Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘hive mind’

Dot-Com 3.0 Bust Goes Mainstream As People Pull Away From Silicon Valley Services

Wednesday, September 13th, 2017

As mentioned here before, the Dot-Com 3.0 boom — the years after the iPhone when social media took over — is heading straight for collapse, even as efforts are being made to fight that inevitable end.

The recurring problem that Dot-Com 3.0 faces is tied up with SJWs: our new media overlords have cultivated an audience who fanatically uses their product, but this is not a particularly relevant or effective audience, being made up mostly of obese blue-haired baristas, financially insolvent food service workers, committed Leftist basement-dwellers and angry minorities.

Everyone else is gradually fleeing these services as they become increasingly toxic. In the meantime, in order to curry favor with their audience of SJWs, these giant internet corporations have become manipulative and are starting to resemble Soviet-style indoctrination in their relentless advance of narrative, leading to a growing movement to nationalize them as utilities to neutralize their bias:

The new spotlight on these companies doesn’t come out of nowhere. They sit, substantively, at the heart of the biggest and most pressing issues facing the United States, and often stand on the less popular side of those: automation and inequality, trust in public life, privacy and security. They make the case that growth and transformation are public goods — but the public may not agree.

The tech industry has also benefited for years from its enemies, who it cast — often accurately — as Luddites who genuinely didn’t understand the series of tubes they were ranting about, or protectionist industries that didn’t want the best for consumers. That, too, is over. Opportunists and ideologues have assembled the beginnings of a real coalition against these companies, with a policy core consisting of refugees from Google boss Eric Schmidt’s least favorite think tank unit. Nationalists, accurately, see a consolidation of power over speech and ideas by social liberals and globalists; the left, accurately, sees consolidated corporate power.

This distrust of Silicon Valley is expressed in a recent poll which found that 52% of respondents believe that Google’s search results are biased, and 65% do not want to be tracked. At the same time, Spain has fined Facebook for privacy violations in how it collects data on users.

In the meantime, others have discovered that Silicon Valley has been inflating its usage figures — sort of like a fake Nielsen rating showing more watchers than were actually there — to the point of absurdity, and they have been doing this for years in order to evade one crucial report that showed, two years into the reign of the iPhone and mobile computing, that display ads on social media were worthless.

Silicon Valley has been dodging that one for some time, and their solution has been to cultivate a fanatical audience of SJWs instead of a broader audience of normal people. That in turn has helped enforce a split: on the internet, you are either a fanatical Leftist or someone who is skeptical of the internet. That skepticism has fueled questioning about the value of social media and internet use as an activity, especially since it represents to this generation what daytime television did to the 1980s: people with no purpose, not much hope, and very little else to do.

It is possible that the “always on” nature of social media is making us miserable:

But in 2012, when the proportion of Americans who own smartphones surpassed 50 percent, she noticed abrupt changes in teen behavior and emotional states.

…Among other things, teens are: not hanging out as much with friends, in no rush to drive, dating less, having less sex, and getting less sleep. Most alarming, despite their continual connectivity, they are lonely. And rates of teen depression and suicide have skyrocketed since 2011.

…“Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones. It’s not just the technology, I should stress, it’s really the social media, which is the most common risk they are facing.”

One factor in this is that social media is driven by Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO) which causes people to obsessively tune in many times throughout the day and night, with many users taking their phone to bed in order to consume more media. This leads to an inability to ever detach from the narrative, which means they are not at rest even when sleeping, and a lack of sleep, which increases delusionality, hallucinations and psychotic behavior:

The primary outcome measures were for insomnia, paranoia, and hallucinatory experiences

…Compared with usual practice, the sleep intervention at 10 weeks reduced insomnia (adjusted difference 4·78, 95% CI 4·29 to 5·26, Cohen’s d=1·11; p<0·0001), paranoia (−2·22, −2·98 to −1·45, Cohen's d=0·19; p<0·0001), and hallucinations (−1·58, −1·98 to −1·18, Cohen's d=0·24; p<0·0001). ...It provides strong evidence that insomnia is a causal factor in the occurrence of psychotic experiences and other mental health problems.

Paranoia might be understood as “inverse solipsism,” meaning that it assumes a focus on the individual by wide-ranging external forces. Both posit the individual as the center of all activity, or origin of all meaning, and as such, the individual assumes that any activity out there is directed at them, in a mild form of one of the symptoms of schizophrenia.

Social media can induce this by compelling the individual to constantly interact with a symbolic representation of the world, and this token quickly obfuscates actual reality, which is both wider and less clear-cut and therefore, more ambiguous and threatening. As one writer found, this creates a pathology like addiction:

The landscape of my days has come to resemble my computer screen. The constant stream of pings and swooshes is a nonstop cry for my attention, and on top of that, everything can be clicked on, read, responded to, and Googled instantaneously. I sense a constant agitation when I’m doing something, as if there is something else out there, beckoning—demanding—my attention. And nothing needs to be deferred. It’s all one gratifying tap of the finger away.

…I am a writer by profession, and about a year ago I found myself unable to produce. I attributed my paralysis to writer’s block, freighted with psychological meaning, when in fact what I suffered from was a frightening inability to remain focused long enough to construct a single sentence.

…My therapy, of my own devising, consists of serial mono-tasking with a big dose of mindful intent, or intentional mindfulness—which is really just good, old-fashioned paying attention.

Living a virtual life means that the real life is ignored, which is why so many people seem to live in neckbeard nests where the computer is the only functional object, a gleaming device of firm lines surrounded by the more detailed organic forms of crumpled clothing, discarded wrappers, cigarette butts, detritus and dirt.

Social media requires people buy into that online life, and while many normal people use it periodically, its compulsive users — mostly SJWs — have become its focus. For those it becomes compulsive, with them fearing to go more than a few moments without checking for updates. Facebook, Google, et al. have figured that if they cannot have everyone use their service, they want to cultivate the largest fanatical audience that they can, which is why politics, lifestyle and social media use converge.

In a broader sense, Dot-Com 3.0 mindlock reflects the conditions of modernity, which are defined by control. The individual demands to control nature, especially the nature within, by asserting his individuality through equality; this creates a herd which must be taught to boo the enemy and cheer the good guys; that in turn makes the individualists enforce those boos and cheers on each other, causing a spiral where the society gradually eliminates any notice of reality and focuses exclusively on symbols.

The cart goes before the horse, the tail wags the dog, the world is turned upside-down. While we chase the One True Ring of power and control, we sleepwalk into a Brave New World style society based on what people want, instead of their suppression. Democracy, equality, pluralism and tolerance encourage us to be as weird as we want to be, and we slowly drift farther from reality, becoming more miserable as we do so, until the end seems like a good thing.

Social media just tapped into our mania for control through symbolism. If you replace the complex knowledge of the world as whole with a single interface of symbols that claim to control it all, people — or at least some types of people — become addicted. This addiction creates a hive mind for the purpose of excluding anything but what it wants to believe, and reality is pushed far away.

At this point, the populist wave has brought a backlash against unreality, and the unrelenting defense of unreality from the social media crowd is what is pushing Dot-Com 3.0 into collapse. The audience they need, the normal middle class, is fleeing, and the legbeards and blue-hairs are taking over at the same time regulators close in and investors shy away. The carnage will be delicious.

As Democracy-Created Problems Mount, The Thin Veneer Of The First World Cracks

Tuesday, September 12th, 2017

We, the citizens of the air conditioning and the infomercial, of the the fast food joint at the corner and the Wal-mart in the middle of town, like to think that we have attained a status where the problems of humanity — namely that 99% of us are screwing up most of the time, producing miserable societies — are as far away in time as they are in space.

Any time you see something denied, look quickly to see the truth that is being concealed and know it is true. The more we insist on equality, the more we know we are unequal; the more that we talk about our first world lifestyles, the more we should know that these are disappearing, replaced by a life completely controlled by democracy, consumerism and neurosis.

Hurricane Irma is currently ravaging Florida, but Hurricane Harvey changed America. It was not the story hidden within the story — that a city flooded itself by draining its reservoirs, after relatively minimal storm damage — but that normal people everywhere are waking up to the fact that we live in a fake society.

The media was quick to run a narrative of “Texans helping Texans, regardless of race, color or creed.” You know what this is: emphasize the dominant paradigm, so that people can go back to comfortable oblivion instead of being forced to face the fact that our society is in collapse.

Alone that tells you that our civilization is in collapse. If people have to actively deny and conceal something, it means the opposite is true. So Texans did not come together, regardless of race, color and creed; instead, minority-majority rule meant that the mayor was content to treat the relatively wealthy flooded suburbs as subject populations, knowing that his voter base would approve. Looting was widespread and generally ran across the color line. And we are not back to business as usual, because people have realized that our current civilization is dysfunctional and hostile to those who have the ability to fix it. Government hates competence in its constituency because the competence of certain individuals is a threat to control that is enforced by shepherding the masses of the brainwashed. The masses, voting for individualistic benefit, create a parasitic government that then promises to take care of them, and in the process, becomes a system of wealth transfer from the productive to those whose only commodity of value is their vote. They then form a loose cartel based on insisting that this way of life is the best and only option, and that anyone who dissents is guilty of anti-social behavior. Usually, this quiets the herd, including the dangerous tip of those who are intelligent, thoughtful, analytical and alert.

This time however, it did not work. As part of the growing alienation between Americans who support the equality agenda and those who do not, people are rebelling against the narrative. They realize that things would not be concealed unless they contained a grain of truth, and that the truth is that once you look behind the curtain, you see that everything about our government, equality and diversity is a lie.

A natural disaster shows you how much you depend on civilization. The first layer is the obvious stuff: electricity, water, sewer, grocery stores and cops on the streets. Then, you want a basic sense of stability, such as that there are those who will help you and people in power who will do their best to minimize the impact of events like this. You also want more than cops on the street, but a justice system which cannot be bought and puts the bad guys away or sends them away. You also want leaders that you can believe in who you think will replicate the world you grew up in, maybe a little improved, but not greatly diminished. And finally, there is the existential level: you want a civilization that has a purpose, so that life has a point, and that recognizes reality and adapts to it, so you do not encounter unpleasant surprises, and ideally that aims for excellence, so that we are creating meaning together by striving to not just subsist, and not just adapt, but even more than thrive, to ascend and therefore, to have something worth sacrificing for. People will go to work for the paycheck, but they are only really motivated when they believe there is something larger and more important than them which is being honored, perpetuated, refined and improved by the group participation of which they are part. The existential level comes out more than anything else during a natural disaster because people need an answer to the question, “Why rebuild? Why keep going? Why strive at all?”

Right now in the West we have the parasite dark organization that arises in any human group as the basis for our government, industry and cultural institutions. To understand this, we must first define terms: “organization” used in an adjectival or adverbial sense means the state of being organized, or having a plan, separated functions, tools and materials in place, hierarchy, delegation and the like; an “organization” in a noun sense means a group of humans united by certain principles and goals, from three friends up through a large corporation, government, tribe or centralized religion. Dark organizations happen when the goals of individuals conflict with the goals of the organization, and those individuals begin using the organization as a vehicle for their own goals instead of the goals of the organization, and the hierarchy or leadership within is not strong enough — or is disempowered by internal conflicts, including revolt by lower ranks — to resist it.

This happened in the West when we overthrew our monarchs to divide power so that the mercantile middle classes could expand their own power. First they removed the absolute authority of the monarchs and then, blaming them for the problems caused by that lack of absolute authority, removed them entirely. Since then we have had mob rule, but it keeps going because people believe in it and rationalize its failures because of their need for that belief, mainly because they cannot conceive of anything different. So they shrug off the insanity, wait in the lines, sit in entirely avoidable traffic jams that we treat like an odd kind of weather event, endure pointless make-work activities and moronic socialization, pay taxes that increase every year, support both criminal underclasses that contribute nothing and parasitic fake culture and fake leadership that actively steals from them, and cut off their brains from thinking about all the productive things they could do with the money, time and energy wasted on the parasites.

Government seems like it can keep going indefinitely. But it has a weakness: it depends on lots of nice white guys showing up, willing to carry out its insane orders, believing in its justifications and purpose. This is eroding, and events like Hurricane Harvey are accelerating it. When your local government makes disastrous decisions, and the number of people who want to take from the till increases, and bloat also swells, then you know that you are headed toward a crash. You are in a bubble, trading on the wealth and power of the past so that useless people can take “their fair share” despite offering nothing that contributes to improvement.

Our thinking went backward when we insisted on equality. Before equality, there was the idea of hierarchy, or that each person had a place in the structure of society, but unequally; we all gave according to our ability, and received according to our actual need in order to serve our purpose, which meant that many were poor because their roles were small. If they died, they were easily replaced, and so they received lower levels of funding. After equality, the assumption was different: we basically said that x + y = 1 for all values of x, so choose any arbitrary values that make you feel good. This is why people are fanatical about believing lies; they must make all choices good so that no one can be assessed according to their level of contribution. This is a type of pacifism that says we do not need to struggle for position, or even to use self-discipline to improve our contributions, but in a backward interpretation of the original formula, we are assumed to be contributors and then the system makes room for us and approves of whatever weird behaviors we indulge in. That is an anti-reality formula; instead of rewarding those who adapt to reality, we assume that the reward goes to everyone, and find an argument that says that whatever they were doing was useful after all, in contradiction of how things appear.

The reversal of thinking — instead of seeing what the result is, assuming that the result is good and therefore approving of anything on the left side of the equation — creates warm and fuzzy feelings among human beings. They no longer must struggle to get a good result (the right side of the equation) but can focus entirely on the left side of the equation, which is where they project their feelings, drama, emotions, judgements and sentiments. To them, their notions appear real if other people treat them as real, and it is this affirmation (or validation) that they want. They want other people to rubber-stamp the unrealistic as the real, because then they are blameless if a Darwinistic Event occurs and they are eliminated or humiliated.

Politics arises from that reversal. It is no longer important to show that an idea, when implemented, produces the right results; all results are the same. Instead, you merely have to excite 51% or more of the population about it, and it becomes law. Democracy is the expression of the social sensation of going along with the crowd because it is easier and less risky than standing out. Whoever produces the simplest idea wins, but that idea needs to not only be simple in itself, but appeal to the basic desires of humanity. Free stuff, blaming someone else for our problems, and feeling that nice warm togetherness that lets a hive mind buzz in unison are all perpetually popular themes. Politics occurs as a result with having to deal with a society without hierarchy, where other than the leaders, everyone is an equal, which means that in order to get anything done you need to get them all roaring at the same time. Because of equality, leadership becomes a question of politics, which is more like the work of an actor on stage or the phenomenon of a football game or even the choice of which television commercial is most effective, than some kind of reasoned decision based on facts, logic and context!

Equality creates nerds. The point of equality is to create a human-only world where all that matters is what other humans think; reality itself is deprecated and obsolete, but mass sentiment determines who wins and who dies. This produces nerds, or those who are experts in deductive reasoning based on human sources. A nerd can read an instruction manual or scientific study, and from it make conclusions about how reality is, focusing on broad and square logical statements instead of the finely nuanced, coordinated detail-oriented, logic-intensive and depth-focused world of nature. A nerd loves machines and rules, references and orthogonal logic patterns, and shies away from the complexity of a forest, ecosystem, weather pattern or philosophical argument. They are products of the system. They are the ones who rule in any democracy because they understand the mechanisms of both technology and the herd. When your society goes nerd, it becomes entirely self-referential, and misses out on the broader world outside of the human-centric logic used by social interaction and politics. Where nature demands results, politics and nerds focus on methods and procedures. This makes them powerful within human society, but unable to predict the consequences of nature, which turns out not to be “some thing out there” but a pattern order that pervades us all, and dooms the best-laid plans of nerds and politicians because those schema are too simple to take account of the nuance, detail and subtlety of nature.

This in turn creates neurosis because there are no actual rules, only responses to whatever the herd is doing at that moment. Modern people are attention whores because with equality, no one has any actual place, and everyone starts from square one. As a result, they are all trying to prove their importance by competing for money or ideological purity, because either makes them noteworthy and then they can start cultivating their personal Crowd which will ensure their popularity and thus, newsworthiness and from that, profitability. Equality makes everyone into a prostitute for social influence points, or status. This leads them to become entirely self-serving independent of their actual role in civilization, and this leads to a mixture of arrogance, pretense, narcissism and solipsism which is the defining feature of the person in the egalitarian society. The more equal we are, the more we have nothing, and must seek out some position of importance in order to avoid becoming simply generic human containers who die alone in irrelevance. Human attention is the only thing between us and the voracious void, so we pursue it like a drug, feeling good about ourselves only when we glow in the eyes of others, and feeling awful when we are deprived of this socializing influence. We are dependent on others for our own sense of identity and worth, and this is how we are controlled, not by a centralized force but by the instinct to form a herd that lurks in every human soul.

This leads us to the dirty secret of humanity: we think we are all so very individualistic, distinct and important, when in truth, most people are the same, being simply feral atavistic animals seeking to become important through using others in order to survive. Civilization becomes addictive like sex or skydiving, a feeling of well-being we seek before anything else because it temporarily ceases the emptiness we feel from having been made equal. Humans pursue ideas like “equality” and “diversity” because these reflect individualism, but since the individualist is beholden to the Crowd for his power, individualism corrupts and reduces individuality, creating empty people. We are more similar than we think in that there are only a few functions known as the “4 Fs” — feeding, fighting, fleeing and reproduction — which humans focus on, although our versions are more abstracted than those literal ideas. For example, people posture at being important in order to feed better thanks to higher salaries; they fight through sports, business, socializing and culture; they flee from any idea which invalidates what they have achieved; and they seek mates by showing off whenever they can. We are biology, no matter how much we deny it.

Our contemporary narrative takes advantage of this. The Leftist idea, which is egalitarianism, makes us feel like the adversity we face has been removed by the collective action of humanity. This in turn makes us believe that we are somehow breaking new ground for humanity when in reality we are denying fundamentals that we need for civilization. Like a bad business, we are cutting corners by refusing to put energy into civilization so that we can instead devote it to short-term enjoyments. The only way to rationalize this behavior is through the nebulous and emotional world of social morality, which follows the utilitarian idea that whatever most people will vocalize approval of must then be what is right, even when it is not — or especially when it is not. This rationalization enables us to live in a solipsistic bubble where we pretend that we are unique, different, iconoclastic and special by using the same logic that allows us to claim that decay is progress. To those caught in the addiction to being unique and special that comes with trying to rise to a state above the mere equality that is granted to everyone, and therefore is worthless, “diversity” seems a natural way to decrease the amount of standards in a society, and therefore allows us to get more freaky, weird, eccentric, eclectic, and dramatic, which in turn allows us to engage in stunts and attention whoring and raise our own status, since “equality” actually pushes us downward by eliminating any innate identity or position we would have if we were living in a hierarchical society.

Our behavior thus is compensatory in that since we are not getting what we need, we focus instead on short-term temporary wants as a means of feeling compensated for what has been taken from us that we cannot identify. That makes us dependent on our compensatory behavior because we feel that it is all we have, and we have a vague sense of being victimized, but since the person doing the victimizing is ourselves, since we have unknowingly become pathological in our cult-like pursuit of equality, we cannot lash out, and instead target those around us by becoming parasitic to our own civilization. This takes us full circle: people feel a lack of power, so they demand equality, which in turn makes them powerless, so they sabotage their society, but this makes them complicit in a dark organization like a gang, cult, cartel or mob which then demands allegiance, so they cannot stop the cycle. Endless cries for equality are met by endless degradation of conditions, while those savvy and cynical enough to see through the whole thing promise the mewling mob what it demands, and then abscond with the profits because they know that only disaster lies ahead. Whether that is Hugo Chavez dying a billionaire as his countrymen starved, Soviet apparatchiks in their dachas, Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren becoming millionaires in office, or simply your average rank-and-file bureaucrat making six figures to administer civil rights, affirmative action, sexual assault protection or any of the other voter hot button programs, equality means theft.

People generally recognize that this is the case, and it makes them hopeless. Anyone with a brain in the West has been morbidly depressed since at least the 1920s, with the most perceptive beginning to feel the queasiness in the 1820s or earlier. However, they know that a transition to anything else will involve massive carnage and possibly failure, so they hang on, patching up society like a leaky boat and hoping for the best instead of letting it sink while they build a new boat. These people, who are complicit in continuing the decline because they have rationalized the decay as positive and are afraid of anything else, collaborate with the government and other captive industries to further the narrative: We Can Fix This. They want us to think that Houston flooding is merely an aberration, a glitch, or a deviation from the norm, instead of the norm itself. The truth is that we cannot fix this and even if we could, it would be doom for us, a slow death by a thousand cuts that makes us existentially miserable and prone to abuse our families, friends and coworkers as it drives us mad. We are locked in a train heading toward a ravine where the bridge is out, keeping ourselves distracted by fighting over the distribution of food in the restaurant car while the abyss grows steadily nearer. We all want off the train, but there is no way to jump from a speeding train without risk of death or serious injury, so we huddle closer, in public keeping up the charade by focusing on any issue other than the one real issue of civilization collapse, and in private always wondering exactly when the crash will come.

Houston shows us our future. The minority-majority city will never act in a sane way because it is divided by racial politics. Every group votes for what benefits them, with only the Western European group voting for what will make the local civilization there work for everyone. Who wants to pay for a billion-dollar aqueduct when there are pensions, benefits, diversity programs, more schools for the children of illegal aliens, and more helpful government programs that hire the bureaucrats who get those pensions, to be funded? Houston has known since Tropical Storm Allision in 2001 that an epic flood disaster was going to occur, and the :

What’s at stake is the safety of the nation’s fourth-largest city. If the dams failed, half of Houston would be underwater.

…Addicks and Barker were six decades old, with a long history of seepage and erosion, when the Corps evaluated their condition in 2007. Once positioned far from downtown, they were now surrounded by houses and highways. Some residences sat within the reservoirs, which straddle the Energy Corridor along Interstate 10 and west of Beltway 8.

Development upstream was sending more runoff into the reservoirs, which were filling faster and storing water for longer. Nine out of the top 10 pools for both reservoirs have occurred since 1990.

“Every piece of concrete that’s poured upstream is going to have an impact on these reservoirs. Every square inch,” Long said

…The deadliest scenario for Addicks involves the outlets failing as the pool rises to 106 feet, producing the staggering loss of billions in property and thousands of lives after water submerges downtown, west and south Houston and the Texas Medical Center. 

You can see the growth of Houston over time, and how that growth coincides with the mostly-Hispanic immigration that transformed a once white-run city into a Democrat-run, mostly non-white city. Houstonians who grew up after 1982 found themselves in a minority-majority city with street signs in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean and other languages corresponding to the 145 languages that people speak there. White people make up 24.9% of the population of Houston, and 38.8% of the population of the Houston metropolitan area.

As Houston grew, it lost a vital resource: the wide flood plain that enabled the reservoirs to dump water outside of the city, instead of having to release it into the mainly white neighborhoods surrounding the bayous, into which the reservoirs drain as outlets.

It was not to be. On April 18, during the height of the storm, when the dam gates were closed, the flow in Buffalo Bayou reached nearly 7,000 cfs, as measured by the gauge at Piney Point. (The Memorial Day flood on May 26, 2015, exceeded 7,000 cfs and reached 8,500 cfs, according to the Harris County Flood Control District, page 9.) As of this writing, combined releases from the dams, measured by the Piney Point gauge, have exceeded 3,000 cubic feet per second for longer than even after the Memorial Day flood, the first time the Corps deliberately raised the release rate to 3,000 cfs, and frequently have reached 3,700 cfs. Homes downstream are expected to flood above 4,000 cfs.

Consistently, Houston has rejected any plan for addressing the problem of huge amounts of rain, namely that such amounts would necessitate a release above 4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) in order to drain the reservoirs in anticipation of future rain, as it indeed did, destroying many neighborhoods. Hurricane Harvey called Houston’s bluff, which mayors Lanier, Brown, Parker and Turner — all Democrats, two black — had been ignoring as a possibility by not acting on any plan to increase drainage. The growth of Houston, coupled with its refusal to upgrade its drainage, created this flood.

In fact, there were two floods: the initial storm surge, which flooded areas that normally flooded during storms like Allison, and the reservoir release, which produced the really devastating damage that destroyed homes along the bayous two days after the storm hit. This flood has provoked a class action lawsuit from homeowners who observed the correlation between the reservoir release and the destruction of their homes. In their view, the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Houston essentially used some of its oldest and wealthiest neighborhoods as a giant retention pond, instead of venting the reservoirs outside the city, which created a flood of epic proportions:

The controlled releases, which topped out with the dams gushing a combined 13,000 cubic feet per second, sent water surging into homes along Buffalo Bayou in neighborhoods, outlined by I-10 to the north, Gessner to the east, Briar Forest to the south and the reservoir to the west. Mayor Sylvester Turner ordered a mandatory evacuation for all homes that had flooded once it became clear the water would not recede anytime soon.

…This comes as people are looking back at the years of warnings that this kind of event could happen, about developing rice fields and wetlands that used to sop up storm water, about how Addicks and Barker were aging, about how another plan was needed to be put in place before a major storm like Harvey hit.

…After all, in 1996 a report from engineers with the Harris County Flood Control District found that Harris County’s reservoir system was not cutting it, a problem that put thousands of home in jeopardy. At that time the proposed solution was a $400 million underground system that would pipe water from the reservoirs to the Houston Ship Channel.

And so it comes down to money. Spend on benefits for the diversity, or spend it on protecting the mostly white and Jewish neighborhoods threatened by reservoir-induced flooding? The 1996 report warned that Houston had expanded to cover the floodplain once used to drain the reservoirs:

The report was filed away without action, then last week Harvey struck. The usually dry Addicks and Barker reservoirs quickly filled until, on Aug. 28, they were nearly full and water had spread to their surrounding neighborhoods. The Army Corps of Engineers opened the floodgates to let a controlled amount escape. But instead of the normal 4,000 cubic feet per second, Corps officials opened the gates wide enough to release more than 13,000 cubic feet per second to keep the rising reservoir levels from overtopping the dams. They did so knowing it would flood neighborhoods downstream.

And just as the 1996 report predicted, water in many of the flooded homes would not drain for days or even weeks.

Despite this warning, the coalition of housing developers who wield the power of campaign financing and the minority voters who make up the largest voting bloc, would not support any changes, especially since the new homes in the floodplain were providing affordable housing for the new population, which was mostly non-white which was accelerated by the Obama policy of relocating Section 8 housing to the suburbs. As in Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles and other cities where the minority vote decides every election, people vote for what benefits their own tribes, and leave the costs to be absorbed by others, in this case mostly white, longer-term residents of Houston. Minorities never vote conservative, and Democrats win elections by promising benefits, not addressing infrastructural or structural problems. The more benefits we pay out, the more our wealth declines along with our motivation and hope, in parallel to what we saw in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries; benefits, like labor unions, are a socialist idea. The Balkanization begins in Houston.

Every plan that has promised to address the potential superfloods has been voted down, including some that took the reasonable step of limiting development:

Harris County Flood Control District, Texas Water Development Board and others released a study in August that looked at a key problem area: the overflow of Cypress Creek into Addicks Reservoir. One plan listed in the study, known as “Alternative Five,” proposes the acquisition of land along Cypress Creek to act as a sponge or reservoir for floodwaters. The more land that soaks up floodwater, the less likely the dams are to be breached: That’s just common sense. Area officials, nonprofit organizations and developers should unite to take the steps necessary to implement this plan now.

This alternative, which will provide a host of benefits to residents in addition to flood protection, is garnering support from groups that want to use natural resources as a primary defense against flooding as well as groups that support conventional infrastructure projects. Not only will the plan help relieve the pressure on the dams, as the area grows more populated, Houstonians also will be grateful for the green space. The mixed-use floodways will provide recreational amenities and will benefit the biodiversity of the area by maintaining a home for quail, dove, rabbits and a large variety of songbirds and ducks.

There’s no time to waste. Nearby land is being developed and concrete is being poured at a rapid pace.

However, displacing this land by making it a floodplain would frustrate both the developers, who see money in building neighborhoods closer to the city, and minority voters, who are increasingly located in suburbs and want this new housing. While people from the coasts — seemingly to a man knowing zero about the situation in Houston, yet willing to opine on it with the pretense of authority — suggest that Houston’s lack of zoning is the problem, the reality is far simpler: even with zoning, new neighborhoods are springing up anywhere land can be bought in order to accommodate the flood of newcomers, most of whom are from Central America and Asia and vote consistently Democrat. Zoning will raise the costs of housing, but will not stop the growth of the city. And Texas’ famously high property taxes, required to maintain the school system under the “Robin Hood” policy of redistributing money from wealthy areas to poorer ones, keep going up as bilingual schools are built to take on the flood of new children, 91% of whom are non-white. This means that anyone who owns land that could be kept in a natural state is driven out when they receive the astronomical bill based on the new value of their land, since development nearby raises its estimated sales price, which is the metric by which taxes are calculated. And whites? They are the prosperous tax base that also accurately reports its income, in contrast to some newer successful groups who have already for cheating in schools and, by reputation, on their taxes. In Asian and many Hispanic countries, cheating on taxes and exams is part of the national culture.

It is not global warming that brought about this flood, but over-development to support a rising minority-majority population:

Other researchers argue that poor urban infrastructure and the rapid, unchecked sprawl of cities on to marshlands and other places that usually absorb excess rainwater have led to flooding.

“We know climate change is influencing the capacity of the atmosphere to hold water but it is hard to attribute this to individual [flooding] events,” says Paolo Ruti, head of the global weather research division of the UN’s World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in Geneva.

Those marshlands refer to the areas West, Northwest and South of Houston that in the past absorbed the extra water.

Television coverage of this event was interesting, since it focused mostly on what appeared to be obese people from minority groups getting rescued from homes in the outer suburbs like Cypress. This both affirms the narrative of equality (less capable = victims; more capable = tax base and evildoers) but also plays to popular stereotypes in the cruelest manner of bigots, so that the standard low-information white voter can sit back and quietly mutter ethnic slurs, which focuses his attention on specific minority groups instead of the problem of diversity, which is that his interests will never win in an election again. Hating black people plays into the hands of the pro-diversity crowd because it redirects focus to a false event, which is the behavior of minorities, and away from the actual question, which is that diversity is a government-sponsored event which can be ended by changing our laws, unleashing a wave of similar lawsuits, or, if necessary, open revolution.

White Houstonians are held hostage by the minority vote just as white voters are in Detroit or Baltimore. The third world strategy is to arrive en masse in clueless Western-style democracies, and then produce many offspring, so that soon, the minority population controls the vote and can turn the government against the people who created it. This demonstrates a classic conflict between r– and K-strategic populations — something I have been writing about since 2009 — which is that poorer and dumber populations have many more children, and eventually overwhelm those who are more competent at making leadership decisions, at which point the society collapses into a third-world state. Couple this with the fact that, to dumber people, more intelligent ideas than they are capable of generating in fact appear to be unintelligent ideas, and you have a perfect political storm where the incompetent swarm the gates and take over, only to create a failed state which makes successively worse decisions, as happened with the French Revolution and Russian Revolution, and arguably, the Obama revolution which wrecked America economically, culturally and structurally, paving the way for the populist backlash, which wanted an end to “globalism” or the advance of worldwide Leftism with its diversity initiative, after noticing the Soviet-style transformation unable to respond to actual risk. These people want their countries back and distrust the permanent political class running those countries. They are united against the toxic coalition of Leftists, minorities and large corporations that has transformed America and Europe by following the Leftist agenda.

We have seen this pattern before outside America, where minority-majority voters pair with Leftists and corporate interests to pursue an internationalist agenda instead of focusing on the health of the civilization and its founding group:

It is no exaggeration to say that this myth of the “moral high ground” was sustained only by sheer denialism, by a studied aversion of the eyes from these well-known faults. This held true even as the first signs of a new corruption became clear as one ANC leader after another quickly developed wealthy white “godfathers”. I asked Anton Harber, then editor of the Mail and Guardian, why his paper was paying so little attention to this alarming new phenomenon. He replied indignantly that having campaigned so strongly for liberation they had no wish to embarrass the new black elite. This sort of attitude was widespread. There was a rush among white opinion-makers to befriend the ANC and anyone who brought up such matters, let alone things like the use of torture in the MK camps, was thought to be churlish, perhaps even pro-apartheid.

The new ANC elite could not have hoped for such luck: a key newspaper deciding that news of budding corruption should be treated as non-news. They were not slow to take advantage. Even before 1994 Joe Modise, the putative defence minister, had made contact with various large arms manufacturers, had established contact with many old apartheid security apparatchiks and was a frequent attender at European air shows and the like: everything was ready to go.

This follows a pattern we see worldwide throughout history, which is that diversity is not a friend, but a challenge that no society has successfully navigated. Thomas Sowell lays out the basic problem with diversity:

If there is any place in the Guinness Book of World Records for words repeated the most often, over the most years, without one speck of evidence, “diversity” should be a prime candidate.

Is diversity our strength? Or anybody’s strength, anywhere in the world? Does Japan’s homogeneous population cause the Japanese to suffer? Have the Balkans been blessed by their heterogeneity — or does the very word “Balkanization” remind us of centuries of strife, bloodshed and unspeakable atrocities, extending into our own times?

Has Europe become a safer place after importing vast numbers of people from the Middle East, with cultures hostile to the fundamental values of Western civilization?

To which Ann Coulter adds the unpopular truth that diversity causes permanent political division that endangers societies:

Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the “beautiful mosaic” — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”

On top of that, research data shows that diversity destroys social order and therefore is a dysfunctional form of civilization that will eradicate the host population. By contrast, homogeneity provides a firm basis for civilization, as a landmark study that demonstrates the superiority of ethnocentric civilizations in holding back both groupthink and selfishness:

Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. By tracking evolution across time, we find individual differences between evolving worlds in terms of early humanitarian competition with ethnocentrism, including early stages of humanitarian dominance. Our evidence indicates that such variation, in terms of differences between humanitarian and ethnocentric agents, is normally distributed and due to early, rather than later, stochastic differences in immigrant strategies.

For now, people are vested in the system — it pays their wages, provides their security, and threatens to destroy them if they say something that is not politically correct — and so they feel clever for partaking in it and believing that it functions. They like the thought that they are represented by something, that they have freedom, and that no matter what they do, society cannot eject them or judge them as lower because they have equality. In order to have these, they select utilitarianism, or the idea that whatever most people think is “good” actually is good, and in order to have a society where most people disagree on most things, they adopt pluralism or the idea that we can “agree to disagree” and still have some semblance of functional order. From that, the step to diversity is not a long one, and it brings the eternal crisis of egalitarianism (equality): if you have a group of people who are fundamentally different in ability, the only way to make them all the same — how our brains interpret the word “equality” — is to take from those at the top, and give to those at the bottom, which means that the worst slowly consume the best, in a metaphorical relationship similar to that of biological parasites in nature. This happens without diversity, but diversity accelerates it, and soon we get the white=bad/non-white=good narrative that we saw in the early news stories about the Hurricane Harvey floods in Houston.

Even more, during a natural disaster, we see the need for civilization, which is not a generic thing but comes in different types, of which first world, third world, totalitarian, democratic, and nationalistic are potentially overlapping descriptors. All nice things end when you set up your civilization incorrectly; homogeneity is a pre-requisite for having a nice civilization. You cannot shape people into being like you with laws and incentives; to have nice places, you must have nice people, which means people like you on a biological level, as expressed both in genetics and outward appearance (phenotype). Even more, you need a leadership system that ensures that instead of having the worst slowly consume the best, you both empower the best to rule, and remove incentives for the best to victimize the rest, which requires vesting most of the wealth — usually through land, without insane property taxes — with the best. Without people of genius for leadership curating civilization at every step and every level, idiocy intervenes, and idiocy is subversive because it appeals to the broadest number of people since anything less idiotic is incomprehensible and offensive to them, so they will demand that those higher ideas go away and are replaced by idiotic ones. We have nothing now but pro-idiot policies.

The mayor of Houston is a man named Sylvester Turner who has a glowing résumé. He is not of the majority, so experience has taught me that this means that his experience and deeds have been vastly inflated by well-meaning but self-hating which means neurotic members of the majority group. He works for those who vote for him, which in a city that is three-quarters minority, means that he works against the interests of the white people and in favor of the Left-leaning, benefits-inclined minorities. Before him came Annise Parker, who was also an outsider, being a lesbian. She, too, worked for her tribe at the expense of the founders of this city, who were Western Europeans. She achieved the minority vote because she was not of the majority. Before her was Bill White, a member of the majority who was popular with the business community and progressives for his mixture of libertarian business policy and Leftist social policy. Previous to him was Lee Brown, also not of the majority ethnic group, who was universally recognized as lazy and incompetent but made Houston look “progressive” at a time when it was trying to expand. Before him was Bob Lanier, an old-school Democrat who was cozy with industry. He was of the majority group and should have known better, but apparently wanted power more than he wanted to be right, and the citizens of this city voted enthusiastically for them because he promised to make it grow by bringing in lots of outside people and industry. All of these people had a chance to make this flood problem go away, perhaps only for $400 million — a tiny fraction of the damage done by Harvey — and blew it off, because the coalition of minority voters and voracious industry did not want to spend the money on anything but benefits and new roads to the suburbs they were perpetually building around the city, many of which became homes for those minority voters. These people were mostly white, but under the non-white mayor Brown, the time was right because of Tropical Storm Allison, which flooded the city to the point that it was clear that something needed to be done. None acted.

Houston is a blue city. Most of the whites are faced with a grim choice: admit they are living in a third world nightmare with a pile of white wealth on top, or rationalize the problem, which means finding a way to argue to their own minds that bad=good, which they do through enthusiastic support of diversity, high taxes, immigration, gay rights and a slough of other Leftist issues that make people feel that nice warm sense of one-ness that comes with a buzzing hive mind. Rationalizers follow the mental policy that inevitable disaster can be postponed for long enough to forget about it, and that in the meantime, it is best to explain away the bad as good and tilt at windmills that are unrelated to actual problems. Most of us are familiar with the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

They came for the Communists, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders, and I
didn’t object – For I wasn’t a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn’t
object – For I wasn’t a Jew;
Then they came for me –
And there was no one left to object.

Rationalization means recognizing that there is an incoming and ongoing problem and choosing to re-style it as a victory. Obviously Niemöller had some issues, because removal of labor leaders, Socialists and Communists is never a bad thing, but the point he makes is a good one. Rationalization is a sickness of the mind. It takes many forms, some of them on the right. “Work hard, pray hard” and the Benedict Option are one form; another is anti-Semitism, which blames Jews for the problems created by Aryans through caste revolt, in which our r-strategy serfs overwhelmed our K-strategy aristocrats with the help of the mercantile bourgeois middle class. The so-called “Jewish Question” or JQ is a form of rationalization that avoids the real issue — civilization decline brought on by egalitarian sentiments, and a resulting lack of hierarchy and social order — while pursuing a symbolic issue, namely the scapegoat of the Jews, who for whatever wrongs they have done, did not create our decline, because we did it ourselves. The JQ is “we wuz kangs” for white people, or an explanation of how we were once great until someone else stole it from us, and an easy answer in that if we destroy that other, then the good times can resume. Leftism is another rationalization; instead of admitting that people are unequal and we want the best on top, Leftism says that it is positive that ineptitude and chaos rule because otherwise, we would have to face the morally and emotionally difficult task of recognizing hierarchy and the need for purpose. Leftism is just like the JQ: a pathology of blaming someone else for our cognitive incompetence.

Turner is obviously a bad guy here, in his participation in encouraging the reservoir release that created the flood, but he is not the source. Neither are the poor Jewish people who got flooded out in Meyerland. Democracy and diversity did this to you, and they happened because you voted for them, tolerated them and were afraid to speak up while you still had a chance. Now that Leftism has momentum, it is squashing all dissent aggressively, and so the only response is to confront it head-on as Trump and Brexit voters have done, but we must go further. The problem with democracy is that it cultivates helplessness and neurosis in us, much as socialism does, and so it must be removed; the problem of diversity is easily removed by sacking our Civil Rights laws and affirmative action, then beginning the reparations-with-repatriation process for all who are not of our founding group, who are Western Europeans. This means that Irish-Americans go back as well as Mexicans, Africans, Asians and Arabs. Modernity is the era defined by equality and individualism, and we now see that its end result is that all nice things get destroyed and are in turn replaced by third-world ruins.

It is hard — intellectually, morally, and emotionally — to face these truths. The sociable thing to do in any situation is to insist that everyone is good, we are all one, and all are welcome. People perennially desire to give in to this pathology, which like pacifism is a desire to avoid conflict by sacrificing what is accurate, good and right. It must be opposed, if you want a functional civilization, without regard to level of detail. Any egalitarianism is toxic; not one drop can be permitted. Any pluralism is toxic; not one drop can be allowed. Any democracy is toxic; not one drop can be sustained. All of those little drops come together to make a trickle, and that wears down the levee, and then they multiply, and soon those drops are a flood, submerging everything good while the bad feasts on the remains.

Humanity Divides Between The Functional And The Dependents

Tuesday, May 2nd, 2017

Humanity in the West is rapidly separating into two groups: an increasingly-emboldened realist wing, and then those who want to continue the path of the last century toward accelerating Leftism.

Most have phrased this as a heartland-versus-the-coasts division, but increasingly, it is looking more like a separation between those who can live independently of this system and those who depend upon it:

In an important essay for The Washington Post, Will Wilkinson recently examined President Trump’s consistent rhetorical hostility to cities and noted the salience of the urban-rural divide for understanding the outcome of the 2016 election. “The bigger, denser, and more diverse the city, the better Hillary Clinton did in November. But Trump prevailed everywhere else — in small cities, suburbs, exurbs, and beyond.”

And so it has been in other places as well. In the Brexit vote, London strongly voted to stay in the EU, while less densely populated industrial centers and more rural areas voted to leave. Most recently, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s anti-democratic referendum in Turkey narrowly passed despite strong opposition in Istanbul and Ankara, because it was strongly supported in outlying areas. The same is likely to happen in France’s upcoming presidential election, in which Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Front will do well outside of Paris while losing the capital in a landslide.

Since the time of Aristotle, political philosophers have noted that those who live in cities have a different sensibility than those who live in the countryside. The American constitutional framers were certainly aware of and concerned about the difference. Thomas Jefferson famously declared that republican government needed to be founded on the virtues practiced and fostered by yeomen farmers — and fretted that commerce encourages vices that could be incompatible with it.

The above sets up two groups. The first are not as diverse, in smaller cities, suburbs, exurbs and rural areas. The second are diverse in large or dense cities as one finds on the coasts. The difference between these is that people in the rest of the nation have to be more self-reliant, where city living is inherently interdependent, making social influence more important. This means that people get their political opinions from what the hive thinks.

Someone in the suburb or a small city must figure things out for themselves, have some money set aside, own their own tools, and so on. In the city, there is no room to store tools or possibly even have a car. For this reason, people are more interdependent than independent.

Even more, we have to look at the cause-and-effect dimension here. What type of person wants to live in a city? A highly social one, possibly one accustomed to codependent relationships. Who strikes out for the burbs, smaller places or rural areas? Those who like recognize that society is a farce, that life is a solitary pursuit, and that meaning must be had outside of the world of socializing.

With the Battle of Berkeley, we see the sides being formed. On one hand are the Leftists who want full Socialism or more, and on the other, an awakened roots Right that merges Nietzschean and commonsense sentiments in a view that our civilization has collapsed, and we have to tear out the bad and rebuild.

To a city person, this view is apocalyptic because it will infringe on their lifestyle right now. They do not care about twenty years from now, or the future beyond their own lifespan. They want the convenience they depend on in order to make city life workable, even if that leaves a cloud of doom after them.

This attitude is consistent with a lack of independence. To be independent, you have to be willing to give up convenience for solid values, and this requires discovering how things work, which in turn provokes an appreciation for the timeless and incessant. It is an entirely different mentality.

It is possible that this split shows us nature separating humanity into new species. One species for example might totally turn its back on our hunter-gatherer heritage and become more hive-oriented, like ants or bees. These humans will probably be dumber, more social, and exist as either leaders or drones. They will operate exclusively through swarms. And, they will always produce the same type of hive, with the same activities, dead-ending evolution.

The other is going to pick up the mantle of evolution as produced the West. These independent creatures will be community-oriented because having a stable civilization serves the cause of independence, and not individualistic, because asserting individualism before realism weakens the individual. They will also be ruthlessly self-focused and view most of humanity as an aggravated screw-up which will go nowhere, and therefore will brush it aside and push ahead.

Our ancestors were like this, but were interrupted when the power of socializing came about. For the last few thousand years, humans have been beguiling and manipulating each other with social symbols, and this has brought on an age of decay. Now the groups are separating: those who wish to liquefy the assets of society and live on the proceeds, and those who want to rebuild and restore a renewed Western Civilization.

Waste Of Time

Friday, January 6th, 2017

The struggle of our time has become clear: realists, who want civilization, stand against ideologues, who want to rationalize the decline by directing our attention with the false metric of “progress,” which is essentially virtue signaling for social status.

Realists face a series of tough realizations. The first is how much recent politics was bungled; after that, the time scale and scope expands. Soon it becomes clear that our society has been afflicted with deep rot for many centuries.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is realizing that the decay runs deeper than politics. It has infested all aspects of life, including the “lifestyle” and daily experience of people, leading to existential misery. Worst of all of these realizations is the knowledge that modern society is a giant waste of time.

Most of what we do is completely unnecessary except that it allows individuals to claim they are important. Most products fail, but their launches allow ambitious little sociopaths to claim they are wizards, at least for long enough to get hired somewhere else. Most tasks at jobs are there to demonstrate the importance of the manager. Most red tape events involve bureaucrats asserting their power over you. Most social events are jockeying for positions in a hierarchy, and art, culture, literature and even friendship get used as means to that end.

In short, competition has created an infinite demand for ways to compete. As has been observed many times, every thing creates more of itself, and so when we make competition in specific areas part of our society, that takes over everything else. That we do it with money makes it mandatory that everyone join in and waste their time.

The average job could be done in a few hours a week, if we subtract out the activities done to demonstrate the importance of managers and employees, the red tape which solves no problems but creates work for everyone, the waiting around for people who are merely posing at being busy elsewhere, the pro forma meetings and emails. Jobs are mental spam for the most part, and they obscure the tasks which actually need doing.

Add to that the other great waste-of-time activities in modernity: returning the constant defective products, researching products to see which of the options are not corner cutting scams designed to get some idiot promoted to management somewhere, spending days or weeks filing paperwork which no one will see, arguing with self-important customer service representatives and waiting in line — endlessly — while someone in front struggles with understanding the simple nuances of the obvious solution to their avoidable problem.

Modern society is a trap. It will kill us off the same way every advanced civilization dies: it tolerates the stupid, who then gang up on the rest, take over and make a society designed for idiots. This exhausts the intelligent, who promptly die out, leaving the stupid in charge for a glorious generation or two before their corruption accrues and society plunges (slowly) into third-world status.

The intelligent are forced into a role by civilization that they feel obligates them to the rest. What this means in reality is that the smarter parts of our civilization are forced to babysit the rest. That group, essentially reckless proles hungry for power and wealth, is the most destructive force in any society, like a stomach that thinks it is a brain.

This exhausts the intelligent, and makes it easier for the proles to take over.

While this happens, those of mental ability are forced to either (1) stand against the ongoing decay and become marginalized, dying childless in small cabins in the woods or (2) rationalize the decline as good, make the right virtue signals and “succeed” despite it wasting all of their time and energy in the process of babysitting the insane and stupid herd.

Rationalization of a clearly sick and moribund society makes them crazy, and from these tormented souls we get our intellectuals and social elites. They tend to be corrupt because their minds are scrambled by having to accept the destruction of their civilization as a good thing, and to assuage their guilt, they tend to endorse ideas like “progress” and Utopia in order to avoid talking about the actual problem, the collapse of civilization, because it is hard to solve where Utopian plans are trivially easy.

The dying civilization of the West has tormented its intelligent people and driven them insane as they try to adapt to a world created for the crass tastes of the herd. They were aliens in their own society long before diversity, and now they are simply ghosts wandering among the others, with everyone waiting for them to die out so the prole party can kick into high gear.

As we come to grips with how utterly insane and corrupt our leaders have been for the past eight years, it is time to reflect on the fact that these acts did not occur in isolation. We The People voted for these idiots; we are the bigger idiots. But who is “we”? Our society has been hijacked by a mob which wants to destroy civilization and replace it with an endless carnival.

Until we start talking about that problem, we are merely putting band-aids on a sucking chest wound. Our civilization is dying. It has been dying for a long time, and its death will be a slow descend into third world chaos, crime, and corruption. The only way to fix it is to take power away from the proles, and restore it to the responsible people, which recent elections have indicated is a popular (enough) idea.

Unpunished Herd

Sunday, October 16th, 2016

the_modern_city

By the time democracy arrives, things are well and truly dead for a civilization and the only formalities remaining are the toe tag and the estate sale. Our ancestors knew that if you indulge the pretense of humans, or the defensive assumption that they are good, it will give them license to run amok, and that they have done.

What we have left of “civilization” is essentially an economy with cops, lawyers, judges and nagging nanny journalists riding herd on the chaos. This is predictable, because we can see that people without strong leadership behave like herd animals.

You can see the proof of my point if you work with any volunteer organization. Sit people down in a committee and they start making the same type of bad decisions that our nations are making. The cause is this bad decision-making, and the result is our terrible elites.

In cause-effect terms, the elites are the effect and our choices are the cause. They did not impose this on us; we imposed them on ourselves by selecting an unrealistic type of government, namely herd-based leadership which was inevitably capitalized on by a corrupt media, political class and lobbyist layer.

You can also see the same thing at a job, or even in personal lives. People in groups make terrible decisions. People are pretentious and selfish, generally. It is entirely logical that the end result of this process is awful government and its handmaidens, who will be massively corrupt.

The point is that, regarding leadership, we have a binary option:

  • The best oppress the rest. Some claw their way to the top, demonstrating exceptional ability. They then restrain the rest of the group because this restraint is needed for civilization. End result: more effective leadership, no runaway herd acting selfishly. — or:

  • The rest oppress the best. Strong leadership is feared, so society adopts weak leadership, which results in a slow but constant growth of many small problems which converge in a loss of social order and suicidal policies like endless war, immigration and quasi-legal corruption.

At the most abstract level, these are the choices we have in “government,” and every single possible type of leadership structure fits into one or the other of these categories. Either we put the best on top, or we have mob rule.

The Americans tried a middle ground. Their Constitution is as complicated as an Italian race car, and yet, it was dismantled in as few as a dozen years, depending on who you talk to. After a disastrous civil war, two world wars, and now endless war in the middle east as the American Leftist regime goes the way of the Soviets, the Constitution is effectively dead.

And so, like people lost in a maze, here we are again, back at the same crossroads we have been at before. Best, or rest? The last two hundred years have showed us what the rest can do, and it is ugly: horrible jobs based on attendance more than performance, cities that are wastelands, corrupt leaders, gross mass culture, and what seems to be a decline in genetic ability to think among even the upper echelons of our society.

We are not just in trouble because of our system of government, but because it is making us incompetent. First, it redirects our attention from actual issues to symbolic ones, like how popular something is or whether it plays the politics or law game well. Second, the system promotes only those who think this way.

The Brexit/Trump Revolution (BTR) has much going for it. The weak point in its armor is that it scapegoats our elites for the mess we are in. We are in a mess, but the elites are an effect of that mess, not its cause. The cause is our reliance on herd voting and buying to make decisions, instead of having actual leadership.

Francis Fukuyama told us that we have reached the end of history, which depressed everyone because while the West is wealthy, it is dead in its soul. People hate their daily existence because it is humiliating, menial and incompetent, even at the highest levels of career and social life.

What he meant to write, perhaps, was that liberal democracy had beaten down all of its competition. That does not mean it is the best system; it was fortunate in its choice of allies, and often what works in the short-term is the opposite of what is needed in the long-term.

The thought of resurrecting society from the degeneracy of the unpunished herd is daunting in itself. We are not, however, rescuing everyone. There will be a new civilization and only those who “get it” and are useful will be welcome. The rest can be cast aside. This is always how it is.

Once we wrap our minds around the enormity of this task, it becomes clear that we should not be afraid to make the decision to go all the way toward what we need, instead of taking halfway measures. We are at one of those nexus points in history where all that was considered established is now fluid. Vast change is upon us, like it or not.

As modern citizens, we have grown up listening to constant voices — television, teachers, politicians, parents, friends — telling us that certain things are cast in stone, and that as far as changing them, the ship has sailed. But now, all of these stonecast pillars are in the process of collapse. We can finally move on.

Potentially what we are seeing is the beginning of a great time to be alive. The twentieth century was mostly carnage and stupidity, and so far the twenty-first has been worst, but that means that the trend of the eighteenth century has finally peaked and is falling. We can cease repeating the mistakes of the past.

For now, the herd runs free. Its low standards, enforced through utilitarian policies, harm those who can tell the difference between mediocre and good. Its indecision has attracted all manner of manipulators and parasites. Its policies have produced horror and evil as handmaidens in everyday life, making us all complicit.

The rise of the Alt Right has shown a challenge to business as usual, which means a continuing slide into decay. People across the West are tired of living in failed states and a failed system. It is time to think the unthinkable, and move on from liberal democracy a.k.a. oppression by the rest.

What are SJWs?

Thursday, June 11th, 2015

male_tears_mug
Contributed by ‘Subreddit_Llama

While “social justice” may be a common topic on the internet, like the average person I never heard of them — until started working at an advertising agency. My job as a web programmer required me to integrate their ad control system with their many websites, adding extra functionality. This in turn required me to understand their marketing strategy, which specifically targeted Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) because they were a lucrative demographic.

SJWs are people for whom activism is an activity, like shopping, or being on a sports team. They bond with one another over having the right opinions. Cheap and easy, with no chance of criticism from others, social activism provides a hobby to talk about at the local bar after a long day of work. The vast majority of SJWs are liberal, middle-class, university educated white women and their low-status male admirers. These are the women who did not get married, but are living the single life, and the men who are of “low status” meaning they are not rich, famous, strong, or so intelligent that they are successful. They hang around middle-level jobs and follow around the women they think may grant them sexual access in exchange for “white knighting” or support in internet combat against the enemy.

Marketing to these people proves to be quite profitable. SJWs spend an absurd amount of money on cheap, mass-produced lifestyle products. They buy these things so they can post photos of themselves on Tumblr with the product, and a referral link to where they bought the item. These people are prolific consumers on par with the “bourgeois” they claim to resent. Where the bourgeois buy BMW and Prada, SJWs — being single, and unlikely to ever get married — spend their money on the same stuff time after time. They may own iPhones and cell phone plans, but the rest of their spending is on what are essentially novelty products. In this way, SJWs are a marketer’s dream because they have already established a sales pyramid among themselves and if a product becomes trendy it automatically scales that pyramid.

This makes it easy to sell them cheap products with expensive messages. There are considerably higher profit margins on “this is what a feminist looks like t-shirts” and a much lower investment is required to make them. There’s less of a barrier to entry. The same can be said for shit like “Depression Quest” or any other SJW fodder indy game. A game doesn’t have to look good or be fun if you can convince your audience to buy it because it addresses “issues.” If the product has the right message, they buy it with a blind impulse that is easily manipulated. They click ads and fall for fake marketeer profiles because they hear what they want to hear. They’re the left’s equivalent of people who’d buy anything with an American flag on for the years following 9/11.

Internet sites love these guys. Instead of surly 4chan types who never buy anything, they can easily attract people who will buy a t-shirt made in a Taiwanese sweatshop with a pro-feminist message on it (and 500% mark-up). How do you attract SJWs? You clear away threats to their ideology, which means anyone who might disagree. For them to see a virtual space as “safe,” it must be cleansed of the “undesirables” who are non-SJW. Luckily, these opposition types are bad consumers. Little money is made by pitching to ad-block, VPN, piratebay, google-fu experts who post things that makes the ladies want to faint. SJWs are a type of consumer that may be unique in its opinions, but it acts like every other type of consumer. If you pitch products to their self-image, they keep buying until they run out of credit.

You can see this same process of consumerization in music festivals. The festivals are made good by members of the counter-culture, but when the festivals start attracting big names, suddenly ticket prices climb, drugs are banned completely, nakedness, improptu perfomances, and general anarchy are stopped and it becomes some homogenised, middle-class-mother-friendly pop concert with Hummus everywhere and excellent baby-changing facilities. Why? Because dirty hippies don’t spend as much money as middle class moms and university-educated white girls. A dirty hippie is there to see the band, buy some beer and have a good time. An SJW is there to buy tickets, bumper stickers, mugs, pens and hats so that they can pose with them for a selfie and possibly win in the lottery of what is trending among other SJWs now. Even better, they are adamant about comfort, so you can sell them hotel rooms and rental cars too.

How do they afford this? Most of the famous SJWs are trust-fund babies. The working SJWs (and there are plenty) aren’t as loud and don’t spend so much time begging for you to supplement their trust fund or to fund their cutting edge game, made in game-maker, about being cat-called (games are art and therefore don’t have to be fun, shitlord). But they tend to follow the lead of the trust-fund SJWs because those have more time and as a result make up more of the cutting-edge trends. To post to Tumblr all day, someone else paying the bills or an easy perpetual entry-level job. SJWs will buy “male tears” mugs and “smash the patriarchy” t-shirts or a “die cis scum” quilt because they can do so from their desks every week instead of investing in homes, cars, kids and a future.

The SJW phenomenon causes a type of gentrification of high-traffic parts of the internet. When they start out, most sites are occupied by people who have goals other than pure consumption itself. They tend to buy less stuff and not buy compulsively. This group is worthless as a target demographic for advertising. They make very little money, buy few products, and hate advertising, so the more you advertise, the less likely they are to buy. Business likes a simple formula of audience x advertising = profits. You can only get that with people who buy compulsively, and since SJWs compulsively buy whatever is trendy at the time, it becomes easy to follow trends, put them on products, and reap the “fat tail” of all the SJWs trying to catch up with their leaders.

If you want to understand the mentality of the SJW, you need to see them as consumers in the classic model and not as radical activists. Where Bob Smith was “keeping up with the Joneses” to avoid looking poor in comparison, SJWs are keeping up with each other to avoid looking uninformed and un-hip. Remember, “social justice” activism is a mode of socialization and an activity for them. They are not engaging in this to change the world like a die-hard ideologue so much as to have fun and attract a social group. As single people without families or extraordinary success in their careers, they need some cause that makes it look like their lives are still important, and their dollars have funded a whole industry based on giving them what they want.

Mass delusion is group coercion

Tuesday, February 4th, 2014

bastille_day_executions

France, 1789.

A revolution occurs. In theory, the justification is that the people are starving. But then, it starts to look like revenge.

For months at a time, people stream to the public squares. There, they watch the execution of whole families: men, women and children.

They cheers as the heads roll. Over time, it becomes clear that it is dangerous not to cheer. If you do not, someone might suspect that you sympathize with the executed.

Those who were executed were given trials, by the way. Their caste was enough to convict them, but to keep everyone happy, investigations were conducted and official paperwork completed. Then, to the guillotine.

This mentality lives on in our time. In fact, it has existed in every age of humanity and probably also exists among animals. When computers get smart enough to talk and explain themselves, it will exist among them too. It is eternal. It is also evil.

A great man once said:

Insanity in individuals is something rare — but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. – Friedrich Nietzsche

Insanity — or delusions — in groups exist because whatever is most popular in the group is selected as a replacement for reality itself.

This occurs in part because a more easily comprehended idea will be more popular. And in part because people prefer to believe what they want to be true, not what is true.

But there’s another mechanism that’s more insidious. It has two parts, a positive and a negative.

Groups determine what succeeds. The positive part of this mechanism is that if you want to succeed in a society, you need to come up with something that is popular. Then people buy it, vote for it, and demand it in social circles.

In groups, people abuse outsiders. The negative part of the mechanism is that if you offend someone within the group, they may style you as an outsider. This allows individuals to control the group, but only through styling themselves as victims of someone else’s failure to side with the group enough.

This is what happened in France — if you didn’t cheer enough when they beheaded six year old girls, you were seen as a possible enemy of the state. It can be you at the guillotine next, citizen. The execution of ideological enemies unites the group to such a degree that turning on itself is a net win. Welcome to being a cog in the machine.

If you wanted to draw an analogy, this behavior is similar to what happens when an abuser confronts a child. He or she says to the child, “Don’t tell what we’ve done here, or I’ll hurt your pet.” Maybe he threatens the parents, a younger sibling, a friend or something else sacred. But the point is the abuser is holding the victim hostage to fear.

Our modern politics is based on rule by the mob which holds us all hostage to fear. We’ve got to go along with it… or we might be misunderstood, mistaken for the enemy, and executed publicly for the amusement of others.

This is why in our society, everything gradually gets dumber and more ideological at the same time. No one wants to be out of step. Or they might be next at the guillotine.

Scapegoat ritual

Sunday, May 12th, 2013

stampede_as_a_metaphor_for_democratic_politicsModern politics forces people into polarity. This is not an issue of left-right, but really a question of “what issue will decide the election?”

We tend to pick politicians, and vote for plans, based on a single consideration at a time. This is part of the way group dynamics work: in order to get change, we need to get a lot of people to be repeating the same idea at once, and to do that, we need to distill all of politics down to a single yes/no question.

Politicians in democracies live “by the issues” as a result, knowing that for each yes or no they gain or lose a certain percentage of the electorate (and it’s unclear how many of those will actually show up to vote). For them to succeed, they have to find enough of these to win.

However, it still means that one issue will most likely be decisive. Each politician will have some guaranteed wins, but then there will be one issue that is in contention that will complete the majority they need to win.

This makes voting useless because at this point, the choice of the issues is defined by what the politicians need to talk about, not what’s relevant. Depending on which issues they focus on, voters will be forced to choose between one or the other of these decisive issues.

In turn, that means the election is swung by the issues. In other words, it is won or lost for each side before it begins, based on which issues end up being chosen as the battleground. Not surprisingly, democratic politicians quickly develop a strategy for this.

This strategy is a human analogue to a stampede. In a stampede, animals panic because of a threat and run away from it; in the human world, our panic causes us to join together into a mob and rush at the threat with torches, pitchforks, shotguns and baseball bats.

What politicians like to do is create a “hive mind,” or huge group of people “buzzing” the same message or idea, so that these people identify a certain issue as one they need in the election. If the politician picks correctly, this issue becomes an election winner.

The hive-mind stirs up panic, rage and righteous indignation in people and so not only gives them a feeling of purpose, but by playing into their anger, creates an addictive cycle of retribution and injury. Like sadomasochism, this cycle starts with an injury and then allows retribution for that injury which conveys power, which soon makes the powerless addicted to being injured. The victimhood mania grows.

Hive-minds are most effective when the issue involves an individual or group of individuals who have been victimized for this reason. It works even better if they’re able to attribute the reason for this injury not to a sensible policy, but to some form of vendetta, personal dislike or bigotry on the part of the other side.

For example, if the other side wants to build a new sewage-treatment plant, you can try to fight it on cost, but it’s more effective to argue that it “harms the poor” and/or has disproportionate effect on recognized minority groups. This is more electable than the actual reason people might oppose it, which is that the money doesn’t go to their constituents or they’re afraid it will lower their housing values.

When a hive-mind gets mobilized, the resulting ceremony is not unlike the Two Minutes Hate from George Orwell’s 1984. The group assembles and they talk about how evil the enemy is, how horrible they are, and how they must be crushed, and then they do something fascinating. They slowly equalize their speech. They might have come in using different words, rhythms and phrases to describe the enemy, but when they leave, their chanting roughly the same thing in synchronization.

Hive-minds are massively effective because they are deconstructive. They require zero knowledge of politics, or anything really. All you must do is be outraged by some effect. You don’t need to know how to do something better; you just need a “plausible” (and that term is flexible) alternative to what’s being done. You don’t need to think through how it would work in conjunction with the rest of the social order, or long-term effects. It’s an outrage right now. It’s like a child screaming that something isn’t fair, the rage of a barroom drunk, or the panic of a herd.

Interestingly, hive-minds do not benefit one group, which is the majority. A majority is not based upon issues, but a single issue, which is maintenance of the type of society that has traditionally benefited them. Since such a society is based on the learning of the past, they’re defending a whole thing, or a compilation of interrelated knowledge. Deconstruction attacks that interrelation and replaces it with social chaos.

Then again, that’s the point. The hive-mind is a therapy session for the under-confident and possibly self-hating. It gives them a purpose, and meaning, for long enough to accomplish its goal. Like all good circular logic, it involves people coming together to beat down the token enemy and drown them out with greater volume, so that everyone can look around and claim that no one sensible could disagree. Then they go out to make it happen.

Democracy’s originators probably never envisioned this type of end result for that political system, but by removing any focal point above the average (the “equality line”), they have reduced society to a circular self-reference. As a result, hive-minds rule the day and any longer-term perspective is conveniently forgotten.

We are the robots

Sunday, May 5th, 2013

we_are_the_robotsOur ancient societies evolved much like a species does. Over time, they tested out their hypotheses about how the wide world out there operated. They kept the ideas that worked, and pitched out the rest. From that came culture, wisdom and even religion.

Part of this original culture was that we had social castes, which were viewed as preferable to social classes, which are ranking by wealth. Social castes were ranking by ability, and wealth came later, namely because the king would gift the most useful people with large amounts of money in the theory that they would make good use of that power.

Eventually, crisis hit. A Mongol invasion, a black plague or two, even social instability caused by the wealth of new areas to colonize. However, at the same time, the wealth of the past through innovations in agriculture, hygiene and social order meant that there were more people than ever before. The population grew, from the poorest upward.

In this instability, many people became discontented. They grumbled and agitated. The rising population had outpaced its food supply and, instead of blaming the selfishness of individuals for going forward with raising larger families despite warnings about food supply, they found a scapegoat: they blamed the kings.

Naturally, they waged a type of guerrilla war. Your goal as a guerrilla is to be passive-aggressive, or to provoke your enemy into attacking you by needling them with many small but easily hidden aggressions until they finally lash out. Sabotage became common, as did petty attacks, thefts, accusations, and so on. This brought the situation to a boiling point.

At this juncture, the nature of warfare after the rifle became clear: whoever has the most people wins. The herd overran the kings, and proclaimed a new age. Since they needed to sell this to their fellow citizens, they claimed it as an age when all individuals were equal and decisions would be made by merit not inheritance.

It sounds good, on the surface. 224 years later, we’re seeing what it actually means. In reality, we have replaced an orderly system for finding leaders, in which those who actually accomplished something got ahead, with a system by which those who “play the game” well enough get ahead. In that, we have sewn the seeds of our doom.

The average person now grows up in a world of standardized tests. Since IQ is racist and assessing critical thinking is probably classist, these tests measure memorization ability. Thus school becomes a quest for those who can memorize the most details and recite them accurately. Whoever gets the most points wins.

What this creates however is a group of “merit”-selected people who are oblivious to anything but the test, and are helpless outside a world where they are told what to know and how to repeat it. If you ever look at actions by a government, or lawyers, or even doctors and think, “How can they be so stupid in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary?” you’re seeing the end result of this problem.

The bigger problem is that our society is now entirely driven by reference to its internal conclusions. It has shut reality out of the picture. We have books and rules of facts, and those tools have now become our masters. Those who master them become our leaders; those leaders in turn do not refer to facts outside of the books, but only look at reality through that filter.

Think of the many filters — this is a concept from Immanuel Kant — that we have in our lives. There’s the moral filter of good/bad, which ignores consequences of actions, where often “bad” acts are needed to get “good” consequences and vice versa. There’s the filter of what other people make popular, and thus is worth money or votes. There’s the filter of rules, “gaming the system” versus being good at something in reality.

Currently, our society is chasing its own tail into the abyss. The books give us certain rules and facts, and we follow those; when that doesn’t work out, we redouble our efforts using the same rules and facts. Like robots, we cannot deviate from our programming because we’ve eliminated the people who can think outside the box.

In fact, our current political environment is manic with the desire to achieve power over anyone who might know better. We want only people inside of the Ideology and its approved rules and facts. Anything else is a threat, and probably Hitler or Satan. We want our warm cult-like environment inside so that we can exclude the world.

This is how civilizations die. The final double-tap may come from invaders, or overpopulation/low food supply (these are the same thing). But what causes the death is our inability to make leadership decisions because our leadership is based on a robotic obedience to a filter, and ignores reality itself, eventually seeing it as “moral” to exclude reality.

Like civilizations before us, we will do what our books tell us and follow our facts and rules until we fall apart. The wall we run into isn’t that the rules were wrong, only that they were not realistic. And so we create a little in-group, a hive-mind prone to groupthink, drop out from reality, and like robots march toward the cataclysm.

“Intellectuals”

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

The difference between readers will never cease to be fascinating. Like choice of car, cigarette, where you buy your house, what you feed your kids, and how you keep your desk organized, it reveals the conscious decisions of the individual.

Although this outlook may seem similar to the consumerist idea that you can buy a bunch of neat random things and be “unique” by “expressing yourself,” that symptom is actually the reverse of what is described in the paragraph above. In that view, you buy objects to fit your needs, and that reveals what you value.

In the false consumer variant, you buy objects to make yourself appear as if you have certain needs and values, and hope to construct yourself from those. It’s like painting a picture of what you wish you were like, and hiding behind it when introduced to people. It is similar to what an actor does, creating an ersatz persona.

Through the bookshops in your city, and the bookshelves of the people who live in it, you can see this difference in action.

Start in the outer suburbs. These are people who forsake convenience in the city for having a nice place to raise kids. Lower crime, better schools, more space, fewer cars. Out here, you’re at first tempted to mock what they read. It’s Oprah book club stuff, on the surface. Trendy novels and dumb self-help books. A lot of contemporary Conservative literature with covers in red-white-blue only.

Skip that mess, then. Go into the city. Find a trendy urban neighborhood. Look at what people are reading there. On the surface, it’s more interesting. These are the books from the New York Times book list, the recommendations of Arts & Letters Daily, and the kind of hip stuff you see “intellectuals” talk about: Jared Diamond, Malcolm Gladwell, Michio Kaku, Howard Zinn, and some very nuanced novels.

Now compare the two by going under the skin. The outer suburbs have much bigger libraries. These libraries are actually more diverse in topic. They have all the crowd-pleasers (Stephen King, Ann Coulter, Lee Childs) but underneath that, there’s actually a huge variety of books on very specific topics. These are more like what you would find in a research library.

In the city, all of the books tend to be of the same type. For every five year cycle, there are about thirty books that urban pundits agree are profound. These are there in abundance. There is not much deviation from this list. It is almost as if everyone has the same bookshelf. They’re programming themselves with the same inputs.

The difference between surface and underlying structure is profound. In the suburbs, the surface is garbage, but underneath you see an intellectual life based on wide variety of topic area. In the city, the surface is shiny and provocative, but underneath you see very little actual dedication to learning. It’s more of a social circle, confirming its own opinions through the views of others.

Whenever people speak of “intellectuals,” you can use this simple litmus test. Are they explorers, or a group of people buzzing together with a hive-mind based on mutual agreement to what we could call social dogma? Our intellectuals today are the latter, which explains why they are always surprised by developments in reality that did not read the same thirty books as they did.

Recommended Reading