Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘decay’

Fallen Angels

Tuesday, June 6th, 2017

My generation inherited not a world ablaze, but the smoking embers. We knew from as soon as we could walk that we were doomed.

The first clue was the fear and trembling. Adults lived in fear of death and each other. It was obvious that the weak ate the strong, because the smartest and wisest people were always in hiding somewhere, not in positions of authority which seemed to always be filled with round-headed people who were both idiotic and very, very careful to flatter their audience.

Next was the fact that we were living in upside-down world. Nothing meant what it should.

We were the ones who went to church with atheist parents, bought sale items at the price the item should have been, saw peace demonstrations get violent, witnessed kids get awards for having the average time of those running a race instead of winning it, watched unions and minority groups always get their way, and saw the old ways of our communities — small stores, independent businesses, elegant architecture, moral standards, a sense of decency — give way to a new culture of t-shirts and television, big corporations and endless laws that seemed to benefit whoever was in the wrong, not the normal person trying to do right.

We observed the Great Retreat as normal middle class people fled the cities and gave up on public life, allowing it to go to the new group of bearded and long-haired angry people. We were subjected to the first generation of children’s books to always have a political message, just like children’s television, in which Sesame Street characters told us that what was true were the same ideas that came from political speeches on one side of the screen.

We knew we were doomed when a country on the other side of the globe was threatening us with nuclear weapons, and all we saw was internal division among the people speaking in public. Every person had to have a unique opinion that seemed to also serve as their reason for existing, and so there was no agreement, only many different directions pulling the center apart.

Our time coincided with the replacement of home cooking with fast food, the death of the family through divorce, the cheapening of products into disposable junk with expensive advertising, the single mother and the latch-key kid, the rise of casual drug use, the flight from churches which seemed to favor emotional statements over realistic ones, the erasure of the countryside through factory farms and the constant expansion of suburbs, the end of a national culture and the rise of commonplace immigration.

Before we were born, Communism won, but it won a slow victory instead of an immediate one. We could tell because when we went to school, the emphasis was on sharing at all costs, not allowing students to be free from the interruptions of others. If you were playing with something, and another student wanted it, you had to give it up right then, or the teacher would send you to the school psychologist. You had to give other students your paper or pencils when they asked. The kids who got praise were the ones who did a mediocre job but made it look professional, and then involved others in their mediocrity.

As children, we could see what adults could not, which was that the same propaganda that was blatant in the Soviet Union — painted on walls, splashed out in parades, broadcast by their news services — was here as well, just in a subtler and more professional way. Television news had a nasty witch-hunt feel to it, as if they were out to squash anyone who disagreed with the sacred cow of equality. Politicians always talked about equality. We knew we could get out of any trouble by donating our allowances to the poor, just like we could make any room full of adults get misty-eyed by mentioning that we believed in freedom or wealth for all people. You had to emphasis the word “all,” like you were saying the name of God, and then no one could oppose you.

We intuited the role of equality. It had two parts. First, it defended the individual against the world, something we exploited. We had a right to do anything we wanted, and if it was against the rules, then we could prove the rules were unfair if we found some reason that they favored one group over the others. Second, equality reduced humanity to an easily controlled mass, like a strong leader might do if he got sick of the bickering, lack of cooperation and constant attention-getting. A group of equal humans is a fungible, controllable herd. Like plastic explosive, you just squeeze off as much as you need and shape it to whatever the task requires.

On some level, we also realized that we had lost both tribal rights and any sense of working together in a group. It was only a generation past the Second World War, and we still heard constantly how bad Hitler was, yet to every child his sense of tribal unity and desire to push back against the fungible herd was appealing. In history classes, we heard about the Civil War and how it was about slavery and the horrible racism of the South, with no other reason. The meaning behind this was clear to us: in this society, those who want a group larger than the family but less artificial than government would be taboo, and so we kept our mouths shut. We learned that “fighting racism” was like “fighting poverty” or “all,” a magic phrase that made adults do whatever we wanted.

It also became clear that we had no future. Jobs, which were once a way for people to earn a living without losing their souls, had become the primary method of losing souls. Our dads all worked too long and drank too much afterwards. Most of our moms worked too, which meant that we came home to empty houses, TV dinners and later, a frustrated and angry parent or parents. We were accustomed to being scarce after parents got home from their jobs, because after tolerating the bad behavior of other people all day, they were liable to take it out on us. It was better to stay in our rooms and amuse ourselves as we could, a pattern that later manifested in the “drop out” and “slacker” nature of our generation.

No adult thought that government was doing anything good. No person thought their job was really good, although they used pleasant words about the job to praise themselves to others. No one believed that social security would be there for us, that the country would hold together, or that things would improve. The only reason we won the Cold War was because the other side was even more shocking incompetent, and it seemed that once we won, all the Communists came here and got famous. The news was baffling, equal parts distraction and lies.

We knew from shortly after birth that our civilization had crashed and that there would be nothing left for us. Our parents and grandparents were greedily sucking up whatever they could, as if based on a knowledge that there would not be more and if they did not do so, “some other guy” who was probably an idiot who had nothing in common with them would suck it all up. It was a race to a finish line that ended in apocalypse, and yet, the apocalypse never seemed to fully come. Just a long slow descent into a state where nothing would ever change or improve, just re-arrange itself slightly, devoid of energy and hope.

Random Acts of Hopelessness

Saturday, April 22nd, 2017

Recently I have been listening to indie music for a change of pace, and it strikes me that this genre provides perfect, lucid insight into the millennial white mindset.

Indie music is as much a psychology as a specific style; indie musicians see themselves as mediocre despite their best efforts, and in a perpetual state of nervous breakdown.

This reflects itself as a characteristic blend of a fundamentally “mediocre” sound of acoustic guitar, intentionally untrained sounding vocals, and “childish” sounds such as xylophone, except elaborately produced with high levels of instrumental skill and harmonic complexity. The very sound of indie is designed to scream in your face, “I did all this and I’m still mediocre!”

The “perpetual state of nervous breakdown” a.k.a. decompensated neuroticism is reflected heavily in the lyrical content, which includes lucid exploration of personal neuroticism, family problems, interpersonal failure and childish hopes, yet also references very “adult” things such as sex, drugs, pornography and socioeconomic stressors such as working life, taxation, expenses and the like, with occasional jarring use of swear words. The lyrical content of indie music screams at you, “I am immature and absolutely cannot deal with life as an adult.” #AdultingIsHard

Lastly and most importantly, they respond to these feelings by portraying them with a kind of satirical, self mocking exaggeration and a deadpan humor, and by romanticizing it all as “quirky” and “fun.” In other words, their sardonic self-deprecating wit reflects their fatalism about their personal inadequacy, and their romanticizing allows them to feel good about it despite how degraded it should intuitively feel, and their boldness about all of it serves the triple function of catharsis, cry for help, and signaling to others like them that they are willing to be part of their social support system.

This underlying psychopathology explains the political behavior of white millennials, who are altruistic to a fault yet harsh and unforgiving in their desire to destroy anything remotely reminding them of their superiors (successful, confident, morally clean, intellectually and socially competent, athletic white people). It is basically low self esteem, the religion.

The curious thing about all of this, especially in light of the notoriously accurate stereotype of “trust fund hipsters,” is the lack of objective evidence of actual personal inadequacy (unlike punk rock or other music with similar themes). Quite often these are people going to good schools with a lot of money, who are attractive and intelligent and popular. You could accurately say that these are people who are plagued by haunting, paradoxical self-doubt, especially pertaining to the future.

I would argue that this paradoxical, almost delusional self doubt is actually them perceiving at a semi-conscious level that their civilization is falling apart and as a result they basically have no future.

They realize that their parents grew up in a society where you could find satisfaction in becoming educated, building a career, being compensated appropriately before you were old and gray, fitting into a social structure or institution, making your contribution, and that the society their parents lived in was overall quite glorious and full of potential, whereas what they have inherited has none of these features — a “new normal,” if you will.

They realize that they will never enjoy either the economic or the social rewards their parents did, so they ultimately deal with it by growing their dad’s ugly 80s hairdo complete with handlebar mustache while turning their social circle into a never-ending group therapy session where they find ways to celebrate their hopelessness and existential misery. This is the trauma of the 2008 economic collapse burned into the souls of a whole generation, an event which irrefutably confirmed the nagging doubt that has plagued generations: YOUR CIVILIZATION IS IN DECLINE.

Leave Progress Ahead Of You

Tuesday, April 4th, 2017

I knew a very intelligent man who loved what feminism was originally about. He would do this thing where he talked about first, second, third, even fourth wave feminism.

He would say, for example, “Third wave feminism is simply about arguing that gender is a social construct and nothing more.” He saw no problem with feminism itself, but would localize the problem to third or fourth wave feminism as a means of exonerating the original “true” feminism.

To my mind, this is trickery because it does not recognize the continuity between the original feminism and the version we face today. One develops into the other. Perhaps “decays” is a better word as things which may have been good in moderation or at certain times turn into societal decay.

As long as we ignore calling third or fourth wave feminism actual feminism, we may still hold some belief that it is actually a beneficial thing, that the core is golden, that some parts of it is good when in actuality all that we have is a version of it that went bad — or just “worse” — because as an inconsistent ideology, it naturally breaks down into something simpler and less sane.

We witness the same process in other areas where what starts out as one thing turns into something far worse. Eventually all societies decay. What was one law soon became a myriad of laws to micromanage the people for there is no end to how many laws that can control us, it all keeps on going until society self-destructs.

There is no end to the number of laws or rights created as each person wants a rule for their specific circumstance. There is no end to making comparisons and attempting to equalize different people within society, because jealousy goes on looking. There is no end to such madness while people are looking for benefits for themselves, which they will keep on doing.

This is why at the heart of it conservatism is a very limited way of life. The conservative is careful not to do or say too much, and keep to the traditional ways for any and all things will develop into something else. The most dangerous societal concepts, like rights, are so useful that they proliferate like crazy: everyone wants one.

The first to the fourth law of conservatism ought to be: avoid progress, because it will start out innocently and become a monster. Because defensive ideas like “rights” mutate, we should simply not go there. Do not be progressive; stay normal, and you will avoid the forces of decay that turn our good intentions into nightmares.

LD50 Gallery Debunks Its Attackers With Diagnosis Of Their Instability

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 info@ld50gallery.com 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.

Stepping Out of Simulation

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.

Ersatz World

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.

SHFT Is LARP

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.

The Infection Model

Friday, October 28th, 2016

swastipizza

Back in the 1980s, the Left came up with its “No Platform” idea. This was designed to prevent Rightist bands, writers and artists from being able to present their ideas to an audience.

The reasoning behind this was that Right-wing ideas were infectious, like a virus. Once people saw others having these ideas, they would be more prone to adopt them as well.

The Left backed down from this model relatively recently and have switched from the infection model to the notion that certain ideas are offensive and being offended hurts people. They did this because they realized what the Infection Model said.

If Right-wing ideas are infectious when one person breaks the surface tension of political correctness, that means either that people inherently desire these ideas or that they strike them as more accurate. By the converse, if Leftist ideas do not succumb to the Infection Model, it means that they are enforced by peer pressure.

The Infection Model is correct however, but not for ideas: it applies to behaviors. Whatever is most extreme but tolerated becomes the new norm, and so tolerance for any types of behavior leads to more of it.

This is the basis of the “broken windows” model of policing, which states:

The broken windows theory states that if criminals see signs of surrender, like broken windows on a city street that have not been fixed for some time, they see this as a green light to continue committing crimes because clearly crime and vandalism are tolerated here. This theory explains what happens when the media attacks cops in Ferguson and Baltimore; the signal sent is “go ahead and riot, no one can stop you now.”

The Infection Model and “broken windows” theory also explain why diversity destroys social trust: people see that norms are no longer normal, and so realize there is no way to enforce a standard of behavior on their local communities, and therefore give up on it and work on destroying it.

This model also applies to morality, specifically the morality of lying:

Telling little fibs leads down a slippery slope to bigger lies — and our brains adapt to escalating dishonesty, which makes deceit easier, a new study shows.

Neuroscientists at the University College London’s Affective Brain Lab…used brain scans to show that our mind’s emotional hot spot — the amygdala — becomes desensitized or used to the growing dishonesty, according to a study published online Monday in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

“The more we lie, the less likely we are to have an emotional response” — say, shame or guilt — “that accompanies it,” Sharot said. Garrett said he suspects similar escalation factors happen in the “real world,” which would include politics, infidelity and cheating.

In other words, we either hold the line for truth or it will erode gradually, as if by infection or a “broken windows” style spiral.

Now consider voting. We all go to the polling place, chuck in our votes, and hope our side wins. If it does not, we are expected to rationalize the victory of the other side as good.

Soon accuracy, realism and truth itself are optional. In fact, they are gradually eroding, because there is no truth requirement for the act of voting or running for office, only “preference.”

The mainstream Right wants to end that preference-based system and implement one based on absolute truth. But that has its basis in Leftism, which is the assumption that a truth can exist which all people understand.

Black pill traditionalists recognize that there is no truth that is universal. There are only people who are more likely to understand life more accurately and among those, some with the moral and intellectual caliber that they aim for the opposite of rationalism, which is a desire for transcendental beauty and excellence.

None of that can survive in a society where we legitimize any lying. As with diversity, the “one drop” rule applies: if you allow one drop of lying into your society, truth itself will become infected and go away.

Perhaps our return to health begins with total intolerance of lying.

The Right To Be Corrupt

Friday, October 21st, 2016

nest_of_snakes_still_better_than_washington

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.

Rocket Testing

Tuesday, October 18th, 2016

civilization_entropy

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.

Recommended Reading