Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘hubris’

Why One Should Approach Politics As Philosophy

Monday, October 16th, 2017

Most people possess little analytical ability and so approach the world through a process of rationalization by which they seek to contort their minds in order to explain what is happening around them in such a way that it does not threaten their mental state.

This can be both submissive and combative; for example, someone may decide that most people are good and therefore deserve subsidies, but that because our government does not do that, it is evil and we must wage war against it.

While they may convince themselves that they believe these things, belief can be a crutch, and what they have actually done is to tell themselves a story about the world in which there is a way for their role to make sense and for them to be important and relevant. Their primary act is biological, that of pre-emptive self-preservation by filtering out scary thoughts.

To avoid this, long ago people invented philosophy, which is the science of our minds and our world, understood at an abstract level where facts and logic must be in parallel. This forces us to think, not from the individual, but from the world, and then to explain the place of the individual within it. That mostly avoids rationalization.

The only sensible approach to politics is through this method. Without it, the cart goes before the horse as people rationalize what they want to believe as true, and explain everything else as some sort of evil witchcraft. This rationalization proves more popular because it is centered on the present day and the concerns of individuals, where philosophy is more timeless and focused on either truth or civilization.

Martin Heidegger, in his Introduction to Metaphysics, Chapter 1: The Fundamental Question of Metaphysics, gives us more:

Philosophy is essentially untimely because it is one of those few things whose fate it remains never to be able to find a direct resonance in their own time, and never be permitted to find such a resonance. Whenever this seemingly does take place, whenever a philosophy becomes fashion, either there is no actual philosophy or else philosophy is misinterpreted and, according to some intentions alien to it, misused for the needs of the day.

Philosophy, then, is not a kind of knowledge which one could acquire directly, like vocational and technical expertise, and which, like economic and professional knowledge in general, one could apply directly and evaluate according to its usefulness in each case.

But what is useless can nevertheless be a power — a power in the rightful sense. That which has no direct resonance in everydayness can stand in innermost harmony with the authentic happening in the history of a people. It can even be its prelude.

What this means is that philosophy, like travel or even one too many glasses of wine, can give us a sense of our world by removing us from it, intellectually, and then approaching it as strangers, and those revelations can show us a potential option for our future which, because it becomes clear and appealing, then triggers that next part of the historical cycle.

Although rationalization gives us a better personal story about the world, as it begins and ends with our own lives, it fails to give us a story of meaning, whereby a small species evolves, becomes powerful, and then finds a way to be better so that it is connected with its world and finds purpose within it.

Fantasies of universal purpose — some inherent goal or innate value that is accessible to everyone — tend to be forgeries, and rationalization relies heavily on them because universal purpose suggests an inability to act otherwise by the individual, and therefore a compulsion to rely on that values system, which takes away the possibility of being wrong in the assessment of values made by the individual, since the individual does not need to assess values at all, only go along with what is allegedly as universal as sunlight.

This perception of universality allows people to believe that their perceptions are not self-serving, and therefore, that self-serving behavior is justified in pursuit of the validation of those perceptions. This leads to a sense of narcissism, a variety of individualism marked by self-worship, which arises from the general hubris of anyone who believes it is justified to act in self-interest where it conflicts with the logical, natural order of human life.

Ultimately, the rationalization view, because it is self-centered and thus individualistic, leads to a self-aware narcissism:

How exactly do narcissists maintain such positive self-views despite others’ dislike of them? Carlson proposed a few interesting ideas. First, narcissists might believe others are just too stupid to see how amazing they truly are, or they may believe others’ negative views are simply the result of jealousy. It might also be the case that narcissists, aware of their deteriorating reputation, cut off long-term friendships and instead, maintain a flow of new acquaintances that see them as the charming and likable person they believe they are. The process by which narcissists retain their positive self-views remains an interesting and important question future work should address.

The mental process is a form of rationalization: they must believe good about themselves, so they contort their understanding of how the world works in order to support that self-view.

This leads to them using other people as objects that reinforce that rationalization, much as in a mob the individual uses others as a means of escaping accountability, or as in a totalitarian state, the ruling powers use others as means of achieving an ideological or political set of goals. This is why Leftism is based in individualism, not “collectivism,” because the collective is a device of the individual for enforcing individualism as a universal standard.

Manipulation of others in order to enforce a certain non-realistic perception of the world is the classic attribute of control. Control is invisible to most because they cannot see where the ideology or commands from above diverge from reality, but for those who can see, control is both unnecessary and destructive because it is unrealistic, or based in human preferences and rationalizing from those, as opposed to based in perception of the world and oriented toward human self-discipline to adapt to the logical consequences one can anticipate from the knowledge conveyed in that perception.

Differences between Leftists and conservatives can be explained by this schism of perspective.

Under the influence of Leftism, which boils down to individualism enforced by a collective through “equality” which essentially reduces the power of those who are more competent and promotes the lowest common denominator instead, our society has steadily become more narcissistic in its daily behavior:

Darlene Lancer, a therapist writing at Psychology Today, offers up a tidy list of behaviors narcissists often employ in their interactions with people. Here is her list (with some abridged definitions):

1. Verbal abuse: Verbal abuse includes belittling, bullying, accusing, blaming, shaming, demanding, ordering, threatening, criticizing, sarcasm, raging, opposing, undermining, interrupting, blocking, and name-calling.
2. Manipulation: Generally, manipulation is indirect influence on someone to behave in a way that furthers the goals of the manipulator. Often, it expresses covert aggression. Think of a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
3. Emotional blackmail: Emotional blackmail may include threats, anger, warnings, intimidation, or punishment.
4. Gaslighting: Intentionally making you distrust your perceptions of reality or believe that you’re mentally incompetent.
5. Competition: Competing and one-upping to always be on top, sometimes through unethical means. E.g. cheating in a game.
6. Negative contrasting: Unnecessarily making comparisons to negatively contrast you with the narcissist or other people.
7. Sabotage: Disruptive interference with your endeavors or relationships for the purpose of revenge or personal advantage.
8. Exploitation and objectification: Using or taking advantage of you for personal ends without regard for your feelings or needs.
9. Lying: Persistent deception to avoid responsibility or to achieve the narcissist’s own ends.
10. Withholding: Withholding such things as money, sex, communication or affection from you.
11. Neglect: Ignoring the needs of a child for whom the abuser is responsible. Includes child endangerment; i.e., placing or leaving a child in a dangerous situation.
12. Privacy invasion: Ignoring your boundaries by looking through your things, phone, mail; denying your physical privacy or stalking or following you; ignoring privacy you’ve requested.
13. Character assassination or slander: Spreading malicious gossip or lies about you to other people.

Lancer rounds out her list with violence, financial abuse, and isolation (isolating someone from other people in their lives).

If we could describe the modern West, the above list would be a good place to start. Individualists pursuing their own goals and then rationalizing them have as a consequence both discarded any concern for the future of humanity or our environment, and in the process, have made themselves into narcissists; then, their standard of behavior becomes the norm as others compete.

All of this can be easily perceived if one takes a philosophical view at life, rather than a personal view. Most humans, however, are wired for exactly that personal view, and once they go down that path, fear the philosophical view as it will reveal how much of their lives have been manipulated and wasted. That in turn will cause a crisis of self-confidence for them, so they persist in the lies.

As the rising Right turns to combat the decline of Western Civilization, one of the biggest weapons in its tool chest is to shift our perspective from self-focused to history-focused, so that people can take the philosophical view and see for the first time how existentially unsatisfying and suicidally destructive our modern society has turned out to be.

Hubris, Odysseus, Captain Ahab And Saruman

Thursday, July 20th, 2017

Perhaps you are tired of hearing about hubris, a concept which like all good ones is easy to grasp but has many nuances. Who wants to hear that there is an order to nature, and human order imitates it, so we have a hierarchy based on intelligence and moral character? This means that most of us are Indians and there are only a few Chiefs.

Upsetting.

The point of avoiding hubris, however, is that then each person finds themselves in a place where they are both not threatened by excessive competition, and able to excel in what they do. A peasant acting as a king would fail; a peasant as a peasant is within his element. Balance, order and sanity are restored.

Human history resembles a cycle by which people come along, ignore the natural order, rise above their place in the hierarchy, and then destroy not only themselves but the work of others. Great tragedies come from this, including the eradication of entire civilizations. This is why the ancients identified hubris as the core problem of humanity.

Perhaps the most famous tale of hubris is The Odyssey. In it, Odysseus is praised for being a crafty, wily, cagey and sometimes deceptive man. But before he can be at peace with his powerful intellect, he has to get over the arrogance which he displays as a kind of “tee hee I’m so clever” hipster-style behavior. The whole point of the book is his voyage to conquer himself.

The Bible references hubris as well, carrying that ancient idea into modernity. In the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, they are attempting to gain the knowledge of God, which would be rising above their place in the hierarchy. Their hubris gets them exiled from the garden.

In another story, King Ahab — one of the “bad” Jewish kings that coincide with a rise in pretense in the nation — made himself notorious by marrying a pagan woman, Jezebel, and turning toward worship of idols, which are physical objects pretending to be gods. Idolatry is important because it confuses method or symbol with purpose or goal.

When the purpose of an act is to worship the divine, and the method of worship, which is fashioning a symbol or a symbolic object for the divine, becomes confused with that purpose when people worship the idol instead of the divine, religion has been inverted. In ancient cultures, they were well aware of the risk of finding facts to fit a theory instead of a theory to fit the facts, and that is exactly what inversion is.

Ahab gave his name to one of the most distinctive characters in Western literature. Captain Ahab, who destroys himself and others in pursuit of a white whale, provides the archetype of modern fiction: people caught by the lure of hubris, pursuing some object that gives them power so that no one can tell them what they cannot do. It is the quest for freedom, revealed as the lust for power that it is.

To realists, freedom is kind of a bad joke. We recognize that most people need only a small amount of leeway to be happy, that they need a goal, and that some acts are destructive and must be minimized if not outright prevented, and so “freedom” is a substitute for doing what is right, which is to encourage the good and discourage the bad. But humans perpetually seek freedom, a kind of hubris in that they are no longer restrained to act exclusively within their part of the hierarchy.

Moby-Dick was probably the inspiration behind The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien’s study of the pursuit of an object that grants unlimited power to its wearer. This ring represents the human lust for hubris and having no one who can tell you what not to do. And yet, having people who can tell others what not to do is the basis of not just value systems but hierarchy itself.

The ring reveals the nature of our desire for power, which is really a form of hubris:

In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien writes about a mysterious ring that essentially dominates the minds of those who possess it. Many theories have been written about the ring and what it symbolizes, including that it is a metaphor for technology or even language itself. I suggest that Tolkien told us exactly what the ring meant: it is referred to as “the ring of power,” and power is what it wields. We might describe power as meaning the ability to control without a natural parallel, or power for its own sake. This separates the type of power the ring wields, which is a freedom from natural consequences, from the might of a king which involves nurturing what exists and improving its prospects. The ring allows a person to detach from the rules of nature and in secret — because its power hides them from view — doing what they wish for themselves alone.

The irony of the ring — based loosely on the tale of the ring of the Lydian Gyges in Plato and the ring in the Nibelungenlied — is that it changes its wearer. They gain power, invisibility and immortality but in turn, they become servants of the ring because it replaces their motivation toward life with a will for power alone. Hubris destroys civilizations and makes us all slaves to the false hierarchy of power, in which there are a few in control and a vast mass of equals who are used as a mass.

The one consistent attribute of power is that it requires turning the rest of the world into a means-to-the-end of the perpetuation of that power. It is an addiction. We can all imagine a king in this position, but more commonly, each individual desires power, and if they take the path of hubris, they are then forced to fight to maintain their status, like a gang member in prison.

Nowhere is this made clearer than in the parable of Saruman in Lord of the Rings. Born a wizard, he sought to rule Middle Earth along with arch-nemesis Sauron. This quickly led him out of his depth, and Sauron — who had even less of anything in his soul besides a lust for power — quickly manipulated Saruman to his doom. Thus it always goes, when hubris is the agenda.

Hubris And Heroism

Sunday, July 16th, 2017

The problem for those of us trying to fix the West is that by making things better, we improve a collapsed civilization and by so doing, allow the collapse to continue.

Colin Liddell wrestles with this in a sapient analysis of the comic book character Judge Dredd, who both struggles against and enables a dying civilization:

Dredd, like any other superhero, seems to exist for no other reason than to prevent systems that would and perhaps should collapse, from collapsing.

Considering the two opposed notions of history – the People as everything versus the Great Man as everything – it can at least be said that, despite their contradictions, both views are at least dynamic, implying some development, some progress towards something. The tribes and classes struggle and create revolutions, kingdoms, and states, which also struggle, leading to empires, new technologies, and ideologies. Likewise, the Great Man. Mohammed, Columbus, or Napoleon, steps forward and new religions, continents, and political realities come into being.

Both views of history initiate stages of struggle that are essentially meritocratic and progressive. Dredd, however, is the antithesis of all this. He stops struggle because all struggles are de facto crimes, while his own power lacks any kind of vision. He is essentially a conservative on steroids acting as a dead weight on the society he polices.

In this, we find the crisis of the modern conservative: we know that our society is all wrong, that evil got the upper hand, and that everything needs to be re-done because the rot runs so deep that merely fixing it in one place allows it to thrive in another, nourished by the parts that we have fixed.

Taxes are a simple metaphor for this. If you are a good conservative — “work hard, be patriotic and go to church” — then all you manage to do is pay more taxes to the government that oppresses you. Law enforcement is another, in that if you bust all the bad guys and make society work again, then people go back to sleep and the evil carries on strengthened.

In this sense, Judge Dredd is not a hero, but a tragic hero, or one who struggles only to defeat himself. In the short term, he does a great thing because he makes Mega City survive; in the long term, he has ensured the ruin of all once the top-heavy metropolis reaches crash conditions and self-destructs.

When in an evil time, attempting to make things better is to empower that evil time. But what makes our time evil? The answer comes to us from the ancient path in which “evil” was understood to be life out of balance by being in denial of the obvious natural hierarchy of men and the behaviors required. Our ancestors went to war against hubris:

Achilles has a tragic flaw – his hubris. It brings about the tragic sequence of events – the death of Patroclus. This, in turn, causes the educative suffering that leads Achilles to change his character and values for the better. In a very deep sense, then, the suffering is worthwhile, since it is redeemed by the moral improvement it engenders.

This shows us the real battle that we fight: before we can be real heroes, we must win the battle within our souls so that we are not individualists, but instead show humility toward the order around us, and through that discover the reasons why things are as they are. Through that we can understand virtue, or striving for what is best in the context of this order, and work to achieve that instead of trying to “fight” problems and issues that are consequences of a society without virtue.

On Amerika, there is much talk of hubris, which manifests in the toxic brew of solipsism, individualism, narcissism, egalitarianism and mob rule that afflicts the modern time. We cannot beat this hubris until we defeat it in ourselves and stop fighting it directly, but instead strive for a virtuous civilization as a whole, so that we bypass the false direction toward which hubris leads us.

We all want to believe in a Judge Dredd style process. If only a million supercops descended on our society, beat down all the bad guys and threw out all the rotters, we could live in the status quo minus the bad. But life does not work that way. We cannot fix the broken, only create the beautiful and migrate to that, leaving the modern entirely behind.

Anti-Darwinism Is The Basis Of Leftism

Sunday, May 28th, 2017

The links between Leftism, individualism, collectivism and hubris are simple but require a complex understanding of context to make sense of them.

Every creature has four basic behaviors known as the “four Fs” — fighting, fleeing, feeding and reproduction — which serve a singular goal, which since Charles Darwin wrote about it, we have described as “adaptation,” or finding a niche within its ecosystem where it can find regular nutrition at minimal risk of combat or predation.

For an animal, every action it takes is a risk. If it ventures out from safe hiding, it is exposed to predators. If it wanders into the territory of another animal of its species, it may get in a fight, and those contain at least a large component of rolling the dice. Its best guess about how an action will turn out determines its survival.

Those guesses in turn reflect how well the organism knows its world. If it is delusional or misinformed, it becomes prey. Consequently, every organism secretly wishes for independence from this state of constant stress. A mouse might imagine the ideal life as a giant field where there are no eagles and snakes, and there is enough grain to always be content.

Humans have an equivalent of this in Leftism. Leftism is a defensive ideology based on preventing others from becoming predators to the individual. It does this by removing social standards; this is what “equal” means: there are no standards, so whatever an individual does is acceptable, and no one can criticize those who are obeying the minimums of civilization (yes: job, shopping; no: murder, intolerance).

In this way, Leftism is a fundamentally anti-Darwinistic philosophy. It wants no social classes, because that way some have more power than others and can victimize them. It wants to make as many actions as possible acceptable, so that someone cannot be lowered in social status for their actions. It prioritizes the weak, broken and clueless so that everyone feels accepted.

When we recognize this basic psychology, it becomes clear why individualism leads to collectivism. Individuals band together in a gang that offers protection from those in the rest of society who might know better. This cult in turn demands allegiance, and so those individuals become slaves to forcing that ideology on others. It justifies itself by being universal, or agreed upon by all as a good thing.

At the root of this is hubris, or the desire of the human individual to be the most important thing in the world. The individual wants itself and its desires, judgments and feelings to come before social order, natural order and logical order. This means that there cannot be recognition that some people are better than others.

For this reason, Leftists idealize criminals, prostitutes, drug addicts, and the dysfunctional. They hate the good, powerful, strong, loving, beautiful and realistic people because those establish a de facto hierarchy. Their ideal is a vast grey lumpenproletariat in which everyone is equal and can do whatever they want, and society subsidizes them.

In thermodynamics, we might refer to this condition as “heat death,” because under it, people would have no reason to strive. Their efforts would be focused on the individual and would therefore not lead to anything that benefits civilization or the soul, except in the rare case of the genius artist, musician or thinker (which is why Leftists pretend to be all three).

Leftism — a subset of Crowdism — is a weaponized form of individualism that demands the individual be free from the burden of having to take realistic actions in the external world. It is a retreat from life, a fatalism, in which we create a new religion and ideology based on human individuals, not actions which adapt to reality.

It is the death of individuality, civilizations and species. This is why it is so addictive: it both promises freedom from death, and a certain path to death which seems easier than toughing it out and trying to survive as long as possible. In its wake, it leaves behind a domesticated, incurious species who exist at the subsistence level found throughout the third world.

Identifying The Enemy

Wednesday, May 17th, 2017

So you wake up. You look around: everything has failed. Literally everything. The library is full of lies. The government is nothing but parasites. The arts have become attention whoring. Even people are corrupt, filled with ego that turns them into servants of public opinion.

And always, the herd presides, looking for anything that affirms its desire that every person be included so that no individual feels inferior. This is what holds the crowd together: each individual fears being found insufficient, and so they join up to abolish standards.

This society is both permissive and conformist. Anything is permitted… so long as it does not form any aggregate which can compete with central authority. This means that only what is degenerative is acceptable, and anything else is an ideological enemy.

That, of course, makes it nearly impossible to figure out what is going on. An authority which favors degeneracy seems to be advocating degeneracy, until one realizes this is a means-to-an-end, at which point the thought process gains depth and ambiguity. Nothing is certain.

Still, it makes sense to go through our thought process to see what we can learn about the nature of our enemy…

1. The Negro/The Jew is our enemy.

In the first stages of waking up, this makes sense. The individual still assumes that society is basically good, therefore that black crime or Jewish participation in different values systems represents the glitch which is interrupting all that awesomeness of society. It takes a long time to snap out of this stage because no matter how many non-destructive Jews or Negroes that one witnesses, the brain torments us by assuming that the rest are evil. Over time, what debunks this is the realization that there is no coordinating force between different members of these groups.

2. The enemy is immigrants who do not assimilate.

At this point, the enemy becomes a failure to assimilate. In this reason, Leftists are the real racists and people need merely to come from Tragic Dirt to Magic Dirt and join our proposition nation. The illusion here is that other groups can assimilate, which is obviously not the case; in fact, the longer they stay, the more alienated they become. People need identity and the values system that comes with it, but when heritage is removed, they have nothing, and seeing that happen drives others to be even more alienated. This is why diversity never does anything but fail and leave behind genocide.

But, for the fat lazy and sloppy mentality of the modern mainstream conservative, easy answers are better than right answers. This group wants to be right more than they want to fix anything. So they bang on about patriotism, religion and “hard work” and as part of that, insist that magically Mexicans and Vietnamese will be made into WASP conservatives with the right “education.” This is just self-serving on the part of conservatives; it allows them to duck away from the real issue, which is genetic replacement, and instead focus on those crowd-pleasing mentally-easy “values” that supplant what actually needs to be done.

3. The enemy is extremists.

Another clever sleight-of-hand, the “extremist” argument is designed to separate the few third world underclass members who act up from the rest, ignoring the fact that the rest mostly support them because every group acts in self-interest, and under diversity, every group is trying to conquer the rest so its values, genetics and customs can prevail. Blaming extremists is just more obese armchair hand-waving by morally lazy conservatives who are afraid to attack diversity, so instead they focus on a few extreme cases and assume that if we remove those, all will be fine, even if we are genetically replaced.

4. The enemy is Leftists.

Now we are getting somewhere, but good enough is the enemy of good, and partial truths are always good enough and not good. That means that we cling to the easy partial truth and ignore what we really should be doing. No one doubts that Leftism is the enemy, but as commenters here asked years ago, “How did we get to the stage where Leftism took over?” because, obviously, if we do that again, Leftism will simply take over again. Once one gets past conspiracy theories of Masons, Jews, the Rich,™ and Bilderbergers, it becomes clear that Leftism is eternally popular with humans because it validates our illusions, guarantees us inclusion in society, and takes away the need to struggle to do right because individuals can simply offer token acts instead.

5. The enemy is egalitarianism.

With a little more thought, people can see the virus behind Leftism: egalitarianism. Historically, this was what defined Leftists, and their theories to this day derive entirely from it. Egalitarianism means that everyone is equal, which is how individuals say “you cannot exclude me,” and enforce that by making bad equal to good and mediocre equal to excellent. Egalitarianism basically removes the Darwinian, moral and practical need to do right in life and replaces with with warm feelings of pacifism because everyone is validated, included and rewarded without having to contribute. It is the ideology of the parasite. But then we have to ask: where did this come from?

6. The enemy is individualism.

Here we have a strong hit: hubris, or the ancient concept of evil caused by acting outside of one’s place in a natural order, lives on through the combination of individualism and solipsism that is the normal mental state of people in a modern time. This is correct, but it does not quite go far enough.

7. The enemy is herd behavior.

Call it group think, committee mentality, hive-mind, Crowdism, peer pressure, mob mentality, social clumping or just plain old fashioned conformity, people in groups make stupid decisions. Even smart people when put in a herd or around a table in a meeting opt for what is mentally easier because they know the group will approve of it and thus it will get done. Explaining complex and difficult truths to a herd is a formula for personal failure; being a fat lazy armchair conservative and coming up with something simplistic and misleading that sounds good is always a winner. The problem is that this implicates democracy…

8. The enemy is us.

Of all the enemies we have conjured up here, this one comes closest. When people insist that they should be able to do whatever they want to do simply because they want to do it, society fragments into a million directions. Purpose is lost. The same alienating effect that is produced by the presence of diversity comes about as classes war against each other, priests war against kings, and everyone competes to rise above the herd that equality creates. We cannot rule ourselves; we need an aristocracy, a caste system and culture to guide us, which requires the rise of nationalism and death of democracy. Luckily those things seem to be happening.

Waking up in this society is alienating because suddenly everything that one could trust becomes revealed as part of the problem. The rot goes so deep that there is no party to vote for, no corporation to buy from, no team to cheer for and not even a single solid concept one can grasp, except that it is time to restore Western Civilization.

For us to do that, however, we have to identify the enemy. It is not other groups. It is Leftism, in part, but really the psychology behind that, and this pathology is created by our insistence that we are good and can rule ourselves. Until we back down from that illusion, our doom continues.

Divorce Creates Intense Solipsism

Tuesday, February 21st, 2017

Those who follow this blog know that its fundamental argument is that civilizations die by hubris, which we call “individualism” in a modern context: the pathology of the individual which considers itself more important than reality.

Hubris is a form of the cognitive bias we call “solipsism” which occurs when people think the world either exists for them, or is a subset of their own minds. In order to deny reality, one must be solipsistic.

Solipsism spreads like a virus because once one person gets away with it, others realize they are at a disadvantage by acting toward a purpose larger than the individual. They give up and choose a self-centered life as well.

A trap emerges but most people tragically do not realize it until their later years. Living for oneself is a path to emptiness because meaning is found in the connection between self and reality, including but not limited to others. Living for principles and purpose such as is synthesized in the transcendentals like “the good, the beautiful and the true” creates meaning; egoism destroys it.

One writer pointed out how solipsism creates emptiness and a type of low-grade but fanatical sociopathy through his essay on why never date a woman from a broken family:

I have seen too many men have their heads handed to them, regardless of all this daydreaming about compatibility, equality, success, adventures, whatever. It all goes right out the window when Herself gets pregnant, and suddenly she is the center of the universe, those are HER children, and a guy can attend as many parenting classes and change as many diapers as he is humanly capable of doing, but she is from that time on looking for something she never had, something she has spent her childhood longing for and rationalizing away why her mother did whatever it was she did to deny to her, something that doesn’t exist: The Perfect Father. And she will keep right on looking, using “her” children as bait to try and trap one, man after man after man.

And I have seen very, very few exceptions to this formula for guaranteed heartbreak, summary dismissal and a future of painful and impoverishing litigation for too many good and decent men: women without fathers seem utterly incapable either of allowing any man to parent children in his own manly way, or of searching their own souls deeply enough to recognize that children are both distinct human beings and future adults, rather than their own personal property, pets and projects of empowerment.

The virus of self-centeredness causes people to be unable to understand others as real, since for the self-centered person, everything that exists in the world is there to serve a purpose for the self alone, and is only useful as a means-to-an-end. This makes them manipulative, controlling and most of all, willing to destroy others for their own convenience.

Every aspect of modern society bears the stamp of this solipsism which, if not actual metaphysical evil, certainly acts like it.

How Leftists Play Both Sides

Friday, February 3rd, 2017

How popular was the Soviet Union? In the West, we tend to portray Russians as victims of their government, but the reality was that the government was perpetuated by them and seemed massively popular, especially when things were good. When they tired of it, it went away, leaving people wondering why they had not simply done that fifty years before.

Most people do not realize that the kid at the back of your history class was right: almost everything in our world is excremental. Most of the music, books, movies, politicians, products and public figures are simply moronic. The herd, which is conscious only of The Now™ and therefore oblivious to options not in front of its face like sale items on a shelf, accepts what is “better” but never stumbles to awareness of what is “good.”

Leftism is perpetually popular. If you tell a group of people that everyone is equal and we do not need a hierarchy to rule over us, the vast majority of them will swoon and fall to delighted excitement. There will be a small group at the rear, old men and teenagers mostly, who realize that not only is the statement not true, but that it is the oldest and vilest lie.

Why is Leftism so addictively popular? The first reason is that it is pacifism. The women especially love this part; when everyone is equal, there is no more inequality, so no more internal competition. They do not understand basic information dynamics, however, which would inform them that when everyone is equal, the need for competition is intensified as people try to rise over the generic level.

However, that does not explain the seemingly fanatical way that people take to Leftism even when they have never heard of it before. Something clicks in their minds, and they are able to visualize some way in which Leftism is relevant and important to them, and they go from indifferent to maniacally committed fans — who would rather die with the idea than live without it — in minutes.

Comparing it to heroin addiction is entirely wrong. Most addicts use the drug for some time before realizing that they are addicted, or in other words, cannot visualize their lives without it. It makes life so much better that to give it up is to die, or at least feels that way. Leftists without Leftism are people who cannot visualize themselves existing.

Its appeal must be something very simple, very primal, in order to be so universal in potential appeal. It does not appeal to everyone; possible two-fifths of the population are immune through instinct, another twenty percent or so by indecision, and maybe a twentieth are born with the onerous knowledge that illusion is not real but a real threat and must be fought.

If this addictive idea is like others, its appeal occurs to the individual. That is: the individual finds it desirable because it makes the individual more powerful. In this way, analysts like J.R.R. Tolkien are correct about the seductive power of the one true ring just as Melville correctly identified the white whale. People lust for power over their smallness in the world, and it changes them.

To a game theory analysis, the individual will choose whatever position allows them the most power balanced by the least risk. Leftism offers a position like this by giving them a weapon with which to paralyze others, but while still allowing them to “cheat” on the rules on their own. This occurs through the pairing in Leftism of demands for equality and perception of victimhood.

The demands for equality prevent others from rising; the perception of victimhood means that the Leftist is always entitled to something from those others. This means that the Leftist is in an ideal position according to game theory, which is that there is minimum obligation and maximum entitlement:

  • Minimum Obligation. Egalitarianism demands equality, with the idea that there is a collective “we” that enforces this. As a result, the burden of responsibility and action passes from the individual to society. Couple that with the fact that under egalitarianism, society cannot reject people for being insufficient or limit their access on the basis of their being of the wrong caste, and people are empowered to make whatever silly decisions they want knowing that society must support them and clean up the mess.
  • Maximum Entitlement. In an egalitarian society, the more-equal are expected to subsidize the less-equal because this is the only way that equality can be achieved without acting in the Darwinian method of killing or reproductively penalizing the less-equal in order to improve the genetic quality of the group. This means that any who demonstrate victimhood can lay claim to part of the wealth of the society, and also get themselves protected status as not being assumed to be strong.

These combined effects mean that egalitarianism offers a “great deal” to the individual: they can do whatever they want, force society to subsidize them, and if they are willing to act wounded, can seize power and wealth without risk of being punished for having done so. Even more, egalitarianism makes it easier to be “good” by changing the definition from achieving good results to being symbolically good.

Egalitarianism produces this type of symbolic thinking because it is easier for the citizen. Instead of having to do much of anything, they have to raise the right symbols and say the right things at the right times. Once they have done that, they are free to ravage whatever they choose. Even better, if they find a victim and very publicly lift him up to equal, they are assumed to be ideological heroes and forgiven transgressions.

Leftism succeeded because it enabled people to manipulate society. Instead of having social standards that people were rewarded for obeying, society adopted an assumption of reward and need at the same time, which let people be “equal” by separating their actions from the consequences of those actions.

This allowed them to play the society “game” and win by contributing little, removing standards that would restrict them, and simultaneously force others into behaviors that destroyed them unless those ideals were recognized as insincere, and the others also adopted an attitude of public compliance and private manipulation as well.

Through these means, Leftism destroys societies. The symbol replaces reality. The symbol also becomes duplicitous. People are schooled to be greedily self-interested and corrupt, deceptive. And the herd is unleashed because it is no longer responsible for its actions, and can externalize the costs of its acts to the collective and then blame that collective for any failings.

We can see this as a primal human behavior, which is why it is immediately recognized.

For example, consider some teenagers riding bikes through the woods. One of them knows that there is a dirt mound ahead that he likes to jump from on his bike. He can do this safely because he knows the right groove in the dirt to ride to launch easily to a safe landing zone on the soft forest floor. The others do not.

His greatest advantage comes in urging others to jump their bikes as recklessly as possible, knowing that they will fail and may be injured while he will not be. Because he knows the secret, he can jump his bike safely and look more competent than the others, while they will fail and be injured and lose social status. He wins.

Another example of this pathology can be found in road rage. A person who is driving badly, when someone else who is driving well unintentionally points out the bad driving by contrast, will blame the person driving well, because that person interrupted the solipsistic narrative of the person driving badly that claims the bad driving was in fact good. Awakened from the illusion, they retaliate.

The primal example comes to us from the Christian Bible. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve fall into typical human individualism and desire to have the knowledge of God. When a deceiver promises no consequences, they commit a proscribed act, and then blame the deceiver and each other. For them, the game victory is found in suspending responsibility and denying their own solipsistic narrative.

Leftism remains eternally popular, like other human pitfalls that make us feel powerful without having to actually fight against the evils eroding civilization. It appeals to the clever monkey in all of us that wants to have the benefits of society without having to actually be good, or do what is right in all areas, substituting symbolic action for reality.

As we go forward, we must realize that the “right side of history” is in fact a form of decay that rationalizes itself by claiming that what is right concerns a small subset of what we must think about, and that we can solve these by making ourselves more important than reality. Like most paths to Hell, it begins with good intentions and leads us into a ghetto of our own illusions and denial.

Leftism is Reality Denial

Thursday, February 2nd, 2017

Very few people make it through the thought required to analyze Leftism to its roots. On the surface, we all know what it is: an outlook of supposed compassion which supports feminism, diversity, social welfare programs and gay rights.

Underneath the surface, Leftism reveals itself as fundamentally an ideology, or a notion that human preferences for how the world “should” be are more important than how the world functions. This was formalized in The Enlightenment™ as the idea of seeing the world through human reason as expressed in the individual.

Ideology does not compromise. It functions as a binary: the ideology is the new proposed idea, to which people either assent or dissent. Dissent means the idea will not come to pass, so in a passive-aggressive way, is seen as an attack and attempt to kill the idea. Thus the idea and its adherents feel comfortable in engaging in pre-emptive self defense by targeting those who disagree.

This gives the ideology virulence. It has an inherent “my way or the highway” approach to it, and those who dissent face outright hostility, which cows most into accepting it. This allows it to style itself as normal, and present dissenters as aberrant and to call them names like Nazi, fascist, racist, homophobe, sexist, classist and ableist which connote a failure to conform to social standards.

Historically, Leftism arose during the French Revolution and consisted of a single idea. Egalitarianism, or the notion that all people are equal in basic ability, converted utilitarian thinking into a political morality. This appealed to a fundamental weakness in humanity, the Dunning-Kruger (or r/K) derived tendency toward hubris, or assuming that oneself is more important than the way the world works.

Leftism is egalitarianism through ideology, not practical methods. For example, a king who wanted his people to be equal might try rewarding the good so that they bred out the rest, and established equality through extremely similar genetics and ability. He might separate them by ability into regions so that in each region, all people were roughly of the same abilities.

Ideology however provides a double benefit: public virtue signaling conceals private intent to exploit. Egalitarianism is the voice of the salesman, promising Utopia but laying claim to profit, with no concern for how well the consumer will fare. For this reason, ideology makes people feel intelligent and powerful for having manipulated the world to reflect their own intent and desires.

As such, Leftism replaces identity because it is an identity. To be Leftist is to identify with the strong-looking people who are taking over society, those who can be bold and controversial, and to benefit from social popularity and the career, sexual and in-group benefits it provides.

History tells us that Leftism took over and everyone who did not follow — both explicit dissenters and those who were simply not convinced and remained neutral — was thrust into the Right, which made it from the beginning both a compromise with Leftism, and a “big tent” mixed bag of non-Leftist ideas. This weakened it by creating indecision, infighting and other confusion.

The Right has finally discovered its core through the Alt Right: realism. We base our actions on what is, as seen through history, and not what we want to believe is true, starting with the illusion of equality. Recognizing that people are different and exist in a hierarchy of ability and moral goodness is massively taboo because it is anti-social in appearance.

Social thinking dominates when ideology appears because what people want to think is true becomes more important than what is real. The Right is anti-social because we recognize that the most common human tendency is self-delusion and that this is amplified in groups. The Christians call this “original sin,” but it is more Darwinian: without self-discipline, we are monkeys, and only some of us have that self-discipline.

We cannot have self-discipline without realism. We need something to discipline ourselves to that is not “of us,” like the various airy principles and navel-gazing emotional gestures that are so common in humanity. Instead, we must point ourselves toward the world, learn it and come to appreciate its wisdom, and use that to expand our minds.

This in turn leads us to a realization about Leftism. As a pathology, Leftism consists of the denial of the need for us to understand the world, and advances the counter-argument of “humanism,” or the idea that people are more important than reality. Even though that leads to disaster every time, it remains the most popular argument created by humans, and realism is the only bulwark against it.

An Inspection Of Evil

Monday, November 7th, 2016

the_freezing_northern_sky_alive

Bruce Charlton writes an analysis of Evil, which he identifies as the cause of the decline of the West:

In other words, the evil can only imagine others as being as evil as themselves. In other words, we can recognise evil by the way of thinking, by the fact that their world view is constrained by imputing evil intentions to others.

The evil cannot even imagine that others may be different from themselves, may not be evil.

…My guess is that although everyone is a mixture of Good and evil; the evil are blinded to Good, while the Good are not blind to evil. It is not the special virtues of the Good which make them wiser; it is the malformation of thought which is induced by evil intent.

This restores the Greek version of moral evil, or hubris, to the definition. Hubris is to act outside of one’s place in the natural hierarchy of things. This requires a misunderstanding or denial of that order and the reasons for its existence, removing cause from effect as people usually do when they want society to subsidize them for their illogical decisions. In doing so, reason itself is perverted and made malformed.

With this vision, we see that evil has two parts: first, error on a level so fundamental that it corrupts all understanding of cause and effect by distorting a primal concept of cause and effect, or how the world came to be and the source of its order; second, an individualistic, narcissistic and egotistic rejection of all order larger than the individual in order to make the individual feel justified in selfish or illogical choices.

Individualism alone will do this. In order to prioritize the individual and its intent over results in reality, the person afflicted must reject the idea of natural order entirely, including any sense of cause and effect, also including primal causes such as the origin of the universe or the reason for its order. Individualism creates a pathology of denying sanity so that the individual can appear to be the cause of the world.

In turn, this makes the individual unstable, because that which was not intended by the individual thus appears as a variety of evil, which is unfortunate since all but a very small part of the world is not guided by intent of the individual. This inverts good and evil; natural order becomes “evil,” and individual pretense and reality-denial becomes “good.”

This shows us the root of our modern time. Civilization became successful and therefore could preserve those who normally required high mortality to keep their numbers in check, like mice or birds. As a result, the insane outnumbered the sane, and eventually took over through the mechanism of democracy through its philosophical justification (or perhaps rationalization) of “equality.” Since that time, our fortunes have increasingly gone ill.

The Infaustian Civilization

Friday, September 23rd, 2016

the_infaustian_night_sky

Some like to characterize the West as “Faustian,” a term inspired by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Faust who metaphorically sells his soul to the devil in exchange for power beyond what he could otherwise obtain

This story, based in medieval myths, re-envisions the classic morality tale as one with another dimension. In the classic tale, the anti-hero sells his soul to evil for power, then becomes destructive, and eventually either returns to good or self-destructs through hubris. In Goethe’s re-styling of it, the anti-hero rebels against the categorization of good and evil, which are actually proxies for realistic versus dysfunctional.

For Western Europeans — up until the 1960s this was the group we meant when we said “white people” — the idea of Faustian has appealed because we have for a long time wanted to reach beyond the nu-Christian “good and evil” toward reality, and since that has been demonized by the herd, we see ourselves as wanting to reject morality itself. However, the Faustian legend points us toward something else: perhaps evil is merely misidentified.

The Western Europeans might be more properly referred to as Infaustian, or that which is the inversion of Faust: we do not seek power, but we seek order. We require a transcendental goal in order to motivate us to live, and this is only found in the type of order that is both natural and extends into human society. We need something more than proxies for what is real, such as truth or morality, because we need an understanding of the real itself.

The Faust story could be viewed as a re-statement of the Garden of Eden mythos from the Bible. The serpent offers power without wisdom, or in other words, power beyond our state in the golden chain of hierarchy which constitutes the actual natural order. However, this has always been the antithesis of the West; our method is to make ourselves powerful not through fantasy, but by understanding reality.

Infaustians have both Faustian and anti-Faustian characteristics. They are unconstrained by good and evil, because they view reality as good and any deviation from it as evil, so they do not need the proxies. Instead they seek power through knowledge, including the knowledge of how to apply it, so that power becomes a means to an end and increases power in the future, rather than having it now.

The story of Faust is that of an ingenue who stumbles into the world of supernatural evil by wanting more than he should have according to natural order. The Infaustian mythos is one in which a potential Faust instead makes himself the source of power by negating himself, and discovering reality, and through it finding a way to perpetuate power by making it the cause of itself, instead of a cause in itself.

As with any rising society, Infaustian societies seek not the Soviet-style legitimization of hubris through personal power, but the source of power, which is found in understanding the invisible portions of reality, namely the methods that work in any situation because they appeal to an underlying mathematics and structure to our universe. This will always be the opposite of the Faustian as well as the insect-like standards of the third world, where people seek neither power nor knowledge.

Recommended Reading