycle. This informed our last exhibition and our series of talks that were framed around the alt-right and NRx discourses. We presented a very liberal audience with a speaker knowledgeable of that sphere creating in that way a dialogue between two different and contrasting ideologies and the possibility for discussion between the speaker and amongst ourselves. In our exhibition we explored themes of memetics, the occult, male frustration, kek, artificial intelligence, algorithms..etc which are some of the topics currently faced by our generation.
Should you desire more information/justifications about our enterprise, please contact us on firstname.lastname@example.org or DM on twitter @kantbot2000
As usual, the Left is demonstrating intolerance not of opposition to them, but of any deviation from the groupthink. This is how civilizations destroy themselves: they bind themselves to illusions and punish those who notice, so everyone — wanting to personally succeed — affirms the groupthink and thus obstructs themselves from recognizing the decay and acting to fix it.
End days of Rome and Athens type stuff, in other words. We are humans among the ruins indeed, ruled by both an illusory ideology of equality and the consequent unleashing of commercial forces that has sapped our society of sincerity. When anyone mentions this, they are attacked, and this is why LD50 Gallery is under assault by these neurotic, selfish, pretentious people.
Friday, January 20th, 2017
The newly built shoddy townhouses start from the low 500s, with convenient public transport to a soul killing office job so you only spend 45 minutes commuting each way.
You watch passengers hide their faces in smart phones, a nerdy device named by marketers to flatter people for disconnecting from nature and fearing the intimacy of speaking to others. They nervously adjust app settings, which doesn’t amount to much, and check into social media that only shows which of their friends is posturing for attention with phony outrage. ADD and SSRI pharmaceuticals blur the days, leaving them without any lasting impressions.
Each worker diligently exits their townhouse box to report to work on time, as if satisfying invisible prison guards, and then returns back to the box after fulfilling their scheduled service. Comfortable inside the walls, over 1000 channels of prime entertainment offer enjoyable relief along with the latest simulated amusements offered to forestall dystopian realizations.
Hardly alone in this impotent revolt, almost everyone copes this way now.
Our best attempt at accounting for this low quality of life finds leaders who systematically strip-mine society to maximally extract from it with a series of one-time grabs that remove the defining peaks of the terrain. Flimsy schemes not built to last replace strength with weakness, but profit for a few years until failing from rot. Elected leaders escape responsibility and move on to the next scam.
Mandatory social experiments pushed on all further alienate the public into withdrawing from participation.
Previously active, unified, and trusting communities are transformed into incoherence, no longer sharing common ground and purpose. Politicians desperately justify wretched conditions by declaring that new spontaneous goals no one wanted have been achieved.
They say the people who developed and maintain civilization need to be replaced to create vibrancy, which ends up being the same exhibition of crime, illiteracy, incompetence, and low aptitude as their origination nations. Leaders patronizingly readjust cultural standards to accommodate this new, but less able population.
Education, politics, and television are commandeered to constantly demand the public tolerates multi-culturalism and terrorism, which are normalized as perpetual after not previously existing. From here it makes sense to also teach people that undrinkable water and a lack of food are also new modern conditions to endure, and to engineer those conditions to create a new focus preventing higher goals from being pursued.
For now, we retreat to our boxes, tune out reality in favor of fantasy and let the rulers keep extracting. But it’s also easy to imagine what would happen if the simulation and distraction devices failed, bringing people back to the world around them so they notice the state of things.
They might decide they wanted the world their grandparents had, and begin working towards that standard.
Monday, January 16th, 2017
Growing up in the 1980s, we felt a sense of impending doom through a daily ritual of dread: one had to confront the world and interact with it, which was guaranteed to go badly because even when you won, it forced you to interact with it according to its thought processes, and deep in our hearts and guts, we knew these were based on lies.
The society outside seemed to consist of people zooming around in cars, high on self-importance, while doing tasks unnecessary to the process of life itself. Office work was shuffling paper and moving investments around. Products were all junk that fell apart within a few years. Socializing consisted of memorizing the appropriate lines from television shows to recite at the right times.
We knew that our society had lost its soul and with it, any legitimacy. How do you defend a civilization that exists to consume junk food and junk products, and justifies itself as good because everyone is always at work, “taking seriously” activities which do nothing for anyone? There was no way to look at adulthood as anything but a prolonged jail sentence designed to erase the soul through tedium.
Having stepped outside of the mental ghetto that forced us to consider society as good because it was better than the true incompetents in the Soviet Union, we could also admit that the sexual revolution was a loser. Yes, we could have sex more easily, but the consequence was that everyone was broken and it seemed like all marriages ended in divorce or lengthy bouts of everyday psychosis between codependent parents.
Adults were oblivious. On one side we had the new agey Leftists who were trying to fill their own inner emptiness with “helping others” that was both condescending and destructive, and on the other side were the flag-waving patriotic idiots who insisted that every problem was solved by spending more hours at the office or voting for new wars.
We were aware how broken everything was through the simple fact that life was divided into public and private truths. In public, we had to repeat what the television, politicians and corporate pamphlets said; in private, we could admit that nothing was working and no one cared, which meant that we were all trying to survive at the expense of society.
The world in which we lived had become an ersatz or substitute world. Everything was fake; nothing was meaningful. Everyone was thankful for what they had because the alternate was worse, but also deeply unhappy, leading to the norming of low-grade commonplace mental illness. We were surviving for the present, but no one was looking forward to the future.
With the advent of the 1990s, the cork popped. The Soviets, who were apparently even stupider than our leaders, self-destructed in a blaze of cold entropy. And then we had nothing to compare ourselves to, so the mania for distraction accelerated. People consumed media voraciously, bought more products which were now cheaper thanks to Chinese labor, and existed more in bubbles of their own abstraction and justification.
Our fake world continues today. Since we rely on the reasoning of idiots, public life is dedicated to explaining away the fact that we are in a civilization in full Roman/Athenian style decline. To this end, every sentence uttered in public has become a lie of the form that omits key facts and implies an untrue direction by reading in a detail, and ignoring the larger pattern. This drives people insane.
The decline began long ago. When a society succeeds, it loses purpose, and people turn into bickering monkeys fighting for power. The question now is whether we can pull out of it. Clearly we cannot do so with any of the methods that are endorsed by the public eye at this point. People fear that kind of uncertainty, especially as regards jobs, income and how to be fed.
As our society has become more democratic, not just in politics but in who can participate and how much power they have, things have gotten both worse and more fake. We have replaced leadership with popularity and whatever the mob chooses is a lie. This makes it clear what is required to get out of this mess: democracy has died, and most finally be removed, and whatever comes next must be more honest and real.
What stands in our way is classic monkey dynamics. Each monkey realizes that society is doomed, but wants to save himself instead of stopping the decline, since he knows he can save himself easily, where fixing the whole is a bigger task with no guarantee of success. Locked in ourselves, we sail onwards to doom, afraid to admit what our souls tell us is true.
Monday, January 9th, 2017
Whenever a large group of people seems to enjoy talking about something, back yourself up and stop to think: it is a lie. Whatever the Crowd likes is always a lie, usually a paired distraction from the real problem and scapegoating of an easier target so we can beat up wimps and feel like we have done something epic.
But it is always a lie because the Crowd always chooses based on what is mentally convenient for individuals in groups, not for someone who cares about the results of his actions and therefore needs a realistic read on the world. That person, the lone “individualist,” is in fact not an individualist but a unitivist, or someone who has bonded with his world by beating down his own solipsism.
Human perception is usually defined by psychological need, not realistic adaptation. In the way of nature, a few adapt while the rest live in illusion, and over time, the adapted gradually predominate over the rest. Human civilization reverses this, of course, because the rest have more votes than the adapted.
We refer to people engaging in fantasy-as-reality behavior as LARPing, autism or sperging but in reality, it is just a nerdy version of what humanity normally does. In the ghetto, everyone is an undiscovered star; in the third world, everyone is a king; in modern America, each person is a precious snowflake. This psychology is more consistent among humans than varied.
The biggest LARP these days is talk about “The Collapse” or the coming apocalypse. The delusional people come in several flavors: some think it will be climate change, others economic collapse, still others WWIII, and the really crazy think that the Rapture will come and Satan will rule this world while the righteous get beamed to the moon for free french fries. None of these are wholly wrong, but they are minimally right, meaning that they are ingredients not end products.
For example: Climate change is the effect of too many people and too much concrete displacing our forests, which is why the usual idiots are raving on about automobiles instead of looking at the actual problem; economic collapse is the result of a circular Ponzi scheme made by our liberal leaders to keep demand-side economics afloat; WWIII will happen when multiple bankrupt nations look at each other and realize war is the only way that their presidents get to stay in power; the truth of Satan ruling this world is that people are liars and the Lord of Lies wins whenever they are not oppressed by the small minority who are not habitually dishonest to themselves and others.
In contrast to all of these Hollywood fantasies, we have a pretty good idea of what collapse looks like, because it has happened many times before. In fact, collapse is the destination to which 99% of societies go, with a lucky 1% escaping for longer than a few hundred years, mainly because humans are pathological reality-deniers and reality denial destroys societies. It is not difficult to make an enduring society once one accepts that what most people “think” is true and “intend” is in fact the usual brew of impulse control problems, disguised cleverly.
When a society collapses, it just begins to fade away. Social organizations stop being effective but retain their power, which enables them to extract money from the population like cops taking bribes. People get stupider because the intelligent, tasking with keeping the herd in hand, have become exhausted and died out from too much babysitting of idiot monkeys. Soon, disorder becomes the norm, and the true nature of humanity comes out: individualists doing whatever they want and ignoring the consequences so they have more time to feel powerful inside their minds.
At that point, a former first-world societies resembles any of the majority of third-world societies that make up human civilization. People will live on little, have no future, and produce nothing lasting. Instead they will simply exist, in a timeless fashion that demands almost nothing from the individual and so is popular, with the trade-off that nothing can be done because nothing really works.
A few wealthy mostly-whites will rule over a vast horde of Caucasian-Asian-African hybrids. Mindless tedium will become the norm, and idiots will rule because the voters will have an average IQ in the high 80s or low 90s and be completely incapable of making even moderately complex decisions. The SHFT is LARP. Instead, it is a long slow decline into irrelevance.
Friday, October 21st, 2016
Many believe that liberties are the foundation of a free and open society, but these introduce a multitude of problems that would not exist without them.
With the introduction of free speech — a civil liberty — the following problems arise:
Free speech indicates that without it, people would not be free to speak up. But with or without “free speech” speaking is as easy as opening your mouth. Unless you stutter, or something. Thus free speech gives the impression that you must support the liberal politicians that give you free speech, else you will be silenced.
With free speech, that freedom may be taken away at any moment. In fact all of your rights will be taken away, as soon as you speak against those that have something to lose from it. Then you are less than a cockroach, to them, and they will try to exterminate you.
As soon as there is a freedom, you live with the overhanging threat of losing it. As the people fear losing their rights, they take the necessary steps to secure them. This means that they will vote for anyone that promise them said rights and that is liberals and the left.
When people think that they have freedoms, they begin to behave as if they could do anything, because they use their freedoms as a free pass to validate poor behavior. This is a psychological process that is called rationalization, and that means “to lie” and make excuses. So not only do they misbehave, they also justify it, and with that the decay to their character strikes twofold.
The people smitten by the greatness of free speech, begin to look down upon those that do not have it, and try to spread it: they are missionaries that give everybody around them problems. In this way the West has destabilized the Middle East when it should have kept to its own business.
The people that have tasted the advantage of possessing freedoms, will come to demand more freedoms so that they may not just speak, or write, but soon they will have rights to behave in any way that they like. Having introduced free speech, other human rights follow and there cannot be any end to the rights that humans and animals must have to protect them from all of life.
Without free speech you may still speak, but no one may take that away from you because there is nothing to take, consequently the people cannot fear losing rights that they do not possess. This retain all the advantages of open communication, but leaves the political scheme behind, and with that the left has no political platform.
Without free speech we cannot justify saying anything with the right to speak as we please. Without free speech, the people won’t think that they are more enlightened than others in this way and so they won’t try and spread their politics and cause problems worldwide. Without rights, we need not make up ever more rights to protect everyone from everything just because these people are fearful.
The people that defend human rights are called liberals. They are not liberated though, because they have become slaves to these rights. No one need freedoms any more than the liberals do and they never have enough of it while the rest of us just go about our own business.
Tuesday, October 18th, 2016
The early days of experiments in rocket design were quite exciting. The boffins would troop out to the launch pad, hit the switch and more often than not, witness a spectacular explosion instead of a graceful flight. When flight did occur, it was often unstable and resulted in a slightly more distant explosion.
Civilizations have the same problem: they are complex designs in which each part of the system influences every other part simultaneously, so linear thinking is insufficient. Their status is also far less quantifiable than telemetry (or explosions), and it often takes centuries to see the impact of even a tiny change, which can have consequences far outreaching its perceived minor status.
From a human perspective, our species has been struggling since its inception to build a society which does not self-destruct relatively quickly. Paradoxically, the smarter and more powerful a civilization is, the more likely it becomes that it will implode. They die from internal disorder which eventually overwhelms this.
Those who dream of the stars wonder why their rockets detonate. They also worry that, even if we escape to the distant skies, our problems will come with us, because they are rooted in assumptions that we carry with us. In other words, something that we assume is “good” is in fact creating a fatal condition.
Usually our solutions involve “Systems,” or the idea of one big concept applied universally to all people. This is a form of control, or use of manipulation to make citizens into means toward an end of order, but all of these Systems self-destruct anyway. More force is not the answer.
With rockets, we eventually learned that certain invisible forces acted on the ships but in different ways at different times. Effects were cumulative, and complex, meaning that small variations led to radically different results. There was no singular theory that worked in a universal sense, only many forces acting together.
Life derives its complexity from this tendency toward interaction between forces and how that in turn changes the task over time, like layers of interpretation when one reads a novel, or thinking ahead a dozen moves in chess. This requires a strategic approach.
We call these questions which pop up by the name emergent properties. This refers to their intangibility and the inability to discern them from the initial conditions of an attempt, and alludes to their tendency to appear from out of the complexity set in motion itself. As in civilization design, in rocket design these are the challenge within the task.
It is now clear that something has gone wrong in Western Civilization. Our writers and artists have warned us for centuries that living for the self in large cities and faceless jobs has a tendency to destroy people, and that destroyed people then turn on the world around them and in turn destroy it. Our people are miserable.
This shows us the emergent properties of civilization. The more we do for people, the more they become dependent on control; this in turn leaves them existentially confused. The more we educate, advance and subsidize our population the less they know what they want. The more accepting we are, the more people lose pride and purpose.
And yet these acts seemed like good ideas when they were implemented. People adore the idea of using force to create a single-act solution that crushes a problem, and yet the harder they pound on the target, the more the details conspire against them. Cleverness emerges as the actual opposite of intelligence.
From this we can see why our civilization rockets keep exploding on the launch pad. We have thought ourselves halfway to a solution, but by not integrating all of the pieces into a whole system like the operation of the organs in the body, we have succeeded in simply chopping up social order and making it more complicated without being more complex, or interrelated among its parts.
Some find it odd that writers on this blog identify as “conservative,” because to them conservatives are weaklings. The answer to this is that conservatism embraces a core principle that can be used to find the many answers to a problem and to then balance them with one another. Mainstream conservatives are like mainstream culture, junk food, television and business, an inferior substitute.
Conservatism itself, however, is a simple principle: organicism. We look toward what works and incorporate it, like making a ball of string, instead of trying to make a theory that is convenient for the human mind which can apply to everything. There is only one theory, life itself, and we can observe what works and what does not by the results achieved, and then make our choices by looking to the results we desire and choosing the corresponding action.
This approach provides a starting point to the question of how to keep civilization blowing up like an ill-fated test rocket. Instead of aiming for the best as we see it in our intentions, we aim toward what works on a practical level and discard all ideology, emotion and social feeling from the process. This is an engineering question, not a social one.
As of 2016, another one of our rockets has become a fireball. We thought (once) that liberal democracy was the “end of history.” Now we know that it was just a bubble that existed between implementing it and seeing its results. It is clear we must leave this path, and the only question that remains is what principles will guide us.
Thursday, October 13th, 2016
One has to ask why, in the midst of plenty, so many of our industries cannot produce a single competent product. It gets worse the more important the product is. For example, laptop computers.
You can go with Apple, if you want six-year-old technology at a super-premium price and an operating system that is designed to dumb you down to preschool levels (notice how much Apple and Google try to emulate the Playskool aesthetic?). Or you can wade into the rest of the market, where your choice of color is black and the machine is universally set up poorly.
Generally, the core functions of the hardware work adequately. The motherboard does OK. All the other stuff tends to be poorly put together. The graphics are slow, nearly freezing the machine when video comes on. The touchpads are nervous and cannot be fully turned off. The sound cards are glitchy. The network cards are not quite compatible with the motherboard, leading to random lapses of connectivity.
Then there is the software. They insisted on installing Windows for you, and since the laptop does not come with a freestanding disk, that is your only option unless you want to buy a second copy — you have paid for the first in the purchase price — to install yourself. These custom installations specialize in preventing you from fixing the stupid configuration errors they make based on mistaken assumptions about your use of the machine.
At the end of the day, you find yourself wondering: is there anyone competent out there? The market is like a herd of sheep, always following the leader or someone who looks like the leader, and afraid to try anything else. And so they stay competitive with each other, which means lots of black laptops with roughly the same level of dysfunction between them.
The problem is that reward comes from doing the same thing as everyone else, but making it more profitable. Cutting corners is OK, but if you were to try for a higher standard and fail, then you would be considered a moron, even if you had succeeded in the past. The job is about doing the job, not about achieving results, and especially not about improving anything, because that might reveal the incompetence of others and make you socially unpopular. Then the mob will attack.
Long-time readers of this blog know its fundamental theory: the only theory is reality, and it rewards connections between details, not their abolition through mental containers designed for human intellectual convenience. We must understand life on its own terms, but are unlikely to except as general principles, and everything else is understood at the level of highly localized decisions.
As part of this understanding of theory, one of the fundamental principles is that humans always scapegoat. Rather than blame themselves as a group for bad decision-making and as individuals for being weak, they will blame some external force — the Rich,™ the System, the Jews,™ the kings, the strong, the gods — instead of accepting their own culpability.
We see this on the Alt Right: rather than blame the source of our downfall (individualism/peasant revolt/equality/democracy) people want to blame the Jews despite their small numbers. Rather than accept that the desire of most people to feel important and equally included is what is tearing our society apart, they want to focus on smashing a few groups and a few Leftist policies, leaving the big problem — the actual fatal flaw — in place, as if they were servants of it and its will to destroy us.
Or look at mainstream society. In their view, our society is perfect and the only problems are the people who just want to be “mean” by not accepting everyone. This kind of retarded kindergartner logic would have made people laugh and call for an orderly a century ago, but now, it is the norm, thanks to the spoiled brats in lazy jobs in the cities and the the politicians who sell them convenient lies.
In fact, the reason that so many things are mediocre in parallel is that they fall under a similar command structure. That command structure is that we let mass opinion rule us, despite its necessary bias toward (1) committee-style compromise that favors unadventurous, dumbed-down symbolic acts and (2) the lowest echelons of society, who breed faster than their smarter cousins and tend to understand very little except deliberately simplistic lies offered by demagogues. Democracy is demagoguery in this way.
This also extends to consumerism. Voting, buying and social approval exist in parallel: they are methods of mass opinion. When the lowest levels of our population do the buying, products are made with idiots in mind, which means that quality is forgotten in favor of whatever gee-whiz features have fascinated the prole herd that day. In addition, they are manufactured by those in the grip of committee compromise thinking where the only sin is taking a risk to improve quality instead of decreasing quality and cost while promoting those gee-whiz idiot features and therefore, increasing margins and thus profits.
Everything in our society is now chosen by the dictatorship of the proletariat. What they are willing to vote for is offered, and every other politician is destroyed. What they are willing to buy is made public, driving quality products to extinction. What they are willing to believe is approved by media, social group and entertainment, and anyone who does not get on board with this fiction is drummed out of the industry. This is a group at war with realistic thought who want to replace it with pretense created in their own image.
This, by the way, is consistent with how our ancestors saw the lower orders: vain, idiotic, and blithe, they rejected any thoughts of complexity as “stupid” and embraced any stupid thought that made them feel intelligent for having mastered it. You can see this at work in American high schools, on Wikipedia, or through SJWs who lecture you with obvious logical fallacies and paradoxical ideas that their group asserts is true, and they will call you retarded for disagreeing.
Our ancestors encountered this problem in an unusual way: by succeeding. When a society reaches dominion over nature, as practically happened a thousand years ago, it begins to create a surplus of people who could not succeed without society. Some are manual laborers, others are con men like lawyers, pornographers, politicians, journalists, actors and (certain) priests. This higher group infests society with neurosis in order to justify its presence while the lower echelons summon an attack of guilt against those who have more than they do, in order to extract a living.
Over time this beats people down. They realize that something has gone wrong with civilization, and do their best to escape. Clever monkeys produce clever plan than like all cleverness, falls short of intelligent and therefore fails, because civilization expands to come get them and assimilate them. Soon there is no escape. The lower win over the higher, and so the higher try to earn enough money to buy their way out of it, in turn subsidizing the mess and making it stronger. This creates a death spiral that kills the society.
When a society is first getting started, it has a clear enemy in its own disorganization that allows nature to prey on it. Disease thrives in incorrectly disposed-of sewage; vermin eat the seed grain; failure to protect against natural disaster leads to mass death. This clear enemy produces a clear unifying principle in the society, which is the purpose of working together to escape the bad conditions of being subject to nature and disorganization.
Once this goal is surpassed, however, nothing holds society together except the maintenance of what is already there. This bores the excellent, and allows the mediocre to assume power; it also produces masses of peasants who then revolt, usually at the moment when a foreign enemy appears, and attempt to seize power. The alliance between neurotics and idiots then overwhelms the rest because, according to the ancient usage of “common,” idiocy and neurosis are abundant while quality is rare.
The only way to handle this situation is to treat humans like humans instead of robots. That is: the society must discover a transcendental goal below the level of religion or politics, something like a desire to live for excellence in accord with the unique and anti-universal principle of that culture. Then, in order to support this, the society must aggressively purge — exile — those among its people who are oblivious, neurotic, insane, retarded, criminal, perverse or otherwise defective. About 20% of each new generation will fail and need to be moved on.
The instant you say this sort of thing today, some clever young idiot will jump up and start talking about human rights. You know that your society is dead when its highest goal is not harming anyone, or getting along with everyone, because those goals are the opposite of the real goal, which is finding the right answer and achieving an end to the problem. These people are offering scapegoats instead of reality. And until we start removing them and sending them far away, they will rule us and everything we do will be for nought.
Equality must die for us to escape this face. Equality turns us into robots, and rewards the lower who have higher numbers over the higher, which in turn hands power to the mediocre neurotics because those are the only people willing to lie profoundly enough to attract the robots.
Equality is always what the lower want, because this is the only condition under which they have authority, because of those greater numbers and higher reproduction rates.
Imagine a society like this: a network of small cities, perhaps 70,000 people. No one is anonymous. There are bands of wise elders who rule each city, but behind the scenes. When people do idiotic things, legal or illegal, this is brought to the attention of the elders. The elders then look over the sum total of everything this person has done to see if the balance favors destruction or creation. These elders have one ability: they can force people into exile. When they sense someone is inane or corrupt, they send them away.
In this way, people who make laptops but are afraid to take a risk to improve those laptops are sent away. Their approach is inane and insane, as any group of actually wise elders would recognize. Someone who took a risk and failed, on the other hand, will probably face no penalty if they have a record of previously attempting good things and succeeding, or just doing good work. This way the risk-takers are not penalized, but the yes-men and parasites are ejected.
Most people are not terrible. They are simply what they are, like rabbits or mushrooms. They conduct life function and then die. During this time, they may think they have had some thoughts, but mostly they have had reactions or remembered the words of others. Some are good, and can have thoughts and create forward qualitative motion based on them. Others are bad, and their thoughts are directed toward destruction. Their loss is a gain for everyone else.
At the time of this writing, Western Civilization has a thousand years of slow decay under its belt. It will need to deport a sizeable number of its native population who are useless or destructive in order to achieve its greatness. Before it can do that, it must destroy the idea of scapegoats, including the notion of equality, which de facto scapegoats the more competent for the lower status of the incompetent. Only by eliminating this illusion can we move forward.
Saturday, September 24th, 2016
The mainstream right directs its energy toward preserving what is left of the status quo; the alternative right recognizes that our society is not only a sinking ship, but is built on false assumptions starting with the delusion idea that equality can replace hierarchy.
No right wing movement has succeeded in resisting this decay in part because it cannot be resisted; Western civilization needs someone to pound the RESET button and start over. Everything we think we know is tainted with assumptions brought in from the ideas and people infected with the delusion of equality.
While the new right seeks to rebuild from within a liberal framework of the welfare state, and neoreaction seeks exit by small groups who will then be inevitably re-absorbed, the alternative right — an out-of-focus coalition of those united more by a feeling of dread and distrust of all Leftist ideas — recognizes that not only is the ship sinking, but that it must be destroyed before it can be rebuilt.
This may seem extreme. After all, if Western societies just aborted any changes made after 1945, things would return to stability. But this is where the alternative right rises above the rest: it recognizes that just going back is not enough. We must renew, because even back then the seeds were sown, and the path will not change on instant replay.
Yet until we get to the root of equality… — no, we must go even earlier to find the source of our decline. Writings on this site have targeted individualism, or the idea that the desires of the self must come before civilization and nature, as the root of our problem. The ancient Greeks called this hubris, or pursuit of power beyond one’s place in the natural hierarchy by ability and character of men and nature. Old Christians preached humility. And in the wolf pack of the steppes, an arrogant young wolf must fight his way to the top, or accept his place in the order of things.
Nothing about our time is good except our material prosperity. Everyday life is meaningless and filled with ugliness, tedium and a constant struggle for power as the lower try to keep the naturally more gifted from rising to their natural place. Our cities are war zones where we struggle for enough money to buy our way into the areas that are not blighted.
If one accepts this as normal, it is possible to find similar bargains — better values for the money — in housing, medicine, entertainment and career. However the fundamental problem remains: our time and energy are wasted, while nothing we do can have any significance, all the while the rot gets stronger around us. This society is terminal.
In the upcoming American election, we have a choice between a right-wing-ish candidate and someone who will open the floodgates further to permanent Leftist voters, because minority groups always vote against majority interests. Once that happens, there will be no chance for those who remain except revolt, and then, they are most likely to be killed by their well-meaning fellows who just want to preserve the union as it is, despite its dysfunction.
The only sensible response is fanaticism. Support nothing that is Leftist; stop linking to Wikipedia, reading Leftist news, or earning or buying anything you do not need, as the taxes support the beast. Barter among friends as much as possible, work for cash whenever possible, and every day get out there and raise a hue and cry about how this society is dying and must be restarted, because that is the ultimate taboo.
Most importantly, we need to work toward power. If 2% of Western citizens find themselves agreeing on civilization restart, a critical mass will be reached, and we will pass the threshold of no return. Never accede to the argument that we can fix the leaky ship; always insist on its replacement. Ignore the zombies and focus on reaching that 2%.
If an actual conservative party took power, the first thing to do would be to reverse the flood of new left-wing voters by removing anti-discrimination law, post-1790 immigration laws, civil rights and welfare programs. Write law to reverse the civil rights and entitlements agenda, and then do away with all the laws based upon it, and the vast reams of pro-government laws which have created the out-of-control regulatory state.
But even then, we must go further: laws themselves do not work, because they are interpreted flexibly and people avoid responsibility. Replace them with strong leaders of arbitrary power at the local level who can re-arrange their societies as needed, and not have to be deferential to tiers and layers of limiting law. Restore freedom of association, cut taxes, and begin holding the Leftist media and entertainment industry accountable.
But even then, we must push further: we can abolish most laws and replace them with culture. We can remove the tedious and unreliable democratic process and install an aristocracy. We can cut checks to the Other among us and repatriate them. All of these things are doable, and yet they are not extreme enough to save a civilization.
We must go further: remove any subsidies or other equality-based institutions, cut ourselves off from we-are-all-one initiatives like the United Nations, repossess any degenerate businesses and exile of our own people who behave badly. Stop taking responsibility for lawbreakers by putting them in jail and trying to rehabilitate them; instead, view their behavior as a Darwinian event and exile them.
Even that does not go far enough. We must go further: using our aristocratic government as a shield, we can restore a sense of culture, in values just as in the arts, and bring back the calendar and seasonal events of the past. Abolish public schools, regulations, certifications and other proxies for talent. Promote the best among us, not just in ability to memorize, but in moral character and mental clarity on the task of building a civilization.
At that point, we can go even further: in each of us who remain, we can awaken a sense of responsibility to reality, a transcendental view of nature where each of our places in its order are significant, and a belief in the possibility of good, beauty, excellence and truth in life. We can reject the false assumptions going back to individualism and to the assumption before it, which is that life is terrible and we are victims. We must be conquerors, but first of all, we must conquer ourselves.
Whew. That looks like quite a to-do list. And yet, if we do not do this, we are merely putting duct-tape on a broken bridge, plugging leaks in a boat with oil-soaked rags, or plowing around the stones in our field. History is clear: we are either headed upward, or stagnating and will immediately head downward. We must reform our hearts to want an ascendant path, and then use the power of our civilization to instill that in others.
Without this new path, we go down the same path of the old, which ends in our civilization slipping away into irrelevance as a witless void of morally bankrupt, low intelligence grey people. In the absence of radical change, that is our future, and as the years go by and the pace of events accelerate, that doom is coming sooner than anyone thinks.
Wednesday, September 21st, 2016
The New Right often gets overlooked in the flood of buzzwords, but its primary contribution was to match the subversion of Cultural Marxism with the idea of a cultural shift; if this blog has contributed anything to that, it is the Kantian idea that first people must decide to be good and only with that goal, can we make a cultural shift away from the selfish individualism that is the hallmark of liberalism.
One wonders where the New Right got this idea. Among other things, including writers from both Right and Left, the thinkers of the New Right may have observed the lessons of the collapse of the Soviet Union, which is here explained by the last leader of that decaying regime, Mikhail Gorbachev:
The Soviet model was defeated not only on the economic and social levels; it was defeated on a cultural level. Our society, our people, the most educated, the most intellectual, rejected that model on the cultural level because it does not respect the man, oppresses him spiritually and politically.
If you ever wonder why the West is panicked and manic about defining “oppression” to mean civil rights violation, here is why: they fear the day their people realize that oppression comes in many forms, and the creation of a wealthy but soulless hell in which the strong serve the weak is one of them. The rot of modernity has been well-chronicled by literature, film and philosophy, but no one has been willing to criticize what is a materially successful system, even as it erodes its population through sexual liberation, corruption, miserable pointless jobs, alienating crime-ridden cities and complete nonsense paraded as profundity by a junta of media, government and academia.
Despite the subtle horrors of modernity, most people could find a way out, and sold their souls for twenty pieces of silver that bought a suburban house, health insurance and plenty of watery beer to consume while watching important sporting events. This created an ugly modern psychology: you either “made it” and retreated to pay taxes to fund the disaster, or remained “beneath the wheel” and faced the dysfunction of the system at risk to your life. This explains the division of Western societies into a middle class and an underclass, with a few super-rich oligarchs floating above, completely removed from the daily experience of their citizens.
None of the ideological movements against modernity have succeeded because they fail to offer at least an alternate prosperity, or even better, an improved one. The lesson of history is that successful revolutions promise prosperity alongside ideology; the Leftists had their promise of wealth redistribution, and libertarians have the promise of getting your taxes back. None of these movements address more than the material, as the New Right noted, so by themselves they are unconvincing as ideological movements without a promise of enhanced prosperity.
To a Machiavellian observer, ideology serves as a justification for lifestyle. The undistinguished want everyone to be equal; the criminal want a concentration of power to exploit; the normal want stability and a feeling of well-being in the thought that they are treating others well. Modernity combines the first and third of those and makes them seem inseparable, which then makes it almost impossible to argue against, much as the ideal of Soviet Communism was that every worker would be provided for.
When that ideal revealed itself to be a form of camouflage for Machiavellian power, the citizens of the Soviet Union experienced a cultural shift:
A leading Soviet journalist and later a passionate herald of glasnost, Aleksandr Bovin, wrote in 1988 that the ideals of perestroika had “ripened” amid people’s increasing “irritation” at corruption, brazen thievery, lies, and the obstacles in the way of honest work.
I would launch perestroika in exactly the same way today. “We can’t go on living this way.” That was our slogan. “I want changes,” Viktor Zoi, the pioneer of Russian rock music, sang.
People saw the man behind the curtain, and the system became separate from its promises. The third and first desires were separated, and then large numbers of people were willing to undertake the gamble of passive revolution, meaning that it occurred through (mostly) political means. Right now we are seeing the same thing in the West, where a vast program of civil rights and social welfare has been revealed to be the means of keeping leaders in power as each nation spends itself into insane levels of debt — and raises taxes, crushing small business and the middle class, much as its burdensome over-regulation does — to support this social/materialist agenda.
New perceptions contributed to a change in attitudes toward the regime and “a shift in values.” Gradually, the legitimacy of the political arrangements began to be questioned. In an instance of Robert K. Merton’s immortal “Thomas theorem” — “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequence” — the actual deterioration of the Soviet economy became consequential only after and because of a fundamental shift in how the regime’s performance was perceived and evaluated.
When the man behind the curtain is revealed, and the noble ideals can no longer conceal the grim reality, change is in the air. Ironically, for the Soviet Union, a liberal state, it came through further liberalization: a revolt against the means of control, and not its purported goals. The nature of revolution to this date has been a steady shift Leftward, even in Leftist states, because people essentially want anarchy plus prosperity, forgetting that this abolishes social order and replaces it with oppression of one form or another. In our current age, we are seeing a revolt not against a regime, but against liberalization or at least its consequences.
As Mikhail Antonov declared in a seminal 1987 essay, “So What Is Happening to Us?” in the magazine Oktyabr, the people had to be “saved” — not from external dangers but “most of all from themselves, from the consequences of those demoralizing processes that kill the noblest human qualities.” Saved how? By making the nascent liberalization fateful, irreversible — not Khrushchev’s short-lived “thaw,” but a climate change. And what would guarantee this irreversibility? Above all, the appearance of a free man who would be “immune to the recurrences of spiritual slavery.”
In this quotation, we find the actual reason for the fall of the Soviet Union: people perceived themselves as enslaved by ideology, much as in the modern West we see how all of our governmental policies fail, and yet we cannot change them because they are expressions of our fundamental liberal idea, which is the equality of all people as a means of avoiding hierarchy and “restrictive” social norms.
Those who watch historical trends can tell that the regimes of the West are falling because of a lack of faith within their citizens. The elites who want the sick show to continue know that they can keep society afloat through perpetual liberalization, but now, that seems to have run its course because there is nothing else to liberalize and our problems still get worse. For this reason, the cultural shift must not be against specific governments, but ideology itself, replacing it with realism that allows prosperity for the competent.
The key to this shift in perception is to appeal to the basic need of the individual to feel existential contentment without a loss of material support. The spirit of the human being requires a sense of pride, but this is not possible under ideological regimes, because in them the nation and its people become a means to the end of ideology and its frenetic quest for pervasive equality. This creates a crushing loop where people pursue happiness through egalitarianism, but then must confront the reality of enforcing such an illogical prospect.
Both are reminders that in the modern world, economic progress is not a substitute for the pride and self-respect of citizenship. Unless we remember this well, we will continue to be surprised — by the “color revolutions” in the post-Soviet world, the Arab Spring, and, sooner or later, an inevitable democratic upheaval in China — just as we were in Soviet Russia.
Nationalism, culture and values provide the pride that equality never can. This is why these are demonized by ideological states, which try to destroy heritage, family and religion as a means of replacing them with ideology. This is why, much like the modern West, the Soviets pursued a suicidal path of ideological struggle which eventually removed all that sustained their people.
SPIEGEL: The third issue: You are criticized for having criminally underestimated the national question …
Gorbachev: That’s not true. I lived in a country in which the people spoke 225 languages and dialects, and where all religions existed. I grew up in the Caucasus, and I was familiar with the problems.
Diversity was our strength in the Soviet Union as well because ideology requires destruction of culture, which requires diversity. Diversity replaces a single way of living, with values system and culture, with the brutalist conceptions of the State. It naturally leads to a situation like the one the current West endures where the wealth of the nation is redirected into the ideological goal of roping others in to the same system, which in our case is globalism and in the Soviet case was international communism.
As one economist observed:
“The Soviet Union was a peculiar empire in that it didn’t simply exploit its colonies for material gain but actually provided for them,” says Gabriel Stein.
Our peculiar empire has shifted from colonialism to a policy of gift-giving through foreign aid abroad and the welfare state, geared toward third-world immigrants, at home, as if following the Soviet playbook. This does not show a Communist influence so much as it demonstrates the inevitable end of all liberalism: a series of subsidy programs ever-expanding to keep the ideological state powerful, at the expense of both prosperity and spirit.
The days grow short in the West. Winter is coming; history shows us that Leftist empires end the same way, whether in ancient Athens or modern-day America and Western Europe. This is how the EU and USA will follow the Soviets into doom, but it is up to us to recognize that we do not oppose those governments so much as the principle upon which they are based, because it always ends this way. Until we revolt against the revolution as idea, we are doomed to endlessly repeat this cycle of optimism and failure.