Posts Tagged ‘externalization’

Socialized Cost

Thursday, May 25th, 2017

An insight into why human societies self-destruct:

The article reports that today the spam industry earns about $200 million each year, while $20 billion is spent trying to block spam.

A few people, in a misguided quest for wealth, create a huge cost that is borne by others, not just in wealth but in the number of hours they must spend at jobs and cleaning up the mess.

This is analogous to the people who smash in car windows to take under $50 of goods, or rob convenience stores with shotguns for a few hundred dollars. The benefit is small; the consequences are vast.

Modern societies try to avoid this by subsidizing bad behavior, but that is also a socialized cost, and “what you tolerate, you get more of,” which explains why they are awash in this kind of petty but expensive criminal behavior.

If instead of crusading against crime, we removed people of a criminal mindset, civilization could take a deep breath and relax, and people could spend more time on life and less on cleaning up after the sociopathic.

r-Strategy Living Arises From Society Assuming Responsibility For Individuals

Thursday, May 25th, 2017

We have been writing about K and r strategies and their influence on politics for many years now, but recently, thanks mostly to The Anonymous Conservative blog, this idea has gained momentum.

Over at VDARE, Lance Welton attempts to deconstruct European pathological altruism using K/r strategy theory:

Race differences in ethnocentrism are almost certainly (partly) a matter of historical evolution to a different kind of environment.

…We all sit somewhere on this spectrum, relatively closer to r or K, and this is true of nations and races. In a highly unstable but plentiful environment, such as pathogen-rich Africa, more people adopt an r-strategy. They must live fast because they will die young and unpredictably. As such, they are evolved to invest their resources in sex and have as much sex with as many people as possible. They create weak social bonds, only develop small and unstable social groups, and are highly aggressive and impulsive. All of this is designed to be able to deal with sudden, violent problems.

As the environment becomes more stable, it reaches its carrying capacity for the species. This makes it harsher and more competitive. This results in a move towards a K-strategy. You live slowly because you can better predict the future, making investments in it worthwhile.

While undoubtedly there is a genetic basis for populations choosing an r-strategy, another possibility comes to mind: the nature of civilization itself converts groups from K-strategy to r-strategy by adopting a policy of universal exclusion, thus subsidizing those who would not naturally be welcome that society.

The primary challenge to civilization comes from externalization. This takes two forms; first, the habit of people to pass along the costs of their activity to the group, in the form of socialized cost; and second, the tendency of individuals to externalize their thinking process to ideology, economics, rules, laws, popular social notions and bureaucracy.

When a civilization decides to assume responsibility for subsidizing those who are not naturally included, it shifts from rewarding a K-strategy to encouraging an r-strategy. No longer does it matter whether or not you get anything right; what matters is that you get along with others, which means deference to whatever the herd is fascinated by or fears at that moment.

Equality is the forerunner of this mindset. Equality correlates to the demands of a rogue cell in a body. This cell wants to be able to act against the interests of the body as a whole organic entity, but still be able to participate in the wealth and power of that body. Individualists form groups, known as collectivists, who demand equality for all.

At the heart of the problem is socialization itself. When people make decisions socially, they are thinking in an r-strategy mindset instead of being focused on reality, purpose and meaning, which are K-strategy decisions. For this reason, civilizations die because they become individualistic, and through doing that, remove their K-strategy focus and revert to third world social order.

Rebirth Of The Spirit

Saturday, May 6th, 2017

Life provides infinite chances to fall into infinite loops caused by paradoxical thinking. For example, the Antifa groups who complain about attributes of fascism — repression, censorship, “racism,” brutality — soon find themselves exhibiting those same traits. And some of this is natural; for example, if you want to bust pedophiles, you will spend much of your time exposed to kiddie pron.

German novelist Günter Grass wrote a novel called The Tin Drum, and through it produced a powerful metaphor for the 20th century: it is like the incessant beat of a drum, repeating the same phrases, so that the sheep herd to do whatever is the current fanciful notion of how to avoid the free-fall decay of a once-great civilization.

Ideology is like that tin drum. It must be beaten, repetitively, and even if in new patterns it sounds out the same ideas. The basic idea of ideology is that the weakness of society, which is externalization in both (a) socialized cost and (b) conformity, can be harnessed like a factory to make people who each march to the beat of the tin drum toward a centrally-determined goal.

After all, this is what democracy, fascism, communism and socialism have in common. There is a central command which issues control orders. Then, everyone obeys these equally. Even if that central command is elected as in democracy, soon an Establishment forms which controls what happens more than the current candidate.

This means we need to be suspicious of those external orders or anything which behaves like them.

Control orders invert existing ideas and institutions. They do this by changing these things from goals in themselves, to methods which serve the purpose of more control. This means that no matter how hard you try to make something work, it will defeat you, because the meaning behind the symbols has been altered to be its exact opposite.

Consider (perhaps) the problem of Western Civilization. We know that it has fallen; it grieves us to say this. In turn, we realize that it needs a rebirth, and on some level, we all know that this cannot be done externally. We are not going to be able to elect a single candidate, make a single law, or even create a fanatical dictatorship to enforce this.

The cultural wave which brought us Brexit, Trump and perhaps Le Pen shows us the force of internal motivation. Across the former West, the natural leaders in communities from all walks of life have started to become cynical about the inertial direction of our civilization, and this has caused them to want alternatives to more equality, diversity, democracy and consumerism.

That has placed them at odds with both the Establishment and the herd, which chases trends but only catches on to them after their peaks, so that it is always pursuing what worked yesterday in the hopes that it will make them popular tomorrow. This is why consumer fashion today mimics high fashion ten years ago, and why most investors rush in to buy a “hot stock” only to find its value has faded.

While this cultural wave is refreshing, it is only the first stage; it is formed of doubt and resentment of what exists now, and does not yet have in mind another direction. It will need to give people an alternative to modernity in order to succeed.

For us to find that alternative, we need a spiritual rebirth. The problem with this is that it cannot be done externally. For this reason, all of the Rightists flocking to variations on patriotism, religion and working hard are failing just as solidly as those who insist we can achieve our rebirth through racial separation alone. There needs to be something to tie all of these together.

Perhaps the worst of the tin-drum-bangers are those who have flocked to the Church and are using it as a substitute for spiritual rebirth. The church is still an external force; it cannot change what is in the soul. Using it as a substitute for that internal change will effect an inversion.

Among the various dissident Right groups, there seems to be a competition for who can find the oldest church and cling to it like a life vest. Some favor Catholicism, but others are unhappy with anything but full eastern Orthodox. But ultimately this becomes a form of ideology as well, a symbol standing for the whole, and it will not bring victory but defeat.

We know modernity is a horror. Civilizations die because society ceases to become a means to the end of a good life, but becomes an end in itself. People learn to play the game. This is why nothing changes: the game rewards inertia, and in mass groups, inertia arises from fears. Fears of insufficiency, or of having made the wrong decision and being suddenly uncool, dominate the human mind. Ideologies of inclusivity salve these fears, and this quickly attracts a mass which seeks convenient mental answers, and those who offer pleasant illusions become powerful on the wave of this crowd, in industry, government and even religion. This is why all of these things have taken on a bureaucratic character and become abusive. This abusive behavior leads to all of us acting out unnecessary tasks in order to demonstrate ideological obedience. This is the end result of ideology, even well-intentioned ones.

The spiritual rebirth we need is within and cannot be enforced by an external doctrine, or by going through rituals, or even through fervent dedication. It must be a change in our will. We must cast aside the doubt and fear, and fully desire to restore the West again. This requires rejecting intermediaries like the Church or fascism which are ultimately symbols standing for the whole. We need to cultivate in our hearts the desire to be good, to rise above the rest, and to put everything to right. We cannot rely on any external forces in lieu of this inner force.

In discovering this inner force, we cannot shape ours thought by anything but intuition. We know what good is because it is what not only survives in nature, but creates a greater qualitative degree of beauty, accurate observation of our world, and a desire to exist in union with the order of the universe, which steadily improves itself by qualitative degree, as we see in how our thoughts evolve and how natural selection makes eagles and hummingbirds from sparrows. Since we know good, we have only to discover a will toward it in our souls.

Our future consists of divergent paths. A society based on externalization and control, or a choice for something different. We will not know what it looks like until we begin walking the path toward this new choice. We know for certain however that it begins in the formulation of our will toward something good, instead of finding new ways to bang the tin drum.

Externalization Creates Dark Organization

Tuesday, April 25th, 2017

Western man is externalizing himself in the form of gadgets. – William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch

Civilization is an uncertain bet. Like the oxidation that allows us to breathe, it also creates secondary effects which must be managed, such as free riders and calcification. Most societies try to manage these through external control, and this proves to be a fatal mistake, but it remains popular because it avoids questions of natural selection, namely evolution toward higher self-control.

Externalization appears tempting because it involves no change in the individual. Instead, centralized forces dictate standards and rules, and the herd equally obeys them, which provides the least friction because no person is disciplined more than any other. This allows mental convenience and attracts people to the idea.

The process of externalization occurs through proxies, or external symbolic “games,” which serve to both represent and obscure reality. Instead of doing what is right, we do what the moral code says we must. Instead of finding a place where we contribute, we measure salaries. Laws take the place of values, and gadgets and entertainment take the place of meaningful time expenditure.

Replacements for reality are comforting because they take a vastly complex target and reduce it to the comforting tangibility of numbers and rules. By making this lawless world comprehensible to our minds, they take away fears and give us direction, but it is not a positive direction — toward something — as much as a selection from what already exists.

For this reason, externalization is naturally backward-looking and navel-gazing. Without some forward purpose, humans have nothing to define their lives except personal convenience, and this removes meaning from existence and leaves individuals in a circular process of wanting more and then being unsatisfied with it. The addict finds himself lonely when the drug effects wear off.

Like other types of formalization, externalization occurs by creating a procedure for every aspect of life and limiting choice. This in turn makes people passive and dependent, since they rely on the external source for the list of options available to them. None of these choices have existential or spiritual meaning, so they become mostly interchangeable, varied only in amount of money or status.

The ugly hyper-competitive social scene common to modern society arises from this externalization. When we measure our lives in terms of gadgets and artificial targets like workplace performance, there is nothing to do but compete for those, and because they are unsatisfying, to keep competing until it exhausts us. This is a perfect method of control.

Those who compete in limited spheres such as these games fear any who do not play by the rules. This gives rise to a manic need to limit inclusion in social groups, and through them the rest of society, through those who are obedient to the basic assumptions that allow the games to exist. Such societies look for ways to exclude people, and force mass activities on the group in order to indoctrinate them.

For example, in schools in the modern West, it is considered common practice to ask students to “share” or tell to the group a personal experience. This opens up the individual to judgment by the herd, and if the individual passes that judgment, makes them feel some debt to the group. The moment of inclusion produces a squirt of dopamine in the brain and safe, happy and comfortable feelings.

In turn, the focus on inclusion and competition for acceptance creates dark organization by encouraging people to manipulate appearance, symbolism and the rules of the game in order to succeed as efficiently as possible, which means with the least amount of risk or exertion to the self.

Our pathological altruism is one form of this behavior. It is easy to very publicly give money to a charity for blind disabled retarded transgender third world orphans; doing this a few times gives the individual status points. It is harder to every day act in a moral way that encourages qualitative growth within individuals and civilization.

This shows us the appeal of virtue signaling: to signal once is more efficient and mentally more convenient than trying to make every act we do into a morally correct action. Doing the latter is a lifetime commitment that requires near-religious levels of commitment, while the former involves a few public relations events plus anarchy.

Pathological altruism is one form of dark organization. It happens when a group within an organization turns against that organization, but uses the methods of that organization to achieve its goals. This only occurs when the goals of the group are corrupted by creating a proxy instead of measuring results by reality.

This trap ensnares human civilizations time and gain. Our best intentions lead to us creating proxies, and then the tool becomes the master and those dominate us, destroying our civilization. Democracy, equality, Leftism, diversity, feminism, liberty, class warfare and freedom are just subsets of this failure that like the best euthanasia, creates a warm sensation before the infinite coldness of death.

What Does Cultural “Hardening” Mean?

Sunday, December 4th, 2016


A recent article argued for America to implement a “Department of Culture.” This is actually quite creative when considered psychologically.

In the context of a civilization administered by a managerial central authority, where there is a blueprint for culture, it makes obvious sense that a “Department of Culture” would be the default method of achieving this. There the sleight of hand reveals itself however: this idea is actually intended to lead your thoughts from a department to the idea of an integrated culture as the next level beyond managerial civilization.

It is a recontextualization that makes it easy for you to see culture as an intrinsic survival blueprint for Western civilization. This process would start from a simple model, and branch out to more complex versions using different techniques such as Evolutionary Culture, or “This is what we want.”

A successful simple model would point out how “survival” should become intrinsically part of culture, such as in this example: Passenger cars have doors in order to protect passengers from falling out as well as to reduce noise. Clients accepted this as quite beneficial and are therefore willing to pay for it. However, engine ignition did not require locks at first but technology improvements eventually made a key-ignition possible.

As time passed, locks were added to car doors to protect valuable “goods” left in the passenger compartment from theft. This was followed by adding locks to the baggage compartment as well as the glove-box inside the car. Then lock technology had to be improved to prevent the car itself from being stolen. Then manufacturers realized that they had to put locks on the gas-cover to prevent theft of gas.

“Modern” cars ended up having four keys but customers were happy as long as there was a method to counter the threat. Then criminals got brazen and simply broke the gas-cover open when they required gas, which led to not only the gas-cover having a key, but the actual gas pipe screw-top getting a key as well. Each car owner then proudly carried five keys with him for each car.

Until this point in time, manufacturers were fairly pro-active, but then conceded to the creativity of the criminals by becoming re-active.

Then criminals broke both the gas cover as well as the screw-top in their effort to steal gas. This resulted in manufacturers redesigning the pipe to prevent plastic pipes from being inserted into the gas tank. In the meantime, criminals also got fed up with valuables being inaccessible inside vehicles, so they would simply break windows to gain access. Manufacturers started using specialized glass, but since criminals changed their techniques from rocks to spark plugs, they also darkened the glass to limit a casual view of the vehicle’s contents.

During all this time, clients were applauding manufacturers for taking such effective steps, which resulted in “reducing” their insurance premiums. In other words, the entire “market” has been duped into accepting criminal behavior as a cultural norm. “Our” culture therefore, allows criminals unfettered access to “our” cars. In fact, criminality has become a cultural value, like other externalized costs such as immigration and corruption.

To demonstrate this cultural effect, let us continue:

The only things left on a car without a lock are the wheels. Since that is now also being stolen, manufacturers started using special wheel-nuts. But since hub caps weren’t locked down, those got stolen too.

Clearly the end to all of this is to not have a car at all, because despite all efforts including GPS tracking, cars kept being stolen. In fact, car theft has reached such a scale that people are being hi-jacked or even killed in order to “get” the car, while everybody accepts it as “normal” through paying insurance.

The question is, how did this happen?

The answer is first of all that it became part of the culture, which became part of the financial system making money out of it, resulting in it becoming part of our politics which makes money out of all of us.

Hardening a culture against criminals is on its own a basic requirement to be pro-active. A pro-active culture will stop financial abuse, which will then stop political abuse. Some political commentators indicated that Trump will “harden” politics in future, but that is not enough for a stable civilization.

Political hardening is not enough because the political system can be infiltrated especially under egalitarian rule. What “lock” will you use in future against a mayor, or even police who might also be terrorists? Ask any South African where this is already the status quo: people trust those they know to have shared values, a.k.a. culture, and do not trust “the System.”

Culture needs to harden up as well. When we are merely re-active to problems, we have ceded our direction to the criminals, which means they effectively dictate to the rest of us how to live. By putting solutions in the wrong places, such as making cars into fortresses of locks, we have transferred costs from the criminals to the victims.

In the case of culture, “hardening” only occurs through strong standards of behavior. When car locks are the answer, we internalize the cost of theft instead of spending that money to prevent it. The same is true with the creeping decay in behavior that has afflicted the West for centuries.

Cultural hardening can also be expressed through a simple example. When we tolerate lies, we get more lies; whatever we tolerate, we get more of. A culture that sees lying as an unforgivable sin, and shames those who engage in it, shifts the burden onto criminals to disguise their lies — making it more likely they will be caught — instead of onto the rest of us to figure out what is truth and what is lie.

More complex examples are specific to individual cultures, but start with the idea of purpose. Re-active solutions, including reactionary thinking itself, still cede the narrative to the decay. Rather we need to look at the causes of that decay, and both make those disfavored, and add their antitheses to the list of encouraged behaviors.


Monday, May 28th, 2012

In the modern time, revolution has gone from a historical event to a metaphor.

We talk about “revolutionary” new ideas, universally use the term “revolution” to mean an overthrowing of the bad by the good, and frequently talk about revolutions in technology, social practice, sex, art, drugs, and more.

Our own origins are in two revolutions, first the American revolution which overthrew the idea of empire itself by liberating colonies, and second in the truly archetypal revolution in France, in which the many and poor overthrew the few and powerful. It only makes sense that we keep applying this template to our current ideas.

However like all good terms of political control, the notion of revolution is deliberately vague. We know it to mean something approximately like a group of people deciding the old way was bad, and joining together to seize power. Notice that there is no mention there of the consequences of their actions beyond seizing power; what matters is that they are now in control, and control is like an object they own or a bargain they score at Wal-Mart. It’s not a means to an end, like an enlightened leader using power to achieve a civilization of lasting grandeur.

Since our bias weighs so heavily in favor of revolutions, revolutionaries and revolution-istic thinking, we automatically assume that anyone who is revolted against is (a) bad and (b) obsolete. The point is renewal, like changing our disposable trash bags or shopping for new entertainment goods. We worship the new, novel and different as part of our revolution cultism. As a result, if a revolution occurs, we assume the people pushed out of the way deserved it. In order to avoid having a revolution overthrowing our current society, which we claim to like, we give handouts to the crowd, usually in the form of freebies (entitlements) or permissiveness (more freedoms, even ludicrous ones).

This puts an interesting spin on history: for the first time, history is exclusively a moral judgment. We are no longer thinking in terms of how things come about, but what our feelings and judgments are about those things. In the post-revolutionary world, if enough people feel and judge against something, there might be a revolution! For this reason, we moralize history and those who take the least radical stance are those who win, because they’re least likely to be deposed by revolution. We assume revolutions are a morally corrective force replacing the bad.

However, that type of thinking obscures a historical fact: revolutions don’t have anything to do with actual injury. They have to do with perceived injury, because by its nature a crowd formed of angry people knows nothing about the actual circumstances, and forms a circular logical chain whereby it cycles its own dissatisfaction, amplifying it like a feedback loop. Revolutions are not political, or even more, although they pretend to be so. Revolutions are fundamentally a social activity.

“I had discovered that it didn’t make any difference whether you smoked reefer in a white classmate’s sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you’d met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids. … You just might be bored or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection.” – The New York Times

Disaffection is a social response to the challenge brought on by a less than optimal condition. For example, the French Revolution was brought on by the increased power of the monarchy allowing them to standardize commerce, health and production, which meant that more citizens survived to reproductive age. This in turn causes a population bloom at the lowest strata of society, which then outpaced its resources and in coincidence with several mundane misfortunes, produced a food crisis and then a power crisis.

The fault was not with the leadership, but with the people who would become the revolutionaries, but they didn’t care. This was not a fact-finding and analytical endeavor. It was a social one. We are all familiar with tricks of the human mind like displacement, projection and cognitive dissonance. All are in play here; when something goes wrong, we want someone to blame. Once we’ve blamed them, that lets us think in terms of justification, working backward from what we want to a reason why we should have it. That in turn leads to the creation of a morality of why we should have it, and when the world doesn’t reward us, a strengthening of that morality to the point that we deny reality itself.

When the talking heads on the news, or our political leaders, or even our friends want to justify a seizure of power, they start talking in revolutionary logic. This is a script, much like con men use to talk their marks out of their money. A script works based on the assumptions we make as part of our culture and experience, such as the idea that if a revolution has occurred, it’s some Hitler getting disposed not a strong but benevolent leader. It’s easy to talk people into revolutions because blaming all of our problems on leaders and social institutions is easier than owning up to our personal problems, fixing the details that are out of place and using self-discipline to force ourselves to leave our comfort zones and actually achieve something worth doing. (Coincidentally, this is the only activity that makes people feel truly alive.)

As the fruit of the revolution of 1789 continues its rapid plunge into the abyss, showing us that it’s not the method of revolution but the goal of revolution itself that is dysfunctional, people are going to react to the emergency as they always do. They will demand more of what has worked in the past. They will not recognize at first that when what worked in the past doesn’t work, it’s time to re-assess and choose a new method. They will claim their method is new; after all, it’s a revolution! However, they’re preaching a tired and dead, old and calcified order that never had a chance of working. Remember, revolutions are not related to an actual injury.

When this happens, other people will expect you to go along with the script like everyone else marching in brain-dead hive-mind lock-step toward oblivion. The correct response is to raise your paper, push your glasses further up the bridge of your nose, and do the only actually “revolutionary” act you can: ignore the impulse to follow the herd in yesterday’s folly, and instead begin planning for your role in a post-revolutionary civilization.

Living for the Herd

Saturday, February 25th, 2012

Modern psychology is in its infancy. It has so far busied itself with the easiest confusions of the human mind, and not looked deeply at all into the day-to-day mundane insanity that infests us and moves easily among us.

In another 200 years, psychologists will have made extensive study of the herding (sometimes called group-think, hive-mind, or peer pressure) instinct in humans. Like other animals, we herd up when faced with a challenge. This is an obsolete response when we face personal challenges that don’t involve others.

However, our tendency is to involve others in our personal challenges. The reasoning is that when faced with a problem, we have a chance to respond and thus a chance to get it epically wrong. If that happens, others will see and judge us as being defective in some way.

We cannot avoid being wrong some of the time, but we can avoid being judged, so we try to change the minds of others so that they think failure is success. One way to do this is through morality. “I did it for the children” will work. The failure becomes a moral success.

Another way to fool others is to insist on equal validity of all outcomes. This is philosophy-speak for what happens when people say “I meant to do that” after they screw up spectacularly. If you lunged for cake and ended up eating feces, insist that it was performance art or religion and others will forgive.

Still another common phenomenon is the one we recognize from children’s tales as “sour grapes.” If you lunge for something, and fail to attain it, make sure you bad-mouth it. The children of rich people who camped out at OWS might have been saying “We have failed at being rich bankers, so burn the rich bankers!”

To this list we can add another method of evading a feeling of responsibility for the outcome of our actions: we can set up a herd of our own that validates us on the basis of nothing more than belonging to the herd. It’s like a multi-level marketing plan, except based on social approval.

For example, if I go to the local high school and I don’t fit in or particularly succeed at anything, I can rope together all the nerds, geeks, dropouts, druggies, freaks and outsiders and have a little herd. We can then agree that we’re great and everyone else is bad and thus we support each other.

Even more, like a ghetto gang, when one member is attacked we attack with the strength of numbers. One 250-lb football player is piddling change against 50 angry geeks armed with feelings of justified vengeance.

The internet has enabled us to take herdness to new heights. For example, internet humor:

Person 1: I came up with this new hilarious thing.

Person 2: But that’s not funny, really.

Person 3: It’s so not funny that it’s funny. Other people won’t get it.

Person 1: That means they’re dumb. We know it’s funny, now.

(In unison) Yes, it’s funny. We know it’s funny.

Outsider: That’s stupid!

Person 1: You just don’t see the humor in it. It’s an acquired taste.

In the same way we have learned to cheer for the home team, even if we don’t play the game; we have learned to demand our side get the votes, even if we don’t understand the issue; and we have learned that if we form a social group, we can insist that anything we want is “reality” and “true.”

The main phenomenon of the modern time, thanks to the breakdown of organic social order, has been the formation of these little herds and then those herds imposing their “truth” on the population at large. It’s no wonder people are so confused — reality itself is buried under mountains of human “reality” that are nonsense.

Out of touch

Saturday, December 10th, 2011

When we go through life, we feel a schizophrenic disconnect between what we think we’re doing and the results we see in reality.

Think about the political programs you read about in the news. Almost none of them achieve their desired effect; some do, “on paper,” meaning that they meet some arbitrary targets but don’t fix a problem.

Most of our worst problems are with us perpetually. Crime, poverty, war, incompetence, corruption, filth, and a seemingly endless stream of people willing to do anything for cash, to themselves, others or the world at large including our environment.

Are we out of touch?

Perhaps the answer lies in how we approach the world. We sample from it, then make a “hypothesis” or agreement to study only some details of a situation with many thousands of details. When we find a way to manipulate that subset of the details, we declare ourselves in control.

Yet no one talks about the context, the forgotten data and that which is not considered because it is not what our big human brains are interested in at that moment:

Ken goes on to point out that:

Cigarette smoking has been shown to increase serum hemoglobin, increase total lung capacity and stimulate weight loss, factors that all contribute to enhanced performance in endurance sports. Despite this scientific evidence, the prevalence of smoking in elite athletes is actually many times lower than in the general population. The reasons for this are unclear; however, there has been little to no effort made on the part of national governing bodies to encourage smoking among athletes.

Now at this point I assume that people are wondering how something this insane came to be published in a respected medical journal (as of 2010, CMAJ was ranked 9th of out 40 medical journals, with an impact factor of 9). The answer, of course, is that the point of Ken’s article was to illustrate how you can fashion a review article to support almost any crazy theory if you’re willing to cherry-pick the right data. Here is the paper’s abstract:

The review paper is a staple of medical literature and, when well executed by an expert in the field, can provide a summary of literature that generates useful recommendations and new conceptualizations of a topic. However, if research results are selectively chosen, a review has the potential to create a convincing argument for a faulty hypothesis. Improper correlation or extrapolation of data can result in dangerously flawed conclusions. The following paper seeks to illustrate this point, using existing research to argue the hypothesis that cigarette smoking enhances endurance performance and should be incorporated into high-level training programs.

While people might be able to spot the implausibility of smoking improving distance running performance, it’s a lot harder to spot with more specialized topics. – PLOS

In the past, people have submitted fake articles to humanities and science journals to see if they got through. Often, they did. We have also seen a recent rash of article retractions as scientists have been caught “cherrypicking” data, which is what happens when you keep the results that prove your point and throw out the ones that don’t.

But now, we’re seeing criticism of the scientific method itself. It’s like a cartoon related to reality, a simple primary-colors representation of what goes on out there, with no consideration of context or change over time. An experiment in a lab produces one result and that’s all we care about. Any side effects are not our problem.

That approach works great for the basics of science. For example, does aspirin decrease fever? Does gasoline light on fire when you use a spark? Can we overclock our CPUs to 4x their original clock cycle? But it doesn’t work so well for broader questions, like social questions and our understanding of the nature of reality itself.

Hints of this have even crept into politics:

SPIEGEL: Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that the environmental crisis and the financial crisis have common causes. Is this true?

Röttgen: I totally agree with the chancellor. The great crises of our time arise from a mindset and a political approach that knows no tomorrow. Countries and financial markets live on borrowed money, the world’s social systems — even in Germany — are not sufficiently sustainable, and we derive our prosperity from resources that should actually be available to future generations. We run up financial debts, social debts and environmental debts. This adds up to a life on credit that ignores our responsibility for the future.

SPIEGEL: It sounds like saving the euro isn’t our biggest challenge.

Röttgen: The euro crisis is difficult enough, but it’s only part of a wider problem. We are dealing with a systemic crisis. Our lifestyle of the past few decades has revolved around a dangerous egotism, which only focuses on our present needs, and which we now have to overcome. – Der Spiegel

We have a “dangerous egotism” mainly because of equality. If every viewpoint is equal, there is no plan. Each person becomes his or her own self-approving world and idea. It’s no wonder egotism spreads through the society. Equality itself means approval of the ego is enforced upon society at large.

Naturally, egotism manifests itself in a disconnection from reality. Call it narcissism, self-esteem compensation or my favorite, solipsism, but it’s a secession from reality and a withdrawal into the human mind. Judgments, feelings and preferences predominate over hard fact and logic.

It’s possible this mentality is born of the same impulse as our mis-use of science as described above. Both may have an origin in our desire to control our world, coupled with an awareness of how to game the system.

We game the system through social consequences, or by manipulating the opinions of others instead of achieving results in reality. For example, if a product is crap but you invent a catchy line to sell it to others, you win vast profits even though technically you’re in an inferior position.

That’s a reversal of nature, where the best function prevails, even if it’s ungainly or perhaps a bit weird. Equality creates a society based on image and appearance, since we assume that the structure beneath is all the same since all individuals are equal. There can be no difference in structure, or equality itself is upset.

In suggesting that the most intelligent people tend to use IQ to over-ride common sense I am unsure of the extent to which this is due to a deficit in the social reasoning ability, perhaps due to a trade-off between cognitive abilities – as suggested by Baron-Cohen’s conceptualization of Asperger’s syndrome, including the male- versus female-type of systematizing/empathizing brain [22]. Or alternatively it could be more of an habitual tendency to over-use abstract analysis, that might (in principle) be overcome by effort or with training. Observing the apparent universality of ‘Silly Clevers’ in modernizing societies, I suspect that a higher IQ bias towards over-utilizing abstract reasoning would probably turn-out to be innate and relatively stable.

Indeed, I suggest that higher levels of the personality trait of Openness in higher IQ people may the flip-side of this over-use of abstraction. I regard Openness as the result of deploying abstract analysis for social problems to yield unstable and unpredictable results, when innate social intelligence would tend to yield predictable and stable results. This might plausibly underlie the tendency of the most intelligent people in modernizing societies to hold ‘left-wing’ political views [10] and [20]. – Bruce Charlton

More intelligent people use IQ in place of common sense because they do not trust the world around them. To a mind of two deviations above average intelligence, our declining civilization seems like a place of disorder, corrupt motivations and confused goals.

Even more, once the principle of “science” is understood and manipulated, it infects the mind with its narrow type of thinking. After all, thinking that way is how you get ahead. That type of narrow thinking, combined with paying attention to social rules more than reality itself, is what makes modern society: an egotistic wasteland in which people pursue symbols of reality instead of connecting with the outside world.

As the years go on, and our problems not only stay with us but thrive despite our “best efforts” to quash them, we are starting to realize that the real problem is in the assumptions we use to approach the world. All of our thoughts are corrupted because some underlying notion is corrupt.

Perhaps this is what we mean when we say our society is “out of touch.”


Sunday, July 10th, 2011

One truth that took years to sink in, because it was profound: it is necessary to resist externalization, and most people do not successfully resist.

They keep a small portion of themselves at the very center of their personalities, but allow the rest to be adopted by paying customers, guilt-bearers and social influences.

If you like chocolate mousse, it’s good food, even if all your friends think it’s horrible, or the government bans it, or big media tells you that eating chocolate mousse tortures Koalas.

Even more importantly, there is a sense of your values and what you want life to be like. These are two separate things; the first is a set of yes/no preferences, the second, a creative vision.

In the world of profit, making friends, getting along with others, writing advertising, making a crowd laugh, or selling indie rock, there is no self. There is only image.

The best artists translate that inner self through beauty toward their audience. They have resisted assimilation; it’s no surprise most of them were loners and many lived in isolated areas.

Externalization is a complex process that involves others taking over your personality because you defined your personality using external factors. It can work in either direction: you first, or them first.

You offered up yourself as a social token, and they became linked with it, in turn influencing it. Or maybe this was forced on you, and defensively, you used an external object to justify yourself. Now that rules you.

Although modern society is a nightmare for many reasons, its worst attribute is that it swallows souls.

By slowly forcing you to place the drama of others before your own needs, by convincing you to join a fake crusade of guilt and narcissistic individualism so others can think their constant self-expression is important, and by reducing all beauty in life into money, votes or popularity, modern society attempts to consume you every day.

If you listen to it, you will adopt — in the name of defending yourself — the same methods that will erode your soul and erase not only who you are, but the greater meaning of life you carry in yourself.

As we might observe watching a character in a novel, the greatest expression of self is not what it does for itself, but the values it impresses on the world. Soul isn’t about being alone with your pleasures.

Other people would love to see your soul eaten because they have, long ago, given up and now are enraged and bitter at the world. They resent it, and resent you for not being broken like them.

They want to drag you down and crush your child-like appreciation of life as theirs has been crushed. They want to make you serve them by losing what it is in you that keeps you whole.

“All must serve,” is the dogma of a tyrant, indeed, but it’s a tyrant in the souls of many. It’s a spiritual disease that afflicts those who have lost their way by allowing themselves to be externalized.

The more I venture into life, the more I see that the essence of conservatism is conserving the inner soul and the sacred, the natural and the reverent, against this tidal wave of doubt, fear, guilt and hatred.

Love and Nihilism: A Parallelism Primer

Friday, September 25th, 2009


As social animals, we get our information from others. This includes morality, or a group behavior code based on a sense of value and purpose inherent to humanity.

In contrast, nihilism denies value and purpose and in turn, denies any special role to humanity. Like emotions, value and purpose are human judgments which do not exist in the outside world.

By denying value and purpose, nihilism forces us see physical reality as a mechanical process in which our part is small. When we are walking in winter, falling snow appears to be coming toward us, but in reality we are moving forward as it falls.

Where morality deals with how things appear to us, nihilism addresses reality as a design and encourages us to learn how to adapt to it. Morality is withdrawal from natural selection; nihilism embraces it, and describes the world as a complex machine.


We frequently talk about “human nature.” It’s more sensible to talk about the challenges facing any animal with higher intelligence. Any smart animal will face the same challenges using roughly the same methods.

While having a big brain is an asset, it is also a liability, in that if a big brain has to re-analyze its surroundings, it will move very slowly. Instead, big brained animals analyze once, create a mental “map” of their world, and update as needed.

In theory, we update our maps when new data comes about. But if this data is incorrect, our knowledge of the world gets corrupted. We act expecting certain outcomes and are stunned when things do not go as planned.

What corrupts our minds is when we reverse the causal process of understanding. Instead of looking to the world, making conclusions and updating our maps, we update our maps based on what we wish were happening — or what others tell us.

If we withdraw into our own maps, and change those instead of reality, we can no longer predict reality. This is a problem because we are responsible for our fate. If we screw it up, no one else is going to bail us out.


Values and purpose are human inventions designed to be shared between us. Like language, values and purpose only work if we all know and agree on what they mean. They are easily manipulated by changing meaning without changing the symbol for it.

The world around us is consistent and non-judgmental. It functions and leaves thinking to us. If we do not make sense of it, the response will be bad. If we adapt to it, the response will be good.

Individuals using goodwill as a cover story have re-defined our values and purpose. They do this to benefit themselves, but as a result, corrupt the realistic outlook of society around them. This process takes centuries to fully show itself.

We cannot see evidence of our corruption in a single fact, but can measure it from multiple points of view and find what they have in common, like we triangulate to find radio signals. Our measurements are:

  • Ecocide. Our inability to constrain our numbers and our desires has resulted in human expansion which eliminates natural habitats, and both pollutes the environment and takes resources from it beyond what it can replenish.
  • Boredom. Society and jobs cater to the lowest common denominator, and so lapse into a utilitarian modernism that produces ugly architecture, mind-numbingly micromanaged tasks, disorder and dysfunction.
  • Selfishness. A culture based on individual desires makes it easy to manipulate one another, but produces no great art, and leaves us with commerce and political dogma that constrain not liberate us.
  • Neurosis. Value and purpose, when used to convince others that we are altruistic, good people, create a social reality that steadily drifts farther from the many factors of reality into a single, social or commercial factor. Our minds split between social reality and physical reality.
  • Depression. We compensate for a failing civilization through surrogate activities. These are ineffectual symbolic acts that we do not expect to make change, but they “uplift” us for a few moments so we feel better about ourselves.

2400 years ago Socrates recognized that individuals prefer how things appear — or can be made to appear — to their intelligible form, which requires knowledge of their context and consequences. Appearance is tangible and public.

Civilizations have a life cycle from birth to death. Each stage in this cycle has a distinct philosophy and psychology which corresponds to the type of government people in that time believes is best. These united patterns are “designs.”

From the day a civilization is founded, it drifts farther from reality and further into the world of appearance. People manipulate each other to get ahead, and the side effect is a corrupted image of reality.

People use wishful thinking to manipulate each other. Wishful thinking pretends that humans are omniscient and not part of nature. It avoids all mention of death, conflict, unequal abilities or eventually, reality itself.

Nihilism can restart the life cycle by removing wishful thinking. Seeing reality more accurately changes our assumptions, and from that like a row of falling dominoes our institutions and values change to be more realistic.


The opposite of nihilism is modernism, which is our name for the later stages of a civilization if it also has advanced technology. Modernism is defined by the use of linear logic and the belief in technological progress overcoming nature.

The last thousand years of Western civilization have been defined by a steadily-increasing modernism, and the previous thousand were expended on conflict allowing that modernism to happen.


The philosophy that came to be called rationalism emerged from our use of tools. Where previously we had to seek out a situation that matched our needs, now we needed only a single factor: the tool.

For example, instead of finding a location where fruit trees grew, one hauled out the plough and made a field, then planted the trees and later harvested the fruit.

When someone does a new task for the first time, they work from cause to effect, and figure out how the process works. Another person seeing them sees the result first, and only later figures out the steps involved — or uses a tool instead.

This linear logic, that lets us work backward from desired result through our tools, convinced us that we had conquered nature, which we saw as an external thing independent of us. It also simplified our thought process.

Modernism would not exist without linear logic. Linear logic is the idea that in a complex situation, a single factor can be extracted and manipulated, achieving a desired result. All other factors become ignored details.

Instead of killing a creature for food, and taking the skin for clothing, we would kill a creature for its skin — and write the rest off as details.


This thought process became an underlying assumption of all of our logic. In politics, we assumed that whatever most people thought was good was right. In economics, whatever made profit. In social situations, whatever was popular.

More importantly, we externalized ourselves by making ourselves dependent on what others agreed was the truth. This meant that appearance took precedence over reality, because if enough people were fooled, others would act as if it were truth.

In every situation, linear logic was used to extract an “essence” or “truth,” and all other factors are denied as details. This is convenient since some people can read those details and see imminent disaster others cannot, causing conflict.


As part of the process of specialization of labor, we must make others understand why our needs are important, so they can help us. In order to convince them, we use externalized social pressures to make ourselves look good.

Rationalism tells us to pick a single factor with which to measure a situation. In social situations, we choose self-preservation, and in order to achieve it for ourselves, we demand it for all people equally.

We demand the same rights for others just as ourselves because of the specialization of labor. When you must convince others that you ought to be helped, you need to first show them that you have goodwill toward them — without judging them.

The best way to do this is to suggest that the human form, and not the unique abilities of the human, makes this person entitled to being treated well. This way, no matter what they think of you, they will feel good for helping you.

We achieve this false goodwill through altruism, or the belief in helping all others universally and without judgment. We call this an absolute context, because it is the rationalistic single factor we choose in all situations.

In this, we have applied our backward logic to getting ahead in life: we must convince others through appearance that we are good, and that like a tool will achieve the results we desire. We convince others by pretending wishful thinking is reality:

  • Equality of all humans
  • Ability for anyone to do whatever they want
  • Peace, nonviolence, tolerance are good
  • Freedom from criticism on the basis of reality

In a rationalistic outlook, if social instability is bad, then social stability must be achieved — and we do not consider any secondary consequences. As a result, we make aggressive behavior taboo and reward those who avoid conflict.

To avoid conflict, we must compromise any idea where others will object to it. We ignore the consequences of our actions and focus instead of showing goodwill, which eliminates conflict, but causes us to compromise.

Since these compromises must avoid that which will cause conflict to any one person, we create a lowest common denominator response to reality of the inoffensive, benevolent-sounding, and easy, and ignore reality.


Since linear logic convinces us to pick one factor of many in our thinking, when approaching the question of life itself we pick a single factor: ourselves.

In order to make ourselves more powerful, we act so we appear altruistic, but we also act to appear independent and unique so we attract others to our personalities. This causes us to act entirely through social thinking.

Through this method, individualism creates a “social reality” or a conspiracy between people to manage reality with social factors. Since we need others, thanks to specialization of labor, we use this more than reality itself.

This has two effects: first, we become neurotic because we see reality in the details but are encouraged to ignore it; second, since social reality ignores secondary effects, disorder spreads and the cost is passed on to us.

This in turn encourages us to try to break away from social obligation, since we feel it is parasitic to us, and so we break away using more individualism. This does not work, so we turn to our leaders and ask for more control.

Control is the external imposition of what some people agree is true. Unlike an organic order, or one arriving from agreement and cooperation among people, it requires force and small rewards to function.

In this way, we can see how individualism leads to disorder which requires more control, in a process and cycle that gains intensity over time, causing civilization to collapse.


The public display of altruism became a powerful tool. It could get you elected, or make others follow you as a leader, or make them work for less money. It could get you ahead at the expense of others.

Civilization through its wealth makes it possible for us to be far enough removed from nature that we pretend there is no reality except human reality. We withdraw, and we do so in a group which defends itself against critique.

When illusion is rewarded and realistic ideas punished, the bad guys always win. The crowds, accustomed to being manipulated, run between one abuser and another, always believing the promises but then forgetting conveniently so the lie is not revealed.

This triumph of unreality brings consequences but because it is anti-social to mention them, those who bring them up are ostracized and kept out of jobs, relationships, friendships and public favor. The dogma overrides reality.

Since the dogma reaches deeply, to the level of our assumptions, children grow up brainwashed in this ideal and are afraid to consider any other possibilities. Those who tell the truth become “bad” and the lies become “good.”

At this point, the tail wags the dog. We no longer do things because they are realistic actions. We do them to make ourselves look good, so that we can leverage services out of others with our perceived altruism.

This is how civilization destroys itself. Modernism is this self-destruction process, couched as “freedom” and “justice,” but really a slow decay while those few cynical enough to know it’s a lie and still lie make record profits.

Because the civilization is based on the idea of individualism, or each person being able to do whatever they think is right, it soon becomes utilitarian. “What most people think is best is best” defines utilitarianism.

The social institutions designed to implement our grand plans are always failing because the plans are unrealistic, so we blame them. A perpetual struggle between people, markets and governments manifests itself in increasingly rare consensus.

Like a society of drunks, civilization gets ugly but it is not permitted to notice. Behavior is disorganized, and the only plan is one based on linear logic, or removing the “bad” and assuming what’s left is the good.

The only things people can agree on are that they want to be able to earn money, and that they do not want other people interrupting them. They call these agreements “freedom”,”equality” and “justice” and crush any who oppose them.


We are all acquainted with centralized authoritarianism. More scary is the tendency of crowds, through constant rebellions for more “freedom” which cause negative social consequences, requiring more control, to create totalitarian states.

The first part of this process is “distributed” totalitarianism, or the tendency of crowds to enforce dogma by ostracizing those who do not repeat the dogma and depriving them of the benefits of specialized labor.

In this stage, individuals gain power by pandering to the desire of the crowd to see appearance triumph over reality. Individuals can find others lacking in altruism, point it out, and be rewarded with higher social status.

The second, when disorder rises enough at the same time the civilization becomes more disorganized, is where the oligarchs who have profited from its decline choose a tyrant to enforce a brutal, simplistic and effective order.

This is how freedom, equality and justice create tyranny through control. Because they are imposed orders, derived from linear logic which picks one factor of many to be absolute, they conflict with reality and require more not less power.


Reversing this process of decay is surprisingly easy. We need to change our assumptions and method of thinking. Nihilism will change our unrealistic thinking and lead us to another philosophy called parallelism.

Parallelism replaces linear logic. Where linear logic says to pick one factor of many, parallelism says we consider all factors at once and look at their impact.

In parallelism, instead of killing a buffalo for clothing, we determine how many buffalo we can take without destroying the herd, and figure out how to use and store their products so we are efficient.


Most political control structures create a partial truth of reality, define obedience to it as good/evil, and rapidly control people using that. The dogma of equality, freedom, peace, tolerance and nonviolence is no different.

Parallelism reverses this pattern by forcing a description of reality as a whole, and then pointing out what actions will bring negative consequences from reality itself — with no need for the evil/not-evil artificial reality of control.

Unlike idealistic and utopian systems, parallelism recognizes that there is no way to avoid tragedy, conflict, horror and decay, but that they can be limited if people are vigilant toward keeping each other on track toward reality.

Where most political systems define what is bad, and assume the rest to be good, parallelism defines a goal and works toward it through whatever methods work. We call it a “whole” philosophy since it does not divide the world into bad and good.


Parallelism recognizes that bad and good do not exist, but are our judgments of outcomes. It also recognizes that the ultimate outcome of life, its perpetuation, requires both good and evil, so we call it “meta-good.”

Once we see reality as meta-good, we do not need false positivity and false inherency as offered by other “worlds” created through human judgment. Whether secular (social reality) or religious (heaven), these other worlds corrupt us.

Denying inherent value and purpose removes this false positivity and with it the means of mental control of individuals that in turn empowers the control of the state. When the good symbol appears, people rush toward it, into their doom.

When the thought process of justification is reversed, people stop looking for inherent or social reality proof, and instead turn to the scientific method — observing reality, and testing their knowledge of it, to see what patterns emerge.


By denying the inherent, nihilism orients itself toward patterns that emerge from situations. This moves away from universal or absolute truths. Patterns do not exist, but every time certain conditions are met, “emerge” in different forms.

Emergent conditions require an entirely different type of logic. While we could call it non-linear, it more accurately resembles many linear logics — for all factors of a situation — considered simultaneously. We call it parallelism.

One aspect of parallelism is noting that patterns occur in parallel between the forms of matter, energy and thought. Patterns are a type of design or organization which can appear in all three of those forms.

Where linear logic and control structures demand a single absolute path, in parallelism, nothing is absolute. Objects and situations do not have inherent, fixed properties. What makes patterns appear is the organization of many factors.

Parallelism arises from nihilism because in order to deny value and purpose, one must have a logical basis for doing so, and in order to show they are not part of reality, we must know how reality assembles itself and what its parts are.

Philosophers describe emergent properties as “immanent,” or distilling out of a situation rather than being inherent to one of its parts. While inherent properties are products of judgment that must be absolute, immanent properties are neither.

We can describe immanent properties as “organic,” because like life itself, they grow from a few conditions into a diversity of objects formed from similar patterns under slightly different circumstances. Control, on the other hand, must be imposed.


Because nihilists believe neither in religious other worlds (heaven) or secular other worlds (morality), we are independent from the principle of absolute and universal dogma that denies the importance and beauty of reality.

As a result, nihilism can be said to be a transcendent philosophy. Values and purpose are things we impose based on our observations of what will succeed in adapting to reality, and yet also give us a sense of “meaning.”

Meaning is interpreted by the individual but derived from reality, so realistic individuals have similar ideas of what is importance. Meaning reverses withdrawl by connecting us with the world around us.

Philosophers call this transcendental, from the Latin “climb over,” because it encourages us to accept reality including its negative aspects. Instead of denying the negative, we find a greater positive goal in reality itself, the “meta-good.”

When we transcend, we no longer need false absolutes. Instead, we delight in reality because it is a space of potential. Good and bad are methods we can use to make that potential happen.


Since nihilism is ultimately an affirmation of the scientific method and the need for logical decisions, we can act outside of morality to see what is the best adaptation to reality a civilization can offer — and pick this design for our own.

We do not have to like the answers we find. These are not choices, preferences, or beliefs; they are deductions from using our logical skills. They are too complex to be “proved” by experiments, but our sense of logic can help us see truth in them.


Every civilization needs a narrative. This consensus describes the origins of the civilization, its ongoing but unattainable goal, and what its values and methods are to achieve that.

The best goals are not tangible ones, but goals that can grow over time, like we compete against ourselves with our personal goals. For most, the goal is tied to a land, a worldview, a values system and people like themselves.

Immanent goals are patterns which naturally make sense given a certain situation. These do not change over time because humans do not change. When these occur as a part of the growth of a civilization, we call them “organic” goals.

Organic societies are logical responses to their environments. They exist on a “whole” level, or one that considers all factors at once. They are the opposite of linear modernist societies, which consider only one factor at a time.

Where control societies encourage us to think in terms of one condition being true at a time (logical OR), parallelism encourages us to see how many can be true at once (logical AND). Organic societies are cooperation, not control, based.

Parallelism tells us there is no one way all people should live, but that different societies should use different methods toward the same goals. Those that adapt to reality using their specific method will thrive over time.

Further, parallelism does not attempt to repeat the past nor does it throw away learning. History is our laboratory and science is our method. Parallelism encourages us to accept modern society, centralization, technology — and use them wisely.


As parallelists, we believe that we can establish a handful of principles that modify our current liberal democratic capitalist society, and that these will “organically” grow into a whole concept:

  1. Localization. We do not need to live in big cities, and are happier in small communities. These can manage their own affairs, and an overlapping hierarchy of county, state and national governments can address bigger issues.
  2. Culture before commerce. If we change our outlook to think in terms of cultural demands which commerce should serve, instead of the other way around, our society will have more consensus.
  3. Organic, whole society. In everything that we do, we consider whole factors. It may benefit a few factors to have another McDonald’s on a busy street corner, but we must think of all factors and make decisions accordingly.
  4. We have a clear consensus and everything else is permitted. We can approach values two ways:
    1. use negative logic and try to avoid evil, which implies that everything else is good, leading to lack of direction;
    2. use positive logic and try to achieve good, which implies that all not leading to that goal is not useful.

    We should approach values through method (b), as it means that more things are permitted.

  5. Direct our resources toward constructive goals. We can spend our time, money and effort on fears, or we can build up the best hopes we have. We should do the latter.

These attitudinal changes alone will produce a parallelist society from what we have. They are easy to implement and require only the agreement of minority of people in society who are leaders in their communities.


The possibility of action confounds the modern person who does not want to engage in “activist” politics, or those which empower certain groups at the expense of the whole. How to change a society dedicated to distraction?

Among us, there are 2-5% of people in our society who are leaders in a practical sense. This means that whether they have an official title or not, they lead the community in business, spiritual, community, academic or social settings.

These are the people that your average person trusts. They trust information from these people more than from the government, their televisions, or casual friends. They respect the judgment abilities of these people.

Our goal is to inform these leaders of our values, get them to form consensus that these should be adopted, and then send them forth to implement these values in all that they do and to demand them from politicians.

This occurs in three steps:

  1. Identify, brand and promote an ideology via the internet.
  2. Bring the discussion of this ideology to mainstream media.
  3. Unite the people who find it meaningful to aggressively push it to others.

In modern societies, having a large number of vocal supporters counts, but you do not need “most” of the population or anywhere near it. Successful revolutions are generally championed by 1-2% of a population. That’s all we need.

As we approach step III, it makes the most sense for us to find candidates to take local offices and show that our ideas can succeed, gaining more trust from the general population. Ours is not a revolution but a peaceful transition.

You can help by joining us, and convincing others who are leaders in thought in your community to take a look at what we have to offer.

A parable.

Recommended Reading