As Wikileaks releases even greater numbers of Podesta emails, people are finding more disturbing information about the activities of the Clinton Clan and their entourage and handlers.
However, these are often misinterpreted. For example, the recent outrage over “spirit cooking” mistakenly identifies something merely bad as what is in fact far worse.
“Spirit Cooking with Essential Aphrodisiac Recipes” was released by Ms. Abramovic in 1996, but the “ingredients” call for “fresh breast milk with fresh sperm milk” to be consumed “on earthquake nights.”
New York’s Museum of Modern Art called it a “cookbook” for “evocative instructions for actions or thoughts.” Another recipe calls for “fresh morning urine.”
This is not worship of Satan, but something much worse: it is worship of the human self. If life has beauty, we will make an alternate beauty which reflects our own fascinations which in turn show our avoidance of the beautiful so that nothing competes with our egos and social pretenses.
In other words, this is typical “Fall of Rome” activity. People are pursuing the fetishistic and novelty-based in defiance and denial of reality, showing how completely out-of-touch they are with anything that is part of the natural world or human world outside of their artificial, delusional social circle.
When your elites are obsessed with the preciousness of deviance and find themselves chasing after this type of trivial nonsense, it means that they have become powerful enough to completely disconnect from anything but the world of their own egos and those who flatter them.
This has been going on for some time. Modern art has always been an abomination; “spirit cooking” is just one more extension of the fixation on ugliness, bodily functions and existential uncertainty that is all that modern art expresses. When you see this, expect not a Satanic conspiracy, but a dead civilization.
“You work for a foreign agency, show the world. Please don’t let this pass unseen. We want the colonial powers to come to rule over us again, at least we would have institutions and wouldn’t be drowning in garbage.” 1
Natural selection shapes genetics. Genetics shapes culture. Culture shapes society. That leaves us with elitism or egalitarianism as our two — and only two — choices.
No one worries about the collapse of lower-IQ societies. Such societies exist at a subsistence level, so that catastrophes are actually not much of a threat to the society as a whole, and successes are so mild that they destabilize nothing.
These societies are the most individualistic on earth. The individual is encumbered by obedience to nothing but himself. He has his hut, his bush meat and back garden, and he eats, sleeps and fornicates when he wants. Any rules are simple and worked around with bribes or gifts that perform like bribes.
With higher IQ societies, there is the possibility of failure because the network of ideas and institutions upon which they rest is more developed and thus more fragile.
In fact, higher IQ societies seem to be prone to collapse, following a quick rise and extensive development. They burn out quickly because they are unstable, like a chemical reaction of an explosive nature. As if suffering from the same malady as their people, they become neurotic, or unable to ascertain the cause of any result they see, and so they venture into the nonsense secular mysticism of misunderstanding the reasons why things are as they are.
What kills them is the loss of direction. They start to focus on who is already there, and make all things a means to the end of those people, instead of realizing that all material things are the means to an end of ideas. Such as the transcendentals: the good, the excellent, and the true.
Now, the zombie Leftists in the audience ask, why could this not apply to an idea like Leftism? The answer is that Leftism is not an idea in the sense of a goal, but an anti-goal: it is based in equality, or using all things as a means to the end of those people, rewarding them with equality so that no individual — and these seemingly collectivist movements are individualistic at heart — is challenged to achieve something, or behave according to social standards, before he or she is accepted by society.
Ah, and there is the rub. The idea that is not an idea; the goal that is not a goal. Instead of having a goal, we just sit down at the table and serve ourselves a heaping helping of the seed corn, instead of planting for next season, or as sane people do, the season ten thousand years hence, because if life is good you want it to last that way forever, or as close as it can get.
Implicit in that is fatalism, or the belief that there can be no hope. This arises whenever there are too many fools to get anything done. When there are enough fools, they all gather up into a group, and freak out whenever someone proposes something realistic, and only shut up when the usual illusions are brought out to great applause. At that point, civilization cannot be saved, nor can anything realistic get done, so realistic/intelligent people become marginalized.
If anything, this suggests a Darwinistic nature to civilization: it either exterminates its fools, or it is exterminated by them.
Civilizations die when they lose purpose and it is replaced by a panoply of conflicting directions. This creates a type of background hum where the managerial overhead of thinking becomes awash in many different options, like a type of mental entropy.
When that background hum takes over, it means that the lowest common denominator — an intersectionality of convenience — will always prevail: this rewards the behavior typical to committees, corporations, mobs and the democracy brain fug that always rewards the most timorous solutions.
“Timorous” means both lowercase-c conservative, or the least deviation from the norm at that moment, and politically bold egalitarian solutions, because they flatter every individual in the crowd and therefore are non-controversial.
Smart societies fail because they expand the franchise of power beyond those who can create civilization to those who arrive afterwards and exist in a quasi-contributor, quasi-parasitic status. These people are not bad, but they are static in the transmission, confusing the mission and replacing it with their own neurosis.
Neurosis leads to policies which destroy people because those who are already quasi-parasitic want camouflage which can hide their own lack of self-discipline, self-esteem and clarity of moral and logical purpose. Those who fear they are wrong like nothing more than a cloud of chaos to obscure their own uselessness.
My takeaway from Revolution is that socialism corrupts White people as assuredly as it corrupts everyone else. Five decades of a cradle-to-grave welfare state made New Zealanders lazy and complacent. As r/K selection theory shows us, free resources inevitably breed a nation of sexually deviant layabouts. A society where success is determined not by your intelligence or ingenuity but by how well you can game the bureaucracy is one that will inevitably fall apart, regardless of its racial composition.
Anything the herd advocates is designed to destroy good people and replace them with more herd, or undifferentiated people. Here is the great William S. Burroughs on the nature of the undifferentiated, or viral and parasite:
After that he began waking up in the morning with a transparent jelly like a tadpole’s tail all over his mouth. This jelly was what the scientists call un-D.T., Undifferentiated Tissue, which can grow into any kind of flesh on the human body. He would tear it off his mouth and the pieces would stick to his hands like burning gasoline jelly and grow there, grow anywhere on him a glob of it fell. So finally his mouth sealed over, and the whole head would have have amputated spontaneous — (did you know there is a condition occurs in parts of Africa and only among Negroes where the little toe amputates spontaneously?) — except for the eyes you dig. That’s one thing the [parasite] couldn’t do was see. It needed the eyes. But nerve connections were blocked and infiltrated and atrophied so the brain couldn’t give orders any more. It was trapped in the skull, sealed off. For a while you could see the silent, helpless suffering of the brain behind the eyes, then finally the brain must have died, because the eyes went out, and there was no more feeling in them than a crab’s eyes on the end of a stalk.
There are people with purpose, and those who have no purpose. Those who have no purpose seek to destroy those with purpose. Fools, by the nature of their foolishness, have no purpose. They are also the most numerous type of human. Civilization thrives when fools are removed; it dies when they are tolerated.
In the question of civilization, survival is not hard. As in school, one can get a large number of questions wrong and still survive. This subsistence existence is the default state of humanity; maybe they get it 60% right and 40% wrong, but they still persist. So what destroys civilization?
If the mediocre can survive, and the excellent thrives, this means that the threat to civilization is that which is bad. The civilizations that endure are those which aggressively remove the bad. This is why the civilizations that thrive often have extensive taboos, social codes, cryptic standards and challenging rituals. This is their replacement for Darwinistic natural selection; they weed out those who need to be told what to do in order to succeed, and instead present their people with a general idea and see who can adapt that to a particular task and thrive.
Some policies destroy people: socialism, welfare, speech codes, regulations, managerial solutions, public education, etc. All are bad not just in real-world results, because these programs fail as well, but in the damage they do to the psychology of the people subjected to them.
Civilization makes itself neurotic, then makes its people neurotic, by pursuing these “ideal” solutions which are designed around the people as an ends and not a means. The goal is culture, greatness, excellence, biological health of the whole, and other intangibles; the means are the people. When the people become the goal, it destroys them in addition to destroying the civilization. This is the paradox of human civilization.
In the long-term view, one must view civilization through a biological filter. You either:
Reward good behavior.
Reward bad behavior (which includes: equalizing bad and good behavior).
The hidden trap here is that by saying all people and thus in effect that all behaviors are equal, one rewards the bad, because bad and good are rewarded the same and bad is always easier/more convenient than good.
There is no middle ground. One cannot duck the question of good/bad any more than one can duck the question of survival. Decisions must be made. They will reward one — good/higher evolution or bad/lower evolution — or the other, but not both.
This is heresy in social terms, because people universally want to believe that they can accept everyone and everything, and still be just fine. This avoids conflict, which upsets women and children, and makes it easier to manage the herd. Just tell them they are accepted, and then what to do in order to be good, which makes them into identical cogs of the system, since if you are telling everyone what to do, the goal must be universal or invariant between individuals despite the great variation between individuals, even if it appears that they are mostly the same.
Convincing people that there is a middle ground makes them neurotic, because they can no longer distinguish between the goal and distraction. The irrelevant and the relevant converge. This creates a mistaken association between false causes and effects.
For example, an article came out the other day that suggested that eating more fruits and vegetables made you smarter. Was that what the data said? No: it said that smarter people tended to eat more fruits or vegetables. Eating those will not make you smarter; those who are smarter do it, and so the result is false.
This is a classic example of Leftist inversion. Because they assume the equality of all people, anything that smart people do is not a result of their intelligence, but of the act itself. It is a cargo cult of methods in a field where the design of the human being — its biology and genetics — is what determines the result.
In turn, that leads us to an ugly realization. A society is only as good as its smartest people, if they are put in charge. This conflicts with the liberal idea that we can make everyone smart, and then by polling the crowd, have a better result than if we had a smart person in charge. But that notion has failed.
The reality is that the inverted society cannot survive. It becomes neurotic, and self destructs, because it is unrealistic. It is socially popular, so there are many smiling faces out there, but they neither know what is realistic nor care. They care only about convenient warm mental feelings of safety and security.
If a high-IQ society is to survive, it will do so by carefully separating its people. Those who are capable of leadership go in one silo, and those who are not go in another, where their opinions are scrupulously ignored and they are constantly reminded that they know nothing. The best must rise. Otherwise, the worst do.
This is the challenge to the west. In the smaller cycle, postwar Leftism — globalism, diversity, pluralism — has failed. In the bigger cycle, we are snapping out of the sleepwalk to oblivion that has gripped Western Civilization since at least The Enlightenment.™ It was wrong, and everything that springs from it is also wrong.
Instead, we are looking toward a non-neurotic future. We must be realists, and that starts with disenfranchising those among us who are incapable of making leadership decisions. We need purpose, hierarchy, realism; we do not need more pleasant human feelings that are convenient but lead to neurosis and with that, doom.
We live in an age of massive inversion. All of the original values held by our civilization were deemed offensive, so they were replaced with inoffensive versions, effectively reversing the original meaning.
An example can be found in the notion of tolerance. Tolerance originally meant accepting different viewpoints, but that required us to tolerate opinions that did not flatter the ego, so it was redefined to mean accepting all people who avoid unflattering opinions.
This has been going on for centuries, millennia even. It is the fatal disease of civilization itself: as soon as a society thrives, those who are unrealistic benefit from the inventions and social order imposed by the realistic. Since the realistic reproduce at a lower rate, soon the unrealistic outnumber them and shift policy to insanity.
At that point, the insanity of groups take over. Votes and mob participation do not involve individual responsibility, allowing the Crowd to participate and then blame itself without attaching guilt to any persons in particular. Groups tend to favor what keeps the group together, and that is almost always illusion.
The insanity has begun to melt however. For the first time in ages, we are having a conversation about civilizational health: how well our society works and what its prospects are, including whether it allows people to enjoy life and therefore try to do well by it.
That in turn leads to an inversion of the inverted. The mind recognizes that all social order is more social than order, and that each definition — like an official Soviet or Newspeak label — hides its actual meaning. With that comes a realization that the traditional ways and the ways of nature were effects, not causes in themselves, with the causes being an understanding of reality itself.
In this way, realism returns. Humans naturally fear nature because with it comes the risk of being personally destroyed by a natural selection like process. As a result, they rebel against realism, and create rules designed to insulate the unrealistic from the consequences of their actions.
And yet, all of those rules turn out to be wrong because they treat cause and effect as the same. Laws for example prohibit behaviors instead of looking at why those occur. Management of people relies on enforcing uniformity, not looking at the differences between people that cause some to do good, and some bad.
With the inversion of our adulterated values, which is the “re-evaluation of all values” that Nietzsche proposed, civilization can return to its function: adaptation to nature, which is not a binary process but a spectrum. That thrusts on us the choice of what type of future we would prefer.
Europeans rose above other groups by creating a civilization in which individuals had both an intense desire to do right, and a strong motivation to bond with life and experience a transcendental appreciation of its beauty, intensity and excellence. All of that has been gradually obscured by the unrealistic, who want safety more than existential joy and purpose.
As all of the plans of the unrealistic come to fruition, as began to happen in the 1990s in earnest, we are seeing the future that unrealism makes for us: endless rules, constant tedium, and a lack of mental silence and time in which to get to know ourselves and existence.
With that, we abandon the control-oriented human schemes, and return to the subtler and more flexible designs of nature. The backlash is still in its early stages, but one might visualize it as the functional people seeking a way to separate from the inverted people. We do not need them. And we cannot make them happy.
Years of inverted living have brainwashed people into accepting what seem like the best options from what is available. But when even those lead to destruction, it is time to think outside of what is accepted, and open our frame of reference up to the eternal instead. This leads to an entirely different viewpoint, one in which the inverted are no longer necessary or desired.
At first, this backlash may appear in political forms. But in parallel, it is occurring through cultural and artistic change as well. We have reached the endpoint of inversion, and seen that it is death, and now people are thinking of life again — and are determined to escape the inverted values that put us on the path to death.
Notice the subtlety of this category-based attack (found in The Guardian):
In response, Yiannopoulos told Breitbart:
With the cowardly suspension of my account, Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives. This is the end for Twitter. Anyone who cares about free speech has been sent a clear message: you’re not welcome on Twitter.
Of course, this is nonsense. Freedom of speech doesn’t include the freedom to abuse or incite racial hatred. And in such tantrums about the right to offend – tantamount to a bully throwing his toys out of the pram – we hear nothing about the silenced free speech of those who, like Jones, are driven off social media platforms because the sheer level of vitriol is just too much to bear.
They are always beating that tin drum:
Category X is unacceptable, so anything we dislike is Category X.
Do they ever define “abuse” or “incite racial hatred”? Not with any specificity, definitely, which allows them to association any non-Leftist speech under these banners. It has nothing to do with the words, and everything to do with the signal. Only Leftist thought is acceptable.
That seems harsh, until you observe people like this in action. Someone who wants to get to the truth starts with describing Yiannopoulos’ behavior as closely as can be done, then explains why it was abusive in effect, and points out that a sane solution might be for Jones to stop replying to him.
The insane person creates categories of behaviors whose sin is being personally offensive to them. This allows them to call principled disagreement “abuse,” and to claim that there is “incitement” behind refusing the Leftist narrative on race, when incitement would actually be something like, “Come on everybody, let’s kill all the Irish!”
We see this time and again. Leftists agree on categories that are unacceptable, and then use those as swords of guilt to force everyone else to comply or to face guilt by association. At first it was “classist” and “sexist,” but then “racist” and “homophobic” came into use, and now “ableist” has joined the mix. Next, it may be “IQist” or even “competencist” which are for now nonsense terms, but you get the point. These are not useful words; they are red and green at a stoplight which determines whether Leftists attack or not.
In the meantime, the point is entirely lost: that for us to have an open society, we need to be able to discuss anything without people getting banned, fired, blacklisted, or arrested. How it is that grown adults think people should be jailed or ostracized for any speech escapes me, but as the late editor Andrew Breitbart said about Leftists, “they destroy people.”
“I find on a balance of probabilities that at the time he caused their deaths, Matthew de Grood was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of appreciating or knowing that his actions were wrong,” Macklin said.
…The trial heard de Grood became withdrawn about a month before the attack and started posting about the end of the world, religion, vampires and Darth Vader on Facebook.
De Grood reported hearing voices telling him to kill before he grabbed a knife from a kitchen in the northwest Calgary home and stabbed the victims.
In the modern West, we are drowning in a wave of mental incompetence that has us asking the wrong questions entirely and coming up with nonsense answers as a result. In a sane world, the point of criminal trials is to remove threats to the good people out there, not protect the broken. In a sane world, five people at a party could at least put up a decent fight — by working together — when someone has a psychotic break.
Past societies would have hung this guy and ignored any questions of culpability because what matters is the victims, not the aggressor. Who cares if he was mentally competent at the time? If you allow people to go crazy, kill five people and then walk away with their lives, there is no responsibility at all. It encourages others to have a looser standard.
If instead you have a simple ironclad rule — kill unjustly, and you will be killed — people have an incentive to treat their family members who are going through psychotic breaks. They have reason to take their psychiatric meds. They also have a clear standard for when it is acceptable to kill in self-defense, since that is clarified as part of determining what is “unjust” in a killing.
Instead, the great equality lie has replaced their brains. They worry about whether he was fully culpable instead of how to protect ordinary decent people against the raging craziness out there. They do not look at the parents and ask what went wrong there. They do not point out that if this guy obviously went nutty a month before the stabbing, plenty of people had a chance to intervene before the disaster.
Instead, it is feel-good time. Feel good because we are compassionate. Deny that the cause of most human misery is delusional or crazy actions. Gather around to talk about how civilized we are, not like those brutish louts with their inhumane death penalty. And then for kicks, go dump a bucket of AIDS blood on the graves of these five victims in a futile attempt to desecrate them further.
I think that the recent protests at The University of Missouri were quite informative. We have learned that their journalism faculty will throw journalists out of the protests if they start filming what the morons are up to. We have learned that their fellow students consider them positively atrocious as human beings and a threat to what honest people are attempting to accomplish in four years of college. Finally, we have learned exactly what we can do to stop SJW Entryism. We simple cease and desist with our support of these institutions.
This has happened with The University of Missouri. Now some other enjoyable things are happening as well.
The fallout from the fake Mizzou protests continues to destablize the University of Missouri. Today the interim chancellor of the university emailed students that the university will enroll 1500 less students than projected and faces a budget shortfall of $32 million this year. While the 1500 fewer students aren’t broken out by year, the vast majority of them will come from the entering freshman class.
The University of Missouri demonstrated its commitment to the Manna of Dollar Sign from legislative heaven. You see about 100 of the legislators who vote on funding for Mizzou have demanded the firing of Journalism Professor Melissa Click. The University has opted to fire her from a cannon as rapidly as they can light the fuse. This Professor Click tells us, cannot stand.
“In their decision to terminate my employment, the curators bowed to conservative voices that seek to tarnish my stellar 12-year record at MU,” Click wrote. “Instead of disciplining me for conduct that does not ‘meet expectations for a university faculty member,’ the curators are punishing me for standing with students who have drawn attention to the issue of overt racism at the University of Missouri.”
Personally, I agree with Dr. Click. Melissa Click represents the true mindset and beliefs of professional academia. If you disagree with them, you are a pseudo-sapient, troglodytic moron. You could even harbor nefarious secret intentions to vote for Donald Trump! Melissa Click is the face of the Post-modern Amerikan pseudo-erudite bullsh!t industry. She is who should represent what our universities have truly become. Let’s have some truth in advertising here.
So put Melissa Click in charge of The University of Missouri. Let her design the entire curriculum. Then, let’s see who in their right mind would actually apply for admission to this institution. If the 20% reduction in admissions for this Fall are any indication, showing the public the real face of Leftism makes them recoil in condign disgust.
But wouldn’t this reward this SJW Gropenfuhrer for being her precious snowflake self? No. It would be revealing her subterfuge. The last thing an SJW Entryist ever wants is to have to run the organizations they feed off of as parasites. It would be the equivalent of making Anita Sarkeesian actually have to crank 50K lines of programming to hit a developmental deadline at a coding shop.
But wouldn’t this destroy Mizzou as a useful institution? Only partially. It would destroy it as a viable institution, but just how useful is Mizzou if they hired Melissa Click to begin with? Plus, there needs to be a clear and undeniable example. We need to make an SJW show the world exactly how useless they are on any practical level.
Let Mizzou be consigned to irrelevance. Let it burn. They hire the likes of Melissa Click. The foundation is already hopelessly rotten. Let what happens to Mizzou be a lesson. I think we need more than just a mere $32M reasons to get rid of our SJW infestation in Amerika.
The path of “doing right” often leads to misery. Such is the case with societies that, as they succeed, choose to try to improve on nature through government. This creates a cycle that rewards the bad and punishes the good, resulting in a place that is horrible to live on every level but the material.
On the surface, the modern West is the best place on earth to live. We have material prosperity, rule of law and relative stability on a planet where, as usual, most of humanity has studied how to best screw up and is busy beheading each other. And yet, looking under the surface, a different vision appears.
This society is ugly and dysfunctional. Our needs are different from those of the beheaders, and this falls short. Days are spent in pointless labor that achieves nothing for anyone. Everyday annoyances are a peak because most people are paying little attention at jobs and so most details are botched. This means that people spend hours every week dealing with frustration minor issues and bureaucracy.
Unfortunately for us, the basic problem is that a dying society like ours converts sanity into insanity through the principle of relativity. Relative to what we know, we make choices and pick the best option available, but the options we actually need are off the table. Even keeping the system going, a daily struggle, is insane and yet it is the only option that appears sane.
Let us look at three areas where this world breaks down:
“Normal.” To a healthy person, “normal” means a good person: good moral character, reasonable intelligence, healthy and sane. To an egalitarian society, “normal” means mediocre, because when you define all citizens to be equal you create a lower threshold and must design for that. This means that our laws, institutions and social interactions anticipate dealing with people who are low in every ability and character trait.
Hubris. The Greek principle of hubris described those who acted above their natural station in the hierarchy of life. A peasant pretending to be a king, or a hero acting as if he were a god, would fit into this definition. All of our society is based on the hubristic idea that we are in control and can force things to be as we visualize them. Egalitarianism presumes that we can take mediocre people, control their thinking through education and manipulate their behavior through laws, and make them more than mediocre. We cannot.
Bigotry. One form of bigotry never gets mentioned, and that is bigotry toward the smarter, stronger, more moral and more sane. It is legitimized by the egalitarian state, which acts in defense of the less capable by taking from the more capable. The result is a society that hates good people and celebrates bad ones. When its institutions fail, it always looks for some successful person to blame, instead of blaming the herd of mediocre people who — as usual — got it all wrong.
When we speak of the insanity of this time, the above is what we mean, not that iPhones are hard to use or the subway moves too fast. Sanity is destroyed and insanity encouraged. Goodness is persecuted and evil accepted. What was once normal and good has now become rare and persecuted. As a result, daily life is constant nonsense and exhausting bother for anyone with a working brain.
It is not surprising that sane people have abandoned politics, society and public institutions and instead retreat to their living rooms. They have been made irrelevant because insanity rules. Fewer of them are having children, and those that do are investing less effort in those offspring, because they recognize that as long as this society holds power, anything above the mediocre is doomed.
When most people think of “conservatives,” they think of people fighting a rearguard action against the encroachment of insanity. But insanity won. Now we need to think about dissolving our society as it is and replacing it with something that works. Anything else guarantees more of the same, time after time.
You are living in an illusion. It was crafted by your fellow citizens for their benefit at the expense of yours. You can safely ignore it, except that then all you do will be wasted, and you will continue living in Hell.
Yes: I said Hell. You are living in a thinly-disguised, well-compensated hell. It is crafted so that only the sane can detect it, and since the sane have always been a minority, that means that it is never noticed. The point is simple: to eradicate the sane using the mechanism of Darwinism. Reward the insane, and this occurs, regular like clockwork.
This is why our society is based around democracy, equality and tolerance. Most of our people want to hide the fact of our decline, and profit from the wealth of the past, while driving away anyone who might notice what a farce it all is. To hide our decline, they have created false versions of everything, and a Potemkin economy to conceal its lack of value.
A Potemkin economy — named after the quaint and cute “Potemkin villages” used to convince people that Russian proles lived well instead of the third-world scatty poverty that was normal — is one in which every price tag is fake but everyone supports these fake prices to avoid the personal economic consequences of letting the cat out of the bag and pointing out that everything is near-worthless.
Take a look at these twelve ways your economy is fake and how that indicates that your society is cratering.
1. It’s all the same.
I was in a bookstore the other day, surrounded by grazing sheep looking for Christmas gifts. I started opening up biographies, novels, and science books, and found one comment denominator: they’re all the same. The writing could have been produced by a machine; the approach is similar too. Each one has a “secret” which it promises to reveal, but spends most of its time hiding the obvious so the secret seems important. All of the writing uses lots of vivid language to reveal simple things, and simplifies complex things to the point of offering no information. All of the characters are the same gray personality-less equal person who spends all of his/her time in introspection as a means of glorifying the self at the expense of the world. Every book ran at least a hundred pages longer than content provided, which means that after the first five chapters, it’s the same song and dance to distract from its emptiness before turning up the volume for a conclusion. Just like blogs, which standardized writing into an NPR-inspired format of heavily emotional, breathy and adjective-heavy quirkiness which ends up being the opposite of distinctive, writing now is as regimented as end of year reports from corporations or threat assessments in the military. This creates writing that is both random and repetitive. At first, it seems interesting, until you realize that it’s just technique and the content is very, very thin. What’s the value in this? People take a few generations to catch up with reality, so they’re still buying novels that “look interesting” (and reading four chapters before leaving them on the bus), giving gift books of “fascinating” science that turns out to be the obvious plus broad conclusions which will be disproven thoroughly in five years, and surrounding themselves with genre-books (from genres invented in the 1980s) to display an identity and life-purpose to others that is just as fake as the Potemkin economy itself.
2. It’s controlled just like Pravda.
Back in the Soviet Union, the official newspaper Pravda could be counted on to spin partial truths into statements that seemed to support the narrative that Communism was taking over the world. You read Pravda to find out what wasn’t true and what the government wanted you to believe so you knew the right answers to tell other people so they wouldn’t inform on you and send you to the gulag. The Soviet Union operated by a negative standard, while the modern West operates on a positive standard. You listen to controlled media so you have the right opinions and get promoted by people who like those opinions, otherwise you remain at “merely equal,” which because it is not subsidized by a Communist/Socialist state, means boring entry level jobs until you’re 65 and then a heart attack from frustration a decade later. Our media here are staffed by people who made it through liberal arts courses in university, in which success came from finding new ways to parrot the same old ideas based in egalitarianism and its associated “theory,” and they keep doing that in media. They then become popular because there is a large enough audience that wants to feel smart for having absorbed liberal theory at public schools and private universities alike, and they recognize only that which parrots this chatter back to them. For this reason, our “diverse” media represents a single opinion in many forms, and successfully spams your brain as it would take decades to entangle all of the deceptions. Its favorite trick, like that of Pravda, is to take a partial truth and spin it into a broad conclusion. A famous comedian said, “Reality has a liberal bias,” but what he means is that a controlled media and science publishing establishment can find facts to support the liberal narrative and present those as the whole truth when they are far from it.
3. Its value has fallen 40% during the 0bama years.
Barack 0bama is not a Muslim, the antichrist or a Communist. What he is, if analyzed correctly, is a standard 1968 liberal: the name of the game is wealth transfer from the useful people to the proles so that liberals remain in power forever. As the old joke goes, the difference between a Socialist, Communist and moderate liberal is the spelling. These ideologies differ only by degree, which is a function of time because once liberalism takes control it inevitably and necessarily continues a drift leftward until total anarchy or true Communism is achieved, either of which reduces a population to a third-world vassal state under the thumb of cynical tyrants. The consequence of wealth transfer are striking: it places economic decisions in the hands of those least competent to make those decisions well. As a result, your economy is suddenly geared around end-stage consumer products, not stuff like what the successful people buy, which tends to generate more income: land, homes, businesses, stocks, etc. Each dollar we take from the upper half of the middle class and above goes into lottery tickets, cell phones, cheap liquor and entertainment, and that money goes nowhere else. The result is that your money purchases less, and the quality has declined. American construction is at an all-time mediocre low, our food has never been more adulterated, and even our entertainment products are going full dunce. None of this crap is actually worth much but that’s the point; in order to keep you from seeing that your currency is now worthless, you must see a steady stream of stuff in formats you recognize so you think everything is normal. The media will not report on this. Just as we look back to 1980s dollars fondly, now 2006 money seems like it would be a really nice thing to have now. Forget it; your dollars are based on your drunken debt in order to fund liberal social programs like welfare, subsidies, benefits, food stamps and diversity programs. All of these are merely disguised wealth transfer.
4. Your technology is not advancing.
Tell us again about the great advances in technology. Your computing is based on a 1990s networking format using 1970s operating systems. Our self-driving cars are built around the same ideas that enabled cruise missiles in the early 1980s. Those handy digital assistants are basically Eliza programs maintained by hordes of workers pre-programming them with answers. None of this represents an actual leap in technology; if anything, it is a declaration that none are coming, so we have to reshuffle the deck to give ourselves new products. What actually does an iPad do? How does it add income? Similarly, what about Facebook and Amazon — how are they different from internet forums and Wal-mart? These non-innovations are designed to hide the lack of invention. Even Google is hovering near the abyss, since after a nice ten-year run of good advertising revenues, it is now finding that the internet is covered in ads that people ignore. Apple had a few big sellers, but those are now gone. What next? The phones get bigger screens and the iPads get better wi-fi. Fantastic.
5. The value of your society is based on its reputation, which is fading.
Once upon a time, people bought American products because they were the best. Then they bought American media, because it was seen as the best. Finally, they followed what Americans were doing, because Americans seemed cutting edge. Guess what — those trivial advances have now been equaled. The rest of the world has its own Hollywoods, search engines, social media and trends. The value of the USA and Europe is based on an old standard which is now obsolete. Add to that the obvious failings of American social policy, which has gone full Socialist and thus sabotaged its value to match the European subsidy states, and the plummeting value of the American brand as a wimpy president and crazy voters pursue illusory foreign policy, and you see why America and Europe are no longer the world’s leaders. Sure, the West — America, the antipodeans and Europe — can support each other and keep the farce going, but that only has so long on it. The Baby Boomers just want to enjoy another decade of retirement before the cancers from industrial pollution kill them off, and after that, who cares.
6. Your leaders are bad because your people are bad.
Most people are cool with the idea that they choose their leaders. They are less accepting of the complementary proposition, which is that they are responsible for who they choose. The last two generations have increasingly picked candidates with illogical platforms, no experience and little competence merely because those leaders have promised free things. Free college and free medical care are two of the more compelling policies for voters in this group. The problem, in addition to the fact that these are wealth transfer (see above), is that the money to pay for these things comes from a dwindling group. Most people now work relatively entry-level jobs and to them, a few thousand gone in taxes in exchange for tens of thousands of freebies sounds like a good idea. But then who pays? And what is sacrificed to pay for it? Our rotting infrastructure tells the story: we stopped building quality roads, bridges, subways, electrical lines and public buildings, and instead, have shifted that money into payments to people at the bottom of the social hierarchy. When we kept the money at the top, it went to things we can all enjoy and benefit from; now that we distribute the money at the bottom, it vanishes into a black hole of seedy businesses and entertainment products, and the things we share are neglected.
7. Your people are bad because your economy sustains idiots.
Every society dies by thriving. This enables it to support people who could not exist without it, generally because they are foolish — or in other words, have unrealistic judgment ability — and require jobs, stores and education to guide them because otherwise their witless minds would ramble on like a gossip column. Strong people want to exile the useless idiots; weak people want to “make peace” with the idiots by giving them benefits, subsidies and jobs. The result is that voting, which was always a bad situation because every human group approximates a mean not a peak, becomes worse as you have many millions of helpless people dependent on government and the liberalism that sustains it. These parasites bleed the society dry. They also lower social standards wherever they go because any standard higher than mediocre is personally offensive to them. This means that soon you have an angry mob of fools who become “useful idiots” for any totalitarian, left-leaning or otherwise control-oriented power.
8. Tolerance is our sacred value in order to prevent “noticing.”
“Noticing” is what happens when someone looks at society with clear, realistic eyes. They see a population that is miserable, with the worst being the most intelligent and productive. They see cities which are covered in advertising, awkward to use and designed around avoiding the rioting lower classes. They see a total lack of unity in anything, including national identity. They observe the incompetence of our leaders, products and public institutions. They intuit that this society is a form of hell, and that unless it deviates course radically, it is heading toward becoming Brazil — a vast third-world horde enslaved by a few cynical wealthy people and their private armies. They also realize that “tolerance” means accepting the mediocre as fact and as a result, our voters have comfortably opted for oblivion and policy after policy that is delusional and self-destructive. They notice the man behind the curtain and that the Potemkin village hides a far uglier reality. They also see how those who feel they have succeeded in this society fight kicking and screaming against noticing because those people are addicted on a brain chemical level to the artificial sense of self-esteem provided by “success.” This is why of all of our taboos, “tolerance” is the strongest. Tolerance means the lower is raised to be equal to the higher, so no one can say anything definitively because someone somewhere disagrees. This keeps decisions mired in obscurity — doubtless at the same time organizations publish lengthy lists of “facts” in the name of “transparency” — so that nothing will ever change our course, even if the smartest among us recognize that it is time-wasting, soul-wasting, depression-inducing suicide.
9. The world operates on Darwinian principles plus pretense.
Almost no one will face this: your tribal identity is formed by any set of traits you share with others. This includes (in overlapping conditions frequently) race, religion, ethnic group, class or caste, sexual preference and intelligence. Every other group looks at your group; if you are above them in any way, their goal is to tear you down and subjugate you, taking your women and impregnating them. This is one half of Darwinism. The first part is that the best rise above the rest, and the second part is that if the best degenerate, or lose their ability or will to rise above, the rest assimilates them. This is why over time eagles become sparrows and grey squirrels drive out red squirrels. We do not like to think about being subject to Darwinism, as humans, because that thought belongs to a category alongside death, defecation and our insignificance in the universe of thoughts that not only disturb us personally but create threatening instability in social groups when mentioned. So we file them away, along with the instructions for our 1040 forms and grandma’s recipe for hemorrhoid cream, hoping that they just Go Away like the bad thoughts which plague us late at night when we cannot sleep.
10. The agenda never changes: other groups hate you.
As a corollary to point #9, the grim truth is that no matter how much pleasant talk about altruism and equality goes on, other groups still hate you and want to conquer you, much like other people want to advance themselves above you whether rightfully so (by competence) or not. Life is war, even in the air-conditioned tea-sipping suburbs. Other groups want to conquer you because until they have control, they are unstable, and if someone is above them, they run the risk of being subjugated by that group. These are not conscious thoughts. They are pure instinct, and they cannot be changed. Any human group that thinks it has ended this in others by giving them equality, welfare or affirmative action has missed the point: parity is a fiction of those on top, and everyone else knows it is a lie, and is using it against you.
11. The crowd is always wrong, just like most people mildly insane.
You do not know it, but you are a slave. You are not enslaved by a central authority, but by the Crowd. Their opinions determine what you can say; their product-buying choices determine what’s on the market; their government preferences create a “window” of acceptable ideas and anything else is excluded. This is tyranny by the Crowd, and it is how our society keeps order, because the Crowd can be counted on to cheer for free things and boo at anything which requires individual responsibility, obligation to reality or admitting that the self is not the end-all-be-all of judgment, wisdom and direction. A quick look around you will tell you that most people do not have their act together. They can make it through school and to a job, but that’s about it. Their homes are often disasters, their families neurotic nightmares, and their personal choices — from sexual partner to products they buy to their opinions — utter wastelands. It has always been this way, but in the past we used social standards to encourage people to perform above mentally lazy and morally sloppy behavior. No longer; they are liberated now! But their liberation is enslavement of anyone above them in ability. The group does not understand any decisions above its own level and rejects them as nonsense, which means that thought which requires an IQ of above about 110 is entirely incomprehensible to them — and they hate it for making them feel that. In our society, only those who can be victims or show victimhood are fortunate, because in an egalitarian society, only those who need more equality gifted to them will thrive, and only victims can demand that. “Education” cannot help them; they will merely misinterpret what finer minds would understand. Rules do not shape them, because to them every rule is a mystery unless it tells them what they want to hear. Why are products bad? Because it’s easier to sell morons junk than make something actually good. Why is government bad? Because the votes have it, which means the small proportion of smart people — the 13% on the far right of the Bell Curve — are vastly outnumbered. When it comes to the decisions that regulate our future, one in a hundred people can make a sensible choice, and the rest will not understand or fall prey to personal failings. That is the source of your slavery.
12. Your media is fifty years behind.
While the media reports on current events, it does so through a filter based on what has succeeded in the past. Because large groups of people take several generations to get accustomed to any new idea, the media bangs on tropes from fifty years ago. The constant reporting on diversity, class and “gender issues” is part of this, but even political articles fit this narrative from older times. Movies recount events from twenty years ago as if they occurred twice that long in the past, and present this as shocking and revolutionary, but the point is that the audience shapes the message. People do not know what is new; they only know what they recognize as having been cutting-edge when they were children. As a result, the tropes linger far behind the reality, which enables media to keep pushing a simplistic agenda for their own profit.
…and so, what does this tell us for the brand new year?
The crazies run the funhouse. Our economy reflects our society: fake, oversold and based in (crazy) illusion. The opposition is divided not because it notices what is wrong, but because it cannot agree on a plan because its members are too busy with self expression to look at realistic solutions. We have 6,000 years of human history and the solutions are obvious but the illusion is more popular. This suggests a first course of action: find unity of purpose, and seize power. The methods do not matter because failure to do this ensures self-destruction. We either evolve and adapt, and take over from the human insanity, or we fail and pass into the graveyard of history.
Dogs, despite being nature’s kindest and most enthusiastic animals, have the baffling habit of chasing their tails. They notice the attraction and lunge for it, as if this discovery of themselves could give their lives meaning.
Reputedly, humans are more intelligent and not prone to such behaviors. After some years of experience in the world, I can no longer agree. We are the ultimate tail-chasers but, being social animals, we’ve found a way to pretend that we are not chasing our own tails if we project the image of a tail onto others.
After a few weeks in the wild one may return to society and notice as if for the first time how it is literally covered in advertising. Not just the wheat-paste posters, the giant billboards lining the roads, the advertisements on TV and radio blaring from all angles, but even the little stuff.
People repeat what they’ve seen or heard. Movies and music even feature product placement. When they’re not doing that, people advertise themselves. They brag about their kids, pitch you a business plan, or as happens every day describe for you their method of doing something-or-other and expect you to validate it with approval.
The point is that we are chasing our own tail. Merchandisers try to find out what “the people” want and advertise it to them, hoping “the people” will buy it. As a result, there’s no leader. The people are in theory the deciders, but they are also shaped by those who want to benefit from their decisions. And so like a dog chasing its tail, business pursues consumers who pursue business.
It’s not any different in the world of politics. The candidates try to figure out what the voters want so they can offer it to them. The voters are in turn shaped by what the candidates are offering. The entire political process chases its own tail because no one is in control, only two groups attempting to placate one another.
At a social level the same thing is happening. To be popular, you need to be where it’s at. That means wherever what is trendy and viral right now is occurring. This gives us a whole crowd of people chasing its tail, waiting for someone to do something trendy so they can all chase the trend and thus earn the esteem of the crowd itself.
With this kind of circular logic going on, it’s no wonder our society can barely make simple decisions and has fallen behind under a giant pile of unresolved details. We are not making decisions, but waiting for others to validate us, and they’re waiting for the same from us, which creates a sort of pre-emptive negotiation based on our mutual weaknesses.
This mutual weakness negotation might be described as: “I won’t approve of what you’re afraid of, if you don’t approve of what I’m afraid of.” We are no longer leading by what we desire in a positive sense, but by what we must avoid in order to not destabilize our self-image.
Advertising is pitched to fears. Do you have bad breath? Don’t know what to cook for the kids so the neighbors think you’re a good mom? Afraid you don’t look sharp enough for that promotion? We have solutions for your fears, except because they don’t address the underlying problems (bad hygiene, neurotic distraction, low job performance) you’ll always come back for more. We won’t mention your weakness if you don’t mention we’re a scam.
Politics cannot focus on what we agree on because there’s almost nothing we can agree on. When you need to unite a group of people, and they’re each pulling in an individualistic direction, all they can agree on is avoiding big and obvious problems. Otherwise, they return to inertia. Our agreement is based on fear, specifically the fear that threatens our ability to be oblivious to anything but fear. Politicians agree not to mention the callowness of voters, if voters don’t mention that politics is manipulative by its essential nature.
Our broken social scene reveals the real culprit. If you can envision a group of monkeys sitting around at a clearing in the African jungle, you can see our glorious simian roots. Each monkey watches the others. When another monkey acts, whether to pick up a stick or pick a fruit, the other monkeys assess the likelihood of his success. If he succeeds, how can I get ahead off of what this guy is doing? I can imitate him and start a trend, and thus become “important.” Or, I can fling dung at him and shriek, making myself seem like a protector of the tribe.
The problem with this type of thinking is also what explains why the monkeys stayed in the jungle while humanity moved on. When you chase your own tail, you never pick up a direction other than thinking of the tribe. Your world becomes the tribe, and you become blind to physical reality outside of what others think. You also limit your thoughts to variations on what has already been thought.
Humanity broke free, for a while. We rewarded the independent thinkers and as a result, we created a growing edge within our population. Our leaders made good choices and invented realistic responses, and so we thrived. But then the other monkeys sitting around the clearing saw this and wanted their share of the action.
Because being clever is easier than thinking, they started with cleverness. First they equated leadership thinking with “new ideas” instead of “realistic ideas.” Then they started inventing new ideas. Of course, like modern art, these ideas had nothing to do with reality and weren’t even new. They were new-looking variations of the same old stuff, because that’s what succeeds, in a social sense.
Success in a social sense however determined who succeeded, for a time.
Most of the monkeys can’t tell the difference between a “new idea” and a good idea, so when they saw that trend of newness forming, they got behind it. When others objected, the new monkeys flung dung and called those other monkeys reactionaries. What mattered was what was new, exciting and made all the other monkeys excited. The chattering reached a fever pitch, the Bastille was overthrown, and from henceforth the new monkeys ruled.
But as it says above, “for a time.” The new ideas did not work so well, but monkey society was resting on such a huge momentum of the past, both in terms of wealth and technology, that all it had to do was keep encouraging the same stuff to happen time and again. Keep throwing money at technology, advertising to the consumers, lying to the voters, and hoping it will all work out.
For over two centuries it seemed to, if you could ignore the fratricidal wars and gnawing sense of inner emptiness and purposeless existence. That doesn’t bother everyone. The people who could be extras in Idiocracy tend to find an empty existence pleasant because that way nothing impedes their pursuit of entertainment, donuts and sex. The screeching and flinging of dung reaches a fever pitch.
Now, the monkeytime has come to an end. The problems that we blew off because they were long-term, and thus not popular, have begun to manifest themselves. They aren’t apocalyptic, but worse, they’re never going away. They will slowly grind us down until we are a nub. We have created a tunnel vision of our own prospects.
It’s funny because that’s what those reactionary monkeys warned us about. Our new ideas were just chasing our own tail. And like all circular motions, eventually they wind down and we lose inertia, and then sit becalmed while decay absorbs us.