The twentieth century will produce only a few profound thinkers because for the most part, it represented a flight from anything realistic and transcendental, and those two components comprise what it is to be profound. But a few squeaked by, and we enjoy them for being lone voices of sanity in the howling deluge of neurotic delirium shouted at top volume that is modernity.
William S. Burroughs, diagnostician of control and advocate for human life as perpetual discovery, wrote something interesting about democracy:
Baboons always attack the weakest party in an altercation. Quite right too. We must never forget our glorious simian heritage.
Think about it on the flip side. To attack the weakest is to the affirm the strongest. In a social setting, however, “strongest” is inverted from those who are naturally strongest to those who are most popular, and because the group by its nature as a broad intersection of abilities cannot comprehend the best, it means that what is “strong” in the group is in fact weak, and what is “weak” in the group is in fact strong.
Human monkeys (and other types of apes, baboons, hominids, and other types of intelligent-ish creatures) use affirmation of what is popular as a means of attacking the socially weak, who are outside of society often the strong.
Harry knew the human animal had set the natural order on its head, that among humans the weak devoured the strong.
In the inverted order of humanity, the weak (socially focused) attack what is strong (reality focused) so that they change meaning of “weak” and “strong.” The weak becomes the strong, and the formerly strong becomes the weak. This is the fundamental error of civilization and of humanity, in that our humanistic intent leads us into weakness because of our fear of strength.
Democracy formalizes this by allowing the baboons to attack the weakest party indirectly by nominating instead the popular and by doing so, obscuring the actually strong who are now seen to be weak. This allows the human monkeys to form a little clique where they all agree on what is true, and exclude upsetting realistic thoughts and replace them with happy stupid bovine social thoughts.
To this, we can only say that the human monkeys have too much power, and the herd needs to be thinned:
War is good, AIDS is good, mass murder is good, gang violence is good, crack cocaine is good. Anything that contributes to depopulating the Earth is good.
What is hubris, which the Greeks identified as the great evil of humankind? It is “me first”: a tendency to put oneself above one’s rightful station in the social order. This can be men pretending to be gods, proles pretending to be kings, or people who care nothing for social order or consequences in reality and claw their way above others from some mild sociopathic impulse.
Crowdists, or those who unite individualism and collectivism into a force designed to legitimize hubris, gaslight us constantly by creating the impression that what “everyone knows” contradicts our inner knowledge, found in deep in the self in the intuition, aesthetics and moral wisdom nature has fashioned for us. These forms of knowledge are unique in that they are qualitative, or accept reality as it is but aim for the best possible versions of it, and while found in the inner self are directed toward the world which is seen as a continuity between physical reality, intuitions and any thought-like or metaphysical reality.
You can witness this gaslighting — a reference to an Alfred Hitchcock film in which a character deftly manipulates another by making events seem to be the opposite of how they were observed — whenever the Leftist-fueled media talks about what “intelligent” people know:
The researchers examined different models that had been proposed for explaining why believers are allegedly less intelligent. It selected and revised evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa’s Savanna-IQ Principle. This suggests that what we do and believe has its foundation in the environment of our ancestors.
The researchers concluded that religion is an evolved instinct, while intelligence “involves rising above our instincts.” After all, intelligence and all that comes with it does often involve controlling our instincts in order to allow our minds to reach rational conclusions.
Indeed, as Hawking told Spain’s El Mundo last year: “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation.”
This is the ultimate in human hubris: researchers telling us that those who see more than they do are in fact wrong, and that “intelligence” arises by denying any logical facts which require more sensitivity to perceive. In other words, dumb it down to what the herd thinks is right so we can all stop worrying about any duty to know reality or moral right. Anarchy is saved!
Intelligence cannot be made into a mass-produced, identical creation as this article implies. But what they can do is a classic egalitarian technique: reduce everyone to a level called “equal” by claiming that since all of us do not understand what the most perceptive among us are going on about, those things are simply not real and we are smarter for excluding that wisdom.
As usual, this is an inversion, or the tendency of a group (herd, crowd, mob, gang, cult, clique) to make a term mean the opposite of what it was intended to mean by eliminating the parts that do not apply equally to the group. In that sense, intelligence is reduced to ignorance, beauty to utilitarianism, and justice to treating people of unequal contribution as if they were equal.
In a scholarly journal called Social Bias: Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination written by Sabrina Keene, Keene explains social bias, prejudice, and stereotyping and how it affects the lives of individuals from day to day. She explains that:
Individuals who do not fall victim to bias are often able to use such circumstances as motivating factors. Individuals are often afraid of what they do not know. The best defense against ignorance is knowledge. Education and familiarization with the object of a prejudice or stereotype allows the truth to be discovered and applied. Being educated allows an individual the ability to embrace and accept differences in other, and aids in bringing society together.
As Keene perfectly explains, a person who falls victim to stereotypes and prejudice is likely to feel defeated and have negative connotations towards others. People of color that experience color-blind racism everyday can either fall victim or use this newly found ignorance to their advantage. When people begin to familiarize themselves with racial discrimination toward people of color, even if it doesn’t apply to them personally, there are able to gain a newly found sympathy for the individual.
Once a social bias is destroyed, society gets one step closer to eliminating racial discrimination due to less people spreading the negative ideals and more people being educated on the effects of discrimination and why they can cause people of color to feel anger toward those trying to suppress them.
Read this one in inverse: the real social bias is the notion that pleases everyone, which is that we are all the same. This allows individualists to bond together into a group united on the selfish notion that we do not need standards, purpose or values in common, but we can all do whatever we want and society should foot the bill.
Diversity, or racial egalitarianism, emerged from egalitarian thought in the early days of the French Revolution. It lives on through the idea of “workers of the world unite,” which is a handy way of saying that if you discard any allegiance but to a paycheck, a crowd of great power can be formed to seize wealth and authority from those who are naturally more competent at using them.
In both of these circumstances, Leftist propagandists identify thinking that requires inner knowledge and contemplation of reality as ignorant, and replace it with their own dogma, essentially arguing against depth of knowledge in favor of having the “correct” knowledge according to egalitarianism.
When control is handed over to the Crowd, all definitions become inverted because people modify them to exclude recognition of socially-damaging realities. And so, “fairness” comes to mean penalizing the good so the bad can thrive, and “accountability” means judgment by public opinion, which sees only appearance and misses what accountability actually addresses, which is responsibility for real-world results.
One reason majorities in the West are so despairing is that accountability works against us. If we act in any way that the herd disapproves of, we are punished, so we cannot retaliate against or stop those who are doing destructive things. It does not matter what the law is, or the truth is, but if we fit into the script that the herd uses of the angelic minority versus the sadistic majority, we are punished.
This makes people despairing and miserable. As it becomes clear that, under law and morality, power goes to the minority, people invent new minorities to be part of. You can get away with a lot more if you are homosexual, transgender, a religious minority, female, or an ethnic minority than you can as a normal, heterosexual member of the majority.
We have written impotence into law. In defense of the weakest, we have destroyed the strong. This occurs because people invert definitions out of fear. The idea of “equality” naturally becomes punishment of the strong because the weak are not as strong, so they must be subsidized at the expense of those who do not need to be compensated.
The West is dying because its people have given up. The rules that seemed moral and good turn out to be evil; the society which tries to be successful in turn destroys itself. Human intent inverts the order of external reality because humans fear anything outside of their solipsistic egos, and so alter how we think about the world, in turn making a hellish Utopia in which nothing sane can long survive.
Most people of functional mind now understand that the American dream is not only dead, but was an illusion, brought on by a pocket of history between bad decisions and the moment their consequences arrive.
Even more than that, we are now seeing that Western Civilization has died, and we who are left — functional minds, again — want a new civilization to replace it.
Something went wrong, long ago, and we have been surviving since that time on the slowness of decay. Like a monkey on our back, this original mistake lives on as an assumption, and for this reason, no matter what we try, it is infected with the bad assumption.
We are like a person trying to clean a virus from a computer network while using an infected machine, so that no matter how much he cuts away, he re-infects everything he touches. The disease lives in us, the Typhoid Mary of bad ideological dogma assumptions.
The trouble is that, while war, slavery and poverty are in general bad things, they may well be profitable for some. Especially in small doses. And if you can create a feedback loop by which Universalism causes war, slavery or poverty, but does so in such a way as to reward those who practice and promote Universalism, you have a loop that can continue indefinitely.
Take, for example, the “peace process” in Israel and Palestine. Now 60 years old and counting. How confident are you that this “peace process” is not, in fact, the cause of this similarly unending conflict? It certainly generates a very comfortable living, full of meaning and importance and not a few frequent-flier miles, for all those involved. Why shut it down?
RF hits back with his own analysis, which is closer to the truth:
What we have then is the system itself being the driver. This is the key point, and one which can only be repeated in as clear a way as possible, without the added distraction of the additional context provided by Moldbug when trying to explain it – the unsecure system is the problem, and the mechanisms of this unsecure system create the environment which selects for progressivism. Power is above culture.
The power system literally created this culture.
Power systems are proxies for leadership; people decide that kings are too dangerous, and so they implement a series of rules and incentives (a “system”) for managing people who are presumed to be roughly equal in moral character, mental ability and instinct.
Perhaps instead we should look toward the fundamental assumption there, which is equality. Equality is a human tendency wired into us since early days because it is how one forms a group. Offer inclusion into a new group, or tribe, to a number of people, and promise them that they share equally in its profits, and they hop on board. This is an addictive virus to the human brain: less responsibility, and the possibility of more gain.
This is why equality seems, on a mathematical level, to be a good game-playing strategy. The forgotten factor (as usual) is time, or more accurately, iteration: profit-based systems, over time, decay from high-margin to low-margin as the efficiency effects they bring become more widely distributed.
Visualize a new technology product, for example the iGroin. This product constantly stimulates the groin with small electrical shocks to keep the wearer awake at his boring job, tedious television watching, and stultifying small talk. At first, it sells for $700. But as more people own them, costs go down and competition increases, so prices drop.
Ten years later, the iGroin is a generic type of product that sells for $50 at grocery stores.
Equality has the same curve. At first, it is a brilliant power grab: the new tribe takes everything it can, distributes it, and becomes wealthy. Over time, there is less to grab, and so the parasitic process becomes unruly. This then requires the implementation of the same administrative and leadership roles that the parasites took from their host tribe, a larger group. At this point, the parasite becomes the host, but because it has no mode except parasitism, it starves itself as it fragments into smaller groups trying to parasitize it.
This is why all advanced societies have died so far, on Earth and in the heavens: the society becomes wealthy, subsidizing those who could not have survived without it, and then those take over through equality, because equality is social magic because it cannot be opposed without the opposer looking like a cruel tyrant to the herd. Then, the society chokes itself to death, and reverses the process of civilization.
In this view, the system is the result of the assumption, not the cause of it. This is more accurate.
The problem is Us. Individualism arises from people who do not understand civilization. They exist within it because they can only exist when someone else takes care of the basics of life and social order. At that point, they take it all for granted, and start agitating for more (hubris). With that, the parasitism begins.
With the rise of parasitism, all values and meanings are inverted, meaning that they come to mean the opposite of what they were originally intended to mean. The reason for this is that equality demands inversion. To include everyone equally, one must remove any differences between choices, and even words themselves, by making them mean the same thing, ideologically. This means that any terms describing something other than the ideology must be inverted.
Now the cycle is complete. Inversion = Equality = Individualism. The needs of the individual, expressed through a collective, alter the definition of symbols, and create a false consensual reality in which realistic thought is suppressed. Then the society drives itself insane with its inability to find the assumption which started it on a path to doom.
There is only one solution for this: keep the people of highest intelligence and moral capacity in power, make as many of them as you can, and drive away the useless people. Darwinism in nature has no analogue in civilization except this, and it is vitally needed.
In the future, an advanced civilization will survive this threshold. It will do so by adopting the view of the Spartans not in a military sense, but in a social one. Its people will wage constant war against stupidity and idiots, and exile them to distant lands, without having to make a case for laws being broken. People will be sent away simply for being fools.
This society will not be excessively wealthy. The casting away of fools removes the vast profit motive of consumerism, and also requires that even the highly intelligent do actual work. That will paradoxically reward them, as it gives them a break from their over-heating brains, and allows for a lack of the tedium of nonsense work.
In such a civilization, people will spend very little time on inventing new theories, except as pertains to physical science discoveries. Most of their time will be spent in silence, contemplation and enjoyment of life. They will embrace the mundanity and reject the “exciting” as fetishistic.
This type of civilization fits with what Plato saw as ideal:
In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us. – The Republic
The gold are those of excellent moral and mental ability, and the silver those who can implement that vision. When these castes are mixed, those raw abilities are lost.
Hierarchy in human tribes takes this form: there must be some who rise to the top not by manipulation or brute strength, but by ability and the direction in which they appoint that ability.
Here are the gold, silver, bronze and iron castes in another form:
He is called a Brahmana in whom are truth, gifts, abstention
from injury to others, compassion, shame, benevolence and penance.
He who is engaged in the profession of battle, who studies the Vedas, who makes gifts (to Brahmanas) and takes wealth (from those he protects) is called a Kshatriya.
He who earns fame from keep of cattle, who is employed in agriculture and the means of acquiring wealth, who is pure in behaviour and attends to the study of the Vedas, is called a Vaisya.
He who takes pleasure in eating every kind of food, who is engaged in doing every kind of work, who is impure in behaviour, who does not study the Vedas, and whose conduct is unclean, is said to be a Sudra. – “The Four Orders Of Human Beings”
In failed societies, we find false Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas as we see in our current society. These are caste-mixed people who take on the behavior and moral attributes of Sudras.
In healthy societies, we find Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas who act according to their station, much as they were called Jarls, Karls, and freeholders in Europe according to their ability and inclination.
This hierarchy is the opposite of equality. It is quality-based, meaning that it aims to produce more of quality, instead of attempting to normalize everything to one level as equality does.
Equality arises from social politeness in mixed groups. One must assert the opposite of the truth in order to include everyone else. For that reason, the ugly person becomes beautiful and the weak strong. Then the group bullies and gangs up on everyone else to enforce this.
Maintaining this order over centuries requires a maintenance of genetics, because only people of quality can enforce it. The tendency of civilization is to burden those people with responsibility for the welfare of less capable others, thus exhausting them and driving the good ones into exile.
This is why Darwinism is the solution: the less capable and bad must be driven out, not “rehabilitated” or kept as serfs, because they are the destroyers of civilization, even if it takes centuries.
The Spartans understood this on a gut level, but used military aptitude as a proxy for goodness. The next civilization to inherit this earth and the stars will use no proxies, and will simply rank people with a cold and emotionless eye, always pressing the best upward and the worst outward.
Let us consider the most popular statement of traditionalism, from its most evocative author, Julius Evola, and reflect how it has become the standard for actual conservatism in our day:
My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.
There are two ways to construct a nation: inside-out, or based on its people and their varying levels of ability, or outside-in, where it is based on rules that shape people like products in a factory.
Our present civilization in the West is outside-in through the magic not just of egalitarianism, but its root in individualism. Individualism demands outside-in because each individual wants to end the Darwinian risk of not being included in the group through personal failings, low character or habits. Paradoxically, individualists demand collectivism because only collectivism provides each individual with protection.
As one might anticipate, any such paradoxical viewpoint will lead to something bad. Our society is not just failed, but since the World Wars has been ugly and corrupt in its soul, meaning that everyday life is the opposite of joy and tends to destroy anyone who is not a robotic, consumption-driven cog who specializes in flattering others. This is a time we benefit from leaving.
Making a break from the past requires us to update Evola’s statement:
My principles are only those that, during the golden ages of humankind, every well-born person considered sane and normal.
The decay had started long before the French Revolution, although that was the fatal decision that formalized the anti-realistic thought of the Left and thus weaponized it for transmission.
At the end of the day, the question distills to a simple set of further questions.
Do we want a golden age, or to apply band-aids to what we have? (Most people want the latter. Always.)
Do we want quality, or a whole lot of something less? (If we have more, we all get some.)
Do we want our lives to be fulfilling, or would we rather have nothing compete with the self for meaning?
Do we want to live for what others fear, or what we fear to assert, because it is so beautiful?
The inside-out society explores our inner desires to find what is real. It knows that there is no objectivity, only degrees of subjectivity, and those who are least subjective are those who know themselves the best, contrary to popular “wisdom.”
The outside-in society assumes that all of our desires are the same, i.e. “equal,” and therefore that we can be manipulated with external rewards and punishments alone. This turns us into domesticated animals who do not plan or desire, but merely react to what is offered, which keeps those in control in power.
At the current point in history, we stand at a juncture. We can keep on going down the path of the last several millennia, which is increasingly individualism which depends on a convenience-based worldview in which all objects in the world serve the individual, and that which conflicts with individual desires is seen as an impediment:
Individualism, political and social philosophy that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. Although the concept of an individual may seem straightforward, there are many ways of understanding it, both in theory and in practice. The term individualism itself, and its equivalents in other languages, dates—like socialism and other isms—from the 19th century.
Individualism once exhibited interesting national variations, but its various meanings have since largely merged. Following the upheaval of the French Revolution, individualisme was used pejoratively in France to signify the sources of social dissolution and anarchy and the elevation of individual interests above those of the collective. The term’s negative connotation was employed by French reactionaries, nationalists, conservatives, liberals, and socialists alike, despite their different views of a feasible and desirable social order.
No one can quite put their finger on it, but individualism is the essence of the outside-in mentality. This is paradoxical: assertion of the individual, as an ideological concept, replaces the achievements of the individual as an independent actor. Individualism protects the individual from having to test himself by attempting to achieve goals and succeeding or failing. It removes the burden of adaptation to reality by insisting that the individual is fine just the way he is, or “equal.” This comforts the human mind by removing the primary struggle outside pure animal survival.
A sensible person is neither individualist nor conformist, which is what happens when a group of individuals get together and agree to enforce a fake reality that ensures no individual is challenged to do more than he desires. Think of a gang: all are accepted, so long as they uphold the gang, and no one is criticized for having failed at life so much that being in a gang is all they are good for. Civilizations thrive where they are the gang; once internal gangs arise and become popular, then the civilization is a bundle of special interests held together by some narrow device — usually politics or economics — which inevitably then becomes disproportionately powerful.
What might an inside-out society look like?
First, every activity would be related to a purpose that was in turn directly related to the goal of civilization. “I want this” would not be an acceptable reason, nor would “Other people want this.” Legitimate reasoning would take the tripartite form of “I need to do to x in order to achieve result y which is part of goal z.”
Next, at every level, people would have responsibility. Their jobs would involve tasks for which only one person was responsible and, if it were done wrong and no extreme intervening factor were found, they would be blamed. The flip side of this is that each day provides options to succeed by doing things right.
Finally, this society would be actively engaged in maintaining itself — and in bottlenecking its population. The hidden area where politics refuses to go, but nature does, is genetics. People act according to their genetic code, just like bugs or rodents. This produces a need to constantly promote the best and exile the worst, so that in every generation there is a struggle to prove oneself.
The main difference between an inside-out and outside-in society is that the outside-in society creates a type of system or game. It tells its citizens what is expect of them not in terms of results, but in terms of methods or procedures. As a result, those who conform, even if they miss everything but the obvious, get promoted and those who reject this exercise as silly are demoted, leading to a die-out of those with critical thinking abilities.
As world liberalism winds down — and from its failure across multiple fronts, it is clear that it is ending its two-hundred plus year streak and the last seventy years of intense dominance — we will need to look for an alternative to our society as it stands now. Our mistake will be to not go far enough, and not just reverse liberalism, but reverse the cause of liberalism by choosing a healthier direction such as an inside-out civilization
There is a song which the Dropkick Murphys, a silly Irish beer punk band, covered called “The Green Fields of France” (originally by John McDermott). It is a good song, worth listening to:
If it makes you feel better, everyone and their dog has covered it, and it may be the most popular “statement music” about the First World War that has ever existed. Rank it right up there with All Quiet On The Western Front and “In Flanders Fields” for the type of emotional reaction most people have to that war.
(That useless, pointless, suicidal, fratricidal, misbegotten, hateful, vile war.)
But it loses the train of thought right here:
The sun now it shines on the green fields of France
There’s a warm summer breeze makes the red poppies dance
And look how the sun shines from under the clouds
There’s no gas, no barbwire, there’s no guns firing now
But here in this graveyard it’s still no man’s land
The countless white crosses stand mute in the sand
To man’s blind indifference to his fellow man
To a whole generation that were butchered and damned.
Same basic theme as “In Flanders Fields,” but with less patriotism. However, the point where it loses its train of thought is here:
The countless white crosses stand mute in the sand
To man’s blind indifference to his fellow man
Of all the lessons one could take from the First World War, this is the last one a sensible person would take.
Indifference? War is indifference. We hate wars when they go badly or, as in the case of the First World War, they utterly fail to resolve the conditions that created them. The First World War went so badly that it paused for a generation to refill the armies of Europe so they could attempt suicide again in a paroxysmal tantrum of self-hatred at the utter futility of trying to exist as modern societies.
In the nearer term, it is obvious what caused the First World War: democracy did. The First World War was a repeat of the Napoleonic Wars, in which the democracies of Europe made war on the monarchies. The monarchies defended themselves many times over that century, and by the early twentieth century, had formed unstable alliances in order to fend off the various enemies who were circling like hyenas or vultures.
But democracy screwed them. It betrayed them all, as it always does.
First, democratic societies cannot make decisions. For this reason, politicians picked unstable alliances — because they were easy, and got more approval from the idiot voters than the more complicated task of fixing the problem would — and set themselves up with suicidal “entangling alliances,” as George Washington would have called them.
Second, democracy must always make war on non-democracies because democracy is a parasitic virus. Or rather, the idea of equality is. Equality is magic and kryptonite to humans. You mention it and women coo and men head to the bar. Everyone feels good. The reason for that: they are feeling, not thinking. Whether or not they are morons, they have made themselves into morons at that moment, and the results are predictably stupid. However, those warm feelings go away if anyone anywhere anytime succeeds with some alternate method, because that provokes cause/effect thinking instead of the emotional, egotistic and defensive thinking that humans indulge in (and which we inherited wholly from our Simian forebears). For this reason, Leftists always — because they are compelled to, in order to defend their sacred illusion — make war against anyone who is not-Leftist and democracies make war against those who are not democracies. You do not have to oppose Leftism or Democracy, only fail to be them — and they are one and the same — because if you live differently from them, you are competition, and that makes monkeys angry.
This led to a horrible war with no clear purpose except some nebulous thoughts about “the war to end all wars,” implying that when democracy conquered the world — other names for this: globalism, the NWO, internationalism — all humans would live in brotherhood forever like in the lyrics to Beethoven’s 9th. You can tell that democracy had already made people morons because they accepted this crock of stupid without murdering the people who repeated it at them, but again: feelings. Women swoon. Men glow. People love illusions that make them feel happy because they can use those to shut out the actual fears, starting with death. You talk about pacifism, or everyone being included in the group, or equality — these are all the exact same concept — and you are the star of the show. People just float around you and make happy lovey gooey stupid faces at you. It’s retardation, but it will make you rich and powerful.
After the carnage was over, the people who wanted those swoony feelings back needed something to blame. They could not blame democracy, because that in turn fingers equality, and to say equality is wrong is like going up to each individual in the group and screaming “YOU’RE INFERIOR!” to them, even though that is probably correct and would help them by encouraging them to improve themselves instead of stagnating. If you can’t blame the actual cause of the war (democracy) then who do you blame?
Oh, we found a good one… get this… it’s inhumanity.
What does that mean?
You know, inhumanity. The failure to engage in those swoony feelings and to spread the happy illusion to others so we can all be harmless, neutered, oblivious, blithe happy idiots together. We can become like a single brain cell, thinking of love and peace, instead of paying attention to reality — and, hiding in the back corner of our scared monkey brains: death.
“In Flanders Fields” came up with similar nonsense:
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Here the problem is the Foe. Gotta kill them Germans, even if the real enemy here is an illusion. If we kill all the Germans, we do not have to notice that we are in the grips of illusion, and we can go back to those happy swoony feelings. (Alert readers will notice that this is classic scapegoating, seen in our society most with those who finger The Eternal Jew™ as the source of our downfall instead of blaming democracy, or blame The Rich™ instead of blaming the low mental and moral quality of most humans which is the actual cause of their poverty. Both of these are odious in themselves because they lead to murder, but that is not why they are bad; they are bad because they are moronic, and they are moronic because they scapegoat the wrong cause, which lets the actual cause — democracy and dysgenics — run free to do more of its vile destructive work).
But no one is going to identify the actual cause, which is complex and nuanced, although that is not why they refuse to identify it. Yes, there is a tendency among humans to prefer pleasant illusions to complex truths, but very few truths are actually complex! What they are is offensive to the human individual and its pretense, because if you tell a monkey that it is not equal, man, it will feel terrible and start screeching and flinging poo, even if you were just pointing out that equal=mediocre like all averages and means, and so we need to beat that standard, not adopt it as dogma. The problem is this pretense. This pretense caused democracy and leftism, and through those, caused the First World War. Plant a poppy on the grave of democracy and equality, and only then have you honored the war dead. Everything else is just monkeytime, distractions from the real problem.
How did everything get so backward, or inverted in altright lexicon? There are two issues here:
Why do humans tend toward this illusion?
How did it take over Western Civilization?
The answers are evil and entropy, in that order.
Evil — a suspect term because of its centralized, manipulative power — generally means the type of error that arises from selfishness or a refusal to see the obvious because of a fear for the fragility of one’s own mental state. Evil is ego-driven stupidity, in other words, because short-term solutions always create havoc and destruction to things we care about, and people who care about nothing must be boring and stupid to find themselves so fascinating.
Entropy on the other hand is the natural process by which, as options proliferate, it becomes less likely that any one will be chosen, which is said to make the pattern more “random.” That is debatable, but in human societies, entropy is the background hum of doubt that occurs when one no longer knows by rote or by immediate inference (“intuitive”) what the right thing to do is. At first, it is clear: by any means necessary, establish civilization. Once civilization has more options, people mystify themselves with questions which magnify details because the bigger aspects of the civilization question have been answered by the establishment of that civilization.
This is why all high-IQ societies seem to die out: they grow, become powerful, lose sight of their goals, and then orient themselves toward tolerance as a means of avoiding dissolution, which results in their inclusion of non-contributing dependents (parasites), fools, con men, etc. and eventual obliteration in this wave of bad genetics and sociopathic chaos.
How do they lose sight of their goals? Civilizations succumb to a lack of awareness because they use a type of proxy warfare as a means of coordinating their citizens. The simplest example of this is ideology; when not enough people understand the goal of civilization, “smart” and “clever” people then distill it down to a few emotional and symbolic principles. This allows all of the people who do not understand the concept to act as if they understand the concept, at least until the meaning of those principles is hijacked, corrupted, altered, or eroded by entropy.
Proxy warfare exists, as Fred Nietzsche told us, in the terms “good” and “evil.” Yes, we all know what they mean, but they are a lazy shorthand that uses categorical logic instead of looking at what actually makes an event good or evil, which is the consequences in reality that it creates. By relying on these categorical terms, we shift the focus from consequences to the categories, and then our logical thinking becomes reversed or inverted because we see the category as the cause of its members, not the other way around.
Another form of proxy warfare can be found in the scene-policing of various political genres. Are you a true anarchist? Are you conservative enough? Even the alt right, which normally seems highly realist, has taken to scene policing by enforcing its borders through symbolic, highly visual issues. This weakens the alt right as focus moves away from the question of the issues, i.e. the goal, and is transferred instead to appearance, much as democracy always does.
One thing from “Green Fields of France” is for certain. Humans make the same mistakes over and over again because they cannot overcome the pathology of desire. This inverts their big brains by creating a kind of “tunnel vision” where the human fixates on one aspect of reality, and uses it to explain the rest because it is what they desire and they are unaware of how their individual perspective is not the “whole” perspective of a situation. The only way to get that whole perspective is to analyze structure and pattern, and most cannot do that. Thus, as the song says:
The killing and the dying were all done in vain
For young Willie McBride it all happened again,
And again and again and again and again
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.
Nietzsche is famous for saying “God is dead” meaning “we” killed God. A different approach might have been to say that God could be either a friend “or” a foe (because being a foe we would have to kill Him). However, thinking that God is “both” friend and foe boggles the mind and would be a contradiction.
With this in mind, news in more recent times related to Senator McCain being asked by Senator Gohmert to “take a rest in Arizona” (referencing overdue retirement). This happened because of McCain’s support for unsafe American (global) policies. The contradiction exhibited by individuals such as Senator McCain, was described as:
“we owe them all a debt of gratitude…
…Yet that does not give any one person the right to do harm to our country from a legislative position nor to put others in peril around the world by ill-conceived policy.”
In some countries it is illegal to work past the retirement age although it is possible to do a different job after retiring. However, Sen McCain is seventy-nine years old and he persists in pushing for yet another election as if four prior elections were not good enough. But still, some politicians by virtue of their wisdom might feel obliged to serve (their) people in their late years.
The problem is that Senator McCain lost his wisdom, or maybe even never had it, since he was always the maverick (already in capture which apparently continued to the end of his career), ending up his working life serving something else. He was neither the first nor the last that will happen to. Not that change is wrong (to be honest) – but sometimes it is.
One other example (of changing your expert opinion) is the South African sports scientist Dr. Tim Noakes that became known for his 1985 book on the “Lore of Running” and then in his early retirement, made a controversial “u-turn on fat vs carbo-hydrates” . Basically he wants me to eat fat (now), despite advice to the contrary from my dietician. Maybe for others he is not wrong, but for me, he is.
The common ground between McCain and Noakes is that in the beginning they were right for “some” while in their retirement they are right for “others.” Another point where they coincide is that they affect not just “their own” people, but everyone. They obviously think they are still the same person they always were and I would agree, but that is also where the catch is. On the one hand they are the friend while on the other they might have become the foe. (Same person, same guy).
In working life one could easily find the same with colleagues. For example, things will go smoothly when a colleague is in good spirits, but under stress the environment changes his/her temperament (either slowly or quickly), where it can happen that a complete (permanent) turnaround may occur. In other words, instead of working with you, he/she works for the competitor.
Little children show similar tendencies (on a daily basis). One example is that one kid would call another a “friend” to play with, subsequently changing completely by exclaiming that “you’re not my friend anymore” and “I’m not playing with you anymore.” They also extrapolate this to the old “let’s play house” game where they get “married, have kids while looking after grandparents,” but one week later they are not married anymore, because the girl picked another boy she wants to marry, and so the boy picks another girl –- right? That is permanent because neither of these two will ever play that game with each other again.
Are such contradictions possible in nature? Recently a century old tortoise started looking after a baby hippopotamus. This may be heart-warming, but nature is full of contradictions such as day/night and predator/prey. These contradictions are permanent and cannot be overcome, but the hippo is not going to eat the tortoise when it is fully grown. The point in nature is that some days are a lot darker than others and sometimes the predator becomes the prey.
So allow me to return to God and whether you believe in God is not the issue. One has to believe nature and if nature can change, then humans can change, and thus organizations can change. In fact the same nature, the same human, the same organization and the same God can change. God can save, but he can also punish, regardless of whether we understand it. Perhaps it would be better to accept and understand the change, rather than God. He might just become your foe despite being the same “you” and the same “God.”
The lesson for me is rather that change is not a step-function and therefore not binary either, because at least two things change simultaneously: the hippo and the tortoise and man and nature. In that sense God (and my nature) will always be my friend.
Meet the Defense Ministers of Sweeden, Norway, Netherlands, and Germany. The migrant invasion doesn’t stand a chance.
You go girls. – Anonymous Cop
Back in the day, it was assumed that men and women had different roles because of different abilities, and that each would bungle the role of the other. A man staying home and raising the kids was seen with as much derision as a woman in a position of power.
Our ancestors, knowing that men are gifted with more aggression and thus less impulse to social flattery, and certain intellectual abilities while lacking others, saw it natural that men would preside over leadership and war, while women oversaw the home and culture. There’s a reason that every great literary salon in history was run by a woman.
Now we have decided that equality is the only law; equality is actually defense of the individual who demands, “make me equal so my shortcomings are invisible.” With the law being equality, we must use affirmative action style policies to advance those who are “disadvantaged.” This means that people get promotions for installing women, gays and minorities into high positions. If you want a clear example of why The Enlightenment™ is an inversion of society, it is this: in defense of the individual, we discriminate against those who are capable in order to lift up the less capable. This makes a society that puts incompetents first.
Even if we assume that among women there are some Margaret Thatchers, these women are not being chosen as she was, on the basis of competence. They are selected for being women, and for being politically adept, which means they are masters of appearance and not results.
We see that now in the utter bungling coming from the modern West — Western Europe, North America and Australia — as it adopts pro-equality affirmative action policies across the board. Life is falling apart because we have made incompetence the new competence.
Pirates are interesting people. Interesting in the way they live, not inasmuch as you would actually want to meet them. Unless, of course, you were a pirate too. Even then, you might be less than enthusiastic. For pirates are dangerous. Not because they are particularly strong, but because they operate by no civilized code of conduct.
Pirates produce nothing. They do not seek employment. They do not contribute to society.
Instead, they feel it is their right to plunder it, and from it, to the carrying capacity of their ability to do so.
There is no end-point to piracy. At no point does a pirate cease being a pirate. Whether or not his physical acts of piracy continue, he will always remain a pirate.
Civilization, when it ran into these pirates, armed itself against them, and for a while, this deterrent was effective. But pirates have always been wily beasts, and they always manage to specialize in countering counters.
Civilization was willing to accept some wastage. After all, there was The New World to plunder, and in a way, civilization had something in common with the pirates. There was plenty to go around.
The problem with pirates is their very success. And having enjoyed that success, to want ever more of it. Others, unhappy with their lot within civilization, and impressed by the pirates’ success, defected to their civilization’s enemies. Thus there were ever more pirates. At some point, critical mass occurred, and civilization decided it really had to do something about it.
From then on, national navies relentlessly pursued and destroyed the pirates, finally eradicating them altogether.
At least, for quite a while. The seas remained pirate-free for many years, and only recently do we see a resurgence of this troublesome phenomenon.
A pirate is one who does not contribute, but merely plunders.
He follows no established code of behaviour.
He has no loyalty to anyone or anything.
He does everything he does, for his own gain, whatever the cost to others.
He is unable to stop himself, or retire from his chosen profession.
He is a danger to one and all.
We no longer call members of our own ailing civilization ‘pirates’ – after all, we are all equal – although it is quite clear that such pirates do, in fact, exist.
They not only exist, but they do so in ever increasing numbers.
Again: at some point, critical mass will be achieved, and war will be declared.
This is the natural way of things, and there is no circumventing it.
The results are predictable: and may go one of two ways.
Civilization will react in time to the danger, or it will not.
If it does, then the pirates will be eliminated, again, for a long time.
If it does not, the pirates will eliminate themselves (after first eliminating their civilization), since they produce nothing, and the plundered loot will only last for so long.
Pirates. No good ever came of them. No good ever will.
Their weapons may have changed somewhat, over the years:
From pistol and dirk, cutlass and rapier, to hypocritical rhetoric, buzz-words and manufactured guilt.
Then back again to RPGs and AK47s.
They are still pirates. Their ethos makes them so.
When you hear of people who may, or may not be poor, demanding riches from those who may, or may not be rich, then pause and consider:
Who, exactly, are these people?
Why, exactly, should their demands be accepted?
What, exactly, do they contribute to civilization?
You may find, after due consideration, that these people are not whatever they claim to be, at all.
You may find, instead, that these people are Pirates!